Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges

              COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PINE ISLAND, MATLACHA PASS, ISLAND BAY, AND
CALOOSAHATCHEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES
Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
May 2010
Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Table of Contents 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 .............................................................................................................. 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 3
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other
Special Considerations ....................................................................................................... 5
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 6
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6
North American Bird Conservation Initiative ....................................................................... 6
American Oystercatcher Conservation Plan ....................................................................... 8
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan .................................................................... 8
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management ......................................................... 9
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 9
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11
Pine Island NWR ............................................................................................................... 12
Matlacha Pass NWR ......................................................................................................... 12
Caloosahatchee NWR ....................................................................................................... 15
Refuges’ History and Purposes .................................................................................................. 18
History ............................................................................................................................... 18
Purposes ........................................................................................................................... 19
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 20
Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................ 20
Marine Protected Area ...................................................................................................... 21
Outstanding Florida Waters .............................................................................................. 21
State Aquatic Preserves and State Park ........................................................................... 21
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program ..................................................................... 21
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 23
Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative ................................................ 23
South Florida Ecosystem .................................................................................................. 25
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 33
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan ............................................................................................................. 34
South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan ...................................................................... 34
South Florida Ecosystem Plan .......................................................................................... 35
Gulf of Mexico Program .................................................................................................... 35
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan .................................................................. 35
Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program .................................................. 36
State Wildlife Action Plan .................................................................................................. 37
Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Management and Conservation Plan .... 38
Florida Natural Areas Inventory ........................................................................................ 38
Surface Water Improvement and Management Programs ................................................ 38
ii Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
State Aquatic Preserves ................................................................................................... 39
Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................................................... 40
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 41
Water Quality, Quantity, and Timing ................................................................................. 41
Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species ........................................................................... 43
Potential Effects of Climate Change ................................................................................. 44
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 45
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 45
Climate Change and Global Warming .............................................................................. 48
Geology and Topography ................................................................................................. 50
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 54
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 55
Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 58
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 59
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 64
Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 64
Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 74
Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species ........................................................................... 78
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 79
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 81
Regional Demographics and Economy............................................................................. 81
Recreation and Tourism.................................................................................................... 84
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 86
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 86
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 87
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 87
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 89
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 89
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 90
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 92
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 92
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 92
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 95
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 95
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 95
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 96
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 96
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 110
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 113
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 116
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 121
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 121
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 121
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 122
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 124
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 127
Table of Contents iii
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 131
I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 131
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 131
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 131
Decision Framework ................................................................................................................. 132
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................. 132
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 133
Compatibility .................................................................................................................... 133
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 134
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 135
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 137
Formulation of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 137
Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 137
Alternative A (Current Management, No Action) ............................................................. 139
Alternative B (Native Wildlife and Habitat Diversity) ....................................................... 141
Alternative C (Migratory Birds, Proposed Action) ............................................................ 144
Alternative D (Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species) .......................................... 148
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 152
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 153
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 179
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 179
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 179
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 179
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 179
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 181
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 181
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 181
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 182
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 202
Effect on Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................... 202
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 202
Native Vegetation Disturbance ........................................................................................ 203
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 203
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 203
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 203
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 203
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 205
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 206
iv Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 207
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 207
Core CCP Team ....................................................................................................................... 207
Wildlife and Habitat Management Review Team ..................................................................... 207
Visitor Services Review Team .................................................................................................. 208
Wilderness Review Team......................................................................................................... 208
Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team ...................................................................... 208
Public Scoping Meetings .......................................................................................................... 210
"Ding" Darling Wildlife Society--Friends of the Refuge ............................................................. 210
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 211
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 211
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 223
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 239
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 251
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 251
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 253
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION ....................................................................... 257
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 263
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 279
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 281
APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 291
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex ...................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Pine Island NWR ............................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3. Matlacha Pass NWR .......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4. Island Bay NWR ................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 5. Caloosahatchee NWR ....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ............................................................................. 24
Figure 7. South Florida Ecosystem ................................................................................................... 26
Figure 8. Area Conservation Lands .................................................................................................. 27
