DOCSLIB.ORG

Biscayne National Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biscayne National Park National Park Service National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior Biscayne National Park Biscayne National Park Florida Florida Biscayne National Park National Biscayne Biscayne National Park Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Statement Environmental General Management Plan April 2011 ii Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement Biscayne National Park Miami-Dade County, FL _____________________________________________________________________________ Biscayne National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-606), expanded in 1974 (PL 93-477), and redesignated as a national park and expanded again in 1980 (PL 96-287). The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in 1983. Much has changed since 1983 — the population near the park has greatly increased, visitor use patterns and types have changed, and people have brought new recreational activities into the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed and protected, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. A new plan is needed. This document examines 5 alternatives for managing Biscayne National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. The “no-action” alternative, alternative 1, consists of the existing park management and trends and serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The concept for park management under alternative 2 would be to emphasize the recreational use of the park while providing for resource protection as governed by law, policy, or resource sensitivity. This concept would be accomplished by providing a high level of services, facilities, and access to specific areas of the park. The concept for park management under alternative 3 would be to allow all visitors a full range of visitor experiences throughout most of the park and would use a permit system to authorize a limited number of visitors to access some areas of the park. Management actions would provide strong natural and cultural resource protection and diverse visitor experiences. Alternative 4 is the National Park Service’s preferred alternative and would emphasize strong natural and cultural resource protection while providing a diversity of visitor experiences. Some areas would be reserved for focused types of visitor use. The concept for park management under alternative 5 would be to promote the protection of natural resources, including taking actions to optimize conditions for protection and restoration. A permit system would be used in some parts of the park. Other areas would have limited numbers of visitors, manner of access, and recreational activities to provide certain experiences. The key impacts of implementing the no-action alternative (alternative 1) would be no new impacts on natural resources or soils; a continuation of existing impacts on visitor experience and park operations; and no adverse effects on cultural resources. The key impacts of implementing alternative 2 would be negligible to moderate adverse impacts on natural resources, no adverse effect on cultural resources, mostly beneficial visitor experience impacts, adverse park operation impacts, and beneficial economic impacts. The key impacts of implementing alternative 3 would be approximately the same as for alternative 2. The key impacts of implementing alternative 4 would be beneficial for natural resources, no adverse effect on cultural resources, beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience, adverse impacts on park operations, and beneficial and adverse impacts on the local economy. The key impacts of implementing alternative 5 would be beneficial for natural resources, no adverse effect on cultural resources, beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience, adverse impacts on park operations, and both beneficial and adverse impacts on the local economy. This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement has been distributed to other agencies and interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment. The public comment period for this document will last for 60 days after the Environmental Protection Agency’s notice of availability has been published in the Federal Register. Readers are encouraged to enter written comments on this draft plan on the park planning website at http://parkplanning/nps.gov/BISC. Please note that NPS practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review; see the following “How to Comment on this Plan” discussion for further information. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN Comments on this plan are welcome and will Before including your address, phone be accepted for 60 days after the Environ- number, e-mail address, or other personal mental Protection Agency’s notice of identifying information in your comment, you availability appears in the Federal Register. If should be aware that your entire comment— you wish to respond to the material in this including your personal identifying document, you may submit your comments by information—may be made publicly available any one of several methods. You may mail at any time. Although you can ask us in your written comments to comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, Biscayne National Park GMP we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do National Park Service so. M. Elmer (DSC–P) P.O. Box 25287 We will always make submissions from Denver, CO 80225-0287 organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as You may also