DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Okeechobee Waterway Master Plan Update and Integrated

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Okeechobee Waterway Master Plan Update and Integrated Okeechobee Waterway Project Master Plan Update DRAFT Draft Okeechobee Waterway Master Plan Update and Integrated Environmental Assessment 23 July 2018 Okeechobee Waterway Project Master Plan Update DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. Okeechobee Waterway Project Master Plan Update DRAFT Okeechobee Waterway Project Master Plan DRAFT 23 July 2018 The attached Master Plan for the Okeechobee Waterway Project is in compliance with ER 1130-2-550 Project Operations RECREATION OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GUIDANCE AND PROCEDURES and EP 1130-2-550 Project Operations RECREATION OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE POLICIES and no further action is required. Master Plan is approved. Jason A. Kirk, P.E. Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander i Okeechobee Waterway Project Master Plan Update DRAFT [This page intentionally left blank] ii Okeechobee Waterway Project Master Plan Update DRAFT Okeechobee Waterway Master Plan Update PROPOSED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY MASTER PLAN UPDATE GLADES, HENDRY, MARTIN, LEE, OKEECHOBEE, AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES 1. PROPOSED ACTION: The proposed Master Plan Update documents current improvements and stewardship of natural resources in the project area. The proposed Master Plan Update includes current recreational features and land use within the project area, while also including the following additions to the Okeechobee Waterway (OWW) Project: a. Conversion of the abandoned campground at Moore Haven West to a Wildlife Management Area (WMA) with access to the Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail (LOST) and day use area. b. Closure of the W.P. Franklin swim beach, while maintaining the picnic and fishing recreational areas with potential addition of canoe/kayak access. This would entail removing buoys and swimming signs and discontinuing sand renourishment. The area could be planted with selected native vegetation, leaving access paths for shore fishermen. A floating platform for canoe/kayak access is being considered within the current beach area. 2. NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION: A Master Plan is required for each civil works project. It serves as a planning document for Federal land use features, including recreational opportunities. The primary goals of this OWW Master Plan Update are to prescribe an overall land and water management plan, resource objectives, and associated design and management concepts, which (1) provide the best possible combination of responses to regional needs; (2) contribute toward providing a high degree of recreation diversity within the region; (3) emphasize the particular qualities, characteristics, and potentials of the project; and (4) exhibit consistency and compatibility with national objectives and other State and regional goals and programs. 3. ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ACTION CONSIDERED: The Master Plan Update considered reasonable alternatives, including No Action. With the No Action Alternative, the abandoned campground would likely stay abandoned, and the W.P. Franklin swim beach would remain open. The Proposed Action is intended as an update that would improve the overall land use and safety within the OWW. All other features included within the Master Plan would be no different than the description of the existing iii Okeechobee Waterway Project Master Plan Update DRAFT conditions and No Action. 4. FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS NEEDED: Based on the Environmental Assessment, the OWW Master Plan will not significantly affect human health and the environment. The OWW Master Plan is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 5. CONCLUSIONS: The environmental analysis supports the conclusion that the OWW Master Plan will not significantly impact health and the human environment; consequently, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Jason A. Kirk, P.E. Date Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander iv Okeechobee Waterway Project Master Plan Update DRAFT Table of Contents 2.10 Invasive Species ................................................ 2-16 2.11. Wetlands ............................................................ 2-16 PROPOSED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT..iii 2.12. Cultural Resources ............................................. 2-17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... E-1 2.13. Okeechobee Waterway Project Components .... 2-18 1. Introduction ........................................................................ 1-1 2.13.1. St. Lucie Lock and Dam Reservation ............ 2-20 1.1. Project Authorization .............................................. 1-1 2.13.2 St. Lucie Canal ............................................... 2-21 1.2. Project Purpose and Need ....................................... 