Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assesment J.N. 'Ding' Darling National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
J.N. “DING” DARLING NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Lee County, Florida
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
May 2010
J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN ................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 4
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 5
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other
Special Considerations ....................................................................................................... 6
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 7
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 7
North American Bird Conservation Initiative ....................................................................... 8
American Oystercatcher Conservation Plan ..................................................................... 10
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management ....................................................... 10
Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative ............................................................ 10
NOAA’s Marine Debris Removal Program ........................................................................ 11
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ......................................................................................... 11
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 13
Refuge History and Purposes ..................................................................................................... 15
History ............................................................................................................................... 15
Purposes ........................................................................................................................... 16
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 16
Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................ 17
Marine Protected Area ...................................................................................................... 18
Florida Important Bird Area ............................................................................................... 19
Outstanding Florida Water ................................................................................................ 19
Coastal Barrier Resources System ................................................................................... 19
State Aquatic Preserves and State Buffer Preserve ......................................................... 20
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program ..................................................................... 21
Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................................................... 21
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 22
Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative ................................................ 22
South Florida Ecosystem .................................................................................................. 23
Estuarine Ecosystem ........................................................................................................ 33
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 33
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (NEP) and Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan ................................................................................ 33
Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan .................. 35
Gulf of Mexico Program .................................................................................................... 36
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan .................................................................. 37
Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program .................................................. 37
South Florida Ecosystem Plan .......................................................................................... 38
South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan ...................................................................... 38
Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Management and
Conservation Plan ............................................................................................................. 39
ii J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
State Wildlife Action Plan .................................................................................................. 39
Florida Natural Areas Inventory ........................................................................................ 40
Sanibel Plan ...................................................................................................................... 40
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 40
Water Quality, Quantity, and Timing ................................................................................. 41
Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species ........................................................................... 41
Potential Effects of Climate Change ................................................................................. 43
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 44
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 44
Climate Change and Global Warming .............................................................................. 47
Geology and Topography ................................................................................................. 49
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 55
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 55
Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 65
Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 66
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 75
Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 75
Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 85
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 98
Socioeconomic Environment .................................................................................................... 101
Regional Demographics and Economy........................................................................... 101
Recreation and Tourism.................................................................................................. 104
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................. 107
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................. 108
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 110
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance....................................................................... 114
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ 117
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ................................................................... 117
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 118
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 119
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 120
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 120
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ..................................................................................................... 123
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 123
Vision ...................................................................................................................................... 123
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................................................ 124
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 124
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 147
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 150
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 159
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 163
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 163
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 163
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 164
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 167
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 168
Table of Contents iii
Refuge Administration ..................................................................................................... 171
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 171
Partnership Opportunities ......................................................................................................... 172
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 172
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 173
Plan Review and Revision ........................................................................................................ 173
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 175
I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 175
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 175
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 175
Decision Framework ................................................................................................................. 176
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................. 176
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 177
Compatibility .................................................................................................................... 177
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 177
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 179
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 181
Formulation of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 181
Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 181
Alternative A (Current Management, No Action Alternative) ........................................... 183
Alternative B (Native Wildlife and Habitat Diversity) ....................................................... 188
Alternative C (Migratory Birds, Proposed Action) ............................................................ 192
Alternative D (Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species) .......................................... 198
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 202
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 203
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 237
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 237
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 237
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 237
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 237
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 239
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 239
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 239
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 240
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 241
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 259
Effects on Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides .......................... 259
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 259
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 260
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 260
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 260
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 260
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 261
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 264
Short-term Uses Versus Long-term Productivity ...................................................................... 264
iv J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 267
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 267
Core CCP Team ....................................................................................................................... 267
Wildlife and Habitat Management Review Team ..................................................................... 267
Visitor Services Review Team .................................................................................................. 268
Wilderness Review Team......................................................................................................... 268
Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team ...................................................................... 269
Public Scoping Meetings .......................................................................................................... 270
"Ding" Darling Wildlife Society--Friends of the Refuge ............................................................. 270
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 271
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 271
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 279
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 283
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 305
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 317
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 319
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 333
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 357
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 379
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 381
APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 393
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR ........................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Wilderness Area and Norberg Research Natural Area ................ 14
Figure 4. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ............................................................................... 24
Figure 5. South Florida Ecosystem ..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 6. Area Conservation Lands .................................................................................................... 27
Figure 7. Historic and Current Surface Water Flows – South Florida Ecosystem ............................... 32
Figure 8. Charlotte Harbor Watershed and Caloosahatchee River .................................................... 34
Figure 9. Land Cover .......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 10. Fort Myers Federal Aviation Administration Airport, Florida, 1971 - 2000
Temperature and Precipitation ........................................................................................... 45
Figure 11. Geologic Map of the State of Florida ................................................................................. 51
Figure 12. Geologic Map of the Southern Peninsula of the State of Florida ....................................... 53
Figure 13. Generalized Geology of Sanibel Island ............................................................................. 54
Figure 14. Soil Types of Sanibel Island .............................................................................................. 57
Figure 15. Physiography of Sanibel Island ......................................................................................... 58
Figure 16. Natural Surface Drainage Patterns of Sanibel Island ........................................................ 60
Figure 17. Ground Water Aquifers and Lithology of Sanibel Island .................................................... 63
Figure 18. Shellfish Harvesting in Lower Charlotte Harbor ................................................................. 71
Figure 19. Refuge Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 78
Figure 20. Refuge Burn Units ............................................................................................................. 79
Figure 21. Seagrass Distribution in the Vicinity of Sanibel Island ....................................................... 84
Figure 22. Manatee Abundance in the Vicinity of Sanibel Island ........................................................ 86
Figure 23. Critical Habitat Designated for the Smalltooth Sawfish ..................................................... 94
Figure 24. Status Map for J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR ......................................................................... 109
Figure 25. J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge Visitors Map ............................................... 111
Figure 26. J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge Visitors Map: Wildlife Drive-
Indigo Trail and Shell Mound Trail Viewing Areas ............................................................ 112
Figure 27. Current Organizational Chart for J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR.............................................. 115
Figure 28. Alligator Curve Restoration Area ..................................................................................... 139
Figure 29. Existing and Proposed Visitor Facilities ........................................................................... 152
Figure 30. Proposed Organizational Chart for the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex ..................... 160
vi J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and State Parks in Charlotte, Lee,
and Collier Counties Designated as Lands Containing Outstanding Florida Waters .......... 20
Table 2. Nationwide Rivers Inventory, Florida Segments in the J.N. “Ding” Darling
NWR Complex Area ............................................................................................................ 22
Table 3. Types of Natural Communities in the Charlotte Harbor Basin .............................................. 28
Table 4. Imperiled Animal Species of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
Program Study Area ............................................................................................................ 30
Table 5. Temperature, Precipitation, and Snowfall Summary Fort Myers Federal Aviation
Administration Airport .......................................................................................................... 46
Table 6. Ground Water Systems in Lee County ................................................................................. 62
Table 7. Broad Habitat Categories of the J.N. "Ding" Darling NWR Acquisition Boundary ................ 76
Table 8. Federally and State Listed Species of J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge ............ 87
Table 9. Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species Occurring on or in the Vicinity of
J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR ..................................................................................................... 96
Table 10. Demographics of the Charlotte Harbor Region ................................................................. 103
Table 11. Lee County Employment Projections, 2007-2015 ............................................................ 104
Table 12. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR: 2004 Recreation Visits ............................................................ 105
Table 13. J.N. “Ding Darling” NWR: Visitor Recreation Expenditures, (2004 $,000's) .................... 106
Table 14. Activities in Florida by U.S. Residents - Wildlife Watching (observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife) ..................................................................................... 107
Table 15. Land Status for J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR ......................................................................... 108
Table 16. Step-down Management Plans to be Developed during the 15-year Life of the Plan ....... 172
Table 17. Comparison of Alternatives by Management Issues for J.N. “Ding” Darling
National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................... 204
Table 18. Summary of Environmental Consequences of Implementation of the
Alternatives for J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge ............................................. 242
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
Located along Florida’s southwest Gulf coast in Lee and Charlotte counties, the J.N. “Ding” Darling
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex includes the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR and four satellite
refuges: Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs (Figure 1). J.N. “Ding”
Darling NWR (Figure 2) was established in 1945 as Sanibel NWR and later renamed as a memorial
to Jay Norwood “Ding” Darling, the noted editorial cartoonist; conservationist; and first Chief of the
U.S. Biological Survey, the founding agency of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The
6,406.79 acres [2,592.74 hectares (ha)] of the refuge support hundreds of species of wildlife and
plants, providing protection for 14 federal-listed and 49 state-listed species, migratory birds, and
native wildlife and habitat diversity through a mix of habitats, including tropical hardwood forests,
beaches, mangrove swamps, mixed wetland shrubs, salt marshes, open waters and seagrass beds,
and lakes and canals.
