DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Summary Document of Public Scoping Comments Submitted by the 3/31/11 Deadline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Summary Document of Public Scoping Comments Submitted by the 3/31/11 Deadline U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area Summary of Public Scoping Comments - as of 3.31.2011 Comments were submitted in a variety of ways (e.g., at a public scoping meeting and by mail, fax, and email). Attendance at the public scoping meetings averaged ~440 per meeting: ~200 in Sebring, ~325 in Kissimmee, ~665 in Okeechobee, and ~580 in Vero Beach. As of March 31, 2011, the deadline for public scoping comments, over 38,000 written comments had been received. The comments were summarized and are grouped together by topic, as listed. • Wildlife and Habitat • Resource Protection • Recreation • Administration • General/Other Comments List of acronyms used in comments: BLM Bureau of Land Management CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan DEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection DOI U.S. Department of Interior DOT Florida Department of Transportation EH Everglades Headwaters ESV Ecosystem Services Values FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, also USFWS LOPP Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPS National Park Service NRC National Research Council NWR National Wildlife Refuge PES Payments for Ecosystem Services SFWMD South Florida Water Management District STA Stormwater Treatment Area TEV Total Economic Value TNC The Nature Conservancy USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, also FWS Wildlife and Habitat General • If worried about the environment, we had more endangered species than anywhere in the State. We have the same amount of endangered species. We are good land stewards, so we don’t need the government or anything else. Don’t have the money to manage it correctly. Only place in the State like it. Preserved for his grandkids. • Their water management caused the last droughts, shoot all panthers and bears. We all believe in conservation, kill all the wildlife so there is nothing to protect. • I fully support the refuge for its protection of Endangered species such as panther, caracara, black bear, and it’s a good opportunity for Florida to expand and protect its natural habitat for the use of all the public. Secretary of Interior Salazar has stated, “the partnership being formed would protect and improve water quality north of Lake Okeechobee, restore wetlands and connect existing conservation lands and important wildlife corridors to support the Everglades restoration effort”. Secretary Salazar summed it up perfectly As of 3.31.2011 – Summary of Public Scoping Comments on the Proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area Page 1 and what better way to get additional habitat for endangered wading birds, bald eagles, and the Florida panther. • I support the proposed 150,000-acre wildlife refuge. It will provide much needed wildlife habitat. I am particularly hopeful that it will greatly enhance habitat for bird species that are either currently endangered or at risk of becoming endangered species. • I cannot say enough about this wonderful purchase. This way the natural resource in Florida will be protected from developers, specifically in Highlands County where the Lykes and Smoak brothers plan a huge development that will annihilate the wildlife in that area. Lake Apthorpe in the Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem is where the Lykes and Smoak Brothers plan a huge development. This area has black bears, wild turkeys, Florida cats. The clean water of this lake will be gone forever. This lake should only (have) sailing and small fishing boats, not motorized boats where the gasoline fills the air. I hope the federal government can stop the destruction of the environment in Highlands County. • Cows are part of the system and help maintain the ecosystem here. This part of Florida is a fire based ecosystem. • Question: Would this area be used for red wolf reintroduction? There are red wolves at St. Vincent NWR and up in the Carolinas. o Answer: We are not aware of any plans to reintroduce red wolves to this area. • Question: How would invasive species management be handled? o Answer: For an area under conservation easement, the landowner would be responsible. • As noted the proposal is biologically based, targeting the cooperative conservation of an important Florida landscape, supporting various conservation plans and initiatives, and protecting, restoring, and conserving habitat for at least 88 Federal- and State-listed species and species designated by the State of Florida as Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The Upper Everglades landscape is one of the great grassland and wetland areas of North America and vital to the long-term health and sustainability of wildlife such as the Florida panther, sandhill crane, Everglades snail kite, Florida crested caracara, Florida black bear, and many other species. • The proposed approach seems to be fostering recognition of the high value of rural land for rural enterprises, rural culture, natural wildlife conservation opportunities and ecosystem services inherent to these