DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecosystem Profiles, Ecosystem Map, and Vegetation of Coburg Peninsula, Esquimalt Lagoon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecosystem Profiles, Ecosystem Map, and Vegetation of Coburg Peninsula, Esquimalt Lagoon Ecosystem Profiles, Ecosystem Map, and Vegetation of Coburg Peninsula, Esquimalt Lagoon By Magnus Bein December, 2005 Work Term Project Report at Capital Regional District, Environmental Services In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Environmental Studies Co-op Program Department of Biology and School of Environmental Studies University of Victoria Fall, 2005 [email protected] 361-4389 Abstract In the summer of 2005, Coburg Peninsula, the barrier spit of Esquimalt Lagoon was profiled, mapped and the vegetation inventoried. Using the Emery Method of beach profiling, ten profiles were completed that included the exposed beach and the sheltered lagoon sides of the spit. The profiles were bisected by the road and parking area. The elevation and slope ranges and substrate was determined for the dunes, tidal marshes, tidal meadow, and shrub profiles, along with representative species including Leymus mollis, Salicornia virginica, Distichlis spicata, and Festuca rubra. The area was mapped into polygons using orthophotos, Differential Geographic Positioning System, and site visits. Excluding built features, the total area of the spit ecosystem was 7.47 ha: 30% was dune; 23% was coastal riparian meadow; 19% was beach ridge; 12% tidal marsh; 7% tidal meadow; 7% shrub; and less than 1% tree or freshwater marsh. 4.00 ha of the spit was covered by anthropogenic features, the road and parking covering more area than any one ecosystem class. Site visits included visual estimates of plant cover and distribution. The plant composition of these ecosystem classes was tabulated. The habitat profile, ecosystem map, and vegetation survey of Coburg Peninsula provided a snap-shot of the area in summer months. This added to baseline reference for monitoring and assessment of environmental change and impacts as well as for conservation and restoration planning. i Acknowledgements I acknowledge the Esquimalt Lagoon Stewardship Initiative for compelling ecological management and planning of Coburg Peninsula. I am indebted to Jody Watson for supporting and facilitating the completion of this study. I thank Heather Anderson for leading field measurements and assisting with data entry and processing of the spit transects and profiles. Michael Page, Lisa Naylor, and Mike Mooney of Capital Regional District provided drafting expertise and produced the final profiles. Shane Ruljancich, Capital Regional District, provided technical expertise with Geographic Information System mapping. Carol Mitchell, Capital Regional District, assisted data entry. Mapping by Neevis Antoniazzi of Archipelago Marine Research and Royal Roads students contributed to the final map. Thank you for your contributions! The Capital Region District, Human Resources Development Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada provided funds that made this study possible. ii Table of Contents Abstract............................................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures............................................................................................................................ iv Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 The Spit Landscape................................................................................................................. 1 Risks and Degradation ............................................................................................................ 2 Study Purposes and Components............................................................................................ 3 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 5 Profiles ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Ecosystem Classification and Map ............................................................................................. 5 Vegetation Inventory .................................................................................................................. 6 Results............................................................................................................................................. 7 Profiles ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Ecosystem Classification and Map ............................................................................................. 9 Vegetation Inventory ................................................................................................................ 11 Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 15 Beach Face and Ridge............................................................................................................... 15 Dune.......................................................................................................................................... 15 Tidal Wetlands.......................................................................................................................... 16 Coastal Riparian Zone............................................................................................................... 16 Rare and At-Risk Communities and Species............................................................................ 17 Exotic Plant Species.................................................................................................................. 18 Anthropogenic Impacts............................................................................................................. 18 Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 19 Directing and Changing Park Uses........................................................................................... 19 Protection and Restoration........................................................................................................ 20 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 21 References..................