DOCSLIB.ORG

The Role of Flow on Ridge and Slough Landscape Dynamics in Shark River Slough, Everglades National Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Role of Flow on Ridge and Slough Landscape Dynamics in Shark River Slough, Everglades National Park The Role of Flow on Ridge and Slough Landscape Dynamics in Shark River Slough, Everglades National Park Lynn A. Leonard1, Daniel Childers2, Helena Solo- Gabriele3, Guoqing He3, Alexander Croft1, and Vic Engel4 1 University of North Carolina Wilmington 2 Florida International University 3 University of Miami 4 National Park Service T a Water Conservation Area 3A Water Conservation Area 3B m T ia ra m Proposed Bridges Objective: Describe how water i i l S12D S12A S12B S12C S333 L29 canal S334 flow through the vegetated ridge es and slough system influences rairi P FC l CH Mar landscape maintenance in upper SRS-ENP L31 canal L67 Ext. Levee Tram Road • Influence of human activities ENP Boundary SL • Meteorological forcing GL • Effect of Vegetation GS-33 GS-203 h BH g u lo S r e v s ie Ri ir k Response of r ra a P Development & h l S r ridge & slough a validation of GS-36 M flow models topography to future increases in flow SH1 SL: 2003 – 2005 N BH: 2003 – 2005 State Road 9336 GL: 2003 – 5 km FC: 2006 - Measurement sites (current study) Gate location CH: 2006 - USGS speed measurement station Rainfall station Water speed (cm s-1): Continuous Sampling Sites Site 2003 03-04 2004 04-05 2005 05-06 2006 06-07 2007 Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet BH 0.89 0.65 0.42 0.33 0.89 N N N N GL 1.59 0.92 0.29 0.08 1.3 0.37 0.04 0.14 0.03 SL 1.67 0.43 1.1 0.94 1.89 0.03 N N N CH Na N N N N 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.14 FC N N N N N N 0.4 0.07 0.05 N – no data 2002-2007: Transect Sites (GL, CH, FC) Flow speeds typically Slough velocity ~ -1 less than 2 cm s 1.5 X sawgrass velocities Wet season flow speeds > 0.20 cm s-1 Dry season flow speeds p < 0.0001 F(1,842) = 31.52 Dec-03 Jun-04 Dec-04 Jun-05 Dec-05 Jun-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Dec-07 3 2 Speed Stage 2 1.8 GL 1.6 1 1.4 0 1.2 -1 1 3 2 2 BH 1.8 1.6 1 1.4 0 1.2 -1 1 3 2 2 SL 1.8 1.6 1 1.4 (cm/s) 0 1.2 (m) Water speed -1 1 3 2 CH Stage (m) 1.8 2 Stage estimated from EDEN Speed (cm/s) Speed 1.6 1 1.4 0 1.2 -1 1 3 FC 2 2 1.8 1.6 1 1.4 0 1.2 -1 1 Gate 160 100 ge discharge r 120 Rainfall 80 /s) 60 3 80 40 (mm) (m (mm) Gate 40 20 Daily rainfall Gate discha 0 0 Discharge Daily Rainfall Daily Jun - 03 Jun - 04 Jun - 05 Jun - 06 Jun - 07 No velocity data Water flow direction vs. speed 250 250 200 FC 200 150 100 150 SL 50 100 0 th r 300 50 CH 250 0 200 om no r 300 150 100 ee f r 250 50 (Clockwise) 200 0 Deg 250 150 GL 200 100 150 BH 50 100 50 0 0 00.511.522.53 00.511.5 Speed, cm/s Speed, cm/s EDEN stage contour vs. measured direction (9/15/2004) Tamiami Trail Road stage(cm) 30 CH,157o FC,206o 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 SL,194o 130 140 GL,208o 150 GS-33 160 GS-203 170 o BH,194 Dry land 180 below this line 190 200 210 220 230 240 GS-36 Stage, cm NAVD88 250 260 270 280 Water Control Structures S12A S12B S12C S12D S333-S334 stage gradient rainfall R2 CH xxx 0.10 FC xx x x 0.90 BH xxxx x x x0.52 SL xxx x x0.78 GL xxx x x 0.58 T a Water Conservation Area 3A Water Conservation Area 3B m T ia ra m Proposed Bridges i i l S12D S12A S12B S12C S333 L29 canal S334 s airie Pr FC Discharge and stage CH Marl are key factors L31 canal L31 L67 Ext. Levee Local rainfall is not significant Tram Road Tram ENP BoundaryENP SL GL GS-33 GS-203 h BH g u lo S Manning’s Eqn. Kadlec’s Eqn. β λ 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 = U = * h * S U K f * h * S f n f -1 n = 0.46 λ = 0.66, b = 2.67, and Kf = 14.44 m-1.67s Unit=cm/s Mean Std. Dev. R2 Measurement 1.18 0.66 - 3 MeasurementsMeasurements SLSL Kadlec's Eq. (2) 1.11 0.51 0.69 2 Manning Eq. (1) 1.06 0.44 0.68 Model Model 3 1:1 1 2 cm/s Model, 0 1 3 0 Measurements, cm/s BH Speed, cm/s r 2 0123 Speed (cm/s) Speed Wate 1 1 FCFC 0 0 3 GL Jun-07 Jun-06 2 Dec-06 Dec-07 1 0 Jun - 03 Jun - 04 Jun - 05 Jun - 06 Jun - 07 Vertical profiles in spikerush A. B. C. A. C. B. Vegetation Manipulations 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 10 20 Spike Rush, Utricularia, U = 0.25 cm s-1 30 and Periphyton 40 50 60 00.40.81.2 1.6 10 20 -1 30 Spike Rush ONLY U = 0.68 cm s 40 50 60 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 10 20 U = 0.78 cm s-1 30 No Vegetation 40 50 60 ANCOVA: p = 0.9295, F = 0.0081 SUMMARY Mean flow in sawgrass < spikerush Flow speed shows seasonal variations that are related to stage Flow direction is consistent and is to the SSW at higher speeds Discharge and stage are the key factors influencing flow speed; Local rainfall is not significant at any sites ~ 70% variation in flow speed is predicted by Manning and Kadlec Eqns; additional variability may be due to biomass, groundwater influence, and/or morphology The volume of floating biomass and periphyton exerts significant control over flow in sloughs Future modeling efforts should take measures of floating biomass into consideration Thank you!.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wilderness on the Edge: a History of Everglades National Park
    Wilderness on the Edge: A History of Everglades National Park Robert W Blythe Chicago, Illinois 2017 Prepared under the National Park Service/Organization of American Historians cooperative agreement Table of Contents List of Figures iii Preface xi Acknowledgements xiii Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in Footnotes xv Chapter 1: The Everglades to the 1920s 1 Chapter 2: Early Conservation Efforts in the Everglades 40 Chapter 3: The Movement for a National Park in the Everglades 62 Chapter 4: The Long and Winding Road to Park Establishment 92 Chapter 5: First a Wildlife Refuge, Then a National Park 131 Chapter 6: Land Acquisition 150 Chapter 7: Developing the Park 176 Chapter 8: The Water Needs of a Wetland Park: From Establishment (1947) to Congress’s Water Guarantee (1970) 213 Chapter 9: Water Issues, 1970 to 1992: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Path to the Restudy of the C&SF Project 237 Chapter 10: Wilderness Values and Wilderness Designations 270 Chapter 11: Park Science 288 Chapter 12: Wildlife, Native Plants, and Endangered Species 309 Chapter 13: Marine Fisheries, Fisheries Management, and Florida Bay 353 Chapter 14: Control of Invasive Species and Native Pests 373 Chapter 15: Wildland Fire 398 Chapter 16: Hurricanes and Storms 416 Chapter 17: Archeological and Historic Resources 430 Chapter 18: Museum Collection and Library 449 Chapter 19: Relationships with Cultural Communities 466 Chapter 20: Interpretive and Educational Programs 492 Chapter 21: Resource and Visitor Protection 526 Chapter 22: Relationships with the Military
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 17: Archeological and Historic Resources
    Chapter 17: Archeological and Historic Resources Everglades National Park was created primarily because of its unique flora and fauna. In the 1920s and 1930s there was some limited understanding that the park might contain significant prehistoric archeological resources, but the area had not been comprehensively surveyed. After establishment, the park’s first superintendent and the NPS regional archeologist were surprised at the number and potential importance of archeological sites. NPS investigations of the park’s archeological resources began in 1949. They continued off and on until a more comprehensive three-year survey was conducted by the NPS Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) in the early 1980s. The park had few structures from the historic period in 1947, and none was considered of any historical significance. Although the NPS recognized the importance of the work of the Florida Federation of Women’s Clubs in establishing and maintaining Royal Palm State Park, it saw no reason to preserve any physical reminders of that work. Archeological Investigations in Everglades National Park The archeological riches of the Ten Thousand Islands area were hinted at by Ber- nard Romans, a British engineer who surveyed the Florida coast in the 1770s. Romans noted: [W]e meet with innumerable small islands and several fresh streams: the land in general is drowned mangrove swamp. On the banks of these streams we meet with some hills of rich soil, and on every one of those the evident marks of their having formerly been cultivated by the savages.812 Little additional information on sites of aboriginal occupation was available until the late nineteenth century when South Florida became more accessible and better known to outsiders.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Trends in Indicator Regions of Everglades National Park Jennifer H
