DOCSLIB.ORG

Approval of Review Plan for the System Operating Manual Volume 2 Kissimmee River – Lake Istokpoga Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Approval of Review Plan for the System Operating Manual Volume 2 Kissimmee River – Lake Istokpoga Basin DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION 60 FORSYTH STREET SW, ROOM 10M15 ATLANTA, GA 30303-8801 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF CESAD-RBT 19 December 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT SUBJECT: Approval of Review Plan for the System Operating Manual Volume 2 Kissimmee River – Lake Istokpoga Basin 1. References: a. Memorandum, CESAJ-OD-MW, 30 Nov 2017, subject: Request Approval of Review Plan for System Operating Manual (SOM) Volume 2 Kissimmee River – Lake Istokpoga Basin and supporting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. (Encl). b. EC 1165-2-214, Civil Works Review, 15 December 2012. 2. The enclosed subject Review Plan (RP) submitted by the Jacksonville District via reference 1.a has been reviewed by this office and is hereby approved in accordance with reference 1.b above. 3. SAD concurs with the District determination that an Agency Technical Review (ATR) is needed on the replacement of the 1994 Kissimmee River –Lake Istokpoga Basin Master Water Control Manuals (MWCM) with the System Operating Manual (SOM) Volume 2 and the supporting National Environmental Act documentation. We also concur that neither a Type I nor a Type II Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) is required on the SOM Volume 2. We agree with the District Chief of Engineering that the failure or loss of this water operating criteria will not pose a significant threat to human life. 4. The District should take steps to post the RP to its web site and provide a link to CESAD-RBT. Before posting to the web site, the names of Corps/Army employees should be removed. Subsequent significant changes to this RP, such as scope or level of review changes, should they become necessary, will require new written approval from this office. 5. The SAD point of contact is . Encl Brigadier General, USA Commanding CF: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS · 701 San Marco Boulevard JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32207-8175 3 0 NOV 2017. · CESAJ-OD-MW MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, (CESAD-RBT), 60 Forsyth Street, SW, RM 1OM15, Atlanta, GA 30303 SUBJECT: Request Approval of Review Plan for System Operating Manual (SOM) Volume 2 Kissimmee River - Lake lstokpoga Basin and supporting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. 1. Reference EC 1165-2-214, Civil Works Review, 15 December2012, stipulates a risk-informed decision process to determine the document, implementation document, or other work product and the appropriate level of review for the document. 2. In accordance with Section 385.28(a) (1) of the Programmatic Regulations, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) SOM is to replace the existing C&SF Master Water Control Manuals (MWCMs). SOM Volume 2 will utilize information from the existing MWCM for the Kissimmee River - Lake lstokpoga Basin, as well as include all of the updates to the basin as a result of the Kissimmee River Restoration and Headwater Revitalization Project construction. 3. The Review Plan in Enclosure 1 includes an Agency Technical Review (ATR) of both the replacement of the 1994 Kissimmee River - Lake lstokpoga Basin MWCM with SOM Volume 2 and the accompanying NEPA documentation. 4. Point of contact is Encl REVIEW PLAN For The System Operating Manual Volume 2 Kissimmee River - lstokpoga Basin And Supporting NEPA Documentation (Osceola, Highlands & Okeechobee County, Florida) Jacksonville District November 2017 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REVIEW PLAN IS DISTRIBUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREDISSEMINATION PEER REVIEW UNDER APPLICABLE INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES. IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY DISSEMINATED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT ANY AGENCY DETERMINATION OR POLICY. US Army Corps of Engineers ® REVIEW PLAN Kissimmee River - Istokpoga Basin System Operating Manual And supporting NEPA Documentation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 2 2. PROJECT INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................ 3 3. POLICY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW ............................................................... 