TR 84-4
I
\
PART 4
1
I
I
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT UNITS:
Data Inventory and Analysis
r
\
\~COq-~
1984
Research supported in part by the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, Administered by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
'-.
~DO
TECHNICAL REPORTS
NATURAL RESOURCES OF COLLIER COUNTY
84-1.
84-2.
84-3.
84-4.
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES
COASTAL ESTUARINE RESOURCES
COASTAL ZONE ~ANAGEMENT UNITS:
nATA INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT UNITS: Atlas
DRAFT ORDINANCES FOR PROTECTION OF
COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS
84-5.
84-6.
. ,
Technical Report No.84-4
MARK A. BENEDICT, PH.D.
Director
ROBERT H. GORE, PH.D.
Coastal Zone Management
Specialist
JUDSON W. HARVEY
Coastal Zone Management
Associate
MAURA E _ CURRAN
Coastal Zone Management
Technician
(i)
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
NAPLES. FLORIDA 33942-4977
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ........................................................... iii
SECTION 1
Background ........................................................ 1
SECTION 2
Resource Management Units for the Collier County Coastal Zone ..... 3
SECTION 3
Coastal Drainage Districts
Coastal Zone 1 - Cocobatchee River ........................... 5
Coastal Zone II - Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition ........ 6
Coastal Zone III - Gordon River .............................. 9
Coastal Zone IV - Water Management District No.6............ 11
Coastal Zone V - Belle Meade ................................. 13
Coastal Zone VI - Picayune--tamp Keasis ....................... 15
Coastal Zone VII - Fakahatcbee-Okaloacoochee ................. 18
Coastal Zone VIII - Turner River ............................. 20
SECTION 4
Coastal Barrier Units
Coastal Barrier 1 - Barefoot Beach ........................... 22
Beach Segment 1 Lely Barefoot Beach ................... 25
Beach Segment 2 Little Hickory Haulover ............... 31
Beach Segment 3 Barefoot Beach ........................ 36
Beach Segment 4 Barefoot Beach State Preserve ......... 41
Coastal Barrier 2 - Vanderbilt Beach ......................... 46
Beach Segment 5 Wiggins Beach ......................... 48
Beach Segment 6 Delnor Wiggins State Park ............. 53
Beach Segment 7 Vanderbilt Beach ...................... 58
Beach Segment 8 Pelican Bay North ..................... 64
Beach Segment 9 Clam Pass North ....................... 69
Coastal Barrier 3 - Park Shore ............................... 74
Beach Segment 10 Clam Pass Beach South ................ 76
Beach Segment 11 North Park Shore ..................... 81
Beach Segment 12 South Park Shore ..................... 87
Beach Segment 13 Moorings ............................. 92
Coastal Barrier 4 - Naples Headland .......................... 97
Beach Segment 14 Naples North ......................... 99
Beach Segment 15 Central Naples ....................... 104
Beach Segment 16 Olde Naples .......................... 110
Beach Segment 17 North Port Royal..................... 115
Beach Segment 18 South Port Royal..................... 121
Coastal Barrier 5 - Keewaydin Island ......................... 126
Beach Segment 19 North Keewaydin Island ............... 128
Beach Segment 20 Johns Haulover ....................... 133
Beach Segment 21 Central Keewaydin Island ............. 138
Beach Segment 22 South Keewaydin Island ............... 144
Beach Segment 23 Hurricane Spit ....................... 149
. .
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION 4 (Continued)
Coastal Barrier 6 - Coconut Island Group ..................... 154
Beach Segment 24/25 - Sea Oat/Coconut Island ............ 155
Coastal Barrier 7 - Marco Island ............................. 161
Beach Segment 26 Hideaway Beach North ................. 165
Beach Segment 27 Tigertail Beach ...................... 170
Beach Segment 28 North Marco .......................... 176
Beach Segment 29 Central Marco ........................ 181
Beach Segment 30 South Marco Beach .................... 187
Beach Segment 31 Point Marco .......................... 192
Coastal Barrier 8 - Kice Island .............................. 197
Beach Segment 32 - Kice Island .......................... 198
Coastal Barrier 9 - Morgan Island Group ...................... 203
Beach Segment 33 North Morgan Island .................. 204
Beach Segment 34 - South Morgan Island .................. 209
Beach SegmeLt 35 - ~organ Spit .......................... 214
Coastal Barrier 10 - Cape Romano Island ...................... 219
Beach Segment 36 - Cape Romano .......................... 220
Beach Segment 37 - Cape Romano Spit ..................... 225
Cultural/Historic Summary.................................... 230
Wildlife Summary ............................................. 232
SECTION 5
Future Directions
.............. .... .............. ... ...... ... .....
235
APPEND IX A ................................................... 236
List of Publications Pertaining to Coastal Fauna .................. 236
11
PREFACE
Overview
Collier County's coastal zone. defined for administrative purposes
as that area of the County on the Gulf side of U.S. 41 (the Tamiami
Trail), encompasses 328 square miles of coastal barrier. bay. wetland.
and maritime upland habitats. The coastal zone stretches 57 miles from
the northwest to southeast and varies in width from 2 miles at the north
county line, to 12 miles in the vicinity of Marco Island and 8 miles near
the southern county border. Collier County's coastal zone, which maKes
up 16 percent of the County's total land area. is inhabited by 38.800
people (1980 census), 45 percent of the County's population. An addi-
tional 29,300 people live within 5 miles east of U.S. 41. In total, 79
percent of the county's population is found within 10 miles of the Gulf
of Mexico.
The County's coastal zone is characterized by both developed and
undeveloped areas. Of the 328 square miles in the coastal zone 67 square
miles (21 percent) are developed. Of the remai~ing 261 square miles 123
square miles (37 p~rcent) are undeyelopec and pres~rved as Federa1
(Everglades National Park, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary),
State (Fakahatchee Strand, Collier-Seminole, and Delnor-Wiggins State
Parks and Barefoot Beach State Preserve), and County (Tigertail and Clam
Pass Beach Parks) resource management and protection areas. The
remaining 138 square miles (42 percent) are undeveloped and in private
ownership.
Unlike most of the rapidly developing counties in South Florida,
Collier County is unique in that the great majority of its coastal zone
is still in its natural state. Hundreds of thousands of acres of coastal
barriers, wetlands, bays, and marine grassbeds are still relatively
undisturbed, much as they have been for thousands of years. It is these
areas that have made Collier County so aesthetically attractive. If
properly managed they will continue to function in this respect.
Of equal importance, however, are the natural resources of these
undeveloped regions of the coastline areas which are ecologically vital
to both the County and southwest Florida. The coastal barriers, if they
remain unaltered, serve as a first line of defense against tbe sea.
Storm surge damage, coastal flooding. and erosion of the mainland can be
alleviated or slowed by a functioning, natural system of. coastal
barriers. The wetlands, shallow bays, and marine grassbeds are other
important parts of the coastal ecosystem. The mangrove forests (those in
Collier County being some of the largest, undisturbed systems in the
United States and one of tbe best developed in the world) and associated
marshes provide the organic materials and detritus that form the basis of
the coastal food chain and support the abundant shellfish and finfish re-
sources of southwest Florida. The unaltered coastal ecosystem not only
functions as a haven for birds, fish, and other wildlife, but may also
provide necessary refuge for those species that have been driven from
adjacent, heavily altered or extirpated coastal systems. The undisturbed
natural systems of Collier County form the keystone for the south Florida
ecosystem. The coastal zone links the estuarine systems of Lee and
Monroe County while the vast, unspoiled eastern area of the County
connects the coastal and interior wetland systems with those of Dade and
Broward Counties.
H1
Almost half of the unaltered coastal zone in Collier County is under
the ownership and/or management of Federal, State, or Local agencies for
the sole purpose of protecting the natural systems. Although this is
gratifying, it is important to remember that the other half of the
undisturbed coastal area is in private ownership. In addition, both the
private and the managed coastal areas are bounded by uplands that are
either developed or projected for future urban or agricultural dev-
elopment. Activities undertaken in the private areas of the coastal zone
or on adjacent upland property, if not properly planned, could result in
the degradation of our remaining undisturbed coastal areas in only a few
decades and the loss of their resources. In a recent position paper R.
A. Livingston wrote that "if history is our guide, one basic problem lies
in public acceptance of almost any level of environmental deterioration
as long as it occurs gradually enough". To safeguard the coastal zone
resources of Collier County fro. gradual deterioration and to ensure
their continuing function as a vital part of the southwest Florida
ecosystem, positive and direct steps must be taken. Predominant among
these must be the implementation of a program to ensure that all future
land use activities proposed for the coastal zone are designed to be
totally compatible with, or at ~east root inimical to, tte ,~tural re-
sources and the associated recreatioc values of the County's undisturbed
coastal areas.
Collier County Coastal Zone Management Program
The coastal zone is one of Collier County's major assets. Abundant
natural resources, ample recreation opportunities, and popularity as a
homesite for many seasonal and full time residents are factors of the
coastal zone well recognized by the Board of County Commissioners, the
County staff, and many local conservation and business groups. For these
reasons the community as a whole has supported past and present coastal
zone management activities in Collier County.
With the support of the Board of County Commissioners and grants
from the Office of Coastal Management, Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation, and the Erosion Control Program, Florida Department of
Natural Resources, the Collier County Natural Resources Management
Department is developing a County Coastal Zone Management Program. A
major goal of this program is the protection of the natural resources of
Collier County's coastal barriers, bays, and wetlands and the management
of coastal development in order to ensure that future land-use activities
will not degrade these resources. The Program is a continuous, multi-
year project involving, research, implementation, and environmental
protection activities. Progress to date includes data incorporated into
the following Technical Reports:
Technical Reports 83-1, 83-2, 83-3
Beach Management Planning and
Implementation Strategies at
the Local Level
The Beach in Collier County: A
Model in Southwest Florida
Drafts plans for beach and
coastal barrier management
in Collier County; describes
major components and imple-
mentation of Collier County
Coastal Zone Management Pro-
gram; identifies Collier
County as a model for beach
A Resource Management Program for
Iv
the Coastal Barriers of Collier
County, Florida
management in Florida; pro-
vides background data on
beach resources, dynamics,
and past management activi-
ties;
Technical Report 84-1
Natural Resources Management Plan
Sets natural resource goals
and policies for county and
describes how they will be
implemented; highlights
coastal barrier., bsys, and
wetlands as areas of special
management concern; delin-
eates the currently undevel-
oped portions of the coastal
zone as a distinct land-use
type requiring careful re-
view prior to any land de-
velopmental or alterat10nal
activities;
Technical Reports 84-2, 84-3
Coastal Barrier Resources
Coastal Estuarine Resources
Evaluates and analyzes the
current resources and en-
vironmental features of the
county's coastal barriers
and coastal estuarine areas;
presents data on shoreline
migration, beach and inlet
dynamics, and estuarine eco-
systems; describes man's
presence in the coastal zone
and his current and poten-
tial impacts;
Technical Report 84-4, 84-5
Coastal Zone Management Units:
Data Inventory and Analysis
Coastal Zone Management Units:
Atlas
Delineates the coastal zone
of Collier County into dis-
crete management units and
beach segments; compiles
site-specific data on re-
sources and management for
each unit;
Technical Report 84-6
Draft Ordinances for Protection
of Coastal Ecosystems
Reviews the existing codes
and environmental ordinances
for Collier County in com-
parison to those from other
Floridan counties; drafts
model ordinances covering
resource review, vegetation
standards. coastal construc-
tion activities, and perfor-
mance bonds.
v
Upcoming Program activities include: (1) The design and implementa-
tion of a development review procedure that closely ties the permitting
of a land-use activity, proposed in or adjacent to the currently undevel-
oped regions of the coastal zone, to a specific ecological community, its
resource values, and its limiting biological and physical factors. The
procedure will be designed to ensure that only those activities compat-
ible with habitat values and functions, or designed to minimize adverse
impacts on those values. will be allowed (project funded by D.E.R. Office
of Coastal Management); and (2) The continuation of dune restoration and
protection activities at all County beach parks and access points. The
latter project involves the removal of exotic plant species, the recon-
struction and revegetation of dunes damaged by storm activity or visitor
use, the construction of back dune feeder walkways and dune crossovers,
and the placement of signs and low profile fences to maintain the
restored dunes (project funded by the D.N.R. Erosion Control Program).
The results of these and other projects conducted under the County
Coastal Zone Management Program will be the subject of future Technical
Reports prepared by the Natural Resources Management Department.
Acknowlecgem€nts
The Natural Resources Management Department thanks the staff of the
D.E.R. Coastal Management Office and the D.N.R. Erosion Control Program
for the assistance they have given in the development of the Collier
County Coastal Zone Management Program. The Department also acknowledges
the staff of other County agencies and Departments that have provided
technical support to this Program. Special appreciation and gratitude is
expressed to Diane Brubaker, Linda Greenfield, and Margaret Tinney of the
Community Development Division, whose assistance materially aided in the
preparation of these Technical Reports.
vi
SECTION I
BACKGROUND
In carrying out their duties of na~ral resource protection and
maintenance of environmental quality, resource managers at the local
governmental level are faced with a number of problems. First, managers
are, in all but the most populous counties, the sole environmental
advisors to city or county planning agencies, city councilmen, or county
commissioners. They often must respond to proposals for development or
land alteration on short notice and with little staff assistance or time
to gather the detailed environmental impact information necessary to
support their recommendations. Second, requested project reviews are
usually for a defined parcel of land and therefore site-specific. Good
resource management practice however dictates both system-wide and
site-specific analysis. Third, local managers often operate without the
specific agency quidelines or administrative rules characteristic of
state and federal environmental permitting agencies. At most they have
only the general, countywide policies present in their Comprehensive Plan
to support decisions.
The creation of resource management units Can greatly assist mana-
gers in carrying out their duties, as well as in solving the afore-
mentioned problems. Management units are easily identifiable and
ecologically functional units reflecting the natural variation and
relationships of existing biological and physical features, and defined
at several different levels. They can be broad-based and system-wide,
covering a wide array of functionally related ecosystems, or site and
process-specific covering only one habitat or one set of related physical
features.
Resource management units benefit the manager in a number of differ-
ent ways. Once the units are defined, data on resources, land use, and
physical processes are compiled prior to receiving requests for site-
specific project review and recommendations. In addition the data base
can be continually updated and expanded as more information is collected
by staff. This data base, delineated and stored as discrete management
units, gives the manager both system-wide and site-specific information
to assist in petition review, as well as to support resultant recommenda-
tions. Resource management units aid in expanding the scope of petition
reviews. Managers are often forced into considering only on-site
features and impacts because little time exists for comprehensive review
and environmental information is usually supplied specifically for the
parcel under consideration. Data from system-wide units can supplement
environmental information submitted with a petition, thus enabling the
manager to review a project both in its proper perspective and evaluate
potential impacts in relationship to the broader biological and physical
characteristics of the whole functional ecosystem.
Resource data specifically collected and compiled at a number of
different functional levels (e.g. data for a whole ecosystem as well as
data for a specific habitat type or physical feature) can support adop-
tion of area-specific and site-specific policies and review guidelines.
There are great differences in the biological and physical characteris-
tics, and the level of existing land alteration and development impacts,
across any geographical/political unit (e.g. City, County, Region).
Without site-specific data it is hard to formulate anything but
1
broadly-based county-wide policies. This creates problems because
discrete features in different parts of a political unit can yield
differing recommendations. This can result in uneven and inconsistent
application of general county-wide policies, whereas well defined
data-supported, management units and sub-units allow specific policies
and guidelines to be formulated. Project recommendations are thus based
on predefined rules and are also site-specific and consistent.
Taken together, these and other benefits strongly support the
definition and delineation of resource management units and sub-units.
Once established, the data base will grow as more information becomes
available. Recommendations pertaining to different types of actiVities,
formulated and incorporated into a petition's approval or denial, thus
become the review policies, development standards and management guide-
lines for the appropriate unit. Resource management units, their data
base, and management policies and recommendations can be created either
as a discrete project or can be built gradually during the day-to-day
review process that takes place at the local government level. Regard-
less of the mechanisms or time frame, in the final analysis a system of
management units can greatly assist managers both in the protection of
existing r.atural resources anc the ~2inte~ar.ce of a~ area's e~viror.mental
quality.
2
SECTION 2
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT UNITS FOR THE COASTAL ZONE OF COLLIER COUNTY
Resource management units were defined for the coastal zone of
Collier County as a part of the Natural Resources Management Department's
continuing project to develop a county-wide coastal zone program.
Following the formulation of a general management plan for the natural
resources of Collier County (Technical Report 84-1) and the collection
and analysis of background data on both coastal barrier and estuarine
resources, processes, and developmental sensitivity (Technical Report
84-2 and 84-3) management units were delineated and relevant resource,
process, and land use data were compiled for each.
Resource management units were delineated for the coastal zone on
three different levels. On the broadest, system-wide basis, the entire
coastal zone of Collier County was divided into eight estuarine units.
These units, termed coastal drainage districts, reflect historic sheet-
flow pathways from the interior of the county to the Gulf. Where flow-
ways in the historic districts were interrupted or alteT~d by man-made
features (e.g. roads, canals) the drainage cistricts were modified
accordingly. The drainage districts established for Collier County
(Coastal Management Atlas, Page 5) encompass all parts of the County's
estuarine system, the brackish marshes, mangrove forest, open bays,
seagrass beds, and associated uplands.
The coastal barriers of Collier County were also included in the
above-mentioned system wide drainage districts. They form the next level
of organization of Collier County's coastal management units. From the
Lee County line to Cape Romano the 37 miles of Collier County's sandy
shoreline was divided into ten coastal barrier units (Coastal Management
Atlas, Page 10). Each unit other than Cape Romano Island is bounded to
the north and south by a tidal pass. These units represent a functional
and dynamic sub-system of the broader system-wide coastal drainage
districts. They are highlighted and separated out as sub-units of the
encompassing drainage districts. In this way their distinct characteris-
tics and development-related problems are emphasized.
To date the lowest level management units defined for the Collier
County coastal zone are the beach segments. Beach segments are sub-units
of coastal barriers that represent areas distinct from one another and
possessing similar physical features (e.g. erosion rate). land use
characteristics (e.g. public parks vs. private single-family develop-
ment), and resource attributes (e.g. extent and level of alteration of
the dune zone). Thirty-seven beach segments were defined within the
Coastal Barrier Units (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 10). The most
detailed, and therefore the most site specific resource, land use,
physical process data, and management recommendations are found in the
beach segment data sheets and maps.
As described in the previous section, the delineation and mapping of
management units and the compilation of resource and phYSical data is a
dynamic continuing process. As more information is gathered the data
base is expanded, the management comments and recommendations are ampli-
fied, and in some cases additional levels or sub-units are defined. For
this reason it should be realized at the outset that the data presented
in this Technical Report and in the accompanying coastal management atlas
(Technical Report 84-5) represent only that which has been collected and
3
compiled prior to the production of this report. This resource and land
use information will continue to grow through the day-to-day operation of
the County's coastal program.
The remainder of this technical report is devoted to the presenta-
tion of resource data existing at present in our coastal management
program. The report starts with a synopsis of the information available
for each of the eight coastal drainage districts. This is followed by
summaries of the data on the ten coastal barrier units. For ease of use
each coastal barrier unit synopsis is followed by the data sheets avail-
able for each of the coastal barrier unit's contained beach segments.
The coastal barrier unit and beach segment descriptions are followed by
general summaries on cultural/historic and wildlife resources. More
detailed system-wide descriptions of the County's coastal barrier and
estuarine resources and the processes that control their existence is
contained in Technical Report 84-2 (Coastal Barriers) and 84-3
(Estuaries).
Rather than attempting to intersperse within this document all
supporting management unit graphics, a coastal management atlas was
prepared as an accompanying Technical Report 84-5. The atlas contains
maps and photographs to be re~erred to .hile reviewing resource and
management data presented in this report. Coastal drainage district
graphics are found on pages 6 to 9 of the atlas and coastal barrier/beach
segment figures and photographs are found on pages 12 to 82.
To use this report and the accompanying atlas simply locate tbe
geographical position of interest either through tbe maps presented in
the atlas or the unit descriptions contained in this report. Once
located the user can then determine the characteristics of the drainage
district and/or coastal barrier in which the area of interest is located
by reading the system-wide resource management synopsis and studying the
accompanying graphics. For parcels on the county's coastline, the reader
can obtain additional, more detailed site-specific information by review-
ing the data sheets and map for the beach segment in which the parcel is
located. The key for symbols used in the beach segment to depict tran-
sects, beach access points, and other data is located on page 10 of the
Coastal Management Atlas. In some cases the 1979 DNR air photos do not
reflect the existence of new structures built on the segment be~een 1979
and 1984. Black squares indicate the relative position but not the areal
extent of such bUildings. In addition to the above-referenced materials,
the reader may obtain additional information on the County's coastal zone
resources and management goals by scanning other technical reports
prepared for the program.
4
SECTION 3
COASTAL DRAINAGE DISTRICTS
Coastal Zone I - Cocohatchee River
The boundaries of this district are SR 865 E on the north. US 41 S
on the east. and SR 846 W on the south. The region encompasses the
Barefoot Beach and Bonita Shores Coastal Units. and the towns of Bonita
Shores and Naples Park (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 6). The area is
primarily residential. with single and multifamily units and commercial
clusters. Density ranges from low to medium on the mainland portion. and
low on the barrier island. However, projected growth for future barrier
island development at Barefoot Beach will result in medium to high
residential densities.
Total square mileage of land is 7.35;
The percentage of water to land is 27.2%.
are the Hickory Bay complex. Wiggins Pass.
system.
This district encompasses an interrupted coesta~ ' .oonal estuary,
once contiguous with the estuarine systems in Lee County immediately to
the north and especially the Estero Bay-Imperial River system. Major
freshwater input occurs via the Cocohatchee River. a small, meandering
stream that drains upland pine barrens to the east. The lagoonal estuary
shows stagnation features at its northern end and water exchange is
suspected to be low over any given tidal cycle owing to the cul-de- sac
effect the interdiction of SR 865 produced on Little Hickory Bay. The
system becomes more viable as the Wiggins Pass-Cocohatchee River area is
approached.
Inland water flow is broken into compartments in part by SR 901 from
north to south, and by SR 888 from east to west. Much of the region
within these compartments is pine-palmetto upland which grades into an
extensive riverine mangrove system that opens into the lagoonal system
and fringes the tidal pass and delta area immediately across from the
river.
At least 16 coastal zone ecosystems and subsystems are found here.
In the Estuarine Ecosystem on the mainland these include salt marsh,
mangrove forest, and areas non-vegetated by native plants. although
supporting exotic species. Seagrass meadows are. to all. extents. non-
existent although some sparsely vegetated patches are present. On the
barrier island mangrove forest. naturally bare areas. and heavily over-
grown exotic assemblages are found. In the latter Australian Pine
predominates.
The Maritime Ecosystem is a mixture of coastal hardwood hammocks
nearest the lagoon. and pine barrens on the eastern side of SR 901. on
the mainland. Interspersed in the latter are shrub thickets, as well as
naturally bare areas. Exotic assemblages are predominantly Brazilian
Holly. with some Australian Pine. Residential yards and multifamily
areas support a mixture of introduced species of landscaping plants. The
barrier island also supports a limited coastal hardwood hammock which
grades into dune shrub thickets. Main exotics include Australian Pine
intermixed along the fringes of the native coastal strand.
Based on land and aerial survey data the major vegetational assem-
blages are estimated as follows (in decreasing abundance): Pine-Cypress
of water 2.0 square miles.
Major hydrographical features
and the Cocohatchee River
5
with interspersed shrub thickets, Pine-Palmetto-Oak forest patches,
Red-Black-White mangrove assemblages along the estuary on both sides of
the lagoon, residential exotica and Brazilian Holly and Australian Pine
found mostly on the mainland side. Several of the islands in Little
Hickory Bay support dense stands of Australian Pine but are fringed with
red (and to a lesser extent black) mangroves. Residential exotics may be
expected to increase based on developmental plans for the Barefoot Beach
condominium. Pine-Cypress and Pine-Palmetto-Oak assemblages may be
expected to decrease as condominium development continues on the
mainland.
General Notations. The Cocohatchee River district is a coastal area
programmed for heavy future development. The mainland will probably
remain as a medium to low density region, but with some light industry
present, and more anticipated, it could increase rather rapidly. The
river drainage is influenced by agricultural activity to the east and
northeast and little control seems Possible in regard to nutrient or
pesticide inputs at present. The lagoonal estuary is severely restricted
at its northern terminus but becomes a more dynamic system closer to
Viggins Pass. There are two presen'es, the Ba~efoot Beach Preserve and
the Delnor-~1gg1ns State Recreational Area, toth of which are oases of
green in a potential concrete desert. With the loss of estuarine connec-
tions to the Lee County system, and continued enrichment from farmlands
drained by the Cocohatchee. the system may be expected to undergo period-
ic stress.
Recommendations. Every effort should be made to control development
along the Little Hickory Bay System. Present land use (which also
includes marinas) will impose severe stress on the mainland side. espe-
cially as the limited sheet flow is interrupted. and the present very
limited freshwater marsh areas are destroyed. The system will maintain
its integrity probably only in the Wiggins Pass area. Ranked Status
should therefore be Conservation along estuarine margins, Preservation
within the estuary itself, Development directed toward low densities, and
maintenance of Recreation potentials at the State Preserve and State
Recreation areas. The Ranked Land Use Matrix is PrOViSional, Compatible
and Incompatible. respectively.
Prognosis. Guarded; careful management will be needed throughout
this system.
Coastal Zone II - Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
The boundaries of this district are SR 846 E on the north. US 41 S
on the east and Mooringline Drive in the city of Naples on the south.
The region encompasses the Vanderbilt Beach Coastal Unit, and the town or
real estate developments of Vanderbilt Beach. Park Shore. Moorings and
Pelican Bay (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 6). The area is totally
residential in the southern section, and large scale planned unit devel-
opment for medium to high density residential single and multi-family in
the north at Pelican Bay. A major commercial cluster Occurs at the
junction of SR 862 and US 41.
Total square mileage is land: 8.66. water: 3.5, to give a water to
land percentage of 40.4%. The major hydrographical features are Inner
6
and Outer Clam Bays, Clam Pass, Inner and Outer Doctors Bay and Doctors
Pass. There are no major streams or tributaries draining lands from the
east.
This district also is comprised of a long, interrupted coastal
lagoonal estuary which was at one time continuous with that of the
Cocohatchee System in the north and the Gordon River-Naples Bay system to
the south. Presently, a series of interconnected extremely shallow
lagoons comprises the Clam Bay System which intergrades into a more open,
less basin-like series of bays comprising the Doctors Bay system. The
Clam Bay system is relatively unaltered per se, although the extremely
large PUD by Westinghouse Properties on the eastern shore called Pelican
Bay, will have some impact on this portion. A large coastal bay forest
is present along the mainland margin in this area. The lagoonal ponds
appear to be relatively viable, although a study by Heald, et al (1978)
found evidence of slow degradation, especially in the area of Inner Clam
Bay mangrove strands.
The Doctors Bay-Doctors Pass portion is completely altered by major
residential development which includes single and multi-family resi-
dences, including high rise condominiums. This area encompasses some of
tbe most outrageously expensive real estate in the Naples area. The
lagoonal system is almost completely bulkheaded with concrete and por-
tions of the bays have been severely altered by dredge and fill finger
canal-peninsular developments. Along US 41 at the eastern boundary is a
commercial strip which consists of a hodgepodge of shopping centers,
furniture stores, restaurants, automobile dealerships and other smaller
"cottage industry" shops and stores.
Water flow is restricted to ingress and egress at Clam Pass, a small
torturously curved, tidal inlet with shifting topography, and in the
south through Doctors Pass, an equally small, but artificially stabilized
inlet bounded by riprap groins. Although the passes probably allow some
drainage and flow at least from tbe upper two thirds of the system
southward, the completely disturbed area of Doctors Bay produces an
estuarine situation in name only. Indeed, the only dynamic part of the
Cocohatchee-Gordon Transitional System is in the Clam Bay region, and
that is being subjected to some modification through the upland
development of the Pelican Bay complex. The northernmost portion of the
inner Clam Bay section dead-ends along SR 862. A small roadside park
surrounded by a large dead or dying stand of black mangroves marks the
terminus of the system. Pelican Bay development encroaches directly into
the system at this point.
In this district at least 12 coastal zone ecosystems have been
determined. In the Estuarine Ecosystem on the mainland, mangrove forest
and coastal bay forests grade into Pine-Palmetto barrens through which
scrub oak patches are found. However, much of this habitat will fall to
the bulldozer as Pelican Bay continues to be developed. The coastal
strand has been set aside as a preserved area. The effect such destruc-
tion or alteration of the upland assemblages will have on the preserved
system remains to be seen. Although some exotics are present (primarily
Australian Pine and Brazilian Holly) the main exotic burden will be
produced by landscaping within the developmental units. The Doctors Bay
area has no naturally occurring ecosystems whatever.
On the barrier island, mangrove forest predominates, grading through
salt-tolerant shrub-scrub vegetation into a relatively mature and well
developed coastal hardwood forest. Interspersed along the fringes and
7
throughout are Australian Pines. The mangrove forest becomes quite
extensive and well-developed, primarily consisting of large, mature red
and black mangroves through which tidal flow channels wind. This part of
the system is a thriving example of what a mangrove forest should be, but
whether it will remain as such will depend on what alterations take place
in the hydrodynamic regime of the entire Clam Bay system.
The Maritime Ecosystem is poorly developed or nonexistent owing to
the aforementioned land development. Pine-Palmetto-scrub oak patches
occur but may be expected to decrease as the area is built up. On the
barrier island a well-developed dune scrub understory is present which
decreases as the previously noted coastal hardwood forest progresses onto
the beach.
Seagrass beds are patchy, composed primarily of shoal grass, and are
seasonally abundant. The bottom of the Clam Bay area is soft, finely
divided mud of variable consistency. Large, open mudflats are exposed
with falling tides and this part of the syste. appears to support a
numerically abundant although species-poor invertebrate fauna.
Land and aerial survey provide the follov1ng ranked floral assem-
blages: Red-Black-White mangrove, Oak-Palmetto-Pine Barrens Oak-Bay
Coastal Forest, Residential exotica, Australian Pine-debilitatec dune
scrub associates. Major increases may be expected in residential exo-
tica; all other systems will probably remain static unless storm tide
washovers occur. In such a case the shallow-rooted Australian pines, and
much of the black mangrove forest may be choked out.
General Notations. Tbe barrier island area of Doctors Bay and the
adjacent mainland shore are completely developed and all natural vegeta-
tional assemblages are irrevocably destroyed. The region is one of
medium to high density residences fronting on finger canals and the
lagoonal remnants of the Doctors Bay system. These basins to all extents
appear dead, or at least of little productive consequence. Seagrass beds
are totally absent; circulation appears to be stagnating in the upper
reaches of some canals. Tbe estuarine connections are subject to resi-
dential pesticide-fertilizer-herbicide inputs. Tbe area, in effect, is a
prime example of a carelessly developed, overpriced, high-rise, expen-
sively residential development.
Recommendations. Little Can be recommended inasmuch as the lower
part of the system is completely developed, and the upper part is under-
going large-scale construction. Although Westinghouse Properties have
indicated that careful management will be their guide, the impact of
large numbers of people into the Pelican Bay area and the concomitant
demand for services, landscaping, sewage, automobile traffic and other
environmental insults may yet severely stress the Clam Bay system. This
becomes the more likely as golf course construction continues and this
recreational facility requires large amounts of fertilizers, pesticides
and herbicides.
Ranked Status is low to high density, followed by Conservation and
Preservation areas in the Clam Bay System. The Land Use matrix is ranked
as Provisional or Incompatible along the estuarine margins of this
system. Because of intensive development along Doctors Bay, this matrix
ranking is conditionally applied in order to limit future spillover of
stress to the adjacent areas. Development is otherwise totally
8
compatible with the land use matrix insofar as little more harm Can be
done to the drainage district.
Prognosis. Guarded along Clam Bay; terminal along Doctors Bay.
, -
Coastal Zone III - Gordon River.
The boundaries of this system extend from Mooringline Drive on the
north in the city of Naples, US 41 Sand E on the east, and SR 31 on the
south. out to Gordon Pass. This district encompasses the Naples Headland
and Gordon Pass Coastal Units, and the City of Naples (Coastal Management
Atlas, Page 6). The area is that of a small city with single and multi-
family residences along the western side, and a variably developed
commercial district along Tamiami Trail (US 41). The major real estate
developments include Olde Naples, Aqualane Shores, Port Royal and numer-
ous smaller subdivisions. Density is high throughout, although in the
exclusive smaller subdivisions which consist of high-priced single family
homes density is relatively low. This district encompasses some of the
earliest settled and developed areas in Collier Count~ with numerous old
Florida-style homes espe:~ally in the beach <' r-!", etirement impact
is also seen in several large trailer parks on the ed~:ern side of the
Gordon River and Haldeman Creek area. Projected growth will be
restricted by available developable land and is expected to be slow for
residential development and somewhat higher for commercial property.
Nearly all the land is presently developed in one way or another within
the limits of the estuary.
Total square miles in the district is 11.77 in land and 3.0 in water
with a percentage of water to land of 25.5%. The major hydrographical
features are the Gordon River (and the associated Golden Gate Canal),
Rock Creek, Haldeman Creek, Naples Bay, and Gordon Pass. The two creeks
are small tributaries that drain in parallel lands to the west of US 41.
The Golden Gate Canal connects to the infamous Golden Gate system to the
interior and drains nearly 200 square miles of wetland.
The largest hydrographical feature is the Gordon River-Naples Bay
system, the latter being simply a wider area of the Gordon River and not
truly a coastal Bay. The system is quasi-lagoonal in that the barrier
island has coalesced over geological time to form a more or less perman-
ent headland. Behind the headland, and from the vicinity of Gordon Pass,
a series of large interconnected mangrove islands existed historically on
the old barrier side, with a similar system of islands, more compactly
distributed on the eastern or mainland shore. The estuary proper, prior
to the connection with the Golden Gate Canal slowly drained interior
waters in the vicinity of Naples and mixed these with seawater from the
Gulf of Mexico that came in through the large tidal pass. The system
connected to a typical back-barrier lagoonal system immediately to the
south which forms the northern terminus for the next drainage district
(q.v.). The system has always been relatively well drained, owing to the
three main sources of freshwater input, and the large open lagoonal type
bay connections throughout. However, Gordon Pass, as do other coastal
barrier inlets, undoubtedly closed and reopened several times during its
existence, either in response to longshore sedimentary buildup, tropical
storm tide effects, or both. This may have produced long-term salinity
fluctuations behind the headland which conceivably could be transmitted
farther to the south. With continued freshwater drainage it seems likely
9
that the salinity gradient fluctuated to some degree with tidal cycles as
well. The lower portions of Naples Bay probably experienced a wider
range of salinities for longer periods than did the upper levels of the
Gordon River.
The system, prior to development by man, Was undoubtedly a prime and
pristine estuary. First dramatic development occurred with the growth of
the city and the subsequent construction of dredge and fill finger canals
and peninsulas in the Aqualane Shores area along lower Gordon Drive.
Concomitantly, Port Royal and several smaller subdivisions also
incorporated the finger canal concept which eventually lead to a
degradation of water quality within these areas, as well as a previously
massive destruction of once pure mangrove strands.
Further alteration took place with the stabilization of a small
island in the upper reaches of the Gordon River, some channelization of
the River for the Intracoastal Waterway, and with agricultural and
condominium development along SR 31, as well as on lands to the interior.
The Naples Bay Report (1979) was positive and dramatic in pointing
out the resultant degradation of the estuary, including water quality,
effects on the biota, deteriorating chemical and physical parameters,
increasing eutrophication, and other factcrs that are ccrrespondent with
an alterec estuarine system.
In the Gordon River district, 15 vegetational ecosystems have been
recognized. In the Estuarine Ecosystem, these include the mangrove and
marsh systems, a limited seagrass system, and the usual non-vegetated, or
exotically vegetated areas (primarily of Brazilian Holly). Mangrove
forest on the barrier island, on the other hand, is almost nonexistent
save for a token, degrading stand at the lower end of Gordon Drive.
Limited and patchy seagrass systems are widely scattered and never
luxuriant. Exotic vegetation ranges from large stands of Australian
Pine, hedges and forests of Brazilian Holly, and numerous species of
introduced landscaping plants, all interspersed with remnants of native
vegetation that at one time characterized the area (Seagrape, Coconut
Palm, Live Oak, Figs, Magnolias, etc.).
Tbe Maritime Ecosystem is relatively well developed in the area of
SR 31. This consists of Pine-Palmetto, or Pine--Cypress assemblages,
Palmetto scrub, large areas of Brazilian Holly, smaller stands of Austra-
lian Pine, and scattered clumps of immature and mature Cajeput. Several
remnants of coastal dune shrub thickets are scattered along Naples beach,
but the remainder of the area is primarily vegetated by non-native
escaped or introduced landscaping plants.
Ranked order of assemblages based on ground survey estimates are as
follows: Red-black mangroves and native hardwood or monocot species as
residential landscaping, residential exotica, Pine-Palmetto, Pine-scrub
shrub, and Brazilian Holly-Australian Pine-Cajeput patches. The greatest
change will undoubtedly occur in the Pine-Palmetto assemblage as the
lands on which they are now found are cleared for future development.
General Notations. The Gordon River drainage area is totally
developed. River drainage will continue to be affected by Golden Gate
Canal input, nutrient-biocide runoff from residential, condominium and
golf Course properties, hydrocarbon pollution from vehicular traffic both
terrestrial and marine, organophosphate or chlorinated hyrdrocarbon
pesticide input from mosquito control activities, and point source
leakage of sewage from septic tanks, and nutrient loading from treated
10
se~age at the Naples plant. There is little control possible in this
area as long as the Golden Gate ~eir remains in place. The lagoonal
estuary is severely restricted no~ to the lo~er portion nearest the pass.
