Public water supplies of selected municipalities in Florida, 1970

This report summarizes municipal use of water in 138 selected municipalities in Florida as of December 1970 and includes the following: 1) Tabulation of data on water-use for each listed municipality; 2) tabulation of chemical analyses of water for each listed municipality; and 3) graphs of pumpage, included when available. Also included are selected recent references relating to geology, hydrology, and water resources of those areas in which the municipalities are located. (218 page document)

Interim report on the progress of an inventory of artesian wells in Florida: leading to the enforcement of sections 370.051 - 370.54, Florida statues

One of the causes of lower artesian pressure, water waste and aquifer contamination is the misuse and insufficient care of artesian wells. In 1953, Senate Bill No. 57, entitled "An Act to Protect and Control the Artesian Waters of the State" (see Appendix) became a law. This law was passed through the efforts exerted by leading members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who understood the need for a wise and controlled expenditure of our most valuable natural resource. The State Geologist and his authorized representatives were designated by this law to enforce this conservation measure; however, no financial provision was included for the 1953-55 biennium. The proposed program of the Florida Geological Survey for this biennium did not include the funds nor provide any full-time personnel for the enforcement of this statute. As a result, little actual work was accomplished during these two years, although much time was given to planning and discussion of the problem. Realizing that this program could provide additional basic data needed in the analysis of the water-supply problem, the State Geologist sought and was granted by the 1955 Legislature adequate funds with which to activate the first phase of the enforcement of Florida Statute No. 370.051-054. Enumerated below is a summary of the progress made on this investigation as outlined previously: 1. Data have been collected on 967 wildly flowing wells in 22 counties. 2. Chloride determinations have been run on 850 of the 967 wells. 3. Of the 967 wells, 554 have chlorides in excess of the 250 ppm, the upper limit assigned by the State Board of Health for public consumption. 4. Water escapes at the rate of 37, 762 gallons per minute from these 967 wells. This amounts to 54, 377, 280 gallons per day. The investigation is incomplete at this time; therefore, no final conclusions can be reached. However, from data already collected, the following recommendations are proposed: 1. That the present inventory of wildly flowing wells be completed for the entire State. 2. That the current inventory of wildly flowing wells be expanded at the conclusion of the present inventory to include all flowing wells. 3. That a complete statewide inventory program be established and conducted in cooperation with the Ground Water Branchof the U.S. Geological Survey. 4. That the enforcement functions as set down in Sections 370.051/.054, Florida Statutes, be separated from the program to collect water-resource data and that these functions be given to the Water Resources Department, if such is created (to be recommended by the Water Resources Study Commission in a water policy law presented to the 1957 Legislature). 5. That the research phase (well inventory) of the program remain under the direction of the Florida Geological Survey. (PDF contains 204 pages.)

Redefining Stewardship: Public Lands and Rural Communities in the Pacific Northwest

pdf contains 24 pages

An Integrated Assessment of the Introduction of Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) to the Western Atlantic Ocean.

Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) are venomous coral reef fishes from the Indian and western Pacific oceans that are now found in the western Atlantic Ocean. Adult lionfish have been observed from Miami, Florida to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and juvenile lionfish have been observed off North Carolina, New York, and Bermuda. The large number of adults observed and the occurrence of juveniles indicate that lionfish are established and reproducing along the southeast United States coast. Introductions of marine species occur in many ways. Ballast water discharge, a very common method of introduction for marine invertebrates, is responsible for many freshwater fish introductions. In contrast, most marine fish introductions result from intentional stocking for fishery purposes. Lionfish, however, likely were introduced via unintentional or intentional aquarium releases, and the introduction of lionfish into United States waters should lead to an assessment of the threat posed by the aquarium trade as a vector for fish introductions. Currently, no management actions are being taken to limit the effect of lionfish on the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem. Further, only limited funds have been made available for research. Nevertheless, the extent of the introduction has been documented and a forecast of the maximum potential spread of lionfish is being developed. Under a scenario of no management actions and limited research, three predictions are made: ● With no action, the lionfish population will continue to grow along the southeast United States shelf. ● Effects on the marine ecosystem of the southeast United States will become more noticeable as the lionfish population grows. ● There will be incidents of lionfish envenomations of divers and/or fishers along the east coast of the United States. Removing lionfish from the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem would be expensive and likely impossible. A bounty could be established that would encourage the removal of fish and provide specimens for research. However, the bounty would need to be lower than the price of fish in the aquarium trade (~$25-$50 each) to ensure that captured specimens were from the wild. Such a low bounty may not provide enough incentive for capturing lionfish in the wild. Further, such action would only increase the interaction between the public and lionfish, increasing the risk of lionfish envenomations. As the introduction of lionfish is very likely irreversible, future actions should focus on five areas. 1) The population of lionfish should be tracked. 2) Research should be conducted so that scientists can make better predictions regarding the status of the invasion and the effects on native species, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. 3) Outreach and education efforts must be increased, both specifically toward lionfish and more generally toward the aquarium trade as a method of fish introductions. 4) Additional regulation should be considered to reduce the frequency of marine fish introduction into U.S. waters. However, the issue is more complicated than simply limiting the import of non-native species, and these complexities need to be considered simultaneously. 5) Health care providers along the east coast of the United States need to be notified that a venomous fish is now resident along the southeast United States. The introduction and spread of lionfish illustrates the difficulty inherent in managing introduced species in marine systems. Introduced species often spread via natural mechanisms after the initial introduction. Efforts to control the introduction of marine fish will fail if managers do not consider the natural dispersal of a species following an introduction. Thus, management strategies limiting marine fish introductions need to be applied over the scale of natural ecological dispersal to be effective, pointing to the need for a regional management approach defined by natural processes not by political boundaries. The introduction and success of lionfish along the east coast should change the long-held perception that marine fish invasions are a minimal threat to marine ecosystems. Research is needed to determine the effects of specific invasive fish species in specific ecosystems. More broadly, a cohesive plan is needed to manage, mitigate and minimize the effects of marine invasive fish species on ecosystems that are already compromised by other human activities. Presently, the magnitude of marine fish introductions as a stressor on marine ecosystems cannot be quantified, but can no longer be dismissed as negligible. (PDF contains 31 pages)

Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume One: A framework for monitoring plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457)

Executive Summary: The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (ERA), Title I of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, was created to promote the restoration of habitats along the coast of the United States (including the US protectorates and the Great Lakes). The NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science was charged with the development of a guidance manual for monitoring plans under this Act. This guidance manual, titled Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, is written in two volumes. It provides technical assistance, outlines necessary steps, and provides useful tools for the development and implementation of sound scientific monitoring of coastal restoration efforts. In addition, this manual offers a means to detect early warnings that the restoration is on track or not, to gauge how well a restoration site is functioning, to coordinate projects and efforts for consistent and successful restoration, and to evaluate the ecological health of specific coastal habitats both before and after project completion (Galatowitsch et al. 1998). The following habitats have been selected for discussion in this manual: water column, rock bottom, coral reefs, oyster reefs, soft bottom, kelp and other macroalgae, rocky shoreline, soft shoreline, submerged aquatic vegetation, marshes, mangrove swamps, deepwater swamps, and riverine forests. The classification of habitats used in this document is generally based on that of Cowardin et al. (1979) in their Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, as called for in the ERA Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy. This manual is not intended to be a restoration monitoring “cookbook” that provides templates of monitoring plans for specific habitats. The interdependence of a large number of site-specific factors causes habitat types to vary in physical and biological structure within and between regions and geographic locations (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Monitoring approaches used should be tailored to these differences. However, even with the diversity of habitats that may need to be restored and the extreme geographic range across which these habitats occur, there are consistent principles and approaches that form a common basis for effective monitoring. Volume One, titled A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, begins with definitions and background information. Topics such as restoration, restoration monitoring, estuaries, and the role of socioeconomics in restoration are discussed. In addition, the habitats selected for discussion in this manual are briefly described. (PDF contains 116 pages)