DOCSLIB.ORG

Movements, Fishery Interactions, and Unusual Mortalities of Bottlenose Dolphins

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Movements, Fishery Interactions, and Unusual Mortalities of Bottlenose Dolphins MOVEMENTS, FISHERY INTERACTIONS, AND UNUSUAL MORTALITIES OF BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS by STEVE F. SHIPPEE B.S. University of West Florida, 1983 Professional Certificate in Natural Resource Management, University of California San Diego, 2001 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Biology in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term 2014 Major Professor: Graham A.J. Worthy © 2014 Steve F. Shippee ii ABSTRACT Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) inhabit coastal and estuarine habitats across the globe. Well-studied dolphin communities thrive in some peninsular Florida bays, but less is known about dolphins in the Florida panhandle where coastal development, storms, algal blooms, fishery interactions, and catastrophic pollution have severely impacted their populations. Dolphins can react to disturbance and environmental stressors by modifying their movements and habitat use, which may put them in jeopardy of conflict with humans. Fishery interaction (FI) plays an increasing role in contributing to dolphin mortalities. I investigated dolphin movements, habitat use, residency patterns, and frequency of FI with sport fishing. Dolphins were tracked using radio tags and archival data loggers to determine fine-scale swimming, daily travels, and foraging activity. Dolphin abundance, site fidelity, ranging, stranding mortality, and community structure was characterized at Choctawhatchee and Pensacola Bays in the Florida Panhandle via small boat surveying and photo-identification. Reported increases in dolphin interactions with sport anglers were assessed at deep sea reefs and coastal fishing piers near Destin, FL and Orange Beach, AL. Results from these studies yield insights into the ranging and foraging patterns of bottlenose dolphins, and increase our knowledge of them in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Dolphins were tagged with short-term Trac Pac tags (N=23) and bolt on radio-tags (N=5) during 1995-2007. Swim speeds averaged 1.6 m/s (±0.43 SD), which agreed with the predicted mean cost of transport. On average, 48% of their day was spent transiting between habitats. Swimming and activity rates did not vary significantly with time of day/night. Foraging and social interactions constituted 39% of their day. Increased foraging was detected by stomach iii temperature changes that revealed dolphins fed during daylight, but also at night with a peak starting just after sunset. Tagged dolphins exhibited behaviors suggesting ‘sleep’ during slow speed swimming, which represented 15% of their day on average. Dolphins made daily movements beyond their expected core area, heading up river tributaries, and to the open sea. Surveys in Choctawhatchee Bay began in 2006 and later expanded to include Pensacola Bay in 2010 following concern of dolphin mortalities in concert with the Deepwater Horizon spill and two extremely cold winters. Photo-identification revealed dolphins moved frequently between the bays. Of 655 individuals identified in 2010-11, 22% were seen during all seasons, with highest abundance in the fall. Resident dolphins showed site fidelity to specific areas (42%) or traveled between parts of the bays (58%). Three communities of dolphins were identified from stable isotope analysis and photo-id: 1) tidal inlet associated, 2) estuarine specific, and 3) river delta associated. Dolphins traveled over 70 km via the near-shore Gulf between the inlets, and through the inshore waterways. The findings suggest dolphin communities in these bays overlap and many dolphins had a high probability of oil exposure in 2010. I observed sport fishing trips to assess frequency and nature of FI over 28 months. FI was seen at 18% of fishing reef spots. Scavenging of discarded fish was seen most often, while depredation of catch occurred in 40% of FI observations. Of 103 dolphins identified on offshore reefs, 13% were encountered repeatedly. At coastal fishing piers, dolphins came within 100 m on 42% of visits, while FI was seen on 17% of visits. Most dolphins at the fishing piers were known inlet and estuarine residents, while offshore reef dolphins were never seen near the beach. This indicates that discrete communities are involved. Harmful interactions with dolphins on reefs and at fishing piers negatively affect these resident communities. Mitigation of FI is suggested by use of avoidance strategies, gear modifications, and improved fish release practices. iv To boldly go where no man has gone before… - Captain Kirk Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. - Robert Frost v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The projects I undertook were entirely dependent on assistance with tag design and application, radio tracking, field surveys, photo analysis, stranding response, and biopsy sampling. I especially thank Forrest Townsend and Frank Deckert (Trac Pac Inc); Randy Wells, Aaron Barleycorn, and Jason Allen (SDRP, Mote Marine Lab); Greg Bossart, Steve McCulloch, Marilyn Mazzoil, and Elizabeth Howells (Harbor Branch Marine Mammal Program); Jay Sweeney (Dolphin Quest); Aleta Hohn and Larry Hanson (NMFS Beaufort Lab); Monica Parries (UWF Pensacola), Christina Toms (UCF Biology) and Courtney Smith (USM Hattiesburg); Amanda Wilkerson, Stephanie