comment via the National Park representatives of or officials of organizations Service’s planning website or businesses, available for public inspection (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/bisc). You may in their entirety. also hand-deliver comments at public meetings to be announced in the media This method for public comment submittal following release of this document. In listed above stems from court rulings addition, comments may be sent or hand- concerning the release of public comments, delivered to Biscayne National Park, 9700 SW and it is included as recommended by the 328 Street, Homestead, FL 33033-5634 Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior. ii SUMMARY Biscayne National Monument was established mandates, present different ways to manage in 1968 (Public Law 90-606), expanded in resources and visitor use and improve 1974 (Public Law 93-477), and redesignated as facilities and infrastructure at the national a national park and expanded again in 1980 park. The five alternatives are the no-action (Public Law 96-287). alternative (continuing current management), alternative 2, alternative 3, alternative 4 (NPS The last comprehensive planning effort preferred), and alternative 5. (general management plan) for Biscayne National Park was completed in 1983. Much has occurred since 1983—the population near ALTERNATIVE 1 the park has greatly increased, visitor use (THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) patterns and types have changed, and people want to bring new recreational activities into The no-action alternative consists of a the park. Each of these changes has major continuation of existing management and implications for how visitors access and use trends at Biscayne National Park and provides the national park and the facilities needed to a baseline for comparison in evaluating the support those uses, how resources are changes and impacts of the other alternatives. managed, and how the National Park Service The National Park Service would continue to (NPS) manages its operations. A new plan is manage the national park as it is currently needed to being managed. Existing operations and Clearly define resource conditions and visitor facilities would continue, and no new visitor experiences to be achieved in construction would be authorized other than Biscayne National Park. what has already been approved and funded. Current law, policy, and plans, would Provide a framework for NPS managers continue to provide the framework of to use when making decisions about how guidance. to best protect national park resources, how to provide a diverse range of visitor The important impacts of continuing existing experience opportunities, how to management conditions and trends would manage visitor use, and what kinds of include no new impacts on natural resources, facilities, if any, to develop in the no adverse effect on cultural resources, a national park. continuation of adverse effects on visitor Ensure that this foundation for decision experience, a continuation of adverse effects making has been developed in on park operations, and no new impact on the consultation with interested socioeconomic environment. stakeholders and adopted by the NPS leadership after an adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic ALTERNATIVE 2 costs of alternative courses of action. The concept for park management under This Draft General Management Plan / alternative 2 would be to emphasize the Environmental Impact Statement presents five recreational use of the park while providing alternatives, including the National Park for resource protection as governed by law, Service’s preferred alternative, for future policy, or resource sensitivity. This concept
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Travel Demand Model
    TECHNICAL REPORT 6 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL SEPTEMBER 2019 0 TECHINCAL REPORT 6 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL This document was prepared by the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) in collaboration with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Six, Miami- Dade Expressway Authority (MDX), Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise (FTE), South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA), Miami-Dade Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW), Miami-Dade Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department, Miami- Dade Aviation Department (MDAD), Miami-Dade Seaport Department, Miami-Dade County Office of Strategic Business Management, City of North Miami, City of Hialeah, City of Miami, City of Miami Beach, City of Miami Gardens, City of Homestead, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Miami-Dade TPO Citizens’ Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), Miami-Dade TPO Bicycle/ Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), Miami-Dade TPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC), Transportation Aesthetics Review Committee (TARC), Broward County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Palm Beach County Transportation Planning Agency (TPA), and the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC). The Miami-Dade TPO complies with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states: No person in the United States shall, on grounds of race, color,or national origin, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. It is also the policy of the Miami-Dade TPO to comply with all the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For materials in accessible format please call (305) 375-4507. The preparation of this report has been financed in part from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Socan Monitoring Workshop
