DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Santa Fe Springs Revised Report FINAL 2 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Sources of Nitrate & Estimated Groundwater Travel Times to Springs of the Santa Fe River Basin Revised Report ACEPD AMEC Project No.: 6063050061 & 6063110206 February 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.1.1 Surface Water Resources ........................................................................................ 1-2 1.1.2 Hydrogeology........................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Sources of Nitrate to the Santa Fe River and Springs ...................................................... 1-9 1.3 GIS Application ............................................................................................................... 1-11 1.4 Past and Projected Land Use ......................................................................................... 1-11 1.5 Groundwater Travel Time ............................................................................................... 1-12 2.0 Loading Estimation Methods and Information Sources ....................................................... 2-1 2.1 Land Use-Based Loadings ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Inputs to Land Use-Based Loading Estimates ......................................................... 2-2 2.2 Domestic Wastewater ..................................................................................................... 2-10 2.2.1 Permitted Wastewater Facilities............................................................................. 2-10 2.2.2 Septic Systems ...................................................................................................... 2-11 3.0 Estimated Loadings of Nitrate to the Santa Fe Springsheds by Land Use and Source Type ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Uncertainty in Estimated Loadings ........................................................................................... 3-1 Source-Specific Uncertainties ........................................................................................... 3-2 Uncertainty in Groundwater Recharge Rates ................................................................... 3-4 4.0 Past and Projected Land Use and Effect on Nitrate Loading ............................................... 4-1 4.1 Past and Projected Land Use ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Effect of Land Use Changes on Nitrate Loading to the Santa Fe Springsheds ................. 4-3 5.0 Groundwater Travel Time ........................................................................................................ 5-1 6.0 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 References ................................................................................................................................ 7-1 Attachment A Land Use Key List of Tables Table 1. Representative NO3-N Groundwater Concentrations Assigned by Land Use ................ 2-10 Table 2. Permitted Wastewater Facilities ...................................................................................... 2-11 Table 3. Estimated Nitrate Loadings to the Santa Fe River Springsheds in 2004 ........................... 3-1 Table 4. Land Use Changes from 1995 to 2004 ............................................................................. 4-2 Table 5. Rate of Change Projected from 2004 to 2030 ................................................................... 4-3 Table 6. Summary of Sources for Upper Floridan Aquifer Hydraulic Properties ............................. 5-2 List of Figures Figure 1. Project Locale.................................................................................................................. 1-3 Figure 2. Springsheds of the Santa Fe Basin ................................................................................. 1-7 Figure 3. Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 1-8 Figure 4. Nitrogen Cycle (USEPA, 2006a) .................................................................................... 1-9 Figure 5. 2004 Landuse for Santa Fe Springshed .......................................................................... 2-4 Figure 6. Portion of Springshed by Land Use Category ................................................................. 2-5 Figure 7. Recharge for Santa Fe Springshed ................................................................................. 2-6 Figure 8. Estimated Nitrate Loadings to the Santa Fe River Springsheds in 2004 ......................... 3-5 Figure 9. Projected Change in Land Use within the Santa Fe River Springshed 2004 - 2030 ....... 4-3 i AMEC Sources of Nitrate & Estimated Groundwater Travel Times to Springs of the Santa Fe River Basin Revised Report ACEPD AMEC Project No.: 6063050061 & 6063110206 February 2013 Table of Contents (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 10. Estimated Past and Projected Nitrate Loadings ............................................................ 4-5 Figure 11. Area of Conduit Flow to Santa Fe River ........................................................................ 5-4 Figure 12. Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, Santa Fe Springshed .................................................................................................................... 5-5 Figure 13. Groundwater Travel Time to Santa Fe River Springs .................................................... 5-6 Figure 14. Groundwater Travel Time Less than 100 Years ............................................................ 5-7 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations % percent ACEPD Alachua County Environmental Protection Department AMEC AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. BMP Best Management Practices CAFOs concentrated animal feeding operations FAS Floridan aquifer system FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDOH Florida Department of Health FGS Florida Geological Survey FLUCCS Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System ft feet GIS Geographic Information Systems IAS Intermediate Aquifer System ICU Intermediate Confining Unit kg/ha/yr kilograms per hectare per year L liter lb pound MACTEC MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. mg/L milligrams per Liter MH mobile home MSL mean sea level MT metric ton (a metric ton is 1,000 kilograms or 2,205 pounds) MT/yr metric tons per year N/yr Nitrogen per year N2 Nitrogen gas - NO3 Nitrate NO3-N Nitrate nitrogen SDII SDII Global Corporation SFRS Santa Fe River/Springs SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN total nitrogen UF IFAS University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences UFA Upper Floridan aquifer USGS United States Geological Survey WWTPs wastewater treatment plants ii AMEC Sources of Nitrate & Estimated Groundwater Travel Times to Springs of the Santa Fe River Basin Revised Report ACEPD AMEC Project No.: 6063050061 & 6063110206 February 2013 Executive Summary The lower Santa Fe River has been determined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to be impaired for nutrients and dissolved oxygen, with a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) target of 0.35 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of nitrate (NO3) to protect aquatic ecosystems. At the request of the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department (ACEPD) and to facilitate prioritization of local initiatives for springs protection for the lower Santa Fe River, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC now AMEC), developed an ArcGIS™ tool designed to estimate nitrate loadings to groundwater in the springsheds. MACTEC also conducted an evaluation of the sources of nitrogen based on land use and loading rates and modeled groundwater travel time in the upper Floridan aquifer. Best available data, 2004 water management district land use land cover, were used for the project. The study area boundaries were the springsheds that were developed from those determined by SDII (2011) in their initial 2007-2008 work with modifications that focused on areas of known conduit flow. The Santa Fe River springsheds include parts of seven counties and three water management districts and cover approximately 550,000 acres (860 square miles). Groundwater recharge rates in the springsheds were determined by application of the MegaModel developed by the US Geological Survey to simulate groundwater flow in peninsular Florida. Sources of nitrate loading to the groundwater in the springsheds are introduced from point and non- point sources. Two distinct approaches were used to estimate nitrate loadings to groundwater depending on source type. Point sources include disposal of domestic wastewater by septic systems and permitted wastewater treatment plants, while non-point sources
Recommended publications
  • Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis

    Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis

    Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis Phase 2 – Quarterly Report #2: Environmental Data Prepared for Santa Fe River and Springs Scientific Working Group Date December 2018 Prepared by The Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute i Table of Contents Figures ................................................................................................................................... iv Tables .................................................................................................................................... vi Section 1.0 Introduction ............................. 1 Section 2.0 Methods .................................. 3 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Physical Environment ....................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Underwater Light Transmission ............................................................................................. 8 2.2.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.3 Secchi Disk Visibility ................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.4 Stream Discharge .................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Biology ............................................................................................................................10
  • Santa Fe River Basin Fecal TMDL

    Santa Fe River Basin Fecal TMDL

    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Water Quality Evaluation and TMDL Program NORTHEAST DISTRICT • SANTA FE RIVER BASIN TMDL Report Fecal Coliform TMDL for Santa Fe River Basin Jonathan Turner August, 2014 TMDL Report: Santa Fe River Basin, Fecal Coliform, August 2014 Acknowledgments This Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis could not have been accomplished without significant contributions from staff in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department) Northeast District Office, Watershed Assessment Section, and the Watershed Evaluation and TMDL Section. Map production assistance was provided by Watershed Data Services with the Department’s Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration. Editorial assistance provided by: Jan Mandrup-Poulsen and Xueqing Gao For additional information on the watershed management approach and impaired waters in the Santa Fe River basin, contact: Terry Hansen Florida Department of Environmental Protection Watershed Planning and Coordination Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Email: [email protected] Phone: (850) 245–8561 Fax: (850) 245–8434 Access to all data used in the development of this report can be obtained by contacting: Jonathan Turner Florida Department of Environmental Protection Water Quality Evaluation and TMDL Program Watershed Evaluation and TMDL Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3555 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Email: [email protected] Phone: (850) 245–8438 Fax: (850) 245–8444 i Florida Department of Environmental Protection TMDL Report: Santa Fe River Basin, Fecal Coliform, August 2014 Contents List of Tables _____________________________________________________ iv List of Figures ____________________________________________________ iv Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................
  • State-Designated Paddling Trails Paddling Guides

