DOCSLIB.ORG

Sarasota Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Update & State of the Bay Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sarasota Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Update & State of the Bay Report Years of Partnerships 25 in Restoring Our Bays Sarasota Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Update & State of the Bay Report SARASOTA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM SARASOTA BAY - Past Sarasota Bay and the area surrounding it are a complex environment that has been heavily altered by man. atives of the Sarasota Bay region o!er a vibrant portrait of NSarasota Bay past: t4FBHSBTTUFFNJOHXJUITDBMMPQT CPVOUJGVMPZTUFSIBSWFTUT BOETBOE ìBUTUIJDLXJUIDMBNT t"ëTIQPQVMBUJPOTPBCVOEBOU POFMPOHUJNFSFTJEFOUSFDBMMT UIBU iZPVDPVMEIBSEMZSPXBDSPTTUPPOFPGUIFLFZTXJUIPVUFOEJOHVQ XJUIBEP[FOPSTPëTIJOZPVSCPBUw t4QBSTFMZEFWFMPQFE NBOHSPWFMJOFETIPSFTBTGBSBTUIFFZFDPVME TFF ëMUFSJOHUIFSVOPêGSPNMBOEUISPVHIOBUVSBMWFHFUBUJPOCFGPSF it reached the Bay t $MFBS DMFBOXBUFS QSPWJEJOHFYDFMMFOUIBCJUBUGPSëTIBOEPUIFS marine life t4NBMM MPDBMJ[FEDPNNVOJUJFTXIFSFFWFSZPOFLOFXFWFSZPOFFMTF BOEUIFTFOTFPGQMBDFXBTTUSPOH *O UIFPWFSBMMRVBMJUZXBTEFTDSJCFEWFSZEJêFSFOUMZ t %JNJOJTIFEHSBTTCFET XJUIUIPTFSFNBJOJOHTDBSSFECZCPBU QSPQFMMFSUSBDLTTDBMMPQ PZTUFS BOEDMBNIBSWFTUTDPVOUFEJO TJOHMFOVNCFST OPUCVTIFMCBTLFUT t(FOFSBMMZSFEVDFEDBUDIFTPGëTIUISPVHIPVUUIF#BZ t3FDPOTUSVDUFETIPSFMJOFT XJUINBOZNBOHSPWFGPSFTUTOPXEFTUSPZFE t*OUFOTFSFTJEFOUJBMBOEDPNNFSDJBMEFWFMPQNFOUUISPVHIPVUUIF#BZ BSFB XJUIBDDPNQBOZJOHSVOPêPGTUPSNXBUFS TFXBHF TFEJNFOU BOEDIFNJDBMDPOUBNJOBOUTìPXJOHJOUPUIF#BZ t"IVNBOFOWJSPONFOUJOXIJDIQFPQMFPGUFOEPOULOPXUIFJSOFYU EPPSOFJHICPST BOEMBDLBTFOTFPGQMBDFBOEDPNNVOJUZ — Paul Roat, 1990 SARASOTA BAY - Present ACCOMPLISHMENTS ince 1989, accomplishments in Bay restoration have Sbeen substantial: t4JHOJëDBOUXBUFSRVBMJUZJNQSPWFNFOUTJOUIF#BZBOEUSJCVUBSJFT EVFUPQFSDFOUSFEVDUJPOJOOJUSPHFOQPMMVUJPOBMM#BZXBUFST OPXNFFUTUBUFGFEFSBMXBUFSRVBMJUZTUBOEBSETBOEBSFSBUFE iHPPEwUPiFYDFMMFOUw t4FBHSBTTDPWFSBHF BNFBTVSFPG#BZIFBMUI IBTJODSFBTFEQFSDFOU t 4FBHSBTTMFWFMTBSFQFSDFOUBCPWF t3FTUPSBUJPOPGBQQSPYJNBUFMZ BDSFTPGXFUMBOEIBCJUBUXJUI DSFBUJPOPGOFXFDPMPHJDBMQBSLTBSPVOEUIF#BZ t$POTUSVDUJPOPGOJOFOFXBSUJëDJBMSFFGTJUFT t*NQMFNFOUBUJPOPGBDPNQSFIFOTJWFQVCMJDFEVDBUJPOQSPHSBN TJODF NPSFUIBO TDIPPMDIJMESFOIBWFSFDFJWFE PVUEPPSFEVDBUJPOBCPVU4BSBTPUB#BZ XIJMFBEVMUFEVDBUJPO BQQFBSTUPCFIBWJOHBOJNQBDUPO#BZRVBMJUZ t %FWFMPQNFOUPGQSPUFDUJWFXBUFSRVBMJUZTUBOEBSET /VNFSJD /VUSJFOU$SJUFSJB BEPQUFECZ&1"JO t$SFBUJPOPGUIF(VMG$PBTU)FSJUBHF5SBJMUPQSPNPUFNBOBHFE QVCMJDBDDFTTUPQPJOUTPGIJTUPSJDBM DVMUVSBM BOEFOWJSPONFOUBM JOUFSFTUBSPVOEUIF#BZ t 'SPNUP NJMMJPOJOQVCMJDBOEQSJWBUFGVOET XFSFMFWFSBHFE t5IFFDPOPNJDWBMVFPG4BSBTPUB#BZSFHJPO XBTFTUJNBUFEBUCJMMJPO In 2009, the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program received !rst place as a Gulf Guardian from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program. "e accolade came in the “Partnership” category due to water quality and seagrass improvements. Fran Palmeri SARASOTA BAY - Future IF SFDFOU SFWJTJPOT UP UIF #BZ NBOBHFNFOU QMBO QSFTFOUFE JO UIJT EPDVNFOU GPDVTFE BUUFOUJPO PO UIF 5JNQSPWFNFOUPG4BSBTPUB#BZUJEBMDSFFLTBOEUSJCVUBSJFT"MUIPVHIUIF.PUF.BSJOF-BCPSBUPSZBOEPUIFST IBWFDPOEVDUFEQFSJPEJDTUVEJFTPGUJEBMDSFFLTMPDBMMZ OPDPNQSFIFOTJWFBTTFTTNFOUPGUIFTFTZTUFNTIBTCFFO GVOEFEJO'MPSJEBɨF4BSBTPUB#BZ&TUVBSZ1SPHSBNJTDVSSFOUMZNBOBHJOHBMBSHFTUVEZoJODPMMBCPSBUJPOXJUI UIF5BNQB#BZ&TUVBSZ1SPHSBNBOEUIF$IBSMPUUF)BSCPS/BUJPOBM&TUVBSZ1SPHSBNBOEMPDBMHPWFSONFOUT SFHJPOBMMZ oUPDIBSBDUFSJ[FUIFDPOEJUJPOPGDSFFLTFYUFOEJOHGSPN1JOFMMBTUP-FFDPVOUJFTɨFTUVEZJTEFTJHOFE UPBTTFTTXBUFSRVBMJUZ IBCJUBU BOEëTIFSJFT"TSFTVMUPGUIJTTUVEZ QPMJDZDIBOHFTXJMMMJLFMZCFSFDPNNFOEFEUP JNQSPWFTFOTJUJWFKVWFOJMFëTIIBCJUBUTJOUIFTFFOWJSPOT "TBDPNNVOJUZXFNVTUCFWJHJMBOUJODPOUJOVJOHUPQSPUFDUBOEJNQSPWFPVSQSFDJPVTSFTPVSDFT&EVDBUJPO BOE-PX*NQBDU%FWFMPQNFOUXJMMDFSUBJOMZCFLFZDPNQPOFOUTPGUIFDPOUJOVFEFOIBODFNFOUBOEQSPUFDUJPO PGPVSWBMVFESFTPVSDFT4BSBTPUB#BZJTBSFHJPOBMEFTUJOBUJPOTVQQPSUJOHNPSFUIBO