6 resultados para Gaveston, Piers, approximately 1284-1312.
em Aquatic Commons
Resumo:
bulletin which documented the major and important springs in the state (Ferguson et al., 1947). This publication was revised in 1977, with many previously undocumented springs and many new water-quality analyses being added (Rosenau et al., 1977). The Florida Geological Survey's report on first magnitude springs (Scott et al., 2002) was the initial step in once again updating and revising the Springs of Florida bulletin. The new bulletin includes the spring descriptions and water-quality analyses from Scott et al. (2002). Nearly 300 springs were described in 1977. As of 2004, more than 700 springs have been recognized in the state and more are reported each year. To date, 33 first magnitude springs (with a flow greater than 100 cubic feet per second or approximately 64.6 million gallons of water per day) have been recognized in Florida, more than any other state or country (Rosenau et al., 1977). Our springs are a unique and invaluable natural resource. A comprehensive understanding of the spring systems will provide the basis for their protection and wise use. (Document pdf contains 677 pages)
Residential Docks and Piers: Inventory of laws, regulations, and policies for the New England region
Resumo:
While the homes threatened by erosion and the developer illegally filling in marshlands are the projects that make the headlines, for many state regulatory programs, it’s the residential docks and piers that take up the most time. When is a dock too long? What about crossing extended property lines? And at what point does a creek have too many docks? There are no easy answers to these questions. At the request of the Georgia Coastal Management Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center published in April 2003 an inventory of residential dock and pier management information for the southeastern U.S. This inventory builds upon that effort and includes five New England states and one municipality: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and the Town of Falmouth, Massachusetts. Federal laws, state laws and regulations, permitting policies, and contact information are presented in a tabular format that is easy to use. (PDF contains 16 pages)
Resumo:
While the homes threatened by erosion and the developer illegally filling in marshlands are the projects that make the headlines, for many state regulatory programs, it’s the residential docks and piers that take up the most time. When is a dock too long? What about crossing extended property lines? And at what point does a creek have too many docks? There are no easy answers to any of the dock and pier related questions. Each state has to craft the laws and policies that are best for its natural resources and its political and legal environment. At the same time, mistakes in judgment can be costly for the organization, the homeowner, and the natural resources. At the request of the Georgia Coastal Management Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center compiled an inventory of dock information for four states—Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Federal laws, state laws and regulations, permitting policies, and contact information are included in a tabular format that is easy to use. (PDF contaions 18 pages)
Resumo:
From a manager’s perspective, oftentimes the publicly held concerns related to small docks and piers are not really related to the environment. They may be more related to visual impacts and aesthetic concerns, a sense of over-development of the shore, or simply change. While individuals may hold personal aesthetic values related to small docks in general or an individual structure in particular, techniques have evolved that appear to provide reproducible, predictive assessments of the visual impacts and aesthetic values of an area and how those might change with development, including an increase in numbers of small docks. These assessments may be used to develop regulatory or non-regulatory methods for the management of small docks based on state or community standards. Visual impact assessments are increasingly used in the regulatory review of proposed development—although this process is still in its infancy as regards small docks and piers. Some political jurisdictions have established visual impact or aesthetic standards as relate to docks and others are in the process of investigating how to go about such an effort. (PDF contains 42 pages)
Resumo:
Few issues confronting coastal resource managers are as divisive or difficult to manage as regulating the construction of private recreational docks and piers associated with residential development. State resource managers face a growing population intent on living on or near the coast, coupled with an increasing desire to have immediate access to the water by private docks or piers. (PDF contains 69 pages)
Resumo:
The nearshore waters along the Myrtle Beach area are oceanographically referred to as Long Bay. Long Bay is the last in a series of semi-circular indentations located along the South Atlantic seaboard. The Bay extends for approximately 150 km from the Cape Fear River in North Carolina to Winyah Bay in South Carolina and has a number of small inlets (Figure 1). This region of the S.C. coast, commonly referred to as the “Grand Strand,” has a significant tourism base that accounts for a substantial portion of the South Carolina economy (i.e., 40% of the state’s total in 2002) (TIAA 2003). In 2004, the Grand Strand had an estimated 13.2 million visitors of which 90% went to the beach (MBCC 2006). In addition, Long Bay supports a shore-based hook and line fishery comprised of anglers fishing from recreational fishing piers, the beach, and small recreational boats just offshore. (PDF contains 4 pages)