DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix 8.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix 8.Pdf APPENDIX VIII: MISSISSIPPI’S SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED BY ECOREGION GROUP SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME UEGCP* EGCP* MSRAP* NGM* TIER** Amphibians Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger Salamander Yes 4 Amphiuma pholeter One-Toed Amphiuma Yes 1 Aneides aeneus Green Salamander Yes 2 Bufo nebulifer Gulf Coast Toad Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender Yes 1 Eurycea lucifuga Cave Salamander Yes 2 Gyrinophilus porphyriticus Spring Salamander Yes 2 Hemidactylium scutatum Four-Toed Salamander Yes Yes 2 Plethodon ainsworthi Baysprings Salamander Yes 4 Plethodon ventralis Southern Zigzag Salamander Yes 2 Plethodon websteri Webster's Salamander Yes 2 Pseudacris brachyphona Mountain Chorus Frog Yes 3 Pseudacris ornata Ornate Chorus Frog Yes 2 Pseudotriton montanus Mud Salamander Yes 2 Pseudotriton ruber Red Salamander Yes Yes 3 Rana areolata Crawfish Frog Yes 2 Rana heckscheri River Frog Yes 1 Rana sevosa Mississippi Gopher Frog Yes 1 Birds Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow Yes Yes 2 Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow Yes 2 Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte's Sparrow Yes Yes Yes 2 Ammodramus maritimus Seaside Sparrow Yes Yes 2 Ammodramus nelsoni Nelson's Sharp-Tailed Sparrow Yes Yes 2 Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Yes Yes Yes 2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Anas fulvigula Mottled Duck Yes Yes 2 Anas rubripes American Black Duck Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Anhinga anhinga Anhinga Yes Yes Yes 3 Asio flammeus Short-Eared Owl Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Calidris alpina Dunlin Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Calidris canutus Red Knot Yes Yes 2 Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Campephilus principalis Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Yes Yes Yes 4 Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-Will's-Widow Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris Southeastern Snowy Plover Yes Yes 1 Charadrius melodus Piping Plover Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's Plover Yes Yes 1 Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Yes Yes Yes 3 Columbina passerina Common Ground-Dove Yes Yes Yes 2 Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow Rail Yes Yes Yes 1 Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler Yes Yes Yes 2 Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret Yes Yes 2 APPENDIX VIII 375 GROUP SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME UEGCP EGCP MSRAP NGM TIER Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret Yes Yes 2 Egretta thula Snowy Egret Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Elanoides forficatus Swallow-Tailed Kite Yes Yes Yes 2 Eudocimus albus White Ibis Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Yes Yes Yes 2 Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American Kestrel Yes 1 Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi Sandhill Crane Yes 1 Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher Yes Yes 1 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-Eating Warbler Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Yes Yes Yes 3 Laterallus jamaicensis Black Rail Yes Yes Yes 1 Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit Yes Yes 2 Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-Headed Woodpecker Yes Yes Yes 3 Mycteria americana Wood Stork Yes Yes Yes 2 Nycticorax nycticorax Black-Crowned Night-Heron Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Nycticorax violaceus Yellow-Crowned Night-Heron Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Oporornis formosus Kentucky Warbler Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Pandion haliaetus Osprey Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American White Pelican Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican Yes Yes 2 Picoides borealis Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Yes Yes 2 Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Porphyrula martinica Purple Gallinule Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Rallus elegans King Rail Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Rynchops niger Black Skimmer Yes Yes Yes 2 Scolopax minor American Woodcock Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Sitta pusilla Brown-Headed Nuthatch Yes Yes Yes 3 Sterna antillarum Least Tern Yes Yes Yes 2 Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern Yes 2 Sterna maxima Royal Tern Yes Yes 2 Sterna nilotica Gull-Billed Tern Yes Yes Yes 2 Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich Tern Yes Yes 2 Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren Yes Yes Yes 1 Tyto alba Common Barn-Owl Yes Yes Yes 3 Vermivora bachmanii Bachman's Warbler Yes Yes 4 Crustaceans Cambarellus diminutus Least Crayfish Yes 2 Cambarellus lesliei A Crayfish Yes 2 Cambarus girardianus A Crayfish Yes 3 Cambarus latimanus A Crayfish Yes 2 Fallicambarus burrisi Burris' Burrowing Crawfish Yes 1 Fallicambarus byersi Lavender Burrowing Crayfish Yes 2 Fallicambarus danielae Speckled Burrowing Crayfish Yes 1 Fallicambarus gordoni Camp Shelby Burrowing Crawfish Yes 1 Hobbseus attenuatus Pearl Rivulet Crayfish Yes 1 Hobbseus cristatus A Crayfish Yes 1 Hobbseus orconectoides Oktibbeha Rivulet Crayfish Yes 1 Hobbseus petilus Tombigbee Rivulet Crayfish Yes 1 Hobbseus prominens A Crayfish Yes 2 Hobbseus valleculus Choctaw Rivulet Crayfish Yes 1 APPENDIX VIII 376 GROUP SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME UEGCP EGCP MSRAP NGM TIER Hobbseus yalobushensis A Crayfish Yes 1 Orconectes etnieri A Crayfish Yes 2 Orconectes hartfieldi A Crayfish Yes 1 Orconectes jonesi A Crayfish Yes 2 Orconectes mississippiensis A Crayfish Yes 1 Orconectes validus A Crayfish Yes 3 Procambarus ablusus A Crayfish Yes 2 Procambarus barbiger Jackson Prairie Crayfish Yes Yes 1 Procambarus bivittatus Ribbon Crayfish Yes 2 Procambarus cometes Mississippi Flatwoods Crayfish Yes 1 Procambarus connus Carrollton Crayfish Yes 1 Procambarus elegans A Crayfish Yes 2 Procambarus fitzpatricki Spiny-Tailed Crayfish Yes 1 Procambarus hagenianus vesticeps A Crayfish Yes 2 Procambarus lagniappe Lagniappe Crayfish Yes 1 Procambarus lecontei Mobile Crayfish Yes 2 Procambarus lylei Shutispear Crayfish Yes 1 Procambarus penni Pearl Blackwater Crayfish Yes 2 Procambarus pogum Bearded Red Crayfish Yes 1 Procambarus shermani A Crayfish Yes 3 Fishes Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon Yes Yes Yes 1 Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad Yes Yes Yes 1 Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass Yes 4 Ammocrypta clara Western Sand Darter Yes 4 Ammocrypta meridiana Southern Sand Darter Yes 2 Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Clinostomus funduloides Rosyside Dace Yes 3 Cottus carolinae Banded Sculpin Yes 2 Crystallaria asprella Crystal Darter Yes Yes 1 Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker Yes Yes Yes 2 Cycleptus meridionalis Southeastern Blue Sucker Yes Yes 2 Cyprinella callistia Alabama Shiner Yes 2 Cyprinella galactura Whitetail Shiner Yes 2 Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin Shiner Yes 3 Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor Shiner Yes Yes 2 Enneacanthus gloriosus Bluespotted Sunfish Yes Yes Yes 3 Etheostoma asprigene Mud Darter Yes Yes Yes 3 Etheostoma blennioides Greenside Darter Yes 2 Etheostoma duryi Black Darter Yes 2 Etheostoma flabellare Fantail Darter Yes 3 Etheostoma kennicotti Stripetail Darter Yes 2 Etheostoma lachneri Tombigbee Darter Yes 2 Etheostoma nigripinne Blackfin Darter Yes 2 Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter Yes 1 Etheostoma rubrum Bayou Darter Yes 1 Etheostoma rufilineatum Redline Darter Yes 3 Etheostoma rupestre Rock Darter Yes 3 Etheostoma zonifer Backwater Darter Yes 1 Etheostoma zonistium Bandfin Darter Yes 2 Fundulus dispar Northern Starhead Topminnow Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Fundulus euryzonus Broadstripe Topminnow Yes 2 Fundulus jenkinsi Saltmarsh Topminnow Yes Yes 2 Heterandria formosa Least Killifish Yes Yes 3 Hypentelium etowanum Alabama Hog Sucker Yes 3 Ichthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut Lamprey Yes Yes Yes 2 Ictiobus niger Black Buffalo Yes Yes Yes 3 Leptolucania ommata Pygmy Killifish Yes Yes 4 APPENDIX VIII 377 GROUP SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME UEGCP EGCP MSRAP NGM TIER Lythrurus fasciolaris Rosefin Shiner Yes 3 Macrhybopsis gelida Sturgeon Chub Yes 4 Macrhybopsis meeki Sicklefin Chub Yes 4 Morone saxatilis Striped Bass Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Moxostoma anisurum Silver Redhorse Yes 2 Moxostoma carinatum River Redhorse Yes Yes 2 Moxostoma duquesnei Black Redhorse Yes 2 Moxostoma erythrurum Golden Redhorse Yes Yes 3 Moxostoma macrolepidotum Shorthead Redhorse Yes 2 Notropis amnis Pallid Shiner Yes 2 Notropis boops Bigeye Shiner Yes 2 Notropis candidus Silverside Shiner Yes 2 Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner Yes Yes 1 Notropis edwardraneyi Fluvial Shiner Yes 2 Notropis melanostomus Blackmouth Shiner Yes Yes 1 Notropis micropteryx Rosyface Shiner Yes 2 Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner Yes 3 Noturus exilis Slender Madtom Yes 4 Noturus flavus Stonecat Yes 2 Noturus munitus Frecklebelly Madtom Yes Yes 1 Noturus gladiator Piebald Madtom Yes 1 Percina aurora Pearl Darter Yes Yes 1 Percina evides Gilt Darter Yes 2 Percina kathae Mobile Logperch Yes 3 Percina lenticula Freckled Darter Yes Yes 1 Percina phoxocephala Slenderhead Darter Yes 2 Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow Yes 2 Phoxinus erythrogaster Southern Redbelly Dace Yes Yes 2 Platygobio gracilis Flathead Chub Yes 4 Polyodon spathula Paddlefish Yes Yes Yes 3 Pteronotropis welaka Bluenose Shiner Yes 2 Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose Dace Yes 2 Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon Yes 1 Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Alabama Sturgeon Yes 1 Stizostedion canadense Sauger Yes Yes Yes 3 Stizostedion sp 1 Southern Walleye Yes Yes Yes 2 Stizostedion vitreum Walleye