KPCTBOOVBMMZ"T XFNBUVSFBTBDPNNVOJUZ XFNVTUSFNFNCFSBOENBJOUBJOUIFTFOTFPGQMBDFEFTDSJCFEJO4BSBTPUB#BZo1BTUGPS PVSFDPOPNJDQSPTQFSJUZ “Tidal creeks not only serve as vital nursery habitat for juvenile sport !sh such as snook, they are the conduits that connect the productivity of tidal wetlands to the larger estuary. "is important function improves the !sheries productivity of the estuary as a whole.” – Ernst B. Peebles University of South Florida INTRODUCTION i Years PG1BSUOFSTIJQTJO3FTUPSJOH0VS#BZTw JTBOVQEBUFPOQSPHSFTTNBEFJODBSSZJOH PVUUIF4BSBTPUB #BZ &TUVBSZ 1SPHSBNT$PNQSFIFOTJWF $POTFSWBUJPO BOE .BOBHFNFOU 1MBO $$.1 *ODMVEFE JO UIJT EPDVNFOU BSF SFWJTJPOT PG UIF $$.1 iɨF 7PZBHF UP 1BSBEJTF 3FDMBJNFE w TJHOFE JO CZ UIF HPWFSOPS PG 'MPSJEB BOE UIF BENJOJTUSBUPS PG UIF 64 &OWJSPONFOUBM1SPUFDUJPO"HFODZ ɨF4BSBTPUB#BZ&TUVBSZ1SPHSBNJTEFEJDBUFEUPSFTUPSJOHUIFSFHJPOTNPTUJNQPSUBOUOBUVSBM BTTFU4BSBTPUB#BZɨFQSPHSBNTUSJWFTUPJNQSPWFXBUFSRVBMJUZ JODSFBTFIBCJUBU BOEFOIBODF OBUVSBMSFTPVSDFTPGUIFBSFBGPSUIFVTFBOEFOKPZNFOUPGUIFQVCMJD 2 2014 CCMP - SBEP artnership P 9 - 201 198 4 YEARS SARASOTA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM Restoring Our Bays TABLE OF CONTENTS *OUSPEVDUJPO 1BSUOFSTIJQT 5 State of the Bay 2014 (FPHSBQIZ #BZ1PMMVUJPO 8BUFS2VBMJUZ4FBHSBTT 4BSBTPUB#BZ$POEJUJPO3FQPSU 0UIFS*NQPSUBOU#BZ)BCJUBUT 'JTIFSJFT 18 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 8BTUFXBUFS5SFBUNFOU3FDMBNBUJPO 4UPSNXBUFS5SFBUNFOU1SFWFOUJPO 'SFTIXBUFS4BMUXBUFS8FUMBOET 'JTIFSJFT0UIFS-JWJOH3FTPVSDFT 3FDSFBUJPOBM6TF (PWFSOBODFUP0WFSTFF*NQMFNFOUBUJPO 68 Citizens Participation Chapter .BSLFUJOH$PNNVOJDBUJPO $PNNVOJUZ*OWPMWFNFOU &EVDBUJPO 4FB-FWFM3JTF 3FDFOU1VCMJDBUJPOT &DPOPNJD7BMVBUJPO 3FTUPSF"DU -JUFSBUVSF$JUFE 80 Project Area Map Back Cover "DLOPXMFEHNFOUT James Sweiderk 2014 CCMP - SBEP 3 PARTNERSHIPS BSBTPUB#BZXBTOBNFEBOiFTUVBSZPGOBUJPOBM STJHOJëDBODFwJOUIF8BUFS2VBMJUZ"DUPGɨF 4BSBTPUB#BZ&TUVBSZ1SPHSBN 4#&1 XBTFTUBCMJTIFE BTB4QFDJBM%JTUSJDUJO'MPSJEBPO+VMZ XJUI UIFTJHOJOHPGBO*OUFSMPDBM"HSFFNFOU1BSUOFSTUP UIFBHSFFNFOUBSF4BSBTPUB$PVOUZ .BOBUFF$PVOUZ UIF$JUZPG4BSBTPUB UIF$JUZPG#SBEFOUPO UIF 5PXOPG-POHCPBU,FZ UIF'MPSJEB%FQBSUNFOUPG &OWJSPONFOUBM1SPUFDUJPO UIF4PVUIXFTU'MPSJEB8BUFS .BOBHFNFOU%JTUSJDU UIF64'JTI8JMEMJGF4FSWJDF UIF/BUJPOBM0DFBOJDBOE"UNPTQIFSJD"ENJOJTUSBUJPO BOEUIF64"SNZ$PSQTPG&OHJOFFSTɨF64 &OWJSPONFOUBM1SPUFDUJPO"HFODZ &1" JTQBSUJDJQBUJOH BTBQBSUOFSVOEFSB.FNPSBOEVNPG6OEFSTUBOEJOH ɨF4#&1JTPOFPG&1"/BUJPOBM&TUVBSZ1SPHSBNT JOUIF6OJUFE4UBUFT'MPSJEBIBTGPVS/BUJPOBM&TUVBSZ 1SPHSBNTUIF*OEJBO3JWFS-BHPPO/BUJPOBM&TUVBSZ 1SPHSBN UIF5BNQB#BZBOE4BSBTPUB#BZ&TUVBSZ1SPHSBNT BOEUIF$IBSMPUUF)BSCPS/BUJPOBM&TUVBSZ1SPHSBN arasota Bay Estuary Program would like to thank the citizens and technical advisors for their thousands of volunteer hours, and for the contributions of federal, state, and local governmentS staff in making Bay restoration a reality. GOALS: *O UIF4#&1XBTGPSNFEXJUIUIFGPMMPXJOHHPBMT FTUBCMJTIFEUISPVHIUIF&1"OPNJOBUJPOBOEBDDFQUBODFQSPDFTT t*NQSPWFXBUFSUSBOTQBSFODZ t3FEVDFUIFRVBOUJUZBOEJNQSPWFUIFRVBMJUZPGTUPSNXBUFSSVOPêUPUIF#BZ t3FTUPSFMPTUTFBHSBTTFTBOETIPSFMJOFIBCJUBUT BOEFMJNJOBUFGVSUIFSMPTTFT t&TUBCMJTIBOBQQSPQSJBUFNBOBHFNFOUTUSVDUVSFGPS4BSBTPUB#BZ t1SPWJEFJODSFBTFEMFWFMTPGNBOBHFEBDDFTTUP4BSBTPUB#BZBOEJUTSFTPVSDFT t3FTUPSFBOETVTUBJOëTIBOEPUIFSMJWJOHSFTPVSDFTJO4BSBTPUB#BZ t&EVDBUFUIFQVCMJDPOJTTVFTBOEQSPCMFNTGBDJOH4BSBTPUB#BZ "GUFSBQQSPYJNBUFMZUISFFZFBSTPGUFDIOJDBMBTTFTTNFOUBOETUVEJFT BQSFMJNJOBSZNBOBHFNFOUQMBOXBTQSFTFOUFE UPUIFDPNNVOJUZJOUIFi'SBNFXPSLGPS"DUJPO3FQPSUw'PMMPXJOHUXPZFBSTPGSFWJFX UIF$PNQSFIFOTJWF $POTFSWBUJPOBOE.BOBHFNFOU1MBO $$.1 XBTGPSNBMMZBEPQUFEJO+VOF Sponsored in part by the Manasota Basin Board of the 4 2014 CCMP - SBEP STATE OF THE BAY artnership P 9 - 201 198 4 YEARS SARASOTA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM Restoring Our Bays 2014 CCMP - SBEP 5 GEOGRAPHY arasota Bay is a 50-mile-long coastal lagoon on Sthe southwest coast of Florida (Figure 1). It is comprised of one large bay segment (Big Sarasota Bay) and several smaller