DOCSLIB.ORG

Tier I Site Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Tier I Site Assessment Main CSJ: 1002-01-006, 1002-02-016, 0978-01-039 Form Prepared By: Meghan P. Lind and Marissa Buschow, Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. Date of Evaluation: December 1, 2019 Proposed Letting Date: August 2023 Project not assigned to TxDOT under the NEPA Assignment MOU District(s): Houston County(ies): Brazoria, Galveston Roadway Name: Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 517 Limits From: State Highway (SH) 35 Limits To: Interstate Highway (I-) 45 Project Description: Road widening and intersection improvements. See Project Description in Attachment 1 of the FM 517 Tier 1 Supplemental Attachments document. The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. 1. No Is the project limited to a maintenance activity exempt from coordination? http://txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/environmental/maintenance-program.html 2. No Has the project previously completed coordination with TPWD? 3. Yes Is the project within range of a state threatened or endangered species or SGCN and suitable habitat is present? *Explain: The project is within range with suitable habitat present for one state-listed endangered species, the Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis); extinct. The project is also within range with suitable habitat present for seven state- listed threatened species: White-faced Ibis (Pegadis chihi), White-tailed Hawk (Geranoaetus albicaudatus), the Wood Stork (Mycteria americana), Opossum Pipefish (Microphis brachyurus), Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus). Additionally, the project is within range with suitable habitat present for 41 state-listed SGCN species: awnless bluestem (Bothriochloa exaristata), coastal gayfeather (Liatris bracteata), corkwood (Leitneria pilosa ssp. pilosa), Florida pinkroot (Spigelia texana), Houston daisy (Rayjacksonia aurea), Texas ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes brevilabris var. brevilabris), Texas meadow-rue (Thalictrum texanum), Texas sunflower (Helianthus praecox ssp. praecox), Texas willkommia (Willkommia texana var. texana), Texas windmill-grass (Chloris texensis), Traub's rainlily (Cooperia traubii), alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), Cajun chorus frog (Pseudacris fouquettei), southern crawfish frog (Lithobates areolatus areolatus), Woodhouse's toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Massassauga (Sistrurus tergeminus), slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus), smooth softshell (Apalone mutica), Texas garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis annectens), western box turtle (Terrapene ornata), western hognose snake (Heterodon nasicus), Arctic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), Franklin's Gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan), Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), American badger (Taxidea taxus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), mink (Neovison vison), southeastern myotis bat (Myotis austroriparius), southern short- Form 300.02.FRM TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division Version 3 Effective Date: December 2019 1002-01-006, 1002-02-016, 0978-01-039 Page 1 of 7 Tier I SIte Assessment tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Ictidomys tridecemlineatus), and tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus). Date TPWD County List Accessed: November 20, 2019 Date that the NDD was accessed: November 19, 2019 What agency performed the NDD search? TPWD NDD Search Results for EOIDs and Tracked Managed Areas EOID Number Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status Buffer Zone No recorded EOs within 1.5 miles 1.5 Mile of the project area No Does the BMP PA eliminate the requirement to coordinate for all species? Comments: The following species do not have BMPs identified in the Programmatic Agreement: plant species, alligator gar, Cajun chorus frog, Woodhouse's toad, eastern and western box turtle, Massassauga, slender glass lizard, western hognose snake, Franklin's gull, American badger, big brown bat, eastern red bat, eastern spotted skunk, hoary bat, long-tailed weasel, Mexican free-tailed bat, mink, southern short-tailed shrew, swamp rabbit, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, and tricolored bat. 4. No NDD and TCAP review indicates adverse impacts to remnant vegetation? 5. Yes Does the project require a NWP with PCN or IP by USACE? *Explain: Preliminary design indicates that the proposed project would be authorized under a NWP #14 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with a pre-construction notification (PCN) for wetland impacts. 