6 4. RISK INFORMED DECISION ON TYPE OF DOCUMENT AND APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 6 5. MODEL CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL.................................................................. 11 6. BUDGET AND SCIIBDULE ...................................... ......................................................... 11 7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................... ............................................................................. 12 8. REVIEW PLAN APPROVAL AND UPDATES ................................................................. 12 9. REVIEW PLAN POINTS OF CONTACT ........................................................................... 12 1. PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS a. Purpose. This Review Plan (RP) is to address the replacement of the currently utilized 1994 Master Water Control Manual for the Kissimmee River (MWCM) -Lake Istokpoga Basin (MWCM) with a System Operating Manual (SOM). The replacement ofthe MWCM with a SOM is required under Section 385.28(b) (2) ofthe Programmatic Regulations. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) SOM will replace the existing C&SF MWCM. This will include all ofthe updates to the Kissimmee River and the Istokpoga Basins since 1994 to include both the Kissimmee River Headwaters Revitalization Project (HRP) and the Kissimmee River Restoration Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. The SOM, like the MWCM, will provide a system-wide plan for operating the Kissimmee River and Istokpoga Basins. The SOM will follow the procedures for the preparation ofwater control plans (WCP), regulation schedules, and MWCM for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. Engineer Circular (EC) 1165-2-214, Civil Works Review, stipulates a risk-informed decision process to be used to determine ifthe document covered by this Review Plan is a U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) decision document, implementation document, or other work product, and the appropriate level ofreview for the documents. b. References. (1) Section 385.28(b)(2) ofthe Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (2) Engineer Circular (EC) 1165-2-214, Civil Works Review, 15 December 2012 (3) Memorandum, CECW-CE, 2 July 2013, Subject: Policy Guidance Letter-Peer Review ofUpdates to Water Control Manuals (4) Engineering and Construction Bulletin 2016-9, Civil Works Review, 4 March 2016 (5) Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-240, Water Control Management, 8 October 1982 (6) Engineer Manual (EM) 1110-2-3600 Management ofWater Control Systems, 30 November 1987 (7) ER 1110-2-8156, Preparation ofWater Control Manuals, 31August1995(4) ER 1110-2-530 Flood Control Operations and Maintenance Policies, 30 October 1996 (8) Engineer Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-362 Environmental Engineering Initiatives for Water Management, 31July1995 (9) ER 1110-1-12, Quality Management, 30 September2006 (10) ER 1110-2-1941, Drought Contingency Plans, 15 September 1981 c. Requirements. This review plan was developed in accordance with EC 1165-2-214, which establishes an accountable, comprehensive, life-cycle review strategy for Civil Works products by providing a seamless process for review ofall Civil Works projects from initial pl81Uling through design, construction, and Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R). The EC provides the review procedures for ensuring the quality and credibility ofUSACE decision, implementation, and operations and maintenance documents and 2 work products. The EC outlines three primary levels ofreview: District Quality Control, Agency Technical Review, and Independent External Peer Review. (1) District Quality Control (DQC). DQC is the review of basic science and engineering work products focused on fulfilling the project quality requirements defined in the Project Management Plan (PMP). It is managed in the home district and may be conducted by staff in the home district as long as they are not doing the work involved in the study, or overseeing contracted work that is being reviewed. Baiic quality control tools include a Quality Management Plan providing for seamless review, quality checks and reviews, supervisory reviews, Project Delivery Team (PDT) reviews, etc. Additionally, the PDT is responsible for a complete reading ofthe report to assure the overall integrity ofthe report, technical