DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment for The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment for The DRAFT Environmental Assessment for the Renewable (Wind and Solar) Energy, Power Line, and Communication Tower Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken LPC Conservation LLC Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas December 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arlington Ecological Services Field Office 2005 Northeast Green Oaks Boulevard, Suite 140 Arlington, Texas 76006 Estimated Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EA: $64,683.00 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RENEWABLE ENERGY, POWER LINE, AND COMMUNICATION TOWER PROPOSED HCP AND ITP FOR LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ...............................................................1 1.1 Introduction and Background ..................................................................................1 1.1.1 Permit Structure ...........................................................................................3 1.1.2 Plan Area and Permit Area ..........................................................................3 1.2 Regulatory Background ...........................................................................................3 1.2.1 Endangered Species Act ..............................................................................3 1.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................4 2 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................................5 2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Assessment ..............................................................5 2.2 Proposed Action – Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit ......................................5 2.3 Need for Proposed Action ........................................................................................5 2.4 Decision to be Made ................................................................................................6 3 ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................6 3.1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Issue an Incidental Take Permit for the Applicant’s Habitat Conservation Plan ....................................................................7 3.1.1 Covered Activities .......................................................................................7 3.1.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ......................................................8 3.1.3 Mitigation .....................................................................................................8 3.1.4 Enrollment, Monitoring, and Reporting Processes ....................................10 Enrollment ..................................................................................10 Monitoring and Reporting ..........................................................10 3.1.5 Adaptive Management ...............................................................................11 3.2 Alternative 2: Issue an Enhancement of Survival Permit for a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances ............................................................11 3.3 Alternative 3: No-Action Alternative ....................................................................12 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .........................................................................................13 4.1 Biological Environment .........................................................................................14 4.1.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................14 4.1.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................18 General Wildlife .........................................................................18 Eagles .........................................................................................19 4.1.3 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species ..................................................19 4.2 Physical Environment ............................................................................................22 4.2.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................22 4.2.2 Noise ..........................................................................................................24 4.2.3 Visual Resources ........................................................................................24 4.3 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................25 December 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service i DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RENEWABLE ENERGY, POWER LINE, AND COMMUNICATION TOWER PROPOSED HCP AND ITP FOR LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................25 5.1 Biological Environment .........................................................................................26 5.1.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................26 Alternatives 1 and 2 ....................................................................26 Alternative 3 (No-Action) ..........................................................28 5.1.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................29 Alternatives 1 and 2 ....................................................................29 Alternative 3 (No-Action) ..........................................................31 5.1.3 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species ..................................................32 Alternatives 1 and 2 ....................................................................33 Alternative 3 (No-Action) ..........................................................35 5.2 Physical Environment ............................................................................................36 5.2.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................36 Alternatives 1 and 2 ....................................................................36 Alternative 3 (No-Action) ..........................................................38 5.2.2 Noise ..........................................................................................................38 Alternatives 1 and 2 ....................................................................39 Alternative 3 (No-Action) ..........................................................40 5.2.3 Visual Resources ........................................................................................40 Alternatives 1 and 2 ....................................................................40 Alternative 3 (No-Action) ..........................................................41 5.3 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................41 5.3.1 Alternatives 1 and 2 ...................................................................................41 5.3.2 Alternative 3 (No-Action) ..........................................................................42 5.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................42 5.4.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................43 5.4.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................43 General Wildlife .........................................................................43 Eagles .........................................................................................47 5.4.3 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species ..................................................48 5.4.4 Land Use ....................................................................................................48 5.4.5 Noise ..........................................................................................................49 5.4.6 Visual Resources ........................................................................................49 5.4.7 Cultural Resources .....................................................................................50 6 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...................................................................50 6.1 Agency Coordination .............................................................................................50 6.2 Distribution of the Draft Environmental Assessment ............................................50 December 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ii DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RENEWABLE ENERGY, POWER LINE, AND COMMUNICATION TOWER PROPOSED HCP AND ITP FOR LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1. Resources Considered and Rationale for Exclusion or Inclusion in Detailed Analysis....................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4-2. Federally listed Species1 with the Potential to Occur within the Plan Area for the Renewable (Wind and Solar) Energy, Power Line, and Communication Tower Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit for the Lesser Prairie Chicken. ...................................................................................................................... 20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Plan Area and estimated occupied range
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States National Museum Bulletin 282
    Cl>lAat;i<,<:>';i^;}Oit3Cl <a f^.S^ iVi^ 5' i ''*«0£Mi»«33'**^ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM O F NATURAL HISTORY I NotUTus albater, new species, a female paratype, 63 mm. in standard length; UMMZ 102781, Missouri. (Courtesy Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan.) UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 282 A Revision of the Catfish Genus Noturus Rafinesque^ With an Analysis of Higher Groups in the Ictaluridae WILLIAM RALPH TAYLOR Associate Curator, Division of Fishes SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1969 IV Publications of the United States National Museum The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclassifying Echinocereus Fendleri Var. Kuenzleri From
    Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 1677 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR We request that you send comments (4) New information on how E. only by one of the methods described fendleri var. kuenzleri responds to Fish and Wildlife Service above. We will post all comments on wildland and prescribed fire. http://www.regulations.gov. This (5) New information on the current or 50 CFR Part 17 generally means that we will post any planned activities within the range of E. [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2016–0137; personal information you provide us fendleri var. kuenzleri that may FXES11130900000 178 FF09E42000] (see Information Requested, below, for adversely affect or benefit the plant. more information). (6) New information or data on the RIN 1018–BB89 Copies of documents: This proposed projected and reasonably likely impacts rule and supporting documents are to E. fendleri var. kuenzleri or its habitat Endangered and Threatened Wildlife available on http://www.regulations.gov. and Plants; Reclassifying associated with climate change. In addition, the supporting file for this Please note that submissions merely Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri proposed rule will be available for From Endangered to Threatened stating support for or opposition to the public inspection, by appointment, action under consideration without AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, during normal business hours, at the providing supporting information, Interior. New Mexico Ecological Services Field although noted, will not be considered ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE., in making a determination, as section petition finding. Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 505–346–2525.
