DOCSLIB.ORG

03-115-180Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
03-115-180Final The Florida Institute of Phosphate Research was created in 1978 by the Florida Legislature (Chapter 378.101, Florida Statutes) and empowered to conduct research supportive to the responsible development of the state’s phosphate resources. The Institute has targeted areas of research responsibility. These are: reclamation alternatives in mining and processing, including wetlands reclamation phosphoaysum storage areas and phosphatic clay containment areas; methods for more efficient, economical and environmentally balanced phosphate recovery and processing; disposal and utilization of phosphatic clay; and environmental effects involving the health and welfare of the people, including those effects related to radiation and water consumption. FIPR is located in Polk County, in the heart of the central Florida phosphate district. The Institute seeks to serve as an inffrmation center on phosphate-related topics and welcomes information requests made in person, or by mail, email, or telephone. Executive Director Paul R. Clifford Research Directors 6. Michael Lloyd, Jr. -Chemical Processing J. Patrick Zhang -Mining & Beneficiation Steven G. Richardson -Reclamation Brian K. Bit@ -Public Health Publications Editor Karen J. Stewart Florida Institute of Phosphate Research 1855 West Main Street Bartow, Florida 33830 (863) 534-7160 Fax: (863) 534-7165 http://www.fipr.state.fl.us HABITAT FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL VERTEBRATES ON UNMINED AND PHOSPHATE-MINED FLATLANDS IN CENTRAL FLORIDA FINAL REPORT Henry R. Mushinsky and Earl D. McCoy with Robert A. Kluson Postdoctoral Fellow DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY AND CENTER FOR URBAN ECOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA TAMPA, FLORIDA 33620-5150 Prepared for FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF PHOSPHATE RESEARCH 1855 West Main Street Bartow, Florida 33830-7718 Contract Manager: Steven G. Richardson FIPR Project Number 95-03-115 August 2001 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from the contractor. The report may have been edited as to format in conformance with the FIPR Style Manual. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, nor does mention of company names or products constitute endorsement by the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. PERSPECTIVE FIPR’s purpose in funding the research was to gain information to guide wildlife habitat rehabilitation efforts on phosphate mined lands in central Florida. The general objectives of the study were to compare small vertebrate wildlife species distributions and habitat characteristics on unmined natural habitats and reclaimed mine sites; to correlate wildlife species presence with various habitat characteristics; and to identify possible ways to improve habitat restoration on mined lands. A previous study (FIPR Publication No. 03-100-129, “Habitat Factors Influencing the Distribution of Small Vertebrates on Unmined and Phosphate-Mined Uplands in Central Florida”) emphasized xeric (drier, well-drained) habitats, while this study deals with mesic (intermediate moisture between xeric and wetland) habitats. Wetland habitats were not studied. Small vertebrate species were trapped (e.g., mice, lizards, and toads) or observed (birds) on unmined natural habitats and on several reclaimed mine sites. Most of the mined sites had not been specifically reclaimed to mimic natural habitats, but they were thought to provide some wildlife habitat values and would provide a range of habitat characteristics that could possibly be correlated with the presence or absence of various wildlife species. The study emphasized vertebrate species that were relatively common in unmined native habitats but were absent or underrepresented at reclaimed sites. Because the study “focused” on species that were underrepresented at reclaimed sites relative to “reference” (unmined, natural) sites, they were thus called “focal” species. A better understanding of the biology of these focal species may contribute to increasing their abundance on reclaimed sites in the future. The intent and hope was to identify habitat characteristics important to these species that could be recreated on reclaimed mined lands. While the study did identify relationships between various habitat characteristics and focal species, it was not always clear whether or not the underrepresentation of a species was because of unsatisfactory habitat or because the species had not yet reached the site. The subjects of site isolation, colonization, and habitat quality are being addressed for a few selected vertebrate species in FIPR Project 