DOCSLIB.ORG

Endangered Species Biological Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Endangered Species Biological Assessment SR 60 Grade Separation Over CSX Railroad Financial Project ID 436559-1-52-01 Polk County Endangered Species Biological Assessment Prepared For: The Florida Department of Transportation District One September 2016 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................. 4 2.1 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Existing Land Use .............................................................................................................. 7 3.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ........................................................................ 10 3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Agency Coordination ...................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Listed Species Potentially within the Project Area ........................................................ 11 3.3.1 Federal Species ....................................................................................................... 13 3.3.1.1 American Alligator .......................................................................................................... 13 3.3.1.2 Eastern Indigo Snake ....................................................................................................... 14 3.3.1.3 Sand Skink and Blue-tailed Mole Skink ........................................................................... 14 3.3.1.4 Florida Scrub Jay ............................................................................................................. 16 3.3.1.5 Audubon’s Crested Caracara ........................................................................................... 16 3.3.1.6 Wood Stork ..................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.1.7 Everglade Snail Kite ......................................................................................................... 22 3.3.2 State Species ........................................................................................................... 22 3.3.2.1 Gopher Frog .................................................................................................................... 22 3.3.2.2 Gopher Tortoise .............................................................................................................. 23 3.3.2.3 Florida Pine Snake ........................................................................................................... 23 3.3.2.4 Limpkin ............................................................................................................................ 25 3.3.2.5 Florida Mouse ................................................................................................................. 25 3.3.2.6 Sherman’s Fox Squirrel ................................................................................................... 25 3.3.2.7 Little Blue Heron ............................................................................................................. 26 3.3.2.8 Tricolored Heron ............................................................................................................. 28 3.3.2.9 White Ibis ........................................................................................................................ 28 3.3.2.10 Southeastern American Kestrel .................................................................................. 28 3.3.2.11 Florida Sandhill Crane ................................................................................................. 31 3.3.2.12 Bald Eagle .................................................................................................................... 32 Endangered Species Biological Assessment SR 60 Grade Separation over CSX Railroad FPID 436559-1-52-01 i 3.3.2.13 Osprey ......................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.2.14 Florida Burrowing Owl ................................................................................................ 33 3.3.2.15 Listed Flora Species ..................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................ 34 4.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS .......................................................................................................... 34 4.1 Protected Species Impacts ............................................................................................. 34 4.1.1 Anticipated Protected Species Effect Determinations- Federal Species ................ 35 4.1.1.1 American Alligator .......................................................................................................... 35 4.1.1.2 Eastern Indigo Snake ....................................................................................................... 35 4.1.1.3 Sand Skink and Blue-tailed Mole Skink ........................................................................... 35 4.1.1.4 Florida Scrub Jay ............................................................................................................. 35 4.1.1.5 Audubon’s Crested Caracara ........................................................................................... 36 4.1.1.6 Wood Stork ..................................................................................................................... 36 4.1.1.7 Everglade Snail Kite ......................................................................................................... 37 4.1.2 Anticipated Protected Species Effect Determinations - State Species ................... 37 4.1.2.1 Gopher Frog .................................................................................................................... 37 4.1.2.2 Gopher Tortoise .............................................................................................................. 37 4.1.2.3 Florida Pine Snake ........................................................................................................... 38 4.1.2.4 Southeastern American Kestrel ...................................................................................... 38 4.1.2.5 Wading Birds ................................................................................................................... 39 4.1.2.6 Florida Mouse ................................................................................................................. 39 4.1.2.7 Sherman’s Fox Squirrel ................................................................................................... 39 4.1.2.8 Florida Sandhill Crane ..................................................................................................... 40 4.1.2.9 Bald Eagle ........................................................................................................................ 40 4.1.2.10 Osprey ......................................................................................................................... 