DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Report Coversheet Management 06/17

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technical Report Coversheet Management 06/17 650-050-38 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL REPORT COVERSHEET MANAGEMENT 06/17 Natural Resource Evaluation Report Immokalee Road (CR 846) at Randall Boulevard Intersection Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Florida Department of Transportation District One Financial Project Identification No.: 435368-1-22-01 Financial Aid Project No.: 1545-003-S Collier County, Florida ETDM Number: 14125 March 20, 2019 The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by FDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 14, 2016 and executed by FHWA and FDOT. Executive Summary The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), District One, in conjunction with the FDOT Office of Environmental Management, has initiated a PD&E study to evaluate potential improvements for the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) at Randall Boulevard in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The study extends along Immokalee Road (CR 846) from just west of Wilson Boulevard to south of Oil Well Road and along Randall Boulevard to east of 8th Street NE. The results of the effect determinations from the PD&E evaluation are documented below: Protected Species and Habitats The project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect federally and state-protected wildlife species. Federally listed species which may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected by the project include: Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi); Wood stork (Mycteria americana); Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus); and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). The project is anticipated to have no effect on the following federally listed species: Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens); Shorebirds including the red knot (Calidris canutus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), roseate tern (Sterna dougallii); Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis); Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus); and West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). There is no adverse effect anticipated on the following state-protected species: Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus); Florida sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis pratensis); Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana); Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus); Wading birds including the little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), and roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja). There is no effect anticipated on the following state-protected species: Shorebirds including the black skimmer (Rynchops niger), snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus), and least tern (Sternula antillarum). I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Two species which may occur in the project vicinity are not listed as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern (SSC), but receive other legal protection. The Florida black bear may be affected, but is not likely to be adversely affected. The project has no effect on the bald eagle. Wetlands and Surface Waters For the build alternative, approximately 0.30 acres of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional surface waters will be temporarily or permanently impacted. These impacts occur in manmade, excavated canals/ditches, which were created in hydric soils. The FDOT will address impacts to wetland and/or surface water impacts and provide appropriate wetland mitigation in future phases of this project. Essential Fish Habitat In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (50 CFR Section 600.920), as amended through January 12, 2007 and as administered by the National Oceani c and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), federal agencies must consult with NMFS regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). As stated in the PD&E Manual Pt. 2, Ch. 17, NMFS has designated FDOT to conduct EFH consultations in Florida pursuant to 50 CFR § 600.920(c) in a July 19, 2000 letter to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FDOT. No essential fish habitat is documented within or adjacent to the project limits; therefore, no essential fish habitat will be impacted. Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................i Contents ...........................................................................................................................................iii Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................. v Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................... 1-2 Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Build Alternative...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................ 2-1 Existing Environmental Conditions.................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Significant Waters and Protection Areas ................................................................... 3-1 Protected Species and Habitat ........................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Agency Coordination ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Methodology........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Results .................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.3.1 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.2 Protected Plant Species.............................................................................. 4-12 4.4 Evaluation of Alternatives ...................................................................................... 4-15 4.4.1 Direct Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-15 4.4.2 Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts .............................................. 4-16 Wetland Evaluation........................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Agency Coordination ............................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Methodology........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Results .................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.4 Evaluation of Alternatives ........................................................................................ 5-4 5.4.1 Direct Impacts ............................................................................................. 5-4 5.4.2 Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts ................................................ 5-4 5.5 Wetland Impact Mitigation ...................................................................................... 5-4 Conclusions and Commitments....................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Protected Species and Habitats ................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 6-2 6.3 Implementation Measures ....................................................................................... 6-2 References ..................................................................................................................................... 7-1 III CONTENTS Appendices A. Project Area Land Use Descriptions B. Representative Photographs C. Project Area NRCS Soil Type Descriptions D. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake E. Technical Memorandum of Florida Bonneted Bat Survey Findings F. Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) Calculations G. UMAM Datasheet Tables 3-1 Existing Land Use/Land Cover (FLUCCS) within the Study Area 3-2 Existing NRCS Soil Types within the Study Area 4-1 Potentially Occurring and Observed Listed Wildlife Species 4-2 Potentially Occurring and Observed Listed Plant Species 4-3 Proposed Land Use/Land
