A Characterization of Recreational Boating Activity And Boater Compliance with Posted Speed Zones in Palm Beach County

Transcription

1 A Characterization of Recreational Boating Activity And Boater Compliance with Posted Speed Zones in Palm Beach County Final Report Submitted To: Paul Davis Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management 2300 North Jog Road West Palm Beach, FL Submitted By: Jay F. Gorzelany Sea to Shore Alliance 4411 Bee Ridge Road #490 Sarasota, FL March 9, 2013 i

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A characterization of recreational boat traffic in Palm Beach County was conducted utilizing aerial survey data collected during 2007 (PBS&J et. al, 2009), and fixed-point survey data collected during 2011 and Aerial survey data was primarily used to examine countywide vessel traffic patterns, including temporal and spatial distribution of vessels throughout the county. The data were used to identify and document popular boating destinations, high-use travel corridors, and any potential waterways management concerns. The aerial dataset included survey data from the Loxahatchee River which was not examined during the original 2009 PBS&J study. A series of land-based and boat based survey sites were established at selected locations throughout Palm Beach County in order to assess the level of boater compliance with posted manatee speed zones. Data collection followed established survey techniques used in similar boating studies in Florida (Gorzelany, 1996, 2004, 2005, 2009). Surveys were conducted over a one-year period from November 2011 to October 2012, and included both weekday and weekend surveys. A total of 48 survey hours were conducted at each site. A total of 6,211 vessels were examined from 2007 aerial survey data. The type and size distribution of vessels utilizing Palm Beach County waterways was more similar to Florida east coast counties (Martin, Broward, Miami-Dade) and less similar to Florida west coast counties (Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota). Vessels between 16 and 25 feet in length were the most common size observed, and Open Motorboat was the most common vessel type. A high level of temporal variability was observed, with countywide single-day vessel counts ranging from 58 to 1,569. A significant increase in vessel traffic occurred on weekends versus weekdays in Palm Beach County (4.45X). This increase was greater than any Florida county studied to date. The largest numbers of vessels in Palm Beach County were consistently observed in proximity to three tidal inlets; Jupiter Inlet, Lake Worth Inlet, and Boca Raton Inlet. These inlets serve as both important travel corridors for access to the Atlantic Ocean and also as popular boating destinations. The density distribution of stationary vessels indicated that both Lake Worth Inlet (Peanut Island) and Boca Raton Inlet (Lake Boca Raton) are the most popular boating destinations, with very high concentrations of stationary (anchored, beached, or drifting) vessels in those areas. Jupiter Inlet appears to function more as a travel corridor than a boating destination, based upon a higher proportion of transitory vessels and a lower proportion of stationary vessels in the area. A relatively high proportion of higher speed vessel traffic was also observed within a posted slow speed zone inside Jupiter Inlet. Similar higher-speed / higher traffic areas were also observed along narrow corridors within the county, which may result in an increased environmental and/or human safety risk. While popular boating destinations exist within Palm Beach County, the majority of the coastal waterway generally functions as a travel corridor to/from other locations, including the various tidal inlets and the Atlantic Ocean. ii

3 Data from 13,399 vessels were collected from six fixed-point survey sites in Palm Beach County. Of these, 11,416 vessels were either evaluated for boater compliance within idle or slow speed zones, or targeted by speed gun in areas with quantitative (25 mph or 30 mph) speed zones. Overall levels of boater compliance were relatively high compared with similar Florida boating studies, however a great deal of variation was observed among individual survey sites. Locations with the highest observed levels of compliance were DuBois Park (Jupiter Inlet) and Phil Foster Park (northern Lake Worth Lagoon). These sites also had the highest overall levels of boat traffic. Lower levels of compliance were observed along the lower Loxahatchee River, and in southern Lake Worth Lagoon near Boynton Canal, however these sites had much lower levels of traffic. Lower levels of compliance were also observed at the Brian Chappell Park survey site (Central Lake Worth Lagoon), however this site had the most restrictive speed zone (idle speed), and many vessels identified as non-compliant were traveling at slow speed. A comparison of seasonal vessel speeds at the Brian Chappell Park site indicated a distinct change in boater behavior, with greatly reduced vessel speeds during the more restrictive portion of the year (November 15 March 31). The high proportion of idle and slow speed vessels in this area, along with the observed seasonal decreases in speed during the more speed-restrictive portion of the year, suggests that regulatory zones are reasonably effective in reducing boat speeds at this site. Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal site showed few noticeable differences when comparing a seasonal 25 mph zone to an adjacent unregulated zone, or when comparing a seasonal 30 mph zone to an adjacent unregulated zone. Targeted speeds within the same area when posted at either 25 mph or 30 mph were also not noticeably different. For comparisons which were determined to be statistically different, mean vessel speeds between regulated and unregulated areas were less than 2 mph. Similar results were found when comparing targeted speeds of the same vessel in both regulated and regulated areas. Some benefit in the posted 25 mph zone was seen, however, in a reduction of very fast vessel speeds. Observations from the six boater compliance sites in Palm Beach County indicated that speed zone signage is well-placed and maintained, and an enforcement presence was observed at least periodically at all locations; which likely results in improved boater compliance at these sites. Along with levels of boater compliance, the actual number of vessels and their associated speed should also be taken into consideration. Because there is no established acceptable level of non-compliance, each location should be evaluated separately in order to evaluate potential risk for both manatee protection and human safety. Along with boat traffic and compliance data, the determination of risk should also include available data on manatee distribution and abundance in a given area when possible. iii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS Aerial Surveys 3 Boater Compliance Surveys 5 RESULTS Aerial Surveys 13 Boater Compliance Surveys 16 Speed Gun Data Boynton Canal 21 Speed Gun Data Loxahatchee River 23 Manatee and Sea Turtle Sightings 23 DISCUSSION Aerial Surveys 25 Boater Compliance Surveys 29 LITERATURE CITED 39 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 41 LIST OF TABLES 42 LIST OF FIGURES 64 iv

5 INTRODUCTION A better understanding of recreational boating patterns in Florida coastal waters has become a key element in both waterways management and the conservation and protection of natural resources. Like many other Florida counties, Palm Beach County faces the challenge of balancing coastal development and recreational use with the conservation and protection of its natural resources. Recent data suggests that the Florida manatee population may be recovering, although watercraft-related manatee mortality remains relatively high. While Palm Beach County has been designated as a key county in the protection of the endangered Florida manatee, the proportion of manatee deaths attributed to watercraft collision currently exceeds 35 percent. This is the 2 nd highest percentage among key Florida counties, and is substantially higher than the overall statewide average of 22.5 percent. Along with manateerelated concerns, recreational boating data may also provide useful information related to human safety issues. During 2011, Palm Beach County ranked 3 rd statewide in the number of reported boating accidents, and 6 th statewide in the boating accident rate (numbers of accidents vs. number of registered vessels). Comprehensive studies of recreational boating activity have been lacking during the development process of many county-wide manatee protection plans (Gorzelany, 2008). Historically, many counties have relied upon vessel registration data, the quantity and distribution of boat facilities (marinas, boat ramps, etc.), and site-specific activity at these facilities in order to characterize boat use. Information on countywide spatial and temporal patterns of boating use is frequently unavailable. Several boating studies have been conducted in Palm Beach County, though observational data have been somewhat limited. A study of recreational boating in Palm Beach County was conducted by Baker and Villanueva (1994), and primarily focused on mail/respondent and ramp/intercept surveys. A limited number of observational surveys (6 survey days x 4 survey sites) were also conducted. A statewide boater compliance study was conducted by Shapiro (2001), which included a single survey site in Palm Beach County at the near the FPL Riviera Beach power plant. A countywide vessel traffic study 1

6 in Palm Beach County was conducted by Florida Sea Grant in 2007 (PBS&J et. al., 2009). The study primarily focused on boating safety issues and an assessment of safety risk along the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). The study also included, however, countywide aerial surveys of all vessel traffic over a one-year period. These data were used to develop a prototype model to aid in the evaluation of risk for given safety situations and relevant waterway characteristics. The aerial survey data collected during the PBS&J study were re-examined during this study in order to describe and evaluate vessel traffic patterns within the context of manatees and habitat protection. While regulating vessel speed remains as one of the preferred management alternatives in reducing watercraft-related manatee mortality, even fewer studies have examined speed zone effectiveness, or boater compliance. With the exception of the single site surveyed by Shapiro (2001), none of the previously mentioned Palm Beach County studies included observational data collection of boater compliance with posted regulatory zones. An approved Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) for Palm Beach County was completed and adopted in August Among the priority recommendations for plan implementation was to undertake a boating activity study in order to provide current information on recreational boating use, and to undertake a boater speed zone compliance study in order to evaluate the effectiveness of current manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County. Along with the review and additional analysis of aerial survey data from the 2009 PBS&J study, this report includes an evaluation of boater compliance with posted regulatory zones along selected areas in Palm Beach County. It will also have the added benefit of addressing other MPP issues, including law enforcement effectiveness, boater education/awareness, and speed zone signage; all of which may be beneficial to future waterways management decisions in Palm Beach County. 2

7 METHODS Aerial Surveys Low-level aerial surveys of recreational boat traffic throughout Palm Beach County were conducted during 2007 from a Cessna 172 fixed-wing aircraft at an altitude of approximately 750 feet (228.6m) and a speed of approximately 90 knots (103.7 mph). The single observer/videographer method, used successfully during recent boat studies in Collier County (Gorzelany, 2008) and Miami-Dade County (Gorzelany, 2009) was employed. For this method, a single observer / videographer was seated in the front passenger seat of the survey aircraft. An electronic image-stabilizing camcorder with date and time imprint was used to record all vessels in-use while flying a standard flight path. A vessel in-use was defined as either; 1) a vessel underway, or 2) a stationary vessel in the process of being used. This included activities such as fishing, picnicking, sunbathing, swimming/diving, sightseeing, or similar recreational activities, along with (when identifiable) vessels at short-term dockage or anchorage sites such as waterside restaurants, fuel docks, waterside bait and tackle shops, fishing piers, boat ramps, camp sites, beaches, spoil islands, or sand bars. In-use did not include stationary vessels located at long-term storage facilities such as anchorages or mooring fields, wet and dry storage marinas, or yacht clubs. Stationary (moored) vessels located at single family or multifamily residential docks were also not considered in-use. Aerial surveys included the entire nearshore coastal waterway within Palm Beach County including the Loxahatchee River, Jupiter Inlet, Lake Worth Lagoon and Inlet, and Boca Raton Inlet. Surveys did not include Lake Okeechobee, the Hillsborough Canal, El Rio Canal, or other inland waterways). The area of coastal waterway surveyed was approximately 46 square miles. The linear track length of the aerial survey route was approximately 100 nautical miles (115 statute miles). The survey track was modified slightly at times in order to avoid conflicts with other air traffic. A total of 16 aerial survey flights were conducted, including eight weekdays (four mornings and four afternoons) and eight weekends (four mornings and four afternoons). One weekend survey was conducted over a holiday weekend (Memorial Day). Along with 3

8 vessel data, physical conditions including weather, wind speed and direction, and overall boating conditions were also recorded. Once completed, original video footage was transferred to DVD-R format for analysis. Vessels in-use identified from video footage were then handplotted directly onto a series of high resolution digital orthophotos (Albers 2004, NAD 83) using ArcMap 9.3 GIS software. Attributes for each identified vessel in-use included the date and time of sighting (military time), vessel type, size, activity, mapped GIS location, relative speed, and direction of travel (if any). Aerial surveys of boat traffic were part of a two-county study of both Martin and Palm Beach Counties that was conducted for the FWC Office of Boating and Waterways during 2006 and Surveys of Martin County were flown from September 2006 through August 2007 (PBS&J, 2008). Surveys of Palm Beach County were flown from January 2007 through December 2007 (PBS&J et. al, 2009). During the overlapping time period, both counties were flown concurrently. Surveys of Martin County extended from the northern Martin County line southward and extended slightly into Palm Beach County, terminating at the County Highway 707 (S Beach Road) bridge just north of Jupiter Inlet. When Palm Beach County surveys were initiated in 2007, the survey route continued from this point southward, including the Loxahatchee River, to the south county line near Boca Raton Inlet. Additional information on the aerial survey methods from this study are described in PBS&J (2009). Data from 2007 aerial survey flights were re-examined for this project. Additional aerial video footage of the Loxahatchee River (not included or analyzed in the original study) were reviewed and plotted with the same techniques used in the original study. For this reason, vessel counts which were reported in the original PBS&J study differ slightly from the vessel counts reported here. A spatial analysis of the Palm Beach County aerial survey dataset was performed using ArcGIS 9.3 software with the Spatial Analyst extension. For analysis of spatial distribution, the kernel density method was used. Kernel density estimation, often used in wildlife studies, calculates home range and animal density by estimating the probability of locating an individual at a specific place and time (Horne and Garton 2006; Worton 1995). The same analysis has 4

9 been applied to boat traffic studies, as this technique accurately identifies location, spatial extent and intensity of boat traffic (Shahrabi and Pelot, 2009). A cell size and radius of 25 and 325, respectively, were used. An analysis mask representing only the waters surveyed was included in the environment settings. The results were defined in 8-9 classes (determined by ArcGIS ) by breaking at each half-standard deviation unit. ArcGIS software was used to prepare maps illustrating boat distribution and density results. Boater Compliance Surveys A total of six boater compliance survey sites were selected throughout Palm Beach County. The site locations were determined after input and consultation with Palm Beach County staff. Criteria for site selection included; 1) areas where levels of boater compliance with posted speed zones may be of particular concern; 2) areas where there may be known resource conflicts, such as high numbers of boating accidents and/or watercraft-related manatee deaths; and, 3) known high boat traffic areas. All survey sites contained either one or more speed-regulated areas. Current FWC manatee speed zones within Palm Beach County are provided in Figures 1 5. Additional 2011 FIND speed zone maps are provided in Figures Individual survey sites are described as follows: Site #1 - Dubois Park (Jupiter Inlet) The DuBois Park observation area was a land-based survey site located along the western portion of the park, in proximity to a posted idle/slow speed zone for vessels entering Jupiter Inlet from the Atlantic Ocean. From this location, transition speeds (multiple speeds for each vessel) could be acquired as vessels entered / exited the speed-regulated area (Figures 1 and 6). The ICW channel in this area is a year-round boating safety zone (slow speed), and the area outside of the ICW channel is a year-round manatee zone (idle speed). Because there was no clearly-marked delineation between the two areas, however, the entire survey area was evaluated for compliance at the less-restrictive slow speed. Similarly, a narrow seasonal slow speed zone exists along the shoreline within the mouth of Jupiter inlet. Because there is no specific signage or delineation to identify this zone, nor were there a significant number of vessels observed within this zone, it was 5

