DOCSLIB.ORG

Tampa Bay Estuary Program 2020 Habitat Master Plan Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHARTING THE COURSE: THE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION TAMPAAND BAY MANAGEMENT ESTUARY PROGRAM: PLAN 2020 HABITATFOR MASTERTAMPA BAY PLAN UPDATE AUGUST 2017 REVISION AUGUST 2020 Go to: TABLE OF CONTENTS | INDEX OF ACTIONS TAMPA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM Habitat Master Plan Update TBEP Technical Report #07-20 Prepared for August 2020 4200 West Cypress Street Suite 450 Tampa, FL 33607 813.207.7200 esassoc.com Bend Orlando San Jose Camarillo Pasadena Santa Monica Delray Beach Petaluma Sarasota Destin Portland Seattle Irvine Sacramento Tampa Los Angeles San Diego Oakland San Francisco Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ iv Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ vi Section 1.0: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Section 2.0: Habitat Status and Trends ................................................................................................. 5 Section 3.0: Update of Existing Habitat Protection and Restoration Activities ................................... 49 Section 4.0: Habitat Protection and Restoration Paradigms ............................................................... 62 Section 5.0: Habitat Protection and Restoration Opportunities ........................................................... 75 Section 6.0: Habitat Protection and Restoration Targets .................................................................. 103 Section 7.0: Habitat Assessment and Monitoring .............................................................................. 114 Section 8.0: Linking Habitat Restoration and Compensatory Mitigation ........................................... 121 Section 9.0: References ..................................................................................................................... 129 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Seagrass Coverage (acres) in Tampa Bay for the Period 1950 – 2018 ............................ 10 Figure 2-2 Relative Seagrass Distribution by Bay Segment in 1950, 1982 and 2016 ........................ 12 Figure 2-3 Seagrass Coverage Trends in Hillsborough Bay ............................................................... 13 Figure 2-4 Ecosystem Benefits Provided by Oysters .......................................................................... 17 Figure 2-5 Graphical Depiction of Tidal Tributaries in a Typical Estuary ............................................ 24 Figure 2-6 Continuum of Shoreline Stabilization and Enhancement Techniques ............................... 26 Figure 2-7 Conceptual Schematic of Sea Level Rise on Natural vs. Hardened Coastline ................. 42 Figure 2-8 Simulated Seagrass and Mangrove Migration in Middle Tampa Bay........................... 44 Figure 2-9 Projected New Development in the Tampa Bay Region by 2050 ...................................... 48 Figure 3-1 CLIP Version 4.0 Database Hierarchy (Oetting et al., 2016) ............................................. 53 Figure 4-1 Landward Expansion of Mangroves into a Historically Monotypic Juncus Marsh ............. 65 Figure 5-1 Flow Chart for Step 1 of the Opportunity Assessment Process ........................................ 76 Figure 5-2 Flow Chart for Step 2 of the Opportunity Assessment Process ........................................ 79 Figure 5-3 Flow Chart for Step 3 of the Opportunity Assessment Process ........................................ 84 Figure 5-4 Flow Chart for Step 4 of the Opportunity Assessment Process ........................................ 86 Figure 5-5 McKay Bay Dredge Hole Restoration Project Under Construction.................................... 92 Figure 5-6 Tropical Fish Farm Restoration Site in Hillsborough Bay .................................................. 94 Figure 5-7 The Rocks Ponds Ecosystem Restoration Project ............................................................ 95 Figure 5-8 Conceptual Plan for the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal Habitat Improvement Project ........... 99 Figure 5-9 LiDAR Topographic Map of Alafia River State Park ........................................................ 102 LIST OF MAPS Map ES-1 Combined Opportunity Areas in the Tampa Bay Watershed…………………………….xv Map 2-1 Tampa Bay Watershed with Major Basin and Bay Segment Boundaries ....................... 6 Map 2-2 2019 Distribution of Hard Bottom ..................................................................................... 8 Map 2-3 2018 Distribution of Seagrasses .................................................................................... 11 Map 2-4 2018 Distribution of Tidal Flats and Oyster Bars ........................................................... 