DOCSLIB.ORG

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOOP 1604 from FM 471 to SH 16 I BEXAR COUNTY, CSJ: 2452-01-055

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 SURROUNDING AREA ................................................................................................................. 3 3.0 SPECIFIC AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ............................................................. 4 3.1 Right-of Way Acquisition and Displacements .............................................................................. 4 3.2 Environmental Justice and Limited English Proficiency .............................................................. 4 3.2.1 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................. 4 3.2.2 Limited English Proficiency .................................................................................................. 10 3.2.3 Community Cohesion ............................................................................................................ 11 3.3 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Historic Resources ................................................................................................................ 12 3.3.2 Archeological ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4.1 Impacts to Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 15 3.4.2 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................. 16 3.4.3 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................... 17 3.4.4 Beneficial Landscape Practices ............................................................................................. 17 3.4.5 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) ............................................................................... 17 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 17 3.5.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species ......................................... 26 3.5.2 State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Otherwise Rare Species ................... 30 3.5.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................................................... 35 3.5.4 Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................................................ 35 3.5.5 Bald and Golden Eagles ........................................................................................................ 36 3.6 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 36 3.6.1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Waters of the U.S. ...................................................... 36 3.6.2 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act: Water Quality Certification ........................................ 38 3.6.3 Executive Order 11990, Wetlands ........................................................................................ 39 3.6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 ......................................................................... 39 3.6.5 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act ................................................................................. 39 3.6.6 Section 402 of the Clean Water Act: Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ......... 39 3.6.7 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................ 39 3.6.8 General Bridge Act/Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act .............................................. 40 3.7 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 40 3.7.1 Traffic Air Quality Analysis (TAQA) ................................................................................... 40 3.7.2 Congestion Management Process (CMP) ............................................................................. 41 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOOP 1604 FROM FM 471 TO SH 16 i BEXAR COUNTY, CSJ: 2452-01-055 3.7.3 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) ...................................................................................... 41 3.7.4 Construction and Post-Construction Emissions Reduction Strategies .................................. 45 3.8 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 46 3.9 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 50 3.9.1 Site Reconnaissance .............................................................................................................. 50 3.9.2 Database Search .................................................................................................................... 50 3.10 Construction Impacts .................................................................................................................. 53 3.11 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................ 53 3.11.1 Indirect Impacts Analysis ...................................................................................................... 53 3.11.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ................................................................................................ 62 4.0 MITIGATION AND COMMITMENTS ....................................................................................... 73 4.1 Environmental Justice and Community Cohesion ...................................................................... 73 4.2 Vegetation/Wildlife Habitats ...................................................................................................... 73 4.3 Water Resources and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 74 4.4 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 74 5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................... 74 6.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 75 7.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 75 Appendices Appendix A Figures Figure 1 Project Location on County Base Map Figure 2 Project Location on USGS Base Map Figure 3 Existing and Proposed Typical Sections Figures 4.1 through 4.6 Land Use/Land Cover Figures 5.1 through 5.15 Water Resources Figure 6 Karst Zones Figure 7 Edwards Aquifer Zones Appendix B Photos Appendix C 2013-2016 Transportation Improvement Program List Appendix D Agency Coordination Letters Tables Table 1 Historical and Projected Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 2 Table 2 Population, Race, and Ethnicity within Project Area ....................................................................... 6 Table 3 Median Household Income and Poverty Status ............................................................................. 10 Table 4 Limited English Proficiency Percentage Comparison ................................................................... 10 Table 5 Potential Impacts to Vegetation ....................................................................................................
