DOCSLIB.ORG

Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study: Final Integrated Feasibilty Report and Programmatic EIS: April

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study: Final Integrated Feasibilty Report and Programmatic EIS: April Coordination Act Reports ANNEX A1 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COORDINATION ACT REPORTS Annex A1 April 1999 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service Everglades National Park South Florida Restoration Projects 4001 State Road 9336 P.O. Box 2676 Homestead, FL 33034 Vero Beach, FL 32962 March 1, 1999 Colonel Joe R. Miller District Commander, Jacksonville District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 400 West Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Attention: Planning Division Re: Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study (C&SF Restudy) Dear Colonel Miller: Thank you for your letter, dated February 19, 1999, clarifying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) description of the Comprehensive Plan that will be presented in the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study (C&SF Restudy). The C&SF Restudy was authorized by section 309(I) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992 (P.L. 102-580). The Department of the Interior (Department) has prepared the enclosed final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) report. This fulfills the requirements of section 2(b) of the FWCA (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and represents the Secretary of the Interior’s report to Congress on the C&SF Restudy. This report supplements the draft FWCA report we provided on August 7, 1998. The majority of our findings in the draft report remain in effect; the attached report serves as an update on the progress made in dealing with the most significant issues raised in the draft. We ask that the Corps include the draft report and this final report as the complete findings of the Secretary of the Interior in publishing the Final PEIS. We also provided a preliminary programmatic biological opinion on August 7, 1998. Your February 19, 1999, letter requested that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) confirm the preliminary biological opinion as the final biological opinion, based on the Corps’ retention of Alternative D13R (addressed in the preliminary biological opinion) as the preferred alternative in the Final PEIS. We concur with your request. Therefore, this concludes consultation at the programmatic level in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please refer to the closing statement of our preliminary biological opinion regarding circumstances that would trigger the need to re-initiate consultation. We look forward to assisting the Corps in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act as we proceed into detailed planning of the components of the Comprehensive Plan. The enclosed final FWCA report includes brief reviews of our findings relative to effects on federally listed threatened and endangered species for the 2010 Case Study and the D13R4 scenario, which have been analyzed since issuance of our preliminary biological opinion. The Conceptual Plan you described in your February 19, 1999, letter creates the opportunity to provide enormous benefit to the South Florida Ecosystem. We commend your staff on their dedication and accomplishment. In particular, we wish to express gratitude to the technical staffs of the Corps and the South Florida Water Management District who worked tirelessly under extreme time constraints to address the most significant issues raised in the draft FWCA report. We are extremely encouraged by the progress made in addressing these issues, which is summarized in a table in the enclosed final FWCA report. Your February 19 letter included a number of commitments to approach future efforts in a manner consistent with the Department’s recommendations in the enclosed report, and we express the Department’s commitment to cooperate with you during detailed project design to translate those concepts to specific structural and operational features. We believe that the multi-agency Restudy Team displayed a strong commitment to fully resolve the issues we raised in the draft FWCA report. Sustaining this level of commitment as we proceed with implementation will ensure that the Comprehensive Plan serves as the foundation for restoration of the natural values of the South Florida Ecosystem. We look forward to working with you on these next steps in implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, Sincerely, Stephen W. Forsythe Richard G. Ring State Supervisor Superintendent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Everglades National Park Enclosure: Final FWCA report w/appendices 2 cc: Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, DOI, Washington, DC Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, DOI, Washington, DC Director, FWS, Washington, DC Director, NPS, Washington, DC Regional Director, FWS, Atlanta, GA Regional Director, NPS, Atlanta, GA Executive Director, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Miami, FL Executive Director, SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL Executive Director, GFC, Tallahassee, FL Environmental Services, GFC, Vero Beach, FL Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, Coral Gables, FL Biscayne National Park, Homestead, FL Big Cypress National Preserve, Ochopee, FL Loxahatchee NWR, Boynton Beach, FL Ding Darling NWR, Sanibel Island, FL Florida Panther NWR, Naples, FL Biological Resources Division, USGS, Miami, FL Miccosukee Tribe of Florida, Miami, FL Seminole Tribe of Florida, Hollywood, FL 3 FINAL FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT March 1999 CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW STUDY Prepared by: South Florida Restoration Office Vero Beach, Florida U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted to: Jacksonville District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Table of Contents I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..1 II. Progress Report on Key Issues Raised by the Department…………………..