18 Map 2-5 2017 Distribution of Emergent Tidal Wetlands .............................................................. 22 Map 2-6 2020 Distribution of Tidal Tributaries ............................................................................. 25 Table of Contents Map 2-7 2020 Distribution of Artificial Reefs and Living Shorelines ............................................ 28 Map 2-8 2017 Distribution of Freshwater Wetlands ..................................................................... 30 Map 2-9 2017 Distribution of Native Upland Habitats .................................................................. 33 Map 2-10 2017 Development in the Tampa Bay Watershed ......................................................... 46 Map 3-1 Existing Conservation Lands in the Tampa Bay Watershed ......................................... 51 Map 3-2 Proposed Conservation Lands the Tampa Bay Watershed .......................................... 55 Map 3-3 Existing Habitat Restoration Sites in the Tampa Bay Watershed ................................. 58 Map 4-1 Habitat Spatial Strata in the Tampa Bay Watershed ..................................................... 72 Map 5-1 Native and Restorable Habitats on Existing Conservation Lands ................................. 80 Map 5-2 Distribution of Xeric and Mesic/Hydric Soils in the Tampa Bay Watershed .................. 82 Map 5-3 Restoration Potential by Major Habitat Type on Existing Conservation Lands ............. 83 Map 5-4 Native and Restorable Habitats on Proposed Conservation Lands .............................. 85 Map 5-5 Native and Restorable Habitats on Proposed Reservation Lands ................................ 87 Map 5-6 Combined Opportunity Areas in the Tampa Bay Watershed ........................................ 90 Map 5-7 Living Shoreline Suitability Model .................................................................................. 96 Map 5-8 Reclaimed Mined Lands in the Tampa Bay Watershed .............................................. 100 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 Summary of Current Extent of TBEP Habitats ................................................................. viii Table ES-2 Enhancement and Restoration Projects in Tampa Bay .................................................... ix Table ES-3 Summary of the Opportunity Assessment Analysis .......................................................... xi Table ES-4 Summary of Recommended 2030 Targets and 2050 Goals ............................................ xiv Table 2-1 Summary of Current Extent of TBEP Habitats .................................................................... 34 Table 2-2 Summary of Subtidal Habitat Change Analysis .................................................................. 37 Table 2-3 Summary of Intertidal and Supratidal Habitat Changes Analysis ....................................... 38 Table 2-4 Existing Development FLUCCS Codes ............................................................................... 45 Table 3-1 Acres and Relative Proportions of Private Conservation Lands ......................................... 52 Table 3-2 Enhancement and Restoration Projects in Tampa Bay (1970-2019 and 2010-2019) ........ 59 Table 3-3 Restoration Project Number and Coverage by Lead Partner ............................................. 60 Table 4-1 Faunal Guilds Identified for the Restoring the Balance Paradigm ...................................... 63 Table 5-1 Restorable Habitats FLUCCS Codes .................................................................................. 77 Table 5-2 Native Habitats FLUCCS Codes ......................................................................................... 78 Table 5-3 Summary of the Opportunity Assessment Analysis ............................................................ 89 Table 6-1 Summary of Recommended 2030 Targets ....................................................................... 112 APPENDIX Appendix A: Habitat Restoration Database Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was cooperatively funded by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (Grant No. 17PO0000368) and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. This document was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) under contract to the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. The primary ESA project team consisted of the following: • Doug Robison – Project Manager, lead author of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program 2020 Habitat Master Plan Update document; • Thomas Ries – lead author of the Tampa Bay Habitat Restoration: Best Management Practices Manual (standalone document); • Justin Saarinen – geospatial data analysis lead;
Recommended publications
  • SONW Maintext

