DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Location Hydraulic Report June 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Location Hydraulic Report June 2009 FINAL LOCATION HYDRAULIC REPORT Anna Maria Island Bridge Project Development and Environment Study SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) From SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard Manatee County, Florida Financial Project ID: 424436-1-21-01 Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation District Environmental Management Office 801 North Broadway P.O. Box 1249 Bartow, FL 33831 June 2009 FINAL LOCATION HYDRAULIC REPORT Anna Maria Island Bridge Project Development and Environment Study SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) From SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard Manatee County, Florida Financial Project ID: 424436-1-21-01 Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation District Environmental Management Office 801 North Broadway P.O. Box 1249 Bartow, FL 33831 Prepared by: 482 S. Keller Road Orlando, Florida 32810 June 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study for improvement alternatives along SR 64 (Manatee Avenue), from west of SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to east of Perico Bay Boulevard in Manatee County, Florida. The Anna Maria Island Bridge, constructed in 1957, is one of three bridge facilities that provide vehicular access over Anna Maria Island Sound/Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to and from Anna Maria Island. The PD&E Study evaluates alternatives to address the problem of the deteriorating bascule bridge on SR 64 (Manatee Avenue), the most northerly access, which is a designated evacuation route. The purpose of the PD&E Study is to provide documented environmental and engineering analyses to assist FDOT and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in reaching a decision on the type, location and conceptual design of the necessary improvements. Bridge inspection reports have shown that the Anna Maria Island Bridge is functionally obsolete. The structural condition is anticipated to deteriorate further as the bridge surpasses its service life of 50 years. Substandard geometry such as the lack of shoulders, 9-inch (in) wide concrete curbs separating the travel lanes from the sidewalk and obsolete bridge railing contribute to the functional obsolescence of the existing structure. Viable improvement alternatives considered for this facility include rehabilitation and replacement of the current bridge. The development of a new corridor would result in significant social and environmental impacts, and would not address the problem of the deteriorating SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) bridge. Therefore, developing a new corridor or improving a parallel roadway is not an option for this project. Three general bridge replacement alternatives were evaluated for this PD&E Study: • Alternative 1 − Low-Level Bascule: This concept proposes building a new bascule bridge with a minimum vertical navigational clearance of 21 feet (ft) above mean high water (MHW) when the bascule leaves are lowered. This is the established vertical guide clearance set by the USCG. • Alternative 2 − Mid-Level Bascule: This concept proposes a replacement bascule bridge with a navigation clearance of 45 ft. Based on data provided by the bridge tender at Anna Maria Island Bridge and allowing for tidal fluctuations, this height would allow approximately 39 percent of the waterway users that currently require the bridge to open to pass without an opening. • Alternative 3 – High-Level Fixed-Span: This concept proposes a high-level fixed-span replacement bridge over the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway navigation channel. The vertical navigational clearance will be 65 ft. Based on data provided by the bridge tender at the Anna Maria Island Bridge and allowing for tidal fluctuations, this height would allow greater than 99 percent of boats that currently require the existing bridge to open to safely navigate under the proposed structure. A tunnel was also evaluated but found to be non-viable. Anna Maria Island Bridge PD&E Study Final Location Hydraulic Report i Bridge replacement alignment alternatives to the left, center and right (north, center and south) of the existing bridge were considered. A centered alignment would conflict with the existing bridge, and traffic could not be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Therefore, the centered alignment was eliminated from further consideration. The combination of three bridge types and two alignments (northern and southern) result in six viable bridge replacement alternatives. Additionally, two proposed two-lane undivided bridge typical sections are being considered for all of the bridge replacement alternatives in this study. Both typical sections include two 12-ft lanes and two 10-ft shoulders which can accommodate bicyclists and disabled vehicles. Typical Section A includes one 12-ft sidewalk along the north side of the bridge, separated from the shoulder by a concrete barrier wall. A 4.5-ft high pedestrian/bicycle railing will be provided on the outside of the 12-ft sidewalk. There will be no sidewalk on the south side. Typical Section B includes a 10-ft sidewalk along both the north and south sides of the bridge. The designations “A” and “B” have been added to the alternative names accordingly. All of the bridge replacement alternatives are within the coastal floodplain and are subject to flooding to some degree due to tidal storm surges. All bridge replacement alternatives will have some minor impact to the floodplain but flood elevations and risks will not be increased due to the changes in vertical or horizontal alignments presented in this study. Anna Maria Island Bridge PD&E Study Final Location Hydraulic Report ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Description.................................................................................1-1 1.3 Project Need........................................................................................... 1-3 2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Corridor Analysis................