6. No Does the project include more than 200 linear feet of stream channel for each single and complete crossing of one or more of the following that is not already channelized or otherwise maintained: Comments: All crossings with impacts over 200 linear feet are channelized or otherwise maintained. 7. No Does the project contain known isolated wetlands outside the TxDOT ROW that will be directly impacted by the project? 8. Yes Would the project impact at least 0.10 acre of riparian vegetation? Form 300.02.FRM TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division Version 3 Effective Date: December 2019 1002-01-006, 1002-02-016, 0978-01-039 Page 2 of 7 Tier I SIte Assessment *Explain: Approximately 8.10 acres of riparian vegetation would be impacted by the proposed project. 9. Yes Does project disturb a habitat type in an area equal to or greater than the area of disturbance indicated in the Threshold Table Programmatic Agreement? *Explain: The proposed project would exceed the threshold of disturbance for the following habitat types: - Riparian: 8.10 acres (threshold: 0.1 acres) - Coastal Grassland: 21.34 acres (threshold: 2.0 acres) - Disturbed Prairie: 8.43 acres (threshold: 3.0 acres) - Mixed Woodlands and Forests: 6.67 acres (threshold: 0.5 acres) *Attach associated file of EMST output (Mapper Report or other Excel File which includes MOU Type, Ecosystem Name, Common/Vegetation Type Name) in ECOS Excel File Name: FM517ObservedVeg.Impacts.xls 9.1. Yes Is there a discrepancy between actual habitat(s) and EMST mapped habitat(s)? *Explain: Based on field investigations that took place in October 2015, May 2016, and January 2017, by qualified biologists, it was determined that the vegetation within the current right-of-way consists mainly of maintained right-of-way grasses and forbs, which appear to be mowed regularly. These areas were incorrectly mapped by the EMST in many locations throughout the project area. The majority of the existing right-of-way fits the description of the “Urban Low Intensity” EMST vegetation type. The proposed right-of-way is a mixture of native and non-native invasive vegetation that is fragmented across the project area. The EMST did not correctly identify areas of Row Crop Agriculture, Coastal Grasslands, or Disturbed Prairie. The EMST incorrectly identified areas adjacent to the FM 517 right-of-way as Post Oak Savanna and Tidal Marsh; these areas have been reclassified to reflect current vegetation assemblages. Attach file showing discrepancy between actual and EMST mapped habitat(s). File Name: See Attachments 4 and 6 of the FM 517 Supplemental Attachments document for additional information regarding the discrepancy between actual and EMST mapped habitats. Is TPWD Coordination Required? Yes Early Coordination Administrated Coordination - Must be conducted through ENV-NRM BMPs Implemented or EPICs included (as necessary): Southern Crawfish Frog BMPs: In Austin, Colorado, Delta, Fannin, Fort Bend, Grayson, Harris, Hopkins, Kaufman, Lamar, Van Zandt, Victoria, and Waller counties, coordinate for all projects that would include new ROW or TxDOT easements. For projects entirely within the existing ROW in those counties and for all projects in other counties in species range: Form 300.02.FRM TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division Version 3 Effective Date: December 2019 1002-01-006, 1002-02-016, 0978-01-039 Page 3 of 7 Tier I SIte Assessment 1) Minimize impacts to wetland habitats including isolated ephemeral pools 2) Water Quality BMPs 3) Amphibian BMPs Bird BMPs (Arctic Peregrine Falcon, Henslow's Sparrow, Western Burrowing Owl, White-faced Ibis, White-tailed Hawk, Wood Stork): In addition to complying with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) perform the following BMPs: • Prior to construction, perform daytime surveys for nests including under bridges and in culverts to determine if they are active before removal. Nests that are active should not be disturbed. • Do not disturb, destroy, or remove active nests, including ground nesting birds, during the nesting season; • Avoid the removal of unoccupied, inactive nests, as practicable; • Prevent the establishment of active nests during the nesting season on TxDOT owned and operated facilities and structures proposed for replacement or repair; • Do not collect, capture, relocate, or transport birds, eggs, young, or active nests without a permit. Fish BMPs (American eel): • For project within the range of a SGCN or State-Listed fish and work is adjacent to water:
Recommended publications
  • Introgression and Monitoring of Wild Helianthus Praecox Alien Segments

