1992-319 CZM Section II (4.0)
4.0 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT DATA BASE
Collier County technical reports TR84-4, Coastal Zone Management
units: Data Inventory and Analysis, and TR84-5, Coastal Zone
Management units: Atlas (see section 2.1), have identified
discrete management units of the County's coastal barrier
systems. Resource management units are delineated for the coastal
zone on three different levels. On the broadest, system-wide
basis, the entire coastal zone of Collier County is divided into
eight estuarine units. These units, termed coastal drainage
districts, reflect historic sheetflow pathways (or close to them)
from the interior of the county to the Gulf of Mexico. The
drainage districts established for Collier County encompass all
parts of the county's estuarine system, brackish marshes,
mangrove forests, open bays, seagrass beds, and associated
uplands.
The coastal barriers of Collier County are also included in the
above-mentioned system-wide drainage districts. They form the
next level of organization of the Collier County coastal
management units. From the Lee County Line to Cape Romano, the 37
miles of shoreline is divided into ten coastal barrier units,
each of which is bounded to the north and south by a tidal pass.
These units are then broken down into 37 sub-units known as beach
segments, that represent areas distinct from one another and
possess similar physical features (erosion rates), land use
characteristics (parks vs public) and resource attributes (Figure
4-1) .
4.1 COASTAL BARRIER UNIT 1. BAREFOOT BEACH
Barefoot Beach is the northernmost barrier unit in Collier
county. It 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 ft.) was related to the northward migration and closure of
Little Hickory Pass, and the deep existing channels on the
bays ide suggest that there is a strong possibility that this
former tidal channel may reopen in the near future. cyclic
periods of erosion interspersed by accretion have been the trend
in the south sector, adjacent to Wiggins Pass. Four beach
segments occur within the Barefoot Beach coastal barrier unit
(Figure 4-2).
II -73-
unit Recommendations:
1. Future structures should be elevated on pilings.
2. Use of fill should be prohibited.
3. Establish a dune protection zone with centralized crosswalks.
The zone should be approximately 100 feet in width, and all
Australian pines should be removed.
4. All efforts should be made to protect any remaining coastal
hammock.
4.1.1 Beach segment #1. LELY BEACH
Length: 4,220 feet
Beach Access: County park at the end of Bonita Beach Road
Hazard Potential: 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.
Management and
Recommendations:
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. All efforts should be made to protect
and restore the remaining coastal hammock. The
coastal strand vegetation was nearly all
cleared during the late 1970's and a feeble
attempt at replanting using coconut palms has
been made; restoration of strand habitats
should be undertaken whenever possible. The
recreational value as well as storm protection
is expected to continue to decline in this
area.
4.1.2 Beach segment #2. LITTLE HICKORY HAULOVER
Length: 4,110 feet
Beach access: No direct access
Hazard Potential: EXTREMELY HIGH. The low beach elevations
allow great potential for storm breaching of
the beach and subsequent reformation of an
ephemeral inlet.
II -74-
Management and
Recommendations:
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 construction should be limited
to piling-based houses. See other
recommendations as in segment #1.
4.1.3 Beach segment #3. LELY BAREFOOT BEACH
Length: 3,930 feet
Beach access: New county park - Barefoo~ tleach Preserve
Hazard Potential: MODERATE TO HIGH. The wide ridge system and
dense natural vegetation coupled with the
protective ebb tidal delta ensures relative
stability of the highest coastal ridges.
Management and
Recommendations:
Maintain as much as possible of the area as a
true Preserve, to protect the minimally
disturbed habitats found here. Desire for more
beach areas for active recreation could
threaten the ecology of this preserve.
Australian pines should be removed. There
should be no dredging of Wiggins Pass without
first assessing potential effects on nearby
beaches.
4.1.4 Beach segment #4. BAREFOOT BEACH STATE PRESERVE
Length: 4,020 feet
Beach access: New county park - Barefoot Beach Preserve
Hazard Potential: MODERATE TO HIGH. The wide ridge system and
dense natural vegetation coupled with the
protective ebb tidal delta ensures relative
stability of the highest coastal ridges.
Management and
Recommendations:
Maintain the area as a 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
II -75-
threaten the ecology of this preserve. There
should be no dredging of Wiggins Pass without
first assessing potential effects on nearby
beaches.