Figure 9. Historic and Current Surface Water Flows – South Florida Ecosystem ............................. 33
Figure 10. Land Cover for the Area .................................................................................................... 42
Figure 11. Fort Myers Federal Aviation Administration/Airport, Florida, 1971 - 2000
Temperature and Precipitation.......................................................................................... 47
Figure 12. Geologic Map of the State of Florida ................................................................................. 52
Figure 13. Geological Map of the Southern Peninsula of the State of Florida .................................... 53
Figure 14. Ground Water Aquifers and Lithology of Charlotte/Lee Counties ...................................... 57
Figure 15. Shellfish Harvesting in Lower Charlotte Harbor ................................................................. 62
Figure 16. Vegetation for Pine Island NWR ........................................................................................ 66
Figure 17. Vegetation for Matlacha Pass NWR .................................................................................. 67
Figure 18. Vegetation for Island Bay NWR ......................................................................................... 68
Figure 19. Vegetation for Caloosahatchee NWR ................................................................................ 69
Figure 20. Seagrass Beds in the Refuge Complex Area .................................................................... 71
Figure 21. Manatee Abundance and Critical Habitat in the Refuge Complex Area ............................ 72
Figure 22. Current Organizational Chart for the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex .......................... 88
Figure 23. Proposed Organizational Chart for J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex ........................... 117
vi Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and State Parks in Collier, Lee and
Charlotte Counties – Designated as Lands Containing Outstanding
Florida Waters (OFWs) ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 2. Types of Natural Communities in the Charlotte Harbor Basin .............................................. 28
Table 3. Imperiled Animal Species of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Study Area ... 31
Table 4. Nationwide Rivers Inventory, Florida Segments near the Refuges ..................................... 40
Table 5. Temperature, Precipitation, and Snowfall Summary, Fort Myers Federal Aviation
Administration/Airport, Florida (083186) .............................................................................. 46
Table 6. Vegetation for Pine Island NWR .......................................................................................... 64
Table 7. Vegetation for Matlacha Pass NWR .................................................................................... 65
Table 8. Vegetation for Island Bay NWR ........................................................................................... 65
Table 9. Vegetation for Caloosahatchee NWR .................................................................................. 65
Table 10. Non-native Plant Species Found at Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and
Caloosahatchee NWRs ....................................................................................................... 78
Table 11. Demographics of the Charlotte Harbor Region ................................................................... 82
Table 12. Employment Projections, 2007-2015 .................................................................................. 83
Table 13. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex: 2004 Recreation Visits .............................................. 85
Table 14. J.N. “Ding Darling” NWR Complex: Visitor Recreation Expenditures, (2004 $,000's) ....... 85
Table 15. Activities in Florida by U.S. Residents ................................................................................ 86
Table 16. 2008 Service Minimum Staffing Priorities for the J.N. “Ding” Darling
NWR Complex for the Staff Identified for Pine Island, Matlacha Pass,
Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs ............................................................................. 93
Table 17. Step-down Management Plans to be Developed during the 15-year Life of the Plan ....... 130
Table 18. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Pine Island,
Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs .................................................. 154
Table 19. Summary of environmental effects by alternative for Pine Island,
Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs .................................................. 184
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 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay,
Caloosahatchee, and J.N. “Ding” Darling NWRs (Figure 1). Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay,
and Caloosahatchee NWRs were each established with the primary purpose as a preserve and
breeding ground for native birds. The four refuges currently total about 1,201 acres [486 hectares
(ha)]: Pine Island NWR is 602.24 acres (243.72 ha), Matlacha Pass NWR is 538.25 acres (217.82
ha), Island Bay NWR is 20.24 acres (8.19 ha), and Caloosahatchee NWR is 40 acres (16.19 ha).
Located within an estuarine system and predominantly mangrove swamp, these four refuges provide
for native wildlife and habitat diversity through a mix of habitats, including mangrove islands and
shorelines, saltwater marshes and ponds, tidal flats, and upland hardwood forests. They also provide
protection for 13 federal and 25 state listed species, as well as for wading birds, waterbirds, raptors
and birds of prey, nearctic-neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, and seabirds.
The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs was prepared to guide future
management actions and provide direction for these refuges. 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 missions of the refuges or
the purposes for which they were established.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals
and objectives of the refuges and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The
Draft CCP/EA describes the Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and
their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state and federal
government agencies, tribal governments, 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
refuges’ purposes; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuges; 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.
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.
2 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 1. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
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), is in Alaska, while 54
million acres (21.8 ha) are part of three 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.
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
4 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
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 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;
 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 them with an
understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology to help them understand their role in the
environment. Wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges also generates economic benefits to local
communities. According to the report, Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, approximately 35 million 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 7 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 federal 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).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
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 CCP 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 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 Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs 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
Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs; partners; and private landowners.
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 particular refuge in
question. 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.
6 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
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 FW3). 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’ contributions 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.
The Draft CCP/EA supports several key national and international conservation plans and initiatives,
including the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (including the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan), the Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network, American Oystercatcher Conservation Plan, and the National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan, and the efforts and activities of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management.
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.
The four international and national bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and
the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
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 NAWMP 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.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan
Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plan, the Subtropical 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),
Florida prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor paludicola), palm warbler (Dendroica palmarum), gray
kingbird (Tyrannus dominicensis), black-whiskered vireo (Vireo altiloquus), wood stork (Myctria
americana), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), mottled duck (Anas
fulvigula), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and the short-tailed hawk (Buteo brachyurus).
Northern 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 pulla), 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 these four refuges
support or could potentially support important colonies of beach-nesting species [including sandwich
tern (Sterna sandvicencis), royal tern (Sterna maxima), least tern, black skimmer (Rynchops niger),
and laughing gull (Larus atricilla)], and provide important mangrove nesting habitat for the brown
pelican; anhinga (Anhinga anhinga); and most long-legged wading species, such as reddish egrets.
8 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
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 system to provide practical information to researches 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. The refuge is part of the
Southeastern Coastal Plains and Caribbean Region, which is important for breeding shorebirds, as
well as for supporting transient species during both northbound and southbound movements.
Breeding species of highest regional priority include the American oystercatcher (Haematopus
palliatus), snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Wilson’s plover (Charadrius wilsonia), and piping
plover (Charadrius melodus). The refuges provide breeding habitat for the American oystercatcher,
snowy plover, and Wilson’s plover and Critical Habitat for wintering piping plovers.
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
refuges are not currently a member of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, they do
play an important role for shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere.
AMERICAN OYSTERCATCHER CONSERVATION PLAN
The American Oystercatcher Conservation Plan for the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States
(Schulte et al. 2006) focuses on Haematopus 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 the life history, distribution, and population
trends of the species; 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. American
oystercatchers are found on these refuges and the refuges provide breeding habitat for them.
NATIONAL WETLANDS PRIORITY CONSERVATION PLAN
The objective of the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan (NWPCP) is to assist agencies in
focusing their acquisition efforts on the more important, scarce and vulnerable wetlands in the Nation.
The NWPCP may also be used to establish priorities for wetlands protection that do not involve
acquisition. In general, wetlands given priority consideration for acquisition will be those that provide
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
a high degree of public benefits, that are representative of rare or declining wetland types within an
ecoregion, and that are subject to identifiable threats of loss or degradation. Threshold criteria to be
considered in determining acquisition priorities include functions and values of wetlands, historic
wetland losses, and threat of future wetland losses. NWPCP considers the listed items.