    Introgression and Monitoring of Wild Helianthus Praecox Alien Segments

    RESEARCH ARTICLE Introgression and monitoring of wild Helianthus praecox alien segments associated with Sclerotinia basal stalk rot resistance in sunflower using genotyping-by-sequencing 1 1 2 2 2 Zahirul I. Talukder , Yunming Long , Gerald J. SeilerID , William Underwood , Lili QiID * 1 Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, United States of America, 2 Sunflower and Plant Biology Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Edward T. a1111111111 Schafer Agricultural Research Center, Fargo, North Dakota, United States of America a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract Sclerotinia basal stalk rot (BSR) and downy mildew are major diseases of sunflowers world- wide. Breeding for BSR resistance traditionally relies upon cultivated sunflower germplasm OPEN ACCESS that has only partial resistance thus lacking an effective resistance against the pathogen. In Citation: Talukder ZI, Long Y, Seiler GJ, this study, we report the transfer of BSR resistance from sunflower wild species, Helianthus Underwood W, Qi L (2019) Introgression and praecox, into cultivated sunflower and molecular assessment of the introgressed segments monitoring of wild Helianthus praecox alien segments associated with Sclerotinia basal stalk potentially associated with BSR resistance using the genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) rot resistance in sunflower using genotyping-by- approach. Eight highly BSR-resistant H. praecox introgression lines (ILs), H.pra 1 to H.pra sequencing. PLoS ONE 14(3): e0213065. https:// 8, were developed. The mean BSR disease incidence (DI) for H.pra 1 to H.pra 8 across doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213065 environments for four years ranged from 1.2 to 11.1%, while DI of Cargill 270 (susceptible Editor: Sujan Mamidi, HudsonAlpha Institute for check), HA 89 (recurrent parent), HA 441 and Croplan 305 (resistant checks) was 36.1, Biotechnology, UNITED STATES 31.0, 19.5, and 11.6%, respectively.
  • Check List 17 (1): 27–38

    Check List 17 (1): 27–38

    17 1 ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES Check List 17 (1): 27–38 https://doi.org/10.15560/17.1.27 A herpetological survey of Edith L. Moore Nature Sanctuary Dillon Jones1, Bethany Foshee2, Lee Fitzgerald1 1 Biodiversity Research and Teaching Collections, Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 2 Houston Audubon, 440 Wilchester Blvd. Houston, TX 77079 USA. Corresponding author: Dillon Jones, [email protected] Abstract Urban herpetology deals with the interaction of amphibians and reptiles with each other and their environment in an ur- ban setting. As such, well-preserved natural areas within urban environments can be important tools for conservation. Edith L. Moore Nature Sanctuary is an 18-acre wooded sanctuary located west of downtown Houston, Texas and is the headquarters to Houston Audubon Society. This study compared iNaturalist data with results from visual encounter surveys and aquatic funnel traps. Results from these two sources showed 24 species belonging to 12 families and 17 genera of herpetofauna inhabit the property. However, several species common in surrounding areas were absent. Combination of data from community science and traditional survey methods allowed us to better highlight herpe- tofauna present in the park besides also identifying species that may be of management concern for Edith L. Moore. Keywords Community science, iNaturalist, urban herpetology Academic editor: Luisa Diele-Viegas | Received 27 August 2020 | Accepted 16 November 2020 | Published 6 January 2021 Citation: Jones D, Foshee B, Fitzgerald L (2021) A herpetology survey of Edith L. Moore Nature Sanctuary. Check List 17 (1): 27–28. https://doi.
  • Triadica Sebifera), on Development and Survival of Anuran Larvae Author(S): Taylor B

    Triadica Sebifera), on Development and Survival of Anuran Larvae Author(S): Taylor B

