DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Quality Conditions for Everglades National Park, Water Year 2017, Shark River Slough

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Quality Conditions for Everglades National Park, Water Year 2017, Shark River Slough Water Quality Conditions for Everglades National Park, Water Year 2017 Shark River Slough Technical Oversight Committee Quarterly Meeting February 27, 2018 1 Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough Geometric Mean Long-term Level Mean Stage Number of Month TP Concentration (ppb) (feet NGVD 29) Samples (ppb) Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Jul 2017 7.9 10.1 16.40 13 Aug 2017 6.6 8.8 16.69 14 Sep 2017 7.5 8.0 16.89 13 12-Month Percent of Sampling Events 12-Month Total Flow FWM TP Long-term Limit Greater than 10 ppb Period (kac-ft) Concentration (ppb) Ending (ppb) Guideline Observed Everglades National Park – Shark River Slough – PROVISIONAL DATA and RESULTS Jul 2017 781.4 (785.2) 10.9 (10.9) 9.0 (9.0) 46.9 (46.8) 20.8 (20.0) Aug 2017 901.4 (902.2)PROVISIONAL 10.2 (10.2) WY20178.4 (8.4) RESULTS43.8 (43.8) 20.8 (20.0) Sep 2017 1038.0 (1042.2) 9.8 (9.8) 7.7 (7.7) 40.6 (40.5) 20.8 (20.0) Everglades National Park – Taylor Slough and Coastal Basins Jul 2017 322.1 (336.4, 329.9) 5.2 (5.2, 5.2) 11.0 53.1 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) Aug 2017 346.6 (374.6, 368.2) 5.3 (5.3, 5.3) 11.0 53.1 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) Sep 2017 383.3 (420.1, 413.7) 5.9 (5.9, 6.0) 11.0 53.1 1.6 (1.6, 1.6) SRS - Method 1 (left values) computed as S12s+(S333+S355A+S355B-S334) and Method 2 (values in parentheses) computed as S12s+(S333+S355A+S355B+S356-S334) Neither method excludes S334 flow from the total flow for long-term limit calculations. TS and CB - Method 1 (left values) computed as S332D+S18C, Method 2 (first values in parentheses) computed as S332D+S18C+G737, and Method 3 as (S332D-S332DX1– S328)+S328+G737+S18C. 2 Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • Prolonged dry conditions January-early June 2017 • Extreme rainfall June 2017 resulting in flow to SRS 3 Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • WY2017 TP results with and without flow • TP grab June 12 at S333 = 87 ppb S12B, S12C and S12 D are generally sampled weekly if flowing S12A and S333 are sampled weekly independent of flow S12A TP with No Flow Symbols not filled represent events S333 TP with Flow when no flow was “around the corner” recorded at a structure 4 Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • Little to no flow to SRS leading up to June 6, 2017 • ~1,100 cfs through S333 beginning June 6 87 ppb June 12 June 6 – July 5, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 1,100 cfs April 1 – June 6, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 50 cfs 13 ppb June 19 5 Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • Dry conditions dropped WCA3 stage to 8.5’ NGVD • 3” rainfall June 6… 8” rainfall June 7 • EDEN12 marsh station stage rose 10” in 20 hours 6 WCA3A Stage = 3 Gage Mean Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • ~470 cfs of the ~1,100 cfs at S333 flowed to S334 • Low flow and dropping stage up to June 6 June 6 – July 5, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 1,100 cfs (S334 ≈ 470 cfs) April 1 – June 6, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 50 cfs (S333 ≈ S334) 7 WCA3A Stage = 3 Gage Mean Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • Daily flows at S333 and S334 • 630 cfs to SRS June 6 – July 5, on average Range Mean Daily Flow 182 – 1,392 cfs June 6 – July 5, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 1,100 cfs (S334 ≈ 470 cfs) April 1 – June 6, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 50 cfs (S333 ≈ S334) 8 WCA3A Stage = 3 Gage Mean Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • TP levels rising as WCA3 stage falls • High TP June 12 following stage and flow increase Mean Total P = 31 ppb Range Total P = 6 – 87 ppb June 6 – July 5, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 1,100 cfs (S334 ≈ 470 cfs) April 1 – June 6, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 50 cfs (S333 ≈ S334) 9 WCA3A Stage = 3 Gage Mean Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • June 12 grab sample TSS spiked at 11 mg/L Total Suspended Solids Range: <3 – 11 mg/L June 6 – July 5, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 1,100 cfs (S334 ≈ 470 cfs) April 1 – June 6, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 50 cfs (S333 ≈ S334) 10 WCA3A Stage = 3 Gage Mean Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • S333 phosphorus more directly related to S333 HW June 6 – July 5, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 1,100 cfs (S334 ≈ 470 cfs) April 1 – June 6, 2017 S333 Average Mean Daily Flow ≈ 50 cfs (S333 ≈ S334) 11 WCA3A Stage = 3 Gage Mean Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough 12 Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 13 yyyymmdd SRS1B SRS1C SRS2 G-3273 RG1 CR2 NP201 NE1 P33 P34 P37 TSB EP yyyymmdd SRS1B 10/1/2016SRS1C SRS20.007 G-32730.004 RG10.003 0.004CR2 NP2010.004 0.004NE1 0.002P33 0.003P34 0.003P37 0.005TSB 0.003EP 0.007 0.003 10/1/2016 0.007 11/1/20160.004 0.0030.005 0.0040.004 0.0030.004 0.0050.004 0.0040.002 0.0040.003 0.0020.003 0.0020.005 0.0030.0030.0020.0070.003 0.0030.003 0.004 11/1/2016 0.005 12/1/20160.004 0.0030.011 0.0120.005 0.0030.004 0.0030.004 0.0060.002 0.0040.002 0.0050.003 0.0050.002 0.0040.0030.0060.0030.003 0.0040.008 0.002 12/1/2016 0.011 1/1/20170.012 0.003 0.0050.003 0.0030.006 0.004 0.0160.005 0.005 0.0060.004 0.0030.006 0.0050.0030.0030.0080.004 0.002 0.003 1/1/2017 2/1/20170.005 0.003 0.004 0.0050.016 0.006 0.003 0.005 0.0030.003 0.0040.004 0.003 2/1/2017 3/1/20170.004 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.01 3/1/2017 4/1/2017 0.007 0.005 0.01 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 6/1/2017 0.014 0.011 0.009 0.006 0.009 0.011 0.007 0.008 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.005 yyyymmdd SRS1B SRS1C SRS2 G3273 RG1 CR2 6/1/2017 0.014 7/1/20170.011 0.0090.007 0.0060.006 0.0060.009 0.0040.011 0.0050.007 0.0040.008 0.0040.006 0.0060.005 0.0060.0060.0050.0090.004 0.005 0.003 May-15 0.005 7/1/2017 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 8/1/2017 Jun-15– WY2017 0.004Shark0.0040.005 River0.005 Slough0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 Water8/1/2017 Quality Conditions 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 9/1/2017 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.004 Jul-150.004 0.003 0.003 0.0050.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 9/1/2017 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 SRS1B SRS1C SRS2 yyyymmddG-3273 Aug-15RG1 SRS1BCR2 NP201SRS1C NE1SRS20.004 G-3273P33 0.01 P34RG10.009 P37CR20.008TSBNP201 EP NE1AverageP33 P34 P37 TSB EP SRS1B SRS1C SRS2 G-3273 RG1 CR2 NP201 NE1 P33 P34 P37 TSB EP Average May2017-Sep2017 Sep-15Oct-16 0.007 0.004 0.0040.003 0.0040.004 0.0060.004 0.0040.004 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.007 0.003 May2017-Sep2017 0.008 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.005 Geomean0.008 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.005Nov-16Oct-150.004 0.0050.0070.006 0.0090.0040.005 0.0040.0030.003 0.0050.0050.003 0.0060.0040.005 0.0040.0040.004 0.0020.005 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004 Geomean Oct2016-Sep2017 Nov-15Dec-16 0.0110.022 0.0060.012 0.003 0.0030.003 0.0040.006 0.0040.004 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.003 0.008 0.002 Oct2016-Sep2017 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.005 Geomean0.008 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.005Dec-15Jan-170.004 0.0060.004 0.0080.0050.005 0.0040.0030.004 0.0040.003 0.0060.0160.005 0.0030.003 0.0060.005 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.003 Geomean Average of WY13-17 Feb-17Jan-16 0.006 0.004 0.0030.