DOCSLIB.ORG

Habitat Conservation Plan a Plan for the Protection of the Perdido Key

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Habitat Conservation Plan a Plan for the Protection of the Perdido Key Perdido Key Programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan Escambia County, Florida HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PERDIDO KEY BEACH MOUSE, SEA TURTLES, AND PIPING PLOVERS ON PERDIDO KEY, FLORIDA Prepared in Support of Incidental Take Permit No. for Incidental Take Related to Private Development and Escambia County Owned Land and Infrastructure Improvements on Perdido Key, Florida Prepared for: ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. BOX 1591 PENSACOLA, FL 32591 Prepared by: PBS&J 2401 EXECUTIVE PLAZA, SUITE 2 PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32504 Submitted to: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES & FISHERIES RESOURCES OFFICE 1601 BALBOA AVENUE PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA 32450 Final Draft January 2010 Draft Submitted December 2008 Draft Revised March 2009 Draft Revised May 2009 Draft Revised October 2009 ii Perdido Key Programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan Escambia County, Florida TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ viii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................. xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ xii 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Evolution of the Perdido Key Programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan ........ 1 1.3 Purpose of the Programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan ................................. 2 2.0 PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS .......................................................................... 3 2.1 Technical Committee .............................................................................................. 3 2.2 Steering Committee ................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Public Workshops ................................................................................................... 4 3.0 GOALS AND BENEFITS .......................................................................................... 5 3.1 Requested Take ....................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Goals of HCP ........................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Benefits of HCP ....................................................................................................... 6 3.3.1 Protected Species .............................................................................................. 7 3.3.2 Property Owners .............................................................................................. 8 3.3.3 Escambia County ............................................................................................. 8 4.0 PLAN AREA ............................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Geographical Setting .............................................................................................. 8 4.2 Plan Boundaries ...................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Coastal Characterization ........................................................................................ 9 4.4 Natural Resources and Community Types ........................................................... 9 4.4.1 Beach Dune ....................................................................................................... 9 4.4.2 Coastal Strand ................................................................................................ 10 4.4.3 Coastal Scrub ................................................................................................. 11 4.4.4 Maritime Forest ............................................................................................. 11 4.4.5 Coastal Grassland .......................................................................................... 12 4.4.6 Bayside Mudflats ............................................................................................ 12 4.4.7 Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 13 4.5 Public Lands .......................................................................................................... 13 4.6 Escambia County Shoreline Protection Zone..................................................... 14 4.7 Upland Development ............................................................................................ 16 4.7.1 Current Zoning Districts ............................................................................... 17 4.7.1.1 R-1PK Residential district (Perdido Key), low density ....................... 17 4.7.1.2 R-2PK Residential District (Perdido Key) medium density ............... 17 4.7.1.3 R-3PK Residential district (Perdido Key) high density....................... 17 4.7.1.4 C-1PK (Perdido Key) commercial district ........................................... 17 4.7.1.5 CCPK (Perdido Key) commercial core district .................................... 18 4.7.1.6 CGPK (Perdido Key) commercial gateway district ............................. 18 4.7.1.7 PRPK planned resort district (Perdido Key) medium density ........... 18 4.7.1.8 S-1PK outdoor recreational district (noncumulative) ......................... 18 5.0 LISTED SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE PLAN AREA ...................... 