DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of the Interior United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 2oth Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 January 5,2005 Colonel Robert M. Carpenter District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 70 1 San Marco Boulevard, Room 372 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8 175 Dear Colonel Carpenter: This document is the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion for 27 single- family dock projects listed below resulting in 35 additional slips within Reaches 36, 38, 39, and 40 of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Reach Characterization for Florida Waters (Corps 2001) in Sarasota County, Florida. Reach 36 encompasses the waters of the Myakka River from approximately 3 miles north of Interstate 75 to Charlotte Harbor, and all connecting tributaries and residential canal systems, in Sarasota County, Florida. Reach 38 encompasses the waters of Red Lake, Alligator Creek, Lemon Bay, Forked Creels, and all connecting tributaries and residential canal systems in Sarasota County, Florida. Reach 39 encompasses the waters of Dona Bay, Blackbum Bay, Dryman Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, Roberts Bay, and all connecting tributaries and residential canal systems, in Sarasota County, Florida. Reach 40 encompasses the waters of Palma Sola Bay and Sarasota Bay, and all connecting tributaries and residential canal systems, in Manatee County and Sarasota County, Florida. Service Log No. Corps Application No. Boat Slips Date Applicant 4-1-05-PL-95 18 SAJ-2004- 102 17 (GP-IPH) I 10112/04 Mark Hawkins 4- I -05-PL-95 19 SAJ-2004- 102 15 (GP-IPH) 2 10/12/04 Frank Dupuis 4-1 -05-PL-9520 SAJ-2004- 10200 (GP-IPH) 1 10/12/04 Kim Walker 4-1 -05-PL-952 1 SAJ-2004- 10 199 (GP-IPH) 1 10/12/04 Ralph K. Bowen 4- 1-05-PL-9522 SAJ-2004- 10 198 (GP-IPH) 2 10/12/04 David Coles 4- 1-05-PL-9523 SAJ-2004- 10 192 (GP-IPH) 2 10/12/04 Frederick Mercurio 4- 1-05-PL-9524 SAJ-2004- 10 19 1 (GP-1PI-I) 1 10112/04 Samuel J. Holland 4-1 -05-PL-9525 SAJ-2004- 10 185 (GP-IPH) 1 101 12/04 Howard Wells 4-1 -05-PL-9526 SAJ-2004- 10212 (GP-IPH) 1 10112/04 Rebecca Martel 4-1 -05-PL-9527 SAJ-2004- 102 14 (GP-IPH) 2 10112/04 Richard Hacltel 4-1 -05-PL-9528 SAJ-2004- 10 197 (GP-IPH) 1 10112/04 Julia Human 4-1 -05-PL-9529 SAJ-2004- 10 187 (GP-IPH) 1 10/12/04 Lawrence Devine 4- 1-05-PL-9530 SAJ-2004- 1020 1 (GP-IPH) 1 10112/04 Roderick McTaggart 4-1 -05-PL-9878 SAJ-2004-53 36-MEP 1 11/08/04 Stephen Meyer 4-1 -05-PL-9977 SAJ-2004-11293 (GP-IPH) 1 11/19/04 Jerry Robertson Service Log No. Corps Application No. Boat Slips Date Applicant 4-1 -05-PL-9980 SAJ-2004- 11295 (GP-IPH) 11/15/04 Carolyn Jarvis 4- 1-05-PL- 10002 SAJ-2004- 1061 1 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Eric Edwing 4- 1-05-PL- 10008 SAJ-2004- 10544 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Brooks Williams 4- 1-05-PL- 10010 SAJ-2004- 1129 1 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Douglas Tibbetts 4- 1-05-PL- 1001 1 SAJ-2004- 11243 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Gregory Stitli 4- 1-05-PL- 10012 SAJ-2004- 11240 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Mark Flamiagan 4- 1-05-PL-100 13 SAJ-2004- 11 170 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Bill Thompson 4-1-05-PL-10014 SAJ-2004-106 12 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Barb Beiinal 4- 1-05-PL- 100 15 SAJ-2004-11550 (GP-IPH) 1111 9/04 Rodney Jacobson 4-l-05-PL-IOOl6 SAJ-2004-10541 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Robert D' Aiigelo 4- 1-05-PL- 10017 SAJ-2004-10540 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Margorie Williams 4- 1-05-PL- 10018 SAJ-2004-10539 (GP-IPH) 11/19/04 Louis Maggio This biological opinion addresses the potential effects of these projects on the soutllwest subpopulation of the West Indian (= Florida) manatee (Trichechus manatus) (manatee) within Reaches 36,38,39, and 40 in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.). No other listed species will be affected by the proposed actions. This biological opinion was prepared based oil information provided by the Corps, the Corps' Reach Characterization (Corps 2001), the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (Service 2001), the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (Service 1999), data supplied by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and by the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI), and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Service's South Florida Ecological Services Office in Vero Beach, Florida. CONSULTATION HISTORY On the dates listed above, the Service received public notices from the Corps requesting coiicurrence on "may affect" determinations for the manatee and initiation of formal consultation for the proposed actions. The proposed actions