DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Assessment US 377 Relief Route

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Assessment US 377 Relief Route Final Environmental Assessment US 377 Relief Route CSJs: 0080-11-001 and 0080-12-001 City of Cresson, Hood and Johnson Counties, Texas Fort Worth District Date: August 2017 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. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Need and Purpose for the Proposed Project .............................................................................. 2 1. Need .......................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 4 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING FACILITY ........................................................................................ 5 A. Existing Facility Design / Conditions ........................................................................................... 5 B. Land Use ....................................................................................................................................... 5 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY .................................................................................... 5 A. No-Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 6 B. Conceptual Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 6 C. Preferred (Build) Alternative ........................................................................................................ 7 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ............................................................................................................. 8 A. Community Impacts Assessment ................................................................................................ 8 1. Regional and Community Growth ........................................................................................... 8 2. Right of Way Requirements, Relocations, and Displacements .......................................... 10 3. Community Cohesion ............................................................................................................ 11 4. Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 12 5. Public Facilities and Services ............................................................................................... 16 6. Detours .................................................................................................................................. 17 7. Utility Relocations / Adjustments ......................................................................................... 17 B. Natural Resources .................................................................................................................... 18 1. Description of Natural Regions and Vegetation Type ......................................................... 18 2. Vegetation Description and Impacts .................................................................................... 19 3. Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................. 23 4. Migratory Birds ...................................................................................................................... 30 5. Farmland Issues .................................................................................................................... 30 6. Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 31 7. Texas Parks and Wildlife Coordination ................................................................................ 35 C. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................. 35 D. Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 38 E. Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 47 F. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 51 1. Archeology ............................................................................................................................. 52 2. Standing Structures .............................................................................................................. 53 G. Section 4(f) Properties .............................................................................................................. 54 H. Items of Special Nature ............................................................................................................ 54 I. Indirect Effects .............................................................................................................................. 55 J. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 69 V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................. 81 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS, ISSUES AND COMMITMENTS ...................................................... 82 VII. RECOMMENDATION FOR ALTERNATIVE SELECTION AND A FONSI ........................................... 87 US 377 Cresson Mobility Project i August 2017 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Accidents Reported on US 377 and SH 171 ............................................................................... 3 Table 2: Population Data ............................................................................................................................. 4 Table 3: Population and Employment Trends and Forecasts ................................................................... 9 Table 4: Project Area Population That Speaks English “Less Than Very Well” ..................................... 12 Table 5: Demographic Data for Proposed Project Area .......................................................................... 14 Table 6: Income Data for the Proposed Project Area ............................................................................. 