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.004 Average of WY13-17 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.003- 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004 Geomeans0.007 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.003Mar-17Feb-160.003 0.0150.004 0.004- 0.004 0.0040.0070.004 0.0040.002 0.0040.003 0.0030.003 0.004 0.005 0.01 Geomeans Mar-16 0.008 0.006- 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.002 yyyymmdd Apr-17 SRS1B SRS1C SRS2 G-3273 RG1 CR2 NP201 NE1 P33 P34 P37 TSB EP Apr-16 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003 May-17Oct-16 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.007 0.003 Nov-16Jun-17 0.0050.014 0.0040.011 0.0030.009 0.0050.006 0.0040.009 0.0040.011 0.0020.007 0.0020.008 0.0030.006 0.0020.005 0.0030.006 0.0030.009 0.0040.005 Dec-16Jul-17 0.0110.007 0.0120.006 0.0030.006 0.0030.004 0.0060.005 0.004 0.0050.004 0.0050.006 0.0040.006 0.0060.005 0.0030.004 0.008 0.0020.003 Aug-17Jan-17 0.005 0.003 0.016 0.0060.004 0.0030.004 0.005 0.003 0.0040.003 0.004 0.003 Feb-17Sep-17 0.005 0.0040.006 0.0050.003 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.0030.005 0.0040.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 Mar-17 0.007 0.005 0.01 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 0.014 0.011 0.009 0.006 0.009 0.011 0.007 0.008 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.005 Jul-17 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 Aug-17 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 Sep-17 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 Note: June ENP sampling – 6/13 & 6/14 14 Water Quality Conditions – WY2017 Shark River Slough • Summary of Water Year 2017: • Water Year 2017 conditions are representative of the previously documented dynamic between stage and total phosphorus concentration observed • Long-term water quality conditions and trends in Everglades Protection Area continue to improve • The long-term, downward trend in the flow-weighted mean total phosphorus concentration for the inflow structures to Everglades National Park continued through Water Year 2017 15 16.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wilderness on the Edge: a History of Everglades National Park
    Wilderness on the Edge: A History of Everglades National Park Robert W Blythe Chicago, Illinois 2017 Prepared under the National Park Service/Organization of American Historians cooperative agreement Table of Contents List of Figures iii Preface xi Acknowledgements xiii Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in Footnotes xv Chapter 1: The Everglades to the 1920s 1 Chapter 2: Early Conservation Efforts in the Everglades 40 Chapter 3: The Movement for a National Park in the Everglades 62 Chapter 4: The Long and Winding Road to Park Establishment 92 Chapter 5: First a Wildlife Refuge, Then a National Park 131 Chapter 6: Land Acquisition 150 Chapter 7: Developing the Park 176 Chapter 8: The Water Needs of a Wetland Park: From Establishment (1947) to Congress’s Water Guarantee (1970) 213 Chapter 9: Water Issues, 1970 to 1992: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Path to the Restudy of the C&SF Project 237 Chapter 10: Wilderness Values and Wilderness Designations 270 Chapter 11: Park Science 288 Chapter 12: Wildlife, Native Plants, and Endangered Species 309 Chapter 13: Marine Fisheries, Fisheries Management, and Florida Bay 353 Chapter 14: Control of Invasive Species and Native Pests 373 Chapter 15: Wildland Fire 398 Chapter 16: Hurricanes and Storms 416 Chapter 17: Archeological and Historic Resources 430 Chapter 18: Museum Collection and Library 449 Chapter 19: Relationships with Cultural Communities 466 Chapter 20: Interpretive and Educational Programs 492 Chapter 21: Resource and Visitor Protection 526 Chapter 22: Relationships with the Military
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 17: Archeological and Historic Resources
    Chapter 17: Archeological and Historic Resources Everglades National Park was created primarily because of its unique flora and fauna. In the 1920s and 1930s there was some limited understanding that the park might contain significant prehistoric archeological resources, but the area had not been comprehensively surveyed. After establishment, the park’s first superintendent and the NPS regional archeologist were surprised at the number and potential importance of archeological sites. NPS investigations of the park’s archeological resources began in 1949. They continued off and on until a more comprehensive three-year survey was conducted by the