1-3 2.13.3. Port Mayaca ................................................... 2-23 1.3. Purpose and Scope of Master Plan .......................... 1-4 2.13.4. Herbert Hoover Dike...................................... 2-23 1.4. Brief Watershed and Project Description ................ 1-5 2.13.5. Lake Okeechobee ........................................... 2-24 1.5. Listing of Prior C&SF Project Design Documents 2.13.6. Clewiston Operations Office.......................... 2-24 related to Recreation, Public Use, and Operation/Related 2.13.7. Moore Haven Lock Reservation .................... 2-24 Environmental and Design Documents ............................. 1-7 2.13.8. The Caloosahatchee Canal ............................. 2-25 1.6. Listing of Pertinent Project Information ................. 1-7 2.13.9. Ortona Lock and Dam .................................... 2-26 2. Project Setting (Exiting Conditions) and Factors 2.13.10. W.P. Franklin Lock and Dam ........................ 2-27 Influencing Management and Development .......................... 2-1 2.13.11. Easement Properties ....................................... 2-27 2.1. The Master Plan Study Area. .................................. 2-1 2.13.12. Lake Okeechobee Park .................................. 2-28 2.2. Existing Conditions and Description of Lake 2.13.13. Clewiston Park Recreation Area .................... 2-28 Okeechobee, the St. Lucie River, and the Caloosahatchee 2.13.14. South Hicpochee Access Area ....................... 2-28 River ................................................................................. 2-2 2.13.15. Nubbin Slough Recreation Area .................... 2-28 2.3. Hydrology................................................................ 2-3 2.13.16. Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail (LOST) ......... 2-28 2.4. Shoreline Plan, Sedimentation and Erosion ............ 2-4 2.13.17. Easement Properties ....................................... 2-28 2.5. Water Quality .......................................................... 2-5 2.14. Aesthetics........................................................... 2-31 2.6. Climate .................................................................... 2-6 2.15. Baseline Socioeconomics .................................. 2-31 2.7. Topography, Geology, Soils.................................... 2-6 2.16. Demographic Analysis ...................................... 2-32 2.8. Fish and Wildlife Resources ................................... 2-7 2.16.1 Methodology .................................................. 2-32 2.9. Threatened and Endangered Species ..................... 2-10 2.16.2. Age Segmentation .......................................... 2-33 2.16.3. Racial/Ethnic Population Distribution ........... 2-33 TOC-1 Okeechobee Waterway Project Master Plan Update DRAFT 2.16.4. Households, Income, and Poverty Level ....... 2-37 3.3.1. Alternative 1: .................................................. 3-4 2.17. Recreation Facilities, Activities, and Needs ...... 2-37 3.3.2. Alternative 2: .................................................. 3-5 2.18. Zones of Influence ............................................. 2-38 3.3.3. Alternative 3: ................................................... 3-5 2.19. Visitation Profile................................................ 2-38 3.4. Issues and Basis for Choice ..................................... 3-5 2.20. Recreational Analysis ........................................ 2-38 3.5. Preferred Alternatives ............................................. 3-5 2.21. Recreational Carrying Capacity ......................... 2-41 4. Land Allocation, Land Classification, and Project Lands 4-1 4.1. Land Allocation ....................................................... 4-1 2.22. Conceptual Relationship/Linkage between recreation use and Management of Lake Okeechobee .... 2-41 4.2. Land Classification .................................................. 4-1 2.23. Recreational Value to the Nation, Florida ......... 2-43 4.2.1. Project Operations ............................................ 4-1 2.24. Related Recreational, Historical, and Cultural Areas 4.2.2. Recreation ........................................................ 4-1 ........................................................................... 2-43 4.2.3. Fish and Wildlife.............................................. 4-2 2.25. Real Estate* (Real Estate/Acquisition Policy)* 2-43 4.2.4. Waterway Corridor .......................................... 4-2 2.26. Applicable Federal Laws and Directives ........... 2-45 4.2.5. Project Lands ................................................... 4-2 4.3. Environmentally Sensitive Areas ............................ 4-3 2.26.1. Public Laws .................................................... 2-45 2.26.2. Cooperative Agreements ...............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Map of the Approximate Inland Extent of Saltwater at the Base of the Biscayne Aquifer in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2018: U.S