    Effects of an Invasive Plant, Chinese Tallow (Triadica sebifera), on Development and Survival of Anuran Larvae Author(s): Taylor B. Cotten, Matthew A. Kwiatkowski, Daniel Saenz, and Michael Collyer Source: Journal of Herpetology, 46(2):186-193. Published By: The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles https://doi.org/10.1670/10-311 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1670/10-311 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 46, No. 2, 186–193, 2012 Copyright 2012 Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Effects of an Invasive Plant, Chinese Tallow (Triadica sebifera), on Development and Survival of Anuran Larvae 1,2 1,3 4 1 TAYLOR B. COTTEN, MATTHEW A. KWIATKOWSKI, DANIEL SAENZ, AND MICHAEL COLLYER 1Department of Biology, Stephen F. Austin State University, PO Box 13003, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962, USA 4Southern Research Station, U.S.
  • Habitat Characteristics That Influence Maritime Pocket Gopher Densities

    Habitat Characteristics That Influence Maritime Pocket Gopher Densities

    The Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 26:14-24 (2013) 14 © Agricultural Consortium of Texas Habitat Characteristics That Influence Maritime Pocket Gopher Densities Jorge D. Cortez1 Scott E. Henke*,1 Richard Riddle2 1Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, MSC 218, Texas A&M University- Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363 2United States Navy, 8851 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78419-5226 ABSTRACT The Maritime pocket gopher (Geomys personatus maritimus) is a subspecies of Texas pocket gopher endemic to the Flour Bluff area of coastal southern Texas. Little is known about the habitat and nutritional requirements of this subspecies. The amount and quality of habitat necessary to sustain Maritime pocket gophers has not been studied. Our objectives were to assess the habitat, vegetation, and nutritional parameters available to Maritime pocket gophers at four different levels of gopher mound density. We chose study sites with zero, low (25-50 mounds/ha), intermediate (75-150 mounds/ha), and high (>200 mounds/ha) gopher mound densities. Vegetation and soil samples were collected using 0.25 m2 quadrats; vegetation was divided into above- and below-ground biomass for analysis. Maritime pocket gophers avoided areas of clay soils with high levels of calcium, magnesium, sulfur, and sodium compounds. A direct relationship existed between gopher activity within an area and vegetation biomass. However, nutritional quality of an area did not appear to be a determining factor for the presence of Maritime pocket gophers. KEY WORDS: Population density, Geomys personatus maritimus, habitat selection, Maritime pocket gopher, preference INTRODUCTION The Maritime pocket gopher (MPG, Geomys personatus maritimus) is endemic to the coastal areas of Kleberg and Nueces counties of southern Texas, between Baffin Bay and Flour Bluff (Williams and Genoways 1981).
  • Environmental Assessment Supporting the Proposed Carrizo Springs Traffic Checkpoint Renovation and Expansion

    Environmental Assessment Supporting the Proposed Carrizo Springs Traffic Checkpoint Renovation and Expansion

    Final Environmental Assessment Supporting the Proposed Carrizo Springs Traffic Checkpoint Renovation and Expansion Dimmit County, Texas August 2015 Abbreviations and Acronyms µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter NPDES National Pollutant Discharge ACM asbestos-containing materials Elimination System AIRFA American Indian Religious NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Freedom Act Service ARHA Archaeological and Historic NRHP National Register of Historic Preservation Act Places AST aboveground storage tanks O3 ozone AT/FP Anti-terrorism/force protection OSHA Occupational Safety and Health B.P. before present Administration BMPs best management practices OSH occupational health and safety CAA Clean Air Act P.L. Public Law CBP Customs and Border Protection Pb lead CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls Response, Compensation and percent g percent of the force of gravity Liability Act PM2.5 Aerodynamic size less than or CEQ Council on Environmental equal to 2.5 microns Quality PM10 Aerodynamic size less than or CFR Code of Federal Regulations equal to 10 microns CO carbon monoxide PMO Program Management Office CO2 carbon dioxide PPE personal protective equipment CWA Clean Water Act ppb parts per billion dBA A-weighted decibel ppm parts per million DHS Department of Homeland PSD Prevention of Significant Security Deterioration EA Environmental Assessment RCRA Resources Conservation and EIS Environmental Impact Statement Recovery Act EO Executive Order SALs State Antiquities Landmarks ESA Endangered Species Act SO2 sulfur
  • Frogs and Toads of the Atchafalaya Basin