NPS Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) in the early 1980s. The park had few structures from the historic period in 1947, and none was considered of any historical significance. Although the NPS recognized the importance of the work of the Florida Federation of Women’s Clubs in establishing and maintaining Royal Palm State Park, it saw no reason to preserve any physical reminders of that work. Archeological Investigations in Everglades National Park The archeological riches of the Ten Thousand Islands area were hinted at by Ber- nard Romans, a British engineer who surveyed the Florida coast in the 1770s. Romans noted: [W]e meet with innumerable small islands and several fresh streams: the land in general is drowned mangrove swamp. On the banks of these streams we meet with some hills of rich soil, and on every one of those the evident marks of their having formerly been cultivated by the savages.812 Little additional information on sites of aboriginal occupation was available until the late nineteenth century when South Florida became more accessible and better known to outsiders.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Trends in Indicator Regions of Everglades National Park Jennifer H
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons GIS Center GIS Center 5-4-2015 Vegetation Trends in Indicator Regions of Everglades National Park Jennifer H. Richards Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, [email protected] Daniel Gann GIS-RS Center, Florida International University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/gis Recommended Citation Richards, Jennifer H. and Gann, Daniel, "Vegetation Trends in Indicator Regions of Everglades National Park" (2015). GIS Center. 29. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/gis/29 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the GIS Center at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GIS Center by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Final Report for VEGETATION TRENDS IN INDICATOR REGIONS OF EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK Task Agreement No. P12AC50201 Cooperative Agreement No. H5000-06-0104 Host University No. H5000-10-5040 Date of Report: Feb. 12, 2015 Principle Investigator: Jennifer H. Richards Dept. of Biological Sciences Florida International University Miami, FL 33199 305-348-3102 (phone), 305-348-1986 (FAX) [email protected] (e-mail) Co-Principle Investigator: Daniel Gann FIU GIS/RS Center Florida International University Miami, FL 33199 305-348-1971 (phone), 305-348-6445 (FAX) [email protected] (e-mail) Park Representative: Jimi Sadle, Botanist Everglades National Park 40001 SR 9336 Homestead, FL 33030 305-242-7806 (phone), 305-242-7836 (Fax) FIU Administrative Contact: Susie Escorcia Division of Sponsored Research 11200 SW 8th St. – MARC 430 Miami, FL 33199 305-348-2494 (phone), 305-348-6087 (FAX) 2 Table of Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Collaboration in Everglades Restoration
    The Role of Collaboration in Everglades Restoration A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty By Kathryn Irene Frank In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning Georgia Institute of Technology August 2009 Copyright © Kathryn Irene Frank 2009 The Role of Collaboration in Everglades Restoration Approved by: Dr. Bruce Stiftel Dr. Michael L. Elliott, Advisor College of Architecture College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Bryan G. Norton Dr. Cheryl K. Contant School of Public Policy Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Georgia Institute of Technology and Dean University of Minnesota Morris Date Approved: August 21, 2009 Dr. C. Ronald Carroll School of Ecology University of Georgia THE ROLE OF COLLABORATION IN EVERGLADES RESTORATION VOLUME I By Kathryn Irene Frank ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Michael Elliott, for sharing his wide-ranging wisdom and helping me not get bogged down in the Everglades (data, that is). Dr. Elliott led me to question my assumptions and clarify my thinking, and, most importantly, reminded me of what I had set out to do. I am also indebted to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Cheryl Contant, Dr. Ron Carroll, Dr. Bruce Stiftel, and Dr. Bryan Norton, for lending their superb expertise. Together, the committee encouraged me to reach the dissertation’s full potential. Furthermore, this dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals and organizations who provided the Everglades case data. I especially appreciate the governance leaders who generously agreed to be interviewed and welcomed me to observe their collaborative meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: the Everglades to the 1920S Introduction