98-03-133, “Habitat Characteristics of Key Vertebrate Species that Are Under-Represented on Phosphate Mined Lands.” It is quite possible that in addition to improving reclamation practices to provide the necessary habitat characteristics, we may need to reintroduce some species back to the reclaimed sites, as has been done with gopher tortoises (see Macdonald 1996 and Small and Macdonald 2001). Time is also an important factor that affects both vegetation development and colonization. Another important point is that because some species were absent or underrepresented does not mean there were no vertebrate species on reclaimed lands. The references listed below indicate that a wide variety of wildlife utilize mined lands. Reclaimed lands tend to be more open – have lower density and cover of woody vegetation – than the unmined natural sites studied by Mushinsky and McCoy. Thus a few wildlife species that are better adapted to open habitats were actually more abundant iii on reclaimed lands than unmined lands. Conversely, as the study emphasized, the unmined sites tended to have greater woody vegetation cover with more complex structure, which favored the “focal” species. To reiterate, the purpose of this study was to gain insight into how to get more of the focal species on reclaimed lands. Edelson, N.A. and M.W. Collopy. 1990. Foraging ecology of wading birds using an altered landscape in central Florida. FIPR Publication No. 04-039-087. Kale, H.W. and P.C.H. Pritchard. 1997. Wildlife, p. 7-1 to 7-76. In: Evaluation of constructed wetlands on phosphate mined lands in Florida. FIPR Publication No. 03- 103-139. Kiefer, J.K. 2000. Vertebrate utilization of reclaimed habitat on phosphate mined lands in Florida: research synopsis and habitat design recommendations, p. 397-411. In: W.L. Daniels and S.G. Richardson (eds.). Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Tampa, Florida, June 11-15, 2000. ASSMR, 3134 Montavesta Rd., Lexington, KY. Macdonald, L.A. 1996. Reintroduction of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) to reclaimed phosphate land. FIPR Publication No. 03-105-126. Small, C.R. and L.A. Macdonald. 2001. Reproduction and growth in relocated and resident gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) on reclaimed phosphate-mined lands. FIPR Publication No. 03-105-145. Streever, W.J. and T.L. Crisman. 1993. A comparison of fish populations from natural and constructed freshwater marshes in central Florida. J. Freshwater Ecology 8 (2): 149- 153. Steven G. Richardson FIPR Director of Reclamation Research iv ABSTRACT We used “representativeness” as a means of comparing vertebrate wildlife species found on reclaimed phosphate mined land with vertebrate wildlife species found on unmined land in central Florida. Land properly reclaimed as wildlife habitat should support a flora and fauna that “represents” the native flora and fauna that existed prior to the mining. We identified the pool of resident species on unmined mesic flatlands (reference sites) for comparison with the species living on mined (reclaimed) lands. Those vertebrate species that are under-represented at reclaimed sites relative to their distributions and abundances at reference sites are identified as “focal species." Soil characteristics and vegetation profiles were measured at each of the sixty study sites used for the vertebrate wildlife comparisons. Many soil and vegetation differences exist between the reclaimed and reference sites. The vegetation structure at reclaimed sites was different than the reference sites. All reclaimed sites lacked a Middle-Canopy layer, and were dominated by a few foliage layers. The resident species include 12 amphibian species, 17 reptile species, 6 mammal species, and 46 bird species. Twelve species including 1 amphibian, 2 lizard/turtle, 0 snakes, 0 mammals, and 9 birds are focal species; that is, these twelve species are found much more commonly at reference sites than reclaimed sites. Four bird species were found more frequently at reclaimed sites than at reference sites. We found that preferences for breeding sites (amphibians) or for vegetation structures (reptiles and mammals) could distinguish most of the focal species from the non-focal species. We found that vegetation structure alone could distinguish nearly all focal from non-focal bird resident species. The focal species all prefer wooded areas, some favoring areas with extensive tree canopy and others favoring areas with shrubs or low canopy, while the non-focal resident species almost all prefer open areas that are conducive to ground foraging. We conclude that proper reclamation of mesic habitats will have to account for the high variation of species composition at a given site and incorporate a high degree of habitat heterogeneity. We suggest that existing patches of reclaimed mesic habitats are isolated from existing remnants of reference habitats