    [Show full text]
  • Reptiles of Phil Hardberger Park
    ALAMO AREA MASTER NATURALISTS & PHIL HARDBERGER PARK CONSERVANCY REPTILES OF PHIL HARDBERGER PARK ROSEBELLY LIZARD→ REPTILE= Rosebelly Lizard (picture by author) TERRESTRIAL Fred Wills is the author of this piece. VERTEBRATE Animals with backbones (vertebrates) fall into several classes. We all recognize feathered birds and hairy mammals. But what is a reptile? An easy defini- tion of reptiles is that they are terrestrial, vertebrate animals with scales or plates covering the body. However, this definition simplifies their great diversity. WITH SCALES In Texas alone, there are four major groups of reptiles: lizards, snakes, turtles, and crocodilians (alligators). Hardberger Park is home to lizards, snakes, and turtles. OR PLATES Common lizards of the park include the Rosebelly Lizard, Texas Spiny Lizard, and Ground Skink. Common snakes of the park include the Texas Rat Snake, Rough Earth Snake, and Checkered Garter Snake. Can you name any other lizards and snakes found in the area? Hint: One lizard can change color, and PHP: one snake can produce sound. ROSEBELLY LIZARD Like many birds and mammals, reptiles are predators. Small ones like the Rosebelly Lizard and Rough Earth Snake eat invertebrate animals such as insects. TEXAS SPINY LIZARD Medium-sized snakes such as the Checkered Garter Snake often eat frogs. Larger snakes, including the Texas Rat Snake, typically eat small mammals and GROUND SKINK birds. TEXAS RAT SNAKE Where do reptiles live? The various species occupy almost all kinds of habitats, from dry prairie to moist woodland, and even wetlands and streams. Re- ROUGH EARTH SNAKE lated species often divide up the habitat through differing behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln National Forest
    Chapter 1: Introduction In Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3 Bruce Vander Lee, Ruth Smith, and Joanna Bate The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We summarized existing regional-scale biological and ecological assessment information from Arizona and New Mexico for use in the development of Forest Plans for the eleven National Forests in USDA Forest Service Region 3 (Region 3). Under the current Planning Rule, Forest Plans are to be strategic documents focusing on ecological, economic, and social sustainability. In addition, Region 3 has identified restoration of the functionality of fire-adapted systems as a central priority to address forest health issues. Assessments were selected for inclusion in this report based on (1) relevance to Forest Planning needs with emphasis on the need to address ecosystem diversity and ecological sustainability, (2) suitability to address restoration of Region 3’s major vegetation systems, and (3) suitability to address ecological conditions at regional scales. We identified five assessments that addressed the distribution and current condition of ecological and biological diversity within Region 3. We summarized each of these assessments to highlight important ecological resources that exist on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico: • Extent and distribution of potential natural vegetation types in Arizona and New Mexico • Distribution and condition of low-elevation grasslands in Arizona • Distribution of stream reaches with native fish occurrences in Arizona • Species richness and conservation status attributes for all species on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico • Identification of priority areas for biodiversity conservation from Ecoregional Assessments from Arizona and New Mexico Analyses of available assessments were completed across all management jurisdictions for Arizona and New Mexico, providing a regional context to illustrate the biological and ecological importance of National Forests in Region 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 4/Friday, January 6, 2017/Proposed
    Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 1665 Required Determinations PART 17—ENDANGERED AND March 7, 2017. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Clarity of the Rule THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for We are required by Executive Orders ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 submitting an electronic comment is 12866 and 12988 and by the continues to read as follows: 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– We must receive requests for public 1998, to write all rules in plain 1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. hearings, in writing, at the address language. This means that each rule we ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION publish must: entry for ‘‘Eriogonum gypsophilum’’ CONTACT section below by February 21, (1) Be logically organized; 2017. (2) Use the active voice to address from the List of Endangered and readers directly; Threatened Plants. ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may ■ (3) Use clear language rather than 3. Amend § 17.96(a) by removing the submit comments by one of the jargon; critical habitat entry for ‘‘Family following methods: (4) Be divided into short sections and Polygonaceae: Eriogonum gypsophilum (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal sentences; and (Gypsum Wild Buckwheat).’’ eRulemaking Portal: http:// (5) Use lists and tables wherever Dated: December 22, 2016. www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, possible. Daniel M. Ashe, enter FWS–R2–ES–2016–0138, which is If you feel that we have not met these Director, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri's Toads and Frogs Booklet
