DOCSLIB.ORG

I. I NOV20 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I. I NOV20 2017 or UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration * i. I NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 4rES O LQi 3U Ie1U SOU St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505 http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov F/SER3 1: NMB SER-2015- 17616 NOV20 2017 Mr. Donald W. Kinard Chief, Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019 Ref.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District’s Programmatic Biological Opinion (JAXBO) Dear Mr. Kinard: Enclosed is the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) Programmatic Biological Opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the impacts associated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE’s) Jacksonville District’s authorization of 10 categories of minor in-water activities within Florida and the U.S. Caribbean (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). The Opinion analyzes the effects from 10 categories of minor in-water activities occurring in Florida and the U.S. Caribbean on sea turtles (loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, and green); smalitooth sawfish; Nassau grouper; scalloped hammerhead shark, Johnson’s seagrass; sturgeon (Gulf, shortnose, and Atlantic); corals (elkhom, staghorn, boulder star, mountainous star, lobed star, rough cactus, and pillar); whales (North Atlantic right whale, sei, blue, fin, and sperm); and designated critical habitat for Johnson’s seagrass; smalltooth sawfish; sturgeon (Gulf and Atlantic); sea turtles (green, hawksbill, leatherback, loggerhead); North Atlantic right whale; and elkhorn and staghorn corals in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. We also analyzed effects on the proposed Bryde’s whale. We based our analysis on project-specific information provided by USACE, consultants, and NMFS’s review of published literature. The Opinion concludes that the suite of activities evaluated within the Opinion is likely to adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of Johnson’s seagrass and is likely to adversely affect, but is not likely to destroy or adversely modify, critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish and Johnson’s seagrass. We look forward to further cooperation with you on other USACE projects to ensure the conservation and recovery of our threatened and endangered marine species. If you have any questions regarding this consultation, please contact Nicole Bonine, Consultation Biologist, at (727) 824-5336, or by email at Nicole.Boninenoaa.gov. Sincerely, oy E. Crabtree, Ph.D. Regional Administrator Enclosure File: 1514-22.F.4 2 ____________________________ Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Agency: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District Applicant: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District Activity: Authorization of Minor In-Water Activities throughout the Geographic Area of Jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District, including Florida and the U.S. Caribbean Consulting Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office Protected Resources Division (SER-2015-17616) Date Issued: Approved By: Roy . Crabtree, Ph.D. Re onal Administrator 3 Table of Contents 1 Consultation History ......................................................................................................... 18 2 Description of the Proposed Action and Potential Routes of Effect to Species and Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 20 2.1 Project Action Area ........................................................................................................ 23 2.1.1 Species Specific Restriction and Exclusion Zones within the Action Area ........... 24 2.1.2 USACE Effect Determinations for Listed Species and Critical Habitat................. 35 2.1.3 Listed Species and Critical Habitat Occurring within the Action Area .................. 38 2.2 Activities Analyzed, Project Design Criteria, and Potential Routes of Effect ............... 44 2.2.1 Activity 1 (A1): Shoreline Stabilization ................................................................. 96 2.2.2 Activity 2 (A2): Pile-Supported Structures and Anchored Buoys ........................ 109 2.2.3 Activity 3 (A3): Maintenance, Minor, and Muck Dredging ................................. 134 2.2.4 Activity 4 (A4): Water-Management Outfall Structures and Associated Endwalls .............................................................................................................................. 152 2.2.5 Activity 5 (A5): Scientific Survey Devices .......................................................... 164 2.2.6 Activity 6 (A6): Boat Ramps ................................................................................ 171 2.2.7 Activity 7 (A7): Aquatic Habitat Enhancement, Establishment, and Restoration Activities .............................................................................................................. 181 2.2.8 Activity 8 (A8): Transmission and Utility Lines .................................................. 203 2.2.9 Activity 9 (A9): Marine Debris Removal ............................................................. 216 2.2.10 Activity 10 (A10): Temporary Platforms, Fill, and Cofferdams .......................... 220 2.2.11 Summary and Cumulative Effect of Proposed Action to Listed Species and Critical Habitat .................................................................................................................. 233 2.3 Project-Specific Review ............................................................................................... 236 2.4 Programmatic Review .................................................................................................. 240 3 Status of Listed Species and Critical Habitat Likely to be Adversely Affected ............. 242 3.1 Status of Species Likely to be Adversely Affected ...................................................... 242 3.1.1 Johnson’s Seagrass................................................................................................ 242 3.2 Status of Critical Habitat Likely to be Adversely Affected ......................................... 252 3.2.1 Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat ...................................................................... 252 3.2.2 Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 255 4 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 265 4.1 Factors Affecting Johnson’s Seagrass and Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat in the Action Area .................................................................................................................. 