~here water quality is relatively better than in areas closer to the
city. In this same area occur the largest and apparently most healthy
stands of mangroves. Based on the results of the Naples Bay Study
(Simpson 1919) the Gordon River-Naples Bay system appears to be
essentially stable, albeit degraded. It will probably remain as such
unless freshwater input is modified, or tropical storm action alters the
mouth of the Gordon Pass. Severe stress may be expected in the lower
portions once the pine barrens are developed.
Recommendations. There is little that can be done to alleviate the
general deterioration of the system. The recommendations in the Naples
Bay study are both comprehensive and explicit and if control of the
situation is desired, these should be followed. They are too numerous to
list here. Any development in the vicinity of SR 31 that impinges on the
estuary should be most carefully monitored. Failure to do so will have a
noticeable impact on the Dollar Bay-Rookery Bay system immediately to the
south.
Prognosis. Guarded to extremely poor; management to restore condi-
tions will be prohibitively expensive; the lower Bay exhibits better
viability at present.
Coastal Zone IV - Water Management District No.6
This district is bounded by the junction of SR 31 and US 41 E at its
northwest corner. US 41 E along its northern border, until the junction
with SR 951, thence proceeds southward along SR 951 to SR 952 W, turning
westerly; it extends in an imaginary line through Big Marco Pass below
Coconut Island. This district includes Keewaydin Island Coastal Unit,
and several large country club styled condominiums such as Lely Golf
Estates, Arboresque, Windstar, as well as some extensive truck farms
(Coastal Management Atlas, Page 7). It does not include (arbitrarily)
Isles of Capri. The area is primarily undeveloped in the western half,
and includes the Rookery Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Residential
densities are low to medium, with single and multi-family low rise
condominiums, mobile home village and agricultural housing.
Total square mileage calculated Was 34.09 for land and 10.25 for
water, giving a percentage of 30.0% water to land. Total wetland area
may be substantially more than the figure for water. Major hydrograph-
ical features are Dollar Bay, Rookery Bay, Henderson Creek, Johnson Bay.
and the Marco Pass complex which includes Big Marco Pass at the south-
eastern terminus, and Capri and Little Marco Passes just above this.
This district as herein delineated encompasses only the coastal zone
portion. The total district extends above SR 84 (Alligator Alley) and
includes much of the City of Naples on the west as well as a large
portion of marshland to the east of SR 951 (see LaRoe 1975). Originally
established to include the entire freshwatershed that affected water
drainage into the mangrove areas of Dollar, Rookery and Johnson Bays, it
is restricted in this report to the boundaries listed above only to
provide information for the estuarine portion of the watershed. It was
felt that SR 951 probably functions as a longitudinal dike, splitting
1
waterflow into District No.6, and into the large Belle Meade area
immediately adjacent to the east, around the vicinity of Golden Gate
Estates southern platted boundaries.
Major freshwater input takes place via Henderson Creek, a series of
smaller and unnamed tributaries draining upland pine barrens. and via
sheet flow overland all along the northern boundaries. The estuary 1s a
true back barrier lagoonal formation with extensive salt marsh and
mangrove strands all along its length. It is the most viable system in
the western part of the county. and receives marine influence from Gordon
Pass at its northern terminus and the Marco Passes complex at the south-
eastern end, as well as washover and ephemeral inlet formation during
tropical storms. The system shows much similarity to the Ten Thousand
Island system farther to the east and was undoubtedly responding to the
same influences as that area prior to the destruction and subsequent
urbanization of the Marco Island area.
At least 18 vegetational ecosystems occur here with the most exten-
sive being the Estuarine Ecosystem saltmarshes and mangrove forests. the
Barrier Island mangrove forests, and the Maritime Ecosystem coastal
hardwood hammocks on the mainland and barrier islands, followed by large
areas of pine barren above the estuary on the ma:r:}anc. Pu~e shrub
thickets (Maritime Barrier ecosystem) are important along the seaward
margins of Keewaydin and the smaller islands. Exotic introductions are
limited to residential landscapeing and to scattered abundant Brazilian
Holly (espeCially along drainage canals and secondary roadways, and in
disturbed areas. Australian Pine is found in some number along the
coastal barrier islands. and patchily inland around farmed areas.
Cajeput Occurs in small clumps to large forests. again in disturbed
areas. However, the latter species has also invaded pine- cypress mixed
forests and may be actively supplanting these native species. Shrub
thickets include palmetto, and halophytic assemblages in the saltmarsh
areas.
Vegetation in ranked abundance based on aerial and land surveys is
mangrove forest (primarily red and black, witb white and buttonwood in
lesser numbers), Pine-palmetto flats, cordgrass and rush in the marsh
areas, Australian pine and Brazilian holly along roadways and disturbed
grounds, and residential exotics, the latter especially in golf course
plantings and around buildings.
The Dollar-Rookery-Johnson Bays estuary also supports seagrasses
which are seasonally abundant and appear to depend in areal extant and
growth on the turbidity of the estuarine water (Thoemke, pers. comm.).
The general substrata within these bays is soft mud, although parts can
be almost cement-hard. Tidal channels twist and turn around mangrove
islands, many of which are constructed on or immediately adjacent to
oyster bars. The latter undergo periodic exposure at low tides and form
a refuge for numerous invertebrate organisms. The tidal flats and
grassflats that also become partially or completely exposed offer feeding
grounds for a large and diverse bird fauna. Tbe grass bed-mangrove
ecosystem and ecotone provides nursery areas for both finfish and shell-
fish of commercial importance. as well as for invertebrate animals that
support the food chain.
General Notations. As presently bounded, the system is in little
danger of further exploitation by man. Additional efforts are being made
by several private and governmental agencies to purchase adjacent lands
12
to the north and east of Rookery Bay Sanctuary, thus ensuring a large,
and biologically active buffer zone around the entire estuarine system.
In his 1975 report, LaRoe listed 12 recommendations for management
of the entire Water Management District No.6, and the interested reader
is referred to this paper for details. However, LaRoe also provided
several maps showing areas both compatible and incompatible for develop-
ment. Moreover, he made recommendations as to density projections and
areas of growth which, in this author's opinion, failed to completely
take into account the impact such growth would have on the entire system.
Any large scale growth that occurs upland (i.e., in the vicinity of, and
above) US 41 will have an impact on the estuary simply because the water
supply that maintains the system comes from this region. Housing or
further agricultural development will remove much of the sheet flow
features, as well as insert undesirable factors into the water supply.
There would be a real danger for eutrophication in the upper margins of
the estuarine system (i.e., along the saltmarsh- mangrove ecotone) if
large-scale nutrient injection occurred without adequate freshwater
flushing through and out of the estua~. As LaRoe noted in his report:
It. . . Rookery Bay Sanctuary is dependent upon the existing water regime.
If the quantity. quality, or =elivery sc~ed~les 0: fresh-water wtich
flows into the Sanctuary from outside its boundaries is altered, the
ecosystem within the Sanctuary will also be modified."
Recommendations. Water, whether from marine or freshwater sources,
is the most important factor in the viability and quality of the estuary
and its biota. Inputs and quality of such waters in District No. 6 are
extremely susceptible to change. Even if this change is of a short term,
the effects on the estuary may remain for longer periods. The Rookery
Bay system has a distinct advantage over most of the other estuarine
areas in Collier County in that it has received much investigation on its
hydrography, biota, and proposed management (e.g., Yokel 1975ab, Yokel
1975c, Clark & Sarokwash 1975, Alexander & Bosley 1975, respectively).
But to quote LaRoe (1975) again: "[The] control and maintenance of the
existing water regime should be the dominant concern in planning for
[any] development around the Sanctuary.It This recommendation holds true
for the entire DOllar-Rookery-Johnson Bays System.
The ranked status at present is Preservation, Conservation, low
density development in compatible areas, and Recreational usage. The
land use matrix is more restrictive and most development would be Incom-
patible with the present environment, although some Provisional develop-
ment could take place if it was carefully monitored and met numerous
environmental restrictions. If these same restrictions are not carefully
administered north of US 41, the estuarine system may yet deteriorate.
Prognosis. Good to very good. The region is essentially undevel-
oped in the southern and southwestern portions and should stay that way;
control of development presently is possible to some degree; but water
management from the uplands is critical.
Coastal Zone V - Belle Meade
This district is bounded by the junction of SR 951 and US 41 E at
its northwestern corner, progressing east along US 41 to the junction
with SR 92, thence south and eventually westward along SR 92 to its
13
terminus at SR 951 on Marco Island. The upper southwestern boundary is
SR 952, and includes the Isles of Capri and an imaginary line out through
Big Marco Pass. Coastal Units include Marco Island, from SR 92 north,
Isles of Capri, Old Marco Junction, and Marco Island airport (Coastal
Management Atlas, Page 7). The main area of development is in the Marco
Island complex, a large region owned and constructed by Deltona Corpora-
tion. Here, densities are medium to high with single, multi-family and
high-rise condominium homes, a relatively large, but really restricted
commercial district, and a major dredge and fill canal and peninsular
development along the inner edge of the island. Immediately north and
east development drops to extremely low levels awing to the large areas
of mangrove forest. Smaller populational nodes occur at Old Marco
Junction (mobile homes) and Isles of Capri (single family residential).
Above the mangrove areas land is developed mostly as agricultural re-
gions, although there are several small condo.dnium-type units in the far
northwestern corner near SR 951-US 41 junction.
This district encompasses 41.92 square miles of land and 11.23
square miles of water, giving a water to land percentage of 26.8%.
Actual aerial extent of wetlands may be higher. Kajor hydrographical
features are Mcllhane Pay, Tc,?c~ Bay, Collier Bay, rn~~:~~ 3a:, Adc:sion
3ay, Big Harco Rive~ (actually a lagoonal pass), and Georgia Fruit Farm
Creek (more a mangrove tidal channel).
This district is composed of a large mangrove forest-salt marsh
system that opens into large, irregularly shaped bays, channels, coves
and cul-de-sacs. These waterways are an expanded version of the typical
back barrier coastal lagoons found immediately to the west and north in
Collier County. Marco Island, and the Cape Romano region to the south-
east, are larger, probably incipient headlands that have accrued over
time. The associated embayments are a consequence of mangrove- oyster
bar island formation, and are reminiscent of the Ten Thousand Islands
area to the east, although the small island areas are substantially less
complex In both number and topography.
Watershed flow appears to be channeled at least in part to the south
and then the west owing to the quasi-diking effect of SR 92 and 951,
respectively, and associated parallel canals that were created as a
consequence of roadway construction. This compartmented flow maintains a
large and viable estuarine-associated vegetative habitat on the mainland.
On Marco Island the same vegetational habitat has been totally destroyed
above the SR 92 boundary, and has been replaced by residential
landscaping of exotics, and invading exotics into the disturbed areas on
which no construction has yet occurred.
At least 14 vegetative ecosystems have been recorded. Associated
with the Estuarine Ecosystem on the mainland side are mangrove, marsh-
grass, and seagrass assemblages, the latter patchily present. Invading
exotics include Brazilian Holly along both SR 951 and SR 92, and scat-
tered through the marsh and to a lesser extent in the mangroves, espe-
cially in higher, drier areas. Australian pine is also patchily present.
The Estuarine barrier island ecosystem (i.e., on Marco Island and Isles
of Capri) is totally destroyed, although some patchy hardwoods, and
mangroves can still be seen in the latter area. The Maritime Ecosystem
is represented by coastal hardwood hammock (scattered along the edges of
the marsh areas) and coastal pine barrens (extensively present in the
upland region paralleling both state roads and US 41. Shrub thickets are
present as incursional units among mangrove forest high-ground areas,
14
especially to the west of SR 92. They are sparingly present east of SR
951 but have been replaced by disturbed weedy vegetational assemblages in
many places. It is possible that scrub-shrub understory may be more
extensive within the pine barren regions, but the area was not surveyed
owing to its heavy palmetto growth along the highways.
Ranked by order of observed and estimated occurrence based on aerial
and ground surveys the assemblages were mangrove forest (especially red
and black), Pine-palmetto barrens. cordgrass and rush marshes. residen-
tial exotica (mostly landscaping plants on Marco Island). and locally
extensive growth of Brazilian Holly and Australian Pine. Interspersed in
upland areas were bay forests with cypress and pine intermixed. and
cabbage palm and oak dominated hammocks. The mainland portion of this
district is therefore vegetatively diverse and supports good to prime
examples of nearly every major coastal vegetative ecosystem. Because
this area is ripe for development many of these assemblages will event-
ually be decimated or destroyed, at least in the commercially valuable
uplands.
General Notations. The large. low or undeveloped arp~s in the
southerly part of this district change, ofter: impercep'.:ibly. into scrub-
shrub ecotones that in turn grade into a pine-palmetto-cypress-hardwood
mixed assemblage that becomes much more dense north of US 41. The area
exhibits good potential for control of watershed flow and presently is
supporting a large, viable estuarine community on the mainland side. In
view of the total degradation of the Marco Island shore it becomes more
critical to carefully manage the landward side of the estuary. The
aesthetic, recreational. and biological potential of this part of the
estuary are good.
Ranked status for the district is Preservation. and Conservation of
selected areas. Total development should be restricted to Marco Island'
proper. The ranked land use matrix is therefore Incompatible as regards
to most areas, or Provisional in areas that impinge directly on estuarine
water management. Compatible development is presently restricted to
Marco and Isles of Capri.
Recommendations. The mainland area must be viewed as an area of
critical concern and development restricted accordingly. Of special
importance is the presence of farming lands in the region. There may be
substantial potential for eutrophication in the marshes and toxin perco-
lation through the mangroves into the estuary. Water quality should be
monitored on at least a monthly basis.
Prognosis. Good to excellent on the mainland side. The Marco
Island area is beyond further help unless prohibitively expensive revege-
tation schemes are adopted.
Coastal Zone VI - Picayune-Camp Keasis
This district is bounded by SR 92 S on the west. US 41 E on the
north, and the FakaUnion Canal at Port of the Islands on the east. An
imaginary line extends the eastern boundary along the FakaUnion Canal
through FakaUnion Bay. Along the southwestern boundary, only those lands
on Marco Island to the east of SR 92 are included. Coastal Units
included in this district are Marco Island. Kice Island. the Morgan
15
Island Group, and Cape Romano. Developmental Units consist of Marco
Island southeastern portion. Goodland, and Port of the Islands (Coastal
Management Atlas, Page 8). The region is primarily agricultural and ST
areas to the east and north, but medium to high densities occur on Marco
Island in single and multi-family residential units on the northeastern
side, and in high-rise condominium development along the Gulf coast
portion. A large finger canal- peninsular development is located facing
Caxambas Pass. Goodland is a small fishing village with locally high
density primarily in single family residential, trailer park, and vaca-
tion home structures. Port of the Islands is a low density resort area.
Major projected growth in developed land will be confined to Marco
Island, but upland portions that are privately owned may yet be
exploited.
The total square mileage of land is 90.17, whereas water encompasses
41.5 square miles. This gives a percentage of water to land of 46%.
Because of the extensive development of wetlands in this area, this
percentage may increase seasonally or over multi-annual cycles.
The major hydrographical features are a series of tidal passes and
associated bays which often have tidal-tributary creeks or "rivers"
e~ptying !~to the~. ?rc?~essing !~ward these include C~azba8 Pass and
Bay, ~c~ert5 Bay (a bul~head€c artificially defined shoreline), Barfield
Bay, Gullivan Bay (the open embayment of greatest extent), Royal Palm Bay
and Royal Palm Hammock Creek, Blackwater Bay and Creek, Buttonwood Bay
and Whitney River, Pumpkin Bay and River, Wood River, and FakaUnion Bay
and River. Several smaller bays (in reality most are simply mangrove
enclosed areas of open water) are scattered among the numerous keys.
This region is the western margin for the Ten Thousand Islands, and
contains the Cape Romano-Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve. Many of
the larger or more permanent keys have some topographical relief, in
addition to supporting a luxuriant mangrove growth, and so have been
named either locally, or officially on hydrographic charts. Hundreds of
others are nameless.
The several creeks and rivers drain saltwater marshes in the upland.
These, in turn, receive directed sheet flow through culverts in US 41
from the interior freshwater marshes and prairies associated with the
Picayune Prairie, and to some limited extent by lateral flow out of the
adjacent Fakahatchee Strand. The entire area undergoes extensive tidal
inundation as attested by the numerous mangrove strands bordering the
creeks and extending inward to form a vast mangrove swamp. This inter-
grades into a well developed salt marsh that runs more or less parallel
with US 41, and which gradually becomes a freshwater- influenced marsh or
wet prairie. However, some mangrove growth does occur north of US 41
indicating previous salt water influences above this barrier.
The northwestern corner of the district also supports a relatively
large hardwood hammock and this assemblage has been incorporated into the
Collier-Seminole State Park. Coastal hammock intergrades almost directly
into salt marsh at the south end of the park, but continues more or less
unabated along the northern side of US 41 for approximately 4-5 miles
east and west before giving way to wet prairie of sawgrass, cattail, or
both. Scattered cypress heads appear south of the Tamiami Trail and
these gradually disappear as the mangrove forest encroaches farther
inland. The entire coastal area is a vast and nearly pristine example of
what this region used to look like before man arrived on the scene.
16
Although only 10 ecosystems have been recorded, four of these
dominate the region and reach what may be their highest successional
level of any place in the county, with the exception of the Fakahatchee
district immediately to the east. These are the Estuarine Mainland
marsh, mangrove systems, and the Maritime Mainland coastal hardwood
hammocks and pine barrens. Seagra8s systems are present, often locally
luxuriant but quite patchily distributed. Mainland shrub thickets are
also scattered throughout the upper marsh areas, and consist primarily of
willow and wax myrtle, although numerous other native species are also
found. Where pines are scattered, Saw palaetto is abundant and forms
nearly impenetrable thickets in some places. Exotics are restricted to
invading species (Australian pine, Brazilian Bolly. Cajeput) With Brazil-
ian Bolly (subjectively) appearing to the most widely distributed. based
on ground survey. Locally dense areas of Cajeput can be seen from US 41,
especially in areas where standing water occurs over long periods of
time.
Ranked order of abundance for the vegetational types. based on
aerial and ground surveys is mangrove forest. spartina marsh, pine-
cypress-oak hydric forest, cabbage palm-oak hammock. pine-palmetto
:latlar.c, and ir.vacing exotics in the northern balf of the district.
~'e southeastern portion of Marco Island has been segregated from
the treatment above for two reasons. First. nearly all of the land south
and westward of Barfield Bay has been cleared for development and little
or no native vegetation remains. Second, on a high sand ridge that forms
the Pleistocene margin of Barfield Bay a vell-developed scrub-shrub
assemblage of oaks, palmetto and several species of stunted native trees
occurs. The coastal margin sweeping down to the tidal areas supports in
places a well developed coastal hardwood hammock with numerous mature
native trees and a dense associated understory. This intergrades with
semi-terrestrial mangrove forest (primarily buttonwood and white
mangroves) which in turn changes to black and then red mangrove as tidal
influence becomes more apparent. Although appearing relatively
undisturbed, the entire area has undergone alteration of one kind or
another. most often for farming purposes. Thus. much of the growth on
the sand ridges may be secondary, as is some Within the coastal hammocks.
This complex vegetational assemblage is seen on nearby large island (e.g.
Horr's Island) and is indicative of the elevated island ecosystem.
Aerial photography suggests that these assemblages occur on many of
the larger islands in Gullivan Bay and throughout the Ten thOusand
Islands region. It was precisely this type of vegetation and high or
relatively elevated topography that made many of these islands attractive
to both aboriginal and later settlers.
General Notations. The Picayune-Camp Keasis district is an extreme-
ly critical area of the county. It is largely undeveloped with the
exception of high density units on Marco Island. and a relatively high
density (in relation to available land area) on Goodland. Density can
thus be characterized as urban-clustered high. and rural low. Agricul-
tural holdings are moderate to locally extensive but do not approach
those of Belle Meade in the coastal zone.
Ranked status at present is Preservation. Conservation and low
density. The Marco Island density forms a locally high pocket that
affects little of the estuary now. Land use matrix should be classified
17
as developmentally Incompatible, or at best Provisional under extremely
careful monitoring and guidelines.
Recommendations. The importance of restricting upland activities
for the continued well being of such critical areas as Collier-Seminole
State Park or the lower southwestern edge of the Fakahatchee Strand
cannot be overemphasized, nor can control of such activities be
denigrated. An develo ment to the north of US 41 must be carefull
monitored; this area is irrevocably undevelopable if the health of the
estuar is to be maintained. All water mana ement to the north of US 41
is mandatory.
Prognosis. Excellent at present, if recommendations are
implemented.
Coastal Zone VII - Fakahatcbee-okaloacoochee
This district is bounded on the west by Port of the Islands and the
FakaUnion Canal. The northern boundary 19 US 41 E, tbe eastern boundar!
SF. 29 S to Cl,okoloskee ::;:and. The :c";e:- kur::ary (1.e., in thE estuar)'
proper) is restricted to the boundaries of t~e Everglades National Park
Except for the towns of Carnes town at the northeastern corner, and
Everglades City and Chokoloskee Island at the lower southeastern corner.
the area is essentially without urban development (Coastal Management
Atlas. Page 8). Habitation in the rural portions is restricted to
fishing and hunting camps, and occasional squatter homesteads on some of
the larger islands. The Fakahatchee State Preserve abuts along its lower
eastern quadrant directly with the Everglades National Park boundaries.
Consequently. little or no development has occurred in these delimited
areas. The Big Cypress National Preserve is located to the northeast.
No Coastal Units have been delineated.
Land area comprises 83.38 square miles, water area 33.5 square
miles, for a water to land percentage of 40.1%. Wetland area is undoubt-
edly a large portion of the area calculated for land, but changes in
areal extent both seasonally and with a multi-annual periodicity related
to rainfall in the uplands and the amount of sheet flow and water reten-
tion within the district.
Major hydrographical features are a series of mangrove enclosed or
delineated "bays" with tidal-tributary creeks at their northern end.
These include Fakahatchee Bay and River, plus tbe East River, West Pass
Bay and Ferguson River. including an open intraforest area named Ferguson
Bay, the mouth of the Barron River, and Chokoloskee Bay. A series of
smaller passes, bays and creeks make up the seaward margin of this
system. The entire estuary opens onto Florida Bay at this point through
these passes and creeks.
Major freshwater input comes from the FakaUnion Canal which drains
the uplands above US 41, and through a series of meandering, tidally
influenced, small creeks that eventually come together to form larger
"rivers." These are better considered tidal flow channels in one sense,
but because they do conduct upland freshwater are also rightly considered
as freshwater tributaries. According to Yokel (1975c) salinities in the
Fakahatchee Bay system can range from about 1.7 (nearly freshwater) to
over 37 ppt, an almost hypersaline condition.
18
The dominant vegetation 1s mangrove forest, backed by saltmarsh
which grades into freshwater marsh. The latter may encroach south of US
41 depending on seasonal rains, and as attested by numerous dead black
and white mangrove stumps in the area east of Weaver's Station. Ten
vegetative ecosystems have been recorded, including the Estuarine Main-
land mangrove-marsh systems just noted. Among the others are Maritime
Ecosystem mainland shrub thickets. coastal hardwood hammocks, and to a
lesser extent pine barrens. The ubiquitous Brazilian Holly has invaded
portions of the system, especially along SR 29. Seagrasses are relative-
ly more abundant (based on data in Yokel 1975c) than elsewhere and may be
a consequence of the relatively more exposed nature of the estuary here.
Pine-palmetto barrens are found in the northwestern sector but are not as
abundant as in drainages farther to the west. Instead they appear as
scattered heads, intermixed with cypress, and surrounded by sawgrass
prairie to the south of the Tamiami Trail. On the northern side the
extensive Fakabatchee Strand vegetation grades into cabbage palm and oak
assemblages, and eventually into the hydric forest that characterizes the
Fakahatchee Strand. Scattered remnants of these vegetational islands are
interspersed south of tbe Trail.
F~nkec in order of ab~ndance tr.e system is overwhelmingly character-
ized by mangrove and saltmarsh vegetation, followed by scattered pine
barren and hydric hammock islands, intermixed within a sawgrass (and
occasional cattail) prairie or marsh. The numerous islands within the
system of contiguous bays of the estuary are primarily mangrove, but with
hardwood or xeric vegetation on the higher islands.
General Notations. This is an extremely critical area of the
coastal zone, even tbougb it is protected as a preserve or as a national
park. It is nearly undeveloped except for rural homesteads, and some
local medium density development on Chokoloskee Island and Everglades
City. Development in these areas has, of course, destroyed much native
vegetation, but isolated stands of hammock and coastal strand trees and
shrubs can still be seen. Major environmental pressure, however, will
come from poorly managed water holding north of US 41; continued mainten-
ance of productivity in the estuary will depend on careful local water
management. Development in present populational centers is slow, al-
though single family and small motel residences are gradually giving way
to time-share and large condominium housing.
The major vegetational damage at present comes from swamp and glades
buggy tracks and trails above the estuarine area. The region is prime
hunting and deep-woods vacation ground and buggy tracks tend to remain
gouged in the terrain for years after a trail has been abandoned, and to
revegetate slowly if it all. Similarly, within some of the tidal
channels seagrass destruction by prop cutting may be expected to increase
as the area becomes more and more "discovered". Another factor is the
amount of mosquito control overflites which dump unacceptably heavy loads
of pesticide into the estuary.
Recommendations. Careful, thoughtful management of upland water-
flow, downplaying of developmental aspects, and education of the popula-
tion as to the value of the estuary will continue to keep the arearviable.
19
Prognosis. Presently excellent, but region will need careful
monitoring. This is reflected in the Ranked Status of Preservation,
Conservation, low density population areas, and Recreational regions
which make up most of the district. The Land Use Matrix should be
Incompatible, or only Provisionally Compatible to any further large-scale
development.
Coastal Zone VIII - Turner River
The boundaries extend from the junction of SR 29 and US 41 E along
the Tamiami Trail to SR 839. The eastern boundary follows the Turner
River Canal; there are no major roadways southward; the western boundary
is SR 29. There are no Coastal Units deSignated, and the Developmental
Units are Carnestown on the west and Ochopee on the east. The coastal
area intrudes into the Everglades National Park and the Big Cypress
National Preservation Area. This district is very lightly settled, with
small homesteads, Indian villages, and some trailer clusters (Coastal
management Atlas, Page 9).
Total square mileage in land is 50.59. in water 5.51, giving a water
to 1a=:c r€~ce~:age 0: lC.9:. Hc~ever, much 0: the regicr. is ~et:a~d se
that total standing water area may vary widely from season to season.
The distinction between freshwater and estuarine water areas will be
blurred and will fluctuate with tidal, fluviatile and precipitational
factors.
Tbe Turner River coastal zone is primarily a sawgrass prairie with
interspersed cypress-cabbage palm heads, oak and other hardwood hydric
forests, a large saltmarsh zone grading into an extensive mangrove
forest, tidal-tributary and offshore island complex. Chief hydrograph-
ical features are the headwater area of the Barron River which drain
upland marshes, Lake Placid (a small mangrove enclosed embayment),
Halfway Creek, and Turner River and its attached canal.
Six major coastal vegetational ecosystems have been delineated:
Estuarine mainland marsh, mangrove, and associated seagrass communities,
and the Maritime mainland coastal hardwood hammock, coastal pine barrens
and scrub-shrub thickets. Presumably the larger islands in the estuary
would support similar vegetation to that seen in the Fakahatchee district
and throughout the Ten Thousand Islands area.
General Notations. The least populated of all the coastal zone
districts, this region is a large, predominantly estuarine and associated
freshwater system supporting a lush and extensive vegetation. The
adjacent Everglades National Park and the Big Cypress Preserve to the
north substantially lessen environmental impact here. The chief problems
would come from point-source septic tank pollution (prObably presently
too low to be of any consequence), agricultural and cattle farm runoff,
and through mechanical damage to vegetation and soils in the area by
glades buggies and off-road vehicles. The area is extensively used for
hunting and weekend vacations. During dry spells the chance of wildfires
(or deliberate arson) increases. Although the main part of the estuary
is far removed from the upper part of the coastal area, tidal influences
undoubtedly extend over tbe Tamiami Trail, as evidenced by red mangrove
growth in the parallel roacside canal. The entire system is essentially
a fresh to brackish water marsh that intergrades into a large mangrove
ecosystem.
20
Recommendations. Based on general survey impressions the region is
mostly recreationally used, with agriculture and single family residen-
tial aspects. Careful management of water flow in the Turner River canal
would aid in maintaining the present desirable characteristics of the
lower estuary.
Prognosis. Based on low populatioD. low expected growth, large
protected areas, and minimal human impact, the prognosis is excellent.
This will only remain true if ranked status does not change from primar-
ily Preservational-Conservational-Recreational, and very low population-
al density. Land Use Matrix should be designated Incompatible to nearly
all development. or Provisional to very low populational developmental
increases.
21
SECTION 4
COASTAL BARRIER UNITS
Coastal Barrier 1. - Barefoot Beach
Shoreline Change. The most northern barrier unit in Collier County,
Barefoot Beach, has experienced long-term accretion since 1885. Near the
County line, the shoreline has accreted as much as 350 feet since 1885
with only minor short-term erosional trends. Erosion that occurred in
the central sector of Barefoot Beach after 1927 (40 feet) was related to
the northward migration and closure of Little Hickory Pass. Low eleva-
tions at the site of former Little Hickory Pass and deep existing chan-
nels on the bayside suggest that there is a strong possibility that this
tidal channel may reopen in the near future. Cyclic periods of erosion
interspersed by accretion were the trend in the south sector, adjacent to
Wiggins Pass.
A single comparative profile from the north sector of Barefoot Beach
showed that the recession in the intertidal Zone of the beach was
c::eg::'igible d'.lring tte ra,s~ ':.en years (?:.g. :'" Abcve 3.5 fee: M.S.L. the
,egetated coastal ridge receded ap?roximately 20 feet. Some of that sand
was deposited landward in washovers which are visable in the profile.
Field observations showed that the recession of tbe backshore took place
during the "no name" storm of June, 1982.
Storm Characteristics. The following information on storm charac-
teristics for the Barefoot Beach unit is excerpted from Flood Insurance
Stud: Wave Hei ht Anal sis --Collier Count , Florida, Uninco orated
Areas (FEMA 1982) (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 11).
From the northern county limits to approximately 1 mile
north of Wiggins Pass, waves with heights of up to 10 feet can
be expected along the open coast shoreline at the Gulf of
Mexico. These waves will be rapidly diminished to less than 3
feet by rising ground elevation and vegetation along the open
coast. In the extreme northern part of the beach waves with
heights greater than 3 feet will continue inland until they are
quickly diminished to less than 3 feet by bulkheads, bUildings,
and rising ground elevation at the eastern shore of northern
Little Hickory Bay. Moving inland, waves with heights of up to
4 feet will be regenerated across the central and southern
areas of Little Hickory Bay and other similar inland water
bodies where sufficient fetch exists. The waves will be
quickly reduced to less than 3 feet by bulkheads, buildings and
rising ground elevation in the developed areas east of northern
Little Hickory Bay and by dense vegetation and rising ground
elevation along the other shoreline areas. Tbe bulkheads are
expected to remain intact during the 100-year storm surge.
Maximum wave crest elevations are 20 feet at the open
coast shoreline, 16 feet at Little Hickory Bay. and 15 feet at
other inland water bodies. Wave action continues inland for
approximately 1 mile with tidal surge elevations of 13 and 14
feet continuing to the county limits.
22
A.
Barefoot Beach
MHW-.';:';
.;/
/:?'
.;;:'/
'- ...--
200
100
B.
Vanderbilt Beach
10 C.
.--.- ,,/---7.- 5
-'~
MHW7' .....-
--- . T-25
.'
.'
MHW-,...'."
"
,..-,#' /'
, --
.-
MSL
300
200
100
D. Park Shore
~ ...~~~ 5
MHW-::::::~
.-" R-51 MSL
100
o
E. Naples
MHW/
........ .,'
=.:;;---
--
200
100
F.
Naples
'......
MHW-
.--- - --
-
.--
-'
R-84
200
100
o
Figure 1.
10
_--.-.- 5
R-04
MSL
10
o
-----...
5
MSL
~
~
;
Miles
,----..
o 1 2 3 .. 5
Comparative topographic profiles, north Collier County:
19 7 3 to 19 8 2 . 2 3
T-26
o
10
10
----
5
R-70
MSl
o
10
---
5
MSL
KEY
Beach Profi les
~----3 1973
l 3 1982
Beach, Dune and Washover Zone Characteristics. The Barefoot Beach
coastal barrier unit is approximately 3 miles in length. Of this stretch
of coast 10% of the Dune/Washover Zone is Native Coastal Strar.d, domin-
ated by native grasses and shrubs; 51% in Invaded Coastal Strand with
Casuarlna in various stages of community invasion and dominance; 14% is
Exotic Forest, with Casuarina in nearly monotypic condition; and 25% is
Ornamental Landscape, typically sod and ornamental plants. In the
Barefoot Beach coastal barrier unit the average width of the beach and
dune zone is 360 feet, and the average setback of land development
activities from the mean high water is 90 feet. This translates to an
average reduction of 68% of the beach and dune zone width as a result of
development.
24
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
A~y Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
Lely Barefoot Beach
1
Barefoot Beach
Coastal Zone I - Cocohatchee River
Bonita Springs, 4636 IV SE
12 - 14
None
I, 2
R-l, R-4
R-l: DNR monument R-Ol located just
south of Lee County line at landward edge
of foredune Australian Pines. Photo
station located 100 ft. seaward of DNR
monumen t .
R-4: DNR monument R-04 located just
north of the seaward end of the 9th St.
South from the Lely Barefoot Beach guard
house. Photo station located 160 ft.
seaward of monument.
T-Ol Benchmark Elev: R-l=4.27
T-02 R-2=N/A
R-03 R-3=6.4
R-04 R-4=3.88
R-OS R-5=3.79
1, 2
FEET
4,220
580
1.520 from north line
25
LAND O~~ERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
600
14
Private/Developed:
225
5
Private/Undeveloped:
3,395
81
Comments: Public land is undeveloped County Beach Access Park with
no facilities. Private land is Lely Barefoot Beach PUD.
LAND USE (Based on 1984 REDI Maps)
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
225
Multi-Family:
o
5 (Zoned for single-family, but
only 4 houses built so far)
o
Hetel/Mete::
c
c
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
3,995
95
Comments: DEVELOPED; currently expanding with small lot single-family
residences. Phase 1 of Lely barefoot Beach PUD implemented,
ostensibly as single family residential. State setback line
approximately 150 feet from MEW and less than 100 feet from
the vegetation line. County parking area and access to
beach at north end. Conversations with Lely manager in 1984
indicated that different type of develop- ment will be
implemented, inasmuch as the shared-park townhouse concept
produced no sales.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based in 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL:
100% potential due to granted variance
along entire length.
Maximum Intrusion (ft.):
75
Comments: Maximum potential intrusion based on variance approved at
time of PUD review.
26
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized'
Shoreline
4,220
100
Other 's t ruc tu res:
None
CO!l:Illents: Interest has been e:qressec 10 CCTC'Jctir:g a c':.:n-2
restoration/enhancement project at some future date
seawall at the variance line.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
S.R. 865 (Bonita Beach Road)
Number of Access Points:
1
Location: N 600 feet
Parking:
Yes (Lee County)
Recreational Value:
Good to Excellent. Persistent berm
present; easy access from Lee County
Parking lot.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Multiple Beach Ridge Barrier, with highest
ridges at beach/chine intersection.
Characteristics:
Beach ridges up to 7 feet high; barrier ridge
of moderate width, about 500 feet, backed by
dredged channels and distrubed mangrove
swamps. Coastal strand and hammock cleared
during 1960-1970 with only limited regrowth
occurring, represented by 20-40 foot strip of
vegetation.
27
Dune/\o.'ashover
Width (ft)
Beach Width (ft.):
Transect No:
110
141
220
250
1
2
Dune Characteristics:
A young highly disturbed coastal strand.
Disturbed by construction and Australian
Pine invasion.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Vegetation greatly affected by development
activities. Northern 600 ft. heaVily invaded
by Australian Pines. Back barrier upland and
backdune areas nearly obliterated except for
retained clumps of Cabbage Palms. Only narrow
foredune band remains unaltered.
C~ltu~a}/Eis::~ic:
S2E c.L.l':urec 'hlstcr.:: s:":==,c.=:~.
Fish and Wildlife:
Moderately active sea turtle nesting area.
Resource Values:
Barrier upland has low natural resource
value; however beach, foredune, and wet-
lands/bay system still have medium value.
Threats:
Future development plans.
Comments: Additional fish and wildlife data to be included in when
available.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CillL~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 1 2
1885-1927: +4.8 +2.9
1927-1952: +3.8 +3.8
1952-1962: -0.4 -3.0
1962-1973: -1.4 -5.2
1973-1981: +4.2 +2.5
Mean Rate: +2.2 +1/3
28
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd!) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Prof He No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
to- -15 Ft. -20 Ft.:
to
Net Change:
Migrational History:
~~gr2~ional P~tE:
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Accretional early in the century, but
with extensive erosion during the 1960's,
becoming more stable during the 1970's.
+:.3 tc + 4,4 ftiyr
Predicted Migrational Future: More or less stable, changing from -1.0
to +1.0 ft/yr.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No: 1
2
Stillwater Elev (ft.): 13.0
13.0
Location:
Wave Crest Elev (ft.): 20.0
20.0
1
Collier County/Lee County - From
the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 1,500 feet south of
County Highway 865, eastward across
Little Hickory Bay to a point
approixmately 1,000 feet north of
the intersection of County Highway
865 and County Highway 901.
2 Collier County/Lee County - From
the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 3,700 feet south of
County Highway 865, eastward across
Little Hickory Bay to a point
approximately 4,000 feet east of
the intersection of County Highway
865 and County Highway 901.
29
Hazard Potential:
MANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/l
MODERATE TO HIGH. Relatively low
density development would lower hazard
potential. A wide setback exists and the
shoreline has a more or less stable
history.
