DOCSLIB.ORG

Simulating the Response of Estuarine Salinity to Natural and Anthropogenic Controls

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Simulating the Response of Estuarine Salinity to Natural and Anthropogenic Controls Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Simulating the Response of Estuarine Salinity to Natural and Anthropogenic Controls Vladimir A. Paramygin 1,*, Y. Peter Sheng 1, Justin R. Davis 1 and Karen Herrington 2 1 Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6580, USA; [email protected]fl.edu (Y.P.S.); [email protected]fl.edu (J.R.D.) 2 Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ecological Services Midwest Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]fl.edu; Tel.: +1-352-294-7763 Academic Editor: Richard P. Signell Received: 18 July 2016; Accepted: 8 November 2016; Published: 16 November 2016 Abstract: The response of salinity in Apalachicola Bay, Florida to changes in water management alternatives and storm and sea level rise is studied using an integrated high-resolution hydrodynamic modeling system based on Curvilinear-grid Hydrodynamics in 3D (CH3D), an oyster population model, and probability analysis. The model uses input from river inflow, ocean and atmospheric forcing and is verified with long-term water level and salinity data, including data from the 2004 hurricane season when four hurricanes impacted the system. Strong freshwater flow from the Apalachicola River and good connectivity of the bay to the ocean allow the estuary to restore normal salinity conditions within a few days after the passage of a hurricane. Various scenarios are analyzed; some based on observed data and others using altered freshwater inflow. For observed flow, simulated salinity agrees well with the observed values. In scenarios that reflect increased water demand (~1%) upstream of the Apalachicola River, the model results show slightly (less than 5%) increased salinity inside the Bay. A worst-case sea-level rise (~1 m by 2100) could increase the bay salinity by up to 20%. A hypothesis that a Sumatra gauge may not fully represent the flow into Apalachicola Bay was tested and appears to be substantiated. Keywords: Apalachicola Bay; salinity; oysters; model 1. Introduction For over two decades, the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have been debating potential solutions to the management of shared water resources of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin. The ACF River Basin originates in northeast Georgia, crosses the Georgia-Alabama border into central Alabama, and follows the state line south until it terminates in Apalachicola Bay, Florida. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates five reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River and its water management operations impact fish and wildlife resources [1,2]. The river’s water is used for various municipal, industrial, and agricultural users throughout the length of the system. As consumptive water use has steadily increased over the past several decades, reliance on the USACE’s reservoirs to support river flows has also increased, and the amount of freshwater inflow into Apalachicola Bay has declined [1]. Reductions in freshwater inflow influence the salinity regime, which is critical to many marine species, including oysters and the threatened Gulf sturgeon. The USACE is currently updating their Water Control Plan for the ACF, which requires review under the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Together, these laws attempt to assure that their proposed reservoir operations plan does not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat, and provides measures to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore, it is essential to develop J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4, 76; doi:10.3390/jmse4040076 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4, 76 2 of 14 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4, 76 2 of 14 adevelop quantitative a quantitative understanding understanding of how freshwater of how freshwater inflow impacts inflow salinityimpacts in salinity Apalachicola in Apalachicola Bay. Another Bay. factorAnother that factor could that have could a significant have a significant effect on effect Apalachicola on Apalachicola Bay is the Bay potential is the potential sea-level sea rise.