DOCSLIB.ORG

SABAL TRAIL PROJECT DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 3 Fish

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SABAL TRAIL PROJECT DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 3 Fish SABAL TRAIL PROJECT DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 3 Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation FERC Docket No. PF14-1-000 June 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.0 RESOURCE REPORT 3 – FISH, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATION ................................................. 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 FISHERY RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.1 Fisheries Habitat Classification .......................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1.1 Alabama ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1.2 Georgia ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.1.3 Florida .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Existing Fishery Resources .................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.2.1 Fish Species Present along the Sabal Trail Pipeline ..................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.2.2 Fish Species Present at Aboveground Facilities ........................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.3 Fisheries of Special Concern ............................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.4 Commercial Fisheries .......................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.5 Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.6 Waterbody Construction Methods ....................................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.6.1 Blasting ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-7 3.2.7 Fisheries Effects and Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.7.1 Horizontal Directional Drill Crossings ....................................................................................................... 3-10 3.2.7.2 Hydrostatic Test Water .............................................................................................................................. 3-11 3.2.7.3 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures.......................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.7.6 Aboveground Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 3-11 3.3 VEGETATION ........................................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.1 Existing Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3.1.1 Pipeline Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.1.2 Aboveground Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 3-16 3.3.1.3 Access Roads ............................................................................................................................................. 3-17 3.3.1.4 Pipe Yards and Contractor Ware Yards ..................................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.2 Unique, Sensitive, or Protected Vegetation ....................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.2.1 Alabama ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.2.2 Georgia ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.2.3 Florida ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-18 3.3.3 Non-native Invasive Species .............................................................................................................. 3-18 3.3.4 Vegetation Effects and Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 3-18 3.3.4.1 Pipeline Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.3.4.2 Aboveground Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 3-20 3.4 WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................................................ 3-20 3.4.1 Existing Resources ............................................................................................................................. 3-20 3.4.2 Wildlife Effects and Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 3-22 3.4.3 Significant or Sensitive Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................ 3-24 3.5 ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES .............................................................. 3-24 3.5.1 Existing Resources, Effects, and Mitigation ...................................................................................... 3-25 3.5.1.2 Alabama State Protected Species Project Mainline .................................................................................... 3-59 3.5.1.3 Georgia State-listed Species Project Mainline ........................................................................................... 3-71 3.5.1.4 Florida State-listed Species Project Mainline ............................................................................................. 3-77 3.5.1.5 Additional State Listed Species or Species of Concern Occurring Along the Hunters Creek Line Route . 3-85 3.5.1.6 Additional State Listed Species or Species of Concern Occurring Along the Citrus County Line Route .. 3-85 3.6 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT ............................................................................................................. 