Appendix 13.B. Taxonomic Wildlife List
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Herpetofaunal Survey of the Santee National Wildlife Refuge Submitted
A Herpetofaunal Survey of the Santee National Wildlife Refuge Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 5, 2012 Prepared by: Stephen H. Bennett Wade Kalinowsky South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Introduction The lack of baseline inventory data of herpetofauna on the Santee National Wildlife Refuge, in general and the Dingle Pond Unit specifically has proven problematic in trying to assess priority species of concern and direct overall management needs in this system. Dingle Pond is a Carolina Bay which potentially provides unique habitat for many priority reptiles and amphibians including the federally threatened flatwoods salamander, the state endangered gopher frog, state threatened dwarf siren and spotted turtle and several species of conservation concern including the tiger salamander, upland chorus frog (coastal plain populations only), northern cricket frog (coastal plain populations only), many-lined salamander, glossy crayfish snake and black swamp snake. The presence or abundance of these and other priority species in this large Carolina Bay is not known. This project will provide for funds for South Carolina DNR to conduct baseline surveys to census and assess the status of the herpetofauna in and adjacent to the Dingle Pond Carolina Bay. Surveys will involve a variety of sampling techniques including funnel traps, hoop traps, cover boards, netting and call count surveys to identify herpetofauna diversity and abundance. Herpetofauna are particularly vulnerable to habitat changes including climate change and human development activities. Many unique species are endemic to Carolina Bays, a priority habitat that has been greatly diminished across the coastal plain of South Carolina. These species can serve as indicator species of habitat quality and climate changes and baseline data is critical at both the local and regional level. -
Summary of Amphibian Community Monitoring at Canaveral National Seashore, 2009
National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Summary of Amphibian Community Monitoring at Canaveral National Seashore, 2009 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2010/098 ON THE COVER Clockwise from top left, Hyla chrysoscelis (Cope’s grey treefrog), Hyla gratiosa (barking treefrog), Scaphiopus holbrookii (Eastern spadefoot), and Hyla cinerea (Green treefrog). Photographs by J.D. Willson. Summary of Amphibian Community Monitoring at Canaveral National Seashore, 2009 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2010/098 Michael W. Byrne, Laura M. Elston, Briana D. Smrekar, Brent A. Blankley, and Piper A. Bazemore USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Cumberland Island National Seashore 101 Wheeler Street Saint Marys, Georgia, 31558 October 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. -
Prey Records for the Eastern Indigo Snake {Drymarchon Couperi)
2010 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 9(1):1-18 Prey Records for the Eastern Indigo Snake {Drymarchon couperi) Dirk J. Stevenson'*, M. Rebecca Bolt^ Daniel J. Smith', Kevin M. Enge^ Natalie L. Hyslop'^ Terry M. Norton'•^ and Karen J. Abstract - Prey items for the federally protected Easteni Indigo Snake (Drymarchort couperi) were compiled from published and gray literature, field observations, necrop- sies, dissection of museum specimens, and personal communications from reliable sources. One hundred and eighty-six records were obtained for 48 different prey spe- cies. Anurans, Gopher Tortoises, snakes, and rodents comprised ca. 85% of the prey items. Most records (n = 143) that mentioned size were from adult indigos; 17 were from juveniles. Prey records were collected from 1940-2008 and were available for all months of the year. These data confirm that Eastern Indigo Snakes eat a wide assortment of prey of varying sizes. This strategy allows D. couperi to potentially forage success- fully in many different types of habitats and under fluctuating environmental conditions, a valuable trait for a lop-level predator that requires a large home range. IatroducHon Drymarchon couperi Holbrook (Eastern Indigo Snake), with a maximum recorded total length of 2629 mm, is one of the largest snakes in North America (Conant and Collins 1991). It has been federally listed as Threat- ened since 1978 under the Endangered Species Act (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1978). Drymarchon couperi is diurnal and mostly terrestrial (Layne and Steiner 1996, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Of the two main hunt- ing strategies employed by snakes (ambush predator vs. active forager; see Mushinsky 1987), D. -
Wildlife Habitat Plan