Future structures should be elevated on pilings;
the use of fill is not recommended and should be
prohibited. An integrated dune protection zone
should be established, with centralized crosswalks
constructed for sharing beach access by property
owners. The existing dune protection zone should
be widened to 100 feet, and all Casuarina should be
removed. All efforts should be made to protect the
remaining coastal hammock. The coastal strand
vegetation was nearly all clearec during the late
lS-C1E ~.~~ E ~eEb:_E a:t~~rt a: rE~:art~~g ~s:~g
coconut ra1=s has been mace. The recreational
value as well as storm protection is expected to
continue to decline in this area.
30
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DArA STATIOr.;S
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
LAND OWNERSHIP
Public:
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
Comments:
Little Hickory Haulover
2
Barefoot Beach
Coastal Zone I - Cocohatchee River
Bonita Springs, 4636 IV SE
14 - 15
None
3
None
NA
R-06
R-07
R-08
Benchmark Elev: 4.44
3.45
N/A
3
FEET
4110
600
3000 feet from north end of segment
FEE!
PERCENT
o
o
o
o
4110
100
Lely Barefoot Beach P.U.D., Phase II.
31
LA....D USE
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Multi-Family:
o
o
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
4110
100
Comments: UNDEVELOPED, UNPROTECTED. Slated for residential develop-
ment during the 1980's. A conceptual PUD was approved by
the County, and Variance 74-75-V-40 moved the Coastal
Construction Control Line 50 ft seaward, so that the CCCL
now averages about 150 ft. Development will be single
family, residential.
ccc: ~~~ :~VELO?~~\~ SETBACK
3~se: or: 1979 )KR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCL:
o
% Development Seaward CCCL:
None at present
Maximum Intrusion (ft.):
None at present
Comments: Width of approved variance will dictate future intrusion.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEEl
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline:
4,110
100
Other Structures:
None
32
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
S.R. 865
Number of Access Points:
No direct access
Location: N/A
Parking: Yes, at Lee County public lot.
Recreational Value: Fair to good. A narrow but persistent berm
exists, but access is liaited. and only by foot
from the north or by boat.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Multiple Beach Ridge Barrier
Characteristics:
This segment was the site of a former tidal
pass open during the 1950's. but which closed
about 1960. General elevatic~s a~e low, fro~
1-7 f:.
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
Beach Width (ft.):
Transect No:
99
245
3
Dune Characteristics:
An extremely dense Casuarina forest is
present, a result of invasion by the species
after the closing of the tidal pass. No
clearing impact at present.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation
Casuarina dominates the dune zone but there is
no developmental alteration to date.
Backbarrier is typical scrub and palm hammocks
undisturbed except for sandtrails.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Moderately active sea turtle nesting area.
Resource Values:
Area has medium to high resource potential.
Chief problem is the dense Casuarina stands.
Threats:
Alteration to occur in approved Phrase II PUD
Comments: Additional wildlife data to be added when available.
33
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE Cf~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 3
1885-1927: NA
1927-1952: NA
1952-1962: -1.0
1962-1973: -1.0
1973-1981 : -1.3
Mean Rate: -1.2
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885 - 1970)
Ar:i\" Cc:-::s Pre-filE '-;-, .
. .......
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
s: :-;e
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Accretion in early part of century
followed by extensive erosion during
1960-1979, becoming relatively stable
again in the 1970's. Continued erosion
occurring in this and following segment
#3 (Lely Barefoot Beach, q.v.) is related
to the closing of the tidal pass in
this segment during the late 1950's.
-1.2 feet/year
Predicted Migrational Future: Stable to slowly receding, varying from
-0.1 to -2.5 ft/year.
34
STOf'~"1 HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
3
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
13.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
Location:
Hazard Potential:
MANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/2
20
Collier County/Lee County - From the Gulf
of Mexico coastline, approximately 7,500
feet south of County Highway 865, east-
ward to U.S. Highway 41, approximately
4,000 feet south of the intersection of
U.S. Highway 41 and County Highway 865 in
Lee County.
EXTREMELY HIGH: The low beach elevations allow
great ~0te~:ial fer storm btea~hi~g 8f the beac~
and sut5eq~e~t refcrmation of an eFhemeral inlet.
Construction will occur in the central portion
of an active coastal ridge zone on foundations and
fill, with subsequent destruction and clearing of
coastal vegetation. Dune restoration is needed,
with an extension of the preserved area from the
present 20-30 ft to a more realistic 60-80 ft. As
in the previous segment, future constructions
should be limited to piling-based houses.
Extensive Australian pine removal is recommended.
Other recommendations as in segment 11 (q.v.).
35
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Barefoot Beach
Number:
3
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Barefoot Beach
Coastal Management Unit:
Coastal Zone I - Cocohatchee River
USGS Topo Quad:
Bonita Springs, 4636 IV SE
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
15 - 16
")..1.:-..1. S-:ATICiNS
Army Corps Profiles No: None
County BERM Transects No: 4, 5
County Field Stations No: None
Locations: N/A
DNR Transects No:
R-09
R-lO
R-ll
R-12
Benchmark Elev: 9.00
8.71
8.06
7.89
FEMA Transects No:
None
LENGTH AND WIDTH
FEET
Length:
3930
Minimum Width:
345
Minimum Width Location:
730 from north end of segment
LAND OWNERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
3930
100
Comments: Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, Phrase II.
36
I..M1) USE
FEET
P ERC ENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Multi-Family:
o
o
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
3,930
100
Comments: UNDEVELOPED, UNPROTECTED. Slated for development under
conceptual PUD as Phase II of Lely Barefoot Beach. County
variance as in previous segment.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Se~€nt ./0 (eel:
o
% Development Seaward CCCL:
None at present
Maximum Intrusion (ft.):
None at present
Comments: County variance moved required setback 50 feet seaward so
that construction distance will average about 150 feet from
MHW.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEEl'
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shore line
3,930
100
Other Structures:
None
L
37
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By boat only
Number of Access Points:
None
Location: N/A
Parking:
No
Recreational Value: Fair to good. A narrow but persistent berm is
offset in value by limited access.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Multiple Beach Ridge Barrier
Characteristics:
Barrier ridge of variable width. from 100-400
feet, wider toward southern end. A high (8-10
ft) central ridge system with low, recurved
ricges and wide s.ales in the seaward sec~cr,
The re:a:ively well developed coastal s~rar.d
has been invaded by Australian pines.
Beach Width (ft.):
94
109
Dune/Wasbover
Width (it)
125
165
Transect No:
4
5
Dune Characteristics:
A well developed coastal strand present with
patchy distribution of Casuarina. The large
fluctuations of the unvegetated beach are in
response to tidal delta dynamics at Wiggins
Pass to the south.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Native coastal barrier vegetation undisturbed
except for scattered Casuarina. Well developed
foredune and back barrier palm hammock.
Cultural/Historic
See cultural/historic summary
Fish and Wildlife:
Active sea turtle nesting area.
Resource Values:
Very high; one of the few remaining
undisturbed (either by human or exotic plant
impact) coastal barriers in County
Threats;
Future development alteration pursuant to
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD.
Comments: Additional wildlife data to be added when available.
38
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 4
1885-1927: N/A
1927-1952: N/A
1952-1962: -3.4
1962-1973: +0.3
1973-1981 : -2.2
Mean Rate: -1.8
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3)
.;.my Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
5
-1.5
+9.6
-6.9
-3.0
-1.3
-0.6
(1885 - 1970)
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Accretional early in the century,
erosional during 1950-1970's as
consequence of closing of tidal pass.
Other factors as in previous two segments
(q.v.).
-1.1 to -3.0/4.0 feet/year
Predicted Migrational Future: Essentially stable with slow recession.
Probably less than 4.0 feet/year.
39
STORM HAZARDS
FEHA Evaluation
Transect No: N/A
Stillwater Elev (ft.): N/A
Wave Crest Elev (ft.): N/A
Location: N/A
Hazard Potential:
HIGH. This is a narrow barrier beach with a past
history of erosion. Per- sistent erosion of the
narrow ridge in conjunction with high density
residential zoning could result in positioning of
structures too close to the active beach. Storm
surge or tides could produce extensive damage.
~....~\ /"- ~:. ~=::-;-:
Recommendations:
See Segments 1 & 2.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/3
40
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Barefoot Beach State Preserve
Number:
4
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Barefoot Beach
Coastal Management Unit:
Coastal Zone - Cocohatchee River
USGS Topo Quad:
Bonita Springs, 4636 IV SE
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
16 - 17
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Pro:iles ~c;
County BERM Transects No: 6, 7
County Field Stations No: None
Locations: N/A
DNR Transects No:
R-13
R-14
R-15
R-16
Benchmark Elev: 9.44
9.81
10.06
9.51
FEMA Transects No:
4
LENGTH AND WIDTH
FEET
Length:
4020
Minimum Width:
520
Minimum Width Location:
740 feet from north line of segment.
LAND OWNERSHIP
FEET
P ERC ENT
Public:
4020
100
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
o
o
Comments: State Preserve managed by D.N.R.
4l
L;.~\D USE
FED
PERCE:-;T
Single-Family:
o
o
Mul t i-Family:
o
o
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
4020
100
Comments: PROTECTED STATE PRESERVE. This site was purchased by the
state using EEL funds in 1977-78 and is managed as a
preserve without facilities. Access is only by water.
CCCL AND DEVELOPME~T SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
:. E ~_~~..t .......' c
% Development Seaward CCeL: 0
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 0
Comments: CCCL setback ranges from 120-320 feet from MHW.
SEORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERC8'T
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-S tabilized
Shoreline
4,020
100
Other Structures:
None
Comments: No alteration at shoreline envisioned under preserve
designation.
42
PuEL!C BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By water only
Number of Access Points:
None
Location: N/A
Parking:
No
Recreational Value: Good to excellent. Restricted access by boat.
coupled with outstanding wildlife resources produce
high recreational values.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Multiple Beach Ridge Barrier
Characteristics:
A wide (greater than 1000 feet) multiple
rid~e barrier system, having a high (3-10
fee:, c e ~ t :.- a ~ :- i ,;i g e, .... i :: :-.. 1 =-10. :- e cur'; e ~ r:.::: g e 3
and 6 mangrove swamp adjacent [0 the pass.
Seaward zone with wide swales. The system
supports a high quality coastal hammock and
coastal strand.
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
Beach Width (ft.):
Transect No:
91
141
180
185
6
7
Dune Characteristics:
A well developed coastal strand system
interspersed with patchy invasions of
Casuarina. The active unvegetated beach
undergoes large fluctuations in response to
tidal delta dynamics at Wiggins Pass.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Native coastal barrier vegetations largely
undisturbed except for scattered Casuarina in
the north and central beach segment and small
stand to the south. Extensive Cabbage Palm
hammock Covers much of the back barrier zone.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Active sea turtle nesting occurs here in the
summer.
43
Resource Values:
Very high. Almost completely undisturbed
coastal barrier under public protection.
Excellent example of SW Florida coastal
barrier.
Threats:
Threats to resource value would be the
expansion of the Casuarina stands, human
impact if the area is converted to re-
creational use, and potential erosion adjacent
to Wiggins Pass.
Comments: DNR should undertake a program to remove the Casuarina
before they invade any additional areas.
HISTORICAL ~~ALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
::-2:'-02:: ~c:
"
1885-1927 :
-1.08
-6.30
1927-1952:
+6.90
-6.30
1952-1962:
-10.00
-19.10
1962-1973:
- 3.00
+25.20
1973-1981 :
+12.20
-17.00
Mean Rate:
+ 1.10
+4.60
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885 - 1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-44.4
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
+227 . 5
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
+144.3
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
0.0
Net Change:
+327.4
Migrational History:
Massive erosion early in the century,
followed by accretion during 1960-1970's.
but with large fluctuations of decreasing
magnitude progressing north to south
since 1950's.
44
Migrational Rate:
+1.0 feet/year
Predicted Migrational Future: Accretional with massive fluctuations;
from +1.0 to 27.0 feet year.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
4
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
12.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
19.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline.
approximately 3.200 feet north of Wiggins
Pass, eastward to US Highway 41,
3~?:cx~~ate:_~ -l~C~ ~eet =crth ~f ~~€
i~ter5ectic~ or c.S. Highway 41 and
County Highway 887.
Hazard Potential:
MODERATE TO HIGH. The wide ridge system and dense
natural vegetation coupled with the protective ebb
tidal delta ensure relative stability of the
highest coastal ridges.
ZOi.ANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
Maintain the area as a true Preserve. without
changing status. in order to protect the minimally
disturbed habitats found here. Restrict access to
boats only, allow native vegetation to continue
growth. Desire for more beach areas for active
recreation could threaten the ecology of this
preserve. Casuarina should be removed. No
dredging of Wiggins Pass without first assessing
potential effects on nearby beaches.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/4
4S
Coastal Barrier 2. - Vanderbilt Beach
Shoreline Change. Compared to adjacent areas, the Vanderbilt Beach
Coastal Barrier Unit has experienced significant erosion (up to 200 feet
in its coastal sector) since 1885. Land clearing and isolated seawall
construction in the one mile long Vanderbilt Beach subdivision caused an
acceleration of erosion after 1950. Recession of the mean high water
line and vegetation line occurred be~een 1952 and 1962 at about ~ice
the rate of that in adjacent, undisturbed areas. There has been a
general trend of shoreline recession in the entire Vanderbilt Beach unit
since 1962.
Comparative profiles (profile numbers T-25, T-26, see (Fig. 1) from
the Vanderbilt Beach subdivision indicated that during the past 10 years
erosion occurred throughout the entire beach cross-section. Average
horizontal recession in the foreshore and backshore zones was 25 feet.
Field observations during 1982 indicated that most of the recession, to a
large degree, was the result of increased wave power and turbulence in
the vicinity of isolated seawalls located along the shore front of the
subdivision. Storm wave underc~ttin~ i~c~eased the stee?~ess o~ the
': a 2;';'" '". C '" e s: c;: e, :.:. 5- ... € ::. ::::::; ~~. € : ~ :: ;(~.: c:- :~. i: " e " : i c &. ::. ,; C 2l""? 5 . :- ~ €
~ :-.:,rr:::.~r;: ricge a:-.::: ::unr,e: tJpograp:::; p:-eser,( in profile T-26 is indic-
ative of the post-storm recovery of the beach. Immediately following the
passage of the storm in JULe, 1982, the ridge began migrating landward.
Storm Characteristics. The following information on storm charac-
teristics for the Vanderbilt Beach unit is excerpted from Flood Insurance
Stud: Wave Hei ht Anal sis---Gollier Count , Florida, Unincor orated Areas.
(FEMA 1982) (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 11).
From approximately 1 mile north of Wiggins Pass to the Naples
northern corporate limits, waves with heights of up to 9 feet
can be expected along the open coast shoreline of the Gulf of
Mexico. These waves will be rapidly diminished to less than 3
feet by rising ground elevation and buildings in developed
areas and by rising ground elevation and vegetation in undevel-
oped areas along the open coast. At Inner and Outer Clam Bays,
waves with heights greater than will continue inland until they
are reduced to less than 3 feet by dense vegetation and rising
ground elevation along the northern and eastern shorelines and
by bulkheads at the southern end of Outer Clam Bay. The
bulkheads are expected to remain intact during the 100 year
storm surge. Moving inland, waves with heights up to 3 feet
are expected to regenerate across inland water bodies where
sufficient fetch exists. The waves will quickly be reduced to
less than 3 feet by dense vegetation and rising ground eleva-
t ion.
Wave heights of 2 feet can be expected on smaller water
bodies such as Turkey Lake, where sufficient fetch exists.
Bulkheads) buildings) and rising ground elevations at the
eastern shorelines will rapidly diminish these waves in devel-
oped areas. In undeveloped areas, these waves will be quickly
diminished by dense vegetation along with rising ground eleva-
tion.
Maximum wave crest elevations are 19 feet at the open
coast shoreline, 15 feet at Outer Clam Bay, end 14 feet at
46
Inner Clam Bay and other similar water bodies. Wave action
continues inland for approximately 0.75 mile for most of the
reach. Tidal surge elevations of 11 to 13 feet continue inland
for approximately 1 mile in the southern part of the reach.
Beach, Dune, and Washover Zone Characteristics. The Vanderbilt
Beach coastal barrier unit is approximately 4.6 miles in length. Of this
stretch of coast, 11% of the dune/washover zone is Native Coastal Strand,
dominated by native grasses and shrubs; 55% is Invaded Coastal Strand
with Casuarina in various stages of community invasion and dominance; 6%
is Exotic Forest, with Casuarina in near monotypic condition; and 28% is
Ornamental Landscape, typically sod and ornamental plants. In the
Vanderbilt Beach coastal barrier unit the average width of the beach and
dune zone is 202 feet, and the average setback of land development
activities from the mean high water line is 40 feet. This translates to
an average reduction of 80% of the beach and dune Zone width as a result
of development.
47
BEACH SEGME~T DATA ShEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Ar=y :orps ::c:~.e5 Xc:
County BEfu~ Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
LAND Ow'NERSHIP
Public:
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
Wiggins Beach
5
Vanderbilt Beach
Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
Bonita Springs, 4636 IV SE
17 - 18
8, 9
CCBE-2
1970 Army Corps monument located north
at last parking lot on path to beach
between picnic tables and adjacent to
grill. Photo station 100 ft. seaward of
monument.
R-17
R-18
R-19
Benchmark Elev: 7.10
9.10
N/A
None
FEET
1800
520
Approximate center of northern most
parking lot.
FEET
PERCENT
1800
100
o
o
o
o
Comments: Delnor-Wiggins State Recreation Area.
48
LA.\D USE
FEET
PERCE~T
Single-Family:
o
o
Multi-Family:
o
o
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
1800
100
Comments: PROTECTED. Area acquired in 1965 by County and developed as
Delnor-Wiggins State Recreation Area. Park area was developed
in the mid 1970's and approximatley 1/3 of the upland area
was cleared and paved with an access road and 5 parking
lots.
C~~.
:.... ,~ ~
c.~~\;D DE".-E:'C'F~~~T 5ET::/~I:K
(B:=.sec: ':n
1C~C
:~;?, ~~. ~ : as)
% Segment wlo eeeL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 29
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 35
Comments: Facilities setback ranges from 130-200 feet. Intrusion
seaward of CCCL is by roads and parking lots.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
1 , 800
100
Other Structures:
None
Comments: No shoreline stabilization anticipated due to current park
status.
49
prBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Sr 846 & US 41
Number of Access Points:
Numerous. within park
Location: Along entire segment
Parking:
Yes
Recreational Value: Excellent. A wide. flat beach with relatively
good persistent berm. and easy on-off access. Good
fishing.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Inlet Influenced Barrier Beach
Characteristics:
Narrow (100-200 feet) very low (3-7 feet)
recurved beach ridges backed by wide mangrove
swamps. Coastal harr.ncck mostly cleare~ duri~6
- - --. ~ ..
.~ ( ~~ :. e :' C :- =' _ ': e ..~. 0:: ~ -:-:.:-. -:: -: -....
r :- - . ,
Beach Width (ft.):
209
125
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
235
135
Transect No:
8
9
Dune Characteristics:
Unvegetated active beach undergoes large
fluctuations in response to tidal delta
dynamics at Wiggins Pass. Native coastal
strand replaced in large part by Casuarina
invasion.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Casuarina invasion in mid 1960's altered much
of native coastal strand. Road and parking lot
construction for park removed additional
upland vegetation. Park now in process of
Casuarina removal in an attempt to restore
dune.
Cultural/Historic:
Redeposited aboriginal artifacts as well as
European shipwreck and campsite artifacts have
been found in the vicinity of Wiggins Pass.
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife: Active sea turtle nesting area.
Resource Values: Medium to high.
Threats: Visitor use impact. Steps being taken (e. g.
fences, boardwalks) to control this.
Comments: ~ecessary efforts being made by Park personnel to maximize
remaining resource value while minimizing visitor impact.
50
HISTORICAL fu~ALYSES OF SHORELINE C~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 8
1885-1927: +3.0
1927-1952: +9.8
1952-1962: 0.0
1962-1973: -8.4
1973-1981: -4.2
Mean Rate: 0.0
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3)
Ar:ty COr"-r 5 F r;:!l i J..€ ~i".:,:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
9
-2.9
+7.8
-0.4
-10.2
+2.5
-0.6
(1885 - 1970)
J
+173.2
+281.9
+338.5
+ 1 38 . 7
923.3
Accretional in early part of the
century, continuing until the 1940's to
1950's. Changing to massive erosional
trends during 1960-1970's. Fluctuations
less massive in southerly portion.
-0.3 feet/year
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosional; massive fluctuation from +15
to -15 feet/year.
51
STOP.'" HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
None
Still~ater Elev (ft.):
N/A
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
N/A
Location:
N/A
Hazard Potential:
MODERATE TO HIGH. Narro~ beach ridge could be
breached by tropical storm. But ~ide ridge system
and dense vegetation in conjunction ~ith a protec-
tive ebb-tidal delta might ensure relative stability
of the highest coastal ridges.
~....J_\_.:. - ::.....~.~:
Recommendations:
Dune preservation and reconstruction needed owing
to intensive foot traffic across ridge. Coastal
strand vegetation in decline owing to foot traffic
and Casuarina invasion. Selective removal of
Australian pines required.
BEACH SEG~~NT DATA FORM/5
S2
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Del Nor-Wiggins State Park
6
Vanderbilt Beach
Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
Bonita Beach 4636 IV SE
18 - 19
County BERM Transects No:
..-\~-=-y C.:'=-?s ?:'cf-:les So: -4
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
LA.'1D Olol'NERSH IP
Public:
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
10
CCBE-3
DNR monument 12-21 located south of
service road by southernmost parking lot.
Monument located in front of Casuarina
tree. Photo station 50 ft seaward of
monument.
R-19
R-20
R-21
R-22
Benchmark Elev: 6.70
7.53
7.31
10.51
5
FEET
4210
770
Just south of boat ramp road.
FEET PERCENT
4210 100
0 0
0 0
Comments: Delnor Wiggins State Park
53
LA}\D USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 0 0
Mu It i-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 4210 100
Comments: State Park, protected, open land except for parking lots
and bath houses
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
~ Segrrent w!o CCC~:
(\
: Le\'e~Op~eGt Sea~ard C~CL: B;
~aximum Intrusion (ft.): 100
Comments: Setback ranges from 80-170 feet behind active beach.
Intrusion is by roads, parking lots, and bath houses.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Sea'Walls
FEET
PERCENT
'W/o Riprap:
o
o
'WI Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
4210
100
Other Structures:
None
Corements: No shoreline stabilization anticipated.
54
PUBLIC BL\CH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
US 41 & SR 846
Number of Access Points:
Unlimited
Location: via Park entrance
Parking:
Yes
Recreational Value: Excellent; a persistent berm and safe, easy access.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Inlet Influenced Barrier Beach
Characteristics:
Low, recurved barrier ridge system. A single
beach ridge with washover fan, of moderate
elevation (6-8 feet). Vegetation primarily of
dune grasses, Austra:ian pi!:€s 3,.~ :r3~~~r:',;es.
Beach Width (ft.):
93
Dune;;.ashover
Width (it)
100
Transect No:
10
Dune Characteristics:
Native coastal strand replaced by Casuarina
forest in places.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Casuarina invasion in mid 1960's altered much
of native coastal strand. Road and parking lot
construction for park removed additional
upland vegetation. Park now in process of
Casuarina removal in an attempt to restore
dune.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Active sea turtle nesting area.
Resource Values:
Medium to high.
Threats:
Visitor use impact. Steps being taken (e.g.
fences, boardwalks) to control this.
Comments: Necessary efforts being made by Park personnel to maximize
remaining resource value while minimizing visitor impact.
55
HISTORICAL ANALYS[S OF SHORELISE CEP~C~
Erosion R~te MeasureDents (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 10
1885-1927: -3.1
1927-1952: +2.4
1952-1962: -1.0
1962-1973: -3. 1
1973-1981 : +4.3
Hean Rate: -0.1
~earshore Volu~etric Cha~ges (~d3\
~\ .:-:-,~:
- .... .
;.... .:' :-;:- S r:- ;::- :. -"-- E:
\0 :
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
-4.1
-21.1
+278.7
+176.5
+393.0
Pri~arily erosional in the early part of
the century. Increasing stability after
1956. Other characteristics as in
segr::ent US.
-0.1 feet/year
Predicted Migrational Future: Stable, recessional, with slow recession
of -1 to -3 feet/year.
56
ST0R."1 HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
5
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
12.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
19.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline.
approximately 2,000 feet south of Wiggins
Pass. eastward across Cocohatchee River
to a point approximately 3 miles
east-northeast of the intersection of
U.S. Highway 41 and County Highway 887.
Hazard Potential:
MODERATE TO HIGH. As in segment #5. the
relatively wide ridge system with natural
veget2ti:~ a-d a protectl~e ~tt-ti~2: ~e:ta _~_~
f~ovic~ s~~e stab~~ity tc ~~ghest ccastal ridges,
but the narrow beach ridge could be easily breached
during a tropical storm.
MA.l\ AG mENT
Recommendations:
Dune preservation and reconstruction needed.
Intensive foot traffic continues to impose stress
on remaining coastal strand vegetation. Selected
Casuarina removal needed; careful restrictions to
minimize impact on several specimen seagrapes
(Cocolobo) also needed.
Land runoff from condominium complex behind
mangrove swamp may produce eutrophication, and
should be carefully monitored.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/6
57
BEACH SEGME~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
Vanderbilt Beach
7
Vanderbilt Beach
Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
Bonita Beach 4636 IV SE
19 - 21
NOTE: Vanderbilt Be'l.cl; Seg'1lent ~a;: C!Lt 0~ cate a:-.-:: c:es Ect
- ~. . - " ~. . ... - -
:- ~ 7' - 2 :: :: :::., 2 :-.-?~. '.~' '""' - - - ---- ~--:. - ~. _::: ~ : 'j : __: :: r_ E: 'C e 3: '~: ~ _ '''1 , ':' 4
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Trar.sects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects ~o:
5
11, 12
T-25, T-26, R-29
T-25: DNR monument T-25 located on the
seaward side of Gulf Shore Boulevard just
south of the intersection with Seabreeze
Avenue. Profile begins 170 ft. seaward
of monument. Photo station is located 50
ft. seaward of rust spray paint mark at
end of sidewalk just to the north.
T-26: DNR monument T-26 destroyed.
Corner of sidewalk in front of first house
to north used as reference point. Photo
station located 60 ft. seaward of
sidewalk.
R-29: DNR monument R-29 located north
of cement posts at the west end of
Vanderbilt Beach Road. Photo station
located 70 ft. seaward.
R-23
T-24
T-25
T-26
R-27
R-28
R-29
Benchmark Elev: 6.76
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.92
N/A
9.40
F
LE~CTH AND WIDTH
FEET
Length:
7040
Minimum Width:
400
Minimum Width Location:
In the vicinity of the residential
canals by Seabreeze Avenue.
LAND OWNERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
7040
100
Private/Undeveloped:
o
o
Comments: Except for a fe~ unbuilt lots the ma:ority of Va~cer~ilt
3eac~ i~ L9S4 i5 ie~-e:0pe~ _. ~c ~~i\'ate la~ds.
LAND USE (Based on 1984 REDI Maps)
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
Multi-Family:
Hotel/Motel:
Other Comrr,ercial:
Open land:
Comments: DEVELOPED. By 1981, 87% of the shoreline was developed
with a mixture of single family and high-rise residential,
and commercial buildings. Additional land alterations
include swimming pools, sundecks, ornamental landscapes and
tiered parking garages.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based in 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCl:
o
% Development Seaward CCCl:
Approximately 90 - 100% in 1984
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 125
Comments: The average setback of dwellings is from 100-200 feet from
MH~ and less than 100 feet from the storm peuetration line.
Setback from the land.ard margin of the active beach is from
o to 50 feet.
S9
SHGRELINE STRUCTURES
Sea'Wa lIs
FEET
PERCDiT
w/o Riprap:
1520
21.5
'WI Riprap:
830
11. 7
Revetments
Buried:
Exposed:
960
13.6
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline:
3730
52.9
Other Structures:
None
C C' :::";'""':'.-:::"'. :::: :
~: :::: a:-::~':'?2~e:: t":'2.r
t:-.: ~
. . .
~. ~: ::- ::- e ~ :. :- -== .. :: .;.. __
.... r"']F"'Io ~ - or- :. .... ,-. ~..c.
''--...... ~. ... .. < -' -. ... .... ...
ha:dE~ec beC8\.se cf t~E c~cse prcxi=ity C~ the buildings to
the active beach and the elimination of coastal strand
areas.
PCBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
rs 41 and SR 862 on SR 846
Number of Access Points:
6
Location:
West End of 046 Parking:
Seabreeze Avenue
Channel Drive
Bayview Avenue
N2000 ft. north of SR562
West End of SR562
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Recreational Value: Variable. Factors such as seawall construction
and setback, tidal height, and effects of recent
storms control access and value. Berm widths
ranges from la-50 feet.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Altered Barrier Segment
Characteristics:
A heavily altered barrier segment.
Historically this segment possessed a
relatively high and narrcloI beach ridge. The
topography was disturbed during dredge and
fill operations in the 1950's with the natural
vegetation being cleared, and the barrier
artificially widened with fill to approxi-
mately 600 feet in loIicth.
60
Beach ~idth (ft.):
103
100
DunejWashover
Width (ft)
100
100
Transect No:
11
12
Dune Characteristics:
None extant; condo hi-rise and other buildings
constructed on peak elevations (6-9 ft) and
some decks, pools and seawalls extend onto the
active beach.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Only a small amount of the native vegetation
remains on this segment. This too will
probably be lost in the future.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish a~G ~::dli:e:
S~a turtle nesting where there are no seawalls.
Resource Values:
Low except for the open recreation beach
which is constricted in places by seawalls.
Threats:
Continued variance requests for more
construction seaward will further reduce
recreational beach area.
Comments: Some dune restoration projects are planned but their impact
is questionable with regard to the great loss that has
already occurred.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 11 12
1885-1927: -3.1 -3.2
1927-1952: +4.6 +0.4
1952-1962: -3.7 +2.3
1962-1973: -1.7 -3.5
1973-1981 : +0.8 0.0
Mean Rate: -0.6 -0.3
61
.-<r_~_'''"4il'A.&_~ ",rr.liIl'l~ ""1'iOIOi
Searshore Volurr.etric Changes (yd3)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-) Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
5
-192.0
- 96.6
+ 3.3
+ 44.4
-240.9
Accretional during the early part of the
century. exhibiting a relatively steady
trend of erosion since early 1950's when
land clearing and topographic disturbance
~egan. Exa~er~ate~ ~.; seawall ccnstr~:-
-0.5 feet/year
Predicted Migrational Future: Slowly recessional, with continuous slow
erosion from -1.0 to -3.0 feet/year
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
~ave Crest Elev (ft.):
Location:
6
7
12
12
19
19
6
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
at the intersection of Seabreeze
Avenue and Gulf Shore Drive,
eastward to a point approximately
3.7 miles east-southeast of the
intersection of U.S. High~ay 41 and
County Highway 887.
7 From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
at the intersection of Corr~erce
Street and Gulf Shore Drive,
eastward to County Highway 846,
approximately 3.5 miles east of the
intersection of County Highway 846
and U.S. Highway 41.
Hazard Potential:
to'A\AGEMENT
Recoounendations:
B~~CH SEGMENT DATA FORM/7
SEVERE. A narrow building setback and inadequate,
exposed, return walls are exacerbating long-term
recession and erosion, thereby increasing the
potential for damage incurred during tropical storms.
Greatly needed is an engineered plan that
addresses the cumulative effects of shoreline
stabilization in past years, as well as compatible
integration with neighboring projects. No
encroachment of upland protective structures should
be permitted any farther seaward than those already
present or to the presently existing vegetation line.
New structures must be designed to cause minimal
damage and interference with natural beach
processes.
63
BEACH SEGM!::..';T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Pelican Bay North
Number:
8
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Vanderbilt Beach
Coastal Management Unit:
Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
USGS Topo Quad:
Bonita Beach 4636 IV SE
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
21 - 23
DAT.~, STATIONS
Ar~y Corps ?~of:les ~0:
...
:, .....
County BERM Transects No:
13, 14
County Field Stations No:
None
Locations:
N/A
DNR Transects No:
R-30
R-31
R-32
R-33
R-34
Benchmark Elev: 9.40
7.97
7.60
4.45
5.84
FE~~ Transects No:
8
LENGTH AND WIDTH
FEET
Length:
5340
Minimum Width:
1300
Minimum Width Location:
2700 feet south of north segment line
LM1) OWNERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
223
4
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
5117
96
Comments: Public land is beach access park donated by Pelican Bay as
part of PUD. Remainder is undeveloped with fill activities
occurring in the landward section.
64
LA."iD USE
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Mu 1 t i-Family:
o
o
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
5340
100
Comments: U~~EVELOPED, UNPROTECTED. As part of the Pelican Bay Pun
high density reSidential low and hi-rise units will be
constructed on 78 acres of fill in a back mangrove area
during the 1980's. At present, a hotel is currently under
construction near the northern end of the segment.
'..... '- '.-,....
..':_'-:; :'E...~ELC?~~L~': S::::BA':~,~
( :3 2 .:: ::: : .J r:
1 9 7 So L S? )'.::: as)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCeL: 0
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 0
Comments: The CCeL averaged 150-200 feet landward of MHW. The storm
protection line averages 100-150 feet landward of MHW.
Setback line from the active beach is 100-120. No plans
for building seaward of CeCL except for beach access
facilities.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
5340
100
Other Structures:
None
Comments: There are no plans for stabilizing this shoreline.
65
PCPLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
CS 41 to Vanderbilt Beach Drive (SR 862)
~umber of Access Points:
Location: North end of segment
Parking:
Yes
Recreational Value: Excellent. Public parking and easy access at
north end, a persistent berm, and natural aesthetic
beauty contribute to overall value.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Migrating Overwash Ridge
Characteristics:
A narrow barrier ridge 200-400 feet wide with
exten~i~e ~2~?rcT:e s~arr~s and e~~2~,~e~~s
, '. .
- - - . - -
- . . -. .
":~:-:-:.t::~' .......2:-:-':'~.....-=: -: t::€a:~". ::-' t:.~-::
S.:. 1"': ~~, .
.,. .. C .-
~p~a~c veg~t2te: by asuarl~a rc=est,
coastal strand, and coastal hammock commun-
ities, but with centrally concentrated
Casuarina spreading north and southward in
active invasion of native strand. A single
beach ridge/washover zone of moderate 6-9 feet
height, infrequently breached during storms.
Beach Width (ft.):
90
96
Dune/\.;ashover
Width (ft)
100
100
Transect No:
13
14
Dune Characteristics:
Highest elevations on the central or back
portion of the ridge. Vegetated by coastal
strand and hammock communities, with
Casuarina colonization on recent washovers.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Foredune and back barrier vegetation
relatively undisturbed except for invasion by
Casuarina and patches of Brazilian Pepper.
Native har~ock species still in existence.
Wetlands on landward edge have been filled for
development following receipt of state and
federal permits.
Cultural/Historic:
Redeposited aboriginal artifacts found on
beach in this area. See cultural/historic
summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Active sea turtle nesting.
66
Resource Values:
Medium, due to the wide beach and foredune
area remaining in its natural state.
Threats:
Impacts associated with increased landward
development and associated recreational
activities.
Comments: County will undertake a dune restoration program in the
near future at the County access point. Pelican Bay
development has been strongly encouraged to remove all
Casuarina.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect r\o: 13 14
IE2.E:-l92- : ~ -
-~. _i
1927-1952: +4.2 +4.6
1952-1962: -2.9 -5.2
1962-1973: -3.8 -1.9
1973-1981 : -7.2 -3.4
Mean Rate: -3.3 -1.3
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. :
7 8
-116.5 - 17.8
- 84.4 - 43.3
- 78.8 -117.7
-215.3 -204.2
-495.0 -296.4
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Accretion during early part of the
century. After 1950, erosional rates
increased significantly, with the
greatest recession taking place in the
north and central portions of the
segment. This is probably a consequence
of the physiographic position of a net
annual littoral drift divide, a function
of longshore transport.
67
Mibrational Rate:
-2.3 feet/year'
Predicted ~!igrational future: Recessional ~ith accelerating erosion,
from -1.0 to -8.0 feet/year.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluat ion
Transect No:
8
Still~ater Elev (ft.):
12
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
19
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 1.6 miles north of Clam
?a~~, eaS:~2~~ t~ 2 ~~i~t 2~?~:".~=2~e:::
- . -". .
- :~€: ~ ~:~~"2~: ": :~e :~:~~~~::::~.
of L .5. Eigh~ay ~l ane Hickory Road.
Hazard Potential:
EXTREMELY HIGH TO SEVERE. The narro~
barrier ridge could be completely eroded
in a major storm, or at least inundated
and displaced lar.d~ard. Potential
hazards are greatest in the filled area
to the northwest. Multi-family zoning
also in the north area will increase
threat to population.
MANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
Dune resotration, management, and protection
needed at northern end of segment using an
integrated management plan. Access to dunes should
be severely restricted. Preservation of remaining
coastal harr~ock mandatory; selective removal of
Casuarina recommended. No ORV's or dune buggies.
Vehicle tracks and continued recession of dune and
washover zone will cause decline in recreational
value, as will further adjacent development.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FO~~/8
68
BEACH SEGl'~EI\T DATA SHEET
DESCRI PTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
~A:A 5:.;;TI\)~S
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
Clam Pass'North
9
Vanderbilt Beach
Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
Bonita Springs 4636 IV SE
Naples North 4636 III NE
23 - 26
7
15 J 16
None
N/A
R-35
R-36
R-37
R-38
R-39
R-40
R-41
9
FEET
7940
240
/~7)
~/
Benchmark Elev: 6.03
6.16
4.84
5.16
6.25
4.40
N/A
LA,\Li OI.1;ERSHIP FEET PERCENT
Public: 0 0
Private/Developed: 0 0
Private/Undeveloped: 7940 100
Comments: Pelican Bay P.U.D.