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix 1: Key to Plant Names By Ecosystem Class............................................................. 26 Appendix 2: Profile Field Form and Annotation ....................................................................... 27 Appendix 3: Profile Procedure and Equipment ......................................................................... 29 Appendix 4: Ecosystem Inventory Field Forms ........................................................................ 31 Appendix 5: Vegetation Cover and Distribution ....................................................................... 33 Appendix 6: Coburg Peninsula Ecosystem Profiles .................................................................. 34 Appendix 7: Coburg Peninsula Ecosystem Map ....................................................................... 45 iii List of Tables Table 1: Horizontal distances (m) of ecosystem classes and roadway. .......................................... 7 Table 2: Elevation (m) and slope (°) of selected ecosystem classes and associations................... 8 Table 3: Typical substrate of selected ecosystem classes and associations.................................... 8 Table 4: Area (m2) of ecosystem classes and associations. .......................................................... 10 Table 5: Dune plant composition, frequency (%), and cover (%). ............................................... 11 Table 6: Tidal marsh plant composition, frequency (%), and cover (%)...................................... 12 Table 7: Tidal meadow plant composition, frequency (%), and cover (%).................................. 12 Table 8: Coastal riparian meadow composition, frequency (%), and cover (%).......................... 13 Table 9: Coastal riparian shrub composition, frequency (%), and cover (%)............................... 13 Table 10: Tree composition, frequency (%), and cover (%)......................................................... 14 List of Figures Figure 1: Site plan of transects...................................................................................................... 34 Figure 2: Transect 1 ...................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 3: Transect 2 ...................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 4: Transect 3 .....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alexander the Great's Tombolos at Tyre and Alexandria, Eastern Mediterranean ⁎ N
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Geomorphology 100 (2008) 377–400 www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Alexander the Great's tombolos at Tyre and Alexandria, eastern Mediterranean ⁎ N. Marriner a, , J.P. Goiran b, C. Morhange a a CNRS CEREGE UMR 6635, Université Aix-Marseille, Europôle de l'Arbois, BP 80, 13545 Aix-en-Provence cedex 04, France b CNRS MOM Archéorient UMR 5133, 5/7 rue Raulin, 69365 Lyon cedex 07, France Received 25 July 2007; received in revised form 10 January 2008; accepted 11 January 2008 Available online 2 February 2008 Abstract Tyre and Alexandria's coastlines are today characterised by wave-dominated tombolos, peculiar sand isthmuses that link former islands to the adjacent continent. Paradoxically, despite a long history of inquiry into spit and barrier formation, understanding of the dynamics and sedimentary history of tombolos over the Holocene timescale is poor. At Tyre and Alexandria we demonstrate that these rare coastal features are the heritage of a long history of natural morphodynamic forcing and human impacts. In 332 BC, following a protracted seven-month siege of the city, Alexander the Great's engineers cleverly exploited a shallow sublittoral sand bank to seize the island fortress; Tyre's causeway served as a prototype for Alexandria's Heptastadium built a few months later. We report stratigraphic and geomorphological data from the two sand spits, proposing a chronostratigraphic model of tombolo evolution. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Tombolo; Spit; Tyre; Alexandria; Mediterranean; Holocene 1. Introduction Courtaud, 2000; Browder and McNinch, 2006); (2) establishing a typology of shoreline salients and tombolos (Zenkovich, 1967; The term tombolo is used to define a spit of sand or shingle Sanderson and Eliot, 1996); and (3) modelling the geometrical linking an island to the adjacent coast.
    [Show full text]
  • NATURAL ENGLAND Geomorphological Advice in Respect of Pagham Spit (West Sussex). April 2013
    Pagham Spit Advice 2013 NATURAL ENGLAND Geomorphological Advice in respect of Pagham spit (West Sussex). April 2013 Professor Julian Orford Queen’s University, Belfast Pagham Spit Advice 2013 Natural England Advice Request 1) Could the two recycling operations: i) 2010 and ii) 2012-13 have had a detrimental impact on the site’s functioning and its geomorphological interest? 2) What are the best sources for the current sediment recycling proposals? Note two joint operations to be considered: i) HW erosion at western Pagham and ii) re- armouring of the exposed armoured groyne 3) Is the channel likely to close? 4) What are the possible ways in which the spit might develop, both in the short and longer term? Of these, which is the most likely? 5) Is the rock armour the most effective way to protect the properties? 6) Our current view is that the on-going evolution of the Church Norton spit is a key component in the conservation of the geomorphological interest of the SSSI. Are there other elements we should also be concerned about? Glossary Berm: A constructive wave-built beach face feature generally occurring at the swash reach associated with any particular high tide position. Cumulatively over the neap to spring tidal half-cycle, one berm is realized, associated with highest tidal position. On the falling spring- neap cycle, a series of berms may be realized at each successive lower position achieved by the swash-reach of each successive falling tidal level. Cannibalisation: The tendency for a beach system where the longshore sediment supply has reduced or failed, to use the existing beach sediment as a further source for subsequent longshore sediment transport down-drift.
