DOCSLIB.ORG

Woody Plants and Wildlife: Brush Sculpting in South Texas and The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Woody Plants and Wildlife: Brush Sculpting in South Texas and The Woody Plants and Wildlife Brush Sculpting in South Texas and the Edwards Plateau Robert K. Lyons, Tim F. Ginnett and Richard B. Taylor* ur perspective is changing on the value of brush or woody plants. When Texas rangeland was used primarily for livestock, managing brush meant eradicatiOng it, or at least removing certain unwanted species. Now rangeland owners are shifting to multiple use, which includes managing for wildlife, recreation and aesthetic value. Accordingly, our view of woody plants has changed to one that values these plants in appropriate amounts for wildlife and other benefits. The essential elements of wildlife habitat include food, cover and water. Because woody plants provide some or all of these requirements, managing these plants is important. Woody plants provide food in the form of leaves, flowers, pollen, nectar, mast and fruit. Some woody plants also pro- vide cover, which protects and shelters wildlife from preda- tors and inclement weather. The kind and amount of cover required varies among wildlife species. Many birds also use these plants for nesting, nighttime roosting and daytime loafing. Plants such as cacti even provide water. *Assistant Professor and Extension Range Specialist, and Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University, The Texas A&M University System; Wildlife Biologist, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Loc. Food Cover Water SE Species TP Forage Mast Fruit Protection Nesting Roosting P Agarito, desert holly, Mahonia trifoliolata ✔ ✔ b i o i o B F o B F o B F Allthorn, Koeberlinia spinosa ✔ ✔ i o o B F o B F Amargosa, Castela texana ✔ ✔ i i o F B Anaqua, Ehretia anacua ✔ ✔ b i o B F o B F B F B F Blackbrush, Acacia rigidula ✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F B F B F Blackcherry, Prunus serotina ✔ i o B F B F B F o B F o B F Brasil, Condalia hookeri ✔ ✔ i o i o B F o B F B F B F B F Catclaw acacia, Acacia greggii ✔ ✔ b i o i o B F o B F B F B F Catclaw mimosa, Mimosa spp. ✔ ✔ b i o B F o B F Cedar elm, Ulmus crassifolia ✔ ✔ i i o B F o B F o B F o B F Cenizo, purple sage, Leucophyllum frutescens✔ ✔ b i B F B Coma, Bumelia celastrinum ✔ i i o B F o B F B F B F Coyotillo, Karwinskia humboldtiana ✔ ✔ o B F Creosotebush, Larrea tridentata ✔ ✔ b o o Desert yaupon, Schaefferia cuneifolia ✔ ✔ i i o B F Elbowbush, Forestiera pubescens ✔ b i i o B F o B F Ephedra, Ephedra spp. ✔ ✔ i o B F o Evergreen sumac, Rhus virens ✔ ✔ b i o B F o B F Feather dalea, Dalea formosa ✔ ✔ b i o B F Flameleaf sumac, Rhus glabra ✔ i i o B F o B F Four-wing saltbrush, Atriplex canescens ✔ ✔ i o i o B F o Fragrant mimosa, Mimosa borealis ✔ b i o B F o B F Granjeno, spiny hackberry, Celtis pallida ✔ ✔ b i o i o B F B F B B F o B F Greenbrier, Smilax spp. ✔ ✔ i o B F Green condalia, Condalia viridis ✔ i o B F B F B F B F Guajillo, Acacia berlandieri ✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F Guayacan, Guaiacum angustifolium ✔ ✔ b i B F o B F B B Gum bumelia, Bumelia lanuginosa ✔ ✔ b i o B F o B F B F B F Hercules’-club pricklyash, Zanthoxylum clava-hercules ✔ i o B F B F B F B F Hogplum, Colubrina texensis ✔ ✔ i i o B F o B F F Honey mesquite, Prosopis glandulosa ✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F B F B F Hoptree, Ptelea spp. ✔ i o B F B F B F Huisache, Acacia smallii ✔ ✔ b i o i o B F o B F B F B F Juniper, Juniperus spp. ✔ i o B o B F B B Knife-leaf condalia, Condalia spathulata ✔ i o B F o B F Lantana, Lantana spp. ✔ ✔ b B F o Lime prickly-ash, Zanthoxylum