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons GIS Center GIS Center 5-4-2015 Vegetation Trends in Indicator Regions of Everglades National Park Jennifer H. Richards Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, [email protected] Daniel Gann GIS-RS Center, Florida International University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/gis Recommended Citation Richards, Jennifer H. and Gann, Daniel, "Vegetation Trends in Indicator Regions of Everglades National Park" (2015). GIS Center. 29. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/gis/29 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the GIS Center at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GIS Center by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Final Report for VEGETATION TRENDS IN INDICATOR REGIONS OF EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK Task Agreement No. P12AC50201 Cooperative Agreement No. H5000-06-0104 Host University No. H5000-10-5040 Date of Report: Feb. 12, 2015 Principle Investigator: Jennifer H. Richards Dept. of Biological Sciences Florida International University Miami, FL 33199 305-348-3102 (phone), 305-348-1986 (FAX) [email protected] (e-mail) Co-Principle Investigator: Daniel Gann FIU GIS/RS Center Florida International University Miami, FL 33199 305-348-1971 (phone), 305-348-6445 (FAX) [email protected] (e-mail) Park Representative: Jimi Sadle, Botanist Everglades National Park 40001 SR 9336 Homestead, FL 33030 305-242-7806 (phone), 305-242-7836 (Fax) FIU Administrative Contact: Susie Escorcia Division of Sponsored Research 11200 SW 8th St. – MARC 430 Miami, FL 33199 305-348-2494 (phone), 305-348-6087 (FAX) 2 Table of Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of the South Florida Water Management District Minimum
    Rules of the South Florida Water Management District Minimum Flows and Levels CHAPTER 40E-8, F.A.C. Effective: September 7, 2015 CHAPTER 40E-8 Effective: September 7, 2015 CHAPTER 40E-8 MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS PART I GENERAL 40E-8.011 Purpose and General Provisions 40E-8.021 Definitions PART II MFL CRITERIA FOR LOWER EAST COAST REGIONAL PLANNING AREA 40E-8.221 Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs): Surface Waters 40E-8.231 Minimum Levels: Aquifers PART III MFL CRITERIA FOR LOWER WEST COAST REGIONAL PLANNING AREA, MFL CRITERIA FOR KISSIMMEE BASIN REGIONAL PLANNING AREA, AND MFL CRITERIA FOR UPPER EAST COAST REGIONAL PLANNING AREA 40E-8.321 Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs): Surface Waters 40E-8.331 Minimum Levels: Aquifers 40E-8.341 Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs): Surface Waters for Upper East Coast Regional Planning Area 40E-8.351 Minimum Levels: Surface Waters for Kissimmee Basin Regional Planning Area. PART IV IMPLEMENTATION 40E-8.421 Prevention and Recovery Strategies 40E-8.431 Consumptive Use Permits 40E-8.441 Water Shortage Plan Implementation PART I GENERAL 40E-8.011 Purpose and General Provisions. (1) The purpose of this chapter is: (a) To establish minimum flows for specific surface watercourses and minimum water levels for specific surface waters and specific aquifers within the South Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Section 373.042, F.S.; and (b) To establish the rule framework for implementation of recovery and prevention strategies, developed pursuant to Section 373.0421, F.S. (2) Minimum flows are established to identify where further withdrawals would cause significant harm to the water resources, or to the ecology of the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Document to Support the Central Everglades Planning Project Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir Water Reservation
    TECHNICAL DOCUMENT TO SUPPORT THE CENTRAL EVERGLADES PLANNING PROJECT EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA RESERVOIR WATER RESERVATION Draft Report JuneJuly 28, 2020 South Florida Water Management District West Palm Beach, FL Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Authorized by Congress in 2016 and 2018, the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) is one of many projects associated with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and provides a framework to address restoration of the South Florida Everglades ecosystem. As part of CEPP, the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Reservoir was designed to increase water storage and treatment capacity to accommodate additional flows south to the Central Everglades (Water Conservation Area 3 and Everglades National Park). EAA Reservoir project features previously were evaluated to enhance performance of CEPP by providing an additional 240,000 acre-feet of storage. The additional storage will increase flows to the Everglades by reducing harmful discharges from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie estuaries and capturing EAA basin runoff. The EAA Reservoir also enhances regional water supplies, which increases the water available to meet environmental needs. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-541) requires water be reserved or allocated as an assurance that each CERP project meets its goals and objectives. A Water Reservation is a legal mechanism to reserve a quantity of water from consumptive use for the protection of fish and wildlife or public health and safety. Under Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, a Water Reservation is composed of a quantification of the water to be protected, which may include a seasonal component and a location component.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Collaboration in Everglades Restoration
    The Role of Collaboration in Everglades Restoration A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty By Kathryn Irene Frank In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning Georgia Institute of Technology August 2009 Copyright © Kathryn Irene Frank 2009 The Role of Collaboration in Everglades Restoration Approved by: Dr. Bruce Stiftel Dr. Michael L. Elliott, Advisor College of Architecture College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Bryan G. Norton Dr. Cheryl K. Contant School of Public Policy Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Georgia Institute of Technology and Dean University of Minnesota Morris Date Approved: August 21, 2009 Dr. C. Ronald Carroll School of Ecology University of Georgia THE ROLE OF COLLABORATION IN EVERGLADES RESTORATION VOLUME I By Kathryn Irene Frank ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Michael Elliott, for sharing his wide-ranging wisdom and helping me not get bogged down in the Everglades (data, that is). Dr. Elliott led me to question my assumptions and clarify my thinking, and, most importantly, reminded me of what I had set out to do. I am also indebted to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Cheryl Contant, Dr. Ron Carroll, Dr. Bruce Stiftel, and Dr. Bryan Norton, for lending their superb expertise. Together, the committee encouraged me to reach the dissertation’s full potential. Furthermore, this dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals and organizations who provided the Everglades case data. I especially appreciate the governance leaders who generously agreed to be interviewed and welcomed me to observe their collaborative meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: the Everglades to the 1920S Introduction
    Chapter 1: The Everglades to the 1920s Introduction The Everglades is a vast wetland, 40 to 50 miles wide and 100 miles long. Prior to the twentieth century, the Everglades occupied most of the Florida peninsula south of Lake Okeechobee.1 Originally about 4,000 square miles in extent, the Everglades included extensive sawgrass marshes dotted with tree islands, wet prairies, sloughs, ponds, rivers, and creeks. Since the 1880s, the Everglades has been drained by canals, compartmentalized behind levees, and partially transformed by agricultural and urban development. Although water depths and flows have been dramatically altered and its spatial extent reduced, the Everglades today remains the only subtropical ecosystem in the United States and one of the most extensive wetland systems in the world. Everglades National Park embraces about one-fourth of the original Everglades plus some ecologically distinct adjacent areas. These adjacent areas include slightly elevated uplands, coastal mangrove forests, and bays, notably Florida Bay. Everglades National Park has been recognized as a World Heritage Site, an International Biosphere Re- serve, and a Wetland of International Importance. In this work, the term Everglades or Everglades Basin will be reserved for the wetland ecosystem (past and present) run- ning between the slightly higher ground to the east and west. The term South Florida will be used for the broader area running from the Kississimee River Valley to the toe of the peninsula.2 Early in the twentieth century, a magazine article noted of the Everglades that “the region is not exactly land, and it is not exactly water.”3 The presence of water covering the land to varying depths through all or a major portion of the year is the defining feature of the Everglades.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Contamination and Impacts to Water Supply
