DOCSLIB.ORG

Calculating Buffer Zones Widths for Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Calculating Buffer Zones Widths for Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns CALCULATING BUFFER ZONE WIDTHS FOR PROTECTION OF WETLANDS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY JEA PROJECT NO.: 19270-485-01 Submitted to: ST. JOHNS COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4020 Lewis Speedway Road St. Augustine, Florida 32095 Submitted by: JONES, EDMUNDS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 730 N.E. Waldo Road, Building A Gainesville, Florida 32641 In collaboration with: MARK T. BROWN, Ph.D. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CENTER FOR WETLANDS AND WATER RESOURCES Post Office Box 116350 Gainesville, Florida 32611-6350 and RICHARD HAMANN, ESQ. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF LAW Post Office Box 117629 Gainesville, Florida 32611-7629 January 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . .... .............. .. ............... ... .. .. " I-I 1.1 PROJECT GOALS .... ..... .. ... ...... ....... ... ... ......... I-I 1.2 ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF BUFFER ZONES ............. .. ......... 1-2 2.0 PROTECTING WETLAND-DEPENDENT WILDLIFE HABITAT ..... ... .. 2-1 2.1 SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS .................. .. ................. 2-1 3.0 PROTECTING WETLANDS FROM TURBIDITY AND SEDIMENTATION ..... 3-1 3. 1 SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY LOOK-UP TABLE ........... .. 3-2 3.1.1 Look-up Table ............. ... .. .. ......... ...... .... 3-2 3.1.2 Calculation Procedure .. .. ... .... .. .. ............... ..... 3-2 4.0 PROTECTING WETLANDS FROM GROUNDWATER DRAWDOWN . .... 4-1 4.1 MODELING REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS .................. 4-1 4.2 DRAWDOWN IMP ACT CALCULATIONS FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY . .. 4-2 4.3 WETLAND DRAWDOwN LOOK-UP TABLES ... ...... ...... .. 4-3 5.0 DETERMINATION OF A BUFFER WIDTH ...... ... ..................... 5- 1 5.1 ALTERNATIVE BUFFER WIDTHS . ....... .... ..... .. .. .. .. .. 5-1 5.2 BUFFER ESTABLISHMENT ....... .... ..... .. .................. 5-1 5.3 BUFFER HABITAT ... ............ .............. ............. 5-1 6.0 REFERENCES . ...... ................... ....... .. .. .. .. 6-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Species List of Wetland-Dependent Native Wildlife Species of St. Johns County Appendix B Spatial Requirements by Species Listed in Ascending Order by Habitat Appendix C Soils Information in St. Johns County (Source: st. Johns County Soil Survey) Appendix D Hydrologic Methodologies for Predicting Peak Stormwater Discharge Appendix E List of Threatened and Endangered Species in St. Johns County Appendix F Stormwater Guidelines "'." ... .,'/'\\ AQ"n 1n,omRl1ffe:r Reoort.wpd TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Spatial Requirement eft) A and B Cypress Wetlands ............ .. .... ..... 2-4 2.2 Spatial Requirement eft) A and B Hardwood Swamp' ............... ... ... ... 2-5 2.3 Spatial Requirement eft) A and B Freshwater Marsh .... .............. ... .. ... 2-6 2.4 Spatial Requirement eft) A and B Saltwater Marsh ..... ...................... 2-7 2.5 Spatial Requirement eft) A and B Flatwoods ............................... .. 2-8 2.6 Spatial Requirement eft) A and B Hammock .. .............................. 2-9 2.7 Spatial Requirement eft) A and B Sandhill .. .. ... ........ : .......... .. .. 2-10 4.1 Simulated Drawdowns A & B ...... .. ............. ... , .................. 4-6 4.2 Simulated Drawdowns A& B ... .... , .. ........ .. ...... ... .. ....... 4-7 4.3 Simulated Drawdowns A & B .............. .. ............. ... ... ...... 4-8 4.4 Simulated Drawdowns A & B ......... ................. ....... .. ....... 4-10 5.1 Environmentally Significant Lands .......... .. ..... '. ... ... .. .. ... ... ..... 5-5 W:\192.70\48501 0700\Buffer Report.wpd LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Summary of Published Data Describing Recommended Buffer Zones for Protection of Wildlife Species. 2-3 2.2 Spatial Requirement (ft) to Protect Various Percentages of Species for Each Habitat Type (Data from Figures 2.1 - 2.7) ................................. .. ... 2-11 3.1 Recommended Wetland Buffers to Minimize Sedimentation in Wetlands and to Control Turbidity in Adjacent Open Waters ..... .. .. .. .......... ..... 3-3 3.2 Mannings Roughness Coefficients (n) .... ................. ...... .. .. .... 