DOCSLIB.ORG

Biscayne National Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

National Park Service National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior Biscayne National Park Biscayne National Park Florida Florida Biscayne National Park National Biscayne Biscayne National Park Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Statement Environmental General Management Plan April 2011 ii Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement Biscayne National Park Miami-Dade County, FL _____________________________________________________________________________ Biscayne National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-606), expanded in 1974 (PL 93-477), and redesignated as a national park and expanded again in 1980 (PL 96-287). The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in 1983. Much has changed since 1983 — the population near the park has greatly increased, visitor use patterns and types have changed, and people have brought new recreational activities into the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed and protected, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. A new plan is needed. This document examines 5 alternatives for managing Biscayne National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. The “no-action” alternative, alternative 1, consists of the existing park management and trends and serves as a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The concept for park management under alternative 2 would be to emphasize the recreational use of the park while providing for resource protection as governed by law, policy, or resource sensitivity. This concept would be accomplished by providing a high level of services, facilities, and access to specific areas of the park. The concept for park management under alternative 3 would be to allow all visitors a full range of visitor experiences throughout most of the park and would use a permit system to authorize a limited number of visitors to access some areas of the park. Management actions would provide strong natural and cultural resource protection and diverse visitor experiences. Alternative 4 is the National Park Service’s preferred alternative and would emphasize strong natural and cultural resource protection while providing a diversity of visitor experiences. Some areas would be reserved for focused types of visitor use. The concept for park management under alternative 5 would be to promote the protection of natural resources, including taking actions to optimize conditions for protection and restoration. A permit system would be used in some parts of the park. Other areas would have limited numbers of visitors, manner of access, and recreational activities to provide certain experiences. The key impacts of implementing the no-action alternative (alternative 1) would be no new impacts on natural resources or soils; a continuation of existing impacts on visitor experience and park operations; and no adverse effects on cultural resources. The key impacts of implementing alternative 2 would be negligible to moderate adverse impacts on natural resources, no adverse effect on cultural resources, mostly beneficial visitor experience impacts, adverse park operation impacts, and beneficial economic impacts. The key impacts of implementing alternative 3 would be approximately the same as for alternative 2. The key impacts of implementing alternative 4 would be beneficial for natural resources, no adverse effect on cultural resources, beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience, adverse impacts on park operations, and beneficial and adverse impacts on the local economy. The key impacts of implementing alternative 5 would be beneficial for natural resources, no adverse effect on cultural resources, beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience, adverse impacts on park operations, and both beneficial and adverse impacts on the local economy. This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement has been distributed to other agencies and interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment. The public comment period for this document will last for 60 days after the Environmental Protection Agency’s notice of availability has been published in the Federal Register. Readers are encouraged to enter written comments on this draft plan on the park planning website at http://parkplanning/nps.gov/BISC. Please note that NPS practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review; see the following “How to Comment on this Plan” discussion for further information. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN Comments on this plan are welcome and will Before including your address, phone be accepted for 60 days after the Environ- number, e-mail address, or other personal mental Protection Agency’s notice of identifying information in your comment, you availability appears in the Federal Register. If should be aware that your entire comment— you wish to respond to the material in this including your personal identifying document, you may submit your comments by information—may be made publicly available any one of several methods. You may mail at any time. Although you can ask us in your written comments to comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, Biscayne National Park GMP we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do National Park Service so. M. Elmer (DSC–P) P.O. Box 25287 We will always make submissions from Denver, CO 80225-0287 organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as You may also comment via the National Park representatives of or officials of organizations Service’s planning website or businesses, available for public inspection (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/bisc). You may in their entirety. also hand-deliver comments at public meetings to be announced in the media This method for public comment submittal following release of this document. In listed above stems from court rulings addition, comments may be sent or hand- concerning the release of public comments, delivered to Biscayne National Park, 9700 SW and it is included as recommended by the 328 Street, Homestead, FL 33033-5634 Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior. ii SUMMARY Biscayne National Monument was established mandates, present different ways to manage in 1968 (Public Law 90-606), expanded in resources and visitor use and improve 1974 (Public Law 93-477), and redesignated as facilities and infrastructure at the national a national park and expanded again in 1980 park. The five alternatives are the no-action (Public Law 96-287). alternative (continuing current management), alternative 2, alternative 3, alternative 4 (NPS The last comprehensive planning effort preferred), and alternative 5. (general management plan) for Biscayne National Park was completed in 1983. Much has occurred since 1983—the population near ALTERNATIVE 1 the park has greatly increased, visitor use (THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) patterns and types have changed, and people want to bring new recreational activities into The no-action alternative consists of a the park. Each of these changes has major continuation of existing management and implications for how visitors access and use trends at Biscayne National Park and provides the national park and the facilities needed to a baseline for comparison in evaluating the support those uses, how resources are changes and impacts of the other alternatives. managed, and how the National Park Service The National Park Service would continue to (NPS) manages its operations. A new plan is manage the national park as it is currently needed to being managed. Existing operations and Clearly define resource conditions and visitor facilities would continue, and no new visitor experiences to be achieved in construction would be authorized other than Biscayne National Park. what has already been approved and funded. Current law, policy, and plans, would Provide a framework for NPS managers continue to provide the framework of to use when making decisions about how guidance. to best protect national park resources, how to provide a diverse range of visitor The important impacts of continuing existing experience opportunities, how to management conditions and trends would manage visitor use, and what kinds of include no new impacts on natural resources, facilities, if any, to develop in the no adverse effect on cultural resources, a national park. continuation of adverse effects on visitor Ensure that this foundation for decision experience, a continuation of adverse effects making has been developed in on park operations, and no new impact on the consultation with interested socioeconomic environment. stakeholders and adopted by the NPS leadership after an adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic ALTERNATIVE 2 costs of alternative courses of action. The concept for park management under This Draft General Management Plan / alternative 2 would be to emphasize the Environmental Impact Statement presents five recreational use of the park while providing alternatives, including the National Park for resource protection as governed by law, Service’s preferred alternative, for future policy, or resource sensitivity. This concept
Recommended publications
  • Wilderness on the Edge: a History of Everglades National Park