 Estimated proportion remaining of the respective types of wetlands which existed at the time
of European settlement
 Estimated current rate of loss and threat of future losses of the respective types of wetlands
 Contributions of the respective types of wetlands to:
o Wildlife, including endangered and threatened species, migratory birds, and resident
species;
o Commercial and sport fisheries;
o Surface and groundwater quality and quantity, and flood control;
o Outdoor recreation; and
o Other areas or concerns which are considered appropriate. These areas include
natural areas, education, research, scenic, archaeological, historical and open space
When a wetland site is added to the list of wetland sites warranting priority consideration for
acquisition, it does not mean that the wetland necessarily will be acquired; rather, that the site
qualifies for acquisition consideration. Any subsequent decision to purchase property must rely on
additional data, funding availability, policies, and conditions that are not a part of the NWPCP. Any
listing of wetlands for acquisition consideration has no direct bearing on federal regulatory programs
or the evaluation of wetlands for regulatory purposes.
These refuges play a role in the NWPCP by protecting three of the most threatened wetlands in the
nation, according to the National Wetlands Inventory. These wetlands are: 1) estuarine intertidal
forested scrub-shrub (93.2 percent lost between 1954 and 1974); 2) marine intertidal (57.5 percent
lost between 1954 and 1974); and 3) palustrine scrub-shrub (56.7 percent lost between 1954 and
1974). The NWPCP identified Florida as one of the coastal areas where the declining wetland types
warrant priority consideration for protection and federal and state acquisition.
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 for three of the refuges.
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 these four
refuges, primary state partners include Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC),
10 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the Southwest (SWFWMD) and South
Florida (SFWMD) water management districts. These state agencies are charged with enforcement
responsibilities relating to migratory birds, trust species, fisheries, and wetlands, as well as with
management of natural resources of the state.
FWC’s mission is managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit
of people. The FWC protects and manages: 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
nearly 84 million annual visitors (Florida Department of Transportation and University of South Florida
2008) who share the land and water with Florida’s wildlife.
The FWC responsibilities include the listed items.
 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 or 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 conservation, water quality protection, and 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 11
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
The Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs are administered as part of
the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex (Figure 1). The Refuge Complex is part of the largest
undeveloped mangrove ecosystem in the United States, and is world famous for its spectacular
wading bird populations. The majority of the lands in these four satellite refuges of the Complex are
nesting and roosting islands. The rare, threatened, and endangered species of management concern
to the refuges include the wood stork (Myctria americana), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), roseate
tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii), black skimmer (Rynchops niger), American oystercatcher
(Haematopus palliatus), snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Wilson’s plover (Charadrius
wilsonia), red knot (Calidris canutus), piping plover (Charadris melodus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), mangrove cuckoo (Coccyzus minor), black-whiskered vireo (Vireo altiloquus), gray
kingbird (Tyrannus dominicensis), Florida prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor paludicola), Florida
bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), ornate diamondback
terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin macrospilota), loggerhead sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), green
sea turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), hawksbill sea
turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis), American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais
couperi), Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), and smalltooth sawfish (Prisits pectinata).
Beyond rare, threatened, and endangered species, the refuges also important for wading birds,
waterbirds, raptors and birds of prey, nearctic-neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, and seabirds.
All four satellite refuges are closed to the public.
The four refuges total approximately 1,201 acres (486 ha).
 Pine Island NWR is approximately 602.24 acres (243.72 ha) with 18 mangrove islands and little
upland habitat located in Pine Island Sound. The acquisition boundary is held in fee title with
several islands covered under Bureau of Land Management (BLM) withdrawals.
 Matlacha Pass NWR is approximately 538.25 acres (217.82 ha) encompassing 31 islands and
peninsulas and the Terrapin Creek Tract near the Sanibel Causeway at Bunche Beach. Piping
plover critical habitat is designated on the refuge. The acquisition boundary is held in fee title with
several islands covered under BLM withdrawals.
 Island Bay NWR consists of six undeveloped and roadless tracts of land on five small islands
totaling approximately 20.24 acres (8.19 ha) and is located in the Cape Haze area of Charlotte
Harbor. The acquisition boundary is held in fee title.
 Caloosahatchee NWR is 40 acres (16.19 ha) on four mangrove islands, located on the
Caloosahatchee River, in Ft. Myers.
The J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR will be covered in its own Draft CCP/EA. This Draft CCP/EA focuses on
the four satellite refuges of the Refuge Complex: Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and
Caloosahatchee NWRs. This Draft CCP/EA for the four refuges contains concepts to guide further
development and implementation of land use and management programs and any associated
facilities and management structures for the next 15 years. Consideration of the refuges’ 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
these refuges and the challenges they face.
12 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
PINE ISLAND NWR
Pine Island NWR (Figure 2) is located on the southwest coast of Florida, north of Sanibel Island in
Pine Island Sound in Lee County. The 602-acre refuge includes 18 islands and consists of densely
forested red (Rhizophora mangle) and black (Avicennia germinans) mangroves with little uplands
habitat. Whoopee, Benedict, and Patricio Islands are the only islands within Pine Island NWR able to
support upland vegetation, due to higher elevated upland sand ridges or shell mounds.
Pine Island NWR is managed as a natural area and is closed to the public. The refuge’s islands
consist primarily of mangrove forests needing little manipulation or physical management. Periodic
biological and wildlife population surveys are conducted by the partners and by Refuge Complex staff
to assess wildlife communities utilizing the area. The refuge’s uplands and wetlands are maintained
in their natural condition in order to provide undisturbed habitat for birds, fish, invertebrates, and other
animals. Law enforcement patrols are routinely conducted for the protection of wildlife species.