4.2 COASTAL BARRIER UNIT 2. VANDERBILT BEACH
Compared to adjacent areas, the Vanderbilt Beach barrier unit was
experienced significant erosion (up to 200 feet in its coastal
sector) since 1885. Land clearing and isolated seawall
construction in the one-mile-Iong Vanderbilt Beach subdivision
caused an acceleration of erosion after 1950. Recession of the
mean high water line and vegetation line occurred between 1952
and 1962 at about twice 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. The Vanderbilt
Beach coastal barrier unit is comprised of five beach
segments (Figure 4-3).
unit Recommendations:
1. Develop a management plan that takes into account the
cumulative effects of shoreline stabilization, as well as
compatible integration with neighboring projects.
2. No encroachment of upland protective structures should be
permitted any further seaward than those already present, or
to the presently existing vegetation line.
3. New structures should be designed to cause minimal damage and
interference with natural beach processes.
4. A dune protection zone should be established that calls for
preservation and reconstruction.
5. Dune walkovers are needed where foot traffic continues to
impose stress on remaining coastal strand vegetation.
6. Selected Australian pines need to be removed.
7. Careful restrictions to minimize impact on several specimens
of seagrapes are also needed.
8. Land run-off from condominiums behind mangrove swamps may
produce eutrophication and should be carefully monitored.
4.2.1 Beach Segment IS. WIGGINS BEACH
Length: 1,800 feet
Beach Access: Delnor Wiggins State Park
Hazard Potential: MODERATE TO HIGH. The narrow beach ridge could
be breached by a tropical storm. However, the
wide ridge system and dense vegetation in
II -76-
Management and
Recommendations:
conjunction with a protective ebb tidal delta
might ensure relative stability of the highest
coastal ridges.
Dune preservation and reconstruction is needed,
owing to intensive foot traffic across ridge.
Coastal strand vegetation in decline owing to
foot traffic and Australian pine invasion.
Selective removal of Australian pines required.
4.2.2 Beach Segment #6. DELNOR WIGGINS STATE PARK
Length: 4,210 feet
Beach Access: State Park
Hazard Potential: MODERATE TO HIGH. As in segment #5, the
relatively wide ridge system with natural
vegetation and a protective ebb tidal delta
will provide some stability to the highest
coastal ridges, but the narrow beach ridge
could be easily breached during a tropical
storm.
Management and
Recommendations:
Dune preservation and reconstruction is needed.
Intensive foot traffic continues to impose
stress on remaining coastal strand vegetation.
Selected Australian pine removal needed;
careful restrictions to minimize impact on
several specimens of seagrapes are also needed.
Land run-off from condominium complex behind
mangrove swamp may produce eutrophication, and
should be carefully monitored.
4.2.3 Beach segment #7. VANDERBILT BEACH
Length: 7,040 feet
Beach Access: six access points at various locations
Hazard Potential: 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.
Management and
Recommendations:
Produce an engineered plan that addresses the
cumulative effects of shoreline stabilization
in past years, as well as compatible
II -77-
integration with neighboring projects. No
encroachment of upland protective structures
shall 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.
4.2.4 Beach segment #8a. PELICAN BAY NORTH
Length: 5,340 feet
Beach Access: North end of unit
Hazard Potential: EXTREMELY HIGH TO SEVERE. The narrow barrier
ridge could be completely eroded in a major
storm, or at least inundated and disDlaced
landward. Potential hazards are greatest in
the filled area to the northwest. Multifamily
zoning also in the north area will increase
threat to population.
Management and
Recommendations:
Dune restoration, 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 hammock mandatory.
4.2.S Beach segment #Sb. CLAM PASS NORTH
Length: 7,940 feet
Beach Access: None, unless Clam Pass is shallow or closed.
Hazard Potential: HIGH. The narrow barrier ridge could be
completely eroded in a major storm. See
segment #8a.
Management and
Recommendations:
The existing beach facility is constructed too
close to the receding shore; landward
relocation of this facility should be
considered. Any additional facilities should
be set substantially landward. Moreover, by
restricting recreation to the open beach, the
coastal forest-mangrove strand on this segment
should be treated as a wildlife preserve for
both animal life and rare plant habitats.
South of the pass Australian pine invasion has
restricted development of a fully functional
dunejwashover zone. Therefore the Australian
pines should be removed.
II -78-
4.3 COASTAL BARRIER UNIT 3. PARK SHORE
The north sector of the Park Shore unit has been relatively
stable since 1885. In fact, certain areas have shown accretion.
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 have 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. There are
four beach segments contained within the Park Shore coastal
barrier unit (Figure 4-4).
unit Recommendations:
1. In unaltered areas between seawalls 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.
2. New structures must be designed to have minimal interference
with natural beach processes.
3. Reconstruction after a major storm should be restricted to
the landward side of the Collier County Coastal Setback Line.