3-4 4.1 Buffer Distances When Surficial Aquifer Drawdown of 0.5 Feet is Acceptable .... 4-4 4.2 Buffer Distances When Surficial Aquifer Drawdown of 1.0 Feet is Acceptable ..... 4-5 5.1 Buffer Widths for St. Johns County as Proposed by County Planning Staff ... ...... 5-2 5.2 Appropriate Plantings for Buffer Zones ............. ........ .. ... .. ........ 5-3 W·\l CI170\4R;<;n 1n7nn\R!ln~r Reoort.wod LIST OF TABLES l.0 INTRODUCTION St. Johns County's adopted 1990 Comprehensive Plan PoHcy p.l.3.7 requires vegetative buffers of at least 25 feet to be maintained between natural drainage courses and developed areas to protect the water quality of the drainage course. This buffer requirement has been expanded through Article N of the Land Development Code to require a 50-foot minimum natural upland buffer between development lands and the St. Johns River, Matanzas River, Guana River, Tolomata River, and their associated wetlands and water bodies, regardless of any other regulatory agency requirement of a lesser distance. However, in recent years the county has determined a minimum of 25 or 50 feet around wetlands in the county may not be sufficient to protect water quality given the variety of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive lands. Further, the Comprehensive Plan requires that the county protect environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands adj acent to Outstanding Florida Waters [OFWsJ, Class IT waters, Class ill waters, Aquatic Preserves, estuaries, wetlands adjacent to shellfish harvesting areas, all major rivers, and headwaters to major creeks and estuaries) through the establishment of buffers. Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. (JEA), is working in collaboration with Dr. Mark T. Brown (University of Florida Center for Wetlands and Water Resources) and Dr. Richard Hamarm and Jeff Wade (University of Florida Center for Governmental Responsibility) to develop a buffer zone ordinance that will further protect environmentally sensitive land from development activities. This report presents the methodology necessary for calculating buffer zone widths as determined through scientific studies for protecting wetland habitat. Additionally, it presents reduced buffer distances as suggested by county staff as alterative buffer widths and will subsequently be used to develop a buffer ordinance for St. Johns County. 1.1 PROJECT GOALS Upland vegetative buffers are widely regarded as necessary to protect wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. However, buffer size requirements have typically been established by political acceptability, not scientific merit. This often leads to insufficiently buffered aquatic resources and the false perception that the resources are being properly buffered from potential impacts. Numerous scientific studies have shown that relatively wide buffers (1.50 to more than 300 feet) are necessary to protect wetland (JEA et al. 1999). The dilemma exists that undersized buffers may place aquatic resources at risk; however, buffers that are too large may unnecessarily deny landowners the use of a portion of their land. Therefore, it is important to determine the minimum buffer width necessary for protection of sensitive environmental resources. Three goals have been identified that are used to determine buffer sizes: protection of wildlife habitat; minimization of sediment transport into wetlands; and minimization of groundwater drawdown in wetlands. This buffer report provides the methodology for calculating buffer sizes necessary to achieve these three goals in St. Johns County. A single buffer width is then recommended that is appropriate for protecting all three wetland resources. Alternatives to one large buffer distance, as suggested by county staff, is also presented. A previous report summarizes the information that was reviewed and assessed for developing buffer zone widths for the county, including identification and classification of ecological habitats, review of other county ordinances, review of other wetland regulations, review of related reports and studies, and review of legal implications (JEA et al. 1999). HI.