19 5.1 Species Covered Under This Habitat Conservation Plan ................................. 19 iii Perdido Key Programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan Escambia County, Florida 5.2 Federal and State Listed Species In Plan Area But Not Covered Under This HCP .............................................................................................................................. 20 5.3 Species Accounts ................................................................................................... 20 5.3.1 Perdido Key Beach Mouse ............................................................................ 20 5.3.1.1Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 20 5.3.1.2 Biological Information ............................................................................ 23 5.3.1.3 Site-Specific Information........................................................................ 25 5.3.2 Loggerhead Turtle ......................................................................................... 27 5.3.2.1 Biological Information ............................................................................ 27 5.3.2.2 Site-Specific Information........................................................................ 28 5.3.3 Green Turtle ................................................................................................... 28 5.3.3.1 Biological Information ............................................................................ 28 5.3.3.2 Site-Specific Information........................................................................ 28 5.3.4 Leatherback Turtle ........................................................................................ 29 5.3.4.1 Biological Information ............................................................................ 29 5.3.4.2 Site-Specific Information........................................................................ 29 5.3.5 Kemp’s Ridley Turtle .................................................................................... 29 5.3.5.1 Biological Information ............................................................................ 30 5.3.5.2 Site-Specific Information........................................................................ 30 5.3.6 Piping Plover .................................................................................................. 30 5.3.6.1 Biological Information ............................................................................ 31 5.3.6.2 Site-Specific Information........................................................................ 32 5.3.7 Other Shorebirds ........................................................................................... 32 6.0 FACTORS AFFECTING THE SPECIES IN THE PLAN AREA ....................... 37 6.1 Natural Events ....................................................................................................... 37 6.1.1 Predation ......................................................................................................... 37 6.1.2 Tropical Storm Activity ................................................................................. 38 6.2 Human-Related Activities .................................................................................... 40 6.2.1 Development Activities .................................................................................. 40 6.2.1.1 Residential ............................................................................................... 40 6.2.1.2 Planned Resort ........................................................................................ 42 6.2.1.3 Commercial ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Remotely Monitoring Change in Vegetation Cover on the Montebello Islands, Western Australia, in Response to Introduced Rodent Eradication
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Remotely Monitoring Change in Vegetation Cover on the Montebello Islands, Western Australia, in Response to Introduced Rodent Eradication Cheryl Lohr1*, Ricky Van Dongen2, Bart Huntley2, Lesley Gibson3, Keith Morris1 1. Department of Parks and Wildlife, Science and Conservation Division, Woodvale, Western Australia, Australia, 2. Department of Parks and Wildlife, GIS Section, Kensington, Western Australia, Australia, 3. Department of Parks and Wildlife, Science and Conservation Division, Keiran McNamara Conservation Science Centre, 17 Dick Perry Drive, Technology Park, Kensington, WA 6151, Australia *[email protected] OPEN ACCESS Citation: Lohr C, Van Dongen R, Huntley B, Gibson L, Morris K (2014) Remotely Monitoring Abstract Change in Vegetation Cover on the Montebello Islands, Western Australia, in Response to The Montebello archipelago consists of 218 islands; 80 km from the north-west Introduced Rodent Eradication. PLoS ONE 9(12): e114095. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114095 coast of Western Australia. Before 1912 the islands had a diverse terrestrial fauna. Editor: Benjamin Lee Allen, University of By 1952 several species were locally extinct. Between 1996 and 2011 rodents and Queensland, Australia cats were eradicated, and 5 mammal and 2 bird species were translocated to the Received: September 16, 2014 islands. Monitoring of the broader terrestrial ecosystem over time has been limited. Accepted: October 29, 2014 We used 20 dry-season Landsat images from 1988 to 2013 and estimation of green Published: December 1, 2014 fraction cover in nadir photographs taken at 27 sites within the Montebello islands Copyright: ß 2014 Lohr et al. This is an open- and six sites on Thevenard Island to assess change in vegetation density over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Species Listing Proposals for CITES Cop18
