DOCSLIB.ORG

TAMPA BAY BLUE CARBON ASSESSMENT Summary of Findings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TAMPA BAY BLUE CARBON ASSESSMENT Summary of Findings Final TAMPA BAY BLUE CARBON ASSESSMENT Summary of Findings Prepared for June 2016 - revised April 2017 Restore America’s Esturaries Final TAMPA BAY BLUE CARBON ASSESSMENT Summary of Findings Prepared for June 2016 - revised April 2017 Restore America’s Esturaries 4350 West Cypress Street Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33607 813.207.7200 www.esassoc.com Irvine Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Seattle Woodland Hills D140671 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tampa Bay Blue Carbon Assessment Summary of Findings Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................E-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................E-1 Project Setting .............................................................................................................E-2 Purpose of This Study .................................................................................................E-2 What Is Blue Carbon? .................................................................................................E-3 Wider Context .............................................................................................................E-3 What New Information Is Provided by This Study? .....................................................E-4 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................E-5 Predicting Coastal Habitat Responses to Sea-Level Rise .................................E-5 Tampa-Specific Accretion and Carbon Sequestration Data ...............................E-6 Greenhouse Gas Accounting Framework ..........................................................E-6 Results ........................................................................................................................E-7 Habitat Evolution in Tampa Bay.........................................................................E-7 Historic and Future Bay Wide Changes in GHG Fluxes and Carbon Sequestration ........................................................................................E-12 Management Implications .........................................................................................E-12 Implications for Blue Carbon Science and Policy ......................................................E-13 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Goal and Objectives ............................................................................................. 2 1.2 Project Background .............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Project Partners .................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Restore America’s Estuaries ...................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Environmental Science Associates ............................................................ 5 1.3.3 Tampa Bay Estuary Program ..................................................................... 5 1.3.4 Tampa Bay Watch ..................................................................................... 5 1.4 Study Approach .................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Report Organization .............................................................................................. 6 2. PLANNING CONTEXT AND PREVIOUS WORK ...................................................................... 8 2.1 Wetland Conservation and Restoration in Tampa Bay ......................................... 8 2.2 Modeling Habitat Response to Sea-Level Rise .................................................. 10 2.3 Prioritizing Future Wetland and Adjacent Uplands Restoration and Conservation ...................................................................................................... 11 Tampa Bay Blue Carbon E-i ESA / Project No. D140671 Summary of Findings May 2016 Table of Contents Page 3. ANALYTICAL APPROACH ................................................................................................ 12 3.1 Conceptual Model of Tampa Bay Processes, Habitats, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes ......................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Tampa Bay Natural Processes ................................................................ 12 3.1.2 Changing GHG Fluxes ............................................................................. 21 3.2 Habitat Acreage Analysis and Modeling ............................................................. 26 3.2.1 Historic Habitats ....................................................................................... 26 3.2.2 Recent Habitat Changes (Restoration Projects Under the Government Performance and Results Act) ............................................. 26 3.2.3 Future Habitats (Habitat Evolution Model Development) ......................... 29 3.3 Calculating GHG Fluxes ..................................................................................... 37 3.3.1 Salt Barren, Salt Marsh, Juncus Marsh, and Mangroves ......................... 37 3.3.2 Seagrass .................................................................................................. 37 3.4 Prioritizing Upland Parcels for Acquisition and Restoration ................................ 42 4. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 43 4.1 Habitat Acreages and Distribution with Sea-Level Rise ...................................... 