DOCSLIB.ORG

New NRO Eastern Processing Facility at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station- Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New NRO Eastern Processing Facility at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station- Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida Final Environmental Assessment New NRO Eastern Processing Facility Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Florida 31 August 2005 Form Approved Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2. REPORT TYPE 31 AUG 2005 00-00-2005 to 00-00-2005 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Final Environmental Assessment New NRO Eastern Processing Facility 5b. GRANT NUMBER at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Florida 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION SRS Technologies,Mission Services Division,105 North H REPORT NUMBER Street,Lompoc,CA,93436 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 218 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT NRO Eastern Processing Facility Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida Pursuant to provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S. Code 4321 et seq., implementing Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, and 32 CFR Part 989, Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP), the U.S. Air Force (Air Force) conducted an assessment of the potential environmental consequences associated with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) proposal to construct a new Eastern Processing Facility (EPF) on Cape Canaveral Air force Station (AFS) in Brevard County, Florida. The primary missions of the U.S. Air Force at Cape Canaveral AFS are to launch and track satellites in space, test and evaluate America's intercontinental ballistic missile systems, and support aircraft operations in the Eastern Range. As a non­ military facet of operations, Cape Canaveral AFS is also committed to promoting commercial space launch ventures. Cape Canaveral AFS occupies 15,804 acres of the barrier island located along the east-central coast of Florida. The installation is bounded on the north by the John F. Kennedy Space Center, a national Aeronautics and Space Administration installation, on the west by the Banana River, on the south by Port Canaveral, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The Environmental Assessment (EA) (incorporated as an attachment to this finding) considered all potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, both as a solitary action and potentially in conjunction with other similar projects. The EA summarizes the results of the evaluations of the proposed action and alternatives. It analyzes activities that have the potential to affect both the natural and human environment. This analysis summarizes the options evaluated and provides information explaining the need for the Proposed Action and its effect on human and natural resources. PROPOSED ACTION The NRO is proposing to construct and operate a new EPF that can support processing of satellites that use multiple launch vehicles, and that provides operational flexibility by allowing the various programs to support their launch complex activities simultaneously. The proposed EPF is needed to meet all criteria for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) processing and is required to protect the future ability of the NRO to respond to all launch processing requirements of their customers. The site selected under the Proposed Action for construction of the EPF is a 45- acre area located on the northeast corner of Saw.uel C. Phillips Parkway and Lighthouse Road . The proposed facility would be constructed over a two-year period between 2006 and 2007, and operation of the new facility would commence in 2008. Construction and operation of the facility would entail the development of approximately 810,000 square feet that would include a payload processing building, propellant spill containment tanks, back-up generators and fuel tanks, storm water retention area, parking area, access roads to the facility and associated infrastructure installation and modifications. Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would require extensive modifications to existing payload processing facilities, resulting in a severe impact for NRO and Department of Defense programs, as they would be impeded from processing satellite vehicles during this facility modification period. A decision to not construct the proposed new EPF would cause the NRO program to miss critical milestones and program objectives and may impact national security. All other sites considered for location of the proposed NRO PPF were eliminated from further analysis due to conflicts with launch hazard zones, and airfield clearance requirements. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The analyses of the affected environment and environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative presented in the EA concluded that no significant adverse impacts should result on Cultural Resources (Section 4.3), Earth Resources (Section 4.4), Environmental Justice (Section 4.5) , Hazardous Materials and Waste Management (Section 4.6), Land Use (Section 4.7), Noise (Section 4.8), Socioeconomics (Section 4.9), Traffic and Transportation (Section 4 .1 0), Utilities (Section 4.11 ), and Water Resources (Section 4.12). All measures described in the EA will be implemented to ensure adverse impacts are precluded. Because the project would disturb an area greater than one acre, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be required to protect water resources. The NPDES Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that includes preventative maintenance measures for constructicn equipment, spill prevention and response measures, sediment and soil erosion control measures, and identifies measures for management of runoff. Minor environmental effects on Air Quality have the potential to occur during construction activities (Section 4.1 ). Mobile source emissions would temporarily increase during construction, but would not exceed regulatory standards. No significant impacts are anticipated (see EA Sections 3.1 and 4.1 ). All measures described in the EA