Occasionally, upland habitats, primarily on Patricio Island, are treated for exotic plants using
prescribed burns, chemical treatment, and/or hand pulling. Colonial bird roost surveys are conducted
quarterly on Bird Island and the nearby Broken Islands (off the refuge). Colonial nesting surveys are
conducted annually from April through August on Bird Island and Hemp Key on the refuge and on the
nearby Broken Islands (off the refuge).
MATLACHA PASS NWR
Matlacha Pass NWR (Figure 3) is located within the Matlacha Pass estuary in Lee County, Florida,
approximately 8 miles northwest of Ft. Myers. This refuge encompasses 31 islands and peninsulas
and the Terrapin Creek Tract, totaling about 538 acres and consisting primarily of tidally influenced
wetlands with low sand and shell ridges. The vegetation of many of the islands is almost exclusively
red mangrove, but on some islands the interior wetlands are dominated by black mangroves, often
mixed with white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa) and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus). The
sand and shell ridges are vegetated with cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto) and tropical species, such
as seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), and gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba).
Matlacha Pass NWR’s uplands and wetlands are maintained in their natural condition to provide
undisturbed habitat for birds, fish, invertebrates, and other animals. Periodic biological and wildlife
population surveys are conducted by the partners and by Refuge Complex staff to assess wildlife
communities utilizing the area. Occasionally, the upland habitats on Skimmer Island are treated for
exotic plants, primarily Australian pines (Casuarina equisetifolia), using prescribed burns, chemical
treatment, and/or hand pulling. Skimmer Island has been managed to try and attract nesting black
skimmers and least terns away from construction sites on the mainland. Colonial bird nesting surveys
are conducted annually from April through August on Lower Bird Key, Upper Bird Key, and Lumpkin
Key. Colonial bird roost surveys are conducted quarterly on Lower Bird Key. Law enforcement patrols
are routinely conducted for the protection of wildlife species and Calusa Indian sites. All the islands of
Matlacha Pass NWR are closed to public access due to the fact that they are roosting and nesting
islands for a variety of birds. Access to the waters surrounding these islands is only by boat, although
navigation is difficult because of numerous oyster bars, seagrass beds, and shallow back bay/estuary
waters. The refuge can be viewed by boat from the Intracoastal Waterway south of Charlotte Harbor
between the eastern boundary of Pine Island and western boundary of Cape Coral.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 2. Pine Island NWR
14 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 3. Matlacha Pass NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
ISLAND BAY NWR
Island Bay NWR (Figure 4) is located in the Cape Haze area of Charlotte Harbor, Charlotte County,
Florida, southwest of Punta Gorda. By boat, this refuge is located on the north side of Charlotte
Harbor in Turtle Bay. The nearest population centers are Port Charlotte, lying approximately 15 miles
to the east and Fort Myers, roughly 23 miles to the southeast. Located in a vast complex of
mangrove islands and brackish waters, Island Bay NWR consists of six undeveloped, roadless tracts
of land totaling 20.24 acres occupying the higher portions of several islands and their mangrove
shorelines. The refuge’s islands include Gallagher Key, Bull Key, and two unnamed keys located
between Bull and Turtle bays. Two other tracts, the Cash and John Quiet mounds, are located on the
edge of Turtle Bay, reaching heights of 10 to 20 feet above sea level. The entire refuge is designated
as a Wilderness Area and is closed to public access.
The Refuge Complex's staff manages Island Bay NWR as a natural area. Periodic biological and
wildlife population surveys are conducted by the partners and by Refuge Complex staff to assess
wildlife communities utilizing the area. Law enforcement patrols are routinely conducted for the
protection of wildlife species and Calusa Indian artifact sites. Occasionally, the refuge staff
chemically treats Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), an invasive exotic plant that threatens
the overall plant community. Access to the waters surrounding the islands that make up the Island
Bay NWR is only by boat. Navigation in these areas is difficult because of the existence of numerous
oyster bars, seagrass beds, and shallow back bay/estuary waters.
CALOOSAHATCHEE NWR
Caloosahatchee NWR (Figure 5) is located in Lee County on the Caloosahatchee River within the city of
Fort Myers, adjacent to Florida Power and Light Company’s Orange River Power Plant and the Orange
River’s outflow, and under the bridge where Interstate 75 crosses the Caloosahatchee River. This refuge
includes 40 acres on four islands with mangrove shorelines containing red, black, and white mangroves,
and with upland island habitats covered with a variety of fresh and brackish water vegetation.
Caloosahatchee NWR is managed as a natural area. Periodic biological and wildlife population
surveys are conducted by the partners and by Refuge Complex staff to assess wildlife communities
utilizing the area. The refuge’s uplands and wetlands are maintained in their natural condition in
order to provide undisturbed habitat for birds, fish, invertebrates, and other animals. Occasionally,
the Refuge Complex staff chemically treats Brazilian pepper, an invasive exotic plant that threatens
the overall plant community. Law enforcement patrols are routinely conducted for the protection of
wildlife species, including the endangered West Indian manatee which is commonly seen in the
waters surrounding the refuge. A manatee viewing area is located adjacent to the refuge and is
managed through a partnership with Lee County Manatee Park. Access to the waters surrounding
these islands is only by boat, although navigation is difficult because of numerous oyster bars,
seagrass beds, and shallow back bay/estuary waters. By boat, the refuge includes Buzzard Roost,
an adjacent smaller island, the island that is located directly under the I-75 bridge as you head up the
Caloosahatchee River, and an adjacent smaller island for a total of four islands. Speed restrictions
are strictly enforced for the protection of the West Indian manatee.
