DOCSLIB.ORG

2015 SPBO (Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2015 SPBO (Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion) nited States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office 133920” Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Service Log Number: 41910-201 1-F-0170 March 13, 2015 Alan M. Dodd, Colonel District Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard, Room 372 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8175 Dear Colonel Dodd: This letter transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s revised Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works and Regulatory sand placement activities in Florida and their effects on the following sea turtles: Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment (NWAO DPS) of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and its designated terrestrial critical habitat; green (Chelonia mydas); leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea); hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata); and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) ; and the following beach mice: southeastern (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris); Anastasia Island (Peromyscus polionotus phasma); Choctawhatchee (Peromyscus polionotus allophrys); St. Andrews (Peromyscus polionotus peninsutaris); and Perdido Key (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) and their designated critical habitat. It does not address effects of these activities on the non-breeding piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its designated critical habitat or for the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Effects of Corps planning and regulatory shore protection activities on the non-breeding piping plover and its designated critical habitat within the North Florida Ecological Services office area of responsibility and the South Florida Ecological Services office area of responsibility are addressed in the Service’s May 22, 2013, Programmatic Piping Plover Biological Opinion. Effects of shore protection activities for the piping plover in the Panama City Ecological Services office area of responsibility will be addressed on a project by project basis. Each proposed project will undergo an evaluation process by the Corps to determine if it properly fits within a programmatic approach. The project description will determine if the project is appropriate to apply to this programmatic consultation. If it is determined that the minimization measures, Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and Terms and Conditions in the SPBO are applicable to the project, it will be covered by this programmatic consultation. If not, the Corps will consult separately on individual projects that do not fit within this programmatic approach. Alan M. Dodd, Colonel 2 We will meet annually during the fourth week of August to review the sand placement projects, assess new data, identify information needs, and scope methods to address those needs, including, but not limited to, evaluations and monitoring specified in this SPBO, reviewing results, formulating or amending actions that minimize take of listed species, and monitoring the effectiveness of those actions. The entire programmatic consultation will be reviewed every five years or sooner if new information concerning the projects or protected species occurs. Reinitiation of formal consultation is also required 10 years after the issuance of this SPBO. We are available to meet with agency representatives to discuss the remaining issues with this consultation. If you have any questions, please contact Peter Plage at the North Florida Ecological Services Office at (904) 731-3085, Jeffrey Howe at the South Florida Ecological Services Office at (772) 469-4283, or Lisa Lehnhoff at the Panama City Ecological Services Office at (850) 769-0552, extension 241. Sincerely, Larry Williams ~_— State Supervisor Shore Protection Activities along the Coast of Florida Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion (Revised) February 27, 2015 Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 MIGRATORY BIRDS .............................................................................................................................................. 13 CONSULTATION HISTORY ................................................................................................................................. 14 BIOLOGICAL OPINION......................................................................................................................................... 17 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................. 17 Corps Commitments .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Sea Turtles .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Beach Mice ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 ACTION AREA ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT ............................................................................................ 21 LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE .................................................................................................................................... 21 GREEN SEA TURTLE ............................................................................................................................................... 22 LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE .................................................................................................................................. 23 HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE ....................................................................................................................................... 25 KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE ................................................................................................................................ 25 LIFE HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................................ 26 LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE .................................................................................................................................... 26 GREEN SEA TURTLE ............................................................................................................................................... 30 LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE .................................................................................................................................. 30 HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE ....................................................................................................................................... 30 KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE ................................................................................................................................ 30 POPULATION DYNAMICS .................................................................................................................................... 31 LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE .................................................................................................................................... 31 GREEN SEA TURTLE ............................................................................................................................................... 32 LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE .................................................................................................................................. 32 HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE ....................................................................................................................................... 33 KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE ................................................................................................................................ 33 ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED ................................... 43 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ............................................................................................................................ 45 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION .................................................................................................................................. 56 Factors to be considered .................................................................................................................................... 56 ANALYSES FOR EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ............................................................................................................... 57 Beneficial Effects ................................................................................................................................................ 57 Direct Effects ...................................................................................................................................................... 58 Indirect Effects ................................................................................................................................................... 60 SPECIES’ RESPONSE TO A PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................... 64 STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT ...........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USGS 7.5-Minute Image Map for Matanzas Inlet, Florida
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MATANZAS INLET QUADRANGLE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FLORIDA T9S 7.5-MINUTE SERIES 81°15' 12'30" 10' 81°07' 30" IntracoastalR30E4 000m Waterway 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 29°45' 76 E 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 610 000 FEET 86 87 29°45' 3291000mN 3291 FLORIDA 2 «¬A1 S Devils Elbow T . r J e O v H i R N S S s s 11 32 32 a C 90 90 z O n a t a M Anastasia Island 3289 3289 12 1 960 000 FEET «¬A1 3288 3288 T9S R30E 13 Fort 3287 Matanzas 3287 FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 24 Imagery................................................NAIP, January 2010 Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas Names...............................................................GNIS, 2010 42'30" 42'30" Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010 Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2010 Claude Varne ATLANTIC Bridge Matanzas Inlet OCEAN 3286 3286 DR RIA TA RA AR B G E N E E Rattlesnake J RD Summer Haven O SON Island HN OLD A1A J U N E E A1 32 32 L «¬ 85 85 N M a t a n z a s s R i v e r 3284 3284 3283 3283 ST. JOHNS CO FLAGLER CO «¬A1 3282 Intracoastal Waterway 3282 40' 40' Hemming Point N N O C E A N Marineland S H O R E E B r L V e D v i 32 R DEERWOOD ST 3281 81 2 s a BEACHSIDE DR k z e n e a r t C a r r M e SHADY OAK LN c i .