WILDLIFE HABITAT PLAN City of Novi, Michigan A QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY WILDLIFE HABITAT PLAN City of Novi, Michigan A QUALIlY OF LIFE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY JUNE 1993 Prepared By: Wildlife Management Services Brandon M. Rogers and Associates, P.C. JCK & Associates, Inc. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City Council Matthew C. Ouinn, Mayor Hugh C. Crawford, Mayor ProTem Nancy C. Cassis Carol A. Mason Tim Pope Robert D. Schmid Joseph G. Toth Planning Commission Kathleen S. McLallen, * Chairman John P. Balagna, Vice Chairman lodia Richards, Secretary Richard J. Clark Glen Bonaventura Laura J. lorenzo* Robert Mitzel* Timothy Gilberg Robert Taub City Manager Edward F. Kriewall Director of Planning and Community Development James R. Wahl Planning Consultant Team Wildlife Management Services - 640 Starkweather Plymouth, MI. 48170 Kevin Clark, Urban Wildlife Specialist Adrienne Kral, Wildlife Biologist Ashley long, Field Research Assistant Brandon M. Rogers and Associates, P.C. - 20490 Harper Ave. Harper Woods, MI. 48225 Unda C. lemke, RlA, ASLA JCK & Associates, Inc. - 45650 Grand River Ave. Novi, MI. 48374 Susan Tepatti, Water Resources Specialist * Participated with the Planning Consultant Team in developing the study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii PREFACE vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii FRAGMENTATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES " ., , 1 Consequences ............................................ .. 1 Effects Of Forest Fragmentation 2 Edges 2 Reduction of habitat 2 SPECIES SAMPLING TECHNIQUES ................................ .. 3 Methodology 3 Survey Targets ............................................ ., 6 Ranking System ., , 7 Core Reserves . .. 7 Wildlife Movement Corridor .............................. .. 9 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS , 9 Analysis Results ................................ .. 9 Core Reserves . .. 9 Findings and Recommendations , 9 WALLED LAKE CORE RESERVE - DETAILED STUDy.... .. .... .. .... .. 19 Results and Recommendations ............................... .. 21 GUIDELINES TO ECOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION. -
Ecology and Pathology of Amphibian Ranaviruses
Vol. 87: 243–266, 2009 DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS Published December 3 doi: 10.3354/dao02138 Dis Aquat Org OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS REVIEW Ecology and pathology of amphibian ranaviruses Matthew J. Gray1,*, Debra L. Miller1, 2, Jason T. Hoverman1 1274 Ellington Plant Sciences Building, Center for Wildlife Health, Department of Forestry Wildlife and Fisheries, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-4563, USA 2Veterinary Diagnostic and Investigational Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, 43 Brighton Road, Tifton, Georgia 31793, USA ABSTRACT: Mass mortality of amphibians has occurred globally since at least the early 1990s from viral pathogens that are members of the genus Ranavirus, family Iridoviridae. The pathogen infects multiple amphibian hosts, larval and adult cohorts, and may persist in herpetofaunal and oste- ichthyan reservoirs. Environmental persistence of ranavirus virions outside a host may be several weeks or longer in aquatic systems. Transmission occurs by indirect and direct routes, and includes exposure to contaminated water or soil, casual or direct contact with infected individuals, and inges- tion of infected tissue during predation, cannibalism, or necrophagy. Some gross lesions include swelling of the limbs or body, erythema, swollen friable livers, and hemorrhage. Susceptible amphi- bians usually die from chronic cell death in multiple organs, which can occur within a few days fol- lowing infection or may take several weeks. Amphibian species differ in their susceptibility to rana- viruses, which may be related to their co-evolutionary history with the pathogen. The occurrence of recent widespread amphibian population die-offs from ranaviruses may be an interaction of sup- pressed and naïve host immunity, anthropogenic stressors, and novel strain introduction. -
211356675.Pdf
