DOCSLIB.ORG

Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan… Two Years Later

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Danielle Honour, P. E . , D.WRE Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Kimberly Lawrence Reduction Plan… Two Years Later Florida Stormwater Association Annual Conference June 12, 2014 Nutrient Reduction Plan Timeline Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Overview of Lake Toho Impairment • November 2010: Placed on Verified List by FDEP – Category 5: Impaired and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) required – Initially impaired for nutrients due to increasing trend of Trophic State Index (TSI) • Osceola County and City of Kissimmee disagreed – Independent analysis showed no Upper Kissimmee Planning Unit TSI Impairment – Ambient nutrient content not related to algae Source: FDEP, 2011 Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Overview of Lake Toho Impairment (cont.) • FDEP reconsidered impairment – Agreed more research was needed – Imbalance of flora and fauna due to excessive macrophytes (hydrilla) • December 2011: Nutrient Reduction Plan (NRP) completed • February 2012: Final Listing – Category 4e : Impaired but ongoing restoration activities underway, no TMDL required Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later NRP Process Timing and Applicability ***Prior to TMDL adoption*** Evaluation • Causative pollutant is questionable or uncertain Strategic Nutrient Monitoring and Reduction Plan Initial Implementation • Highly managed or Assessment variable systems Final • Marginal impairment ‐ Impairment Listing & fluctuates over time Adoption Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later The TMDL Process Input based on findings Objectives, concerns, local during plan implementation knowledge, management activities, and monitoring Evaluation monitoring plan, data collection Strategic Implementation Monitoring and (e.g., BMAP) Initial Assessment NRP/RAP Review data and calculations, questions/ comments, reasonable assurance plan Ability to Development Challenge Final of Basin Impairment Management Action Plans Listing and (BMAPs) Adoption Development and Adoption of Total Maximum Public meetings, input and Public workshops, input and review on Daily Loads comments on plan development (TMDLs) appropriateness of targets set, initial and final allocations allocations and modeling What is a Nutrient Reduction Plan? Hybrid of a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) and Reasonable Assurance Plan (RAP) • Key Differences: – No water quality “targets” are set – No allocation of load reductions – Not a long term solution: stepping stone – Monitoring plan and research priorities will align to the goals and objectives identified by the stakeholders to determine future targets – Plan is not formally “adopted” Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Lake Tohopekaliga (Toho) Background • Upper Kissimmee River Basin • Headwaters to the Everglades • Watershed area = 473 sq. mi. • Lake = 34 sq. mi. • Class 3 fresh water lake • Popular for fishing, hunting, boating, bird watching and sightseeing • Economic importance Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later What Makes Lake Toho “Special” • Highly managed since the 1960s – Water level stabilization (1960s) – Sewage treatment plant effluent discharges (1940s to 1980s) – Major drawdowns to improve habitat (1969, 1979, 1987, 2004) – Introduction of Hydrilla species into the lake (1980s) – Change in Hydrilla management to support endangered snail kites • Impact of management activities still not fully understood Nutrient Reduction Plan Elements • Pollutant Load Analysis – Runoff‐based TN and TP Loads by Jurisdiction • Management Actions – BMPs to reduce TN and TP loads • Research Priorities – Hydrilla Literature Review • Strategic Monitoring Plan – Establish monitoring network • Track Implementation • Plan Commitment Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Tracking Implementation – 2014 Biennial Update Report • Coordination with FDEP on update elements • Accomplishments by participants • Research and monitoring – Monitoring results and trends – Research accomplishments • Implementation issues • Future activities • Feedback from FDEP – Detail on projects – Public education activities Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Lake Tohopekaliga Monitoring • Builds on existing efforts by municipal stakeholders and SFWMD • Data evaluated by WBIDs • Consistent with FDEP approach under Impaired Waters Rule – Mann Kendall test to determine statistical significance • Analyzed statistical long‐term (where available) trends • Tributary monitoring • Continued in‐lake monitoring Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Tributary Water Quality Trend Analysis Statistically Significant Results (2003 – 2012) • 95 percent confidence level (P < or = 0.05) • Remaining