Comprising roughly half of Sanibel Island and most of Buck Key, the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR
provides key habitats supporting a variety of species in a highly developed landscape (Figure 2). The
city of Sanibel, Lee County, Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF), and the Service work
together on Sanibel Island -- one of the top birding hot spots in the nation with beautiful beaches,
shelling, fishing, and wildlife -- to continue conservation work on Sanibel Island. This partnership has
resulted in land use planning to guide growth and development ensuring that future generations will
be able to enjoy the special ambience and quiet harmony that Sanibel Island offers.
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR was prepared to guide future management actions and provide direction for
the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent
recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not
detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
The Service developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the refuge
and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA describes the
Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their effects on the
environment. Both the Draft CCP and the EA will be made available to state and federal government
agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. Comments from
each entity will be considered in the development of the final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to fully develop the proposed action that best achieves the
refuge’s purposes; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the National
Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant
mandates; and is consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
2 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Figure 2. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR
4 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation and
education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people
through federal programs relating to wild birds, endangered species, certain marine mammals,
fisheries, aquatic resources, and wildlife management activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages 551 national wildlife refuges and other units of the
Refuge System covering 150 million acres (60.7 million ha). These areas comprise the National
Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for
fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million acres (31 million ha), are in Alaska, while 54
million acres (21.8 ha) are part of three new marine national monuments in the Pacific Ocean. The
remaining acres/hectares are spread across the other 49 states and several United States territories.
In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, 37 wetland management
districts, 70 national fish hatcheries, 65 fishery resource offices, and 81 ecological services field
stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores
wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the
Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and
hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
 Allow refuge managers authority to determine compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican
Island National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of
colonial nesting birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges
were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert
bighorn sheep (1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated
once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s “Dust Bowl” severely depleted breeding
populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on
“waterfowl production areas” (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The
emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response
to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on
establishing refuges for endangered species.
National wildlife refuges connect visitors to their natural resource heritage and provide visitors with
an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology -- helping them to understand their
role in the environment. Wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges also generates economic
benefits to local communities and as the number of visitors grows, significant economic benefits are
realized. In 2006, approximately 87 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, generating $120 billion. According to the report, Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic
Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, approximately 35 million
6 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
people visited national wildlife refuges in 2006, generating almost $1.7 billion in total economic
activity and creating almost 27,000 private sector jobs producing about $543 million in employment
income (Carver and Caudill 2007). Additionally, recreational spending on refuges generated nearly
$185.3 million in tax revenue at the local, county, state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill
2007). As the number of visitors grows, significant economic benefits are realized by local
communities. In 2006, 87 million people, 16 years and older, fished (30 million), hunted (12.5
million), or observed wildlife (71 million), generating $120 billion (U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2007). In a
study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in seven years. At the
same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per refuge, up
from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 refuges in the
study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula
(Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); Mattamuskeet
(North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna Atacosa
(Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana), the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation
expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland unpublished data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2006, over
36,000 volunteers contributed nearly 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide. The value of their labor
was more than $26 million; their in-kind services the equivalent of 696 full-time employees.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Fish and Wildlife Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of
the Refuge System and management of the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR and other partners.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans (601 FW 3). The Biological Integrity Policy is an additional directive for
refuge managers to follow while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It
provides for the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat
resources found on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate
management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to
determine their refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at
multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of
refuge resources, refuge’s role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science,
including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
8 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative
(including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan), the American
Oystercatcher Conservation Plan, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, the Western
Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, the
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA’s) Marine Debris Removal Program.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government
agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico working to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird
populations by fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats.
Key international and national bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is an international action plan to
conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations
to their 1970s’ levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the United States
signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994,
making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and municipal
governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working
towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated
species and people. Its purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of major, long-term international
waterfowl issues and to make recommendations to directors of the participating countries' national
wildlife agencies. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional levels. These
projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North American
landscape. The refuge provides breeding habitat for mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) and wintering
habitat for the American wigeon (Anas americana), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), northern
shoveler (Anas clypeata), northern pintail (Anas acuta), green-winged teal (Anas crecca), lesser
scaup (Aythya affinis), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), and red-breasted merganser
(Mergus serrator). According to the NAWMP, the populations of northern pintail and lesser scaup are
decreasing. The refuge’s wildlife inventory plan, water quality monitoring, seagrass protection, and
freshwater wetland restoration projects all support the goals and objectives of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan
Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plan, the Peninsular Florida
physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that
ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily non-game land
birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many
are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses on
relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the
frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. Plans for the refuge include providing
suitable nesting, foraging, and/or resting habitats for many priority species identified for the
peninsular and subtropical physiographic areas including the mangrove cuckoo (Coccyzus minor),
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor), palm warbler (Dendroica palmarum), gray kingbird (Tyrannus
dominicensis), black-whiskered vireo (Vireo altiloquus), wood stork (Mycteria americana), reddish
egret (Egretta rufescens), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), mottled duck, American kestrel (Falco
sparverius), short-tailed hawk (Buteo brachyurus), and the swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus).
The refuge’s wildlife inventory plan, exotic plant control plan, and mangrove forest, hardwood
hammock, and freshwater wetland restoration projects all support the goals and objectives of the
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP) provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the Southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes (Grus
canadensis), whooping cranes (Grus americana), interior least terns (Sterna antillarum), and Gulf
Coast populations of brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis). A key objective of this plan is the
standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
The Southeastern U.S. Waterbird Conservation Plan stresses protection of nesting and foraging
habitats for both colonial and non-colonial waterbirds. Charlotte Harbor and J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR
support important colonies of beach-nesting species [including the brown pelican, sandwich tern
(Sterna sandvicensis), royal tern (Sterna maxima), least tern, black skimmer (Rynchops niger), and
laughing gull (Larus atricilla)], and provide important mangrove habitat for most long-legged wading
species, such as reddish egrets. The refuge’s wildlife inventory plan, impoundment management
plan, and rookery protection activities all support the goals and objectives of the North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure
that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan
was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate
regions of the country, and identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key
research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of
shorebirds and the threats they face. Primary objectives of this plan are the development of
scientifically sound monitoring systems to provide practical information to researchers and land
managers, the identification of principles upon which management plans can integrate shorebird
habitat conservation with multiple species strategies, and the design of a strategy for increasing
public awareness and information concerning wetlands and shorebirds.
Supporting the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the refuge is part of the Peninsular Florida area of
the Southeastern Coastal Plains-Caribbean Region. The refuge provides breeding habitat for the
snowy plover, killdeer, American oystercatcher, and black-necked stilt. The refuge also provides
potential breeding habitat for the Wilson’s plover and willet. The refuge provides wintering habitat for
the black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), semipalmated plover (Pluvialis squatarola), piping
plover (Charadrius melodus), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa
flavipes), spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), ruddy turnstone
(Arenaria interpres), red knot (Calidris canutus), sanderling (Calidris alba), western sandpiper
10 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
(Calidris mauri), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), dunlin (Calidris alpina), stilt sandpiper (Calidris
himantopus), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), and common snipe (Gallinago gallinago).
The refuge also provides migratory stop-over habitat for the solitary sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) and
semipalmated sandpiper. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan identifies two species that are in
highest need for conservation attention (“extremely high”) that breed on the refuge: snowy plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus) and American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus). The U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan also identifies two other species that are considered an “extremely high” priority
that winter on the refuge: piping plover and red knot. The refuge’s wildlife inventory plan,
impoundment management plan, and potential land acquisition of beachfront habitat within the
refuge’s acquisition boundary all support the goals and objectives of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan.
AMERICAN OYSTERCATCHER CONSERVATION PLAN
The American Oystercatcher Conservation Plan focuses on H. p. palliatus in the United States,
referred to as “American Oystercatcher” or simply as “oystercatchers.” The present plan addresses
only the populations on the East and Gulf coasts and summarizes current knowledge of their life
history, distribution, and population trends, describes current threats, lists research and management
needs, and outlines recommended conservation actions. Conservation activities recommended to
address these threats include: identification and protection of existing habitat; creation of new habitat
through carefully designed use of dredge-spoil materials; management of existing protected areas to
reduce predation and disturbance; and control of predator populations, especially in the nesting
season. The refuge provides breeding and wintering habitat for American oystercatchers.
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides national leadership, strategic direction, and guidance to
state and territory coastal programs and estuarine research reserves. OCRM oversees six major
programs. Each program has a national reach, but is designed to focus on local resources and
needs. The OCRM works with state and territory coastal resource managers to develop a
scientifically based, comprehensive national system of marine protected areas (MPAs) and supports
effective management and sound science to protect, sustain and restore coral reef ecosystems.