3-87 3.7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 3-88 Draft Resource Report 3 – Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation ii SABAL TRAIL PROJECT LIST OF TABLES Table 3.2-1 Typical Warmwater Fish Species in the Areas Surrounding the Project Table 3.2-2 Typical Freshwater Fish Species Occurring Near Aboveground Facilities Table 3.2-3 Fisheries of Special Concern Occurring in the Project Vicinity Table 3.3-1 Acres of Vegetation Affected by the Project Table 3.3-2 Representative Plant Species and Vegetation Community Types Table 3.4-1 Representative Wildlife Species Table 3.5-1 Federal and State Listed Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Area Table 3.6-1 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 3A – Comprehensive Listed Species Survey Protocol Document Draft Resource Report 3 – Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation iii SABAL TRAIL PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 3—FISH, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATION Location in Filing Requirement Environmental Report Section 3.2, Tables 3.2-1, Describe commercial and recreational warmwater, coldwater, and saltwater 3.2-2, 3.2-3 and Table fisheries in the affected area and associated significant habitats (§380.12 (e) (1)). 2.3-6 of Resource Report 2 Describe terrestrial and wetland wildlife and habitats that might be affected by Section 3.3, Section 3.4, the Project; describe typical species that have commercial, recreational, or Table 3.3-1, aesthetic value. (§ 380.12 (e) (2)). Describe the major vegetative cover types that would be crossed and provide the Section 3.3, Table 3.3-1, acreage of each vegetative cover type that would be affected by construction. (§ Table 3.3-2 380.12 (e) (3)). Describe the effects of construction, operation, maintenance, clearing, and Section 3.2.7, 3.3.4, and treatment of the Project area on aquatic and terrestrial species and their habitats. 3.4.2 (§ 380.12 (e) (4)). Evaluate the potential for short-term, long-term, and permanent impact on the wildlife resources and state-listed endangered or threatened species caused by Sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and construction and operation of the Project and proposed mitigation measures. (§ 3.5.1 380.12(e) (4)). Identify all federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the Project and discussion
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USF Board of Trustees ( March 7, 2013)
    Agenda item: (to be completed by Board staff) USF Board of Trustees ( March 7, 2013) Issue: Proposed Ph.D. in Integrative Biology ________________________________________________________________ Proposed action: New Degree Program Approval ________________________________________________________________ Background information: This application for a new Ph.D is driven by a recent reorganization of the Department of Biology. The reorganization began in 2006 and was completed in 2009. The reorganization of the Department of Biology, in part, reflected the enormity of the biological sciences, and in part, different research perspectives and directions taken by the faculty in each of the respective areas of biology. Part of the reorganization was to replace the original Ph.D. in Biology with two new doctoral degrees that better serve the needs of the State and our current graduate students by enabling greater focus of the research performed to earn the Ph.D. The well-established and highly productive faculty attracts students to the Tampa Campus from all over the United States as well as from foreign countries. The resources to support the two Ph.D. programs have already been established in the Department of Biology and are sufficient to support the two new degree programs. The reorganization created two new departments; the Department of Cell Biology, Microbiology, and Molecular Biology (CMMB) and the Department of Integrative Biology (IB). This proposal addresses the creation of a new Ph.D., in Integrative Biology offered by the Department of Integrative Biology (CIP Code 26.1399). The name of the Department, Integrative Biology, reflects the belief that the study of biological processes and systems can best be accomplished by the incorporation of numerous integrated approaches Strategic Goal(s) Item Supports: The proposed program directly supports the following: Goal 1 and Goal 2 Workgroup Review: ACE March 7, 2013 Supporting Documentation: See Complete Proposal below Prepared by: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Froglog95 New Version Draft1.Indd