LM'D USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 0 0
Mul t i-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
:,=~:.hc : - -
-.~2:'e::-::::..a... .
Open Land:
3940
100 (presently)
Comments: Undeveloped, protected. 560 acres of wetland were
dedicated to Collier County in 1982. In addition to other
concessions, the County conceptually approved at least 2
private beach access tramways and full service beach
facilities seaward of the CCCL; this line averages 200 feet
landward of MHW. Setback from the active beach varies from
120-150 feet.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: N/A
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): N/A
Comments: No development is anticipated seaward of CCCL other than
beach access facilities.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
P ERC ENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
70
Revetments
Buried: 0 0
Exposed: 0 0
Non-S tabil ized
Shoreline 7940 100
Other Structures: None
Comments: No shoreline stabilization anticipated.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Vanderbilt Beach Road (SR 862)
Number of Access Points:
1
:"'0ca~iQn; ~'Jrth of segment
Farking:
Yes
Recreational Value: Good to excellent. Similar to North Pelican Bay
Beach but access is located over one mile from main
beach. A 30-50 foot wide berm. Wildlife value
very high.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Migrating Overwash Ridge
Characteristics:
Similar to 118A
Beach Width (ft.):
96
100
Dune /\"'ashover
\"'idth (ft)
120
120
Transect No:
15
16
Dune Characteristics:
120 ft. Highest elevations (7 feet) occur at
the active beach/dune interface. These areas
vegetated by a typical coastal strand, but
with Casuarina invading throughout, especially
lower areas. Australian pine forest has
mostly replaced coastal strand south of the
Pass.
71
--'-'-""'~""'_"'_"'__'______"_"'_'.~^'~'_'_"~'_~"'."_'_,"._.0_.,__ .4 ......""_,,___~ It~
CHAJZ.,\CTER lSTlCS
Vegetation:
A gre2t deal of native coastal dune and
coastal hammock vegetation remains on this
seg~er.t. Although Casuarina is present it has
not yet had adverse impact on this segment.
Cultural/Historic:
Redeposited aboriginal artifacts as well as
European artifacts found in this vicinity.
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Active sea turtle nesting area.
Resource Values:
The undisturbed nature of this site makes it
high in resource value both in terms of
natural and recreational amenities.
Threats:
Continued expansion of Casuarina forest and
recreatior.al iC?8CtS.
'~,~2c"e,.:5: ...t:: r",:::;':V<i.o. cf C2..:::L:dr:.na :.s strcng~y recot::r"encec.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE C~~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 15 16
1885-1927: -0.7 +0.8
1927-1952: +12.9 +6.0
1952-1962: +12.8 -1.4
1962-1973: -6.1 -6.3
1973-1981: +1.0 -3.8
l-fean Rate: -1.1 -1.0
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) 0885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No: 7
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. : -116.5
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. : - 84.4
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. : - 78.8
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. : -215.3
};et Change: -495.0
72
Migrational History:
Accretion during early part of the
century. After 1950. erosion became the
trend ~ith greatest recession in central
portion of segment (see #8A).
Migrational Rate:
-0.2 feet/year
Predicted Migrational Future: Recessional, accelerating from -1.0 to
-8.0 feet/year.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
9
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
12.0
~av~ Cr~s: Elev (ft~): 19.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 1,600 feet north of Clam
Pass, eastward to a point approximately
2,200 feet north-northwest of the
intersection of Center Street and U.S.
Highway 41.
Hazard Potential:
HIGH. The narrow barrier ridge could be
completely eroded in a major storm. See
segment fl8A.
MA"iAGEMENT
Recorrnnendations:
A conceptual and practical management plan is
needed to address beach access, usage, facilities
and locations. The existing beach facility is
constructed too close to the receding shore. Any
additional facilities should be set substantially
back. Moreover, by restricting recreation to the
open beach, the coastal forest-mangrove strand on
this segment could be treated as a wildlife
preserve for both animal life and rare plant
habitats. South of the Pass Casuarina invasion has
restricted development of a fully functional
dune/~ashover zone. The Australian pines should be
removed.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/9
73
Coastal Barrier 3. Park Shore
Shoreline Change. The north sector of the Park Shore unit has been
relatively stable since 1&&5. In fact, certain areas have shown accre-
tion. Historically, north Park Shore has received sand eroded and
transported south from the Vanderbilt Beach unit. In contrast to the
northern sector, the southern 1.3 miles of the Park Shore unit has
experienced erosion since 1927. Erosion continued in this area until the
shoreline was stabilized by the construction of seawalls and jetties.
The north jetty at Doctors Pass trapped sand being transported to the
south in the littoral drift, resulting in 10 to 50 feet of accretion
since 1973.
Only minor changes occurred from 1973 to 1982 in the beach profile
at Park Shore (profile number R-51, see Fig. 1). At this survey locatio~
a small unvegetated dune in front of the seawall grew 1.5 feet in eleva-
tion in the 1970's. A post-storm ridge and runnel, present in the 1982
profile between 2 and 3.5 feet MSL, must be considered a temporary
feature that Was related to the uno name" storm.
S t c:-:: eb a :- act:: e =- :. s t :: c s . :'":-1 e :- c : :.: '-':':- ~ ~;:, ::) :-::: -= : :: -:: c c s tJ r:::: c [; a :- a c _
:eristic5 fer the Park Shore unit 1s excerpted from the Flood Insurance
Stud: Wave Rei ht Anal sis--Collier Count , Florida, Unincor orated
Areas (FEMA 1982) (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 11).
From approximately 1 mile north of Wiggins Pass to the
Kaples northern corporate limits, waves with heights of up to 9
feet can be expected along the open coast shoreline of the Gulf
of Mexico. These Waves will be rapidly diminished to less than
3 feet by rising ground elevation and buildings in developed
areas and by rising ground elevation and vegetation in undevel-
oped areas along the open coast. At Inner and Outer Clam Bays,
waves with heights greater than 3 feet will continue inland
until they are reduced to less than 3 feet by dense vegetation
and rising ground elevation along the northern and eastern
shorelines and by bulkheads at the southern end of Outer Clam
Bay. The bulkheads are expected to remain intact during the
lOO-year storm surge. Moving inland, wave heights of up to 3
feet are expected to regenerate across inland water bodies
where sufficient fetch exists. The waves will again be reduced
to less than 3 feet by dense vegetation and rising ground
elevation.
Wave heights of 2 feet can be expected on srraller water
bodies such as Turkey Lake, where sufficient fetch exists.
Bulkheads, buildings, and rising ground elevations at the
eastern shorelines will rapidly diminish these waves in devel-
oped areas. In undeveloped areas, these waves will be quickly
diminished by dense vegetation along with rising ground eleva-
tion.
Maximum wave crest elevations ore 19 feet at the open
coast shoreline, 15 feet at Outer Clam Bay, and 14 feet at
Inner Clam Bay and other similar water bodies. Wave action
continues inland for approximately 0.75 mile for most of the
reach. Tidal surge elevations of 11 to 13 feet continue inland
for approximately 6 additional miles in the northern part
74
of the reach and approximately 1 mile in the southern part of
the reach.
Beach, Dune, Washover Zone Characteristics. The Park Shore Barrier
Unit is approximately 2.3 miles in length. Of this stretch of coast, 2%
of the dune/washover zone is Native Coastal Strand. dominated by native
grasses and shrubs; 17% is Invaded Coastal Strand, with Casuarina in
various stages of invasion and dominance; 12% is Exotic Forest with
Casuarina in near monotypic condition; and 69% is Ornamental Landscape,
typically sod and ornamental plants. In the Park Shore coastal barrier
unit the average width of the beach and dune zone varies between the
beach segments. In the North Park Shore barrier beach segment the
approximate width is 164 feet; the average setback of land development
activities from mean high water is 200 feet. In the South Park Shore
barrier beach segment the average width of the beach and dune zone is 164
feet with a land development setback of 100 feet. There has been.
therefore, an average of 39% reduction in the width of the beach and dune
zone, and the average setback of land development activities is 75 feet
from mean high water. This translates to an average of 55! reduction ~n
the wid:~ c~ the ~eac~ an~ du=e Zc~e as a res~:t cf ce~e.o?~e~t.
75
BEACH SEGHE^T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
- ... .,... .
s:- .~.7 = j='~~ 3
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LE};GTH M'D WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
LAI'm O....'NERSHIP
Pu b 1 i c :
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
Clam Pass South
10
Parkshore
Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
Naples. North. FL 4636 III NE
26 - 27
9
17
G & J-2
Station located at G & J monument
visible northwest from D~R monument T-42
located just south of Clam Pass.
T-42
R-43
R-44
Benchmark Elev: 8.24
6.21
8. 12
10
FEET
3340
220
Just north of R-44
FEET PERCENT
3340 100
0 0
0 0
Comments: County Park. no facilities at present.
76
LA!<D USE
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Mu I t i - F ar.1 il y :
o
o
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
3340
100
Comments: UNDEVELOPED, PROTECTED. Some 560 acres of wetland and
upland were dedicated to Collier County in 1982. Two
corridors for private access to the beach were exempt from
the protected area. The County conceptually approved these
corridors as tramways, as well as full service beach
facilities seaward of the CCCL line. The latter averages
about 200 feet land~ard of MHW. Inte~sive recreation of
~se ~av ~e eY~ected.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 0
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 0
Comments: A beach access facility has been permitted seaward of the
CCCL but has not yet been constructed.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
3340
100
Other Structures:
Groin (Rock)
Comments: Groin located 335 feet north of South segment. No other
structured stabilization anticipated.
~_ M...... -......._ l".-"
.._,_"''ZL.____'''''''""~_'_"._~..."''''',,....''''...,..,''___.,,;~~
PCBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Seagate Drive (future access via county
park board~alk and/or ferry)
Number of Access Points:
Location: Seagate Drive
Parking:
Yes
Recreational Value: Good to excellent. A narro~ but persistent berm
is present and access is easy from less than one
mile a~ay.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Historic Tidal Pass Barrier
Characteristics:
A~ extremely lc~ and narrow (less t~2~ 20C
~~~- ~~:~ ~~~~~~7 ~~~ge, :~E 5i:~ :~ ~~~~7C'_~
:~~e~ tl:c~ ~c3ses 2~C cccplete ba~rier
washovers in recent times, any of ~hich could
reopen under the right storm conditions.
Beach Width (ft.):
90
Dune/Washover
~idth (ft)
95
Transect No:
17
Dune Characteristics:
Highest elevations (ca. 7 ft) at dune-beach
intersection. Coastal strand vegetation with
Casuarina invasion north of the pass, and a
dense Australian pine forest ~hich has
replaced most of the coastal vegetation south
of the pass.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Much of the native foredune and coastal
haIT~IT:ock vegetation has been replaced by the
dense strand of Casuarina. The County plans
to undertake an extensive dune restoration
program here in the near future to remove all
Casuarina and to replant native coastal
species.
Cultural/Historic:
Redeposited aboriginal and shipwreck European
artifacts found in this vicinity. Also
potential site for further artifact discovery.
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Moderately active sea turtle nesting just
south of the Pass.
Resource Values:
Medium to high resource value due to the wide
recreational beach and the extensive wetland
system. Proposed Casuarina removal and
habitat restoration pr0tection program will
give this beach segment a high resource value
in the future.
Threats:
Increased Casuarina colonization and
recreational impacts.
Comments: This will become a major County park in the future. Every
effort should be made to restore and protect its natural
features and to maintain its passive uses.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
:ra:-:se:r ~::
1885-1927: -2.3
1927-1952: +3.4
1952-1962: -2.2
1962-1973: -0.2
1973-1981: -0.6
Mean Rate: -0.4
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd 3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Prof ile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Fe.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Fe.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. :
9
+ 35.5
+ 79.9
+ 77.7
+ 28.9
Net Change:
+164.2
Migrational History:
Accretional during early part of the
century, with several ephemeral tidal
passes closed; erosional trend accel-
erated after 1950.
Migrational Rate:
-0.4 feet/year
79
Predicted Migrational Future: Stable to slo~ recession; fro~ -1.0 to
-3.0 feet/year.
Comments: A historically and geophysically active pass.
STORM HA.2ARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
10
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
12.0
~ave Crest Elev (ft.):
19.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 3,000 feet south of Clam
Pass. eastward across Olltec Cl'i:: Ba:; t- _
. .
-:~-: 3~~~~~::~2:e~~'
. ~ ,-... ~ - - ...
- ~.; ':;: - "::..:.:..:: ~-
Highway 896 and C.S. Highway 41.
r.2=-.:~-~225t C'! t:-iC ::-.tersect:c':-~ c: ~~lunty
Hazard Potential:
Extremely high. Complete inundation or
ephemeral tidal pass formation could
occur during intense tropical storm.
HA.'iAGEMENT
Recommendations:
The groin should be removed. The Australian pines
should be thinned out progressing seaward and
native vegetation reestablished. The existing
beach facility to the north is constructed too
close to the receding shoreline; any additional
facilities should be set farther back. Casuarina
south of the pass has restricted development of a
fully functional dune-washover zone. Because such
a high rate of use is anticipated a conceptual and
practical management plan IT>ust be developed to
address access, use of facilities, structures, etc.
Any disturbance to vegetation will be inimical to
the dune areas; both upland and dune vegetation
should be protected.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/I0
80
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Army Co"ps F~o:~les ~c:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LE1\GTH A.\1) WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
North Parkshore
11
Parkshore
Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
Naples. North. FL 4636 III NE
27 - 28
: 1
18
A-I0. ACE 11
A-IO: DNR monument A-I0 located just
north of the seaward end of the Parkshore
Access boardwalk. Photo station located
30 feet seaward of the northwest corner
of the walkway base (rust spray paint).
ACE-II: ACE monument no. 11 located
just south of the second private
crosswalk. Photo station located 20
feet seaward of the southwest corner of
the crosswalk base.
R-45
A-I0
T-46
T-47
V-48
T-49
Benchmark Elev: 5.22
N/A
N/A
N/A
N!A
"f./A
10
FEET
4800
830
North end of Parkshore south of Seagate
Blvd.
81
LA1\D OW"}; ERSH IP FEET PERCE1\T
Public: 0 0
Private/Developed: 4000 83.3
Private/Undeveloped: 800 16.6
Comments: New condominiums continue to be built in this approved PUD.
LAND USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 0 0
Mult i-Family: 4800 100
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
C ::-.€7 ~ . .
l. .-:- :rr:>~: ~.:- : 2. _ :
Open Land:
o
o
Comments: DEVELOPED. High rise and other construction on this unit
began with a PU~ in the late 1970's. The setback of these
buildings ranges from 100-300 feet. An artificial dune ~as
constructed in the ~inter of 1980-81, 80 feet wide and
approximately 10 feet high, within the north sector. The
south sector is concrete bulkheaded seawalls.
cceL Ah~ DEVELOPP~T SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment ~/o CCCL:
o
% Development Seaward CeCL:
see comments
Maximum Intrusion (ft.):
see comments
Comments: The only construction near to the CCCL is the artificial
dune built after the 1979 atlas ~as completed. ~o data are
available at present.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
1iG
3.5
w/ Riprap:
o
o
82
Revetments
Buried:
3470
72.3
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
1160
24.1
Other Structures:
Two rock groins are located near the north
end of the segment.
Comments: No other beach stabilization anticipated.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
North end of Gulfshore Blvd.
~~~~€r c: Ac:ess ~clnts:
Location: Above
Parking:
Yes
Recreational Value: Good. A persistent berm varying between 80-150
feet in width and easy access.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized Barrier Beach
Characteristics:
Prior to 1960, these segments possessed a
narrow undisturbed barrier ridge about 150
feet wide, backed by mangrove swamp and
shallow coastal bays. The beach was wide,
unvegetated and active, whereas landward
portion supported coastal strand and hammocks.
Jetties were constructed at Doctors Pass about
1960 and the adjacent barrier was widened
approximately 1000 feet by dredge and fill on
the bayside.
Beach Width (ft.):
99
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
100
Transect No:
18
Dune Characteristics:
The dune in this area is preponderantly
artificially constructed and vegetated. The
major species is sea oats. Some natural sea
oats dunes exist to the south of the arti-
f icial dune.
83
CE.....RACTERISTlCS
Vegetation:
Very litte native vegetation remains on this
segment. Mangrove wetlands have been cleared
and filled and replaced by sod and nursery
species. Almost nothing remains of the
coastal hammock that once occurred here.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Sea turtle nesting is not common in this area.
Resource Values:
Moderate due to recreational beach and
restored dune.
Threats:
Recession of the beach and narrowing of
recreational area.
COlnIJ1ents: Sea'olard edge of crt ificial d',.:"e sr,culd be re;::la"t€c
::::::,...:~.€
st2'r::
~~._,.-....-
--::.... :"'c:.r:::
t,:;: :-"c:'~:c:.:-.~ 1:3
:':-. : 2 g :- i : y .
EISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE C~~~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect So: 18
1885-1927: +1.7
1927-1952: N/A
1952-1962: N/A
1962-1973: -0.4
1973-1981 : +4.2
Mean Rate: +2.2
Nearshore Voll.:metric Changes (yd 3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No: 11
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.: + 21.1
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. : + 55.5
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. : -113.2
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. : - 68.9
Net Change: -105.5
84
Migrational History:
A trend of accretion in the late 1800's
changed to erosion during the mid-
1900's, becoming most rapid in the
vicinity of Doctors Pass. The erosion
associated with the clearing of natural
vegetation was an important factor. The
position of the shoreline stabilized
during the 1970's as a result of seawall
construction. although the area of the
segment where vegetation clearing
occurred was not stabliized. Erosion
continues despite efforts to stabilize
the area using rocks and seawalls in the
pass and adjacent beaches.
Migrational Rate:
-3.9 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Recessional; will probably continue at
variably increasi~E ~ace
Co~ent5: T~e area has been abused throughout its history.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
10
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
12.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
19.0
Location:
See segment no. 9
Hazard Potential:
MODERATE. A relatively wide setback and
an artificial dune constructed in 1981
contribute to a lowered hazard.
J-f.ANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
A multifaceted program is needed for this area,
and includes the following:
1. Remove the groins;
2. Protect seaward edge of existing vegetation
from foot traffic;
3. Establish pedestrian by-passes wherever
possible;
4. Acquire rights for public use of existing
accesses;
5. No encroachment allowed within upland
protection structure farther seaward than the
structure or existing vegetation line;
85
Bf~CH SEGMEKT DATA FORM/II
6. Ir. unaltered areas where continued scarp
recession necessitates corrective action, the
front line of the existing structure should
be integrated with the adjacent existing
scarp, using a combination of sand fill,
stabilizing vegetation, and rock boulders;
7. New structures must be designed to have
minimal interference ~ith natural beach
processes;
8. Reconstruction after major storm mandatorily
restricted to landward side of a prohibitive
setback line.
86
BEACH SEG~ENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
South Parkshore
Number:
12
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Parkshore
Coastal Management Unit:
Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
USGS Topo Quad:
Naples North FL 4636 III NE
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
28 - 29
DP-.:'A ST,i. nOr;S
Army Corps Profiles No:
12
County BERM Transects No:
19
County Field Stations No:
R-51
Locations:
D~R monument R-51 is located
approximately 2 feet west of seawall at
Gulfside condominium. Photo station is
located 45 feet seaward of the monument.
DNR Transects No: T-50 Benchmark Elev: N/A
R-51 6.23
FEMA Transects No: 11
LENGTH AND WIDTH FEET
Length: 3310
Minimum Width: 940
Minimum Width Location: South segment line
LM"D OWNERSHIP FEET PERCENT
Public: 0 0
Private/Developed: 3310 100
Private/Undeveloped: 0 0
Comments: None.
:: ....,
LA.'W USE
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Multi-Family:
3310
100
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
o
o
Comments: DEVELOPED. Medium density hi-rise with setbacks averaging
150-300 feet from MEW. An 80 foot wide artificial dune was
built in the north sector. A retaining wall was also
constructed about 1973. and by 1981 was approximately 30-100
feet landward of MHW.
~~-;-~- c>j.::-:' D::~.:::L(-.:~~~T ~ :::?ACY (Ec:~~c
::. -? ~,:; ..1.:: ~a.3)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward eeCL: 86
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 110
Comments: Intrusion mainly by seawalls but 4 condominiums have
minimal extensions sea~ard of CCCL.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
1470
44.0
w/ Riprap:
1840
55.5
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Other Structures:
None
Comments: It is likely that additional requests to place riprap in
front of existing seawalls will be made in the future.
E3LIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Gulfshore Boulevard
Number of Access Points:
None
Location: None
Parking:
No
Recreational Value: Fair. A narrow persistent berm, some vegetation,
and access to the south.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized barrier island with altered
Barrier Segment
Characteristics:
Prior to the 1960's an extremely narrow (150
feet) barrier ridge existed, with mangrove
;::..::..u..t- and lagcc:"~al e:::'::a:...~e.r:t ::'e:-~i.:~c.
'''r~ .-
... !.it;::
alte~ation of Dccto~s Pass by jetty con-
struction and dredge and fill, completed by
about 1973, in conjunction with seawall
construction, has exacerbated the erosional
problems.
Beach Width (ft.):
84
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
80
Transect No:
19
Dune Characteristics:
Essentially non-existent
CP.ARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Native coastal barrier vegetation has almost
entirely bee~ replaced by buildings, seawalls,
and artificially landscaped areas.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
No sea turtle nesting activity observed.
Resource Values:
Low value due to elimination of native
habitats and total alteration of natural
characteristics. Beach has recreational
value but there is no public access.
Threats:
Major threat is the increased reduction of
recreational beach due to the recession of the
mean high water line.
Comments: None.
89
HISTORICAL A~ALYSES OF SHORELINE CH.~\GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 19
1885-1927: +0.1
1927-1952: N/A
1952-1962: N/A
1962-1973: -1.1
1973-1981~ +6.3
Mean Rate: +1.8
Nearshore Volumetric Charges (yc3) (1885-1970)
Ar"J:? Co!"?S Prciile ~c:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
'')
1..
- 5 1.1
- 31.0
- 47.8
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
-427.3
Net Change:
-557.2
Migrational History:
A trend of accretion in the late 1800's
reversed to erosion during the mid
1900's, becoming most rapid in the
vicinity of Doctors Pass. This erosion
was associated with the clearing of
~atural vegetation, and in these areas
erosion continued in the 1970's although
in adjacent areas the beach became more
stable. Efforts to stabilize the pass
and adjacent beaches with riprap and
seawalls have been largely ineffective.
Migrational Rate:
+2.6 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Recessional with continued erosion
90
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
11
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
12.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
19.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 2,650 feet west of the
intersection of Crayton Road and Park
Shore Drive in Naples, eastward to a
point approximately 700 feet west of the
intersection of Old Trail Drive and U.S.
Highway 41 in Naples.
Hazard Potential:
EXTREMELY HIGH TO SEVERE. rt?~ c;€ hi-rise
constructio~ a~d xi~iza: s~t~
, . ~ ..
". ~:s ?..~:........:..
ensure a high potential for ~~JOR
DESTRUCTION AND PROPERTY DAMAGE in a full
strike hurricane or even a moderate
tropical storm.
l".Al\;AGEMENT
Recommendations:
Protection of remnant vegetation in front of
retaining wall from foot traffic by construction of
beach access stairs at north and south ends. See
also recommendations for segment #10.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/12
91
_____....~ "V" _'<I'-t~-' ~_____"';_""""'~\""""""""w"""~"'''">''
BEACH SECME~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
: .~. I}- S:- ~.:.. I I C ~.;::
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects ~o:
FE~A Transects No:
UJolGTH A.l\;D WIDTH
Length:
Minimum \"'idth:
Minimum ~idth Location:
Moorings
13
Parkshore
Cocohatchee-Gordon River Transition
Naples North, 4636 III NE
29 - 31
13
20, 21, 22
R-S2, V-55
R-52: Photo station located 20 feet
sea~ard of southwest corner of seawall,
at south end of Horizon Way.
V-55: DNR monument [-55 located in
seaward west of ~estgate condominium.
Photo station located 15 feet sea~ard of
monument.
R-52
R-53
1-54
V-55
1-56
T-57
Benchmark Elev:
7. 12
NIA
KIA
N/A
N/A
8.03
12, 13
FEET
5750
870
730 feet from south segment line
92
LA\D Ol,..;-\ERSHIP
FEET
PERCE!\T
Public:
::500
4
Private/Developed:
5500
96
Private/Undeveloped:
o
o
Comments: Area developed in late 1960's and 70's as part of Moorings
development. Three public access ways located along
segment.
LAND USE
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Multi-Family:
5300
92
~c'te1./Mct~l:
~
'-
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
450
8
Comments: DEVELOPED. High der.sity hi-rise multifamily construction
characterizes the segment. By 1981 only 8% of the shore-
front remained undeveloped.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 92
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 150
Comments: Setback range from 20-100 feet landward of MHW.
SHORELI~E STRUCTCRES
Sea'Wa 11 s
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
4490
78
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
370
6.4
Exposed:
o
o
93
~on-Stabilized
Shoreline
890
15.5
Other Structures:
Doctor's Pass north jetty at south end.
Comments: An extremely densely settled, asphalt and concrete-paved
barrier segment
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
North Gulfshore Drive
Number of Access Points:
3
Location: Horizon Way
Vedado Way
Via Miramar
Parking:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fc,~~ea::.':'r:2.:
fluctuates over wide range of widths. Adequate
public access, but parking limited.
fEe: C~ :ess, anc :iillited vegetation.
H :- C : 2. :: :. \:::. l >
-:e:-:::~~,€-_ :
c :--~ .- ".- J.~
beach
. ::::!. __ '-~. e ~
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized barrier island with altered
barrier segment
Characteristics:
Similar to segment #11. The mangrove swamp
and embaJ~ent area is totally destroyed. and
the barrier lagoon now completely bulkheaded.
Beach Width (ft.):
99
S8
103
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
75
75
100
Transect No:
20
21
22
Dune Characteristics:
Essentially nonexistent.
CEARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Nearly all native coastal barrier vegetation
has been replaced by landscaped species.
Cultural/Historic:
European campsite artifacts found in this
area. See cultural/historic summary.
94
fish and ~ildlife:
Little or no sea turtle nesting.
Resource Values:
Low to medium; only resource value is
recreation beach with public access points.
Threats:
Loss of recreation beach due to shoreline
recession and landward seawalls/rip rap.
Comments: Area is a highly altered dredge and fill-developed barrier
with little natural resource value.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 20 21 22 23
1885-1927: +0.8 +0.8 ,.., ~ .. 2 . 1
-.:..j
'q'- '--2 ~/A N/A ~iA ~/A
.i....."-J-l~) =
1952-1962: N/A N/A N/A -5.9
1962-1973: -2.9 -4.7 -3.6 -3.9
1973-1981: +1.0 +1.6 +10.9 +0.8
Mean Rate: -0.4 -0.8 +1.7 -1. 7
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
13
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
- 27.7
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
+ 86.6
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-213.2
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
-252.0
Net Change:
-406.3
Xigrational History:
Similar to Segment #11.
Migrational Rate:
+1.9 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosional, and continuing
95
::.7(J;<..~ HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
12 13
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
10.0 10.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
10.0 10.0
Location:
12 From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 2,800 feet north of
Doctors Pass eastward across
Moorings Bay in Naples, to a point
approximately 400 feet east of
the intersection of Ponce De Leon
Drive and County Highway 31 in
Collier Coun ty.
~ 3 F eJU: t r, e C; u 2. f c f ~ e x i co': c a :; t 1 i~, €.' ,
. ~. -.-- - ~
2; ~ r: ~< :::~ : €-4 ... Y ';'.t ,.,. '__ : e'2: 7"'-::-: r~ c:
~octors rass, east~ard across
Moorings Bay in ~aples, to a point
approximately 1,300 feet south-
southeast of the intersection of
Coach House Lane and County Highway
31 in Collier County.
Hazard Potential:
HIGH. Poorly integrated sea~alls and
minimal setbacks increase potential for
severe damage during even a moderate
storm.
~;AMGEMENT
Recomrr,endat ions:
See segme!;t Ii 10 and f! 11. Horizon \o,'ay has
artificial dune with rock core. Crosswalk
recolIlCenced.
BL~CH SEGML~T DATA FORM/13
96
Coastal Barrier 4. ~aples Headland
Shoreline Change. The northern mile of the Naples headland experi-
enced the most pervasive trend of erosion in Collier County. The beach
in the area has receded up to 300 feet since 1927. The shoreline recedec
30 to 40 feet after the construction of jetties at Doctors Pass in 1960.
This erosion occurred as a result of a sand deficit caused by the jetties
in the Park Shore burrier unit.
The shoreline of central Naples was relatively stable in the early
1900's but began to fluctuate about the middle of the twentieth century.
In the last 50 years, continual erosion has occurred between 5th Avenue
South and 10th Avenue South. This shoreline was hardened by the con-
struction of seawalls and closely spaced groins about 1950.
The shoreline of south Naples has fluctuated landward and seaward as
much as 200 feet since 1885. Three long timber pile groins, numerous
short closely spaced rock groins. and nearly continuous seawalls were
constructed in south Naples during the 1950's. Shoreline data reveal
that the timber pile groins have promoted 20-60 feet of accretion in
their immediate vicinity since cc~struction. Erosion occurred between
:;62 a~d 1973 ~~ the vi~i~i:y 0: Gcrcc~ ?3SS.
Two profiles r.(ere measured along central and south Naples (Fig. 1).
In the foreshore zone post-storm ridges and runnels were present at both
profile locations in October, 1982. A 10-year comparison of profiles at
the central Naples location (R-70) indicated that the beach receded 15 to
20 feet. Field observations of pre- and post-storm beaches in the area
indicated that the measured recession occurred during the "no name"
storm. The backshore of the profile in south Naples was stable between
1973 and 1982.
Storm Characteristics. The following information on storm charac-
teristics for the Naples Headland unit is excerpted from the Flood
Insurance Study: Wave Height Analysis--Collier County, Florida, Unin-
corporated Areas (FEMA 1982) (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 11).
From the southern corporate limits of Naples to just north
of Big Marco Pass, waves with heights of up to 8.5 feet can be
expected along the open coast shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico.
The waves will be quickly reduced to less than 3 feet by rising
ground elevation and vegetation along the open coast north of
Little Marco Pass. South of Little Marco Pass waves with
heights greater than 3 feet will continue inland for approx-
imately 0.5 mile where they are diminished by rising ground
elevation and vegetation. Moving inland, waves with heights of
up to 4 feet are expected to regenerate across Rookery Bay and
Johnson Bay. These waves will be quickly reduced to less than
3 feet by dense vegetation and rising ground elevation along
the eastern shorelines.
Wave heights of up to 2 feet are expected at s~aller
inland water bodies where sufficient fetch exists. These waves
will also be rapidly diminished by dense vegetation and rising
ground elevation.
Maximum wave crest elevations are 17 feet at the open
coast shoreline, 15 feet at the eastern shore of Rookery Bay,
and 13 feet at the eastern shore of Johnson Bay and at the
eastern shore of other similar inland water bodies. Wave
97
action continues inland fer approximately 3 miles ~ith the
tidal surge elevations of 9 and 10 feet continuing inland
for approximately 3 additional miles for this reach.
Beach, Dune and ~ashover Zone Characteristics. The Naples barrier
unit is approximately 5.6 miles in length. On this stretch of coast
there are no Native Coastal Strands, Invaded Coastal Strands, Exotic
Forest, or Mangrove Forest; 100% of the Dune/ Washover Zone is Ornamental
Landscape, consisting typically of sod and ornamental plants. In the
five subunits which comprise the Naples Headland coastal barrier unit the
average ~idth of the beach and dune zone ranges from 144 feet at South
Port Royal, to 154 feet at North Naples. The average setback of land
development activities from the mean high water line ranges from 35 feet
at North Naples to 85 feet at North Port Royal. The average reduction in
the width of the beach and dune Zone ranges from 48% at North Port Royal
to 77% at North Naples.
98
BEACH SEGML~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
:' ~~..: .~. ~': .:~:r : C'~ s
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects ~o:
FEMA Transects ~o:
Naples North
14
Naples
Gordon River
Naples North 4636 III NE
31 - 34
16, 17
23, 24, 25
T58. ACE 17, R61
T-58: Station located at Moorings
Residents beach. Photo station located
on top of rock groin 13 feet seaward of
southwest corner of seawall.
ACE 17: Photo station at Lowdermilk
Park on Army Corps No. 17 monument not
recovered at 12/82 survey, so moved to
R-61.
R-61: DNR monument R-61 located at
south center of Lowdermilk Park. Photo
station 40 feet seaward of monument.
T-58
R-59
R-60
R-61
T-62
T-63
R-64
T-65
Benchmark Elev: 7.51
6.72
6.01
7.70
N/A
N/A
8.96
N/A
None
99
LDGTH A."-;D \.:IDT1-!
FEET
Length:
8430
Minimum Width:
680
Mini~um Width Location:
680 feet from north end of segnent
L.A.ND O\o.TNERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
900
11
Private/Developed:
6880
82
Private/Undeveloped:
650
7
Comments: Lowdermilk Park is public. Moorings Residents Beach and
vacant lot is private/u~cevelo?ed, Cld Naples st~eet end
a::ess ac.: ~ct i~:::_~e~ ir calc"_:;:icns.
LA.l\j1) US E
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Mult i-Family:
6880
82
Hotel/Motel:
~/A
N/A
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
1550
18
Comments: High density multifamily, constructed during the 1960's.
During the same period, 70% of the shorefront was altered by
seawall construction. Hotel/motel data not available;
included with multi-family data.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment ~/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 19
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 150
Corr~ents: Data do not include Old Naples Street end access points.
100
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
6010
71.2
w/ Riprap:
560
6.6
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-S tabilized
Shoreline
1800
21.3
Other Structures:
60
0.7
:::C :':'::<27', t s :
Othe~ stru~tu~es
. . .
1:-.: _"lee
two D~:rc=s ~ass je~ti~~ arc _!
r)ct'. groins.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Gulfshore Blvd.
Number of Access Points:
2 Parks (1 private) plus 4 street end
access points
Location: Lowdermilk Park
Parking:
Yes
Recreational Value: Hazardous tc poor. Usually less than 25 feet of
impersistent beach, with seawalls frequently
exposed. Little or no vegetation, and seawalls
undergo much wave swash.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized (altered) Barrier Spit
Characteristics:
South of Doctors Pass, the geomophology
changes from barrier-lagoonal coast to coastal
headlar.ds with attached barrier spits. Prior
to development this segment possessed a narrow
(150 ft) barrier ridge backed by salt marsh,
mangrove and coastal hardwood forests. Land
clearir.g and topographic modification began in
North ~aples in 1950's.
Beach Width (ft.):
108
65
Dune/Washover
\<.'idth (ft)
90
60
Transect No:
24
25
101
Dune Characteristics:
Essentially non-existent
CHAR,\CTER 1 STICS
Vegetation:
No native coastal vegetation remains except
for replanted dcne species. All other
vegetation is landscaped.
Cultural/Historic:
Redeposited aboriginal artifacts found off
Moorings Residents beach. See cultural/
historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
No sea turtle nesting.
Resource Values:
Low to medium value on recreation beach with
public access points.
Threats:
Loss cf recreati~~ t2ac~ ~~e to st0re:~~e
~ e: 2 ~ ~ :.::- :-. a.~. <: ~ 2. -':' '.' ..~ ~ ': 3 :=; a 'f..; = ~ ~. ~ i ::-:; ::- ~;: .
Comments: Area is highly altered and developed with little natural
resource value.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE C~~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 24 25
1885-1927: +0.8 +1.4
1927-1952: -1.7 -2.8
1952-1962: -22.2 -0.4
1962-1973: -4.5 -3.5
1973-1981 : +1.7 -0.1
Mean Rate: -5.2 -1.0
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
-9 Ft. to -IS Ft. :
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
16
1 7
- 94.3
- 28.8
-111.0
- 77.7
+ 64.3
-123.2
+ 8.9
- 43.3
-] 32.1
-323.0
102
Migrational History: A trend of stability prior to 1930
switched to more erosional during the
1940-50's. Shoreline recession continued
thereafter although the rate slowed after
seawalls were constructed in the segment.
Attached sand spits grow in northerly
direction during periods of plentiful
sand supply.
Migrational Rate: -1.3 feet/year and decreasing
Predicted Migrational Future: Recessional; presumably slowing erosion
unless storm tide, surge occurs, or
longshore current patterns change.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
:ra::sect No:
~one
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
N/A
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
N/A
Location:
N/A
Hazard Potential:
EXTREMELY HIGH. Similar to conditions
noted in Moorings segment, and is further
exacerbated by continued erosion expected
to occur in the future.
MANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
Remove non-functional groins and minimize any
further structural intrusion onto beach.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/14
103
BEACH SEG~E~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment NalLe:
Kumber:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
=":.~.:..:'. STATless
Army Corps Profiles ~o:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects ~o:
LENGTH AKD WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
Central Kap1es
15
~aples
Gordon River
North Naples 4636 III NE
34 - 35
18, 19
26, 27
R-66, R-70
R-66: DNR monument R-66 is located on
north side of wood slat fence located
26.8 feet east from southwest corner of
pavement. Photo station is located 90
feet sea~ard of monument.
R-70: Photo station located 4 feet
seaward of northwest portion of
crosswalk marked with rust paint.
R-66
T-67
R-68
T-69
R-70
Benchmark Elev: 7.37
N/A
7.62
~/A
8.74
14
FEET
4300
KIA
K/A
104
LA!'~D O\o.':\ERSH IP FEET PERCENT
----
Public: 0 0
Private/Developed: 4300 100
Private/Undeveloped: 0 0
Comments: Measurements exclude street end public access points.
LAND USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 4300 100
Multi-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Otre:- CC::Der:ial: C
Open Land:
Comments: Medium density, foundation-structured single family
residences constructed primarily before 1960. A single
seawall was built in the center of the segment about 1960,
and presently nearly the entire shorefront has been altered
by seawall, revet~ent and groin structures. Construction
setback ranges from 60-200 feet. Street end access not
included in measurements.