    U.S. Department of the Interior Scientific Investigations Map 3438 Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey Sheet 1 of 1 Miami-Dade County Pamphlet accompanies map 80°40’ 80°35’ 80°30’ 80°25’ 80°20’ 80°15’ 80°10’ 80°05’ 0 5 10 KILOMETERS 1 G-3949S / 26 G-3949I / 144 0 5 10 MILES BROWARD COUNTY G-3949D / 225 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY EXPLANATION 2 G-3705 / 5,570 Well fields DMW6 / 42.7 IMW6 / 35 Approximate boundary of the Model Land Area DMW7 / 32 Approximate inland extent of saltwater in 2018—Isochlor represents a chloride IMW7 / 16.3 G-3948S / 151 concentration of 1,000 milligrams per liter at the base of the aquifer 3 G-3948D / 4,690 25°55’ G-3978 / 69 Dashed where data are insufficient Approximation 4 G-3601S / 330 G-3601I / 464 Approximate inland extent of saltwater in 2011 (Prinos and others, 2014)—Isochlor G-3601D (formerly G-3601) / 1,630 represents a chloride concentration of 1,000 milligrams per liter at the base of G-894 / 16 the aquifer Winson 1 / 31 F-279 / 4,700 Approximation Gratigny Well / 2,690 Dashed where data are insufficient Miami Canal G-297 (121 & 4th) / 19 5 3 ! Proposed locations for new wells and number (see table 4) G-3224 / 36 G-3705 / 5,570 ! Monitoring well name and chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter FLORIDA G-3602 / 5,250 G-3947 / 23 25°50’ F-45 / 175 Lake Okeechobee G-3250 / 187 6 G-548 / 32 G-3603 / 182 G-1354 / 920 Study area 7 G-571 / 27 G-3964 / 1,970 Florida Bay G-354 / 36 G-3704 / 8,730 G-1351 / 379 Miami International Airport 9 G-3604 / 6,860 G-3605 / 4,220 8 G-3977S / 17 G-3977D
    [Show full text]
  • The Caloosahatchee River Estuary: a Monitoring Partnership Between Federal, State, and Local Governments, 2007–13
    Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District The Caloosahatchee River Estuary: A Monitoring Partnership Between Federal, State, and Local Governments, 2007–13 By Eduardo Patino The tidal Caloosahatchee River and downstream estuaries also known as S–79 (fig. 2), which are operated by the USGS (fig. 1) have substantial environmental, recreational, and economic in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lee value for southwest Florida residents and visitors. Modifications to County, and the City of Cape Coral. Additionally, a monitor- the Caloosahatchee River watershed have altered the predevelop- ing station was operated on Sanibel Island from 2010 to 2013 ment hydrology, thereby threatening the environmental health of (fig. 1) as part of the USGS Greater Everglades Priority Eco- estuaries in the area (South Florida Water Management District, system Science initiative and in partnership with U.S. Fish and 2014). Hydrologic monitoring of the freshwater contributions from Wildlife Service (J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Ref- tributaries to the tidal Caloosahatchee River and its estuaries is uge). Moving boat water-quality surveys throughout the tidal necessary to adequately describe the total freshwater inflow and Caloosahatchee River and downstream estuaries began in 2011 constituent loads to the delicate estuarine system. and are ongoing. Information generated by these monitoring From 2007 to 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in networks has proved valuable to the FDEP for developing total cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protec- maximum daily load criteria, and to the SFWMD for calibrat- tion (FDEP) and the South Florida Water Management District ing and verifying a hydrodynamic model.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue-Green Algal Bloom Weekly Update Reporting March 26 - April 1, 2021
    BLUE-GREEN ALGAL BLOOM WEEKLY UPDATE REPORTING MARCH 26 - APRIL 1, 2021 SUMMARY There were 12 reported site visits in the past seven days (3/26 – 4/1), with 12 samples collected. Algal bloom conditions were observed by the samplers at seven of the sites. The satellite imagery for Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries from 3/30 showed low bloom potential on visible portions of Lake Okeechobee or either estuary. The best available satellite imagery for the St. Johns River from 3/26 showed no bloom potential on Lake George or visible portions of the St. Johns River; however, satellite imagery from 3/26 was heavily obscured by cloud cover. Please keep in mind that bloom potential is subject to change due to rapidly changing environmental conditions or satellite inconsistencies (i.e., wind, rain, temperature or stage). On 3/29, South Florida Water Management District staff collected a sample from the C43 Canal – S77 (Upstream). The sample was dominated by Microcystis aeruginosa and had a trace level [0.42 parts per billion (ppb)] of microcystins detected. On 3/29, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff collected a sample from Lake Okeechobee – S308 (Lakeside) and at the C44 Canal – S80. The Lake Okeechobee – S308 (Lakeside) sample was dominated by Microcystis aeruginosa and had a trace level (0.79 ppb) of microcystins detected. The C44 Canal – S80 sample had no dominant algal taxon and had a trace level (0.34 ppb) of microcystins detected. On 3/29, Highlands County staff collected a sample from Huckleberry Lake – Canal Entrance.