Kadletz, Brittany Patrick, Deb Edwards, Cathy Holmes, Istvan Zsok, and Michelle Gonzales (ECWR); Blair Mase, Jenny Litz, Elizabeth Stratton, Lauren Noble, and Micah Brodsky, VMD (NMFS-SER); Sarah Kalinoski and Julia Terrell (CBA); Gary Parsons (Choctawhatchee Audubon); Capt. Jim Green (New Florida Girl American Spirit) and Capt. Troy Frady (Distraction Charters); and Capt. Cliff Atwell & Capt. Steve Wilson (Southern Star Dolphin Cruises). I owe my greatest debt to my parents, Margarete and Spencer Shippee for their inspiration in all things animal & aquatic since my early youth; and to my beloved Tara Kirby who kept me in fine mental health during the major part of this epic journey. The research work described here was made possible by grants from Florida’s Protect Wild Dolphins, Dolphin Quest Foundation, Sea World Busch Gardens Conservation Fund, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, NOAA Prescott Grant Program, and The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative through the Florida Institute of Oceanography. Sincere thanks to the “Four W’s”: advisor, Dr. Worthy, and committee members, Dr. Weishampel, Dr. Walters, and Dr. Wells for their expert guidance and suggestions in developing and completing this dissertation. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xvi LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................. xviii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Residency, Site Fidelity, and Habitat Use................................................................... 2 Movements and Ranging ............................................................................................ 3 Swimming Speed and Daily Travels (Energetics) ...................................................... 4 Resting ........................................................................................................................ 4 Impacts of Provisioning by Humans and Fishery Interactions ................................... 5 Reproduction, Juvenile Survival, and Dispersal ......................................................... 5 Foraging Implications ................................................................................................. 6 Methodology and Approach ........................................................................................... 8 Radio and Satellite-Linked Tags ................................................................................. 8 Mark-Recapture Surveys .......................................................................................... 10 Remote Dart Biopsy Sampling and Stranded Animal Tissue Collection ................. 11 Preview of Work ........................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER TWO: ARCHIVAL TAGS WITH STOMACH TEMPERATURE TELEMETRY FOR MEASURING FINE-SCALE TRAVEL AND FORAGING IN FREE RANGING BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS ............................................................................................ 15 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 15 vii Methods ........................................................................................................................ 18 Health Assessments .................................................................................................. 18 Trac Pacs ................................................................................................................... 20 Archival Data Loggers .............................................................................................. 22 Stomach Temperature Pill and Data Logging ..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WALTON COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE: CHAPTER 4 | Resource Protection Standards Revised September 10, 2019 Page 2 of 55
    Revised September 10, 2019 Page 1 of 55 CHAPTER IV. RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS 4.00.00. OVERALL PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of this chapter is to protect, conserve and enhance Walton County's natural and historical features. It is the intent of the County to enhance resource protection by utilizing development management techniques to control potential negative impacts from development and redevelopment on the resources addressed herein. Specifically, it is the intent of the County to limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon historic sites, wetlands, coastal dune lakes, coastal dune lines, water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitats, living marine resources, or other natural resources through the use of site design techniques, such as clustering, elevation on pilings, setbacks, and buffering. The intent of this policy is to avoid such impact and to permit mitigation of impacts only as a last resort. 4.00.01. Permits Required. A. Local Development Order. Unless exempt under Section 1.15.00, a development order is required for all development or redevelopment of real property within the County. As a part of the application process defined in Chapter 1 of this Code, a landowner or developer must apply the provisions of this chapter before any other design work is done for any proposed land development. Application of the provisions of this chapter will divide a proposed development site into zones or areas that may be developed with minimal regulation, zones that may be developed under more stringent regulation and zones that must generally be left free of development activity.