10 not included in the boater compliance assessment. An example of posted signage in the area is shown in Figure 15. Site 2 Lower Loxahatchee River Site #2 was a boat-based survey site established along the lower portion of the Loxahatchee River across from the mouth of the North Fork. Observations of all vessels in the lower Loxahatchee River were captured, including traffic exiting / entering the North Fork. The entire shoreline area along the lower river is a year round slow speed zone. The central portion of the lower river is a seasonal (Nov. 15 Mar 31) channel -exempt slow speed zone (Figures 1 and 7). A newly-marked navigation channel along the southern portion of the lower Loxahatchee River was not included in boater compliance evaluation because it was not completed at the time of data collection. Site #3 - Phil Foster Park / Northern Lake Worth Lagoon The Phil Foster Park observation area was a land-based survey site located along the northern portion of Lake Worth Lagoon at the southwest corner of the park. This location provided a view of all vessel traffic traveling to/from the E Blue Heron Blvd Causeway and the Peanut Island area. The entire survey area is a designated as a year-round slow speed zone (Figures 2 and 10). Site #4 - Brian Chappell Park / Central Lake Worth Lagoon Brian Chappell Park was a land based survey site located along the central portion of Lake Worth Lagoon, approximately ¼ mile south of the FPL Riviera Beach Power Plant. This survey location allowed for shore-to-shore observations of all vessel traffic transitioning through this area, which included year-round idle speed zones near shore, and a seasonal (Nov. 15 Mar. 31) idle speed zone along the central portion of the waterway, including the ICW (Figures 2 and 10). Site #5 - Boynton Inlet / Boynton Canal Site #5 was a boat-based survey site located in the southern portion of Lake Worth Lagoon along the eastern edge of the ICW between C-16 Boynton Canal and Boynton Inlet. The survey site was established along the transition between an unregulated portion of the ICW and a 6

11 speed-restricted seasonal (Jun. 1 Sep 30) 25mph / 30mph zone (Figures 4 and 13). Vessels traveling outside of the ICW along the adjacent slow speed zone were also surveyed. For vessels traveling within the posted 25 mph / 30 mph zone, a Falcon Marine radar gun (Kustom Signals, Inc.) and/or a Prolaser III lidar speed gun (Kustom Signals, Inc.) were utilized (see below). Site #6 - Red Reef Park (Lake Wyman) Red Reef Park was a land-based survey site located along the eastern shore of the ICW, approximately one mile north of Boca Raton Inlet. The entire waterway within the survey area is a year-round slow speed zone (Figures 5 and 14). Field surveys at each site were conducted using established survey methods that have been used in previous fixed-point boat traffic studies conducted in Florida (Gorzelany, 1996, 2000, 2005, 2006, 2009). For each vessel observation, the time of day, vessel type, size, origin, destination, activity, qualitative speed, and level of compliance were recorded on standard field data sheets. Vessel type categories were identified as: Barge / Cargo Cabin Motorboat High Performance / Racer Inflatable Jon Boat Kayak / Canoe Open Motorboat Pontoon Boat Personal Watercraft Sailboat Tugboat / Tender Sightseeing / Tour Each vessel type was further classified as Private/Recreational, Commercial, or Enforcement. While kayaks and canoes were surveyed during the project, non-powered vessels, including sailboats under sail, were not included in the boater compliance data evaluation. 7

12 Vessel size categories were taken from standard Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Law Enforcement size classes, and designated as: Less than 16 feet 16 feet - 25 feet 26 feet 39 feet 40 feet 64 feet 65 feet 109 feet greater than 110 feet Vessel origin / destination information was unique to each survey site. Vessel traffic patterns ranged from relatively simple at the Red Reef Park site, to more complex at the Loxahatchee River site. The origin / destination options for vessels transitioning through the surveyed areas at each site are displayed in Figures Vessel speeds were identified as: Human-Powered (oar/paddle) Under Sail Idle / Slow Plowing Cruising Planing Speed definitions for vessels under power were taken from Gorzelany (1998, 2000) and were originally adapted from the Florida Administrative Code 62N-22. Individual speed categories were defined as follows: Idle Speed: The minimum speed that maintains steerage of a vessel, or the speed at which a vessel is normally docked. Little or no displacement of water is observable from either the bow or stern, and the vessel remains level in the water at all times. This typically corresponds to a speed of less than 5 miles per hour (Gorzelany, 1998). Slow Speed: The speed at which all vessels are completely off plane and fully settled in the water. Some minimal water displacement at either the bow or stern (or both) may be observed. Because this will vary greatly from vessel to vessel, this speed has also been defined as approximately 5 to 9 miles per hour (Gorzelany, 1998). Plowing Speed: An intermediate speed between slow speed and planing speed; the bow of the 8

13 vessel typically rides higher than the stern, and substantial displacement of water occurs. Depending on the size and type of vessel, plowing may occur at a variety of speeds, but is most often observed between 10 and 20 miles per hour (Gorzelany, 2000). This speed designation is used specifically for vessels with planing-type hulls. Cruising Speed: A qualitative speed designation uniquely applied to a relatively fast-moving vessel with a non-planing-type hull (e.g.; a pontoon boat or displacement hull-type vessel). It is identified by noticeable water displacement from the bow and/or stern and an observed speed faster than the previously defined slow speed designation. Similar to those at plowing speed, vessels at cruising speed most often travel at speeds between miles per hour (Gorzelany, 2000). Planing Speed: A vessel traveling at sufficient speed to partially raise the vessel out of the water during travel. Vessel planing speeds vary widely depending upon vessel size and hull design; however the majority of planing vessels typically travel at speeds in excess of 15 miles per hour (Gorzelany, 1996). Vessel compliance was also determined for each surveyed vessel transitioning within a speedregulated area. Standard definitions for boater compliance (Gorzelany, 1996) were used as follows: Compliance: Any vessel in-use that was observed to maintain a speed that was consistent with the posted speed restriction within the survey area. Technical Non-Compliance: A vessel that was observed to be in violation of the posted speed at a study site, as defined by: 1) A vessel transitioning at one speed category faster than the posted speed limit (Example: a vessel traveling at slow speed within an idle speed zone, or a vessel traveling at plowing or cruising speed in a slow speed zone); or 2) A vessel at any excessive speed, but only for a relatively short distance within the posted area (Example: a speeding vessel which extends a short distance into a slow speed zone or idle speed zone before settling off plane, or a vessel which accelerates out of a slow speed zone or idle speed zone before leaving the posted area). Blatant Non-Compliance: A vessel transitioning at a speed greater than one speed category faster than the posted limit through a significant portion of a speed-restricted area (Example: a vessel traveling at planing speed in a slow speed zone or a vessel traveling at plowing, cruising, or planing speed through an idle speed zone). 9

14 Because of the subjective nature of speed categories, clear distinctions between boat speeds were difficult in certain instances. When the vessel speed category was unclear, the more conservative or slower speed was typically chosen. This provided a potential underestimate rather than an overestimate of non-compliance (Gorzelany, 1996). The Boynton Canal speed gun survey site was established as close to the ICW as possible in order to reduce the cosine effect, or error created by targeting boats at any angle greater than zero degrees. If a vessel is traveling directly toward the speed gun location (collision course), the relative speed is the actual target speed. If the vessel is not traveling directly toward (or away) from the speed gun location but slightly off to avoid a collision, the relative speed is slightly lower than the target speed. The phenomenon is called the cosine effect because the measured speed is directly related to the cosine of the angle between the radar and target direction of travel (Sawick, 1999.) As long as the angle (alpha) remains relatively small, the error (cosine of alpha) is also small. The larger the angle, the larger the error and the lower the displayed (relative) speed. In most instances the angle to the targeted vessel was less than approximately 20 degrees, which results in an error of approximately 5 percent or less, illustrated as follows: from Sawick, 1999 Consequently, a vessel with a recorded speed of 20 miles per hour targeted at an angle of 20 degrees would provide an underestimate of true speed by approximately 1 mile per hour. Since the angle to the target was variable and typically less than 20 degrees, no attempt was 10

15 made to correct for cosine effect. Instead, we used actual speed gun readings and conclude that speed values in this study provide for a slight underestimate of actual vessel speeds. For vessels transitioning both regulatory zones at the Boynton Canal site, both numerical speed and qualitative speed were recorded for vessels which transitioned through both 25/30 mph and slow speed regulatory zones. At the Loxahatchee River survey site, numerical speeds were also collected opportunistically from vessels which were traveling within unregulated portions of the survey area. Along with vessel attribute data, environmental conditions including weather, wind speed and direction, and wave height were also recorded. Boating conditions were also qualitatively evaluated as Poor, Fair, Good, or Excellent. Additional comments related to vessel identification, type, or specific activity were also recorded as needed. Incidental sightings of manatees and other protected / endangered species were also collected opportunistically from each survey site. Data Management and Analysis At the completion of each sampling event, all original field data was reviewed for accuracy and completeness. All field data was entered in spreadsheet format, sorted, tabulated, and analyzed graphically using Microsoft Excel. After the completion of data entry, a minimum of 20 percent of data from each survey site was rechecked against the original data sheets in order to ensure accuracy in computer data entry. Backup copies of all data were maintained. Original field data sheets were also archived for future reference. Each site was surveyed for a total of eight days, including four weekdays and four weekend days. At sites with seasonal regulatory zones (Loxahatchee River, Brian Chappell Park, and Boynton Canal) four survey days were conducted within each regulatory period. Weather permitting, surveys were conducted during a continuous six-hour interval. If surveys were 11

16 discontinued due to weather-related issues, additional survey time was added to subsequent surveys. Survey intervals varied, and started at either 0800, 0900, 1000, or 1100 hours Statistical analyses from qualitative speed survey sites were performed utilizing a chi-square test with contingency tables, which compute the expected number of observations (such as compliance or non-compliance) if a given parameter (such as boat size) has no effect. The chi square value summarizes the difference between expected and observed frequencies and determines significance (vassarstats.net). Speed gun data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test (danielsoper.com). ANOVA was used primarily to detect differences in vessel speeds between regulated and unregulated portions of the ICW. 12

17 RESULTS Aerial Surveys During the 2007 Palm Beach County boat traffic study, a total of 6,211 vessels were surveyed over 16 aerial survey flights. This included a small portion of Palm Beach County north of Jupiter Inlet which was flown during the Martin County survey route. Because this portion of the survey route was flown at different dates and times than the remainder of the Palm Beach County surveys, these vessels were not included in the analyses of morning / afternoon or weekday / weekend intervals. The total number of vessels in this portion comprised less than 2% of the total vessels surveyed (n=96). These vessels were included, however, in all other analyses including spatial analysis. A summary of field data collection is provided in Table 1. A total of eight weekday surveys and eight weekend surveys were completed. One weekend survey was conducted over a holiday weekend (Memorial Day). An equal number of morning and afternoon flights were conducted. The number of vessels in use observed varied significantly, ranging from a high of 1,569 during an afternoon survey on 10-June-2007, to a low of 58 during a morning survey on 15-October The amount of boat traffic increased significantly during weekend surveys and during afternoon surveys. Mean vessel counts observed during weekday surveys were 142 (+/- 73). Mean vessel counts during weekend surveys were 632 (+/- 439). The weekend / weekday ratio of vessels in use was 4.45 to 1. The afternoon / morning ratio of vessels in-use was 2.53 to 1. Vessel counts were also influenced by weather conditions. A total of 846 vessels in-use were observed during an afternoon Memorial Day Weekend survey flight under mostly cloudy conditions. Two weeks later, a total of 1,569 vessels in-use were observed during an afternoon weekend flight under clear skies and excellent conditions. The distribution of vessels by size and type is provided in Figure 22. Vessels between 16 feet and 26 feet in length were most common, and comprised 66% of all vessels observed. Vessels 40 feet in length and greater comprised 10% of all vessels observed. Open motorboat was the most common vessel type (65% of all vessels). Closed cabin motorboat was the second most 13

18 common type (18% of all vessels). Non-powered vessels (kayaks, canoes) comprised 5% of all vessels observed. Sailboats and personal watercraft each comprised 4% of all vessels observed. All other vessel types combined comprised less than 4% of all vessel traffic. The distribution of some vessel types varied seasonally. A higher proportion of closed cabin motorboats were observed during fall and winter surveys, and a higher proportion of open motorboats were observed during spring and summer surveys. Higher numbers of personal watercraft were observed during spring and summer, but their relative proportion of all vessels remained essentially the same. Other vessel types did not vary significantly during the year. Vessel size distribution also varied slightly, with larger vessels (greater than 25 feet in length) increasing in both numbers and relative proportion during the fall and winter. A series of maps depicting the location of all vessels in-use surveyed during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat Study is displayed in Figures Vessels in use were observed throughout the country, with largest aggregations typically seen in proximity to three of the tidal inlets (Jupiter Inlet, Lake Worth Inlet, and Boca Raton Inlet). Vessels were observed less frequently outside of the ICW channel along Lake Worth Lagoon. The overall distribution of vessels throughout the county was similar during weekday and weekend survey flights, though the volume of traffic increased significantly on weekends. The spatial distribution of vessels in use was also examined quantitatively using a kernel density analysis, which calculates the actual number of vessels per unit area of water. For all vessels observed (all categories), the results are displayed in Figures Highest concentrations of vessels in use were observed in proximity to Lake Worth Inlet (Peanut Island), and inside Boca Raton Inlet (Lake Boca Raton). Moderate to high overall vessel traffic was observed near Jupiter Inlet and along portions of the lower Loxahatchee River. A moderate amount of vessel traffic was also observed along the ICW throughout the County. Lower densities of boats were observed outside of the main ICW channel throughout Lake Worth Lagoon. The upper portions of the Loxahatchee River (Southwest Fork, Northwest Fork, and North Fork) general had low densities of boats. An exception was the Jonathan Dickinson State Park area, where a moderate number of non-powered vessels (kayaks and canoes) were observed. In general, the 14

