DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix B Northern Everglades Regional

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix B Northern Everglades Regional APPENDIX B NORTHERN EVERGLADES REGIONAL SIMULATION MODEL Appendix B TABLE OF CONTENTS B1.0 NORTHERN EVERGLADES REGIONAL SIMULATION MODEL............................. 1 B1.1 Spatial Representation.................................................................................................... 2 B1.2 Simulation Period............................................................................................................ 5 B1.3 Theoretical Assumptions and Limitations ...................................................................... 5 B1.4 Model Input..................................................................................................................... 6 B1.5 Model Output.................................................................................................................. 7 B1.6 Model Validation............................................................................................................ 7 B1.6.1 South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM)............................................ 8 B1.6.2 UKISS Model..........................................................................................................8 B1.6.3 Validation Results................................................................................................. 10 B2.0 NERSM APPLICATION..................................................................................................13 B2.1 Modeling Scenarios ...................................................................................................... 13 B2.2 Model Setup.................................................................................................................. 21 B2.2.1 Upper Kissimmee Basin (KUB) Sub-watershed................................................... 21 B2.2.2 Lower Kissimmee Basin (LKB) Sub-watershed................................................... 23 B2.2.3 Lake Istokpoga (LI) Sub-watershed...................................................................... 45 B2.2.4 Fisheating Creek (FEC) Sub-watershed................................................................ 57 B2.2.5 Lake Okeechobee (LOK) Sub-watershed ............................................................. 63 B2.2.6 Lake Okeechobee Operations ............................................................................... 63 B2.2.7 MDS and LOWSM Algorithms............................................................................ 65 B2.3 Sub-watershed Specific Assumptions and Specifications ............................................ 66 B2.3.1 Current Base (2005) Assumptions........................................................................ 66 B2.3.2 Future Base (2015) Assumptions.......................................................................... 72 B3.0 WATER BUDGET COMPONENTS............................................................................... 76 B3.1 Rainfall.......................................................................................................................... 76 B3.2 Evapotranspiration ........................................................................................................ 77 B3.3 Flows............................................................................................................................. 77 B3.3.1 Existing Conditions Flows.................................................................................... 78 B3.3.2 Future Base Condition Flows................................................................................ 79 B4.0 ANNUAL AND SEASONAL SUB-WATERSHEDS WATER BUDGETS .................. 82 B4.1 Annual Sub-watershed Water Budget Components ..................................................... 82 B4.2 Dry Season Sub-watershed Water Budget Components............................................... 82 B4.3 Wet Season Sub-watershed Water Budget Components .............................................. 82 B5.0 QUANTIFICATION OF WATER AVAILABLE IN THE WATERSHED.................... 98 B5.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 98 B5.2 Methodology................................................................................................................. 99 B5.3 Quantification of Divertible Volume.......................................................................... 100 B6.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FOR STORAGE CAPACITY SCENARIOS.................. 103 B6.1 Methodology............................................................................................................... 103 B6.1.1 Alternatives 1 to 4............................................................................................... 103 B6.2 Results......................................................................................................................... 104 B6.2.1 Lake Okeechobee................................................................................................ 105 B6.2.2 Caloosahatchee Estuary...................................................................................... 108 B6.2.3 St Lucie Estuary.................................................................................................. 110 LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 B-ii Appendix B B6.2.4 Water Supply...................................................................................................... 