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report SFRC-83/01 Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity
    Report SFRC-83/01 Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity NATIONAL b lb -a'*? m ..-.. # .* , *- ,... - . ,--.-,, , . LG LG - m,*.,*,*, Or 7°C ,"7cn,a. Q*Everglades National Park, South Florida Research Center, P.O.Box 279, Homestead, Florida 33030 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................... 1 STUDYAREA ............................ 1 METHODS .............................. 3 RESULTS .............................. 4 Figure 1. Distribution of the indigo snake in southern Florida ..... 5 Figure 2 . Distribution of the indigo snake in the Florida Keys including Biscayne National Park ............. 6 DISCUSSION ............................. 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................ 13 LITERATURE CITED ......................... 14 APPENDIX 1. Observations of indigo snakes in southern Florida ....... 17 APPENDIX 2 . Data on indigo snakes examined in and adjacent to Everglades National Park ................. 24 APPENDIX 3. Museum specimens of indigo snakes from southern Florida ... 25 4' . Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity Report ~F~~-83/01 Todd M. Steiner, Oron L. Bass, Jr., and James A. Kushlan National Park Service South Florida Research Center Everglades National Park Homestead, Florida 33030 January 1983 Steiner, Todd M., Oron L. Bass, Jr., and James A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake in Southern Florida National Parks and Vicinity. South Florida Research Center Report SFRC- 83/01. 25 pp. INTRODUCTION The status and biology of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi, the largest North American snake (~awler,1977), is poorly understood. Destruction of habitat and exploitation by the pet trade have reduced its population levels in various localities to the point that it is listed by the Federal government as a threatened species.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Notice with Attachments
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT P. O. BOX 4970 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32232-0019 FEBRUARY 27, 2019 PUBLIC NOTICE Permit Application Number SAJ-2018-03124(SP-MRE) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) as described below: APPLICANT: Grand Creek Partners LLC 161 Hampton Point Drive, Suite 1 St. Augustine, Florida 32092 WATERWAY AND LOCATION: The project would affect waters of the United States (wetlands) associated with Petty Branch, a tributary to the St. Johns River. The project site is contiguous to, and west of, the intersection of Old Palm Valley Road (County Road 210) and Longleaf Pine Parkway; and, is formed by several properties (St. Johns County Property Appraiser Parcel Identification Numbers 010080-0000, 010080-0020, 010090-0000, 010090-0032, and 010510- 0010), in Sections 32 and 40, Township 5 South, Range 27 East, and Section 43, Township 6 South, Range 27 East, St. Johns County, Florida. APPROXIMATE CENTRAL COORDINATES: Latitude 30.016600° Longitude -81.613946° PROJECT PURPOSE: Basic: The basic project purpose is residential development. Overall: The overall project purpose is the establishment of a residential subdivision serving the housing market in northwest St. Johns County. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Soils: The Soil Survey of the St. Johns County, Florida identifies eleven soil types at the project site. These soil types are Adamsville fine sand (map unit 01), Astatula fine sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes (map unit 02), Holopaw fine sand, frequently flooded (map unit 47), Myakka fine sand (map unit 03), Pomona fine sand (map unit 09), Pottsburg fine sand (map unit 40), Riviera fine sand, frequently flooded (map unit 36), Samsula muck (map unit 26), Sparr fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (map unit 44), Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (map unit 06), and Winder fine sand, frequently flooded (map unit 48).
    [Show full text]
  • Species Comparison of the Physical Properties of Loblolly and Slash Pine Wood and Bark Thomas L
    1495 ARTICLE Species comparison of the physical properties of loblolly and slash pine wood and bark Thomas L. Eberhardt, Joseph Dahlen, and Laurence Schimleck Abstract: Composition of the southern pine forest is now predominated by two species, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm.), owing to fire suppression activities, natural regeneration on abandoned agricultural lands, and extensive planting. Comparison of the wood and bark physical properties of these pines is of interest in terms of the yields of usable biomass and, for the bark, its ecological functionality on a living tree. Trees from a species comparison study were used to generate wood and bark property data, on a whole-tree basis, and for stem disks collected at breast height. Models were constructed to explain the effect of relative height on wood and bark properties. When comparing the whole-tree data, slash pine wood (0.523 versus 0.498) and bark (0.368 versus 0.311) specific gravity values were higher, both offset by lower moisture contents; slash pine also produced a higher percentage of bark on a dry-mass basis (17% versus 12.5%). Unlike wood properties, bark properties showed significant between-species differences when determined at breast height alone, the exception being moisture content. In terms of yield, harvests of a green tonne of loblolly pine and slash pine would give approximately the same dry mass of wood, but slash pine provides more bark. Key words: bark thickness, moisture content, specific gravity, wood quality, yield. Résumé : La composition de la forêt de pins du sud est maintenant dominée par deux espèces, le pin a` encens (Pinus taeda L.) et le pin d’Elliott (Pinus elliottii Engelm.) a` cause des activités de suppression des feux, de la régénération naturelle sur les terres agricoles abandonnées et de la plantation intensive.