\ 1 O"}7(l\1I 0<;(\1 n7nmR"ff"r R" nnrt 'I.vnrl INTROOUCTION 1.2 ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF BUFFER ZONES The differences between developed hinds and natural ecological areas are significant, and the more intensely developed, the greater the differences. Frequently on developed lands, native vegetation is removed and replaced with exotic ornamentals, soil drainage is altered, soils become compacted and covered with impervious materials, and wildlife species are displaced by human activities. The gradient in intensity of noise, waste, temperature, light, structure, and activity from undeveloped to developed lands is intense. In this edge between development and natural areas, water runoff carries sediments, nutrients, and pollutants. Noise and activities from development intrudes into the edge and interferes with wildlife activities. Wildlife popUlations also suffer greatly from predation from domesticated cats and dogs that are allowed to roam unconstrained and from predation from animals such as the brown-headed cowbird that flourishes in disturbed habitats and preys on smaller and more vulnerable birds such as the painted bunting, a prized resident of St. Johns County and a species of great concern by the Audubon Society and wildlife biologists. The area immediately adjacent to wetlands is often a transition zone between wetlands and uplands and exhibits vegetation, soils, and hydrologic characteristics that are similar
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary of Amphibian Community Monitoring at Canaveral National Seashore, 2009
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Summary of Amphibian Community Monitoring at Canaveral National Seashore, 2009 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2010/098 ON THE COVER Clockwise from top left, Hyla chrysoscelis (Cope’s grey treefrog), Hyla gratiosa (barking treefrog), Scaphiopus holbrookii (Eastern spadefoot), and Hyla cinerea (Green treefrog). Photographs by J.D. Willson. Summary of Amphibian Community Monitoring at Canaveral National Seashore, 2009 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2010/098 Michael W. Byrne, Laura M. Elston, Briana D. Smrekar, Brent A. Blankley, and Piper A. Bazemore USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Cumberland Island National Seashore 101 Wheeler Street Saint Marys, Georgia, 31558 October 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Reptiles and Amphibians Revoct2017
    CHECKLIST of AMPHIBIANS and REPTILES of ARCHBOLD BIOLOGICAL STATION, the RESERVE, and BUCK ISLAND RANCH, Highlands County, Florida. Voucher specimens of species recorded from the Station are deposited in the Station reference collections and the herpetology collection of the American Museum of Natural History. Occurrence3 Scientific name1 Common name Status2 Exotic Station Reserve Ranch AMPHIBIANS Order Anura Family Bufonidae Anaxyrus quercicus Oak Toad X X X Anaxyrus terrestris Southern Toad X X X Rhinella marina Cane Toad ■ X Family Hylidae Acris gryllus dorsalis Florida Cricket Frog X X X Hyla cinerea Green Treefrog X X X Hyla femoralis Pine Woods Treefrog X X X Hyla gratiosa Barking Treefrog X X X Hyla squirella Squirrel Treefrog X X X Osteopilus septentrionalis Cuban Treefrog ■ X X Pseudacris nigrita Southern Chorus Frog X X Pseudacris ocularis Little Grass Frog X X X Family Leptodactylidae Eleutherodactylus planirostris Greenhouse Frog ■ X X X Family Microhylidae Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad X X X Family Ranidae Lithobates capito Gopher Frog X X X Lithobates catesbeianus American Bullfrog ? 4 X X Lithobates grylio Pig Frog X X X Lithobates sphenocephalus sphenocephalus Florida Leopard Frog X X X Order Caudata Family Amphiumidae Amphiuma means Two-toed Amphiuma X X X Family Plethodontidae Eurycea quadridigitata Dwarf Salamander X Family Salamandridae Notophthalmus viridescens piaropicola Peninsula Newt X X Family Sirenidae Pseudobranchus axanthus axanthus Narrow-striped Dwarf Siren X Pseudobranchus striatus
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\Acrobat\Plug Ins\Openall
    Section 4 Threatened and Endangered Flora and Fauna and Other Wildlife Table 4-3 Common and Scientific Names of Amphibians and Reptiles Observed (or Expected) During the Field Survey of the Proposed Lake Munson Restoration Project Scientific Name Common Name Expected Observed FROGS AND TOADS Family Bufonidae—Toads Bufo terrestris Southern toad X Bufo quercicus Oak toad X X Bufo woodhousei Fowler’s frog X Family Hylidae—Cricket Frogs Pseudacris nigrita verrucosa Florida chorus frog X Pseudacris ornata Southern chorus frog X Pseudacris nigrita nigrita Little grass frog X X Limnaoedus ocularis Florida cricket frog X X Acris gryllus dorsalis Southern spring peeper X Hyla avivoca avivoca Western bird-voiced treefrog X Hyla