will be implemented to further decrease emissions during construction . Because Cape Canaveral AFS is located in an area that is in attainment for all criteria air pollutants, an Air Conformity Determination is not required. The Proposed Action would result in adverse effects on Biological Resources (Section 4.2) as described below. a) Construction of the proposed EPF would necessitate the permanent removal of approximately 45 acres of oak scrub vegetation , with no opportunity for restoration . Thirty-eight (38) acres of this vegetation were cut and subsequently mulched in March 2005. However, seven acres of oak scrub remain undisturbed . Although this plant community is not considered sensitive and no special status plant species occur in this area, the federally and Florida threatened Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma caerulescens) inhabits this site, which is considered prime habitat for the species. The 45-acre site, and remaining eight acres of undisturbed scrub, is within an area previously restored for the scrub-jay. Formal Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was completed on August 1, 2005, to address the adverse effects of the Proposed Action on the Florida scrub-jay and two other federally threatened species (eastern indigo snake [Drymarchon corais couperi] and southeastern beach mouse [Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris]) that have potential to occur. All terms and conditions contained in the result:ng Biological Opinion will be implemented to minimize adverse effects on these species: • If clearing of habitat occupied by Florida scrub-jays is to occur within scrub­ jay nesting season (March 1 through June 30), the area would be surveyed prior to clearing to determine if there are any active scrub-jay nests located within the vegetation . If an active scrub-jay nest is located, to the maximum extent practicable, clearing activities cannot take place within 150 feet of the nest site until nestlings have fledged or until it has been determined that the nest has failed. • The 45 SW will develop an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan to be followed by all construction personnel.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 SPBO (Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion)
    nited States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office 133920” Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Service Log Number: 41910-201 1-F-0170 March 13, 2015 Alan M. Dodd, Colonel District Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard, Room 372 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8175 Dear Colonel Dodd: This letter transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s revised Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works and Regulatory sand placement activities in Florida and their effects on the following sea turtles: Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment (NWAO DPS) of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and its designated terrestrial critical habitat; green (Chelonia mydas); leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea); hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata); and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) ; and the following beach mice: southeastern (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris); Anastasia Island (Peromyscus polionotus phasma); Choctawhatchee (Peromyscus polionotus allophrys); St. Andrews (Peromyscus polionotus peninsutaris); and Perdido Key (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) and their designated critical habitat. It does not address effects of these activities on the non-breeding piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its designated critical habitat or for the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Effects of Corps planning and regulatory shore protection activities on the non-breeding piping plover and its designated critical habitat within the North Florida Ecological Services office area of responsibility and the South Florida Ecological Services office area of responsibility are addressed in the Service’s May 22, 2013, Programmatic Piping Plover Biological Opinion. Effects of shore protection activities for the piping plover in the Panama City Ecological Services office area of responsibility will be addressed on a project by project basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Usfws Spbo 2015
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SE RVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office ~4Jlc~~ ~~i.<b 1339 20'11 Street Vero Beac h, Florida 32960 Service Log Number: 41910-2011-F-0170 March 13, 2015 Alan M. Dodd, Colonel District Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard, Room 372 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8175 Dear Colonel Dodd: This letter transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's revised Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works and Regulatory sand placement activities in Florida and their effects on the following sea turtles: Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment (NWAO DPS) of loggerhead (Carella caretta) and its designated terrestrial critical habitat; green (Chelonia mydas) ,· leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea); hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata); and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) ; and the fo llowing beach mice: southeastern (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris); Anastasia Island (Peromyscus polionotus phasma); Choctawhatchee (Peromyscus polionotus allophrys ); St. Andrews (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) ; and Perdido Key (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) and their designated critical habitat. It does not address effects of these activities on the non-breeding piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its designated critical habitat or for the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), a species currently proposed for listing. Effects of Corps planning and regulatory shore protection activities on the non-breeding piping plover and its designated critical habitat within the North Florida Ecological Services office area ofresponsibility and the South Florida Ecological Services office area ofresponsibility are addressed in the Service's May 22, 2013, Programmatic Piping Plover Biological Opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Type Localities of Mexican Land Mammals, with Comments on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