landscapes. The proposed approach furthers the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP) move in the direction of utilizing the inherent water storage, attenuation and treatment potential of the Northern Everglades landscape as a means to achieve the ecological goals of Everglades/Okeechobee restoration. • I oppose FWS managing any additional properties in Florida because FWS will let the purchased land sit and be overrun with exotic plants and animals; Arthur Marshall NWR is an example of this. It is a detriment to surrounding property owners. • Strongly supports these efforts. Upper Kissimmee Basin is high in wildlife diversity and stewardship is great. • This conservation initiative will conserve biodiversity in areas that provide habitat to threatened and endangered species like Florida panthers, crested caracara, and the Everglades snail kite. • Include the swallow-tailed kite in the list of species of concern for the proposed refuge. This species is characteristic of this region. There is a concentration area for this species in the Fisheating Creek basin where they gather before their fall migration to South America. They nest in spring and summer in tall trees in hammocks, swamps, and cypress stands within the study area. This nesting habitat requires some attention to prevent overdrainage. • The proposal represents a great opportunity to accomplish important regional, State, and national goals, including to enhance the Kissimmee River restoration success with additional habitats surrounding the present restoration footprint. • The Kissimmee Valley region of Florida is one of renowned, high-quality landscapes and natural communities, and abundant and imperiled wildlife resources. Indeed, no other area of Florida supports such a concentrated assemblage of rare and declining vertebrate species, with many of them federally listed. Habitat for 88 federal or state listed species and state Species of Greatest Conservation Need would be protected with this project. As of 3.31.2011 – Summary of Public Scoping Comments on the Proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area Page 2 • Landscape-scale protection in the Northern Everglades would maintain an unprecedented collection of rare and threatened species and habitats, create a matrix of conservation lands and critical wildlife connectors, buffer climate change impacts and protect the Everglades headwaters. • We have a unique opportunity to rebuild a portion of natural environment that used to exist in our State. • How this proposal can best achieve the conservation mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System: establish ecosystem-based refuge purposes; focus on large, contiguous tracts of properties, which can be acquired from willing participants; maintain the current approach to land protection options; and encourage and manage wildlife-dependent uses in a manner consistent with the conservation mission of the Refuge System. o The establishment documents should provide a clear statement of the refuge’s purposes and these purposes should be consistent with the conservation mission of the Refuge System as a whole [16 USC 668dd(a)(4)(D)]. The purposes of the refuge should be ecosystem based. The current literature on land protection and ecosystem management promotes a conservation focus favoring biodiversity, conservation of representative ecosystems, resilience, and preservation of undeveloped linkages to facilitate evolutionary adaptation and range transitions [Robert L. Fischman and Bob Adamcik, Beyond Trust Species: the Conservation Potential of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the Wake of Climate Change, Research Paper Number 159 (November 2010)]. This is particularly important when climate change and sea level rise will pose new challenges to a number of different species who may need to transition and adapt towards the inland part of the state and away from areas closer to the coast (Fischman and Adamcik 2010). The northern Everglades region, with its vast array of representative ecosystems, rich biodiversity, and unique location, provides a tremendous opportunity to advance ecosystem-based approaches to wildlife management. o The land acquisition strategy should target large, contiguous tracts of lands from willing sellers. o Particular focus needs to be paid to establishing linkages between existing conservation lands, creating
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Current Biological Health and Water Quality of the Econlockhatchee