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 No-Build Alternative............................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Transportation Systems Management Alternative................................. 2-1 2.4 Rehabilitation Alternative...................................................................... 2-2 2.5 Bridge Replacement Alternatives .......................................................... 2-2 2.5.1 Typical Sections................................................................... 2-2 2.5.2 Horizontal Alignments......................................................... 2-5 2.5.3 South Alternative................................................................. 2-5 2.5.4 North Alternative................................................................. 2-5 2.5.5 Bridge Type......................................................................... 2-8 2.6 Proposed Bridge Replacement Alternatives ......................................... 2-11 2.6.1 Alternative 1BN – Low-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, North Alignment .................................. 2-11 2.6.2 Alternative 1BS – Low-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, South Alignment .................................. 2-13 2.6.3 Alternative 2BN – Mid-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, North Alignment .................................. 2-14 2.6.4 Alternative 2BS – Mid-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, South Alignment .................................. 2-15 2.6.5 Alternative 3BN – High-Level Fixed-Bridge, Typical Section B, North Alignment .................................. 2-16 2.6.6 Alternative 3BS – High-Level Fixed-Bridge, Typical Section B, South Alignment .................................. 2-17 Anna Maria Island Bridge PD&E Study Final Location Hydraulic Report iii P:\Projects\FDOT\D1\Anna_Maria_Bridge\Reports\LHR\Final LHR\Final for Production\FINAL_LHR_June2009.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) Section Title Page 3.0 ANALYSIS OF FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS ..................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project Setting and Land Use................................................................. 3-1 3.2 National Flood Insurance Program Communities.................................. 3-1 3.3 Floodplains............................................................................................. 3-6 3.3.1 Floodplain Impacts Mid and Low-Level Alternatives......... 3-6 3.3.2 Floodplain Impacts High-Level Alternative ........................ 3-6 3.3.3 Other Cross Drains.............................................................. 3-10 3.3.4 Stormwater Management Facilities .................................... 3-10 4.0 STUDY REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Discussion.............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Items to be Addressed............................................................................ 4-1 4.2.1 Items Regarding Floodplain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Expert Suggests Jetty on Sanibel at Blind Pass City Offers —See Page 3 by Pete Bishop Planning Talks • Staff Writer Short-Term Sambel Planning Dr
    REPORTER Week of March 15-21,2001 SANIBEL & CAPTIVA, FLORIDA VOLUME 28, NUMBER 11, 32 PAGES 75 CENTS Ikki signing Fire damages two island businesses Aitist Ikki Matsumoto to By Anne Bellew earth are they doing delivering AT LEFT: The outside of sign his Island Repoiter Staff writer stuff to the restaurant at this hour poster foi subsuihers at the Pippens escaped dam- Sambel Oallciy lomonow. of the morning'?' (Wagner lives age. Photo Muhavl Pisti Hit A fire in the early morning right behind Tahitian Gardens and, hours Saturday, March 10, —See page 19 over the years, the residents of BELOW: A view into the destroyed the kitchen in Pippin's Roseate Lane have complained kitchen of Pippin's restaurant, and fire-related damage about noise from the various Restaurant.^"'" <owu .v <•>/ devastated the owner of an adja- restaurants that have inhabited the Sambt'l Fin Ar Ri'scuc Di^lntt cent gift shop who had intended to Pippin's location.) close the sale of her store just two "The dispatcher was very calm, days later. soothing and nice," she continued, Church shows pbns The tire, which is still under "and told me that the noise was Tlie Sambel Community investigation, is believed to be of fire engines. There was a fire at Church has submitted a electrical origin from the restau- Pippin's." modified site plan foi its rant's kitchen. The restaurant Initially, the fiist alarm came proposed relocation and anchois the Tahitian Gardens from the restaurant's automatic expansion. shopping center. burglar alaim and alerted the "I called the police department Sanibel Police Department.