    [Show full text]
  • Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida: Maintenance Dredging
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, TO MIAMI, FLORIDA MAINTENANCE DREDGING Prepared by U. S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville Jacksonville, Florida May 1974 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY. JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI MAINTENANCE DREDGING ( ) Draft (X) Final Responsible Office: U. S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, Florida. 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Eleven shoals are to be removed from this section of the Intracoastal Waterway as a part of the regular main­ tenance program. 3. a. Environmental Impacts. About 172,200 cubic yards of shoal material in the channel will be removed by hydraulic dredge and placed in diked upland areas and as nourishment on a county park beach south of Jupiter Inlet. b. Adverse Environmental Effects. Dredging will have a temporary adverse effect on water quality and will destroy benthic organisms in both the shoal material and on the beach. In addition, some turtle nests at the beach nourishment site may be destroyed. 4. Alternatives. Consideration was given to alternate methods of spoil disposal. It was determined that the methods selected (as described in paragraph 1) would best accomplish the purpose of the project while minimizing adverse impact on the environment. 5. Comments received on the draft statement in response to the 3 November 1972 coordination letter: Respondent Date of Comments U. S. Coast Guard 7 November 1972 U. S. Department of Agriculture 8 November 1972 Florida State Museum 8 November 1972 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 14 November 1972 Florida Department of Transportation 20 November 1972 Florida Department of Natural Resources 30 November 1972 Environmental Protection Agency 8 December 1972 Florida G&FWFC 13 December 1972 U.
    [Show full text]
  • Key West & the Lower Keys
    © Lonely Planet Publications Key West & the Lower Keys in the ’60s to lend the island a South 40 NEWFOUND HARBOR Pacific look when it was used as the set- ting for the movie PT-109. Location: 0.5 nautical miles (1km) A series of mooring buoys are in place south of Newfound Harbor Keys along the west side of the reef, and day Depth Range: Surface-18ft (5m) marker 50 lies to the south. The top of Access: Boat the reef is very shallow, rising almost Expertise Rating: Novice to the surface in two places. Maximum depth is about 8ft (2.4m) on the land- -169 ward side and 18ft (5m) on the seaward side. Soft corals dominate much of the Closer to shore than most other reefs, reef, but boulder-like accumulations this sanctuary preservation area is a of calcium carbonate from hard corals good alternative when weather pre- form the basic structure. vents diving at nearby Looe Key. Just Fishermen frequented the reef until northwest is low-lying Little Palm Is- the summer of 1997 when the SPA went land, now home to an exclusive resort. into effect, and the resident fish popula- The namesake palm trees were planted tion has been steadily increasing ever Key West & Lower Keys Snipe Keys Mud Keys 24º40’N 81º55’W 81º50’W 81º45’W 81º40’W Waltz Key Basin Lower Harbor Bluefish Channel Keys Bay Keys Northwest Channel Calda Bank Cottrell Key Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge Big Coppitt Key Fleming Key 24º35’N Lower Keys Big Mullet Key Medical Center 1 Stock Island Boca Chica Key Mule Key Key West Naval Air Station Duval St Archer Key Truman Ave Flagler
    [Show full text]
  • Reef Explorer Guide Highlights the Underwater World ALLIGATOR of the Florida Keys, Including Unique Coral Reefs from Key Largo to OLD CANNON Key West
    REEF EXPLORER The Florida Keys & Key West, "come as you are" © 2018 Monroe County Tourist Development Council. All rights reserved. MCTDU-3471 • 15K • 7/18 fla-keys.com/diving GULF OF FT. JEFFERSON NATIONAL MONUMNET MEXICO AND DRY TORTUGAS (70 MILES WEST OF KEY WEST) COTTRELL KEY YELLOW WESTERN ROCKS DRY ROCKS SAND Marathon KEY COFFIN’S ROCK PATCH KEY EASTERN BIG PINE KEY & THE LOWER KEYS DRY ROCKS DELTA WESTERN SOMBRERO SHOALS SAMBOS AMERICAN PORKFISH SHOALS KISSING HERMAN’S GRUNTS LOOE KEY HOLE SAMANTHA’S NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY OUTER REEF CARYSFORT ELBOW DRY ROCKS CHRIST GRECIAN CHRISTOF THE ROCKS ABYSS OF THE KEY ABYSSA LARGO (ARTIFICIAL REEF) How it works FRENCH How it works PICKLES Congratulations! You are on your way to becoming a Reef Explorer — enjoying at least one of the unique diving ISLAMORADA HEN & CONCH CHICKENS REEF MOLASSES and snorkeling experiences in each region of the Florida Keys: LITTLE SPANISH CONCH Key Largo, Islamorada, Marathon, Big Pine Key & The Lower Keys PLATE FLEET and Key West. DAVIS CROCKER REEF REEF/WALL Beginners and experienced divers alike can become a Reef Explorer. This Reef Explorer Guide highlights the underwater world ALLIGATOR of the Florida Keys, including unique coral reefs from Key Largo to OLD CANNON Key West. To participate, pursue validation from any dive or snorkel PORKFISH HORSESHOE operator in each of the five regions. Upon completion of your last reef ATLANTIC exploration, email us at [email protected] to receive an access OCEAN code for a personalized Keys Reef Explorer poster with your name on it.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Keys Lobster Regulations
