DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation EPA/600/R-16/169 | August 2016 | www.epa.gov/research Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation Office of Research and Development 1 EPA/600/R-16/169 August 2016 Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation by Michael A. Lewis Gulf Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Gulf Breeze, FL 32561 J. Taylor Kirschenfeld Water Quality and Land Management Division Escambia County Pensacola, FL 32503 Traci Goodhart West Florida Regional Planning Council Pensacola, FL 32514 National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gulf Breeze, FL. 32561 i Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development (ORD) funded and collaborated in the research described herein with representatives from Escambia County’s Water Quality and Land Management Division and the West Florida Regional Planning Council. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. The appropriate citation for this report is: Lewis, Michael, J. Taylor Kirschenfeld, and Traci Goodheart. Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/169, 2016. ii Foreword This report supports EPA’s Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. The objective of this Program is to assist community leaders make decisions that preserve the environment and the vital services they provide. The primary objective of this report is to provide an updated summary of the ecological condition of the Pensacola Bay System (PBS) and the value of its ecological goods and services. An updated summary is needed since a considerable amount of published and unpublished technical information has become available since the last summary published 15 years ago. This updated report serves as a technical resource for the public and the regulatory and scientific communities related to resource management. It provides a synopsis of the environmental database (1680-present) and the research needed to maintain and improve the environmental quality of the PBS. The report is a collaborative effort. Authors are from the USEPA’s Gulf Ecology Division Research Laboratory (Gulf Breeze, FL), West Florida Regional Planning Council (Pensacola, FL) and Escambia County Water Quality and Land Management Division (Pensacola, FL). The USEPA Gulf Ecology Division conducts ecological effects research to assess the sustainability of estuarine and coastal systems and determines the factors causing impacts in order to predict future risks. The mission of the WFRPC is to provide professional planning, coordinating and advisory services to local governments, state and federal agencies and to he public to preserve and enhance the quality of life in northwest Florida. Escambia County’s Water Quality and Land Management Division serves the community through development and oversight of local environmental resource projects and programs for the county. iii Table of Contents NOTICE ........................................................................................................................................................................II FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................................III LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................... VII LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................ XII ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... XIV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. XV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ XVI 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................1 2 HISTORICAL DATABASE ..............................................................................................................................................5 3 NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES (BIODIVERSITY) ..................................................................................................... 13 3.1 History/Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Fish............................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Macrobenthos ........................................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 Phytoplankton ........................................................................................................................................... 20 3.5 Zooplankton .............................................................................................................................................. 20 3.6 Periphytic Algae ......................................................................................................................................... 21 3.7 Tidal Wetland Vascular Plants ................................................................................................................... 22 3.8 Biodiversity Differences ............................................................................................................................. 22 4 ANTHROPOGENIC CONTAMINANTS ........................................................................................................................... 23 5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY/SUPERFUND SITES ............................................................................................................. 25 6 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................................................... 