These activities are mandated by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Marine Protected
Area (MPA) Executive Order, and the Coral Reef Conservation Act. Numerous refuge management
activities fall under the CZMA and the MPA designation of the refuge. The refuge would collaborate
with OCRM’s MPAs Center on marine related research and monitoring.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE MIGRATORY SPECIES INITIATIVE
The Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative seeks to contribute significantly to the
conservation of the migratory species of the Western Hemisphere by strengthening communication
and cooperation among nations, international conventions, and civil society, and by expanding
constituencies, and political support. All entities that support the vision, mission, and objectives of
this initiative are invited to be partners in its implementation. Since the refuge supports migratory
species of the Western Hemisphere, it plays a role in this initiative.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
WESTERN HEMISPHERE SHOREBIRD RESERVE NETWORK
The mission of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network is to conserve shorebirds and
their habitats through a network of key sites across the Americas. Sites are designated and
managed to sustain all native shorebird species and their current populations throughout the
Americas. The Network works to build a strong system of sites used by shorebirds throughout their
migratory ranges; develop science and management tools that expand the scope and pace of habitat
conservation at each site within the Network; establish local, regional and international recognition for
sites, raising new public awareness and generating conservation funding opportunities; and, serve as
an international resource, convener and strategist for issues related to shorebird and habitat
conservation. Although the refuge is not currently a member of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network, it does play an important role for shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere.
NATIONAL WETLANDS PRIORITY CONSERVATION PLAN
The National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan identifies the locations and types of wetlands, and
interests in wetlands, that should receive priority for wetland acquisition projects by federal and state
agencies using Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations. The objective of the plan is to
assist agencies in focusing their acquisition efforts on the more important, scarce, and vulnerable
wetlands in the Nation. The plan is an ongoing program and continues to provide guidance for
making decisions regarding wetland acquisition. The plan applies only to wetlands that would be
acquired by federal agencies and states using Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
appropriations; however, the plan also establishes priorities for wetlands protection that do not
involve acquisition. Since the refuge involves wetlands of potentially international importance, LWCF
funds might be applied to help meet refuge purposes and goals.
NOAA’S MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL PROGRAM
NOAA's Marine Debris Removal Program provides funding to facilitate the implementation of locally
driven, community-based marine debris prevention and removal projects that benefit coastal habitat;
waterways; and NOAA trust resources, including anadromous fish. Projects have strong on-the-ground
habitat components involving the removal of marine debris and derelict fishing gear that will
provide educational and social benefits for people and their communities in addition to long-term
ecological habitat improvements for NOAA trust resources. The Program identifies marine debris
removal projects, strengthens the development and implementation of habitat restoration through the
removal of marine debris within communities, and fosters awareness of the effects of marine debris to
further the conservation of living marine resource habitats across a wide geographic area. Due to its
estuarine location, refuge management activities already serve the goals of this Program.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Florida. For J.N. “Ding”
Darling NWR, state partners include: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC),
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD). These state agencies are charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory
birds, trust species, and fisheries, as well as with management of natural resources of the state.
12 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
The more than 575 species of wildlife, more than 200 native species of freshwater fish, and more
than 500 native species of saltwater fish; while balancing these species’ needs with the needs of
more than 18 million residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2007) and the over 84.5 million annual visitor
trips to Florida (Florida Department of Transportation 2008) who share the land and water with
Florida’s wildlife.
The FWCs’ responsibilities include the following:
 Law Enforcement – to protect fish and wildlife, keep waterways safe for millions of boaters
and cooperate with other law enforcement agencies providing homeland security.
 Research – to provide information for the FWC and others to make management decisions
based on the best science available involving fish and wildlife populations, habitat issues and
the human-dimension aspects of conservation.
 Management – to manage the state’s fish and wildlife resources based on the latest scientific
data to conserve some of the most complex and delicate ecosystems in the world along with a
wide diversity of species.
 Outreach – to communicate with a variety of audiences to encourage participation,
responsible citizenship and stewardship of the state’s natural resources.
Both FWC and FDEP manage state lands and waters. FWC manages 4.3 million acres/1.7 million ha
of public lands and 220,000 acres/89,030 ha of private lands for recreation and conservation
purposes. FDEP manages 150 state parks covering nearly 600,000 acres/242,811 ha and 57 coastal
and aquatic managed areas, totaling over 5 million acres/2 million ha of submerged lands and coastal
uplands. The SWFWMD and SFWMD are two of Florida’s five water management agencies. They
are responsible for managing ground and surface water supplies in all or part of southwest and south
Florida. These two water management districts include all or parts of 29 counties and cover a total
area of almost 28,000 square miles (17.9 million acres/7.25 million ha), largely consisting of wetlands
or historically wet areas. The area is managed for the purposes of regional flood control, water
supply and water quality protection as well as ecosystem restoration. Of less acreage, but not of less
importance, are upland areas managed by the water management districts. These areas preserve
wetlands, waters, and wildlife and provide critical buffers between rapidly encroaching development
and important wetland areas.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of Florida. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission
objectives where appropriate.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
The J.N. "Ding" Darling NWR is part of a larger Refuge Complex that includes four additional satellite
refuges (Figure 1). The majority of the lands in these satellite refuges are nesting and roosting
islands. The entire Refuge Complex is approximately 8,000 acres. The four satellite refuges within
the Refuge Complex are described below.
 Pine Island NWR - contains approximately 602 acres (244 ha), including 18 mangrove islands or
portions of islands with little upland habitat located in Pine Island Sound
 Matlacha Pass NWR – contains approximately 538 acres (218 ha) including 31 mangrove and
coastal strand islands or portions of islands and the 145.61-acre ( ha) Terrapin Creek (San Carlos
Bay) Tract on the mainland near Bunche Beach, which also includes critical habitat for the piping
plover
 Island Bay NWR - contains approximately 20 acres (8.19 ha) including six undeveloped and
roadless tracts of mangrove and coastal strand habitats located east of Boca Grande where all of
the Island Bay NWR has been designated as a Wilderness Area (Figure 3)
 Caloosahatchee NWR - 40 acres (16.19 ha) of four mangrove islands, located in the
Caloosahatchee River underneath and near the Interstate-75 bridge in Fort Myers
These satellite refuges are covered together in a separate CCP. This Draft CCP/EA focuses
specifically on the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR.
The J.N. "Ding" Darling NWR (Figure 2) is located along the southwest coast of Florida in Lee
County, approximately 15 miles southwest of Ft. Myers, on the subtropical barrier island of Sanibel in
the Gulf of Mexico. Currently, most of the island’s private lands (ca. 60 percent of the Island) are
developed with single- and multiple-level single- and multi-family housing and low-density commercial
establishments. The refuge is part of the largest undeveloped mangrove ecosystem in the United
States and is world famous for its spectacular wading bird populations. Approximately 700,000
people annually visit the refuge.
The refuge’s management boundary covers approximately 6,406.79 acres/2,592.74 ha of estuarine
habitats, including tropical hardwood forests, beaches, mangrove swamps, mixed wetland shrubs,
salt marshes, open waters and seagrass beds, and lakes and canals. Approximately 44 percent or
2,619 acres (1,160 ha) of the refuge is designated as Wilderness Area (Figure 3). Approximately 272
species of birds (including accidentals), 60 species of reptiles and amphibians (including exotics
species), 102 fish species (including exotic species), and 33 species of mammals (including exotic
species) have been identified on or within the vicinity of the refuge.
On December 1, 1945, the Sanibel National Wildlife Refuge was established by agreement through a
lease with the State of Florida under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C.
715d] at the urging of Jay Norwood "Ding" Darling (the multiple Pulitzer Prize - winning editorial
cartoonist, co-creator of the Federal Duck Stamp Program and designer of the first duck stamp,
founder of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program, Co-founder and first President
of the National Wildlife Federation and former Chief of the U.S. Biological Survey, the forerunner of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Later, in 1967, the refuge was renamed to honor Jay Norwood
“Ding” Darling's tireless and pioneering conservation efforts.
14 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Wilderness Area and Norberg Research Natural Area
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
In partnership with the residents of Sanibel Island, Captiva Island, Lee County, and the State of
Florida, the refuge was created to safeguard and enhance habitat for wildlife; to protect endangered
and threatened species; and to provide feeding, nesting, and roosting areas for migratory birds. The
refuge protects and provides habitat for federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate
species including the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), American crocodile (Crocodylus
acutus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas),
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), leatherback
sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), piping plover
(Charadrius melodus), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), wood stork (Mycteria americana),
aboriginal prickly apple (Harrisia aboriginum), roasete tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii), red knot
(Calidris canutus rufus), Miami blue butterfly [Cyclargus (=Hemiargus) thomasi bethunebakeri], Gulf
sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) and smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata); as well as other
federal trust species, such as colonial-nesting waterbirds and neotropical migratory birds. Numerous
state-listed species and species of special concern also occur within the refuge boundary, including,
but not limited to Sanibel rice rat (Oryzomys palustris sanibeli), gopher tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), Southeastern snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus tenuirostris), and roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaia). The refuge implements management
actions (e.g., prescribed fire) to mimic natural ecosystem processes and to provide feeding, nesting,
breeding, foraging, and resting habitat for a variety of native fish and wildlife.
