Mitchell Lake Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
TCAP Coordinator, TPWD
TEXAS CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN East Central Texas Plains (Post Oak Savanna) DRAFT ECOREGION HANDBOOK JUNE 2011 Note: text in red in this document will be revised between June 10 Public Comment Draft and the final USFWS-approved document. THIS IS A SUMMARY of the HANDBOOK; more background information will be added. In accordance with Texas State Depository Law, this publication is available at the Texas State Publications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries. © Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD insert number when approved Citing this document: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2011. Texas Conservation Action Plan 2011 – 2016: East Central Texas Plains Handbook. Editor, Wendy Connally, Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. PWD insert number when approved. Austin, Texas. Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 HOW TO GET INVOLVED ............................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 RARE SPECIES and COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 12 PRIORITY HABITATS .................................................................................................................................... -
Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas
Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Texas Parks and Wildlife Department • 4200 Smith School Road • Austin, Texas 78744 • (512) 389-4800 Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Developed by Michael Warriner and Ben Hutchins Nongame and Rare Species Program Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Acknowledgements Critical content review was provided by Mace Vaughn, Anne Stine, and Jennifer Hopwood, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Shalene Jha Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin. Texas Master Naturalists, Carol Clark and Jessica Womack, provided the early impetus for development of management protocols geared towards native pollinators. Cover photos: Left top to bottom: Ben Hutchins, Cullen Hanks, Eric Isley, Right: Eric Isley Design and layout by Elishea Smith © 2016 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD BK W7000-1813 (04/16) In accordance with Texas State Depository Law, this publication is available at the Texas State Publications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries. TPWD receives federal assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies and is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and state anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any TPWD program, activity or facility, or need more information, please contact Office of Diversity and Inclusive Workforce Management, U.S. -
Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication). -
Honey Bees on TPWD Lands
WESTERN (EUROPEAN) HONEY BEES (APIS MELLIFERA) ON TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT LANDS MANAGED FOR NATIVE BIODIVERISTY ISSUE BRIEFING PAPER/ POSITION STATEMENT ISSUE: Recommendation Against Managed Colonies of Western (European) Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) on Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Lands Managed for Native Biodiversity APPROVED: Carter Smith, Executive Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. March 29, 2017. STAFF CONTACT: Benjamin T. Hutchins, TPWD Nongame and Rare Species Program, 512.389.4975, [email protected] COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: This document provides information to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) staff on the potential impacts of the non-native western (European) honey bee (Apis mellifera) (referred to here as ‘honey bee’) on native ecosystems and guidance regarding the exclusion of managed honey bee colonies on TPWD lands established for the conservation of native plant communities and associated native wildlife. TPWD POSITION: The placement of managed honey bee colonies on TPWD lands managed wholly or in part for native biodiversity is incompatible with the protection of native biodiversity and should be avoided. SUMMARY: Western (European) honey bees (Apis mellifera) have the potential to negatively impact populations of native pollinator species. They may also facilitate establishment, reproduction, and expansion of non- native invasive plant species. Consequently, establishment of managed honey bee colonies on TPWD lands is not compatible with the conservation and management of native plant communities and associated wildlife. Exclusion of managed hives would help reduce establishment of feral honey bee populations that can potentially pose a nuisance or threat to visitors and staff. Although the importance of non-native honey bees for honey production and agricultural pollination is certainly substantial, establishment of managed and resulting feral colonies on TPWD lands managed wholly or in part for native biodiversity should be avoided. -
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOOP 1604 from FM 471 to SH 16 I BEXAR COUNTY, CSJ: 2452-01-055