    CURRENT BIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND WATER QUALITY OF THE ECONLOCKHATCHEE RIVER AND SELECTED TRIBUTARIES January and July 1999 Surface Water Monitoring Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection Orlando, Florida April 2000 BACKGROUND The Econlockhatchee River (often simply referred to as the “Econ”) arises from extensive cypress wetlands in the northern part of Osceola County, Florida. The first definable channel of this 36-mile-long river appears near the Osceola/Orange County line. The river flows northward through Orange County and then into Seminole County, wherein it takes a turn to the east near the city of Oviedo, flowing into the St. Johns River a short distance south of Lake Harney near the town of Geneva (Figure 1). A number of tributaries flow into the Econlockhatchee River. Chief among these is the Little Econlockhatchee River. Unlike the largely unaltered Econ proper, the Little Econ is extensively hydrologically altered, with substantial portions of the river channel canalized and interrupted by control structures. A number of canals draining various parts of the Orlando area flow into the Little Econ. A recent study by FDEP evaluated the water quality of the Little Econ system, including two stations within the Big Econ (FDEP 1996). Other tributary streams of the Econ include Mills Creek at Chuluota, Long Branch and Bithlo Branch at Bithlo, Hart Branch, Cowpen Branch, Green Branch, Turkey Creek, Little Creek, and Fourmile Creek. The latter six are near the headwaters of the Econ. Several manmade canals also flow into the river. These include Disston Canal, which flows from Lake Mary Jane in southern Orange County, five canals operated by the Ranger Drainage District which drain the partially-developed Wedgewood subdivision in eastern Orange County, and a number of unnamed small drainages, some intermittent, in both the upper and lower stretches of the Econ.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional Paper SJ98-PP1
    Professional Paper SJ98-PP1 5ohns * A Professional Paper SJ98-PP1 THE UPPER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN PROJECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFORMATION OF A PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT by Maurice Sterling Charles A. Padera St. Johns J^iver Water Management District Palatka, Florida 1998 Northwest Florida Water Management District anagement Southwest Florida Water Management District St. Johns River Water Management District South Florida Water Management District The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) was created by the Florida Legislature in 1972 to be one of five water management districts in Florida. It includes all or part of 19 counties in northeast Florida. The mission of SJRWMD is to manage water resources to ensure their continued availability while maximizing both environmental and economic benefits. It accomplishes its mission through regulation; applied research; assistance to federal, state, and local governments; operation and maintenance of water control works; and land acquisition and management. Professional Papers are published to disseminate information collected by SJRWMD in pursuit of its mission. Copies of this report can be obtained from: Library St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Phone: (904) 329-4132 Professional Paper SJ98-PP1 The Upper St. Johns River Basin Project The Environmental Transformation of a Public Flood Control Project Maurice Sterling and Charles A. Padera St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida ABSTRACT During the 1980s, the Upper St. Johns River Basin Project was transformed into a national model of modern floodplain management. The project is sponsored jointly by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • JOSE OLIVIA, in His Official Capacity As Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Et Al., Defendants/Appellants, Case No
    Filing # 85428808 E-Filed 02/25/2019 12:13:33 PM IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JOSE OLIVIA, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, et al., Defendants/Appellants, Case No. 1D18-3141 v. L.T. Case Nos. 2018-CA-001423 2018-CA-002682 FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA INDEX TO APPENDIX TO AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA SPRINGS COUNCIL, INC.’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES John R. Thomas Florida Bar No. 868043 Law Office of John R. Thomas, P.A. 8770 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 (727) 692-4384; [email protected] RECEIVED, 02/25/201912:14:54 PM,Clerk,First District CourtofAppeal Page 1 AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA SPRINGS COUNCIL’S APPENDIX TO BRIEF Pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.210 and 9.220, Amicus Curiae, Florida Springs Council, Inc. provides the following Appendix in support of its Amicus Curiae brief: DATE DESCRIPTION PAGES August 14, 2018 Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Department of 7 to 20 Environmental Protection Division of Water Restoration Assistance Springs Restoration Project Plan for the Legislative Budget Commission https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/ LBC%20Report%20FY2018-2019.pdf June 2018 June 2018 Florida Forever Five-Year Plan - 21 to 125 EXCERPT http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/DSL/ OESWeb/FF2017/ FLDEP_DSL_SOLI_2018FloridaForever5Yr Plan_20180706.pdf June 2018 Suwannee River 126 to 243 Basin Management Action Plan (Lower Suwannee River, Middle Suwannee River, and Withlacoochee River Sub-basins) https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/ Suwannee%20Final%202018.pdf Page 2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that the foregoing was prepared using Times New Roman, 14 point, as required by Rule 9.210(a)(2) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Rates of Sediment and Nutrient Accumulation in Marshes of the Upper St