    SOCAN MONITORING WORKSHOP Image credit: Lauren Valentino, NOAA/AOML 2/28/17 WorksHop Report SOCAN MONITORING WORKSHOP SOCAN MONITORING WORKSHOP IDENTIFYING PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR OCEAN ACIDIFICATION MONITORING IN THE U.S. SOUTHEAST SUMMARY The Southeast Ocean and Coastal Acidification Network (SOCAN) held a worksHop in CHarleston, SoutH Carolina to facilitate discussion on priority locations for ocean acidification monitoring in tHe SoutHeast. The discussion included identification of key gradients in physical, chemical and biological parameters along tHe SoutHeast coast, a review of current monitoring efforts, and an assessment of stakeHolder needs. Sixteen monitoring locations were identified as potential acidification monitoring locations (see page 12). The following three monitoring locations were HigHligHted as priority sites tHat would furtHer our understanding of the chemistry and regional drivers of ocean acidification and address stakeholder needs: (1) Sapelo Island, GA (2) Gulf Stream, offsHore of Gray’s Reef, GA (3) Biscayne National Park, FL The workshop concluded witH a discussion of logistics and opportunities to pursue monitoring at tHe recommended locations. A copy of tHe agenda is included in Appendix 1. PROCEEDINGS Approximately 16 experts gatHered for tHe SOCAN Monitoring Workshop to outline recommendations for priority ocean acidification monitoring locations in tHe SoutHeast (Attendee List, Appendix 2). The worksHop began witH introductory remarks regarding tHe structure and responsibilities of SOCAN and SECOORA. Following the introductory remarks, participants reviewed the proposed agenda; no modifications were made. The first half-day was spent reviewing tHe state of ocean acidification science and regional response. Kim Yates sHared a syntHesis of tHe 2016 SOCAN State of the Science meeting, wHicH included a review of webinars and key findings related to OA chemistry, modeling and organismal response.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Range Interpretive Plan, Dry Tortugas National Park
    LONG-RANGE INTERPRETIVE PLAN Dry Tortugas National Park 2003 Cover Photograph: Aerial view of Fort Jefferson on Garden Key (fore- ground) and Bush Key (background). COMPREHENSIVE INTERPRETIVE PLAN Dry Tortugas National Park 2003 LONG-RANGE INTERPRETIVE PLAN Dry Tortugas National Park 2003 Prepared by: Department of Interpretive Planning Harpers Ferry Design Center and the Interpretive Staff of Dry Tortugas National Park and Everglades National Park INTRODUCTION About 70 miles west of Key West, Florida, lies a string of seven islands called the Dry Tortugas. These sand and coral reef islands, or keys, along with 100 square miles of shallow waters and shoals that surround them, make up Dry Tortugas National Park. Here, clear views of water and sky extend to the horizon, broken only by an occasional island. Below and above the horizon line are natural and historical treasures that continue to beckon and amaze those visitors who venture here. Warm, clear, shallow, and well-lit waters around these tropical islands provide ideal conditions for coral reefs. Tiny, primitive animals called polyps live in colonies under these waters and form skeletons from cal- cium carbonate which, over centuries, create coral reefs. These reef ecosystems support a wealth of marine life such as sea anemones, sea fans, lobsters, and many other animal and plant species. Throughout these fragile habitats, colorful fishes swim, feed, court, and thrive. Sea turtles−−once so numerous they inspired Spanish explorer Ponce de León to name these islands “Las Tortugas” in 1513−−still live in these waters. Loggerhead and Green sea turtles crawl onto sand beaches here to lay hundreds of eggs.
    [Show full text]
  • Dry Tortugas U.S
    National Park Service Dry Tortugas U.S. Department of the Interior Dry Tortugas National Park P.O. Box 6208 Key West, FL 33041 Park Regulations Welcome to the Park Welcome to Dry Tortugas National Park! This is a special place, and requires care from all who visit. The following is a summary of those regulations most important to park visitors. These regulations are necessary for protecting the fragile natural and historical features within Dry Tortugas National Park, and for ensuring your safety. When in doubt, ask park staff for additional information. Have a safe and enjoyable visit! Public Use Areas and Fort Jefferson and Garden Key Bush Key Closures The fort interior is open sunrise to sunset. Pets, food, Closed January 16-October 14 for bird nesting. and drinks, are not permitted inside the fort. Service and residential areas are closed to the public. The Hospital & Long Keys moat is closed to all entries and activities. The Special Closed year round. Visitors should remain 100 feet Protection Zones for shark breeding and corals on off shore of all closed islands. the east and southeast side of Garden Key harbor are closed to all vessels. Loggerhead Key Open year round during daylight hours only. Middle and East Key Dock and all structures are closed to public use. Closed April 1- October 15 for turtle nesting. Exploring on foot is limited to developed trails and shoreline between water and high tide line only. Fishing Important Reminders Park Areas Closed to Fishing All State of Florida saltwater fishing laws and regula- All fishing is prohibited within the Research Natural tions apply except as modified below.