Tributary WBIDs –no trend WBID TKN NO2 TP Chl‐aAvg. Slope of /NO3 Concentration Trend (∆/yr) Hart Branch ↑ ‐‐ ‐‐ N/A 1.19 mg/l ‐0.941 Boggy Creek ↑↑ ‐‐ N/A 0.02,0.00 mg/l ‐0.001, ‐0.054 E. Lake Toho Drain ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ N/A ‐‐ ‐‐ E. Lake Toho ‐‐ ↑↑↓ 4 ug/l 0.193 Shingle Creek ↓ ‐‐ ↑ N/A 0.83 mg/l 0.027 St. Cloud Canal ↓ ‐‐ ↑ N/A 0.76 mg/l 0.011 Mill Slough ↑ ‐‐ ‐‐ N/A 0.65 mg/l ‐0.206 ↑ Improving ↓ Declining - - No Trend Lake Toho Water Quality Trend Analysis Results (2005 – 2013) Parameter Statistically Slope of Significant Trend (∆/yr) Trend Total Phosphorus as PDecreasing‐0.002 Orthophosphate as P (mg/l) Decreasing 0.000 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N (mg/l) Increasing 0.026 Nitrate/Nitrite (mg/l) None 0.000 Chlorophyll‐a None 0.000 Turbidity (NTU) Increasing 0.203 Color (PCU) Decreasing ‐4.355 pH (SU) Increasing 0.092 Conductivity (µmhos/cm) Increasing 2.140 Excluded 2003/2004 drawdown years due to possible anomalies Completed Literature Review on the Relationship Between Hydrilla and Nutrients • Information on the impact of large scale aquatic plant management on water quality is not readily available • Hydrilla has the ability to retrieve nutrients from both roots and shoots to varying degrees • Derives primary nutrition from bottom sediments • Water column nutrients have minimal influence on the ability to colonize large areas of the KCOL • Estimated sediment reserves of N&P and internal cycling of nutrients are adequate to sustain populations for extended periods of time Water Column Nutrients and Abundant Hydrilla Growth on Lake Tohopekaliga (Netherland et. al, 2012) Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Completed Literature Review on the Relationship Between Hydrilla and Nutrients • Hydrilla Growth on Lake Toho will continue – Shallow nature of lake – Large sediment pools of N&P – Water schedules that promote stabilization – Physiological adaptations – Invasive traits of the plant – Even if inflowing N&P are reduced Water Column Nutrients and Abundant Hydrilla Growth on Lake Tohopekaliga (Netherland et. al, 2012) Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Here Comes the Lake Okeechobee BMAP… • BMAP process initiated in 2013 • Drainage area spans over 3.5 million acres • Lake O TMDL – Target Concentration 0.04 mg/l TP – Target Load 140 MT/year (~63% reduction) • Northern Six Sub‐Watersheds is the focus of the BMAP – Upper Kissimmee – Lower Kissimmee Lake O Watershed Land Use % – Lake Istokpoga – Indian Prairie Agriculture 51.2 – Fisheating Creek Natural Areas 35.7 – Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Urban 11.9 Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Lake O BMAP TP Loading Summary Attenuated TP Reductions Sub‐Watershed Area (ha) TP Load %Load (MT/yr) (MT/yr) Fisheating Creek 128,708 79.0 19% 6.01 Indian Prairie 111,927 72.7 17% 6.22 Lake Istokpoga 159,529 18.3 4% 132 Lower Kissimmee 173,687 103.0 25% 19.06 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough 80,045 100.8 24% 22.06 Upper Kissimmee* 416,189 46.4 11% 4.32 Total 1,070,085 420.2 100% 59.0 *Lake Toho located in Upper Kissimmee Sub‐watershed What is the non‐attenuated source reduction needed to meet the attenuated reduction requirements? Cost per lb. reduced in Lake O become $$$ Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Upper Kissimmee’s Sub‐Watershed • Upper Kissimmee’s Sub‐Watershed – Lowest average TP concentration – Highest Discharge • Stakeholder ability to manage flow? Water Years 2001-2013 Source: FDEP, 2013 Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Lake Toho’s Role in the BMAP • Lake Toho Watershed – Located in Upper Kissimmee Sub‐ Watershed – 11% of the area in Lake O Northern Tributary Sub‐Watersheds – Contains the majority of the urban area (MS4) – Lake Toho Average TP: 0.05 mg/l Source: SFWMD, 2011 Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Stakeholders Have High Hopes for NRP’s Role in Lake O BMAP • Gives NRP stakeholders a “head start” • Strategic monitoring already in place • Demonstrated TP has been consistently decreasing in Lake Toho • Stakeholders already have projects and implementation underway – Streamlines process of submitting projects – Loads reductions will be re‐calculated due to different tools Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later As a Result, Water Quality Mandates are Driving the County’s Master Planning Process • County Comprehensive Plan requires stormwater master plan update every 5 years – Previous updates historically “flood control” driven • Designed a Master Plan to support existing and anticipated water quality requirements • Completed County‐Wide Master Plan Update in early 2014 Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Master Plan Designed to Support Existing and Anticipated Water Quality Requirements • Water Quality Regulatory Framework (TMDL,
Recommended publications