Work on the J.N. "Ding" Darling NWR Draft CCP/EA was initiated in 2007 and is scheduled for
completion in 2010. The Draft CCP/EA contains concepts to guide further development and
implementation of land use and management programs and associated facilities and management
structures for the next 15 years. Consideration of the refuge's physical, biological, and cultural
resources, along with the socioeconomic environment and refuge management and administration
are taken into account and analyzed to produce an overview of the refuge and the challenges it
faces. The EA was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
guidelines. In addition to documenting the existing natural environmental and socio-economic
setting, the EA evaluates the impact of the proposed and alternative actions and the no action
alternative in order to facilitate selection of the CCP alternative most suitable for implementation.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES
HISTORY
J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR occupies the north central portion of Sanibel Island, off the southwest coast
of Florida in Lee County. Historians believe that Sanibel Island was formed 5 to 6 thousand years
ago, as sediment rose from the sea after being shaped by centuries of hurricane and storm activity.
What began as a sandbar is now a barrier island fringed with mangrove trees, shallow bays, and
white sandy beaches. The Island is listed as one of the top ten birding areas in the country (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2001).
Explorer Juan Ponce de Leon is believed to have discovered Sanibel Island – which he named
“Santa Isybella” after Queen Isabella – in 1513 while searching for the “Fountain of Youth”. The
Spanish were unsuccessful in converting the Calusas and establishing any permanent settlement on
Sanibel. By the late 1700s, the remaining Calusa immigrated to Cuba with the departing Spaniards.
Florida traded hands between the Spanish and the British and was ceded to the United States in
1821. The first settlers arrived on Sanibel in 1833. By the 1870 Census, only two people registered
for Sanibel. But, by 1889, 40 families lived on Sanibel Island. Agriculture, hit hard by hurricanes,
gave way to winter homes and retreats on Sanibel Island, which continues today with a high tourism
16 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
component. (summarized from a variety of sources: Hammond, 1970; Hammond, 1970a; Sanibel
and Captiva Islands Chamber of Commerce, 2009; and, Wikipedia, March 2009)
On December 1, 1945, the Service entered into agreement with the State of Florida through a lease,
under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, for 2,392 acres of land, creating
Sanibel National Wildlife Refuge. Playing a large role in getting the refuge established, “Ding” Darling
died on February 12, 1962, several months after suffering a stroke. Shortly after his death, the J. N.
“Ding” Darling Foundation was formed with Trustees, including former Presidents Eisenhower and
Truman. The Foundation supported expanding the refuge and renaming it in his honor. In 1967, Jay
Norwood "Ding" Darling’s longstanding and widespread conservation achievements were
immortalized by renaming the refuge to J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge. “Ding” Darling’s
posthumous influence didn’t end there. His example inspired local conservationists to form the
Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation to continue conservation work on private lands. This
became more imperative as Sanibel Island began rapidly changing.
PURPOSES
The refuge was established in 1945 by agreement through a lease with the State of Florida “…for use
as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird
Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715-715r, February 18, 1929, as amended). Secondary purposes were
subsequently applied to the refuge, as listed.
“…wilderness areas…shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American
people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as
wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of
their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information
regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness…” 16 U.S.C. 1131 (Wilderness Act)
“…suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act) “…the Secretary…may
accept and use…real…property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the
terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2
(Refuge Recreation Act)
“…the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public
benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various
migratory bird treaties and conventions” 16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583
(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act)
“…for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of
fish and wildlife resources” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act) “…for the
benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative
covenant, or condition of servitude” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act)
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The refuge holds several special designations, including Wilderness Area, Research Natural Area,
Marine Protected Area, Florida Important Bird Area, and Outstanding Florida Water. A small portion
appears to be within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Further, several State aquatic
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
preserves, a State buffer preserve, the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, and Wild and
Scenic rivers are near the refuge.
WILDERNESS AREA
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and established
guidelines for management of those areas. The management boundary for J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR area
is 6,406.79 acres (2,592.74 ha), of which 2,619.13 acres (1,059.92 ha) were designated as the J.N. “Ding”
Darling Wilderness (Public Law 94-557) on October 19, 1976 (Figure 3). This acreage was determined
by legal description calculations on June 20, 1977 and deviates from the bill’s original acreage of
“approximately 2,825 acres.” The Wilderness Area designation provides an additional level of protection
for this part of the refuge to ensure that it retains its wilderness character.
The J.N. “Ding” Darling Wilderness (Wilderness Area) is comprised of estuarine habitats, including
mangroves, open water, seagrasses, tidal flats, and tidal creeks. Active management of the
Wilderness Area follows guidelines contained in the Wilderness Act and generally seeks minimum
impacts. Management activities within the Wilderness Area is generally limited to biological surveys
and monitoring activities, law enforcement, boundary inspection and posting, and litter and debris
removal (e.g., removing abandoned monofilament fishing line, fishing lures, abandoned crab traps,
and dislodged buoys). The refuge replaces boundary signs and no motor zone signs as needed.
The southern border of the Wilderness Area is the refuge’s Wildlife Drive. The Red Mangrove
Overlook Boardwalk extends from the Wildlife Drive into the Wilderness Area and provides access for
wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The refuge signs
and the Boardwalk are the only authorized and maintained man-made structures maintained within
the Wilderness Area. Public use activities in this Wilderness Area include wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Prior to the designation of the Wilderness Area, sport fishing, sightseeing, commercial fishing, and the
use of motorized boats associated with these activities were recognized as established uses that
would continue after designation of the Wilderness Area. However, during 1993, the State of Florida
established the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR/Sanibel Conservation Zone (Florida Administrative Code
68B-4.017 as amended) and thecCity of Sanibel established a Slow Speed-Minimum Wake Zone
(Ordinance Number 93-13, §1, 7-6-93). Both zones encompassed the entire refuge, including the
Wilderness Area. The establishment of those zones restricted the harvest of any marine species
utilizing nets to non-motorized vessels and restricted boaters to slow speeds with a minimum wake.
During the same year, the refuge restricted motorized boat use to specific areas within the
Wilderness Area to reduce or eliminate prop-scarring of seagrass beds and boat-related disturbance
to feeding, resting, and breeding birds.
Threats to the Wilderness Area include high public use levels and activities along the adjacent
Wildlife Drive and in adjacent estuarine waters, sea level rise, water quality degradation (including
decreased dissolved oxygen, increased siltation, decreased water clarity, salinity imbalances, and
increased chlorophyll a), contamination from local and regional freshwater discharges (including
nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, fecal coliform, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals), and invasive
exotic plants and animals.
18 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
RESEARCH NATURAL AREA
A Research Natural Area (RNA) is part of a national network of ecological areas designated in
perpetuity for research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity on federal lands. RNAs
are for non-manipulative research, observation, and study. The U.S. Forest Service created RNAs
under the authority of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551).
The objectives of establishing RNAs are listed.
 Preserve a wide spectrum of pristine representative areas that typify important forest, shrubland,
grassland, alpine, aquatic, geological, and similar natural situations that have special or unique
characteristics of scientific interest and importance that, in combination, form a national network
of ecological areas for research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity.
 Preserve and maintain genetic diversity.
 Protect against serious environmental disruptions.
 Serve as reference areas for the study of succession.
 Provide onsite and extension educational activities.
 Serve as baseline areas for measuring long-term ecological changes.
 Serve as control areas for comparing results from manipulative research.
 Monitor effects of resource management techniques and practices.
The refuge’s Norberg Research Natural Area (RNA) (Figure 3) is a 150-acre island, which is located
on the Norberg Tract along the north shore of Tarpon Bay, east of Shallow Pass (Shallow Cutoff).
This RNA was nominated by the Society of American Foresters (SAF) for its significant stand of red
and black mangroves. The dominant red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) were measured at four
inches diameter at breast height (DBH) with a height of 20 feet. The black mangroves (Avicennia
germinans) were measured at 8 inches DBH with a height of 30 feet. This site was approved on
November 6, 1975. The Norberg RNA is the only one of its kind in the country nominated for its
mangrove trees (SAF Primary Forest Type 106). The Norberg RNA was designated because it
represents the typical type of forest in this coastal area, is easily defined and well protected, and is
available for studies and observation.