    [Show full text]
  • Collier Miami-Dade Palm Beach Hendry Broward Glades St
    Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission F L O R ID A 'S T U R N P IK E er iv R ee m Lakewood Park m !( si is O K L D INDRIO ROAD INDRIO RD D H I N COUNTY BCHS Y X I L A I E O W L H H O W G Y R I D H UCIE BLVD ST L / S FT PRCE ILT SRA N [h G Fort Pierce Inlet E 4 F N [h I 8 F AVE "Q" [h [h A K A V R PELICAN YACHT CLUB D E . FORT PIERCE CITY MARINA [h NGE AVE . OKEECHOBEE RA D O KISSIMMEE RIVER PUA NE 224 ST / CR 68 D R !( A D Fort Pierce E RD. OS O H PIC R V R T I L A N N A M T E W S H N T A E 3 O 9 K C A R-6 A 8 O / 1 N K 0 N C 6 W C W R 6 - HICKORY HAMMOCK WMA - K O R S 1 R L S 6 R N A E 0 E Lake T B P U Y H D A K D R is R /NW 160TH E si 68 ST. O m R H C A me MIDWAY RD. e D Ri Jernigans Pond Palm Lake FMA ver HUTCHINSON ISL . O VE S A t C . T I IA EASY S N E N L I u D A N.E. 120 ST G c I N R i A I e D South N U R V R S R iv I 9 I V 8 FLOR e V ESTA DR r E ST.
    [Show full text]
  • South Florida Circumnavigation 2017
    Completing the Circumnavigation of South Florida By Chuck Purse South Florida is actually an island! The nine day voyage began early in January, 2017 when we completed the first leg from Hillsboro Inlet to Stuart, FL about 85 miles north of the Club. We waited for a good day so that we could make the run in open water rather than the using the time consuming Intracoastal Waterway. We stayed at Sunset Bay Marina in Stuart, one of the prettiest places on the East Coast. The sunsets are indeed beautiful and all the needed services are available at a reasonable cost. Stuart offers a broad array of dining choices and the adorable Old Colorado Inn. The next day took us up the St Lucie River toward Lake Okeechobee. The Okeechobee Waterway runs 155 miles from Stuart westward through Lake Okeechobee to Ft Myers and the Gulf of Mexico. This Waterway separates the southern portion of the State from the northern part of the Florida peninsula. The crossing includes beautiful countryside, incredible wildlife, and five locks to navigate as you make the 15’ climb up to Lake Okeechobee. The lake itself is impressively large with only the southern shore visible as you cross. Be careful to stay in the channel especially when the lake level is low to minimize the chance of bouncing off the bottom! That night we stayed at Roland Martin Marina in Clewiston, FL bordering the southwestern corner of the the lake. This historical sugar town is worth a one night visit. We arrived in time to play golf at Clewiston Golf Course which was a pleasant surprise.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8C: St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee River Watersheds Annual Report
    2019 South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I Chapter 8C Chapter 8C: St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee River Watersheds Annual Report Cassondra Armstrong, Fawen Zheng, Anna Wachnicka, Amanda Khan, Zhiqiang Chen, and Lucia Baldwin SUMMARY A description of the estuaries and the river watersheds is followed by a summary of the conditions of the hydrology (rainfall and flow), water quality (salinity, phosphorus, nitrogen, and chlorophyll a [Chla]), and aquatic habitat (oysters and submerged aquatic vegetation [SAV]) based on results of the Research and Water Quality Monitoring Programs (RWQMPs). Following the summary for each estuary, significant findings during the Water Year 2018 (WY2018; May 1, 2017–April 30, 2018) reporting period are highlighted. In addition, the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee river watersheds’ water quality monitoring results for total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) by basin are presented in Appendix 8C-1 of this volume as supplemental information. ST. LUCIE ESTUARY WY2018 total annual rainfall across the Tier 1 Contributing Areas (Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie Basin, and Tidal Basin) to the St. Lucie Estuary (SLE) was more than the long-term average from WY1997 through WY2018. Although 74% of the annual rainfall usually occurs in the wet season, this value increased to 80% in WY2018. The relatively high amount of wet season rain was the driver for increased discharge to the SLE. The total annual freshwater inflow to the SLE in WY2018 (1.6 million acre-feet [ac-ft]) was higher than the long-term average of 1.0 million ac-ft. The inflow and percent contribution from Lake Okeechobee in WY2018 (0.6 million ac-ft and 37%, respectively) were greater than the long-term averages (0.3 million ac-ft and 26%, respectively).