15 Table 7: Vegetation Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 20 Table 8: Federal and State Listed Threatened/Endangered/Species of Concern in Hood and Johnson Counties ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 9: Waters of the U.S. ....................................................................................................................... 33 Table 10: Natural Gas Wells in Proposed Project Area .......................................................................... 35 Table 11: Federal and State Environmental Database Search ............................................................. 37 Table 12: Congestion Management Process Strategies ........................................................................ 39 Table 13: Noise Abatement Criteria......................................................................................................... 48 Table 14: Traffic Noise Levels dB(A) Leq ................................................................................................. 50 Table 15: Level of Effort Required for Indirect Impacts Analysis ........................................................... 55 Table 16: Population Growth Rate and Forecast .................................................................................... 58 Table 17: Existing Land Uses within the AOI ........................................................................................... 59 Table 18: 2007 US 377 Weekday Average Traffic Counts ..................................................................... 66 Table 19: Resources Considered for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis ................................................ 70 Table 20: Resource Study Area for Affected Resources ......................................................................... 72 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Map Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map Figure 3: Aerial Map Figure 4: Plan View Figure 5: Typical Sections Figure 6: Hazardous Materials Map Figure 7: Indirect Effects Area of Influence Map Figure 8: Cumulative Impacts Natural Resources Resource Study Area Map Figure 9: Cumulative Impacts Air Quality Resource Study Area Map LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: EA Classification Memo Appendix B: Project Area Photographs Appendix C: Coordination Letters Appendix D: Wetland Data Forms Appendix E: TIP/MTP Pages US 377 Cresson Mobility Project ii August 2017 I. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the social, economic,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of Oakmont Park, City of Fort Worth Tarrant Co
    Flora of Oakmont Park, City of Fort Worth Tarrant Co. Updated 09 April 2015 150 species Oakmont Park FLOWER STATE/FED FAMILY OLD FAMILY LATIN NAME COMMON NAME BLOOM PERIOD Expr1006 COLOR RANK Amaryllidaceae Alliaceae=Liliaceae Allium drummondii Drummond's Onion ++345++++++++++ White/Pink Amaryllidaceae Alliaceae=Liliaceae Nothoscordum bivalve Crow-Poison +F345+++910++++ White Apiaceae Chaerophyllum tainturieri var. Smooth Chervil ++34+++++++++++ White tainturieri Apiaceae Cymopterus macrohizus Bigroot Cymopterus JF34+++++++++++ White/Pink Apiaceae Eryngium leavenworthii Leavenworth Eryngo ++++++789++++++ Purple Apiaceae Polytaenia nuttallii=texana Prairie Parsley +++45++++++++++ Yellow Apiaceae Sanicula canadensis Canada Sanicle +++456+++++++++ White Apiaceae Torilis arvensis Hedge Parsley +++456+++++++++ White Apiaceae Torilis nodosa Knotted Hedge-Parsley +++456+++++++++ White Apocynaceae Asclepidaceae Asclepias asperula ssp. capricornu Antelope Horns +++45678910++++ White Aquifoliaceae Ilex decidua Possum Haw ++345++++++++++ White Asparagaceae Agavaceae Yucca arkansana Arkansas Yucca +++45++++++++++ White Asparagaceae Agavaceae Yucca necopina Glen Rose Yucca ++++5++++++++++ White S1S2 S1S2 Asparagaceae Agavaceae Yucca pallida Pale Leaf Yucca ++++5++++++++++ White S3 S3 Asteraceae Ambrosia psilostachya Western Ragweed +++++++891011++ Inconspicuous Asteraceae Amphiachyris Common Broomweed ++++++7891011++ Yellow dracunculoides=Gutierrezia Asteraceae Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. mexicana Mexican Sagebrush +++++++++1011++ Yellowish White Asteraceae
    [Show full text]
  • ( 12 ) United States Patent
    US010413581B2 (12 ) United States Patent ( 10 ) Patent No. : US 10 , 413 ,581 B2 Bafundo et al. (45 ) Date of Patent: Sep . 17 , 2019 ( 54 ) COMBINATION , COMPOSITION , AND (58 ) Field of Classification Search METHOD OF ADMINISTERING THE None COMBINATION OR COMPOSITION TO See application file for complete search history . ANIMALS (56 ) References Cited (71 ) Applicants : Phibro Animal Health Corporation , U . S . PATENT DOCUMENTS Teaneck , NJ (US ) ; Desert King 6 ,569 , 843 B1 5 /2003 Walker International LLC , San Diego , CA 2006 /0051365 A1 3 /2006 Gorenflot et al . (US ) 2008/ 0274211 AL 11/ 2008 McNeff et al. (72 ) Inventors: Kenneth W . Bafundo , Teaneck , NJ 2014 / 0037698 Al 2 / 2014 Perez (US ) ; A . Bruce Johnson , Teaneck , NJ (US ) ; David Calabotta , Teaneck , NJ FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS (US ) ; Wendell Knehans , Teaneck , NJ (US ) CN 1678349 A 10 / 2005 CN 101563090 A 10 / 2009 CN 102333877 A 1 / 2012 ( 73 ) Assignees : Phibro Animal Health Corporation , EP 0 791 298 A1 8 / 1997 Teaneck , NJ (US ) ; Desert King JP 7 - 107923 4 / 1995 International LLC , San Diego , CA JP 8 - 131089 5 / 1996 H09 - 224585 9 / 1997 (US ) JP 2004 -525617 8 / 2004 ( * ) Notice : Subject to any disclaimer , the term of this WO WO 02 /052949 7 / 2002 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 WO WO 02/ 067963 9 / 2002 U . S . C . 154 (b ) by 102 days . (21 ) Appl. No. : 15 / 359 , 342 OTHER PUBLICATIONS Cheeke 2009 ( Applications of saponins as feed additives in poultry ( 22 ) Filed : Nov . 22 , 2016 production — Engormix , published Dec . 3 , 2009 ) ( Year : 2009 ). * Alfaro et al 2007 J . Appl .