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 ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitchell Lake Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
    Project No.: 0535-012-01 November 20, 2020 Mr. Gregg Eckhardt San Antonio Water Systems 2800 U.S. Hwy. 281 North San Antonio, Texas 78212 Re: On-site evaluation for federal and state listed species for the Mitchell Lake Wetlands Quality Treatment Initiatives Project Dear Mr. Eckhardt, This letter report provides an assessment of potential effects to federal and state-listed and candidate threatened and endangered species within the area proposed for the Mitchell Lake Wetlands Quality Treatment Initiatives Project (Project). It is being submitted to the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) in support of obtaining authorization (permit) for the Project under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This report includes a description of the Project and the investigation area; general observations made during an on-site visual assessment; and an evaluation of potential impacts to federal and state-listed/candidate species. The report concludes that seven (7) federal or state-listed species may be present within the Project area, but that the Project would not likely adversely affect the recovery of any federally or state listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species or their critical habitat. Supplemental information related to the assessment is provided in attachments to this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The primary objectives of the Project are two-fold: (1) reducing the discharge of pollutants from Mitchell Lake to downstream water bodies, and (2) reducing the frequency and duration of uncontrolled discharges over the Mitchell Lake spillway. These objectives will be met through the coordinated management of stormwater storage within the lake and controlled releases of stored stormwater to a downstream constructed wetland.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracked Animals by Group TPWD Wildlife Diversity
    TPWD Wildlife Diversity Tracked Animals by Group Global State Federal State Scientific Name: Common Name: Rank: Rank: Status: Status: Amphibians Frogs and Toads Anaxyrus houstonensis Houston Toad G1 S1 LE E Hypopachus variolosus Sheep Frog G5 S2 T Leptodactylus fragilis White-lipped Frog G5 S1 T Lithobates grylio Pig Frog G5 S2 Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog G5 S1 Rhinophrynus dorsalis Mexican Burrowing Toad G5 S2 T Smilisca baudinii Mexican Treefrog G5 S3 T Salamanders Eurycea chisholmensis Salado Springs Salamander G1 S1 C Eurycea latitans complex Cascade Caverns Salamander G3 S3 T Eurycea nana San Marcos Salamander G1 S1 LT T Eurycea naufragia Georgetown Salamander G1 S1 C Eurycea neotenes Texas Salamander G1 S1 Eurycea pterophila Blanco River Springs Salamander G2 S2 Eurycea rathbuni Texas Blind Salamander G1 S1 LE E Eurycea robusta Blanco Blind Salamander G1 S1 T Eurycea sosorum Barton Springs Salamander G1 S1 LE E Eurycea sp. 10 Dolan Falls Salamander G1Q S1 Eurycea sp. 6 Pedernales River Springs Salamander G1 S1 Eurycea sp. 7 Edwards Plateau Spring Salamanders G1G3Q S1S3 Eurycea sp. 8 Comal Springs Salamander G1Q S1 Eurycea tonkawae Jollyville Plateau Salamander G1 S1 C Eurycea tridentifera Comal Blind Salamander G1 S1 T Eurycea troglodytes complex Valdina Farms Sinkhole Salamander G3 S3 1 PWD 1140A - P4000 (09/10) Global State Federal State Scientific Name: Common Name: Rank: Rank: Status: Status: Salamanders Eurycea waterlooensis Austin Blind Salamander G1 S1 C Notophthalmus meridionalis Black-spotted Newt G1 S1 T Plethodon
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Checklist of Guatemala Butterflies: Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea)
    8 AUSTIN et al: Hesperiidae of Guatemala TROPICAL LEPIDOPTERA TROPICAL LEPIDOPTERA, 9 (Suppl. 2):8-19 A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF GUATEMALA BUTTERFLIES: HESPERIIDAE (LEPIDOPTERA: HESPERIOIDEA) GEORGE T. AUSTIN1, CLAUDIO MENDEZ23, AND ALAN E. LAUNER3 'Nevada State Museum and Historical Society, 700 Twin Lakes Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89107, USA Kintro de Estudios Conservacionistas, Universidad de San Carlos, Av. Reforma 0-63, Zona 10, Guatemala City, Guatemala 01010 'Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA ABSTRACT.