would authorize the construction of 27 single- family dock projects resulting in 35 slips. BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS The proposed actioiis would authorize the coiistruction of 27 single-family dock projects resulting in 35 slips in Reaches 36, 38, 39, and 40, in Sarasota County, Florida. To reduce direct construction-related effects to the manatee, the Corps will incorporate Standard Manatee Construction Conditions (FWC 2001) as a condition of the Department of the Army permits, if issued for the projects listed above. Indirect effects of the projects to the manatee have been ameliorated by providing boater education and manatee awareness programs and brochures to local marinas, State, county, and city public offices, and at local boating events; by establishing and posting appropriate manatee speed zones in the project vicinity; and by providing enforcement of these zones by Federal and local law enforcement agencies. Seagrasses may occur in the project areas. If present, the Corps will require the applicant to avoid impacts to seagrasses by constructing the project based on the Dock Construction Guidelinesfor Florida developed by the Corps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) (formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Corps and NMFS 2001). These proposed actions resulted in "may affect" determinations after processing them through the Corps and Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) January 2,2001, Manatee Key. [Note - Service concurrence for the key was provided in a letter dated January 2,20011. The Service acknowledges the Corps' determination of "may affect" for the manatee. We selected the Corps' Reach Characterization as the basis for our geographic area analysis. The Coi-ps compiled existing data relevant to the evaluation of the potential effects of watercraft access projects on manatees. The infomation contained in the Reach Characterization included manatee use data such as aerial surveys and radio telemetry; manatee habitat characteristics such as warmwater sites, seagrass distributions, and bathymetry; human use characteristics such as relative dock densities, boat densities, and navigation channels; and existing manatee protection measures (speed zones). Throughout Florida, the Corps defined 80 segments or 'keaches" based on manatee use, manatee habitat characteristics, and human use characteristics and compiled this information into its Geographic Information System (GIS) database. The Corps also provided the Service with the applicant's completed Manatee Checldist which provides additional site- specific information on the factors defined in the Reach Characterization database. The action area is determined by the reach boundaries that best encompass the direct and indirect effects of the projects under consideration. This reach analysis is supplemented with a county review approach because many factors important to manatee protection are provided at the county level. Manatee protection plans (MPP) are produced by counties, manatee speed zones are designated by the State with county participation or by counties directly, and county sheriffs' departments provide enforcement within county boundaries. This combined analysis provides a more holistic evaluation of factors affecting manatees than a piecemeal project-by-project review and also identifies localized threats and options that may be applied to minimize these threats. Action Area The proposed projects are located within the in Reaches 36,38,39, and 40. Vessels using the new single-family docks would likely travel through waters of Myaltka River, Charlotte Harbor, Red Lake, Alligator Creek, Lemon Bay, Forked Creek, Dona Bay, Blackburn Bay, Dryman Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, Roberts Bay, Palma Sola Bay and Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County, Florida. Therefore, for the purposes of this consultation, the Service defines the action area for this biological opinion as all waters within Reaches 36, 38, 39, and 40, in Sarasota County, Florida. New watercraft access projects may have a number of direct and indirect effects on manatees and manatee habitat. Direct impacts include potential direct harm or harassment of manatees during construction activities and are generally addressed through application of the Standard Manatee Construction Conditions (http://www.floridaconservation.org/psm/permit/construct.ht~n) codeveloped by the Corps, Service, and FWC. Anticipated direct impacts to habitat, such as the presence of seagrasses within the project footprint are minimized through modifications in the project design during the permit review process and/or the application of Dock Construction Guidelines for Florida developed by the Corps and NOAA Fisheries (Corps and NMFS 2001). These two minimization efforts are routinely included as conditions of Department of the Army permits issued for construction projects in manatee habitat and have previously undergone section 7 consultation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Preliminary Manatee Mortality Table with 5-Year Summary From: 01/01/2019 To: 11/22/2019
    FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MARINE MAMMAL PATHOBIOLOGY LABORATORY 2019 Preliminary Manatee Mortality Table with 5-Year Summary From: 01/01/2019 To: 11/22/2019 County Date Field ID Sex Size Waterway City Probable Cause (cm) Nassau 01/01/2019 MNE19001 M 275 Nassau River Yulee Natural: Cold Stress Hillsborough 01/01/2019 MNW19001 M 221 Hillsborough Bay Apollo Beach Natural: Cold Stress Monroe 01/01/2019 MSW19001 M 275 Florida Bay Flamingo Undetermined: Other Lee 01/01/2019 MSW19002 M 170 Caloosahatchee River North Fort Myers Verified: Not Recovered Manatee 01/02/2019 MNW19002 M 213 Braden River Bradenton Natural: Cold Stress Putnam 01/03/2019 MNE19002 M 175 Lake Ocklawaha Palatka Undetermined: Too Decomposed Broward 01/03/2019 MSE19001 M 246 North Fork New River Fort Lauderdale Natural: Cold Stress Volusia 01/04/2019 MEC19002 U 275 Mosquito Lagoon Oak Hill Undetermined: Too Decomposed St. Lucie 01/04/2019 MSE19002 F 226 Indian River Fort Pierce Natural: Cold Stress Lee 01/04/2019 MSW19003 F 264 Whiskey Creek Fort Myers Human Related: Watercraft Collision Lee 01/04/2019 MSW19004 F 285 Mullock Creek Fort Myers Undetermined: Too Decomposed Citrus 01/07/2019 MNW19003 M 275 Gulf of Mexico Crystal River Verified: Not Recovered Collier 01/07/2019 MSW19005 M 270 Factory Bay Marco Island Natural: Other Lee 01/07/2019 MSW19006 U 245 Pine Island Sound Bokeelia Verified: Not Recovered Lee 01/08/2019 MSW19007 M 254 Matlacha Pass Matlacha Human Related: Watercraft Collision Citrus 01/09/2019 MNW19004 F 245 Homosassa River Homosassa
    [Show full text]
  • Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries
    Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries T.C. MacDonald; E. Weather; R.F. Jones; R.H. McMichael, Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095 Prepared for Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 111 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 200W Sarasota, Florida 34236 June 4, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ vii SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update
    Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update Submitted to: Florida Department of Transportation District One Scenic Highways Coordinator 1840 61st St. Sarasota, Florida 34243 941.359.7311 Submitted by: The Palma Sola Scenic Highway Corridor Management Entity Seth Kohn, Chairperson Molly McCartney, Vice Chairperson ‘c/o City of Bradenton 1411 9th Street West Bradenton, FL 34205 941.708.6300 Prepared by: Keep Manatee Beautiful, Inc. P.O. Box 14426 Bradenton, Florida 34280 941.795-8272 July 2009 Palma Sola Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................... 1 Corridor Management Entity Member List.......................................................................... 2 Bylaws .................................................................................. 3 Agreements .......................................................................... 9 Corridor Conditions ....................................................................... 11 Corridor Vision .............................................................................. 16 Goals, Objectives and Strategies.................................................. 17 Protection Techniques .................................................................. 22 The Corridor Story.......................................................................... 22 Community Participation Program ................................................ 23 Local Support ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interrelationships Among Hydrological, Biodiversity and Land Use Features of the Pantanal and Everglades
    Interrelationships among hydrological, biodiversity and Land Use Features of the Pantanal and Everglades Biogeochemical Segmentation and Derivation of Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Coastal Everglades waters. FIU Henry Briceño. Joseph N. Boyer NPS Joffre Castro 100 years of hydrology intervention …urban development 1953 1999 Naples Bay impacted by drainage, channelization, and urban development FDEP 2010 SEGMENTATION METHOD Six basins, 350 stations POR 1991 (1995)-1998. NH4, NO2, TOC, TP, TN, NO3, TON, SRP, DO, Turbidity, Salinity, CHLa, Temperature Factor Analysis (PC extraction) Scores Mean, SD, Median, MAD Hierarchical Clustering NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA The USEPA recommends three types of approaches for setting numeric nutrient criteria: - reference condition approach - stressor-response analysis - mechanistic modeling. A Station’s Never to Exceed (NTE) Limit. This limit is the highest possible level that a station concentration can reach at any time A Segment’s Annual Geometric Mean (AGM) Limit. This limit is the highest possible level a segment’s average concentration of annual geometric means can reach in year A Segment’s 1-in-3 Years (1in3) Limit. This limit is the level that a segment average concentration of annual geometric means should be less than or equal to, at least, twice in three consecutive years. 