MARINE PROTECTED AREA
Internationally recognized for conserving natural, historical, and cultural marine resources, Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) are intended to protect marine species and habitats, while also providing
for sustainable recreation, sustainable commercial activities, enhanced research opportunities, and
expanded educational opportunities. On December 1, 2000, the refuge was listed as a Candidate
MPA, as defined under Executive Order 13158 (signed May 26, 2000). Under this Executive Order,
an MPA is defined as “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by Federal,
State, territorial, tribal or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the
natural and cultural resources therein. Areas meeting this definition are intended to serve as the
building blocks for a national MPA system. Such a system will form a network for addressing
marine issues through pooled funding from the mix of MPA entities, shared research, increased
available data, and enhanced protection across a system or throughout a species’ range. The MPA
system is expected to benefit marine species that utilize the refuge. A total of 225 nominations for
the MPA were received, 99 of which are national wildlife refuges. Finding them to be eligible for the
national system, the National Marine Protected Areas Center has accepted the nominations for 225
sites and placed them on the List of National System MPAs in April, 2009. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR
is one of the 225 charter MPAs.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
FLORIDA IMPORTANT BIRD AREA
The Important Bird Area (IBA) Program is part of a global effort to conserve bird populations by
identifying, preserving, and properly managing their habitats. Florida's IBA Program began formally
in March 1999. As modified for the Florida program, an Important Bird Area is a site that is
documented to support significant populations of one or more species of native birds, or a significant
diversity of species. The primary goal of Florida’s IBA Program is to help ensure the persistence of
the State’s native avifauna, which is under extreme pressure from habitat fragmentation and
destruction, human disturbance, fire exclusion, and other factors. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR was
selected in June 2002 as one of 99 IBAs in the State of Florida. The categories for which the refuge
qualified for selection included having:
 significant populations of State Species of Special Concern and species listed by the Florida
Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA);
 significant numbers of wading birds and shorebirds;
 significant diversity of mangrove forest species; and
 significant natural habitats.
OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATER
The designation of “Outstanding Florida Water” (OFW) is given to waters that are “worthy of special
protection due to their natural attributes” (403.061, Florida Statutes). These waters are listed in 62-
302.700, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The intent of an OFW designation is to maintain
ambient water quality. All permanent water bodies within national parks, national wildlife refuges,
and State parks have been designated as OFWs. Other OFWs may also be designated as "Special
Waters" based on a finding that the waters are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance
and are identified as such in Rule 62-302, FAC. The OFW designation affords the highest
protection possible under state water quality rules by prohibiting degradation of water quality from
the conditions existing at the time of designation. Including the refuge, national parks, national
wildlife refuges, and state parks in the three-county area (Collier, Lee, and Charlotte Counties) are
listed in Table 1 (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2001, 2002, and 2003) along with
their designation as lands containing OFWs.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), Public Law 97-348 (96 Stat. 1653; 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
enacted October 18, 1982, designated various undeveloped coastal lands and barrier islands, depicted by
specific maps, for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). The CBRS is a collection
of specific units of land and associated aquatic habitats that serve as barriers protecting the Atlantic, Gulf,
and Great Lakes Coasts. Undeveloped coastal barriers were mapped by the Department of the Interior
using specific criteria, and were then enacted by Congress as units of the CBRS. The affected areas are
delineated on maps enacted by Congress and entitled “John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
System.” The CBRS currently includes 585 units, which comprise nearly 1.3 million acres/526,091 ha of
land and associated aquatic habitat. An additional 271 otherwise protected areas are also designated
under a category of coastal barriers already held for conservation purposes that include an additional 1.8
million acres/728,434 ha of land and associated aquatic habitat. Areas so designated are made ineligible
for direct or indirect federal financial assistance that might support development, including flood
insurance, except for emergency life-saving activities. The CBRA is the essence of free-market natural
resource conservation; it in no way regulates how land can be developed, but it instead transfers the full
cost from federal taxpayers to the individuals who choose to build. CBRS units P18 and P18P include the
20 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
refuge. The northwest tip of the refuge is covered under CBRS Unit P18, while the remainder of the
refuge is considered otherwise protected and not part of the CBRS in Unit P18P.
STATE AQUATIC PRESERVES AND STATE BUFFER PRESERVE
The refuge is adjacent to and overlaps a portion of the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, which is
administered as part of the larger Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves. Other nearby state aquatic
preserves include Matlacha Pass, Cape Haze, Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor, and Lemon Bay
(all administered under the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves). In addition, Estero Bay Aquatic
Preserve lies just seven miles east of J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR. One large state buffer preserve,
Charlotte Harbor State Buffer Preserve is located about 10 miles north of the refuge.
Table 1. National parks, national wildlife refuges and state parks in Charlotte, Lee, and Collier
Counties designated as lands containing Outstanding Florida Waters
Charlotte County:
 Stump Pass Beach State Park
 Camp Haze State Aquatic Preserve (and Lee County)
 Charlotte Harbor State Buffer Preserve (and Lee County)
 Don Pedro Island State Park
 Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor State Aquatic Preserve (and Lee County)
 Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge
 Lemon Bay Estuarine System (Special Waters)
 Lemon Bay State Aquatic Preserve
 Port Charlotte Beach State Recreation Area
Lee County:
 Cayo Costa State Park
 Gasparilla Island State Park
 J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge
 Josslyn Island (Conservation and Recreation Lands)
 Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge
 Matlacha Pass State Aquatic Preserve
 Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge
 Pine Island Sound State Aquatic Preserve
 Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
 Koreshan State Historic Site (and Mound Key Archeological State Park)
 Estero Bay State Aquatic Preserve
 Estero Bay (Special Waters)
 Estero Bay Tributaries and Acquisitions
 Lovers Key State Recreation Area
Collier County:
 Barefoot Beach Acquisitions
 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Recreation Area
 Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River System (Special Waters)
 Rookery Bay State Aquatic Preserve
 Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
 Rookery Bay Acquisitions
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
 Collier-Seminole State Park
 Cape Romano-Ten Thousand Islands State Aquatic Preserve
 Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve
 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Sources: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2001, 2002, and 2003
CHARLOTTE HARBOR NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Charlotte Harbor is recognized as an "estuary of national significance" and was added to the
National Estuary Program (NEP) in 1995. The Charlotte Harbor basin supports a great diversity
of subtropical plant and animal life. In 1990, 86 federal and state protected plant and animal
species were identified in the Charlotte Harbor area (Florida Department of Environmental
Protection 2002). The entire watershed of the greater Charlotte Harbor watershed has a total
area of approximately 4,468 square miles. The estuary itself is the second largest open water
estuary in the state. It is 30 miles long and 7 miles wide with a total area of 270 square miles.
Three rivers feed freshwater into the estuary: the Myakka, Peace, and Caloosahatchee Rivers.
This estuary is bordered by two counties and several local governments and the watershed
contains at least portions of six additional counties and numerous local governments. The
watershed is subdivided by a multitude of federal, state, and regional agencies with regulatory
authorities. A series of resource management efforts have been conducted in the region over the
past 25 years (Taken from Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 2009).
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-542), requires the identification of potential
wild, scenic, and recreational river areas within the nation. Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) requires that "In all planning for the use and development of water and
related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential
national wild, scenic and recreational river areas." It further requires that "the Secretary of the Interior
shall make specific studies and investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic and
recreational river areas.....shall be evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential
alternative uses of water and related land resources involved." The National Park Service has
identified four Wild and Scenic River segments in the vicinity of the J.N “Ding” Darling NWR: three in
Lee County and one in Charlotte County. Details for these river segments are provided in Table 2.
22 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Table 2. Nationwide rivers inventory, Florida segments in the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR
Complex area
Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs): Scenery (S); Recreation (R); Geology (G); Fish (F); Wildlife (W); Prehistory (P);
History (H); Cultural (C); Other Values (O).
Source: National Park Service 2007
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
PENINSULAR FLORIDA LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION COOPERATIVE
Throughout the nation, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are currently under
development. Figure 4 shows the LCCs for the continental U.S., while additional LCCs are under
development for the Pacific Islands, Alaska, and the Caribbean. LCCs are applied conservation
science partnerships between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies, states,
tribes, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and other stakeholders within a geographically
defined area. LCCs will help inform resource management decisions and actions to address
landscape-scale planning and management. Collectively, LCCs will comprise a seamless national
network of planning and adaptive science capacity, connecting site-specific protection, restoration, and
management efforts to larger goals supporting fish and wildlife populations and the natural systems that
sustain them. One of the major functions of LCCs will be to ensure that all of the partners, including the
Service, have access to existing data, science, expertise, and resources to limit duplication and provide
an effective use of limited financial resources. LCCs will provide a more centralized venue to pull
together the resources needed to research a problem; plan a response; identify and pool the needed
skills, abilities, and funding to address the problem; take action; and evaluate the results, thus
implementing Strategic Habitat Conservation within the landscape across partners.