    Wilderness on the Edge: a History of Everglades National Park

    Wilderness on the Edge: A History of Everglades National Park Robert W Blythe Chicago, Illinois 2017 Prepared under the National Park Service/Organization of American Historians cooperative agreement Table of Contents List of Figures iii Preface xi Acknowledgements xiii Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in Footnotes xv Chapter 1: The Everglades to the 1920s 1 Chapter 2: Early Conservation Efforts in the Everglades 40 Chapter 3: The Movement for a National Park in the Everglades 62 Chapter 4: The Long and Winding Road to Park Establishment 92 Chapter 5: First a Wildlife Refuge, Then a National Park 131 Chapter 6: Land Acquisition 150 Chapter 7: Developing the Park 176 Chapter 8: The Water Needs of a Wetland Park: From Establishment (1947) to Congress’s Water Guarantee (1970) 213 Chapter 9: Water Issues, 1970 to 1992: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Path to the Restudy of the C&SF Project 237 Chapter 10: Wilderness Values and Wilderness Designations 270 Chapter 11: Park Science 288 Chapter 12: Wildlife, Native Plants, and Endangered Species 309 Chapter 13: Marine Fisheries, Fisheries Management, and Florida Bay 353 Chapter 14: Control of Invasive Species and Native Pests 373 Chapter 15: Wildland Fire 398 Chapter 16: Hurricanes and Storms 416 Chapter 17: Archeological and Historic Resources 430 Chapter 18: Museum Collection and Library 449 Chapter 19: Relationships with Cultural Communities 466 Chapter 20: Interpretive and Educational Programs 492 Chapter 21: Resource and Visitor Protection 526 Chapter 22: Relationships with the Military
  • PRAVILNIK O PREKOGRANIĈNOM PROMETU I TRGOVINI ZAŠTIĆENIM VRSTAMA ("Sl