    SONW Maintext

    STATE of the NORTHWEST Revised 2000 Edition O THER N ORTHWEST E NVIRONMENT WATCH T ITLES Seven Wonders: Everyday Things for a Healthier Planet Green-Collar Jobs Tax Shift Over Our Heads: A Local Look at Global Climate Misplaced Blame: The Real Roots of Population Growth Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things The Car and the City This Place on Earth: Home and the Practice of Permanence Hazardous Handouts: Taxpayer Subsidies to Environmental Degradation State of the Northwest STATE of the NORTHWEST Revised 2000 Edition John C. Ryan RESEARCH ASSISTANCE BY Aaron Best Jocelyn Garovoy Joanna Lemly Amy Mayfield Meg O’Leary Aaron Tinker Paige Wilder NEW REPORT 9 N ORTHWEST E NVIRONMENT W ATCH ◆ S EATTLE N ORTHWEST E NVIRONMENT WATCH IS AN INDEPENDENT, not-for-profit research center in Seattle, Washington, with an affiliated charitable organization, NEW BC, in Victoria, British Columbia. Their joint mission: to foster a sustainable economy and way of life through- out the Pacific Northwest—the biological region stretching from south- ern Alaska to northern California and from the Pacific Ocean to the crest of the Rockies. Northwest Environment Watch is founded on the belief that if northwesterners cannot create an environmentally sound economy in their home place—the greenest corner of history’s richest civilization—then it probably cannot be done. If they can, they will set an example for the world. Copyright © 2000 Northwest Environment Watch Excerpts from this book may be printed in periodicals with written permission from Northwest Environment Watch. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 99-069862 ISBN 1-886093-10-5 Design: Cathy Schwartz Cover photo: Natalie Fobes, from Reaching Home: Pacific Salmon, Pacific People (Seattle: Alaska Northwest Books, 1994) Editing and composition: Ellen W.
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 Application of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company

    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 Application of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company

    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 Application of Comcast Corporation, ) General Electric Company and NBC ) Universal, Inc., for Consent to Assign ) MB Docket No. 10-56 Licenses or Transfer Control of ) Licenses ) COMMENTS AND MERGER CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS DEMOCRACY James N. Horwood Gloria Tristani Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 879-4000 June 21, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PEG PROGRAMMING IS ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVING LOCALISM AND DIVERSITY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, IS VALUED BY VIEWERS, AND MERITS PROTECTION IN COMMISSION ACTION ON THE COMCAST-NBCU TRANSACTION .2 II. COMCAST CONCEDES THE RELEVANCE OF AND NEED FOR IMPOSING PEG-RELATED CONDITIONS ON THE TRANSFER, BUT THE PEG COMMITMENTS COMCAST PROPOSES ARE INADEQUATE 5 A. PEG Merger Condition No.1: As a condition ofthe Comcast­ NBCU merger, Comcast should be required to make all PEG channels on all ofits cable systems universally available on the basic service tier, in the same format as local broadcast channels, unless the local government specifically agrees otherwise 8 B. PEG Merger Condition No.2: As a merger condition, the Commission should protect PEG channel positions .,.,.,.. ., 10 C. PEG Merger Condition No.3: As a merger condition, the Commission should prohibit discrimination against PEG channels, and ensure that PEG channels will have the same features and functionality, and the same signal quality, as that provided to local broadcast channels .,., ., ..,.,.,.,..,., ., ., .. .,11 D. PEG Merger Condition No.4: As a merger condition, the Commission should require that PEG-related conditions apply to public access, and that all PEG programming is easily accessed on menus and easily and non-discriminatorily accessible on all Comcast platforms ., 12 CONCLUSION 13 EXHIBIT 1 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C.
  • 11 August 2006 J. Michael Meyers USGS Patuxent Wildlife