40 4.1.2.11 Florida Burrowing Owl ................................................................................................ 40 4.1.2.12 Listed Flora Species ..................................................................................................... 41 4.1.3 Anticipated Protected Species Impact Determination Summary ........................... 41 4.1.4 Critical Habitat Impacts ........................................................................................... 42 5.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 42 6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 45 Endangered Species Biological Assessment SR 60 Grade Separation over CSX Railroad FPID 436559-1-52-01 ii TABLES PAGE Table 1 Land Uses in Existing and Proposed Right-of-Way............................................................ 7 Table 2 Listed or Protected Species Potentially Present in Project Area .................................... 11 Table 3 Anticipated Effects Determination Summary of Federal-Listed Species ........................ 41 Table 4 Anticipated Effects Determination Summary of State-Listed Species ............................ 41 Table 5 Anticipated Effects Determination Summary of Other Species ...................................... 42 FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 Project Location Map ....................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Project Location on USGS Base Map ................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Soils Map .......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4 FLUCFCS / Land Use Map ................................................................................................. 8 Figure 5 Wetlands and Surface Water Locations ..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Summary Document of Public Scoping Comments Submitted by the 3/31/11 Deadline
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area Summary of Public Scoping Comments - as of 3.31.2011 Comments were submitted in a variety of ways (e.g., at a public scoping meeting and by mail, fax, and email). Attendance at the public scoping meetings averaged ~440 per meeting: ~200 in Sebring, ~325 in Kissimmee, ~665 in Okeechobee, and ~580 in Vero Beach. As of March 31, 2011, the deadline for public scoping comments, over 38,000 written comments had been received. The comments were summarized and are grouped together by topic, as listed. • Wildlife and Habitat • Resource Protection • Recreation • Administration • General/Other Comments List of acronyms used in comments: BLM Bureau of Land Management CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan DEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection DOI U.S. Department of Interior DOT Florida Department of Transportation EH Everglades Headwaters ESV Ecosystem Services Values FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, also USFWS LOPP Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPS National Park Service NRC National Research Council NWR National Wildlife Refuge PES Payments for Ecosystem Services SFWMD South Florida Water Management District STA Stormwater Treatment Area TEV Total Economic Value TNC The Nature Conservancy USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, also FWS Wildlife and Habitat General • If worried about the environment, we had more endangered species than anywhere in the State. We have the same amount of endangered species. We are good land stewards, so we don’t need the government or anything else.
    [Show full text]
  • Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge BIRD LIST
    Merrritt Island National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 2683 Titusville, FL 32781 http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Merritt_Island 321/861 0669 Visitor Center Merritt Island U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/344 WILD National Wildlife Refuge March 2019 Bird List photo: James Lyon Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, located just Seasonal Occurrences east of Titusville, shares a common boundary with the SP - Spring - March, April, May John F. Kennedy Space Center. Its coastal location, SU - Summer - June, July, August tropic-like climate, and wide variety of habitat types FA - Fall - September, October, November contribute to Merritt Island’s diverse bird population. WN - Winter - December, January, February The Florida Ornithological Society Records Committee lists 521 species of birds statewide. To date, 359 You may see some species outside the seasons indicated species have been identified on the refuge. on this checklist. This phenomenon is quite common for many birds. However, the checklist is designed to Of special interest are breeding populations of Bald indicate the general trend of migration and seasonal Eagles, Brown Pelicans, Roseate Spoonbills, Reddish abundance for each species and, therefore, does not Egrets, and Mottled Ducks. Spectacular migrations account for unusual occurrences. of passerine birds, especially warblers, occur during spring and fall. In winter tens of thousands of Abundance Designation waterfowl may be seen. Eight species of herons and C – Common - These birds are present in large egrets are commonly observed year-round. numbers, are widespread, and should be seen if you look in the correct habitat. Tips on Birding A good field guide and binoculars provide the basic U – Uncommon - These birds are present, but because tools useful in the observation and identification of of their low numbers, behavior, habitat, or distribution, birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Houde2009chap64.Pdf
    Cranes, rails, and allies (Gruiformes) Peter Houde of these features are subject to allometric scaling. Cranes Department of Biology, New Mexico State University, Box 30001 are exceptional migrators. While most rails are generally MSC 3AF, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001, USA ([email protected]) more sedentary, they are nevertheless good dispersers. Many have secondarily evolved P ightlessness aJ er col- onizing remote oceanic islands. Other members of the Abstract Grues are nonmigratory. 7 ey include the A nfoots and The cranes, rails, and allies (Order Gruiformes) form a mor- sungrebe (Heliornithidae), with three species in as many phologically eclectic group of bird families typifi ed by poor genera that are distributed pantropically and disjunctly. species diversity and disjunct distributions. Molecular data Finfoots are foot-propelled swimmers of rivers and lakes. indicate that Gruiformes is not a natural group, but that it 7 eir toes, like those of coots, are lobate rather than pal- includes a evolutionary clade of six “core gruiform” fam- mate. Adzebills (Aptornithidae) include two recently ilies (Suborder Grues) and a separate pair of closely related extinct species of P ightless, turkey-sized, rail-like birds families (Suborder Eurypygae). The basal split of Grues into from New Zealand. Other extant Grues resemble small rail-like and crane-like lineages (Ralloidea and Gruoidea, cranes or are morphologically intermediate between respectively) occurred sometime near the Mesozoic– cranes and rails, and are exclusively neotropical. 7 ey Cenozoic boundary (66 million years ago, Ma), possibly on include three species in one genus of forest-dwelling the southern continents. Interfamilial diversifi cation within trumpeters (Psophiidae) and the monotypic Limpkin each of the ralloids, gruoids, and Eurypygae occurred within (Aramidae) of both forested and open wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
    Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region August 2008 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN MERRITT ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Brevard and Volusia Counties, Florida U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia August 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 3 U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 4 National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4 Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 5 National Conservation Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................6 Relationship to State Partners .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Field Naturalist
    FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST QUARTERLYPUBLICATION OF THE FLORIDA~RNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOL.10, NO. 3 AUGUST1982 PAGES45-64 OBSERVATIONS ON LIMPKIN NESTING Little has been published on the nesting of the Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) (Bent 1926), although additional unpublished studies have recently been completed by Ingalls (1972) and Bryan (pers. comm.). I have long been interested in Limpkins, from the time I first heard one in 1938. In this paper I present observations on nesting that I have made since 1966, especially on Lake Pierce, Polk County, Florida. Limpkins are common in shallow water along the lake shore and along the edges of man-made lagoons and waterways nearby. The number of Limpkins has varied with water levels and food conditions. At times nearly all birds leave the lake. On 12-15 December 1969, for example, practically all Limpkins disappeared from Lake Pierce, and 23 showed up at the same time at Nalcrest, 14.4 km east of Lake Wales and 19.2 km south of Lake Pierce, an area where previously none had been present. In spring the birds reappeared along the shores of Lake Pierce. The Limpkin in the United States is primarily a Florida bird. It has been found north to South Carolina, in the Okefenokee Swamp, southern Georgia, and over much of peninsular Florida, west in the Florida panhandle rarely to Holmes, Jackson and Bay counties (Fig. 1).The region of greatest abundance is the central portion of the state (Sprunt 1954), north of the southern border of Lake Okeechobee. At Lake Pierce, where I made my observations, the Limpkin is fairly abundant.
    [Show full text]
  • JOSE OLIVIA, in His Official Capacity As Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Et Al., Defendants/Appellants, Case No
    Filing # 85428808 E-Filed 02/25/2019 12:13:33 PM IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JOSE OLIVIA, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, et al., Defendants/Appellants, Case No. 1D18-3141 v. L.T. Case Nos. 2018-CA-001423 2018-CA-002682 FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA INDEX TO APPENDIX TO AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA SPRINGS COUNCIL, INC.’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES John R. Thomas Florida Bar No. 868043 Law Office of John R. Thomas, P.A. 8770 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 (727) 692-4384; [email protected] RECEIVED, 02/25/201912:14:54 PM,Clerk,First District CourtofAppeal Page 1 AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA SPRINGS COUNCIL’S APPENDIX TO BRIEF Pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.210 and 9.220, Amicus Curiae, Florida Springs Council, Inc. provides the following Appendix in support of its Amicus Curiae brief: DATE DESCRIPTION PAGES August 14, 2018 Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Department of 7 to 20 Environmental Protection Division of Water Restoration Assistance Springs Restoration Project Plan for the Legislative Budget Commission https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/ LBC%20Report%20FY2018-2019.pdf June 2018 June 2018 Florida Forever Five-Year Plan - 21 to 125 EXCERPT http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/DSL/ OESWeb/FF2017/ FLDEP_DSL_SOLI_2018FloridaForever5Yr Plan_20180706.pdf June 2018 Suwannee River 126 to 243 Basin Management Action Plan (Lower Suwannee River, Middle Suwannee River, and Withlacoochee River Sub-basins) https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/ Suwannee%20Final%202018.pdf Page 2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that the foregoing was prepared using Times New Roman, 14 point, as required by Rule 9.210(a)(2) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Limpkins Preyed on by Tegu Lizards at an Urban Park
    Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 26(4): 231–233. SHORT-COMMUNICATIONARTICLE December 2018 Stilts do not protect against crawlers: Limpkins preyed on by Tegu Lizards at an urban park Juliana Vaz Hipolito1 & Ivan Sazima2,3 1 Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 2 Museu de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 3 Corresponding author: [email protected] Received on 25 September 2018. Accepted on 26 November 2018. ABSTRACT: Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) is a long-legged wading bird that forages mostly in wetlands in the open and occasionally under tree cover. Th is large bird is cautious and frequently scans its immediate environs when active or resting. Records of adult Limpkin predators are scarce and restricted to two very large aquatic reptiles, the American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) in North America and the Yellow Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) in South America. Herein we report on two Limpkins killed and eaten by Black and White Tegus (Salvator merianae) at an urban park in southeastern Brazil. One of the Limpkins was still alive when we came across the predation event, whereas the other Limpkin seemed freshly killed. Th e fi rst Limpkin was already sprawled on the ground and occasionally opened the bill, vocalised hoarsely and fl apped the wings, while the Tegu repeatedly bit the bird on several body parts, which gradually weakened the bird. Th e Limpkin died when the Tegu bit hard the bird on the head and crushed the skull. In the second event the bird was bitten on several body parts and, thus, we assume that it was also killed by the Tegu that was eating the fresh corpse.