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Beaches 2004 (PDF)
    National List of Beaches March 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460 EPA-823-R-04-004 i Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 States Alabama ............................................................................................................... 3 Alaska................................................................................................................... 6 California .............................................................................................................. 9 Connecticut .......................................................................................................... 17 Delaware .............................................................................................................. 21 Florida .................................................................................................................. 22 Georgia................................................................................................................. 36 Hawaii................................................................................................................... 38 Illinois ................................................................................................................... 45 Indiana.................................................................................................................. 47 Louisiana
    [Show full text]
  • Bridge Restrictions
    BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS - MARCH 2018 <Double-click here to enter title> 520031 610002 «¬97 «¬89 4 2 ESCAMBIA «¬ 189 29 «¬ 85 «¬ ¤£ «¬ HOLMES SANTA ROSA 187 83 «¬ «¬ 81 610001 87 «¬ «¬ 520076 10 ¬ CRN-2 ¨¦§ 90 79 Pensacola Inset ¤£ «¬ OKALOOSA Pensacola/ «¬285 WALTON «¬77 570055 West Panhandle «¬87 ¦¨§293 WASHINGTON ¤£331 ONLY STATE OWNED «¬83 20 ¤£98 «¬ BRIDGES SHOWN BAY 570091 LEGEND Route with 600108 «¬30 460020 Restricted Bridge(s) 460051 368 Route without 460052 «¬ Restricted Bridge(s) 460112 460113 Non-State Maintained Road 460019 ######Restricted Bridge Number 0 12.5 25 50 Miles ¥ Page 1 of 16 BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS - MARCH 2018 610001 610002 <Double-click here to enter title> 520031 «¬2 HOLMES «¬75 JACKSON 530005 520076 530173 ¬79 CRN-2 « 610004 500092 550144 540042 Central Panhandle ¬77 GADSDEN 27 « ¦¨§10 ¤£ WASHINGTON JEFFERSON 460051 19 460052 470029 ¤£ ONLY STATE OWNED 65 BAY «¬ BRIDGES SHOWN CALHOUN «¬71 ¬267 388 « 231 73 59 LEGEND «¬ ¤£ «¬ LEON «¬ Route with Tallahassee Inset 540069 Restricted Bridge(s) 460020 LIBERTY 368 «¬ Route without 22 WAKULLA «¬ 590014 Restricted Bridge(s) 61 «¬ 30 460112 «¬ Non-State Maintained Road 460113 375 460019 GULF «¬ 540032 T ###### Restricted Bridge Number 380049 490018 «¬377 ¤£98 FRANKLIN «¬30 ¤£319 «¬300 0 12.5 25 50 Miles ¥ Page 2 of 16 BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS - MARCH 2018 350030 <Double-click320017 here to enter title> JEFFERSON «¬145 540042 41 19 ¤£ ¤£ 55 2 «¬ ¬47 «¬ 53 6 HAMILTON «COLUMBIA «¬ «¬ 720026 10 ¦¨§ 290030 59 370015 «¬ 350044 540069 MADISON ¤£441 BAKER 370013 290071 CRN-2 370014 270067
    [Show full text]
  • Blind Pass Inlet Management Study 2018 Update
    BLIND PASS INLET MANAGEMENT STUDY 2018 UPDATE Prepared For: Board of County Commissioners of Lee County Prepared By: Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. August 2018 BLIND PASS INLET MANAGEMENT STUDY 2018 UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Blind Pass is a natural tidal inlet located in Lee County on the Gulf Coast of Florida and is bounded by Captiva Island to the north and Sanibel Island to the south. This area of the coast is characterized by a series of barrier islands and tidal passes that are separated from the mainland of Florida by various water bodies. Blind Pass has migrated and closed at various times throughout history, and is presently managed by Lee County with an ongoing dredging program to maintain the inlet in an open condition. The study described in this document provides an update to the 1993 Blind Pass Inlet Management Plan and recommends refinements for future management of Blind Pass. The study was developed as a collaborative effort with Lee County, the City of Sanibel, and the Captiva Erosion Prevention District (CEPD) to develop a mutually agreeable