19 lowest concentrations of boat traffic were observed along the central portions of Palm Beach County; between West Palm Beach and Boynton Beach. Similar spatial distributions were observed during both weekday and weekend surveys. Figures display densities for stationary vessels-only (anchored or drifting). Highest densities of stationary vessels again were observed in proximity to Lake Worth Inlet (Peanut Island) and Boca Raton Inlet (Lake Boca Raton). Higher densities of stationary vessels were also observed along the lower Loxahatchee River, Boynton Inlet, and popular boating access facilities such as Burt Reynolds Park (Jupiter Inlet), Phil Foster Park (north of Peanut Island), and Boat Club Park (Boynton Beach). Moderate concentrations of stationary vessels, primarily canoes and kayaks, were also observed along the upper Loxahatchee River within Jonathan Dickinson State Park. The density distribution of higher-speed vessels-only (plowing, cruising, and planing vessels), is displayed in Figures Along the northern portion of the county, a relatively high proportion of higher speed vessel traffic was observed near the confluence of Jupiter Inlet, Lake Worth Creek, and the mouth of the Loxahatchee River. Moderate to high densities of higher speed vessels were also observed along portions of Lake Worth Creek, including the section of waterway that joins with Lake Worth Lagoon. Relatively high concentrations of higher speed traffic were also observed inside Lake Worth Inlet, particularly along the main channel south of Peanut Island, and the ICW channel north of Peanut Island. Along the central portion of the county, moderate to high densities of higher speed traffic were commonly observed along the ICW. In the southern portion of the county, a larger proportion of higher speed traffic was observed in the Boca Raton area, including Boca Raton Inlet and the ICW channel south of the inlet. Lower concentrations of higher speed traffic were seen in the upper Loxahatchee River, and along areas outside of the ICW channel in Lake Worth Lagoon. Of the 6,211 vessels surveyed during the aerial survey study, a total of 3,140 vessels (50.1%) were sighted within one mile of the four tidal inlets (Jupiter Inlet, Lake Worth Inlet, Boynton Inlet, and Boca Raton Inlet). The area within one mile of Lake Worth Inlet alone comprised only 6.5% of the total survey area, but same area contained 28.7% of all vessels surveyed in Palm 15

20 Beach County. Similarly, the area within one mile of Boca Raton Inlet comprised only 1.3% of the total survey area, but contained 10.4% of the all vessels surveyed. In order to show more precise movement of vessels in high-use areas, all vessel traffic in proximity to the four tidal inlets in Palm Beach County (Jupiter Inlet, Lake Worth Inlet, Boynton Inlet, and Boca Raton Inlet) were also plotted onto a series of 1-meter high resolution digital orthophoto quarter quads (DOQQ). Figure 43 displays all vessels surveyed in the Jupiter Inlet area. Aggregations of vessels were regularly observed in the lower Loxahatchee River, indicative of a popular boating destination in that area. Smaller aggregations of vessels can also be seen along the eastern portion of Jupiter Inlet (primarily fishing vessels), and in proximity to several boating access points including Burt Reynolds Park and DuBois Park. An additional boating destination site can be seen along the shoreline north of the inlet. Most vessels in this area, however, were utilizing the area as an east-west travel corridor to/from the Atlantic Ocean or as a north-south travel corridor along the ICW. Inside Lake Worth Inlet is a large aggregation of vessels and popular boating destination in the Peanut Island area (Figure 44). Vessel traffic patterns within marked navigation channels, including the ICW, can be clearly seen. The level of boating traffic is significantly less near Boynton Inlet (Figure 45), athough east-west traffic to/from the Atlantic Ocean and north-south boat traffic along the ICW was observed. Some aggregations of stationary vessels were also identified at a large public boat ramp across from the inlet (Boat Club Park), and a small recreational boating destination along a large exposed spoil island inside of the inlet can also be seen. Within Boca Raton Inlet, a large aggregation of stationary vessels was regularly observed at Lake Boca Raton (Figure 46). Vessel traffic patterns around the perimeter of Lake Boca Raton and along the ICW can also be seen. The small aggregation of stationary vessels noted along the ICW north of Lake Boca Raton was caused by the Palmetto Park Road drawbridge. Boater Compliance Surveys A total of 13,399 vessels were surveyed among the six boater compliance sites during 2011 and Of these, 9,553 were evaluated for compliance. An additional 1,863 vessels were targeted by speed gun at the Boynton Canal survey site. The remaining 1,983 were either not 16

21 observed within speed-regulated portions of the survey site, or included non-motorized vessels which could not be evaluated for compliance. Because some vessels were observed multiple times, the data are expressed as vessel passes ; with a separate evaluation of compliance each time a vessel transitioned through the survey area. Of the 13,399 vessels surveyed, 12,538 (93.6%) were identified as Private, 629 (4.7%) were identified as Commercial, and 232 (1.7%) were identified as Enforcement. Rental boats were not easily identified, but presumably comprised a relatively small proportion of the total vessels observed. A summary of field data collected during the Palm Beach County boater compliance study is provided in Tables 2 and 3. Survey sites with the greatest number of vessel passes were DuBois Park (n=3,443) and Phil Foster Park (n=3,311). Highest single day vessel counts were also at DuBois Park on 17-March-2007 (n=984) and Phil Foster Park on 18-March-2007 (n=942). Fewest number of vessel passes occurred at The Loxahatchee River site on 11-September-2007 (n=42) and Red Reef Park on 14-August-2007 (n=47). Most field surveys were conducted under either Good or Excellent boating conditions. Vessel size distribution among the six survey sites is shown in Figure 47. Size distribution was similar among sites. Vessels between 16 feet and 25 feet were the most common size class observed at all sites. A smaller proportion of large vessels (greater than 39 feet in length) were observed at the Loxahatchee River site. Survey sites to the south (Boynton Canal and Red Reef Park) had a higher proportion of smaller vessels (less than 16 feet in length). Vessel type distribution among the six survey sites is shown in Figure 48. The distribution of vessel types among the six survey sites was generally similar, with Open Motorboat as the most common type at each site. The Loxahatchee River site, however, had a smaller proportion of larger deeper draft vessels such as sailboats and closed cabin motorboats than other sites. The Brian Chappell Park survey site had a lower proportion of non-powered vessels (kayaks and canoes) and the highest proportion of sailboats observed. The Red Reef Park survey site had the highest proportion of non-powered vessels among the six survey sites. Of the 9,552 vessels which were evaluated for boater compliance among the six survey sites, 6,934 (72.6%) were determined to be compliant with posted speed zones, 1,865 (19.6%) were 17

22 determined to be technically non-compliant, and 753 (7.8%) were determined to be blatantly non-compliant. In general, levels of compliance decreased with decreasing vessel size, with Personal Watercraft as the vessel type with the lowest level of compliance (Figures 49 and 50). Overall boater compliance at each of the six survey sites is provided in Figure 51 (compliance results shown for the Boynton Canal site did not include the 25 mph / 30 mph zones in the ICW channel, and will be discussed separately). The survey sites with the highest overall levels of boater compliance were Phil Foster Park (85%) and Phil Foster Park (83%). The survey site with the lowest overall compliance was Brian Chappell Park (34%). Survey sites with the highest levels of blatant non-compliance were within the slow speed portions of the Boynton Canal site (55%) and the Loxahatchee River site (49%). Survey sites with the lowest levels of blatant noncompliance were Phil Foster Park (0.6%) and DuBois Park (2%). Comparisons in boater compliance between weekday and weekend surveys are shown in Figure 52. Survey sites showed similar patterns in compliance for both weekday and weekend surveys. Differences in weekday versus weekend compliance were not statistically significant at the Loxahatchee River site, Dubois Park, Brian Chappell Park, Boynton Canal, or Red Reef Park. Differences in weekday versus weekend compliance were statistically significant at Phil Foster Park (p<0.0001). During weekend surveys at Phil Foster Park, the relative proportion of blatantly non-compliant boaters was extremely small (0.3%). Comparisons between morning and afternoon surveys are shown in Figure 53. Differences in morning versus afternoon boater compliance were statistically significant at Phil Foster Park and Boynton Canal. While no noticeable differences were seen at the Phil Foster Park site, compliance was noticeably lower at the Boynton Canal site (64% compliance during morning surveys versus 32% compliance during afternoon surveys). The sample size of vessels surveyed at the Boynton Canal site, particularly during morning surveys, however, was relatively small. The presence or absence of law enforcement vessels in the area was also noted during each boater compliance survey. Comparisons in levels of compliance in the presence / absence of law enforcement are shown in Figure 54. When enforcement vessels were present, levels of compliance were generally higher at each of the six survey sites. Levels of blatant non- 18

23 compliance were lower at five out of six survey sites (blatant non-compliance remained low and essentially the same at the Phil Foster Park survey site). Differences in compliance in the presence / absence of law enforcement were statistically significant at DuBois Park (p=0.011), Phil Foster Park (p<0.0001), Brian Chappell Park (p=0.0031), and Red Reef Park (p<0.0001). Differences were not statistically significant at the Loxahatchee River site or the Boynton Canal site. These two survey sites also had the lowest number of observations in the presence of law enforcement. A summary of enforcement observations at each survey site is provided in Table 4. Along with enforcement presence, active enforcement of manatee speed zones was observed at both the Brian Chappell Park and Red Reef Park survey sites. Differences in boater compliance were also examined by direction of travel. At the Loxahatchee River site, traffic was divided between the year-round slow speed zones located to the north of the main east-west navigation channel, and the seasonal slow speed zones located to the south of the main east-west navigation channel. Results are shown in Figure 55. While the sample size was relatively small, compliance patterns in both areas were similar. Overall boater compliance was 48% in both areas, and blatant non-compliance was 48% and 49% respectively. While the sample size at this site was too small for statistical testing, presumably the differences in compliance by direction of travel were not significant. Similar levels of boater compliance were observed among the various directions of travel at the DuBois Park site (Figure 56). Levels of compliance were slightly lower for vessels traveling from the west (Lake Worth Creek), and levels of blatant compliance were slightly higher for boats traveling from the east (into the inlet from the Atlantic Ocean). In spite of the apparent similarities, differences were shown to be statistically significant (p<0.0001). Similar levels of compliance were also seen among various directions of travel at the Phil Foster Park survey site (Figure 57), though differences were again shown to be statistically significant (p<0.0001). Some variations in compliance with direction of travel were observed at the Brian Chappell Park survey site (Figure 58). Compliance remained relatively low for all primary directions of travel (very limited vessel traffic was observed along the western side of the survey area). Lowest levels of compliance and highest levels of blatant non-compliance were observed for vessels 19

24 transitioning from north to south along the central portion of the survey area (including ICW traffic). Variations in boater compliance were determined to be statistically significant (p<0.0001). At the Boynton Canal survey site, a higher proportion of vessels originating from the north and east were compliant within the posted slow speed zones outside of the ICW channel (Figure 59). A higher proportion of vessels originating from the south and west (including Boynton Canal) were blatantly compliant. Comparisons between levels of compliance and the direction of travel were statistically significant (p<0.0001). Similar levels of compliance were observed for different directions of travel at the Red Reef Park survey site, although vessels which originated from residential canals within the survey site had slightly higher levels of compliance and blatant non-compliance (Figure 60). Differences, however, were not statistically significant. A summary table for all statistically comparisons between boater compliance and various survey attributes is provided in Table 5. Along with the determination of levels of compliance, other changes in boater behavior, expressed as changes in vessel speed, were examined at DuBois Park, Brian Chappell Park, and the Loxahatchee River. At DuBois Park, two speeds were recorded for all boats transitioning between the unregulated portion of the survey area to the east (to/from the Atlantic Ocean) and the regulated slow speed zone within the inlet itself. The results are shown in Table 6. Of the 1,059 vessels observed transitioning from the unregulated portion of the inlet into the slow speed-regulated portion of the inlet, 851 vessels (80.36%) decreased in speed, 194 vessels (18.32%) showed no change in speed, and 14 vessels (1.32%) increased in speed. Of the 857 vessels transitioning from the slow speed-regulated portion of the inlet into the unregulated portion, 583 vessels (68.73%) showed an increase in speed, 262 vessels (30.57%) remained the same speed, and 6 vessels (0.70%) decreased in speed. At the Loxahatchee River and Brian Chappell survey sites, changes in boater behavior resulting from seasonal changes in speed zones were also examined. Figure 61 shows the distribution of observed vessel speeds within the seasonal slow speed zone along the central portion of the lower Loxahatchee River. Between November 15 and March 31 (seasonal slow speed), vessels observed at planing speed comprised 48% of all vessels. Because the majority of boat traffic in 20