    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT March 2007 Final Draft CCoonnssoolliiddaatteedd WWaatteerr SSuuppppllyy PPllaann SSUUPPPPOORRTT DDOOCCUUMMEENNTT Water Supply Department South Florida Water Managemment District TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss List of Tables and Figures................................................................................v Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................1 Basis of Water Supply Planning.....................................................................1 Legal Authority and Requirements ................................................................1 Water Supply Planning Initiative...................................................................4 Water Supply Planning History .....................................................................4 Districtwide Water Supply Assessment............................................................5 Regional Water Supply Plans .......................................................................6 Chapter 2: Natural Systems .............................................................................7 Overview...............................................................................................7 Major Surface Water Features.................................................................... 13 Kissimmee Basin and Chain of Lakes ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Research 213 (2019) 219–225
    Fisheries Research 213 (2019) 219–225 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres Contrasting river migrations of Common Snook between two Florida rivers using acoustic telemetry T ⁎ R.E Bouceka, , A.A. Trotterb, D.A. Blewettc, J.L. Ritchb, R. Santosd, P.W. Stevensb, J.A. Massied, J. Rehaged a Bonefish and Tarpon Trust, Florida Keys Initiative Marathon Florida, 33050, United States b Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 100 8th Ave. Southeast, St Petersburg, FL, 33701, United States c Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Charlotte Harbor Field Laboratory, 585 Prineville Street, Port Charlotte, FL, 33954, United States d Earth and Environmental Sciences, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th street, AHC5 389, Miami, Florida, 33199, United States ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Handled by George A. Rose The widespread use of electronic tags allows us to ask new questions regarding how and why animal movements Keywords: vary across ecosystems. Common Snook (Centropomus undecimalis) is a tropical estuarine sportfish that have been Spawning migration well studied throughout the state of Florida, including multiple acoustic telemetry studies. Here, we ask; do the Common snook spawning behaviors of Common Snook vary across two Florida coastal rivers that differ considerably along a Everglades national park gradient of anthropogenic change? We tracked Common Snook migrations toward and away from spawning sites Caloosahatchee river using acoustic telemetry in the Shark River (U.S.), and compared those migrations with results from a previously Acoustic telemetry, published Common Snook tracking study in the Caloosahatchee River.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Conditions for Everglades National Park, Water Year 2019 Shark River Slough