265 4.1.1 Federal and State Actions ..................................................................................... 265 4 4.1.2 Conservation and Recovery Activities That May Benefit Johnson’s Seagrass and Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 267 4.2 Factors Affecting Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat within the Action Area .......... 267 4.2.1 Federal Actions ..................................................................................................... 267 4.2.2 State or Private Actions ........................................................................................ 267 4.2.3 Other Potential Factors ......................................................................................... 268 5 Effects of the Action ....................................................................................................... 268 5.1 Effects to Johnson’s Seagrass ...................................................................................... 268 5.2 Effects to Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat ............................................................. 269 5.3 Effects to Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat ............................................................ 270 6 Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................................... 271 6.1 Cumulative Effects to Johnson’s Seagrass and Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat .. 271 6.2 Cumulative Effects to Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat......................................... 272 7 Jeopardy Analysis ........................................................................................................... 273 7.1 Johnson’s Seagrass ....................................................................................................... 273 8 Destruction and Adverse Modification Analysis ............................................................ 275 8.1 Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat ............................................................................. 276 8.2 Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat ............................................................................. 277 8.2.1 Protect and Restore Smalltooth Sawfish Habitat (Recovery Objective #2) ......... 278 Shallow, Euryhaline Essential Feature Impacts ............................................................. 279 Red Mangrove Essential Feature Impacts ...................................................................... 281 Summary of Impacts to the Essential Features ............................................................... 283 8.2.2 Ensure Smalltooth Sawfish Abundance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TP 170 2010 Florida Artificial Reef Summit Abstracts
    Conference Sponsors These organizations are contributing to the research and outreach that supports the wise development of artificial reef programs and sustainable management of Florida’s marine fishery. 2010 FLORIDA Platinum MARI AN NE Artificial IC G R R E O M U A P N o 3 r 3 fo 00 lk, 0- VA (757) 99 Reef Summit Gold Silver Bronze Abstracts & Program January 21-23, 2010 • Cocoa Beach, Florida Conference Organizing Sponsors As chairs of the organizing committee, we welcome you to the 2010 Florida Artificial Reef Summit. With 1,357 miles of coastline, involvement by 34 different counties, and over 2,500 artificial reefs deployed to date, Florida manages one of the most diverse and most active artificial reef programs in the United States. Because artificial reef development in Florida works with, and depends upon, a network of local partners, inter-county coordina- tion and communication is critical to ensure successful implementation of statewide strate- gic objectives for artificial reef development. This Summit occurs every 3 to 5 years and provides the format for local partners to meet and exchange information. It is a critical opportunity for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Con- In Memoriam servation Commission Artificial Reef Program and Florida Sea Grant to disperse high-quality information, experience and program goals and objectives directly with all of Florida’s The 2010 Artificial Reef Summit is dedicated to the memory of Chris Koepfer, the long-time Lee County Arti- artificial reef stakeholders. ficial Reef Coordinator who passed away in 2009. Chris was a well-respected member of Florida’s artificial reef community and played a major role in establishing one of the most successful county artificial reef programs in This will be the eighth Summit.
    [Show full text]
  • A Numerical Assessment of Artificial Reef Pass Wave-Induced Currents As a Renewable Energy Source
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article A Numerical Assessment of Artificial Reef Pass Wave-Induced Currents as a Renewable Energy Source Damien Sous 1,2 1 Mediterranean Institute of Oceanography (MIO), Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, IRD, Université de Toulon, 13288 La Garde, France; [email protected]; Tel.: +33-(0)4-9114-2109 2 Univ Pau & Pays Adour/E2S UPPA, Chaire HPC-Waves, Laboratoire des Sciences de l’Ingénieur Appliquées à la Méchanique et au Génie Electrique - Fédération IPRA, EA4581, 64600 Anglet, France Received: 21 July 2019; Accepted: 19 August 2019; Published: 22 August 2019 Abstract: The present study aims to estimate the potential of artificial reef pass as a renewable source of energy. The overall idea is to mimic the functioning of natural reef–lagoon systems in which the cross-reef pressure gradient induced by wave breaking is able to drive an outward flow through the pass. The objective is to estimate the feasibility of a positive energy breakwater, combining the usual wave-sheltering function of immersed breakwater together with the production of renewable energy by turbines. A series of numerical simulations is performed using a depth-averaged model to understand the effects of each geometrical reef parameter on the reef–lagoon hydrodynamics. A synthetic wave and tide climate is then imposed to estimate the potential power production. An annual production between 50 and 70 MWh is estimated. Keywords: artificial reef; positive energy breakwater; numerical simulation; turbines 1. Introduction Low-lying nearshore areas host a significant and increasing population. Under the combined actions of sea level rise [1], modified storm patterns [2], and increasing urbanization, these regions will face growing risks of submersion, inundation, and erosion [3–6].