    Journal of Paleolimnology 26: 241–257, 2001. 241 © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Historical rates of sediment and nutrient accumulation in marshes of the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida, USA Mark Brenner1, Claire L. Schelske2 & Lawrence W. Keenan3 1Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 2Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653, USA 3St. Johns River Water Management District, P.O. Box 1429, Palatka, FL 32178, USA Received 26 May 2000; accepted 13 September 2000 Key words: accumulation rates, Florida, 210Pb dating, nutrients, paleolimnology, sediment, wetlands Abstract We used 210Pb-dated sediment cores from wetlands and Blue Cypress Lake, in the Upper St. Johns River Basin (USJRB), Florida, USA, to measure historical accumulation rates of bulk sediment, total carbon (C), total nitrogen (N), and total phosphorus (P). Marsh cores displayed similar stratigraphies with respect to physical properties and nutrient content. Wetland sediments typically contained > 900 mg organic matter (OM) g–1 dry mass, > 500 mg C g–1, and 30–40 mg N g–1. OM, C, and N concentrations were slightly lower in uppermost sediments of most cores, but displayed no strong stratigraphic trends. Total P concentrations were relatively low in bottommost deposits (0.01– 0.11 mg g–1), but ranged from 0.38–2.67 mg g–1 in surface sediments. The mean sediment accretion rate in the marsh since ~ 1900, 0.33 ± 0.05 cm yr–1, was calculated from ten 210Pb-dated cores. All sites displayed increases in accu- mulation rates of bulk sediment, C, N, and P since the early part of the 20th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 U.S
    U.S. Department of the Interior Prepared in cooperation with the Appendix 1 U.S. Geological Survey Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Agricultural Water Policy Open-File Report 2014−1257 81°45' 81°30' 81°15' 81°00' 80°45' 524 Jim Creek 1 Lake Hart 501 520 LAKE 17 ORANGE 417 Lake Mary Jane Saint Johns River 192 Boggy Creek 535 Shingle Creek 519 429 Lake Preston 95 17 East Lake Tohopekaliga Saint Johns River 17 Reedy Creek 28°15' Lake Lizzie Lake Winder Saint Cloud Canal ! Lake Tohopekaliga Alligator Lake 4 Saint Johns River EXPLANATION Big Bend Swamp Brick Lake Generalized land use classifications 17 for study purposes: Crabgrass Creek Land irrigated Lake Russell Lake Mattie Lake Gentry Row crops Lake Washington Peppers−184 acresLake Lowery Lake Marion Creek 192 Potatoes−3,322 acres 27 Lake Van Cantaloupes−633 acres BREVARD Lake Alfred Eggplant−151 acres All others−57 acres Lake Henry ! UnverifiedLake Haines crops−33 acres Lake Marion Saint Johns River Jane Green Creek LakeFruit Rochelle crops Cypress Lake Blueberries−41 acres Citrus groves−10,861 acres OSCEOLA Peaches−67 acresLake Fannie Lake Hamilton Field Crops Saint Johns River Field corn−292 acres Hay−234 acres Lake Hatchineha Rye grass−477 acres Lake Howard Lake 17 Seeds−619 acres 28°00' Ornamentals and grasses Ornamentals−240 acres Tree nurseries−27 acres Lake Annie Sod farms−5,643Lake Eloise acres 17 Pasture (improved)−4,575 acres Catfish Creek Land not irrigated Abandoned groves−4,916 acres Pasture−259,823 acres Lake Rosalie Water source Groundwater−18,351 acres POLK Surface water−9,106 acres Lake Kissimmee Lake Jackson Water Management Districts irrigated land totals Weohyakapka Creek Tiger Lake South Florida Groundwater−18,351 acres 441 Surface water−7,596 acres Lake Marian St.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters
    Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007 Executive Summary This report was prepared in accordance with §369.22 (7), Florida Statutes, to provide an annual assessment of the control achieved and funding necessary to manage nonindigenous aquatic plants in intercounty waters. The authority of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as addressed in §369.20 (5), Florida Statutes, extends to the management of nuisance populations of all aquatic plants, both indigenous and nonindigenous, and in all waters accessible to the general public. The aquatic plant management program in Florida’s public waters involves complex operational and financial interactions between state, federal and local governments as well as private sector compa- nies. A summary of plant acres controlled in sovereignty public waters and associated expenditures contracted or monitored by the DEP during Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is presented in the tables on page 42 of this report. Florida’s aquatic plant management program mission is to reduce negative impacts from invasive nonindigenous plants like water hyacinth, water lettuce and hydrilla to conserve the multiple uses and functions of public lakes and rivers. Invasive plants infest 95 percent of the 437 public waters inventoried in 2007 that comprise 1.25 million acres of fresh water where fishing alone is valued at more than $1.5 billion annually. Once established, eradicating invasive plants is difficult or impossible and very expensive; therefore, continuous maintenance is critical to sustaining navigation, flood control and recreation while conserving native plant habitat on sovereignty state lands at the lowest feasible cost.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: Sections 303(D), 305(B), and 314 Report and Listing Update