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOOP 1604 FROM FARM-TO-MARKET 471 (CULEBRA ROAD) TO STATE HIGHWAY 16 (BANDERA ROAD) BEXAR COUNTY CSJ: 2452-01-055 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT MARCH 2013 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents 1.0 PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Existing ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Funding ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Need for the Proposed Project ...................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Purpose of the Proposed Project ................................................................................................... 3 1.6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.6.1 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 3 1.6.2 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................... -
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW of the MEGATHYMIDAE H. A. Freeman
JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERI STS' SOC IETY Volume 23 Supplement I SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE MEGATHYMIDAE H. A. Freeman 1605 Lewis Drive, Garland, Texas I Introduction: Megathymidae 1 I NTRODUCTI ON In 1938, when this study began, the family Mega thymidae was perhaps the most poorly known family of Rhopa1ocera. At that time there were 14 names regarded as species (one of which was later to be treated as a synonym and another as a subspecies) and four names re garded as subspecies, three of which are now recognized as full species. Today we recognize 49 species and 15 sub species in this group of butterflies. The life histories of all species and subspecies have been worked out, with the exception of three which are known only in part. Chromosome counts have been made for many of the species by Dr. Charles Remington and his staff at Yale, and I have studied the chromosomes of additional species. Be sides the work that I have done with this family, con tributions to our knowledge of this interesting family have been made by Don B. Stallings, Viola Stallings, Dr. J. R. Turner, Ernest R. Tinkham, Charles F. Harbison, Dr. Charles Remington, and Dr. John A. Comstock. In preparing keys for the identification of species and subspecies, reference is made to the spots of the wings and to the wing shape, and these characters are illustrated on plate 1. The ~ numbers are given as 1 to 14, beginning with the cell spot (flg. 1). The wing l)ap e is determined by a ratio of three measurements: base-to-apex of forewing, or primary; 2) apex-to-outer angle (tornus) of primary; and 3) base -to-termination of CUI of hindwing, or secondary. -
1985 V27 N3.Pdf
No.3 May/June 1985 of the LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY EDITOR June Preston 832 Sunset Dr. Lawrence, KS 66044 U.S.A. _._._._._.~._._._._._._._._ _._._._._._._._._._._._ _ _ _._ - ASSOCIATE EDITORS Zone Coordinators Art Director 1. Ken Philifl 6. Ed Knudson 11. J.e.E. Riotte Les Sielski 2. Jon Shepard 7. Ross Layberry 12. Eduardo Welling M. Ripples 3. Bob Langston 8. Mo Nielsen 13. Boyce Drummond Jo Brewer 4. Ray Stanford 9. Andy Beck 5. Dick Rosche 10. Dave Winter CULTURING A DETRITIVORE. CALYCOPIS ISOBEON (pers. comm.) also reared isobeon to maturity on poison (Butler ci Druce) ivy. Roy Kendall (pers. comm.) suggested that Croton (Goatweed) species would also suffice since he had Calycopis isobeon (Butler and Druce) and its previously reared isobeon through two instars on that congener, ~. ce~Fabricius), have long presented a genus. Croton was not immediately available, but puzzle to students of Iycaenid early stages. As early as Euphorbia dentata, a related plant, was readily accepted 1948, Hessel (Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc. 56:243-244) and survival to imago was 100% (N=4). discovered that ~. cecroes not onlY occurs as far north By early summer of 1981 it became apparent that C. as New Jersey, but that it tends to crawl about on the isobeon would feed on nearly anything. Twenty-eight ground under vegetation--a behavior little observed species of plants in sixteen families were readily eaten among other hairstreaks. In 1951 Rawson and Hessel and larvae were brought to maturity on seven of these (Bull. -
20080905 Ecol Sustain Rpt Ap
Appendix B Comprehensive Species List A comprehensive list of species (including plant, macro-lichen, bird, insect, and animal species) that have population or habitat concerns and that are found in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma was developed. This list includes 1,655 species and was developed using: 1. Lists maintained under the Ecological Services Agency of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS 2007a, US FWS 2007b, US FWS 2007c), 2. Species ranks maintained by NatureServe (US FWS 2007b), 3. New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma State lists (NMDGF 2006a, ODWC 2007, TPWD 2007a, CWCS priority lists), 4. Species for which there are local concerns resulting from declines in habitat, population, and/or distribution (ODWC 2005, NMDGF 2006b, TPWD 2007b), 5. Species that are of high public interest, and 6. Species that have emerging issues (such as invasive species). Taxon: A = amphibian, B = bird, C = crustacean, F = fish, In = insect, L = lichen, Lv = liverwort, M = mammal, Mo = moss, Ms = mussel, P = plant, R = reptile, Sp = spider Background Color Green: Are the species found on Cibola National Grasslands Occurs on Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Grasslands? Ammodramus bairdii Baird's sparrow B Yes 1 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle B Yes 2 Vireo bellii Bell's vireo B Yes 3 Athene cunicularia hypugaea Burrowing Owl B Yes 4 Aimophila cassinii Cassin's sparrow B Yes 5 Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk B Yes 6 Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle B Yes 7 Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow B Yes 8 Picoides villosus Hairy woodpecker B Yes -
DEIS Reasonable Alternatives