    PRAVILNIK O PREKOGRANIĈNOM PROMETU I TRGOVINI ZAŠTIĆENIM VRSTAMA ("Sl

    PRAVILNIK O PREKOGRANIĈNOM PROMETU I TRGOVINI ZAŠTIĆENIM VRSTAMA ("Sl. glasnik RS", br. 99/2009 i 6/2014) I OSNOVNE ODREDBE Ĉlan 1 Ovim pravilnikom propisuju se: uslovi pod kojima se obavlja uvoz, izvoz, unos, iznos ili tranzit, trgovina i uzgoj ugroţenih i zaštićenih biljnih i ţivotinjskih divljih vrsta (u daljem tekstu: zaštićene vrste), njihovih delova i derivata; izdavanje dozvola i drugih akata (potvrde, sertifikati, mišljenja); dokumentacija koja se podnosi uz zahtev za izdavanje dozvola, sadrţina i izgled dozvole; spiskovi vrsta, njihovih delova i derivata koji podleţu izdavanju dozvola, odnosno drugih akata; vrste, njihovi delovi i derivati ĉiji je uvoz odnosno izvoz zabranjen, ograniĉen ili obustavljen; izuzeci od izdavanja dozvole; naĉin obeleţavanja ţivotinja ili pošiljki; naĉin sprovoĊenja nadzora i voĊenja evidencije i izrada izveštaja. Ĉlan 2 Izrazi upotrebljeni u ovom pravilniku imaju sledeće znaĉenje: 1) datum sticanja je datum kada je primerak uzet iz prirode, roĊen u zatoĉeništvu ili veštaĉki razmnoţen, ili ukoliko takav datum ne moţe biti dokazan, sledeći datum kojim se dokazuje prvo posedovanje primeraka; 2) deo je svaki deo ţivotinje, biljke ili gljive, nezavisno od toga da li je u sveţem, sirovom, osušenom ili preraĊenom stanju; 3) derivat je svaki preraĊeni deo ţivotinje, biljke, gljive ili telesna teĉnost. Derivati većinom nisu prepoznatljivi deo primerka od kojeg potiĉu; 4) država porekla je drţava u kojoj je primerak uzet iz prirode, roĊen i uzgojen u zatoĉeništvu ili veštaĉki razmnoţen; 5) druga generacija potomaka
  • Chapter 6 City of North Port Comprehensive Plan ______Recreation & Open Space

    Chapter 6 City of North Port Comprehensive Plan ______Recreation & Open Space

    CHAPTER 6 CITY OF NORTH PORT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ____________________________________ RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Recreation and Open Space Element Table of Contents Chapter 6 Recreation & Open Space Page Introduction 6-3 Needs and Priorities 6-4 Relationship to the EAR 6-4 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 6-5 Parks and Recreation Division Recommendations 6-10 Local Option One Percent Infrastructure Surtax 6-11 Myakkahatchee Creek Greenway Master Plan 6-12 Other Recreational Opportunities 6-16 List of Illustrations TABLES 6-1 Parks Inventory 6-18 Goals, Objectives, & Policies 6-21 Maps follow GOP’s Map 6-1 Parks 6-2 Recreation and Open Space Element RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Introduction The management of City-owned parks, recreational amenities and open space has undergone significant change since the 1997 10-year update of the City of North Port’s Comprehensive Plan. In 1997, the population of North Port was 16,708, by 2008, the City’s population had more than tripled to 56,316 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research estimate). The City’s explosive growth within that period of time is attributable to the large numbers of young families who moved to the City because of its affordable housing and good schools. As a consequence of this continuing trend, the average age of a typical resident has fallen from the 50s to the mid- to late 30s. Under the terms of the City’s 1993 Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County Government, the City’s recreational programs, activities and facilities had been consolidated and placed under the direction of the County.
  • Report SFRC-83/01 Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity

    Report SFRC-83/01 Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity

    Report SFRC-83/01 Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity NATIONAL b lb -a'*? m ..-.. # .* , *- ,... - . ,--.-,, , . LG LG - m,*.,*,*, Or 7°C ,"7cn,a. Q*Everglades National Park, South Florida Research Center, P.O.Box 279, Homestead, Florida 33030 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................... 1 STUDYAREA ............................ 1 METHODS .............................. 3 RESULTS .............................. 4 Figure 1. Distribution of the indigo snake in southern Florida ..... 5 Figure 2 . Distribution of the indigo snake in the Florida Keys including Biscayne National Park ............. 6 DISCUSSION ............................. 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................ 13 LITERATURE CITED ......................... 14 APPENDIX 1. Observations of indigo snakes in southern Florida ....... 17 APPENDIX 2 . Data on indigo snakes examined in and adjacent to Everglades National Park ................. 24 APPENDIX 3. Museum specimens of indigo snakes from southern Florida ... 25 4' . Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity Report ~F~~-83/01 Todd M. Steiner, Oron L. Bass, Jr., and James A. Kushlan National Park Service South Florida Research Center Everglades National Park Homestead, Florida 33030 January 1983 Steiner, Todd M., Oron L. Bass, Jr., and James A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity. South Florida Research Center Report SFRC- 83/01. 25 pp. INTRODUCTION The status and biology of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi, the largest North American snake (~awler,1977), is poorly understood. Destruction of habitat and exploitation by the pet trade have reduced its population levels in various localities to the point that it is listed by the Federal government as a threatened species.
  • Composite of State of Florida Division of Historic Preservation Office Letter and Cultural Resource Reports

    Composite of State of Florida Division of Historic Preservation Office Letter and Cultural Resource Reports

    ATTACHMENT 1 Composite of State of Florida Division of Historic Preservation Office Letter and Cultural Resource Reports Environmental Assessment for the Coral Reef Commons Project Incidental Take Permit Application Frozune Xlspenrli{ENT o RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Govemor Secretary of State Mr. Roberl Carr December 9,2015 Archaeological and Historical Conservancv, Inc. 4800 S.W. 64m Ave., Suire 107 Davie, Florida 33314 Re: DHR Project File No.: 2015-5923 / Received by DHR: November 9, 2015 A Phase II Cttltural Resource Assessment of SDA11320, BDAl432l, BDA I 13 22, and SDAI I 3 96. Dade County, Florida Dear Mr. Carr: Our office received and reviewed the above re1'erenced surve), report in accordance rvith Chapters 267 and313 of the Florida Statutes, and the applicable Dacle County ordinances, for possible advLrse impact to cultural resources (any prehistoric or histolrc district, site. building, structure, or object) listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of l-listoric places (NRHP). In June and July 2015, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. (AFIC) conducted a phase II assessment of the Coral Reef Cornmons parcel on behalf of Johnson Engineering,Inc. AHC investigated resources 8DA14320,SDA14321,8DA14322, and identified archaeological site 8DA14396, It is the opinion of AHC that resources BDAl4321,BDA|4322, and8DA143g6 are eligible forthe NRHP. AHC had insufficient information to determine the eligibility of site 8DA14320. Resources 8DA14320 and 8DA14396 are located within natural areas of the project parcel, and AHC recommends that they are preserved, Based on tlie ir,fonnation providecl, or-rr office finds the submitted report complete and sufficient in accordance rvitllthapter lA-46, Florida Administrative Code.It is our opinion that resources DA14321, 8D4I4322, and 8DA14396 are ineligible for the NRHP.
  • Jockey Club ——-”A Community Helping to Build a City”

    Jockey Club ——-”A Community Helping to Build a City”