    March 2011 Vol. 95 FrogLogwww.amphibians.org News from the herpetological community The new face of the ASG “Lost” Frogs Red List The global search Updating South comes to an end. Africas Red Where next? Lists. Page 1 FrogLog Vol. 95 | March 2011 | 1 2 | FrogLog Vol. 95 | March 2011 CONTENTS The Sierra Caral of Guatemala a refuge for endemic amphibians page 5 The Search for “Lost” Frogs page 12 Recent diversifi cation in old habitats: Molecules and morphology in the endangered frog, Craugastor uno page 17 Updating the IUCN Red List status of South African amphibians 6 Amphibians on the IUCN Red List: Developments and changes since the Global Amphibian Assessment 7 The forced closure of conservation work on Seychelles Sooglossidae 8 Alien amphibians challenge Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis 9 Is there a decline of amphibian richness in Bellanwila-Attidiya Sanctuary? 10 High prevalence of the amphibian chytrid pathogen in Gabon 11 Breeding-site selection by red-belly toads, Melanophryniscus stelzneri (Anura: Bufonidae), in Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina 11 Upcoming meetings 20 | Recent Publications 20 | Internships & Jobs 23 Funding Opportunities 22 | Author Instructions 24 | Current Authors 25 FrogLog Vol. 95 | March 2011 | 3 FrogLog Editorial elcome to the new-look FrogLog. It has been a busy few months Wfor the ASG! We have redesigned the look and feel of FrogLog ASG & EDITORIAL COMMITTEE along with our other media tools to better serve the needs of the ASG community. We hope that FrogLog will become a regular addition to James P. Collins your reading and a platform for sharing research, conservation stories, events, and opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service June 14, 2016 Biological Opinion Revised
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service June 14, 2016 Biological Opinion ON Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment to increase Florida Scrub- Jay Management Areas on the Ocala National Forest (Amendment 12) Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jacksonville, Florida Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 2 The Service concurs with your determination that the effects from activities under the proposed amendment on the Florida bonamia, scrub buckwheat, and Lewton’s polygala are within the scope of effects described in the September 18, 1998 BA for the LRMP and evaluated in the Service’s 1998 Opinion. In addition, effects of implementing the LRMP (including the proposed amendment) on the scrub pigeon wings were recently disclosed in your Biological Assessment (BA) of Nov 24, 2015 were evaluated in the Service’s Opinion of December 17, 2015. Therefore, these plant species will not be addressed further in the amended Opinion below. This amended Opinion is based on information provided to the Service through a BA, telephone conversations, e-mails, field investigation notes, and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Jacksonville Ecological Services Office. Consultation History September 21, 1998: NFF initiated formal consultation on revision of the LRMP December 18, 1998: The Service provided a non-jeopardy combined Biological and Conference Opinion on the LRMP to NFF concluding formal consultation. From March 2014 to November of 2015, the Service and staff from the NFF supervisor’s office and ONF participated in several meetings and conference calls to discuss how to address Forest Service Section 7(a)(1) obligations under the Act and the proposed amendment to the NFF LRMP.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited in Lizards Natural History Database
    Literature Cited in Lizards Natural History database Abdala, C. S., A. S. Quinteros, and R. E. Espinoza. 2008. Two new species of Liolaemus (Iguania: Liolaemidae) from the puna of northwestern Argentina. Herpetologica 64:458-471. Abdala, C. S., D. Baldo, R. A. Juárez, and R. E. Espinoza. 2016. The first parthenogenetic pleurodont Iguanian: a new all-female Liolaemus (Squamata: Liolaemidae) from western Argentina. Copeia 104:487-497. Abdala, C. S., J. C. Acosta, M. R. Cabrera, H. J. Villaviciencio, and J. Marinero. 2009. A new Andean Liolaemus of the L. montanus series (Squamata: Iguania: Liolaemidae) from western Argentina. South American Journal of Herpetology 4:91-102. Abdala, C. S., J. L. Acosta, J. C. Acosta, B. B. Alvarez, F. Arias, L. J. Avila, . S. M. Zalba. 2012. Categorización del estado de conservación de las lagartijas y anfisbenas de la República Argentina. Cuadernos de Herpetologia 26 (Suppl. 1):215-248. Abell, A. J. 1999. Male-female spacing patterns in the lizard, Sceloporus virgatus. Amphibia-Reptilia 20:185-194. Abts, M. L. 1987. Environment and variation in life history traits of the Chuckwalla, Sauromalus obesus. Ecological Monographs 57:215-232. Achaval, F., and A. Olmos. 2003. Anfibios y reptiles del Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay: Facultad de Ciencias. Achaval, F., and A. Olmos. 2007. Anfibio y reptiles del Uruguay, 3rd edn. Montevideo, Uruguay: Serie Fauna 1. Ackermann, T. 2006. Schreibers Glatkopfleguan Leiocephalus schreibersii. Munich, Germany: Natur und Tier. Ackley, J. W., P. J. Muelleman, R. E. Carter, R. W. Henderson, and R. Powell. 2009. A rapid assessment of herpetofaunal diversity in variously altered habitats on Dominica.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Limblessness