-level As rise the. oceanAs the levelsocean rise,levels the rise, salinity the salinity in the in bay the could bay could increase increase [3,4]. [3,4]. Quantifying Quantifying the effect the effect of sea-level of sea-level rise couldrise could help help with with planning planning and development and development of practical of practical consumption consumption scenarios scenarios for the for ACF the system ACF thatsystem are that mindful are mindful of the Apalachicola of the Apalachicola Bay well-being. Bay well-being. ApalachicolaApalachicola Bay is located along the Florida panhandle (Figure(Figure1 1)) and and isis wellwell knownknown forfor shrimpshrimp and oyster harvests. It It produces produces about about 90% 90% of of Florida Florida’s’s co commercialmmercial oysters oysters and and is isthe the only only place place in inthe the United United States States where where wild wild oysters oysters are arestill still harvested harvested by tongs by tongs from from small small boats. boats. The shallow The shallow (3–6 (3–6m) and m) andflat bay flat bayis connected is connected to the to the Gulf Gulf of ofMexico Mexico via via five five openings openings counterbalancing counterbalancing the the relatively relatively large freshwaterfreshwater inflow inflow from from the the Apalachicola Apalachicola River. River. Huang Huang and Spauldingand Spaulding [5], using [5], computerusing computer model simulations,model simulations, found found that the that residence the residence time in time Apalachicola in Apalachicola Bay typically Bay typically ranges ranges between between three three and 3 nineand nine days, days with, thewith daily the inflowdaily inflow from Apalachicola from Apalachicola River ranging River ranging between betwee 177 mn/s 177 (drought m3/s (drought season) 3 andseason) 4561 and m /s4561 (flood m3/s season).(flood season). Figure 1.1. Apalachicola Bay system, data stations and Curvilinear Curvilinear-grid-grid Hydrodynamics in 3D ( (CH3D)CH3D) model grid (outlined in red).red). The estuary receives over 90% of its freshwater from the Apalachicola River, which,which, combined 2 with the Chattahoochee River, Flint River and Chipola River drain a watershed of over 20,000 m 2.. The importance of the Apalachicola Bay system has been long recognized and the region has been designated as a National Estuarine Resea Researchrch Reserve (NERR), an Outstanding Florida Florida Water, Water, a State Aquatic Preserve, and an International Biosphere Reserve. Apalachicola NERR (ANERR) is the third largest reserve inin thethe nationnation [[2,3].2,3]. The importance of freshwater inflowinflow has been recognized for year yearss by managers and researchers alike, with the oyster population being particularly sensitive to the salinity regime in the bay. alike, with the oyster population being particularly sensitive to the salinity regime in the bay. Livingston et al. [4] found that oyster production and mortality are correlated to bay salinity in the Livingston et al. [4] found that oyster production and mortality are correlated to bay salinity in bay. High salinity can cause increased predation from invasive species such as stone crabs and oyster the bay. High salinity can cause increased predation from invasive species such as stone crabs and drills causing a significant drop in oyster production. Gulf sturgeon are also sensitive to changes in oyster drills causing a significant drop in oyster production. Gulf sturgeon are also sensitive to changes salinity. As an anadromous fish, the Gulf sturgeon is adapted to life in both fresh and saline waters; in salinity. As an anadromous fish, the Gulf sturgeon is adapted to life in both fresh and saline waters; however, juvenile fish develop a tolerance to higher salinity gradually during the first year of life, however, juvenile fish develop a tolerance to higher salinity gradually during the first year of life, and juvenile growth rates are highest when the salinity is 9 ppt [5]. Extended periods of salinity less and juvenile growth rates are highest when the salinity is 9 ppt [5]. Extended periods of salinity than 10 ppt would likely limit feeding habitat availability [6,7], and availability of lower-salinity estuarine feeding habitats may influence recruitment [8–12]. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4, 76 3 of 14 less than 10 ppt would likely limit feeding habitat availability [6,7], and availability of lower-salinity estuarine feeding habitats may influence recruitment [8–12]. Simulation of salinity and impact on oyster inside Apalachicola Bay has been conducted by Huang [13,14] and Wang et al. [15] using a coarse (~500–1000 m) grid hydrodynamic model and a relatively small model domain without the full influence of the ocean. In this study, the simulation of salinity is validated using a high-resolution coastal and estuarine hydrodynamic model, Curvilinear-grid Hydrodynamics in 3D (CH3D) [16–18] and a larger model domain coupled to an ocean model using observed river inflow rates during 1999–2008 (Scenario I). Once calibrated, the model is used to simulate the response of the system to four water management scenarios developed by the USACE. In these scenarios freshwater entering the system through the Apalachicola River is determined by: (I) the USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center Reservoir System Simulation program, HEC-ResSim [19]; (II) The current reservoir operations in the ACF system; (III) and (IV) alternative reservoir operation plans with higher consumptive water usage. Simulated salinity is then analyzed as to its potential to affect the oysters’ growth and/or mortality rates. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Observed Data for Model Validation Water level data (relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) datum and with 6-min temporal resolution) was obtained from the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) CO-OPS (Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services) station NOS-8728690 located near the mouth of the Apalachicola River (Figure1).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cooperative Management Initiative for St. Joseph Bay, Northwest Florida July 16, 2020
    Cooperative Management Initiative for St. Joseph Bay, Northwest Florida July 16, 2020 Paul E. Thurman, PhD Program Manager, Minimum Flows and Levels NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT St. Joseph Bay • Approximately 42,502 acres • Bordered by: • St. Joseph Bay Peninsula • Cape San Blas • mainland Florida • Mouth of bay = 1.7 miles • City of Port St. Joe 2 NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT St. Joseph Bay • Average depth = 21 ft (6.4 m) • Bay is relatively saline • Few natural surface water inputs • Many small tidal creeks • Gulf County Canal • Popular destination for scalloping, fishing, etc. • St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve created in 1969 • T.H. Stone Memorial Park 3 NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT St. Joseph Bay Concerns • Areas of Concern • Sea Grass Density and Coverage • Coastal Development and Land Use Changes • Water Quality • DEP Impaired Water Bodies • Nutrients, Fecal coliform, bacteria • Relatively Limited Development • Port St. Joe, Cape San Blas, St. Joe Peninsula • Numerous Septic Tanks, Largely Unverified • Limited Natural Surface Water Inputs • Gulf County Canal • Largest Waterway Connected to St. Joseph Bay 4 NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Gulf County Canal • Finished in 1938 • Approved low water depth of between 6 and 8.9 ft • Width • Approximately 5.5 miles in length • Connects Intracoastal Waterway to St. Joseph Bay 5 NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Intracoastal Waterway • Finished in early 1940s • Navigable inland waterway for barges and shipping • Approved depth of 12 ft • 150 ft wide • 14.3 Miles East Bay to GCC • 7.5 Miles GCC to Lake Wimico • 5 Miles through Lake Wimico • 5 Miles Lake Wimico to Apalachicola River, aka Jackson River • 6 Miles Apalachicola River to Apalachicola Bay • Connects St.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: Effects on Salinity in Florida's Estuaries and Responses of Oysters, Seagrass, and Other Animal and Plant Life
    SGEF-218 Climate Change: Effects on Salinity in Florida’s Estuaries and Responses of Oysters, Seagrass, and Other Animal and Plant Life1 Karl Havens2 Summary generated by wind, so water moves in and out much like it does in the ocean.) Florida’s economically important estuaries could be heavily impacted by sea-level rise and altered river flow, both caused by climate change. The resulting higher salinity, or saltiness of the water, could harm plants and animals, alter fish and bird habitat, and reduce the capacity of estuaries to provide such important services as seafood production and the protection of shorelines from erosion. Introduction Estuaries are one of the most productive kinds of ecosys- tems on earth, and they support a high diversity of fish, birds, and other kinds of plants and animals. Estuaries are bodies of water along the coastline that can be relatively enclosed bays or wide marshes at river mouths. They are places where fresh water from rivers mixes with saltwater from the sea, creating a place with intermediate salinity. On average, the salinity of the open ocean is 35 parts per thousand (ppt). The salinity of rivers can range from 0.1 to 5 ppt. In estuaries, salinity is highly variable because of tidal effects and because of variation in freshwater inflow from rivers (Figure 1). (While the term estuary is mostly used Figure 1. Salinity, typically measured in units of parts per thousand for coastal systems where salty and fresh water mix, since (ppt), is the amount of salt that is present in water. In freshwater lakes, springs, and ponds it usually is near zero.