    2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Report and Listing Update Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration Florida Department of Environmental Protection June 2020 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 floridadep.gov 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, June 2020 This Page Intentionally Blank. Page 2 of 160 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, June 2020 Letter to Floridians Ron DeSantis FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF Governor Jeanette Nuñez Environmental Protection Lt. Governor Bob Martinez Center Noah Valenstein 2600 Blair Stone Road Secretary Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 June 16, 2020 Dear Floridians: It is with great pleasure that we present to you the 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida. This report meets the Federal Clean Water Act reporting requirements; more importantly, it presents a comprehensive analysis of the quality of our waters. This report would not be possible without the monitoring efforts of organizations throughout the state, including state and local governments, universities, and volunteer groups who agree that our waters are a central part of our state’s culture, heritage, and way of life. In Florida, monitoring efforts at all levels result in substantially more monitoring stations and water quality data than most other states in the nation. These water quality data are used annually for the assessment of waterbody health by means of a comprehensive approach. Hundreds of assessments of individual waterbodies are conducted each year. Additionally, as part of this report, a statewide water quality condition is presented using an unbiased random monitoring design. These efforts allow us to understand the state’s water conditions, make decisions that further enhance our waterways, and focus our efforts on addressing problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Publication Sj 87-3 Establishment of Minimum Surface Water Requirements for the Greater Lake Washington Basin
    TECHNICAL PUBLICATION SJ 87-3 ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM SURFACE WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GREATER LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN BY G. B. Hall Division of Environmental Sciences Department of Water Resources St. Johns River Water Management District Palatka, Florida February, 1987 Project No. 20 024 24 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Brad Purcell provided assistance in graphics; Marvin Williams, Chris Mayberry and Palmer Kinser assisted in the analysis of aerial photography and the digitization and plotting of maps; and Phyllis Howard and Sherry Dearth typed the report. Drafts of the manuscript were critically read by Barbara Vergara, Edgar Lowe, Charles Tai, Don Rao, and Robert Massarelli (SBWA, Melbourne). ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i i LIST OF FIGURES V LIST OF TABLES viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 5 Background and Scope 5 The S tudy Area 9 Land-Use and Regional Importance 9 Soils 11 Climate 14 Ecological Alteration of the Floodplain 18 Surface Water Hydrology 25 METHODOLOGY 33 Environmental Analyses and Minimum Level Criteria Development 33 Basin Morphometry 33 Floodplain Vegetation 34 Minimum Level Criteria Development 36 RESULTS 40 Floodplain Alteration 40 Basin Morphometry 40 Floodplain Vegetation 40 Minimum Level Criteria 49 Floodplain Vegetation and Soils 49 Water Quality 54 Transfer of Detrital Materials and Sediments 63 Fish and Wildlife Habitat 64 Recreation and Navigation 65 Aesthetic and Scenic Attributes 66 DISCUSSION 67 LITERATURE CITED 72 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B IV LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Map of the Upper St. Johns River Basin showing the study area 7 2 Map of the Greater Lake Washington Basin, 3 Soils of the Upper St.
    [Show full text]
  • Orange County Charter Review Commission Final Report
    CHAIR CAMILLE EVANS NIKKI MIMS VICE CHAIR JAMES R. AUFFANT SAMUEL VILCHEZ SANTIAGO RUSSELL DRAKE MARIE SORAYA SMITH JACK DOUGLAS LEE STEINHAUER JOHN E. FAUTH EUGENE STOCCARDO MATTHEW KLEIN ANTHONY (TONY) SUAREZ ANGELA MELVIN DOTTI WYNN JEFFREY A. MILLER ORANGE COUNTY 2020 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT THE FINAL REPORT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY 2020 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION PROPOSING TO AMEND THE ORANGE COUNTY CHARTER TO: PROHIBIT POLLUTION OF THE WEKIVA AND ECONLOCKHATCHEE RIVERS AND ALL OTHER WATERS OF ORANGE COUNTY; PROTECT SPLIT OAK FOREST BY RESTRICTING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ AMENDMENT OF RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS; AND SUSPEND TIME FOR GATHERING PETITION SIGNATURES DURING THE MANDATORY REVIEWS AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR 1% NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 602.E. OF THE ORANGE COUNTY CHARTER. Table of Contents SECTION I - INTRODUCTION __________________________ - 3 - A. The Authority of the Charter Review Commission. _____________________- 3 - B. The Members of the 2020 CRC. _____________________________________- 3 - C. Public Meetings and Work Performed by the 2020 CRC. ________________- 4 - SECTION II – SUMMARY OF CRC PROCESS _____________ - 5 - SECTION III – SUMMARY OF CRC PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS _________________________________ - 8 - SECTION IV – AMENDMENTS APPROVED BY THE 2020 CRC TO BE PLACED ON THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT _________________________________________________- 21 - QUESTION #1 _____________________________________________________ - 21 - QUESTION #2 _____________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Your Guide to Eating Fish Caught in Florida