    [Show full text]
  • Longleaf Pine: an Annotated Bibliography, 1946 Through 1967
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper SO-35 longleaf pine: an annotated bibliography, 1946 through 1967 Thomas C. Croker, Jr. SOUTHERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION T.C. Nelson, Director FOREST SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1968 Croker, Thomas C., Jr. 1968. Longleaf pine: an annotated bibliography, 1946 through 1967. Southern Forest Exp. Sta., New Orleans, Louisiana. 52 pp. (U. S. Dep. Agr. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. SO-35) Lists 665 publications appearing since W. G. Wahlenberg compiled the bibliography for his book, Longleaf Pine. Contents Page Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Factors of the environment. Biology........................................................................................ 2 11 Site factors, climate, situation, soil ............................................................................. 2 15 Animal ecology. Game management .......................................................................... 2 16 General botany ............................................................................................................. 2 17 Systematic botany ....................................................................................................... 6 18 Plant ecology................................................................................................................. 7 2. Silviculture...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pinus Elliottii
    This article was downloaded by: [National Forest Service Library] On: 09 August 2013, At: 12:03 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Southern African Forestry Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsfs18 Evolutionary relationships of Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii) with its temperate and tropical relatives R C Schmidtling a & V Hipkins b a USDA Forest Service, SRS, Southern Institute of Forest Genetics, 23332 Hwy 67, Saucier, MS, 39574, USA E-mail: b USDA Forest Service, NFGEL Lab., Placerville, CA, USA Published online: 09 May 2012. To cite this article: R C Schmidtling & V Hipkins (2001) Evolutionary relationships of Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii) with its temperate and tropical relatives, The Southern African Forestry Journal, 190:1, 73-78, DOI: 10.1080/20702620.2001.10434118 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20702620.2001.10434118 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinus Elliottii Englem. Family: Pinaceae Slash Pine
    Pinus elliottii Englem. Family: Pinaceae Slash Pine The genus Pinus is composed of about 95 species native to temperate and tropical regions of the world. There are 60 species in the New World (North America and South America) and 35 in the Old World (Eurasia and northern Africa). In the New World, there are 4 native to the West Indies, 5 in Central America, 38 in Mexico and 37 in the United States and Canada. The wood of pine can be separated microscopically into the white, red, yellow and the foxtail/pinyon pine groups. Slash pine is in the yellow pine group. The word pinus is the classical Latin name and elliottii is used in honor of Stephen Elliott (1771-1830), botanist and banker of South Carolina and author of “Sketch of the Botany of South-Carolina and Georgia”. Slash pine has two recognized varieties, the typical slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm. var. elliotti) and South Florida slash pine (Pinus elliottii var densa Little & Dorman). Other Common Names: American pitch pine, bastard pine, British Honduras pitch pine, Cuba pine, Dade County pine, Dade County slash pine, Ellotti-tall, Florida pine, Florida southern pine, Florida-tall, Gulf Coast pitch pine, longleaf, longleaf pine, longleaf pitch pine, longleaf yellow pine, meadow pine, Nicaraguan pine, pin de la Floride du sud, pinavete, pino de Florida del sur, pino di Florida del sud, pino grasso, pino pece, pino tea, pitch pine, pitchpin Americain, saltwater pine, she pine, South Florida slash pine, Southern Florida pine, southern Florida slash pine, southern pine, southern yellow pine, spruce pine, swamp pine, thong, yellow pine, yellow slash pine, Zuid-Florida pijn.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Oleoresin Tapping on Physical and Chemical Properties of Pinus Elliottii Wood