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vertebrate Utilization of Reclaimed Habitat on Phosphate Mined Lands in Florida: a Research Synopsis and Habitat Design Recommendations'
    VERTEBRATE UTILIZATION OF RECLAIMED HABITAT ON PHOSPHATE MINED LANDS IN FLORIDA: A RESEARCH SYNOPSIS AND HABITAT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS' by J. H. Kiefer, PE, PWS2 Abstract: Several studies have documented the cumulative presence of 348 species of vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish) on reclaimed phosphate mines in Florida. Many of these species, however, are found at low population densities or on a small number of sites. The studies also provided comparative data for unmined habitat in the region and reported 324 species. About 12% of the species reported for reclaimed habitat were not reported for unmined habitat, while 6% of the species reported for unmined habitat were not reported for reclaimed habitat. Similar numbers of rare and endangered species occur on reclaimed and unmined habitats in the region. Differences in the fauna! assemblages of reclaimed and unmined areas can generally be traced to the effects of habitat maturity, wetland hydroperiod, the presence of large lakes, sandy substrates, and dispersal factors. The information suggests that additional species, or more robust populations of particular species, could be recruited to reclaimed habitat if several factors are incorporated into designs. Most reclaimed wetlands were constructed to have relatively stable water levels and extended hydroperiods. More ephemeral marshes should be created. Most uplands are reclaimed with a loamy-overburden soil cap. Large sand lenses should be left at the surface to provide a more suitable medium for fossorial animals. More care should be taken to situate reclaimed habitats to facilitate animal movement between habitat types. Many projects provide only two vegetative strata (trees and groundcover).
    [Show full text]
  • Mesic Pine Flatwoods
    Mesic Pine Flatwoods he mesic pine flatwoods of South Florida are of FNAI Global Rank: Undetermined critical, regional importance to the biota of South FNAI State Rank: S4 TFlorida. They provide essential forested habitat for a Federally Listed Species in S. FL: 9 variety of wildlife species including: wide-ranging, large carnivores such as the Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) State Listed Species in S. FL: 40 concolor coryi) and the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus); mid-sized carnivores; fox squirrels (Sciurus niger spp.); and deer (Odocoileus Mesic pine flatwoods. Original photograph by Deborah Jansen. virginianus). They provide tree canopy for canopy- dependent species including neotropical migrants, tree-cavity dependent species, and tree-nesting species. Mesic pine flatwoods are also important as the principal dry ground in South Florida, furnishing refuge and cover for ground-nesting vertebrates as well as habitat for non- aquatic plant life (such as upland perennials and annuals). During the summer wet season, the mesic pine flatwoods of South Florida function as the upland ark for non-aquatic animals. Mesic flatwoods serve as ground bird nesting areas; adult tree frog climbing areas; black bear foraging, denning, and travelways; and essential red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) foraging and nesting habitat. At the current rate of habitat conversion, the mesic pine flatwoods, once the most abundant upland habitat in South Florida, is in danger of becoming one of the rarest habitats in South Florida. The impact of this loss on wide- ranging species, listed species, and biodiversity in South Florida could be irreparable. Synonymy The mesic pine flatwoods association of southwest Florida has been variously recognized and alluded to in the plant community literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Justin Eddy From: Patty Frantz Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 10:26 AM To: Joyce Chisolm; Justin Eddy; Gayle Nipper; Yolanda Velazquez Subject: FW: Alafia River Mit Bank CompleteClarificationResponse_03062017 Attachments: PLANS.pdf Please upload to App Id 696643. Thanks. From: sharon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:31 PM To: Patty Frantz <[email protected]>; John Emery <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Alafia River Mit Bank CompleteClarificationResponse_03062017 Hi and good afternoon Pat and John: With respect to what I sent you Monday, I found a minor discrepancy in the ‘Plans” Component. The