    VKM Report 2019: 11 Assessment of species listing proposals for CITES CoP18 Scientific opinion of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment Utkast_dato Scientific opinion of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM) 15.03.2019 ISBN: 978-82-8259-327-4 ISSN: 2535-4019 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM) Po 4404 Nydalen N – 0403 Oslo Norway Phone: +47 21 62 28 00 Email: [email protected] vkm.no vkm.no/english Cover photo: Public domain Suggested citation: VKM, Eli. K Rueness, Maria G. Asmyhr, Hugo de Boer, Katrine Eldegard, Anders Endrestøl, Claudia Junge, Paolo Momigliano, Inger E. Måren, Martin Whiting (2019) Assessment of Species listing proposals for CITES CoP18. Opinion of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, ISBN:978-82-8259-327-4, Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM), Oslo, Norway. VKM Report 2019: 11 Utkast_dato Assessment of species listing proposals for CITES CoP18 Note that this report was finalised and submitted to the Norwegian Environment Agency on March 15, 2019. Any new data or information published after this date has not been included in the species assessments. Authors of the opinion VKM has appointed a project group consisting of four members of the VKM Panel on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), five external experts, and one project leader from the VKM secretariat to answer the request from the Norwegian Environment Agengy. Members of the project group that contributed to the drafting of the opinion (in alphabetical order after chair of the project group): Eli K.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazette 21572
    [75] VOL. CCCXXVI OVER THE COUNTER SALES $2.75 INCLUDING G.S.T. TASMANIAN GOV ERNMENT • U • B E AS RT LIT AS•ET•FIDE TASMANIA GAZETTE PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY WEDNESDAY 20 JANUARY 2016 No. 21 572 ISSN 0039-9795 CONTENTS Notices to Creditors Notice Page JOHN DAVID RUSSELL late of 2111 Elphinstone Road North Hobart in Tasmania orchard farm manager/divorced died on Administration and Probate ..................................... 76 the fourteenth day of September 2015: Creditorsnext of kin and others having claims in ·respect of the property of the Councils ................................................................... 107 abovenamed deceased are required by the Executors Helen Elizabeth Gill and Sally Ann Giacon c/- Tremayne Fay and Crown Lands ............................................................ 78 Rheinberger 3 Heathfield Ave Hobart in Tasmania to send particulars of their claim in writing to the Registrar of the Living Marine Resources Management ................... 77 Supreme Court of Tasmania by Monday the twenty-second day of February 2016 after which date the Executors may distribute Mental Health ........................................................... 75 the assets having regard only to the claims of which they then· have notice. Nature Conservation ................................................ 77, 81 Dated this twentieth day of January 2016. Notices to Creditors ................................................. 75 TREMAYNE FAY AND RHEINBERGER, Solicitors for the Estate. Public Health ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of an Invasive Plant and Moonlight on Rodent Foraging Behavior in a Coastal Dune Ecosystem
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Effect of an Invasive Plant and Moonlight on Rodent Foraging Behavior in a Coastal Dune Ecosystem Matthew D. Johnson*, Yesenia L. De León Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, 95521, United States of America * [email protected] Abstract Understanding how invasive plants may alter predator avoidance behaviors is important for granivorous rodents because their foraging can trigger ripple effects in trophic webs. Previous research has shown that European beach grass Ammophila arenaria, an invasive OPEN ACCESS species in coastal California, affects the predation of other seeds by the rodents Microtus californicus, Peromyscus maniculatus, and Reithrodontomys megalotis. This may be due Citation: Johnson MD, De León YL (2015) Effect of an Invasive Plant and Moonlight on Rodent Foraging to lower perceived predation risk by rodents foraging in close proximity to the cover provided Behavior in a Coastal Dune Ecosystem. PLoS ONE by Ammophila, but this mechanism has not yet been tested. We examined the perceived 10(2): e0117903. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117903 predation risk of rodents by measuring the ‘giving up density’ of food left behind in experi- Academic Editor: Anna R. Armitage, Texas A&M mental patches of food in areas with and without abundant cover from Ammophila and University at Galveston, UNITED STATES under varying amount of moonlight. We found strong evidence that giving up density was Received: March 19, 2014 lower in the thick uniform vegetation on Ammophila-dominated habitat than it was in the Accepted: December 2, 2014 more sparsely and diversely vegetated restored habitat. There was also evidence that moonlight affected giving up density and that it mediated the effects of habitat, although with Published: February 13, 2015 our design we were unable to distinguish the effects of lunar illumination and moon phase.