  • Of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1955

    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 382 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1955 PART 2. SOUTH ATLANTIC SLOPE AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO BASINS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 382 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30,1955 PART 2. SOUTH ATLANTIC SLOPE AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO BASINS By P. R. Speer and A. B. Goodwin Washington, D. C., 1956 Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30,1955 PAET 2. SOUTH ATLANTIC SLOPE AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO BASINS By P. R Speer and A. B. Goodwin EXPLANATION This index lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the South Atlantic slope and Eastern Gulf of Mexico basins for which records have been or are to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods prior to September 30, 1955. Periods of record for the same station published by other agencies are listed only when they contain more detailed information or are for periods not reported in publications of the Geological Survey. The stations are listed in the downstream order first adopted for use in the 1951 series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply of the United States. Starting at the headwater of each stream all stations are listed in a downstream direction. Tributary streams are indicated by indention and are inserted between main-stem stations in the order in which they enter the main stream. To indicate the rank of any tributary on which a record is available and the stream to which it is immediately tributary, each indention in the listing of stations represents one rank.
  • Federal Dam, Oklawaha River, Moss Bluff, Fla

    Federal Dam, Oklawaha River, Moss Bluff, Fla

    Corps of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, DoD § 207.170 (8) The building, assembling, or ans, Louisiana, if between Suwanee breaking up of a raft in a waterway River and St. Marks, Florida. will be permitted only upon special au- (j) Trespass on property of the United thority obtained from the District En- States. Trespass on waterway property gineer, and under such conditions as he or injury to the banks, locks, bridges, may prescribe. piers, fences, trees, houses, shops or (h) Dumping of refuse or oil in water- any other property of the United way, obstructions. Attention is invited States pertaining to the waterway is to the provisions of sections 13 and 20 strictly prohibited. No business, trad- of the River and Harbor Act of March 3, ing or landing of freight or baggage 1899 (30 Stat. 1152, 1154; 33 U. S. C. 407, will be allowed on or over Government 415), and of sections 2, 3, and 4 of the piers, bridges, or lock walls. Oil Pollution Act of June 7, 1924 (43 (k) Copies of regulations. Copies of the Stat. 604, 605; 33 U.S.C. 432–434), which regulations in this section will be fur- prohibit the depositing of any refuse nished free of charge upon application matter in these waterways or along to the nearest District Engineer. their banks where liable to be washed [Regs., Apr. 30, 1938, as amended at 8 FR into the waters; authorize the imme- 15381, Nov. 9, 1943; 25 FR 8908, Sept. 16, 1960; diate removal or destruction of any 26 FR 353, Jan.
  • Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) Calibration and Sensitivity And

    Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) Calibration and Sensitivity And

    Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) : Calibration and Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses Task 1.1: WAM Simulated Existing Conditions Characterization Report and Model Validation Report - Final Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. September 4, 2015 FDACS Contract No. 022589 Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 The Watershed Assessment Model......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Model Approach .................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Source Cell Modeling .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 GLEAMS .........................................................................................................................................................
  • Appendix 1 U.S

    Appendix 1 U.S

    U.S. Department of the Interior Prepared in cooperation with the Appendix 1 U.S. Geological Survey Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Agricultural Water Policy Open-File Report 2014−1257 81°45' 81°30' 81°15' 81°00' 80°45' 524 Jim Creek 1 Lake Hart 501 520 LAKE 17 ORANGE 417 Lake Mary Jane Saint Johns River 192 Boggy Creek 535 Shingle Creek 519 429 Lake Preston 95 17 East Lake Tohopekaliga Saint Johns River 17 Reedy Creek 28°15' Lake Lizzie Lake Winder Saint Cloud Canal ! Lake Tohopekaliga Alligator Lake 4 Saint Johns River EXPLANATION Big Bend Swamp Brick Lake Generalized land use classifications 17 for study purposes: Crabgrass Creek Land irrigated Lake Russell Lake Mattie Lake Gentry Row crops Lake Washington Peppers−184 acresLake Lowery Lake Marion Creek 192 Potatoes−3,322 acres 27 Lake Van Cantaloupes−633 acres BREVARD Lake Alfred Eggplant−151 acres All others−57 acres Lake Henry ! UnverifiedLake Haines crops−33 acres Lake Marion Saint Johns River Jane Green Creek LakeFruit Rochelle crops Cypress Lake Blueberries−41 acres Citrus groves−10,861 acres OSCEOLA Peaches−67 acresLake Fannie Lake Hamilton Field Crops Saint Johns River Field corn−292 acres Hay−234 acres Lake Hatchineha Rye grass−477 acres Lake Howard Lake 17 Seeds−619 acres 28°00' Ornamentals and grasses Ornamentals−240 acres Tree nurseries−27 acres Lake Annie Sod farms−5,643Lake Eloise acres 17 Pasture (improved)−4,575 acres Catfish Creek Land not irrigated Abandoned groves−4,916 acres Pasture−259,823 acres Lake Rosalie Water source Groundwater−18,351 acres POLK Surface water−9,106 acres Lake Kissimmee Lake Jackson Water Management Districts irrigated land totals Weohyakapka Creek Tiger Lake South Florida Groundwater−18,351 acres 441 Surface water−7,596 acres Lake Marian St.
  • Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters

    Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters

    Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007 Executive Summary This report was prepared in accordance with §369.22 (7), Florida Statutes, to provide an annual assessment of the control achieved and funding necessary to manage nonindigenous aquatic plants in intercounty waters. The authority of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as addressed in §369.20 (5), Florida Statutes, extends to the management of nuisance populations of all aquatic plants, both indigenous and nonindigenous, and in all waters accessible to the general public. The aquatic plant management program in Florida’s public waters involves complex operational and financial interactions between state, federal and local governments as well as private sector compa- nies. A summary of plant acres controlled in sovereignty public waters and associated expenditures contracted or monitored by the DEP during Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is presented in the tables on page 42 of this report. Florida’s aquatic plant management program mission is to reduce negative impacts from invasive nonindigenous plants like water hyacinth, water lettuce and hydrilla to conserve the multiple uses and functions of public lakes and rivers. Invasive plants infest 95 percent of the 437 public waters inventoried in 2007 that comprise 1.25 million acres of fresh water where fishing alone is valued at more than $1.5 billion annually. Once established, eradicating invasive plants is difficult or impossible and very expensive; therefore, continuous maintenance is critical to sustaining navigation, flood control and recreation while conserving native plant habitat on sovereignty state lands at the lowest feasible cost.
  • 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: Sections 303(D), 305(B), and 314 Report and Listing Update

    2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: Sections 303(D), 305(B), and 314 Report and Listing Update