4.3.1 Beach segment #9. CLAM PASS BEACH
Length: 3,440 feet
Beach Access: Via Clam Pass Park boardwalk
Hazard Potential: EXTREMELY HIGH. Complete inundation or
ephemeral tidal pass formation could occur
during an intense tropical storm.
Management and
Recommendations:
The groin should be removed. The existing
beach facility to the north is constructed too
close to the receding shoreline and should be
considered for landward relocation; any
additional facilities should be set farther
landward. Any disturbance to vegetation will be
inimical to the dune areas; both upland and
dune vegetation will be protected.
II -79-
4.3.2 Beach segment # 10. NORTH PARK SHORE
Length: 4,800 feet
Beach Access: Access at the North end of Gulfshore Boulevard.
Hazard Potential: MODERATE. A relatively wide setback and an
artificial dune constructed in 1981 contributes
to a lowered hazard.
Management and
Recommendations:
A multifaceted program is needed for this area,
and includes the following:
1. Permanently 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. In 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 boulder;
6. Any new structure must be designed to have minimal
interference with natural beach processes;
7. Reconstruction after major storms shall be restricted to
landward of the County Coastal Setback Line.
4.3.3 Beach Segment #11. SOUTH PARK SHORE
Length: 3,310 feet
Beach Access: None
Hazard Potential: EXTREMELY HIGH TO SEVERE. Dense high-rise
construction and minimal setbacks will ensure a
high potential for MAJOR DESTRUCTION AND
PROPERTY DAMAGE in a full strike hurricane or
even a moderate tropical storm.
Management and
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 recommendation for
segment #10.
II -80-
4.3.4 Beach segment #12. THE MOORINGS
Length: 5,750 feet
Beach Access: Via Horizon Way, Vedado Way and Via Miramar
Hazard Potential: HIGH. Poorly integrated seawalls and minimal
setbacks increase the potential for severe
damage during even a moderate storm.
Management and
Recommendations:
See recommendations for segments #10 and #11.
Horizon Way has an artificial dune with a rock
core.
4.4 COASTAL BARRIER UNIT 4. NAPLES HEADLAND
The northern mile of the Naples headland has experienced the most
pervasive trend of erosion in Collier County. The beach in the
area has receded up to 300 feet since 1927. The shoreline
receded 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 barrier
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 construction 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 more closely-spaced rock groins, and nearly continuous
seawalls were constructed in South Naples during the 1950's.
Shoreline data r~veal that the timber pile groins have promoted
20-60 feet of accretion in their immediate vicinity since
construction. Erosion occurred between 1962 and 1973 in the
vicinity of Gordon Pass. In 1986, with funding assistance from
DNR, the city removed offshore portions of about 25 deteriorated
timber groins. There are five beach segments contained within
the Naples Headland coastal barrier unit (Figure 4-S).
unit Recommendations:
1. Protect coastal vegetation and reconstruct dunes.
2. No encroachment of any upland protective structures should be
permitted seaward of the existing vegetation line.
3. Any new structures should be designed to interact with
natural beach processes.
II -81-
4. Repair of structures should be allowed only after
alternatives for redesign or repositioning have been
exhausted.
5. Reconstruction of inhabited structures after major storm
damage must be restricted to areas behind the City's
Coastal Setback Line.
6. Seawall conditions need to be examined, and alternatives to
misalignment be considered after storm damage.
7. The volume of the ebb tidal delta at Gordon Pass should be
monitored and the location of dredge disposal be adjusted
accordingly.
8. All efforts should be made to protect any remaining coastal
hammock.
4.4.1 Beach segment #13. NAPLES NORTH
Length: 8,430 feet
Beach Access - Moorings Residents' Beach, Lowdermilk Park and
four street access points.
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 and
Recommendations:
Remove non-functional groins and minimize any
further structural intrusion onto beach.
4.4.2 Beach segment #14. CENTRAL NAPLES
Length: 4,300 feet
Beach Access: Nine points located at the street ends.
Hazard Potential: HIGH. continued sharp beach recession during
storms, limited setbacks, and 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.
Management and
Recommendations:
Protect coastal vegetation and reconstruct
dunes in segments #14-16. No encroachment of
any "upland protection structure" should be
permitted seaward of the existing vegetation
line. Any new structures must be designed to
interact with natural beach processes. Repair
of these structures should be allowed only
II -82-
after alternatives for redesign or
repositioning have been exhausted.
4.4.3 Beach segment #1S. OLD NAPLES
Length: 5,320 feet
Beach Access: Fifteen points located at the street ends.