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contributions of Intensively Managed Forests to the Sustainability of Wildlife Communities in the South
    CONTRIBUTIONS OF INTENSIVELY MANAGED FORESTS TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES IN THE SOUTH T. Bently Wigley1, William M. Baughman, Michael E. Dorcas, John A. Gerwin, J. Whitfield Gibbons, David C. Guynn, Jr., Richard A. Lancia, Yale A. Leiden, Michael S. Mitchell, Kevin R. Russell ABSTRACT Wildlife communities in the South are increasingly influenced by land use changes associated with human population growth and changes in forest management strategies on both public and private lands. Management of industry-owned landscapes typically results in a diverse mixture of habitat types and spatial arrangements that simultaneously offers opportunities to maintain forest cover, address concerns about fragmentation, and provide habitats for a variety of wildlife species. We report here on several recent studies of breeding bird and herpetofaunal communities in industry-managed landscapes in South Carolina. Study landscapes included the 8,100-ha GilesBay/Woodbury Tract, owned and managed by International Paper Company, and 62,363-ha of the Ashley and Edisto Districts, owned and managed by Westvaco Corporation. Breeding birds were sampled in both landscapes from 1995-1999 using point counts, mist netting, nest searching, and territory mapping. A broad survey of herpetofauna was conducted during 1996-1998 across the Giles Bay/Woodbury Tract using a variety of methods, including: searches of natural cover objects, time-constrained searches, drift fences with pitfall traps, coverboards, automated recording systems, minnow traps, and turtle traps. Herpetofaunal communities were sampled more intensively in both landscapes during 1997-1999 in isolated wetland and selected structural classes. The study landscapes supported approximately 70 bird and 72 herpetofaunal species, some of which are of conservation concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell
    Vol. 77 Wednesday, No. 196 October 10, 2012 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell, Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Species Status for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, Southern Sandshell, and Fuzzy Pigtoe, and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:07 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM 10OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61664 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Wildlife Service, Panama City Field available after taking into consideration Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama the economic impact, impact on Fish and Wildlife Service City, FL 32405; telephone 850–769– national security, and any other relevant 0552; facsimile 850–763–2177. impact of specifying any particular area 50 CFR Part 17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don as critical habitat. In total, [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050; Imm, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and approximately 2,404 kilometers (km) 4500030113] Wildlife Service, Panama City Field (1,494 miles (mi.)) of stream and river Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama channels in nine units in Bay, Escambia, RIN 1018–AW92 City, FL 32405; telephone 850–769– Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 0552; facsimile 850–763–2177. If you Walton, and Washington Counties, and Plants; Determination of use a telecommunications device for the Florida; and Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Endangered Species Status for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Alabama Pearlshell, Round Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines Version 2.0