    Chapter 1: The Everglades to the 1920s Introduction The Everglades is a vast wetland, 40 to 50 miles wide and 100 miles long. Prior to the twentieth century, the Everglades occupied most of the Florida peninsula south of Lake Okeechobee.1 Originally about 4,000 square miles in extent, the Everglades included extensive sawgrass marshes dotted with tree islands, wet prairies, sloughs, ponds, rivers, and creeks. Since the 1880s, the Everglades has been drained by canals, compartmentalized behind levees, and partially transformed by agricultural and urban development. Although water depths and flows have been dramatically altered and its spatial extent reduced, the Everglades today remains the only subtropical ecosystem in the United States and one of the most extensive wetland systems in the world. Everglades National Park embraces about one-fourth of the original Everglades plus some ecologically distinct adjacent areas. These adjacent areas include slightly elevated uplands, coastal mangrove forests, and bays, notably Florida Bay. Everglades National Park has been recognized as a World Heritage Site, an International Biosphere Re- serve, and a Wetland of International Importance. In this work, the term Everglades or Everglades Basin will be reserved for the wetland ecosystem (past and present) run- ning between the slightly higher ground to the east and west. The term South Florida will be used for the broader area running from the Kississimee River Valley to the toe of the peninsula.2 Early in the twentieth century, a magazine article noted of the Everglades that “the region is not exactly land, and it is not exactly water.”3 The presence of water covering the land to varying depths through all or a major portion of the year is the defining feature of the Everglades.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Research 213 (2019) 219–225
    Fisheries Research 213 (2019) 219–225 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres Contrasting river migrations of Common Snook between two Florida rivers using acoustic telemetry T ⁎ R.E Bouceka, , A.A. Trotterb, D.A. Blewettc, J.L. Ritchb, R. Santosd, P.W. Stevensb, J.A. Massied, J. Rehaged a Bonefish and Tarpon Trust, Florida Keys Initiative Marathon Florida, 33050, United States b Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 100 8th Ave. Southeast, St Petersburg, FL, 33701, United States c Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Charlotte Harbor Field Laboratory, 585 Prineville Street, Port Charlotte, FL, 33954, United States d Earth and Environmental Sciences, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th street, AHC5 389, Miami, Florida, 33199, United States ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Handled by George A. Rose The widespread use of electronic tags allows us to ask new questions regarding how and why animal movements Keywords: vary across ecosystems. Common Snook (Centropomus undecimalis) is a tropical estuarine sportfish that have been Spawning migration well studied throughout the state of Florida, including multiple acoustic telemetry studies. Here, we ask; do the Common snook spawning behaviors of Common Snook vary across two Florida coastal rivers that differ considerably along a Everglades national park gradient of anthropogenic change? We tracked Common Snook migrations toward and away from spawning sites Caloosahatchee river using acoustic telemetry in the Shark River (U.S.), and compared those migrations with results from a previously Acoustic telemetry, published Common Snook tracking study in the Caloosahatchee River.