26 6.1 Nutrients .................................................................................................................................................... 28 6.2 Trace Metals .............................................................................................................................................. 30 6.3 Persistent Non-Nutrient Organics ............................................................................................................. 32 6.4 Effects-Based Research ............................................................................................................................. 32 7 SEDIMENT QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................... 33 7.1 Chemical Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 34 7.2 Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines Exceedance ............................................................................. 40 7.3 Toxicity (Fauna) ......................................................................................................................................... 44 7.4 Phytotoxicity .............................................................................................................................................. 50 7.5 Genotoxicity .............................................................................................................................................. 50 7.6 Macrobenthic Community Metrics ........................................................................................................... 51 iv 7.7 SQAG Predictive Ability ............................................................................................................................. 54 7.8 Spatial Comparisons of Sediment Quality ................................................................................................. 55 7.9 Stressor Source Comparisons for Sediment Quality ................................................................................. 59 8 DREDGING ........................................................................................................................................................... 60 9 BIOACCUMULATION (CONTAMINANT BIOAVAILABILITY) ............................................................................................... 62 9.1 Trace Metals (Sans Mercury) ....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Toxicity of Para-Nonylphenol to Saltwater Animals
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 617±621, 2000 Printed in the USA 0730-7268/00 $9.00 1 .00 ACUTE TOXICITY OF PARA-NONYLPHENOL TO SALTWATER ANIMALS SUZANNE M. LUSSIER,*² DENISE CHAMPLIN,² JOSEPH LIVOLSI,² SHERRY POUCHER,³ and RICHARD J. PRUELL² ²U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 ³Science Applications International Corporation, 221 Third Street, Admiral's Gate, Newport, Rhode Island 02840, USA (Received 25 November 1998; Accepted 14 June 1999) AbstractÐpara-Nonylphenol (PNP), a mixture of alkylphenols used in producing nonionic surfactants, is distributed widely in surface waters and aquatic sediments, where it can affect saltwater species. This article describes a database for acute toxicity of PNP derived for calculating a national saltwater quality criterion. Using a ¯ow-through exposure system with measured concen- trations, we tested early life stages of four species of saltwater invertebrates and two species of ®sh. Static 96-h tests were also conducted on zoeal Homarus americanus, embryo-larval Mulinia lateralis, and larval Pleuronectes americanus. The number of organisms surviving the ¯ow-through test was measured at 2, 4, 8, and 12 h and daily through day 7. Mortality for most species plateaued by 96 h. The ranked sensitivities (96-h 50% lethal concentrations, measured in micrograms per liter) for the species tested were 17 for Pleuronectes americanus, 37.9 (48-h 50% effective concentration) for Mulinia lateralis, 59.4 for Paleomonetes vulgaris, 60.6 for Americamysis bahia (formerly Mysidopsis bahia), 61.6 for Leptocheirus plumulosos, 70 for Menidia beryllina, 71 for Homarus americanus, 142 for Cyprinodon variegatus, and .195 for Dyspanopius sayii.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION in Re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMEN
    USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 1 of 354 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE ) (MDL 1700) SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT ) PRACTICES LITIGATION ) ) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Carlene Craig, et. al. v. FedEx Case No. 3:05-cv-530 RLM ) Ground Package Systems, Inc., ) ) PROPOSED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER This matter came before the Court for hearing on March 11, 2019, to consider final approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement reached by and between Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O’Brien, Neal Bergkamp, and Dominic Lupo1 (collectively, “the Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Certified Class, and Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FXG”) (collectively, “the Parties”), the terms of which Settlement are set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in support of Preliminary Approval of the Kansas Class Action 1 Carlene Craig withdrew as a Named Plaintiff on November 29, 2006. See MDL Doc. No. 409. Named Plaintiffs Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco are not movants for final approval and filed an objection [MDL Doc. Nos. 3251/3261]. USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 2 of 354 Settlement [MDL Doc. No. 3154-1]. Also before the Court is ERISA Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and for Payment of Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, filed with the Court on October 19, 2018 [MDL Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Security Disclosure