    Water Quality Conditions for Everglades National Park, Water Year 2019 Shark River Slough Technical Oversight Committee Quarterly Meeting May 5, 2020 1 Water Quality Conditions – WY2019 Shark River Slough Percent of Sampling Events 12-Month Total Flow 12-Month TP FWMC Long-Term Limit Greater than 10 ppb Period Ending (kac-ft) (ppb) (ppb) Guideline Observed Everglades National Park – Shark River Slough Jul 2019 707.7 (780.9) 9.4 (8.9) 9.4 (9.0) 48.9 (46.9) 50.0 (45.8) Aug 2019 666.5 (755.3) 9.9 (9.2) 9.6 (9.1) 50.1 (47.6) 54.2 (50.0) Sep 2019 654.1 (748.5) 10.0 (9.3) 9.7 (9.2) 50.5 (47.8) 52.0 (48.0) FINAL WY2019 RESULTS Method 1 (left values) computed as S12s+(S333+S355A+S355B-S334) and Method 2 (values in parentheses) computed as S12s+(S333+S355A+S355B+S356-S334) Neither method excludes S334 flow from the total flow for long-term limit calculations. 2 Water Quality Conditions – WY2019 Shark River Slough WCA3A Stage S333 Flow TP Weekly (S333) S333 HW Stage S334 Flow TSS (S333) 3 Water Quality Conditions – WY2019 Shark River Slough 4 Water Quality Conditions – WY2019 Shark River Slough Federal WY2017 9.2 ft Reference Line Federal WY2018 9.2 ft Reference Line Federal WY2019 9.2 ft Reference Line 5 *S333 Net Flow = S333 Flow – S334 Flow Water Quality Conditions – WY2019 Shark River Slough Federal WY2017 WY2017 TP FWMC S12A 7 ppb S12B 6 ppb S12C 6 ppb S12D 8 ppb 9.2 ft Reference Line S333 32 ppb SRS 9.7 ppb Federal WY2018 WY2018 TP FWMC S12A 6 ppb S12B 5 ppb S12C 6 ppb S12D 7 ppb 9.2 ft Reference Line S333 12 ppb SRS 7.3 ppb Federal WY2019
    [Show full text]
  • Mud Lake Canal Other Name/Site Nu
    NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 MUD LAKE CANAL Page 1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service_________________________________________National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. NAME OF PROPERTY Historic Name: Mud Lake Canal Other Name/Site Number: Bear Lake Canal/Bear Lake Archeological District/EVER-192/8MO32 2. LOCATION Street & Number: Everglades National Park Not for publication: N/A City/Town: Flamingo Vicinity: X State: Florida County: Monroe Code: 087 Zip Code: 33034 3. CLASSIFICATION Ownership of Property Category of Property Private: _ Building(s): Public-Local: _ District: Public-State: _ Site: X Public-Federal: X Structure: Object: Number of Resources within Property Contributing Noncontributing _ buildings 1 _ sites 3 structures _ objects 1 3 Total Number of Contributing Resources Previously Listed in the National Register: J, Name of Related Multiple Property Listing: Archaeological Resources of Everglades National Park MPS NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 MUD LAKE CANAL Page 2 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service_________________________________________National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 4. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this __ nomination __ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property __ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Marl Prairie Vegetation Response to 20 Century Hydrologic Change
    Marl Prairie Vegetation Response to 20th Century Hydrologic Change Christopher E. Bernhardt and Debra A. Willard U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Earth Surface Processes Team, 926A National Center, Reston, VA 20192 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1355 1 Abstract We conducted geochronologic and pollen analyses from sediment cores collected in solution holes within marl prairies of Big Cypress National Preserve to reconstruct vegetation patterns of the last few centuries and evaluate the stability and longevity of marl prairies within the greater Everglades ecosystem. Based on radiocarbon dating and pollen biostratigraphy, these cores contain sediments deposited during the last ~300 years and provide evidence for plant community composition before and after 20th century water management practices altered flow patterns throughout the Everglades. Pollen evidence indicates that pre-20th century vegetation at the sites consisted of sawgrass marshes in a peat-accumulating environment; these assemblages indicate moderate hydroperiods and water depths, comparable to those in modern sawgrass marshes of Everglades National Park. During the 20th century, vegetation changed to grass- dominated marl prairies, and calcitic sediments were deposited, indicating shortening of hydroperiods and occurrence of extended dry periods at the site. These data suggest that the presence of marl prairies at these sites is a 20th century phenomenon, resulting from hydrologic changes associated with water management practices. Introduction During the 20th century, the hydrology of the greater Everglades ecosystem was altered to accommodate agricultural and urban needs, significantly altering the distribution and composition of plant and animal communities throughout the wetland (Davis and others, 1994; Light and Dineen, 1994; Lodge, 2005).
    [Show full text]