    Evolution of Limblessness Evolution of Limblessness Early on in life, many people learn that lizards have four limbs whereas snakes have none. This dichotomy not only is inaccurate but also hides an exciting story of repeated evolution that is only now beginning to be understood. In fact, snakes represent only one of many natural evolutionary experiments in lizard limblessness. A similar story is also played out, though to a much smaller extent, in amphibians. The repeated evolution of snakelike tetrapods is one of the most striking examples of parallel evolution in animals. This entry discusses the evolution of limblessness in both reptiles and amphibians, with an emphasis on the living reptiles. Reptiles Based on current evidence (Wiens, Brandley, and Reeder 2006), an elongate, limb-reduced, snakelike morphology has evolved at least twenty-five times in squamates (the group containing lizards and snakes), with snakes representing only one such origin. These origins are scattered across the evolutionary tree of squamates, but they seem especially frequent in certain families. In particular, the skinks (Scincidae) contain at least half of all known origins of snakelike squamates. But many more origins within the skink family will likely be revealed as the branches of their evolutionary tree are fully resolved, given that many genera contain a range of body forms (from fully limbed to limbless) and may include multiple origins of snakelike morphology as yet unknown. These multiple origins of snakelike morphology are superficially similar in having reduced limbs and an elongate body form, but many are surprisingly different in their ecology and morphology. This multitude of snakelike lineages can be divided into two ecomorphs (a are surprisingly different in their ecology and morphology.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Sequencing and Comparative Analysis of The
    SEQUENCING AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE MITOCHONDRIAL CYTOCHROME B GENE IN THE MARION UPLANDS FLORIDA SAND SKINK (PLESTIODON REYNOLDSI) by Taylor Locklear A Senior Honors Project Presented to the Honors College East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation with Honors by Taylor Locklear Greenville, NC May 2016 Approved by: Trip Lamb Department of Biology, Thomas Harriot College of Arts and Sciences 1 Abstract The Florida sand skink (Plestiodon reynoldsi)—a small (~10 cm) lizard endemic to the peninsula—is a ‘sand-swimming’ specialist restricted to Florida scrub habitat on the state’s central highland ridges. Florida scrub has been severely fragmented through urban growth and citrus farming, and less than 10% of this ecosystem remains. Given the skink’s limited geographic range and extensive population fragmentation, P. reynoldsi was listed as a federally threatened species in 1987. I surveyed skink populations from the Marion Uplands, where suitable lizard habitat is naturally (and has been historically) isolated from scrub on nearby Mt. Dora and Lake Wales ridges. I wanted to determine genetic relatedness of Marion Uplands skinks to those inhabiting these two ridges and hypothesized that Marion populations should be more similar genetically to those on the Mt. Dora ridge, given their geographic proximity. Mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis confirmed this hypothesis but also revealed unexpectedly high levels of genetic divergence between the Marion and Mt. Dora populations. Indeed, observed genetic divergence was comparable to that detected between Marion and Lake Wales populations. 2 Acknowledgments I thank Paul Moler of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission for providing the tail tip samples utilized in this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibians and Reptiles of United States Department of Defense Installations
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 13(3):652–661. Submitted: 20 December 2017; Accepted: 22 August 2018; Published: 16 December 2018. AmphibiAns And Reptiles of United stAtes depARtment of defense instAllAtions Christopher e. petersen1, robert e. LoviCh2,3, and sarah staLLings1 1Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508, USA 2Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 1220 Pacifc Highway, San Diego, California 92132, USA 3Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract.—The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) occupies approximately 10.1 million ha of land within the U.S. spanning most ecosystems contained therein. To date, no comprehensive agency-wide inventory of amphibian and reptile species has been compiled. We developed an amphibian and reptile species inventory for 415 DoD installations/sites and evaluated species diversity. The amphibian and reptile species confrmed present on DoD sites represent 66% of the total native species documented in the continental U.S. Snakes are the most widespread group found on DoD lands. Of the military services, Army sites have the greatest number of confrmed species, federally listed, state-listed, and At-risk species. There are 24 federally listed (threatened or endangered), 55 state- listed, and 70 At-risk species confrmed present on DoD sites. Thirty non-native and native transplant amphibian and reptile species/subspecies are also confrmed present on DoD sites. Lastly, we verifed that approximately half of the military sites evaluated in this study have at least one venomous snake species confrmed present. Our study results assist directly with ongoing management and conservation of amphibian and reptile species on DoD lands and confrm military lands comprise a signifcant contribution to biodiversity conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sand Skink Dorsum and Venter