    11 August 2006 J. Michael Meyers USGS Patuxent Wildlife

    11 August 2006 J. Michael Meyers USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources The University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-2152 706-542-1882; email [email protected] RH: Florida bald eagle migration • Mojica and Meyers MIGRATION, HOME RANGE, AND IMPORTANT USE AREAS OF FLORIDA SUB-ADULT BALD EAGLES ELIZABETH K. MOJICA, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA J. MICHAEL MEYERS, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA Final Performance Report 9 September 2005 – 1 June 2006 Keywords: Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, migration, stopover, home range, roost, nearest neighbor. Mojica and Meyers 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................4 OBJECTIVES: ...............................................................................................5 METHODS.....................................................................................................6 Important use areas ...................................................................................6 Migratory eagle seasonal home ranges .....................................................7 Non-migratory eagle home ranges.............................................................8 Migration ....................................................................................................9
  • Brooker Creek Preserve Management Plan

    Brooker Creek Preserve Management Plan

    BROOKER CREEK PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN prepared for PINELLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT prepared by Institute for Enviionmental Studies at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA in association with HDR Engineering, Inc. Breuggemann & Associates Laurie Macdonald, M. S, Zoologist Florida Audubon Society James Layne, PLD. EHI, Inc. December 1,1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS ListofFigures .................................................... iii ListofTables ...................................................... iv Acknowledgements ................................................... v ListofContributors ................................................. vi Summary Description, Proposed Facilities, and Recommendations .............. vii I. INTRODUCLTON Location of the Preserve ....................................... 1 Goals and Mission of the Preserve ............................... 1 11. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESERVE Drainage .................................................. 1 -WaterQuality............................................ 3 Topography ................................................ 3 Geology and soils ............................................ 3 Man-made features .......................................... 7 BIOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESERVE A. Habitat Types Provided on the Preserve ........................... 8 Historical communities ....................................... 8 Existing communities -Land uselland cover ..................................... 10 -Natural plant communities ...............................
  • NENHC 2008 Abstracts

    NENHC 2008 Abstracts

    Abstracts APRIL 17 – APRIL 18, 2008 A FORUM FOR CURRENT RESEARCH The Northeastern Naturalist The New York State Museum is a program of The University of the State of New York/The State Education Department APRIL 17 – APRIL 18, 2008 A FORUM FOR CURRENT RESEARCH SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CITING ABSTRACTS: Abstracts Northeast Natural History Conference X. N.Y. State Mus. Circ. 71: page number(s). 2008. ISBN: 1-55557-246-4 The University of the State of New York THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ALBANY, NY 12230 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Regents of The University ROBERT M. BENNETT, Chancellor, B.A., M.S. ................................................................. Tonawanda MERRYL H. TISCH, Vice Chancellor, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ................................................. New York SAUL B. COHEN, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.................................................................................. New Rochelle JAMES C. DAWSON, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. .................................................................. Peru ANTHONY S. BOTTAR, B.A., J.D. ..................................................................................... Syracuse GERALDINE D. CHAPEY, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ................................................................... Belle Harbor ARNOLD B. GARDNER, B.A., LL.B. .................................................................................. Buffalo HARRY PHILLIPS, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. ............................................................................. Hartsdale JOSEPH E. BOWMAN, JR., B.A.,
  • Design and Methods of the Pacific Northwest Stream Quality Assessment (PNSQA), 2015

    Design and Methods of the Pacific Northwest Stream Quality Assessment (PNSQA), 2015

    National Water-Quality Assessment Project Design and Methods of the Pacific Northwest Stream Quality Assessment (PNSQA), 2015 Open-File Report 2017–1103 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Background: Photograph showing U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Technician collecting an equal-width-increment (EWI) water sample on the South Fork Newaukum River, Washington. Photograph by R.W. Sheibley, U.S. Geological Survey, June 2015. Top inset: Photograph showing U.S. Geological Survey Ecologist scraping a rock using a circular template for the analysis of Algal biomass and community composition, June 2015. Photograph by U.S. Geological Survey. Bottom inset: Photograph showing juvenile coho salmon being measured during a fish survey for the Pacific Northwest Stream Quality Assessment, June 2015. Photograph by Peter van Metre, U.S. Geological Survey. Design and Methods of the Pacific Northwest Stream Quality Assessment (PNSQA), 2015 By Richard W. Sheibley, Jennifer L. Morace, Celeste A. Journey, Peter C. Van Metre, Amanda H. Bell, Naomi Nakagaki, Daniel T. Button, and Sharon L. Qi National Water-Quality Assessment Project Open-File Report 2017–1103 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information pr oducts, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https:/store.usgs.gov.
  • Fish Ecology in Tropical Streams