appendices and the recommendations before approval by the District Commander. The Major Subordinate Command (MSC)/District quality management plans address the conduct and documentation ofthis fundamental l~vel ofreview. I ~ (2) Agency Technical Review (ATR). ATR is an in-depth review, managed within USACE, and conducted by a qualified team outside ofthe home district that is not involved in the day-to-day production ofthe project/product. The purpose ofthis review is to ensure the proper application ofclearly established criteria, regulations, laws, codes, principles and professional practices. The ATR team reviews the various workproducts and assures that all the parts fit together in a coherent whole. ATR teams will be comprised of senior USA CE personnel [Regional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan… Two Years Later
    Danielle Honour, P. E . , D.WRE Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Kimberly Lawrence Reduction Plan… Two Years Later Florida Stormwater Association Annual Conference June 12, 2014 Nutrient Reduction Plan Timeline Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Overview of Lake Toho Impairment • November 2010: Placed on Verified List by FDEP – Category 5: Impaired and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) required – Initially impaired for nutrients due to increasing trend of Trophic State Index (TSI) • Osceola County and City of Kissimmee disagreed – Independent analysis showed no Upper Kissimmee Planning Unit TSI Impairment – Ambient nutrient content not related to algae Source: FDEP, 2011 Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later Overview of Lake Toho Impairment (cont.) • FDEP reconsidered impairment – Agreed more research was needed – Imbalance of flora and fauna due to excessive macrophytes (hydrilla) • December 2011: Nutrient Reduction Plan (NRP) completed • February 2012: Final Listing – Category 4e : Impaired but ongoing restoration activities underway, no TMDL required Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later NRP Process Timing and Applicability ***Prior to TMDL adoption*** Evaluation • Causative pollutant is questionable or uncertain Strategic Nutrient Monitoring and Reduction Plan Initial Implementation • Highly managed or Assessment variable systems Final • Marginal impairment ‐ Impairment Listing & fluctuates over time Adoption Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan –2 Years Later The TMDL Process
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) Calibration and Sensitivity And
    Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) : Calibration and Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses Task 1.1: WAM Simulated Existing Conditions Characterization Report and Model Validation Report - Final Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. September 4, 2015 FDACS Contract No. 022589 Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 The Watershed Assessment Model......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Model Approach .................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Source Cell Modeling .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 GLEAMS .........................................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Assessment of Cyanotoxins in Florida's Lakes, Reservoirs And
    Assessment of Cyanotoxins in Florida’s Lakes, Reservoirs and Rivers by Christopher D. Williams BCI Engineers and Scientists, Inc. Lakeland, FL. John W. Burns Andrew D. Chapman Leeanne Flewelling St. Johns River Water Management District Palatka, FL. Marek Pawlowicz Florida Department of Health/Bureau of Laboratories Jacksonville, FL. Wayne Carmichael Wright State University Dayton, OH. 2001 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are population increases of algae above normal background levels and are defined by their negative impacts on the environment, the economy, and human health. Historically, many of Florida's largest and most utilized freshwater and estuarine systems have been plagued by occasional blooms of harmful algae. During the last decade, however, the frequency, duration, and concentration levels of these blooms in freshwater and brackish water have increased significantly, primarily due to changes in land utilization, changes in hydrology, increases in nutrient runoff, loss of aquatic vegetation, and a climate that is very conducive to algal growth and proliferation. In 1998, the Florida Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force