306.1 REPTILIA: SQUAMATA: SERPENTES: COLUBRIDAE STORERIA DEKA YI Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. and western Honduras. There apparently is a hiatus along the Suwannee River Valley in northern Florida, and also a discontin• CHRISTMAN,STEVENP. 1982. Storeria dekayi uous distribution in Central America . • FOSSILRECORD. Auffenberg (1963) and Gut and Ray (1963) Storeria dekayi (Holbrook) recorded Storeria cf. dekayi from the Rancholabrean (pleisto• Brown snake cene) of Florida, and Holman (1962) listed S. cf. dekayi from the Rancholabrean of Texas. Storeria sp. is reported from the Ir• Coluber Dekayi Holbrook, "1836" (probably 1839):121. Type-lo• vingtonian and Rancholabrean of Kansas (Brattstrom, 1967), and cality, "Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Louisiana"; the Rancholabrean of Virginia (Guilday, 1962), and Pennsylvania restricted by Trapido (1944) to "Massachusetts," and by (Guilday et al., 1964; Richmond, 1964). Schmidt (1953) to "Cambridge, Massachusetts." See Re• • PERTINENT LITERATURE. Trapido (1944) wrote the most marks. Only known syntype (Acad. Natur. Sci. Philadelphia complete account of the species. Subsequent taxonomic contri• 5832) designated lectotype by Trapido (1944) and erroneously butions have included: Neill (195Oa), who considered S. victa a referred to as holotype by Malnate (1971); adult female, col• lector, and date unknown (not examined by author). subspecies of dekayi, Anderson (1961), who resurrected Cope's C[oluber] ordinatus: Storer, 1839:223 (part). S. tropica, and Sabath and Sabath (1969), who returned tropica to subspecific status. Stuart (1954), Bleakney (1958), Savage (1966), Tropidonotus Dekayi: Holbrook, 1842 Vol. IV:53. Paulson (1968), and Christman (1980) reported on variation and Tropidonotus occipito-maculatus: Holbrook, 1842:55 (inserted ad- zoogeography. Other distributional reports include: Carr (1940), denda slip). -
Checklist of Reptiles and Amphibians Revoct2017
CHECKLIST of AMPHIBIANS and REPTILES of ARCHBOLD BIOLOGICAL STATION, the RESERVE, and BUCK ISLAND RANCH, Highlands County, Florida. Voucher specimens of species recorded from the Station are deposited in the Station reference collections and the herpetology collection of the American Museum of Natural History. Occurrence3 Scientific name1 Common name Status2 Exotic Station Reserve Ranch AMPHIBIANS Order Anura Family Bufonidae Anaxyrus quercicus Oak Toad X X X Anaxyrus terrestris Southern Toad X X X Rhinella marina Cane Toad ■ X Family Hylidae Acris gryllus dorsalis Florida Cricket Frog X X X Hyla cinerea Green Treefrog X X X Hyla femoralis Pine Woods Treefrog X X X Hyla gratiosa Barking Treefrog X X X Hyla squirella Squirrel Treefrog X X X Osteopilus septentrionalis Cuban Treefrog ■ X X Pseudacris nigrita Southern Chorus Frog X X Pseudacris ocularis Little Grass Frog X X X Family Leptodactylidae Eleutherodactylus planirostris Greenhouse Frog ■ X X X Family Microhylidae Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad X X X Family Ranidae Lithobates capito Gopher Frog X X X Lithobates catesbeianus American Bullfrog ? 4 X X Lithobates grylio Pig Frog X X X Lithobates sphenocephalus sphenocephalus Florida Leopard Frog X X X Order Caudata Family Amphiumidae Amphiuma means Two-toed Amphiuma X X X Family Plethodontidae Eurycea quadridigitata Dwarf Salamander X Family Salamandridae Notophthalmus viridescens piaropicola Peninsula Newt X X Family Sirenidae Pseudobranchus axanthus axanthus Narrow-striped Dwarf Siren X Pseudobranchus striatus -
Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................ -
Table of Contents List of Figures
SANDHILL LAKES MITIGATION BANK (FITZHUGH CARTER TRACT) OF ECONFINA CREEK WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA ANNUAL REPORT 2009-2010 Prepared by Justin Davis, Wildlife Biologist Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................8 LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................9 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................11 HABITAT ....................................................................................................................11 Ecological and Land Cover Classification .............................................................11 Water Levels ..........................................................................................................12 Photo Plots .............................................................................................................13 FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS ...................................................................14 Freshwater Fish ..........................................................................................................15 Fish Population Assessment ..................................................................................15 -
PDF File Containing Table of Lengths and Thicknesses of Turtle Shells And