J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR is located within the Peninsular Florida LCC (Figure 4, label 12). Although
Florida is part of three separate LCCs, much of the state is covered by the Peninsular Florida LCC. The
Service is working with the State of Florida, the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes of Florida, and other
partners to develop the Peninsular Florida LCC to enhance decision-making, planning, and management
across the landscape to better serve wildlife and habitat resources found in this area. The Peninsular
River County Reach Length
(miles) ORVs Description
Estero
River Lee
RM 0, Estero Bay, to RM
8, US 41 and Koreshan
State Park
8
S, R,
F, W,
H, C
Established canoe/nature trail;
Koreshan State Historic Site,
flows through mangrove swamp;.
Hendry
Creek Lee
RM 0, Estero Bay, to RM
5, FL 865 and Gladiolus
Drive
5 S, R,
F, W Diverse estuarine ecosystem.
Orange
River Lee
RM 0, confluence with
Caloosahatchee River,
to RM 9, Lehigh Acres
9 S, R,
F, W
State Endangered Manatee
Marine Mammal Sanctuary.
Shell
Creek Charlotte
RM 3, US 17/FL 35
bridge, to RM 20, east of
FL 31 bridge
17 S, R,
H, C
Scenic stream with excellent
water quality.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Florida LCC will complement Florida’s Wildlife Action Plan and other landscape level conservation
strategies to restore, manage, and conserve the biodiversity of the region in the face of both climate
change and intense development pressure associated with a rapidly growing human population.
The Peninsular Florida area is unique and complex, connecting subtropical and temperate climate zones
and featuring a mosaic of more than 40 habitat types. This biologically diverse region encompasses
hundreds of miles of beach and dune habitats, the St. Johns River watershed, xeric scrub uplands of the
Lake Wales Ridge, the freshwater marshes of the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee, vast
sawgrass and cypress wetlands of the Everglades, extensive coastal mangroves and salt marsh,
expanses of seagrass beds, and the unique pine rocklands and tropical hardwood hammocks of the
Florida Keys. Offshore, it includes the only living coral reef ecosystem in the continental United States.
This region is home to approximately 700 species of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles; over
1,000 species of freshwater and marine fish; over 4,000 species of plants; and about 50,000 species of
invertebrates. More than 100 of these species are federally listed as endangered or threatened, and the
State of Florida considers nearly 1,000 of them as Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Public
interest in species conservation is intense regarding species such as the Florida manatee, Florida
panther, wood stork, Florida scrub-jay, and several species of sea turtles. The primary conservation
challenges include habitat destruction and conversion, invasive species, and management of fire and
natural hydrological processes. However, the most critical challenge is time. Florida faces intense
pressure from development and Peninsular Florida is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of sea level
rise, saltwater intrusion, and aquifer depletion. An area the size of Vermont may be developed in Florida
over the next 50 years and millions of human residents may be displaced by the impacts of climate
change and sea level rise by the turn of the century. The effectiveness of the Peninsular Florida LCC will
have far reaching implications.
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
An ecosystem is a geographical area that includes and interconnects all the living (biotic) organisms, their
physical (abiotic) surroundings, and the natural cycles that sustain them. The Outer Coastal Plain
Ecological Province encompasses a large portion of the southeastern, coastal United States (Bailey
1978). The Outer Coastal Plain Ecological Province is an area of gentle slopes with abundant water
resources. Estuaries, swamps, marshes, rivers, and lakes are abundant and provide habitat for a wide
variety of plant and animal life. The J.N. "Ding" Darling NWR is located in the southern part of the Outer
Coastal Plain Ecological Province, in an area designated as the South Florida Ecosystem, Figure 5, which
is now fully contained in the Peninsular Florida LCC (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).
The South Florida Ecosystem currently encompasses approximately 26,000 square miles, of which
77 percent is land and 23 percent is water, covering the 19 southernmost Florida counties. The
ecosystem encompasses the Kissimmee River-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades drainage and the
Peace River drainage, separated by the Central (Lake Wales) Ridge – the highest topographic
feature of the Florida peninsula. The Ecosystem includes more than 10 major physiographic
provinces. The South Florida Ecosystem includes over 20 areas managed by the federal government
(not including the Brighton, Miccosukee, and Seminole Indian reservations). Several of these areas
have protective designations. These include: 16 National Wildlife Refuges (including J.N. "Ding"
Darling NWR); Big Cypress National Preserve; Biscayne National Park; Dry Tortugas National Park;
Everglades National Park; and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Various other local and state
conservation areas are also located within the South Florida ecosystem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service June 1998). See Figure 6 for the area conservation lands around the refuge.
24 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Landscape conservation cooperatives
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
The South Florida Ecosystem represents a mixture of Caribbean-subtropical, southern temperate,
and local influences resulting in a wide variety of habitats that support substantial ecological,
community, taxonomic, and genetic diversity. In the vicinity of the refuge, the northern Charlotte
Harbor region of the ecosystem is characterized by cypress and hardwood hammocks and
extensive areas of poorly drained marshes. The central and southern regions of the ecosystem
include marsh, dry, and wet prairies, pine flatwoods, and estuaries. Mesic flatwoods support a wide
diversity of animals and represent the third highest species richness of vegetative communities in
Florida. Dry prairie is one of the most widespread upland vegetative communities in the Charlotte
Harbor region. Coastal areas contain seagrass beds, mangroves, and coastal strand communities,
providing a variety of habitats and for resources for a diversity of flora and fauna. The South
Florida Ecosystem serves a variety of native wildlife, including over 65 federally listed species, as
well as interjurisdictional fishes, neotropical migratory birds, non-game waterbirds, and waterfowl.
Table 3 describes the acreage and types of natural communities in the Charlotte Harbor NEP
watershed and Table 4 lists imperiled animal species in the Charlotte Harbor NEP study area
(Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2002a).
For 5,000 years, the greater South Florida Everglades ecosystem flourished, nurtured by sun and
frequent rain. Runoff from the pinewoods and prairies of the Kissimmee River Basin flowed into
Lake Okeechobee. The water then spilled over the south shore of the lake and flowed south in
shallow sheets through vast stretches of sawgrass in a slow journey to Florida Bay. The
Caloosahatchee River collected runoff and funneled water west into the Gulf of Mexico. At the
river’s mouth, where fresh and salt water mixed, a large, lush estuary evolved, providing shelter
and forage for an array of fish, shellfish, birds, and wildlife. In 1881, a Philadelphia developer,
Hamilton Disston, purchased from the state some 4 million acres around Lake Okeechobee and a
year later he succeeded in cutting a canal that, for the first time, linked Lake Okeechobee to the
Caloosahatchee River and the Gulf of Mexico, and opened the region to navigation and
development. In the years since, the river’s navigation channel has been enlarged and is now
known as the C-43 canal, and for most purposes, the C-43 canal and Caloosahatchee River are
one and the same (Figure 7). (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2003 and 2007)
Enhanced agricultural development due to the availability of irrigation water from the C-43 canal,
urban development in the Ft. Myers/Cape Coral area, and regulatory releases of freshwater from
Lake Okeechobee have all been linked to significant water quality changes in the Caloosahatchee
Estuary. When water is discharged from Lake Okeechobee into the Caloosahatchee River following
a heavy rain, it moves down the river and is quickly released into Charlotte Harbor, San Carlos Bay,
and the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 8). This surge of freshwater changes delicate estuarine salinity levels
and harms brackish marine habitats in the Lower Caloosahatchee River and adjacent estuaries.
These releases of freshwater from Lake Okeechobee, increases in nonpoint source urban runoff
associated with increased development, and agricultural runoff (drainage) are impacting the
Caloosahatchee River, San Carlos Bay, Matlacha Pass, Pine Island Sound, Estero Bay, and
Charlotte Harbor. Water quality parameters of concern include: salinity, nutrients, turbidity, trace
organics, and metals. All of these negatively impact the flora and fauna of Sanibel Island and the
J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR, (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2007 and South Florida Water Management
District 2008). (For more information, see the “Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage
Reservoir Project” discussion in the Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives section.)
26 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. South Florida Ecosystem
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 6. Area conservation lands
28 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Types of Natural Communities in the Charlotte Harbor Basin
Category Community
Type
Area in
Acres
Total
Area
(%)
Characteristics
Upland
1 Coastal strand 493.6 0.11
Occurs on well drained sandy coastlines and includes
typically zoned vegetation of upper beach, nearby
dunes, or coastal rock formations.
2 Dry prairie 26,864.
7 6.30
Large treeless grasslands and shrub lands on very
flat terrain interspersed with scattered cypress
domes, cypress strands, isolated freshwater
marshes, and hammocks.
3 Pinelands 47,797.
4 11.20
Includes north and south Florida pine flatwoods,
south Florida pine rocklands, scrubby flatwoods, and
commercial pine plantations. Cypress domes,
bayheads, titi swamps, and freshwater marshes are
commonly interspersed in isolated depressions.
6 Oak scrub 224.4 0.05
Hardwood community consisting of clumps of low
growing oaks interspersed with white sand. Occurs in
areas of deep, well-washed sterile sand.