crucifer Pine woods treefrog X X Hyla femoralis Barking treefrog X Hyla gratiosa Squirrel treefrog X Hyla squirella Grey treefrog X Hyla chrysoscelis Greenhouse frog X Hyla cinerea Green treefrog X Family Microhylidae—Narrowmouthed Toads Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern narrowmouth toad X X Family Pelobatidae—Spadefoot Toads Scaphiopus holbrookii holbrookii Eastern spadefoot toad X Family Ranidae—True Frog Family Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog X Rana clamitans clamitans Bronze frog X X Rana sphenocephala Southern leopard frog X X Rana capito gopher frog* X Rana grylio Pig frog X Rana heckscheri River frog X Camp Dresser & McKee *Threatened, endangered, or species of special concern s:\vandyke\lns\munson\t43 4-6 Section 4 Threatened and Endangered Flora and Fauna and Other Wildlife Table 4-3 Common and Scientific Names of Amphibians
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles & Crocodilians
    STANDARD COMMON AND CURRENT SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS, TURTLES, REPTILES & CROCODILIANS Sixth Edition Joseph T. Collins TraVis W. TAGGart The Center for North American Herpetology THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY www.cnah.org Joseph T. Collins, Director The Center for North American Herpetology 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 (785) 393-4757 Single copies of this publication are available gratis from The Center for North American Herpetology, 1502 Medinah Circle, Lawrence, Kansas 66047 USA; within the United States and Canada, please send a self-addressed 7x10-inch manila envelope with sufficient U.S. first class postage affixed for four ounces. Individuals outside the United States and Canada should contact CNAH via email before requesting a copy. A list of previous editions of this title is printed on the inside back cover. THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY BO A RD OF DIRE ct ORS Joseph T. Collins Suzanne L. Collins Kansas Biological Survey The Center for The University of Kansas North American Herpetology 2021 Constant Avenue 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Kelly J. Irwin James L. Knight Arkansas Game & Fish South Carolina Commission State Museum 915 East Sevier Street P. O. Box 100107 Benton, Arkansas 72015 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Walter E. Meshaka, Jr. Robert Powell Section of Zoology Department of Biology State Museum of Pennsylvania Avila University 300 North Street 11901 Wornall Road Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Kansas City, Missouri 64145 Travis W. Taggart Sternberg Museum of Natural History Fort Hays State University 3000 Sternberg Drive Hays, Kansas 67601 Front cover images of an Eastern Collared Lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) and Cajun Chorus Frog (Pseudacris fouquettei) by Suzanne L.
    [Show full text]
  • Venomous Nonvenomous Snakes of Florida
    Venomous and nonvenomous Snakes of Florida PHOTOGRAPHS BY KEVIN ENGE Top to bottom: Black swamp snake; Eastern garter snake; Eastern mud snake; Eastern kingsnake Florida is home to more snakes than any other state in the Southeast – 44 native species and three nonnative species. Since only six species are venomous, and two of those reside only in the northern part of the state, any snake you encounter will most likely be nonvenomous. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission MyFWC.com Florida has an abundance of wildlife, Snakes flick their forked tongues to “taste” their surroundings. The tongue of this yellow rat snake including a wide variety of reptiles. takes particles from the air into the Jacobson’s This state has more snakes than organs in the roof of its mouth for identification. any other state in the Southeast – 44 native species and three nonnative species. They are found in every Fhabitat from coastal mangroves and salt marshes to freshwater wetlands and dry uplands. Some species even thrive in residential areas. Anyone in Florida might see a snake wherever they live or travel. Many people are frightened of or repulsed by snakes because of super- stition or folklore. In reality, snakes play an interesting and vital role K in Florida’s complex ecology. Many ENNETH L. species help reduce the populations of rodents and other pests. K Since only six of Florida’s resident RYSKO snake species are venomous and two of them reside only in the northern and reflective and are frequently iri- part of the state, any snake you en- descent.