was established to determine the extent to which HABs pose a problem for the state of Florida. Blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) were identified as top research priorities due to their potential to produce toxic chemicals and contaminate natural water systems. In June 1999, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) initiated a collaborative study in conjunction with the Florida Marine Research Institute, the Florida Department of Health, and Wright State University to determine the geographical distribution of various types of toxin-producing blue-green algae in Florida's surface waters and to positively identify any algal toxins present in these waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida's Top Freshwater Fishing Spots
    1 3 2 4 8 7 NORTH 5 6 NORTHWEST REGION CENTRAL REGION 10 9 11 NORTHEAST REGION 13 14 12 15 16 22 20 17 2021 TOP FRESHWATER 18 19 FISHING LOCATIONS 23 21 24 SOUTHWEST REGION 27 25 27 26 28 30 29 SOUTH REGION 27 µ 0 25 50 75100 Miles 2021 Top Freshwater Fishing Locations NORTHWEST REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 1 Escambia River Santa Rosa, Escambia ●▲ ● 2 Yellow River Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton ✚ ●▲ ●▲ 3 Choctawhatchee River Walton, Washington ●▲ ●▲ 4 Holmes Creek Holmes ✚ ●▲ 5 Apalachicola River Jackson, Gadsden, Calhoun, Gulf, Liberty, ●▲ ● ●▲ Franklin 6 Ochlocknee River and Lake Talquin Gadsden, Leon, Liberty ● ● ▲ 7 Wacissa River Jefferson ● ✚ NORTH CENTRAL REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 8 Eagle Lake Hamilton ▲ 9 Lower Suwannee River Dixie ✚ 10 Orange Lake Alachua ● ▲ ▲ 11 Lake Rousseau Citrus, Marion, Levy ●▲ 12 Hernando Lake in Tsala Apopka Chain Citrus ● NORTHEAST REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 13 Lake Panasoffkee Sumter ● ✚ 14 Lake Griffin Lake ● 15 Lake Harris Lake ▲ 16 Turkey Lake Orange ✚ ✚ ✚ 17 Lake Kissimmee Osceola, Polk ▲ 18 Lake Marian Osceola ●▲ 19 Fellsmere Water Management Area Indian River ●▲ SOUTHWEST REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 20 Tampa Bypass Canal (Sixmile Creek Hillsborough ▲ 21 Edward Medard Reservoir Hillsborough ▲ ▲ ▲ 22 Tenoroc Fish Management Area Polk ●▲ ▲ ▲ 23 Winter Haven Chain of Lakes Polk ●▲ ▲ ▲ 24 Lake Weohyakapka/Walk-in-Water Polk ● ▲ ▲ 25 Lake Istokpoga Highlands ● ▲ ▲ SOUTH REGION ID NAME COUNTIES BASS CRAPPIE PANFISH STRIPER CATFISH 26 Lake Okeechobee Palm Beach, Martin, Glades, Okeechobee, ● ▲ ▲ Hendry 27 Urban Canals Broward, Martin, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, ✚ ✚ St.
    [Show full text]
  • Solving the Everglades Riddle: Addressing Water Quality and Quantity to Restore a Florida Legacy
    BACKGROUNDER Solving the Everglades Riddle: Addressing Water Quality and Quantity to Restore a Florida Legacy By Dan Peterson Director, Center for Property Rights at The James Madison Institute federal, and local governments have wrangled over funding A Florida Riddle it, and environmental activists have leveraged it. What singular policy issue has lingered in Florida, In 2014, voters approved Amendment 1 dedicating despite having been discussed for decades, hotly debated one-third of doc stamp revenue for the next 20 years for in multiple legislative sessions, and subject to expensive statewide environmental preservation purposes including lobbying efforts? What issue has induced emotional pleas, “to acquire, restore, improve and manage conservation received billions of dollars to spend on planning and lands…including the Everglades.” This action brought new projects, and continues to be a costly and complex effort? visibility to statewide environmental needs as well as further If you answered, “Restoring the Everglades” you win debate to the issue of Everglades restoration. In order to the prize. For decades, one of Florida’s top environmental more fully understand and appreciate the complexities of challenges has been the restoration of the Everglades. restoring the Everglades today, it is imperative to take a Scientists have studied it, legislators have debated it, state, brief look back in time for a helpful perspective. www.jamesmadison.org | 1 A Brief History of northern Everglades and many along the banks of Lake Okeechobee. While dairy farming and cattle ranching the Florida Everglades spread north of the lake, tomatoes, sugar cane, beans, The effort to subdue the Everglades area began as early peas, peppers and potatoes became the dominant as 1850 with the Swamplands Act, which transferred crops to the south.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Statewide Alligator Harvest Data Summary