1 DEIS Reasonable Alternatives 2 Biological Resources Technical Report 3 SH 68 from I-2/US 83 to I-69C/US 281 4 CSJs: 3629-01-001, -002, -003 5 Hidalgo County, Texas 6 Texas Department of Transportation - Pharr District 7 February 2018 The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. DEIS REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES SH 68 FROM I-2/US 83 TO I-69C/US 281 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 1 Table of Contents 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 3 Project Description .................................................................................................... 1 4 2014 Modified 2 Alternative ..................................................................... 2 5 2014 PSM Alternative ............................................................................... 3 6 FM 1423 PSM Alternative ......................................................................... 3 7 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................... 4 8 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 4 9 Applicable Regulations, Executive Orders (EOs), and Memoranda of 10 Understanding (MOU) .............................................................................................. -
Environmental Assessment for the CPS Energy Shepherd Substation Transmission Line, Bexar County, Texas
Environmental Assessment for the CPS Energy Shepherd Substation Transmission Line, Bexar County, Texas SWCA Project Number 37946 Revised October 2017 SUBMITTED TO: CPS Energy 145 Navarro San Antonio, Texas 78205 SUBMITTED BY: SWCA Environmental Consultants 6200 UTSA Boulevard, Suite 102 San Antonio, Texas 78249 This page intentionally left blank. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CPS ENERGY SHEPHERD SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS Prepared for CPS ENERGY 145 Navarro San Antonio, Texas 78205 Prepared by SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 6200 UTSA Boulevard Suite 102 San Antonio, Texas 78249 www.swca.com SWCA Project Number 37946 October 2, 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Assessment for the CPS Energy Shepherd Substation Transmission Line, Bexar County, Texas CONTENTS 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope of the Project ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Description of Proposed Design ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 Substation Design ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3.2 Transmission Line Easement ...................................................................................................... -
Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Species in the Southwestern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:19 Dec 15, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM 16DEP2 hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 66866 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ES-2008-0131; Division of Policy and scientific or commercial information Directives Management; U.S. Fish and you include. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, If, after the status review, we Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. determine that listing any of the 67 50 CFR Part 17 We will post all information received species is warranted, we will propose [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2008–0130] on http://www.regulations.gov. This critical habitat (see definition in section [92210–1111–0000–B2] generally means that we will post any 3(5)(A) of the Act) to the maximum personal information you provide us extent prudent and determinable at the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (see the Request for Information section time we propose to list the species. and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on below for more information). Therefore, within the geographical range a Petition to List 475 Species in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: currently occupied by each of these 67 Southwestern United States as Nancy Gloman, Assistant Regional species, we request data and Threatened or Endangered with Critical Director, Southwest Regional Ecological information on: (1) what may constitute ‘‘physical or Habitat Services Office, 500 Gold Avenue SW, biological features essential to the Albuquerque, NM 87102; telephone AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, conservation of the species’’; Interior. -
Conservation of Biodiversity in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Oklahoma State University An International Borderland of Concern: Conservation of Biodiversity in the Lower Rio Grande Valley Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5078 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover. Photographs of Amazilia yucatanensis (buff-bellied hummingbird), Falco femoralis septentrionalis (northern aplomado falcon), and Leopardus pardalis albescens (northern ocelot). Used with permission and modified from ©Larry Ditto Nature Photography. Back cover. Photograph of Aythya americana (redheads). Used with permission and modified from ©Larry Ditto Nature Photography. Lower banner artwork, Biological Report 88(36), November 1988, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An International Borderland of Concern: Conservation of Biodiversity in the Lower Rio Grande Valley By David M. Leslie, Jr. Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Oklahoma State University Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5078 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.