    [Show full text]
  • Captive Breeding of the Shark Bay Mouse Pseudomys Fieldi to Facilitate
    Research article Captive breeding of the Shark Bay mouse Pseudomys fieldi to facilitate species recovery in the wild Cathy Lambert1*, Vicki Power1 and Glen Gaikhorst1,2 1Native Species Breeding Programme, Animal Health and Research Department, Perth Zoological Gardens, PO Box 489 South Perth, WA 6151, Australia. 2Current address: GHD Pty Ltd, 239 Adelaide Tce, Perth, WA 6004, Australia *Correspondence: Cathy Lambert; e-mail: [email protected] JZAR Research article Research JZAR Keywords: Abstract husbandry, Muridae, reintroduction, Shark Bay mice (P. fieldi) were bred at Perth Zoo to provide animals for release to the wild as part of reproductive biology recovery actions for the species. Three-hundred and thirty-five young were produced from 93 litters, with an average litter size of 3.6 (range 1–6). Sexual maturity for both sexes was reached at 65 days of Article history: age, and breeding was observed all year round. The oldest female to give birth was 625 days of age and Received: 22 May 2015 the oldest male to sire young was 531 days of age. Following a planned interruption to the programme Accepted: 31 July 2016 and the separation of breeding pairs, there was some difficulty in later re-establishing reproduction. A Published online: 2 August 2016 strategy to stimulate a return to breeding, along with detailed husbandry methods, is described. OPEN ACCESS Introduction translocations, control of introduced predators and competitors and captive breeding identified to improve the conservation The Shark Bay mouse (Pseudomys fieldi), also known as the status of the species. In December 1996 a captive population djoongari, is a robust (30–45 g), long-haired Australian native was established at Perth Zoo (South Perth, WA) to breed rodent (Watts and Aslin 1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Advice Pseudomys Fieldi Djoongari (Shark Bay Mouse)
    THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The Minister’s delegate approved this Conservation Advice on 16/12/2016. Conservation Advice Pseudomys fieldi Djoongari (Shark Bay mouse) Conservation Status Pseudomys fieldi (Djoongari (Shark Bay mouse) is listed as Vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act) effective from the 16 July 2000.The species was eligible for listing under the EPBC Act at that time as, immediately prior to the commencement of the EPBC Act, it was listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 1 of the preceding Act the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (Cwlth). For current information on the listing status of this species under relevant state or territory legislation, see http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl The main factors impacting on the species that are considered to be the cause for its eligibility for listing in the Vulnerable category are its restricted area of occupancy and the small number of individuals. Description The Djoongari (Shark Bay Mouse) is a long-haired mouse of 30 - 50 g in weight (Ride and Tyndale-Biscoe 1962; Watts and Spencer 1978; Watts and Aslin 1981 cited in Morris et al., 2000). The dorsal fur is a mixture of pale yellow-fawn underfur and dark guard hairs, giving a grizzled appearance, and the coat colour grades from a pale buff shade on the sides to white underneath (Morris et al., 2000). The feet are white. The tail is slightly longer than head and body, and is bicoloured grey and white with a dark tuft of hairs at the end (Watts and Aslin 1981 cited in Morris et al., 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Beach Mouse (Peromyscus Polionotus Ammobates, Bowen 1968)
    Alabama Beach Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates, Bowen 1968) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Alabama beach mouse subspecies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Alabama Ecological Services Field Office Daphne, Alabama 1 5-YEAR REVIEW Alabama Beach Mouse/Peromyscus polionotus ammobates I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methods used to complete the review This review was completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Alabama Field Office in Daphne, Alabama. Information sources include the Recovery Plan for the Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, Perdido Key Beach Mouse, and Alabama Beach Mouse (Service 1987), peer-reviewed scientific publications, unpublished reports, ongoing field survey and research results, information from Service and State biologists, the final rule listing the subspecies, and recently revised critical habitat (72 FR 4329). All literature and documents used for this review are on file at the Alabama Field Office. All recommendations resulting from this review are the result of thoroughly reviewing the best available information on the Alabama beach mouse (ABM). Comments and suggestions regarding this review were received from peer reviewers from outside the Service (see Appendix A). No part of the review was contracted to an outside party. In addition, this review was announced to the public on September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53127) with a 60-day comment period. Comments received were evaluated and incorporated as appropriate. B. Reviewers Southeast Region – Kelly Bibb, 404-679-7132 Alabama Ecological Services Field Office (Lead) – Rob Tawes, 251-441-5830; Carl Couret, 251-441-5868; Dianne Ingram, 251-441-5839; Darren LeBlanc, 251- 441-6638 South Florida Field Office – Sandra Sneckenberger, 772-562-3909 Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge – Jereme Phillips, 251-540-7720; Jackie Isaacs, 251-540-8523 Peer Reviewers – Iowa State University – Matt Falcy, Colorado Division of Wildlife - Jonathan Runge, Wildlife Biologist - Claudia Frosch, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources – Roger Clay C.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Mammals
    Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals Guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Acknowledgements This report updates and expands on a draft report prepared in June 2004 by Cate McElroy. Sandy Ingleby and Jayne Tipping directed, proof-read and helped to write the 2004 report. Joanne Stokes and Shaun Barclay provided technical assistance in the preparation of the 2004 report. The 2004 report was reviewed by Martin Schulz and Robert Close and the individual species profiles were reviewed by Martin Schulz (small and arboreal mammals), Robert Close (medium-sized mammals and rock wallabies), Chris Belcher (quolls and wombats) and Sandy Ingleby (bridled nailtail and spectacled hare wallaby). Additional species profiles were prepared for the updated (2010) report by Martin Schulz and reviewed by Robert Close. Updates to the information contained in the 2004 report were prepared by Martin Schulz, Lisa McCaffrey, Mark Semeniuk, Dejan Stejanovic, Rachel Blakey and Glenn Muir. Glenn Muir co-ordinated the project team and reviewed the final report. In preparing these standards, a large number of experts have provided a wealth of experience, and in some cases unpublished results, so that all listed non-flying mammal species could be adequately considered. These include, in particular, Barbara Triggs for providing a list of EPBC Act listed species that can be distinguished from hair samples, Joe Benshemesh (NT DIPE, Alice Springs) for the marsupial mole species, Jody Gates (SA DEH, Kangaroo Island) for the Kangaroo Island dunnart, David Paull (UNE) for the Pilliga mouse, Chris Dickman (University of Sydney) for the mulgara and the ampurta, Peter Canty (SA DEH) for the kowari, Tony Friend (WA DEC, Albany) for the numbat, Peter Banks (UNSW) for an unpublished manuscript relating to the quokka, Shaun Barclay (UNSW) for the greater stick-nest rat, Jenny Nelson (Vic.
    [Show full text]
  • FEIS Citation Retrieval System Keywords
    FEIS Citation Retrieval System Keywords 29,958 entries as KEYWORD (PARENT) Descriptive phrase AB (CANADA) Alberta ABEESC (PLANTS) Abelmoschus esculentus, okra ABEGRA (PLANTS) Abelia × grandiflora [chinensis × uniflora], glossy abelia ABERT'S SQUIRREL (MAMMALS) Sciurus alberti ABERT'S TOWHEE (BIRDS) Pipilo aberti ABIABI (BRYOPHYTES) Abietinella abietina, abietinella moss ABIALB (PLANTS) Abies alba, European silver fir ABIAMA (PLANTS) Abies amabilis, Pacific silver fir ABIBAL (PLANTS) Abies balsamea, balsam fir ABIBIF (PLANTS) Abies bifolia, subalpine fir ABIBRA (PLANTS) Abies bracteata, bristlecone fir ABICON (PLANTS) Abies concolor, white fir ABICONC (ABICON) Abies concolor var. concolor, white fir ABICONL (ABICON) Abies concolor var. lowiana, Rocky Mountain white fir ABIDUR (PLANTS) Abies durangensis, Coahuila fir ABIES SPP. (PLANTS) firs ABIETINELLA SPP. (BRYOPHYTES) Abietinella spp., mosses ABIFIR (PLANTS) Abies firma, Japanese fir ABIFRA (PLANTS) Abies fraseri, Fraser fir ABIGRA (PLANTS) Abies grandis, grand fir ABIHOL (PLANTS) Abies holophylla, Manchurian fir ABIHOM (PLANTS) Abies homolepis, Nikko fir ABILAS (PLANTS) Abies lasiocarpa, subalpine fir ABILASA (ABILAS) Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica, corkbark fir ABILASB (ABILAS) Abies lasiocarpa var. bifolia, subalpine fir ABILASL (ABILAS) Abies lasiocarpa var. lasiocarpa, subalpine fir ABILOW (PLANTS) Abies lowiana, Rocky Mountain white fir ABIMAG (PLANTS) Abies magnifica, California red fir ABIMAGM (ABIMAG) Abies magnifica var. magnifica, California red fir ABIMAGS (ABIMAG) Abies
    [Show full text]
  • General Conference Information