    2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Report and Listing Update Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration Florida Department of Environmental Protection June 2020 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 floridadep.gov 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, June 2020 This Page Intentionally Blank. Page 2 of 160 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, June 2020 Letter to Floridians Ron DeSantis FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF Governor Jeanette Nuñez Environmental Protection Lt. Governor Bob Martinez Center Noah Valenstein 2600 Blair Stone Road Secretary Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 June 16, 2020 Dear Floridians: It is with great pleasure that we present to you the 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida. This report meets the Federal Clean Water Act reporting requirements; more importantly, it presents a comprehensive analysis of the quality of our waters. This report would not be possible without the monitoring efforts of organizations throughout the state, including state and local governments, universities, and volunteer groups who agree that our waters are a central part of our state’s culture, heritage, and way of life. In Florida, monitoring efforts at all levels result in substantially more monitoring stations and water quality data than most other states in the nation. These water quality data are used annually for the assessment of waterbody health by means of a comprehensive approach. Hundreds of assessments of individual waterbodies are conducted each year. Additionally, as part of this report, a statewide water quality condition is presented using an unbiased random monitoring design. These efforts allow us to understand the state’s water conditions, make decisions that further enhance our waterways, and focus our efforts on addressing problems.
  • Assessment of Cyanotoxins in Florida's Lakes, Reservoirs And

    Assessment of Cyanotoxins in Florida's Lakes, Reservoirs And

    Assessment of Cyanotoxins in Florida’s Lakes, Reservoirs and Rivers by Christopher D. Williams BCI Engineers and Scientists, Inc. Lakeland, FL. John W. Burns Andrew D. Chapman Leeanne Flewelling St. Johns River Water Management District Palatka, FL. Marek Pawlowicz Florida Department of Health/Bureau of Laboratories Jacksonville, FL. Wayne Carmichael Wright State University Dayton, OH. 2001 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are population increases of algae above normal background levels and are defined by their negative impacts on the environment, the economy, and human health. Historically, many of Florida's largest and most utilized freshwater and estuarine systems have been plagued by occasional blooms of harmful algae. During the last decade, however, the frequency, duration, and concentration levels of these blooms in freshwater and brackish water have increased significantly, primarily due to changes in land utilization, changes in hydrology, increases in nutrient runoff, loss of aquatic vegetation, and a climate that is very conducive to algal growth and proliferation. In 1998, the Florida Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force was established to determine the extent to which HABs pose a problem for the state of Florida. Blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) were identified as top research priorities due to their potential to produce toxic chemicals and contaminate natural water systems. In June 1999, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) initiated a collaborative study in conjunction with the Florida Marine Research Institute, the Florida Department of Health, and Wright State University to determine the geographical distribution of various types of toxin-producing blue-green algae in Florida's surface waters and to positively identify any algal toxins present in these waters.
  • Your Guide to Eating Fish Caught in Florida

    Your Guide to Eating Fish Caught in Florida

    Fish Consumption Advisories are published periodically by the Your Guide State of Florida to alert consumers about the possibility of chemically contaminated fish in Florida waters. To Eating The advisories are meant to inform the public of potential health risks of specific fish species from specific Fish Caught water bodies. In Florida February 2019 Florida Department of Health Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2019 Florida Fish Advisories • Table 1: Eating Guidelines for Fresh Water Fish from Florida Waters (based on mercury levels) page 1-50 • Table 2: Eating Guidelines for Marine and Estuarine Fish from Florida Waters (based on mercury levels) page 51-52 • Table 3: Eating Guidelines for species from Florida Waters with Heavy Metals (other than mercury), Dioxin, Pesticides, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or Saxitoxin Contamination page 53-54 Eating Fish is an important part of a healthy diet. Rich in vitamins and low in fat, fish contains protein we need for strong bodies. It is also an excellent source of nutrition for proper growth and development. In fact, the American Heart Association recommends that you eat two meals of fish or seafood every week. At the same time, most Florida seafood has low to medium levels of mercury. Depending on the age of the fish, the type of fish, and the condition of the water the fish lives in, the levels of mercury found in fish are different. While mercury in rivers, creeks, ponds, and lakes can build up in some fish to levels that can be harmful, most fish caught in Florida can be eaten without harm.
  • Annual Report of Activities Conducted Under the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program in Florida Public Waters for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