…..1 III. Review of the Performance of the D13R4 Scenario……………………………...4 IV. Water Quality Concerns Raised By The D13R4 Scenario…………………….…9 V. Threatened and Endangered Species………………………………….………….10 VI. The Need for Further Multi-Agency Review of the Other Project Elements (OPEs)…………………………………………………………………14 VII. Science/Research/Peer Review………………………………………………….14 VIII. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………15 IX. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms………………………………………17 i I. Introduction This final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) report supplements the August 7, 1998, draft FWCA report, providing an update of the progress in addressing the outstanding issues raised in the draft report. Both the draft and final FWCA reports should be included as attachments to the Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) final Programmatic EIS, and the coupled FWCA reports, constitute the report of the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with section 2(b) of the FWCA. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC) is providing a separate FWCA report, which will constitute the views and recommendations of the State wildlife agency. Development of the Implementation Plan and the associated modeling of the 2010 Case Study are among the more significant accomplishments since delivery of the draft FWCA report. The Department of the Interior’s (Department) comments on these efforts were addressed in a Planning Aid Letter (PAL), dated February 18, 1999, which is incorporated into this report as Appendix E. This final FWCA report supplements the discussion of the 2010 Case Study in the PAL with a discussion of its potential effects on federally listed threatened and endangered species. This report highlights selected recommendations provided in the PAL. This report includes important analyses of recent modeling scenarios (D13R1-4) and the preparation of issue papers on the most significant outstanding issues raised in the draft FWCA report. The purpose, scope, and authority for the C&SF Restudy are described in the draft report. That report also provided brief summaries of the evolution of project designs and the evaluation methodology, which can be reviewed in more detail on the Restudy website: http://141.232.1.11/org/pld/restudy/hpm/index.html. II. Progress Report on Key Issues Raised by the Department The list of 14 issues in Table 1 was derived from the draft FWCA report (August 1998). This table is provided to summarize any progress in addressing these issues between September 1998 and January 1999. The Department understands that the issues raised in the draft FWCA will require long-term efforts to resolve. The additional modeling of the D13R1 through D13R4 scenarios was largely in response to the most prominent of the issues raised in the draft FWCA report. Members of the Restudy Team held a series of multi-agency meetings, to deal with the highest priority issues, which were directly related to identified inadequacies in the performance of Alternative D13R. The participants decided that issue papers were needed for the first four items listed in Table 1. The intent was to circulate these issue papers for discussion and approval by the full membership of the Alternative Evaluation Team (AET). Issue papers on the St. Lucie Estuary, Biscayne Bay ecological restoration, and Biscayne Bay reuse followed that procedure. The original plan called for separate issue papers for the southern Everglades and Florida Bay, and for the northern and central Everglades. However, 1 issues in these two areas were combined into a single issue paper for the Everglades, and this is attached as Appendix A. An issue paper has also been prepared on water quality, but it is being revised to include the proposed features of the D13R4 scenario, and it is not available to be included as an appendix to this report. The issue papers included as appendices to this report are the following: Appendix A – Everglades Issue Paper Appendix B – Issue Paper on Freshwater Flow to Biscayne Bay Appendix C – Issue Paper on Flows to Biscayne National Park Utilizing Reuse Appendix D – St. Lucie Estuary Issue Paper Table 1. Summary of Progress on the Fourteen Issues in the Draft FWCA Report ISSUE PROGRESS 1) Increase total overland The D13R4 scenario was developed and evaluated by the AET.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Florida Audubon Naturalist Summer 2021
    Naturalist Summer 2021 Female Snail Kite. Photo: Nancy Elwood Heidi McCree, Board Chair 2021 Florida Audubon What a privilege to serve as the newly-elected Chair of the Society Leadership Audubon Florida Board. It is an honor to be associated with Audubon Florida’s work and together, we will continue to Executive Director address the important issues and achieve our mission to protect Julie Wraithmell birds and the places they need. We send a huge thank you to our outgoing Chair, Jud Laird, for his amazing work and Board of Directors leadership — the birds are better off because of your efforts! Summer is here! Locals and visitors alike enjoy sun, the beach, and Florida’s amazing Chair waterways. Our beaches are alive with nesting sea and shorebirds, and across the Heidi McCree Everglades we are wrapping up a busy wading bird breeding season. At the Center Vice-Chair for Birds of Prey, more than 200 raptor chicks crossed our threshold — and we Carol Colman Timmis released more than half back to the wild. As Audubon Florida’s newest Board Chair, I see the nesting season as a time to celebrate the resilience of birds, while looking Treasurer forward to how we can protect them into the migration season and beyond. We Scott Taylor will work with state agencies to make sure the high levels of conservation funding Secretary turn into real wins for both wildlife and communities (pg. 8). We will forge new Lida Rodriguez-Taseff partnerships to protect Lake Okeechobee and the Snail Kites that nest there (pg. 14).