    TOADSMissouri’s andFROGS by Jeffrey T. Briggler and Tom R. Johnson, Herpetologists www.MissouriConservation.org © 1982, 2008 Missouri Conservation Commission Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Missouri Department of Conservation is available to all individuals without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. Questions should be directed to the Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102, (573) 751-4115 (voice) or 800-735-2966 (TTY), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Federal Assistance, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop: MBSP-4020, Arlington, VA 22203. Cover photo: Eastern gray treefrog by Tom R. Johnson issouri toads and frogs are colorful, harmless, vocal and valuable. Our forests, prairies, rivers, swamps and marshes are Mhome to a multitude of toads and frogs, but few people know how many varieties we have, how to tell them apart, or much about their natural history. Studying these animals and sharing their stories with fellow Missourians is one of the most pleasurable and rewarding aspects of our work. Toads and frogs are amphibians—a class Like most of vertebrate animals that also includes amphibians, salamanders and the tropical caecilians, which are long, slender, wormlike and legless. frogs and Missouri has 26 species and subspecies (or toads have geographic races) of toads and frogs. Toads and frogs differ from salamanders by having an aquatic relatively short bodies and lacking tails at adulthood. Being an amphibian means that tadpole stage they live two lives: an aquatic larval or tadpole and a semi- stage and a semi-aquatic or terrestrial adult stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Eriogonum Visheri A
    Eriogonum visheri A. Nelson (Visher’s buckwheat): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project December 18, 2006 Juanita A. R. Ladyman, Ph.D. JnJ Associates LLC 6760 S. Kit Carson Cir E. Centennial, CO 80122 Peer Review Administered by Center for Plant Conservation Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006, December 18). Eriogonum visheri A. Nelson (Visher’s buckwheat): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumvisheri.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The time spent and help given by all the people and institutions listed in the reference section are gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, in particular Christine Dirk, and the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, in particular David Ode, for their generosity in making their records, reports, and photographs available. I thank the Montana Natural Heritage Program, particularly Martin Miller, Mark Gabel of the Black Hills University Herbarium, Robert Tatina of the Dakota Wesleyan University, Christine Niezgoda of the Field Museum of Natural History, Carrie Kiel Academy of Natural Sciences, Dave Dyer of the University of Montana Herbarium, Caleb Morse of the R.L. McGregor Herbarium, Robert Kaul of the C. E. Bessey Herbarium, John La Duke of the University of North Dakota Herbarium, Joe Washington of the Dakota National Grasslands, and Doug Sargent of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands - Region 2, for the information they provided. I also appreciate the access to files and assistance given to me by Andrew Kratz, Region 2 USDA Forest Service, and Chuck Davis, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA-Pesticides; Dodine
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDESDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 044301 DP Barcode: D338148 Date: January 22, 2008 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ecological Risk Assessment for the Dodine Section 3 New Use on Peanuts and Bananas TO: Robert Westin, Product Manager Mary Waller, Team Leader Registration Division (7505P) FROM: Christopher J. Salice, P.h.D, Biologist Marietta Echeverria, Envronmental Scientist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) REVIEWED BY: Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Biologist R. David Jones, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) APPROVED BY: Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has reviewed the proposed label for the use of dodine (n-dodecylguanidine monoacetate; CAS 2439-10-3) and its end-use product SYLLIT® FL (39.6% dodine) fungicide on peanuts and bananas. The results of this screening-level risk assessment indicate that the proposed new uses of dodine on peanuts and bananas have the potential for direct adverse effects on listed and non-listed freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates, listed and non-listed vascular and non-vascular plants, and listed and non-listed birds and mammals. Major data gaps are listed below. Without these data potential risk to the associated taxa can not be precluded: • Aquatic vascular plant toxicity data (850.4400) There is uncertainty regarding the potential chronic effects of dodine to saltwater invertebrates and fish since there are no toxicity data. Using acute-to-chronic ratios (ACR) from freshwater species to calculate chronic endpoints for the saltwater species, however, suggests that risks may be low.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of Four Rare Snakes in South-Central Kansas