    Frogs and Toads of the Atchafalaya Basin

    Frogs and Toads of the Atchafalaya Basin True Toads (Family Bufonidae) Microhylid Frogs and Toads Two true toads occur in the Atchafalaya Basin: (Family Microhylidae) True Toads Fowler’s Toad and the Gulf Coast Toad. Both The Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad is the Microhylid Frogs and Toads of these species are moderately sized and have only representative in the Atchafalaya Basin dry, warty skin. They have short hind limbs of this family. It is a plump frog with smooth and do not leap like other frogs, but rather skin, a pointed snout, and short limbs. There they make short hops to get around. They are is a fold of skin across the back of the head active primarily at night and use their short that can be moved forward to clear the hind limbs for burrowing into sandy soils eyes. They use this fold of skin especially during the day. They are the only two frogs when preying upon ants, a favorite food, to in the basin that lay long strings of eggs, as remove any attackers. Because of its plump opposed to clumps laid by other frog species. body and short limbs the male must secrete a Fowler’s Toad Gulf Coast Toad Both of these toad species possess enlarged sticky substance from a gland on its stomach Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad (Anaxyrus fowleri ) (Incilius nebulifer) glands at the back of the head that secrete a to stay attached to a female for successful (Gastrophryne carolinensis) white poison when attacked by a predator. mating; in most other frogs, the limbs are When handling these toads, one should avoid long enough to grasp around the female.
  • Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles & Crocodilians

    Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles & Crocodilians

    STANDARD COMMON AND CURRENT SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS, TURTLES, REPTILES & CROCODILIANS Sixth Edition Joseph T. Collins TraVis W. TAGGart The Center for North American Herpetology THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY www.cnah.org Joseph T. Collins, Director The Center for North American Herpetology 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 (785) 393-4757 Single copies of this publication are available gratis from The Center for North American Herpetology, 1502 Medinah Circle, Lawrence, Kansas 66047 USA; within the United States and Canada, please send a self-addressed 7x10-inch manila envelope with sufficient U.S. first class postage affixed for four ounces. Individuals outside the United States and Canada should contact CNAH via email before requesting a copy. A list of previous editions of this title is printed on the inside back cover. THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY BO A RD OF DIRE ct ORS Joseph T. Collins Suzanne L. Collins Kansas Biological Survey The Center for The University of Kansas North American Herpetology 2021 Constant Avenue 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Kelly J. Irwin James L. Knight Arkansas Game & Fish South Carolina Commission State Museum 915 East Sevier Street P. O. Box 100107 Benton, Arkansas 72015 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Walter E. Meshaka, Jr. Robert Powell Section of Zoology Department of Biology State Museum of Pennsylvania Avila University 300 North Street 11901 Wornall Road Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Kansas City, Missouri 64145 Travis W. Taggart Sternberg Museum of Natural History Fort Hays State University 3000 Sternberg Drive Hays, Kansas 67601 Front cover images of an Eastern Collared Lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) and Cajun Chorus Frog (Pseudacris fouquettei) by Suzanne L.
  • Commensal Protista, Cnidaria and Helminth Parasites of the Cajun Chorus Frog, Pseudacris Fouquettei (Anura: Hylidae), from Oklahoma

    Commensal Protista, Cnidaria and Helminth Parasites of the Cajun Chorus Frog, Pseudacris Fouquettei (Anura: Hylidae), from Oklahoma