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 115 Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines Version 2.0 October 1997 Seattle, Washington noaa NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION National Ocean Service Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA) provides decisionmakers comprehensive, scientific information on characteristics of the oceans, coastal areas, and estuaries of the United States of America. The information ranges from strategic, national assessments of coastal and estuarine environmental quality to real-time information for navigation or hazardous materials spill response. Through its National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program, ORCA uses uniform techniques to monitor toxic chemical contamination of bottom-feeding fish, mussels and oysters, and sediments at about 300 locations throughout the United States. A related NS&T Program of directed research examines the relationships between contaminant exposure and indicators of biological responses in fish and shellfish. Through the Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division (HAZMAT) Scientific Support Coordination program, ORCA provides critical scientific support for planning and responding to spills of oil or hazardous materials into coastal environments. Technical guidance includes spill trajectory predictions, chemical hazard analyses, and assessments of the sensitivity of marine and estuarine environments to spills. To fulfill the responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce as a trustee for living marine resources, HAZMAT’s Coastal Resource Coordination program provides technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during all phases of the remedial process to protect the environment and restore natural resources at hundreds of waste sites each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Expenditure Report (1998)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures Fiscal Year 1998 January 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... ii What is the purpose of this report? ....................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are reported?.......................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are not included?.................................................................................................... ii What are the expenditures reported for FY 1998?................................................................................ ii How does the 1998 expenditure report compare to other years? ......................................................... ii ENDANGERED SPECIES EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998...................................................1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................1 What does "Reasonably Identifiable Expenditures" mean? .........................................................1 What is not included in the report? ...............................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, And
    REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, and Conservation Status of Species of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas Principle Investigators: Alan D. Christian Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467; [email protected]; Phone: (870)972-3082; Fax: (870)972-2638 John L. Harris Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467 Jeanne Serb Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, 251 Bessey Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011 Graduate Research Assistant: David M. Hayes, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Kentaro Inoue, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Submitted to: William R. Posey Malacologist and Commercial Fisheries Biologist, AGFC P.O. Box 6740 Perrytown, Arkansas 71801 April 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are currently 13 species of Fusconaia and 32 species of Pleurobema recognized in the United States and Canada. Twelve species of Pleurobema and two species of Fusconaia are listed as Threatened or Endangered. There are 75 recognized species of Unionidae in Arkansas; however this number may be much higher due to the presence of cryptic species, many which may reside within the Fusconaia /Pleurobema complex. Currently, three species of Fusconaia and three species of Pleurobema are recognized from Arkansas. The true conservation status of species within these genera cannot be determined until the taxonomic identity of populations is confirmed. The purpose of this study was to begin preliminary analysis of the species composition of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas and to determine the phylogeographic relationships within these genera through mitochondrial DNA sequencing and conchological analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Egret Ardea Alba