25 the Loxahatchee River remained within speed exempt channels, however, the sample size was relatively small (n=62). Between April 1 and November 14 (unrestricted speed), the proportion of vessels observed at planing speed decreased to 24%. A higher proportion of vessels traveling at idle speed and slow speed were also observed between April 1 and November 14. The sample size of vessels surveyed for compliance between April 1 and November 14 was also relatively small (n=111). At the Brian Chappell Park survey site (Figure 62), the relative proportion of vessels observed at planing speed changed significantly during the year. Planing vessels comprised 73% of all vessels observed between April 1 and November 14 (unregulated speed), but only 4% of all vessels observed between November 15 and March 31 (seasonal slow speed). Changes in other speed categories were observed as well. Vessels observed at either idle speed or slow speed, for instance, comprised 17% of all vessels observed between April 1 and November 14, and increased to 74% of all vessels observed between November 15 and March 31. Speed Gun Data Boynton Canal A total of 1,863 vessel speeds were recorded by speed gun at the Boynton Canal survey site. This included multiple observations of the same vessel in different regulated areas. A total of 934 vessel passes were recorded within the seasonal speed-regulated portion of the ICW, and 929 vessel passes were recorded within the unregulated portion of the ICW. Mean vessel speed within the posted 25 mph zone (all targeted vessels) was mph. Mean vessel speed in the adjacent unregulated speed area was mph. Mean vessel speeds increased to mph and mph respectively for plowing / cruising / and planing vessels- only, and to mph and mph respectively for planing vessels-only. When the posted speed limit increased to 30 mph between June 1 and September 30, mean vessel speed within the posted 30 mph zone was mph compared to mph in the adjacent unregulated area. Mean vessel speeds increased to mph and mph respectively for plowing / cruising / and planing vessels- only, and to mph and mph respectively for planing vessels-only. Targeted speeds were similar for both northbound and southbound vessel traffic. Paired comparisons, separated by seasonal speed regulation, qualitative speed, and direction of travel, are summarized in Tables In most cases, differences in mean vessel speeds between 21

26 regulated and unregulated areas were relatively small. Of 18 possible speed comparisons between regulated and unregulated areas, only 3 were found to be statistically significant. These were: 25 mph zone vs. Unregulated zone (all vessel speeds) 25 mph zone vs. Unregulated zone (plowing / cruising / planing vessels-only) 30 mph zone vs. Unregulated zone (all vessels, southbound traffic only) In all cases, differences in mean vessel speeds between regulated and unregulated areas were less than 2 miles per hour. The only other noteworthy difference in vessel speed attributes was the most commonly recorded speed (mode). When the posted speed limit was 25 mph, the mode was substantially slower within the 25 mph zone (8 mph) compared with the unregulated zone (28-31 mph). Other attributes (minimum speed, maximum speed, median speed) were similar between regulated and unregulated areas. The highest recorded vessel speeds within the posted 25 mph and 30 mph zones were 60 mph and 55 mph respectively. The highest recorded speed in the unregulated area was 63 mph. A speed gun data comparison between 25 mph vs. 30 mph zones is also provided in Table 13. Not only were speed differences relatively small, the mean vessel speed for planing vessels-only was actually higher when the posted speed was 25 mph. Differences in vessel speeds were not statistically significant. A summary of all statistical comparisons from Boynton Canal speed gun data are provided in Table 14. On 645 occasions, the same vessel was recorded in both regulated and unregulated areas as it transitioned through the survey area. A summary of speed gun data for these vessels is shown in Table 15. Vessel speed remained essentially unchanged (within 5 mph) between regulated and unregulated areas for greater than 80 percent of all observations. When the posted 25 mph zone was in effect, the number of vessels exhibiting a slower speed within the regulated area was greater than the number of vessels exhibiting a faster speed (11.01% vs. 6.92%). 22

27 When the posted 30 mph zone was in effect, the number of vessels exhibiting either a faster or slower speed was essentially the same. The frequency distribution of targeted speeds for all vessels surveyed at the Boynton Canal survey site is provided in Figures 63 and 64. When the posted 25 mph zone was in effect (October 1 May 31), the distribution of vessel speeds was similar (Figure 63), though a higher proportion of slower vessel traffic (5-10 mph) was observed within the posted 25 mph zone. A somewhat higher proportion of vessels traveling between mph were also observed within the posted 25 mph zone. A somewhat higher proportion of faster vessels (35-45 mph) were also observed within the unregulated area. Other speed intervals were similar between regulated and unregulated areas. With the exception of a higher proportion of vessels traveling at slow speed (~5 mph), the distribution of speeds between the posted 30 mph zone and adjacent unregulated area between June 1 and September 30 were essentially the same (Figure 64). Speed Gun Data Loxahatchee River A total of 1,251 vessels surveyed at the Loxahatchee River site were not evaluated for speed zone compliance because they essentially remained within marked navigation channels which were exempt from speed regulations. Numerical speeds were acquired on these vessels, however, in order to capture additional background data on vessel speeds within unregulated portions of Palm Beach County. The results are summarized in Table 16. The distribution of speeds in the Loxahatchee River was generally similar to the speeds observed at the Boynton Canal survey site. Mean speed ranged from mph for all vessels surveyed to mph for planing vessels only. The highest observed vessel speed in the Loxahatchee River was 56 mph. Manatee and Sea Turtle SIghtings Opportunistic sightings of manatees and sea turtles were also recorded at each survey site. There were confirmed sightings of manatees at four of the six survey sites (DuBois Park, Phil Foster Park, Brian Chappell Park, and Boynton Canal). Manatees were most commonly 23

28 observed at Brian Chappell Park, including 32 separate sightings on 7-January Sea turtles were also sighted at three survey sites (Loxahatchee River, Brian Chappell Park, and Red Reef Park). The sea turtle sightings at the Loxahatchee River and the Red Reef Park sites were presumed to be green turtles (Chelonia mydas). The sighting at the Brian Chappell site was a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) that had been inadvertently caught and released by a fisherman. Observations of manatees and sea turtles were considered incidental and are only intended to provide supplemental information on presence / absence of protected species at survey sites. They were not intended to represent actual abundance or distribution of these species at survey sites. 24

29 DISCUSSION Aerial Surveys During aerial survey flights conducted in 2007, the volume of boat traffic observed in Palm Beach County varied significantly. Countywide single-day vessel counts ranged from as few as 58 boats to as many as 1,569 boats. This high level of variability has been noted in other Florida boating studies (Gorzelany 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010), although the 4.45X increase in boat traffic on weekends is the highest increase in weekend traffic observed in any Florida county to date (Table 17). Overall temporal trends in recreational boating were somewhat difficult to assess due to the relatively small sample size (n = 16 flights) and the high level of variability in boat traffic observed. No distinct seasonal trend in boat traffic was observed, however the highest single-day vessel counts occurred in late spring; which is consistent with findings from other Florida studies that found highest levels of recreational boating activity in late spring and early summer (Gorzelany, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010; Sidman, 2004, 2006). Higher vessel counts observed during afternoon survey intervals was also consistent with findings from other boating studies. Along with daily increases in boating traffic, the volume of traffic on any given day can also be influenced by physical conditions (weather, wind speed and direction, air and water temperature). In addition to real-time boating conditions, levels of activity on a given day may be further influenced by weather advisories and marine forecasts. During the Memorial Day Weekend survey, for instance, 846 vessels in use were observed under fair boating conditions, while a second weekend survey conducted only fourteen days later under excellent boating conditions identified 1,569 vessels. Along with differences in physical conditions, abundance and distribution may also be affected by special events such as regattas, boat shows, and fishing tournaments (Gorzelany, 2009). Because of the small sample size, aerial surveys attempted to capture overall vessel traffic patterns which were representative of typical use patterns in Palm Beach County, though it is understood that high levels of variability in traffic patterns exist. 25

30 The composition of vessels observed in Palm Beach County from aerial survey data was similar to other Florida east coast counties (Martin, Broward, and Miami-Dade) and less similar to Florida west coast counties (Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota). Vessel traffic, particularly in southeast Florida, tends to be comprised of larger powered vessels (Gorzelany, 2009). In Palm Beach County, 11% of all vessels in use were identified as 40 feet in length or greater (Table 18). This proportion of larger vessels is similar to other east coast counties and exceeds all counties surveyed on the Florida west coast. This proportion (11%) also exceeds the proportion of registered vessels in Palm Beach County for this size class (3%). This would indicate that either larger vessels are in use more often, and/or a significant proportion of larger vessels utilizing Palm Beach County waterways are registered in other areas. The seasonal variations in vessel size (more large vessels observed during the winter) were also noted in Palm Beach County surveys conducted by Baker and Vilanueva (1994). While the distribution of vessel types was similar to other east coast counties, Palm Beach County had the smallest proportion of non-powered vessels (kayaks, canoes, sailboats) of any county surveyed to date (Table 19). The relatively small proportion of sailboats was also noted by Baker and Vilanueva (1994), who reported that only 4% of mail survey respondents in Palm Beach County were owners of sailboats. Both commercial and enforcement vessels were identified during aerial surveys, though their relative abundance is probably underestimated. While many types of commercial vessels can be clearly identified from aerial survey footage, including tugboats, barges, sightseeing cruises, and large commercial dive or fishing boats; other types of commercial vessels may not be clearly identified, such as smaller dive charters, fishing charters, or small work boats. Law enforcement vessels may be underestimated for the same reason. A more accurate estimate of recreational vs. commercial vs. enforcement vessel traffic may be obtained from fixed point survey data. The largest numbers of vessels in Palm Beach County were consistently observed in proximity to three tidal inlets; Jupiter Inlet, Lake Worth Inlet, and Boca Raton Inlet. A fourth inlet, Boynton Inlet also had higher densities of vessels than in surrounding areas, however the volume of traffic was much less than other inlets. The three inlets serve as both important travel corridors for access to the Atlantic Ocean and also as popular boating destinations. The 26

31 kernel density distribution of stationary vessels indicated that both Lake Worth Inlet (Peanut Island) and Boca Raton Inlet (Lake Boca Raton) are the most popular boating destinations, with very high concentrations of stationary (anchored, beached, or drifting) vessels in those areas. Jupiter Inlet appears to function more as a travel corridor than a boating destination, based upon a higher proportion of transitory vessels and a lower proportion of stationary vessels in the area. Similar trends in spatial distribution associated with tidal inlets were also noted in recent boating studies of Sarasota County (Gorzelany, 2006, Sidman et al, 2006), Broward County (Gorzelany, 2005), Collier County (Gorzelany, 2008), and Miami-Dade County (Gorzelany, 2009), and Pinellas County (Gorzelany, 2010). This was also noted in the previous Palm Beach County boating study by Baker and Villanueva (1994), however this study reported higher levels of use at Boynton Inlet, and lower levels of use at Jupiter Inlet. These data were acquired, however, from mail/respondent surveys of Palm Beach County registered boaters. Fixed point surveys from DuBois Park found that approximately 40% of all inlet traffic originated from the north. Because Jupiter Inlet is located at the northern end of the county, it is likely that both aerial and fixed point survey data also captured boaters originating from other areas, particularly Martin County. Other moderate to high-use boating destinations in Palm Beach County were also identified from aerial survey data. These areas included the lower Loxahatchee River, the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Park area, Boynton Inlet, and several boating access locations including Burt Reynolds Park, Phil Foster Park, and Boat Club Park. While some popular boating destinations exist within Palm Beach County, the coastal waterway generally functions as a travel corridor to/from other locations, including the various tidal inlets and the Atlantic Ocean. This is similar to the waterway configuration of Broward County (Gorzelany, 2005). With the exception of the Loxahatchee River and John D MacArthur State Park, there are somewhat limited areas for recreational boating activity within the coastal waterway itself. Limited amounts of recreational boat traffic were observed outside of the ICW channel or accessory channels providing access to the ICW in Lake Worth Lagoon. Instead, the majority of traffic appeared to follow a north/south transition to/from other areas. This is consistent with mail / respondent and ramp intercept surveys conducted by Baker and Vilanueva (1994), who found the most common destinations for recreational boaters in Palm 27

32 Beach County was reported to be either Offshore or ICW. Similarly, the most common boating activities were reported as Cruising and Recreational Fishing. While at least some recreational fishing activity occurs within Lake Worth Lagoon or at the various tidal inlets, the destination for a large proportion of vessels engaged in recreational fishing activity is probably offshore. The countywide distribution of higher speed vessel traffic (plowing, cruising, and planing vessels) again shows north-south travel patterns along the ICW throughout the county, along with areas of higher speed traffic inside Jupiter Inlet, Lake Worth Inlet, and Boca Raton Inlet. The distribution of higher speed traffic inside Lake Worth Inlet is generally consistent with posted speed zones, with more high-speed traffic observed in unregulated speed areas to the north and south of Peanut Island. Higher densities of faster boats were observed along the southern portion of Lake Worth Creek near the entrance to Northern Lake Worth Lagoon. While the majority of these vessels were likely compliant with posted speed zones, the volume of higher speed boat traffic through relatively narrow waterways such as Lake Worth Creek may create additional human safety issues (it should be noted that this particular area was later identified as a high risk area for human safety in the 2009 PBS&J report, and a year-round slow speed zone was implemented in 2010; Figure 9). In other portions of the county, aerial survey data also suggest potential boater compliance issues. Inside Jupiter Inlet, high densities of higher speed vessel traffic were observed along the posted idle / slow speed zone within the inlet, particularly near the mouth of the Loxahatchee River (Figure 38). Portions of the waterway in this area were also identified in the original Palm Beach County Boating Study (PBS&J et. al, 2009) as areas with high risk of vessel collision, public safety, and maritime property endangerment. Higher densities of higher speed traffic were also observed along a posted slow speed zone north of Boca Raton Inlet near Lake Wyman (Figure 42). The actual threats to manatees from high speed vessel traffic in these areas are unclear. Issues involving human safety were also considered by FWC during a recent review of Palm Beach County speed zones. During 2011, a total of 42 out of 58 reported boating accidents in Palm Beach County (72%) resulted from either wake damage or collision with another vessel or object (FL Boating 28