    FWC Home : Wildlife & Habitats : Managed Species : Alligator Management Program FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATEWIDE ALLIGATOR HARVEST DATA SUMMARY YEAR AVERAGE LENGTH TOTAL HARVEST FEET INCHES 2000 8 8 2,552 2001 8 8.2 2,268 2002 8 3.7 2,164 2003 8 4.6 2,830 2004 8 5.8 3,237 2005 8 4.9 3,436 2006 8 4.8 6,430 2007 8 6.7 5,942 2008 8 5.1 6,204 2009 8 0 7,844 2010 7 10.9 7,654 2011 8 1.2 8,103 Provisional data 2000 STATEWIDE ALLIGATOR HARVEST DATA SUMMARY AVERAGE LENGTH TOTAL AREA NO AREA NAME FEET INCHES HARVEST 101 LAKE PIERCE 7 9.8 12 102 LAKE MARIAN 9 9.3 30 104 LAKE HATCHINEHA 8 7.9 36 105 KISSIMMEE RIVER (POOL A) 7 6.7 17 106 KISSIMMEE RIVER (POOL C) 8 8.3 17 109 LAKE ISTOKPOGA 8 0.5 116 110 LAKE KISSIMMEE 7 11.5 172 112 TENEROC FMA 8 6.0 1 402 EVERGLADES WMA (WCAs 2A & 2B) 8 8.2 12 404 EVERGLADES WMA (WCAs 3A & 3B) 8 10.4 63 405 HOLEY LAND WMA 9 11.0 2 500 BLUE CYPRESS LAKE 8 5.6 31 501 ST. JOHNS RIVER 1 8 2.2 69 502 ST. JOHNS RIVER 2 8 0.7 152 504 ST. JOHNS RIVER 4 8 3.6 83 505 LAKE HARNEY 7 8.7 65 506 ST. JOHNS RIVER 5 9 2.2 38 508 CRESCENT LAKE 8 9.9 23 510 LAKE JESUP 9 9.5 28 518 LAKE ROUSSEAU 7 9.3 32 520 LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA 9 7.1 47 547 GUANA RIVER WMA 9 4.6 5 548 OCALA WMA 9 8.7 4 549 THREE LAKES WMA 9 9.3 4 601 LAKE OKEECHOBEE (WEST) 8 11.7 448 602 LAKE OKEECHOBEE (NORTH) 9 1.8 163 603 LAKE OKEECHOBEE (EAST) 8 6.8 38 604 LAKE OKEECHOBEE (SOUTH) 8 5.2 323 711 LAKE HANCOCK 9 3.9 101 721 RODMAN RESERVOIR 8 7.0 118 722 ORANGE LAKE 8 9.3 125 723 LOCHLOOSA LAKE 9 3.4 56 734 LAKE SEMINOLE 9 1.5 16 741 LAKE TRAFFORD
    [Show full text]
  • Littoral Vegetation of Lake Tohopekaliga: Community Descriptions Prior to a Large-Scale Fisheries Habitat-Enhancement Project
    LITTORAL VEGETATION OF LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS PRIOR TO A LARGE-SCALE FISHERIES HABITAT-ENHANCEMENT PROJECT By ZACHARIAH C. WELCH A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004 Copyright 2004 by Zachariah C Welch ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my coworkers and volunteers who gave their time, sweat, and expertise to the hours of plant collection and laboratory sorting throughout this study. Special thanks go to Scott Berryman, Janell Brush, Jamie Duberstein and Ann Marie Muench for repeatedly contributing to the sampling efforts and making the overall experience extremely enjoyable. This dream team and I have traversed and molested wetland systems from Savannah, GA, to the Everglades of south Florida, braving and enjoying whatever was offered. Their camaraderie and unparalleled work ethic will be sorely missed. My advisor, Wiley Kitchens, is directly responsible for the completion of this degree and my positive experiences over the years. With a stubborn, adamant belief in my potential and capability, he provided me with the confidence I needed to face the physical and emotional challenges of graduate school. His combination of guidance and absence was the perfect medium for personal and professional growth, giving me the freedom to make my own decisions and the education to make the right ones. I thank my committee members, George Tanner and Phil Darby, for generously giving their expertise and time while providing the freedom for me to learn from my mistakes. Additionally, I thank Phil Darby for introducing me to the wonderful world of airboats and wetlands, and for sparking my interest in graduate school.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Field Naturalist Published by the Florida Ornithological Society
    Florida Field Naturalist PUBLISHED BY THE FLORIDA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOL. 41, NO. 3 SEPTEMBER 2013 PAGES 71-106 Florida Field Naturalist 41(3):71-79, 2013. LONG-TERM TRENDS IN OSPREY (Pandion haliaetus) NESTING POPULATIONS ON LAKE ISTOKPOGA, FLORIDA MICHAEL A. MCMILLIAN1,2 1MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center, 300 Buck Island Ranch Road, Lake Placid, Florida 33852 2Highlands County Parks and Natural Resources, 4344 George Boulevard, Sebring, Florida 33871 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract.—Nesting Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) were censused on Lake Istokpoga, Highlands County, Florida, from 1989 to 2012 to determine their abundance, distribu- tion, and breeding status. A census conducted on the lake in 1910 recorded 75 occupied nests, however, only 9 nests were documented from a similar census conducted in 1973. The recent data, 190 nests (using only those data directly comparable to those of 1910 and 1973), suggest a dramatic recovery of this population greatly surpassing the early historic level. Nesting and foraging habitat availability at Lake Istokpoga has changed little since the early 1950s, thus a plausible explanation for the decline and subsequent increase in breeding Ospreys on Lake Istokpoga is the use of organochloride pesticides (DDT and Aldrin) beginning in the 1950s until their subsequent ban in the mid 1970s. Today, Lake Istokpoga supports one of the largest concentrations of nesting Ospreys in the world, and this may be related to the introduction of the submerged invasive aquatic macrophyte Hydrilla. While the decline and recovery of Osprey populations has been reported for many parts of the species range, it has not been reported from Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Basin Management Action Plan
    FINAL BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN for the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Total Phosphorus by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in Lake Okeechobee developed by the Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration Water Quality Restoration Program Florida Department of Environmental Protection Tallahassee, FL 32399 in cooperation with the Lake Okeechobee Stakeholders December 2014 Final Lake Okeechobee Basin Management Action Plan – December 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Lake Okeechobee Basin Management Action Plan was prepared as part of a statewide watershed management approach to restore and protect Florida’s water quality. It was developed with participation from affected local, regional, and state governmental interests, identified below; elected officials and citizens; and private interests. Page ii of xxviii Final Lake Okeechobee Basin Management Action Plan – December 2014 LIST OF LAKE OKEECHOBEE BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN PARTICIPANTS TYPE OF GOVERNMENTAL OR PRIVATE ENTITY PARTICIPANT Glades Highlands Martin Counties Okeechobee Orange Osceola Polk City of Avon Park City of Kissimmee City of Edgewood Municipalities City of Okeechobee City of Orlando City of Sebring Okeechobee Utility Authority Istokpoga Marsh Watershed Improvement District Special Districts Reedy Creek Improvement District Spring Lake Improvement District Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Department of Environmental Protection South Florida Water Management District Southwest Florida Water Management
    [Show full text]
  • Okeechobee Gourd Cucurbita Okeechobeensis Ssp
    Okeechobee Gourd Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis Small he Okeechobee gourd is a vine that was locally Federal Status: Endangered (July 12, 1993) common in the extensive pond apple (Annona Critical Habitat: None Designated Tglabra) forest that once grew south of Lake Florida Status: Endangered Okeechobee (Small 1922). As early as 1930, at least 95 percent of the pond apple forests had been destroyed Recovery Plan Status: Original (May 18, 1999) (Small 1930), and pond apple now persists as scattered Geographic Coverage: South Florida trees or small stands around Lake Okeechobee and in the Everglades. The conversion of these swamps and marshes for agriculture and water-level regulation in Lake Figure 1. County distribution of the Okeechobee gourd. Okeechobee have been the principal causes of the reduction in range and number of Okeechobee gourd plants. The Okeechobee gourd is now restricted in the wild to two small disjunct populations one along the St. Johns River which separates Volusia, Seminole, and Lake counties in north Florida, and a second around the shoreline of Lake Okeechobee in South Florida. Currently, the survival of the Okeechobee gourd in South Florida is threatened by the water-regulation practices in Lake Okeechobee and the continued expansion of exotic vegetation in the lake. Careful use of herbicides to control exotic woody vegetation (primarily Melaleuca) and dense growths of aquatic vegetation can be compatible with recovery of the Okeechobee gourd. This account represents the recovery plan for the Okeechobee gourd. Description The Okeechobee gourd is an annual or perennial, fibrous- rooted, high-climbing vine with tendrils, belonging to the gourd family (Cucurbitaceae).
    [Show full text]