    State-Designated Paddling Trails Paddling Guides

    State-Designated Paddling Trails Paddling Guides Compiled from (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/guide/paddle.htm) This paddling guide can be downloaded at http://www.naturalnorthflorida.com/download-center/ Last updated March 16, 2016 The Original Florida Tourism Task Force 2009 NW 67th Place Gainesville, FL 32653-1603 352.955.2200 ∙ 877.955.2199 Table of Contents Chapter Page Florida’s Designated Paddling Trails 1 Aucilla River 3 Ichetucknee River 9 Lower Ochlockonee River 13 Santa Fe River 23 Sopchoppy River 29 Steinhatchee River 39 Wacissa River 43 Wakulla River 53 Withlacoochee River North 61 i ii Florida’s Designated Paddling Trails From spring-fed rivers to county blueway networks to the 1515-mile Florida Circumnavigational Saltwater Paddling Trail, Florida is endowed with exceptional paddling trails, rich in wildlife and scenic beauty. If you want to explore one or more of the designated trails, please read through the following descriptions, click on a specific trail on our main paddling trail page for detailed information, and begin your adventure! The following maps and descriptions were compiled from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Office of Greenways and Trails. It was last updated on March 16, 2016. While we strive to keep our information current, the most up-to-date versions are available on the OGT website: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/guide/paddle.htm The first Florida paddling trails were designated in the early 1970s, and trails have been added to the list ever since. Total mileage for the state-designated trails is now around 4,000 miles.
  • Page/Ladson (8Je591) : Excavation of an Early Holocene Occupation Site

    Page/Ladson (8Je591) : Excavation of an Early Holocene Occupation Site

    PAGE/LADSON (8JE591): EXCAVATION OF AN EARLY HOLOCENE OCCUPATION SITE IN THE AUCILLA RIVER, FLORIDA By BRINNEN S. CARTER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003 ' r Copyright 2003 by Brinnen S. Carter This document is dedicated to my dead father, Brinly Stewart Carter. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who deserve the largest measure of thanks for their patience and support. On the intellectual side, S. David Webb and James (Jim) Dunbar are first and foremost. The Florida Department of State Special Category grants, National Geographic grants, and numerous private donations of money, time, and equipment, to the Aucilla River Prehistory Project, lead by Drs. Webb and Milanich paid for the fieldwork. Grants and salary from the Aucilla River Prehistory Project and discussions with Jim Dunbar have been important in directing the work that follows. Discussions with David Anderson (modeling Paleoindian/Early Archaic American Indian bands and macrobands), Albert Goodyear (tool technology and chronology), Jerald Milanich (hypothesis generation and testing), Louis Tesar (overall Florida Paleoindian site distribution and nature) have also contributed to the quality of work. One could hardly ask for a better archaeology faculty than the University of Florida's for understanding the breadth of New World Archaeology. The archaeology faculty of Florida State University—and especially Rochelle Marrinan—helped me keep my dignity while completing the dissertation. Teaching at FSU added notches to my resume and gave me a better understanding of the pressures under which university-based researchers work.
  • Valuing Florida's Water Resources: Ecosystem Services Approach1