oversight lies in Mitigation Plan Tables 4 & 6 that I had not fixed after the changes to access. Please discard the “Plans” pdf package sent on Monday and replace it with what is attached. Table 1 and UMAM Parts I & II are correct. The number of credits should be 35.52 not 35.48 as shown in Parts I & II but not Table 4. The correction is on Table 4: adjust score 7.15 to 7.19 credits with 89.93 acres for Mitigation Category U2. The corrected adjustment on Table 6 is: 1.77 to 1.78 In the Bank Credits segment attached with the “Plans” the acres were updated to reflect the corrected 89.93 U2 acres. Thank you and my apologies for the oversight… Sharon Collins TerraBlue Environmental P.O. Box 135 Homosassa Springs, FL 34447 386-878-3064 [email protected] From: sharon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:57 AM To: Patty Frantz ([email protected]); John Emery ([email protected]); Adrienne Vining ([email protected]) Cc: Campbell McLean ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Alafia River Mit Bank CompleteClarificationResponse_03062017 Hi and good morning Pat, John and Adrienne: As mentioned below, for your internal use to make your search for approved documents easier I sent you a table.
    [Show full text]
  • Les Possibilités De Dispersion Et Éléments D'habitat-Refuge Dans Un
    Les possibilités de dispersion et éléments d’habitat-refuge dans un paysage d’agriculture intensive fragmenté par un réseau routier dense : le cas de la petite faune dans la plaine du Bas-Rhin Jonathan Jumeau To cite this version: Jonathan Jumeau. Les possibilités de dispersion et éléments d’habitat-refuge dans un paysage d’agriculture intensive fragmenté par un réseau routier dense : le cas de la petite faune dans la plaine du Bas-Rhin. Ecosystèmes. Université de Strasbourg, 2017. Français. NNT : 2017STRAJ120. tel-01768001 HAL Id: tel-01768001 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01768001 Submitted on 16 Apr 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG ÉCOLE DOCTORALE 414 UMR7178 – UMR6553 THÈSE présentée par : Jonathan JUMEAU soutenue le : 16 octobre 2017 pour obtenir le grade de : Docteur de l’université de Strasbourg Discipline/ Spécialité : Biologie de la conservation Les possibilités de dispersion et éléments d’habitat-refuge dans un paysage d'agriculture intensive fragmenté par un réseau routier dense : le cas de la petite faune dans la plaine du Bas-Rhin THÈSE dirigée par : Dr. HANDRICH Yves Chargé de recherches, Université de Strasbourg Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Dollar$ and Sense Longleaf Pine
    Proceedings of the Fifth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference Longleaf Alliance Report No. 8 May 2005 LongleafLongleaf Pine:Pine: MakingMaking Dollar$Dollar$ andand SenseSense October 12 - 15, 2004 Hattiesburg Lake Terrace Convention Center Hattiesburg, Mississippi www.longleafalliance.org Longleaf Pine: Making Dollar$ and Sense Proceedings of the Fifth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference October 12 - 15, 2004 Hattiesburg Lake Terrace Convention Center Hattiesburg, Mississippi This conference would not be possible without the financial support of the following organizations: Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Federal Land Bank of South Mississippi International Forest Company Meeks Farm & Nurseries, Inc. Mississippi Forestry Commission Mississippi Fish & Wildlife Foundation Oak Grove Farm Simmons Tree Farm Southern LINC Southern Company Southern Mississippi Pine Straw Association US Fish & Wildlife Service USDA Forest Service The Longleaf Alliance appreciates the generous support of these organizations. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 8 May 2005 Citation: Kush, John S., comp. 2005. Longleaf Pine: Making Dollar$ and Sense, Proceedings of the Fifth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference; 2004 October 12-15; Hattiesburg, MS. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 8. i FOREWORD Rhett Johnson, Co-Director, The Longleaf Alliance The theme of the Fifth Regional Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference was Longleaf Pine: Making Dollar$ and Sense. This theme emphasizes that longleaf makes both economic and ecological sense on public and private lands. This proceeding contains a compilation of papers and posters presented at the conference addressing specific subject matter topics involving the restoration and management of longleaf pine ecosystems to include silvicultural, ecological, social, political and economic challenges. The Fifth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference held at Lake Terrace Convention Center in Hattiesburg, Mississippi may have been our best yet.