    [Show full text]
  • ZOO 4462C – Herpetology Spring 2021, 4 Credits
    ZOO 4462C – Herpetology Spring 2021, 4 credits Course Schedule – See page 10 Instructor: Dr. Gregg Klowden (pronounced "Cloud - in”) Office: Room 202A, Biological Sciences E-mail: [email protected] Phone: Please send an email instead Mark Catesby (1731) “Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands” "These foul and loathsome animals . are abhorrent because of their cold body, pale color, cartilaginous skeleton, filthy skin, fierce aspect, calculating eye, offensive smell, harsh voice, squalid habitation, and terrible venom; and so their Creator has not exerted his powers to make many of them." Carolus Linnaeus (1758) ***Email Requirements: I teach several courses and receive a large volume of emails. To help me help you please: 1. format the subject of your email as follows: “Course – Herpetology, Subject - Question about exam 1” 2. include your 1st and last name in the body of all correspondence. I try to respond to emails within 48 hours however, response time may be greater. o Please plan accordingly by not waiting to the last minute to contact me with questions or concerns. All messaging must be done using either Webcourses or your Knight's E-Mail. o Messages from non-UCF addresses will not be answered. Due to confidentiality, questions about grades should be sent via Webcourses messaging, not via email. Office Hours: Tuesdays and Thursdays 10:30-11:30a and 2:00-3:00p or by appointment All office hours will be held online via Zoom. An appointment is not necessary. Just log into Zoom using the link posted on Webcourses. You will initially be admitted to a waiting room and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Venomous and Nonvenomous Snacks of Florida
    Venomous and nonvenomous Snakes of Florida PHOTOGRAPHS BY KEVIN ENGE Top to bottom: Black swamp snake; Eastern garter snake; Eastern mud snake; Eastern kingsnake Florida is home to more snakes than any other state in the Southeast – 44 native species and three nonnative species. Since only six species are venomous, and two of those reside only in the northern part of the state, any snake you encounter will most likely be nonvenomous. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission MyFWC.com Florida has an abundance of wildlife, Snakes flick their forked tongues to “taste” their surroundings. The tongue of this yellow rat snake including a wide variety of reptiles. takes particles from the air into the Jacobson’s This state has more snakes than organs in the roof of its mouth for identification. any other state in the Southeast – 44 native species and three nonnative species. They are found in every Fhabitat from coastal mangroves and salt marshes to freshwater wetlands and dry uplands. Some species even thrive in residential areas. Anyone in Florida might see a snake wherever they live or travel. Many people are frightened of or repulsed by snakes because of super- stition or folklore. In reality, snakes play an interesting and vital role in Florida’s complex ecology. Many KENNETH L. KRYSKO species help reduce the populations of rodents and other pests. Since only six of Florida’s resident snake species are venomous and two of them reside only in the northern and reflective and are frequently iri- part of the state, any snake you en- descent.
    [Show full text]
  • Venomous Snakes of Georgia
    For additional information, please contact: f the 46 species of snakes known from Georgia, only six Distribution of Venomous Snakes in Georgia species are venomous: Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus), Timber/Canebrake Quick Reference Guide A B C D E F G H I J K L Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), Pigmy Rattlesnake (Sistrurus Omiliarius) and Eastern Coral Snake (Micrurus fulvius). No single venomous Copperhead • • • • • • • • snake species is found over the entire state, and only a portion of the Georgia to Georgia’s Non-venomous Snakes NONGAME CONSERVATION SECTION Cottonmouth • • • • • • • • • • Coastal Plain is inhabited by all six venomous species. Although differentiating Rough Green Snake Mud Snake Rainbow Snake 116 Rum Creek Drive; Forsyth GA 31029 E. Diamondback Rattlesnake among all 46 species can be difficult, becoming familiar with the colors • • • • • • • 478-994-1438 and patterns of Georgia’s six venomous snake species will enable you to Timber Rattlesnake • • • • • • • • • • www.georgiawildlife.com determine whether any snake encountered is venomous or non-venomous. Production and printing of this brochure made possible by: Pigmy Rattlesnake • • • • • • • • The information in this brochure is intended to aid in identifying the Eastern Coral Snake venomous snake species found in Georgia through the recognition of physical • • • • • • traits, pattern and color. Caution should be used when approaching any snake, and snakes found in the wild should only be handled by experienced Eastern Indigo Snake Black Racer Coachwhip Eastern Rat Snake Gray Rat Snake Pine Woods Snake (Black Phase) (Yellow Phase) A 2 3 4 5 people after proper identification. Although the possibility of incurring a 1 venomous snake bite should be taken seriously, only the Timber Rattlesnake, B Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake and Cottonmouth realistically represent 14 6 8 a serious threat to human life.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge Amphibian, Reptile and Mammal List