    Valuing Florida's Water Resources: Ecosystem Services Approach1

    FE1064 Valuing Florida’s Water Resources: Ecosystem Services Approach1 Tatiana Borisova, Tara Wade, Xiang Bi, Kurt Oehlbeck, and Kelly Grogan2 Introduction The goal of this publication is to provide water-resource professionals and interested citizens information about a framework that can be used to describe the value of various goods and services provided by water resources. This article focuses on two questions: (1) How can the value of water resources be estimated in dollar terms? and (2) why might it be essential to have such a dollar value estimate to make policy decisions? This article introduces a series of EDIS publications describing specific economic studies focusing on Florida’s water resources. Warren Buffet, an investing legend and philanthropist, Figure 1. A spring located by Rum Island on the Santa Fe River. Credits: UF/IFAS once said that “price is what you pay, value is what you get.” In keeping with this philosophy, to estimate the value of water resources, one needs to think about what we get from water resources. Sightseeing for the day, camping for a week in a state park, or tubing or kayaking down a river are all examples of how we benefit from water resources. However, water resources provide us with much more than that. As discussed below, all goods and services that people get from nature (referred to as “ecosystem services”) are grouped into four categories, and these services can then be evaluated economically based on their use by people using a variety of methods. This article also provides examples of Figure 2. A kayaker on the Ichetuknee River, which is fed by decisions that may need such economic value estimates.
  • 2019 February Hydrological Report

    2019 February Hydrological Report

    MEMORANDUM TO: Suwannee River Water Management District Governing Board FROM: Fay Baird, Senior Hydrologist, Division of Water and Land Resources THRU: Hugh Thomas, Executive Director DATE: March 11, 2019 RE: February 2019 Hydrologic Conditions Report for the SRWMD RAINFALL • District-wide total rainfall for the month of February was 1.41 inches, much lower than the long-term average February rainfall of 3.82” (Table 1, Figures 1 and 2). All counties within the District received less than half of the average rainfall in February. Northeast Jefferson County received much higher rainfall for the month than the rest of the District due to an isolated rainstorm on February 2nd; the District rain gage at Sneads Smokehouse Lake recorded 4.74” that day. • Average rainfall across the District for the 12-month period ending February 28th was 64.37” (Table 1), which translates to an annual rainfall surplus of 9.64”. All river basins within the District ended the month with 12-month surplus rainfall (Figure 3), although the surpluses have diminished compared to January except in the Waccasassa basin. Three-month total rainfall surpluses declined substantially during the month of February in all five river basins within the District (Figure 4). The highest three- month surplus is in the Aucilla River basin, continuing the pattern of the past several months. SURFACEWATER • Rivers: Low rainfall in February resulted in a continued decline in flows and water levels on District rivers that began in January 2019. At the end of February all but the Ichetucknee River at Highway 27 were flowing within normal ranges (25th – 75th percentiles, Figures 5a and 5b).
  • The Florida Anthropologist

    The Florida Anthropologist

    THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Volume 60 Number 2-3 June-September 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS From the Editors 59 The Owl Totem. Barbara A. Purdy 61 “The Mounds Themselves Might Be Perfectly Happy in Their Surroundings”: The “Kolomoki Problem” in 63 Notes and Letters. Thomas J. Pluckhahn A Reevaluation of the Gainesville, Ocala, and Lake Panasoffkee Quarry Clusters. 77 Jon C. Endonino Geoarchaeological Investigations in the Flats of the Osceola Plain, Highlands and Polk Counties, Florida. 97 Michael Wilder, Charles D. Frederick, Mark D. Bateman, and Duane E. Peter Petrographic Evaluation of Belle Glade and Sandy St. Johns Pastes. 117 Ann S. Cordell Wacissa Boat 1 (8JE1604):Example of a Plantation Flat in a North Florida River. 127 Jeffrey T. Moates Osceola’s Garter: An Analysis of a Nineteenth Century Native American Textile. 139 Mary Spanos, Virginia Wimberley, and Amanda Thompson BOOK REVIEWS Mould: Choctaw Prophecy: A Legacy of the Future. Anne McCudden 153 Crooks: Jacksonville: The Consolidation Story, From Civil Rights to the Jaguars, Georgia. Hope Black 154 Pluckhahn and Ethridge: Light on the Path. Skye Wheeler Hughes 155 Eidse: Voices of the Apalachicola. EJ Ford 157 About the Authors 159 Cover: (Left) View to the east of Mounds D (lower left foreground) and A (center background) at Kolomoki, (Right Top) Osceola’s garter, (Right Center) Belle Glade Plain sherd showing large scraped facet and characteristic drag/scratches (Photo by Mr. Pat Payne), (Right Bottom) illustration of the fastening processes of a plank- built flat featuring the use of iron drift pins (Drawing by William Judd). Please see articles for more information.
  • Written Historical and Descriptive Data Hals Fl-13