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Forever Work Plan
    South Florida Water Management District Florida Forever Work Plan December 13, 2001 Florida Forever Work Plan Contributors South Florida Water Management District Florida Forever Work Plan November 2001 Contributors Susan Coughanour Bill Helfferich Jenni Hiscock Lewis Hornung Blair Littlejohn Victor Lopez Gregg Mallinger Victor Mullen Agnes Ramsey Wanda Caffie-Simpson Paul Whalen i Florida Forever Work Plan Contributors ii Florida Forever Work Plan Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1999, the Florida Forever program was created, which authorized the issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed $3 billion for acquisitions of land and water areas. This revenue is to be used for the purposes of restoration, conservation, recreation, water resource development, historical preservation and capital improvements to such land and water areas. This program is intended to accomplish environmental restoration, enhance public access and recreational enjoyment, promote long-term management goals, and facilitate water resource development. The requirements for developing The Florida Forever Water Management District Work Plan are contained in Section (s.) 373.199, Florida Statutes (F.S). The provision states that the water management districts are to create a five-year plan that identifies projects meeting specific criteria. In developing their project lists, each district is to integrate its surface water improvement and management plans, Save Our Rivers (SOR) land acquisition lists, stormwater management projects, proposed water resource development projects, proposed water body restoration projects, and other properties or activities that would assist in meeting the goals of Florida Forever. The initial plan was submitted on June 1, 2001 to the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).
    [Show full text]
  • Biscayne Aquifer, Florida Groundwater Provides Nearly 50 Percent of the Nation’S Drinking Water
    National Water Quality Program National Water-Quality Assessment Project Groundwater Quality in the Biscayne Aquifer, Florida Groundwater provides nearly 50 percent of the Nation’s drinking water. To help protect this vital resource, the U.S. Geological Survey - (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project assesses groundwater quality in aquifers that are important sources of drinking water (Burow and Belitz, 2014). The Biscayne aquifer constitutes one of the important aquifers being evaluated. Background Overview of Water Quality The Biscayne aquifer underlies an area of about 4,000 square miles in southeastern Florida. About 4 million people live in this area, and the Biscayne aquifer is the primary source of drinking water with about 700 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) withdrawn for public supply in 2000 Inorganic Organic (Maupin and Barber, 2005; Arnold and others, 2020a). The study area for the Biscayne aquifer constituents constituents underlies much of Broward and Miami-Dade Counties in southeastern Florida and includes 3 the cities of Miami and Fort Lauderdale. Most of the area overlying the aquifer is developed 5 and consists of about 63 percent urban and 9 percent agricultural land use. The remaining area 17 (28 percent) is undeveloped (Homer and others, 2015). The Biscayne aquifer is an unconfined, surficial aquifer made up of shallow, highly 80 95 permeable limestone as well as some sandstone units (Miller, 1990). Because of the shallow depth of the units that make up this aquifer, the connection to surface water is an important aspect of the hydrogeology of the Biscayne aquifer (Miller, 1990). A system of canals and levees are used to manage the freshwater resources of southern Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Environmental Measures for Assessing Effects of Water Level Changes on Lakes and Wetlands in the Central Florida Water Initiative Area