43 4.1.1 Varying Sea-Level Rise Curves ............................................................... 43 4.1.2 Varying Accretion Rates........................................................................... 45 4.1.3 Varying Management Options .................................................................. 54 4.1.4 Habitat Vulnerability Discussion ............................................................... 58 4.2 Historic and Future Bay-wide Changes in GHG Fluxes and Carbon Sequestration ..................................................................................................... 63 4.2.1 Historic Changes ...................................................................................... 63 4.2.2 Restoration Projects Under the Government Performance and Results Act ............................................................................................... 66 4.2.3 Future GHG Changes Due to Sea-Level Rise ......................................... 67 4.3 Prioritizing Upland Parcels for Acquisition and Restoration ................................ 73 4.4 Uncertainty ......................................................................................................... 76 4.4.1 Habitat Acreages ..................................................................................... 76 4.4.2 GPRA reporting ........................................................................................ 77 4.4.3 GHG Framework ...................................................................................... 77 4.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 79 5. DISCUSSION OF MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS ................................................................. 81 5.1 Connecting Coastal Habitat Restoration Opportunities with GHG Management ....................................................................................................... 81 5.2 Identifying Areas of Nearshore Upland Habitat as Sea-Level Rise Buffer Areas .................................................................................................................. 82 5.3 Role of Water Quality in Enhancing Seagrass Resilience to Climate Change ............................................................................................................... 82 5.4 Connecting Carbon Sequestration to Ocean Acidification Mitigation .................. 83 5.5 Recommendations for Future Analysis ............................................................... 84 6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 85 7. LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................... 90 Tampa Bay Blue Carbon E-ii ESA / Project No. D140671 Summary of Findings May 2016 Table of Contents Page Appendices A HEM Habitat Cross-Walk B GHG Framework Equations C Moyer et al. 2016 D Gonneea 2016 E Tomasko et al. 2015 F Parcel Prioritization Methods G Habitat Maps H Habitat Change Maps I HEM Habitat Acreage Results J Parcel Prioritization Maps K Parcel Prioritization Tables- Not included for general distribution L Analysis and Recommendation for Grouping Blue Carbon Projects in Tampa Bay Tables E-1 Changes in Tampa Bay Habitat Acreage for Different Accretion Rates ...................E-8 1 Tampa Bay Wetland Habitat Acreages over Time .................................................... 10 2 NOAA Tidal Datums for Tampa Bay ........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Current Status of Oyster Reefs in Florida Waters: Knowledge and Gaps
    Current Status of Oyster Reefs in Florida Waters: Knowledge and Gaps Dr. William S. Arnold Florida FWC Fish and Wildlife Research Lab 100 Eighth Avenue SE St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-896-8626 [email protected] Outline • History-statewide distribution • Present distribution – Mapped populations and gaps – Methodological variation • Ecological status • Application Need to Know Ecological value of oyster reefs will be clearly defined in subsequent talks Within “my backyard”, at least some idea of need to protect and preserve, as exemplified by the many reef restoration projects However, statewide understanding of status and trends is poorly developed Culturally important- archaeological evidence suggests centuries of usage Long History of Commercial Exploitation US Landings (Lbs of Meats x 1000) 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Statewide: Economically important: over $2.8 million in landings value for Florida fishery in 2003 Most of that value is from Franklin County (Apalachicola Bay), where 3000 landings have been 2500 2000 relatively stable since 1985 1500 1000 In other areas of state, 500 0 oysters landings are on 3000 decline due to loss of 2500 Franklin County 2000 access, degraded water 1500 quality, and loss of oyster 1000 populations 500 0 3000 Panhandle other 2500 2000 1500 1000 Pounds500 of Meats (x 1000) 0 3000 Peninsular West Coast 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Peninsular East Coast 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 MAPPING Tampa Bay Oyster Maps More reef coverage than anticipated, but many of the reefs are moderately to severely degraded Kathleen O’Keife will discuss Tampa Bay oyster mapping methods in the next talk Caloosahatchee River and Estero Bay Aerial imagery used to map reefs, verified by ground-truthing Southeast Florida oyster maps • Used RTK-GPS equipment to map in both the horizontal and the vertical.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Emergency on Red Tide for Tampa Bay