    Written Historical and Descriptive Data Hals Fl-13

    O’LENO STATE PARK HALS FL-13 410 Southeast O'Leno Park Road HALS FL-13 High Springs Alachua County Florida WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN LANDSCAPES SURVEY National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240-0001 HISTORIC AMERICAN LANDSCAPES SURVEY O’LENO STATE PARK HALS NO. FL-13 Location: 410 Southeast O'Leno Park Road, High Springs, Alachua County, Florida Latitude 29.914458, Longitude -82.579690 (the amphitheater). O’Leno State Park is located in northern Alachua County and southern Columbia County, along the Santa Fe River six miles north of High Springs. The main park entrance is about five miles north of High Springs on U.S. Highway 441. Significance: O’Leno State Park is significant in the early twentieth century history of Florida as one of the nine state park units created through state planning for natural resource conservation, recreation, and tourism during the New Deal era. The Florida State Park System had its beginning in 1934 as a result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal program to relieve the economic distress of unemployed American youth during the Great Depression. The large outlay of federal assistance made in Florida during the New Deal era to preserve scenic, historic, and scientific resources of the State includes nine units of the state park system. In 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was the first New Deal agency to begin operations in Florida. Between 1933 and 1942 the CCC assisted the state in constructing Florida Caverns State Park, Fort Clinch State Park, Gold Head Branch State Park, Highlands Hammock State Park, Hillsborough River State Park, Myakka River State Park, O’Leno State Park, and Torreya State Park, and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) assisted in constructing Ravine Gardens State Park.
  • Blueprint for Restoring Springs on the Santa Fe River

    Blueprint for Restoring Springs on the Santa Fe River

    Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute BLUEPRINT FOR RESTORING SPRINGS ON THE SANTA FE RIVER Blueprint for Santa Fe Springs Restoration Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute Contents Summary...…..………….…………..…….…………...........2 Overview….……..……..……….….....................................4 Status of the Resource….……..………………...…...…..12 Restoration Goals.….…….….…………..………….…....15 Blueprint for Springs Restoration...................…..…......20 Implementation of Springs Restoration Blueprints…..26 Concluding Remarks.…….…………….……….....….....28 References………………...…………...…………….........29 Egret and turtles on the Santa Fe River, 2017. Photo by John Moran. Blueprint for Springs Restoration Summary Baseline • Based on historic records, about 75 percent of the average flow in the Santa Fe River was provided by springs. This influx of pure groundwater-maintained flows in the river throughout multi-year droughts and nourished flourishing populations of aquatic plants and animals. Problems • Total spring flows to the Santa Fe River have declined on average by 20 percent compared to the earliest baseflow records. Extreme spring flow declines are greatest upstream at Worthington Spring, 2 Blueprint for Santa Fe Springs Restoration Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute Santa Fe Spring, River Rise, Hornsby Spring, and Poe Spring, with zero flow and flow reversals evident during low rainfall periods. Significant flow declines are also documented in downstream springs, including Gilchrist Blue, the Ginnie Springs Group, and the Ichetucknee Springs System. • Long-term declining spring flow trends are the result of increasing groundwater extractions for urban and agricultural development. When rainfall variations are accounted for, the spring flow decline in the entire Santa Fe River is about 200 million gallons per day (MGD). • Over the past 70 years of record, nitrate nitrogen concentrations in individual Santa Fe River springs have increased between 1,000 and 80,000 percent, and by an average of 2,600 percent in the Lower Santa Fe River.
  • Chapter 62-302: Surface Water Quality Standards