    [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]
  • Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program Restoration Council (EPA RESTORE 003 008 Cat1)
    Gulf Coast Gulf-wide Foundational Investment Ecosystem Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program Restoration Council (EPA_RESTORE_003_008_Cat1) Project Name: Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program – Planning Cost: Category 1: $2,200,000 Responsible Council Member: Environmental Protection Agency Partnering Council Member: State of Florida Project Details: This project proposes to develop and stand-up a place-based estuary program encompassing one or more of the following bays in Florida’s northwest panhandle region: Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, St. Andrews Bay and Apalachicola Bay. Activities: The key components of the project include establishing the host organization and hiring of key staff, developing Management and Technical committees, determining stressors and then developing and approving a Comprehensive Plan. Although this Estuary Program would be modeled after the structure and operation of National Estuary Programs (NEP) it would not be a designated NEP. This project would serve as a pilot project for the Council to consider expanding Gulf-wide when future funds become available. Environmental Benefits: If the estuary program being planned by this activity were implemented in the future, projects undertaken would directly support goals and outcomes focusing on restoring water quality, while also addressing restoration and conservation of habitat, replenishing and protecting living coastal and marine resources, enhancing community resilience and revitalizing the coastal economy. Specific actions would likely include,
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1
    Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1 Edited by Laura A. Yarbro and Paul R. Carlson Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute St. Petersburg, Florida March 2011 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Table of Contents Authors, Contributors, and SIMM Team Members .................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 31 How this report was put together ........................................................................................... 36 Chapter Reports ...................................................................................................................... 41 Perdido Bay ........................................................................................................................... 41 Pensacola Bay .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Everglades Ecosystem: Refuge and Resource
    FIU Law Review Volume 9 Number 2 Article 7 Spring 2014 The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Everglades Ecosystem: Refuge and Resource Allison M. Dussias New England Law│Boston Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview Part of the Other Law Commons Online ISSN: 2643-7759 Recommended Citation Allison M. Dussias, The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Everglades Ecosystem: Refuge and Resource, 9 FIU L. Rev. 227 (2014). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.9.2.7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DUSSIAS_PUBLISHER (DO NOT DELETE) 10/16/2014 2:41 PM The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Everglades Ecosystem: Refuge and Resource Allison M. Dussias* Our elders believe that the health of the Tribe and our members directly relates to the health of our ecosystem. We focus on managing our lands within our reservation boundaries; we also watch the land and water that surrounds this boundary because our history is not limited to the lines on current day maps.1 What we choose to protect helps define us as a people.2 In the nineteenth century, the ancestors of the Seminole Tribe of Florida (the “Tribe”) were driven by the scorched earth policies of the American military into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp of South Florida.3 Never surrendering, they took refuge in remote areas that most Americans regarded as uninhabitable,
    [Show full text]
  • Choctawhatchee Bay
    Choctawhatchee Bay By Barbara Ruth1 and Lawrence R. Handley 2 Background channel opened in 1929 to provide a permanent pass through a previously intermittent opening. The bay also opens to The Choctawhatchee River and Bay system historically the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in the east and to has supported a rich and diverse ecology that provides Santa Rosa Sound and the GIWW in the west. (The GIWW is substantial economic and quality-of-life benefits to residents regularly maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.) of northwest Florida (Northwest Florida Water Management Pensacola Pass is separated from the west side of the bay by District, 1996). The Choctawhatchee Bay area has become an 84-km (52-mi) portion of the GIWW that was dredged a highly desired area for relocation for many people: the initially in the 1940s (Northwest Florida Water Management perceived overdevelopment in southern Florida has led many District, 1996). Choctawhatchee Bay is a stratified system to look for less highly developed areas. Although the area has with low tidal energy, limited flushing (Blaylock, 1983; no major industry, urban and suburban development, along Livingston, 1986), and a halocline (noticeable changes in with businesses that support Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) salt concentrations between the surface waters and lower activities and an extensive retirement community, is creating waters) (Blaylock, 1983; Livingston, 1986). The bay’s main freshwater influence is the Choctawhatchee River, which impacts on the ecosystem through additional stormwater 3 3 runoff, resource utilization, and similar pressures that are has a rate of 243 m /s (8,580 ft /s) (Northwest Florida Water caused by development.