    July 19, 2021 Governor Ron DeSantis State of Florida The Capitol 400 S. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 [email protected] Re: State of Emergency on Red Tide for Tampa Bay The undersigned respectfully request you immediately declare a state of emergency for the ongoing red tide and fish kill occurring in Tampa Bay. Such a declaration would help coordinate and fund relief efforts to mitigate further environmental and economic damage from red tide in the region. Red tide produces toxic chemicals that harm marine wildlife and humans. The ongoing, widespread red tide and fish kills have unreasonably interfered with the health, safety, and welfare of the State of Florida, causing harm to its environment and fragile ecosystems in Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas, and Sarasota counties. Therefore, we ask you exercise your authority, as the Governor of Florida, vested by the Florida Constitution and the Florida Emergency Management Act to issue an executive order declaring a state of emergency due to red tide in Tampa Bay. Sincerely, Audubon Everglades Scott Zucker, President [email protected] Cape Coral Friends of Wildlife Paul Bonasia, President [email protected] Cape Coral Wildlife Trust Lori Haus-Bulcock [email protected] Calusa Waterkeeper John Cassani, Calusa Waterkeeper [email protected] Cat Chase Media Caitlin Chase, Owner [email protected] Center for Biological Diversity Elise Bennett, Staff Attorney [email protected] Chispa Florida Maria Revelles, Program Director [email protected] Collins Law Group Martha M. Collins, Esq. [email protected] Defenders of Wildlife Elizabeth Flemming, Senior Florida Representative [email protected] Environment Florida Jenna Stevens, State Director [email protected] Florida Student Power Network Mary-Elizabeth Estrada, Tampa Climate Justice Organizer [email protected] Florida Turtle Conservation Trust George L.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Assessment Sources
    To: Elizabeth Abernethy, Director, Date: October 2020 Planning and Development Services City of St. Petersburg Project #: 66316.00 From: Neale Stralow, Senior Planner Re: StPete2050 - Market Assessment Sources This correspondence is provided at the request of City of St. Petersburg staff relating to the final Market Assessment reporting provided by Landwise Advisors, LLC dated January 24, 2020 in support of the StPete2050 project. The final submittal includes source references and responses to City staff provided comments. The following is a source listing for future use by City staff. Slide # - Description Stated Sources Slide 5 – SWOT Grow Smarter 2014 and update 2019 State of the City, 2019 StPete2050 Economic Development Roundtable, October 10, 2019 Slide 7 – Population UF Bureau of Economic Research (BEBR) Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Slide 8 – Population ESRI Business Analyst Online (BAO), 2019 Slide’s 23 to 30 – Employment US Census Bureau, 2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, OnTheMap Slide 31 – Target Industries St. Petersburg Economic and Workforce Development Department Slide 32 – Travel Time To Work US Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Slide’s 36 to 41 – Office Market Avision, Young Tampa Bay Office Report, Q3 2019 Statistics Slide 42 – Office Downtown Tenant CoStar, St. Petersburg City Directories Mix Slide 43 to 47 – Project Employment Moody’s 30-year forecast, Total No-Agricultural Employment, 2019
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Cumulative Effects of Restoration Activities on Water Quality in Tampa Bay, Florida
    Estuaries and Coasts https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00619-w MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS Assessment of the Cumulative Effects of Restoration Activities on Water Quality in Tampa Bay, Florida Marcus W. Beck1 & Edward T. Sherwood2 & Jessica Renee Henkel3 & Kirsten Dorans4 & Kathryn Ireland5 & Patricia Varela6 Received: 10 April 2019 /Revised: 13 June 2019 /Accepted: 26 July 2019 # The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Habitat and water quality restoration projects are commonly used to enhance coastal resources or mitigate the negative impacts of water quality stressors. Significant resources have been expended for restoration projects, yet much less attention has focused on evaluating broad regional outcomes beyond site-specific assessments. This study presents an empirical framework to evaluate multiple datasets in the Tampa Bay area (Florida, USA) to identify (1) the types of restoration projects that have produced the greatest improvements in water quality and (2) time frames over which different projects may produce water quality benefits. Information on the location and date of completion of 887 restoration projects from 1971 to 2017 were spatially and temporally matched with water quality records at each of the 45 long-term monitoring stations in Tampa Bay. The underlying assumption was that the developed framework could identify differences in water quality changes between types of restoration projects based on aggregate estimates of chlorophyll-a concentrations before and after the completion of one to many projects. Water infra- structure projects to control point source nutrient loading into the Bay were associated with the highest likelihood of chlorophyll- a reduction, particularly for projects occurring prior to 1995. Habitat restoration projects were also associated with reductions in chlorophyll-a, although the likelihood of reductions from the cumulative effects of these projects were less than those from infrastructure improvements alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Clearwater Harbor and Saint Joseph Sound
    Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Clearwater Harbor and Saint Joseph Sound Prepared for: Pinellas County Department of Environment and Infrastructure Prepared by: Janicki Environmental, Inc. & December, 2011 FOREWORD This document is provided in fulfillment of Task 10 of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Saint Joseph Sound and Clearwater Harbor; Contract No: 089-0222-P. PREFACE Clearwater Harbor, Saint Joseph Sound, and their watersheds are collectively referred to in this document as the “CHSJS”. The CHSJS contains extensive and highly valued natural resource attributes. The Pinellas County Department of Environment and Infrastructure and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) recognized the need to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan to summarize existing information on the status and trends of natural resources, synthesize existing management efforts, and establish goals, actions, strategies, and priorities to ensure future stewardship of natural resources within the CHSJS. With funding support from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, SWFWMD, Pinellas County, and several municipal governments within the watershed, this report, the Clearwater Harbor and Saint Joseph Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, is a culmination of those efforts to develop protection and restoration strategies to ensure future stewardship of CHSJS natural resources. This document comes at a unique period in Florida’s history. The United States economy is in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930’s. State and national budget deficits have resulted in dramatic reductions in funding on federal, state, and local levels. Funding has been eliminated for management of several of the Florida’s aquatic preserves including those in the CHSJS and budgets for environmental restoration and land acquisition programs has been drastically reduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida State Parks Data by 2021 House District
    30, Florida State Parks FY 2019-20 Data by 2021 House Districts This compilation was produced by the Florida State Parks Foundation . FloridaStateParksFoundation.org Statewide Totals • 175 Florida State Parks and Trails (164 Parks / 11 Trails) comprising nearly 800,000 Acres • $2.2 billion direct impact to Florida’s economy • $150 million in sales tax revenue • 31,810 jobs supported • 25 million visitors served # of Economic Jobs Park House Districts Parks Impact Supported Visitors 1 Salzman, Michelle 0 2 Andrade, Robert Alexander “Alex” 3 31,073,188 436 349,462 Big Lagoon State Park 10,336,536 145 110,254 Perdido Key State Park 17,191,206 241 198,276 Tarklin Bayou Preserve State Park 3,545,446 50 40,932 3 Williamson, Jayer 3 26,651,285 416 362,492 Blackwater Heritage State Trail 18,971,114 266 218,287 Blackwater River State Park 7,101,563 99 78,680 Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park 578,608 51 65,525 4 Maney, Thomas Patterson “Patt” 2 41,626,278 583 469,477 Fred Gannon Rocky Bayou State Park 7,558,966 106 83,636 Henderson Beach State Park 34,067,312 477 385,841 5 Drake, Brad 9 64,140,859 897 696,022 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 Deer Lake State Park 1,738,073 24 19,557 Eden Gardens State Park 3,235,182 45 36,128 Falling Waters State Park 5,510,029 77 58,866 Florida Caverns State Park 4,090,576 57 39,405 Grayton Beach State Park 17,072,108 239 186,686 Ponce de Leon Springs State Park 6,911,495 97 78,277 Three Rivers State Park 2,916,005 41 30,637 Topsail Hill Preserve State Park 19,533,681 273 213,693 6 Trumbull, Jay 2 45,103,015 632 504,860 Camp Helen State Park 3,133,710 44 32,773 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Sea Level Rise Methodology Recommendation.Docx
    RECOMMENDED PROJECTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel Updated April 2019 RECOMMENDED PROJECTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION Executive Summary In this document, the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel (CSAP) recommends a common set of sea level rise (SLR) projections for use throughout the Tampa Bay region. The recommendation establishes the foundation for a coordinated approach to address the effects of a changing climate, which advances the objectives of the newly-established Tampa Bay Regional Resiliency Coalition. Local governments and other agencies planning for SLR in the Tampa Bay region should incorporate the following key findings of this CSAP recommendation. • Data measured at the St. Petersburg tide gauge shows that water levels in Tampa Bay have already increased approximately 7.8 inches since 1946. • Based upon a thorough assessment of scientific data and literature, the Tampa Bay region can expect to see an additional 2 to 8.5 feet of SLR by 2100. • Projections of SLR should be consistent with present and future National Climate Assessment estimates and methods. The NOAA Low scenario should not be used for planning purposes. • Projections of SLR should be regionally corrected using St. Petersburg tide gauge data. • Adaptation planning should employ a scenario-based approach that, at minimum, considers location, time horizon, and risk tolerance. Introduction Formed in spring 2014, the CSAP is an ad hoc network of scientists and resource managers working in the Tampa Bay region (Figure 1). The group’s goal is to collaboratively develop science-based recommendations for local governments and regional agencies as they respond to climate change, including associated sea level change.