1in3 AGM NTE 90% 80% 95% AGM : Annual Geometric Mean Not to be exceeded 1in3 : Annual Geometric Mean Not to exceed more than once in 3 yrs Biscayne Bay, Annual Geometric Means 0.7 AGMAGM Limit : Not to be exceeded 0.6 (Annual Geometric Mean not to be exceeded) 1in31in3 Limit : Not to exceed more 0.5 (Annualthan Geometric once Mean in not 3 to beyears exceeded more than once in 3 yrs) 0.4 0.3 Total Nitrogen, mg/LNitrogen, Total 0.2 Potentially Enriched 0.1 SCO NCO SNB NCI NNB CS SCM SCI MBS THRESHOLD ANALYSIS Regime Shift Detection methods (Rodionov 2004) Cumulative deviations from mean method CTZ CHLa Zcusum Threshold 20 0 -20 Cusum .
    [Show full text]
  • Watercraft Access Facilities in the State of Florida Biological Assessment
    Watercraft Access Facilities in the State of Florida Biological Assessment Introduction The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issues numerous permits for watercraft access facilities in Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) habitat within Florida. Permitting actions that involve the rehabilitation of existing facilities and the construction of new facilities that include 4 slips or less in manatee habitat are currently evaluated using a programmatic approach that meets the consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of this action is to develop and implement a programmatic framework to encompass the majority of proposals (with the exception of proposals that involve the rehabilitation of existing facilities and the construction of new facilities that include 4 slips or less in manatee habitat), regardless of size or extent, in order to streamline the formal consultation process and ensure that adequate measures are in place to avoid and minimize impacts to manatees, as well as any adverse modification(s) of critical habitat. Project Description / Area of Analysis The actions addressed by this Biological Opinion include all new watercraft access facilities (i.e., docks, boat ramps, and marinas and any dredging, pipes and culverts included in project plans and build out) which are likely to adversely affect manatees as determined via the 2011 Manatee Key. This analysis is intended to assist biologists in assessing the potential impacts of watercraft access facilities on the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) in the State of Florida. Manatee Occurrence Florida manatees are found throughout the southeastern United States. As a subspecies of the West Indian manatee, their presence here represents the northern limit of this species range (Lefebvre et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Currently the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
    CRITICALLY ERODED BEACHES IN FLORIDA Updated, June 2009 BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATE OF FLORIDA Foreword This report provides an inventory of Florida's erosion problem areas fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, Straits of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and the roughly seventy coastal barrier tidal inlets. The erosion problem areas are classified as either critical or noncritical and county maps and tables are provided to depict the areas designated critically and noncritically eroded. This report is periodically updated to include additions and deletions. A county index is provided on page 13, which includes the date of the last revision. All information is provided for planning purposes only and the user is cautioned to obtain the most recent erosion areas listing available. This report is also available on the following web site: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/uublications/tech-rut.htm APPROVED BY Michael R. Barnett, P.E., Bureau Chief Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems June, 2009 Introduction In 1986, pursuant to Sections 161.101 and 161.161, Florida Statutes, the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores (now the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems) was charged with the responsibility to identify those beaches of the state which are critically eroding and to develop and maintain a comprehensive long-term management plan for their restoration. In 1989, a first list of erosion areas was developed based upon an abbreviated definition of critical erosion. That list included 217.6 miles of critical erosion and another 114.8 miles of noncritical erosion statewide.