Hazard Potential: EXTREMELY HIGH TO SEVERE. Some seawalls are
over 30 years old and their collapse could
upset neighboring bulkheads. Seawall age,
condition and integration is poor. Residential
homes are built on foundations rather than
pilings. Storm surge damage would be extremely
high.
Management and
Recommendations: Similar to the previous segment. Riprap rock
and revegetation would aid in beach
stabilization by enhancing dune formation. See
recommendations for segment #14.
4.4.4 Beach Segment #16. NORTH PORT ROYAL
Length: 6,400 feet
Beach Access: Two beach walks with parking on Gordon Drive,
Avenue South, and 21st Avenue South, and at the end of 32nd
33nd Avenue South.
Hazard Potential: MODERATE. Wide setbacks, preservation
natural vegetation, and the effects of
pile groins aid in mitigating hazard.
SOUTHERN SECTION THE HAZARD MAY BECOME
SEVERE.
18th
and
of some
timber
IN THE
HIGH TO
Management and
Recommendations:
Primarily revegetation management with an
irrigation system. Sailboat mooring and hawser
attachments in the dune zone should be
discouraged by the property owners. See other
recommendations as in previous segments of this
unit.
4.4.S Beach Segment #17. SOUTH PORT ROYAL
Length: 6,250 feet
Beach Access: None
Hazard Potential: SEVERE. Seven long seawalls exposed at high
tides and frequently to storm tides, plus
closely-spaced groin fields, discourage natural
II -83-
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 and
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 in previous segments of this
unit.
4.S COASTAL BARRIER UNIT S. KEEWAYDIN ISLAND
Over the long term (1885 to 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. In 1962,
1967, 1970, 1980, and 1986 sand dredged from the ebb tidal shoals
of Gordon Pass was placed on North Keewaydin Island. A two 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
100 years from the erosion occurring to the north. Central
Keewaydin Island grew southward over 1.5 miles during the same
period. The terminal end of an accreting spit is normally the
widest. 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 Island, where, since 1962,
approximately 200 feet of erosion has occurred along a 1.5 mile
stretch of beach directly north of the accreting spit. There are
five beach segments in this barrier unit (Figure 4-6).
unit Recommendations:
1. Any future development in this area should be of low impact,
stilt cottage construction, as far away from the beach as
possible.
II -84-
2. property owners should be encouraged to remove Australian
pines and retain all native dune and beach vegetation.
3. No structural stabilization of the shore should be
undertaken.
4. Owners will be warned as to hazard potential prior to any
construction.
5. Preserve established setbacks.
6. Encourage vegetational management.
7. Establish and maintain narrow isolated foot trails.
4.S.1 Beach segment #18. NORTH KEEWAYDIN ISLAND
Length: 4,110 feet
Beach Access: None (private property)
Hazard Potential: EXTREMELY HIGH TO SEVERE. Natural or
man-induced changes in the nearshore area are
responsible for massive fluctuations in the
shoreline.
Management and
Recommendations:
The undeveloped portions of this segment have
been classified as an Undeveloped Coastal
Barrier under P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal
Coastal Barrier Resources 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 I, 1984, no federally
subsidized flood insurance coverage is
available for any coastal barriers classified
as such.
Any future development in this area should be
of low impact, stilt cottage construction, as
far away from the beach as possible. Property
owners should be encouraged, or if applicable,
required to remove Australian pines, and retain
all native dune and beach vegetation. No
structural stabilization of the shore will be
undertaken. property owners will be informed of
this beach segment's hazard potential prior to
commencement of any construction activities.
II -85-
4.S.2 Beach segment #19. JOHNS HAULOVER
Length: 5,060 feet
Beach Access: Unlimited, however, only by boat.
Hazard Potential: SEVERE. Complete overwash of the barrier ridge
occurs seasonally. Formation of emphemeral
tidal passes could occur in at least 4 places
along this segment.
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources
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.
Development in this area is strongly
discouraged because of narrow barrier width and
past tidal pass history. No stabilization
structures will be permitted on the shoreline.
Property owners will be informed of this beach
segment's hazard potential prior to
commencement of any construction activities.
4.S.3 Beach segment #20. CENTRAL KEEWAYDIN ISLAND
Length: 14,360 feet
Beach Access: By boat
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.
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Barrier under P.L. 97-348, the 1982
federal Coastal Barrier Resources 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
II -86-
addition, as of October 1, 1984, no Federally
subsidized flood insurance coverage is
available for any coastal barriers classified
as such.