inlet management strategy for the future in a science-based approach. The study also aligns with the objective of balancing the sediment budget between the inlet and adjacent beaches, and assisting the FDEP in adopting an Inlet Management Plan pursuant to the requirements of Section 161.142, Florida Statutes. The scope of this study included literature review, data collection, preparing a sediment budget update, performing an alternatives analysis with advanced numerical modeling, and developing inlet management recommendations. The alternatives analysis utilized the numerical model Delft3D to evaluate the conceptual designs in an individual and combined fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Beach Management Plan: Southwest Gulf Coast Region Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection Florida Department of Environmental Protection
    Strategic Beach Management Plan: Southwest Gulf Coast Region Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection Florida Department of Environmental Protection April 2020 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Strategic Beach Management Plan – Southwest Gulf Coast Region Table of Contents Introduction – Southwest ......................................................................................................................... 1 Pinellas Barriers ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Strategies for Inlets and Critically Eroded Beaches .......................................................................... 2 Honeymoon Island, Pinellas County, R6–R12 .................................................................................... 2 Hurricane Pass, Pinellas County, R15-R16 ......................................................................................... 3 Clearwater Pass North Shore, Pinellas County, R47-R49 ................................................................... 4 Clearwater Pass, Pinellas County, R47-R51 ....................................................................................... 4 Sand Key, Pinellas County, R56-R115.4 ............................................................................................ 5 John’s Pass, Pinellas County, R125-R126 .......................................................................................... 7 Treasure Island, Pinellas County, R126-R143 ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida Division of Water Resource Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection August 2016
    Critically Eroded Beaches In Florida Division of Water Resource Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection August 2016 2600 Blair Stone Rd., MS 3590 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 www.dep.state.fl.us 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 sixty-six coastal barrier tidal inlets. The erosion problem areas are classified as either critical or non-critical and county maps and tables are provided to depict the areas designated critically and non-critically eroded. Many areas have significant historic or contemporary erosion conditions, yet the erosion processes do not currently threaten public or private interests. These areas are therefore designated as non-critically eroded areas and require close monitoring in case conditions become critical. This report, originating in 1989, is periodically updated to include additions and deletions. All information is provided for planning purposes only and the user is cautioned to obtain the most recent erosion areas listing available in the updated critical erosion report of 2016 on pages 4 through 20 or refer to the specific county of interest listed in the table of contents of the critical erosion report. This report may also be found on the Department’s web page. August 2016, Page i Table of Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................... i Introduction................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Colregs Demarcation Lines