    Scientia Forestalis The effect of oleoresin tapping on physical and chemical properties of Pinus elliottii wood Efeito da extração de resina nas propriedades físicas e químicas da madeira de Pinus elliottii André Luiz Missio¹, Bruno Dufau Mattos², Pedro Henrique G. Cademartori³, Tainise Vergara Lourençon³, Jalel Labidi4 e Darci Alberto Gatto5 Resumo O objetivo desse estudo foi avaliar os efeitos da extração, pelo método de estrias na casca, nas proprie- dades físicas e químicas da madeira de Pinus elliottii. Amostras foram confeccionadas a partir de tábuas com e sem a presença de bolsas de resina. Todas as tábuas foram selecionadas de árvores que sofreram o processo de resinagem de 10-12 vezes. A resina foi caracterizada por GC/MS e a caracterização física e química da madeira foi realizada por testes de absorção de água, molhabilidade dinâmica, análises termogravimétricas, composição química e espectros ATR-IR. Entre os principais compostos encontrados na resina de pinus, α e β-pineno apresentaram o maior valor percentual e são considerados produtos de elevado valor comercial. Em relação a qualidade da madeira, propriedades relacionadas a absorção de água e molhabilidade apresentaram decréscimos devido a presença da resina na madeira. Por outro lado, a estabilidade térmica das amostras diminuiu com a presença da resina na madeira. Palavras-chave: óleo essencial, GC/MS, avaliação térmica, molhabilidade, práticas silviculturais. Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of tapping by bark streak method on the physical and chemical properties of wood. Pine wood samples were made from boards with and without the presence of oleoresin pockets.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Native Plants for the South Carolina Coastal Plain
    Appendix A Native Plants for the South Carolina Coastal Plain Large Maturing Trees – Common Name Evergreen/ Comments Bloom Scientific Name Deciduous Time Acer barbatum Southern Sugar Maple D Bottomland forests, mesic slopes Apr. - July Acer negundo Boxelder D Lowland or seasonally flooded sites Mar. - Apr. Acer rubrum Red Maple D Red fall color; varied sites, best on moist; great shade Feb. - Mar. Betula nigra River Birch D Lowland or moist sites Mar. - Apr. Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood, Musclewood D Moist, rich areas; tolerates shading; smooth bark Mar. - Apr. Carya aquatica Water Hickory D Wet, poorly drained sites, fastest growth on well-drained Apr. - May Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory D Wet to drier sites, best on rich, well-drained soils Apr. Carya glabra Pignut Hickory D Dry or moist sites; very common Apr. - May Carya myristicaeformis Nutmeg Hickory D Rich bottomlands; very rare, locally in Chas/Berk Cos Apr. Carya ovalis Sweet pignut Hickory D Dry, fertile forests Apr. - May Carya pallida Pale or Sand Hickory D Dry or sandy sites; resembles Carya glabra Apr. - May Carya tomentosa Mockernut Hickory D Very common; prefers dry, rich sites Apr. - May Celtis Laevigata Hackberry, Sugarberry D Low, wet areas; bark has corky projections Apr. - May Fraxinus americana White Ash D Deep, rich well-drained sites Apr. - May Fraxinus caroliniana Carolina or Water Ash D Low sites; small tree, rarely exceeds 40 feet May Fraxinus pensylvanica Green Ash D Widely distributed; moist sites; relatively fast growing Apr. Fraxinus tomentosa Pumpkin Ash D Low, moist sites, in association with cypress and tupelo Apr. - May Ilex opaca American Holly E Varied soil types; deep, rich best; attractive foliage/berries Juglans nigra Black Walnut D Rich, well-drained sites; struggles in pure coastal setting Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinus Elliottii Engelm
    Common Forest Trees of Hawaii (Native and Introduced) Slash pine almost certainly be adequate for construction lumber. Slash pine grows well in plantations in the Hawai- Pinus elliottii Engelm. ian Islands. It has been planted on eroded lands on Kauai and Molokai in mixture with other pines to control ero- Pine family (Pinaceae) sion. There are 1100 acres (446 ha) of pine, mostly slash, in the Puu Ka Pele Forest Reserve on Kauai and 700 Post-Cook introduction acres (283 ha) on the south-facing ridges of Molokai. In addition, this species has been planted at the Waiahou Large introduced narrow-leaf or needle-leaf evergreen Spring Forest Reserve and Kula Forest Reserve on Maui tree of forest plantations. Trunk long and straight, to 90 and at several locations on the Island of Hawaii. It at- ft (27 m) in height and 2 ft (0.6 m) in diameter, with tains its best growth at 3000-4000 ft (914–1,219 m) el- branches in horizontal tiers or rings, more than 1 annu- evation where the rainfall is about 60 inches (1,524 mm), ally. Bark gray, very thick, cracking into long narrow but ft is also growing very well in two locations on stony plates and peeling off, exposing dark brown layer, be- organic muck soil in 200 inches (5080 mm) rainfall. On coming purplish brown with large flat scaly plates. In- Molokai, it has been damaged by the fungus Diplodia ner bark whitish beneath dead orange brown outer layer, pinea. resinous. Twigs stout, brown, rough, and scaly. Winter buds cylindrical, pointed, reddish brown, with fringed Range spreading scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Upland Pine Forest