    Development of Environmental Measures for Assessing Effects of Water Level Changes on Lakes and Wetlands in the Central Florida Water Initiative Area Central Florida Water Initiative’s Environmental Measures Team Final Report November, 2013 Attachments A‐H Environmental Measures Team Final Report Attachment A – Land Development Index (LDI) and Cross‐Walk of Florida Land Use Cover and Classification System (FLUCCS) Codes to LDI Values November, 2013 Environmental Measures Team Final Report Attachment A – Land Development Index (LDI) Tony Janicki, Ph.D. Janicki Environmental, Inc. Land Use and the Land Development Index The Land Development Index (LDI) (Brown et al. 2003) was estimated for each of the EMT study sites using land use data and a development intensity measure derived from energy use per unit area. The LDI is an estimate of the potential impacts from human‐dominated activities that are experienced by ecological systems within those watersheds. Initially, each of the wetland sites was overlain on the ECFT model grid. Then, the land uses (i.e., FLUCCS codes) within the ECFT model grid were identified and the contributing areas enumerated. Each of the land uses was assigned an LDI coefficient (Table A‐1). The overall LDI ranking was calculated as an area weighted average. Using the GIS, total area and percent of total area occupied by each of the land uses were determined and then the LDI was calculated as follows: LDITotal = Σ %LUi * LDIi Where: LDItotal = LDI ranking for wetland site, %LUi= percent of the total area of influence in land use I, and LDIi = landscape development intensity coefficient for land use i.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Trends in Indicator Regions of Everglades National Park Jennifer H
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons GIS Center GIS Center 5-4-2015 Vegetation Trends in Indicator Regions of Everglades National Park Jennifer H. Richards Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, [email protected] Daniel Gann GIS-RS Center, Florida International University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/gis Recommended Citation Richards, Jennifer H. and Gann, Daniel, "Vegetation Trends in Indicator Regions of Everglades National Park" (2015). GIS Center. 29. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/gis/29 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the GIS Center at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GIS Center by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Final Report for VEGETATION TRENDS IN INDICATOR REGIONS OF EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK Task Agreement No. P12AC50201 Cooperative Agreement No. H5000-06-0104 Host University No. H5000-10-5040 Date of Report: Feb. 12, 2015 Principle Investigator: Jennifer H. Richards Dept. of Biological Sciences Florida International University Miami, FL 33199 305-348-3102 (phone), 305-348-1986 (FAX) [email protected] (e-mail) Co-Principle Investigator: Daniel Gann FIU GIS/RS Center Florida International University Miami, FL 33199 305-348-1971 (phone), 305-348-6445 (FAX) [email protected] (e-mail) Park Representative: Jimi Sadle, Botanist Everglades National Park 40001 SR 9336 Homestead, FL 33030 305-242-7806 (phone), 305-242-7836 (Fax) FIU Administrative Contact: Susie Escorcia Division of Sponsored Research 11200 SW 8th St. – MARC 430 Miami, FL 33199 305-348-2494 (phone), 305-348-6087 (FAX) 2 Table of Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SFRC T-593 Phenology of Flowering and Fruiting