CCCL A1~ DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Basec on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 86
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 100
Corr.ments: Construction setback ranged from 15 to 100 feet landward of
MHW. Seaward development represents seawalls/rip rap
(majority) and buildings. Access ways mainly behind CCCL.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
780
18
wi Riprap:
o
o
105
Revetments
Buried:
Exposed:
3100
72
Non-St ab il ized
Shoreline
420
10
Other Structures:
Six (6) groins
Comments: Closely spaced groins (5 at the northern end and 1 at the
southern) produce some effect on beach conditions.
P~BLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
North Gulfshore Blvd. & cross streets
~'-.:~,:€r cf ?-:C.2SS ?:"::""_~::: c
Location: end of each street
Parking:
Yes
Recreational Value: Fair to good. A trar.sient berm and scattered dune
vegetation on a strip from 20-80 feet in ~idth.
Access is good with street parking. Beaches are
heavily used in the .inter season.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized Barrier Spit, Altered
Characteristics:
South of Doctors Pass, the geomorphology
changes from ba"rier-lagoonal coast to coastal
headland with attached barrier spits. Prior
to development, this segment possessed a
narrc~ (150 ft) barrier ridge backed by salt
marsh, mangrove and coastal hardwood forests.
Shallow coastal emba:TIents also existed. Land
clearing and torographic modification began in
North Naples in 1950's. These segments
represent the present day exposure of the high
Pleistocene deposits that extend northward in
Collier County. The high flat sandy pine lands
.ere the first areas occupied by modern
settlements at the beginning of the first half
of the present century.
Beach Width (ft.):
64
80
Dune/Washover
T,iidth (ft)
80
80
Transect No:
26
27
106
Dune Characteristics:
Low to non-existent, primarily sparsely
vegetated by coastal strand plants; the
remnant dune backs up to concrete bulkhead or
cultivated lawns, and thus has little sand
budget to utilize except for periodic
extensions from offshore that remain highly
ephemeral and influenced by tidal and wave
height factors.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Upland native coastal vegetation nearly
completely obliterated except for some dune
strand. Vegetation replaced by landscaped
species.
Cultural/Historic:
Redeposited aboriginal artifacts found on
beach in vicinity of Central Avenue. See
cultural/historic sUu$ary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Little to no sea turtle nesting.
Resource Values:
Low to medium due to retained dune areas and
recreational access.
Threats:
Loss of recreational beach and dune due to
shoreline recession.
Comments: Every effort should be made to retain remaining dunes and
prevent further structural encroachment.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 26
1885-1927: +1.4
1927-1952: -3.5
1952-1962: -4.5
1962-1973: -1.3
1973-1981: +0.4
Mean Rate: -1.5
27
+1.7
-0.2
+0.6
-4.4
+4.4
+0.4
107
Ke~rshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. :
Net Change:
18 19
- 82. 1 - 41.1
- 88.8 - 83.2
-127.6 -154.3
-197.6 - 43.3
-496.1 - 321. 9
Migrational History:
Accretion prior to 1950, follo~ed by
erosion during the 1950-1960's, with
extensive accretion occurring again after
1970. The accretio~-erosio~-~c:r~tic~
;2C~~~:~ has ?:cdLce~ a corE ': :ess
=2:a~:ec s~cre:~n€ gro~th. ~~€ reversa~
in trend from accretion to erosion
coincided with seawall construction in
Olde ~aples after 1950.
Migrational Rate:
None presently, but stability cecreasing
Predicted Migrational Future: Stable and recessional; subject to change
Comments: The Naples area ~as hit very hard by Hurricane
Donna, and the tracks of at least 15 major storms have
crossed over or near Naples, including the great 1947
storm. Four major storms produced record storm surges,
these occurring approxi~ately every 25-30 years from 1878
onward.
STORM HAZARDS
F[}(.A Evaluation
Transect No:
14
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
9.0
~ave Crest Elev (ft.):
10.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline, at
the intersection of 2nd Avenue North and
Gulf Shore Boulevard North in Naples,
east~ard across Naples Airport to a point
approximately 3,100 feet east-northeast
of the intersection of San Marco
Boulevard and County Highway 856 in
Collier County.
108
Hazard Potential:
~.A.~AGEMENT
Recommendations:
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/IS
HIGH. Continued sharp beach recession
during storms, the limited setbacks, the
age, condition and poor integration of
adjoining seawalls present an immediate
hazard during even moderate storms.
Construction on foundation rather than on
pilings has vastly increased the
potential for major structural damage
during hurricane tides or storm surges.
Protect coastal vegetation and reconstruct dunes
in segments 14-16. Overwalks and stairways,
although present in some of the public access
thoroughfares, should he constructed at all of
them. A similar recommendation is made for
stabilizing and protecting structures such as rock
revetments or riprap. No encroachment of any
"upla~d ~"cte.::tiGn st!:"1.lcture" s~,o'.lld be P-=t"1E:.tted
sea*ard c: the existing vegetation line. Any ne~
structures must be designed to interact with
natural beach processes. Repair of these struc-
tures should be allowed only after alternatives for
redesign or repositioning have been exhausted.
Reconstruction of inhabited structures after major
storm damage must be restricted to area behind
a prohibitive setback line.
109
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
A~y C.:.rps Pr'Jriles ~'.:;;
County BERM Transects No:
County field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
LAND O\<.'NERSHIP
Public:
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
Olde Naples
16
Naples
Gordon River
North Naples 4636 III NE
35 - 36
..;..L, __...
28, 29
ACE 21
ACE 21: Photo station located 15 feet
seaward form southwest corner of seawall.
R-71
R-72
R-73
R-74
T-7S
R-76
Benchmark Elev: 9.02
9.68
N/A
9.38
f.o/A
8.0
15
FEET
5320
N/A
N/A
FEEl
PERCENT
o
o
5320
100
o
o
COffiffients: Street end public access points not measured separately.
110
LA}iD USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 5320 100
Multi-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 0 0
Comments: Moderate to high density residential construction, in part
bulkheaded along berm line and onto foreshore in places.
Street end beach access points not measured.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Se~ent w/c CCCL: I
% Development Seaward CCCL: 96
~~ximum Intrusion (ft.): 100
Comments: Setbacks range from 60-175 feet. Beach access points not
measured.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
3370
63.3
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
890
16.7
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
1060
19.1
Other Structures:
Two groins.
Comments: Naplies pier is in this segment. Trend toward placing
riprap in front of seawall will probably continue.
III
PCBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
South Gulfshore Blvd
Number of Access Points:
15
Location: Gulf side end of
each cross street
Parking:
yes
Recreational Value: Fair to good. Although berm is not persistent the
beach is relatively wide, supports limited coastal
strand vegetation, and has good access, with
on-street parking.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized and Altered Coastal Headland
C~a~acte~ist:cs:
5c~:t ci :0C:G~3 Pass, t~e gec=opr:lcg::
C~~~6~S E~om ba=rier-lagoo~al coast to coastai
headlands with attached barrier spits. Prior
to development this segment possessed a narrow
(150 ft) barrier ridge backed by salt marsh,
mangrove and coastal hardwood forests. Land
clearing and topographic modification began in
North Naples in 1950's. The City pier,
constructed first prior to 1950 of long timber
pile is about 2000 feet long.
Beach Width (ft.):
56
65
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
None
80
Transect No:
28
29
Dune Characteristics:
Essentially non-existent except for limited
dune plants seaward of riprap/seawalls.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Native coastal vegetation almost entirely
replaced by landscaped species.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Little to no sea turtle nesting.
Resource Values:
Low to medium due to public recreational
beach and soree dunes.
112
Threats: Less of recreational beach between shore
recession and seawalls.
Comments: Efforts should be made to replant native dune vegetation
where possible.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 28
1885-1927: +1.8
1927-1952: +0.4
1952-1962: -3.7
19'::>1973; .... ~
-..:;.-
1973-1981: +0.9
Mean Rate: -0.8
29
+3.1
0.0
-2.6
-" Q
J. /
-3.3
-0.7
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3)
Army Corps Profile No:
20 21
- 26.7 -217.6
+ 1.2 - 89.1
+ 81.0 - 31.1
- 92.0 -203.1
- 36.6 -541. 7
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Accretion prior to 1950, follo~ed by
erosion during 1950-60's. this in turn
followed by extensive accretion.
Migrational Rate:
-3.0 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Stable to recessional; overall erosion
rate probably not offset by minor
accretional episodes.
Comments: Seawall construction coincides with reversal of early trend
from accretion to erosion in 1950-1960 period.
113
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect z.,;o:
IS
Stillwater E1ev (ft.):
9.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
9.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 200 feet north of the
intersection of 14th Avenue South and Gulf
Shore Boulevard North in Naples, eastward
across Naples Bay to a point approxi-
mately 2,700 feet east-northeast of
the intersection of Unity Way and State
Highway 84 in Collier County.
~2:ar~ ?ote~t:2::
~~t~ ~~~v.~ L:- :.-: =,~~:-: -: =~ ~ E':2- ::~.': . ~,c :.c::: s e af"..' a 1: E
a~e c~er 3~, yea~5 old a~~ the:r collapse
could upset neighboring bulkheads.
Seawall age, condition and integration
poor. Residential homes built on
foundations rather than pilings. Storm
surge damage would be extremely high.
MANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
Similar to previous segment. Riprap rock and
revegetation would aid in beach stabilization by
enhancing dune formation. See previous segment
comments.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FO~~/16
114
BEACH SEGME~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DP_:A STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
17
North Port Royal
Naples
Gordon River
Naples South, 4636 III SE
37 - 38
22, 23
30, 31
R-79, R-83
R-77
R-78
R-79
R-80
R-81
T-82
R-83
16, 17
FEET
6400
K/A
N/A
115
Benchmark Elev: 8.69
7.01
N/A
N/A
K/A
N/A
N/A
,..,"-, ~""""'~""'~_;'''''''''''-__'-''~_""''.'''''J~_-'-_,,,,,_",,(~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"_,",,-,,",,,,,,",
LA:-~D Ow'NERSHIP FEET PERCEI"T
Publ ic : 0 0
Private/Developed: 6400 100
Private/Undeveloped: 0 0
Comments: Beach access points not measured.
LAND USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 6400 100
Multi-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
U:L€:' - :r:r:e:--~-:c.i :
-
Open Land:
o
o
Comments: DEVELOPED. Essentially low density residential
construction, single family homes on foundation structures,
mostly built in the 19S0-60's. Ground level build up
reached as much as 6 feet in some areas. The area was
stabilized in part by the timber and riprap groins. At
present some 76% of the shoreline has been altered by these
constructs.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 91
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 75
Comments: Construction setbacks range from 80-200 feet above MHW,
being wider to the north. Seaward structures include both
buildings and seawalls/riprap.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCE!"T
w/o Riprap:
2080
32.5
w/ Riprap:
430
6.7
115
Revetments
Buriec: 0 0
Exposed: 2410 37.6
Non-Stabil ized
Shorline 1480 23.1
Other Structures: Ten (0) groins
Comments: Three long timber pile groins, and seven rock pile groins
were constructed prior to 1950, as was 1600 feet of seawall.
By 1981, over 50% of the segment was stabilized using Some
3500 feet of seawall. Seawall and groin construction
continued southward during the 1950's and by 1982, approxi-
mately 4000 of 6000 feet had been bulkheaded or had groins
emplaced.
?~=~IC ES~CH ACC~SS
Access/Exit Route:
Gordon Drive & South Gulfshore Blvd.
Number of Access Points:
3 plus beach walk
Location: 18th Ave S Parking:
32 & 33rd Ave S
21st Ave S is beachwalk
on road
Recreational Value: Fair to good. Notation as before. These beaches
receive a great deal of passive public recreation
during the winter tourist season. There is a
persistent berm and a coastal vegetation strip from
30-170 feet wide which is better developed on the
north half and more spotty in the south.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized and Altered Coastal Headland and
Spit
Characteristics:
Similar to previous segment. The Port Royal
segments make up in geological perspective a
southward-growing spit fed by erosional sands
from the Naples headland. The pre-existing
barrier averaged 200 feet wide, and prior to
clearing and filling supported a coastal
forest and a broad expanse of mangrove swamp
along the backside.
11 7
Beach ~idth (ft.):
84
75
I:ur.e/Washover
'..;idth (ft)
90
80
Transect No:
30
31
Dune Characteristics:
Limited (north) to non-existent (south).
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Except for limited remaining coastal strand,
most native coastal vegetation replaced by
landscaped species.
Cultural/Historic:
Redeposited aboriginal artifacts found in
vicinity of 18th Avenue South. See cultural/
historic notes.
Fis~ 3~C ~:::life:
L::t_2 t: ~: S~2 :crt:€ ~2st~~g.
Eesource Values:
Low to medium due to public recreational
beach and some dunes.
Threats: Loss of recreational beach between shoreline
recession and seawalls.
Corr~ents: Efforts should be made to protect remaining dunes.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE C~~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 30 31
1885-1927: -1.2 -3.5
1927-1952: +3.2 +0.2
1952-1962: -1.6 -0.6
1962-1973: +0.8 +0.8
1973-1981 : +2.2 +3.8
Mean Rate: +0.7 +0.1
118
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Prof ile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
22 23
- 56.6 - 76.6
+ 47.7 3.4
+ 20.0 + 64.4
- 73.3 - 15.5
- 62.2 - 24.3
Migrational History:
Erosion early in the century,
accretional fluctuations during middle of
century prior to 1950, followed by
recession during 1950-60's, again
cta~ging to t~~2r accreti0~ after 197C_
Migrational Rate:
+1.1 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Accretional to stable; continuing small
scale accretion unless severely altered.
Comments: This segment shares many features with Olde Naples,
including high density residential development very close to
the active beach area.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
16
17
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
10
11
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
11
12
Location:
16
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
at the intersection of Galleon Drive
and Gordon Drive in Naples, eastward
across Naples Bay to a point
approximately 1.2 miles north-
northwest of the intersection of
County Highway 864 and County
Highway 951 in Collier County.
119
Hazard Potential:
MA.~AGEMENT
Recommendations:
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/17
17 From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 400 feet south of the
intersection of 33rd Avenue South
and Gordor. Drive, eastward to a
point approximately 500 feet east
of Gordon Drive.
MODERATE. Wide setbacks, preservation
of some natural vegetation and the
effects of timber pile groins aid in
mitigating hazard. In the southern
section the hazard may become high to
severe.
Primarily revegetation management with concomitant
ove~'alk construction, or pe~anent paths to avcid
- - . .
... -, -- ~ ... - -.. .. ~ ,..,
"\_"~... ~..':::'- .._~
The ~~')~:e= ~~ 3a~:~:3~ =cc~i~i
ha~ser at~ach~e~t5 also nee~ to be addressed.
Other recommendations as in previous segments.
120
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment l\ame:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STA.TIO~S
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects ~o:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
South Port Royal
18
Naples
Gordon River
Naples South 4636 III SE
38 - 40
24, 25
32, 33. 34
A-21
Photo station located 15 ft. seaward
from southwest corner of seawall.
R-84
U-85
T-86
T-87
R-88
R-89
Benchmark Elev: N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18
FEET
6250
530
2540 from north line
121
Lr_\D O"'~ERSH IP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
4750
76
Private/Undeveloped:
1500
24
Comments: Private beach front lots being built on and filled
relatively fast.
L&~D USE (Based on 1984 REDI Maps)
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
4750
76
Mult i-Family:
o
o
~.':': e i.. . ~<~ ~ e: :
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
1500
24
Comments: DEVELOPED. Low to ~edium density single family residential.
Open land is land that has not yet been built on.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DKR Atlas amended by REDI Maps)
% Segment w/o ceCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 88
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 110
Comments: Building setback ranges from 40-120 feet landward of MHW.
See previous segments (#14-16).
SHORELIKE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCL~T
w/o Riprap:
3830
61.0
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
200
3
Exposed:
o
o
122
Non-S t ab il ized
Shoreline:
2220
36
Other Structures:
29 groins
Comments: Non-functional groins should be removed.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
South Gordon Drive
Number of Access Points:
o
Location: N/A
Parking:
N/A
Recreational Value: Hazardous to fair. An impersistent berm, and
sea~alls often exposed during spring or storm
tides. Closely spaced groins may offer n2z3rd
d~~~~2 =er~,:ds c: tig~ surf. ~0 p~~:~: a~cess Fer S~~
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized, altered barrier spit
Characteristics:
Much altered, with little contiguous coastal
vegetation, although scattered clumps appear
toward the south. Numerous groins interrupt
beach area.
Beach Width (ft.):
41
78
59
DunejWashover
Width (ft)
80
75
100
Transect No:
32
33
34
Dune Characteristics:
Dunes when extant very low to almost non-
existent. Spotty dune vegetation, and much of
this not able to function in any positive
stabilizing manner. Casuarina forest at
south end of segment.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Except for minor dune areas native coastal
vegetation replaced by landscaped species.
123
Cultural/Historic:
Erod:~g aboriginal ~ite in the form of a
large ~hell mound o~ce existed north of GorGon
Pass. Shell m0und excavated is early 1900's
and used to build roads. See cultura1/
historic notes.
Fish and Wildlife:
Little to no sea turtle nesting.
Resource Values:
Low owing to no access to recreational beach and
nearly nonexistent dunes.
Threats:
Loss of beach by shoreline recession.
Comments: Trend to place riprap in front of seawalls will probably
continue.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE C~~~GE
E~csi:~ Rate ~2231;~e~~~:5 (~t.
Transect ~o: 32
1885-1927: -2.0
1927-1952: -0.1
1952-1962: -0.2
1962-1973: +0.4
1973-1981: +7.3
Mean Rate: -1.7
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
33
+4.4.
-2.4
-0.7
-3.9
+3.4
+1.1
(1885 - 1970)
24
+ 35.5
+ 94.3
+283.0
+253.1
+665.9
34
+4.3
-0.5
-2.9
-1.7
0.0
-0.2
25
41.1
+ 147.6
+ 689.3
+ 260.8
+1138.8
124
Migrational History:
Relatively stable prior to 1950.
Erosion occurred and proceeded at the
greatest rate during the 1960's. Some
structural stability gained by groin
placement.
Migrational Rate:
-0.3 feet/year, with increasing stability
Predicted Migrational Future: Stable to fluctuating or recessional;
presumably more or less stable
Comments: Maintenanced dredged and filled in 1950's and 1960's. This
segment shares many features with the previous segment #16
(q.v.).
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Tra::sect No:
18
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
11.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
12.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 1,200 feet north of the
intersection of Cutlass Lane and Gordon
Drive in Naples, eastward across Naples
Bay to a point approximately 4,000 feet
east-northeast of the intersection of
County Highway 864 and County Highway 951
in Collier County.
Hazard Potential:
SEVERE. Seven long seawalls exposed at high tides
and frequently to storm tides, plus closely spaced
groin fields, discourage natural beach processes
from operating. Moderate to intense storms could
contribute to seawall failure. House construction
on foundations instead of pilings would increase
hazard severity.
MANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
Seawall conditions must be carefully examined, and
alternatives to misalignment be considered after
heavy damage has occurred. The volume of the
ebb-tidal delta at Gordon Pass should be monitored
and the location of dredge disposal be adjusted
accordingly. Other recommendations similar to that
of previous segments.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/18
125
Coastal Barrier 5. Kee~aydin ~sland
Over the long term (1885 tc 1981) the northern extreme of Keewaydin
Island exhibited an accretional trend. Some of the accreting sand was
supplied from a north-south drift divide that occurred approximately 0.75
miles south of Gordon Pass. The disposal of dredged sand on north
Keewaydin Island in 1962, 1967, 1970, and 1979 supplemented the sand
supply by adding approxi~ately one million cubic yards to the nearshore
zone on the south side of the pass. As a result of an unbalanced equi-
librium created by artificial beach nourishment in 1960, approximately
380 feet of beach eroded over the short term (1962 to 1973).
A 2-mile stretch of beach immediately south of the drift divide has
undergone continual erosion since 1885. Numerous tidal passes have
opened and closed along this segment. The most recent in this area
(John's Pass) closed by overwash and infilling of the throat during the
1930's. This segment could again become a tidal pass site in the near
future if erosion continues at the present rate.
Central and south Keewaydin Island have benefited over the past
hundred years from the erosion occurring to the north. Central Kee~ayci~
=s:and gre~ sc~~h~ar~ c~€r :.5 ciles c~r:~~ t~~ s~=e ~eric~.
r-.-~~
..c............-
ra: en-:: c~ 2::' a:.:re::>.g :";::i: is ::':::i::21.ly the -.;icest. As the spit
continues to grow, erosion will begin to occur in the vicinity of the
previous termini. This effect is apparent on south Keewaydin where,
since 1962, approxi~ately 200 feet of erosion has occurred along a 1.5
mile stretch of beach directly north of the accreting spit.
Storm Characteristics. The following information on storm charac-
teristics for Keewaydin Island unit is excerpted from the Flood Insurance
Stud: ~ave Hei ht Anal sis--Collier Count, Florida, Unincor orated Areas
(FEMA 1982) (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 11).
From the southern corporate limits of Naples to just north
of Big Marco Pass, waves with heights of up to 8.5 feet can be
expected along the open coast shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico.
The waves will be quickly reduced to less than 3 feet by rising
ground elevation and vegetation along the open coast north of
Little Marco Pass. South of Little Marco Pass waves with
heights greater than 3 feet will continue inland for approxi-
mately 0.5 mile where they are diminished by rising ground
elevation and vegetation. Moving inland, waves with heights up
to 4 feet are expected to regenerate across Rookery Bay and
Johnson Bay. These waves will be quickly reduced to less than
3 feet by dense vegetation and rising ground elevation along
the eastern shoreline.
Wave heights of up to 2 feet are expected at smaller
inland water bodies where sufficient fetch exists. These waves
will also be rapidly diminished by dense vegetation and rising
ground elevation.
~:aximum wave crest ele':ations are 17 feet at the open
coast shoreline, 15 feet at the eastern shore of Rookery Bay,
and 13 feet at the eastern shore of Johnson Bay and at the
eastern shore of other similar inland for approximately 3 miles
with the tidal surge elevations of 9 or 10 feet continuing
inlar.d for approximately 3 2oditional miles for this reach.
126
Beach, Dune and Washover Zone Characteristics. The Keewaydin Island
coastal b~rrier unit is approximately 7.9 miles long. Of this stretch,
16% of the Dune/Washover Zone is Native Coastal Strand, dominated by
native grasses and shrubs; 28% is Invaded Coastal Strand with Casuarina
in various stages of community invasion and dominance; 46% is in Exotic
Forest, with Casuarina in nearly monotypic condition; and 10% is Ornamen-
tal Landscape, typically sod and ornamental plants. In the Keewaydin
Island coastal barrier unit, the average width of the beach and dune zone
is 371 feet, and the average setback of land development activities from
the mean high water line is 350 feet. This translates to an average
reduction of 6% of the beach and dune zone width as a result of develop-
ment.
127
BEACH SEC~ENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Ar~y cc:~~ ?r~file~ \c:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
LA.'iD Oi-.'NERSH IP
Public:
Private/)eveloped:
Private/Undeveloped:
Korth Keewaydin Island
19
Keewaydin Island
~ater Management No. 6
Naples South 4636 III SE
41 - 42
-. 29
_. .-.' 1
35, 36
None
KIA
R-90
R-91
R-92
R-93
19
FEET
4110
N/A
N/A
FEET
0
1300
2810
Benchmark Elev: N/A
N/A
N/A
K/A
PERCENT
o
32
68
128
Comments: Low density commercial devel~pment with 1960's cottagc-
type foundations structures (known as the Keewaydin Club).
Negotiations are underway to purchase undeveloped portions
using CARL funds, and adding these to Rookery Bay Sanctuary.
LA.~D USE FEET P ERC ENT
Single-Family: 0 0
Multi-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 1300 32
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 2810 68
Comments: Private club. Area remains undeveloped.
CCCL ~~D DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCL:
o
% Development Seaward CCCL:
l'one
Maximum Intrusion (ft.):
None
Comments: CCCL line on active beach in 1979 is most likely now in surf
zone.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
P ERC ENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
4110
100
Other Structures:
Gordon Pass jetty at north end of segment.
Rebuilt in 1983-84. Two small rock groins
occur near club.
129
-'-11. ''IIlI.~r-:r """W'''''___''_"'''''','~'''_'''''"_''''''''''
Co~ments: No plans for further stabilization at present. Artificial
sea~eed project set out as experiment in 1983.
PCBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Ey water only
Number of Access Points:
Cnlimi ted
Location: Entire segment
Parking:
No
Recreational Value: Good. A wide unspoiled beach with 40-150 feet
berm, but public access is by boat only.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Tide influenced inlet rr.argin
Cc; a.:" 2: t € =-:. s: i C 5 :
Australian pine forest. A 1200 foot marginal
rock groin built in the late 1950's.
~C~. rE~Lr~ed t~a~~ rl~ge5 t2d\"ily
. . .
1~,'..-a-:2;: C:?
Beach Width (ft.):
194
93
Dune/\""ashover
\.,'idth (it)
180
310
Transect t\o:
35
36
Dune Characteristics:
Area heavily invaded by Casuarina but much
native dune vegetation remains.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Upland dominated by Casuarina but native
coastal hammock and scrub still extant. Area
around the club has been selectively cleared
of native and exotic vegetation.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and ~ildlife:
Active sea turtle nesting. Gopher tortoises
found in upland.
Resource Values:
Despite Casuarina invasion, undisturbed state
and natural beach gives this segment high
resource value.
Threats:
Major threat is the continued expansion of
the Casuarina forest and the concOQitant loss
of native species.
130
Corr~ents: Although a monumental task, experiments should be
undertaken to determine best way to eliminate Casuarina.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 35
1885-1927: +8.6
1927-1952: +20.6
1952-1962: +21.3
1962-1973: -41.3
1973-1981: -1.6
Me aI" ' -
i\a:e: + .1...)
36
+3.4
+1.8
-1.9
+31.8
+18.6
-lU.. I'
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
28 29
+ 104.3 + 51. 1
+ 289.7 + 109.9
+ 834.7 + 371.8
+ 166.5 + 170.9
+1395.2 + 703.7
Accretion occurred adjacent to the
pass from 1885 to about 1950. Hassive
erosion occurred thereafter and was
related to groin emplacement. Accretion
has occurred continuously in the southern
half of the segment.
Predicted Migrational Future: Primarily accretional and continuing
+8.3 (18.7) feet/year and accelerating
131
~.-;-/?_~ HAZARDS
FEMA Eva1uat ion
Transect No:
19
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
11.0
~ave Crest Elev (ft.):
13.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 3,000 feet south of Gordon
Pass in Naples, eastward across Dollar
Bay to a point approximately 1.2 miles
north-northwest of the intersection of
County Highway 864 and County Highway 951
in Collier County.
Hazard Potential:
EXTREMELY HIGH TO SEVEF~. Nat~ral or
~. . #
:':'~:'-:':-.'::...:cec ::.-...~::-.f:es l.r'~ :~;e :-..e.a:- S:-c'r-e .:o-..~
the shoreline.
~e5pcnslt~e :cr ~2ssive f:~ct~atiGns i~
l'I".A.'\AG EMENT
The undeveloped portions of this segment have beer. classified as an
undeveloped coastal barrier under P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal
Barrier Resources System Act. It is included in [nit P16, Kee~aydin
Island. This Act prohibits the use of most Federal funds (e.g., financial
assistance for new utility and transportation facilities) for projects on
designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In addition, as of October 1,
1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance coverage is available for any
coastal barriers classified as such. At present, the State of Florida is
also considering similar restrictions on State financial assistance for
projects on or to Federally classified undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
Any future development in this area should be of
low impact, stilt cottage construction as far away
from beach as possible. Property owners should be
encouraged to remove Casuarina and retain all
native dune and beach barrier vegetation. No
structural stabilization of the shore should be
undertaken. ~~ers should be warned of hazard
potential prior to any construction.
BL~CH S EGXE~;T DATA FORM/l9
132
BEACH SEGME~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles ~o:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
Lri.t.;D OWNERSHIP
Public:
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
John's Haulover
20
Keewaydin Island
Water Management No. 6
Naples South 4636 III SE
42 - 44
30
37, 38
None
N/A
R-94 Benchmark Elev: N/A
R-95 N/A
R-96 N/A
R-97 N/A
R-98 N/A
20
FEET
5060
100
Former site of John's Pass
FEET PERCENT
0 0
0 0
5060 100
Comments: ~egotiations underway for acquisition of this land by CARL
program.
133
LA.\D USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 0 0
Mul t i-F amily: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 5060 100
Comments: No structures present.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCL:
o
~ D~\.el.:~~e~: S~a~dr'~::C~: 0
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 0
Comments: In area around former pass CCCL is the new landward edge of
coastal barrier.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
wi Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
5060
100
Other Structures:
Ncr.e
Co~ents: No shoreline stabilization structures should be allowed on
the beach.
134
PfELIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By water only
Number of Access Points:
Cnlimited
Location: Entire segment
Parking:
~o
Recreational Value: Fair to poor. The narrow (less than 20 feet wide)
beach is littered with fallen Australian pines.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Historical Tidal Pass
Characteristics:
A single overwashed beach ridge 50-100 feet
wide, vegetated by mangrove, small patches of
coastal strand vegetation ard Austra:iar pine.
Su=erccs tidal passes have existed i~ this
segn:ent, the last one being John's Pass which
closed in 1940.
Beach Width (ft.):
71
60
Dune/,^ashover
width (ft)
120
180
Transect No:
37
38
Dune Characteristics:
Heavily invaded by Casuarina b~t native dune
species still exist.
CP-t..RACTERIST ICS
Vegetation:
Uplands dominated by Casuarina but native
coastal species also found.
Cultural/Historic:
Potential aboriginal or Spanish site near
John's Pass. See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and ,^ildlife:
Active sea turtle nesting. Gopher Tortoises
found in uplands.
Resource Values:
Despite Casuarina invasion, undisturbed state
and natural beach gives this segment high
resource value.
Threats:
Loss of beach by shoreline recession.
Comments: Major threat is the continued expansion of the Casuarina
forest and the concomitant loss of native species.
135
HI STOR lCAL MAl.YS ES OF SHORELINE CH.AJ\GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 37
1885-1927 : +3.3
1927-1952: -4.7
1952-1962: -18.0
1962-1973: +1.8
1973-1981: +4.9
Mean Rate: +2.5
38
+1.4
-4.7
-14.3
-9.0
-4.4
-6.2
Nearshore Volu:!1etric cra"'"cgec; (yd3) (138S-l970)
ro. IT: Y Corps Prcfile Sc:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
30
- 491. 7
- 541. 7
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
- 450. 7
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
32.2
Net Change:
-1516.3
Migrational History:
Massive erosion occurred after closing
of John's Pass in 1940. Since about
1973, accretion has been the trend.
Migrational Rate:
+1.0 to 9.9 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Accretional and continuing
STORM HAZARDS
FiliA Evaluation
Transect No: 20
Still'Water Elev (ft.) : 11.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.): 17.0
136
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 1.1 miles south of Gordon
Pass in Naples, eastward across Dollar
Bay to a point approximately 1.2 miles
northeast of the intersection of County
Highway 864 and County Highway 951 in
Collier County.
Hazard Potential:
SEVERE. Complete overwash of the
barrier ridge occurs seasonally.
Formation of emphemeral tidal passes
could take place at least 4 places along
this segment.
MANAGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Sv~, ~m Act. It is
included in :'~:-:i:
~. r
""'. ,..
........' J
...... ........,.
~eewa~'a1n is~an=.
This Act prc~i~:t~ the use of most
Federal fu~ds (e.g., financial assistance for ne~ uti:it~ 2 j transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
Development in this
discouraged because
tidal pass history.
should be permitted
area should be strongly
of narrow barrier width and past
No stabilization structures
on shoreline.
3EACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/20
137
.'. '~'.m~__".___.._"'" if' If. "f(" lit
BEACH SEG~E~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Kame:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
::"A T A 57 PO_-=-: ':'~ ~
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DKR Transects No:
..
FE~~ Transects No:
Central Keewaydin Island
21
Keewaydin Island
Water Management No. 6
Naples South 4636 III SE
44 - 48
31 , 32, 33
39, 40, 41, 42
Kone
K/A
R-99 Benchmark Ele\': KIA
R-100 6.25
R-101 6.10
R-I02 5.94
R-I03 6.66
R- 104 6.51
R-I05 6.42
R-106 7.00
R-I07 8.01
R-I08 7.46
R-109 7.04
R-I10 6.64
R-lll 7.05
R-112 7.48
R-113 7.90
21, 22, 23
132
LL'-.JGTH AND WIDTH
FEET
Length:
14,360
Minimum Width:
270
Minimum Width Location:
North beach segment.
LAND OWNERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
14,360
100
Private/Undeveloped:
Comments: Part of area private/developed with houses; other part with no
houses and thus private/undeveloped. Impossitle to separate
accurate:y.
LAND USE
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
see coounents
Multi-Family:
o
o
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
14,360
100
Coounents: A number of small beach houses are scattered in the south
part of this segment. Air photos not available for measure-
ment so they are grouped into open land category.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 0
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 0
Comments: CCCL line runs longitudinally through coastal barrier
through much of this segment.
139
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-S tabilized
Shoreline
14,360
100
Other Structures:
None
Cc,;rrr:e:tts: ~: s~;crel::.'>:--: s:=.::_::'=2.t:c~ :5t:"cct'...::-es s~-:Lld ce ;"_~:-=.::.:-:::
or:. tielS seg:::e:-:t.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By water only
Number of Access Points:
Unlimited
Location: Entire Segment
Parking:
None
Recreational Value: Good. A 20-100 foot wide berm and an unspoiled
beach inaccessible except by boat.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Parallel Beach Ridge Barrier Island
Characteristics:
A narrow barrier 200-350 feet in width. A
ccc:plete barrier over..ash occurred in the
ncrth sector in the 1950's, and the resultant
deposits were colonized by Casuarina during
the 1960-70's. The south sector supports a
100-150 feet wide coastal hammock. with a
narrow band of Australian pine forest
separating the former from the Gulf of Mexico.
Beach ~idth (ft.):
94
63
80
80
Dune /T,..Tashover
~idth (ft)
170
165
190
150
Transect No:
39
40
41
42
140
!
I
Dune Characteristics:
Casuarina dominates foredune area throughout
segmen t.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Casuarina covers most of this segment upland
in the north but becomes more restricted to
foredune area as it goes further south. Well
developed coastal hammock and scrub occurs
landward of foredune area in south segment.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic notes.
Fish and Wildlife:
Active turtle nesting area. Gopher tortoise
also encountered.
Resource Values:
Extensive native communities and restricted
Cas~arina invasion gives this se~e~t a very
ti~t resource value~
Threats: ~~jor threat is the continued expansion of
the Casuarina forest and the concomitant loss
of native species.
Comments: Although a monumental task, experiments should be
undertaken to detercine the best ~ay to eliminate Casuarina.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE C~~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No:
39
40
41
42
1885-1927:
+5.0
+6.1
-0.8
+2.7
1927-1952:
-1.8
+12.5
+6.7
+7.8
1952-1962:
+1.5
+4.5
-1.2
-7.1
1962-1973:
-9.4
-4.9
+2.0
-3.3
1973-1981 :
-6.8
0.0
-2.2
+10.0
Mean Rate:
-2.3
+3.6
+1.2
+2.0
141
~earshore Vo:umetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Arr;;y Corps Profile ~o:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
-IS Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
31 32 33
+55.5 -17.8 -2.2
+ 1 34 . 3 +4.4 -31.1
+223.1 -68.8 -109.9
+4.4 -11.1 -31.1
+408.5 -93.3 -174.3
Fluctuations have occurred in the
erosional/accretional trend of this
segment, with an overall longterm trend
of frequent small changes. The north has
recently beeD eroding and the south
S2C~2~ acc~~::~g4
Predicted Migrational Future: Variably accretional
+9.3 to 15.7 feet/year and accelerating
Comments: At the southern end of the segment a recurved ridge
indicates the location of the relict southern tip of
Keewaydin Island, perhaps several hundred years old.
STORM HAZARDS
FEYu\ Eva 1 ua t ion
Transect No:
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
Location:
31
22
23
11.0
11.0
11.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
21
From the Gulf Of Mexico coastline,
approximately 1.9 miles south of
Gordon Pass in Naples, eastward
to a point approximately 2,000 feet
east-southeast of the intersection
of County Highway 864 and County
Highway 951 in Collier County.
22 From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 3.2 miles south of
Gordon Pass in Naples, eastward to
a point approximately 5,000 feet
east-southeast of the intersection
of Sable Palm Road and County
Hibh~ay 951 in Collier County.
142
23 From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 4.2 miles south of
Gordon Pass in ~aples, eastward
across Rookery Bay to a point
approximately 2.3 miles southwest
of the intersection of 62nd Avenue
and Miller Boulevard in Collier
County.
Hazard Potential:
HIGH. It is expected that the
accretional trend seen over the last
century will slow considerably or stop
altogether in the near future.
~.ANAGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
:rcludec in [pit P16, Keevaydin :sla~c. Tnis Act prohib:ts the use c: ~c~t
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for r-e~ utility and transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
Any future development in this area should be of
low impact, stilt cottage construction as far away
from beach as possible. Property owners should be
encouraged to remove Casuarina and retain all
native dune and beach barrier vegetation. No
structural stabilization of the shore should be
undertaken. ~~ers should be warned of hazard
potential prior to any construction.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/21
143
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
South Keewaydin Island
Number:
22
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Keewaydin Island
Coastal Management Unit:
Water Management No. 6
USGS Topo Quad:
Naples South 4636 III SE
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
48 - 50
rA:..~.. S:A.TIC~.:5.