    [Show full text]
  • Comment (2) of Ross Melinchuk on Behalf of Texas Parks and Wildlife
    HULY'VjVLCIVES ~7r~ ~~/2 November 5, 2010 ~NOV~F I Ac 'N- 8:5 3 UEAPAKU Life's better outside.: Ms. Cindy K. Bladey Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch R .HF\Ac:D Commissioners Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWB-05-BOIM Peter M.Holt Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Antonio Washington, DC 20555-0001 T. Dan Friedkin Vice-Chairman Houston RE: Proposed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plants Units 3 and 4 Combined Mark E. Bivins Amarillo License Application Review, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Ralph H. Duggins (DEIS), Somervell and Hood Counties Fort Worth Antonio Falcon, M.D. Rio Grande City Dear Ms. Bladey: Karen J. Hixon San Antonio Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) received the August 6, 2010 Dan Allen Hughes, Jr. notification for issuance of and request for comment on the above-referenced Beeville DEIS. The notification was submitted in accordance with the National Margaret Martin Boerne Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Fish and S. Reed Morian Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston (NRC) prepared the DEIS as part of its review of Luminant Generation Company Lee M. Bass Chairman-Emeritus LLC (Luminant) application for combined licenses for construction and operation Fort Worth of two new nuclear units at its existing Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site near Glen Rose, Texas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth Carter R Smith District (USACE) is a cooperating agency in the DEIS so that the EIS can be used Executive Director to decide on issuance of permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512 490-0057 FAX 490-0974 December 3, 2004 Wayne A. Lea Chief, Regulatory Branch Fort Worth District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 Consultation No. 2-15-F-2004-0242 Dear Mr. Lea: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed water operations by the Colorado River Municipal Water District (District) on the Colorado and Concho rivers, located in Coleman, Concho, Coke, Tom Green, and Runnels counties. These actions are authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Permit Number 197900225, Ivie (Stacy) Reservoir project, pursuant to compliance with the Clean Water Act. The District and the Corps have indicated, through letters dated September 10, 2004, and September 13, 2004, respectively, that an emergency condition affecting human health and safety exists with this action. We have considered the effects of the proposed action on the federally listed threatened Concho water snake (Nerodia harteri paucimaculata) in accordance with formal interagency consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The emergency consultation provisions are contained within 50 CFR section 402.05 of the Interagency Regulations. Your July 8, 2004, request for reinitiating formal consultation was received on July 12, 2004. You designated District as your non-federal representative. This biological opinion is based on information provided in agency reports, telephone conversations, field investigations, and other sources of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Monocotyledonae
    ACORUS/ACORACEAE 1077 CLASS MONOCOTYLEDONAE Plants usually herbaceous—in other words, lacking regular secondary thickening (except Palmaceae, Smilacaceae, most Agavaceae, and a few Poaceae); seedlings usually with 1 seed leaf or cotyledon; stems or branches elongating by apical growth and also by growth of basal por- tion of internodes; leaves when present alternate, whorled, basal, or rarely opposite, elongating by basal growth (readily seen on spring-flowering bulbs whose leaf-tips have been frozen back); leaf blades usually with parallel or concentrically curved veins, these unbranched or with inconspicuous, short, transverse connectives (leaves net-veined or with prominent midrib and spreading side-veins parallel with each other in Alismataceae, Araceae, Smilacaceae, Marantaceae, and some Orchidaceae); perianth with dissimilar inner and outer whorls (petals and sepals), or all parts about alike (tepals), the parianth parts separate or united, commonly in 3s, less often in 2s, rarely in 5s, or perianth of scales or bristles, or entirely absent. AWorldwide, the Monocotyledonae is a group composed of ca. 55,800 species in 2,652 genera arranged in 84 families (Mabberley 1997); 25 of these families occur in nc TX. The monocots appear to be a well-supported monophyletic group derived from within the monosulcate Magnoliidae group of dicots (Chase et al. 1993; Duvall et al. 1993; Qiu et al. 1993). From the cla- distic standpoint, the dicots are therefore paraphyletic and thus inappropriate for formal recog- nition (see explantion and Fig. 41 in Apendix 6). Within the monocots, Acorus appears to be the sister group to all other monocots, with the Alismataceae (and Potamogeton) being the next most basal group (Duvall et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of North Central Texas Flora of North Central Texas