    [Show full text]
  • Seminole Pawnee Hopi Nez Perce Kwakiutl Inuit Region
    Seminole Pawnee Hopi Nez Perce Kwakiutl Inuit Region Southeast Woodland Great Plains Southwest Desert Great Basin (Idaho, Northwest Coast Arctic or Tundra (Florida) (Nebraska) (Arizona) Washington, Oregon) (Canada) (North Canada) Climate hot, humid four seasons hot, dry four seasons four seasons cold flat, marshes flat or hilly, some Landforms mountains, rivers, mountains, plateaus, mountains, hills, flat, rocky ground, (wetlands), rivers, mountains, rivers, plateaus, rocky rivers, lakes ocean, rivers, lakes ice, rivers lakes, ocean lakes, prairie prickly pear cactus, lichen, crocus, Producers trees, flowers, ferns, grasses, milkweed, sego lily, pine trees, trees, flowers, saguaro, old man buttercups, azaleas, (Plants) cattails flowers, sunflower fir trees, sagebrush, seaweed cactus, barrel cactus mosses, grasses bison, beaver, deer, elk, rabbit, beaver, lemming, arctic hare, Consumers mule deer, jack clams, mussels, rabbit, deer, beaver pronghorn antelope, porcupine, mule deer, ptarmigan bird, (Prey / rabbit, desert tortoise whales Herbivores) jackrabbit, prairie dog bighorn sheep caribou fish, badger, eagle, mountain lion, fox, crabs, cod, herring, Consumers bobcat, mountain lion, fish, seal, walrus, woodchuck, squirrel, squirrel, box turtle, eagle, lizard, coyote, halibut, salmon, (Predators / coyote, rattlesnake, snowy owl, arctic fox, bear, fox, raccoon, eagle, wolf, coyote kangaroo rat, owl, seals, sea lions, bear, Carnivores or bats, bear, salmon polar bear, wolverine Omnivores) snake, wolf, mole raccoon, rattlesnake otters, porpoises
    [Show full text]
  • Like a Ton of Bricks Here’S a Ton of 7-Letter Bingos About BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, COMPONENTS Compiled by Jacob Cohen, Asheville Scrabble Club
    Like a Ton of Bricks Here’s a ton of 7-letter bingos about BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, COMPONENTS compiled by Jacob Cohen, Asheville Scrabble Club A 7s ABATTIS AABISTT abatis (barrier made of felled trees) [n -ES] ACADEME AACDEEM place of instruction [n -S] ACADEMY AACDEMY secondary school [n -MIES] AGOROTH AGHOORT AGORA, marketplace in ancient Greece [n] AIRPARK AAIKPRR small airport (tract of land maintained for landing and takeoff of aircraft) [n -S] AIRPORT AIOPRRT tract of land maintained for landing and takeoff of aircraft [n -S] ALAMEDA AAADELM shaded walkway [n -S] ALCAZAR AAACLRZ Spanish fortress or palace [n -S] ALCOVES ACELOSV ALCOVE, recessed section of room [n] ALMEMAR AAELMMR bema (platform in synagogue) [n -S] ALMONRY ALMNORY place where alms are distributed [n -RIES] AMBONES ABEMNOS AMBO, pulpit in early Christian church [n] AMBRIES ABEIMRS AMBRY, recess in church wall for sacred vessels [n] ANDIRON ADINNOR metal support for holding wood in fireplace [n -S] ANNEXED ADEENNX ANNEX, to add or attach [v] ANNEXES AEENNSX ANNEXE, something added or attached [n] ANTEFIX AEFINTX upright ornament at eaves of tiled roof [n -ES, -, -AE] ANTENNA AAENNNT metallic device for sending or receiving radio waves [n -S, -E] ANTHILL AHILLNT mound formed by ants in building their nest [n -S] APSIDAL AADILPS APSE, domed, semicircular projection of building [adj] APSIDES ADEIPSS APSIS, apse (domed, semicircular projection of building) [n] ARBOURS ABORRSU ARBOUR, shady garden shelter [n] ARCADED AACDDER ARCADE, to provide arcade (series of arches)
    [Show full text]
  • Growth and Survivorship of Scleractinian Coral Transplants And
    Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks Oceanography Faculty Proceedings, Presentations, Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences Speeches, Lectures 2006 Growth and Survivorship of Scleractinian Coral Transplants and the Effectiveness of Plugging Core Holes in Transplant Donor Colonies Elizabeth Glynn Fahy Nova Southeastern University Richard E. Dodge Nova Southeastern University, [email protected] Daniel P. Fahy Nova Southeastern University, [email protected] T. Patrick Quinn Nova Southeastern University David S. Gilliam Nova Southeastern University, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facpresentations Part of the Marine Biology Commons, and the Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons NSUWorks Citation Fahy, Elizabeth Glynn; Dodge, Richard E.; Fahy, Daniel P.; Quinn, T. Patrick; Gilliam, David S.; and Spieler, Richard E., "Growth and Survivorship of Scleractinian Coral Transplants and the Effectiveness of Plugging Core Holes in Transplant Donor Colonies" (2006). Oceanography Faculty Proceedings, Presentations, Speeches, Lectures. Paper 44. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facpresentations/44 This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oceanography Faculty Proceedings, Presentations, Speeches, Lectures by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Elizabeth Glynn Fahy, Richard E. Dodge, Daniel P. Fahy, T. Patrick Quinn, David S. Gilliam, and Richard E. Spieler This conference proceeding is available at NSUWorks: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facpresentations/44 Growth and survivorship of scleractinian coral transplants and the effectiveness of plugging core holes in transplant donor colonies Elizabeth Glynn FAHY*, Richard E.
    [Show full text]
  • Solutions in Ecosystem Restorations
    Acknowledgments ne of the more common questions in restoration We thank Adam Puderbaugh, Cassie Herringshaw, Dan Anderson, Oscience is how grassroots organizations can conduct and Rebecca Burch for assistance with sample collection and pro- and participate in meaningful and ecologically sound res- cessing, and Jimmie Thompson, Dean Biechler, Scott Brunsheen, toration projects. The Reef Ball Foundation (RBF) is a Don Farrar, Kevin Shawgo, John Pearson, and Steve Lekwa for nonprofit organization dedicated to protection and resto- identification of and permission to use sample sites. Support for ration of reef ecosystems. Scientists and other RBF experts this project was provided by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, the Pioneer Foundation, and McIntire-Stennis funds. have been collaborating for over a decade to develop tools that can be easily implemented in the field by grassroots groups, to facilitate successful localized restoration, reha- References bilitation, and reintroduction projects. However, restora- Anderson, W.B. and W.G. Eickmeier. 2000. Nutrient resorption tion efforts such as these, while often showing reasonable in Claytonia virginica L.: Implications for deciduous forest localized success rates, have received a fair amount of criti- nutrient cycling. Canadian Journal of Botany 78:832–839. cism about their ineffectiveness in the face of large-scale Blank, J.L., R.K. Olson and P.M. Vitousek. 1980. Nutrient uptake by a diverse spring ephemeral community. Oecologia threats to coral reefs, such as climate change and ocean 47:96–98. acidification (e.g., Pandolfi et al. 2003, De’ath et al. 2009). Eickmeier, W.G. and E.E. Schussler. 1993. Responses of In light of these larger threats, small-scale coral restoration the spring ephemeral Claytonia virginica L.