    [Show full text]
  • SEPTEMBER 2020 MONTHLY MEETING ONLINE Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 7:30 P.M
    SEPTEMBER 2020 MONTHLY MEETING ONLINE Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 7:30 p.m. 2020 Calendar Sept. 20 (Sun.): Field trip (Rockdale Pineland) - Please Details to access this live presentation will be sent to members by register, space is limited due to current restrictions. email before the meeting. Or see dadefnps.org events tab for Sept. 22 (Tue.): Monthly meeting online the calendar or contact DCFNPS (see info box). Sept. 26 (Sat.): Chapter workday, Everglades National Park The meeting is free and open to all. Please join us! Oct. 27 (Tue.): Monthly meeting online (TBA) Conservation Actions for Five South Florida Endemic Plants: Please check our online calendar at dadefnps.org for updated The “Fab 5” Project information as activities are finalized or added. – Lydia Cuni, Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden Other events of interest coming up soon The Big Pine partridge pea (Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis), Sept. 12: “Save the Planet with Your Yard: Gardening with Keys wedge spurge (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum), sand South Florida Native Plants” - virtual class by FTBG flax (Linum arenicola), Carter’s small-flowered flax (Linum Sept. 17: Florida Keys Native Plant Workshop (online) carteri var. carteri), and Florida Brickell-bush (Brickellia Sept. 26: Free Entrance Day, Everglades National Park mosieri) are five plant taxa endemic to south Florida pine rock- Oct. 3: South Miami Adopt-A-Pine event lands which were federally designated as endangered between 2014 and 2016. The conservation of these taxa was vital as they Service, wherein she helped monitor exotic plant occurrences, all either have fewer than five populations, face immediate mangrove soil surface elevation tables, and colonial bird nesting.
    [Show full text]
  • Collier Miami-Dade Palm Beach Hendry Broward Glades St
    Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission F L O R ID A 'S T U R N P IK E er iv R ee m Lakewood Park m !( si is O K L D INDRIO ROAD INDRIO RD D H I N COUNTY BCHS Y X I L A I E O W L H H O W G Y R I D H UCIE BLVD ST L / S FT PRCE ILT SRA N [h G Fort Pierce Inlet E 4 F N [h I 8 F AVE "Q" [h [h A K A V R PELICAN YACHT CLUB D E . FORT PIERCE CITY MARINA [h NGE AVE . OKEECHOBEE RA D O KISSIMMEE RIVER PUA NE 224 ST / CR 68 D R !( A D Fort Pierce E RD. OS O H PIC R V R T I L A N N A M T E W S H N T A E 3 O 9 K C A R-6 A 8 O / 1 N K 0 N C 6 W C W R 6 - HICKORY HAMMOCK WMA - K O R S 1 R L S 6 R N A E 0 E Lake T B P U Y H D A K D R is R /NW 160TH E si 68 ST. O m R H C A me MIDWAY RD. e D Ri Jernigans Pond Palm Lake FMA ver HUTCHINSON ISL . O VE S A t C . T I IA EASY S N E N L I u D A N.E. 120 ST G c I N R i A I e D South N U R V R S R iv I 9 I V 8 FLOR e V ESTA DR r E ST.
    [Show full text]
  • PRAVILNIK O PREKOGRANIĈNOM PROMETU I TRGOVINI ZAŠTIĆENIM VRSTAMA ("Sl
    PRAVILNIK O PREKOGRANIĈNOM PROMETU I TRGOVINI ZAŠTIĆENIM VRSTAMA ("Sl. glasnik RS", br. 99/2009 i 6/2014) I OSNOVNE ODREDBE Ĉlan 1 Ovim pravilnikom propisuju se: uslovi pod kojima se obavlja uvoz, izvoz, unos, iznos ili tranzit, trgovina i uzgoj ugroţenih i zaštićenih biljnih i ţivotinjskih divljih vrsta (u daljem tekstu: zaštićene vrste), njihovih delova i derivata; izdavanje dozvola i drugih akata (potvrde, sertifikati, mišljenja); dokumentacija koja se podnosi uz zahtev za izdavanje dozvola, sadrţina i izgled dozvole; spiskovi vrsta, njihovih delova i derivata koji podleţu izdavanju dozvola, odnosno drugih akata; vrste, njihovi delovi i derivati ĉiji je uvoz odnosno izvoz zabranjen, ograniĉen ili obustavljen; izuzeci od izdavanja dozvole; naĉin obeleţavanja ţivotinja ili pošiljki; naĉin sprovoĊenja nadzora i voĊenja evidencije i izrada izveštaja. Ĉlan 2 Izrazi upotrebljeni u ovom pravilniku imaju sledeće znaĉenje: 1) datum sticanja je datum kada je primerak uzet iz prirode, roĊen u zatoĉeništvu ili veštaĉki razmnoţen, ili ukoliko takav datum ne moţe biti dokazan, sledeći datum kojim se dokazuje prvo posedovanje primeraka; 2) deo je svaki deo ţivotinje, biljke ili gljive, nezavisno od toga da li je u sveţem, sirovom, osušenom ili preraĊenom stanju; 3) derivat je svaki preraĊeni deo ţivotinje, biljke, gljive ili telesna teĉnost. Derivati većinom nisu prepoznatljivi deo primerka od kojeg potiĉu; 4) država porekla je drţava u kojoj je primerak uzet iz prirode, roĊen i uzgojen u zatoĉeništvu ili veštaĉki razmnoţen; 5) druga generacija potomaka