    [Show full text]
  • Intracoastal Waterway West Bay to Santa Rosa Sound
    BookletChart™ Intracoastal Waterway – West Bay to Santa Rosa Sound NOAA Chart 11385 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Published by the midchannel) from Buoy CB to the bridge; thence 9.9 feet through North Channel to the bay. The channel S of the bridge is subject to frequent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration changes and shoals between dredgings. Buoys are shifted to mark best National Ocean Service water. The channel is marked by lights, buoys, and daybeacons. Office of Coast Survey Choctawhatchee Bay. Depths in the bay decrease gradually from W to E with 18 to 43 feet in the W two-thirds, except near the shores, and 8 to www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov 16 feet in the E third. 888-990-NOAA Choctawhatchee River. The mouth of Choctawhatchee River is shallow, and boats enter through Cypress River. Cypress River entrance, marked What are Nautical Charts? by a light, has a depth of 6 feet. Black Creek, with depths of 8 feet inside, but bars of about 1-foot depth blocking the entrance, leads to the Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show village of Black Creek. Berths, gasoline, a launching ramp, water, ice, water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much and marine supplies are available at a small fish camp on the W bank of more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and the creek 1.6 miles above its mouth. efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial A channel leads from Choctawhatchee Bay to a turning basin at the head ships that carry America’s commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Andrew Bay
    St. Andrew Bay By Michael S. Brim1 and Lawrence R. Handley2 Background St. Andrew Bay is unique because of its wealth of biological diversity. Keppner (2002) documented the diversity St. Andrew Bay has a watershed of approximately associated with the bay and compared it with surveys of 297,576 ha (735,300 acres, or 1,149 mi2) (Beck and others, Indian River Lagoon, Fla., which has been touted as the most 2000) (fig. 1). The bay is almost entirely within Bay County, biologically diverse estuary in North America. His report an area of over 2,590 km2 (1,000 mi2), which has a resident documents 2,913 species of plants and animals associated with population of more than 148,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). St. Andrew Bay, nearly 400 more species than found in Panama City is the largest of seven municipalities surrounding the lagoon. the bay. Much of the county, however, is unincorporated land The bay is, however, a fragile ecosystem. Because traditionally supporting silviculture. of its high-salinity waters, the depths of the bay, the lack The primary industries in Bay County are tourism and the of significant freshwater inflow from land drainage, and military, with Tyndall Air Force Base playing a dominant role the minimal tidal regime, the bay is highly susceptible to in the community. The U.S. Navy’s Coastal Systems Station becoming polluted or contaminated. Chemicals and nutrients and the U.S. Coast Guard also share the bay’s shoreline. are not readily flushed from this bay, and the nature of the Most tourist activity occurs on Panama City Beach or upon deep sediments (rich in fine clays, silt, and organic carbon) bay waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Tursiops Truncatus
    19th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals Tampa, FL, 27 November – 02 December 2011 (1) NOAA Fisheries Pascagoula Laboratory, 3209 Frederic Street, Pascagoula, marked/known, 45% (47/105) were unmarked, and 5% (5/105) were Mississippi, 39567, USA marked/unknown. The majority of dolphins with >3 sightings (82%) (2) NOAA Fisheries Beaufort Laboratory, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina, 28516, USA died between the most extreme points of their home range. Dolphins (3) Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, Florida, in the southern community have not been observed in the Atlantic 34236, USA Ocean and no evidence exists of dispersal to the northern or Mosquito Corresponding author: [email protected] Lagoon communities. Of 182 resident dolphins in this community encountered 2,734 times, sighting intervals were not normally For management purposes, NOAA Fisheries currently defines 32 distributed with most dolphins resighted in < 100 days. Based on the stocks of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) within bays, 99% resighting frequency interval (390 d), we predicted 35 sounds, and estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico; however, for the adult/juveniles to have died within the study area and period. majority of stocks little data are available. Bottlenose dolphins Fourteen of the predicted dolphins were recovered dead and 12 utilizing Choctawhatchee Bay in the Florida panhandle are of carcasses too decomposed to identify were also recovered. After particular concern due to potential impacts of recent Unusual applying the marked/unmarked ratio (62:38) for live non-calf Mortality Events. NOAA Fisheries estimated abundance of dolphins to the decomposed carcasses, we predicted seven dolphins Choctawhatchee Bay dolphins (179 residents; 232 residents plus were potentially marked, thus the remaining 14 of the predicted 35 transients) from surveys conducted in summer 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study, Florida / J
    <-\^ C5 5.13 ; N^FS -3L'f NOAA TR NMFS CIRC-368 NOAA Technical Report NMFS CIRC-368 M,otc ^ °v U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration \ :r National Marine Fisheries Service Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study, Florida: Phase I, Area Description J. KNEELAND McNULTY, WILLIAM N. LINDALL, JR., AND JAMES E. SYKES SEATTLE, WA November 1972 NOAA TECHNICAL REPORTS National Marine Fisheries Service, Circulars The major responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are to monitor and assess the abundance and geographic distribution of fishery resources, to understand and predict fluctuations in the quan- tity and distribution of these resources, and to establish levels for optimum use of the resources. NMFS is also charged with the development and implementation of policies for managing national fishing grounds, develop- ment and enforcement of domestic fisheries regulations, surveillance of foreign fishing off United States coastal waters, and the development and enforcement of international fishery agreements and policies. NMFS also assists the fishi. g industry through marketing service and economic analysis programs, and mortgage insurance and vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyses, and publishes statistics on various phases of the industry. The NOAA Technical Report NMFS CIRC series continues a series that has been in existence since 1941. The Circulars are technical publications of general interest intended to aid conservation and management. Publica- tions that review in considerable detail and at a high technical level certain broad areas of research appear in this series. Technical papers originating in economics studies and from management investigations appear in the Circular series.