- A total of 384 species of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera) have been recorded in the literature as occurring in Guatemala. Nearly 200 additional species occur in the adjacent countries of Belize, El Salvador, and Honduras, in the southernmost states of Mexico, or both north and south of Guatemala, and many of these will likely be recorded in the country with additional field work and continuing searches of museum collections. KEY WORDS: Belize, biodiversity, Central America, distribution, El Salvador, Honduras, Mesoamerica, Mexico, Neotropical, systematics. The butterfly faunas of most regions of the Neotropics are, at best, of surrounding countries, and, especially, taxonomic revisions for superficially known. Recent comprehensive checklists are available additional records. for few countries, Mexico (de la Maza et al, 1989, 1991), Trinidad The following list contains only those species specifically and Tobago (Barcant, 1970), Jamaica (Brown and Heineman, 1972), attributed to Guatemala and omits those generally referred to as Hispaniola (Schwartz, 1989), and the entirety of the West Indies occurring throughout Central America and the like. This undoubtedly (Smith et al, 1994). Checklists for local areas are also available omits some widespread and common taxa recorded in Guatemala but (e.g., Austin et al, 1996; Brown and Mielke, 1967a, 1967b; de la removes ambiguities from our collation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 4
    Lepidoptera of North America 4. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America. 4. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico by Paul A. Opler Department of Bioagricultural Sciences Colorado State University · Fort Collins, CO 80523 [email protected] Research Associate, Department of Entomology Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560 and Andrew D. Warren Department of Entomology Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 [email protected] Research Associate, Museo de Zoologia Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Apdo. Postal 70-399, Mexico, D.F. 04510 Mexico November 10, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University This list generally follows the order found in the Miller and Brown (1981) Catalogue/Checklist of the Butterflies ofNorth America and the supplement to that list by Ferris (1989c), both published as Memoirs of the Lepidopterists' Society. Generic name usage is conservative (when opinions vary on how to divide monophyletic groups) and generally follows that used in A Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies (Opler 1992, 1998), A Field Guide to Western Butterflies (Opler 1999) and the Stanford and Opler (1993) Atlas to Western USA Butterflies (updated as Opler et al. 2000). Some changes are made to conform with recent research results (e.g. Emmel 1998) and with Palaearctic and Neotropical publications (see References). The list that follows includes superfamily, family, and subfamily categories (with tribes for some Lycaenidae), generally in accord with the arrangement presented by de Jong et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosome Number Evolution in Skippers (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae)
    COMPARATIVE A peer-reviewed open-access journal CompCytogen 8(4): 275–291Chromosome (2014) number evolution in skippers (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae) 275 doi: 10.3897/CompCytogen.v8i4.8789 RESEARCH ARTICLE Cytogenetics http://compcytogen.pensoft.net International Journal of Plant & Animal Cytogenetics, Karyosystematics, and Molecular Systematics Chromosome number evolution in skippers (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae) Vladimir A. Lukhtanov1,2 1 Department of Entomology, Faculty of Biology, St. Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab. 7/9, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia 2 Department of Karyosystematics, Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Science, Universitetskaya nab. 1, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia Corresponding author: Vladimir A. Lukhtanov ([email protected]) Academic editor: N. Shapoval | Received 21 October 2014 | Accepted 29 October 2014 | Published 14 November 2014 http://zoobank.org/C1B405AA-DFE2-401B-B25A-31E8D7794B99 Citation: Lukhtanov VA (2014) Chromosome number evolution in skippers (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae). Comparative Cytogenetics 8(4): 275–291. doi: 10.3897/CompCytogen.v8i4.8789 Abstract Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), as many other groups of animals and plants, simultaneously rep- resent preservation of ancestral karyotype in the majority of families with a high degree of chromosome number instability in numerous independently evolved phylogenetic lineages. However, the pattern and trends of karyotype evolution in some Lepidoptera families are poorly studied. Here I provide a survey of chromosome numbers in skippers (family Hesperiidae) based on intensive search and analysis of pub- lished data. I demonstrate that the majority of skippers preserve the haploid chromosome number n=31 that seems to be an ancestral number for the Hesperiidae and the order Lepidoptera at whole. However, in the tribe Baorini the derived number n=16 is the most typical state which can be used as a (syn)apo- morphic character in further phylogenetic investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]