    [Show full text]
  • Food of the Limpkin 11
    Food of the Limpkin 11 Changes in drainage would not have brought about the complete extirpation of this large heronry so soon but in addition to depletion of the food supply the birds suffered persecution from unscrupulous hunters. Men and boys used to go to the nesting site on Sundays and shoot herons for sport, never eating any of them, although from a few they cut the wings to be used in dusting shelves. Some of the hunters would shoot as many as twenty-five herons in one day. Even such persecution might not have wiped out the heronry entirely, for the inhabitants were not bent on getting rid of the birds, but the felling of the big cottonwoods in which they had made their nests year after year put an end to what had been, so far as we know, the largest heronry in the interior of the state, STATE UNIVERSITY, BOWLING GREEN, OHIO. FOOD OF THE LIMPKIN BY CLARENCE COTTAM Because of its peculiar distribution and unique feeding habits, the Limpkin (Aramus p&us p&us) is one of the most interesting of North American birds. In habits it seems to partake somewhat of the characteristics of both the rail and the heron. Like the rail, it runs rapidly and stealthily on the damp ground and frequents the borders of wooded streams and swamps; like the heron, it perches in trees. In distribution the bird is restricted to the Okefenokee Swamp in southern Georgia and to Florida. Over much of its range it is absent or rare and is common only locally where the food and environment are to its liking.
    [Show full text]
  • Aramus Guarauna
    15 3 NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Check List 15 (3): 497–507 https://doi.org/10.15560/15.3.497 Limpkin, Aramus guarauna (L., 1766) (Gruiformes, Aramidae), extralimital breeding in Louisiana is associated with availability of the invasive Giant Apple Snail, Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 (Caenogastropoda, Ampullariidae) Robert C. Dobbs1, 2, Jacoby Carter1, Jessica L. Schulz1 1 US Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 700 Cajundome Blvd., Lafayette, LA, 70506, USA. 2 Current address: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 200 Dulles Dr., Lafayette, LA, 70506, USA. Corresponding author: Robert C. Dobbs, [email protected] Abstract We document the first breeding record of Limpkin, Aramus guarauna (Linnaeus, 1766) (Gruiformes, Aramidae), for Louisiana, describe an additional unpublished breeding record from Georgia, as well as a possible record from Alabama, and associate these patterns with the concurrent establishment of the invasive Giant Apple Snail, Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 (Caenogastropoda, Ampullariidae). We predict that an invasive prey species may facilitate range expansion by native predator species, which has ramifications for conservation and management. Keywords Biological control, invasive species, predator-prey relationship, range expansion, species distribution. Academic editor: Michael J. Andersen | Received 2 November 2018 | Accepted 5 May 2019 | Published 21 June 2019 Citation: Dobbs RC, Carter J, Schulz JL (2019) Limpkin, Aramus guarauna (L., 1766) (Gruiformes, Aramidae), extralimital breeding in Louisiana is associated with availability of the invasive Giant Apple Snail, Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 (Caenogastropoda, Ampullariidae). Check List 15 (3): 497–507. https://doi.org/10.15560/15.3.497 Introduction is historically closely associated with, and perhaps lim- ited by, that of the native Florida Apple Snail, Pomacea The Giant Apple Snail, Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 paludosa (Say, 1829) (Stevenson and Anderson 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Report
    FINAL REPORT Monitoring secretive marsh birds in Everglades National Park: a pilot study COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT: P13AC00021 PROJECT DIRECTOR: Principal Investigator: Gary L. Slater PROJECT PERSONNEL: Wildlife Biologist: Jeannette Parker DATE REPORT SUBMITTED: 18 May 2015 Ecostudies Institute committed to ecological research and conservation INTRODUCTION Emergent wetland ecosystems have been severely impacted across North America, perhaps no place more severely than in the Everglades of Florida. Drainage for agriculture and complex engineering for flood control and water storage have compartmentalized the wetland system markedly altering natural water flows and flood cycles. Although much of the physical alterations to this system (ditches, levees, impoundments) have occurred outside of Everglades National Park (ENP), wetland ecosystem function within ENP has been greatly diminished due to its downstream position. Large scale restoration efforts (e.g., CERP) have been undertaken to restore more natural hydrological patterns in the Everglades region and improve wetland function. The loss and degradation of wetlands has had a significant impact on wildlife. For example, some wading bird populations have declined by 90% and several populations of the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow have nearly disappeared (DOI 2005, Pimm et al. 2002). In contrast, many novel exotic species, such as the Burmese Python (Python molurus) and exotic apple snails (e.g., Pomacea insularum) have apparently flourished (Snow et al. 2007, Rawlings et al. 2007). Secretive marsh birds are among the most inconspicuous group of birds in North America, in part, because they inhabit emergent wetlands characterized by dense vegetation and they vocalize infrequently. This group of birds has never been adequately surveyed by any previous sampling effort in ENP.