Army Corps Profiles No:
34
County BERM Transects No:
42, 43, 44
County field Stations No:
None
Locations:
fi/A
DNR Transects No:
R-114
R-115
R-l16
R-117
R-118
R-119
R-120
R-121
Benchmark Elev: 8.53
5.23
5.42
4.54
3.88
4.47
4.10
3.97
FEMA Transects No: 24
LENGTH AND T,.;IDTH FEET
Length: 8080
Minimum T,.;idth: N/A
Minimum T,.;idth Location: N/A
144
LMD O\.,:NERSHIP FEET PERCENT
Public: 0 0
Private/Developed:
8080 100
Private/Undeveloped:
Comments: Have both private/developed and private/undeveloped.
Impossible to measure each on air photos.
LAND USE
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
see comments
Multi-Family:
o
o
Hetel/Motel:
o
r
\J
Other CCTrrercial:
o
o
Open Land:
8080
100
Comments: Small beach houses scattered throughout. Low density
zoning with single family piling-built structures (12-15)
and 27 lagoon-side docks present in 1981. Setbacks range
from 15 feet in an extreme case seen in both sectors to
others at approximately 250-350 feet above MHW. Since
houses take up such a small area predominant land use is
open land.
CCCL &~D DEVELOPMLNT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Sea.....ard CCCL: 1
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 100
Corrments: This house .....as on the beach in 1984 and plans are underway
to remove the structure.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Sea.....alls
FEET
FERCE.~T
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
145
.. llIIb.4 l__If!I_."_" .i;IlIU'"_w'_""....,..-.__".._._'"..~^_
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shore line
8080
100
Other Structures:
t\one
Comments: No stabilization structures should be built on this segment.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By water only
~u~ber of Access Pci~ts:
L~::::::itec
Lo~a~i0~: E~:i~E segrrEDr
?dr~::..:-:g;
~one
Recreational Value: Good. An unspoiled beach with a 20-80 feet berm,
but with access only by boat.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE It\VENTORY
Type:
Parallel Beach Ridge Barrier Island
Characteristics:
This segment was formed as a southerly
extended spit of Keewaydin Island. A central
ridge nearly 5 feet high extends al~ost the
entire length of the segment. Except for a
narrow band of Australian pine on the Gulfside
the se~ent is vegetated extensively by a
coastal hammock community.
Beach ~idth (ft.):
96
109
58
Dune/Washover
\<.'idth (ft)
250
300
300
Transect No:
43
44
45
Dune Characteristics:
Narrow fcredune land dominated by Casuarina.
146
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Aside from a narrow gulfside band of
Casuarina entire segment vegetated by native
coastal species. Very well developed coastal
hammock present. Area around the club has
been selectively cleared of native and exotic
vegetation.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Active sea turtle nesting. Gopher Tortoises
found in upland.
Resource Values:
Despite Casuarioa invasion, undisturbed state
and natural beach gives this segment high
resource value.
Threats:
Major threat is the contl~~ec ~x~a~sion c=
t~e Casua~i~a fcrest and :he cc~~ccita~t :c;;
or r~tive species.
Comments: Although a monumental task, experiments should be
undertaken to determine the best way to eliminate Casuarina.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 43 44 45
1885-1927: +5.0 +8.3 0.0
1927-1952: +2.8 +3.0 +18.7
1952-1962: +1.0 +15.8 +4.2
1962-1973: +4.3 +2.2 -1.7
1973-1981 : +4.7 +2.0 +0.5
Mean Rate: +3.6 +6.3 +4.3
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd 3) 0885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
34
-395.2
-73.2
6.7
+89.9
- 38 5 . 2
147
Migrational History:
Accretion occurred almost continuously
since 1885 but has decelerated con-
siderably since 1970.
Migrational Rate:
1.7 feet/year and decreasing
Predicted Migrational Future: Slowing accretion
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
24
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
11.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
17.0
~o:a.:i:r::
~-,~~ the G~:~ of ~exic0 c:a5:~:~2J
a;~~2xi~ate:) ~.~ miles ~~=:t or Dlg
Marco Pass, eastward across Rookery Bay
to a point approximately 2.7 miles
northwest of the intersection of 92nd
Avenue and Miller Boulevard in Collier
County.
Hazard Potential:
M("DERATE TO HIGH. An accretional trend
and relatively wide barrier ridges limits
the hazards in this segment.
MA.".jAGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
included in Unit P16, Keewaydin Isla~d. This Act prohibits the use of most
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for new utility and transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coasta~ barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
Preserve established setbacks; encourage
vegetational management; remove A~stralian pines;
establish a~d rraintain narrow isolated foot trails.
BEACH SEG~E~T DATA FO~~/22
148
BEACH SEGME~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Hu rricane Spit
Number:
23
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Keewaydin Island
Coastal Management Unit:
Water Management No. 6
USGS Topo Quad:
Naples South, 4636 III SE
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
51 - 52
DATA STATIONS
A~y Corps Frofiles ~c:
35
County BERM Transects No:
46, 47
County Field Stations No:
None
Locations:
N/A
DNR Transects No:
R-122
R-l23
R-124
R-125
R-126
R-127
Benchmark Elev: 4.27
3.72
4.17
4.04
4.06
3.62
FEMA Transects No:
25
LENGTH AND WIDTH
FEET
Length:
7000
Minimum Width:
300
Minimum Width Location:
Near north segment line.
LAND O\o."NERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
7000
100
Co~ments: Ownership in question; no detailed maps available. Area
predominantly undeveloped.
149
Lr~;D USE FEET PERCDa
Single-Family: 0 0
Multi-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other COnnIlercial: 0 0
Open Land: 7000 100
Comments: Small beach houses at a few locations and some lagoon-side
docks. Area mostly open land.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Seg~e~t w/c CeeL:
r;
D2~'elo?~~~t Sea~Er:
-r-~
L....... ',_ -.:
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 0
COnnIlents: CCCL closer to beach in this segment.
SEORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
...il Riprap:
o
o
Revetrr,ents
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Kon-Stabilized Shoreline:
7000
100
Other Structures:
None
Comments: No shoreline structures should be constructed in this
segment.
ISO
PCBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By water only
Number of Access Points:
Unlimited
Location: Entire segment
Parking:
None
Recreational Value: Good to excellent. A wide unspoiled beach having
20-200 feet wide berms adjacent to the pass.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Recurved Barrier Island Spit
Characteristics:
An accretionary spit formed since 1930 with
low elevations, usually under 5 feet in
he~ght. Coastal s:=lnc vege:atio~ is
es~a~:!shed O~ the highe= ridge and C~
acc~eted land. Australian pi~es have
colonized the shore
n~~ly
Beach Width (ft.):
251
169
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
700
575
Transect No:
46
47
Dune Characteristics:
Native dune species found in newly accreted
areas. Casuarina invading.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Coastal hammocks and Casuarina forests on
former accretional ridges, and salt marsh and
salt meadow vegetation in open areas between
ridges; native foredune and supratidal berm
species on newly formed south end.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic su~~ary.
Fish and ~ildlife:
Active sea turtle nesting on whole segment. Sea
bird nesting on south end.
Resource Values:
Lo~ due to no access to recreational beach and
nearly nonexistent d~nes.
Threats:
Loss of beach by shoreline recession.
Comments: Trend to place riprap in front of sea~alls will probably
continue.
151
HISTORICAl, AI';ALYSES OF SHORELINE CHA..t.;GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 46
1885-1927: +9.2
1927-1952: +14.8
1952-1962: -11.5
1962-1973: -18.6
1973-1981 : -3.8
Mean Rate: -2.0
47
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-34.8
N/A
~earS:10r€ Vcl''':I.et~ic: C1-ta~~ge.s lyd3) (12SS - 19~C)
Army Co~p~ ?ro~ile So:
, ~
~-'
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
+ 330.8
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
+ 484.0
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
+ 728.2
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
+ 274.2
Net Change:
+1817.2
Migrational History:
Growth of the spit slo~ed during the
late 1960-1970's at which time a trend
reversal occurred from stable accretional
to erosional.
Migrational Rate:
-0.5 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosional; increasing erosion ~ith
possible ephemeral inlet formation
leading to eventual breakup of island.
152
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
25
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
11.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
17.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approximately 2.5 miles north of Big
Marco Pass, eastward across Johnson Bay
to a point approximately 2.4 miles
west-southwest of the intersection of
92nd Avenue and Miller Boulevard in
Collier County.
Hazard Potential:
SEVERE. The low elevatior.s, young geophysica: age,
anci large effects of tidal ir.fluerces or. the
segment suggest that c:asti~ i~~ctuations of the
shoreline are probable.
MANAGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
included in Unit P16, Keewaydin Island. This Act prohibits the use of most
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for new utility and transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
Seawall conditions must be carefully examined, and
alternatives to misalignment be considered after
heavy damage has occurred. The volume of the
ebb-tidal delta at Gordon Pass should be monitored
and the location of dredge disposal be adjusted
accordingly. Other recommendations similar to that
of previous segments. ~~nagement will need to
address possible ephemeral pass formation during
storms. No development should be permitted on
active south end.
BEACH SEG~LNT DATA FORM/23
153
.n the K!~~~y~in Isl~nd co~st~l barrier unIt. the averSge ~idth ot the beach
j~ne zone IS 371 teet. and the averege setback of lend develooment ~ctivities
from the me~n hi9h ~ater line is 350 feet.
THis tr~nsl~tes to an ~veraQe
reduction at 6\ of the beech and dune zone ~idtv as a result of develooment.
Future oredictions for the Kee~eYdin Coastal barrier Unit indic~te that
decreased stability is oroiected for south central KeeweYdin ~nd the trend of
~rosion Dresent alonQ the north Dortion of the island will orobablv soread
south~ard in the near future.
In addition. s~trm b-e~c~in; ~:onq t~~ rortr
=.'-: s.:~t..
:~-.:-~..
-. - ... .,. . "'" ... -
-.- '.......... ~ a_
:,... : : e:: .. ~ "
..... .-
':::~>:T1.::!-:
.: - :: s : :: # ~ ~ _ v ... 5:: .. ": ... ~
in shorelines at the adiacent beeches.
l'Ianege.eni
Kee~avdin Island has been classified as an undevelooed coastal berrier under
p,L. 97-343. the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System A::t.
This Act
crohibits the use of most Federal funds (e.g., financial assistnace for ne~
/
~tility and tranSDortion addition. as of October 1. 1984. no Federally
IC~
subsidized t~od insurance coverage is available tor any coastal barriers
:lassitied as such.
At oresent, the State ot Florida is also considerinQ
;imilar restrictions on State financial assistance tor oroiects on or to
Federally classified undevelooed coastal barriers.
/'I ~D~~~eJ:l L tte_c~~~f] d ~_t-Loll
=reserve established setbacks: enC0~raqe ve;et~tlc-e. mara;ement: remove
A~stralian oines: esteblish end m21ntain narrow islca~ed foot trails,
13
Coastal Barrier 6. Coconut Island
Shoreline Change. Once 3.8 miles long, Coconut Island was breached
by storms at one location and at another in 1965. The accreting south
end of Keewaydin Island overlapped the historic northern segment of
Coconut Island by growing around its leeward side. The northern segment
of Coconut Island was later renamed Little Marco Island. The remnants of
Coconut Island presently comprise two small barrier islands, north
Coconut and south Coconut, which total approximately 1.5 miles in length.
Coconut Island has been the site of continuous erosion since 1885.
The shoreline of north Coconut Island receded approximately 1,200 feet
since 1885 without any significant periods of accretion occurring during
this time. From 1973 to 1981 north Coconut Island receded as much as 200
feet or over 20 feet per year, making it one of the fastest naturally
eroding areas in Collier County.
Storm Characteristics. The following information on storm charac-
teristics for the Coconut Island unit is excerpted from the Flood Insurance
Studv: Wave Hei ht Anal vsis--Collier CountV'. Florida, Unincor""'orated Are'd.:!-
(?EMA 1982) (Coastal Ma~age~ent Atlas, Page 11).
From just north of Big Marco Pass to approximately 1.8
miles north of Caxambas Pass, waves with heights of up to 9
feet can be expected along the open coast shoreline of the Gulf
of Mexico. These waves will be rapidly diminished to less than
3 feet by rising ground elevation and vegetation along the open
coast. In the area surrounding Collier Bay, waves ~ith heights
greater than 3 feet will continue inland until they are reduced
to less than 3 feet in height by bulkheads, buildings, and
rising ground elevation at the eastern and southern shores of
Collier Bay. The bulkheads are expected to remain intact
during the lOO-year storm surge.
Moving inland, waves with heights up to 4 feet are expect-
ed to regenerate across Tarpon Bay, Big Marco Pass (inland),
and East Marco Bay, and waves with heights up to 3 feet can be
expected to regenerate across Addison Bay. These waves will be
quickly reduced to less than 3 feet by vegetation and rising
ground elevation along the eastern shores.
In addition, wave heights of up to 2 feet can be expected
at McIlvane Bay and other similar inland bays and watercourses
where sufficient fetch exists. These waves will be rapidly
reduced by dense vegetation and rising ground elevation.
Maximum wave crest elevations are 19 feet at the open
coast shoreline, 15 feet at Collier Bay, 13 feet at Tarpon Bay,
Big Marco Pass (inlar.d), and East Marco Bay, 12 feet at McIlvane
Bay, and 11 feet at Addison Bay. Wave action continues inland
for approximately 0.5 mile with the tidal surge elevation of 9
feet continuing for approximately 1 additional mile for this
reach.
Beach, Dune and Washover Zone Characteristics. The Coconut Island
coastal barrier unit is approximately 2 miles in length. Of this stretch
of coast 38% is Native Coastal Strand, dominated by native grasses and
shrubs, and 62% is Mangrove Forest, with an understory consisting of
grasses and succulent herbs.
154
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
~OTE:
Sea Oat/Coconut Island
24/25
Coconut Island Group
Water Management No. 6
Marco Island, FL 4635 I NW
53 - 57
This segment is made up of a group of coastal c2r:-iers kr>::w;: as
the C2CC~ut ls:a~d Gro~~. Starti~g frcrr t~e scu~~, t~2 ~5~ands
Sccth CCCOnL[ !s:and, Scrth Ccco~ut Isla~d) Sea Ca~ :5:2~d, and
Cannon Island, are separated by the Isles of Capri Pass which
opened in the late 1960's. Sea Oat Island is actually the name
applied to the new sand spit formed in the north that now connects
north Coconut Island to Cannon Island. Cannon Island is a former
Gulf-fronting barrier sheltered from wave action by Keewaydin,
Little Marco, and Coconut Islands. It is part of this segment by
virtue of its attachment to Sea Oat Island. In the future, as
more information is connected, this composite beach segment will
probably be divided.
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LlliGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum ~idth Location:
37, 38, 39
48, 49, 50
None
K/A
None
26
Benchmark Elev: K/A
FEET
2900
300
Just south of point where Sea Cat Island
joins Cd~non lslanc.
155
LAS: OWNERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
2900
100
Comments: One house present 15-20 feet landward of MHW. On north
Coconut Island a caretaker house is present in the upland
hammock on Cannon Island.
LAND USE
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
See
Comments
Multi-Family:
o
o
Eotel/Motel:
o
r
'-
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
2900
100
Comments: Essentially undeveloped except for two houses. Cannon
Island and part of Sea Oat Island currently being planned
for development as a weekend residential and recreational
club.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL: 100
% Development Seaward CCCL: N/A
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): ~/A
Comments: No CCCL established for these islands.
SHOR~LINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
156
Revetments
Buried: 0 0
Exposed: 0 0
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline: 7900 100
Other Structures: None
Comments: No stabilization structures should be permitted on this
segment.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By water only
S~~be~ c~ A:~ess PCi~~5:
~ > ... .
~ :-"_..... ::r: :.. t -e :
Location: Throughout
Parking:
None
Recreational Value: High; a wide unspoiled beach to the north with
public access by boat.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Arcuate Beach Ridge Barrier Island
Characteristics:
The Coconut Island Group is made up of a series
of long, recun'ed beach ridges that are now
connected to Cannon Island. The islands are
vegetated with mangrove forests on the bay
sides a~d in the low swales and a scrub-
mangrove-salt flat association on the ridges
and intermediate elevations. Coastal hammocks
are fc~~d on the higher ridges, the greatest
areal extent occurring on Cannon Island. A
large spit forms a connection between North
Coconut Island and Cannon Island, and although
very low in elevation supports grasses,
succulents and Casuarina.
Beach Width (ft.):
N/A
31
44
Dune/Wc;.shover
Width (ft)
~/A
1 CiO
60
Transect No:
48
49
50
Dune Characteristics:
Dune zone non-existent in the south due to
rapid ecosion of beach a~d berm. l~ the
ncr:h, the wide berm colonzied by native dune
species and scattered Casuarina.
157
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
See coastal barrier and dune characteristics
above.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Potential sea turtle nesting on new
spit near north end but not on eroding areas to
the south.
Resource Values:
The largely unaltered ridge/runnel uplands,
new wide beach near north end and extensive
hardwood hammocks on Cannon Island make this
segment very high in resource value.
Threats:
Continued erosion in the south and loss of
native habitats due to development and/or
Casuarina cclcniz3ticn.
Corr~ents: Casuarina should be remcved from new northern beach.
Development plans should be carefully scrutinized to insure
steps to minimize adverse impact.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 48 49 50
1885-1927: N/A -6.3 -10.7
1927-1952: N/A -4.2 -3.6
1952-1962: N/A -48.0 -23.8
1962-1973: N/A -17.2 -15.8
1973-1981: N/A -14.8 -27.6
Mean Rate: N/A -18.1 -16.3
158
"._'.'-~"--"""'"-'__~'___'"",_M~;"
.'.._ .....-,"___'"_._,.._..."_"''"'.,,,'''''',.,...,.w.~"'
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885 - 1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
-IS Ft. to -20 Ft. :
37
38
39
- 125.5
- 619.4
+471.7
+ 677.1
- 363.0
+ 203.1
+ 572.8
+ 206.5
+ 236.4
+ 273.1
+ 82.1
0.0
Net Change:
+1397.5
- 693.8
32.2
Migrational History:
Except for spot growth on both the north
and south ends of the islands, and the
relative stability on Cannon Island
proper, massive erosion has occurred
s.:.:"'.ce 1925.. Capri Pass ~as fC!l:.EC \,,'ber:
t~e i5:a~~ s:~:: l~ t~c, b€t~ee~ :9~S 2~:~
~ :-!: 'j .
Migrational Rate: -17.0 feet/year; no noticeable recent
changes
Predicted ~Qgrational Future: Erosional with eventual coalescence or
disappearance of Coconut and Sea Oat
Islands. Continously eroding (since
1885) the shoreline of Coconut Island has
receded nearly 1200 feet with little
significant accretion during this time.
It will remain one of the fastest eroding
islands in Collier County.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
26
Still~ater Elev (ft.):
11.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
17.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline,
approxi~ately 1.2 miles north of Big
Marco Pass, east~ard across Johnson Bay
to a point approximately 3.3 miles
north~est of the intersection of U.S.
Highway 41 and State Highway 92 in
Collier County.
159
Hazard Potential:
SEVERE on all but the stable upland portions of
Cannon Island. Massive unremitting erosion and low
elevations have created extreme hazards in the
majority of this segment. All portions of the
segment would be susceptible to substantial
flooding during a severe tropical storm.
MANAGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
included in Unit P16, Keewaydin Island. This Act prohibits the use of most
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for new utility and transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for prc:ects on or to Federally classified
~~ceveloped cc~stal barriers.
Reconunendations:
Construction on this segment should be strongly
discouraged except for the Cannon Island uplands.
There, limited construction is possible but all
details should be carefully reviewed to guarantee
that this unique island is not subjected to adverse
impact.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/24/25
160
Coastal Barrier 7. Marco Island
Shoreline Change. Shoreline changes along Marco Island have been
extremely variable. Changes in position of the shore have generally
exceeded 300 feet since 1885. The inlet shoreline on the south side of
Big Marco Pass (north Hideaway Beach) has eroded 300 feet since that
date. This recession was a result of the shift of the main ebb channel
to the south, i.e., against north Marco Island. The continued erosion of
south Coconut Island, which protects north Hideaway Beach from direct
wave attack could cause increased recession in the future.
The position of the northwestern Marco Island shoreline has fluctu-
ated widely in response to the changing shape of the ebb-tidal delta at
Big Marco Pass. Between 1885 and 1962 the northern 1.75 miles of Marco
Island received sand released from the ebb tidal delta and accreted 900
feet. Since 1962, however, north Marco Island has become the site of
massive, pervasive erosion. Shoreline recession rates ranging from 30 to
40 feet per year have occurred there since 1962. These rates have not
been exceeded anywhere else in Collier County.
The shoreline of north centra: ~arco Island has shifted both land-
ward a~d seaward since 1885. Tte area is current:y in an erosional
p:-:ase, having €rocec 215 :eet si'Lce :962. A 700 feet long seawall which
was constructed in the central portion of the sector in the early 1970's
has exacerbated erosion in the area. In the period from 1973 to 1981
some 60 feet of erosion has taken place. Coastal strand vegetation on
either side of the seawall was cleared during the mid 1970's to allow
development. Consequently, the seawall daily became more exposed to wave
swash, causing increased wave reflection and turbulence. This, in turn,
increased erosion during storm periods. Approximately 40 feet of
recession occurred north of the seawall in a matter of hours during the
"no name" storm of June, 1982.
The central 1.5 miles of Marco Island has accreted steadily since
1885. The southern half-mile of the island has, however, been eroding
since 1927. This southern area of erosion was limited to the extreme
southwestern tip of Marco Island until the mid 20th century when the
trend of erosion began to spread northward. Increased erosion of the
south part of the island was related to the construction of a seawall
"compound" directly adjacent to Caxambas Pass in the early 1950's.
Three profiles were surveyed on Marco Island to determine shoreline
changes between 1973 and 1981 (Fig. 2). Korth Marco Island (DNR profile
R-136) receded 100 feet during this period. The beach was relatively
more stable during the past 10 years along south central Marco Island
(profile R-144). The location of the mean high water line did not change
along this part of the beach, although the backshore grew approximately
1.5 feet in elevation owing to the accumulation of sand during storm
overwash. The extreme southern end of Marco Island has eroded between 20
and 50 feet since 1973 and an existing scarp became steeper during that
t ime .
Storm Characteristics. The following information on storm charac-
teristics for the Marco Island unit is excerpted from Flood Insurance
Study: Wave Height Analysis--Collier County, Florida, (nincorporated
Areas. (FEMA 1982) (Ccastal Management Atlas, Page 11).
From just north of Big Marco Pass to approximately 1.8
miles north of Caxambas Pass, waves with heights of up to 9
feet can be expected along the open coast shoreline of the
161
MARCO ISLAND
G.
MHW_~-----------~-- -
---- ---- R-136
--
---
10
5
MSL
200
100
o
H.
MHW_ _/
/----~
-./
200
100
I.
MHW -_/Q
~ -' ...---
- --_/ ./"
--
--
,1C
,-"'"1_ >
\._- 15
R -14~--I"Sl
....
o
10
5
T -148
MSL
200
100
o
KEY
Beach Profiles
l---~ 1973
E----3 1982
Figure 2. Comparative topographic profiles, south
Collier County: 1973 to 1982.
1 .::
-J
fr
3:'
-... /./
-j~~
R
\~
~~r
8~ ~
~{~
G_\ \~~
I . '"
H_} (
I_~
:.'\
't
Cape Ao,"" ~no
Miles
CJiIL __ .. _ ..
o 1 2 3 , 5
Gulf of Mexico. These ~aves will be rapidly diminished to less
than 3 feet by rising ground elevation and vegetation along the
open coast. In the area surrounding Collier Bay, waves with
heights greater than 3 feet will continue inland until they
are reduced to less than 3 feet in height by bulkheads, build-
ings, and rising ground elevation at the eastern and southern
shores of Collier Bay. The bulkheads are expected to remain
intact during the 100-year storm surge.
Moving inland, waves with heights up to 4 feet are expect-
ed to regenerate across Tarpon Bay, Big Marco Pass (inland),
and East Marco Bay, and waves with heights of up to 3 feet can
be expected to regenerate across Addison Bay. These waves will
be quickly reduced to less than 3 feet by vegetation and rising
ground elevation along the eastern shores.
In addition, wave heights of up to 2 feet can be expected
at McIlvane Bay and other similar bays and watercourses where
sufficient fetch exists. These waves will be rapidly reduced
by dense vegetation and rising ground elevation.
~a.'(imUlr .ave crest elevations are 19 feet at tbe open
CGcst s~or€line, 15 :eet at Collier Pay, 13 feet at ~ar~o~ 3ay.
Big Marco Pass rin:a~~ , and Edst Marcc Bay, :: feet at McIlvane
Bay, and 11 feet at Addison Bay. Wave action continues inland
for approximately 0.5 mile with the tidal surge elevation of 9
feet continuing for approximately 1 mile for this reach.
From approximately 1.8 miles north of Caxambas Pass to
Grassy Bay, waves with heights of up to 10 feet can be expected
along the open coast shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico. These
waves will be quickly diminished by rising ground elevation and
vegetation along the open coast. At Caxambas Pass, waves with
heights greater than 3 feet will continue across Caxambas Bay
where they are diminished to less than 3 feet by vegetation and
rising ground elevation. Moving inland, waves with heights of
up to 4.5 feet will be regenerated across Barfield Bay. Again,
rising ground elevation and vegetation will quickly reduce
these waves at the eastern shoreline. In addition, ~ave
heights of up to 2 feet will be found at Roberts Bay, Grassy
Bay, and other similar bays and watercourses where sufficient
fetch exists. These waves will also be quickly reduced by
rising ground elevation and vegetation along the eastern
shorelines.
Maximum wave crest elevations are 20 feet at the open
coast shoreline, 17 feet at Caxambas Bay, 16 feet at Barfield
Bay, and 15 feet at Roberts and Grassy Bays. Wave action
continues inland for approximately 0.3 mile with the tidal
surge elevations of 10 to 12 feet continuing for approximately
1 additional mile for this reach.
Beach, Dune and t~ashover Zone Characteristics. The Marco Island
c)astal barrier unit is approximately 5.2 miles in length. On this
stretch of coast 9% is Kative Coastal Strand, dominated by native grasses
aGd shrubs; 22% is Invaded Coastal Strand with Casuarina in various
stages of cOffiDunity inv2sion and do~inance; 4~ 1s Exotic Forest, ~ith
Cast.:arir:a ir; r.ear ::lOnot~-pic conditicr.; and 64::; is Crnamental Landscape,
typically sed and ornamental plants. In the Marco Island coastal barrier
163
unit the average width of the beach and dune zone is 251 feet at North
Marco Spit, and 180 feet at Central Marco Beach. The average setback of
land development activities from the mear. high water line is 20 feet at
North Marco Spit and 150 feet at Central ~~arco Beach. This translates to
an average reduction of 92% and 17% of the beach and dune Zone width,
respectively, as a result of development.
154
BEACH SEGME~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Hidea~ay Beach North
Number:
26
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Marco Island
Coastal Management Unit:
Belle Meade
USGS Topo Quad:
Marco Island 4635 I NW
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
57 - 61
::~::'. S1AIUNS
Army Corps Profiles No:
42
County BERM Transects No:
51, 52, 53
County Field Stations No:
None
Locations:
N/A
DNR Transects No:
None
Benchmark Elev: N/A
FEMA Transects No:
27, 28
LENGTH ~\~ WIDTH
FEET
Length:
8650
Minimum Width:
450
Minimum Width Location:
At Berm Transect No. 52
Lfu'm O\..'N ERSH IF
FEET
PERC ENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
8650
100
COIrJI;ents: Platted for futt;re single and multi-facily development.
Some constrLcticr- ~~3 begun but majority of the site is
undeveloped (not possible with existing air photos to
differentiate between categories).
1 C, c;
-""- 'j _!
LAND USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: See CC::lJllents
Multi-Family: See Ccrra:nents
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 8650 100
Comments: Majority of Hideaway Beach PUD still open land. Some single
and multi-family already started but not mapable.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 97
% Deve12pmenr Seaward CeeL: SiA
~~ximum Intrusion (ft.): N/A
Comments: Portion of Hideaway Beach fronting Marco Pass not covered
by CCCL.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline:
8650
100
Other Structures:
Ncne
Comments: No shoreline stabilization structures anticipated at
present.
166
P~BLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
SR 951 & Kendall Drive
Number of Access Points:
None
Location: f../A
Parking:
~c
Recreational Value: Narrow sandy beach along much of the inlet but not
available to public access.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Inlet-influenced Pass Margin
Characteristics:
A wide truncated beach ridge, supporting a
coastal hammock. Elevations mostly less
tr6ar-. 5 f~et..
Beach Width (ft.):
N/A
N/A
34
Jure;::! ;';a..s:-,C;c:
Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
80
Transect No:
51
52
53
Dune Characteristics: Typical dune zone near southwest end of
segment but beach fronted by hammock and wetland vegetation
further to the northeast.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Hideaway Beach spit is colonized by a mixture
of tropical and temperate coastal hardwood
hammock species. This vegetation type
restricted to coastal areas south of Gordon
Pass. Although effort is being made to
protect native plants, many will be lost
during development. Spit is backed by man-
grove wetland and transitional brackish marsh.
Cultural/Historic:
European shipwreck artifacts
vicinity of Big Marco Pass.
historic summary.
found in the
See cultural/
Fish anG Wildlife:
Sea turtle nesting only near the southwest
end, if any.
Resource Values:
Relatively undisturbed nature of upland
coastal vegetation b~t restricted public
access makes t~is segment of medium to high
value.
167
Threats: Loss of native coastal vegetation by
developm~nt activities and erosion of beach
particularly near the mouth of Big Marco Pass.
Comments: Every effort should be ~ade to protect native coastal
hammock species and to retain sufficient construction
setback from water.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 51
1885-1927: N/A
1927-1952: +0.8
1952-1962: -4.1
1962-1973: -0.3
1973-1981: -0.9
Mean Rate: -1.1
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
52 53
N/A -3.2
+4.5 -3.8
-10.3 +:.3
-3.1 -8.2
0.0 -3.0
-2.4 -3.2
(1885 - 1970)
42
+ 219.8
+1238.8
+ 434. 1
- 143.2
+1749.5
Slo~, relatively persistent erosion
since 1885, related to inlet throat
migration.
-0.1 feet/year and increasing
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosional, presumably continuing
depending on hydrodynamics of Big Marco
Pass.
168
STCJR.~ HAZARDS
FIMA Evaluation
Transect No:
27
28
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
12
12
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
19
19
Location:
27
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline
at Big Marco Pass, eastward across
Tarpon Bay to a point approximately
2.4 miles west of the intersection
of 112th Avenue and Everglades
Boulevard in Collier County.
28 From the Gulf of Mexico coastline
at ~arco Island, approximately
::,C':JC :ee~ s:-.utr: c: Big ~..arcc Pass,
e35:~a~~ 2cr23S Cc:::er 3ay and
Bear Point Cove to a point
approximately 3.3 miles east-
northeast of the intersection of
U.S. Highway 41, and State Highway
92 in Collier County.
Hazard Potential:
SEVERE. Further inlet throat migration could cause
accelerated erosion.
MA."1AGEMENT
RecolIunendations:
Encourage retention of native vegetation in unaltered
natural areas. Ensure sufficient setback of
structures from water line, especially toward the
southeast end near the cun:e in Big Marco Pass.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/26
169
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
r::;',TA S:-..i.IIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
Tigertail Beach
27
Marco Island
Belle Meade
Marco Island, 4635 I NW
62 - 64
43
54, 55, 56
R-132
DNR monument R-132 is located in
backdune area approximately 1100 feet
north of Tigertail Beach access boardwalk
and 400 feet east of the water line.
T-128
T-129
V-130
R-131
R-132
T-133
R-134
Benchmark Elev:
N/A
N/A
6. 12
5.23
4.21
3.90
4.55
28. 29
FEET
6750
100
Old Clam Pass inlet, now closed
1 70
UJ\D Ow'NERSH IF
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
3838
57
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
2912
43
Comments: Public property owned and managed as Tigertail Beach County
Park. Private property is platted single family lots in
Hideaway Beach PUD.
LAND USE
FEET
P ERC ENT
Single-Family:
see comments
Mult i-Family:
o
o
H ':- t e =- ;' ~L: tel ~
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
6750
100
Comments: Southern 3838 feet of beach segment is used as a passive
County beach park. Remainder of segment is privately owned
by Hideaway Beach Development interests. Roads have been
emplaced but very little single family construction has
taken place.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
~{ Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 0
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 0
Comments: Only intrusion is by beach access walkways and public
streets.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
171
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
6750
100
Other Structures:
None
Comments: No future shoreline stabilization envisioned.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Hernando Drive, Tigertail Blvd..
Kendall Drive, SR 951
~~mber of A~cess Poi~ts:
Location: Hernando Drive
Parking:
Yes
Recreational Value: The southern portion of this beach segment is
the major public beach park in southeast Collier
County. The wide sandy beach is very heavily used.
There is no public beach access in the private
portion of this segment.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE I~VENTORY
Type:
Inlet-influenced Pass Margin
Characteristics:
Low narrow beach ridges separated by wide
swales and wetlands, vegetated by coastal
strand, mangroves and coastal hammocks.
Beach Width (ft.):
80
84
96
Dune/Washover
\'"idth (it)
200
SO
100
Transect No:
54
55
56
Dune Characteristics:
Dune zone to south heavily invaded by
Casuarina and damaged by pedestrian impact.
Dune zone to north in much better shape,
colonized by native species and Casuarina.
1 72
CEARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Beach segment is backed by substantial
mangrove forest ~n south, diminishing to the
north. Uplands vegetated by native coastal
hammock scrub and dune species. A large area
of the park has been invaded by Casuarina.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Potentially a sea turtle nesting area.
Resource Values:
Despite Casuarina invasion and visitor
impact, this segment has medium to high
resource value because of its wide public
access beach and native upland and wetland
vegetation. Proposed Casuarina removal and
habitat restoration/protection program will
yield a high reSGurc€ value for tl>is segrr.€Et
:. 7". :.'~ ~ f ~~ t" '._ r -2 .
Threats: Continued colonization by Casuarina and
increased visitor impact.
Comments: Plans are underway for a massive dune restoration and
protection project at Tigertai1 Beach to remove Casuarina,
replant native species, and build crosswalks and other
structures to reduce visitor impact.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 54 55 56
1885-1927: +3.2 +17.4 +6.0
1927-1952: +39.5 -1.2 +22.1
1952-1962: -12.8 -21.2 -16.4
1962-1973: -38.8 -4.8 -17.4
1973-1981: -39.4 +15.6 -6.6
Mean Rate: +5.9 +1.2 -2.5
173
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
-9 Ft. to -IS Ft. :
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. :
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
43
+ 32.2
+270.9
0.0
0.0
+103.1
Accretion occurred in the 1930-1940's
related to the onshore migration and
welding of sandbars from Big Marco Pass
onto the beach. After 1950 massive
erosion occurred at an accelerating rate.
Clam Bayou has narrowed and migrated
slowly north since lS85.
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosional; continuing
-lS.O feet/year and accelerating
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
Location:
28 29
12.0 19.0
12.0 19.0
28 From the Gulf of Mexico coastline
at Marco Island, approximately 2,000
feet south of Big Marco Pass,
eastward across Collier Bay and Bear
Point Cove to a point approximately
3.3 miles east-northeast of the
intersection of U.S. Highway 41, and
State Highway 92 in Collier County.
29 From the Gulf of Mexico coastline
at Marco Island, approximately
1,000 feet northwest of the inter-
section of Bayside Court and Seaview
Court, eastward across Addison Bay
to a point approximately 1.8 miles
west of the intersection of U.S.
Highway 41 and State Highway 92 in
Collier County.
174
Hazard Potential:
~~AGEMENT
Recommendations:
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/27
SEVERE. The dynamics of the ebb-tidal
delta in Big Marco Pass control shoreline
changes in this segment. Massive
erosional fluctuations are likely in the
future.
Public area should be managed for use as a passive
beach and nature appreciation park. Every effort
should be made to minimize impact and to restore
native vegetation.
1 75
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEl"A Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
North Marco Spit
28
Marco Island
Belle Meade
Marco Island 4635 I NW
64 - 65
None
57
T-136
Photo station located 118 ft. seaward of
the northwest corner of the south end of
the South Seas Condominium parking lot.
CMT-135
T-136
T-137
T-138
Benchmark Elev: N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
29
FEET
4390
N/A
North end.
1 76
LAND OWNERSH IP FEET PERCENT
Publ ic: 0 0
Private/Developed: 4390 100
Private/Undeveloped: 0 0
Comments: Highrise condominiums line this segment.
LAND USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 0 0
Multi-Family: 3950 90
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 440 10
Comments: Only one vacant condominium lot still vacant.
CCCL AND DEVELOP~T SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas)
% Segment wlo CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 90
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 125
Comments: Intrusion by both buildings and seawalls/riprap.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
'.1/0 Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
2200
SO. 1
Revetments
Buried:
875
19.9
Exposed:
875
19.9
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline:
440
10
Other Structures:
Kane
177
Comments: Buried revetment is remains of South Seas artificial dune
project.
PGBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
SR 951 and Collier Blvd.
Number of Access Points:
o
Location: N/A
Parking:
No
Recreational Value: None
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized Barrier Spit
Characteristics:
A long, wide beach ridge plain grading down
towards the north end of the segment, with
elevations between 4 and 7 feet. The segment
was vegetated with coastal strand vegetation
and mangroves, but extensive site clearing,
topographic modification and seawall con-
struction occurred in the 1970's, especially
in southern three quarters of the segment.
Beach Width (ft.):
150
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
80
Transect No:
57
(These data now suspect)
Dune Characteristics:
Dune non-existent except near northern end
where it was artificially rebuilt, and at
vacant lot.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Nearly no native coastal vegetation
remains. Most has been replaced by landscape
species.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
No sea turtle nesting; minimal wildlife use.
Resource Values:
Low resource value due to destruction of
native habitats; minimal beach and no public
access.
Threats:
Continued loss of beach between shore
recession and seawalls.