    [Show full text]
  • Report SFRC-83/01 Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity
    Report SFRC-83/01 Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity NATIONAL b lb -a'*? m ..-.. # .* , *- ,... - . ,--.-,, , . LG LG - m,*.,*,*, Or 7°C ,"7cn,a. Q*Everglades National Park, South Florida Research Center, P.O.Box 279, Homestead, Florida 33030 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................... 1 STUDYAREA ............................ 1 METHODS .............................. 3 RESULTS .............................. 4 Figure 1. Distribution of the indigo snake in southern Florida ..... 5 Figure 2 . Distribution of the indigo snake in the Florida Keys including Biscayne National Park ............. 6 DISCUSSION ............................. 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................ 13 LITERATURE CITED ......................... 14 APPENDIX 1. Observations of indigo snakes in southern Florida ....... 17 APPENDIX 2 . Data on indigo snakes examined in and adjacent to Everglades National Park ................. 24 APPENDIX 3. Museum specimens of indigo snakes from southern Florida ... 25 4' . Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity Report ~F~~-83/01 Todd M. Steiner, Oron L. Bass, Jr., and James A. Kushlan National Park Service South Florida Research Center Everglades National Park Homestead, Florida 33030 January 1983 Steiner, Todd M., Oron L. Bass, Jr., and James A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity. South Florida Research Center Report SFRC- 83/01. 25 pp. INTRODUCTION The status and biology of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi, the largest North American snake (~awler,1977), is poorly understood. Destruction of habitat and exploitation by the pet trade have reduced its population levels in various localities to the point that it is listed by the Federal government as a threatened species.
    [Show full text]
  • Composite of State of Florida Division of Historic Preservation Office Letter and Cultural Resource Reports
    ATTACHMENT 1 Composite of State of Florida Division of Historic Preservation Office Letter and Cultural Resource Reports Environmental Assessment for the Coral Reef Commons Project Incidental Take Permit Application Frozune Xlspenrli{ENT o RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Govemor Secretary of State Mr. Roberl Carr December 9,2015 Archaeological and Historical Conservancv, Inc. 4800 S.W. 64m Ave., Suire 107 Davie, Florida 33314 Re: DHR Project File No.: 2015-5923 / Received by DHR: November 9, 2015 A Phase II Cttltural Resource Assessment of SDA11320, BDAl432l, BDA I 13 22, and SDAI I 3 96. Dade County, Florida Dear Mr. Carr: Our office received and reviewed the above re1'erenced surve), report in accordance rvith Chapters 267 and313 of the Florida Statutes, and the applicable Dacle County ordinances, for possible advLrse impact to cultural resources (any prehistoric or histolrc district, site. building, structure, or object) listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of l-listoric places (NRHP). In June and July 2015, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. (AFIC) conducted a phase II assessment of the Coral Reef Cornmons parcel on behalf of Johnson Engineering,Inc. AHC investigated resources 8DA14320,SDA14321,8DA14322, and identified archaeological site 8DA14396, It is the opinion of AHC that resources BDAl4321,BDA|4322, and8DA143g6 are eligible forthe NRHP. AHC had insufficient information to determine the eligibility of site 8DA14320. Resources 8DA14320 and 8DA14396 are located within natural areas of the project parcel, and AHC recommends that they are preserved, Based on tlie ir,fonnation providecl, or-rr office finds the submitted report complete and sufficient in accordance rvitllthapter lA-46, Florida Administrative Code.It is our opinion that resources DA14321, 8D4I4322, and 8DA14396 are ineligible for the NRHP.
