DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Profile of the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to the California-Mexico Border)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Profile of the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to the California-Mexico Border) California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Regional Profile of the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to the California-Mexico Border) June 25, 2009 This is the 2nd printed edition, June 25, 2009. First printed edition September 15, 2008. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative c/o California Natural Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 http://www.dfg.ca.gov /mlpa [email protected] Acknowledgements and credits: The Marine Life Protection Act Initiative thanks the many persons and organizations who supplied information in response to the first printed draft of this profile. Credits for cover photos: Garibaldi and kelp – iStockphoto/Tammy Peluso; Starfish – Reuben E. Reynoso; Coast – iStockphoto/Amy Dala; Shore fisher – iStockphoto/David Gunn; Pelican – iStockphoto/Robert Deal; Santa Barbara Harbor – iStockphoto/Chris Scredon; Surfer – iStockphoto/Ian McDonnell How to Use This Document This is the second printed edition of the Regional Profile of the South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to the California-Mexico Border). Both versions have been created with the intention of supplying stakeholders with knowledge crucial to the process of developing and evaluating proposals for Marine Protected Areas in the study region. How We Have Made the Book Easier to Use The list of acronyms and abbreviations has been placed inside the back cover, where it is easy to find. We have made it easier to find the full details for works cited in the text. In all cases in which an organization is cited by an acronym, we have inserted the the full reference in the References Cited list by exactly the acronym used in the inline citation in the text. In these cases, the full name of the entity is included in the first entry for that entity in the References Cited list. We have moved the list of References Cited to the very back of the book, to make it easier to find. Except for the gallery of maps, the entire contents of the book—including appendices—are page-numbered in a single sequence, and all tables and figures, including those in appendices, are listed in the tables of Tables and Figures at the front of the book. We have enhanced readability by the removal of unnecessary box borders in tables. This change has also made the tables more compact, so that in many cases, a table which had used multiple pages now appears on a single page. How to Learn More The list of References Cited, at the end of this book, lists over 400 works which were consulted in the document’s creation. In the case of many academic papers, a trip to a good library is still necessary. But, increasingly, valuable documents are to be found online; we have supplied a URL in every case where we were able to identify an online source for a document. MLPA Initiative staff have compiled and developed spatial data layers and have conducted geographic information system (GIS) analyses to support the planning process. This regional profile includes maps of only selected spatial data layers. Additional spatial data layers for the study region are available through the online tool, MarineMap (http://www.marinemap.org/marinemap/). Data layers available at the date of printing are listed in Appendix B. iii Contents Tables ........................................................................................................................................................viii Figures.........................................................................................................................................................xi Maps ...........................................................................................................................................................xii Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................xv 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1 2. Description of the MLPA South Coast Study Region..........................................................................3 3. Ecological Setting ...................................................................................................................................7 3.1 Marine Habitats and Communities......................................................................................................8 3.1.1 Depth Categories.......................................................................................................................10 3.1.2 Intertidal Zones ..........................................................................................................................11 3.1.3 Estuaries and Lagoons ..............................................................................................................14 3.1.4 Seagrass Beds ..........................................................................................................................20 3.1.5 Kelp Forests...............................................................................................................................21 3.1.6 Hard-bottom/Rocky Reefs .........................................................................................................23 3.1.7 Sandy/Soft Bottoms ...................................................................................................................24 3.1.8 Underwater Pinnacles................................................................................................................25 3.1.9 Submarine Canyons ..................................................................................................................25 3.1.10 Offshore Rocks and Islands.....................................................................................................25 3.1.11 Oceanographic Habitats ..........................................................................................................27 3.2 Important Regional Species..............................................................................................................31 3.2.1 Species Likely to Benefit From MPAs .......................................................................................31 3.2.2 Depleted, Depressed and Overfished Species..........................................................................32 3.2.3 Fished