embayments, including Palma Sola Bay in the north and a series of three contiguous water features Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Segments and Their Watersheds (Roberts Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, and Blackburn Bay) Terra to the south. The Bay has Ceia four inlets or passes (Venice Bay Inlet, Big Sarasota Pass, New Anna Maria Pass, and Longboat Pass). Sound The SBEP area is bounded M to the north by Anna Maria an ate e Ri Sound, which opens into Palma Palma ver Tampa Bay, and to the south Sola Cortez Sola Creek by Venice Inlet. Numerous Bay small tidal creeks enter Longboat Long the Bay along the eastern Pass Bar Point shoreline, ranging in size k Boes Cree wlees e from the largest (Phillippi wl Bo Creek: drainage area of Creek 36,417 acres) to the smallest MANA (Palma Sola Creek: drainage (to I-75) TEE COUNTY SARASOT area of 900 acres). The A COUNTY u yo a Sarasota B r e k Sarasota Bay ta Whitaker i watershed is highly developed Wh and consists of agricultural, BayoDowntown Suarasota Hudson residential, commercial, and Big Pass Bayou dson Hu B ay light industrial land uses. ou Circulation is primarily driven by tidal exchange Big Sarasota Pass PhillippiProctor Rd. k e with the Gulf of Mexico. Big re C pi llip Creek Sarasota Bay circulation is Phi forced by the tides at Anna 72 Maria Sound, Longboat Pass, Roberts Bay New Pass, and Big Pass. Tidal 75 ek h Cre Little tfis circulation in Little Sarasota CNoa rth N o rt h C re Bay is forced by tides at Venice Sarasota Crek eek Bay Inlet and the Intracoastal yakka River M Waterway running through the South681 middle of the Bay. !e closing Gulf Creek of Midnight Pass in Little Gulf Sarasota Bay in 1983 altered Blackburn of Bay Cowpen Slough the circulation in the three of lower embayments. Mexico Mexico Venice Inlet Figure 1. Source: SBEP 6 2014 CCMP - SBEP BAY POLLUTION
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries
    Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries T.C. MacDonald; E. Weather; R.F. Jones; R.H. McMichael, Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095 Prepared for Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 111 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 200W Sarasota, Florida 34236 June 4, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ vii SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update
    Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update Submitted to: Florida Department of Transportation District One Scenic Highways Coordinator 1840 61st St. Sarasota, Florida 34243 941.359.7311 Submitted by: The Palma Sola Scenic Highway Corridor Management Entity Seth Kohn, Chairperson Molly McCartney, Vice Chairperson ‘c/o City of Bradenton 1411 9th Street West Bradenton, FL 34205 941.708.6300 Prepared by: Keep Manatee Beautiful, Inc. P.O. Box 14426 Bradenton, Florida 34280 941.795-8272 July 2009 Palma Sola Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................... 1 Corridor Management Entity Member List.......................................................................... 2 Bylaws .................................................................................. 3 Agreements .......................................................................... 9 Corridor Conditions ....................................................................... 11 Corridor Vision .............................................................................. 16 Goals, Objectives and Strategies.................................................. 17 Protection Techniques .................................................................. 22 The Corridor Story.......................................................................... 22 Community Participation Program ................................................ 23 Local Support ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rob Patten: Creating a Legacy for Coastal Island Sanctuaries