1 78
~
Comments: Through CCCL variances County has attempted to provide for
public walkways along top of seawalls where high tide beach
has disappeared.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 57-
1885-1927: -0.7
1927-1952: +13.8
1952-1962: -4.3
1962-1973: +5.7
1973-1981: +5.7
Mean Rate: +4.0
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885 - 1970)
Army Corps Profile No: None
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.: N/A
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.: N/A
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.: N/A
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.: N/A
Net Change: N/A
Migrational History:
Accretion caused the northerly growth
and widening of this spit prior to 1950.
Since then, rapid erosion has occurred,
with the rate accelerating after site
clearing and seawall construction.
Migrational Rate:
-3.9 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosional and continuing.
179
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
29
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
12.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
19.0
Location:
See previous segment
Hazard Potential:
EXTREMELY HIGH. A trend of erosion has been
aggravated by the exposure of approximately 1500
feet of uninterrupted seawall to the daily swash of
waves. Continued erosion is likely.
MANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
Continue to encourage landward relocation and
realignment of seawalls after storm damage and to
require public seawall by-pass walk~ays where high
tide beach is non-existent.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/28
180
"
BEACH SEG~E~T DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
~
t
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
NOTE:
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
Central Marco
29
Marco Island
Picayune-Camp Keasis
Marco Island 4635 I NW
65 - 67
1979 beach segment map out of date.
Does not reflect numerous condominiums
built between 1979 and 1984.
44, 45
58
1-139, R-144, R-148
1-139: DNR Monument T-139 located near
south beach path at Marco Island Residents'
Beach. Photo station located 15 ft. seaward
of monument.
R-144: DNR Monument R-144 located near
south edge of Hilton Hotel property on
high ridge near large Casuarina tree.
Photo station located 120 ft. seaward of
monument.
R-148: DNR Monurrent R-148 located in
dune scoop just north of Point Marco
revetment
T-139
T-140
R-141
T-142
R-143
R-144
R-14S
Benchmark Elev: 6.12
5.92
5.66
N/A
8.18
10.27
13.78
30
181
LE1'GTH AND \..'IDTH FEET
Length: 7260
Minimum Width: N/A
Minimum Width Location: N/A
LAND OWNERSHIP FEET PERCENT
Public: 0 0
Private/Developed: 5985 82
Private/Undeveloped: 1275 18
Comments: Private/undeveloped as Marco Island Residents' Beach; and a
vacant condominium lot.
LAND USE (Based on 1984 REDI Maps)
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Multi-Family:
3735
51
Hotel/Motel:
2250
31
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
1275
18
Comments: Open land, other than residents' beach, projected for
development. Hotel/motel represents the Marco Marriott and
Marco Hilton. Time-share clubs (e.g. Eagles Nest) grouped
with multi-family.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas and 1984 REDI Maps)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 13
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 63
Comments: All buildings behind setback; intrusion is landscape wall
seaward of Princess Del Mar, Prince, and Duchess Condo-
miniums. Only open intrusions are elevated dune crosswalks.
182
SHORELINE STRUCTGRES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
2880
39.7
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
Non-S t ab ilized
Shoreline:
o
o
4380
60.3
Other Structures:
None
Comments: Much of the beach segment is backed by undisturbed coastal
dune.
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
SR 951 & Collier Blvd.
Nu~ber of Access Points:
None
Location: N/A
Parking:
No
Recreational Value: Little public recreational value because of no
access but wide beach is excellent in terms of
private recreational use.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Arcuate Beach Ridge Barrier Island
Characteristics:
A wide ridge plain vegetated by coastal
strand plants, and having elevations slightly
higher than the segments to the north and
south, ranging fro~ 3-10 feet in height. The
beaches in this segment were cleared and
graded in the 1960's and early 1970.
Approximately 2,200 feet of retaining wall was
built in the central segment. A native
coastal strand has been retained in the
southern half of tr.e segment.
Beach Width (ft.):
200
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
o
Transect No:
58
183
Dune Characteristics:
The majority of the native dune zone
(dominated by sea oats and salt meado. cord
grass) is undisturbed in this segment.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Except for the remaining dune all other
native upland vegetation has been cleared
and/or replaced by landscape species.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Sea turtle nesting likely
Resource Values:
Although wide beach and good dune exists,
loss of other upland native habitats and lack
of public access makes this segment of medium
resource value.
Threats:
Loss of dune by pedestrian impact and
reduction of beach by shoreline recession.
Comments: Every effort should be made to enhance and protect existing
dunes.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 58
1885-1927 : +2.7
1927-1952: +18.8
1952-1962: -5.6
1962-1973: +13.1
1973-1981 : +6.3
Mean Rate: +6.4
18,;
Kearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3)
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
(1885 - 1970)
44 45
+ 324.1 + 189.8
+ 293.1 + 255.3
+ 337.4 + 117.2
+ 195.4 + 196.5
+1150.0 + 759.3
Army Corps Profile No:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-IS Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
A relatively steady trend of accretion
has prevailed during the past 100 years.
Erosion during the 1960-1970's was
probably related to the extensive
clearing of native stabilizing vegeta-
tion.
Migrational Rate:
+5.1 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Accretional and continuing.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
30
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
13.0
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
20.0
Location:
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline at
M2rco Island, approximately 1,200 feet
southwest of the intersection of Spruce
Avenue and North Collier Boulevard,
eastward across Landmark Waterway and Big
Marco River to a point approximately 2.3
miles southwest of the intersection of
l.S. Highway 41 and State Highway 92 in
Collier County.
Hazard Potential:
MODEP~TE TO HIGH. A trend of accretion moderates
the erosion hazard although the potential for
severe flooding over the low elevations of Marco
Island is always present.
185
MANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
County should strongly encourage enhancement and
restoration of existing dune zone and the construc-
tion of elevated crosswalks. No other structures
should be allowed seaward of the CCCL on this
segment.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/29
186
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles ~o:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
LMD O\o.'NERSH IF
Pu b 1 i c :
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
South Marco Beach
30
Marco Island
Picayune-Camp Keasis
Marco Island 4635 I NW
67 - 68
46
59, 60
R-148
DNR Monument R-148 located in dune/scoop
area just north at the Point Marco
revetment. Photo station located 40 ft.
seaward of monu~ent.
R-146
R-147
R-148
R-149
Benchmark Elev: 6.10
11.78
9.96
N/A
None
FEET
2820
N/A
N/A
FEET
PERCENT
o
o
1170
41
1650
59
Comments: Vacant land is undeveloped condominium lots.
187
1.A.'\D USE (Based on 1984 REDI Maps)
FEET PERCENT
Sing le-F arnily : 0 0
Mu It i -F arnily: 1170 41
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 1650 59
Comments: Land use in vacant land will most likely be multi-family
condominiums or time-share units.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK (Based on 1979 DNR Atlas and REDI Maps)
% Segment w/o CCCL: 0
% Development Seaward CCCL: 0
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): 0
Comments: Only intrusion is the dune restoration project at Seawind
and crosswalks at other condominiums.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Sea\o.'alls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline:
2820
100
Other Structures:
~one
Comments: Dune restoration project has been undertaken at Seawind,
the southernmost condominium to date.
188
PLBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Collier Blvd., SR 951 or SR 92
Number of Access Points:
o
Location: N/A
Parking:
No
Recreational Value: Although there are no dedicated access points,
numerous people park on vacant lot at south end and
use the beach.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Inlet-influenced Pass Margin
Characteristics:
Low, wide beach ridge plain previously
vegetated by a coastal strand, now completely
cleared since the early 1970's.
Beach Width (ft.):
59
95
Dur.e /io.'ashover
Width (ft)
95
110
Transect No:
59
60
Dune Characteristics:
Remnant coastal dune to the north but
proceeding south most of the dune has eroded.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Aside from scatterd dune areas no native
vegetation remains. It was cleared during
early development and has been replaced by
native and non-native "weeds" as ""ell as by
landscaped species.
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic notes.
Fish and Wildlife:
Little or no sea turtle nesting. Little
wildlife value
Resource Values:
Eroding beach and scarce dune zone makes this
of low to medium resource value.
Threats:
Further loss of dune and beach by pedestrian
impact and erosion.
Comments: Every effort should be made to protect and enhance
remaining dunes.
189
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 59
1885-1927: +4.0
1927-1952: -20.6
1952-1962: -2.3
1962-1973: -4.4
1973-1981: -9.0
Mean Rate: -6.4
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -IS Ft.:
-IS Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
60
+1.3
-25.4
-37.3
-3.4
-16.1
-16.2
(1885 - 1970)
46
- 267.5
- 801. 4
- 314.1
11. 1
-1394.1
Massive erosion occurred after 1930, and
continued into the 1960-1970's as a
consequence of seawall construction at
Point Marco.
Migrational Rate:
-6.9 feet/year and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosional and continuing.
STORM HAZARDS
FEYiA Evaluation
Transect No: None
Stillwater Elev (ft.): N/A
Wave Crest Elev (ft.): N/A
Location: N/A
190
_--..__r"""tf ....
Hazard Potential:
HAl\AG EM ENT
Recommendations:
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/30
Severe. Poor vegetation management enhanced the
erosional trend in this segment and erosion is
expected to continue.
Protect dune resources and maximize building
setback along south segment.
191
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects ~o:
FEMA Transects No:
L~GTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
LA.~D OWNERSH IP
Public:
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
Point Marco
31
Marco Island
Picayune - Camp Keasis
Marco Island 4635 I NW
68
None
61, 62, 63
None
None
None
31
FEET
2210
N/A
N/A
FEET
0
2210
0
Benchmark Elev: N/A
PERCENT
o
100
o
Comments: This area was seawalled and developed as a tracking station
in the 1950's. It is noW' owned by a private developer.
192
LA.~D USE FEET PERCE~T
--
Single-Family: 0 0
Multi-Family:
2210 100
Hotel/Motel:
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 0 0
Comments: Future plans include both multi-family units and a
hotel/motel complex.
CCCL ~~ DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL:
See note.
% Development Seaward CCCL:
100
Maximum Intrusion (ft.):
362
Comments: The CCCL covers the Gulf side of Point Marco but not the
inlet side.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
2210
100
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
t\on-S tab il iz ed
Shoreline:
o
o
Other Structures:
None
Comments: No plans at present for further stabilization of this
segment.
193
PCBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Collier Blvd. & SR 92
Number of Access Points:
None
Location: N/A
Parking:
NQ
Recreational Value: None - No beach and no access.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Stabilized Pass Margin
Characteristics:
Low cuspate foreland and recurved spit,
sparsely populated with coastal strand plants.
The shoreline was stabilized in 1958 by the
construction of a low seaW'all "compound."
Beach io.'idth (ft.):
190
66
38
Dune /Washover
Width (ft)
88
55
55
Transect No:
61
62
63
Dune Characteristics:
Dunes no longer exist anywhere along this
segment.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
No original native vegetation remains on this
se gtr'en t .
Cultural/Historic:
See cultural/historic notes.
Fish and Wildlife:
No sea turtle nesting possible.
Resource Values:
No beach and no native resources make this
segment of low resource value.
Threats:
Further loss of sand and steepening of beach
profile due to W'ave reflection.
Comments: Changes during future development ~ay enhance this segment.
194
HISTORICAL ~~ALYSES OF SHORELINE CH~~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 61
1885-1927: -1.5
1927-1952: N/A
1952-1962: +10.7
1962-1973: -19.8
1973-1981: +12.3
Mean Rate: +0.4
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
62 63
-3.6 -1.4
+15.2 +2.2
-2.5 -5.3
-31. 7 -10.9
-12.8 -7.5
-7.1 -4.6
( 1885 - 1970)
None
N/A
N/A
"KIA
N/A
N/A
A trend of accretion during the late
1800's reversed to erosion in the mid
1900's. Local accelerated erosion is
related to the presence of the seawall
constructed around the point.
-7.0 feet/year; no recent change in trend
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosional and continuing.
STORc'1 HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No: 31
Stillwater Elev (ft.): 13.0
\.;ave Crest Elev (ft.) : 20.0
195
Location:
Hazard Potential:
MANAGEMENT
Recommendations:
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/31
From the Gulf of Mexico coastline at
Caxambas Pass, eastward across Barfield
Bay and Goodland Bay to the eastern
shoreline of Palm Bay in Collier County.
SEVERE. Practically no natural beach remains in
this segment. Revetments protecting upland
property could be dislodged in a major storm.
The entire offshore system should be carefully
studied prior to any future attempts to further
stabilize this area. Rock riprap at base of
seawalls should be maintained periodically where
rocks have been lost due to wave action.
196
Coastal Barrier 8. Kice Island
Shoreline Change. Kice Island has receded steadily since 1885. On
the average the shoreline eroded 400 feet over this period of time.
Storm Characteristics. The following information on storm charac-
teristics for the Kice Island unit is excerpted from the Flood Insurance
Study: Wave Height Analysis--Collier County, Florida, Unincorporated
Areas (FEMA 1982) (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 11).
From approximately 1.8 miles north of Caxambas Pass to
Grassy Bay, waves with heights of up to 10 feet can be
expected along the open coast shoreline of the Gulf of
Mexico. These waves will be quickly diminished by rising
ground elevation and vegetation along the open coast. At
Caxambas Pass, waves with heights greater than 3 feet will
continue across Caxambas Bay where they are diminished to
less than 3 feet by vegetation and rising ground elevation.
Moving inland, waves with heights of up to 4.5 feet will be
regenerated across Barfield Bay. Again, rising ground
elevation and vegetation will quickly reduce these waves at
the eastern shoreline. In addition, wave heights of up to 2
feet ~ill be found at Roberts Bay, Grassy Bay, and other
similar bays and watercourses where sufficient fetch exists.
These waves will also be quickly reduced by rising ground
elevation and vegetation along the eastern shorelines.
HaximuID wave crest elevations are 20 feet at the open
coast shoreline, 17 feet at Caxa~bas Bay, 16 feet at Barfield
Bay, aDd 15 feet at Roberts and Grassy Bays. Wave action
continues inland for approximately 0.3 mile with the tidal
surge elevations of 10 to 12 feet continuing for approxi-
mately 1 additional mile for this reach.
Beach, Dune and Washover Zone Characteristics. The Kice Island
coastal barrier unit is approximately 2.4 miles in length. Of this
stretch of coast, 11% is ~ative Coastal Strand, dominated by native
grasses and shrubs, and 89% is Mangrove Forest, with an understory
consisting of grasses and succulent herbs.
197
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Rice Island
Number:
32
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Kice Island
Coastal Management Unit:
Picayune-Camp Keasis
USGS Topo Quad:
Marco Island 4635 I NW
Cape Romano 4635 I SW
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
69 - 73
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
None
County BERM Transects No:
64, 65, 66, 67
County Field Stations No:
None
Locations:
N/A
DNR Transects No:
None
Benchmark Elev: N/A
FEMA Transects No:
32, 33
L~GTH M"TI WIDTH
FEET
Length:
16,000
Minimum Width:
350-400
Minimum Width Location:
North 1300 feet of segment.
LAND OI<.'N ERSH IP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
16,000
100
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
o
o
Comments: Land transferred to the State by Deltona during early
dredge and fill negotiations.
198
USD USE FEET P ERe ENT
--
Single-Family: 0 0
Multi-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 16000 100
Comments: Island is undeveloped with no land use other than resource
protection.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL:
100%
% Development Seaward CCCL:
N/A
Xaximum Intrusion (ft.):
N/A
Comments: No CCCL established for Kice Island.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
P ERC ENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
T,., / Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabi lized
Shore line
16,000
100
Other Structures:
None
Comments: No shoreline stabilization anticipated due to land
ownership status.
199
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By \o.'ater Only
Number of Access Points:
Unlimited
Location: Entire Segment
Parking:
No
Recreational Value: Despite minimal sandy beach, recreational value is
high due to open access and protected resources.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Single Beach Ridge Barrier Island
Characteristics:
A migrating, overwash ridge of less than 5
ft. elevation, 100 ft. wide, backed by an
extensive mangrove swamp. Higher areas
support patches of coastal strand plants
and the ubiquitous Australian Pine.
Beach Width (ft.):
60
53
49
49
Dune/Washover
iolidth (ft.)
SO
60
40
60
Transect No:
64
65
66
67
Dune Characteristics:
Very little beach and native dune habitat in
this segment because of recent shoreline
recession. Where sandy areas exist, native
species and Casuarina coexist.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Majority of island is mangrove wetland.
Isolated upland contains native dune, scrub,
and hammock vegetation.
Cultural/Historic:
Spanish artifacts have been found on Kice
Island/Cape Ro~ano Complex shoreline. See
cultural/historic su~~ary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Minimal sea turtle nesting due to lack of
sandy beach.
Resource Values:
Extensive undisturbed wetland and upland
system and open access gives this area a high
resource value.
Threats:
Continued loss of beach resources due to
disruption of Caxambas delta system.
200
Cowrrents: This area should remain in the preserve status. ~o need at
present to provide public facilities.
HISTORICft~ ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 64 65 66 67
1885-1927: -11.2 -1.5 -0.7 -5.2
1927-1952: -5.4 -2.9 -2.4 -1.4
1952-1962: -13.2 -11.5 -8.2 -2.8
1962-1973: -8.5 -10.2 -12.5 -16.2
1973-1981 : -2.6 -10.6 -8.1 -7.7
Mean Rate: -8.2 -7.3 -6.4 -6.7
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. :
None
NiA
N/A
N/A
N/A
Net Change: N/A
Migrational History: Shoreline in this segment has migrated
eastward by the process of overwash,
with rapid and persistent erosion
occurring since 1885. Dickman Point is
raesult of a minor accretionary episode
that has taken place at the north end of
the island.
Migrational Rate: -7.2 ft./yr. with no apparent change in
recent trend
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosion, based on projected average rate,
with continued large-scale erosion to the
south, and possible enhancement of northern
sector.
201
STOR.'1 HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
Location:
Hazard Potential:
MAJ\AGEMENT
32, 33
13, 14
20, 22
32
Collier County - From the Gulf of Mexico
coastline at Kice Island, approximately
6,500 feet south of Caxambas Pass,
eas~ard across Horrs Island and Sugar
Bay to a point approximately 1.7 miles
northeast of the mouth of Blackwater
River at B~ackwater Bay in Collier
County.
33
Collier County - From the Gulf of Mexico
coastline at Kice Island, approximately 2
miles south of Caxambas Pass, eastward
across Helen Key and Tripod Key to a
point approximately 2,500 feet north-
northwest of the mouth of wbitney River
at Buttonwood Bay in Collier County.
SEVERE. Com.plete oven.rash of barrier ridge
seasonally.
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
included in Unit PIS, Cape Romano. This Act prohibits the use of most
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for new utility and transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
Maintain current status with no attempts to alter
existing natural features.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/32
202
... ... "~Jfll.Jo.. .IU~ "R~'
Coastal Barrier 9. Morgan Island
Shoreline Change. Morgan Island has experienced a history of
erosion and sand redistribution since 1885. The trend along the northern
half has been erosion and land~ard migration. This has resulted in a
recession of 150 feet since 1927. The shoreline of the southern half of
the Island fluctuated 300 feet landward and 200 feet seaward during the
cyclic formation and destruction of an accreting spit. Tidal passes have
periodically opened, migrated, and closed on Morgan Spit throughout the
past 100 years. The existing, most recent, spit was formed during the
1960's. Based on the history of shoreline change in the area it can be
expected that, as in the past, the spit will disappear during the passage
of some future moderate to intense tropical storm.
Beach, Dune and Washover Zone Characteristics. The Morgan Island
coastal barrier unit is approximately 2.1 miles in length. On this
stretch of coast 40% is Native Coastal Strand, dominated by native
grasses and shrubs; 60% is Invaded Coastal Strand, with Casuarina in
various stages of coremunity invasion and dominance.
203
BEACH SEG~ENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
North Morgan Island
Number:
33
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Morgan Island
Coastal Management Unit:
Picayune-Camp Keasis
USGS Topo Quad:
Cape Romano 4635 I SW
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
73 - 74
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
None
County BERM Transects No:
68, 69
County Field Stations No:
None
Locations:
N/A
DNR Transects No:
~one
Benchmark Elev: N/A
FEMA Transects No:
None
LENGTH AND WIDTH
FEET
Length:
5880
Minimum Width:
536
Minimum Width Location:
2310 feet south of north segment line
LAND Ow'NERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
5880
100
Comments: Entire beachfront is in private ownership but at present
there is no development along this segment. The interior
wetlands and upland on Romano Island lying 1000 to 1500 feet
east of the shoreline, are owned by the State of Florida.
204
LfSD USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 0 0
Mu 1 t i-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 5880 100
Comments: Open land at present but single family use possible under
current zoning.
CCCL AND DEVELOP~~NT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL:
100%
% Development Seaward CCCL:
N/A
Maximum Intrusion (ft.):
N/A
Comments: No CCCL was ever established for this segment.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
W'/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Kon-Stabilized
Shoreline
5880
100
Other Structures:
None
Comrr.ents: No future shoreline stabilization should be considered
because of special treatment zoning designation on this
segment.
205
PUBLlC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
Water Only
Number of Access Points:
L'n limit ed
Location: Entire Segment
Parking:
~o
Recreational Value: High recreation value due to undisturbed nature of
area and open sandy beach.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Parallel Beach Ridge Barrier Island
Characteristics:
Low overwash fan backed by extensive man-
grove swamp.
Beach Width (ft.):
43
90
Dune/io.'ashover
Width (ft)
100
150
Transect No:
68
69
Dune Characteristics:
Limited dune development has occurred on the
overwash berm. Although native species
predominate. Casuarina has colonized many
areas.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Y4jority of island is mangrove wetland.
Isolated uplands contain native dune, scrub,
and hammock vegetation.
Cultural/Historic:
Spanish artifacts have been found on Kice
Island/Cape Romano Complex shoreline. See
cultural/historic sUmffiary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Sea turtle nesting probable along this
segment.
Resource Values:
Extensive undisturbed wetland and upland
system and open access gives this area a high
resource value.
Threats:
Continued colonization of berm/dune system by
Casuarina. Potential future development
impact.
Comments: Detailed ground resource survey to be conducted as time
permits in the near future.
206
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE C~~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 68
1885-1927 : -3.7
1927-1952: +0.6
1952-1962: +10.2
1962-1973: -11.0
1973-1981: -16.2
Mean Rate: -4.0
69
-1.0
-6.3
+8.5
-2.4
-8.4
-1.9
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft. :
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
None
fe/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Net Change:
N/A
Migrational History:
Erosion has accelerated since 1960. A
complete overwash occurs during moderate
to intense tropical storms.
Migrational Rate:
-6.3 ft./yr. anc accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Erosion; presu~ably will continue.
STORM HAZARDS
fEMA Evaluation
Transect No: None
Stillwater Elev (ft.): N/A
Wave Crest Elev (ft.): N/A
Location: N/A
207
Hazard Potential:
HIGH. A low elevation and an
accelerating erosional rate produce
transient shoreline conditions.
,
MA.~AGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348. the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
included in Unit P1S, Cape Romano. This Act prohibits the use of most
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for new utility and transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
There should be a close scrutiny at any proposed
site development of land alteration in this area.
Every effort should be made to discourage con-
struction at permanent structures due to high
storm hazard, high shoreline migration rate, and
lack of flood insurance. All proposed structures
should be considered for temporary, short term use,
and should be constructed on pilings and be
designed to withstand severe storm wind and wave
conditions. No minimum setback from beach should
be achieved with a requirement that all rubble be
removed following storm destruction. No stabili-
zation of the shoreline should be attempted or
permitted.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/33
208
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
South Morgan Island
Number:
34
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Morgan Island
Coastal Management Unit:
Picayune - Camp Keasis
USGS Topo Quad:
Cape Romano, Fl 4635 1 SW
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
74 - 77
NOTE:
1981 air photos on Atlas pages 75 and 76 do not reflect the
opening of Morgan Pass in 1982 nor the complete loss of approxi-
mately 2000 feet of sandy beach to the south between 1982 and
1984.
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
None
County BERM Transects No:
70
County Field Stations No:
None
Locations:
N/A
DNR Transects No:
None
Benchmark Elev: N/A
FEMA Transects No:
None
LENGTH AND \..'IDTH
FEET
Length:
3600
Minimum Width:
N/A
Minimum Width Location:
N/A
LAND O',.,'NERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
3600
100
209
Comments: Land is private o~~ership, subdivided and sold in the
1970's. Some of the southern interior mangrove islands
owned by the State.
L&"ID US E
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Multi-Family:
o
o
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
3600
100
Comments: Land subdivided for single family use but little
construction activity has occurred to present.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL:
100%
% Development Seaward CCCL:
N/A
Maximum Intrusion (ft.):
f./A
Comments: No CCCL was ever established for this segment.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Bu ried :
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
3600
100
Other Structures:
None
Comments: No shoreline stabilization should be considered or
permitted on this segment.
210
PCBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By \<Jater only
Number of Access Points:
Unl imi ted
Location: Entire Segment
Parking:
None
Recreational Value: Moderate to high recreational value due to sandy
beach and undistrubed native habitats.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Migrating Barrier Spit
Characteristics:
This segment is the site of numerous historic
tidal passes which open and close by spit
separation and coalescence, especially seen
during the 1960's. Morgan Pass opened in
1982 during the no-name storm.
Beach Width (ft.):
116
Dune/"'ashover
Width (it)
110
Transect No:
70
Dune Characteristics:
Newly deposited sand of Morgan Spit is being
colonized ~ith native dune vegetation and by
scattered clumps of Casuarina.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Morgan spit vegetated as described under dune
section. Interior islands dominated by
mangroves; the infrequent high hammocks
vegetated by coastal scrub and hammock
vegetation.
Cultural/Historic:
Spanish artifacts have been found on Kice
Island/Cape Romano Complex shoreline. See
cultural/historic summary.
fish and Wildlife:
Minimal sea turtle nesting due to lack of
sandy beach.
Resource Values:
Extensive undisturbed wetland and upland
system and open access gives this area a high
resource value.
Threats:
Increased invasion by Casuarina and continued
loss of sandy beach by erosion from Morgan
Pass.
2ll
Comments: A detailed ground resource survey is needed in the near
future.
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHAKGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 70
1885-1927: +12.6
1927-1952: -11.6
1952-1962: +15.5
1962-1973: -3.3
1973-1981 : -1.4
Mean Rate: +2.4
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd 3) 0885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. :
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Net Change:
Migrational History: Ephemeral tidal passes open and close
periodically on this segment since 1885.
Approximately 2000 feet of sandy beach
along the northern-most part of this
segment lost betW'een 1982 and 1984,
following the opening of Morgan Pass in
the no-name storm.
Migrational Rate: -0.7 ft./yr. and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: EROSION. Continued insular instablility
with emphemeral pass formation occurring,
especially during episodes of tropical
storm activity.
212
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
None
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
N/A
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
N/A
Location:
N/A
Hazard Potential:
SEVERE. The category to which this
segment has been assigned summarized the
hazard. Continued migration and potential
formation of ephemeral passes make this
segment extremely unstable in a geo-
physical sense.
~~~AGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
included in Unit P15, Cape Romano. This Act prohibits the use of most
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for new utility and tra~sportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
No construction or shoreline stabilization should
be permitted on this segEent due to its extreme
instability (as demonstrated over the last two
years) and severe hazard potential.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/34
213
BEACH SEG~ENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Morgan Spit
Number:
35
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Morgan Island
Coastal Management Unit:
Picayune - Camp Keasis
USGS Topo Quad:
Cape Romano Island 4635 I SW
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
76 - 77
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
None
County BERM Transects No:
71
County Field Stations No:
None
Locations:
N/A
DNR Transects No:
None
Benchmark Elev: K/A
FEMA Transects No:
None
LENGTH ~\~ WIDTH
FEET
Length:
3800
M.inimum Width:
300
Minimum Width Location:
At north end of segment line
L~~D Ol-.'NERSHIP
FEET
PERCENT
Public:
o
o
Private/Developed:
o
o
Private/Undeveloped:
3800
100 (see comre~nts)
Comments: Scattered intermittent, ephemeral structures and beach
houses. Predominant area still undeveloped but the number
of houses increase each year.
214
LA.\l) USE
FEET
PERCENT
Single-Family:
o
o
Mult i-Family:
o
o
Hotel/Motel:
o
o
Other Commercial:
o
o
Open Land:
3800
10
Comments: A few single-family structures scattered throughout
segment. Percentages too low to be measured.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL:
100%
% Development Seaward CCCL:
N/A
Maximum Intrusion (ft.):
N/A
Comments: No CCCL was ever established for this segment.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
SeaW'alls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
3800
100
Other Structures:
None
Corr~ents: No shoreline stabilization should be considered nor
permitted on this segment.
215
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By ',.,'ater Only
Number of Access Points:
Unlimited
Location: Entire Segment
Parking:
No
Recreational Value: High, due to extensive beach and open access.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Migrating Barrier Spit
Characteristics:
A low, narrow spit sparsely vegetaled by
overwash-tolerant or overwash induced plants.
Beach Width (ft.):
141
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
200
Transect No:
71
Dune Characteristics:
Building sand spit colonized by native
supratidal berm and dune species. Low wet
areas colonzied by wetland species. Some
Casuarina colonization in scattered locations.
CE.ARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
See dune characteristics.
Cultural/Historic:
Spanish artifacts have been found on Kice
Island/Cape Romano Complex shoreline. See
cultural/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Sea turtle probably nesting along this
segrnen t .
Resource Values:
Extensive undisturbed wetland and upland
system and open access gives this area a high
resource value.
Threats:
Future development impacts and increased
Casuarina invasion.
Comments: A detailed resource ground survey should be conducted
in near future.
216
PISI0RICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CH.~GE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 71
1885-1927: -8.8
1927-1952: -4.6
1952-1962: -38.5
1962-1973: +55.7
1973-1981 : N/A
Mean Rate: +6.8
~earshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Prof ile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. :
t-;one
t'./A
t'./A
t'./A
N/A
Net Change:
N/A
Migrational History:
This spit accreted rapidly following
pass closure to the north during the late
1950's.
Migrational Rate:
+18.0 ft./yr. and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Accretional and probably continuing unless
overwashing or breaching by storms
produces ephemeral inlet.
5TO&"1 HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No: None
Stillwater Elev (ft.): N/A
Wave Crest Elev (ft.): t-;/A
Location: N/A
217
Hazard Potential:
SEVERE. Recently accreted spits such as
this one exemplify land forms that are
extremely tenuous and which could be
eroded completely during a single
storm. Loss of sandy beach in segment
034 might indicate the return to an
erosional cycle tied to the existence of
an open pass. This pattern is evident
on past air photos.
MANAGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
included in Unit P15, Cape Romano. This Act prohibits the use of most
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for new utility and transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October I, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
There should be a close scrutiny at any proposed
site development or land alteration in this area.
Every effort should be made to discourage con-
struction of permanent structures due to high
storm hazard, high shoreline migration rate, and
lack of flood insurance. All proposed structures
should be considered for temporary, short term use,
and should be constructed on pilings and be
designed to withstand severe storm wind and wave
conditions. Maximum setback from beach should be
achieved with a requirement that all rubble be
removed following storm destruction. No stabili-
zation of the shoreline should be attempted or
permitted.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/35
218
Coastal Barrier 10. Cape Ro~ano Island
Shoreline Change. Cape Rorrano Island formed in response to the
interaction of predominant south and southeasterly winds and a large
subtidal sand supply in the Cape Romano shoals. These winds transported
sand around Cape Romano and deposited it on Cape Romano Island, which trends
northeast from the Cape itself. The acute intersection of Morgan Island and
Cape Romano Island forms a classic cape feature. The shoreline of the apex
of the Cape built seaward 700 feet from 1927 to 1952, and then eroded 800
feet from 1952 to 1981. Farther to the northeast the shoreline has been
relatively stable.
Storm Characteristics. The following information on storm charac-
teristics for Cape Romano Island unit is excerpted from Flood Insurance
Stud: Wave Hei ht Anal sis--Collier Count , Florida, Unincor orated Areas
(FEMA 1982) (Coastal Management Atlas, Page 11).
From Grassy Bay around Cape Romano to Camp Lulu Key, waves
with heights of up to 11 feet can be expected along the open
coast shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the shoreline of
Gullivan Bay. These waves will be diminished within 1.5 miles
of the open coast by vegetation and rising ground elevation.
Moving inland, waves with heights of up to 5 feet will be
regenerated across ButtoDW'ood, Pumpkin, Faka Union, and Faka-
hatchee Bays. and waves with heights of up to 4 feet will be
regenerated across Blackwater Bay. Again, dense vegetation and
rising ground elevation will quickly reduce the waves along the
shorelines.
In addition, waves with heights of up to 2 feet can be
expected at Blue Hill, Goodland, and Sugar Bays. These waves
will also be rapidly diminished by dense vegetation and rising
elevation.
Maximum wave crest elevations are 22 feet at the shore-
lines of the Gulf of ~exico and Gullivan Bay, 17 feet at
Buttonwood. Pumpkin, Faka- rnion and Fakahatchee Bays, 14 feet
at Blackwater Bay and Blue Hill Bay, and 11 feet at Goodland
and Sugar Bays. Wave action continues inland for approximately
3.5 miles in the western areas and for approximately 7 miles in
the eastern areas. Tidal surge elevations of 6 to 9 feet
continue for approximately 10 additional miles in the western
area and for approximately 4 miles in the eastern area.
Beach, Dune and Washover Zone Characteristics. The Cape Romano coasta:
barrier unit is approximately 2.3 miles in length. On this stretch of
coast, 45% is Native Coa8tal Strand, dominated by native grasses and shrubs,
and 55% is Mangrove Forest with an understory consisting of grasses and
succulent herbs.
219
BEACH SEG~ENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum \"'id th:
Minimum Width Location:
LAND OWNERSHIP
Public:
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
Cape Romano
36
Cape Romano
Picayune - Camp Keasis
Cape Romano 4635 I SW
77 - 79
None
72
None
~/A
None Benchmark Elev: N/A
None
FEET
3840
300
At east end of dredged area.
FEET PERCENT
2300 60
0 0
1540 40
Comrr,ents: Private land undeveloped at present except for what appears
to be a dredged area through the mangrove wetland and into
the upland scrub.
__"IIIl\IIO.. IT .n .~1Ii' 1r
220
U_':D USE FEET P ERe E1\1
Single-Family: 0 0
Multi-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 3840 100
Comments: Both private/undeveloped and public open land exist on this
segment.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL: 100
% Development Seaward CCCL: N/A
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): N/A
Comments: No CCCL established for this segment.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
3840
o
Other Structures: None
Comments: Shoreline stabilization should not be considered or
permitted for this beach segment.
221
Pl1BLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By Water Only
Number of Access Points:
Unlimited
Location: Entire Segment
Parking:
None
Recreational Value: High due to wide sandy beach and extensive,
unaltered natural habitats.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
Arcuate Beach Ridge Barrier Island
Characteristics:
A wide cape made up of arcuate and truncate
beach ridges, having elevations of 5 ft. or
less. The region is vegetated by mangrove,
and coastal strand and ha~~ock communities.
Beach Width (ft.):
53
Dune/Washover
Width (ft)
80
Transect No:
72
Dune Characteristics:
Dune area vegetated by native dune grasses
and scrub. ~early no colonization by
Casuarina at present.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Dune area as above with scattered coastal
ha~Eocks in protected stable areas. Extensive
interior areas covered by mangrove wetlands.
Cultural/Historic:
Spanish artifacts have been found on Kice
Island/Cape Romano Complex shoreline. See
cultrual/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Sea turtles probably nesting along this
segment.
Resource Values:
Very high to extensive undisturbed uplands
and wetlands. A wide range of native h.ibitats
present.
Threats:
Potential impact due to alteration of private
areas.
Comments: Detailed ground survey to be conducted in near future.
Effort should be made to acquire remaining tracts in private
ownership.
222
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No: 72
1885-1927: +4.8
I 1927-1952: -0.1
1952-1962: -2.0
r 1962-1973: +6.7
1973-1981: +24.3
Mean Rate: +6.8
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft. :
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft. :
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft. :
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
The Cape accreted during the early part
of the century, but erosional fluctuations
also occurred. Since 1960, considerable
accretion has occurred.
+6.3 ft./yr. and accelerating
Predicted Migrational Future: Accretional; presumably slow to moderate.
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
L
Location:
l
None
N/A
11-22 ft.
~/A
223
Hazard Potential:
LOW TO MODERATE. The orientation of
Cape Romano Island away from the pre-
dominant approach of waves, has con-
tributed to the historical stability of
the area.
MANAGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
included in Unit PIS, Cape Romano. This Act prohibits the use of most
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for new utility and transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October I, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
Public lands should be maintained as a natural
state. There should be a close scrutiny of any
proposed development or alteration of lands in
private ownership. Every effort should be made to
permit only structures and/or activities designed
to minimize adverse impact on adjacent public
lands. Private lands should be acquired if
offered.
BEACH SEGMENT DATA FORM/36
l.
224
BEACH SEGMENT DATA SHEET
DESCRIPTORS
Segment Name:
Number:
Coastal Barrier Unit:
Coastal Management Unit:
USGS Topo Quad:
Coastal Management Atlas
Page Numbers:
DATA STATIONS
Army Corps Profiles No:
County BERM Transects No:
County Field Stations No:
Locations:
DNR Transects No:
FEMA Transects No:
LENGTH AND WIDTH
Length:
Minimum Width:
Minimum Width Location:
LAND O\..'NERSHIP
Public:
Private/Developed:
Private/Undeveloped:
Romano Spit
37
Cape Romano
Picayune - Camp KeBsis
Cape Romano, FL 4635 1 SW
79 - 82
None
73
None
N/A
None Benchmark Elev: N/A
None
FEET
10,800
200-250
Near north end of the Cape
FEET PERCENT
6070 56
I
4730
44
Comments: Private land is 46 lots that average approximately 110 by
550 feet in dimension and are oriented perpendicular to the
shoreline of Gullivans Bay. The remainder of the land is
owned by the State.
l
225
LAND USE FEET PERCENT
Single-Family: 0 0
Multi-Family: 0 0
Hotel/Motel: 0 0
Other Commercial: 0 0
Open Land: 10800 100
Comments: No structues have yet been built on the private land of
this beach'segment.