    Page 1 of 5 Natural Plant Community Criteria Publication Version 1-October 31, 2007 This publication is referenced in the Native and High Quality Successional Forest definitions in the Leon County Code of Laws. These criteria must be used to identify and delineate Native and High Quality Successional Forests. The following are general guidelines for evaluating and delineating the natural plant community: • Reasonable scientific judgment shall be used in determining the delineated area. • Forests will be evaluated as a whole; gaps within the forest will not be excluded from the delineated area. • Percent plant cover will be determined using visual means. • Minimum area required shall include adjacent wetlands, floodplains, canopy road protection zones, and slopes. • Recent logging of forest canopy may not preclude sites from meeting the criteria. The following are specific criteria for identifying and delineating the forest types: Native Forest Upland Pine Forest –Required 5 acre minimum area (Includes Sandhill, Clayhill, & Flatwood Forests) - This community type is generally characterized by widely-spaced pines, few understory trees and shrubs, and a diverse groundcover layer. Delineation of the community is primarily based on characteristics of the groundcover layer of the community, given that this layer contains the greatest species richness, is most characteristic of the native community, and is most vulnerable to permanent degradation. The area to be delineated must have a 50 percent plant cover of any of the following indicator
    [Show full text]
  • SLASH PINE Nomenclature and Descr
    STATION PAPER SLASH PIN1 INCLUDING SOUTH FLORIDA SLASH PINE Nomenclature and Descr hY Elbert L. Littk, Jr., and Keith W. Dormnn United States Forest Service SOUTHEP&TERN EXPERIMENT STATION Asheville, North Carolina &. 4. .Jiemmon, a*irector U. S. Department of Agricu!ture - Forest Service AcKNowIlixDGMENTs Grateful acknowledgment is made to many foresters and botanists who have assisted this study in furnishing information and specimens and in other ways. Among those in the U. S. Forest Service who have sent material are Robert M. Allen, J. W. Duffield, David F. Olson, Jr., Ken- neth B. Pomeroy, Clifford S. Schopmeyer, and Philip C. Wakeley. Paul V. slggers, of the Division of Forest Pathology, Bureau of Plant Industry; Soils, and Agricultural Engineering, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, showed us his experimental plantings of pines from different seed sources at Harrison Experimental Forest in southern Mississippi, and supplied specimens of them. J. R.. Spratt and Robert E. Byrd, foresters, Forest and Land Development, Atlantic Land and Improvement Co., La Belle, Fla., helped in 0u.r field studies of South Florida slash pine in their area. Wilbur B. De Vail, of Alabama Polytechnic Institute, generously has placed at our disposal his unpublished thesis and correspondence on these pines. John H. Davis, Jr., of the University of Florida, has given us helpful information based on his extensive field work in Florida. Reynolds B. Smith, also of the University of Florida, sent specimens. A. C. Shaw, forester with the Champion Paper and Fibre Co., has obtained for us pine specimens and information from the northwestern Bahama Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Planting and Nurturing January, 2020 Volume: IV Number: 9 Landscape Design: Suzanne Finger, Editor
    MISSION: BEAUTIFICATION … CONSERVATION … EDUCATION Planting and Nurturing January, 2020 Volume: IV Number: 9 Landscape Design: Suzanne Finger, Editor Environmental Edition: May, August, November, February – Mary Lovings, Editor Gardening: June, September, December, March - Linda Doiron, Editor Landscape Design: July, October, January, April – Suzanne Finger, Editor Pine Whisperings We sing songs about them, our homes are built of them and we live and work beneath their long shadows. Pine trees are a part of any life lived in our great state of Georgia. Most of us could walk out of our home or business and point out a pine tree. They are all around us. I thought it would be nice if we were to get to know them a little better. Did you know that there are eleven different types of pines that are native to Georgia? Out of that eleven, I would like to focus on the iconic and storied Longleaf Pine. Also, I will touch on its differences with the Loblolly Pine and Slash Pine as well as a few other facts that are universal to all of our pines. Long Live the Longleaf! Pinus palustris is the botanical name for the Longleaf Pine. Experts estimate that the longleaf forest was once one of the most extensive ecosystems in North America, covering over 90 million acres! Sadly, less than three percent of that acreage still exists and only a tiny fraction of that, is old-growth. William Bartram wrote the following after his travels through Georgia and other parts of the southeast in 1791: “We find ourselves on the entrance of a vast plain which extends west sixty or seventy miles… This plain is mostly a forest of the great long-leaved pine, the earth covered with grass, interspersed with an infinite variety of herbaceous plants, and embellished with extensive savannas, always green, sparkling with ponds of water…” The Longleaf Pine proved to be a bountiful resource for the early settlers of the Southeast, and was once called the tree that built America.
    [Show full text]