    [Show full text]
  • BUTTERFLIES in Thewest Indies of the Caribbean
    PO Box 9021, Wilmington, DE 19809, USA E-mail: [email protected]@focusonnature.com Phone: Toll-free in USA 1-888-721-3555 oror 302/529-1876302/529-1876 BUTTERFLIES and MOTHS in the West Indies of the Caribbean in Antigua and Barbuda the Bahamas Barbados the Cayman Islands Cuba Dominica the Dominican Republic Guadeloupe Jamaica Montserrat Puerto Rico Saint Lucia Saint Vincent the Virgin Islands and the ABC islands of Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao Butterflies in the Caribbean exclusively in Trinidad & Tobago are not in this list. Focus On Nature Tours in the Caribbean have been in: January, February, March, April, May, July, and December. Upper right photo: a HISPANIOLAN KING, Anetia jaegeri, photographed during the FONT tour in the Dominican Republic in February 2012. The genus is nearly entirely in West Indian islands, the species is nearly restricted to Hispaniola. This list of Butterflies of the West Indies compiled by Armas Hill Among the butterfly groupings in this list, links to: Swallowtails: family PAPILIONIDAE with the genera: Battus, Papilio, Parides Whites, Yellows, Sulphurs: family PIERIDAE Mimic-whites: subfamily DISMORPHIINAE with the genus: Dismorphia Subfamily PIERINAE withwith thethe genera:genera: Ascia,Ascia, Ganyra,Ganyra, Glutophrissa,Glutophrissa, MeleteMelete Subfamily COLIADINAE with the genera: Abaeis, Anteos, Aphrissa, Eurema, Kricogonia, Nathalis, Phoebis, Pyrisitia, Zerene Gossamer Wings: family LYCAENIDAE Hairstreaks: subfamily THECLINAE with the genera: Allosmaitia, Calycopis, Chlorostrymon, Cyanophrys,
    [Show full text]
  • FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2011. FNAI Tracking List
    FNAI - Search ABOUT FNAI STAFF PARTNERSHIPS CONTACT US MIAMI-DADE COUNTY 283 Total Elements Found Last Updated: September 2011 Key Scientific Name is linked to the FNAI Online Field Guides when available. - links to NatureServe Explorer, an online encyclopedia of more than 55,000 plants, animals, and natural communities in North America, compiled by the NatureServe network of natural heritage programs, of which the Florida Natural Areas Inventory is a member. - links to a species distribution map (Adobe SVG viewer required). If your browser does not support Adobe SVG, try this link SEARCH RESULTS NOTE: This is not a comprehensive list of all species and natural communities occurring in the location searched. Only element occurrences documented in the FNAI database are included. Plants and Lichens E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status Acrostichum aureum Golden Leather Fern G5 S3 N LT Adiantum melanoleucum Fragrant Maidenhair G4 S1 N LE Fern Adiantum tenerum Brittle Maidenhair Fern G5 S3 N LE Aeschynomene pratensis Meadow Jointvetch G4 S1 N LE Aletris bracteata Bracted Colic-root G2 S2 N LE Alvaradoa amorphoides Everglades Leaf Lace G5 S1 N LE Amorpha herbacea var. crenulata Crenulate Lead-plant G4T1 S1 LE LE Anemia wrightii Wright's Anemia G2? S1 N LE Argusia gnaphalodes Sea Lavender G4 S3 N LE Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett's Wild-mercury G2 S2 C LE http://www.fnai.org/bioticssearch.cfm[12/29/2011 1:53:40 PM] FNAI - Search Aristolochia pentandra Marsh's Dutchman's G4G5 S1
    [Show full text]
  • Mangrove Brochure
    ■■■■ Mangroves are a varied group of salt-tolerant Mangroves grow equally as well in fresh water, though Guide to the shrubs and trees that form one of the most face more competition in areas where salt is not a factor. productive ecosystems in Florida, as well as In Florida, mangrove swamps occur along the shores of Mangroves along many tropical coastlines worldwide. the peninsula, on the leeward side of barrier islands, and the Florida Keys. As mangroves are tropical plants, their For more information contact: The word “mangrove” is derived from the Portu- of Florida northern distribution is limited by temperature. Some of UF/IFAS Sarasota County Extension guese word for tree (mangue) and the English word the largest mangrove communities in Florida occur in the 941-861-5000 for a stand of trees (grove). There are three principal http://sarasota.extension.ufl.edu Ten Thousand Island area along the southwestern coast mangrove species in Florida—red, white and black. and the Florida Keys. The Marie Selby Botanical Gardens An associated species, buttonwood, is usually found www.selby.org growing nearby. Florida mangroves have leaves that Mangrove swamps are rich in life, providing are directly opposite one another on the stem (except food and a safe haven for coastal and marine Florida Sea Grant Marine Extension Program buttonwood, which has alternate leaves). The leaves 941-722-4524 creatures. The trees filter pollutants and play a http://manatee.ifas.ufl.edu. are always fleshy and many have glands on their leaf- major role in stabilizing shores and preventing stalks or leaf blades.