    Special Publications Museum of Texas Tech University Number xx73 9xx January XXXX 20202010 Type Localities of Mexican Land Mammals, with Comments on Taxonomy and Nomenclature Alfred L. Gardner and José Ramírez-Pulido Front cover: Edward W. Nelson (right) preparing specimens in camp on Mt. Tancítaro, Michoacán. Photograph by Edward A. Goldman, March 1903. Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution Archives, Nelson Goldman files RU7634. SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS Museum of Texas Tech University Number 73 Type Localities of Mexican Land Mammals, with Comments on Taxonomy and Nomenclature Alfred L. Gardner and José Ramírez-Pulido Layout and Design: Lisa Bradley Cover Design: Photo courtesy of Smithsonian Institution Archives, Nelson Goldman files, RU7634 Production Editor: Lisa Bradley Copyright 2020, Museum of Texas Tech University This publication is available free of charge in PDF format from the website of the Natural Sciences Research Laboratory, Museum of Texas Tech University (www.depts.ttu.edu/nsrl). The authors and the Museum of Texas Tech University hereby grant permission to interested parties to download or print this publication for personal or educational (not for profit) use. Re-publication of any part of this paper in other works is not permitted without prior written permission of the Museum of Texas Tech University. This book was set in Times New Roman and printed on acid-free paper that meets the guidelines for per- manence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. Printed: 9 January 2020 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Special Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 73 Series Editor: Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapters 7-11
    2ND SUBMITTAL TO USFWS HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AUGUST 18, 2003 ST. JOHNS COUNTY BEACHES Chapter 7. CONSERVATION STRATEGY: MEASURES TO MINIMIZE AND MITIGATE IMPACTS The primary goal of this HCP is to develop a comprehensive plan to protect federally listed sea turtles and AIBM and the habitat they utilize within the Plan Area over the next 20 years while preserving public access to the beach. To achieve this goal, the HCP has established the following objectives: • Embrace Federal, State, County, and municipal laws and regulations pertaining to the conservation of protected species on St. Johns County’s beaches; • Establish a plan that will effectively and efficiently manage vehicular access to the beach for the various County departments, contractors, private citizens, and State and Federal agencies that drive on the beach; and • Create a plan that will continue to allow the public to drive and park on authorized sections of the beach in a manner that will sustain the social, recreational, cultural, economic, and environmental values of the beach. This HCP is designed as a dynamic document. It is structured to permit adaptive changes in response to new information derived from monitoring programs. Mechanisms are established to facilitate dialogue between the USFWS and St. Johns County in response to changing conditions and to allow for the timely revision of procedures and policies to better achieve HCP objectives and/or respond to unforeseen circumstances. 7.1. BIOLOGICAL GOALS The ESA and its implementing regulations do not explicitly require that a HCP result in direct benefit to the affected species. However, a HCP needs to demonstrate that the issuance of an ITP will not jeopardize the continued existence or recovery of the species in the wild (ESA section 10).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion for Issuance
    Biological Opinion for Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit Under Section 10 (a)(1)(B) for the Perdido Key Programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan in Escambia County, Florida Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Panama City Field Office, Florida October 28, 2014 Table of Contents CONSULTATION HISTORY ........................................................................................................5 BIOLOGICAL OPINION ................................................................................................................7 DESRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................... 7 STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT .............................................................. 20 Species/critical habitat description ........................................................................................20 Life history ............................................................................................................................28 Population dynamics ............................................................................................................31 Status and distribution ........................................................................................................35 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ......................................................................................... 54 Status of the species within the Action Area .....................................................................54 Factors affecting species environment
    [Show full text]
  • IB 104 Lab Manual 2021