33 Statistics, 2011). Ultimately aerial survey data may identify areas of potential concern, but additional site-specific information may be needed to address specific wildlife or human safety issues. Along with addressing human safety issues, information on manatee distribution and abundance, if available, can be merged in order to identify and evaluate high-risk areas. It should also be mentioned that the aerial survey dataset from which these analyses were performed was based upon data collected in Over the past five years, the number of registered vessels in Palm Beach County has decreased by approximately 5,000 (11%); presumably as a result of economic conditions. The impact on recreational boating activity, if any, is unclear. In addition, marine fuel prices have ranged from greater than 5 dollars per gallon to less than 3 dollars per gallon in the past five years, which may significantly influence the frequency of boating trips or travel patterns. Recent changes in boating access and boating facilities, among other factors, may influence boating abundance and distribution. Additional studies may be needed in order to identify long-term trends in recreational boating use. Boater Compliance Surveys The composition of vessels (type and size) observed at the six compliance survey sites is generally consistent with 2007 aerial survey data. Vessels between 16 and 25 feet in length were the most common vessel size surveyed, and Open Motorboat was the most common vessel type observed at all six survey sites. Some variation was seen in vessel size and type at the Loxahatchee River site; fewer larger deeper draft vessels and sailboats were observed primarily due to water depth and restrictions in access. A higher proportion of personal watercraft was observed at the Boynton Canal site due to close proximity to several jet ski rental facilities. A higher proportion of kayaks and canoes were observed at the Red Reef Park survey site, which had access points from the park itself and at the Gumbo Limbo Nature Center. The survey sites with the highest levels of compliance and the lowest levels of blatant non-compliance were DuBois Park and Phil Foster Park. These two survey sites also had the highest overall amount of boat traffic; approximately twice as many vessel passes as the other four survey sites. The relationship between high levels of boat traffic and higher levels of 29

34 compliance has been noted in other studies. A similar situation was observed in Lee County (Gorzelany, 2000), where a strong negative correlation between numbers of vessels and vessel speed was determined. Similar to automobile traffic, vessel speeds can become selfregulating, particularly during times of high traffic volume, when the risk of collision with other vessels becomes a concern. In locations such as Phil Foster Park, the large number of waterside facilities, moored and anchored vessels, and swimming / diving areas along travel corridors may also result in a slowing of vessel speeds. A visible enforcement presence was also noted at both of these survey sites, which is also a contributing factor in increased compliance. Further evidence to support speed zone effectiveness at the DuBois Park survey site was also noted in the transitional speed data (Table 6), which showed a distinct difference in vessel speeds at the interface between regulated and unregulated portions of Jupiter Inlet. The survey sites with the highest levels of blatant non-compliance were at the Loxahatchee River and Boynton Canal survey sites. These two areas also had the smallest sample sizes. At the Loxahatchee River site, the number of vessels evaluated for compliance was relatively small (159 out of 1,861 observations) due to the fact that most vessel traffic remained within marked channels which were exempt from speed regulation. Similarly, a relatively small proportion of the overall vessel traffic at the Boynton Canal site (413 vessels out of 1,618 observations) were evaluated for compliance within the posted slow speed zone outside of the ICW channel. The majority of vessels at the Boynton Canal site remained within the seasonal 25 mph / 30 mph ICW channel and were evaluated separately by speed gun. Higher levels of non-compliance at the Boynton Canal site was also influenced by the higher proportion of personal watercraft observed outside of the ICW channel. The survey site with the lowest overall level of boater compliance was the Brian Chappell Park site. This site, however, was also the most speedrestricted (idle speed), and many vessels identified as non-compliant were traveling at slow speed. In general, differences between idle speed and slow speed are more difficult to discern, less likely to be enforced, and are generally less of a concern for manatee protection. Previous studies have noted lower levels of compliance associated with idle speed zones (Gorzelany, 1996, 2009; Shapiro, 2001), however vessels traveling at either idle speed or slow speed 30

35 comprised 75% of all traffic at the Brian Chappell survey site. A comparison of seasonal vessel speeds at the Brian Chappell Park site also indicated a distinct change in boater behavior (Figure 60). From April 1 to November 14 (unregulated speed), vessels were primarily traveling at planing speed through this area. From November 15 to March 31 (idle speed), the number of vessels traveling at planing speed significantly decreased. The high proportion of idle and slow speed vessels in this area, along with the observed seasonal decreases in speed during the more speed-restrictive portion of the year, suggests that regulatory zones are reasonably effective in reducing boat speeds. At the Loxahatchee River site, however, no substantial change in boater behavior was noted; in fact a higher proportion of high speed traffic was observed in seasonal slow speed areas (Figure 59). Differences in observed seasonal vessel speeds may be due in part to the relatively small sample size. Some of the reduced speed zone effectiveness at this site is also due to the channel exempt designation. Boaters may identify channels as any natural or artificial deepening of a waterway, which may include private channels which were not intended to be exempt from regulation. In addition, the boundaries of an exempt channel may not be well-defined, which makes it difficult to determine whether a vessel is within a speed regulated area. A similar situation existed at the Boynton Canal site, where many boaters were observed transitioning through the area at high speed through the slow speed zone outside of the main channel. The Loxahatchee River also has a slow speed buffer within 300 feet of shore. This buffer zone is unmarked, so the speed-regulated boundary is difficult to identify and / or enforce. While some variation was observed in boater compliance between weekdays vs. weekends and between mornings and afternoon, no clear trend was observed. Similar results were noted in previous studies (Gorzelany 1996, 2005, 2009). Higher levels of boater compliance were consistently observed at all sites, however, when enforcement vessels were in the area. Actual enforcement presence was only estimated, and whether or not all vessels transitioning through the survey area were aware of an enforcement presence is unknown. Enforcement presence also did not take into account any law enforcement vessels which may have been located in adjacent areas, though not directly visible to observers. This occurred at three 31

36 locations in particular; DuBois Park, Phil Foster Park, and Brian Chappell Park. At Brian Chappell Park, for instance, law enforcement vessels were known to patrol and monitor both the Port of Palm Beach and the waters adjacent to the FPL Riviera Beach Power Plant, though they may not have been visible to observers from the Brian Chappell Park survey site. Enforcement data presented in this report is not intended to directly assess the level of effort by on-water law enforcement only to examine the relationship between boater compliance and enforcement presence in specific areas. Multi-agency on-water law enforcement was regularly observed at all survey sites, however resources are understandably limited for the task of monitoring all manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County, along with addressing all human safety issues. A correlation between compliance and law enforcement presence was noted in this study, and was similarly observed in other boating studies (Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2005, 2009; Shapiro, 2001). For this reason, increased on-water resources for law enforcement are recommended for improving compliance in areas of Palm Beach County that are either ecologically sensitive and/or where there is an increased human safety risk. Vessel speed is known to play a significant role in risk to manatees (Calleson and Frohlich, 2007). Boater compliance data are typically expressed as the percentages of compliant, technically non-compliant, and blatantly non-compliant vessels; however the actual number of vessels and their associated speed should also be taken into consideration. While slow speed as defined by the Florida Administrative Code may not pose a significant threat to manatees in most circumstances, the relative risk of injury to manatees increases at higher speeds, including plowing or cruising speed, due to that fact that vessels are both traveling at a faster speed (i.e., less reaction time) and have a deeper draft into the water (Gorzelany, 2009). As a result, a technically non-compliant vessel within a slow speed zone may potentially be as dangerous to a manatee as a blatantly non-compliant vessel within an idle speed zone. At Jupiter Inlet, for example, the overall proportion of non-compliant vessels was relatively low, however because of the large volume of traffic in this area (also identified from aerial survey data), the absolute number of vessel passes at plowing, cruising, or planing speed was relatively high (n=565). By comparison, the overall proportion of non-compliant vessels at Brian 32

37 Chappell Park was relatively high, but because of the higher speed restriction and fewer number of vessel passes, the overall number of vessels observed at plowing, cruising, or planing speed was lower (n=298). Other sites with low levels of compliance and less boat traffic, such as Boynton Canal and the Loxahatchee River, also had fewer vessel passes at plowing, cruising, or planing speed (n=249 and=82 respectively). Because there is no established acceptable level of non-compliance, each location should be evaluated separately in order to evaluate potential risk for both environmental concerns and human safety. Along with boat traffic and compliance data, the determination of risk should also include available data on manatee distribution and abundance in a given area when possible. The levels of statistical significance associated with the various parameters of this study should be approached with some caution, as data sets with large sample sizes tend to enhance the significance of relatively small variations in data. For example, 83% of vessels were determined to be compliant at the Phil Foster survey site during morning surveys, and 86% of vessels were determined to be compliant during afternoon surveys, yet the differences between morning and afternoon compliance data were determined to be statistically significant. Conversely, enforcement presence was not considered statistically significant at two sites with relatively small sample sizes (Loxahatchee River and Boynton Canal), although fairly distinct differences in levels of compliance were seen. A more important question to consider for these types of studies may be the statistical relevance from a waterways management perspective. Overall levels of compliance among the six Palm Beach County survey sites were higher than most Florida counties observed to date (73%). Overall levels of blatant non-compliance (8%) were also among the lowest observed to date. Overall compliance from multiple survey sites in Sarasota County (Gorzelany, 1996) was 63%, with 17% of all vessels observed to be blatantly non-compliant. Compliance from survey sites in Lee County (Gorzelany, 1998) was 57%, with 16% of vessels observed to be blatantly non-compliant. Multiple survey sites examined by Shapiro (2001) found an overall level of compliance at 54%, with 16% blatantly non-compliant. Compliance in Miami- Dade County (Gorzelany, 2009) was 52% and 19% respectively. The only county where a lower 33

38 overall rate of blatant non-compliance has been observed was Broward County (2%). Because of the high level of variability among individual sites, however, site selection is likely a factor within individual counties and overall levels of compliance will likely vary depending upon which individual survey sites are selected. Comparisons between Palm Beach County survey sites and results from other Florida studies are shown in Table 20. Observations from the six survey sites in Palm Beach County indicated that speed zone signage is well-placed and maintained, and an enforcement presence was observed at least periodically at all locations; which a likely results in improved boater compliance at these sites. Speed gun data collected at the Boynton Canal site showed few noticeable differences when comparing the seasonal 25 mph zone to the adjacent unregulated zone, or when comparing the seasonal 30 mph zone to the adjacent unregulated zone. Targeted speeds within the same area when posted at either 25 mph and 30 mph were also not noticeably different. For comparisons which were determined to be statistically different, mean vessel speeds between areas were less than 2 mph. Similar results were found when comparing targeted speeds of the same vessel in both regulated and regulated areas (Table 15). The usefulness of posted 25 mph and 30 mph zones is questionable, since background mean vessel speeds along unregulated waterways has been shown to be typically less than 30 mph. Mean vessel speed along the unregulated portion of the Loxahatchee River was mph (planing vessels = mph). Similar results were observed in previous speed gun studies of unregulated areas in Manatee County (23.77 mph; planing vessels = mph), Sarasota County (23.27 mph; planing vessels = mph), and Lee County (25.17 mph; planing vessels = mph). Some benefit may be seen, however, in a reduction of very fast vessel speeds. While the frequency distribution of all vessel speeds was similar between 25 mph and unregulated speed areas, a lower proportion of high speed vessels (greater than 35 mph) were observed within the 25 mph area (Figure 61). This trend was not apparent, however, when comparing the unregulated area to the seasonal 30 mph area (Figure 62). While the selected location for speed gun data collection was optimal for observing vessel speeds in both regulated and unregulated areas, there was some inherent bias. The survey area was located along a small portion of the north-south ICW channel that 34

39 turns approximately 30 degrees to the northeast - southwest. Many northbound vessels traveling at slow speed through the posted idle and slow speed zones near the E Ocean Avenue Bridge and Two Georges area did not accelerate to higher speeds until reaching the north-south portion of the ICW beyond the survey site. This resulted in a larger proportion of slowermoving vessels (5-10 mph) within the 25 mph zone (Figure 61). Similarly, many southbound vessels may have slowed at the turn in the ICW channel for the same reason (unrelated to the posted speed zone). In general, however, few differences in vessel speeds were observed along various speed-regulated and unregulated portions of this survey site, and some differences which were observed may have been unrelated to posted speed zones. In general, any reduced levels of compliance at Palm Beach County survey sites were probably unrelated to the placement of regulatory signs. An examination of regulatory signage indicated that each of the six sites was well-marked and maintained. Aside from some of the inherent problems associated with the zones themselves (previously discussed for the Loxahatchee River), the markers themselves appear to be in good condition and placed effectively. Whether any observed non-compliance is due to a lack of understanding of speed zones or a disregard of speed restrictions is unclear, and likely varies from person to person. Some specific recommendations for improvement of compliance and waterways management are as follows: 1 - Allocation of additional resources for on-water law enforcement. Law enforcement plays a significant role in speed zone effectiveness, and indications are that law enforcement resources in Palm Beach County are both active and efficient. They are, however, clearly overburdened by the large amount of area that they need to patrol and the responsibility that they have. Along with regulatory zone enforcement, units must also focus on higher traffic areas where boating safety may be a priority. An obvious need, therefore, is a larger allocation of funds, personnel, and resources in order to enhance marine enforcement in Palm Beach County and throughout Florida. Without a continuing commitment to such resources, little can be expected in terms of effective coastal waterway management. 35

40 2 - Focus enforcement efforts in higher risk areas such as Jupiter Inlet Areas with a high volume of boat traffic and moderate compliance may be a potentially higher risk to manatees and other natural resources than an area with a lower volume of traffic and poor compliance. An example is the Jupiter Inlet / Jupiter Sound area, which has both a high volume of boat traffic and is also a documented high-use area by both manatees and sea turtles. (Koelsch and Powell, 2011). Continued speed zone enforcement of this area should be considered as an ongoing priority. 3 - Periodic enforcement of 25 mph / 30 mph speed zones. While data collected during this study suggest that most boaters are traveling between mph in both regulated and unregulated areas, numerous vessels traveling at higher speeds (greater than 35 mph) were also documented. Periodic speed gun enforcement of 25 / 30 mph zones may reduce the number of high-speed watercraft which were occasionally seen in the Boynton Inlet area; and presumably are found in other speed-regulated areas of the county as well. 4 - Improvements to regulatory signage in the Loxahatchee River. While the majority of boat traffic in the Loxahatchee River remained within marked navigation channels, a high level of non-compliance was noted outside of channels. The slow speed shoreline buffer along the lower Loxahatchee River could be delineated by a buoyed marker system in order to increase both awareness and compliance. The regulatory status of some signage in the lower river could also be clarified. Problems with compliance in Channel Exempt zones have been observed in other studies (Gorzelany, 1998), primarily due to boater perception as to what constitutes a channel. This is a more complex issue which may need to be examined by both enforcement and regulatory agencies. 36