    Jockey Club ——-”a community helping to build a city” Jockey Club of North Port Property Owners’ Association, Inc. A Covenant Protected Community Board of Directors JANUARY—EDITION 2016 VOLUME 38 ISSUE 1 Officers Fred McMahan, Pres 16 David Casarsa, VP 16 Guenter Recknagel, Treasurer ‘18 Bil Carlock, Secretary/ City Liaison ‘16 Loretta Stephenson, Beautification 18 Margarete Haefele, Clarion Editor 16 Bill Iiams 16, Maintenance Director Sean Seward16 CONTENTS Board Meeting ————–—pg 2 Performing Arts———-——-pg 2 Updates ———-———-——pg 2 Did you Know————-——pg 2 Snow Flake Dance—---——pg 3 Important Notice—--——-—-pg 3 Report from City Liaison——pg3 Best Christmas Décor—--—pg 3 Comments President———pg 4 Friends Lttle Salt Springs—-pg 4 Recreation Update————pg 5 Cmmunication Loretta——--pg 5 Booster Page—–——-——-pg 6 Elections——————–-—–pg 7 Info /Volunteer Request—–pg 11 Money Talks——————-pg12 Splash News————–—-pg 12 Election 2016——–———-pg 13 Code Enforcement———--pg 14 This is your Community—--pg 15 THE NEXT CLARION IS OUR FEBRUARY ISSUE Our Board meetings are very interesting! Come and check it out. Page2 2 We are free. We are the Board of members of 2016 North Port Performing Arts Events the Jockey Club. We run this Club. You voted us North Port Performing Arts Association tick- in. We have succeeded in taking back our Club. ets may be purchased by calling the box of- Things went smoothly, and we are ironing out the fice at 426-8479 or 866-406-7722, or by going wrinkles. There are many deficiencies, worn out between 10am-1pm and one hour prior to the equipment, and disarrayed files which we have in house box office.
  • Who Killed All the Miami Blues? by Dennis Olle Holly Salvato

    Who Killed All the Miami Blues? by Dennis Olle Holly Salvato

    James L. Monroe Who Killed All the Miami Blues? by Dennis Olle Holly Salvato The night of the iguana. Populations of non-native introduced iguanas have exploded on the Florida Keys. Nickerbeans, the caterpillar foodplant for Miami Blues on Bahia Honda, are part of their diet. Aug. 26, 2010. Bahia Honda State Park, FL. The re-discovery and would-be protection and restoration of Miami Blues in Florida has been Miami Blues have disappeared — the well-chronicled in these pages (see below). I U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in the wish I had better news to report regarding the G. W. Bush administrations failed status of this rare butterfly, but I do not. to declare them an endangered While sitting in a parking lot in El Cerrito, species; the State of Florida, despite California checking my office emails, I received good intentions, failed to implement word from a representative of the Florida Fish a management plan; and personnel and Wildlife Commission to the effect that: The at University of Florida failed to learn “flagship” wild Miami Blue colony at Bahia what factors have caused their decline Honda State Park in the Lower Florida Keys had or to maintain the laboratory colony apparently collapsed (in fact, neither adults nor These mated Miami Blues, to the best of our knowledge the last Miami Blues created as a safety valve if disaster caterpillars have been seen at Bahia Honda seen at Bahia Honda State Park, provided hope for a future that has now died. befell the Bahia Honda colony. State Park since January 2010) and the captive Jan.
  • Plant-Insect Interactions in a Shifting Coastal Ecosystem: Avicennia Germinans and Its Associated Arthropods

    Plant-Insect Interactions in a Shifting Coastal Ecosystem: Avicennia Germinans and Its Associated Arthropods