    [Show full text]
  • Mud Lake Canal Other Name/Site Nu
    NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 MUD LAKE CANAL Page 1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service_________________________________________National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. NAME OF PROPERTY Historic Name: Mud Lake Canal Other Name/Site Number: Bear Lake Canal/Bear Lake Archeological District/EVER-192/8MO32 2. LOCATION Street & Number: Everglades National Park Not for publication: N/A City/Town: Flamingo Vicinity: X State: Florida County: Monroe Code: 087 Zip Code: 33034 3. CLASSIFICATION Ownership of Property Category of Property Private: _ Building(s): Public-Local: _ District: Public-State: _ Site: X Public-Federal: X Structure: Object: Number of Resources within Property Contributing Noncontributing _ buildings 1 _ sites 3 structures _ objects 1 3 Total Number of Contributing Resources Previously Listed in the National Register: J, Name of Related Multiple Property Listing: Archaeological Resources of Everglades National Park MPS NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 MUD LAKE CANAL Page 2 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service_________________________________________National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 4. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this __ nomination __ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property __ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Marl Prairie Vegetation Response to 20 Century Hydrologic Change
    Marl Prairie Vegetation Response to 20th Century Hydrologic Change Christopher E. Bernhardt and Debra A. Willard U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Earth Surface Processes Team, 926A National Center, Reston, VA 20192 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1355 1 Abstract We conducted geochronologic and pollen analyses from sediment cores collected in solution holes within marl prairies of Big Cypress National Preserve to reconstruct vegetation patterns of the last few centuries and evaluate the stability and longevity of marl prairies within the greater Everglades ecosystem. Based on radiocarbon dating and pollen biostratigraphy, these cores contain sediments deposited during the last ~300 years and provide evidence for plant community composition before and after 20th century water management practices altered flow patterns throughout the Everglades. Pollen evidence indicates that pre-20th century vegetation at the sites consisted of sawgrass marshes in a peat-accumulating environment; these assemblages indicate moderate hydroperiods and water depths, comparable to those in modern sawgrass marshes of Everglades National Park. During the 20th century, vegetation changed to grass- dominated marl prairies, and calcitic sediments were deposited, indicating shortening of hydroperiods and occurrence of extended dry periods at the site. These data suggest that the presence of marl prairies at these sites is a 20th century phenomenon, resulting from hydrologic changes associated with water management practices. Introduction During the 20th century, the hydrology of the greater Everglades ecosystem was altered to accommodate agricultural and urban needs, significantly altering the distribution and composition of plant and animal communities throughout the wetland (Davis and others, 1994; Light and Dineen, 1994; Lodge, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Everglades Ecosystem Assessment: Water Management and Quality, Eutrophication, Mercury Contamination, Soils and Habitat
    United States Region 4 Science & Ecosystem EPA 904-R-07-001 Environmental Protection Support Division and Water August 2007 Agency Management Division EPA Everglades Ecosystem Assessment: Water Management and Quality, Eutrophication, Mercury Contamination, Soils and Habitat Monitoring for Adaptive Management: A R-EMAP Status Report The Everglades Ecosystem Assessment Program is being conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division, with the Region 4 Water Management Division cooperating. Many entities have contributed to this Program, including the National Park Service, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida International University, University of Georgia, Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, FTN Associates Incorporated, United States Geological Survey, South Florida Water Management District, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the Seminole Tribe of Indians allowed sampling to take place on their federal reservations within the Everglades. EPA 904-R-07-001 August 2007 EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT Water Management and Quality, Eutrophication, Mercury Contamination, Soils and Habitat Monitoring for Adaptive Management A R-EMAP Status Report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division Athens, Georgia This document is available on the Internet for browsing or download at: <http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/sesdpub_completed.html> Everglades R-EMAP is a program of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 4 Laboratory [the Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) in Athens, Georgia], with the Region 4 Water Management Division (WMD) cooperating. Everglades R-EMAP is managed by Peter Kalla of SESD.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply
    S O U T H F L O R I D A W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T D I S T R I C T Sensitivity of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan to Individual Project Components HHYDROLOGIC Greater Everglades Ecosystem SSYSTEMS Restoration Science Conference MMODELING By: Everett R. Santee, Raul Novoa, Ken C. Tarboton, Jenifer A. Barnes, Lehar M. Brion, Luis G. Cadavid, Calvin J. Neidrauer, and Alaa Ali S O U T H F L O R I D A W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T D I S T R I C T Comprehensive Everglades Taylor Creek/ Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment Area Restoration North of Lake Indian River Lagoon Okeechobee Storage Water Preserve Areas: Storage in C-23, 24,25,44 Plan North and South Fork Basins Revised Lake Okeechobee St. Lucie Estuary Water Supply Components Caloosahatchee Reservoir Regulation Schedule with ASR and Caloosahatchee Lake Okeechobee ASR Backpumping with STA L-8 Modifications and Storage Caloosahatchee Estuary Water Supply WCA-1 Internal Everglades Agricultural Canal Structures Area (EAA) Storage Water Preserve Areas: Modify G-404 Above Ground Storage, ASR Storage/STA/ASR and S-140 Pumps Big Cypress / L-28I Seepage Management Modifications Canals/Structure modifications Lower East Coast Water Partial Decompartmentalization Conservation and Broward of Water Conservation Area 3 County Secondary Canals and Everglades National Park Operational Water Preserve Areas: North and Central Everglades Rain Lake Belt Storage Driven Operations Decompartmentalization West and South Miami-Dade Reuse L-31 N Levee Seepage Estuary water supply Management
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Everglades Spring 2016
    State of the Everglades Spring 2016 Audubon Florida - 4500 Biscayne Blvd. #205 Miami, FL 33137 Photo by Rod J. Wiley http://www.GivetoAudubonFlorida.org Dear Friends, The ecological problems in the Everglades and our coastal waters are not new. Nor are they easy to solve. Audubon Florida is dedicated to making sure restoration is done right, and is a responsible investment focused on wildlife needs. But we need your help. Photo by: Marjorie Shropshire If the public is united in demanding that Water Quality and Storage Solutions to decision-makers support the Everglades and the coastal estuaries, we can find and commit Ease Florida’s Coastal Water Crisis to practical solutions. Florida’s coastal waters are experiencing an unprecedented ecological Thank you for all that you do. collapse. Fish kills in the Indian River Lagoon, plumes of dark water in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries, and a massive seagrass die-off in Florida Bay are just the latest evidence. Scientists believe this crisis is due to the mismanagement and Eric Draper over-drainage of freshwater off Florida’s mainland combined with Executive Director increased water pollution from fertilizers, sewage, and septic tanks. Water management problems start in Lake Okeechobee – the liquid heart of the Everglades. The Lake’s optimum water level is between 12.5 and 15.5 feet. Higher levels drown out native plant communities and damage foraging, breeding, and nesting habitats for iconic wildlife such as the endangered Everglade Snail Kite. When water levels are high enough Everglades Wading Bird Nesting Decline* to threaten the safety of the aging Herbert Hoover Dike, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Management in Taylor Slough and Effects on Florida Bay
    ----- Report SFRC 93-03 Water Management in Taylor Slough and Effects on Florida Bay Everglades National Park, South Florida Research Center, P.O. Box 279, Homestead, Florida 33030 r Water Management in Taylor Slough and Effects on Florida Bay By Thomas Van Lent, Ph.D., P.E. Robert Johnson Robert Fennema, Ph.D. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SOUTH FLORIDA RESEARCH CENTER EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK HOMESTEAD, FL November 1993 '1 .. \ r 11 Executive Summary Current water management practices in the L-31N, L-31 W, and C-ll1 canals have contributed to lower groundwater levels and reduced surface water flows in the Rocky Glades and the Taylor c Slough marshes. The reduced hydraulic gradients and the truncated periods of flow through the Taylor Slough basin are thought to be a major factor contributing to the hypersaline conditions and abrupt salinity changes in Florida Bay. The progressive lowering of L-31N canal stages from 5.5 to 4.3 feet in response to pressure from expanding urban and agricultural development has increased drainage from the marshes in Everglades National Park into the bordering canal system. If one looks at the entire reach of L-31N from the S-335 to S-176, well over 270,000 acre-ft per year are drained from the western marshes into L-31N. Approximately 50,000 acre-ft are returned to Taylor Slough, while 180,000 acre-ft are dumped into the lower C-1l1 basin. If we focus on the Rocky Glades, the historical headwaters of Taylor Slough, only about 60% of the water drained from this area is returned as deliveries to Taylor Slough via S-174.
    [Show full text]