    [Show full text]
  • An Historical Perspective on the Kissimmee River Restoration Project
    ing of 14 km of river channel, and removal of two water­ An Historical control structures and associated levees. Restoration of the Kissimmee River ecosystem will result in the reestablish­ ment of 104 km2 of river-floodplain ecosystem, including Perspective on the 70 km of river channel and 11,000 ha of wetland habitat, which is expected to benefit over 320 species of fish and Kissimmee River wildlife. Restoration Project Background he Kissimmee River basin is located in central Florida Tbetween the city of Orlando and lake Okeechobee Joseph W. Koebel, Jr.1 within the Coastal Lowlands physiographic province. It con­ sists of a 4229-km2 upper basin, which includes Lake Kis­ Abstract simmee and 18 smaller lakes ranging in size from a few hec­ tares to 144 km2, and a 1,963-km2 lower basin, which This paper reviews the events leading to the channeliza­ includes the tributary watersheds (excluding Lake Istok­ tion of the Kissimmee River, the physical, hydrologic, and poga) of the Kissimmee River between lake Kissimmee and biological effects of channelization, and the restoration lake Okeechobee. The physiography of the region includes movement. Between 1962 and 1971, in order to provide the Osceola and Okeechobee Plains and the Lake Wales flood control for central and southern florida, the 166 ridge of the Wicomico shore (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers km-Iong meandering Kissimmee River was transformed 1992). into a 90 km-Iong, 10 meter-deep, 100 meter-wide canal. Prior to channelization, the Kissimmee River meandered Channelization and transformation of the Kissimmee River approximately 166 km within a 1.5-3-km-wide floodplain.
    [Show full text]
  • LOWRP Draft PIR/EIS Annex C
    COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT DRAFT INTEGRATED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT July 2018 Annex C Annex C Draft Project Operating Manual ANNEX C DRAFT PROJECT OPERATING MANUAL LOWRP Draft PIR and EIS July 2018 Annex C-i Annex C Draft Project Operating Manual This page intentionally left blank. LOWRP Draft PIR and EIS July 2018 Annex C-ii Annex C Draft Project Operating Manual Table of Contents C DRAFT PROJECT OPERATING MANUAL .................................................................... C-1 C.1 General Project Purposes, Goals, Objectives, and Benefits ................................... C-1 C.2 Project Features .................................................................................................. C-1 C.2.1 Existing Features ..................................................................................... C-2 C.2.2 Proposed Features .................................................................................. C-3 C.3 Project Relationships ........................................................................................... C-6 C.4 Major Constraints ................................................................................................ C-7 C.4.1 Paradise run ............................................................................................ C-8 C.4.2 Existing Legal Users, Levels of Flood Damage Reduction, and Water Quality ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Plan for Kissimmee Okeechobee Everglades Tributaries (EPKOET)
    Environmental Plan for Kissimmee Okeechobee Everglades Tributaries (EPKOET) Stephanie Bazan, Larissa Gaul, Vanessa Huber, Nicole Paladino, Emily Tulsky April 29, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY…………………...………………………………………..4 2. MISSION STATEMENT…………………………………....…………………………………7 3. GOVERNANCE……………………………………………………………………...………...8 4. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL POLICIES…………………………………………..…..10 5. PROBLEMS AND GOALS…..……………………………………………………………....12 6. SCHEDULE…………………………………....……………………………………………...17 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………....17 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………..……………………....18 2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure A. Map of the Kissimmee Okeechobee Everglades Watershed…………………………...4 Figure B. Phosphorus levels surrounding the Kissimmee Okeechobee Everglades Watershed…..5 Figure C. Before and after backfilling of the Kissimmee river C-38 canal……………………….6 Figure D. Algae bloom along the St. Lucie River………………………………………………...7 Figure E. Florida’s Five Water Management Districts………………………………………........8 Figure F. Three main aquifer systems in southern Florida……………………………………....14 Figure G. Effect of levees on the watershed………………………………………...…………...15 Figure H. Algal bloom in the KOE watershed…………………………………………...………15 Figure I: Canal systems south of Lake Okeechobee……………………………………………..16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Primary Problems in the Kissimmee Okeechobee Everglades watershed……………...13 Table 2: Schedule for EPKOET……………………………………………………………….…18 3 1. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Kissimmee Okeechobee Everglades watershed is an area of about
    [Show full text]
  • Caloosahatchee