112 B6.3 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 114 B7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 115 LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 B-iii Appendix B TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) List of Tables B-1 Performance measures used to evaluate Current and Future Base Conditions and Alternatives..........................................................................................................................8 B-2 Summary of management measures simulated in NERSM Alternative 1.........................15 B-3 Summary of Management Measures Simulated in NERSM Alternative 2 .......................16 B-4 Summary of Management Measures Simulated in NERSM Alternative 3 .......................17 B-5 Summary of Management Measures Simulated in NERSM Alternative 4 .......................18 B-6 Summary of primary characteristics of Current Base Condition Model ...........................65 B-7 Spillway equations used in NERSM for all modeling scenarios .......................................70 B-8 Summary of primary characteristics of Future Base Condition and alternative plan models................................................................................................................................71 B-9 Average Monthly and annual rainfall depths (inches) for Lake Okeechobee Sub- watershed (1970 – 2000)....................................................................................................75 B-10 Average annual inflows (ac-ft) from Sub-watersheds to Lake Okeechobee .....................77 B-11 Characteristics of divertible volume events calculated for the period 1970-2005...........102 B-12 Goals and storage capacities for Alternatives 1 through 4 ..............................................103 B-13 Storage capacities (in ac-ft) for Alternatives 2 through 2E by sub-watershed ................104 B-14 Comparison of performance of Scenarios 2 through 2E based on RECOVER Performance Measures.....................................................................................................106 List of Figures B-1 Sub-watersheds modeled in the Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model............3 B-2 Node-link diagram representation of NERSM ....................................................................4 B-3 Comparison of NERSM and 2X2 Model Outputs ...............................................................9 B-4 Monthly flow variation at S-65 in NERSM and UKISSWIN models for Current Base ...10 B-5 Monthly flow variation at S-65 in NERSM and UKISSWIN models for Future Base .....11 B-6 Chain of Lakes and Control Structures in Upper Kissimmee Basin Sub-watershed.........21 B-7 Node-Link Diagram Representation of Current Base Condition for Lower Kissimmee Basin Sub-watershed in NERSM.......................................................................................23 B-8 Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed simulation configuration for Alternatives 1 and 3......26 B-9 Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed simulation configuration for Alternative 2 .................30 B-10 Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed simulation configuration for Alternative 4 .................34 B-11 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-watershed simulation configuration for Alternatives 1 and 2 ...........................................................................................................37 B-12 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-watershed simulation configuration for Alternative 3...................................................................................................................... 40 B-13 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-watershed simulation configuration for Alternative 4.......................................................................................................................43 B-14 Istokpoga Sub-watershed simulation configuration for Alternative 1...............................46 B-15 Istokpoga Sub-watershed simulation configuration for Alternative 2...............................49 B-16 Istokpoga Sub-watershed simulation
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]
  • Appendix 1 U.S
    U.S. Department of the Interior Prepared in cooperation with the Appendix 1 U.S. Geological Survey Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Agricultural Water Policy Open-File Report 2014−1257 81°45' 81°30' 81°15' 81°00' 80°45' 524 Jim Creek 1 Lake Hart 501 520 LAKE 17 ORANGE 417 Lake Mary Jane Saint Johns River 192 Boggy Creek 535 Shingle Creek 519 429 Lake Preston 95 17 East Lake Tohopekaliga Saint Johns River 17 Reedy Creek 28°15' Lake Lizzie Lake Winder Saint Cloud Canal ! Lake Tohopekaliga Alligator Lake 4 Saint Johns River EXPLANATION Big Bend Swamp Brick Lake Generalized land use classifications 17 for study purposes: Crabgrass Creek Land irrigated Lake Russell Lake Mattie Lake Gentry Row crops Lake Washington Peppers−184 acresLake Lowery Lake Marion Creek 192 Potatoes−3,322 acres 27 Lake Van Cantaloupes−633 acres BREVARD Lake Alfred Eggplant−151 acres All others−57 acres Lake Henry ! UnverifiedLake Haines crops−33 acres Lake Marion Saint Johns River Jane Green Creek LakeFruit Rochelle crops Cypress Lake Blueberries−41 acres Citrus groves−10,861 acres OSCEOLA Peaches−67 acresLake Fannie Lake Hamilton Field Crops Saint Johns River Field corn−292 acres Hay−234 acres Lake Hatchineha Rye grass−477 acres Lake Howard Lake 17 Seeds−619 acres 28°00' Ornamentals and grasses Ornamentals−240 acres Tree nurseries−27 acres Lake Annie Sod farms−5,643Lake Eloise acres 17 Pasture (improved)−4,575 acres Catfish Creek Land not irrigated Abandoned groves−4,916 acres Pasture−259,823 acres Lake Rosalie Water source Groundwater−18,351 acres POLK Surface water−9,106 acres Lake Kissimmee Lake Jackson Water Management Districts irrigated land totals Weohyakapka Creek Tiger Lake South Florida Groundwater−18,351 acres 441 Surface water−7,596 acres Lake Marian St.