    SUMMER 2011 2011 Audubon Assembly: Take Action for Florida’s Special Places October 14-15 Connect to Florida’s Special Places Guarding the Everglades Treasure 2011 Florida Audubon Society John Elting, Chairman, Leadership Florida Audubon Society Eric Draper Executive Director, Audubon of Florida President, Florida Audubon Our April board of directors meeting was a pivotal point for Florida Audubon Society (FAS). It was at that moment in time, surrounded by a chorus of birds at the Chinsegut Nature Center near Board of Directors FAS-owned Ahhochee Hill, that I think we all realized how far we had come this fiscal year. Our John W. Elting, Chairman Executive Director Eric Draper, our committed board and tireless staff had a lot to celebrate. Joe Ambrozy, Vice Chairman Sheri Ford Lewin, Board Secretary Even during tough economic times, we were ending the year in a positive financial position, Doug Santoni, Treasurer something other environmental groups are struggling with this year. We have achieved 100 per- Sandy Batchelor, Esq. cent board giving, both financially and in terms of gifts of time and talent. Our marketing efforts, Jim Brady particularly the expanded focus on social media, have resulted in a strong online community that Henry Dean, Esq. helped protect Florida’s state parks on three different occasions this year. Improved outreach and John Flanigan, Esq. regional events are building engagement in Audubon throughout Florida. The board’s science Charles Geanangel committee is taking our applied science work to new levels including accelerated involvement John Hood of citizen scientists. Lastly, we are beginning to work at the local, state and national level as One Reid Hughes Audubon.
    [Show full text]
  • Currently the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
    CRITICALLY ERODED BEACHES IN FLORIDA Updated, June 2009 BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATE OF FLORIDA Foreword This report provides an inventory of Florida's erosion problem areas fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, Straits of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and the roughly seventy coastal barrier tidal inlets. The erosion problem areas are classified as either critical or noncritical and county maps and tables are provided to depict the areas designated critically and noncritically eroded. This report is periodically updated to include additions and deletions. A county index is provided on page 13, which includes the date of the last revision. All information is provided for planning purposes only and the user is cautioned to obtain the most recent erosion areas listing available. This report is also available on the following web site: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/uublications/tech-rut.htm APPROVED BY Michael R. Barnett, P.E., Bureau Chief Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems June, 2009 Introduction In 1986, pursuant to Sections 161.101 and 161.161, Florida Statutes, the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores (now the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems) was charged with the responsibility to identify those beaches of the state which are critically eroding and to develop and maintain a comprehensive long-term management plan for their restoration. In 1989, a first list of erosion areas was developed based upon an abbreviated definition of critical erosion. That list included 217.6 miles of critical erosion and another 114.8 miles of noncritical erosion statewide.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COLA
    Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1: HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING ..................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION ............................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities .....................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere .............................................................................2.4.1-3 2.4.1.3 References .............................................................................2.4.1-12 2.4.1-i Revision 6 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1 LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.4.1-201 East Miami-Dade County Drainage Subbasin Areas and Outfall Structures 2.4.1-202 Summary of Data Records for Gage Stations at S-197, S-20, S-21A, and S-21 Flow Control Structures 2.4.1-203 Monthly Mean Flows at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 2.4.1-204 Monthly Mean Water Level at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 (Headwater) 2.4.1-205 Monthly Mean Flows in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 2.4.1-206 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 (Headwaters) 2.4.1-207 Monthly Mean Flows in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A 2.4.1-208 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A (Headwaters) 2.4.1-209 Monthly Mean Flows in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-210 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-211 NOAA
    [Show full text]
  • 2006-SBEP-Stateofthebay.Pdf
    he Sarasota Bay Estuary Program would like to thank the Tmany citizens, technical advisors, elected officials and government agency staff who have participated in the process of protecting and revitalizing Sarasota Bay. The work of our small team of five can realize comprehensive achievements when our efforts are supported by partner funds, agency staff and an active and committed Board of Directors. We offer special thanks to the partners to the 2004 Interlocal Agreement, which established the Program as a special district in Florida: Sarasota County, Manatee County, City of Sarasota, City of Bradenton, Town of Longboat Key, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Southwest Florida Water Management District. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program • State of the Bay 006 4 Preface Sarasota Bay: Our Greatest Natural Asset 6 Setting the Stage Sarasota Bay: Our Economic and Ecological Treasure 8 Executive Summary Sarasota Bay Shows Significant Improvements 10 Water Quality Nitrogen Wastewater Pollution Air Pollution Stormwater Pollution Bacteria Contamination Tributary Action Plans Red Tide 14 Hydrology Preserving Balance in the Ecosystem and Maintaining Natural Flow 16 Bay Habitat Wetlands Wetland Restoration Monitoring Wetland Restoration Projects Seagrasses Hard Bottom Habitat Oysters Artificial Reefs Monitoring Reefs 24 Public Involvement in Restoring the Bay Community Recreation, Stewardship and Citizen Action Outreach—How the Community is Involved Sarasota County Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Manatee County Rebate Program Southwest
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared for County of Sarasota Coastal
    FINAL REPORT LITTLE SARASOTA BAY CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for County of Sarasota Coastal Zone Management Division Environmental Services Department 9250-110-RT Contract No. C82-66 Prepared by Stergios A. Dendrou Charles I. Moore Raymond Walton CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE 7630 Little River Turnpike Annandale, Virginia 22003 August 1983 Suggested reference Camp Dresser & McKee and Mote Marine Laboratory. 1983. Little Sarasota Bay circulation study. Sarasota County. Contract no C82-66. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report no 57. 175 p. Available from: Mote Marine Laboratory Library. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. LIST OF FIGURES . iii LIST OF TABLES . ix I INTRODUCTION ........................................... I-1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .......................... I-1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................... I-3 REPORT OUTLINE ......................................... I-4 II RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . II-1 III LITTLE SARASOTA BAY MODEL .............................. III-1 DYNAMIC ESTUARY MODEL .................................. III-1 MODEL THEORY ........................................... III-1 Basic Hydrodynamic Equations ...................... III-4 Numerical Solution-Stability ...................... III-5 Boundary Conditions ............................... III-6 LITTLE SARASOTA BAY GRID NETWORK ....................... III-7 Geometric Input Data .............................. III-7 IV PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ................................... IV-1 TIDES AND TIDAL PHASING ................................ IV-1 WIND