    [Show full text]
  • Veterans-Ride-Program-VA-Map.Pdf
    Chatuge L. 59 Stevenson 76 Florence Athens 11 19 L. Burton Muscle Shoals 76 27 75 Scottsboro 123 129 Decatur Moulton 23 Hartselle Fort Payne 85 41 575 441 29 Albertville 19 129 Cullman Allatoona L. Hamilton Gadsden Kennesaw Mountain NBP Guin 278 Oneonta 29 27 Chattahoochee River NRA Sulligent Jasper 378 78 Sumiton Saks 20 Center Point Anniston 278 78 20 Mountain Brook 27A 29 129 278 Hueytown Talladega Reform VA Sunshine HealthcareSouth Augusta Network (VISN 8) Jackson L. 221 Alabaster 140 Fountain Parkway • St. Petersburg, Florida 33716 • www.visn8.va.gov Sylacauga 41 Calera Roanoke 75 1 23 27A BIBB Alexander City Brent West Point L. 25 COOSA UPSON WASHINGTON SCREVEN 441 Lafayette NORTHMONROE FLORIDA/SOUTH GEORGIA Eutaw TALLAPOOSA Macon Clanton CHAMBERS HARRIS BIBB Flint R. 80 JENKINS 19 319 TALBOT CHILTON 27 PERRY WILKINSON CRAWFORD JOHNSON 301 1. Lecanto CBOC 7. AuburnValdosta CBOC 9. St. Marys CBOC 11.LAUREN JacksonvilleS 2 VA Clinic 13. St. Augustine VA Clinic 15. Perry VA Clinic Malcom Randall VAMC 341 TAYLOR L. Harding 23 Oconee R. PEACH LEE TWIGGS 80 Demopolis 2804 W Marc Knighton Ct, SteELMORE A 2841 N Patterson St MUSCOGEE 2603 Osbourne Rd Ste E 3901 UniversityEMANUEL Blvd S (new interim address) 1224 N Peacock Ave 1601 SW Archer Rd 129 AUTAUGA Prattville HOUSTON BLECKLEY Selma Phenix City 16 Lecanto, FL 34461 Valdosta, GA 31601 Columbus St. Marys, GA 31558 Jacksonville, FL 32216 CANDLER 195EFFINGHAM Southpark Blvd Perry, FL 32347 Gainesville, FL 32608 MACON TREUTLEN CHATAHOOCHEE MACON BULLOCH 80 Linden (352)Montgomery 746-8000 (229) 293-0132;RUSSELL (877) 303-8387MARION (912) 510-3420 PULASKI (904) 732-6300 St Augustine, FL 32086 (850) 223-8387 (352) 376-1611; (800) 324-8387 221 SCHLEY 341 25 BULLOCK Andersonville NHS 41 95 LOWNDES Union Springs MONT- (904) 829-0814; (866) 401-8387 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Bookletchart™ Florida Everglades National Park – Whitewater Bay NOAA Chart 11433
    BookletChart™ Florida Everglades National Park – Whitewater Bay NOAA Chart 11433 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the to Coot Bay and Whitewater Bay. A highway bridge, about 0.5 mile above the mouth of the canal, has a reported 45-foot fixed span and a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration clearance of 10 feet. A marina on the W side of the canal just below the National Ocean Service dam at Flamingo has berths with electricity, water, ice, and limited Office of Coast Survey marine supplies. Gasoline, diesel fuel, and launching ramps are available on either side of the dam. A 5-mph no-wake speed limit is enforced in www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov the canal. 888-990-NOAA Small craft can traverse the system of tidal bays, creeks, and canals from Flamingo Visitors Center to the Gulf of Mexico, 6 miles N of Northwest What are Nautical Charts? Cape. The route through Buttonwood Canal, Coot Bay, Tarpon Creek, Whitewater Bay, Cormorant Pass, Oyster Bay, and Little Shark River is Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show marked by daybeacons. The controlling depth is about 3½ feet. water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much The route from Flamingo to Daybeacon 48, near the W end of more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and Cormorant Pass, is part of the Wilderness Waterway. efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial Wilderness Waterway is a 100-mile inside passage winding through the ships that carry America’s commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Of 6 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of The
    FAC 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion Effective Date: 12/20/2012 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion. (1) Estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criterion in paragraph 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C., are in the table below. The concentration-based estuary interpretations are open water, area-wide averages. The interpretations expressed as load per million cubic meters of freshwater inflow are the total load of that nutrient to the estuary divided by the total volume of freshwater inflow to that estuary. Page 1 of 6 FAC 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion Effective Date: 12/20/2012 Estuary Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Chlorophyll a (a) Clearwater Harbor/St. Joseph Sound Annual geometric mean values not to be exceeded more than once in a three year period. Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions. 1. St.Joseph Sound 0.05 mg/L 0.66 mg/L 3.1 µg/L 2. Clearwater North 0.05 mg/L 0.61 mg/L 5.4 µg/L 3. Clearwater South 0.06 mg/L 0.58 mg/L 7.6 µg/L (b) Tampa Bay Annual totals for nutrients and annual arithmetic means for chlorophyll a, not to be exceeded more than once in a three year period. Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Rookery at Perico Seagrass Advance Mitigation