    Report T-593 Phenology of Flowering an Fruiting In Pia t Com unities of Everglades NP and Biscayne N , orida RESOURCE MANAGEMENT EVERGLi\DES NATIONAL PARK BOX 279 NOMESTEAD, FLORIDA 33030 Everglades National Park, South Florida Research Center, P.O. Box 279, Homestead, Florida 33030 PHENOLOGY OF FLOWERING AND FRUITING IN PLANT COMMUNITIES OF EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK AND BISCAYNE NATIONAL MONUMENT, FLORIDA Report T - 593 Lloyd L. Loope U.S. National P ark Service South Florida Research Center Everglades National Park Homestead, Florida 33030 June 1980 Loope, Lloyd L. 1980. Phenology of Flowering and Fruiting in Plant Communities of Everglades National Park and Biscayne National Monument, Florida. South Florida Research Center Report T - 593. 50 pp. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES • ii LIST OF FIGU RES iv INTRODUCTION • 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. • 1 METHODS. • • • • • • • 1 CLIMATE AND WATER LEVELS FOR 1978 •• . 3 RESULTS ••• 3 DISCUSSION. 3 The need and mechanisms for synchronization of reproductive activity . 3 Tropical hardwood forest. • • 5 Freshwater wetlands 5 Mangrove vegetation 6 Successional vegetation on abandoned farmland. • 6 Miami Rock Ridge pineland. 7 SUMMARY ••••• 7 LITERATURE CITED 8 i LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Climatic data for Homestead Experiment Station, 1978 . • . • . • . • . • . • . 10 Table 2. Climatic data for Tamiami Trail at 40-Mile Bend, 1978 11 Table 3. Climatic data for Flamingo, 1978. • • • • • • • • • 12 Table 4. Flowering and fruiting phenology, tropical hardwood hammock, area of Elliott Key Marina, Biscayne National Monument, 1978 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 Table 5. Flowering and fruiting phenology, tropical hardwood hammock, Bear Lake Trail, Everglades National Park (ENP), 1978 • . • . • . 17 Table 6. Flowering and fruiting phenology, tropical hardwood hammock, Mahogany Hammock, ENP, 1978.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Desk Concierge Book Table of Contents
    FRONT DESK CONCIERGE BOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I II III HISTORY MUSEUMS DESTINATION 1.1 Miami Beach 2.1 Bass Museum of Art ENTERTAINMENT 1.2 Founding Fathers 2.2 The Wolfsonian 3.1 Miami Metro Zoo 1.3 The Leslie Hotels 2.3 World Erotic Art Museum (WEAM) 3.2 Miami Children’s Museum 1.4 The Nassau Suite Hotel 2.4 Pérez Art Museum Miami (PAMM) 3.3 Jungle Island 1.5 The Shepley Hotel 2.5 Miami Science Museum 3.4 Rapids Water Park 2.6 Vizcaya Museum & Gardens 3.5 Miami Sea Aquarium 2.7 Frost Art Museum 3.6 Lion Country Safari 2.8 Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) 3.7 Seminole Tribe of Florida 2.9 Lowe Art Museum 3.8 Monkey Jungle 2.10 Flagler Museum 3.9 Venetian Pool 3.10 Everglades Alligator Farm TABLE OF CONTENTS IV V VI VII VIII IX SHOPPING MALLS MOVIE THEATERS PERFORMING CASINO & GAMING SPORTS ACTIVITIES SPORTING EVENTS 4.1 The Shops at Fifth & Alton 5.1 Regal South Beach VENUES 7.1 Magic City Casino 8.1 Tennis 4.2 Lincoln Road Mall 5.2 Miami Beach Cinematheque (Indep.) 7.2 Seminole Hard Rock Casino 8.2 Lap/Swimming Pool 6.1 New World Symphony 9.1 Sunlife Stadium 5.3 O Cinema Miami Beach (Indep.) 7.3 Gulfstream Park Casino 8.3 Basketball 4.3 Bal Harbour Shops 9.2 American Airlines Arena 6.2 The Fillmore Miami Beach 7.4 Hialeah Park Race Track 8.4 Golf 9.3 Marlins Park 6.3 Adrienne Arscht Center 8.5 Biking 9.4 Ice Hockey 6.4 American Airlines Arena 8.6 Rowing 9.5 Crandon Park Tennis Center 6.5 Gusman Center 8.7 Sailing 6.6 Broward Center 8.8 Kayaking 6.7 Hard Rock Live 8.9 Paddleboarding 6.8 BB&T Center 8.10 Snorkeling 8.11 Scuba Diving 8.12
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Board 1