    [Show full text]
  • Of 6 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of The
    FAC 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion Effective Date: 12/20/2012 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion. (1) Estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criterion in paragraph 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C., are in the table below. The concentration-based estuary interpretations are open water, area-wide averages. The interpretations expressed as load per million cubic meters of freshwater inflow are the total load of that nutrient to the estuary divided by the total volume of freshwater inflow to that estuary. Page 1 of 6 FAC 62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion Effective Date: 12/20/2012 Estuary Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Chlorophyll a (a) Clearwater Harbor/St. Joseph Sound Annual geometric mean values not to be exceeded more than once in a three year period. Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions. 1. St.Joseph Sound 0.05 mg/L 0.66 mg/L 3.1 µg/L 2. Clearwater North 0.05 mg/L 0.61 mg/L 5.4 µg/L 3. Clearwater South 0.06 mg/L 0.58 mg/L 7.6 µg/L (b) Tampa Bay Annual totals for nutrients and annual arithmetic means for chlorophyll a, not to be exceeded more than once in a three year period. Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Rookery at Perico Seagrass Advance Mitigation
    ROOKERY AT PERICO SEAGRASS ADVANCE MITIGATION Mitigation Establishment Criteria Report May 17, 2013 ROOKERY AT PERICO SEAGRASS ADVANCE MITIGATION Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1.1 2.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION (DIRECT IMPACTS) ................................................. 2.2 2.1 MANGROVE FOREST DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 2.2 2.2 MONITORING METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 2.2 2.3 SUCCESS CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... 2.4 2.4 LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................... 2.5 3.0 HABITAT CREATION MITIGATION CREDITS .............................................................. 3.5 3.1 SEAGRASS HABITAT CREATION .................................................................................... 3.5 3.1.1 Design Details ...................................................................................................... 3.5 3.1.2 Implementation Options ....................................................................................... 3.7 3.1.3 Mitigation Credit Assessment (UMAM) ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1
    Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1 Edited by Laura A. Yarbro and Paul R. Carlson Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute St. Petersburg, Florida March 2011 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Table of Contents Authors, Contributors, and SIMM Team Members .................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 31 How this report was put together ........................................................................................... 36 Chapter Reports ...................................................................................................................... 41 Perdido Bay ........................................................................................................................... 41 Pensacola Bay .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Community-Based Watershed Plan