    MUNICIPAL SECURITY DISCLOSURE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 For the City of Miami Beach, Florida and The Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (A Component Unit of the City of Miami Beach, Florida) MUNICIPAL SECURITY DISCLOSURE City of Miami Beach, Florida For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Prepared by: The City of Miami Beach Finance Department 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida • 33139 Tel: (305) 673 – 7466 • Fax: (305) 673 – 7795 Last updated July 13, 2020 City of Miami Beach, Florida Report of Annual Financial Information For Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 This Report of Annual Financial Information is being filed with the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA), a service of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). The following is a list of all outstanding bonds and other obligations for the City of Miami Beach at September 30, 2019, in accordance with provisions regarding continuing disclosure set forth in: Outstanding Bonds Original Description Resolution Resolution Commitment Amount Number Date Date $22,500,000 Gulf Breeze Fixed Rate Loan, Series 1985E No. 2001-24500 June 26, 2001 August 1, 2001 (used to repay a portion of the outstanding principal from the Sunshine State Loan and renovation and improvement of two City owned golf courses and their related facilities), (“2001 Gulf Breeze Loan”) $62,465,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 (used No. 2003-25240 June 11, 2003 July 22, 2003 to improve neighborhood infrastructure in the City, consisting of streetscape and traffic calming measures, shoreline stabilization, Fire Safety Projects and Beaches Projects) (Note: The outstanding balance on the above City of Miami Beach, General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 were fully refunded by the Series 2019 bonds at September 30, 2019.) $13,590,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, No.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Leel\Desktop\WA 2-15 DRP
    DRAFT DETAILED REVIEW PAPER ON MYSID LIFE CYCLE TOXICITY TEST EPA CONTRACT NUMBER 68-W-01-023 WORK ASSIGNMENT 2-15 July 2, 2002 Prepared for L. Greg Schweer WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM WASHINGTON, D.C. BATTELLE 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 2 2.1 DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING THE ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM (EDSP).......................................... 2 2.2 THE VALIDATION PROCESS............................................. 2 2.3 PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW ............................................. 3 2.4 METHODS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS...................................... 4 2.5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................... 5 3.0 OVERVIEW AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF MYSID LIFE CYCLE TOXICITY TEST ........... 6 3.1 ECDYSTEROID SENSITIVITY TO MEASURED ENDPOINTS ................... 9 4.0 CANDIDATE MYSID TEST SPECIES ............................................ 11 4.1 AMERICAMYSIS BAHIA ................................................ 12 4.1.1 Natural History ................................................... 12 4.1.2 Availability, Culture, and Handling .................................. 12 4.1.3 Strengths and Weaknesses ....................................... 13 4.2 HOLMESIMYSIS COSTATA ............................................. 13 4.2.1 Natural History ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Toxicity Responses of Two Crustaceans, Americamysis Bahia and Daphnia Magna, to Endocrine Disrupters
    Journal of Health Science, 50(1) 97–100 (2004) 97 Acute Toxicity Responses of Two Crustaceans, Americamysis bahia and Daphnia magna, to Endocrine Disrupters Masashi Hirano,a Hiroshi Ishibashi,a Naomi Matsumura,a Yukiko Nagao,a Naoko Watanabe,a Akiko Watanabe,b Norio Onikura,b Katsuyuki Kishi,b and Koji Arizono*, a aFaculty of Environmental and Symbiotic Sciences, Prefectural University of Kumamoto, 3–1–100 Tsukide, Kumamoto 862–8502, Japan and bJapan Pulp and Paper Research Institute Inc., 5–13–11 Tokodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 300–26, Japan (Received September 12, 2003; Accepted September 17, 2003; Published online October 7, 2003) The acute toxicity of endocrine disrupters in two screening and testing systems for EDs have been crustaceans, Americamysis bahia (A. bahia) and Daph- established in the OECD (Organization for Eco- nia magna (D. magna), was investigated and the toxi- nomic Cooperation and Development) and U.S. EPA cological responses compared. Bisphenol A had the (Environmental Protection Agency).3,4) lowest toxicity to D. magna, the 48 hr median lethal Under laboratory culture, the mysid shrimp concentrations (LC50) values was 12.8 mg/l. However, Americamysis bahia (A. bahia), reaches sexual ma- the toxic sensitivity of A. bahia to bisphenol A was ap- turity in 12 to 20 days, depending on water tempera- proximately 10-fold higher than for D. magna (48 hr ture and diet.5) Normally, the female will have eggs LC ; 1.34 mg/l). The 48 hr LC of estradiol-17␤ was 50 50 in the ovary at approximately 12 days of age. The 2.97 and 1.69 mg/l in D.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicity Testing Report Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery Ferndale, Washington