Any future development in this area should be
of low impact, stilt cottage construction, as
far away from the beach as possible. Property
owners are encouraged, or if applicable,
required to remove Australian pines, and retain
all native dune and beach barrier vegetation.
No structural stabilization of the shore will
be undertaken. Property owners will be
informed of hazard potential prior to
commencement of any construction activities.
4.S.4 Beach segment #21. SOUTH KEEWAYDIN ISLAND
Length: 8,080 feet
Beach Access: By boat
Hazard Potential: MODERATE TO HIGH. An accretional trend and
relatively wide barrier ridges limits the
hazards in this segment.
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources
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.
Preserve established setbacks. Encourage or
require vegetation management, including the
removal of Australian pines. Establish and
maintain narrow isolated foot trails. Property
owners will be informed of this beach segment's
hazard potential prior to commencement of any
construction activities.
II -87-
4.S.S Beach Segment #22. HURRICANE SPIT
Length: 7,000 feet
Beach Access: by boat
Hazard Potential: SEVERE. The low elevations, young geophysical
age, and large effects of tidal influences on
this segment suggest that drastic fluctuations
of the shoreline are probable.
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources
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.
Seawall conditions must be carefully examined,
and alternatives to misalignment must 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. Considerations need to be made by
property owners for possible ephemeral pass
formation during storms. No development will
be permitted on the active south end. Property
owners will be informed of hazard potential
prior to the commencement of any construction
activities.
4.6 COASTAL BARRIER UNIT 6. COCONUT ISLAND
Once 3.8 miles long, Coconut Island was breach~d by storms at one
location and at another in 1965. The accreting southern 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.
II -88-
Coconut Island has been the site of continuous erosion since
1885. The shoreline of North Coconut Island has 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. This unit contains two beach segments
(Figure 4-7).
unit Recommendations:
1. Construction activity is discouraged.
2. This coastal barrier unit has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348, the 1982
Federal Coastal Barrier Resources 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.
4.6.1 Beach segments #23. SEA OAT, CANNON, AND COCONUT ISLANDS
Length: 2,900 feet
Beach Access: By boat only
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 and
Recommendations: This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier Under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources
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.
II -89-
construction on this segment is strongly
discouraged. Limited construction is possible
but all details should be carefully reviewed to
guarantee that this unique island is not
subjected to adverse impact. In 1987 the
majority of Cannon Island was purchased by the
state of Florida under the CARL program.
Property owners will be informed of this beach
segment's hazard potential prior to
commencement of any construction activity.
4.7 COASTAL BARRIER UNIT 7. MARCO ISLAND
Shoreline changes along Marco Island have been extremely
variable. ~hanges 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
fluctuated 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 Central Marco Island has shifted both
landward and seaward since 1885. It currently is in an erosional
phase, having eroded 215 feet since 1962. A 700-foot-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 approximately 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 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.
II -90-
The central 1.5 miles of Marco Island have 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 southern part of the island
was related to the construction of a seawall "compound" directly
adjacent to Caxambas Pass in the early 1950's. There are six
beach segments contained within the Marco Island barrier unit
(Figure 4-S).
unit Recommendations:
1. The County strongly encourages dune enhancement and
restoration of elevated crosswalks.
2. No other structures should be allowed seaward of the Coastal
Construction Control Line.
3. continue to encourage landward relocation and realignment of
seawalls after storm damage, and require public seawall
by-pass walkways where high tide beach is non-existent, if
the recommendation is to rebuild the seawall.
4. Following renourishment, a dune protection zone should be
established and crosswalks should be constructed.
5. Beach raking is discouraged.
4.7.1 Beach segment #24. HIDEAWAY BEACH NORTH
Length: 8,650 feet
Beach Access: None (private property)
Hazard Potential: SEVERE. Further inlet throat migration could
cause accelerated erosion.
Management and
Recommendations:
Encourage retention of native vegetation in
unaltered natural areas. Ensure sufficient
setback of structures from the water line,
through enforcement of County setback
requirements, especially toward the southeast
end near the curve in Big Marco Pass. Property
owners will be informed of this beach segment's
hazard potential prior to commencement of any
construction activities.
4.7.2 Beach segment #2S. HIDEAWAY BEACH WEST
Length: 6,750 feet
Beach Access: Tigertail Beach
II -91-
- _.._"-,-_.._- _..."...-,._.__._._-~~
Hazard Potential: LOW TO MODERATE. The dynamics of the ebb tidal
delta in Big Marco Pass control shoreline
changes in this segment. At present Sand
Dollar Island protects this beach segment from
direct wave energy.