    [Show full text]
  • Microplastics in Beaches of the Baja California Peninsula
    UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE BAJA CALIFORNIA Chemical Sciences and Engineering Department MICROPLASTICS IN BEACHES OF THE BAJA CALIFORNIA PENINSULA TERESITA DE JESUS PIÑON COLIN FERNANDO WAKIDA KUSUNOKI Sixth International Marine Debris Conference SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES 7 DE MARZO DEL 2018 OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY RESULTS CONCLUSIONS OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence and distribution of microplastics in sandy beaches located in the Baja California peninsula. STUDY AREA 1200 km long and around 3000 km of seashore METHODOLOGY SAMPLED BEACHES IN THE BAJA CALIFORNIA PENINSULA • . • 21 sampling sites. • 12 sites located in the Pacific ocean coast. • 9 sites located the Gulf of California coast. • 9 sites classified as urban beaches (U). • 12 sites classified as rural beaches (R). SAMPLING EXTRACTION METHOD BY DENSITY. RESULTS Bahía de los Angeles. MICROPLASTICS ABUNDANCE (R) rural. (U) urban. COMPARISON WITH OTHER PUBLISHED STUDIES Area CONCENTRATIÓN UNIT REFERENCE West coast USA 39-140 (85) Partícles kg-1 Whitmire et al. (2017) (National Parks) United Kigdom 86 Partícles kg-1 Thompson et al. (2004) Mediterranean Sea 76 – 1512 (291) Partícles kg-1 Lots et al. (2017) North Sea 88-164 (190) Particles Kg-1 Lots et al. (2017) Baja California Ocean Pacific 37-312 (179) Particles kg-1 This study Gulf of 16-230 (76) Particles kg-1 This study California MORPHOLOGY OF MICROPLASTICS FOUND 2% 3% 4% 91% Fibres Granules spheres films Fiber color percentages blue Purple black Red green 7% 2% 25% 7% 59% Examples of shapes and colors of the microplastics found PINK FILM CABO SAN LUCAS BEACH POSIBLE POLYAMIDE NYLON TYPE Polyamide nylon type reference (Browne et al., 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Courtenay, Canada. Case Study
    CITY OF COURTENAY, CANADA CASE STUDY. How to minimize health Client: City of Courtenay, British Columbia, Canada Sector: Municipality and safety risks to Background: Population 25,000. It is the urban and cultural hub of the larger employees, the public and community Comox Valley with many beaches, rivers and lakes and natural the environment by using outdoor recreational spaces No of machines: 1 MW-Series Foamstream. Areas treated: Asphalt, concrete and cobbles Previous methods used: Hand weeding, mechanical weed eaters Website: www.courtenay.ca/ BACKGROUND The City of Courtenay is on Vancouver Island. As a city, they are environmentally focused and concerned about their residents’ welfare and as such wanted to minimize exposure to unnecessary pesticides wherever possible. In 2007, they passed a law to regulate the non-essential use of pesticides in the city. This was in order to help minimize any potential risk posed to health or the well-being of the environment and was imposed on public and private land. TESTIMONIAL “Foamstream is a very safe product from both the perspective of the operator and the surrounding environment. It has created great interest with the public and even requests for us to treat private properties. Thanks to Foamstream we no longer have to worry about our operators injuring themselves or becoming fatigued and we can be confident that we won’t receive insurance claims for damage to vehicles which has happened with previous methods. The service support team at Weedingtech are brilliant and always on hand should we need help with our machines.” Barry Boguski - Public Works Services, City of Courtenay.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Basalts and Glacier Floods—Roadside Geology
    u 0 by Robert J. Carson and Kevin R. Pogue WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Information Circular 90 January 1996 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources Jennifer M. Belcher - Commissioner of Public Lands Kaleen Cottingham - Supervisor FLOOD BASALTS AND GLACIER FLOODS: Roadside Geology of Parts of Walla Walla, Franklin, and Columbia Counties, Washington by Robert J. Carson and Kevin R. Pogue WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Information Circular 90 January 1996 Kaleen Cottingham - Supervisor Division of Geology and Earth Resources WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Jennifer M. Belcher-Commissio11er of Public Lands Kaleeo Cottingham-Supervisor DMSION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Raymond Lasmanis-State Geologist J. Eric Schuster-Assistant State Geologist William S. Lingley, Jr.