    [Show full text]
  • Kissimmee Basin Water Supply Plan (2000 KB Plan), the Planning Process Analyses Identified Key Regional Issues
    TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss Appendix A: Water Supply Development Projects Water Supply Development Projects .........................................................2 Appendix B: Information for Local Government Comprehensive Plans 1. Checklist of Needed Comprehensive Plan Data........................................1 1a. Cited Statutory Provisions (relevant portions) .........................................5 2. Tables Showing which Utilities Serve which Jurisdictions ...........................8 3. Maps of Utility Areas Currently Served (2005) and to-be-Served (2025)......... 10 Appendix C: Accomplishments Overview..........................................................................................1 Appendix D: Urban and Agricultural Demand Projections Demand Assessments and Projections........................................................1 Categories of Use................................................................................2 Public Water Supply and Domestic Self-Supply Demands .................................2 Agricultural Self-Supply ...................................................................... 10 Commercial/Industrial Self-Supply ......................................................... 26 Thermoelectric Power Generation Self-Supply ........................................... 27 Recreational Self-Supply ..................................................................... 27 Total Annual Water Demand................................................................. 35 Summary of 1-in-10 Year Water
    [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]
  • Your Guide to Eating Fish Caught in Florida
    Fish Consumption Advisories are published periodically by the Your Guide State of Florida to alert consumers about the possibility of chemically contaminated fish in Florida waters. To Eating The advisories are meant to inform the public of potential health risks of specific fish species from specific Fish Caught water bodies. In Florida February 2019 Florida Department of Health Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2019 Florida Fish Advisories • Table 1: Eating Guidelines for Fresh Water Fish from Florida Waters (based on mercury levels) page 1-50 • Table 2: Eating Guidelines for Marine and Estuarine Fish from Florida Waters (based on mercury levels) page 51-52 • Table 3: Eating Guidelines for species from Florida Waters with Heavy Metals (other than mercury), Dioxin, Pesticides, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or Saxitoxin Contamination page 53-54 Eating Fish is an important part of a healthy diet. Rich in vitamins and low in fat, fish contains protein we need for strong bodies. It is also an excellent source of nutrition for proper growth and development. In fact, the American Heart Association recommends that you eat two meals of fish or seafood every week. At the same time, most Florida seafood has low to medium levels of mercury. Depending on the age of the fish, the type of fish, and the condition of the water the fish lives in, the levels of mercury found in fish are different. While mercury in rivers, creeks, ponds, and lakes can build up in some fish to levels that can be harmful, most fish caught in Florida can be eaten without harm.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of Activities Conducted Under the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program in Florida Public Waters for Fiscal Year 2012-2013
    Annual Report of Activities Conducted under the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program in Florida Public Waters for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Invasive Plant Management Section Submitted by: FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Invasive Plant Management Section 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. MS705 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Phone: 850-617-9420 Fax: 850-922-1249 Annual Report of Activities Conducted under the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program in Florida Public Waters for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 This report was prepared in accordance with §369.22 (7), Florida Statutes, to provide an annual summary of plants treated and funding necessary to manage aquatic plants in public waters. The Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program administered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) in Florida’s public waters involves complex operational and financial interactions between state, federal and local governments as well as private sector companies. FWC’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 96% of Florida’s 451 public waters inventoried in 2013 that comprise 1.26 million acres of fresh water. Once established, eradicating invasive plants is difficult or impossible and very expensive; therefore, continuous maintenance is critical to keep invasive plants at low levels to
    [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]