    Great Egret Ardea alba Joe Kosack/PGC Photo CURRENT STATUS: In Pennsylvania, the great egret is listed state endangered and protected under the Game and Wildlife Code. Nationally, they are not listed as an endangered/threatened species. All migra- tory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. POPULATION TREND: The Pennsylvania Game Commission counts active great egret (Ardea alba) nests in every known colony in the state every year to track changes in population size. Since 2009, only two nesting locations have been active in Pennsylvania: Kiwanis Lake, York County (fewer than 10 pairs) and the Susquehanna River’s Wade Island, Dauphin County (fewer than 200 pairs). Both sites are Penn- sylvania Audubon Important Bird Areas. Great egrets abandoned other colonies along the lower Susque- hanna River in Lancaster County in 1988 and along the Delaware River in Philadelphia County in 1991. Wade Island has been surveyed annually since 1985. The egret population there has slowly increased since 1985, with a high count of 197 nests in 2009. The 10-year average count from 2005 to 2014 was 159 nests. First listed as a state threatened species in 1990, the great egret was downgraded to endan- gered in 1999. IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS: Great egrets are almost the size of a great blue heron (Ardea herodias), but white rather than gray-blue. From bill to tail tip, adults are about 40 inches long. The wingspan is 55 inches. The plumage is white, bill yellowish, and legs and feet black. Commonly confused species include cattle egret (Bubulus ibis), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and juvenile little blue herons (Egretta caerulea); however these species are smaller and do not nest regularly in the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Saj-2012-00501 Sp-Mmw
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permittee: Florida Department of Transportation, District 3 Attn: Joy Swanson 1074 Highway 90 Chipley, Florida 32428 Permit No: SAJ-2012-00501 (SP-MMW) Issuing Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: The authorized work consists of permanent impacts to 1.31 acres of wetlands fo r the replacement of the structurally deficient SR 10 bridge over the Yellow River and resurfacing/reconstructing the roadway approaches. The span length will be increased by approximately 83 fe et from 1,530 fe et to 1,613 fe et. In addition, there will be 1.62 acres of temporary wetland impacts associated with construction of a temporary construction access road. The work described above is to be completed in accordance with the 10 pages of drawings and 4 attachmentsaffixed at the end of this permit instrument. Project Location: The State Road (SR) 10 (US 90) Yellow River Bridge Replacement project starts at Mile Post 10.807 east of Ellis Road and continues east approximately 0.947 miles to Mile Post 11.754 east of Antioch Road. The project is located in Sections 14 and 15, Township 03 North, Range 24 West, in Okaloosa County, Florida Directions to site: From the intersection of SR90 and SR10, travel west on SR10 to the project site which begins at Antioch Road and ends at Ellis Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Snowy Egret Egretta Thula One of California's Most Elegant Birds, The
    Herons and Bitterns — Family Ardeidae 133 Snowy Egret Egretta thula One of California’s most elegant birds, the Snowy Egret frequents both coastal and inland wetlands. Since the 1930s, when it recovered from persecution for its plumes, it has been common in fall and winter. Since 1979, it has also established an increasing num- ber of breeding colonies. Yet, in contrast to the Great Egret, the increase in Snowy Egret colonies has not been accompanied by a clear increase in the Snowy’s numbers. Though dependent on wetlands for forag- ing, the Snowy Egret takes advantage of humanity, from nesting in landscaping to following on the heels of clam diggers at the San Diego River mouth, snap- ping up any organisms they suck out of the mud. Breeding distribution: The first recorded Snowy Egret colonies in San Diego County were established at Buena Vista Lagoon in 1979 (J. P. Rieger, AB 33:896, 1979) and Photo by Anthony Mercieca in the Tijuana River valley in 1980 (AB 34:929, 1980). By 1997 these were no longer active, but during the atlas Two of the largest colonies lie near San Diego and period we confirmed nesting at eight other sites. Because Mission bays. The colony on the grounds of Sea World, Snowy Egrets often hide their nests in denser vegetation behind the Forbidden Reef exhibit (R8), was founded than do the Great Egret and Great Blue Heron, assessing in 1991 and contained 42 nests and fledged 44 young in the size of a Snowy Egret colony is more difficult than for 1997 (Black et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Publications by Jeffrey C