fagara ✔ b i o B F o B F B F B F Littleleaf sumac, Rhus microphylla ✔ ✔ i i o B F o B F B B Lotebush, Ziziphus obtusifolia ✔ ✔ i i o B F o F B Mexican buckeye, Ungnadia speciosa ✔ ✔ b i o B F B F B F Mountain laurel, Sophora secundiflora ✔ ✔ b B F Narrowleaf forestiera, Forestiera angustifolia✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F Netleaf hackberry, Celtis reticulata ✔ b i i o B F o B F B F B F Oaks, Quercus spp. ✔ ✔ i i o B F o B F o B F B F Palo verde, Parkinsonia texana ✔ b i o i o B F o F B B Pecan, Carya illinoensis ✔ ✔ i o B F o B F o B F o B F Poison ivy, Toxicodendron radicans ✔ ✔ i B F Possum-haw holly, Ilex decidua ✔ i o B F B F B B Pricklypear cactus, Opuntia spp. ✔ ✔ i o i o B F o F o F i o B F Redbud, Cercis canadensis ✔ b i B F B F B F Retama, Parkinsonia aculeata ✔ ✔ b i i o B F B Loc. Food Cover Water SE Species TP Forage Mast Fruit Protection Nesting Roosting P Agarito, desert holly, Mahonia trifoliolata ✔ ✔ b i o i o B F o B F o B F Allthorn, Koeberlinia spinosa ✔ ✔ i o o B F o B F Amargosa, Castela texana ✔ ✔ i i o F B Anaqua, Ehretia anacua ✔ ✔ b i o B F o B F B F B F Blackbrush, Acacia rigidula ✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F B F B F Blackcherry, Prunus serotina ✔ i o B F B F B F o B F o B F Brasil, Condalia hookeri ✔ ✔ i o i o B F o B F B F B F B F Catclaw acacia, Acacia greggii ✔ ✔ b i o i o B F o B F B F B F Catclaw mimosa, Mimosa spp. ✔ ✔ b i o B F o B F Cedar elm, Ulmus crassifolia ✔ ✔ i i o B F o B F o B F o B F Cenizo, purple sage, Leucophyllum frutescens✔ ✔ b i B F B Coma, Bumelia celastrinum ✔ i i o B F o B F B F B F Coyotillo, Karwinskia humboldtiana ✔ ✔ o B F Creosotebush, Larrea tridentata ✔ ✔ b o o Desert yaupon, Schaefferia cuneifolia ✔ ✔ i i o B F Elbowbush, Forestiera pubescens ✔ b i i o B F o B F Ephedra, Ephedra spp. ✔ ✔ i o B F o Evergreen sumac, Rhus virens ✔ ✔ b i o B F o B F Feather dalea, Dalea formosa ✔ ✔ b i o B F Flameleaf sumac, Rhus glabra ✔ i i o B F o B F Four-wing saltbrush, Atriplex canescens ✔ ✔ i o i o B F o Fragrant mimosa, Mimosa borealis ✔ b i o B F o B F Granjeno, spiny hackberry, Celtis pallida ✔ ✔ b i o i o B F B F B B F o B F Greenbrier, Smilax spp. ✔ ✔ i o B F Green condalia, Condalia viridis ✔ i o B F B F B F B F Guajillo, Acacia berlandieri ✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F Guayacan, Guaiacum angustifolium ✔ ✔ b i B F o B F B B Gum bumelia, Bumelia lanuginosa ✔ ✔ b i o B F o B F B F B F Hercules’-club pricklyash, Zanthoxylum clava-hercules ✔ i o B F B F B F B F Hogplum, Colubrina texensis ✔ ✔ i i o B F o B F F Honey mesquite, Prosopis glandulosa ✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F B F B F Hoptree, Ptelea spp. ✔ i o B F B F B F Huisache, Acacia smallii ✔ ✔ b i o i o B F o B F B F B F Juniper, Juniperus spp. ✔ i o B o B F B B Knife-leaf condalia, Condalia spathulata ✔ i o B F o B F Lantana, Lantana spp. ✔ ✔ b B F o Lime prickly-ash, Zanthoxylum fagara ✔ b i o B F o B F B F B F Littleleaf sumac, Rhus microphylla ✔ ✔ i i o B F o B F B B Lotebush, Ziziphus obtusifolia ✔ ✔ i i o B F o F B Mexican buckeye, Ungnadia speciosa ✔ ✔ b i o B F B F B F Mountain laurel, Sophora secundiflora ✔ ✔ b B F Narrowleaf forestiera, Forestiera angustifolia✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F Netleaf hackberry, Celtis reticulata ✔ b i i o B F o B F B F B F Oaks, Quercus spp. ✔ ✔ i i o B F o B F o B F B F Palo verde, Parkinsonia texana ✔ b i o i o B F o F B B Pecan, Carya illinoensis ✔ ✔ i o B F o B F o B F o B F Poison ivy, Toxicodendron radicans ✔ ✔ i B F Possum-haw holly, Ilex decidua ✔ i o B F B F B B Pricklypear cactus, Opuntia spp. ✔ ✔ i o i o B F o F o F i o B F Redbud, Cercis canadensis ✔ b i B F B F B F