CCCL AND DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
% Segment w/o CCCL: 100%
% Development Seaward CCCL: N/A
Maximum Intrusion (ft.): N/A
Comments: No CCCL was established for this beach segment.
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
Seawalls
FEET
PERCENT
w/o Riprap:
o
o
w/ Riprap:
o
o
Revetments
Buried:
o
o
Exposed:
o
o
Non-Stabilized
Shoreline
10000
100
Other Structures: None
Comments:
Shoreline stabilization should not be considered or
permitted on this beach segment.
l
1
226
PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
Access/Exit Route:
By Water Only
Number of Access Points:
Unlimi ted
Location: Entire Segment
Parking:
None
Recreational Value: High value due to undisturbed nature of area and
open sandy beach.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE INVENTORY
Type:
R~curved Barrier Spit
Characteristics:
A low series of recurved spits vegetated
primarily by mangroves.
Beach Width (ft.):
35
Dune/v.'ashover
Width (ft)
80
Transect No:
73
Dune Characteristics:
Dune area vegetation by native dune grasses
and scrub next to no colonization by
Casuarina at present.
CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation:
Dune area as above with scattered coastal
hammocks in protected, stable areas.
Extensive interior areas covered by mangrove
....etlands.
Cultural/Historic:
Spanish artifacts have been found on Kice
Island/Cape Romano Complex shoreline. See
cultrual/historic summary.
Fish and Wildlife:
Sea turtles probably nesting along this
segment.
Resource Values:
Very high to extensive undisturbed uplands
and wetlands. A wide range of native habitats
present.
Threats:
Potential impact due to alteration of private
areas.
Comments:
Detailed ground survey to be conducted in near future.
Effort should be made to acquire remaining tracts in private
ownership.
t
227
l
L
HISTORICAL ANALYSES OF SHORELINE CHANGE
Erosion Rate Measurements (ft./yr.)
Transect No:
1885-1927: +4.8
1927-1952: +19.7
1952-1962: -36.1
1962-1973: +6.1
1973-1981: -3.3
Mean Rate: -1.8
Nearshore Volumetric Changes (yd3) (1885-1970)
Army Corps Profile No:
+3 Ft. to -3 Ft.:
-3 Ft. to -9 Ft.:
-9 Ft. to -15 Ft.:
-15 Ft. to -20 Ft.:
Net Change:
Migrational History:
Migrational Rate:
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Romano Spit has accreted slightly during
the past 100 yrs.
N/A
Predicted Migrational Future: Presumed to be essentially accretional
and stable
STORM HAZARDS
FEMA Evaluation
Transect No:
Stillwater Elev (ft.):
Wave Crest Elev (ft.):
Location:
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
228
Hazard Potential:
LOW TO MODERATE. As with the previous
segment, the orientation away from
predominating wave approach has con-
tributed to the spit's stability.
MANAGEMENT
This segment has been classified as an undeveloped coastal barrier under
P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. It is
included in Unit PIS, Cape Romano. This Act prohibits the use of most
Federal funds (e.g., financial assistance for new utility and transportation
facilities) for projects on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. In
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as such. At
present, the State of Florida is also considering similar restrictions on
State financial assistance for projects on or to Federally classified
undeveloped coastal barriers.
Recommendations:
Public lands should be maintained in a natural
state. There should be a close scrutiny of any
proposed development on alteration of lands in
private ownership. Every effort should be made to
permit only structures and/or activities designed
to minimize adverse impact on adjacent public
lands. Private lands should be acquired if
offered.
BEACH SECMENT DATA FORM/37
L
229
Cultural/Historic Summary.
l
Although Collier County is one of the potentially richest archae-
logical sites in the entire state, no detailed cultural/historic survey
has been conducted along the shoreline of County. Certain facts however
are known about several prehistoric and historic cultures which might be
encountered along the coastal barriers. Artifacts produced by such
cultures are found along the sandy shoreline and can be divided into
three categories: 1) Aboriginal artifacts; 2) European artifacts; 3)
fossilized-and subfossilized animal remains.
Aboriginal artifacts are primarily Calusa in origin, although there
is evidence of active trade or cultural interchange both with eastern
Florida pre-hispanic tribes such as the Tequesta, Timucua, or Ays, as
well as a lesser exchange with Mexican Amerinds, including Aztecs, Maya
and perhaps Toltecs.
European artifacts tend to be primarily Spanish in origin. However,
objects from the Seminole and Miccosuki tribes which migrated into or
were forced into South Florida during the early 1800's are also found.
These cultural items are a mixture of Amerind (Seminole/Cherokee) and
European trade items (e.g. glass beads, mirror fragments, coins, iron,
brass or steel objects) and are often stratigraphically mixed in the same
site with earlier Calusa or other aboriginal relics.
Animal remains may be prehistoric (fossilized) or protohistoric
(subfossilized) and include a panoply of relics such as mastodon, giant
sloth, camel, horse, bear, and other ungulate and carnivore bones and
teeth. Another large component consists of shells, tests and carapaces
of various shallow water invertebrates that lived in the area. Much of
these remains form a semi-permanent basement foundation which is only
recognized during excavation for roads, quarries canals or other land
developmental activities. Subfossil remains include vertebrae and bones,
turtle or tortoise scutes, and shells and tests of various invertebrate
animals utilized as food, decorative, or hardware items by prehistoric
tribes.
Aboriginal artifacts can be further classified into three categor-
ies: 1) Redeposited materials from burial sites, 2) shell mounds, and
3)campsites that once existed on land but, owing to sea level rise and
shoreline recession, have been transported offshore. It is believed that
much of these materials are concentrated 10 to 100 yards offshore near
the escarpment. Some of these materials (e.g. pottery, projectile
points) are also occasionally redeposited onshore in the vicinity where
they once existed. For example, redeposited materials have been found on
the beach just south of the Lee County line on Barefoot Beach, Delnor
Wiggins State Park and Vanderbilt Beach in the vicinity of Clam Pass,
Horizon House, Moorings Resident's Beach, Central Avenue and near 18th
Avenue South.
The second type of aboriginal artifacts (i.e. shell mounds, burial
sites and campsites) can be classified as threatened. These artifacts
are located inland from the beach often on higher hammocks among the
mangrove wetlands. The sites are threatened by potential loss owing to
land development (short-term), or to eventual erosion (long term). A
well known site in this category was the Doctors Pass shell mound, a site
that once existed in former mangrove wetlands, and which now occurs in
the vicinity of the intersection of Anchor Rode Drive and Crayton Road.
Still other sites are thought to exist in the vicinity of Hickory and
." r
l
230
Clam Bays and on the stabilized uplands both north and south of Marco
Island.
A third type of aboriginal artifacts are found in eroding sites.
These are extant remains of long-term residentially occupied sites, and
are typified either by the existence of shell mounds, or short-term
campsites. The sites become partially eroded by water action thereby
carrying the artifacts to the beaches. However, others may still exist
in their original site. The best known eroding site was the Gordon Pass
shell mound which was excavated near the turn of the century to construct
Gordon Drive. It seems quite possible that other eroding, but as yet
unrecorded, sites may occur along the sandy shoreline of Collier County.
European artifacts are of more recent periods and date from the
early Spanish and American settlement in this region. These artifacts
include those from shipwreck sites such as Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass and
Big Marco Pass areas, and early settler sites (long-term) or camps
(short-term).
Spanish artifacts have been found on the beach near Wiggins Pass,
Doctors pass and at the Kice ISland/Cape Romano area. Other artifacts
have been recovered from offshore near Clam Pass, and from homesites on
coastal barriers such as Johnson and Cannon Islands. Relict passes (e.g.
John's Pass and Hurricane Pass) are potential sites for both aboriginal
and European artifacts.
A part of the continuing inventory of the resources of Collier
County's coastal zone will include a more detailed cultural/historical
survey, planned for 1985. This survey, projected to be funded (in part)
by the Florida Department of State, Division of Archives, History/Records
Management, will be a joint effort between the staff of the County
Natural Resources Management Department and the members of the Southwest
Florida Archeological Society.
l
231
Wildlife Summary.
Although no completely detailed survey of the coastal wildlife in
Collier County has been made, informal observations and information in
scattered publications confirm its diversity and abundance. Despite
almost continual destruction of coastal habitats by land development the
wildlife in much of these areas, and especially in the less developed
coastal zone sections remains relatively undisturbed. In fact, these
less developed coastal areas and parks, such as Barefoot Beach State
Preserve, Delnor-Wiggins State Park and sections of Pelican Bay, Clam
Pass Park, Keewaydin, Coconut and Cannon Island and the Ten Thousand
Island region south of Marco Island remain as the most significant
wildlife areas in all of coastal Collier County. These areas serve as a
habitat and breeding ground for both common species such as raccoons,
possums, rabbits, squirrels, and other small mammals, as well as for many
endangered species, including the gopher tortoise, river otter, pallid
beach mouse, mangrove fox squirrel, and many others. Shore birds and
wading birds also inhabit and roost in the coastal areas, and several
large rookeries for pelicans, cormorants, egrets, herons, and terns are
all located within the Collier County coastal zone. Ibises and roseate
spoonbills can be found on sandflats adjacent to mangrove shorelines. In
coastal waters, marine mammals such as manatees, porpoises, and
occasional black or pilot whales and other cetaceans, are found. An,
abundant and wide variety of fishes such as mullet, sheep shead , seat rout ,
grouper, snook, and other sport and game fishes are annual or seasonal
inhabitants of waters near coastal barriers. Although often over
exploited, clams, oysters, conch, scallops, stone crabs, lobsters and
other commercially valuable invertebrate shellfish can still be found.
Barrier beaches also provide important nesting areas for loggerhead
sea turtles, even though a drastic decline in the sea turtle population
has occurred in the past three decades owing to natural predation by
raccoons and birds. Man's attempts to develop and exploit the coastal
zone has also caused great depradation to the local sea turtle breeding
grounds and nesting sites. For example, Keewaydin Island is one of the
few nesting sites in Southwest Florida which has historically had over 50
nest/km/season. Recent surveys show that this site has dropped to less
than 10 nests/km. Fortunately, local conservation organization and/or
park ranger personnel now patrol most of the undeveloped beaches during
nesting season and attempt to prevent predation, as well as to relocate
nests and obtain data on logger head sites. It is noteworthy that in
spite of the extensive or almost complete development of some of the
northern shores of Collier County, such as the Park Shore beach segments,
loggerhead crawls and even nests have been catalogued, indicating that
the sea turtles are still attempting to return to their old hatching
sites even after many years.
It would serve little purpose to append a listing of all the species
of animals found along the Collier County coastal zone. Instead, Table 1
provides an enumeration of those species which have been classified as
rare, endangered, threatened, of special concern, or unique in that they
are indicative of special habitats and associations within the coastal
barriers. For more complete listings of species the reader is directed
to the publications listed in Appendix A.
232
TABLE 1. COASTAL FAUNA OF SPECIAL CONCERN.
FISHES
Common Snook
REPITILES
Atlantic Green Turtle
Atlantic Hawksb1ll Turtle
Atlantic Ridley Turtle
Atlantic Loggerhead Turtle
Spotted Turtle
Gopher Tortoise
Eastern Indigo Snake
American Alligator
MAMMALS
Mangrove Fox Squirrel
Round-tailed Muskrat
Florida Black Bear
Everglades Mink
Florida Panther
West Indian Manatee
BIRDS
Eastern Brown Pelican
Magnificent Frigate Bird
Great White Heron
Great Egret
Little Blue Heron
Snowy Egret
Louisiana Heron
Reddish Egret
Yellow-crowned Night Heron
Black-crowned Night Heron
Least Bittern
Wood Stork
Glossy Ibis
White Ibis
Roseate Spoonbill
Coopers Hawk
Bald Eagle
Osprey
Peregrine Falcon
American Kestrel
Florida Clapper Rail
Mangrove Clapper Rail
Black Rail
American Oyster-catcher
Cuban Snowy Plover
Piping Plover
Sooty Tern
Royal Tern
Sandwich Tern
L
Centropomus undecimalis
Chelonia mydas mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Caretta caretta
Clemmys guttata
Gopherus polyphemus
Drymarchon corais couperi
Alligator mississippiensis
Sciurus niger
Neotiber alleni
Drsus americanus floridanus
Mustela vison evergladinensis
Felis con color coryi
Trichechus manatus latirostris
Pelicanus occidentalis carolinensis
Fregata magnificens rothschildi
Ardea herodius occidentalis
Casmerodius albus
Florida caerulea
Egretta thula
Hydranassa tricolor
Dichromanassa rufescens
NyctaDassa violacea
Nycticorax nycticorax
Ixobrychus exilis exilis
Mycteria americana
Pegadis falcinellus falcinellus
Eudocimus albus
Aj aia aj aia
Accipiter cooperii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pandion haliaetus carolineDsis
Falco peregrinus
Falco sparverius paulus
Rallus longirostris scottii
Rallus longirostris insularum
Laterallus jamaicensis
Haematopus palliatus
Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris
Charadrius melodus
Sterna fuscata
Sterna maxima
Sterna sandvicensis
233
Species of Special Concern
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Rare
Species of Special Concern
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Species of Special Concern
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Co~cern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Endangered
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Endangered
Species of Special Concern
Endangered
Threatened
Unique
Unique
Unique
Species of Special Concern
Endangered
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
TABLE 1. COASTAL FAUNA OF SPECIAL CONCERN. (Continued)
BIRDS (Continued)
Black Skimmer
Mangrove Cuckoo
Burrowry Owl
Florida Scrub Jay
Black-whiskered Vireo
Florida Prairie Warbler
L
Rynchops niger
Coccyzys minor
Athenia cunicularia floridana
Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens
Vireo altiloquus
Dendrolca discolor paludicola
234
Species of Special Concern
Rare
Species of Special Concern
Threatened
Rare
Species of Special Concern
SECTION 5
FL~URE DIRECTIONS
Over the upcoming years a number of new features will be added to
the Coastal Management Unit System. To make this system easier to work
with and update, all coastal information will be incorporated into a
Departmental data base management program. This program will utilize the
Department's IBM personal computer and the Community Development Divi-
sions' I.B.M. 5520 Information Processing System to enhance data retriev-
al and analysis. This work will commence with the input of detailed,
site-specific information contained on the beach segment data sheets,
followed by information on coastal barrier and drainage districts not
specifically covered by these sheets.
Another forthcoming project is the subdivision of drainage districts
and coastal barrier units into their discrete ecological zones and the
collection of additional habitat-specific resource and land-use impact
data. Those areas of the County's coastal zone that are currently
undeveloped and under private ownership (termed Coastal Resource Manage-
ment and Recreation Areas in Technical Report 84-1) will be the first
areas to be subdivided. This project has a number of tasks, including
the identification and mapping of the major ecological zones, the des-
cription of resource values and limiting factors within each zone, the
listing and analysis of potential land-use activities and concomitant
impacts proposed for those zones. The project also includes the creation
of resource land-use matrices to synthesize these data, and guidelines
for activities that could be undertaken with minimal impact if designed
accordingly. The major ecological zones upon which this project will be
based will represent further sub-units of the drainage district, coastal
barrier, and beach segment management units described in this report. As
time and staff support becomes available, similar mapping and sub-unit
definition will be undertaken for the other areas of the County's coastal
zone not covered specifically by the aforementioned project.
.r
1
l
235
APPENDIX A
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS PERTAINING TO COASTAL FAUNA
Anomyous. 1968. Rookery Bay area project: a demonstration study in
conservation and development, Naples, Florida. The Conservation
Foundation, Washington, D.C. pp. 57-61.
Anomyous. 1984. Florida endangered and threatened species management
and conservation plan: 1984 update and progress report. Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission.
Barnard, J. L. 1969. The families and genera of marine gammaridean
amphipoda. U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 271, 535 pp. AMPHIPOD
CRUSTACEANS
Bohlke, J. E. & C. C. G. Chaplin. 1968. Fishes of the Bahamas and
adjacent tropical waters. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., by Livingston
Publ. Co., Wynnewood, Pa., 771 pp. TROPICAL FISHES
Carr, A. & C. J. Goin. 1959. Guide to the reptiles, amphibians and
freshwater fishes of Florida. Vniv. Florida Press, Gainesville, 341
pp. FROGS, TOADS NE\o.PfS, SAL.A}oI.ANDERS, SNAKES, TURTLES, LIZARDS,
FISHES
Carr, A. F., Jr. 1977. A key to the breeding-songs of Florida frogs.
Fla. Natur., (December), pp. 18-23. FROGS AND TOADS
Chace, F. A. 1972. The shrimps of the Smithsonian-Bredin Caribbean
Expeditions with a summary of the West Indian shallow-water species
(Crustacea: Decapoda: Natantia). Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 98, 179
pp. SHRIMPS
Clark, J. (Ed) 1976. The Sanlbel Report: Formulation of a comprehen-
sive plan based on natural systems. Conservation Foundation,
Washington, D. C.
Colin, P. L. 1978. Caribbean reef invertebrates and plants. T.F.H.
Publ., Inc. Neptune City, N. J., 512 pp. MARINE INVERTEBRATES AND
PLANTS
Darovec, J. E., Jr. 1983. Sciaenid fishes (Osteichthyes: Perciformes)
of western peninsular Florida. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Mar. Res.
Labl, Mem. "Hourglass" Cruises, 6 (3), 73 pp. KINGFISH, DRUMS,
CROAKER, SEATROL~S
Deichmann, E. 1954. The holothurians of the Gulf of Mexico. Fishery
Bull U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., 89, pp 381-410. SEA CUCUMBERS
de Laubenfels, M. W. 1953. A guide to the sponges of eastern North
America. Vniv. Miami Mar. Lab., Spec. Publ., Univ. Miami Press,
Coral Gables, 32 pp. SPONGES
L
236
)
APPENDIX A (Continued)
Franz, R. (ed.). 1982. Invertebrates. ~ Rare and endangered biota of
Florida. St. Fla. Game Freshwat. Fish Commn. Univ. Presses of Fla.,
131 pp. INVERTEBRATES
Garrick, J. A. F. 1982. Sharks of the genus Carcharhinus. NOAA Tech.
Rep. NMFS Curc. 445, 194 pp. REQUIEM SHARKS
Gilbert, C. R. (ed.). 1978. Fishes. Vol. 4. In Rare and endangered
biota of Florida. St. Fla. Game Freshwat. Fish Commn. Univ. Presses
of Fla., 58 pp. FISHES
Gilmore, R. G., Jr., C. J. Donohue & D. W. Cooke. 1981. Fishes of the
Indian River lagoon and adjacent waters, Florida. Harbor Branch
Found. Tech. Rep. 41, 35 pp + 28 illustrated tables. ESTUARINE,
FRESHWATER, MARINE FISHES
Gosner, K. L. 1978. A field guide to the Atlantic seashore. The
Petersen Field Guide Series, Houghton-Mifflin Co., (No. 24), 328 pp.
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PLANTS AND INVERTEBRATES
Heard, R. W. 1982. Guide to Common tidal marsh invertebrates of the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Miss. Ala. Sea Grant Consort., MASGP-
79-004, 82 pp. TIDAL MARSH INVERTEBRATES
Hedgpeth, J. W. 1954. Anthozoa:
Wildl. Serv., 89, pp 285-290.
The anemones. Fishery Bull. U.S. Fish
SEA ANEMONES
Kale, H. E., II. 1978. Birds. Vol. 2, Rare and Endangered Biota of
Florida. St. Fla. Game Freshwat. Fish Commn., Unv. Presses of
Fla., 121 pp. BIRDS
Layne, J. N. 1974. The Mammals of South Florida. In Gleason, P. J.
(ed.) Environments of South Florida: Present and Past. Miami Geol.
Soc. Mem. 2, pp. 386-413.
layne, J. ~. (ed.). 1978. Mammals. Vol. 1. In Rare and endangered
biota of Florida. St. Fla. Game Freshwat. Fish Cammn, Univ. Presses
of Fla., 52 pp. ESTUARINE AND COASTAL BARRIER ASSOCIATED MAMMALS
McDiarmid, R. W. (ed.). 1978. Amphibians & Reptiles. Vol. 3. In Rare
and endangered biota of Florida. St. Fla. Game Freshwat. Fish Commn,
Univ. Presses of Fla., 74 pp. ESTUARINE AND COASTAL BARRIER
ASSOCIATES
Menzies, R. J. & P. W. Glynn. 1968. The common marine isopod Crustacea
of Puerto Rico. Stud. Fauna Curacao Caribb. Isl., 27, 133 pp.
ISOPOD CRUSTACEANS
Morrill S. and J. Harvey. 1980.
Captiva Island pp. 63-67.
An environmental assessment of North
l
237
APPENDIX A (Continucd)
Morris, P. A. 1975. A field guidc to the shells of the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts and the West Indies. The Petcrsen Field Guide Series
(No.3. rev.), Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 330 pp. ESTUARINE AND
lofARINE MOSSUSCS
Perlmutter. A. 1961. Guide to marine fishes. Bramhall House, New
York, 431 pp. ESTUARINE ASSOCIATED AND MARINE SHARKS, RAYS. BONY
FISHES
Renaud, J. C. 1956. A report on some polychaetous annelids from the
Miami-Bimini area. Amer. Mus. Novitates (1812), 40 pp. POLYCHAETE
WORMS
Robertson, W. B. Jr. and J. A. Kushlan. 1974. The Southern Florida
avifauna. In Gleason P. J. (ed.). Environments of South Florida:
Present and Past. Miami Geol. Soc. Men. 2 pp. 386-413
Smith, F. G. W. 1948. Atlantic Reef Corals. Univ. Miami Press, Coral
Gables, 112 pp + plates. MARINE STONY CORALS
Thomas. L. T. 1962. The shallow water amphiurid brittle stars
(Echinodermata, Ophiuroidea) of Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf
Caribb., l2(4):623-694. ESTUARINE AND ~~INE SERPENT STARFISH
Topp, R. W. & F. H. Hoff. Jr. 1972. Flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes).
Fla. Dept Nat. Resour., Mar. Res. Lab., Mem. "Hourglass" Cruises,
4(2),125 pp. ESTUARINE AND ~~INE FLATFISHES, SOLES AND FLOUNDERS
Voss, G. L. 1980. Seashore life of Florida and the Caribbean. Banyan
Books, Miami, 199 pp. ~~GROVES. SEAGRASSES, STRAND PLANTS,
INVERTEBRATES
Williams, A. B. 1965. Marine decapod Crustaceans of the Carolinas.
Fishery Bull. US Fish Wildl Serv., 65(1), 298 pp. CRABS, SHRIMPS,
LOBSTERS
238
_ . <116. ..llJ.
. ....."1...-'":.
,.~ .,..~"-.:: -:.; ,.- -..,
Appendix 1
, '.
. ;....;;.;..~!.-._..~,:.. .
:"::;~,r~:~= ~ ~~ \~-~'_
:~\OWNRLIST PlYogram Example. Summary assessment of individual land o'w'nership in .the
. 'undeveloped coastal zone of Collier County.
;~,Ol~n~:.:~ C~ast:.:on. _' tlc.prefer
1~~~~~~:~~--~-~~~~-~-7 ------------
.~l}~..~"~,32 Water M mt.':6 S 13 T 50 'S 3550 S. TrCli 1
'..' ~,'~.:.~,'fo't;..~""',;'I'-,.,.~:},.,..~~,-.. '~'~::...,.. R 25 E "0,_
.~ '.' .~}~-~..,................~~.";"" :.' ."- a'':'I.~''.'',;-"
; ., '. ,~.:.:~f~3.. ~"at~rMg.mt.., 6 ~ S 13 T 50 S 'Gubal a. E. '.~<';:
1 ~~~:.~1:.~.,,:,~~~~, :.~~~.~,~..;:f...,.( R 25 E'~;' "'''', . ~r ".
'.-\oIate, ,.,119~t ~;:!!"g~,~ 3 J,,:50c',~~~~h~ ~..ood.);:ou" t!"y, P";;F',:/J."~~5,::e"::"r~~""';
,,~ ' '. .t~. ,-:;. ;;'''-:~:v'"'''1;;.~.t;..:.~t.:L~.'''R25E'.'i.l....':..,.;.. ~':---ii$.;' :.,....::,:'1....> .'...,~.:.:.o--:.,.'./..:~. .~s~"!;:~..;/,..;:::.~..'\..~~'f_.,~
5. "..... ~:...~.::.:~...,~''i ~;.s-~,l'L~;S' .r~; :;'-r: '~o' '..:.... ~.~;;;~'.:...--:--H+ _....,.;..'O'~:. f', ::-'~'''',,",- '-;,;,-:~~:~..:.._~.:~o~.:=<.;.' ~ ._;~-.. -....r ,.~:-::' .~.
L . " Wa t er 1'1 m~ ~;'<I-g 0:,1' '.1.,,;)-' ,-,.v ;:) . _.n van ames, '-.I. nc-'~A",.,.,,!~ "7:~... ;'1i, $"., ._ .. .~
1 ~~>#~~ ;;t.,~-i'l" ~~,.: .' ,. HI" '." R 25 E ,. :.;1+,..;01':';; ':.;..:.:<,.,..;.....).' ;.,. , , ~~,<..-:-:;,~ ': .....,'-'.~.j;:f...~-'?:J:r.:-'-~'Mal~liW~'ii~.<<-- if,:
. ~~'!i.~~~?-A''''',;,,~,'-;:-''JF~~''Y''~0~ -:'. '., -. '. ,.7'-',;f-,..r-"~':~'. '. "!;;f.".':,-.- ,L'. ,=-~.....~"~>,,.:~~~.:.,,:,~~~,~~:., ~~'''f''~~':,_.
: ~.~ '~~~6:~~a.t.:r . "~~~~':~\~"'"S. 1.3 :':T~...5?,.~;.,;~}:!~~,~::;~~.::::..t'~~,7.:;>~-:~~/.~~~:;~:.::;.;:~~~e:.~' ;'-'~S~'
.......'~.~. "'~'_"'''.i,~'I-''' ~\J:-;'I. '.... "~''''.' .'R ?c:; E '.- '~'.~~" ".' ",..f...,,;,,..,, ......~(. .:-,,,. ~" " ..... "._..... ,..A.. .<<I;.."....::~.<l!';':..:...>r.. '
; T~"If" .~.+E-".,(.....,. . ,"-.. -- . -,....~._'.. "_':'. . \.,- ...... ..'................,'.....:J'...~;~~~I.....?I.....-Tr,JIC.
~ ~~'fr;i.C:-37 Water Mgmt..'6 ..5,13 T. 50 S i,Ali gClrta,~'-J~:,..~,'.J'."';'~:;.i~.9._~2,_~cre~".;1t_'-<~~_~
:~t~~.~~~!!;'~;t~i;~:~;\[?.{::<~~(.'B:J.{;j:~,R,::25 '. ~. ,'\'':~~-:';::i:.~.<:~~,~,.;~~':.1&:.t~,~.~;~:~':~~~~~ X~:::~:i'~~.:~~r~~i:~~~~~~~l~
'~~8 WaterM mt. -0'::5,13 T'50 S:Hubschman' Asscc.~~;;.'...z>*':q...69 'acres;.~~~ _
,. 'h:.-~c~'7.~.P;\..~:::9.-f~::~;}fj,,:~{.;;;;~o R..~5 ',~ E ;'~:- :"';:'~f;~"~~~ :"~:~~~';;~t';~, /_~~[~ ~:')~j~:i:~;;t~'-):'~~~~~~~~"
~ '~~9 .~ater Mgmt.....~6 ~,S ':;:~ rT.:,50 .~ -f.iNapl es. F:~rk/t"..f:1art ..-:~<l.:22"ac,r...~,~kl._ti.A:
! ~,!"J....::/!$i~~;r~'.,~.~f..,.:,...~~\~:t~fl-f.~R' 25-E".<;l'~'!.:::.~~i~~..,.?:~~~~!+~.;~(~~!;::')-ij.:,~;'~~p<.i;-..c~!'s~~:~~ ~,.> {~j
~ ~~9" Wat~r.. M~~~.~~~!*-\?,l:,3,~T-,;.~?. '.? i~::J~~m~o{?,,:.~...N~J:?,!...~~,.P~.:-::~*<;,~~.2~~~c;ris,.:-*'~~
,.~~~~g~~~!::~:;f.?'~-~::-"~:~~t4:f~~~,:.,~';':.~~~~~i.~~~.' ~. ~ ~~W~';~~.~9JD'.<" 't.1..
_'~~~Al uWater'11 m~., T~,':.S'.13 T- 50 S '~Mobl1 e 011 Co. >..:.,:;;.,:~t:; ~t:"tl':;'02~'acres~.~:.. _'~
- ~Si.......--:.~~~",....-.<;:~.J~.~~".;~f< .2'" ,E;.~,...:;_~~.,.I-;-."'~~r&."t~""--;::~::;~";.:~.,~~.C}:~.~~-~1t.~. ...
'~'H~~. Jt.' -p:~. t~f~..(t~~~~~~'~e~;:~:~-E~CJ...' :~.~1i~t{t.~.:?.:~'n.i.-r;;7., :f~;t~ci~t 1 'n~~~<~r~~~. ;,
\) _.....~I!'~.J;."'t........-. .........~......_..- "-;::r.J:..T~.. 'V.o..~' ....- -.-"- ~. . ';<.- -........:- ..~~ -. _'~'"r"'-. ::.}.,...~T,~....',.... ;-~.:j":';~~--.;.. ---~'~1- -....-'-k..'L I~S ~~r~~
< . .Owner--~CbaSLZ Qn~'!(~-il~)1;.Ma ref er,~..:.i'O~"'ner 1..~~~.;;;~~~:'V1$i:~~~,-;:':Gen Comm ;, ~..~t;~~ .
~.';~~;~t~. :.,~ {~'~~~~~~~~~~:~.~~..i~~i~:';~. -. i~;::~a;cf. ~~~~.L'~..~'b~...i'~}~~~~~~~~4:::~;2~~~~~~~]
,,~...,'-'tv'-... " . .~, . ........' .". ",....':'.-.-!17.... ~'..,:>.1"';"'~'''''' ',.._,P',..J..<;<'.~~~~-z..k"-'..-;.;;;.,"'fr':'~.~~
~}!l":'l~~>.;::.~./.tz~>I\.;.,7(>~~,.;":;~,...., R 25 E...;~,,-~./~'~~~.!.,:~:!-. :.,'. ;.;'".;:t-: :;-', .:..:;;/.' ;..,;..-'f.:~::'s~~~~;.'3f.::i?~'t~:;j,,~..,
; .~~.. ;.~~.3:,.:,Water_,_Mg;nj:.:~6>::-S;:J~ T..::3P :.S,;....penny's. J.n.c.i!"~~};;i"~-5~_O.80"acr,~s:~:~~":..:..:-~.. +~';
'. .... - ~. ~~.~.~~.::-='.~....,.... '..0R._:'2i=-'..-E':.;.....~::5.:"~~~~~~~.~~~~.,.~..~t . ..,~~~1,~':!.;:;.::;~:;:>..::.t~r~;;""....,.. . ,,'~
I:::' .;j,~~~...-<.~X!~y~t6:,~r;#'~~\ ..:,~. ~ ': -:.:.,<t:;;>' i",.,~....'~t-~-4rJ!.),~,i-~~ ....3~~,~" ~ ~~~~l""'.e-..;:q:;~,._~~~..... _~":
q;::'-, ""'i~4.4;:W'a1:.e-r.~,flt mt,.~~~b-<:.~-:.S_f3~-.T,.50 .s-~c.uldoe9 Countr:-. .Clb .~':'Glades,.:counfry;'Oub~3::
(~~~~~~~:~~~~!?'~f\~~~~#,~~~"f~:~~~:~~\~~~~g~~~~~~'{~P~.!:.~~.n,~%.;.. 'ii1~~~~_
I' ~~j.~~j~~:,~~:...~lfJf;f,~t;:,-!l;S~'{y,~..:~;:l...,.~~#.1l'~:t.~"G-i!,,7....-:'7:.y.;""(f.";<,";~~~:~,..~~'.!..,.s:;?J~ ~~~~c :,,~.~,l ,,~~ n cr~~:.,.
.--.~,l".;~A5 Water t1 mt.'.6 - S 13 T 50 S :Insured Income Prop. 'O.62acres~.:.,}7;;r~~~.
~. - . . ~~...,.~tf"~,!,;;~._ r~~.:;;,.-.~'!~5E '.' ,.::;,,~,~c.,.C'~-ri......';~':;'-~ W~:~.Jt..;~ )rt~::>~~.;.:r~.:~.,:;--j1-- ~ =.:.."-:''":;:;::r:i,;';:~;--:".:,,,~.:.~~.>t:-~~ '_
" ...~~..~~~~::'~'~;,-;;....:-o:~~. .7..,...~.:....:..,-, "',''''~''~-:' .......::..~J~:I:.'-'?. ..,--'r...-:.,;-,-~~t:.~ iC_~:-l.;~C"'-";;". 4~~n~~~~':t'i....
j ~~1~46~water~.M.gmtr..l~>:~ ;e~a3: :t ..50 S .,..~JoJelll~eI d ~.. ';:o"':.'.:~~T_,.~~~-.O..,....~-:... ,,~~!-<~fht~-~..':;,Z~;;;l-~ '
fi~,~:~:..~ 'i:....",.i'.~!~:.~:..~~.~<."'~;6; 'HS' '-"~E'" ',~7.':.~>-"-:"l~~~.:..;.- .,";'A-..'..;~f~~~~!.i":". ..I;~:"Y.l~~~~:.:r#'.~.'J.,:::::!..~~ !":.:~~,:,J~(.;J.~k~~,s,,"'-
...;;I;-~~"(~'~...~r..,..><.~,-o~. ......,l ' ,,,,,"J_"'<. -A" - .' '.' -~. "f.' , . "..,..~.~ ....."'-~._.." . ,...... ,"$' ~-i!:.. 4 " ..'.-','.':._"<...';-' :o....,..,l "!' .~;,:,'i~~ _
.:~~S"~:.4.7Water Mgmt.,6 ,5 13 T 50 S ..:Hc.Io-Jard ..Tt~ust "";)'~";'"~";':'.~,:..:,,,:o-:-,-;--,-...A:~~fff!~:~i<'-~~~\-p.
r ~~~. '~~}~€:~i~~~~;~:':-';!,~i.:'~~f!::<,:~:c~2~ E' . :;...:~1 ~4:~\:~t.;g~.:.t ~t>.:;"At~~.~>:'C;,:_:~gt~1K:o?/;t;.:~~~t~~~:W}~~~.~~~..
r ~~>.-.~.~.48 l>Jater M mt. 6 S 13 T 50:) SCare. T. .. "'l...,.,'.-~... ',:-O-'"t'",>~':':':'.>'/!.?'~~t;.: ,...':-
1 . ~~J_~~.::.~.:""'~-~",i.::::.~"'~., ....:~~"':.:.:'~~-.,.~.:_.f;:..{:0..~-,..R~,.,25 E
:'q?~~::i/49::{~a't-;~''-M9~t; ?:6,':/1S"tj':-'i-'
I --.i~',.,I:...J.,.~,~.__. .,..",' :'..'.' - ...~. .,' .~-,.'.;;. .;;. R ...C:- E-
--:-oJ .~"-:.:J;~::'~..:.~-:-..---~"~:''''' ~_.~...;.::~_.......~ .;~ ~.'r:..r__ :- "::"-1
-l -.'. 50 Water- Mgmt,. 6 S 13 T 50 S
R 2::: E
S 13 T 5',\ S
O;.I:-:.:;r:
'--Ger1"i t-c,ffiin .
--------------------
, 'l;"'.c
---~----------------
.0.08
acres
; .~. ;~... ; .. ':~. ::fS.
- ., :..,.:;', ....
.;-.
~.- ..'... "''.:'.
:...0"';'
: xt ;:t."n~~~;~<;;i~~
.: :!': :~, :.;:!;:~;.: :,{~}',j~..__r~~: ?::;7;::~~]',~; ';;:'f-.'l;::::~;:~:~?\~tf~:;""~~~/~';~fi~~?'
50 g. Sml. th 'R " ..,..---.-.~,.~;'t....':,-O- -- ':\'-y';,.!:"1r',",,~'~'~'5"~~'
"'. .' .~~; :.-' c, "/' ./~; . -':~.',':~< ": ::'-.;--:-;(,' ':,.~~"~ ~;~.\~H;:'~f~;~,!~~__:~~rt
National
TrLlst
Co.
#5086
;.; :../~. :~, ~-::..:~~~~;~~~.~;;....~"
- .r....
,
~
I
51
Water-
Mgmt.
6
I';",t: on~1
T~-ust
Co.
#5086
IJ;g;~f)i~j:i;:L. :-~~:,~~[~~>:::;;,; ~,:'; -';,_ :'~;: , ' ';' ,', : _ ':' ::::~;~~.;:;";<;,~~i:i!f~;
1 ~~:->.!i~~~~., ";~'T~ "~'f..1tl}~-~~ ,~f',:.. ~'" . ....:.,:..,.J. ~~"'~ .1,,~--1<,..." .f~7 .~:o;;~~ ~:I\...: ,J. :''<>;;SI>J:i.,,;;;.l-;;,...; ::";"~~~'~~-:>,('''''
'r",~"'~ ':':~;',:..'.";':,'':'. <:, ':'.., "-," -",' ,',.;... ,:. '~,' '".' ...f'_ :' ';-:..:;:-: ".s.::'- .....~:'-,.~,..-.,-., .:.....:.J..'.~~!:;},,~;::.,:...;::.~_?~~~~.
~~~~:'t~,;~~.vf"dR'+..ofVW:..;Ii';_M! 'jj;,~~/.~\~lt~~i;';'';~'~y.t..<<~;~-':'~~.:;... ......~7.~':C:....'=-:..;...r;.,.:;,~"I:r~'I.':.:.::....., .:y.:::;#.'<:'::F.,_
~~~~~~~~J1!R5-:_<_~f.l"'k}::,.:_~.....;,.:.'_b '. ..,J!"_,,,,:__, -.. ~., r.~' _, .. "'-. .s..
. ,~">},~~~f},: