Harmful Algal Blooms

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Harmful Algal Blooms SCIENTISTS WEIGH IN ON HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS EVERGLADESFOUNDATION.ORG THE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION SCIENTISTS WEIGH IN ON HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS Melodie Naja, Ph.D., Stephen Davis, Ph.D., Thomas Van Lent, Ph.D. THE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION 18001 Old Cutler Road, Suite 625 Palmetto Bay, FL 33157 NUTRIENTS AND ALGAE BLOOMS There is both a local and a global perspective to the problem of nutrient pollution and the consequent overgrowth of algae they can fuel. Both are important, and The Everglades Foundation is providing leadership on both. THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Figure 1: The status of the planet boundaries. Source: Steffen et al. (2015). Algae blooms are a global phenomenon and are most often point sources (urban and industrial) while diffuse sources fueled by excess levels of nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P) (agriculture) contribute 38% of the total phosphorus load. — both essential elements for life and main components In North America, agricultural (non-point source pollution) of fertilizers. All countries with significant populations or is responsible for most of the phosphorus loadings into our agricultural activity are seeing these blooms. While some freshwater bodies4. Agriculturally-derived nitrogen is likely blooms are caused naturally, global runoff of fertilizer and even worse. While phosphorus application has leveled off, domestic wastewater production are fueling an increase nitrogen application has grown linearly over time. in the frequency, severity and duration of these blooms1. Further, certain kinds of algae can produce toxins, creating There is a general lack of awareness about the problem of an additional threat to environmental and human health. nutrient pollution, also known as eutrophication. If there is These Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are often associated some awareness, it is focused on a local problem with little with species of blue-green algae and the organism that recognition that nutrient pollution affects the majority of the causes red tide. planet’s freshwater bodies and coastal waters. Scientists recognize that remediation and recycling of these nutrients Scientists studying the stresses on the planet agree that is needed to restore and protect our aquatic environments excess N and P are among the most pressing issues and sustain humanity5. facing the planet, even more than climate change or ozone 2 depletion (Figure 1) . Scientific observations point to several Technologies for effective large-scale nutrient pollution major agricultural regions with excess phosphorus and removal/remediation are limited by cost6 or the need for nitrogen added and stored in the soil. Therefore, N and P large parcels of land with managed flow systems7. are considered as the main contributors to the transgression of a safe planetary boundary (a safe operating space within This is why The George Barley Water Prize is so important; which societies can develop and thrive while protecting the it recognizes a global problem and that we need to do 3 environment). According to another study , unsustainable something about it. The George Barley Water Prize is levels of phosphorus are being applied to more than 75% of focused on improving the cost-effectiveness of phosphorus the planets land surface (Figure 2). pollution removal from freshwater bodies. Likewise, it helps to address the basic economics whereby application of 3 The same study reported that about 62% of the total fertilizers is several orders of magnitude cheaper than anthropogenic phosphorus load to our freshwater is from removing it from the water. EVERGLADESFOUNDATION.ORG Florida. In order to sustain itself in nearshore areas, red tide also needs a large supply of nutrients – especially N and P. Given the timing and impact of Lake Okeechobee discharges this year, people are questioning whether these discharges are also providing a local source of nutrients to sustain this red tide, and evidence is mounting that these problems are connected. A recent NOAA-sponsored study has shown that Lake Okeechobee’s discharge to the west coast may help to sustain red tide in coastal waters outside the Caloosahatchee9. In fact, Heil et al. 2014 demonstrated through mass balance work that high discharges from Lake Okeechobee to the Figure 2: A map illustrating the phosphorus pollution levels of global river Caloosahatchee could meet up to 100% of the N and P basins between 2002 and 2010. Green and yellow indicate areas where freshwater diluted phosphorus to the point of nullifying its ecological effects. demand of a nearshore/estuarine red tide, depending on Orange and red mark areas where phosphorus levels exceeded that dilution the size of the red tide event. This contribution declines with threshold, potentially contributing to the emergence of “dead zones” in freshwater gulfs and lakes. Source: M. Mekonnen and A. Hoekstra, https:// distance from the estuary and as the spatial extent of the agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017WR020448 - https:// red tide increases. Clearly, though, releases to the estuaries news.unl.edu/newsrooms/today/article/researchers-id-map-phosphorus- pollution-of-global-freshwater/ from Lake Okeechobee represent a viable and likely source of nutrients sustaining red tide. THE LOCAL PERSPECTIVE According to recent calculations by Dr. Cynthia Heil (2018), a Senior Research Scientist from the Bigelow Laboratory for In 2018, the impact of nutrient pollution has gained much Ocean Sciences, 2018 Lake Okeechobee discharges to the attention in Florida with the sustained, intense red tide off Caloosahatchee Estuary could have met 10-100% of the N Florida’s Southwest Coast. In South Florida, our algae demand and 16-100% of the P demand of red tide in the area problems are not just limited to the red tide caused by the between Charlotte Harbor and Sanibel Island from January to algae species Karenia brevis. We also have blooms of June (Figure 5)10. A detailed technical report will be available blue-green algae (dominated by the species Microcystis shortly that will document the potential nutrient contributions aeruginosa) that stretch from the St. Lucie estuary (on the of the Caloosahatchee River to this year’s coastal K. brevis east coast), across Lake Okeechobee, and over to the bloom. Dr. Heil is also investigating the potential for the Caloosahatchee estuary (on the west coast). We have decaying Microcystis bloom in the lower Caloosahatchee also recently seen brown tide and diatom blooms in water River to provide another source of N to help sustain nearshore bodies such as the Indian River Lagoon and Biscayne Bay, red tide. This would indicate an additional, indirect impact of respectively (Figure 3). Lake Okeechobee discharges on red tide. RED TIDE Red tide is attributable to the overgrowth of a slow-growing, marine species of algae (K. brevis). Red tide forms offshore on the Florida Shelf and prefers warm marine waters, especially at salinity levels above 24 parts per thousand. Wind, currents, and temperature all play a role in bloom formation8. However, once a bloom is triggered, it can be carried closer to shore where it affects coastal communities. This year’s red tide has been ongoing since October 2017, about one month after the passage of Hurricane Irma when stretched from the Florida Keys up along the 10,000 Islands to the Naples area. Nearly one year later, as we transitioned into the warmest months of the year, the red tide has expanded up to the Sarasota-Bradenton and Tampa Bay areas and intensified, particularly in the area outside Charlotte Harbor (Figure 4). We know that high nutrient loads from Lake Okeechobee discharges and local basin contributions are fueling inshore Blue-green algae in the St. Lucie canal at the S308 and nearshore blooms of blue-green algae across South Structure (Lake Okeechobee outflow) in July 2018. EVERGLADESFOUNDATION.ORG WATER QUALITY HEAVY POPULATED IMPACTS AREAS IN SOUTH FLORIDA INDIAN RIVER LAGOON BREVARD Brown tide LAKE OKEECHOBEE/ CALOOSAHATCHEE Aureoumbra lagunensis AND ST. LUCIE RIVERS Blue-green algae bloom INDIAN RIVER Microcystis aeruginosa SARASOTA JUNE 29, 2018 ST. LUCIE Algae covering OKEECHOBEE PHOTO: DAVID MASSEY/ THE 90% of DAYTONA BEACH NEWS-JOURNAL the lake MARTIN MANATEE RICHARD P. STUMPF, NOAA Atlantic Ocean Lake St. Lucie River Okeechobee CHARLOTTE GLADES PALM BEACH Caloosahatchee River Mar-a-Lago LEE HENDRY Everglades Agricultural WCA1 Area LAKE WORTH LAGOON Blue-green algae bloom FLORIDA Microcystis aeruginosa WCA2A COLLIER WCA2B Big Cypress BROWARD SOUTHWEST COAST National WCA3A Preserve POPULATED Red tide AREAS Karenia brevis MIAMI- WCA3B DADE PHOTO: WPTV5 MONROE Gulf of Everglades BISCAYNE BAY Mexico National Park Diatom bloom Chaetoceros sp. FLORIDA BAY Seagrass die-off and algae bloom Synechococcus sp. 10 MILES PHOTOS: STEPHEN E.DAVIS PHOTO: ANNA WACHNICKA/FIU Figure 3 EVERGLADESFOUNDATION.ORG HEAVY POPULATED AREAS MANATEE RED TIDE FLORIDA CELL COUNTS CELLS/LITER Low SARASOTA 10,000 to 100,000 Medium 100,000-1,000,000 High CHARLOTTE GLADES More than 1,000,000 Caloosahatchee River SUMMER 2018 RED TIDE The Florida red tide organism, Karenia LEE brevis, produces toxins affecting the FLORIDA central nervous system of fish and AREA other vertebrates, causing these DETAILED animals to die. The Florida Department of Health advises people with severe or chronic respiratory conditions to Gulf of Mexico avoid red tide areas. Florida red tide Big Cypress can cause some people to suffer skin 10 MILES National irritation and burning eyes. COLLIER Preserve IN MILLIONS OF CELLS/LITER 6 LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE 5 COLLIER MANATEE MANATEE SARASOTA SARASOTA CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE 4 3 LOCATION 2 1 0 JUNE 4 5 7 11 13 18 19 25 26 JULY 31 SOURCES: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, mapline.com Figure 4 EVERGLADESFOUNDATION.ORG Figure 5: Percentage of estuarine K. brevis (kb) bloom N and P needs met by Caloosahatchee River loading from January – June 2018, with average weekly estuarine K. brevis concentration. No orthophosphate data was available prior to March 2018 to calculate loading rates.
Recommended publications
  • Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries
    Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries T.C. MacDonald; E. Weather; R.F. Jones; R.H. McMichael, Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095 Prepared for Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 111 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 200W Sarasota, Florida 34236 June 4, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ vii SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rob Patten: Creating a Legacy for Coastal Island Sanctuaries
    SUMMER 2011 2011 Audubon Assembly: Take Action for Florida’s Special Places October 14-15 Connect to Florida’s Special Places Guarding the Everglades Treasure 2011 Florida Audubon Society John Elting, Chairman, Leadership Florida Audubon Society Eric Draper Executive Director, Audubon of Florida President, Florida Audubon Our April board of directors meeting was a pivotal point for Florida Audubon Society (FAS). It was at that moment in time, surrounded by a chorus of birds at the Chinsegut Nature Center near Board of Directors FAS-owned Ahhochee Hill, that I think we all realized how far we had come this fiscal year. Our John W. Elting, Chairman Executive Director Eric Draper, our committed board and tireless staff had a lot to celebrate. Joe Ambrozy, Vice Chairman Sheri Ford Lewin, Board Secretary Even during tough economic times, we were ending the year in a positive financial position, Doug Santoni, Treasurer something other environmental groups are struggling with this year. We have achieved 100 per- Sandy Batchelor, Esq. cent board giving, both financially and in terms of gifts of time and talent. Our marketing efforts, Jim Brady particularly the expanded focus on social media, have resulted in a strong online community that Henry Dean, Esq. helped protect Florida’s state parks on three different occasions this year. Improved outreach and John Flanigan, Esq. regional events are building engagement in Audubon throughout Florida. The board’s science Charles Geanangel committee is taking our applied science work to new levels including accelerated involvement John Hood of citizen scientists. Lastly, we are beginning to work at the local, state and national level as One Reid Hughes Audubon.
    [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]
  • 2006-SBEP-Stateofthebay.Pdf
    he Sarasota Bay Estuary Program would like to thank the Tmany citizens, technical advisors, elected officials and government agency staff who have participated in the process of protecting and revitalizing Sarasota Bay. The work of our small team of five can realize comprehensive achievements when our efforts are supported by partner funds, agency staff and an active and committed Board of Directors. We offer special thanks to the partners to the 2004 Interlocal Agreement, which established the Program as a special district in Florida: Sarasota County, Manatee County, City of Sarasota, City of Bradenton, Town of Longboat Key, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Southwest Florida Water Management District. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program • State of the Bay 006 4 Preface Sarasota Bay: Our Greatest Natural Asset 6 Setting the Stage Sarasota Bay: Our Economic and Ecological Treasure 8 Executive Summary Sarasota Bay Shows Significant Improvements 10 Water Quality Nitrogen Wastewater Pollution Air Pollution Stormwater Pollution Bacteria Contamination Tributary Action Plans Red Tide 14 Hydrology Preserving Balance in the Ecosystem and Maintaining Natural Flow 16 Bay Habitat Wetlands Wetland Restoration Monitoring Wetland Restoration Projects Seagrasses Hard Bottom Habitat Oysters Artificial Reefs Monitoring Reefs 24 Public Involvement in Restoring the Bay Community Recreation, Stewardship and Citizen Action Outreach—How the Community is Involved Sarasota County Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Manatee County Rebate Program Southwest
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared for County of Sarasota Coastal
    FINAL REPORT LITTLE SARASOTA BAY CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for County of Sarasota Coastal Zone Management Division Environmental Services Department 9250-110-RT Contract No. C82-66 Prepared by Stergios A. Dendrou Charles I. Moore Raymond Walton CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE 7630 Little River Turnpike Annandale, Virginia 22003 August 1983 Suggested reference Camp Dresser & McKee and Mote Marine Laboratory. 1983. Little Sarasota Bay circulation study. Sarasota County. Contract no C82-66. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report no 57. 175 p. Available from: Mote Marine Laboratory Library. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. LIST OF FIGURES . iii LIST OF TABLES . ix I INTRODUCTION ........................................... I-1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .......................... I-1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................... I-3 REPORT OUTLINE ......................................... I-4 II RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . II-1 III LITTLE SARASOTA BAY MODEL .............................. III-1 DYNAMIC ESTUARY MODEL .................................. III-1 MODEL THEORY ........................................... III-1 Basic Hydrodynamic Equations ...................... III-4 Numerical Solution-Stability ...................... III-5 Boundary Conditions ............................... III-6 LITTLE SARASOTA BAY GRID NETWORK ....................... III-7 Geometric Input Data .............................. III-7 IV PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ................................... IV-1 TIDES AND TIDAL PHASING ................................ IV-1 WIND
    [Show full text]
  • Community-Based Watershed Plan
    Perdido Bay Community-Based Watershed Plan The Nature Conservancy in Florida December 2014 Photo © Beth Maynor Young The Nature Conservancy would like to thank all of the stakeholders from local, state and federal governments, non-governmental organizations, community groups, businesses, and citizens who devoted their time, resources and support for this watershed planning process. Your desire and commitment to come together in the spirit of building a watershed community that will achieve more together than individually has created a solid foundation and legacy of collaboration and conservation for the Gulf. In particular, we would like to recognize the National Resource Conservation Service for their support in creating the GIS-based project maps and the leadership demonstrated by the counties in the Panhandle and Springs Coast regions to invest in a process that reaches across political and organizational boundaries and focuses on improving and protecting the watersheds today and for future generations. Copyright © 2015. The Nature Conservancy in Florida Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Introduction 4 Planning Process 5 Identifying Priority Issues, Root Causes, Major Actions 7 Project Identification and Performance Measurement 9 Current Status and Recommended Next Steps 13 TNC Recommendations 14 Path Forward 14 Appendices 1 A—Deepwater Horizon Related Funding Opportunities 16 B—Stakeholder Participants 19 C—Stakeholder Meeting Notes 24 D—Watershed Overview and General Issues 58 E—Stakeholder-Identified Priority Issues, Root Causes, Major Actions and Project Types 65 F—Project Table 71 The Nature Conservancy Executive Summary The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill has focused attention on opportunities to restore and enhance Gulf Coast ecosystems and communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Targets for the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
    SEAGRASS TARGETS FOR THE SARASOTA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM Prepared for: Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 111 South Orange Avenue Suite 200W Sarasota, FL 34236 Prepared by: Anthony Janicki, Michael Dema, and Ravic Nijbroek 1155 Eden Isle Drive NE St. Petersburg, FL 33704 December 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this project is to provide technically-defensible quantitative restoration and protection targets for seagrasses in the Sarasota Bay ecosystem. Establishment of seagrass targets provides a necessary basis for management decisions regarding water quality and other issues that can influence the distribution and persistence of this resource. The primary goal of this project is to maintain and/or restore seagrass coverage to its historic extent. Restoration targets were defined through an analysis of historic and recent aerial surveys of the study area. Historic photos of the area were taken in 1950; as many alterations have occurred to the shoreline in the study area, as well as channelization of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), the following analyses have accounted for these changes as non-restorable areas. Additionally, trends in seagrass coverage throughout the SBEP based on recent surveys have been identified. The methodology employed for this project is GIS-based. Historic aerial photos were used to establish a baseline extent of seagrass in the study area circa 1950. Recent trends in and persistence of seagrass throughout the SBEP were determined through analysis of GIS shapefiles based on aerial surveys executed by the SWFWMD since 1988. Due to anthropogenic modifications in the estuary such as shoreline build-out and the dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), certain areas have been altered to the extent that they have no reasonable potential for restoration; these so-called non-restorable areas have been identified and removed from the analyses contained in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • A Unified Approach to Recovery for a Healthy & Resilient Biscayne
    A Unified Approach to Recovery for a Healthy & Resilient Biscayne Bay Biscayne Bay Task Force Report and Recommendations June 2020 Biscayne Bay Task Force Members Irela Bagué, Task Force Chairperson, President, Bagué Group David Martin, Task Force Vice Chairperson, President, Terra Group Lynette Cardoch, Ph.D., Director of Resilience & Adaptation, Moffatt & Nichol Lee Hefty, Director, Division of Environmental Resources Management, Miami-Dade County James Murley, Chief Resilience Officer, Office of Resilience, Miami-Dade County John Pistorino, P.E., Principal, Pistorino and Alam Alyce Robertson, Executive Director, Downtown Development Authority Steve Sauls, Biscayne Bay Marine Health Summit Steering Committee Member Tiffany Troxler, Ph.D., Director of Science, Sea Level Solutions Center, Florida International University Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 1 Biscayne Bay Task Force Mission and Activities ........................................................................................ 2 Letter from the Chair ............................................................................................................................... 3 State of the Bay ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Risks to Indian River Lagoon Biodiversity Caused by Climate Change
    Proceedings of Indian River Lagoon Symposium 2020 Risks to Indian River Lagoon biodiversity caused by climate change. Randall W. Parkinson(1,2), Valerie Seidel(3), Clay Henderson(4), and Duane De Freese(5) (1)Institute of Environment, Sea Level Solutions Center, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, OE-148, Miami 33199 (2)RWParkinson Consulting, Inc., 322 Coral Drive, Melbourne, FL 32935 (3)The Balmoral Group, 165 Lincoln Avenue, Winter Park, FL 32789 (4)Stetson University, 421 N Woodland Blvd, DeLand, FL 32723 (5)Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1235 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 Abstract Estuaries are especially sensitive to climate change because they are located at the land- sea interface and therefore water quality, habitat value, and ecosystem function are largely determined by what is being input to the basin from the adjacent terrestrial and marine environments. As climate changes, estuarine resilience is likely to be compromised as upland rainfall and river flow patterns change, air and water temperatures rise, intensity and frequency of tropical storm and hurricane landfalls increase, pH declines, and sea-level rises. Here, we demonstrate that future risks to the biodiversity of the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, caused by climate change can be effectively mitigated by implementing nine adaptation actions. Each was designed to reduce septic, wastewater, and surface water pollutant loadings that are expected to increase in response to one or more of the three principle climate change stressors identified during this evaluation: changes in precipitation, increasing storminess, and sea-level rise. By reducing pollutant loadings from these three sources, impairments to water quality and their deleterious effects on biodiversity will be ameliorated.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways Vol. 1