    FACTS TO KNOW BEFORE YOU GO. Additional rules and measuring information found in Rules For All Seasons & Measuring Lobster sections of this brochure. FLORIDA KEYS AREAS/ZONES CLOSED TO HARVEST OF SPINY LOBSTER LOBSTER REGULATIONS FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY JOHN PENNEKAMP Includes Mini Sport Season CLOSED ZONES (YEAR-ROUND) CORAL REEF STATE (MARKED BY 30” YELLOW BOUNDARY BUOY) PARK (JPCRSP) Sanctuary Preservation Areas Ecological Reserves Special-use Research JPCRSP is Closed (SPAs) Western Sambo, Only Areas (No entry) for Sport Season Carysfort Reef, The Elbow, Tortugas Ecological Conch Reef, All of JPCRSP is closed Key Largo Dry Rocks, Grecian Reserve North Tennessee Reef, during the 2-day Sport Rocks, French Reef, Molasses and South Looe Key Patch Reef, Season for the harvest of Reef, Conch Reef, Davis Reef, (refer to GPS coordinates, Eastern Sambo. any lobster species. Hen and Chickens, Cheeca Rocks, not marked). Year-Round Coral Rule: Alligator Reef, Coffins Patch, No person shall harvest Sombrero Key, Newfound Harbor any lobster species from Key, Looe Key, Eastern Dry Rocks, or within any coral Rock Key, Sand Key. formation (patch reef) regardless of its proximity Other Closed Areas (Year-Round) to or exclusion from a Lobster Exclusion Zone. Everglades National Park Biscayne Bay Card Sound Spiny City of Layton Lobster Sanctuary JPCRSP Lobster Dry Tortugas National Park Artificial Habitat Exclusion Zones: Biscayne National Park Coral Reef in State Waters Closed year-round. Protection Areas Marked by Orange/White Spar buoys, found at: Spanish and Slipper Lobster Closed Areas Turtle Rocks, Basin Hills Spanish and Slipper Lobster are closed year-round North, Basin Hills East, to harvest in Key Largo and Looe Key Existing Management Areas, Basin Hills South, Higdon’s Reef, Cannon all FKNMS zones listed above in this table, Everglades Patch, Mosquito Bank KeysLobsterSeason.com & Dry Tortugas National Parks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Elkton Hastings Historic Farmstead Survey, St
    THE ELKTON HASTINGS HISTORIC FARMSTEAD SURVEY, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners 2740 Industry Center Road St. Augustine, Florida 32084 May 2009 4104 St. Augustine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207- 6609 www.bland.cc Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Consultants Jacksonville, Florida Charleston, South Carolina Atlanta, Georgia THE ELKTON HASTINGS HISTORIC FARMSTEAD SURVEY, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared for: St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners St. Johns County Miscellaneous Contract (2008) By: Myles C. P. Bland, RPA and Sidney P. Johnston, MA BAIJ08010498.01 BAI Report of Investigations No. 415 May 2009 4104 St. Augustine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207- 6609 www.bland.cc Bland & Associates, Inc. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Consultants Atlanta, Georgia Charleston, South Carolina Jacksonville, Florida MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This project was initiated in August of 2008 by Bland & Associates, Incorporated (BAI) of Jacksonville, Florida. The goal of this project was to identify and record a specific type of historic resource located within rural areas of St. Johns County in the general vicinity of Elkton and Hastings. This assessment was specifically designed to examine structures listed on the St. Johns County Property Appraiser’s website as being built prior to 1920. The survey excluded the area of incorporated Hastings. The survey goals were to develop a historic context for the farmhouses in the area, and to make an assessment of the farmhouses with an emphasis towards individual and thematic National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) potential. Florida Master Site File (FMSF) forms in a SMARTFORM II database format were completed on all newly surveyed structures, and updated on all previously recorded structures within the survey area.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Matanzas National Monument Digital Documentation Project:Â