    [Show full text]
  • Mangrove Damage, Delayed Mortality, and Early Recovery Following Hurricane Irma at Two Landfall Sites in Southwest Florida, USA
    Estuaries and Coasts https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00564-8 SPECIAL ISSUE: IMPACT OF 2017 HURRICANES Mangrove Damage, Delayed Mortality, and Early Recovery Following Hurricane Irma at Two Landfall Sites in Southwest Florida, USA Kara R. Radabaugh1 & Ryan P. Moyer1 & Amanda R. Chappel1 & Emma E. Dontis1 & Christine E. Russo 1 & Kristen M. Joyse2 & Melissa W. Bownik3 & Audrey H. Goeckner3,4 & Nicole S. Khan5 Received: 14 January 2019 /Revised: 3 April 2019 /Accepted: 9 April 2019 # Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2019 Abstract Mangrove forests along the coastlines of the tropical and sub-tropical western Atlantic are intermittently impacted by hurricanes and can be damaged by high-speed winds, high-energy storm surges, and storm surge sediment deposits that suffocate tree roots. This study quantified trends in damage, delayed mortality, and early signs of below- and aboveground recovery in mangrove forests in the Lower Florida Keys and Ten Thousand Islands following direct hits by Hurricane Irma in September 2017. Mangrove trees suffered 19% mortality at sites in the Lower Florida Keys and 11% in the Ten Thousand Islands 2–3months post-storm; 9 months post-storm, mortality in these locations increased to 36% and 20%, respectively. Delayed mortality of mangrove trees was associated with the presence of a carbonate mud storm surge deposit on the forest floor. Mortality and severe branch damage were more common for mangrove trees than for mangrove saplings. Canopy coverage increased from 40% cover 1–2 months post-storm to 60% cover 3–6 months post-storm. Canopy coverage remained the same 9 months post-storm, providing light to an understory of predominantly Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove) seedlings.
    [Show full text]
  • House Districts (This Compilation Was Produced by the Florida State Parks Foundation, January 2019)
    Florida State Parks FY 2017-18 Data by 2019 House Districts (This compilation was produced by the Florida State Parks Foundation, January 2019) . State Wide Totals • 175 Florida State Parks and Trails (164 Parks / 11 Trails) comprising nearly 800,000 Acres • $2.4 billion direct economic impact • $158 million in sales tax revenue • 33,587 jobs supported • Over 28 million visitors served # of Economic Jobs Park House Districts Parks Impact Supported Visitors 1 Hill, Walter Bryan “Mike” 0 2 Andre, Robert Alexander “Alex” 3 28,135,146 393 338,807 Big Lagoon State Park 12,155,746 170 141,517 Perdido Key State Park 12,739,427 178 157,126 Tarklin Bayou Preserve State Park 3,239,973 45 40,164 3 Williamson, Jayer 3 22,545,992 315 275,195 Blackwater Heritage State Trail 15,301,348 214 188,630 Blackwater River State Park 6,361,036 89 75,848 Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park 883,608 12 10,717 4 Ponder, Mel 2 46,877,022 657 564,936 Fred Gannon Rocky Bayou State Park 7,896,093 111 88,633 Henderson Beach State Park 38,980,929 546 476,303 5 Drake, Brad 9 75,811,647 1062 881,589 Camp Helen State Park 2,778,378 39 31,704 Deer Lake State Park 1,654,544 23 19,939 Eden Gardens State Park 3,298,681 46 39,601 Falling Waters State Park 5,761,074 81 67,225 Florida Caverns State Park 12,217,659 171 135,677 Grayton Beach State Park 20,250,255 284 236,181 Ponce de Leon Springs State Park 4,745,495 66 57,194 Three Rivers State Park 3,465,975 49 39,482 Topsail Hill Preserve State Park 21,639,586 303 254,586 6 Trumbull, Jay 2 76,186,412 1,067 926,162 Camp Helen State Park 2,778,378 39 31,704 St.
    [Show full text]