    VERTEBRATE NATURAL HISTORY LABORATORY AND FIELD SYLLABUS INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY 104LF Rauri C. K. Bowie, Jimmy A. McGuire, Andrew Rush, & Alan B. Shabel This manual for Integrative Biology 104L is based in part on material contained in earlier versions prepared by Seth B. Benson, Ned K. Johnson, William Z. Lidicker, Meredith J. Mahoney, Alden H. Miller, James L. Patton, Oliver P. Pearson, and Robert C. Stebbins. We are indebted also to numerous other staff colleagues, associates, and graduate student instructors for the improvements they have suggested over the many years this course has been offered. University of California, Berkeley (Revised January 2021) Table of Contents Introduction 3 Materials 5 Instructions of use of laboratory specimens 6 Maps 7 Laboratory exercises on birds 12 Total species list for bird labs 20 Birds of the San Francisco Bay Area: natural history notes 28 Vertebrate vocalizations 46 Laboratory exercises on amphibians 55 Laboratory I 56 Amphibians of California: natural history notes 57 Laboratory II 62 Key to amphibians 68 Laboratory exercises on mammals 75 Major features of the mammalian skull 77 List of local mammal species 82 Mammals: natural history notes 86 Laboratory exercises on reptiles 103 Laboratory I 103 Laboratory II 109 Laboratory III 113 Notes on field notes 118 Field project proposal guidelines 129 FIELD BIOLOGY OF THE VERTEBRATES Integrative Biology 104L Introduction The primary objective of the laboratory and field work in this course is to aid the student in making personal, first-hand observations on the biology of living vertebrate animals in their natural environments. Semi-wild and wild lands in local Regional Parks (e.g., Briones, Coyote Hills, Sunol, Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE RECOVERY PLAN (Peromyscus Polionotus Peninsularis)
    ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE RECOVERY PLAN (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTHEAST REGION ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Objectives of the plan will be obtained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in developing the plan, other than the Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new information, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. By approving this recovery plan, the Regional Director certifies that the data used in its development represent the best scientific and commercial information available at the time it was written. Copies of all documents reviewed in the development of the plan are available in the administrative record at the Panama City Field Office, in Panama City, Florida. NOTICE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL Permission to use the copyrighted cover illustration in the final version of this recovery plan has been granted by the copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Southeastern Beach Mouse Is a Subspecies Of
    Southeastern Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris he southeastern beach mouse is a subspecies of the Federal Status: Threatened (May 12, 1989) oldfield mouse that occurs in coastal habitats along Critical Habitat: None Designated Tthe east coast of Florida. Its range formerly extended Florida Status: Threatened along about 280 km of the coast, in beach dunes, from Volusia to Broward counties. It is now restricted to about Recovery Plan Status: Contribution (May 1999) 64 km of coastline, having been extirpated in the southern Geographic Coverage: South Florida portion of its former range. Extensive habitat loss because of commercial and residential construction along the Atlantic coast has left a fragmented population in small Figure 1. County distribution of the southeastern beach mouse; this species is only found in coastal pockets of suitable habitat. Surveys are needed to determine the status of the southeastern beach mouse in South Florida. This account represents South Floridas contribution to the recovery of the southeastern beach mouse (FWS 1993). Description The southeastern beach mouse is the largest of the seven recognized subspecies of beach mice, averaging 139 mm in total length (range of 10 individuals = 128 to 153 mm), with a 52 mm tail length (Osgood 1909, Stout 1992). Females are slightly larger than males. These beach mice are slightly darker in appearance than some other subspecies of beach mice, but paler than inland populations of P. polionotus (Osgood 1909). Southeastern beach mice have pale, buffy coloration from the back of their head to their tail, and their underparts are white. The white hairs extend up on their flanks, high on their jaw, and within 2 to 3 mm of their eyes (Stout 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), a Statutory Component of the ITP Application, Was Prepared and Submitted to the USFWS
    HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN – A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE BEACHES OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA prepared for Volusia County Environmental Management 123 West Indiana Ave. DeLand, Florida 32770 by Ecological Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 405 Jensen Beach, Florida 34958 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE BEACHES OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared in Support of Incidental Take Permit No. TE811813 for Incidental Take Related to Beach Driving and Vehicular Beach Access- Related Activities Regulated and/or Managed by the County of Volusia, Florida Prepared for: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES DIVISION ENDANGERED SPECIES PERMITS BRANCH 1875 CENTURY BOULEVARD, #200 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345 Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 405 JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 34958 November 2016 (Last Revised June 2008) PREFACE The wide, flat, hard-packed sands of Volusia County’s beaches are ideal for driving, and vehicles have had access to these beaches since the early days of the automobile. Although a lawful and traditional activity, beach driving has the potential to impact sea turtles and their nesting habitat, which is considered a “taking” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In February 1996, the County of Volusia, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “County”) applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service) for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) to authorize the unintentional taking of federally protected species caused by beach driving and vehicular beach access-related activities regulated and/or managed by the County. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), a statutory component of the ITP application, was prepared and submitted to the USFWS.