    [Show full text]
  • Herp Lab Syllabus 2020 1-3-20
    RAT HERPETOLOGY LAB – 1-3-20 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS HERPETOLOGY LAB - BIOL A346 - SPRING 2020 LABORATORY GUIDE Professor: Dr. Robert A. Thomas ([email protected]) Office Hours: TR 2:00-3:15pm; MW 1:00 - 2:15 pm; other times by appointment. If I’m in the office, drop in and inquire if I’m available. THE GOAL: To give you a serious and long-lasting case of herpetitis. LAB PLACE & TIME: The wet lab will be held each Friday in MO 558 from 3:30-6:20 pm. DOOR CODE: 540121 CLASS COMMUNICATION (REQUIRED): I will often communicate with the class via email. Check often (daily) or you will definitely miss important information. Not getting the messages is not a valid excuse – you snooze, you lose. Both of the following must be done by the end of the first week of classes. • CLASS LISTSERV: I have set up a class googlegroup – [email protected]. All announcements and changes as the course progresses may be shared via this googlegroup. Note: You will receive emails from me on this googlegroup only at the address you subscribe from. You may subscribe from more than one email if you wish. Don’t risk losing points by failing to pay attention to this communication system immediately. HOW DO YOU USE THE GOOGLEGROUP? To send an email to the entire class, send it to [email protected]. If you receive an email from this address, clicking <reply all> sends your reply back to the entire class (use caution!). If you hit <reply>, it goes back only to the sender (again, use caution with what you say).
    [Show full text]
  • Morgan Reptile Replicas
    Morgan Reptile Replicas Price Sheet PO Box 1790-Liberty NC 27298 Phone: 336-622-1782 - Fax: 336-622-1933 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.reptilereplicas.com Item # Species Unfin Finished Fin. w/ Base Snakes Venomous MRR-25 13" Canebrake Rattler (Crotalus horridus) 27.00 185.00 235.00 MRR-26 21" Carolina Pygmy Rattler (Sistrurus miliarius miliarius) 32.00 225.00 275.00 MRR-27 14" Western Pygmy Rattler (Sistrurus miliarius streckeri) 27.00 225.00 275.00 MRR-28 21" Prairie Rattler (Crotalus viridis) 37.00 235.00 295.00 MRR-29 37" Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) 72.00 249.00 375.00 MRR-30 34" Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) 67.00 254.00 349.00 MRR-31 37" Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) 57.00 243.00 325.00 MRR-32 40" Western Diamondback (Crotalus atrox) 79.00 339.00 410.00 MRR-33 44" Canebrake Rattler (Crotalus horridus) 98.00 390.00 454.00 MRR-34 50" Eastern Diamondback (Crotalus adamanteus) 110.00 399.00 456.00 MRR-35 30" Prairie Rattler (Crotalus viridis) 49.00 249.00 298.00 MRR-36 42" Eastern Diamondback (Crotalus adamanteus) 62.00 310.00 385.00 MRR-37 37" Timber Rattler (Crotalus horridus) 50.00 248.00 315.00 MRR-38 37" Eastern Coral (Micrurus fulvius) 47.00 260.00 315.00 MRR-42 37" Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) 75.00 310.00 385.00 MRR-48 22" Rhinoceros Viper (Bitis nasicornis) 49.00 355.00 395.00 MRR-49 36" Gaboon Viper (Bitis rhinoceros) 72.00 380.00 475.00 MRR-50 13" Gaboon Viper (Bitis rhinoceros) 35.00 250.00 290.00 MRR-51 29" Puff Adder (Bitis arietans) 59.00 310.00 395.00 MRR-60 6" Copperhead
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia's Natural Communities and Associated Rare Plant and Animal Species: Thumbnail Accounts
    Georgia's Natural Communities and Associated Rare Plant and Animal Species: Thumbnail Accounts Written by Linda Chafin and based on "Guide to the Natural Communities of Georgia," by Leslie Edwards, Jon Ambrose, and Katherine Kirkman, 2013, University of Georgia Press. Version of 2011 Georgia Nongame Conservation Section Wildlife Resources Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources CONTENTS BLUE RIDGE ECOREGION Upland Forests of the Blue Ridge Blue Ridge northern hardwood and boulderfield forests Blue Ridge montane oak forests Blue Ridge cove forests–fertile variant Blue Ridge cove forests–acidic