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Status of Oyster Reefs in Florida Waters: Knowledge and Gaps
    Current Status of Oyster Reefs in Florida Waters: Knowledge and Gaps Dr. William S. Arnold Florida FWC Fish and Wildlife Research Lab 100 Eighth Avenue SE St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-896-8626 [email protected] Outline • History-statewide distribution • Present distribution – Mapped populations and gaps – Methodological variation • Ecological status • Application Need to Know Ecological value of oyster reefs will be clearly defined in subsequent talks Within “my backyard”, at least some idea of need to protect and preserve, as exemplified by the many reef restoration projects However, statewide understanding of status and trends is poorly developed Culturally important- archaeological evidence suggests centuries of usage Long History of Commercial Exploitation US Landings (Lbs of Meats x 1000) 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Statewide: Economically important: over $2.8 million in landings value for Florida fishery in 2003 Most of that value is from Franklin County (Apalachicola Bay), where 3000 landings have been 2500 2000 relatively stable since 1985 1500 1000 In other areas of state, 500 0 oysters landings are on 3000 decline due to loss of 2500 Franklin County 2000 access, degraded water 1500 quality, and loss of oyster 1000 populations 500 0 3000 Panhandle other 2500 2000 1500 1000 Pounds500 of Meats (x 1000) 0 3000 Peninsular West Coast 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Peninsular East Coast 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 MAPPING Tampa Bay Oyster Maps More reef coverage than anticipated, but many of the reefs are moderately to severely degraded Kathleen O’Keife will discuss Tampa Bay oyster mapping methods in the next talk Caloosahatchee River and Estero Bay Aerial imagery used to map reefs, verified by ground-truthing Southeast Florida oyster maps • Used RTK-GPS equipment to map in both the horizontal and the vertical.
    [Show full text]
  • FORGOTTEN COAST® VISITOR GUIDE Apalachicola
    FORGOTTEN COAST® VISITOR GUIDE APALACHICOLA . ST. GEORGE ISLAND . EASTPOINT . SURROUNDING AREAS OFFICIAL GUIDE OF THE APALACHICOLA BAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE APALACHICOLABAY.ORG 850.653-9419 2 apalachicolabay.org elcome to the Forgotten Coast, a place where you can truly relax and reconnect with family and friends. We are commonly referred to as WOld Florida where You will find miles of pristine secluded beaches, endless protected shallow bays and marshes, and a vast expanse of barrier islands and forest lands to explore. Discover our rich maritime culture and history and enjoy our incredible fresh locally caught seafood. Shop in a laid back Furry family members are welcome at our beach atmosphere in our one of a kind locally owned and operated home rentals, hotels, and shops and galleries. shops. There are also dog-friendly trails and Getting Here public beaches for dogs on The Forgotten Coast is located on the Gulf of Mexico in leashes. North Florida’s panhandle along the Big Bend Scenic Byway; 80 miles southwest of Tallahassee and 60 miles east of Panama City. The area features more than Contents 700 hundred miles of relatively undeveloped coastal Apalachicola ..... 5 shoreline including the four barrier islands of St. George, Dog, Cape St. George and St. Vincent. The Eastpoint ........ 8 coastal communities of Apalachicola, St. George St. George Island ..11 Island, Eastpoint, Carrabelle and Alligator Point are accessible via US Highway 98. By air, the Forgotten Things To Do .....18 Coast can be reached through commercial airports in Surrounding Areas 16 Tallahassee http://www.talgov.com/airport/airporth- ome.aspx and Panama City www.iflybeaches.comand Fishing & boating .
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COLA
    Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1: HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING ..................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION ............................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities .....................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere .............................................................................2.4.1-3 2.4.1.3 References .............................................................................2.4.1-12 2.4.1-i Revision 6 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1 LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.4.1-201 East Miami-Dade County Drainage Subbasin Areas and Outfall Structures 2.4.1-202 Summary of Data Records for Gage Stations at S-197, S-20, S-21A, and S-21 Flow Control Structures 2.4.1-203 Monthly Mean Flows at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 2.4.1-204 Monthly Mean Water Level at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 (Headwater) 2.4.1-205 Monthly Mean Flows in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 2.4.1-206 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 (Headwaters) 2.4.1-207 Monthly Mean Flows in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A 2.4.1-208 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A (Headwaters) 2.4.1-209 Monthly Mean Flows in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-210 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-211 NOAA
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Apalachicola Bay and Region
    The Apalachicola Project Phase 1: Restoring Apalachicola Bay and Region 1 Appendix A: Council Member Applicant and Proposal Information Summary Sheet Point of Contact: John Dondero Council Member: USDA Phone: 404-347-7200 Email: [email protected] Project Identification Project Title: The Apalachicola Project Phase 1: Restoring Apalachicola Bay and Region Project State(s): Florida County/City/Region: Franklin county/ Apalachicola/ Apalachicola River General Location: Projects must be located within the Gulf Coast Region as defined in RESTORE Act. (attach map or photos, if applicable) Eastern Florida Panhandle, Apalachicola Region Project Description RESTORE Goals: Identify all RESTORE Act goals this project supports. Place a P for Primary Goal, and S for secondary goals. _S Restore and Conserve Habitat Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources _P Restore Water Quality _S Enhance Community Resilience _S Restore and Revitalize the Gulf Economy RESTORE Objectives: Identify all RESTORE Act objectives this project supports. Place a P for Primary Objective, and S for secondary objectives. _S Restore, Enhance, and Protect Habitats S_ Promote Community Resilience _P_ Restore, Improve, and Protect Water Resources S Promote Natural Resource Stewardship and Protect and Restore Living Coastal and Marine Resources Environmental Education S Restore and Enhance Natural Processes and Shorelines S Improve Science-Based Decision-Making Processes RESTORE Priorities: Identify all RESTORE Act priorities that this project supports. X Priority 1: Projects that are projected to make the greatest contribution X Priority 2: Large-scale projects and programs that are projected to substantially contribute to restoring X Priority 3: Projects contained in existing Gulf Coast State comprehensive plans for the restoration ….
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1
    Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1 Edited by Laura A. Yarbro and Paul R. Carlson Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute St. Petersburg, Florida March 2011 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Table of Contents Authors, Contributors, and SIMM Team Members .................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 31 How this report was put together ........................................................................................... 36 Chapter Reports ...................................................................................................................... 41 Perdido Bay ........................................................................................................................... 41 Pensacola Bay .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Synthesis of Basic Life Histories of Tampa Bay Species
    Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #lo-92 Estuary ==-AProgram SYNTHESIS OF BASIC LIFE HISTORIES OF TAMPA BAY SPECIES FINAL REPORT L December 1992 10-92 SYNTHESIS OF BASIC LIFE HISTORIES OF TAMPA BAY SPECIES Prepared for Tampa Bay National Estuary Program 11 1 7th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Prepared by Kristie A. Killam Randall J. Hochberg Emily C. Rzemien Versar, Inc. ESM Operations 9200 Rumsey Road Columbia, Maryland 21045 December 1992 Wc~.rrnt"e Foreword FOREWORD This report, Synthesis of Basic Life Histories of Tampa Bay Species, was prepared by Versar, Inc under the direction of Dick Eckenrod and Holly Greening of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. The work was performed under contract to Versar, Inc. This is Technical Publication #10-92 of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. ... ~h!oaaL Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program director, Dick Eckenrod, and project manager, Holly Greening for their guidance in completing this project. We also would like to thank our consultant, Ernst Peebles (University of South Florida) for his help in completing this project. We greatly appreciate the contributions of many members of the Tampa Bay scientific community. Many individuals provided assistance and information, including unpublished data, manuscripts and reports. First we would like to thank many of the biologists from Florida Department of Natural Resources- Florida Marine Research Institute. Bob McMichael, Keven Peters, Eddie Matheson, Roy Crabtree, Mike Murphy, Behzad Mahmoudi, Brad Weigle, Beth Beeler, Bruce Ackerman, Scott Wright, Ron Taylor, Phil Steele, and Bill Arnold contributed information and reviewed portions of the draft final report, and Ben McLaughlin, Greg Vermeer, Steve Brown, Mike Mitchell, Dan Marelli.