    [Show full text]
  • Rodents a World Survey of Species of Conservation Concern
    Rodents A World Survey of Species of Conservation Concern Edited by William Z. Lidicker, Jr. IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 4 IUCN–The World Conservation Union IUCN Species Survival Commission Role of the SSC 4. To provide advice, information, and expertise to the Secretariat of the The Species Survival Commission (SSC) is IUCN's primary source of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna scientific and technical information required for the maintenance of biological and Flora (CITES) and other international agreements affecting conser- diversity through the conservation of endangered and vulnerable species of vation of species or biological diversity. fauna and flora, whilst recommending and promoting measures for their con- 5. To carry out specific tasks on behalf of the Union, including: servation, and for the management of other species of conservation concern. • coordination of a programme of activities for the conservation of Its objective is to mobilize action to prevent the extinction of species, sub- biological diversity within the framework of the IUCN Conserva- species and discrete populations of fauna and flora, thereby not only maintain- tion Programme. ing biological diversity but improving the status of endangered and vulnerable species. • promotion of the maintenance of biological diversity by monitor- ing the status of species and populations of conservation concern. • development and review of conservation action plans and priorities Objectives of the SSC for species and their populations. 1. To participate in the further development, promotion and implementa- tion of the World Conservation Strategy; to advise on the development • promotion of implementation of species-oriented conservation of IUCN's Conservation Programme; to support the implementation of action plans and response to related issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Peromyscus Newsletter Number 40
    Number Forty Spring 2006 1 Cover: Circling behavior of Peromyscus sp. (likely P. maniculatus or P. leucopus). Photographs, video, and article by David Jeffcott and Virgil Brack, Jr. 2 Peromyscus Newsletter Number 40 Welcome to the first completely on-line version of Peromyscus Newsletter. Whereas no one can adequately fill Wally Dawson’s shoes, I hope PN will remain a valuable reference for all Peromyscus researchers, keeping you informed about your colleagues’ work in the hopes of fostering additional, exciting research with our favorite mice. With the newsletter now exclusively in electronic format we no longer have publishing costs to consider. I think this will be liberating for PN as we can now include lengthier accounts (preferably no more than 2 single-spaced pages), color graphs and figures, pictures, and movies. In fact, this issue contains a fascinating movie of circling behavior in a wild Peromyscus, although you must have QuickTime installed in order to view it. To download a free copy of QuickTime visit http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone.html. Unfortunately, the switch has meant that we have lost some subscribers. A few do not have access to email, and some have simply not sent us their email addresses. If you know of someone in one of these categories, please encourage them to send us their address. Alternatively, copies of PN will be posted to our website. Just go to http://stkctr.biol.sc.edu/ and click on the Newsletter tab. Another change to accommodate this new format is a new email address. All PN business can now be sent to [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). During the Turtle Season, May 1-Oct
    HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN – A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE BEACHES OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA prepared for Volusia County Environmental Management 123 West Indiana Ave. DeLand, Florida 32770 by Ecological Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 405 Jensen Beach, Florida 34958 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES ON THE BEACHES OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared in Support of Incidental Take Permit No. TE811813 for Incidental Take Related to Beach Driving and Vehicular Beach Access- Related Activities Regulated and/or Managed by the County of Volusia, Florida Prepared for: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES DIVISION ENDANGERED SPECIES PERMITS BRANCH 1875 CENTURY BOULEVARD, #200 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345 Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 405 JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 34958 January 2020 (Last Revised January 2020) PREFACE The wide, flat, hard-packed sands of Volusia County’s beaches are ideal for driving, and vehicles have had access to these beaches since the early days of the automobile. Although a lawful and traditional activity, beach driving has the potential to impact sea turtles and their nesting habitat, which is considered a “taking” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In February 1996, the County of Volusia, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “County”) applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service) for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) to authorize the unintentional taking of federally protected species caused by beach driving and vehicular beach access-related activities regulated and/or managed by the County. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), a statutory component of the ITP application, was prepared and submitted to the USFWS.
    [Show full text]