-Assistant State Geologist This report is available from: Publications Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources P.O. Box 47007 Olympia, WA 98504-7007 Price $ 3.24 Tax (WA residents only) ~ Total $ 3.50 Mail orders must be prepaid: please add $1.00 to each order for postage and handling. Make checks payable to the Department of Natural Resources. Front Cover: Palouse Falls (56 m high) in the canyon of the Palouse River. Printed oo recycled paper Printed io the United States of America Contents 1 General geology of southeastern Washington 1 Magnetic polarity 2 Geologic time 2 Columbia River Basalt Group 2 Tectonic features 5 Quaternary sedimentation 6 Road log 7 Further reading 7 Acknowledgments 8 Part 1 - Walla Walla to Palouse Falls (69.0 miles) 21 Part 2 - Palouse Falls to Lower Monumental Dam (27.0 miles) 26 Part 3 - Lower Monumental Dam to Ice Harbor Dam (38.7 miles) 33 Part 4 - Ice Harbor Dam to Wallula Gap (26.7 mi les) 38 Part 5 - Wallula Gap to Walla Walla (42.0 miles) 44 References cited ILLUSTRATIONS I Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (2012)
    FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee Federal Geographic Data Committee June, 2012 Federal Geographic Data Committee FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard, June 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Need ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Application ............................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Relationship to Previous FGDC Standards .............................................................. 4 1.6 Development Procedures ......................................................................................... 5 1.7 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 Build a Scientifically Sound Ecological Classification .................................... 7 1.7.2 Meet the Needs of a Wide Range of Users ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Whale Shark Rhincodon Typus Populations Along the West Coast of the Gulf of California and Implications for Management
    Vol. 18: 115–128, 2012 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published online August 16 doi: 10.3354/esr00437 Endang Species Res Whale shark Rhincodon typus populations along the west coast of the Gulf of California and implications for management Dení Ramírez-Macías1,2,*, Abraham Vázquez-Haikin3, Ricardo Vázquez-Juárez1 1Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, Mar Bermejo 195, Col. Playa Palo de Santa Rita, La Paz, Baja California Sur 23096, Mexico 2Tiburón Ballena México de Conciencia México, Manatí 4802, Col. Esperanza III, La Paz, Baja California Sur 23090, Mexico 3Asociación de Pesca Deportiva y Ecoturismo de Bahía de los Ángeles, Domicilio conocido Bahía de los Ángeles, Baja California 22980, Mexico ABSTRACT: We used photo-identification data collected from 2003 through 2009 to estimate pop- ulation structure, site fidelity, abundance, and movements of this species along the west coast of the Gulf of California to make recommendations for effective conservation and management. Of 251 whale sharks identified from 1784 photographs, 129 sharks were identified in Bahía de Los Ángeles and 125 in Bahía de La Paz. Only juveniles (mostly small) were found in these 2 bays. At Isla Espíritu Santo, we identified adult females; at Gorda Banks we identified 15 pregnant females. High re-sighting rates within and across years provided evidence of site fidelity among juvenile sharks in the 2 bays. Though the juveniles were not permanent residents, they used the areas regularly from year to year. A proportion of the juveniles spent days to a month or more in the coastal waters of the 2 bays before leaving, and periods of over a month outside the study areas before entering the bays again.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Our Coastal Environment
    Preface The South Carolina Beachfront Management Act In the Beginning The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977 was enacted to protect our coastal resources from unwise development. This legislation served the beaches well during its first decade, but as South Carolina became a more popular tourist destination, it became apparent that the portion of the Act that dealt with beaches was inadequate. As development crept seaward, seawalls and rock revetments proliferated, damaging the public’s beach. In many areas there was no beach left at high tide. In some areas, there was no beach at low tide, either. In 1988 and again in 1990, South Carolina’s legislators took action and amended and strengthened the Coastal Zone Management Act. The resulting Beachfront Management Act protects South Carolina’s sandy shores by increasing the state’s jurisdiction and encouraging development to move landward. South Carolina’s Beachfront Jurisdiction To find the boundaries of this jurisdiction, staff from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management must first locate the baseline, which is the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune. Where there are no dunes, the agency uses scientific methods to determine where the natural dune would lie if natural or man-made occurrences had not interfered with nature’s dune building process. The setback line is the most landward boundary and is measured from the baseline. To find the depth of the setback line, the beach’s average annual erosion rate for the past forty years is calculated and multiplied by forty. For example, if the erosion rate is one foot per year, the results will be a setback line that stretches forty feet from the baseline.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scientific Forum on the Gulf of Mexico: the Islands in the Stream Concept
    Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum A Scientific Forum on the Gulf of Mexico: The Islands in the Stream Concept Proceedings of the Forum: 23 January 2008 Keating Education Center Mote Marine Laboratory Sarasota, Florida Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum Table of Contents Forward (Ernest Estevez) .............................................................................................................4 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................6 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................9 Organizing Committee ................................................................................................................9 Welcome and Introduction (Kumar Mahadevan and Daniel J. Basta) .....................................10 Introduction to the Forum (Billy D. Causey)...........................................................................12 Summary of Scientific Forum (John Ogden) ...........................................................................14 Panel 1: The Geological Setting...............................................................................................17 Geologic Underpinnings of the “Islands in the Stream”; West Florida Margin (Albert Hine and Stanley Locker)...............................................17 Shelf Edge of the Northwest Gulf of Mexico (Niall Slowey).............................................22
    [Show full text]
  • CLASSIFICATION of CALIFORNIA ESTUARIES BASED on NATURAL CLOSURE PATTERNS: TEMPLATES for RESTORATION and MANAGEMENT Revised
    CLASSIFICATION OF CALIFORNIA ESTUARIES BASED ON NATURAL CLOSURE PATTERNS: TEMPLATES FOR RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT Revised David K. Jacobs Eric D. Stein Travis Longcore Technical Report 619.a - August 2011 Classification of California Estuaries Based on Natural Closure Patterns: Templates for Restoration and Management David K. Jacobs1, Eric D. Stein2, and Travis Longcore3 1UCLA Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 2Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 3University of Southern California - Spatial Sciences Institute August 2010 Revised August 2011 Technical Report 619.a ABSTRACT Determining the appropriate design template is critical to coastal wetland restoration. In seasonally wet and semi-arid regions of the world coastal wetlands tend to close off from the sea seasonally or episodically, and decisions regarding estuarine mouth closure have far reaching implications for cost, management, and ultimate success of coastal wetland restoration. In the past restoration planners relied on an incomplete understanding of the factors that influence estuarine mouth closure. Consequently, templates from other climatic/physiographic regions are often inappropriately applied. The first step to addressing this issue is to develop a classification system based on an understanding of the processes that formed the estuaries and thus define their pre-development structure. Here we propose a new classification system for California estuaries based on the geomorphic history and the dominant physical processes that govern the formation of the estuary space or volume. It is distinct from previous estuary closure models, which focused primarily on the relationship between estuary size and tidal prism in constraining closure. This classification system uses geologic origin, exposure to littoral process, watershed size and runoff characteristics as the basis of a conceptual model that predicts likely frequency and duration of closure of the estuary mouth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Victoria Harbour Plan Is Very Near Completion
    VICTORIA HARBOUR PLAN CITY OF VICTORIA Adopted by Victoria City Council November 1, 2001 Revised August 30, 2012 VICTORIA HARBOUR PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................. 1 PLAN FORMAT ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROCESS .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 CITY OF VICTORIA PLAN AND POLICY HIERARCHY ................................................................................................... 3 PLAN SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 VICTORIA HARBOUR – GENERAL ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 7 MARINE AND AIR SAFETY ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]