    COLREGS DEMARCATION LINES 33 CFR 88.05 Copy of Rules – The operator of each self-propelled vessel 12 meters (39.4 feet) or more in length shall carry on board and maintain for ready reference a copy of the Inland Navigation Rules. NOTE: There is no such rule for vessels to carry a copy of the Nav Rules if they never go inside the COLREGs Demarcation Line. Most vessels are docked in locations inside the COLREGs demarcation lines listed here and therefore must carry a copy of the Inland Navigation Rules on board their vessel. If your vessel never operates inside the lines of demarcation you are not required to carry a copy of these rules on board your vessel. GENERAL § 33 CFR 80.01 General basis and purpose of demarcation lines. (a) The regulations in this part establish the lines of demarcation delineating those waters upon which mariners shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) and those waters upon which mariners shall comply with the Inland Navigation Rules. (b) The waters inside of the lines are Inland Rules Waters. The waters outside the lines are COLREGS Waters. 1. FIND THE AREA YOU OPERATE IN THEN CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW . 2. DETERMINE WHETHER YOU EVER GO INSIDE THE AREA. ATLANTIC COAST FIRST COAST GUARD DISTRICT 80.105 Calais, ME to Cape Small, ME. 80.110 Casco Bay, ME. 80.115 Portland Head, ME to Cape Ann, MA. 80.120 Cape Ann, MA to Marblehead Neck, MA. 80.125 Marblehead Neck, MA to Nahant, MA.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Port Everglades Inlet to Examine and Challenge the State's
    Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association Using Port Everglades Inlet to 59th Annual Conference Examine and Challenge the State’s Efforts to Manage September 15, 2016 Florida’s Inlets Naples, Florida Christopher G. Creed, P.E., D. CE Olsen Associates, Inc. Nicole S. Sharp, P.E. Broward County, FL Inlet Management in Florida In 1986… • the Florida Legislature formally recognized that while Florida’s improved inlets must be maintained for commercial and recreational navigation… • …inlets interrupt the longshore transport of sand and contribute significantly to beach erosion on adjacent shorelines. • Legislation was passed to implement inlet improvements that would reduce beach erosion around the State. 1986 Statutory Provisions Section 161.142 – Declaration of public policy relating to improved navigation inlets • Legislature recognizes that inlets alter the natural drift of beach-quality sand resources • all construction and maintenance dredging of beach-quality sand should be placed on the downdrift beaches • on an average annual basis, a quantity of sand should be placed on the downdrift beaches equal to the natural net annual longshore sediment transport 1986 Statutory Provisions Section 161.161 – Procedure for approval of projects • the Department shall evaluate each improved, modified, or altered inlet and determine whether the inlet is a significant cause of beach erosion • [Inlet Management Plans (IMPs) shall be adopted and] the plans shall include: – the extent to which the inlet causes beach erosion, – recommendations to
    [Show full text]
  • Island :::;';:R'^":: REPORTER
    * OO/GO/OO JANUARY 29, 1993 :: VOLUME 22 NUMBER 5 island :::;';:r'^" 3 SECTIONS, 44 PAGES REPORTER SANIBEL AND CAPTIVA, FLORIDA III.-"1 !, Coins dropped? County considers proposal to eliminate change at tolls ._. ,r.' ••••••—i—«• a—•• in _^_^— .„.• i VJ^ I,, By Liz Freeman toll director for Lee County's i' -«r Special to the Island Reporter Department of Transportation Lee County transportation of- and Engineering. ficials are considering a new The annual sticker for an un- "debit" sticker system for toll limited number of trips across the collection that would eliminate bridge would not be affected. the "coin drop" sticker program. "And we could let them know Motorists would set up when their account is low and at; accounts with the county, pay needs more money. We could send into them and each time they pass statements to people about how through the toll gate, the many times they went through," computer would scan serial Reynolds said. numbers on the stickers and The statements would be sent deduct the toll cost from the only to those requesting them and Residents learned about wildlife, such as this snowy egret, and dis accounts. that actually the same Cussed environmental concerns of the barrier islands during a conser "It would eliminate the use of information could be gleaned vation foundation resident orientation Saturday. Please see page 2B. any coins by people who have stickers," said Dennis Reynolds, • please see page 2A City conservation zone supported February 3, at Port of the Islands Resort, on Fish commission could U.S. 41 about 20 miles west of Everglades City.