    • AN INVESTIGATION OF FOUR RARE SNAKES IN SOUTH-CENTRAL KANSAS •• ·: ' ·- .. ··... LARRY MILLER 15 July 1987 • . -· • AN INVESTIGATION --OF ----FOUR ----RARE SNAKES IN SOUTH-CENTRAL KANSAS BY LARRY MILLER INTRODUCTION The New Mexico blind snake (Leptotyphlops dulcis dissectus), Texas night snake (Hypsiglena torqua jani), Texas longnose snake (Rhinocheilus lecontei tessellatus), and checkered garter snake (Thamnophis marcianus marcianus) are four Kansas snakes with a rather limited range in the state. Three of the four have only been found along the southern counties. Only the Texas longnose snake has been found north of the southern most Kansas counties. This project was designed to find out more about the range, habits, and population of these four species of snakes in Kansas. It called for a search of background information on each snake, the collection of new specimens, photographs of habitat, and the taking of notes in regard to the animals. The 24 Kansas counties covered in the investigation ranged from Cowley at the southeastern most • location to Morton at the southwestern most location to Hamilton, Kearny, Finney, and Hodgeman to the north. Most of the work centered around the Red Hills area and to the east of that area. See (Fig. 1) for counties covered. Most of the work on this project was done by me (Larry Miller). However, I was often assisted in the field by a number of other persons. They will be credited at the end of this report. METHODS A total of 19 trips were made by me between the dates of 28 March 1986 and 1 July 1987 in regard to this project.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2009 an Analysis of Possible Risk To
    Project Title An Analysis of Possible Risk to Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Associated with Glyphosate Use in Alfalfa: A County-Level Analysis Authors Thomas Priester, Ph.D. Rick Kemman, M.S. Ashlea Rives Frank, M.Ent. Larry Turner, Ph.D. Bernalyn McGaughey David Howes, Ph.D. Jeffrey Giddings, Ph.D. Stephanie Dressel Data Requirements Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision E—Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms Guideline Number 70-1-SS: Special Studies—Effects on Endangered Species Date Completed August 22, 2007 Prepared by Compliance Services International 7501 Bridgeport Way West Lakewood, WA 98499-2423 (253) 473-9007 Sponsor Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63167 Project Identification Compliance Services International Study 06711 Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 RD 1695 Volume 3 of 18 Page 1 of 258 Threatened & Endangered Plant Species Analysis CSI 06711 Glyphosate/Alfalfa Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 Page 2 of 258 STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIMS The text below applies only to use of the data by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in connection with the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) No claim of confidentiality is made for any information contained in this study on the basis of its falling within the scope of FIFRA §10(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C). We submit this material to the United States Environmental Protection Agency specifically under the requirements set forth in FIFRA as amended, and consent to the use and disclosure of this material by EPA strictly in accordance with FIFRA. By submitting this material to EPA in accordance with the method and format requirements contained in PR Notice 86-5, we reserve and do not waive any rights involving this material that are or can be claimed by the company notwithstanding this submission to EPA.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List 17 (1): 27–38
    17 1 ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES Check List 17 (1): 27–38 https://doi.org/10.15560/17.1.27 A herpetological survey of Edith L. Moore Nature Sanctuary Dillon Jones1, Bethany Foshee2, Lee Fitzgerald1 1 Biodiversity Research and Teaching Collections, Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 2 Houston Audubon, 440 Wilchester Blvd. Houston, TX 77079 USA. Corresponding author: Dillon Jones, [email protected] Abstract Urban herpetology deals with the interaction of amphibians and reptiles with each other and their environment in an ur- ban setting. As such, well-preserved natural areas within urban environments can be important tools for conservation. Edith L. Moore Nature Sanctuary is an 18-acre wooded sanctuary located west of downtown Houston, Texas and is the headquarters to Houston Audubon Society. This study compared iNaturalist data with results from visual encounter surveys and aquatic funnel traps. Results from these two sources showed 24 species belonging to 12 families and 17 genera of herpetofauna inhabit the property. However, several species common in surrounding areas were absent. Combination of data from community science and traditional survey methods allowed us to better highlight herpe- tofauna present in the park besides also identifying species that may be of management concern for Edith L. Moore. Keywords Community science, iNaturalist, urban herpetology Academic editor: Luisa Diele-Viegas | Received 27 August 2020 | Accepted 16 November 2020 | Published 6 January 2021 Citation: Jones D, Foshee B, Fitzgerald L (2021) A herpetology survey of Edith L. Moore Nature Sanctuary. Check List 17 (1): 27–28. https://doi.
    [Show full text]