Management and
Recommendations:
The 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 and maintain native vegetation.
Regrowth of previously removed Australian pine
will be removed.
4.7.3 Beach segment #26. NORTH MARCO SPIT
Length: 4,390 feet
Beach Access: None
Hazard Potential: EXTREMELY HIGH. A trend of erosion has been
aggravated by the exposure of approximately
1,500 feet of uninterrupted seawall to the
daily swash of waves. Continued erosion is
likely.
Management and
Recommendations:
continue landward relocation and realignment of
seawalls after storm damage; require pUblic
seawall by-pass walkways where high tide beach
is non-existent.
4.7.4 Beach segment #27. CENTRAL MARCO
Length: 7,260 feet
Beach Access: None
Hazard Potential: MODERATE 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.
Management and
Recommendations:
Enhancement and restoration of the existing
dune zone and the construction of elevated
crosswalks. No other structures should be
allowed seaward of the County Coastal Setback
Line on this segment.
II -92-
4.7.S Beach segment #2S. SOUTH MARCO ISLAND
Length: 2,820 feet
Beach Access: None
Hazard Potential: SEVERE. Poor vegetation management has
enhanced the erosional trend in this segment
and erosion is expected to continue.
Management and
Recommendations:
Protect dune resources and maximize building
setbacks along the south segment.
4.7.6 Beach segment #29. POINT MARCO
Length: 2,210 feet
Beach Access: Approximately 500 feet north of Caxambas Pass
Inlet; however, no parking is available.
Hazard Potential: SEVERE. practically no natural beach remains
in this segment. Revetment protection of
upland property could be dislodged in a major
storm.
Management and
Recommendations:
The entire offshore system should be carefully
studied prior to any future attempts to further
stabilize this area. Rock riprap at the base
of seawalls should be maintained periodically
where rocks have been lost due to wave action.
4.S COASTAL BARRIER UNIT S. KICE ISLAND
Kice Island has receded steadily since 1885. On the average the
shoreline has eroded 400 feet over this period. This barrier unit
contains one beach segment (Figure 4-9).
unit Recommendations:
1. This coastal barrier unit has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348, the 1982
Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act. 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. Maintain current status.
II -93-
4.8.1 Beach segment #30. KICE ISLAND
Length: 16,000 feet
Beach Access: By boat only
Hazard Potential: SEVERE. Complete overwash of barrier unit
seasonal.
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act;
it is included in Unit 15, Cape Romano. This
act prohibits the use of most federal funds
(e.g., financial assistance for new utility and
transportation facilities) for projectson
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. Maintain current status.
COASTAL BARRIER UNIT 9. MORGAN ISLAND
Morgan Island has experienced a history of erosion and sand
redistribution since 1885. The trend along the northern half has
been erosion and landward migration. This has resulted in a
recession of 150 feet since 1927. The shoreline on 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 Island throughout 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. Three beach
segments occur within this unit (Figure 4-9).
unit Recommendations:
1. This coastal barrier unit has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348, the 1982
Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act. 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.
2. There should be close scrutiny of any proposed site
development or land alteration in this area.
II -94-
3. construction of structures is discouraged due to hazard
potential. .
4. All proposed structures will be considered temporary, for
short term use, and should be constructed on pilings.
5. No stabilization of the shoreline will be permitted.
4.9.1 Beach segment #31. NORTH MORGAN ISLAND
Length: 5,880 feet
Beach Access: By boat only
Hazard Potential: HIGH. A low elevation and an accelerating
erosion rate produce transient shoreline
conditions.
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act;
it is included in Unit 15, 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 coastal barriers. In addition, as
of October 1, 1984, no federally subsidized
flood insurance coverage is available for any
coastal barriers classified as such.
There should be close scrutiny of any proposed
site development or land alteration in this
area. Construction of permanent structures is
strongly discouraged due to hazard potential.
All proposed structures should be considered
temporary, for short term use, and should be
constructed on pilings. No stabilization of the
shoreline will be permitted.
4.9.2 Beach segment #32. SOUTH MORGAN ISLAND
Length: 3,600 feet
Beach Access: By boat only
Hazard Potential: SEVERE. The category to which this beach
segment has been assigned summarizes the
hazard. Continued migration and potential
formation of ephemeral passes makes this
segment extremely unstable.
II -95-
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act;
it is included in unit 15, 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 coastal barriers. In addition, as of
October 1, 1984, no federally subsidized flood
insurance coverage is available for any coastal
barriers classified as such.
No construction or shoreline stabilization will
be permitted on this segment due to its extreme
instability and severe hazard potential.