    80.1 NEOSEPS REPTILIA: SQUAMATA: SAURIA: SCINCIDAE N. REYNOLDSI Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. Living specimens vary in coloration from dirty white to deep tan, often becoming dark brown after preservation. At hatch• TELFORD,SAM R., JR. 1969. Neoseps and N. reyn.oldsi. ing a wide black band extends from tail tip to snout along each side. In older lizards this band may be reduced to spots along the three lateral scale rows, or disappears except from eye to Neoseps Stejneger snout. Some specimens have a dark spot on every scale of Sand skink dorsum and venter. There is no significant sexual dimorphism in scalation or coloration. Neoseps Stejneger, 1910:33. Type species, Neoseps reynoldsi Burt (1937), Carr (1940), Smith (1946) and Carr and Stejneger, 1910, by monotypy. Goin (1959) provided descriptions of N. reynoldsi. • CONTENT.One Recent species, N. reynoldsi, is recognized. • ILLUSTRATIONS.Sketches of habitus and line drawings of diagnostic characters were presented by Stejneger (1910) • DEFINITION. A scincid genus with moveable eyelids, the and Burt (1935), and were republished in Smith (1946). lower eyelid containing a transparent window; no external ear Photographs were provided by Smith (1946), Pope (1955), A. opening; supranasals present; no frontoparietals; nostril be• Schmidt (1955), Conant (1958), and Carr and Goin (1959). tween nasals; palatine bones separated along median line of Telford (1959) presented drawings of limb osteology. palate; digits reduced to one on fore limbs and two on hind limbs. • DISTRIBUTION.Neoseps reynoldsi occurs in rosemary scrub and sandhills habitats in Lake, Polk and Highlands counties, • DESCRIPTIONS,ILLUSTRATIONS,DISTRIBUTION,FOSSILRECORD, Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D to ERP Application Listed Species Occurrences and Project
    Appendix D to ERP Application NUCOR Steel Micro Mill Appendix D to ERP Application Listed Species Occurrences and Project Effects for Nucor Steel Micro Mill in Avon Park, Polk County, Florida This listed species occurrence information and project effects discussion is supplemental to the Wetlands and Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (Appendix C), which is also attached to the ERP application. See Appendix C for project description and location map. This supplemental information is provided to assist the technical review of the project’s potential effect on Federal and State listed species and/or their habitats. Included with this supplemental information are these figures: Figure D1 – Wildlife Observations Onsite and within 1 Mile Radius Figure D2 – Wildlife Observation Records and Crossings within 5 Mile Radius Figure D3 – Site Photographs May-June 2018 Wildlife and Habitat Onsite Habitat The entire area is currently managed citrus cultivation. No natural upland habitats remain in the project area. A small area of mature oak trees near the former home site remains near Pabor Lake to the south. Construction contractors’ trailers will be parked in that area. Access roads of compacted imported clay fill soil or compacted sand and densely grass, encircle and traverse the groves. These conditions can be seen in site photographs attached to this Appendix D. The citrus groves offer minimal habitat requirements for very few listed species. No wetland habitats or other surface water habitats occur within the project footprint, including the proposed rail spur, and access roads. Offsite Habitat The micro mill will be over 1000 feet from any remaining non-cultivated uplands east and west of the proposed development site.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in Snake Abundance After 21 Years in Southwest Florida, USA
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 14(1):31–40. Submitted: 16 November 2017; Accepted: 12 February 2019; Published: 30 April 2019. CHANGES IN SNAKE ABUNDANCE AFTER 21 YEARS IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, USA DEAN A. CROSHAW1,3, JOHN R. CASSANI2, ELI V. BACHER1, TAYLOR L. HANCOCK2, 2 AND EDWIN M. EVERHAM III 1Florida Gulf Coast University, Department of Biological Sciences, Fort Myers, Florida 33965, USA 2Florida Gulf Coast University, Department of Marine and Ecological Sciences, Fort Myers, Florida 33965, USA 3Corresponding author, e–mail: [email protected] Abstract.—Global population declines in herpetofauna have been documented extensively. Southern Florida, USA, is an especially vulnerable region because of high impacts from land development, associated hydrological alterations, and invasive exotic species. To ask whether certain snake species have decreased in abundance over recent decades, we performed a baseline road survey in 1993–1994 in a rural area of southwest Florida (Lee County) and repeated it 21 y later (2014–2015). We sampled a road survey route (17.5 km) for snakes by bicycle an average of 1.3 times a week (n = 45 surveys) from June 1993 through January 1994 and 1.7 times a week from June 2014 through January 2015 (n = 61 surveys). Snake mortality increased significantly after 21 y, but this result may be due to increased road traffic rather than expanding snake populations. The snake samples were highly dissimilar in the two periods, suggesting changes in species composition. For example, one species showed a highly significant decrease in abundance (Rough Greensnake, Opheodrys aestivus) while another showed substantial increases (Ring-necked Snake, Diadophis punctatus).
    [Show full text]