    Publications by Jeffrey C. Beane Current 6 March 2018 Scientific Publications Beane, J. C. 1988. Geographic distribution: Regina rigida rigida. Herpetological Review 19(3):60. ______. 1989. Geographic distribution: Hyla cinerea. Herpetological Review 20(3):75. ______. 1990. Geographic distribution: Hyla cinerea. Herpetological Review 21(2):37. ______. 1990. Geographic distribution: Hyla femoralis. Herpetological Review 21(2):37. ______. 1990. Geographic distribution: Rhadinaea flavilata. Herpetological Review 21(2):41-42. ______. 1990. Rana palustris: predation. Herpetological Review 21(3):59. ______. 1992. Geographic distribution: Eurycea quadridigitata. Herpetological Review 23(4):121-122. ______. 1993. A survey of bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) habitat in the western Piedmont of North Carolina. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society 28(11)240-242. ______. 1993. Book review: Ernst, Carl H. 1992. Venomous Reptiles of North America. The Association of Southeastern Biologists Bulletin 40(3):193. ______. 1995. New distributional records for the star-nosed mole, Condylura cristata (Insectivora: Talpidae), in North Carolina, with comments on its occurrence in the Piedmont region. Brimleyana 22:77-86. ______. 1998. New distributional records for reptiles from North Carolina. Herpetological Review 29(1):56-58. ______. 1998. Status of the river frog, Rana heckscheri (Anura: Ranidae) in North Carolina. Brimleyana 25:69-79. ______. 2005. Amphiuma means: predation. Herpetological Review 36(3):295. ______. 2006. Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus: fire avoidance behavior. Herpetological Review 37(1):92. ______. 2006. Deirochelys reticularia reticularia: terrestrial refugium duration. Herpetological Review 37(4):455-456. ______. 2009. Notes on a dicephalic eastern ribbon snake, Thamnophis sauritus sauritus. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society 44(1):1-3.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in Conjunction with Its Application for Renewal of the BFN Ols, As Provided for by the Following NRC Regulations
    Biological Assessment Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Review Limestone County, Alabama October 2004 Docket Numbers 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed License Renewal for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC implementing regulations. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN) pursuant to NRC operating license (OL) numbers DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, which expire on December 20, 2013, June 28, 2014, and July 2, 2016, respectively. TVA has prepared an Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in conjunction with its application for renewal of the BFN OLs, as provided for by the following NRC regulations: C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” Section 54.23, Contents of application - environmental information (10 CFR 54.23). C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” Section 51.53, Postconstruction environmental reports, Subsection 51.53(c), Operating license renewal stage (10 CFR 51.53(c)). The renewed OLs would allow up to 20 additional years of plant operation beyond the current licensed operating term. No major refurbishment or replacement of important systems, structures, or components are expected during the 20-year BFN license renewal term.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Listed Species of Mississippi - 2018
    MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LISTED SPECIES OF MISSISSIPPI - 2018 - GLOBAL STATE FEDERAL STATE SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS ANIMALIA BIVALVIA UNIONOIDA UNIONIDAE ACTINONAIAS LIGAMENTINA MUCKET G5 S1 LE CYCLONAIAS TUBERCULATA PURPLE WARTYBACK G5 S1 LE ELLIPTIO ARCTATA DELICATE SPIKE G2G3Q S1 LE EPIOBLASMA BREVIDENS CUMBERLANDIAN COMBSHELL G1 S1 LE LE EPIOBLASMA PENITA SOUTHERN COMBSHELL G1 S1 LE LE EPIOBLASMA TRIQUETRA SNUFFBOX G3 S1 LE LE EURYNIA DILATATA SPIKE G5 S1 LE HAMIOTA PEROVALIS ORANGE-NACRE MUCKET G2 S1 LT LE MEDIONIDUS ACUTISSIMUS ALABAMA MOCCASINSHELL G2 S1 LT LE PLETHOBASUS CYPHYUS SHEEPNOSE G3 S1 LE LE PLEUROBEMA CURTUM BLACK CLUBSHELL GH SX LE LE PLEUROBEMA DECISUM SOUTHERN CLUBSHELL G2 S1 LE LE PLEUROBEMA MARSHALLI FLAT PIGTOE GX SX LE LE PLEUROBEMA OVIFORME TENNESSEE CLUBSHELL G2G3 SX LE PLEUROBEMA PEROVATUM OVATE CLUBSHELL G1 S1 LE LE PLEUROBEMA RUBRUM PYRAMID PIGTOE G2G3 S2 LE PLEUROBEMA TAITIANUM HEAVY PIGTOE G1 SX LE LE PLEURONAIA DOLABELLOIDES SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL G2 S1 LE LE POTAMILUS CAPAX FAT POCKETBOOK G2 S1 LE LE POTAMILUS INFLATUS INFLATED HEELSPLITTER G1G2Q SH LT LE PTYCHOBRANCHUS FASCIOLARIS KIDNEYSHELL G4G5 S1 LE THELIDERMA CYLINDRICA CYLINDRICA RABBITSFOOT G3G4T3 S1 LT LE THELIDERMA METANEVRA MONKEYFACE G4 SX LE THELIDERMA STAPES STIRRUPSHELL GH SX LE LE MALACOSTRACA DECAPODA CAMBARIDAE CREASERINUS GORDONI CAMP SHELBY BURROWING CRAWFISH G1 S1 LE INSECTA COLEOPTERA SILPHIDAE NICROPHORUS AMERICANUS AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE G2G3 SX LE LE LEPIDOPTERA NYMPHALIDAE NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII MITCHELL’S SATYR G2T2 S1 LE LE 24 September 2018 Page | 1 Page | 1 Cite the list as: Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, 2018. Listed Species of Mississippi. Museum of Natural Science, Mississippi Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]