7 Mixed hardwood
pine 1,441.6 0.34
Southern extension of the Piedmont southern mixed
hardwoods, occurring mainly on clay soils of the
northern Panhandle. Also includes upland forests in
which a mixture of conifers and hardwoods dominate
over story.
8 Hardwood
hammock 7,933.4 1.86 Includes major upland hardwood associations that
occur statewide on fairly rich sandy soils.
9 Tropical
hammock 3,085.7 0.72
Cold-intolerant hardwood community with very high
plant diversity that occurs on coastal uplands in
extreme south Florida. Characterized by tropical trees
and shrubs at the northern edge of their range, which
extends into the Caribbean.
Wetland
10 Coastal salt
marsh 9,135.4 2.14
Herbaceous and shrubby wetland communities that
include cordgrass, needlerush, and transitional or
high salt marshes, occurring statewide in brackish
waters along protected low energy estuarine
shorelines.
11 Freshwater
marsh
10,353.
1 2.43
Wetland communities dominated by wide assortment
of herbaceous plant species growing on sand, clay,
marl, and organic soils in areas where water depths
and inundation regimes vary.
12 Cypress swamp 4,251.3 1.00
Regularly inundated communities that form forested
buffer along large rivers, creeks, and lakes, or occur
in depressions as circular domes or linear strands.
Strongly dominated by bald cypress or pond cypress.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Category Community
Type
Area in
Acres
Total
Area
(%)
Characteristics
13 Hardwood
swamp 1,170.6 0.27
Association of wetland adapted trees, composed
either of pure stands of hardwoods or hardwood
cypress mixture. Occurs on organic soils and forms
forested floodplain of nonalluvial rivers, creeks, and
broad lake basins.
15 Shrub swamp 93.2 0.02
Dominated by low-growing, woody shrubs or small
trees, usually found in wetlands changed by natural
or human perturbations such as altered hydroperiod,
fire, clear-cutting or land clearing, and siltation.
16 Mangrove
swamp
36,908.
5 8.65
Dense, brackish water swamps, usually dominated by
red, black, and white mangroves, that occur along
low-energy shorelines and in protected, tidally
influenced bays of southern Florida. Comprises
freeze-intolerant tree species that are distributed
south of a line from Cedar Key on the Gulf coast to
St. Augustine on the Atlantic coast.
Open water
18 Water 177,054 41.51 Open water areas of inland lakes, ponds, rivers, and
streams and brackish and saline waters of estuaries,
bays, and tidal creeks.
Disturbed
19 Grass and
agricultural land
23,645.
9
5.54 Upland communities with very low-growing grasses
and forbs. Intensively managed sites such as
improved pastures, lawns, golf courses, road
shoulders, cemeteries, or weedy fallow agricultural
fields.
20 Shrub and brush 8,749.4 2.05 Includes different situations where natural upland
communities have recently been disturbed and are
recovering through natural successional processes.
21 Exotic plant
communities
2,837.8 0.66 Upland and wetland areas dominated by invasive
non-native trees that have invaded native plant
communities.
22 Barren and
Urban land
64,443.
9
15.11 Unvegetated areas such as roads, beaches, active
strip mines, borrow areas, cleared land on sandy
soils, and urban areas (rooftops, parking lots, etc.).
TOTAL 426,483
Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2002
30 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Table 4. Imperiled animal species of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program study area
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status
Fish
Mangrove rivulus Rivulus marmoratus Special Concern
Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened Special Concern
Smalltooth Sawfish Prisits pectinata Endangered
Amphibians and Reptiles
American crocodile Crocodylus acutus Threatened Endangered
Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas mydas Endangered Endangered
Atlantic hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Endangered
Kemp's ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Endangered
Atlantic leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Endangered
Atlantic loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta caretta Threatened Threatened
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Threatened
Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Threatened Threatened
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened (s/a) Special Concern
Florida gopher frog Rana capito Special Concern
Diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin Special Concern
Birds
Wood stork Myctria americana Endangered Endangered
Florida Everglades (snail)
kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Endangered Endangered
Kirtland's warbler Dendroica kirtlandii Endangered Endangered
Florida grasshopper sparrow Ammodtramussavannarum
floridanus Endangered Endangered
Piping Plover Charadris melodus Threatened Threatened
Audubon's crested caracara Caracara cheriway auduboni Threatened Threatened
Roseate tern Sterna dougallii dougallii Threatened Threatened
Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens
coerulescens Threatened Threatened
Southeastern American
kestrel Falco sparverius paulus Special Concern Threatened
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status
Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis Threatened
Least tern Sterna albifrons Threatened
Cuban snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris Threatened
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered Special Concern
Reddish egret Dichromanassa rufescens Special Concern Special Concern
American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus Special Concern Special Concern
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis s Special Concern
Little blue heron Florida caerulea Special Concern
Snowy egret Egretta thula Special Concern
Tricolored heron Hydranassa tricolor Special Concern
Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaja Special Concern
Limpkin Aramus guarauna pictus Special Concern
Florida burrowing owl Athena cunicularia floridana Special Concern
Marian's marsh wren Cistothorus palustris marianae Special Concern
White ibis Eudocimus albas Special Concern
Mammals
Florida manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris Endangered Endangered
Florida panther Felis concolor coryi Endangered Endangered
Mangrove fox squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia Threatened
Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus Threatened
Everglades mink Mustela vision-evergladensis Threatened
Sherman's fox squirrel Sciurus niger shermani Special Concern Special Concern
Florida mouse Peromyscus floridanus Special Concern Special Concern
Sanibel Island Rice Rat Oryzomys palustris sanibeli Special Concern
Sources: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2002 and 2005a, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2009, and U.S. Fish and Wildlfie Service 2009
32 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Historic and current surface water flows – South Florida Ecosystem
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District Undated and Lee
County 2009)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
ESTUARINE ECOSYSTEM
The J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR is part of the greater Charlotte Harbor and Caloosahatchee estuaries,
an area where saltwater and freshwater mix. Estuaries create some of the most nutritionally rich
habitat for thousands of species of plants and animals in an intricate food web. The basis of this food
web in south Florida is the extensive mangrove forests and productive seagrass beds.
Microorganisms thrive on the decaying leaves of seagrasses and mangroves, providing additional
food for other animals. Rich in marine life, these shallow waters attract thousands of fish, shrimp,
crabs, and snails, which are preyed upon by the numerous wading birds of the refuge. Seagrass
beds and mangrove forests serve as shelter, nursery, and feeding areas for many fish species such
as mullet (Mugil), snook (Centropomus undecimalis), red drum (Sciaenops ocellata), snapper
(Lutjanus), and other marine organisms. Refuge waters provide essential habitat for fish that help to
support the world class sport fishing of this estuary. Healthy seagrass beds are essential to grazing
species such as the endangered West Indian manatee and green sea turtles. The estuary is also
important to the thousands of shorebirds such as red knots, dunlin, and western sandpipers that use
the refuge as resting and feeding grounds during their migrations. Great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), reddish egret, roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), and other wading birds use the many islands
as roosting sites, while many nest on the rookery islands found in the estuary. The refuge is also a
haven for many threatened and endangered species, such as the American alligator, wood stork, and
American crocodile (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, March 2007).
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Part of the Service’s Southeast Region, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR is located along Florida’s Gulf coast
and is part of the South Florida Ecosystem. As such, the refuge is a component of many regional
conservation plans and initiatives, including the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water
Improvement and Management Plan, Gulf of Mexico Program, Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (including the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project
and the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study), Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program,
South Florida Ecosystem Plan, South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, Florida’s Endangered and
Threatened Species Management and Conservation Plan, the State Wildlife Action Plan, the Florida
Natural Areas Inventory, and the Sanibel Plan.
CHARLOTTE HARBOR NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM (NEP) AND COMPREHENSIVE
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The NEP was established as part of the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) and seeks to
protect and restore designated estuaries of national significance, that are deemed to be threatened by
pollution, development, or overuse. The Charlotte Harbor NEP is one of the seven estuary programs in
the Gulf of Mexico. Other NEP programs in the immediate area of the refuge are the Tampa Bay NEP
and the Sarasota Bay NEP. Several federal agencies participate in planning and assessment efforts
related to NEPs, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), Department of Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
34 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. Charlotte Harbor Watershed and Caloosahatchee River
(City of Sanibel 2009d)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
The Charlotte Harbor NEP covers the Greater Charlotte Harbor Watershed from Venice to Bonita
Springs to Winter Haven. It is a partnership of citizens, elected officials, resource managers, and
commercial and recreational resource users who work to improve the water quality and ecological
integrity of the Charlotte Harbor NEP study area. A cooperative decision-making process is used
within the program to address diverse resource management concerns in the 4,700-square-mile
Charlotte Harbor NEP study area. The 2008 update of Charlotte Harbor NEP’s Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) outlines four priority problems: hydrologic alterations,
water quality degradation, fish and wildlife habitat loss, and stewardship gaps. The refuge is
located within the Charlotte Harbor NEP Pine Island Sound subbasin, which has several key
concerns, including freshwater runoff from Cape Coral; Caloosahatchee River outflows, especially
concerns related to timing; water quality; salinity; water volumes; and impacts to seagrass beds,
oyster beds, and other plants and animals. The CCMP contains six major goals for preserving and
restoring Charlotte Harbor. These goals are: improve the environmental integrity of the Charlotte
Harbor study area; preserve, restore and enhance seagrass beds, coastal wetlands, barrier beaches,
and functionally related uplands; reduce point and non-point sources of pollution to attain desired use
of the estuary; provide the proper freshwater inflow to the estuary to ensure a balanced and
productive ecosystem; develop and implement a strategy for public participation and education; and,
develop and implement a formal Charlotte Harbor management plan with a specified structure and
process for achieving goals for the estuary. The CCMP named the Service as a potential
coordinating organization for the listed priority actions.