    83 Commensal Protista, Cnidaria and Helminth Parasites of the Cajun Chorus Frog, Pseudacris fouquettei (Anura: Hylidae), from Oklahoma Chris T. McAllister Science and Mathematics Division, Eastern Oklahoma State College, Idabel, OK 74745 Charles R. Bursey Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University-Shenango Campus, Sharon, PA 16146 Dana M. Calhoun Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309 Abstract: Twenty adult Cajun chorus frogs (Pseudacris fouquettei) were collected in McCurtain County, Oklahoma, and examined for commensal protozoans and helminth parasites. All 20 frogs harbored with one or more species, including 13 each (65%) with Opalina sp., and Nyctotherus cordiformis, 10 (50%) with Cystodiscus melleni, three (15%) with unknown reniferid metacercaria, three (15%) with Mesocoelium sp., one (5%) with Cylindrotaenia americana, four (20%) with Oswaldocruzia leidyi, five (25%) withCosmocercoides variabilis, and three (15%) with unidentified acuariid larva. All (100%) harbored two or more protists, a cnidarian and/or helminths each. The Mesocoelium sp. appears to be a new species and new host records are reported for it as well as reniferid metacercaria; new distributional records in the state are documented for N. cordiformis, C. melleni, Mesocoelium sp. and O. leidyi. ©2015 Oklahoma Academy of Science McAllister et al. (2008) reported the cnidarian Introduction (myxozoan), Cystodiscus (=Myxidium) melleni from P. fouquettei (as P. triseriata feriarum) from Texas, and more recently, McAllister et The Cajun chorus frog (Pseudacris fouquettei) al. (2013a) reported on protozoan and helminth ranges from extreme southern Missouri south to parasites of P. fouquettei from Arkansas and western Mississippi, through all of Louisiana Texas. Several helminths, including three and Arkansas, and west to eastern Texas and digeneans (Brachycoelium salamandrae, Oklahoma (Lemmon et al.
  • Supporting Information Tables

    Supporting Information Tables

    Mapping the Global Emergence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus Deanna H. Olson, David M. Aanensen, Kathryn L. Ronnenberg, Christopher I. Powell, Susan F. Walker, Jon Bielby, Trenton W. J. Garner, George Weaver, the Bd Mapping Group, and Matthew C. Fisher Supplemental Information Taxonomic Notes Genera were assigned to families for summarization (Table 1 in main text) and analysis (Table 2 in main text) based on the most recent available comprehensive taxonomic references (Frost et al. 2006, Frost 2008, Frost 2009, Frost 2011). We chose recent family designations to explore patterns of Bd susceptibility and occurrence because these classifications were based on both genetic and morphological data, and hence may more likely yield meaningful inference. Some North American species were assigned to genus according to Crother (2008), and dendrobatid frogs were assigned to family and genus based on Grant et al. (2006). Eleutherodactylid frogs were assigned to family and genus based on Hedges et al. (2008); centrolenid frogs based on Cisneros-Heredia et al. (2007). For the eleutherodactylid frogs of Central and South America and the Caribbean, older sources count them among the Leptodactylidae, whereas Frost et al. (2006) put them in the family Brachycephalidae. More recent work (Heinicke et al. 2007) suggests that most of the genera that were once “Eleutherodactylus” (including those species currently assigned to the genera Eleutherodactylus, Craugastor, Euhyas, Phrynopus, and Pristimantis and assorted others), may belong in a separate, or even several different new families. Subsequent work (Hedges et al. 2008) has divided them among three families, the Craugastoridae, the Eleutherodactylidae, and the Strabomantidae, which were used in our classification.
  • Copyright by Ruth Evangeline Timme 2006

    Copyright by Ruth Evangeline Timme 2006

    Copyright by Ruth Evangeline Timme 2006 The Dissertation Committee for Ruth Evangeline Timme Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Reticulate Evolution in Helianthus (Asteraceae) Committee: C. Randal Linder, Supervisor Beryl B. Simpson, Co-Supervisor Robert K. Jansen Thomas E. Juenger David M. Hillis Reticulate Evolution in Helianthus (Asteraceae) by Ruth Evangeline Timme, B.S.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2006 Acknowledgements First, I want to thank both of my advisors: Randy Linder for his funding for my project and providing me with an RAship for two years, and both Randy Linder and my co-advisor, Beryl Simpson, for all their helpful advise and support during my time at UT. They both have been so willing to help at a moments notice and have been excellent advisors. I also want to thank Bob Jansen who advised my on my fourth chapter and has served as an informal third advisor for my dissertation. My other two committee members, Tom Juenger and David Hillis were also very accommodating throughout the years in scheduling committee meetings and in giving insightful comments and feedback to my research. I am also grateful to Sheri Church and Eric Baack for sending me leaf material and allowing me to use a molecular marker they had developed in the Rieseberg lab. Also Sherri Church performed two plates of sequences for the polyploids and has been very helpful in discussions regarding my project.
  • Potential Connections Between Mosquitoes and the Demise of a Regional Frog Population on Long Island, New York