16 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 4. Island Bay NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 5. Caloosahatchee NWR
18 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
REFUGES’ HISTORY AND PURPOSES
HISTORY
About 24.5 million years ago, the Gulf barrier islands of Florida rose, as did Florida, from the receding
seas. It is not known when man first arrived, but skeleton remains have been unearthed dating back
about 6,000 years. Archaeological evidence shows that the Florida coastline was inhabited by mound
builders some 3,000 years ago. These inhabitants are believed to be the Calusa warrior tribes,
seafarers who created the first canals south of Charlotte Harbor, many of which are still visible today.
In 1513 Ponce de Leon set out to explore the east and west coasts of Florida. During this
exploration, he returned to the Charlotte Harbor area to establish a colony. Several years later, the
American mainland was opened for European settlement by the Hernando DeSoto expedition of
1539-42. According to various historical documents, Pedro Menendez D'Aviles built a mission-fort
named San Antonio somewhere in the Charlotte Harbor region following his establishment of the first
American colony at St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565.
The Spanish lost control of Florida to the British between 1763 and 1783, giving the English colonists
a chance to leave their mark. Europeans populated the Charlotte harbor area in the 19th century with
small fishing settlements. They named the mangrove-lined harbor for British Queen Charlotte.
During that time, Seminoles also migrated to the area as the Calusa died out due to illness and years
of war against European settlers and as the Calusa left with the Spanish.
All four refuges were originally established as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds. Three
of the refuges (i.e., Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, and Island Bay NWRs) were established in 1908 by
executive orders of President Theodore Roosevelt. These three refuges (or bird reservations as they
were known then) were recommended for protection by the National Association of Audubon Societies
(precursor to the National Audubon Society), particularly from T. Gilbert Pearson (then Secretary and
eventual President of the Audubon Societies), who visited these islands while travelling to Key West to
buy a home for murdered Audubon warden Guy Bradley’s widow and children. Pearson documented
the status of these islands as some of the last remaining rookeries of pelicans and wading birds on the
Gulf Coast of Florida. Pearson recruited a local bird lover, Columbus McLeod, to protect these islands
as an Audubon warden. Tragically, he was murdered like Guy Bradley shortly after these islands
became federal bird reservations. Shell mounds within Pine Island NWR show evidence of Native
American habitation. Originally, Matlacha Pass refuge was established with just three small islands.
But since then, the refuge has grown to 31 islands and peninsulas and the Terrapin Creek Tract,
encompassing about 538 acres. The most recent addition of lands to Matlacha Pass refuge was in
1991, when approximately 312 acres of public lands were withdrawn from surface entry and mining for
use by the Service. Fisherman Key, one of the largest islands of Matlacha Pass, once had fish camps
and permanent residents on it. Island Bay refuge consists of six undeveloped tracts of land (about 20
acres) occupying the higher portions of several islands and their mangrove shorelines. In 1970 the
refuge was designated as a Wilderness Area. It also protects archaeological sites. Caloosahatchee
NWR presently includes four islands with mangrove shorelines and upland covered with a variety of
fresh and brackish vegetation. It was established in 1920 by Executive Order of President Woodrow
Wilson and is located near the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River. This refuge was recommended for
protection by winter residents, Thomas Alva Edison and his wife, Mina Miller Edison, who was active
with the National Audubon Society. Much of the refuge’s original dimensions have been changed due
to channelization effects of the River.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
These four refuges are located within the barrier island and estuarine system of the Charlotte Harbor
area. Two important rivers flow into this system near these refuges: Caloosahatchee and Peace
rivers. Created by overland flow through swamps and marshes, the Caloosahatchee River was
connected to Lake Okeechobee in 1881 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), linking these
refuges to Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades (Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 2008).
Today, the freshwater of the Caloosahatchee River is separated from the salt water of the estuary by
Franklin Lock in eastern Lee County, far to the east of these refuges (Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program 2008). Originating in the Green Swamp, the Peace River is located further north
and is the largest contributor of freshwater to Charlotte Harbor (Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
Program 2008). Historically, both rivers helped to create the rich and productive estuary in which the
refuges exist. And, today, both help to deliver threats and impacts to these refuges.
PURPOSES
Designation of these refuges followed on the heels of protection of other nesting areas for birds from
feather and plume hunters and egg collectors that began with the 1903 designation by President
Theodore Roosevelt of Pelican Island NWR, the nation’s first national wildlife refuge.
Pine Island NWR
Pine Island NWR was established “…as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds” by
President Theodore Roosevelt through Executive Order 939 in 1908 to protect the thousands of
herons, egrets, and pelicans that were being hunted to support the plume trade in the early 1900s.
Two secondary purposes have also been applied to the refuge, as listed.
“…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)
“…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)
Matlacha Pass NWR
Three small islands were established as Matlacha Pass NWR by President Theodore Roosevelt
through Executive Order 943 on September 26, 1908, again as a “. . . preserve and breeding ground
for native birds”. Since then, the refuge has grown to 31 islands and peninsulas and the Terrapin
Creek Tract. Some of the most recent additions occurred on April 10, 1991, when Public Land Order
6843 withdrew approximately 312 acres of public lands from surface entry and mining for 40 years for
use by the Service.
Island Bay NWR
Spanning 20 acres on six tracts on several islands, Island Bay NWR was established as a “preserve
and breeding ground for native birds” on October 23, 1908, through Executive Order 958 signed by
President Theodore Roosevelt. Later, on October 23, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed Public
20 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Law 91-504 establishing the refuge as a Wilderness Area. The Wilderness designation conveys a
secondary purpose to the refuge: “…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).