    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: PLANT-INSECT INTERACTIONS IN A SHIFTING COASTAL ECOSYSTEM: AVICENNIA GERMINANS AND ITS ASSOCIATED ARTHROPODS Mayda Nathan, Doctor of Philosophy, 2020 Dissertation directed by: Dr. Daniel S. Gruner, Department of Entomology The climate’s role in determining where species occur is increasingly well understood, but our ability to predict how biotic interactions both influence and respond to species’ range shifts remains poor. This is particularly important when considering climate-change-driven range shifts in habitat-forming species like mangroves, given their impact on ecosystem structure and function. In this dissertation, I consider the arthropods associated with the black mangrove, Avicennia germinans, to explore whether patterns of arthropod diversity affect the rate of a plant’s range expansion, and, in turn, how a range-expanding plant alters arthropod communities in habitats where it is invading. Among arthropods with the potential to influence plants’ range dynamics, pollinators can directly affect plant reproduction and ability to spread into new territory. Breeding system experiments reveal that A. germinans relies on pollinators for full fruit set, and surveys along the Florida coast show a substantial northward decline in the overall frequency of pollinator visits to A. germinans flowers. However, the decline in abundance of some common pollinator taxa is partly offset by an increase in the frequency of other highly effective taxa. Furthermore, range-edge A. germinans produce more flowers than southern individuals, contributing to high range-edge fecundity and enabling range expansion. As a woody plant with nectar-producing flowers, A. germinans is a novel resource for arthropods in the salt marshes where it is encroaching.
  • Segment 16 Map Book

    Segment 16 Map Book

    Hollywood BROWARD Hallandale M aa p 44 -- B North Miami Beach North Miami Hialeah Miami Beach Miami M aa p 44 -- B South Miami F ll o r ii d a C ii r c u m n a v ii g a tt ii o n Key Biscayne Coral Gables M aa p 33 -- B S a ll tt w a tt e r P a d d ll ii n g T r a ii ll S e g m e n tt 1 6 DADE M aa p 33 -- A B ii s c a y n e B a y M aa p 22 -- B Drinking Water Homestead Camping Kayak Launch Shower Facility Restroom M aa p 22 -- A Restaurant M aa p 11 -- B Grocery Store Point of Interest M aa p 11 -- A Disclaimer: This guide is intended as an aid to navigation only. A Gobal Positioning System (GPS) unit is required, and persons are encouraged to supplement these maps with NOAA charts or other maps. Segment 16: Biscayne Bay Little Pumpkin Creek Map 1 B Pumpkin Key Card Point Little Angelfish Creek C A Snapper Point R Card Sound D 12 S O 6 U 3 N 6 6 18 D R Dispatch Creek D 12 Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve 3 ´ Ocean Reef Harbor 12 Wednesday Point 12 Card Point Cut 12 Card Bank 12 5 18 0 9 6 3 R C New Mahogany Hammock State Botanical Site 12 6 Cormorant Point Crocodile Lake CR- 905A 12 6 Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park Mosquito Creek Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge Dynamite Docks 3 6 18 6 North Key Largo 12 30 Steamboat Creek John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park Carysfort Yacht Harbor 18 12 D R D 3 N U O S 12 D R A 12 C 18 Basin Hills Elizabeth, Point 3 12 12 12 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 3 6 12 12 3 12 6 12 Segment 16: Biscayne Bay 3 6 Map 1 A 12 12 3 6 ´ Thursday Point Largo Point 6 Mary, Point 12 D R 6 D N U 3 O S D R S A R C John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park 5 18 3 12 B Garden Cove Campsite Snake Point Garden Cove Upper Sound Point 6 Sexton Cove 18 Rattlesnake Key Stellrecht Point Key Largo 3 Sound Point T A Y L 12 O 3 R 18 D Whitmore Bight Y R W H S A 18 E S Anglers Park R 18 E V O Willie, Point Largo Sound N: 25.1248 | W: -80.4042 op t[ D A I* R A John Pennekamp State Park A M 12 B N: 25.1730 | W: -80.3654 t[ O L 0 Radabo0b.
  • California State University, Northridge an Ecological