    Annual Report of Activities Conducted Under the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program in Florida Public Waters for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

    Annual Report of Activities Conducted under the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program in Florida Public Waters for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Invasive Plant Management Section Submitted by: FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Invasive Plant Management Section 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. MS705 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Phone: 850-617-9420 Fax: 850-922-1249 Annual Report of Activities Conducted under the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program in Florida Public Waters for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 This report was prepared in accordance with §369.22 (7), Florida Statutes, to provide an annual summary of plants treated and funding necessary to manage aquatic plants in public waters. The Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program administered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) in Florida’s public waters involves complex operational and financial interactions between state, federal and local governments as well as private sector companies. FWC’s aquatic plant management program mission is to reduce negative impacts from invasive nonindigenous plants like water hyacinth, water lettuce and hydrilla to conserve the multiple uses and functions of public lakes and rivers. Invasive plants infest 96% of Florida’s 451 public waters inventoried in 2013 that comprise 1.26 million acres of fresh water. Once established, eradicating invasive plants is difficult or impossible and very expensive; therefore, continuous maintenance is critical to keep invasive plants at low levels to
  • Florida's Top Freshwater Fishing Spots

    Florida's Top Freshwater Fishing Spots

    1 3 2 4 8 7 NORTH 5 6 NORTHWEST REGION CENTRAL REGION 10 9 11 NORTHEAST REGION 13 14 12 15 16 22 20 17 2021 TOP FRESHWATER 18 19 FISHING LOCATIONS 23 21 24 SOUTHWEST REGION 27 25 27 26 28 30 29 SOUTH REGION 27 µ 0 25 50 75100 Miles 2021 Top Freshwater Fishing Locations NORTHWEST REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 1 Escambia River Santa Rosa, Escambia ●▲ ● 2 Yellow River Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton ✚ ●▲ ●▲ 3 Choctawhatchee River Walton, Washington ●▲ ●▲ 4 Holmes Creek Holmes ✚ ●▲ 5 Apalachicola River Jackson, Gadsden, Calhoun, Gulf, Liberty, ●▲ ● ●▲ Franklin 6 Ochlocknee River and Lake Talquin Gadsden, Leon, Liberty ● ● ▲ 7 Wacissa River Jefferson ● ✚ NORTH CENTRAL REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 8 Eagle Lake Hamilton ▲ 9 Lower Suwannee River Dixie ✚ 10 Orange Lake Alachua ● ▲ ▲ 11 Lake Rousseau Citrus, Marion, Levy ●▲ 12 Hernando Lake in Tsala Apopka Chain Citrus ● NORTHEAST REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 13 Lake Panasoffkee Sumter ● ✚ 14 Lake Griffin Lake ● 15 Lake Harris Lake ▲ 16 Turkey Lake Orange ✚ ✚ ✚ 17 Lake Kissimmee Osceola, Polk ▲ 18 Lake Marian Osceola ●▲ 19 Fellsmere Water Management Area Indian River ●▲ SOUTHWEST REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 20 Tampa Bypass Canal (Sixmile Creek Hillsborough ▲ 21 Edward Medard Reservoir Hillsborough ▲ ▲ ▲ 22 Tenoroc Fish Management Area Polk ●▲ ▲ ▲ 23 Winter Haven Chain of Lakes Polk ●▲ ▲ ▲ 24 Lake Weohyakapka/Walk-in-Water Polk ● ▲ ▲ 25 Lake Istokpoga Highlands ● ▲ ▲ SOUTH REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 26 Lake Okeechobee Palm Beach, Martin, Glades, Okeechobee, ● ▲ ▲ Hendry 27 Urban Canals Broward, Martin, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, ✚ ✚ St.
  • U N S U U S E U R a C S