4.9.3 Beach segment #33. MORGAN SPIT
Length: 3,800 feet
Beach Access: By boat only
Hazard Potential: SEVERE. Recently accreted spits such as this
one exemplify land forms that are extremely
tenuous and which could disappear during a
single storm.
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act;
it is included in Unit 15, 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 coastal barriers. In addition, as
of October 1, 1984, no federally subsidized
flood insurance coverage is available for any
coastal barriers classified as such.
4.10 COASTAL BARRIER UNIT 10. CAPE ROMANO ISLAND
Cape Romano Island formed in response to the interaction of
predominantly south and southeasterly winds and a large subtidal
sand supply in the Cape Romano shoals. These winds transported
sands around Cape Romano and deposited it on Cape Romano Island.
The acute intersection of Morgan Island and Cape Romano Island
forms a classic cape feature. The shoreline of the apex of the
II -96-
Cape accreted seaward 700 feet from 1927 to 1952, and then eroded
800 feet from 1952 to 1981. Further to the northeast the
shoreline has been relatively stable. The Cape Romano coastal
barrier unit contains two beach segments (Figure 4-9).
unit Recommendations:
1. This segment has been classified as an Undeveloped Coastal
Barrier under P.L. 97-348, the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier
Resources Act; it is included in unit 15, 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 coastal barriers. In addition, as of
October 1, 1984, no federally subsidized flood insurance
coverage is available for any coastal barriers classified as
such.
2. Public lands should be maintained in their natural state.
3. There should be close scrutiny of any proposed development or
alteration of land in private ownership.
4. Only structures and/or activities designated to minimize
adverse impacts on adjacent public lands will be permitted.
5. Private lands should be acquired if offered. possible areas
of County acquisition.
4.10.1 Beach segment #34. CAPE ROMANO
Length: 3,840 feet
Beach Access: By boat
Hazard Potential: LOW TO MODERATE. The orientation of Cape Romano
Island away from the predominant approach of
waves, has contributed to the historical
stability of the area.
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act;
it is included in unit 15, 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 coastal barriers. In addition, as
of October 1, 1984, no federally subsidized
flood insurance coverage is available for any
coastal barriers classified as such.
II -97-
Public lands will be maintained in their
natural state. There should be close scrutiny
of any proposed development or alteration of
land in private ownership. Only structures
and/or activities designated to minimize
adverse impact on adjacent public lands will be
permitted. Private lands should be acquired if
offered. Possible areas of County acquisition.
4.10.2 Beach segment #3S. CAPE ROMANO SPIT
Length: 10,800 feet
Beach Access: By boat
Hazard Potential: LOW TO MODERATE. As with the previous
segmentation; the orientation away from
predominating wave approach has contributed to
the spit's stability.
Management and
Recommendations:
This segment has been classified as an
Undeveloped Coastal Barrier under P.L. 97-348,
the 1982 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act;
it is included in unit 15, 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 coastal barriers. No federally
subsidized flood insurance coverage is
available for any coastal barriers classified
as such.
Public lands should be maintained in their
natural state. There should be close scrutiny
of any proposed development or alteration of
land in private ownership. Only structures
and/or activities designated to minimize
adverse impact on adjacent public lands will be
permitted. Private lands should be acquired if
offered. Possible areas of County acquisition.
II -98-
21
22
20
KEEWAYDIN
ISLAND
Hurricane Pass
Big Marco Pass
COCONUT' 23
ISLAND GROUP
MARCO
ISLAND
24
25
26
27
28
~
Caxambas Pass
Gullivan Pass
MORGAN
ISLAND GROUP
30~
31 ~ 34 ~~~~NO
32 _
33 35 ISL AND
KICE
ISLAND
Blind Pass
Figure 4-1: Collier County Coastal Barrier Units, Beach Segments,
and Tidal Passes (from Harvey et al., 1984 - Part 2).
II -99-
I~ -
I
-------
(~ r
..
.
,
,,'
,'-
..- ">
. . .
.~.'-'~A .
"
<:\,.'
, . .~ J~~ ~-~
1... . ",<. <.(~}_:..' J
(
e
"
o
'.;"
..'
"
~~..;.:::.
......'
.'-
.'
.'
~
2*
~~:
~ ",,",
.......
.
,,'
/-
".
.-
lI>oo
-
.-
. ---
Le1y Beach
Beach Seqmen,ti
No. 2 - //
. Little -Hickory
Hau"l"over'
---
Beach: Seqment
No''- 3" -
Beach Segment
No..'4
. 'Bee.ch '5e'g'm"e"lit
. No. J.-'.