    ROOKERY AT PERICO SEAGRASS ADVANCE MITIGATION Mitigation Establishment Criteria Report May 17, 2013 ROOKERY AT PERICO SEAGRASS ADVANCE MITIGATION Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1.1 2.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION (DIRECT IMPACTS) ................................................. 2.2 2.1 MANGROVE FOREST DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 2.2 2.2 MONITORING METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 2.2 2.3 SUCCESS CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... 2.4 2.4 LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................... 2.5 3.0 HABITAT CREATION MITIGATION CREDITS .............................................................. 3.5 3.1 SEAGRASS HABITAT CREATION .................................................................................... 3.5 3.1.1 Design Details ...................................................................................................... 3.5 3.1.2 Implementation Options ....................................................................................... 3.7 3.1.3 Mitigation Credit Assessment (UMAM) ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1
    Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1 Edited by Laura A. Yarbro and Paul R. Carlson Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute St. Petersburg, Florida March 2011 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Table of Contents Authors, Contributors, and SIMM Team Members .................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 31 How this report was put together ........................................................................................... 36 Chapter Reports ...................................................................................................................... 41 Perdido Bay ........................................................................................................................... 41 Pensacola Bay .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 25 June 2005 Kim Hanes SFWMD 8894 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, FL 33411
    Southeast Environmental Research Center OE-148 Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199 305-348-3095, 305-348-4096 fax, http://serc.fiu.edu 25 June 2005 Kim Hanes SFWMD 8894 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Re: South Florida Coastal Water Quality Monitoring Network – 1-3/05 Quarterly Report (C-15397) Dear Mr. Hanes: This letter serves to transmit the South Florida Coastal Water Quality Monitoring Network Quarterly Report as per our SFWMD/SERC Cooperative Agreement #C-15397. This report consists of this letter along with corresponding tables and figures. Project Background This report includes water quality data collected monthly during the annual period of record (POR) Jan. – Mar. 2005 from 28 stations in Florida Bay, 22 stations in Whitewater Bay, 25 stations in Ten Thousand Islands, 25 stations in Biscayne Bay, and 28 stations in Cape Romano-Rookery Bay-Pine Island Sound. A total of 49 stations were also collected on the SW Florida Shelf on a quarterly basis. Figure 1 shows the location of the fixed sampling stations. Water quality parameters monitored at each station include the dissolved nutrients nitrate + nitrite (NOx), nitrite (NO2), nitrate (NO3), ammonium (NH4), inorganic nitrogen (DIN), and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP). Silicate (Si(OH)4) was analyzed at all stations on a quarterly basis in conjunction with SW Shelf sampling. Total concentrations of nitrogen (TN), organic nitrogen (TON), phosphorus (TP), and organic carbon (TOC) were also measured. All concentrations for each of these parameters are reported as parts per million (ppm) except where noted. Biological parameters monitored included chlorophyll a (µg l-1) and alkaline phosphatase activity (APA; µM hr-1).
    [Show full text]