    General Conference Information Registration Desk The conference registration desk will be located at the Wyoming Union on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and in the lobby of the Classroom Building (near the east entrance on 9 Street) Monday and Tuesday. Friday June 11 12:00 PM – 11:00 PM Saturday June 12 7:30 AM – 6:00 PM Sunday June 13 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM Monday June 14 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM Tuesday June 15 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM Parking To park on campus at the University of Wyoming, a valid parking permit must be displayed. Parking permits for lots “A”, “C” and “R” will be available for purchase at the registration desk for $5/day. Loading/unloading zones, accessible spaces, “R” and “U” permit parking spaces, fire lanes, and yellow zones are enforced 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Other designated permit parking is enforced during official university business hours, Monday through Friday. Bus shuttle The CAMPUS SHUTTLE services the perimeter of campus by providing easy access to buildings located on the main core of campus from 6:56 a.m. to 6:21 p.m. on university business days. One bus serves the route every 30 minutes until 6:21 p.m. This shuttle service stops at the “Convention Center – 22 and Arrowhead Stop (Stop 7)” which is directly behind the Hilton Garden Inn and “Lodgepole and Sundance Stop (Stop 6)” which is directly behind the Holiday Inn. The UNION EXPRESS bus departs from the Union Express Lot, located at Willett Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • SPECIES ID NAME GEN SPEC ELEMENT SUBELEMENT GRANK GRANKDATE 386 Accipiter Hawks Accipiter Spp
    SPECIES_ID NAME GEN_SPEC ELEMENT SUBELEMENT GRANK GRANKDATE 386 Accipiter hawks Accipiter spp. BIRD raptor 0 259 Alameda song sparrow Melospiza melodia pusillula BIRD passerine 0 1036 Albatrosses Phoebastria spp. BIRD pelagic 0 1024 Alcids BIRD alcid 0 215 Aleutian Canada goose Branta canadensis leucopareia BIRD waterfowl 0 101 Aleutian tern Sterna aleutica BIRD gull_tern G4 200412 575 Altamira oriole Icterus gularis BIRD passerine G5 200412 323 Amazon kingfisher Chloroceryle amazona BIRD passerine 0 141 American avocet Recurvirostra americana BIRD shorebird G5 200412 185 American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus BIRD wading G4 200412 186 American black duck Anas rubripes BIRD waterfowl G5 200412 34 American coot Fulica americana BIRD waterfowl G5 200412 746 American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos BIRD passerine G5 200412 815 American dipper Cinclus mexicanus BIRD passerine 0 164 American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica BIRD shorebird G5 200412 748 American goldfinch Carduelis tristis BIRD passerine G5 200412 182 American kestrel Falco sparverius BIRD raptor G5 200412 152 American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus BIRD shorebird G5 200412 626 American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum BIRD raptor 0 749 American pipit Anthus rubescens BIRD passerine G5 200412 322 American pygmy kingfisher Chloroceryle aenea BIRD passerine 0 584 American redstart Setophaga ruticilla BIRD passerine G5 200412 750 American robin Turdus migratorius BIRD passerine G5 200412 173 American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos BIRD diving G3 200412 169 American
    [Show full text]
  • Foxreview Web
    Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre Membership of Fox Review Team Dr Glen Saunders, Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Forest Rd., Orange, NSW 2800, Australia Mr Chris Lane, Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Forest Rd., Orange, NSW 2800, Australia Professor Stephen Harris, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodlands Rd, Bristol BS8 1UG, United Kingdom Professor Chris Dickman, Institute of Wildlife Research, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia © Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, news reporting, criticism or review. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may be reproduced for such purposes provided acknowledgement of the source is included. Major extracts of the entire document may not be reproduced by any process. Published by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre ISBN 0-9775707-1-1 Copies may be requested from the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, University of Canberra, BELCONNEN ACT 2601 This publication should be cited as: Saunders, G., Lane, C., Harris, S., and Dickman, C. (2006). Foxes in Tasmania: a Report on an Incursion of an Invasive Species. 26 June 2006 Invasive Animals CRC Animals Invasive Foxes in Tasmania Contents Foreword . 1 Acknowledgements . 2 List of Abbreviations . 3 Terms of Reference . 4 Conclusions . 5 Key Recommendations . 6 The Report 1. Introduction and Background . 7 2. Legislation . 9 3. Chronology of Events . 10 4. Evidence . 18 5. Risk Analyses . 27 6. Fox Free Taskforce . 31 7. Fox Biology and Management . 39 8. Community and Communication .
    [Show full text]