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge Amphibian, Reptile and Mammal List alligator - Tom Darragh deer: Joe Bonislawsky This blue goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become a symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System. gopher tortoise - Pierson Hill The St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1931 and today encompasses 70,000 acres. It’s wide diversity of habitats, including open water, salt marsh, swamps, freshwater pools, hardwoods, and upland pine areas make the refuge home for an equally wide variety of wildlife. The St. Marks NWR provides nesting habitat for these Federal and squirrel tree frog: Pierson Hill State endangered and threatened birds: the Southern bald eagle, least tern, and red-cockaded woodpecker. Other endangered or rare species include the woodstork, swallow-tailed kite, peregrine falcon, American alligator, Eastern indigo snake and the Florida black bear. Visitors may also observe loggerhead sea turtles and West Indian manatees offshore from the lighthouse. Many state-listed threatened and endangered plants are also found on the refuge. eastern coachwhip: Mike Keys The following list contains the 38 species of amphibians, 69 species of reptiles, and 44 species of mammals compiled from observations, consultation with experts in respective fields, and literature research. Some species are more common seasonally and some are nocturnal. Look for evidence such as tracks, burrows, grass tunnels, and other signs of activity. Careful eyes and attentive ears can uncover numerous
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Reptiles and Amphibians Revmar2020.Xlsx
    CHECKLIST of AMPHIBIANS and REPTILES of ARCHBOLD BIOLOGICAL STATION, ARCHBOLD RESERVE, and BUCK ISLAND RANCH, Highlands County, Florida.1 Voucher specimens are housed in the Station's herpetology collection or in the American Museum of Natural History. Occurrence 2 3 Scientific name Common name Status Exotic Station Reserve Ranch AMPHIBIANS Order Anura Family Bufonidae Anaxyrus quercicus Oak Toad X X X Anaxyrus terrestris Southern Toad X X X Rhinella marina Cane Toad ■ X Family Hylidae Acris gryllus dorsalis Florida Cricket Frog X X X Hyla cinerea Green Treefrog X X X Hyla femoralis Pine Woods Treefrog X X X Hyla gratiosa Barking Treefrog X X X Hyla squirella Squirrel Treefrog X X X Osteopilus septentrionalis Cuban Treefrog ■ X X Pseudacris nigrita Southern Chorus Frog X X Pseudacris ocularis Little Grass Frog X X X Family Eleutherodactylidae Eleutherodactylus planirostris Greenhouse Frog ■ X X X Family Microhylidae Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad X X X Family Ranidae Lithobates capito Gopher Frog TC X X X Lithobates catesbeianus American Bullfrog ? 4 X X Lithobates grylio Pig Frog X X X Lithobates sphenocephalus sphenocephalus Florida Leopard Frog X X X Order Caudata Family Amphiumidae Amphiuma means Two-toed Amphiuma X X X Family Plethodontidae Eurycea quadridigitata Dwarf Salamander X Family Salamandridae Notophthalmus viridescens piaropicola Peninsula Newt X X Family Sirenidae Pseudobranchus axanthus axanthus Narrow-striped Dwarf Siren X X Siren intermedia intermedia Eastern Lesser Siren X X Siren lacertina Greater
    [Show full text]
  • Myakka River State Park Unit Management Plan
    Purpose of Acquisition On March 25, 1997, the DRP assumed management of an 8,260.76-acre property The Board of Trustees of the Internal owned by the SWFWMD. Improvement Fund (Trustees) of the State of Florida acquired the initial area of Myakka According to the lease, the DRP manages River State Park for the establishment of a Myakka River State Park for the purposes of park area to provide public, resource-based developing, improving, operating, maintaining recreation. and otherwise managing said land for public outdoor recreational, park, historic Sequence of Acquisition conservation and related purposes. The DRP manages the SWFWMD property as part of In 1934, 1,920 acres was donated to the Myakka River State Park for the purpose of State of Florida by the Potter family. The water management, natural resource Florida Board of Forestry (FBF), predecessor management, and outdoor recreational and in interest to Florida Board of Parks and related public purposes. Historic Memorials (FBPHM), purchased approximately purchased 17,070 acres from Special Conditions on Use the estate of Adrian Honore. Since this initial donation and initial purchase, several parcels At Myakka River State Park, public outdoor have been acquired through dedication, recreation and conservation is the designated management agreement, and Florida Forever/ single-use of the property. Uses such as water Additions and Inholdings (FF/A & I) and added resource development projects, water supply to Myakka River State Park. Presently, the projects, storm-water management projects, park contains 37,197.68 acres. and linear facilities and sustainable agriculture and forestry are not consistent with the Title Interest purposes for which the DRP manages the park.
    [Show full text]