    10 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY The Boating Geography of Southwest Florida Before Coastal Development One must go back in time to 1890 to regain a sense of Each of these bays historically was separated from the the pre-development state of the waterway we refer to as others through a series of natural barriers. Boat traffic the Sarasota Bay system. At that time, this 54-mile reach between Big and Little Sarasota Bays was impeded by “The of the coast, from lower Tampa Bay to Gasparilla Sound, Mangroves,” a cluster of islands at the mouth of Phillippi enclosed three separate inland bays of varying navigabil- Creek. The only means of traverse was a crooked, narrow ity (Map 1): channel barely 50 feet wide and 0.3 mile long that was 1. Big Sarasota Bay, on the north, is 21 miles long and mostly obstructed by mangroves. The channel was non- stretches from Palma Sola (Sarasota) Pass at the mouth of navigable at low water. No inside waterway passage ex- lower Tampa Bay to Phillippi Creek (south of Sarasota); isted between Little Sarasota and Lemon Bays. A five- 2. Little Sarasota Bay, in the middle, is 12 miles long mile land barrier existed from Roberts Bay just below and ranges from Phillippi Creek to Roberts Bay (present- Casey’s Pass to Alligator Creek, which was the head of day Venice); navigation of northern Lemon Bay. 3. Lemon Bay, to the south, is a 16-mile-long Settlers along this coast were forced to sail the outside embayment from Alligator Creek to the Bocilla Pass area passages between Big Sarasota Bay, Little Sarasota Bay and Lower Tampa Bay south of Grove City.
    [Show full text]
  • LIVING SHORELINES: Guidance for Sarasota Bay Watershed
    LIVING SHORELINES: Guidance for Sarasota Bay Watershed Prepared for June 2018 Sarasota Bay Estuary Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Living Shorelines Page Section 1 ................................................................................................................................1-1 Purpose of the Document ....................................................................................................1-1 Section 2 ................................................................................................................................2-1 Living Shoreline Overview ...................................................................................................2-1 2.1 What Are Living Shorelines?................................................................................2-1 2.2 Why Hardened Shorelines are not Always the Answer for Erosion Protection .............................................................................................................2-2 2.3 What are the benefits associated with living shorelines? ....................................2-3 Section 3 ................................................................................................................................3-1 Status of Shorelines in Sarasota Bay Watershed .............................................................3-1 Section 4 ................................................................................................................................4-1 Regionally Successful Projects ..........................................................................................4-1
    [Show full text]
  • A Recreational Boating Characterization for Tampa and Sarasota Bays
    This is a publication of the Florida Sea Grant Program and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, supported by the National Sea Grant College Program of the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under NOAA Grant #NA16RG-2195, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Coastal Management Program, pursuant to NOAA award number NA17OZ2330, with additional support from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these agencies. Additional copies are available for $30.00 from Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida, PO Box 110409, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0409, (352) 392-5870. August 2004 A Recreational Boating Characterization for Tampa and Sarasota Bays by Charles Sidman Coastal Planning Specialist Florida Sea Grant University of Florida Timothy Fik Associate Professor Department of Geography University of Florida Bill Sargent Research Scientist Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida Marine Research Institute St. Petersburg, Florida Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]