41 5 - Reassessment of some Palm Beach County speed zones. Some speed restricted zones in Palm Beach County could be reconsidered due to their limited functionality and / or enforceability. Some examples include the 50 foot shoreline buffer zones along portions of Lake Worth Creek and along the narrow ICW channel south of Boynton Inlet. Whether these slow speed zones provide any practical benefit is uncertain due to the narrowness of the waterway and the fact that the 50-foot slow speed boundary is unmarked. Similarly, a small seasonal slow speed buffer zone directly inside Jupiter Inlet may be unnecessary. Field observations from the Jupiter Inlet survey site found this area to be infrequently used, unmarked, and presumably difficult to enforce. 6 Additional recreational boating studies The analysis of countywide boating patterns provided in this report was based upon aerial survey data collected more than five years ago. Since then, boat traffic patterns may have changed due to recent economic conditions, the removal or addition of marine facilities, or changes in user groups. While the 2007 aerial survey dataset provides a useful tool in waterways management in Palm Beach County, it may also serve as a benchmark from which future studies may be compared in order to assess longer term trends in boating patterns in Palm Beach County. Additional site-specific studies may also provide useful information targeted at particular areas of concern. Studies of recreational boat traffic and the evaluation of the boat speed zones in Florida have widespread management and conservation implications. With continued emphasis on boat speed regulation as a management alternative for manatee protection, assessing the effectiveness of speed zones as a management tool is essential. While it is difficult to measure the direct success of speed zones in terms of manatee survivorship, it can be measured in terms of boater behavior and reaction to regulatory changes (Gorzelany, 2005). The information provided in this report serves as a reference tool for regulatory and enforcement agencies, as well as managers and planners involved with waterways management in Palm 37

42 Beach County. Ultimately, additional information of human use of Palm Beach County waterways will aid in reducing the risk of manatee-related watercraft deaths, as well addressing human safety issues. 38

43 LITERATURE CITED Baker, E.K., and M.L. Villanueva Palm Beach Boating Activity Study. Final Report submitted to the Office of Protected Species Management, Florida DEP. Boating Research Center. Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science. 195pp. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Boating Accidents Statistical Report. FWC Division of Law Enforcement. 65pp. Calleson, S.S., and R.K. Frohlich Slower boat speeds reduce risks to manatees. Endangered Species Research 3: Gorzelany, J.F Recreational boating surveys of Western Pinellas County. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report # pp. Gorzelany, J.F Recreational boating activity in Miami-Dade County. Final report submitted to the Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management. June pp. Gorzelany, J.F Aerial surveys of recreational boating activity in Collier County. Final report submitted to Collier County Environmental Services Department. 72pp + app. Gorzelany, J.F Recreational boat traffic surveys of Sarasota County, Florida. Part 2: Aerial surveys. Final project report submitted to Sarasota County Natural Resources. March Gorzelany, J.F Recreational boat traffic surveys of Broward County, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Contract No Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No pp + app. Gorzelany, J.F Evaluation of boater compliance with manatee speed zones along the Gulf Coast of Florida. Coastal Management, 32 (3): Gorzelany, J.F Analysis of recreational vessel speeds in association with newly posted regulatory speed zones in Lee County, Florida. Final report submitted to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 39pp. Gorzelany, J.F Evaluation of vessel traffic and boater compliance in association with new boat speed regulations in the lower Caloosahatchee River. Final report submitted to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 44pp. Gorzelany, J.F, Evaluation of boat traffic patterns and boater compliance in Lee County, Florida. Final report submitted to the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 109 pp + app. 39

44 Gorzelany, J.F, Evaluation of boater compliance with speed regulations in Sarasota County, Florida. Final report submitted to the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 106pp + app. Horne, J.S., and E.O. Garton. (2006). Likelihood cross-validation versus least squares crossvalidation for choosing the smoothing parameter in kernel home-range analysis. J. Wildlife. Management. 70: Koelsch, J, and J.A. Powell Palm Beach County manatee aerial surveys. Final report submitted to the Palm Beach County Department of Natural Resources Management. 32pp. Kustom Signals, Inc Pro Laser Infrared Lidar System user manual. 49 pp. Kustom Signals, Inc Hand-held traffic radar operator s manual. 18 pp. Palm Beach County Manatee Protection Plan Prepared by the Catanese Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions, Florida Atlantic University, and Ecological Associates, Inc. 209pp. PBS&J, Florida Sea Grant, and J.F. Gorzelany Martin County vessel traffic study. Final report submitted to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Boating and Waterways Section. PBS&J, Florida Sea Grant, and J.F. Gorzelany Palm Beach Vessel Traffic Study. Final report submitted for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Boating and Waterways Section. Sawick, D.S Traffic Radar Handbook. A Comprehensive Guide to Speed Measuring Systems. Sawick Enerprises, Shahrabi, J., and R. Pelot. (2009). Kernel density analysis of maritime fishing traffic and Incidents in Canadian Atlantic Waters. J. Appl. Sci. 9: Shapiro, S.L Assessing Boater Compliance with Manatee Speed Zones in Florida. Final report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project No Sidman, C., R. Swett, T. Fik, S. Fann, and B Sargent A recreational boating characterization of Sarasota County. Florida Sea Grant publication TP-152, January Worton, B.J. (1995). Using Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate kernel-based home range estimators. J. Wildlife Management 59:

45 ACKNOLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the help of the FWC Division of Law Enforcement for providing both survey aircraft and pilots for the original aerial survey portion of this project, and to both the Office of Boating and Waterways and Florida Sea Grant for funding support of the original study. Thanks to Kerri Scolardi for assistance with both field data collection and GIS spatial analyses and interpretation of aerial survey data. Additional field data collection was conducted with much help from Brendan Beard, Wanda Velez, and Sarah Gorzelany. Access to several survey sites and logistics was provided with assistance from Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Department (Kim Potter) and from the City of Boca Raton. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the help and support Mr. Paul Davis and the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management for support of this project and for their ongoing endeavors to improve and enhance Palm Beach County coastal waters. 41

46 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Summary of aerial survey data collection from the 16 primary flights conducted during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat Traffic Study 44 Summary of field data collection for the Loxahatchee River, Dubois Park, and Phil Foster Park survey sites. 45 Summary of field data collection for the Brian Chappell Park, Boynton Canal, and Red Reef Park survey sites.. 46 Summary of enforcement observations among the six survey sites. Enforcement Vessels observed includes multiple passes of the same enforcement vessel through the survey area.. 47 Summary of statistical results (Chi Square) comparing vessel compliance with various survey parameters at each survey site.. 48 Transition speeds between regulated and unregulated portions of the DuBois Park (Jupiter Inlet) survey site. 49 Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 25 MPH. All directions of travel are included. All data are expressed at MPH. 50 Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 30 MPH. All directions of travel are included. All data are expressed at MPH. 51 Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 25 MPH. Northbound traffic only. All data are expressed at MPH 52 Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 30 MPH. Northbound traffic only. All data are expressed at MPH. 53 Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 25 MPH. Southbound traffic only. All data are expressed at MPH 54 42

47 LIST OF TABLES (Continued). Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 30 MPH. Southbound traffic only. All data are expressed at MPH.. 55 Comparison of speed gun data between 25 MPH and 30 MPH regulatory zones at the Boynton Canal survey site. All directions of travel are included. All data are expressed as MPH 56 Summary of statistical comparisons for speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site.. 57 Comparison of targeted speeds for the same vessel transitioning through both speed-regulated and unregulated portions of the Boynton Canal survey site 58 Table 16. Summary of vessel speed gun data (mph) from the Loxahatchee River survey site Table 17. Comparison of weekday / weekend survey data between Pinellas County and other recently-surveyed Florida counties. 60 Table 18. Comparison of vessel size data from recent aerial survey projects 61 Table 19. Comparison of vessel type data from recent aerial survey projects. 62 Table 20. Comparison of boater compliance between Palm Beach County survey sites with previous boater compliance studies 63 43

48 Table 1. Summary of aerial survey data collection from the 16 primary flights conducted during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat Traffic Study. Date Day Survey Window Start Time Flight Weather Flight Wind Boating Conditions Air Temp (F) Water Temp (F) Vessels Surveyed 19-Jan-07 F AM 1042 MC N 0-5 G Jan-07 F PM 1333 MC N 5-10 G Feb-07 SA AM 1012 C E 5-10 G Feb-07 SA PM 1210 C E G Apr-07 M PM 1323 PC SE G Apr-07 TU AM 820 C SE 0-5 E Apr-07 SA AM 951 PC E G May-07 SA PM 1254 MC E F Jun-07 SU PM 1324 C SE 5-10 E Jun-07 SU AM 912 PC W 0-5 E Jul-07 W AM 1024 PC SE 0-5 E Aug-07 TH PM 1244 C SE 5-10 G Oct-07 M AM 857 PC E G Oct-07 M PM 1217 MC E F Nov-07 SU AM 912 C NW 5-10 E Nov-07 SU PM 1239 C NE 5-10 E

49 Table 2. Summary of field data collection for the Loxahatchee River, Dubois Park, and Phil Foster Park survey sites. Loxahatchee River Survey Date Survey Interval Survey Hours Boating Conditions Vessel Passes 23-Nov Excellent Dec Fair / Good Feb Good / Excellent Mar Excellent May Excellent Jul Good / Excellent Sep Fair / Good Oct Excellent 422 Total 48 1,861 Dubois Park (Jupiter Inlet) Survey Date Survey Interval Survey Hours Boating Conditions Vessel Passes 11-Dec Fair / Good Jan Fair / Good Mar Good / Excellent Mar Good May Good / Excellent Jul Fair Jul Excellent Sep Good Oct Fair / Good 234 Total 48 3,443 Phil Foster Park (NLWL) Survey Date Survey Interval Survey Hours Boating Conditions Vessel Passes 9-Dec Fair / Good Jan Good Mar Good Apr Good Jun Good / Excellent Aug Good Sep Excellent Oct Fair / Good 251 Total 48 3,311 45

50 Table 3. Summary of field data collection for the Brian Chappell Park, Boynton Canal, and Red Reef Park survey sites. Brian Chappell Park (CLWL) Survey Date Survey Interval Survey Hours Boating Conditions Vessel Passes 21-Nov Good / Excellent Jan Good / Excellent Feb Good / Excellent Mar Good Jun Excellent Aug Excellent Sep Good Oct Good 69 Total 48 1,723 Boynton Canal (SLWL) Survey Date Survey Interval Survey Hours Boating Conditions Vessel Passes 6-Jan Good Mar Good / Fair / Poor Apr Good May Good Jul Excellent Jul Excellent Aug Excellent Sep Excellent 227 Total 48 1,618 Red Reef Park (Lake Wyman) Survey Date Survey Interval Survey Hours Boating Conditions Vessel Passes 2-Dec Fair / Good Mar Good / Excellent Apr Good / Excellent May Excellent Jun Excellent Jul Fair Aug Excellent Sep Excellent 303 Total

51 Table 4. Summary of enforcement observations among the six survey sites. Enforcement vessels observed includes multiple passes of the same enforcement vessel through the survey area. Survey Site Enforcement Presence (Minutes) Enforcement Presence (%) Enforcement Vessels Observed Agencies Observed Loxahatchee River 215 7% 19 FWC, Jupiter PD, Tequesta PD DuBois Park % 42 Phil Foster Park % 72 Brian Chappell Park % 53 Boynton Canal 164 6% 23 FWC, Jupiter PD, Jupiter Island PD, Palm Beach Co. Sheriff, Tequesta PD, US Coast Guard FWC, North Palm Beach PD, Riviera Beach PD, Palm Beach Co. Sheriff, West Palm Beach PD FWC, Palm Beach PD, Palm Beach Co. Sheriff, US Coast Guard FWC, Boynton Beach PD, Palm Beach Co. Sheriff, US Customs and Border Protection Red Reef Park % 23 FWC, Boca Raton PD 47

52 Table 5. Summary of statistical results (Chi Square) comparing vessel compliance with various survey parameters at each survey site. ATTRIBUTE Loxahatchee River Dubois Park Phil Foster Park Brian Chappell Park Boynton Canal Vessel Size NS * * NS * * Vessel Type NA * * * * * Direction Of Travel NA * * * * NS Morning / Afternoon NS NS * NS * NS Weekday / Weekend NS NS * NS NS NS Enforcement Presence NS * * * NS * Cold Season / Warm Season Red Reef Park NS NA NA * NA NA * - Significant NS Not Significant NA Not Applicable / Not Tested 48

53 Table 6. Transition speeds between regulated and unregulated portions of the DuBois Park (Jupiter Inlet) survey site. From East (Unregulated Speed) to West (Slow Speed) Outcome # Vessel Passes Percent Increase In Speed % Same Speed % Decrease In Speed % Total Vessel Passes 1059 From West (Slow Speed) to East (Unregulated Speed) Outcome # Vessel Passes Percent Increase In Speed % Same Speed % Decrease In Speed % Total Vessel Passes

54 Table 7. Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the Posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 25 MPH. All directions of travel are included. All data are expressed at MPH. ALL VESSELS 25 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode 8 31 Minimum Speed 3 4 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLOWING / CRUISING / PLANING VESSELS - ONLY 25 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode 8 31 Minimum Speed 6 7 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLANING VESSELS-ONLY 25 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed Maximum Speed Sample Size

55 Table 8. Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 30 MPH. All directions of travel are included. All data are expressed at MPH. ALL VESSELS 30 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 2 4 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLOWING / CRUISING / PLANING VESSELS - ONLY 30 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviaiton Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 8 7 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLANING VESSELS-ONLY 30 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviaiton Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 10 8 Maximum Speed Sample Size