    Fish Ecology in Tropical Streams

    Author's personal copy 5 Fish Ecology in Tropical Streams Kirk O. Winemiller, Angelo A. Agostinho, and Érica Pellegrini Caramaschi I. Introduction 107 II. Stream Habitats and Fish Faunas in the Tropics 109 III. Reproductive Strategies and Population Dynamics 124 IV. Feeding Strategies and Food-Web Structure 129 V. Conservation of Fish Biodiversity 136 VI. Management to Alleviate Human Impacts and Restore Degraded Streams 139 VII. Research Needs 139 References 140 This chapter emphasizes the ecological responses of fishes to spatial and temporal variation in tropical stream habitats. At the global scale, the Neotropics has the highest fish fauna richness, with estimates ranging as high as 8000 species. Larger drainage basins tend to be associated with greater local and regional species richness. Within longitudinal stream gradients, the number of species increases with declining elevation. Tropical stream fishes encompass highly diverse repro- ductive strategies ranging from egg scattering to mouth brooding and livebearing, with reproductive seasons ranging from a few days to the entire year. Relationships between life-history strategies and population dynamics in different environmental settings are reviewed briefly. Fishes in tropical streams exhibit diverse feeding behaviors, including specialized niches, such as fin and scale feeding, not normally observed in temperate stream fishes. Many tropical stream fishes have greater diet breadth while exploiting abundant resources during the wet season, and lower diet breadth during the dry season as a consequence of specialized feeding on a subset of resources. Niche complementarity with high overlap in habitat use is usually accompanied by low dietary overlap. Ecological specializations and strong associations between form and function in tropical stream fishes provide clear examples of evolutionary convergence.
  • FLORIDA STATE PARKS FEE SCHEDULE (Fees Are Per Day Unless Otherwise Noted) 1. Statewide Fees Admission Range $1.00**

    FLORIDA STATE PARKS FEE SCHEDULE (Fees Are Per Day Unless Otherwise Noted) 1. Statewide Fees Admission Range $1.00**

    FLORIDA STATE PARKS FEE SCHEDULE (Fees are per day unless otherwise noted) 1. Statewide Fees Admission Range $1.00** - $10.00** (Does not include buses or admission to Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park or Weeki Wachee Springs State Park) Single-Occupant Vehicle or Motorcycle Admission $4.00 - $6.00** (Includes motorcycles with one or more riders and vehicles with one occupant) Per Vehicle Admission $5.00 - $10.00** (Allows admission for 2 to 8 people per vehicle; over 8 people requires additional per person fees) Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Per Passenger Exceeding 8 Per Vehicle; Per $2.00 - $5.00** Passenger In Vehicles With Holder of Annual Individual Entrance Pass Admission Economically Disadvantaged Admission One-half of base (Must be Florida resident admission fee** and currently participating in Food Stamp Program) Bus Tour Admission $2.00** per person (Does not include Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park, or $60.00 Skyway Fishing Pier State Park, or Weeki Wachee Springs State Park) whichever is less Honor Park Admission Per Vehicle $2.00 - $10.00** Pedestrians and Bicyclists $2.00 - $5.00** Sunset Admission $4.00 - $10.00** (Per vehicle, one hour before closing) Florida National Guard Admission One-half of base (Active members, spouses, and minor children; validation required) admission fee** Children, under 6 years of age Free (All parks) Annual Entrance Pass Fee Range $20.00 - $500.00 Individual Annual Entrance Pass $60.00 (Retired U. S. military, honorably discharged veterans, active-duty $45.00 U. S. military and reservists; validation required) Family Annual Entrance Pass $120.00 (maximum of 8 people in a group; only allows up to 2 people at Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park and Weeki Wachee Springs State Park) (Retired U.
  • Greenways Trails [EL08] 20110406 Copy.Eps