    [Show full text]
  • Harbor Protection Through Construction of Artificial Submerged Reefs
    Harbor Protection through Construction of Artificial Submerged Reefs Amarjit Singh, Vallam Sundar, Enrique Alvarez, Roberto Porro, Michael Foley (www.hawaii.gov) 2 Outline • Background of Artificial Reefs • Multi-Purpose Artificial Submerged Reefs (MPASRs) ▫ Coastline Protection ▫ Harbor Protection • MPASR Concept for Kahului Harbor, Maui ▫ Situation ▫ Proposed Solution • Summary 3 Background First documented First specifically Artificial reefs in First artificial reef Artificial reefs in artificial reefs in designed artificial Hawaii– concrete/tire in Hawaii Hawaii – concrete Z- U.S. reefs in U.S. modules modules 1830’s 1961 1970’s 1985-1991 1991- Present • Uses • Materials ▫ Create Marine Habitat ▫ Rocks; Shells ▫ Enhance Fishing ▫ Trees ▫ Recreational Diving Sites ▫ Concrete Debris ▫ Surfing Enhancement ▫ Ships; Car bodies ▫ Coastal Protection ▫ Designed concrete modules ▫ Geosynthetic Materials 4 Multi-Purpose Artificial Submerged Reefs (MPASRs) Specifically designed artificial reef which can provide: • Coastline Protection or Harbor Protection ▫ Can help restore natural beach dynamics by preventing erosion ▫ Can reduce wave energy transmitted to harbor entrances • Marine Habitat Enhancement ▫ Can provide environment for coral growth and habitat fish and other marine species. ▫ Coral can be transplanted to initiate/accelerate coral growth • Recreational Uses ▫ Surfing enhancement: can provide surfable breaking waves where none exist ▫ Diving/Snorkeling: can provide site for recreational diving and snorkeling 5 MPASRs as Coastal Protection Wave Transmission: MPASRs can reduce wave energy transmitted to shoreline. Kt = Ht/Hi K = H /H t t i Breakwater K = wave transmission t Seabed coefficient, (Pilarczyk 2003) Ht= transmitted wave height shoreward of structure Hi = incident wave height seaward of structure. 6 MPASRs as Coastal Protection • Wave Refraction: MPASR causes wave refraction around the reef, focusing wave energy in a different direction.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Reef Effects of Offshore Wind Farm Strucurse and Potential for Enhancement and Mitigation
    REVIEW OF REEF EFFECTS OF OFFSHORE WIND FARM STRUCTURES AND POTENTIAL FOR ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION JANUARY 2008 IN ASSOCIATION WITH Review of the reef effects of offshore wind farm structures and potential for enhancement and mitigation Report to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform PML Applications Ltd in association with Scottish Association of Marine Sciences (SAMS) Contract No : RFCA/005/00029P This report may be cited as follows: Linley E.A.S., Wilding T.A., Black K., Hawkins A.J.S. and Mangi S. (2007). Review of the reef effects of offshore wind farm structures and their potential for enhancement and mitigation. Report from PML Applications Ltd and the Scottish Association for Marine Science to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), Contract No: RFCA/005/0029P Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The Review of Reef Effects of Offshore Wind Farm Structures and Potential for Enhancement and Mitigation was prepared by PML Applications Ltd and the Scottish Association for Marine Science. This project was undertaken as part of the UK Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) offshore wind energy research programme, and managed on behalf of BERR by Hartley Anderson Ltd. We are particularly indebted to John Hartley and other members of the Research Advisory Group for their advice and guidance throughout the production of this report, and to Keith Hiscock and Antony Jensen who also provided detailed comment on early drafts. Numerous individuals have also contributed their advice, particularly in identifying data resources to assist with the analysis. We are particularly indebted to Angela Wratten, Chris Jenner, Tim Smyth, Mark Trimmer, Francis Bunker, Gero Vella, Robert Thornhill, Julie Drew, Adrian Maddocks, Robert Lillie, Tony Nott, Ben Barton, David Fletcher, John Leballeur, Laurie Ayling and Stephen Lockwood – who in the course of passing on information also contributed their ideas and thoughts.
    [Show full text]
  • BIOT Field Report
    ©2015 Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation. All Rights Reserved. Science Without Borders®. All research was completed under: British Indian Ocean Territory, The immigration Ordinance 2006, Permit for Visit. Dated 10th April, 2015, issued by Tom Moody, Administrator. This report was developed as one component of the Global Reef Expedition: BIOT research project. Citation: Global Reef Expedition: British Indian Ocean Territory. Field Report 19. Bruckner, A.W. (2015). Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation, Annapolis, MD. pp 36. The Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation (KSLOF) was incorporated in California as a 501(c)(3), public benefit, Private Operating Foundation in September 2000. The Living Oceans Foundation is dedicated to providing science-based solutions to protect and restore ocean health. For more information, visit http://www.lof.org and https://www.facebook.com/livingoceansfoundation Twitter: https://twitter.com/LivingOceansFdn Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation 130 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD, 21403, USA [email protected] Executive Director Philip G. Renaud Chief Scientist Andrew W. Bruckner, Ph.D. Images by Andrew Bruckner, unless noted. Maps completed by Alex Dempsey, Jeremy Kerr and Steve Saul Fish observations compiled by Georgia Coward and Badi Samaniego Front cover: Eagle Island. Photo by Ken Marks. Back cover: A shallow reef off Salomon Atoll. The reef is carpeted in leather corals and a bleached anemone, Heteractis magnifica, is visible in the fore ground. A school of giant trevally, Caranx ignobilis, pass over the reef. Photo by Phil Renaud. Executive Summary Between 7 March 2015 and 3 May 2015, the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation conducted two coral reef research missions as components of our Global Reef Expedition (GRE) program.