    TOXICITY TESTING REPORT PHILLIPS 66 FERNDALE REFINERY FERNDALE, WASHINGTON Prepared for Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery 3901 Unick Road Ferndale, Washington 98248 Prepared by EcoAnalysts, Inc. 4770 NE View Drive PO Box 216 Port Gamble, WA 98364 Submittal Date: April 14, 2017 Client Contract Reference: Contract No. 4523507907 EcoAnalysts Report ID: 032117.01 Toxicity Testing Report Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery All testing reported herein was performed consistent with our laboratory’s quality assurance program. All results are intended to be considered in their entirety, and EcoAnalysts is not responsible for use of less than the complete report. The test results summarized in this report apply only to the sample(s) evaluated. PREPARED BY ______________________________________ Meg Pinza Program Manager ______________________________________ Brian Hester Quality Assurance Officer Authors: Jay D. Word EcoAnalysts Report #032117.01 i EcoAnalysts, Inc. Toxicity Testing Report Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. METHODS 2 2.1 Sample Collection and Storage 2 2.2 Bioassay Testing 4 2.3 Organisms for Testing 4 2.4 Mysid, Inland Silverside, Topsmelt, and Herring Feeding 4 2.5 Water for Bioassay Testing 5 2.6 Sample Adjustment 5 2.7 Survival and Growth Tests 5 2.8 Data Management and Analysis 5 3. RESULTS 6 3.1 Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasii) Larval Chronic Test Results 6 3.2 Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) Chronic Test Results 9 3.3 Mysid (Americamysis bahia) Chronic Test Results 12 3.4 Inland Silverside (Menidia beryllina) Chronic Test Results 15 4. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 18 4.1 Study Deviations 19 5. SUMMARY 20 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 119/Thursday, June 20, 2013
    37176 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2BTOAPPENDIX A OF SUBPART A—DATA ELEMENTS FOR REPORTING EMISSIONS FROM POINT, NONPOINT, ONROAD MOBILE AND NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES, WHERE REQUIRED BY 40 CFR 51.30—Continued Data elements Point Nonpoint Onroad Nonroad (18) Percent Control Approach Penetration (where applicable) ..................................... .................... Y .................... .................... ■ 12. Amend § 51.122 by: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Architectural Coatings. In the Rules and ■ a. Revising paragraph (c); www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line Regulations section of this Federal ■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph instructions. Register, we are approving this local (d); and 2. Email: [email protected]. rule in a direct final action without ■ c. Revising paragraph (f). 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel prior proposal because we believe this The revisions read as follows: (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection SIP revision is not controversial. If we Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, receive adverse comments, however, we § 51.122 Emissions reporting San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. will publish a timely withdrawal of the requirements for SIP revisions relating to Instructions: All comments will be budgets for NO emissions. direct final rule and address the X included in the public docket without comments in subsequent action based * * * * * change and may be made available on this proposed rule. Please note that (c) Each revision must provide
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Toxicity of Malathion to Marine and Estuarine Fish And
    Appendix C Toxicity of Malathion to Marine and Estuarine Fish and Invertebrates This appendix presents results of laboratory toxicity studies that yielded acute and chronic toxicity endpoints for the effects of malathion on marine/estuarine fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. These studies include ones submitted by pesticide registrants for fulfillment of FIFRA testing requirements for pesticide registration as well as comparable studies that have been published in the open literature. Open literature studies are listed when they yielded similar endpoints as a required EPA guideline study, namely an LC50 or EC50 for acute exposure, or an NOAEC and LOAEC for growth, development, or reproduction for chronic studies. We are not attempting to summarize the complete body of toxicity literature on effects to marine and estuarine species. Relevant studies from the open literature were identified from a screen of data in the EPA’s ECOTOX database with toxicity results on malathion. In order to be included in the ECOTOX database, papers must meet the following minimum criteria: 1. The toxic effects are related to single chemical exposure; 2. The toxic effects are on an aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species; 3. There is a biological effect on live, whole organisms; 4. A concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or application rate is reported; and 5. There is an explicit duration of exposure. Data that pass the ECOTOX screen are further evaluated for use in the assessment along with the registrant-submitted data, and may be incorporated qualitatively or quantitatively into this endangered species assessment. Acute Toxicity to Fish Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/marine fish species using the TGAI is required for malathion because the end-use product is intended for direct application to the marine/estuarine environment and the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of its use near estuarine environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Effects of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil on Surface and Deep Ocean Species