56 Table 9. Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 25 MPH. Northbound traffic only. All data are expressed at MPH. ALL VESSELS 25 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode 8 28 Minimum Speed 4 4 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLOWING / CRUISING / PLANING VESSELS - ONLY 25 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode 8 28 Minimum Speed 7 7 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLANING VESSELS-ONLY 25 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed Maximum Speed Sample Size

57 Table 10. Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 30 MPH. Northbound traffic only. All data are expressed at MPH. ALL VESSELS 30 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 2 6 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLOWING / CRUISING / PLANING VESSELS - ONLY 30 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviaiton Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 8 8 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLANING VESSELS-ONLY 30 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 12 8 Maximum Speed Sample Size

58 Table 11. Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 25 MPH. Southbound traffic only. All data are expressed at MPH. ALL VESSELS 25 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 3 4 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLOWING / CRUISING / PLANING VESSELS - ONLY 25 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 6 7 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLANING VESSELS-ONLY 25 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed Maximum Speed Sample Size

59 Table 12. Speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site; collected when the posted regulatory speed within the ICW channel was 30 MPH. Southbound traffic only. All data are expressed at MPH. ALL VESSELS 30 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 4 4 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLOWING / CRUISING / PLANING VESSELS - ONLY 30 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 8 7 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLANING VESSELS-ONLY 30 MPH Zone Unregulated Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed 10 9 Maximum Speed Sample Size

60 Table 13. Comparison of speed gun data between 25 MPH and 30 MPH regulatory zones at the Boynton Canal survey site. All directions of travel are included. All data are expressed as MPH. ALL VESSELS 25 MPH Zone 30 MPH Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode 8 24 Minimum Speed 3 2 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLOWING / CRUISING / PLANING VESSELS - ONLY 25 MPH Zone 30 MPH Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode 8 24 Minimum Speed 6 8 Maximum Speed Sample Size PLANING VESSELS-ONLY 25 MPH Zone 30 MPH Zone Mean Speed Standard Deviation Median Speed Mode Minimum Speed Maximum Speed Sample Size

61 Table 14. Summary of statistical comparisons for speed gun data collected from the Boynton Canal survey site. ALL DIRECTIONS OF TRAVEL ATTRIBUTE All Vessel Speeds Plowing / Cruising / Planing Vessels Planing Vessels - Only 25 MPH vs Unregulated * * NS 30 MPH vs. Unregulated NS NS NS NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC - ONLY ATTRIBUTE All Vessel Speeds Plowing / Cruising / Planing Vessels Planing Vessels - Only 25 MPH vs Unregulated NS NS NS 30 MPH vs. Unregulated NS NS NS SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC - ONLY ATTRIBUTE All Vessel Speeds Plowing / Cruising / Planing Vessels Planing Vessels - Only 25 MPH vs Unregulated NS NS NS 30 MPH vs. Unregulated * NS NS ALL DIRECTIONS OF TRAVEL ATTRIBUTE All Vessel Speeds Plowing / Cruising / Planing Vessels Planing Vessels - Only 25 MPH vs 30 MPH NS NS NS * - Significant NS - Not Significant 57

62 Table 15. Comparison of targeted speeds for the same vessel transitioning through both speed-regulated and unregulated portions of the Boynton Canal survey site. SAME VESSEL - 25 MPH ZONE # Observations Percent +5 MPH Or Faster In Regulated Zone % Within 5 MPH In Both Zones % -5 MPH Or Slower In Regulated Zone % % SAME VESSEL - 30 MPH ZONE # Observations Percent +5 MPH Or Faster In Regulated Zone % Within 5 MPH In Both Zones % -5 MPH Or Slower In Regulated Zone % % 58

63 Table 16. Summary of vessel speed gun data (mph) from the Loxahatchee River survey site. All Vessels Plowing / Cruising / Planing Vessels - Only Planing Vessels - Only Mean Std Dev Median Mode Minimum Maximum Sample Size

64 Table 17. Comparison of weekday / weekend survey data between Pinellas County and other recently-surveyed Florida counties. COUNTY Mean Vessels In-Use Per Survey Flight (Weekends) Mean Vessels In-Use Per Survey Flight (Weekdays) Weekend / Weekday Ratio Broward ( ) Lee ( ) Sarasota ( ) Palm Beach (2007) Martin ( ) Brevard ( ) Collier ( ) Miami ( ) St Johns / Flagler ( ) Pinellas ( ) (Source: Gorzelany, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009a, 2010, FWC, 2007, PBS&J 2008.) 60

65 Table 18. Comparison of vessel size data from recent aerial survey projects. Vessel Size Category County < 16' 16'-25' 26'-39' 40'-64' 65'-109' >109' Broward ( ) 7% 56% 21% 11% 4% 1% Lee ( ) 8% 78% 10% 3% 1% 0% Sarasota ( ) 14% 71% 11% 3% 1% 0% Charlotte ( ) 7% 79% 11% 3% 0% 0% Palm Beach ( 2007) 10% 66% 13% 6% 4% 1% Martin ( ) 9% 65% 13% 8% 4% 1% Brevard ( ) 13% 68% 11% 6% 2% 0% Collier ( ) 12% 77% 8% 2% 1% 0% Miami ( ) 12% 57% 20% 8% 3% 0% St Johns / Flagler ( ) 18% 66% 10% 4% 2% 0% Pinellas ( ) 22% 61% 11% 4% 2% 0% 61

66 Table 19. Comparison of vessel type data from recent aerial survey projects. Vessel Type Category COUNTY Small Power Large Power Personal Watercraf t Sailboa t Kayak / Canoe Barge Other Broward ( ) 55% 32% 2% 7% 2% 1% 1% Lee ( ) 79% 10% 2% 4% 4% 1% 0% Sarasota ( ) 71% 11% 3% 9% 5% 1% 0% Charlotte ( ) 80% 8% 1% 8% 2% 0% 1% Palm Beach ( 2007) 68% 21% 4% 4% 2% 1% 0% Martin ( ) 64% 17% 4% 9% 3% 3% 0% Brevard ( ) 71% 11% 4% 10% 3% 1% 0% Collier ( ) 79% 8% 3% 3% 5% 1% 1% Miami ( ) 54% 24% 4% 14% 3% 1% 0% St Johns / Flagler ( ) 70% 8% 4% 7% 9% 2% 0% Pinellas ( ) 66% 11% 7% 6% 9% 1% 0% 62

67 Table 20. Comparison of boater compliance between Palm Beach County survey sites with previous boater compliance studies. Survey Site County Compliance Technical Non- Compliance Blatant Non - Compliance Speed Zone Loxahatchee River ( ) Palm Beach 48% 3% 49% Slow Dubois Park ( ) Palm Beach 83% 15% 2% Slow Phil Foster Park ( ) Palm Beach 85% 14% 1% Slow Brian Chappell Park ( ) Palm Beach 34% 41% 25% Idle Boynton Canal ( ) Palm Beach 40% 5% 55% Slow Red Reef Park ( ) Palm Beach 66% 29% 5% Slow Haulover Park ( ) Miami-Dade 69% 25% 7% Slow Pelican Harbor ( ) Miami-Dade 54% 25% 21% Slow Miami River ( ) Miami-Dade 61% 30% 9% Slow Miami River ( ) Miami-Dade 22% 44% 34% Idle Black Point ( ) Miami-Dade 14% 39% 47% Idle Black Point ( ) Miami-Dade 34% 6% 60% Slow John Lloyd State Park ( ) Broward 59% 39% 2% Slow Colee Hammock Site ( ) Broward 78% 22% 1% Slow Hugh Taylor Birch Park ( ) Broward 50% 46% 4% Slow New Pass ( ) Sarasota 47% 37% 16% Idle Venice Inlet ( ) Sarasota 71% 20% 8% Slow Terra Ceia Bay ( ) Manatee 66% 26% 8% Slow Homosassa River ( ) Citrus 24% 50% 26% Idle Pineda Causeway ( ) Brevard 67% 10% 22% Slow Sebastian River ( ) Brevard 52% 32% 15% Slow Orange River ( ) Lee 68% 24% 8% Idle Shell Island ( ) Lee 58% 33% 8% Slow Beautiful Island ( ) Lee 39% 50% 11% Idle 63

68 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County. Black circles show the approximate location of Loxahatchee River and DuBois Park survey sites 69 FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County. Black circles show the approximate location of Phil Foster Park and Brian Chappell Park survey sites 70 Figure 3. FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County (continued). 71 Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County. Black circle shows the approximate location of the Boynton Canal speed gun survey site 72 FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County. Black circle shows the approximate location of the Red Reef Park survey site Published FIND speed zones for the Jupiter Inlet area. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District 74 Published FIND speed zones for the Loxahatchee River area. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District.. 75 Published FIND speed zones for Upper Lake Worth Creek. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District.. 76 Published FIND speed zones for Lower Lake Worth Creek. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District.. 77 Published FIND speed zones for North Lake Worth Lagoon. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District.. 78 Published FIND speed zones for Central Lake Worth Lagoon. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District.. 79 Published FIND speed zones for Southern Lake Worth Lagoon. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District.. 80 Published FIND speed zones Boynton Beach to Delray Beach. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District.. 81 Published FIND speed zones for the Jupiter Inlet area. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District.. 82 Figure 15. Posted speed zone signage in the Jupiter Inlet area 83 64

69 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure 16. Origin / destination options at Site #1 DuBois Park. 84 Figure 17. Origin / destination options at Site #2 Loxahatchee River. 85 Figure 18 Origin / destination options at Site #3 Phil Foster Park 86 Figure 19. Origin / destination options at Site #4 Brian Chappell Park.. 87 Figure 20. Origin / destination options at Site #5 Boynton Canal. 88 Figure 21. Origin / destination options at Site #6 Red Reef Park.. 89 Figure 22. Distribution of vessel sizes and types among all vessels in use observed during The 2007 Palm Beach County aerial survey study.. 90 Figure 23. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in northern Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study.. 91 Figure 24. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in north-central Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study Figure 25. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in central Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study 93 Figure 26. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in south-central Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study. 94 Figure 27. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in southern Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study 95 Figure 28. Calculated spatial distribution for all vessels in use observed along the northern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. 96 Figure 29. Calculated spatial distribution for all vessels in use observed along the northcentral portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route 97 Figure 30. Calculated spatial distribution for all vessels in use observed along the central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. 98 Figure 31. Calculated spatial distribution for all vessels in use observed along the southcentral portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route 99 65

70 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued). Figure 32. Calculated spatial distribution for all vessels in use observed along the southern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route Figure 33. Calculated spatial distribution for all stationary vessels in use along the northern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route 101 Figure 34. Calculated spatial distribution for all stationary vessels in use along the northcentral portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. 102 Figure 35. Calculated spatial distribution for all stationary vessels in use along the central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route Figure 36. Calculated spatial distribution for all stationary vessels in use along the southcentral portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route..104 Figure 37. Calculated spatial distribution for all stationary vessels in use along the southern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route Figure 38. Calculated spatial distribution for all higher-speed vessels in use along the northern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route 106 Figure 39. Calculated spatial distribution for all higher-speed vessels in use along the northcentral portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route..107 Figure 40. Calculated spatial distribution for all higher-speed vessels in use along the Central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route 108 Figure 41. Calculated spatial distribution for all higher-speed vessels in use along the southcentral portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route..109 Figure 42. Calculated spatial distribution for all higher-speed vessels in use along the southern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route 110 Figure 43. Composite view of vessel traffic in the Jupiter Inlet area. Data from all 16 survey flights are combined. Red circles indicate stationary vessels. Green arrows indicate vessels which are underway. Orange circles indicate milling or recreational activity

71 LIST OF FIGURES (Conitnued). Figure 44. Composite view of vessel traffic in the Lake Worth Inlet area. Data from all 16 survey flights are combined. Red circles indicate stationary vessels. Green arrows indicate vessels which are underway. Orange circles indicate milling or recreational activity 112 Figure 45. Composite view of vessel traffic in the Boynton Inlet area. Data from all 16 survey flights are combined. Red circles indicate stationary vessels. Green arrows indicate vessels which are underway. Orange circles indicate milling or recreational activity 113 Figure 46. Composite view of vessel traffic in the Boca Raton Inlet area. Data from all 16 survey flights are combined. Red circles indicate stationary vessels. Green arrows indicate vessels which are underway. Orange circles indicate milling or recreational activity Figure 47. Distribution of vessel sizes among the six field survey sites Figure 48. Distribution of vessel types among the six field survey sites 117 Figure 49. Figure 50. Overall boater compliance by vessel size. Data from all six survey sites are combined Overall boater compliance by vessel type. Data from all six survey sites are combined 120 Figure 51. Overall observed boater compliance among the six survey sites Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54. Figure 55. Comparison of weekend (WE) and weekday (WD) boater compliance among the six survey sites 122 Comparison of morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) boater compliance among the six survey sites 123 Comparison of compliance in the presence / absence of law enforcement among the six survey sites 124 Comparison of boater compliance by direction of travel at the Loxahatchee River survey site

72 LIST OF FIGURES (Conitnued). Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58. Figure 59. Figure 60. Figure 61. Figure 62. Figure 63. Figure 64. Comparison of boater compliance by direction of travel at the DuBois Park survey site Comparison of boater compliance by direction of travel at the Phil Foster Park survey site 127 Comparison of boater compliance by direction of travel at the Brian Chappell Park survey site. 128 Comparison of boater compliance by direction of travel at the Boynton Canal survey site. 129 Comparison of boater compliance by direction of travel at the Red Reef Park survey site. 130 Observed vessel speeds associated with the seasonal slow speed portion of the lower Loxahatchee River 131 Observed vessel speeds along a seasonal idle speed portion of the Brian Chappell Park survey site. 132 Frequency distribution of all targeted vessel speeds observed at the Boynton Canal survey Site. October 1 May Frequency distribution of all targeted vessel speeds observed at the Boynton Canal survey site. June 1 September

73 Figure 1. FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County. Black circles show the approximate location of the Loxahatchee River and DuBois Park survey sites. 69