    [Show full text]
  • Rbf Annual Report: Update on Projects 2016
    ANNUAL REPORT: UPDATE ON PROJECTS ​2016 We make our impact through education, raising public awareness, community involvement and innovative Reef Ball technology. Education At the Reef Ball Foundation, we believe it’s far easier to save our ocean ecosystems than rehabilitate them. Here is snapshot of some of our educational activities. Above: Kathy Kirbo speaks at primary school in Zanzibar, Tanzania. ​ ​Above: The Girl Scouts of Sarasota, Florida win the Bronze Award with their Reef Ball project. Watch video about their project produced by the city of Sarasota. ​Girl Scouts Reef Ball Project Video Public Awareness At the very least our many projects bring to the light the importance of our oceans and why they are worth protecting and restoring. To further our mission, Reef Ball has received extensive press coverage on CNN, ENN, the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, Weekly Reader, Popular Science, The Wall Street Journal, Mother Jones, Wired, Scientific American, The Economist and various diving publications and in numerous newspapers throughout the world. Our featured article: The Economist: “Watery Dwellings-New Ways To Construct Underwater Environments Are Encouraging Marine Life and Boosting Fish Stocks.” ​The Economist article on Reef Ball Awards The Reef Ball Foundation won the National Environmental Protection Prize in 2012 by the Classy Awards which is the largest philanthropic awards ceremony in the country, is a Laureate of the Intel's global environmental award, The Tech Award, for technology that benefits humanity in 2005, CNN Hero-Defender of the Planet in 2008, and my Hero Project selected the Reef Ball Foundation as a science here in 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • The IUCN Red List of Threatened Speciestm
    Species 2014 Annual ReportSpecies the Species of 2014 Survival Commission and the Global Species Programme Species ISSUE 56 2014 Annual Report of the Species Survival Commission and the Global Species Programme • 2014 Spotlight on High-level Interventions IUCN SSC • IUCN Red List at 50 • Specialist Group Reports Ethiopian Wolf (Canis simensis), Endangered. © Martin Harvey Muhammad Yazid Muhammad © Amazing Species: Bleeding Toad The Bleeding Toad, Leptophryne cruentata, is listed as Critically Endangered on The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM. It is endemic to West Java, Indonesia, specifically around Mount Gede, Mount Pangaro and south of Sukabumi. The Bleeding Toad’s scientific name, cruentata, is from the Latin word meaning “bleeding” because of the frog’s overall reddish-purple appearance and blood-red and yellow marbling on its back. Geographical range The population declined drastically after the eruption of Mount Galunggung in 1987. It is Knowledge believed that other declining factors may be habitat alteration, loss, and fragmentation. Experts Although the lethal chytrid fungus, responsible for devastating declines (and possible Get Involved extinctions) in amphibian populations globally, has not been recorded in this area, the sudden decline in a creekside population is reminiscent of declines in similar amphibian species due to the presence of this pathogen. Only one individual Bleeding Toad was sighted from 1990 to 2003. Part of the range of Bleeding Toad is located in Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park. Future conservation actions should include population surveys and possible captive breeding plans. The production of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is made possible through the IUCN Red List Partnership.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ethnography of Continuing Bonds and Re-Membering the Deceased Blake Paxton University of South Florida, [email protected]
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School January 2015 Feeling at Home with Grief: An Ethnography of Continuing Bonds and Re-membering the Deceased Blake Paxton University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Communication Commons Scholar Commons Citation Paxton, Blake, "Feeling at Home with Grief: An Ethnography of Continuing Bonds and Re-membering the Deceased" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5758 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Feeling at Home with Grief: An Ethnography of Continuing Bonds and Re-membering the Deceased by Blake A. Paxton A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Communication College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Carolyn Ellis, Ph.D. Arthur P. Bochner, Ph.D. Lori Roscoe, Ph.D. Keith Berry, Ph.D. Margarethe Kusenbach, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 16, 2015 Keywords: bereavement, interpersonal communication, sociology of emotions, autoethnography Copyright © 2015, Blake A. Paxton Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]