    [Show full text]
  • Biscayne National Park's Fishery Management Plan
    WATER Credit: iStock.com/Matt_Potenski Biscayne National Park’s Fishery 77% Management Plan OF 35 FISH STOCKS STUDIED Biscayne National Park is a national treasure 5 WITHIN THE PARK ened, some on the verge of collapse. If ac- and home to part of the third largest barrier tion isn’t taken and fish populations and ARE OVERFISHED, reef ecosystem in the world. 95% water, MOST CAPTURED habitat health continue to decline, the Park Biscayne is the largest marine park in the BEFORE THEY Service will have failed at its fundamental National Park System, created to protect, “a HAD A CHANCE TO mission to protect Biscayne National Park in SPAWN.1 rare combination of terrestrial, marine, and perpetuity for all Americans. Implementing amphibious life in a tropical setting of great a marine reserve and science-based fisheries natural beauty” for present and future management policies are key to protecting 3 generations. In addition to its ecological and restoring Biscayne’s marine resources. value, the park is a significant economic 95% driver, supporting a variety of economic and Biscayne’s Fishery Management Plan DECLINE IN REEF recreation activities, such as fishing, diving, Biscayne National Park’s Fishery Manage- FISH CATCHES IN snorkeling, and boating. According to a ment Plan (FMP), finalized back in 2014, BISCAYNE SINCE National Park Service report, in 2018 over aims to increase the average size and abun- THE 1960s.2 450,000 visitors to Biscayne spent more than dance of target fish species in the park by $30 million, supporting 398 local jobs and 20% by creating park-specific fisheries man- generating more than $42 million for the lo- agement regulations and reducing fishing- cal economy.4 related habitat degradation.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Southern Florida's Native Plant Heritage
    A publication of The Institute for Regional Conservation’s Restoring South Florida’s Native Plant Heritage program Copyright 2002 The Institute for Regional Conservation ISBN Number 0-9704997-0-5 Published by The Institute for Regional Conservation 22601 S.W. 152 Avenue Miami, Florida 33170 www.regionalconservation.org [email protected] Printed by River City Publishing a division of Titan Business Services 6277 Powers Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Cover photos by George D. Gann: Top: mahogany mistletoe (Phoradendron rubrum), a tropical species that grows only on Key Largo, and one of South Florida’s rarest species. Mahogany poachers and habitat loss in the 1970s brought this species to near extinction in South Florida. Bottom: fuzzywuzzy airplant (Tillandsia pruinosa), a tropical epiphyte that grows in several conservation areas in and around the Big Cypress Swamp. This and other rare epiphytes are threatened by poaching, hydrological change, and exotic pest plant invasions. Funding for Rare Plants of South Florida was provided by The Elizabeth Ordway Dunn Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Steve Arrowsmith Fund. Major funding for the Floristic Inventory of South Florida, the research program upon which this manual is based, was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Steve Arrowsmith Fund. Nemastylis floridana Small Celestial Lily South Florida Status: Critically imperiled. One occurrence in five conservation areas (Dupuis Reserve, J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area, Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area, Royal Palm Beach Pines Natural Area, & Pal-Mar). Taxonomy: Monocotyledon; Iridaceae. Habit: Perennial terrestrial herb. Distribution: Endemic to Florida. Wunderlin (1998) reports it as occasional in Florida from Flagler County south to Broward County.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Keys Terrestrial Adaptation Planning (Keystap) Species
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330842954 FLORIDA KEYS TERRESTRIAL ADAPTATION PROJECT: Florida Keys Case Study on Incorporating Climate Change Considerations into Conservation Planning and Actions for Threatened and Endang... Technical Report · January 2018 CITATION READS 1 438 6 authors, including: Logan Benedict Jason M. Evans Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Stetson University 2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 87 PUBLICATIONS 983 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Conservation Clinic View project Vinson Institute Policy Papers View project All content following this page was uploaded by Jason M. Evans on 27 April 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. USFWS Cooperative Agreement F16AC01213 Florida Keys Case Study on Incorporating Climate Change Considerations into Conservation Planning and Actions for Threatened and Endangered Species Project Coordinator: Logan Benedict, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Project Team: Bob Glazer, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Chris Bergh, The Nature Conservancy Steve Traxler, US Fish and Wildlife Service Beth Stys, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Jason Evans, Stetson University Project Report Photo by Logan Benedict Cover Photo by Ricardo Zambrano 1 | Page USFWS Cooperative Agreement F16AC01213 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]