    [Show full text]
  • Parasites of Limpkins, Aramus Guarauna, in Florida
    140 PROCEEDINGS OF THE HELMINTHOLOGICAL SOCIETY in Mexico. Voucher specimens are deposited in ucation Director, CEDO, for providing the os- USNM Helm. Coll. No. 77184. prey carcass. Thanks are expressed to Dr. Peggy Turk, Ed- Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 52(1), 1985, pp. 140-142 Research Note Parasites of Limpkins, Aramus guarauna, in Florida JOSEPH A. CONTI,' DONALD J. FORRESTER,' AND STEPHEN A. NESBirr2 1 College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610 and 2 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Wildlife Research Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida 32601 The limpkin, Aramus guarauna (L.), is a me- habits of limpkins have been well studied, very dium-sized long-legged wading bird of the order little is known about their parasites. The present Gruiformes (cranes, rails, gallinules, coots, etc.) report concerns the parasites of limpkins from and is the sole member of the family Aramidae. central Florida. It is limited to freshwater habitats primarily in Fifteen limpkins were examined. Most (13 Florida and southeastern Georgia in the U.S.A. adults and one hatchling) were collected from (American Ornithologists' Union, 1957, Check- October 1975 to February 1976 at Rodman Pool list of North American Birds. 5th ed., Baltimore). in the Oklawaha River, Marion County, Florida. Limpkins feed primarily on apple snails (Po- One additional adult was collected in February macea paludosa (Say)), a behavior shared by the 1980 approximately 32 km south of this locality snail kite, Rostrhamus sociabilis Vieillot, al- at Alexander Springs (Lake County). though unlike snail kites they will take also other Nine adult birds and one hatchling were nec- foods such as lizards, frogs, insects, crustaceans, ropsied after having been frozen for up to 3 mo.
    [Show full text]
  • Sizes of Snails Eaten by Snail Kites and Limpkins in a Costa Rican Marsh
    April 1977] General Notes 365 Slightlymore than one-third(35%) of the eggsin three-eggclutches had a crown (Table 2), which was progressivelymore commonfrom the first throughthe third egg,and showeda significantrelationship to the egg'sposition in the hatching sequence(P < 0.005). When a definite crown occurredthis crown occurred6.6 timesmore frequently on the third eggthan on the first and 3.8 timesmore frequently on the third eggthan on the second.A definitecrown occurred1.7 timesmore frequently on the secondegg than on the first. This agreedwith Preston's(ibid.) findingswith the LaughingGull and CommonTern. In two-eggclutches a crown(faint or definite)occurred 2.7 timesmore frequently on the second egg than on the first (Table 2), but a Chi-squaretest showedno significantrelationship between the presenceof a crown and the hatchingsequence in two-eggclutches. Preston (ibid.) alsofound no differencebetween the first and secondeggs of the Common Tern. Over one-quarter(28%) of the three-eggclutches contained one differentlycolored egg with two eggsof the samecolor. The one eggthat differedin colorwas the third to hatch 79% of the time and the first to hatch 21% of the time. The secondegg was never found to be the differently coloredegg of a clutch. Assumingthere was an equalprobability that eachposition in the hatchingsequence might be held by the differently coloredegg, a Chi-squareanalysis was made (P < 0.005), showingthat when a three-egg clutchhad two eggsof one colorand one eggof another color, the differently coloredegg was mostlikely to be the third egg.--MICH^EL L. CHAMBERLIN,Interlochen Arts Academy, Interlochen, Michigan 49643. Accepted 14 Nov.
    [Show full text]