Species of Interest .........................................................................................................36 3.2.4 Special-Status Species..............................................................................................................42 3.3 Areas of Biodiversity Significance.....................................................................................................49 4. Land-Sea Interactions...........................................................................................................................51 4.1 Ecological Linkages ..........................................................................................................................51 4.2 Coastal Watersheds and Land Use in Study Region .......................................................................53 4.3 Coastal Water Quality .......................................................................................................................54 4.3.1 Existing Water Quality Protection Designations ........................................................................55 4.3.2 Offshore Water Quality Issues...................................................................................................56 4.3.3 Impaired Water Bodies in the South Coast Study Region.........................................................59 4.3.4 Beach Closures, Postings, and Rain Advisories .......................................................................60 4.3.5 Sediment Quality and Areas of Impairment...............................................................................63 4.4 Effects of Land Use on Coastal Waters............................................................................................64 4.4.1 Impacts of Local Geology on Water Quality ..............................................................................64 4.4.2 Point Sources.............................................................................................................................65 4.4.3 Nonpoint Sources ......................................................................................................................67 4.5 Coastal Energy Projects ...................................................................................................................70 4.5.1 Oil Platforms ..............................................................................................................................71 4.5.2 Electric Generating Power Plants..............................................................................................71 4.6 Water Quality Projects in the South Coast Study Region.................................................................73 4.6.1 Water Quality Monitoring Programs ..........................................................................................73 4.6.2 Water Quality Restoration Projects ...........................................................................................74 5. Socioeconomic Setting.........................................................................................................................77
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Format C V2.1
    APPENDIX G-7 Listed, Proposed Species, and Critical Habitat Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project Region Listed, Proposed Species, and Critical Habitat Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project Region. Scientific Name/ Common Federal/State/ General Habitat Description Habitat Rationale Name CNPS/other Present/ Status Absent Invertebrates Adela oplerella --/--/G2G3, S2S3 Opler's longhorn moth is recorded from 18 sites A Suitable habitat for this species is not Opler’s longhorn moth extending along the west side of the San present within the project site. Francisco Bay from 5 miles southeast of Nicasio in Marin County south to the Gilroy area of Santa Clara County and from the Oakland area on the inner Coast Ranges. Habitat for Opler's longhorn moth consists of serpentine grassland (Federal Register 50CFR17). Andrena blennospermatis --/--/G2, S2 Known occurrences in Contra Costa, Lake, A Yellow carpet is absent from the Blennosperma vernal pool Sonoma, Solano, Yolo, Tehamea, Sacramento, project site. Upland habitat adjacent andrenid bee San Joaquin, El Dorado, and Placer Counties. to vernal pools in the area is Habitat consists of upland areas near vernal pools composed of substrate, such as containing yellow carpet (Blennosperma sp.). gravel, compacted soil, or heavily Forages exclusively on flowering yellow carpet. disturbed soil, which does not This species excavates nests in soil in adjacent provide suitable nesting habitat for upland areas (Thorp 2008). this species. Branchinecta conservatio FE/--/-- Conservancy fairy shrimp inhabit rather large, cool- A Suitable habitat for this species does conservancy fairy shrimp water vernal pools with moderately turbid water. It not occur on site.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. an Approach to Antarctic Glacial History: the Aims of Leg 1781
    Barker, P.F., Camerlenghi, A., Acton, G.D., et al., 1999 Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports Volume 178 2. AN APPROACH TO ANTARCTIC GLACIAL HISTORY: THE AIMS OF LEG 1781 P.F. Barker2 and A. Camerlenghi3 Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 178 was proposed partly as an examination of Antarctic Peninsula glacial history and partly as a test of the strategy of determining this history by sampling glacially trans- ported sediments at the continental margin. If successful, it could lead to a program of two or three other legs around Antarctica that, in com- bination, might determine the long-term history of the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet. Leg 178 also had a second objective: to obtain a long, high- resolution record of Holocene climate from Palmer Deep, an isolated deep basin on the inner continental shelf. The proposal that became Leg 178 was therefore based on several assumptions, described below. Briefly, they are: 1. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is now and has been throughout its ex- istence an important component of the Earth’s climate engine, which it is necessary to document and understand. 2. An understanding of the ice sheet’s function and what controls its development cannot be obtained until its history is known. 3. Existing knowledge of Antarctic glacial history, derived largely from sparse onshore data and low-latitude climate proxies, is in- adequate and ambiguous; the proxies themselves disagree. Fur- thermore, continued use of the same proxies and onshore data is unlikely to resolve present ambiguities and disputes. 1Examples of how to reference the 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Doggin' America's Beaches