Caloosahatchee NWR
Caloosahatchee NWR was established by President Woodrow Wilson on July 1, 1920, through
Executive Order 3299, also as a “. . . preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Much of the
lands within the original refuge boundary, which included several mangrove islands, have been lost
due to channelization of the Caloosahatchee River and deposition of dredged spoil upon the islands.
The Refuge now includes four islands totaling 40 acres.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
As part of the J.N. "Ding" Darling NWR Complex, these four refuges are part of the largest
undeveloped mangrove ecosystem in the U.S., and famous for spectacular migratory bird
populations. Special designations for these refuges are: Island Bay NWR is designated a
Wilderness Area, three of the refuges are designated as Marine Protected Areas, and all four refuges
are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. The refuges are located adjacent to or near six state
aquatic preserves and the area is part of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program.
WILDERNESS AREA
All six tracts of Island Bay NWR, which total 20.24 acres, were designated as a National Wilderness
Area (Public Law 91-504) on October 23, 1970, by President Richard Nixon. It is one of the smallest
units in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Wilderness Area designation provides an
additional level of protection for the refuge. Comprised predominantly of mangrove swamp with small
areas of tidal flats and upland hardwood forests, the Island Bay Wilderness Area is a closed area,
protecting shorebirds, wading birds, and waterbirds and protecting archaeological resources.
Management activities within this Wilderness Area include boundary inspection and posting, law
enforcement, and wildlife surveys and monitoring activities. Active management of these areas is
restricted by guidelines contained in the Wilderness Act. Current management of the Wilderness
Area is best described as minimum impact. As needed, the Service replaces boundary signs that
designate the Wilderness Area. These refuge signs are the only authorized and maintained human
material on the islands. No structures or facilities exist within the refuge’s Wilderness Area.
Threats to the Wilderness Area include unauthorized access to the refuge, high public use levels and
activities adjacent to the refuge in area 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. Exemplifying current high waterway use, in 2006, Charlotte and Lee
counties had over 71,000 registered recreational vessels (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission 2007).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
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, all four refuges were listed as
Candidate MPAs, 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 these refuges. 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,
including Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, and Island Bay NWRs.
OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATERS
The Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) designation is given to waters that are “worthy of special
protection due to their natural attributes” (§403.061, Florida Statutes); these waters are listed in
Section 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. National parks, national wildlife
refuges, and state parks in the three-county (Collier, Lee, and Charlotte) area are listed in Table 1,
along with their designation as lands containing OFWs (Florida Department of Environmental
Protection 2001, 2002, and 2003).
STATE AQUATIC PRESERVES AND STATE PARK
The refuges are adjacent to and surrounded by four Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves: Pine Island
Sound, Matlacha Pass, Cape Haze, and Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor. In addition, Lemon Bay
Aquatic Preserve (also administered under the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves) is near Island
Bay NWR and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve is near Matlacha Pass NWR. One large state buffer
preserve, Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park, is located north and east of Island Bay NWR.
CHARLOTTE HARBOR NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Charlotte Harbor is recognized as an “estuary of national significance” 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 2002a). 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
22 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
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 Undated and 2008)
Table 1. National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and State Parks in Collier, Lee and
Charlotte Counties – Designated as Lands Containing Outstanding Florida Waters
(OFWs)
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
 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
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
PENINSULAR FLORIDA LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION COOPERATIVE
Throughout the nation, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are currently under
development. Figure 6 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.
Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs are located within the Peninsular
Florida LCC (Figure 6, 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 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.
24 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 6. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
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; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 2008a and 2008b]. 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 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs are
located in the southern part of the Outer Coastal Plain Ecological Province, in an area designated as
the South Florida Ecosystem, which is now fully contained in the Peninsular Florida LCC.
The South Florida Ecosystem (Figure 7) 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 Lake Wales Ridge - the highest topographic feature of the Florida
peninsula. The Ecosystem includes more than 10 major physiographic provinces (see Geology and
Topography discussion in Chapter II. Refuge Overview, Physical Resources). The South Florida
Ecosystem includes over 20 areas managed by the federal government (not including the Brighton,
Miccosukee, and Seminole Indian reservations). These include: 16 national wildlife refuges (including
these four refuges); 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. See Figure 8 for the
conservation lands in the area. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998a)
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. The Charlotte Harbor region of the Ecosystem In the
vicinity of the refuges 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 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, waterfowl, and State listed species. Table 2
describes the acreage and types of natural communities in the Charlotte Harbor watershed and Table
3 lists imperiled animal species in the Charlotte Harbor study area (Florida Department of
Environmental Protection 2002a).
26 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 7. South Florida Ecosystem
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 8. Area Conservation Lands
28 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Table 2. Types of Natural Communities in the Charlotte Harbor Basin
Category Community
Type
Area in
Acres
Area in
hectares
Total
Area
(%)
Characteristics
Upland
1 Coastal strand 493.6 199.8 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 10871.7 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 19342.9 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 90.8 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
1,441.6 583.4 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 3210.5 1.86 Includes major upland hardwood
associations that occur statewide on fairly
rich sandy soils.
9 Tropical
hammock
3,085.7 1248.7 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 3697.0 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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Category Community
Type
Area in
Acres
Area in
hectares
Total
Area
(%)
Characteristics
11 Freshwater
marsh
10,353.1 4189.7 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 1720.4 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.
13 Hardwood
swamp
1,170.6 473.7 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 37.7 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 14936.3 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 71651.1
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 9569.1 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.