    Perdido Bay Community-Based Watershed Plan The Nature Conservancy in Florida December 2014 Photo © Beth Maynor Young The Nature Conservancy would like to thank all of the stakeholders from local, state and federal governments, non-governmental organizations, community groups, businesses, and citizens who devoted their time, resources and support for this watershed planning process. Your desire and commitment to come together in the spirit of building a watershed community that will achieve more together than individually has created a solid foundation and legacy of collaboration and conservation for the Gulf. In particular, we would like to recognize the National Resource Conservation Service for their support in creating the GIS-based project maps and the leadership demonstrated by the counties in the Panhandle and Springs Coast regions to invest in a process that reaches across political and organizational boundaries and focuses on improving and protecting the watersheds today and for future generations. Copyright © 2015. The Nature Conservancy in Florida Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Introduction 4 Planning Process 5 Identifying Priority Issues, Root Causes, Major Actions 7 Project Identification and Performance Measurement 9 Current Status and Recommended Next Steps 13 TNC Recommendations 14 Path Forward 14 Appendices 1 A—Deepwater Horizon Related Funding Opportunities 16 B—Stakeholder Participants 19 C—Stakeholder Meeting Notes 24 D—Watershed Overview and General Issues 58 E—Stakeholder-Identified Priority Issues, Root Causes, Major Actions and Project Types 65 F—Project Table 71 The Nature Conservancy Executive Summary The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill has focused attention on opportunities to restore and enhance Gulf Coast ecosystems and communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Targets for the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
    SEAGRASS TARGETS FOR THE SARASOTA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM Prepared for: Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 111 South Orange Avenue Suite 200W Sarasota, FL 34236 Prepared by: Anthony Janicki, Michael Dema, and Ravic Nijbroek 1155 Eden Isle Drive NE St. Petersburg, FL 33704 December 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this project is to provide technically-defensible quantitative restoration and protection targets for seagrasses in the Sarasota Bay ecosystem. Establishment of seagrass targets provides a necessary basis for management decisions regarding water quality and other issues that can influence the distribution and persistence of this resource. The primary goal of this project is to maintain and/or restore seagrass coverage to its historic extent. Restoration targets were defined through an analysis of historic and recent aerial surveys of the study area. Historic photos of the area were taken in 1950; as many alterations have occurred to the shoreline in the study area, as well as channelization of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), the following analyses have accounted for these changes as non-restorable areas. Additionally, trends in seagrass coverage throughout the SBEP based on recent surveys have been identified. The methodology employed for this project is GIS-based. Historic aerial photos were used to establish a baseline extent of seagrass in the study area circa 1950. Recent trends in and persistence of seagrass throughout the SBEP were determined through analysis of GIS shapefiles based on aerial surveys executed by the SWFWMD since 1988. Due to anthropogenic modifications in the estuary such as shoreline build-out and the dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), certain areas have been altered to the extent that they have no reasonable potential for restoration; these so-called non-restorable areas have been identified and removed from the analyses contained in this report.
    [Show full text]