    Doggin’ America’s Beaches A Traveler’s Guide To Dog-Friendly Beaches - (and those that aren’t) Doug Gelbert illustrations by Andrew Chesworth Cruden Bay Books There is always something for an active dog to look forward to at the beach... DOGGIN’ AMERICA’S BEACHES Copyright 2007 by Cruden Bay Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the Publisher. Cruden Bay Books PO Box 467 Montchanin, DE 19710 www.hikewithyourdog.com International Standard Book Number 978-0-9797074-4-5 “Dogs are our link to paradise...to sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon is to be back in Eden, where doing nothing was not boring - it was peace.” - Milan Kundera Ahead On The Trail Your Dog On The Atlantic Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Gulf Of Mexico Beaches 6 Your Dog On The Pacific Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Great Lakes Beaches 0 Also... Tips For Taking Your Dog To The Beach 6 Doggin’ The Chesapeake Bay 4 Introduction It is hard to imagine any place a dog is happier than at a beach. Whether running around on the sand, jumping in the water or just lying in the sun, every dog deserves a day at the beach. But all too often dog owners stopping at a sandy stretch of beach are met with signs designed to make hearts - human and canine alike - droop: NO DOGS ON BEACH.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.0 Potential Coastal Receiver Areas
    4.0 POTENTIAL COASTAL RECEIVER AREAS The San Diego shoreline, including the beaches, bluffs, bays, and estuaries, is a significant environmental and recreational resource. It is an integral component of the area’s ecosystem and is interconnected with the nearshore ocean environment, coastal lagoons, wetland habitats, and upstream watersheds. The beaches are also a valuable economic resource and key part of the region’s positive image and overall quality of life. The shoreline consists primarily of narrow beaches backed by steep sea cliffs. In present times, the coastline is erosional except for localized and short-lived accretion due to historic nourishment activities. The beaches and cliffs have been eroding for thousands of years caused by ocean waves and rising sea levels which continue to aggravate this erosion. Episodic and site- specific coastal retreat, such as bluff collapse, is inevitable, although some coastal areas have remained stable for many years. In recent times, this erosion has been accelerated by urban development. The natural supply of sand to the region’s beaches has been significantly diminished by flood control structures, dams, siltation basins, removal of sand and gravel through mining operations, harbor construction, increased wave energy since the late 1970s, and the creation of impervious surfaces associated with urbanization and development. With more development, the region’s beaches will continue to lose more sand and suffer increased erosion, thereby reducing, and possibly eliminating their physical, resource and economic benefits. The State of the Coast Report, San Diego Region (USACE 1991) evaluated the natural and man- made coastal processes within the region. This document stated that during the next 50 years, the San Diego region “…is on a collision course.
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Marsh Creek Watershed Marsh Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the eastern slopes of Mt. Diablo to Suisun Bay in the northern San Francisco Estuary. Its watershed consists of about 100 square miles. The headwaters of Marsh Creek consist of numerous small, intermittent and perennial tributaries within the Black Hills. The creek drains to the northwest before abruptly turning east near Marsh Creek Springs. From Marsh Creek Springs, Marsh Creek flows in an easterly direction entering Marsh Creek Reservoir, constructed in the 1960s. The creek is largely channelized in the lower watershed, and includes a drop structure near the city of Brentwood that appears to be a complete passage barrier. Marsh Creek enters the Big Break area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta northeast of the city of Oakley. Marsh Creek No salmonids were observed by DFG during an April 1942 visual survey of Marsh Creek at two locations: 0.25 miles upstream from the mouth in a tidal reach, and in close proximity to a bridge four miles east of Byron (Curtis 1942).
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Rapid Bioassessment Project Report Contra
    CONTRA COSTA MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PLAN (CCMAP) 2004 RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROJECT REPORT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Contra Costa Clean Water Program 600 Main St. Martinez, CA 94553 Prepared by: Scott Cressey Cressey & Associates 147 Ashbury Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 & Chris Sommers EOA, Inc. 1410 Jackson Street Oakland, CA 94612 August 18, 2005 1 Preface The Contra Costa Clean Water Program (Program) initiated a water quality monitoring and assessment plan (Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Plan) within Alhambra Creek, the Program's pilot watershed in 2001. The Program contracted Scott Cressey of Cressey & Associates in 2002, 2003 and 2004 to assist in preparing the work plan for, and ultimately the implementation of, a study to conduct rapid bioassessments on Las Trampas Creek, Refugio Creek, Rodeo Creek, Edwards Creek and Lower Marsh Creek. The California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP) protocols for Non-point Source Design were followed during all years. This project was overseen and managed by Chris Sommers (EOA Inc.), Monitoring Program Project Manager for the Program. Mr. Sommers worked closely with Cressey & Associates to apply his expertise bioassessment to study design and data analysis, and was also responsible for the critical review and edits to the draft reports. iii D:\2004 Bio Report Final.doc Executive Summary In April 2001, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (Program) initiated a water quality monitoring and assessment plan within Alhambra Creek, the Program's pilot watershed. The Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Plan (CCMAP) is a long-term strategy designed to assess the conditions of watersheds, water bodies, and water quality within Contra Costa County (County).