    Chapter 62-302: Surface Water Quality Standards

    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. blue – not a standard black – standard TCHAPTER 62-302: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Effective April 30, 2018 In instances where the EPA has determined that certain provisions are not considered new or revised water quality standards, the Agency has attempted to indicate those in blue text. However, the font color indicated within this document, should not be interpreted as the official position of the Agency, and primarily addresses recent reviews by the EPA. For more detailed explanations on the EPA’s analysis and rationale related to decisions of new or revised water quality standards, see the Agency’s historical decision documents and associated records or contact the appropriate Agency staff. Additionally, arrow boxes found in the margins of this document direct the reader to other new or revised water quality standards which are related to provisions found in Chapter 62-302 but are found in documents outside of the regulations and are generally incorporated by reference. (See Attachments A-E of this document). The State of Florida recently revised the table of surface water criteria set out at section 62-302, F.A.C., to incorporate new human health criteria and designated uses promulgated by the state in 2016.
  • Excavations at the Econfina Channel Site, Apalachee Bay, Florida, USA

    Excavations at the Econfina Channel Site, Apalachee Bay, Florida, USA

    Southeastern Archaeology ISSN: 0734-578X (Print) 2168-4723 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ysea20 What is past is prologue: excavations at the Econfina Channel site, Apalachee Bay, Florida, USA Jessica W. Cook Hale, Nathan L. Hale & Ervan G. Garrison To cite this article: Jessica W. Cook Hale, Nathan L. Hale & Ervan G. Garrison (2018): What is past is prologue: excavations at the Econfina Channel site, Apalachee Bay, Florida, USA, Southeastern Archaeology To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2018.1428787 View supplementary material Published online: 01 Feb 2018. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ysea20 SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2018.1428787 What is past is prologue: excavations at the Econfina Channel site, Apalachee Bay, Florida, USA Jessica W. Cook Hale a, Nathan L. Halea and Ervan G. Garrisona,b aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA; bDepartment of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Offshore submerged sites can retain valuable data concerning many questions of interest to Received 21 September 2017 archaeology, including what form coastal occupations may have taken during periods before the Accepted 13 January 2018 establishment of modern coastlines and late Holocene climate and ecological conditions. KEYWORDS However, submerged offshore sites experience postdepositional forces entirely unlike those in Submerged prehistoric terrestrial contexts, including erosion/deflation of sediments, and degradation of artifacts and/or archaeology; Florida features caused by the marine environment.
  • America's Most Endangered Rivers® 2007

    America's Most Endangered Rivers® 2007

    America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2007 www.AmericanRivers.org About America’s Most Endangered Rivers The America’s Most Endangered Rivers report is one of the best-known and longest- lived annual reports in the environmental movement — but it is much more than that. Each year, grassroots river conservationists team up with American Rivers to use the report to save their hometown river, consistently scoring policy successes that benefit these rivers and the communities through which they flow. American Rivers solicits nominations from thousands of river groups, environmental organizations, outdoor clubs and others for the America’s Most Endangered Rivers report. Our staff and scientific advisors review the nominations for the following criteria: ■ The magnitude of the threat to the river ■ A major decision point in the coming year ■ The regional and national significance of the river The report highlights ten rivers whose fate will be decided in the coming year, and encourages decisionmakers to do the right thing for the rivers and the communities they support. The report presents alternatives to proposals that would damage rivers, identifies those who make the crucial decisions and points out opportunities for the public to take action on behalf of each listed river. AMERICAN RIVERS WOULD LIKE TO THANK BERT AND BARBARA COHN for their dedicated financial support of this campaign. By helping us highlight threats to America’s rivers, the Cohn's generosity helps ensure a better future for these important resources. We would also like to thank the DUN FOUNDATION for the financial support they have provided this year to help us raise awareness about these embattled rivers.