30 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
Category Community
Type
Area in
Acres
Area in
hectares
Total
Area
(%)
Characteristics
20 Shrub and brush 8,749.4 3540.8 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 1148.4 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 26079.5 15.11 Unvegetated areas such as roads,
beaches, active strip mines, borrow
areas, cleared land on sandy soils, and
urban areas (e.g., rooftops and parking
lots).
TOTAL 426,483 172591.6
Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2002a
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Table 3. 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
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
Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2002a
32 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
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 four 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, see Figure 9. (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and South Florida Water Management District 2003)
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 and the Gulf of
Mexico. This surge of fresh water changes delicate estuarine salinity levels and harms brackish
marine habitats in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. 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 and the Charlotte Harbor
Estuary. Water quality parameters of concern include: salinity, nutrients, turbidity, trace organics, and
metals. All of these negatively impact the flora and fauna of the area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2007 and South Florida Water Management District 2008).
Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs are located in the
Southwestern Florida Flatwoods Sub-Ecoregion (Level IV, 75b) of the Southern Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (Level III-75) [Loveland and Acevedo 2008; Drummond 2008; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) 2007a]. Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and
in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2007b). The Southern Florida Flatwoods Ecoregion is a nearly level coastal plain of pine flatwoods,
extensive areas of pasture and rangeland, cabbage palm hammocks, and marshes. Streams and
lakes are common and surface and ground water supplies are abundant. The land surface is about
four meters above sea level. Most of the area is flat, but some hummocks rise about one meter
above the general level landscape and low beach ridges and dunes rise two to three meters above
the lower inland areas. Generally, elevations range from sea level to less than 25 meters moving
inland. Its textured soils are wet, coarse, and sandy. The annual precipitation is the area is 44 to
60 inches, about 60% of which occurs from June through September as tropical storms. Late
autumn and winter are relatively dry. The average temperature is 68 to 75ºF. Charlotte Harbor is
one of the more prominent geographic features in the region. Population growth has been very
rapid in recent years, and much of the coastal area is highly urbanized. Flatwood forest vegetation
is primarily slash pine, longleaf pine, cabbage palm, and live oak. Saw palmetto, gallberry, and
bluestems and wiregrasses characterize the understory. Land use in the Southern Florida
Flatwoods is characterized as: 7% cropland; 36% grassland; 22% forest; 17% urban developed;
13% open water; and 5% other (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2006a).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Figure 9. Historic and Current Surface Water Flows – South Florida Ecosystem
(Lee County 2009)
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs are located along the Gulf coast
and are part of the Southwestern Florida Flatwoods Sub-ecoregion, of the Southern Coastal Plain.
As such, the refuges play a role in numerous regional conservation plans and initiatives, including the
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan, South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, South Florida Ecosystem Plan, the Gulf of Mexico
Program, the 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, State Wildlife Action Plan, Florida’s Endangered and
Threatened Species Management and Conservation Plan, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and the
SWFWMD’s and SFWMD’s Surface Water Improvement and Management programs. Further,
these refuges are in the Charlotte Harbor area, which also contains the Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program and five state aquatic preserves. And the National Park Service has identified four
Wild and Scenic River segments in the area. The four refuges are located outside of the Coastal
Barrier Resources System.
34 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
CHARLOTTE HARBOR NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM and COMPREHENSIVE
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established as part of the 1987 amendments to the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and seeks to protect and restore estuaries of national significance that are deemed
to be threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
Program (CHNEP) 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 these NEPs, including the
EPA, NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of Interior (DOI), and the USDA.
The Charlotte Harbor region supports a great diversity of semitropical 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 2002a). In 1995 Charlotte Harbor was designated
as an "estuary of national significance." The CHNEP 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 CHNEP study area. A cooperative decision-making process is
used within the Program to address diverse resource management concerns in the 4,700-square-mile
CHNEP study area. The 2008 update of CHNEP’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 CHNEP Pine Island
Sound subbasin, which has several key concerns, including freshwater inflows 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 used of the estuary; provide the proper fresh water 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. (Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program 2008)
The concerns of the CHNEP are also resource concerns of these refuges. Refuge Complex staff
coordinates with CHNEP partners on a regular basis.
SOUTH FLORIDA MULTI-SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN
The South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan is one of the first recovery strategies specifically
designed to meet the needs of multiple species that do not occupy similar habitats. It is also one of
the first designed to approach recovery by addressing the needs of entire watersheds: the
Kissimmee-Okeechobee- Everglades watershed, the Caloosahatchee River-Big Cypress watershed,
and the Peace-Myakka River watershed. The refuges play a role in the recovery of several federally
listed species, including the wood stork (Endangered), piping plover (Threatened), West Indian
manatee (Endangered), and loggerhead sea turtle (Threatened).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM PLAN
The South Florida Ecosystem Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998a) seeks to better manage
federal trust resources, such as migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, freshwater
wetlands, interjurisdicational fisheries, mangrove forests, estuaries and estuarine wetlands,
seagrasses, hardbottom, and coral reefs in the South Florida Ecosystem (Figure 7), which
encompasses the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, Peace River, Charlotte
Harbor, Caloosahatchee River, Big Cypress Basin, Florida Keys, and the upper and lower east coast
of Florida. The seven goals of the South Florida Ecosystem Plan are listed.
 Protect and manage National Wildlife Refuge System units and other national interest lands.
 Protect migratory birds and protect, restore, and manage their habitats.
 Protect, restore, and manage candidate, threatened, and endangered species and their
habitats.
 Protect, restore, and manage wetlands and other freshwater habitats
 Protect, manage, and restore fish and other aquatic species, and their habitats.
 Protect, restore, and enhance coastal and estuarine habitats.
 Protect, restore, and manage for biodiversity.