variant Blue Ridge low to mid-elevation oak forests Blue Ridge pine-oak woodlands Blue Ridge ultramafic barrens and woodlands Glades, Barrens, and Rock Outcrops of the Blue Ridge Ecoregion Blue Ridge rocky summits Blue Ridge cliffs Blue Ridge mafic domes, glades, and barrens Wetlands of the Blue Ridge Ecoregion Blue Ridge mountain bogs Blue Ridge seepage wetlands Blue Ridge spray cliffs Blue Ridge floodplains and bottomlands Aquatic Environments of the Blue Ridge Ecoregion Blue Ridge springs, spring runs, and seeps Blue Ridge small streams Blue Ridge medium to large rivers CUMBERLAND PLATEAU AND RIDGE & VALLEY ECOREGIONS Upland Forests of the Cumberland Plateau and Ridge & Valley Ecoregions Cumberland Plateau and Ridge & Valley mesic forests Cumberland Plateau and Ridge & Valley dry calcareous forests Cumberland Plateau and Ridge & Valley dry oak - pine - hickory forests Cumberland Plateau and Ridge & Valley pine - oak woodlands and forests
    [Show full text]
  • Withlacoochee State Forest Management Plan
    TEN-YEAR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST CITRUS, HERNANDO, LAKE, PASCO, AND SUMTER COUNTIES PREPARED BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 13, 2015 TEN-YEAR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN WITHLACOOCHEE STATE FOREST TABLE OF CONTENTS Land Management Plan Executive Summary ......................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 A. General Mission and Management Plan Direction ...................................................... 2 B. Past Accomplishments ................................................................................................. 2 C. Goals / Objectives for the Next Ten Year Period ......................................................... 4 II. Administration Section ....................................................................................................... 11 A. Descriptive Information ............................................................................................... 11 1. Common Name of Property .................................................................................... 11 2. Legal Description and Acreage ............................................................................... 11 3. Proximity to Other Public Resource ....................................................................... 12 4. Property Acquisition and Land Use Considerations
    [Show full text]
  • Site Profile of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve
    Site Profile of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Environmental Education Center 505 Guana River Road Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 (904) 823-4500 • Fax (904) 825-6829 Marineland Office 9741 Ocean Shore Blvd St. Augustine, FL 32080 (904) 461-4054 • Fax (904) 461-4056 Site Profile of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Prepared for: The Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Prepared by: Denis W. Frazel, Ph.D. Frazel, Inc. 233 Estrada Avenue St. Augustine, FL 32084 For more information about this report or to obtain additional copies, contact: Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Environmental Education Center 505 Guana River Road Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 (904) 823-4500 • Fax (904) 825-6829 Marineland Office 9741 Ocean Shore Blvd St. Augustine, FL 32080 (904) 461-4054 • Fax (904) 461-4056 Internet: http://www.gtmnerr.org Citation: D. Frazel. 2009. Site Profile of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve. Ponte Vedra, FL. 151pp. August 2009 Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTMNERR) is a partnership between the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection. This site profile has been developed in accordance with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regulations. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Florida Coastal Management Program. August, 2009 The views, statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the State of Florida, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or any of its sub- agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project