    Greenways Trails [EL08] 20110406 Copy.Eps

    R 17 E R 18 E R 19 E R 20 E R 21 E R 22 E MULTI-USE, PAVED TRAILS Suncoast NAME MILES Air Cargo Road 1.4 G HILLSBOROUGH Al Lopez Park 3.3 BrookerBrooker CreekCreek un n CorridorCorridor Suncoast H Aldermans Ford Park 1.9 w y Trail Amberly Drive 2.8 l B LakeLake DanDan 39 Bayshore Boulevard Greenways 4.4 EquestrianEquestrian TrailTrail Lake s GREENWAYS SYSTEM F z e n Lut rn R P d w OakridgeOakridge Brandon Parkway 1.4 o EquestrianEquestrian TrailTrail HillsboroughHillsborough RRiveriver LLUTZUTZ LAKEAKE FERNF D Bruce B Downs Boulevard 4.8 BrookerBrooker CCreekreek ERN RDRD StateState ParkPark B HeadwatersHeadwaters 75 NNewew TTampaampa Y e Cheney Park 0.3 TrailTrail c A LutzLutz W u Commerce Park Boulevard 1.4 KeystoneKeystone K Tam r BlackwaterBlackwater Bruce B Downs Bl Downs B Bruce R ew pa B A N N Bl FloridaFlorida TrailTrail PPARKWAY L reek CreekCreek PreservePreserve Compton Drive 1.4 C D TrailTrail Bl E E ss Copeland Park 2.3 D K CypressCypress TATAR RRD N SUNSETSUNSET LNLN Cro O R Y P H ON GS T N A I I I O R V CreekCreek SP D G Cross County Greenway 0.8 S 275 G A R H W R H WAYNE RD A YS L R L C T 41 579 C CROOKED LN DairyDairy A O A A Cypress Point Park 1.0 N N L N KeystoneKeystone C P O D E D N LAK R FarmFarm C H D H T r Davis Island Park 0.5 U r O O R U Lake U S D SSUNCOAS 568 D A A Bo N G y S Desotto Park 0.3 co W Keystone T K u P N R I m D L E D BrookerBrooker CreekCreek t Rd 589 l RS EN R V d E VVanan DDykeyke RdRd a GRE DeadDead E Shell Point Road 1.2 Y I NNewew TampaTampa R ConeCone RanchRanch VVanan DDykeyke RRdd AV L LIVINGSTON
  • Florida State Parks Data by 2021 House District