74 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 2. FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County. Black circles show the approximate location of the Phil Foster Park and Brian Chappell Park survey sites. p.,ge 3 ol 6 IHlC-2~. 009(1)(<>)1 'J. SLOW SPEED (YEAR- ROUND) 0 t N A 1 MILES 5!1c-:aa.o~llliiJJ - :wupn (JUN \ -!ilio.i"'' Ull} 21\MFII COr.T I - t.i4t SO) ~ l'dr A!ti'AR :r.rtllrnt. l'ltlf1':":1! 6BC (1)(c)14- SLOW SPEED (YEAR- Rot:I\'D) 6 BC-<!2.009(1)( <>)?.b. SLO ~ SPE KD ( YEAR- ROUND) ~2. 009{1)(c}9. S OW SPEED (YEAR- ROUND) - I CEUu~NEL EXCLUDED PORT OF PALM BEACH RIVIERA BEACH POWER PLANT 6UC-:.:~. 009(l)(c)l:l. SLOW SPEED (YEAR- ROUND) ICW C!!A.>lNEL EXCLl.illED SCC (1 )(d)6. :~hl..j Sl OW SPEED I A l/ /(NOV 15 - MAR 31) ISLAN L.. (\C. - ~-.1. ttor TH ---I.NLET 66C (1)(11)2...,.._., IDLE SPBI!O ZONE (YEA."!. ROUND) 66C (1)(b) IDLE SPEED (NOV 15-1JAR 31) I)SC (1 )(a)l. IDLE SPEED ZONE (YEAR- ROUND) 1.() m I... 6!1C (1 )(c)4. SLOW SPEED (YEA.Il- ROUND) E.'<CLUDING SPECIFIIID CHANNELS 70

75 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5 hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 3. FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County (continued). 68C {1 ){c)3. _ SLOW SPEED (YEAR- ROUND) lrnior!al. BRIDGE (US A1.!.) 0 PB,«e 4 of 6 t N A 1 MILES 66C- i'!2.009(1)(c)4. SLOW SPEED (YEAR- ROUND) EXCLUDING SPECIFIED CHANNELS 0) 0 co ~ I U] 6BC (J)(c)l?. SLO'If SPEED (YEAR ROUND) 6EJC (l}(c) l. SLOW SPEED (YEAR- RO{;ND) EXCLUDING SPECIFIED CIIA..'fflELS PALM BEACH 66C- ::l2.009(l)(c)4. ::llolf SPJJ:I!:D (YUAH- IWUND) EXCLt'DING Sl"RCJFW.O C:HAl'i'NET.S 71

76 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 4. FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County. Black circle shows the approximate location of the Boynton Canal speed gun survey site. I ~ 68C (1)(o)4. i:lww ::IPI<:ED (\"'EAR- KOUND) EXCLUD~Q SPECIFIED CHANNELS 50' SLOW SPEED BUFFER Pa&e 5 of 6 I J 68C (1)(c)ll.e. SLOW SPEED (YEAR- ROUND) 60FT SHORELINE BUF~ flbc (l)(c)10. SLOW SPEEC (YEAR- ROUND) ) ( DELRAY / BEACH t N 9 J ~ J t MILES 72

77 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 5. FWC manatee speed zones in Palm Beach County. Black circle shows the approximate location of the Red Reef Park survey site. ( DELRAY BEACH P<e 6 of \ I t N 9 A MILES 1 BBC (1)( ~)11.c. SLOW SPEED (YEAR- ROUND} R A TON tlt!c-<ll::!.ooii(i )(o)u..d. 50 F'l'. El.O'If SP!ED BUFP1lR l!'tar ROt"Jff:l) -2:\CtXDO!O!CJ C.WOO:l. IN LET-- MC-~.009 [1 )QI)Z.. SOMP:l {JUN l - S:tP! 30) ~W:i (oct' - AJ'R) FOR AllEA~ OU'I'3trJE Bll1'MlR PALM BEACH COUNTY BR6WARD -COUNTY _ Eft.._ SEE , F. A. C. FOR ZONES IN BROWARD!N COUNTY 73

78 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 6. Published FIND speed zones for the Jupiter Inlet area. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District. - idle speed, no wake, ICWchannelexempt year round ~Slow speed, minimum 'I'Jake, year round ICWchannel incuded 0 Slow speed, minimum wake, ICWchanne I exempt. year round CJ Slow Speed, minimum wake, S- 3/31 D Slow speed, min wake, man marked channel exempt, S-3/31-25 mph in channel year round In areas with m ultiple speed zones, the most restrictive is shown. See 68C (1} and for specif ics. 74

79 Figure 7. Published FIND speed zones for the Loxahatchee River area. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District. 75

80 Figure 8. Published FIND speed zones for Upper Lake Worth Creek. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District. 76

81 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 9. Published FIND speed zones for Lower Lake Worth Creek. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District. ~ Slow speed, minimum wake, ICW channel incuded year round CJ Slow speed, minimum wake, ICW channel exempt year round In areas with multiple speed zones, the most restrictive is shown. See 68C (1) and for specifics. 77

82 Figure 10. Published FIND speed zones for North Lake Worth Lagoon. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District. 78

83 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 11. Published FIND speed zones for Central Lake Worth Lagoon. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District. idle speed. no wake. K:Wchannel exempt year round idle speed. no wake. all channels included / 31 ~S bwspeed. minimum wake. year round icwchannel included D Slow speed. minimum wake. channe I exempt. year round In areas with multiple speed zones, the most restrictive is shown. See 68C (1) and for specifics. 79

84 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 12. Published FIND speed zones for Southern Lake Worth Lagoon. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District. Slow Speed, minimum wake with in 300' of Snook Islands Natural Area, year ro und Slow Spood minirn1m w;~,kv wit ~ in 5 C1 of s:hor. li na.. l~ u round B:Qyllt"Orr Be-ath I met ~LWQ ~S low speed, minimum wake, ICW channel included year round D Slow speed, minimumwake, ICW channel exempt, yeanound Max 30 m ph (6 (1-9/30), Max 25 mph rest of t he year In areas with multiple speed zones, the most restrictive is shown. See 68C (1 ) and for specifics_ 80

85 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 13. Published FIND speed zones Boynton Beach to Delray Beach. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District. tl BoyntonBeath Inlet J.. (Sl.\IJI) BOYNTON BEACH Slcm speed, m inimum wake within 50' of shoreline DELRAY BEACH Slow speed, minimum wake within 50' of shor~!lrne ~ Idle speed, no wahl!, d!annel included year round ~ Slow speed, minimum wahl!,.channel induded year round D Slow speed, minimum wahl!, ICW ehannel a:en1pt, year rovnd - Max 30 mph (6/1-9/30}, Max 25 mph rest of year In areas with rrultiple speed zones, the rrost restrictive is s hown. See 68C (1) and '017 for specifics. 81

86 Figure 14. Published FIND speed zones for the Jupiter Inlet area. Source: Florida Inland Navigation District. 82

87 Figure 15. Posted speed zone signage in the Jupiter Inlet area. 83

88 Figure 16. Origin / destination options at Site #1 DuBois Park. X - O - N - W - S - Location of land-based survey site To/from the Atlantic Ocean through Jupiter Inlet To/from the north towards Jupiter Sound / Hobe Sound To/from the west toward Lake Worth Creek Originating / terminating to the south behind DuBois Park 84

89 Figure 17. Origin / destination options at Site #2 Loxahatchee River. X - NC - NE - NW - WC - EC - W - SW - S - SC - E - Location of boat-based survey site To/from the North Fork within the marked navigation channel Northeast of the survey site outside of marked navigation channels Northwest of the survey site outside of marked navigation channels To/from the west within the marked navigation channel To/from the east within the marked navigation channel Originating / terminating to/from the Northwest Fork Originating / terminating to/from the Southwest Fork To/from the south outside of marked navigation channels South of the survey site within marked navigation channels To/from the east outside of marked navigation channels 85

90 Figure 18 Origin / destination options at Site #3 Phil Foster Park. X - N - E - W - SW - S - Location of land-based survey site North of the Blue Heron Causeway to/from northern Lake Worth Lagoon East along the marked channel to/from boat facilities along the eastern shoreline and Lake Worth Inlet West to/from boat facilities along western shoreline Southwest along the ICW channel to/from central Lake Worth Lagoon South to/from the shoals along Peanut Island 86

91 Figure 19. Origin / destination options at Site #4 Brian Chappell Park. X - NC - SC - NE - SE - NW - SW Location of land-based survey site To/from the north through central portion of Lake Worth Lagoon, including all ICW traffic To/from the south through the central portion of Lake Worth Lagoon, including all ICW traffic To/from the north along the eastern shoreline To/from the south along the eastern shoreline To/from the north along the western shoreline To/from the south along the western shoreline 87

92 Figure 20. Origin / destination options at Site #5 Boynton Canal. X - N - S - E - W - Location of boat-based survey site To/from the north along the ICW To/from the south along the ICW Originating / terminating east of the ICW Originating / terminating west of the ICW 88

93 Figure 21. Origin / destination options at Site #6 Red Reef Park. X - N - S - Location of land-based survey site To/from the north towards Lake Worth Lagoon To/from the south towards Boca Raton Inlet 89

94 Figure 22. Distribution of vessel sizes and types among all vessels in use observed during The 2007 Palm Beach County aerial survey study Aerial Surveys - Vessel Size Distribution greater than 109 feet feet feet feet feet less than 16 feet Vessels In Use 2007 Aerial Surveys - Vessel Type Distribution Open Motorboat Cabin Motorboat Personal Watercraft Kayak / Canoe Sailboat Other Commercial Vessels In Use 90

95 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5 hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 23. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in northern Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study. N A ATLANTIC OCEAN Martin County Palm Beach County Observed Vessel in Use ~ '\i ' n"t,~---tc, Nautical Miles \ \ \ l \... t' I 91

96 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 24. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in north-central Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study. _j N A ATLANTIC OCEAN l I I l.. Lake Worth Inlet RIVIERA BEACH Observed Vessel In Use Nautical Miles 92

97 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 25. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in central Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study. \ ' I \ l \ \ I N A ATLANTIC OCEAN ~~ (! Nautical Miles 93

98 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5 hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 26. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in south-central Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study. N A Boynton Inlet ATLANTIC OCEAN,-. Ob:;erved Ve:;:;el ln Use Nautical Miles 94

99 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 27. Composite map of all vessels in-use surveyed in southern Palm Beach County during the 2007 Palm Beach County Boat traffic study. DELRAY BEACH N A Observed Vessel In Use ATLANTIC OCEAN I I I, If II,, " tl /1 ~l ~ BOCARATON Palm Beach County Boca Raton Inlet Broward County Nautical Miles 95

100 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 28. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all vessels in use observed along the northern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Atlantic Ocean Jupiter All Boats Boats/ km D 11s D D D Juno Beach 0 2 Kilometers 96

101 \_ ( ~.5ca tc 5 hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 29. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all vessels in use observed along the north-central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. All Boats Boats/ km D D D s66.2 D ,486.6 Atlantic Ocean 0 2 Kilometers 97

102 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 30. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all vessels in use observed along the central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Lake Worth Lagoon All Boats Boats/ km D D D D ,486.6 Atlantic Ocean 0 2 Kilometers 98

103 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 31. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all vessels in use observed along the south-central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Lake Worth Lagoon Boynton Beach :.:.r All Boats Atlantic Ocean Boats/ km D o7.5 D D D es , Kllometers Delray Beach 99

104 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5 hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 32. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all vessels in use observed along the southern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. All Boats Boats/ km D D D ,486.6 Boca Raton Atlantic Ocean 0 2 Kilometers 100

105 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 33. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all stationary vessels in use along the northern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Atlantic Ocean Stationary Boats Boats/ km D 183.s D D 4so s Juno Beach 0 2 Kilometers 101

106 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5 hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 34. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all stationary vessels in use along the north-central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Stationary Boats Boats/ km D s D D Atlantic Ocean 0 2 Kilometers 102

107 \_ ( ~.5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 35. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all stationary vessels in use along the central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Lake Worth Lagoon Stationary Boats Atlantic Ocean Boats/ km D D D , Kilometers 103

108 \_ ( ~.5ca tc 5 hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 36. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all stationary vessels in use along the south-central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Stationary Boats Atlantic Ocean Boats/ km D D D s , Kilometers Delray Beach 104

109 \_ ( ~.5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 37. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all stationary vessels in use along the southern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. j Stationary Boats Atlantic Ocean Boats/ km D D D " 3,250.4 Boca Raton 0 2 Kilometers 105

110 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5 hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 38. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all higher-speed vessels in use along the northern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Atlantic Ocean Higher-Speed Boats Boats/ km D D s7.6-11s , Kilometers 106

111 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 39. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all higher-speed vessels in use along the north-central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Higher-Speed Boats Boats/ km D s D Atlantic Ocean 0 2 Kilometers 107

112 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 40. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all higher-speed vessels in use along the central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Lake Worth Lagoon Higher-Speed Boats Boats/ km D a D s Atlantic Ocean 108

113 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 41. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all higher-speed vessels in use along the south-central portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. Higher-Speed Boats Boats/ km D D D s Kilometers ~I - I I I f b j ~ r ~ l Delray,, Beach l ' t t:=. r f -L..-: r.; ~ Atlantic Ocean 109

114 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 42. Calculated spatial distribution (kernel density analysis) for all higher-speed vessels in use along the southern portion of the Palm Beach County aerial survey route. j Higher-Speed Boats Boats/ km D CJ D s D s ,~ --p..t Boca Raton j \ \\ Lake Boca '"--1 Raton / ~ Boca Inlet Atlantic Ocean Kilometers 110

115 \_ ( ~,5ca tc 5hon: A/Is:, nee Conserving Our Coastal Environments for the Endangered Species and Human Livelihoods That Depend on Them Figure 43. Composite view of vessel traffic in the Jupiter Inlet area. Data from all 16 survey flights are combined. Red circles indicate stationary vessels. Green arrows indicate vessels which are underway. Orange circles indicate milling or recreational activity. 111