 Support public involvement programs addressing watershed management issues of
hydrology, water resource issues, water conservation and water use;
 Restore freshwater and estuarine wetland areas, especially those adversely impacted by
ditching, using methods such as the backfilling of ditches, the removal of spoil piles and the
elimination of exotic vegetation;
 Enhance fish and wildlife habitat along shorelines, including canals, lakes, riverine systems,
and artificial waterways;
 Assess the impacts of canal/lake management activities on fish and wildlife;
 Restore and protect a balance of native plant and animal communities;
 Provide additional support for environmental compliance and enforcement on land and water.
Ensure uniform compliance and enforcement of environmental regulations and permitting
criteria;
 Bring environmentally sensitive land under protection through ownership and/or management
and expand conservation areas, reserves and preserves, including undeveloped platted lots;
 Promote local programs to research and eliminate nuisance exotic animal species;
 Provide education programs on the impacts of invasive exotic plants and exotic nuisance
animals;
 Provide multifaceted environmentally responsible boater education programs; and
 Support public involvement programs in habitat and wildlife issues.
LOWER CHARLOTTE HARBOR SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the late 1980s, it was determined that Florida had to do more to protect and restore its surface
waters. While point sources (sewage and industrial wastes) were being controlled, non-point
sources (pollutants that enter water bodies in less direct ways) were still a major concern. In 1987,
the Florida Legislature created the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program
to address non-point pollutant sources. The SWIM program is the only program that addresses a
waterbody’s needs as a system of connected resources, rather than isolated wetlands or water
bodies. To accomplish this, SWIM meshes across governmental responsibilities, forging important
36 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
partnerships in water resource management. While the state’s five water management districts and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection are directly responsible for the SWIM program,
they work in concert with federal, state, and local governments, as well as with the private sector.
Lower Charlotte Harbor (LCH) is defined as the basins of Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, East
and West Caloosahatchee, Estero Bay, and the lower portion of Charlotte Harbor proper. The plan’s
basic strategy is one of restoring, protecting, and managing the surface water resources of the Lower
Charlotte Harbor Watershed. The Lower Charlotte Harbor SWIM Plan focuses on the listed six
primary initiatives (South Florida Water Management District 2008).
 Water Quality - the utilization of water quality monitoring data to evaluate sources of
pollutants; the application of water quality models to evaluate the fate of water quality
constituents; and the implementation of prioritized water quality enhancements for both 303(d)
listed surface waters and other degraded waters.
 Stormwater Quantity - the reduction of sheet flow and the periodic discharge of large
quantities of fresh stormwater runoff into the major river systems in the LCH results in
ecologically damaging changes in salinity throughout the estuarine areas of the watershed.
This plan focuses on mechanisms to reduce these excess flows and restore more natural
timing and quantity of freshwater inflows to the watershed.
 Watershed Master Planning and Implementation - an evaluation of stormwater management
and identification of problem areas, with detailed remedial actions generally derived using
hydrologic models simulating water volumes and flows under a range of climatic conditions.
 Habitat Assessment, Protection and Restoration - evaluate ancillary data needed to identify
and provide habitat protection and restoration in the LCH. Additional data collection efforts for
parameters such as benthic organism diversity, submerged aquatic vegetation distribution,
and shellfish areas will be evaluated and implemented as necessary.
 Outreach - The LCH watershed encompasses a diverse region of urban, agricultural and
environmental lands, and it is managed and regulated by numerous agencies and
municipalities. Outreach, including both communication and coordination, is vital tool for the
SFWMD to efficiently and effectively meet the differing needs of these entities, while also
meeting LCH SWIM goals. Through outreach, SFWMD can provide leadership with both the
public and local governments.
 Funding - the need for long-term dedicated funding to reach plan goals. It also serves to
coordinate funding within and across district areas of responsibility, as well as within each of
the other initiatives in the LCH SWIM Plan.
Both the Lower Charlotte Harbor SWIM Plan and the Charlotte Harbor NEP's CCMP identified
hydrologic alterations; water quality degradation; and, fish and wildlife habitat loss as significant
management issues. The goals of the Lower Charlotte Harbor SWIM Plan are consistent with the
goals identified by the Charlotte Harbor NEP and the SWIM Plan's management strategies for
protecting and restoring Charlotte Harbor are based on the Charlotte Harbor NEP's CCMP.
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM
The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) was formed in 1988 by the Environmental Protection Agency as a
non-regulatory, inclusive partnership to provide a broad geographic focus on the major environmental
issues in the Gulf. The GMP provides a tool to leverage the resources of 18 different federal
agencies; a variety of environmentally minded agencies from the States of Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas; and numerous public and private organizations. Under the
umbrella of the GMP, Florida's Gulf Ecological Management Site (GEMS) Program, with the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
cooperation of federal, state, local, and private programs, resources, and mechanisms, has identified
43 special ecological sites and provides information for each site in an informational database.
Eighteen of these GEMS, including the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR, are managed by the Service.
COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN
Starting in the 1940s, the Central and South Florida Project -- constructed in partnership between the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the SFWMD -- is an elaborate and effective water
management system providing flood protection and water supply for south Florida. The system
caused unintended environmental impacts to the South Florida Ecosystem. In 1992 and 1996,
Congress authorized the Restudy of the Central and South Florida Project to assess the measures
necessary to restore the South Florida Ecosystem. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP) was completed in 1999. CERP was included in the Water Resources Development Act of
2000. Nearly 70 agencies and organizations came forward to support the implementation of CERP,
with the USACE and the SFWMD taking the lead roles as the federal and local sponsors. The goal of
CERP is to capture freshwater that now flows unused to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf and redirect
it to areas that need it most. The majority of the water will be devoted to environmental restoration,
reviving a dying ecosystem. The remaining water will benefit cities and farmers by enhancing water
supplies for the south Florida economy.
Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project
A major project for the J.N. ”Ding” Darling NWR, funded under the CERP, is the Caloosahatchee
River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project. The purpose of the project is to improve the
timing and quantity of freshwater flows to the Caloosahatchee River Estuary. The West Basin
Storage Reservoir will store freshwater from Lake Okeechobee and storm-water runoff that will be
released slowly, as needed, to ensure a more natural, consistent flow of freshwater to the estuary.
This will help to restore the estuary by eliminating salinity changes and improving the ecological
health of flora and fauna on the refuge. (See the discussion of “Freshwater Releases from the
Caloosahatchee Watershed and Lake Okeechobee” in the Water Quality section below.)
Southwest Florida Feasibility Study
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study
(SWFFS) provide a framework and guide to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of
central and southern Florida, including the Everglades. The goal of CERP and SWFFS is to capture
freshwater that now flows unused to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico and redirect it to areas
that need it most. The majority of the water will be devoted to environmental restoration, reviving a
dying ecosystem. The remaining water will benefit cities and farmers by enhancing water supplies for
the south Florida economy. The USACE, in partnership with the South Florida Water Management
District and numerous other federal, state, local and tribal partners, has developed this plan to save the
Everglades. This study will provide a framework to improve water quality and address the health of
aquatic ecosystems; water flows; water supply; wildlife, biological diversity, and natural habitat along
the Gulf coast of southern Florida – all of which are important issues to the refuge.
NORTHERN EVERGLADES AND ESTUARIES PROTECTION PROGRAM
The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program recognizes the importance and
connectivity of the entire Everglades ecosystem, both north and south of Lake Okeechobee.
Implementation of this program will improve the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water to the
natural system and reestablish salinity regimes suitable for maintaining healthy, naturally diverse, and
38 J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge
well-balanced estuarine ecosystems. The health of the Northern Everglades will be enhanced by
improving land management to reduce nutrient run-off, by constructing treatment wetlands to improve
water quality, and by completing water storage projects to better connect, manage, and distribute water
to the natural system. Under this program, the State of Florida recognized the importance of protection
and restoration of the Lake Okeechobee watershed and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Rivers and
estuaries. The South Florida Water Management District,