... Lely' Ba'refoot
Beach
Barefoot !leach
State Preserve
.'
.
o
1
.
.-
"
~
Ii'
/
G
u
1
/'
/
Figure 4-2:
Coastal
et al.,
Barrier Unit 1-
1984).
Barefoot Beach
(from Harvey
II -100-
~!ii,;~:~~\t~;,i;i~,:
x
.r'.'
.
,
.... 't.:.
I_~
'"-
=.
........._?"
.-
~
.
lei Park
'-
, 33
f, ~ii~~
"'-,\ @
Qr~"
. r-.
" ' ..'J
,
,.. I
"
.
. ,
) "
( .
'.'1'
/ >,
n \ .
; 11 !
i .
'"
.
. , .
I~ .
;:
c;)
/ .
!
,
9
Figure 4-3: Coastal Barrier unit 2. Vanderbilt Beach (from
Harvey et al., 1984 - Part 2).
II -101-
D"' \
o ~
" ~ , 9
c::: ." f" ,
" ~ (
~. ~.1 .
,
t-< g: !
..:. n
0
~ '.1>>'
"'j l:!f} ..
~ -
I
:<' /
cti
5' rt .
~
r~ 0:" )0
5"g 011>
. ~
~f,t .f}
0 '00 1 g>
"
!:l-
I
,
"'j I
" \
n ~ \ \
II> = ,
.~ , \
,
! , \,
,
\ \
-I
Figure 4-4: Coastal Barrier unit 3. Park Shore (from Harvey et
al., 1984 - Part 2).
II -102-
M
~~ ,
!i \
>.; I
......
(")
! ~~!
.. .
. = .~
! .
<. i.
~ .
,-,:; ~ .
,'-";
."'r,,.......--.
~ ;-..~..~'i.'...
'a:;! :;.
.::C"., .
~ .:1" ~
o "r.t. .
.
~
~ ~~
.
\"
(j\
\
\
I
\
\
I
c;..~t..'" 0;;
.
.... .
.....::.. ..
,
:.. :..t... .
....... .~
,.,
: . .. ..
~
. .
. .
i
;'.. .t!;.
~. .
"
. --:"A::-
I
I
I
I
i
I
.
,
!
\.f" .~
". ~ ~.
.'\ 1~:3 (
..... ~ ".
les:~ . '" -t
~t 1 }<).j
~. .r" ~"~1
.. ":,.....,16: J
~ . - ,.-..:..
. i-V~
, \..\~,-~~
\ lo~Jr
\ t.~, )
: J:ro;-,!-;:
-) ){1.:2) ~
Figure 4-5: Coastal Barrier unit 4. Naples Headland (from Harvey
et al., 1984 - Part 2).
II -103-
[~ I; i
. r'l
0
<
~
.
:
,
.
~
[
.,,~
"
o
~
~
"
<
i"
.
.
H:
M;
.F."' :
is:
li
".
\
\
Figure 4-6: Coastal Barrier unit 5. Keewaydin Island (from
Harvey et al., 1984 - Part 2).
,.
"
~
.
.
II -104-
Beach Segment
No. 23
Coconut Island
.;....-..,..,.,..
Figure 4-7: Coastal Barrier unit 6. Coconut Island Group (from
Harvey et al., 1984 - Part 2).
II -105-
"'~'._-'---"--'-------'-r-"'-"-
\Z~ z'"
o e. O.
"0- .
~ . 0
. "
(
. '"
,.
'" 3
. .
. ,
0 ~
"
:c z'"
.. 00
0- .
0 0
~ ,.
. '"
, .
.. 0
0
. "
0 ~
,.
'"
0
.
"
\g' I"""
00
" . .
!} I, ;
~
N
0
0
n r'"
. 00
" . .
" 0
N ,.
. '"
... , 0
:c ~
.
N
0 "
0 "
...
.
...
.
,
0-
;'ff
'-'. ~
(
,
1\ ~f.~
. ~ V
~I~
n~\l
g
o
-
Barrier unit 7.
1984 - Part 2).
Marco Island
(from Harvey
Figure 4-8:
Coastal
et al.,
II -106-
(J.,,.
., 8
, .., S
~;.b~~
,~
~.
\
13 '\
, ,~ I
..
'!
i. .::.~~'''\~:st1.~t:~~~,
"
"
Figure
4-9:
Coastal
Complex
(from Harvey
Barrier units 8, 9, and 10. Cape
Kice Island, Morgan Island, and
et al., 1984 Part 2).
Romano
cape Romano
II -107-