    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Evaluation of Options for Sending More Water to Florida Bay Via Taylor Slough Using Regional Simulation Model for the Everglades and Lower East Coast Fahmida Khatun, PE, PMP, Raul Novoa, PE and Walter Wilcox, PE Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration April 18-20, 2017 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Florida Bay Concerns LOK ENP Florida Bay TS 2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Plan to Help Florida Bay 3 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT South Dade Study Features 1. Seasonal (Aug-Dec) lowered operations for the S-332B, S-332C and S-332D and S-199s and S-200s pump stations. 2. lower capacity, more frequent opening of S-176 and S-177 spillways 3. Add a 200 cfs pump downstream of S-178 4. Constructing maximum 15 miles long seepage barrier S-176 S-200 5. Infrastructure improvement to S-332 S-178 promote flows toward Taylor S-199 Slough: Moving forward with Florida Bay Plan Aerojet Canal 4 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Model Details Modeling Tool: RSM (Regional Simulation Model) Developed by SFWMD with South RSMGL Florida’s unique hydrology in mind Model: RSMGL (Regional Simulation Model for Everglades & Lower East Coast) Model Domain: Domain size: 5,825 sq. miles Mesh Information: Finite element mesh Number of cells: 5,794 Average size: ~ 1 sq. mile Canal Information: FL Bay Total length: ~ 1,000 miles Plan SD Study Number of segments: ~ 1,000 Average length: ~ 1 mile Run Time: ~ 1 day 5 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Florida Bay Options Scenario Step1A4 Scenario
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Pattern – Marl Prairie/Slough Gradient Annual Report - 2013 (Cooperative Agreement #: W912HZ-09-2-0018)
    Landscape Pattern – Marl Prairie/Slough Gradient Annual Report - 2013 (Cooperative Agreement #: W912HZ-09-2-0018) Submitted to Dr. Al F. Cofrancesco U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S. Army – ERDC) 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39081-6199 Email: [email protected] Jay P. Sah, Michael S. Ross, Pablo L. Ruiz Southeast Environmental Research Center Florida Internal University, Miami, FL 33186 2015 Southeast Environmental Research Center 11200 SW 8th Street, OE 148 Miami, FL 33199 Tel: 305.348.3095 Fax: 305.34834096 http://casgroup.fiu.edu/serc/ Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iii General Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Data acquisition ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Vegetation sampling ........................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Ground elevation and water depth measuremnets ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FLORIDA STATE PARKS FEE SCHEDULE (Fees Are Per Day Unless Otherwise Noted) 1. Statewide Fees Admission Range $1.00**
    FLORIDA STATE PARKS FEE SCHEDULE (Fees are per day unless otherwise noted) 1. Statewide Fees Admission Range $1.00** - $10.00** (Does not include buses or admission to Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park or Weeki Wachee Springs State Park) Single-Occupant Vehicle or Motorcycle Admission $4.00 - $6.00** (Includes motorcycles with one or more riders and vehicles with one occupant) Per Vehicle Admission $5.00 - $10.00** (Allows admission for 2 to 8 people per vehicle; over 8 people requires additional per person fees) Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Per Passenger Exceeding 8 Per Vehicle; Per $2.00 - $5.00** Passenger In Vehicles With Holder of Annual Individual Entrance Pass Admission Economically Disadvantaged Admission One-half of base (Must be Florida resident admission fee** and currently participating in Food Stamp Program) Bus Tour Admission $2.00** per person (Does not include Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park, or $60.00 Skyway Fishing Pier State Park, or Weeki Wachee Springs State Park) whichever is less Honor Park Admission Per Vehicle $2.00 - $10.00** Pedestrians and Bicyclists $2.00 - $5.00** Sunset Admission $4.00 - $10.00** (Per vehicle, one hour before closing) Florida National Guard Admission One-half of base (Active members, spouses, and minor children; validation required) admission fee** Children, under 6 years of age Free (All parks) Annual Entrance Pass Fee Range $20.00 - $500.00 Individual Annual Entrance Pass $60.00 (Retired U. S. military, honorably discharged veterans, active-duty $45.00 U. S. military and reservists; validation required) Family Annual Entrance Pass $120.00 (maximum of 8 people in a group; only allows up to 2 people at Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park and Weeki Wachee Springs State Park) (Retired U.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited in Lizards Natural History Database