    Potential Connections Between Mosquitoes and the Demise of a Regional Frog Population on Long Island, New York

    An Unexpected Journey: Anuran decline research and the incidental elucidation of a new cryptic species endemic to the urban Northeast and Mid-Atlantic US.” Pinelands Commission Talk, December 18, 2015 Jeremy A. Feinberg Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA [email protected] Introduction Enigmatic Extirpations Introduction Leopard Frogs Southern leopard frog Northern leopard frog Rana (Lithobates) sphenocephala Rana (Lithobates) pipiens Map source: IUCN Red List spatial data collection (2012) (www.iucnredlist.org). Introduction New York State Declines Frank Overton. Fire Island. ca. 1911 Frank Overton. Fire Island. ca. 1911 Andy Sabin. Montauk. ca. 1991 Robert Villani. Montauk. ca. 1997 Introduction Historical Abundance “Staten Island’s most common species…” Anonymous, Proceedings of. Nat. Sci. Ass. of Staten Island, 1898. “very common on the salt marshes of [Long Island].” Frank Overton, Brooklyn Museum of Arts and Sciences, 1914. “Common. Usually a salt marsh or coastal plain frog [New York City vicinity].” G. Kingsley Noble, AMNH, 1927. “most abundant frog in this vicinity [Long Island].” Loring Turrell, The Natural History of Smithtown, 1939. “the green frog was…never as abundant as the leopard frog” “could have been seen almost anywhere [Long Island]” “common in the white cedar swamp.” Roy Latham, Engelhardtia,1971. “common in salt marsh areas [Long Island].” Sam Yeaton, TNC, 1973. “quite common…along the Preserve’s eastern shore [Shelter Island].” TNC Biological Resource Inventory, 1982. Introduction Historical Localities & Timeline 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 X Nearly ubiquitous in Rural fringes in Brooklyn, Rural fringes in Restricted to a wetlands throughout Queens, Nassau.
  • Amphibian Populations Utilizing Historic Military Maneuver Damage

    Amphibian Populations Utilizing Historic Military Maneuver Damage

    Amphibian Use of Man-Made Pools Created by Military Activity on Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Stephen M. Ecrement August 2014 © 2014. Stephen M. Ecrement. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Amphibian Use of Man-Made Pools Created by Military Activity on Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana by STEPHEN M. ECREMENT has been approved for the Program of Environmental Studies and the College of Arts and Sciences by Kelly Johnson Associate Professor of Biological Sciences Robert Frank Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT ECREMENT, STEPHEN M., M.S., August 2014, Environmental Studies Amphibian Use of Man-Made Pools Created by Military Activity on Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana (46 pp.) Director of Thesis: Kelly Johnson Pools created from military training provide breeding habitat for many amphibian species. Six hundred and twenty four surveys were conducted for larval amphibians on 48 small man-made pools, created from military maneuver training (tank defilades), on the Fort Polk Intensive Use Area (IUA) of Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana. Surveys were conducted monthly from April to early October 2012 and March to September 2013. Anuran species composition varied across tank defilades, with environmental variables explaining the presence and abundance of some species. Bronze frogs (Lithobates clamitans), Northern Cricket frogs (Acris crepitans), Fowler’s toads (Anaxyrus fowleri), Eastern Narrow-Mouthed toads (Gastrophryne carolinensis), Gray tree frog complex (Hyla versicolor/chrysoscelis), and Squirrel tree frogs (Hyla squirellii) were not abundant enough for analysis.