    SHINNERS & MAHLER’S FLOR A OF NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS GEORGE M. DIGGSIGGS,, JJR.. BBARNEY L. LIPSCOMBIPSCOMB ROBERT J. O’KENNON D VEGETATIONAL AREAS OF TEXAS MODIFIED FROM CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF TEXAS (HATCH ET AL. 1990). NEARLY IDENTICAL MAPS HAVE BEEN USED IN NUMEROUS WORKS ON TEXAS INCLUDING GOULD (1962) AND CORRELL AND JOHNSTON (1970). 1 PINEYWOODS 2 GULF PRAIRIES AND MARSHEs 3 POST OAK SAVANNAH 4 BLACKLAND PRAIRIES 5 CROSS TIMBERS AND PRAIRIES 6 SOUTH TEXAS PLAINS 7 EDWARDS PLATEAU 8 ROLLING PLAINS 9 HIGH PLAINS 10 TRANS-PECOS, MOUNTAINS AND BASINS D VEGETATIONAL AREAS OF NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D SHINNERS & MAHLER’S ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS Shinners & Mahler’s ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) BASS FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON RUTH ANDERSSON MAY MARY G. PALKO AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION MARGRET M. RIMMER MIKE AND EVA SANDLIN INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: PEG AND BEN KEITH FRIENDS OF HAGERMAN NAT IONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION JOHN D.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Ecosystems 3 Chapter 1
    TERRESTRIAL Chapter 1: Terrestrial Ecosystems 3 Chapter 1: What are the history, Terrestrial status, and projected future of terrestrial wildlife habitat types and Ecosystems species in the South? Margaret Katherine Trani (Griep) Southern Region, USDA Forest Service ■ Since presettlement, there have insect infestation, advanced age, Key Findings been significant losses of community climatic processes, and distur- biodiversity in the South (Noss and bance influence mast yields. ■ There are 132 terrestrial vertebrate others 1995). Fourteen communities ■ The ranges of many species species that are considered to be are critically endangered (greater cross both public and private of conservation concern in the South than 98-percent decline), 25 are land ownerships. The numbers of by State Natural Heritage agencies. endangered (85- to 98-percent imperiled and endangered species Of the species that warrant conser- decline), and 11 are threatened inhabiting private land indicate its vation focus, 3 percent are classed (70- to 84-percent decline). Common critical importance for conservation. factors contributing to the loss of as critically imperiled, 3 percent ■ The significance of land owner- as imperiled, and 6 percent as these communities include urban development, fire suppression, ship in the South for the provision vulnerable. Eighty-six percent of species habitat cannot be of terrestrial vertebrate species exotic species invasion, and recreational activity. overstated. Each major landowner are designated as relatively secure. has an important role to play in ■ The remaining 2 percent are either The term “fragmentation” the conservation of species and known or presumed to be extinct, references the insularization of their habitats. or have questionable status. habitat on a landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • City Nature Challenge 2019 DFW Results
    Dallas-Fort Worth The City Nature Challenge is a global, city-scale BioBlitz event that frames an urban biodiversity survey as a friendly competition between cities. Data collection April 26-29 Identifications Apr 30-May 6 Harris’s Sparrow, Tommy Farquhar, Strecker’s chorus frog, corynorris, iNaturalist, CCBY-NC iNaturalist, CCBY-NC DFW by the numbers: • 10 counties • More than 36,000 observations • More than 2,600 species recorded Participating Johnson • More than 1,000 observers Counties: Kaufman • More than 830 identifiers Collin Parker Dallas Rockwall • Over 97% of observations were Denton Tarrant verifiable Ellis Wise DFW in the Global Rankings out of 159 Cities: Overall: Metros of Pop. >5mil: Metros of >20k sq. km: US & Canada: 7th: Num. Observations 3rd: Num. Observations 2nd: Num. Observations 3rd: Num. Observations 9th: Num. Species 5th: Num. Observers 3rd: Num. Species 5th: Num. Species 10th: Num. Observers 2nd: Num. Observers 3rd: Num. Research Grade Observations Warm Temperate Zone: 5th: Num. Observations The City Nature Challenge is organized by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the California Academy of Sciences. More information at citynaturechallenge.org Dallas-Fort Worth Cumulative Impact 63% of the observations recorded during the City Nature Challenge in the DFW metro area were Research Grade - observations of wild organisms with photo 63% of all Observations or sound vouchers of a quality to merit a to Research species-level identification by the majority of Grade identifiers. During the 4 days of the event, the DFW project saw: • 50 Species of Greatest Conservation Need at Research Grade (see list) • 200 new species records in iNaturalist • 8% increase in iNaturalist observations for the DFW metro counties • Project page: https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/city-nature-challenge-2019- dallas-fort-worth Spotlight: Engelmann’s Bladderpod The City Nature Challenge uncovered a previously unknown population of a rare Texas plant, the Engelmann’s bladderpod (Physaria engelmannii), in Dallas County.
    [Show full text]