    9651001C ALACHUA COUNTY ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY PROJECT Prepared For: Alachua County Department of Growth Management Office of Planning & Development 10 SW Second Avenue, Third Floor Gainesville, Florida 32601 Prepared By: KBN, A Golder Associates Company 6241 NW 23rd Street, Suite 500 Gainesville, Florida 32653-1500 ___________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY 2-1 2.1 SPECIFIC SCOPE OF WORK 2-1 2.2 SPECIFIC METHODOLOGIES 2-1 2.2.1 SITE IDENTIFICATION 2-3 1 9651001C 2.2.2 BOUNDARY IDENTIFICATION 2-3 2.2.3 LISTED SPECIES IDENTIFICATION 2-4 2.2.4 INVENTORYING 2-4 2.2.5 COMPILING SITE SUMMARY DATA 2-5 2.2.6 ECOLOGICAL MAPPING 2-7 2.2.7 MAP DIGITIZATION 2-8 2.2.8 SITE RANKING 2-8 3.0 NATURAL AREAS DESCRIPTIONS 3-1 4.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 4-1 4.1 SITE RANKINGS 4-1 4.2 SITE SUMMARIES 4-5 5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 5-1 LITERATURE REVIEW REF-1 APPENDICES A LIST OF USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS OF THE INVENTORIES SITES A-1 B BIOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY B-1 C ALACHUA COUNTY RESOURCE AREAS THAT WERE NOT INVENTORIED C-1 D MINUTES OF THE PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS D-1 E EXAMPLES OF FIELD DATA SHEETS E-1 LIST OF TABLES 2-1 List of Parameters/Subparameters and Scoring Used for Site Rankings 2-9 4-1 Summary of Individual Subparameter Scores for Each Site 4-2 4-2 Site Rankings Based on Subparameter Scores 4-3 4-3 Site Rankings Based on Parameter Scores 4-4 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Location of Alachua County 1-2 1-2 Alachua County Ecological Inventories Site Boundaries 1-3 2 9651001C _________________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this ecological inventory is to identify, inventory, map, describe, and evaluate the most significant natural biological communities, both upland and wetland, that remain in private ownership in Alachua County and make recommendations for protecting these natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook of Frogs and Toads ... of the United States and Canada
    9r;j HANDBOOK OF FROGS AND TOADS The Frogs and Toads of the United States and Canada By ANNA ALLEN WRIGHT ALBERT HAZEN WRIGHT Professor of Zoology, Cornell University Ithaca, New York The Comstock Publishing Co., Inc. 1933 COPYRIGHT, 1933. BY THE COMSTOCK PUBLISHING CO., Inc. printed in the united states of america The Cayuga Press ithaca, n.y. €§23 This little volume, meant to serve the public, the scientist, and the group treated, is dedicated to the four American women who, in addition to serving the public and science generously, have in the last half-century contributed most nota- bly to the study of this group: Mary Hewes Hinckley, 1845- Mary Cynthia Dickerson, 1 866-1 923 Helen Dean King, 1869— Helen Thompson Gaige, Preface In 1930, while preparing a monograph and also an illustrated key of North American frogs, we resolved on a small book as a guide for teachers, students, and even younger naturalists. Of each species, there is a plate of photographs from life and a two-page resume of its characters and habits. The plates and script are meant to cultivate an interest in the lay mind and help the beginner in his or her quests. Several species which since 1930 have appeared in the United States or Canada, we have been unable to illustrate, e.g., Bufo americanus copei. We have, however, attempted to illustrate all subspecies whether they be on slender or firm grounds. Pictures from life of many of these debatable forms have never been presented before. Even though it may eventually prove there is one meadow frog, yet the four forms are presented; even though only one or two forms of Pseudacris nigrita may be good, yet all five subspecies appear herein.
    [Show full text]