    [Show full text]
  • BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (Tursiops Truncatus Truncatus) Choctawhatchee Bay Stock
    December 2012 BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (Tursiops truncatus truncatus) Choctawhatchee Bay Stock NOTE – NMFS is in the process of writing individual stock assessment reports for each of the 32 bay, sound and estuary stocks of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico. Until this effort is completed and 32 individual reports are available, some of the basic information presented in this report will also be included in the report: “Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound and Estuary Stocks”. STOCK DEFINITION AND GEOGRAPHIC RANGE Bottlenose dolphins are distributed throughout the bays, sounds and estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico (Mullin 1988). Long-term (year-round, multi-year) residency by at least some individuals has been reported from nearly every site where photographic identification (photo-ID) or tagging studies have been conducted in the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., Irvine and Wells 1972; Shane 1977; Gruber 1981; Irvine et al. 1981; Wells 1986a; Wells et al. 1987; Scott et al. 1990; Shane 1990; Wells 1991; Bräger 1993; Bräger et al. 1994; Fertl 1994; Wells et al. 1996a,b; Wells et al. 1997; Weller 1998; Maze and Würsig 1999; Lynn and Würsig 2002; Wells 2003; Hubard et al. 2004; Irwin and Würsig 2004; Shane 2004; Balmer et al. 2008; Urian et al. 2009). In many cases, residents predominantly use the bay, sound or estuary waters, with limited movements through passes to the Gulf of Mexico (Shane 1977; Shane 1990; Gruber 1981; Irvine et al. 1981; Shane 1990; Maze and Würsig 1999; Lynn and Würsig 2002; Fazioli et al. 2006). Early studies indicating year-round residency to bays in both the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico led to the delineation of 33 bay, sound and estuary stocks, including Choctawhatchee Bay, with the first stock assessment reports in 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf of Mexic O
    292 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 5, Chapter 6 Chapter 5, Pilot Coast U.S. Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 5—Chapter 6 87°W 86°W 85°W NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml ALABAMA 88°W 31°N GEORGIA Milton Pensacola FLORIDA Fort Walton Beach CHOCTAWHATCHEE BAY PERDIDO BAY 11385 11383 11390 Panama City 11406 11384 11382 11392 11405 11391 11388 11 30°N 39 APALACHEE BAY 3 Port St. Joe AY Apalachicola B LA ICO ACH AL AP 11402 11404 11389 GULF OF MEXICO 11401 29°N 19 SEP2021 19 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 5, Chapter 6 ¢ 293 Apalachee Bay to Mobile Bay (18) METEOROLOGICAL TABLE – COASTAL AREA OFF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA Between 27°N to 31°N and 86°W to 89°W YEARS OF WEATHER ELEMENTS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC RECORD Wind > 33 knots ¹ 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 Wave Height > 9 feet ¹ 4.5 3.8 3.4 1.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.3 2.3 Visibility < 2 nautical miles ¹ 1.7 1.4 2.2 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 Precipitation ¹ 5.0 4.9 3.9 2.8 2.8 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.9 3.9 3.6 4.0 3.9 Temperature > 69° F 26.8 25.9 36.8 64.3 95.2 99.8 99.9 99.9 98.9 89.4 60.4 37.0 71.8 Mean Temperature (°F) 64.6 64.9 67.6 71.8 77.1 81.5 83.4 83.4 81.5 76.6 70.8 66.5 74.7 Temperature < 33° F ¹ 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean RH (%) 77 77 78 78 79 78 77 77 78 74 75 75 77 Overcast or Obscured ¹ 27.2 25.5 22.1 15.6 12.4 10.1 11.4 11.5 16.5 13.8 17.5 22.0 16.8 Mean Cloud Cover (8ths) 4.8 4.6 4.3 3.7 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.4 3.9 4.1 4.6 4.2 Mean SLP (mbs) 1020 1019 1017 1017 1016 1016 1017 1016 1015 1016 1019 1020 1017 Ext.
    [Show full text]