    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Water Resource Management SOUTH DISTRICT • GROUP 3 BASIN • 2005 Water Quality Assessment Report Caloosahatchee FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Water Resource Management 2005 Water Quality Assessment Report Caloosahatchee Water Quality Assessment Report: Caloosahatchee 5 Acknowledgments The Caloosahatchee Water Quality Assessment Report was prepared by the Caloosahatchee Basin Team, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as part of a five-year cycle to restore and protect Florida’s water quality. Team members include the following: Pat Fricano, Basin Coordinator T. S. Wu, Ph.D., P.E., Assessment Coordinator Gordon Romeis, South District Karen Bickford, South District Robert Perlowski, Watershed Assessment Section Dave Tyler, Watershed Assessment Section Ron Hughes, GIS James Dobson, Groundwater Section Janet Klemm, Water Quality Standards and OFWs Editorial and writing assistance provided by Linda Lord, Watershed Planning and Coordination Production assistance provided by Center for Information, Training, and Evaluation Services Florida State University 210 Sliger Building 2035 E. Dirac Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32306-2800 Map production assistance provided by Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center Florida State University University Center, C2200 Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641 For additional information on the watershed management approach and impaired waters in the Caloosahatchee Basin, contact Pat Fricano Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Planning and Coordination Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 [email protected].fl.us Phone: (850) 245-8559; SunCom: 205-8559 Fax: (850) 245-8434 6 Water Quality Assessment Report: Caloosahatchee Access to all data used in the development of this report can be obtained by contacting T.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Habitat Partitioning of Immature Bull Sharks (Carcharhinus Leucas) in a Southwest Florida Estuary
    Estuaries Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 78±85 February 2005 Distribution and Habitat Partitioning of Immature Bull Sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) in a Southwest Florida Estuary COLIN A. SIMPFENDORFER*, GARIN G. FREITAS,TONYA R. WILEY, and MICHELLE R. HEUPEL Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, Florida 34236 ABSTRACT: The distribution and salinity preference of immature bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) were examined based on the results of longline surveys in three adjacent estuarine habitats in southwest Florida: the Caloosahatchee River, San Carlos Bay, and Pine Island Sound. Mean sizes were signi®cantly different between each of these areas indicating the occurrence of size-based habitat partitioning. Neonate and young-of-the-year animals occurred in the Caloosahatchee River and juveniles older than 1 year occurred in the adjacent embayments. Habitat partitioning may reduce intraspeci®c predation risk and increase survival of young animals. Classi®cation tree analysis showed that both temperature and salinity were important factors in determining the occurrence and catch per unit effort (CPUE) of immature C. leucas. The CPUE of ,1 year old C. leucas was highest at temperatures over 298C and in areas with salinities between 7½ and 17.5½. Although they are able to osmoregulate in salinities from fresh to fully marine, young C. leucas may have a salinity preference. Reasons for this preference are unknown, but need to be further investigated. Introduction Williams (1981) and Snelson et al. (1984) reported Bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) are common that juveniles were common inhabitants of the In- worldwide in tropical and subtropical coastal, es- dian River Lagoon system on the east coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Use by and Dispersal of Snail Kites in Florida During Drought Conditions
    HABITAT USE BY AND DISPERSAL OF SNAIL KITES IN FLORIDA DURING DROUGHT CONDITIONS STEVENR. BEISSINGERAND JEANE. TAKEKAWA School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Rt. 1, Box 278, Boynton Beach, Florida 33437. Although originally ranging over most of peninsular Florida (Howell 1932), Snail (Everglade) Kites (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) have been restricted in recent years mostly to three areas in southern Florida: the western marshes of Lake Okeecho- bee; Conservation Area (CA) 3A; and CA2 (Sykes 1978, 1979, 1983). Severe drought in southern Florida in 1981 dried nearly all wetlands inhabited by kites. Water levels at Lake Okeechobee were at record lows (2.9 m msl) in July and August, drying 99% of the wetland area. Water remained about 1.5 m below scheduled levels until June 1982 when it quickly rose as a result of heavy summer rains. Only perimeter canals contained surface water from May- August 1981 in CA3A and March-August 1981 in CA2 when Tropi- cal Storm Dennis (16-19 August) replenished surface water sup- plies. After reaching scheduled levels in September 1981, water de- creased again until CA2 dried out in February and CA3A in early May 1982. In late May 1982, surface water rose quickly again to near normal levels. As a result of habitat unavailability caused by this drought, Snail Kites dispersed throughout the Florida peninsula in search of foraging habitats with apple snails (Ponzacea paludosa) , practically their sole source of food (for exceptions see Sykes and Kale 1974, Woodin and Woodin 1981, Takekawa and Beissinger 1983, Beis- singer in prep.).
    [Show full text]