    [Show full text]
  • Outstanding Bridges of Florida*
    2013 OOUUTTSSTTAANNDDIINNGG BBRRIIDDGGEESS OOFF FFLLOORRIIDDAA** This photograph collection was compiled by Steven Plotkin, P.E. RReeccoorrdd HHoollddeerrss UUnniiqquuee EExxaammpplleess SSuuppeerriioorr AAeesstthheettiiccss * All bridges in this collection are on the State Highway System or on public roads Record Holders Longest Total Length: Seven Mile Bridge, Florida Keys Second Longest Total Length: Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Lower Tampa Bay Third Longest Total Length: Bryant Patton Bridge, Saint George Island Most Single Bridge Lane Miles: Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Lower Tampa Bay Most Dual Bridge Lane Miles: Henry H. Buckman Bridge, South Jacksonville Longest Viaduct (Bridge over Land): Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway, Tampa Longest Span: Napoleon Bonaparte Broward Bridge at Dames Point, North Jacksonville Second Longest Span: Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Lower Tampa Bay Longest Girder/Beam Span: St. Elmo W. Acosta Bridge, Jacksonville Longest Cast-In-Place Concrete Segmental Box Girder Span: St. Elmo W. Acosta Bridge, Jacksonville Longest Precast Concrete Segmental Box Girder Span and Largest Precast Concrete Segment: Hathaway Bridge, Panama City Longest Concrete I Girder Span: US-27 at the Caloosahatchee River, Moore Haven Longest Steel Box Girder Span: Regency Bypass Flyover on Arlington Expressway, Jacksonville Longest Steel I Girder Span: New River Bridge, Ft. Lauderdale Longest Moveable Vertical Lift Span: John T. Alsop, Jr. Bridge (Main Street), Jacksonville Longest Movable Bascule Span: 2nd Avenue, Miami SEVEN MILE BRIDGE (new bridge on left and original remaining bridge on right) RECORD: Longest Total Bridge Length (6.79 miles) LOCATION: US-1 from Knights Key to Little Duck Key, Florida Keys SUNSHINE SKYWAY BRIDGE RECORDS: Second Longest Span (1,200 feet), Second Longest Total Bridge Length (4.14 miles), Most Single Bridge Lane Miles (20.7 miles) LOCATION: I–275 over Lower Tampa Bay from St.
    [Show full text]
  • Apalachicola River and Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan
    Apalachicola River and Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan November 2017 Program Development Series 17-09 Northwest Florida Water Management District Apalachicola River and Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan November 2017 Program Development Series 17-09 NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD George Roberts Jerry Pate John Alter Chair, Panama City Vice Chair, Pensacola Secretary-Treasurer, Malone Gus Andrews Jon Costello Marc Dunbar DeFuniak Springs Tallahassee Tallahassee Ted Everett Nick Patronis Bo Spring Chipley Panama City Beach Port St. Joe Brett J. Cyphers Executive Director Headquarters 81 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 (850) 539-5999 www.nwfwater.com Crestview Econfina Milton 180 E. Redstone Avenue 6418 E. Highway 20 5453 Davisson Road Crestview, Florida 32539 Youngstown, FL 32466 Milton, FL 32583 (850) 683-5044 (850) 722-9919 (850) 626-3101 Apalachicola River and Bay SWIM Plan Northwest Florida Water Management District Acknowledgements This document was developed by the Northwest Florida Water Management District under the auspices of the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Program and in accordance with sections 373.451-459, Florida Statutes. The plan update was prepared under the supervision and oversight of Brett Cyphers, Executive Director and Carlos Herd, Director, Division of Resource Management. Funding support was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund. The assistance and support of the NFWF is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to especially recognize members of the public, as well as agency reviewers and staff from the District and from the Ecology and Environment, Inc., team that contributed to the development of this plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Apalachicola Bay Oyster Situation Report