Source Species Common name length (cm) thickness (cm) L t TURTLES AMNH 1 Sternotherus odoratus common musk turtle 2.30 0.089 AMNH 2 Clemmys muhlenbergi bug turtle 3.80 0.069 AMNH 3 Chersina angulata Angulate tortoise 3.90 0.050 AMNH 4 Testudo carbonera 6.97 0.130 AMNH 5 Sternotherus oderatus 6.99 0.160 AMNH 6 Sternotherus oderatus 7.00 0.165 AMNH 7 Sternotherus oderatus 7.00 0.165 AMNH 8 Homopus areolatus Common padloper 7.95 0.100 AMNH 9 Homopus signatus Speckled tortoise 7.98 0.231 AMNH 10 Kinosternon subrabum steinochneri Florida mud turtle 8.90 0.178 AMNH 11 Sternotherus oderatus Common musk turtle 8.98 0.290 AMNH 12 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 8.98 0.076 AMNH 13 Sternotherus oderatus 9.00 0.168 AMNH 14 Hardella thurgi Crowned River Turtle 9.04 0.263 AMNH 15 Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle 9.09 0.231 AMNH 16 Kinosternon subrubrum The Eastern Mud Turtle 9.10 0.253 AMNH 17 Kinixys crosa hinged-back tortoise 9.34 0.160 AMNH 18 Peamobates oculifers 10.17 0.140 AMNH 19 Peammobates oculifera 10.27 0.140 AMNH 20 Kinixys spekii Speke's hinged tortoise 10.30 0.201 AMNH 21 Terrapene ornata ornate box turtle 10.30 0.406 AMNH 22 Terrapene ornata North American box turtle 10.76 0.257 AMNH 23 Geochelone radiata radiated tortoise (Madagascar) 10.80 0.155 AMNH 24 Malaclemys terrapin diamondback terrapin 11.40 0.295 AMNH 25 Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 11.58 0.264 AMNH 26 Terrapene carolina eastern box turtle 11.80 0.259 AMNH 27 Chrysemys picta Painted turtle 12.21 0.267 AMNH 28 Chrysemys picta painted turtle 12.70 0.168 AMNH 29 -
Snakes of the Everglades Agricultural Area1 Michelle L
CIR1462 Snakes of the Everglades Agricultural Area1 Michelle L. Casler, Elise V. Pearlstine, Frank J. Mazzotti, and Kenneth L. Krysko2 Background snakes are often escapees or are released deliberately and illegally by owners who can no longer care for them. Snakes are members of the vertebrate order Squamata However, there has been no documentation of these snakes (suborder Serpentes) and are most closely related to lizards breeding in the EAA (Tennant 1997). (suborder Sauria). All snakes are legless and have elongated trunks. They can be found in a variety of habitats and are able to climb trees; swim through streams, lakes, or oceans; Benefits of Snakes and move across sand or through leaf litter in a forest. Snakes are an important part of the environment and play Often secretive, they rely on scent rather than vision for a role in keeping the balance of nature. They aid in the social and predatory behaviors. A snake’s skull is highly control of rodents and invertebrates. Also, some snakes modified and has a great degree of flexibility, called cranial prey on other snakes. The Florida kingsnake (Lampropeltis kinesis, that allows it to swallow prey much larger than its getula floridana), for example, prefers snakes as prey and head. will even eat venomous species. Snakes also provide a food source for other animals such as birds and alligators. Of the 45 snake species (70 subspecies) that occur through- out Florida, 23 may be found in the Everglades Agricultural Snake Conservation Area (EAA). Of the 23, only four are venomous. The venomous species that may occur in the EAA are the coral Loss of habitat is the most significant problem facing many snake (Micrurus fulvius fulvius), Florida cottonmouth wildlife species in Florida, snakes included. -
Seminole State Forest Soils Map
EXHIBIT I Management Procedures for Archaeological and Historical Sites and Properties on State-Owned or Controlled Lands Management Procedures for Archaeological and Historical Sites and Properties on State-Owned or Controlled Properties (revised February 2007) These procedures apply to state agencies, local governments, and non-profits that manage state- owned properties. A. General Discussion Historic resources are both archaeological sites and historic structures. Per Chapter 267, Florida Statutes, ‘Historic property’ or ‘historic resource’ means any prehistoric district, site, building, object, or other real or personal property of historical, architectural, or archaeological value, and folklife resources. These properties or resources may include, but are not limited to, monuments, memorials, Indian habitations, ceremonial sites, abandoned settlements, sunken or abandoned ships, engineering works, treasure trove, artifacts, or other objects with intrinsic historical or archaeological value, or any part thereof, relating to the history, government, and culture of the state.” B. Agency Responsibilities Per State Policy relative to historic properties, state agencies of the executive branch must allow the Division of Historical Resources (Division) the opportunity to comment on any undertakings, whether these undertakings directly involve the state agency, i.e., land management responsibilities, or the state agency has indirect jurisdiction, i.e. permitting authority, grants, etc. No state funds should be expended on the undertaking until the Division has the opportunity to review and comment on the project, permit, grant, etc. State agencies shall preserve the historic resources which are owned or controlled by the agency. Regarding proposed demolition or substantial alterations of historic properties, consultation with the Division must occur, and alternatives to demolition must be considered.