    California State University, Northridge an Ecological

    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE AN ECOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF TROPICAL CORAL REEF RESPONSES TO PAST AND PROJECTED DISTURBANCES A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology By Elizabeth Ann Lenz May 2014 The thesis of Elizabeth A. Lenz is approved by: Robert C. Carpenter, Ph.D. Date: Eric D. Sanford, Ph.D. Date: Mark A. Steele, Ph.D. Date: Peter J. Edmunds, Ph.D., Chair Date: California State University, Northridge ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Peter J. Edmunds first and foremost for being my fearless leader and advisor - for the incredible opportunities and invaluable mentorship he has provided to me as a graduate student in the Polyp Lab. I am ever so grateful for his guidance, endless caffeinated energy, constructive critiques, and dry British humor. I would also like to thank my loyal committee members Drs. Robert Carpenter and Mark Steele at CSUN for their availability and expert advise during this process. Their suggestions have greatly contributed to my thesis. I would not only like to acknowledge Dr. Eric Sanford from UC Davis for serving on my committee, but thank him for his incessant support throughout my career over the last 7 years. I will always admire his contagious enthusiasm for invertebrates, passion for scientific research, and unlimited knowledge about marine ecology. My research would not have been possible without the technical support and assistance from my colleagues in Moorea, French Polynesia and St. John, USVI. I am grateful to Dr. Lorenzo Bramanti, Dr. Steeve Comeau, Vince Moriarty, Nate Spindel, Emily Rivest, Christopher Wall, Darren Brown, Alexandre Yarid, Nicolas Evensen, Craig Didden, the VIERS staff, and undergraduate assistants: Kristin Privitera-Johnson and Amanda Arnold.
  • Storm-Tide Elevations Produced by Hurricane Andrew Along the Southern Florida Coasts, August 24,1992

    Storm-Tide Elevations Produced by Hurricane Andrew Along the Southern Florida Coasts, August 24,1992

    Storm-Tide Elevations Produced by Hurricane Andrew Along the Southern Florida Coasts, August 24,1992 By MITCHELL H. MURRAY U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 94-116 Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Tallahassee, Florida 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GORDON P. EATON, Director For additional information, write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center Suite 3015 Open-File Reports Section 227 N. Bronough Street Box 25286, MS 517 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract......................-. ......... ....-.. .................. Introduction.............................................................................................................................^ Description of study area.............................................................................................................................4 Methods.........................................................................................................................................................^ Vertical datum...............................................................................................................................................6 Acknowledgments.............................................................................................. .......................................8 Storm-tide elevations...............................................................................................................................................8
  • Bradish W. Johnson, Master Wrecker: 1846-1914

    Bradish W. Johnson, Master Wrecker: 1846-1914

    Bradish W. Johnson, MasterWrecker 1846-1914 by VINCENT GILPIN Mr. Gilpin, long interested in the history of Southern Florida and known to all of us here as co-author with the late Ralph M. Munroe of The Commodore's Story, has carried on his investigation of the old-time wreckers at Key West for many years; as a result he gives us this story, full of human interest and interesting biographical detail. UNTIL Florida entered the United States in 1818 the keys were unknown wilderness islets, scarce visited save by those who landed from ships wrecked on the great coral reef which borders them. The only "business" which touched them was wrecking-salvage work on these ships carried on by Cubans and Bahamans. In 1822 Key West was bought by four gentlement of wealth and culture, who attracted settlers of unusual quality for a pioneer town; it grew rapidly, around new military and naval posts, developing fisheries, including sponges and turtles, and later many cigar factories. But wrecking was its prime industry: everyone took part, whatever his daily business, and it remained the chief source of excitement and profit throughout the 19th century. The business was well organized, each vessel being licensed and supervised, and its rewards determined by the courts. There was no coast guard in early days, and the wreckers had an important function in life- saving, efforts to that end being recognized by larger salvage. It was a strenuous and dangerous business, demanding a wild race to the stranded ship, whatever the weather or time of day, and unremitting, heart-break- ing toil to save the ship, or if that were impossible, the cargo.