    EMERGING TP-200 PAATHOGENSTHOGENS INSTITUTEINSTITUTE UnUniversityi versi t y o f FFlorloridi d a Apalachicola Bay Oyster SituationAPRIL 24, 2013 Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The current size limit of 3 inches appears to be effective at reducing the risk of “growth overfishing” where This report summarizes efforts conducted through yield (pounds of meat harvested) is reduced because the University of Florida Oyster Recovery Team, in oysters are harvested at too small a size. However, collaboration with various stakeholders, to describe it is essential that this size limit be accepted by the conditions in Apalachicola Bay prior to and after a historic community, adopted by the industry, and enforced by collapse of the oyster fishery. The report characterizes regulatory agencies and the county judicial system. conditions in the bay, reviews possible causes for the Substantial future harvesting of sub-legal oysters could fishery collapse, and outlines a plan for future monitoring, have negative effects not only on oyster populations research and fishery management. Conclusions in this but also a serious impact on the national reputation of report are based on analyses of data collected in historical Apalachicola oysters as a high-quality seafood product. monitoring programs conducted by the Florida Fish and • Oysters, white shrimp, brown shrimp, blue crab and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Department multiple finfish species have been analyzed for the of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Apalachicola presence of oil residue. All samples were either below National Estuarine Research Reserve (Florida DEP) and the limits of detection or below quantifiable limits. Northwest Florida Water Management District, as well as Thus, based on analyses conducted so far, there field, experimental, and community data collected by the is no evidence of chemical contamination from the authors, who are reporting in their capacity as members of Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the seafood sampled from the UF Oyster Recovery Team.
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf of Mexic O
    292 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 5, Chapter 6 Chapter 5, Pilot Coast U.S. Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 5—Chapter 6 87°W 86°W 85°W NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml ALABAMA 88°W 31°N GEORGIA Milton Pensacola FLORIDA Fort Walton Beach CHOCTAWHATCHEE BAY PERDIDO BAY 11385 11383 11390 Panama City 11406 11384 11382 11392 11405 11391 11388 11 30°N 39 APALACHEE BAY 3 Port St. Joe AY Apalachicola B LA ICO ACH AL AP 11402 11404 11389 GULF OF MEXICO 11401 29°N 19 SEP2021 19 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 5, Chapter 6 ¢ 293 Apalachee Bay to Mobile Bay (18) METEOROLOGICAL TABLE – COASTAL AREA OFF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA Between 27°N to 31°N and 86°W to 89°W YEARS OF WEATHER ELEMENTS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC RECORD Wind > 33 knots ¹ 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 Wave Height > 9 feet ¹ 4.5 3.8 3.4 1.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.3 2.3 Visibility < 2 nautical miles ¹ 1.7 1.4 2.2 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 Precipitation ¹ 5.0 4.9 3.9 2.8 2.8 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.9 3.9 3.6 4.0 3.9 Temperature > 69° F 26.8 25.9 36.8 64.3 95.2 99.8 99.9 99.9 98.9 89.4 60.4 37.0 71.8 Mean Temperature (°F) 64.6 64.9 67.6 71.8 77.1 81.5 83.4 83.4 81.5 76.6 70.8 66.5 74.7 Temperature < 33° F ¹ 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean RH (%) 77 77 78 78 79 78 77 77 78 74 75 75 77 Overcast or Obscured ¹ 27.2 25.5 22.1 15.6 12.4 10.1 11.4 11.5 16.5 13.8 17.5 22.0 16.8 Mean Cloud Cover (8ths) 4.8 4.6 4.3 3.7 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.4 3.9 4.1 4.6 4.2 Mean SLP (mbs) 1020 1019 1017 1017 1016 1016 1017 1016 1015 1016 1019 1020 1017 Ext.
    [Show full text]