    Fish Consumption Advisories are published periodically by the Your Guide State of Florida to alert consumers about the possibility of chemically contaminated fish in Florida waters. To Eating The advisories are meant to inform the public of potential health risks of specific fish species from specific Fish Caught water bodies. In Florida February 2019 Florida Department of Health Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2019 Florida Fish Advisories • Table 1: Eating Guidelines for Fresh Water Fish from Florida Waters (based on mercury levels) page 1-50 • Table 2: Eating Guidelines for Marine and Estuarine Fish from Florida Waters (based on mercury levels) page 51-52 • Table 3: Eating Guidelines for species from Florida Waters with Heavy Metals (other than mercury), Dioxin, Pesticides, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or Saxitoxin Contamination page 53-54 Eating Fish is an important part of a healthy diet. Rich in vitamins and low in fat, fish contains protein we need for strong bodies. It is also an excellent source of nutrition for proper growth and development. In fact, the American Heart Association recommends that you eat two meals of fish or seafood every week. At the same time, most Florida seafood has low to medium levels of mercury. Depending on the age of the fish, the type of fish, and the condition of the water the fish lives in, the levels of mercury found in fish are different. While mercury in rivers, creeks, ponds, and lakes can build up in some fish to levels that can be harmful, most fish caught in Florida can be eaten without harm.
    [Show full text]
  • PDD DP OC Trails Master Plan Template.Indd
    Orange County | Trails Master Plan Parks and Recreation Division | August 2012 AECOM Orange County | Trails Master Plan Update Table of Contents Acknowledgements 01 County-wide Trails System Executive Summary and Map 02 Trail Corridor Concept Plans 1. Pine Hills Trail 2. West Orange Trail 3. Lake Apopka Connector Trail 4. Clarcona-Ocoee Connector Trail 5. Horizon West Trail 6. Shingle Creek Trail 7. Little Econ Greenway Trail 8. Azalea Park Trail 9. Avalon Trail 10a. Innovation Way/UCF Trail South 10b. Innovation Way/UCF Trail North 11. Meadow Woods Trail 12. East Orange Trail 03 Implementation and Management Plan 1. Design and Construction Costs 2. Funding Assessment 3. Operations and Maintenance Program 04 Appendices 1. Corridor Evaluation Matrix 2. Existing/Proposed Trail Mileage Parks and Recreation Division | 2012 1 AECOM Orange County | Trails Master Plan Update Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, Administration, Staff and Consulting Team for this update to the Orange County Trails Master Plan: County Mayor Teresa Jacobs District 1 Commissioner S. Scott Boyd District 2 Commissioner Frederick C. Brummer District 3 Commissioner John M. Martinez District 4 Commissioner Jennifer Thompson District 5 Commissioner Ted B. Edwards District 6 Commissioner Tiffany Moore Russell County Administrator Ajit Lalchandani Orange County Parks and Recreation Division Matt Suedmeyer, Manager Bill Thomas, Planner III AECOM Design + Planning Bruce Hall, RLA, Project Manager Kathy O’Sullivan, GIS Technician
    [Show full text]
  • Little Big Econ State Forest Ten Year Resource Management Plan
    TEN-YEAR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE LITTLE BIG ECON STATE FOREST SEMINOLE COUNTY PREPARED BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES DIVISION OF FORESTRY APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 TEN-YEAR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN LITTLE BIG ECON STATE FOREST TABLE OF CONTENTS Land Management Plan Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 2 A. General Mission, Goals for Florida State Forests, and Management Plan Direction .................................................................................................. 2 B. Overview of State Forest Management Program .......................................................................... 3 C. Past Accomplishments .................................................................................................................. 3 D. Goals/Objectives for the Next Ten Year Period ........................................................................... 4 E. Management Needs - Priority Schedule and Cost Estimates ........................................................ 8 II. ADMINISTRATION SECTION .......................................................................................................... 11 A. Descriptive Information .............................................................................................................. 11 1. Common Name
    [Show full text]