    Biological Effects of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil on Surface and Deep Ocean Species Ronald Tjeerdema, Ph.D. University of California, Department of Environmental Toxicology Adriana C. Bejarano, Ph.D. Research Planning, Inc. Sara Edge, Ph.D. Florida Atlantic University, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute INTRODUCTION Effects of Dispersant Use on Biological Systems Beginning with the use of industrial-strength detergents, dispersing agents have been employed in spill response for decades. The Corexit series of agents in common use today generally consist of non-ionic and/or anionic surfactants in a solvent base designed to enhance miscibility under varying temperature and salinity conditions; cationic surfactants tend to be too toxic for use. While dispersants generally serve to decrease the interfacial surface tension of oil, thus facilitating its weathering under low-energy conditions, their surface-active nature also causes their interaction with cell surfaces – those of single-celled organisms as well as the gills of vertebrates and invertebrates. Knowledge from Previous Oil Spills Biological Impacts Dispersant use is usually considered by spill responders when other means of response, such as containment and removal, are not deemed to be adequate1. For instance, during the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) spill dispersants were quickly employed when it became apparent that other means of response were insufficient2. However, there are usually consequences for both hydrocarbon bioavailability and toxic impacts, thus environmental tradeoffs must be evaluated. For instance, while undispersed oil generally poses the greatest threat to shorelines and surface- dwelling organisms, most dispersed oil remains in the water column where it mainly threatens pelagic and benthic organisms1. This tradeoff was a prime consideration during the DWH spill3.
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf Coast Working Group Report to Congress
    Gulf Coast Working Group Report to Congress Prepared for: Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives Submitted by: The Gulf Coast Working Group Final Report July 2017 Table of Contents 1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ................................................................................................. 1 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF GCWG SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................... 1 2.1.1 THE FAST ACT AND RESPONSE TO CONGRESS ............................................................... 1 2.1.2 GOALS .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................. 2 2.2 HISTORY .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 PREVIOUS PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE TO THE GULF COAST ........................................... 2 2.2.2 RECENT HISTORY OF LOCAL SUPPORT TO RESTORE PASSENGER SERVICE .................... 4 2.3 REGIONAL ECONOMIC SUMMARY .................................................................................... 4 2.3.1 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Panhandle Birding Trail
    The Great Florida Birding Trail is a project of the Florida Fish and Wildlife PANHANDLE FLORIDA Conservation Commission BIRDING TRAIL In partnership with : Wildlife Foundation of Florida U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Florida Park Service Florida Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Many thanks to our generous sponsors : www.gulfpower.com The Great Florida Birding Trail www.nfwf.org www.FloridaBirdingTrail.com 05/06 Printed on recycled paper Getting Started... Ciity Locator Loaner optics are available free of charge at all Gateways, as well as at City Map City Map additional sites as marked in the site Apalachicola I Laguna Beach G descriptions! Bristol J Marianna F Carrabelle I Mexico Beach H Chattahoochee J Milton C Trail Tips Chipley F Panama City G When birding: Crawfordville M Pensacola B Crestview C Port St. Joe H • Take sunscreen, water and bug spray. De Funiak Springs E Quincy K • Make reservations in advance for "by-appointment Destin D Sopchoppy M only" sites. Ft. Walton Beach D St. Marks M • Check seasonality of site; are you visiting at the Grayton Beach D Sumatra I right time of year? Gulf Beach A Tallahassee L Gulf Breeze B Birder Vocabulary Some words used in this guide are specific to bird- How were these sites selected? ers and birdwatching. Bone-up on the following lingo Each of the sites in this guide was chosen for its bird- so you’ll blend in at your next birding dinner party! watching characteristics, accessibility and ability to Birding by ear: the ability to identify birds by their withstand birder use.
    [Show full text]