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Spring Commencement
    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern Commencement Programs Office of Student Affairs Spring 2017 2017 Spring Commencement Georgia Southern University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/commencement- programs Part of the Higher Education Commons Recommended Citation Georgia Southern University, "2017 Spring Commencement" (2017). Commencement Programs. 3. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/commencement-programs/3 This brochure is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of Student Affairs at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Commencement Programs by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EIGHTY-NINTH ANNUAL Spring Commencement GRADUATE UNDERGRADUATE Friday, May 5, 2017 Saturday, May 6, 2017 1:00 P.M. 9:00 A.M. Hanner Fieldhouse Paulson Stadium 590 Herty Drive 203 Lanier Drive Statesboro, Georgia Statesboro, Georgia Georgia Southern University 1 GRADUATE CEREMONY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FACULTY MARSHALS Jack N. Averitt College of Graduate Studies JAMES M. LOBUE, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry DEBORAH M. THOMAS, Ph.D., Associate Dean of Undergraduate Teacher Education, College of Education and Associate Professor, Teaching and Learning College of Business Administration EDDIE METREJEAN, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Accountancy L. DWIGHT SNEATHEN, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Accountancy College of Education MISSY BENNETT, Ed.D., Professor, Teaching and Learning ANTONIO PARTIDA GUTIERREZ DE BLUME, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Curriculum, Foundations and Reading Allen E. Paulson College of Engineering and ANDREW A. ALLEN, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Computer Sciences Information Technology CHRISTOPHER A. KADLEC, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Information Technology College of Health and Human Sciences LI LI, Ph.D., Professor, Health and Kinesiology MARIAN M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Newgate Calendar Supplement 3 Edited by Donal Ó Danachair
    The Newgate Calendar Supplement 3 Edited By Donal Ó Danachair Published by the Ex-classics Project, year http://www.exclassics.com Public Domain The Newgate Calendar CONTENTS SIR HENRY MORGAN. Pirate who became Governor of Jamaica (1688) ................ 4 MAJOR STEDE BONNET. Wealthy Landowner turned Pirate, Hanged 10th December 1718 ............................................................................................................ 13 ANN HOLLAND Wife of a highwayman with whom she robbed many people. Executed 1705 .............................................................................................................. 15 DICK MORRIS. Cunning and audacious swindler, executed 1706 ........................... 16 WILLIAM NEVISON Highwayman who robbed his fellows. Executed at York, 4th May 1684 ..................................................................................................................... 19 CAPTAIN AVERY Pirate who died penniless, having been robbed of his booty by merchants ..................................................................................................................... 24 CAPTAIN MARTEL Pirate ........................................................................................ 31 CAPTAIN TEACH alias BLACK BEARD, the Most Famous Pirate of all. ............... 33 CAPTAIN EDWARD ENGLAND Pirate .................................................................. 39 CAPTAIN CHARLES VANE. Pirate ......................................................................... 49 CAPTAIN JOHN RACKAM.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 Beach Closure Report
    San Diego County 2003 Beach Closure & Advisory Report Crystal Pier, Pacific Beach. Photo: F. Poli Beach water quality contamination events and days posted for beaches within San Diego County, California, USA. Prepared by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Land & Water Quality Division Recreational Water Program 1 County of San Diego BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GREG COX District 1 DIANNE JACOB District 2 PAM SLATER District 3 RON ROBERTS District 4 BILL HORN District 5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WALTER F. EKARD DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP ROBERT R. COPPER DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH GARY W. ERBECK, DIRECTOR Prepared by LAND AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION MARK McPHERSON, CHIEF Project staff: Clay Clifton and Frank Lupena 2 San Diego County 2003 Beach Closure & Advisory Report Summary and Comparison to Previous Years In 2003, San Diego County beaches had 1115 water quality closure and advisory days as a result of reported contamination events. 1 The county as a whole also experienced 32 days when all coastal waters were under a General Advisory due to urban runoff impacting beaches after rainfall. Of the 1115 days posted for the year, there were 493 water quality closure and advisory days posted between April 1 and October 31, 2003. This report will present the causes of water quality contact advisories and closures, and the days posted for those events, for the entire county and by coastal jurisdiction. Except for closure events by themselves, comparisons to previous years will use the 493 water quality closure and advisory days posted between April 1 and October 31.
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Beaches 2008
    National List of Beaches September 2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460 EPA-823-R-08-004 Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 States Alabama........................................................................................................................................... 3 Alaska .............................................................................................................................................. 5 California.......................................................................................................................................... 6 Connecticut .................................................................................................................................... 15 Delaware........................................................................................................................................ 17 Florida ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Georgia .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Hawaii ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Illinois ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]