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM
The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Undated-a) 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 Program 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 is Florida's Gulf Ecological
Management Site (GEMS) Program (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2008), which
through the cooperation of federal, state, local, and private programs, resources, and mechanisms is
identifying special ecological sites and providing information for each site in an informational
database. All four refuges are part of the GEMS Program.
COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN
Starting in the 1940s, the Central and South Florida Project -- constructed in partnership between
the 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. Through the
J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR Complex, these refuges participate in CERP and Southwest Florida
Feasibility Study planning, coordination, and implementation activities. (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and South Florida Water Management District 2006)
36 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
The Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project
A major CERP project related to these refuges is the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin
Storage Reservoir Project. The purpose of the Project is to improve the timing and quantity of fresh
water flows to the Caloosahatchee River Estuary. The West Basin Storage Reservoir will store fresh
water from Lake Okeechobee and storm water runoff that will be released slowly, as needed, to
ensure a more natural, consistent flow of fresh water 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
refuges. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2003 and 2007; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South
Florida Water Management District 2006) (See the discussion of “Freshwater Releases from the
Caloosahatchee Watershed and Lake Okeechobee” in the WATER QUALITY section below.)
Southwest Florida Feasibility Study
CERP and the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study (SWFFS) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South
Florida Water Management District, Water Resources Advisory Commission 2006) 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 fresh water 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 refuges. (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers 2006; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District 2006)
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 re-establish salinity regimes suitable for maintaining healthy, naturally diverse,
and 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, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in
cooperation with Lee and Martin counties and other affected municipalities, developed the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plans. The Caloosahatchee River
Watershed Protection Plan includes three components: a Construction Project; a Pollutant Control
Program; and a Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program. The Construction Project and
Pollutant Control Program include water quality projects, along with agricultural and urban best
management practices (BMPs), to maximize nutrient loading reductions to meet Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) as they are established for the Caloosahatchee River Estuary. In addition, it includes
water storage projects for improving quantity, timing, and distribution of water in the estuary and to re-establish
salinity regimes suitable for maintaining a healthy, naturally diverse and well-balanced
estuarine ecosystem. The Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program describes the current
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
state of knowledge regarding hydrology, water quality, aquatic habitat, and effects of Lake
Okeechobee on delivery of water to the Caloosahatchee River Estuary. It builds upon the existing
monitoring, research, and modeling efforts and makes recommendations and modifications to these
efforts to better achieve and assess the water quality and quantity targets of the Caloosahatchee
River Watershed Protection Plan (South Florida Water Management District 2009a and 2009b).
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN
As a requirement for participating in the federal State Wildlife Grants Program, each state and
territory has created a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for conservation of a broad
array of fish and wildlife. Throughout the development process, the objectives were to identify
species of greatest conservation need and their habitats and to develop high-priority conservation
actions to abate problems for those species and habitats. These objectives have been developed in
a prudent effort to prevent declines before species become imperiled, thereby saving millions of tax
dollars. In addition, the matching requirement has encouraged partnerships and cooperation among
conservation partners. To meet the intent of the Service’s State Wildlife Grants Program, the FWC
created Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative (Initiative). The goal of the Initiative was to develop a
strategic vision for conserving all of Florida’s wildlife. Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (FCWCS) was completed and approved in 2005. The FCWCS emphasizes the building of
partnerships with other agencies and the private sector, uses a habitat-based conservation approach,
incorporates a broad definition of wildlife (to include invertebrates, aquatic species, and other
species), and favors non-regulatory methods in its effort to reach conservation goals and objectives,
many of which provided useful guidance in developing CCP benchmarks. A variety of species and
habitats found on the refuges are listed in the FCWCS as needing special management protection.
And, the predominant habitat type for all four refuges, mangrove swamp, is one of nine marine habitat
categories that were identified as having the highest relative threat status (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2005). Species of greatest conservation need associated with mangrove
swamps include the Pine Island marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris planirostris), magnificent
frigatebird (Fregata magnificens), yellow-crowned night-heron (Nyctanassa violacea), black-crowned
night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), bald eagle, mangrove cuckoo, black-whiskered vireo, gray
kingbird, Florida prairie warbler, and ornate diamondback terrapin. (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2005)
Florida Coastal Wildlife Conservation Initiative
Florida’s Coastal Wildlife Conservation Initiative is an FWC-led effort to develop an integrated
approach that focuses on coastal wildlife and habitat needs, as well as on related socio-economic
issues. This integrated approach includes participation by partners and input from stakeholders to
address the range of activities that impact coastal wildlife in a balanced fashion. The vision is to
ensure the long term conservation of native wildlife in coastal ecosystems throughout Florida in
balance with human activities. (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2010a)
Florida Bird Conservation Initiative
The Florida Bird Conservation Initiative (FBCI) is another wildlife initiative of the State of Florida. It
was formed as a voluntary public-private partnership seeking to promote the sustainability of native
Florida birds and their habitats through coordinated efforts that strategically address critical needs
related to conservation planning, delivery of conservation programs, research and monitoring,
education and outreach, and public policy. FWC works with the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture and a
wide variety of conservation partners in the State of Florida to serve FBCI goals. The FBCI will
38 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges
address bird conservation over the entire State, including two joint ventures and two bird
conservation regions (BCRs 27 and 31). (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2010b)
FLORIDA’S ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION
PLAN
Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Management and Conservation Plan (Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2004), as required under Section 5 of the Florida Endangered
and Threatened Species Act of 1977 (§372.072 Florida Statutes) is a plan for management and
conservation of species listed by the State of Florida. In addition to those species listed by the
federal government, several State listed species of management concern to these refuges occur on
and near these refuges, including roseate spoonbill (Species of Special Concern), black skimmer
(Species of Special Concern), American oystercatcher