    [Show full text]
  • Reopening a Tidal Pass: Implications for Changes in Water Column Optical Properties and Seagrass Habitats
    Reopening a tidal pass: implications for changes in water column optical properties and seagrass habitats FINAL REPORT Eric C. Milbrandta, Richard D. Bartlesona, David Fugateb, Alex Rybaka, Mark A. Thompsona, Loren Coen aMarine Laboratory, Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation 900A Tarpon Bay Rd. Sanibel, FL 33957 bFlorida Gulf Coast University 10501 FGCU Blvd. Fort Myers, FL 04/06/11 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Blind Pass separates Sanibel and Captiva Islands and has historically closed and opened in response to a variety of anthropogenic and natural processes. In recent years, the inlet was closed until July 2010 when the dredging project was completed and the pass was reopened. The effects of reopening a tidal pass was the subject of this two-plus year research study which examined the baseline conditions of the water column and seagrass communities before the pass was reopened and evaluated the effects on these properties and habitats after the pass was open. To effectively make this comparison, a BACI (Before After Impact Control) study design was applied where Blind Pass was the impacted tidal inlet and nearby Redfish Pass to the North was the natural control site. There are two of SCCF‟s RECON (River, Estuary, and Coastal Observing Network) instrument packages on pilings; one near Redfish Pass and the other near Blind Pass. A third identical instrument package (mobile RECON) was used to conduct high spatial resolution grid sampling around the bay and Gulf of Mexico sides of the passes. Water quality monitoring occurred seasonally (wet&dry) with 5 events before the opening of the pass and 2 events after the opening.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Department of Environmental Protection
    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS STRATEGIC BEACH MANAGMENT PLAN for the SOUTHWEST GULF COAST REGION SUBREGIONS Pinellas Barriers Sarasota Barriers, North Reach Sarasota Barriers, South Reach Manasota Barriers Charlotte Harbor Complex Estero Barriers Naples Coast Southern Barriers SBMP May 2008 PINELLAS BARRIERS There are 39.3 miles of beaches in the Pinellas Barriers subregion, which extends from Anclote Key in Pasco County to the Southwest Channel entrance to Tampa Bay in Hillsborough County, as shown on Figure SW.1. There are 21.4 miles of critically eroded beaches in this subregion, of which 14.2 miles have been restored. Erosion is attributed to winter frontal systems, tropical storms and hurricanes, and the effects of inlets including Hurricane Pass, Clearwater Pass, Johns Pass, Blind Pass, Pass-a-Grille, Bunces Pass, and Egmont Channel. The most erosive storms in recent years were Hurricane Agnes (1972), subtropical storms in June of 1974 and June of 1982, Hurricane Elena and Tropical Storm Juan (1985), Tropical Storm Josephine (1996), and Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne (2004). STRATEGIES FOR INLETS AND CRITICALLY ERODED BEACHES HONEYMOON ISLAND, PINELLAS COUNTY, R6–R12 This is a 1.4 mile segment of critically eroded beach on the southern gulf shoreline of Honeymoon Island at Honeymoon Island State Park. In 1969, over one million cubic yards of sand and limestone was placed along the gulf shoreline of Honeymoon Island (R8-R12) using 230,000 cubic yards of material from a nearshore borrow area. A groin field was constructed near the south end of the beach fill.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Coast Red Tide Status Report March 19, 2021
    Red Tide Status - Florida Southwest Coast March 19, 2021 Present Status: The red tide organism, Karenia brevis, persists in Southwest Florida. K. brevis was observed at background to low concentrations in six samples collected from Charlotte County, background to high concentrations in 29 samples collected from or offshore of Lee County, and background to medium concentrations in 10 samples collected from or offshore of Collier County. No samples were analyzed this week from Monroe County. A more detailed summary is provided in the table below. No fish kills suspected to be related to red tide were reported over the past week. For more details, please visit: https://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/health/fish-kills-hotline/. No reports of respiratory irritation were received over the past week. For current information, please visit: https://visitbeaches.org/. Forecasts by the USF-FWC Collaboration for Prediction of Red Tides for Pinellas to northern Monroe counties predict net southern movement of surface waters and southeastern transport of subsurface waters in most areas over the next four days. Date Alongshore County Offshore Site Location Collector Collected Inshore Pinellas - 03/15 not present - Clearwater Pass FWRI Grand Bellagio Condo Docks - 03/15 not present - FWRI (Old Tampa Bay) - 03/15 not present - La Contessa Pier FWRI FWRI Peninsula; SE tip of - 03/15 not present - FWRI (Bayboro Harbor) FWRI Peninsula; SE tip of - 03/15 not present - FWRI (Bayboro Harbor) Eckerd College (Wallace - 03/15 not present - FWRI Cove) - 03/15 not
    [Show full text]