    U N S U U S E U R a C S

    PUTNAM Legend (Ocean Shore Blvd) Halifax StHwy A1A 109th Congress of the United States River DISTRICT Lake Healy Cowpond Lake 24 Ormond-By-The-Sea Big Lake Louise DISTRICT 2 KANSAS OKLAHOMA Ormond ERIE 1 Beach Lake Disston Yonge St FLAGLER Turley C StHwy A1A (Atlantic Ave) e Holly n t e Hill r StHwy 11 40 ) S d y R t St H w d or StRd 19 Pierson (Dan F P o w Lake George e r L in Lake Shaw Lake e Pierson Justice Cain Lake S Tymber Creek Rd StHwy 430 (Mason Ave) Lpga Blvd Rd 40) Indigo Dr N (St Bill France Blvd Fort Belvoir 40 S Ridgewood Ave wy t StH H w y Ave B 5 95 A Midway Ave ( Payne Creek N Industrial Coral Sea Ave o Daytona Pkwy v Catalina Dr a Yosemite NP Lake Winona Terminal Dr R Beach d ) Midway Ave tHwy 40 Caraway Daytona Beach S Lake Williamson Blvd Shores Wildcat Lake Astor Big Tree Rd Interstate Hwy Other Major Road Lake Dias Slayton Ave Water Body 44 StHwy Lake Clifton 40 St Johns River Pine St South Other Road Schimmerhorne Lake StHwy 400 (Beville Rd) Daytona U.S. Hwy R Stream 56 Railroad i North Grasshopper Lake d g ) e e w v A o o South Grasshopper Lake n d o 92 t A 17 Rd Bay Clark w v Jolly Ford Rd la e un (D 1 Orange Rd 42 y De Leon Springs w H Chain O t 4 S Lake L i tt International Speedway Blvd Port Orange Lake Dexter le Farles Lake H T o a m Lake Daugharty w o C k r a Ponce F Lake Woodruff a r Buck Lake m Inlet s Stagger Mud Lake R d 0 2 4 6 Kilometers MARION Billies StHwy 421 (Taylor Rd) W Bay o o 0 2 4 6 Miles Tick Island d la Mud Lake nd A B l l ex v a d StHwy 19 nd e r Springs Coast Guard Station Cre Ponce de
  • Solving the Everglades Riddle: Addressing Water Quality and Quantity to Restore a Florida Legacy

    Solving the Everglades Riddle: Addressing Water Quality and Quantity to Restore a Florida Legacy

    BACKGROUNDER Solving the Everglades Riddle: Addressing Water Quality and Quantity to Restore a Florida Legacy By Dan Peterson Director, Center for Property Rights at The James Madison Institute federal, and local governments have wrangled over funding A Florida Riddle it, and environmental activists have leveraged it. What singular policy issue has lingered in Florida, In 2014, voters approved Amendment 1 dedicating despite having been discussed for decades, hotly debated one-third of doc stamp revenue for the next 20 years for in multiple legislative sessions, and subject to expensive statewide environmental preservation purposes including lobbying efforts? What issue has induced emotional pleas, “to acquire, restore, improve and manage conservation received billions of dollars to spend on planning and lands…including the Everglades.” This action brought new projects, and continues to be a costly and complex effort? visibility to statewide environmental needs as well as further If you answered, “Restoring the Everglades” you win debate to the issue of Everglades restoration. In order to the prize. For decades, one of Florida’s top environmental more fully understand and appreciate the complexities of challenges has been the restoration of the Everglades. restoring the Everglades today, it is imperative to take a Scientists have studied it, legislators have debated it, state, brief look back in time for a helpful perspective. www.jamesmadison.org | 1 A Brief History of northern Everglades and many along the banks of Lake Okeechobee. While dairy farming and cattle ranching the Florida Everglades spread north of the lake, tomatoes, sugar cane, beans, The effort to subdue the Everglades area began as early peas, peppers and potatoes became the dominant as 1850 with the Swamplands Act, which transferred crops to the south.