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Digital Heritage and Humanities Collections Faculty and Staff Publications Tampa Library 8-2013 Fort Matanzas National Monument Digital Documentation Project: Utilizing Terrestrial Lidar For The Understanding Of Structural Integrity Concerns For Coastal Forts And Coquina Structures (Cesu,National Park Service) Lori D. Collins University of South Florida, [email protected] Travis F. Doering University of South Florida, [email protected] Jorge Gonzalez University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/dhhc_facpub Scholar Commons Citation Collins, Lori D.; Doering, Travis F.; and Gonzalez, Jorge, "Fort Matanzas National Monument Digital Documentation Project: Utilizing Terrestrial Lidar For The Understanding Of Structural Integrity Concerns For Coastal Forts And Coquina Structures (Cesu,National Park Service)" (2013). Digital Heritage and Humanities Collections Faculty and Staff Publications. 3. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/dhhc_facpub/3 This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Tampa Library at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Digital Heritage and Humanities Collections Faculty and Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION PROJECT: UTILIZING TERRESTRIAL LIDAR FOR THE UNDERSTANDING OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY CONCERNS FOR COASTAL FORTS AND COQUINA STRUCTURES (CESU, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE) LORI COLLINS, PH.D. AND TRAVIS DOERING, PH.D., 8/2013 CONTRIBUTIONS BY: JORGE GONZALEZ, STEVEN FERNANDEZ, JAMES MCLEOD, AND JOSEPH EVANS Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr. Margo Schwadron, Archeologist with the Southeast Archeological Center, who assisted with the planning, organizing, and implementation of this project and provided support, advice, and suggestions throughout the process.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Florida Local Abundance of Quartz Sand
    28390_00_cover.qxd 1/16/09 4:03 PM Page 1 Summary of Content The geologic past of Florida is mostly out of sight with its maximum elevation at only ~105 m (in the panhandle) and much of south Florida is virtually flat. The surface of Florida is dominated by subtle shorelines from previous sea-level high-stands, karst-generated lakes, and small river drainage basins What we see are modern geologic (and biologic) environments, some that are world famous such as the Everglades, the coral reefs, and the beaches. But, where did all of this come from? Does Florida have a geologic history other than the usual mantra about having been “derived from the sea”? If so, what events of the geologic past converged to produce the Florida we see today? Toanswer these questions, this module has two objectives: (1) to provide a rapid transit through geologic time to describe the key events of Florida’s past emphasizing processes, and (2) to present the high-profile modern geologic features in Florida that have made the State a world-class destination for visitors. About the Author Albert C. Hine is the Associate Dean and Professor in the College of Marine Science at the University of South Florida. He earned his A.B. from Dartmouth College; M.S. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst; and Ph.D. from the University of South Carolina, Columbia—all in the geological sciences. Dr. Hine is a broadly-trained geological oceanographer who has addressed sedimentary geology and stratigraphy problems from the estuarine system out to the base of slope.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Coral Bleaching
    Mote Marine Laboratory / Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Coral Bleaching Early Warning Network Current Conditions Report #20171004 Updated October 4, 2017 Summary: Based on climate predictions, current conditions, and field observations, the threat for mass coral bleaching within the FKNMS is currently LOW. NOAA Coral Reef Watch Current and 60% Probability Coral Bleaching Alert Outlook October 2, 2017 (experimental) June 30, 2015 (experimental) Figure 2. NOAA’s Experimental 5km Coral Bleaching HotSpot Map for Florida October 2, 2017. coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/vs/gauges/florida_keys.php Figure 1. NOAA’s 5 km Experimental Current and 60% Probability Coral Bleaching Alert Outlook Areas through December, 2017. Updated October 2, 2017. coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/vs/gauges/florida_keys.php Weather and Sea Temperatures According to the newly released NOAA Coral Reef Watch (CRW) experimental 5 kilometer (km) Satellite Current and 60% Probability Coral Bleaching Alert Area, there is a bleaching watch for parts of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, however, the coral bleaching outlook conditions are currently not favorable for a mass bleaching event (Fig. 1). Figure 3. NOAA’s Experimental 5km Degree Heating Weeks Map for Florida October 2, 2017. Recent remote sensing analysis by NOAA’s CRW program indicates that most coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/vs/gauges/florida_keys.php of the Florida Keys region is currently experiencing minimal thermal stress. NOAA’s new experimental 5 km Coral Bleaching HotSpot Map (Fig. 2), 35 which illustrates current sea surface temperatures compared to the average 30 temperature for the warmest month, shows only slightly elevated temperatures for the Florida Keys. Similarly, NOAA’s experimental 5 km 25 20 Degree Heating Weeks (DHW) map, which illustrates how much heat stress Temp.