    Literature Cited in Lizards Natural History database Abdala, C. S., A. S. Quinteros, and R. E. Espinoza. 2008. Two new species of Liolaemus (Iguania: Liolaemidae) from the puna of northwestern Argentina. Herpetologica 64:458-471. Abdala, C. S., D. Baldo, R. A. Juárez, and R. E. Espinoza. 2016. The first parthenogenetic pleurodont Iguanian: a new all-female Liolaemus (Squamata: Liolaemidae) from western Argentina. Copeia 104:487-497. Abdala, C. S., J. C. Acosta, M. R. Cabrera, H. J. Villaviciencio, and J. Marinero. 2009. A new Andean Liolaemus of the L. montanus series (Squamata: Iguania: Liolaemidae) from western Argentina. South American Journal of Herpetology 4:91-102. Abdala, C. S., J. L. Acosta, J. C. Acosta, B. B. Alvarez, F. Arias, L. J. Avila, . S. M. Zalba. 2012. Categorización del estado de conservación de las lagartijas y anfisbenas de la República Argentina. Cuadernos de Herpetologia 26 (Suppl. 1):215-248. Abell, A. J. 1999. Male-female spacing patterns in the lizard, Sceloporus virgatus. Amphibia-Reptilia 20:185-194. Abts, M. L. 1987. Environment and variation in life history traits of the Chuckwalla, Sauromalus obesus. Ecological Monographs 57:215-232. Achaval, F., and A. Olmos. 2003. Anfibios y reptiles del Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay: Facultad de Ciencias. Achaval, F., and A. Olmos. 2007. Anfibio y reptiles del Uruguay, 3rd edn. Montevideo, Uruguay: Serie Fauna 1. Ackermann, T. 2006. Schreibers Glatkopfleguan Leiocephalus schreibersii. Munich, Germany: Natur und Tier. Ackley, J. W., P. J. Muelleman, R. E. Carter, R. W. Henderson, and R. Powell. 2009. A rapid assessment of herpetofaunal diversity in variously altered habitats on Dominica.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida State Parks Data by 2021 House District
    30, Florida State Parks FY 2019-20 Data by 2021 House Districts This compilation was produced by the Florida State Parks Foundation . FloridaStateParksFoundation.org Statewide Totals • 175 Florida State Parks and Trails (164 Parks / 11 Trails) comprising nearly 800,000 Acres • $2.2 billion direct impact to Florida’s economy • $150 million in sales tax revenue • 31,810 jobs supported • 25 million visitors served # of Economic Jobs Park House Districts Parks Impact Supported Visitors 1 Salzman, Michelle 0 2 Andrade, Robert Alexander “Alex” 3 31,073,188 436 349,462 Big Lagoon State Park 10,336,536 145 110,254 Perdido Key State Park 17,191,206 241 198,276 Tarklin Bayou Preserve State Park 3,545,446 50 40,932 3 Williamson, Jayer 3 26,651,285 416 362,492 Blackwater Heritage State Trail 18,971,114 266 218,287 Blackwater River State Park 7,101,563 99 78,680 Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park 578,608 51 65,525 4 Maney, Thomas Patterson “Patt” 2 41,626,278 583 469,477 Fred Gannon Rocky Bayou State Park 7,558,966 106 83,636 Henderson Beach State Park 34,067,312 477 385,841 5 Drake, Brad 9 64,140,859 897 696,022 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 Deer Lake State Park 1,738,073 24 19,557 Eden Gardens State Park 3,235,182 45 36,128 Falling Waters State Park 5,510,029 77 58,866 Florida Caverns State Park 4,090,576 57 39,405 Grayton Beach State Park 17,072,108 239 186,686 Ponce de Leon Springs State Park 6,911,495 97 78,277 Three Rivers State Park 2,916,005 41 30,637 Topsail Hill Preserve State Park 19,533,681 273 213,693 6 Trumbull, Jay 2 45,103,015 632 504,860 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 St.
    [Show full text]