    Florida State Parks Data by 2021 House District

    30, Florida State Parks FY 2019-20 Data by 2021 House Districts This compilation was produced by the Florida State Parks Foundation . FloridaStateParksFoundation.org Statewide Totals • 175 Florida State Parks and Trails (164 Parks / 11 Trails) comprising nearly 800,000 Acres • $2.2 billion direct impact to Florida’s economy • $150 million in sales tax revenue • 31,810 jobs supported • 25 million visitors served # of Economic Jobs Park House Districts Parks Impact Supported Visitors 1 Salzman, Michelle 0 2 Andrade, Robert Alexander “Alex” 3 31,073,188 436 349,462 Big Lagoon State Park 10,336,536 145 110,254 Perdido Key State Park 17,191,206 241 198,276 Tarklin Bayou Preserve State Park 3,545,446 50 40,932 3 Williamson, Jayer 3 26,651,285 416 362,492 Blackwater Heritage State Trail 18,971,114 266 218,287 Blackwater River State Park 7,101,563 99 78,680 Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park 578,608 51 65,525 4 Maney, Thomas Patterson “Patt” 2 41,626,278 583 469,477 Fred Gannon Rocky Bayou State Park 7,558,966 106 83,636 Henderson Beach State Park 34,067,312 477 385,841 5 Drake, Brad 9 64,140,859 897 696,022 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 Deer Lake State Park 1,738,073 24 19,557 Eden Gardens State Park 3,235,182 45 36,128 Falling Waters State Park 5,510,029 77 58,866 Florida Caverns State Park 4,090,576 57 39,405 Grayton Beach State Park 17,072,108 239 186,686 Ponce de Leon Springs State Park 6,911,495 97 78,277 Three Rivers State Park 2,916,005 41 30,637 Topsail Hill Preserve State Park 19,533,681 273 213,693 6 Trumbull, Jay 2 45,103,015 632 504,860 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 St.
  • Evaluating the Effects of Vortex Rock Weir Stability on Physical Complexity Penitencia and Wildcat Creeks

    Evaluating the Effects of Vortex Rock Weir Stability on Physical Complexity Penitencia and Wildcat Creeks

    Evaluating the Effects of Vortex Rock Weir Stability on Physical Complexity Penitencia and Wildcat Creeks Emily Corwin Katie Jagt Leigh Neary Completed for LA 227 River Restoration Fall 2007 Evaluating the effects of vortex rock weir stability on physical complexity Page i Evaluating the Effects of Vortex Rock Weir Stability on Physical Complexity Penitencia and Wildcat Creeks Emily Corwin Katie Jagt Leigh Neary Department of Civil and Department of Civil and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Environmental Engineering Environmental Engineering [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………... 5 Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 Site Descriptions…………………………………………………………………………………………....9 Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………......11 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………15 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………...18 References…………………………………………………………………………………………………19 Appendix A: Variance Calculation Methods……………………………………………………………...20 Appendix B: Additional Figures and Tables………………………………………………………………21 List of Figures Figure 1. General configuration of vortex rock weirs…………………………..………………...……... .5 Figure 2. The four degrees of structural integrity; rating criteria for vortex rock weirs………..………....7 Figure 3. The six degrees of bed and bank degradation; erosion rating criteria…………………………...7 Figure 4. The control channel model schematic. …………………………………………………………
  • FFN 47.3 Pages 116-126.Pdf

    FFN 47.3 Pages 116-126.Pdf

    Florida Field Naturalist 47(3):116-126, 2019. FIELD OBSERVATIONS Winter Report: December 2018-February 2019.—This report consists of significant bird observations compiled by the Field Observations Committee (FOC). Electronic submissions to the FOC should be in the following format: species, number of individuals, age and sex of the bird(s), color morph if applicable, location (including county), date, observer(s), and significance. Seasons are winter (December-February), spring (March-May), summer (June-July), and fall (August-November). Submit observations to regional compilers within two weeks after the close of each season, or to the state compiler within one month. Addresses of the compilers follow this report. Sight-only observations are considered “reports” while only those observations supported by verifiable evidence (photographs, video or audio recordings, or specimens) are called “records.” Species for which documentation is required by the FOC and by the FOS Records Committee (FOSRC; <fosbirds.org/official-florida-state-bird-list>) are marked here with an asterisk (*). A county designation (in italics) accompanies the first- time listing of each site in this report. Abbreviations in this report are: AFB = Air Force Base, AFR = Air Force Range, CA = Conservation Area, EOS = end of season, m. obs. = many observers, NERR = National Estuarine Research Reserve, NF = National Forest, NP = National Park, NSRA = North Shore Restoration Area, NWR = National Wildlife Refuge, SF = State Forest, SP = State Park, STA = Stormwater Treatment Area, STF = sewage treatment facility, WMA=Wildlife Management Area, and N, S, E, W etc., for compass directions. Bold-faced entries denote birds newly reported or verified in Florida, or record numbers.