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Beaches 2004 (PDF)
    National List of Beaches March 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460 EPA-823-R-04-004 i Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 States Alabama ............................................................................................................... 3 Alaska................................................................................................................... 6 California .............................................................................................................. 9 Connecticut .......................................................................................................... 17 Delaware .............................................................................................................. 21 Florida .................................................................................................................. 22 Georgia................................................................................................................. 36 Hawaii................................................................................................................... 38 Illinois ................................................................................................................... 45 Indiana.................................................................................................................. 47 Louisiana
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix I: Critical Erosion Report 2018 State Hazard Mitigation Plan ______
    Appendix I: Critical Erosion Report 2018 State Hazard Mitigation Plan _______________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX I: Critical Erosion Report _______________________________________________________________________________________ Florida Division of Emergency Management Critically Eroded Beaches In Florida Division of Water Resource Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection August 2016 2600 Blair Stone Rd., MS 3590 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 www.dep.state.fl.us Foreword This report provides an inventory of Florida’s erosion problem areas fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, Straits of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and the roughly sixty-six coastal barrier tidal inlets. The erosion problem areas are classified as either critical or non-critical and county maps and tables are provided to depict the areas designated critically and non-critically eroded. Many areas have significant historic or contemporary erosion conditions, yet the erosion processes do not currently threaten public or private interests. These areas are therefore designated as non-critically eroded areas and require close monitoring in case conditions become critical. This report, originating in 1989, is periodically updated to include additions and deletions. All information is provided for planning purposes only and the user is cautioned to obtain the most recent erosion areas listing available in the updated critical erosion report of 2016 on pages 4 through 20 or refer to the specific county of interest listed
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents VOLUME I
    PENSACOLA, FLORIDA The Search for the Hidden People of St. Michael ’s Cemetery VOLUME I Lists of Figures, Tables and Appendices; Acknowledgments; Chapters I-IX Cryptic Message #2. David S. Hinks. Courtesy of the Arts Council of Northwest Florida Margo S. Stringfield, Stuart Hamilton, Johan Liebens, Jay K. Johnson, Bryan S. Haley, Aaron Fogle, Kendra Kennedy, Siska Williams with contributions by Elizabeth D. Benchley University of West Florida Archaeology Institute Report of Investigations Number 158 December 2008 Funded in part by the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, assisted by the Florida Historical Commission Table of Contents VOLUME I: List of Figures v List of Tables xiv List of Appendices xv Acknowledgments xvii Abstract xx Chapter I Introduction 1 Chapter II Environmental Setting 3 Physiography and Geology Drainage Characteristics Climate Flora Fauna Project Setting Summary Chapter III Archaeological and Historical Settings 9 Previous Research Historic Chronology Chapter IV Project Design and Methods 18 The Research Team Testing Methodology for the Project Chapter V A Discussion of the Transformational Funerary Landscape 26 Margo Stringfield Interments at Santa Maria de Galve and Isla de Santa Rosa Pensacola (1698-1757) Re-establishment on the Mainland: San Miguel de Penzacola (ca 1754-1763) A Proper Town: British Pensacola (1763-1781) A Community Cemetery is Defined The Return of Spanish Rule: 1781 Chapter VI St. Michael’s Cemetery: A Formal Identity 69 Margo Stringfield Spatial landscape of St. Michael’s Cemetery A Democracy of the Dead Landscape Changes and Urban Growth Community Stewardship at the Turn of the 21st Century Summary Chapter VII St.
    [Show full text]