Retama, Parkinsonia aculeata ✔ ✔ b i i o B F B Roemer acacia, Acacia roemeriana ✔ ✔ b i i o o B F B F B F Rusty blackhaw, Viburnum rufidulum ✔ i i o B F o B F B F B F Shrubby blue sage, Salvia ballotiflora ✔ ✔ i o Skunkbush sumac, Rhus aromatica ✔ i i o B F Southwest bernardia, Bernardia myricifolia ✔ ✔ b i B F Sugar hackberry, Celtis laevigata ✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F o B F o B F Sweet mountain grape, Vitis monticola ✔ i o B F o B F Tasajillo, Opuntia leptocaulis ✔ ✔ i i o B F B o B F Texas ebony, Pithecellobium flexicaule ✔ b i i o B F B F B F Texas kidneywood, Eysenhardtia texana ✔ ✔ b i o B F o Texas persimmon, Diospyros texana ✔ ✔ b i i o B F o B F B F B F o B F Texas Sophora, Eve’s necklace, Sophora affinis ✔ i i o B F B F Twisted acacia, Acacia schaffneri ✔ ✔ i i o F o B F o B F o B F Walnut, Juglans spp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Look at the Texas Hill Country Following the Path We Are on Today Through 2030
    A Look at the Texas Hill Country Following the path we are on today through 2030 This unique and special region will grow, but what will the Hill Country look like in 2030? Growth of the Hill Country The Hill Country Alliance (HCA) is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to raise public awareness and build community support around the need to preserve the natural resources and heritage of the Central Texas Hill Country. HCA was formed in response to the escalating challenges brought to the Texas Hill Country by rapid development occurring in a sensitive eco-system. Concerned citizens began meeting in September of 2004 to share ideas about strengthening community activism and educating the public about regional planning, conservation development and a more responsible approach growth in the Hill Country. This report was prepared for the Texas Hill Country Alliance by Pegasus Planning 2 Growth of the Hill Country 3 Growth of the Hill Country Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction The Hill Country Today The Hill Country in 2030 Strategic Considerations Reference Land Development and Provision of Utilities in Texas (a primer) Organizational Resources Materials Reviewed During Project End Notes Methodology The HCA wishes to thank members of its board and review team for assistance with this project, and the authors and contributors to the many documents and studies that were reviewed. September 2008 4 Growth of the Hill Country The Setting The population of the 17-County Hill Country region grew from approximately 800,000 in 1950 (after the last drought on record) to 2.6 million in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Ehretia Anacua / Condalia Hookeri Forest Texas Ebony – Anacua / Brasíl Forest (From International Vegetation Classification, Natureserve 2012)
    6 Major Physiographic Zones of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas (from Hathcock et al. 2014, in press) South Texas Refuge Complex STRC MISSION To restore, enhance, and protect the natural diversity of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas Two-Pronged Approach Acquisition -- land/easements • Create corridors* • Conserve unique biota • Very high, immediate priority Restoration -- mature riparian woodlands • Create corridors* • Augment and enhance habitat blocks • Long-term ecosystem sustainability STRC Restoration Program • Facilitate succession • 5,000 ha planted since mid-1980’s • Early sites direct-seeded/low-density (<600 plants/ha) transplants • Currently 200 ha/year @ 1,000-2,000 plants/ha (50-60 species) • Additional 3,000 ha slated for future Seedlings in “Mini” (6” x 1.5”) Plant Bands Texas ebony Ebanopsis ebano all-thorn goat-bush Castela erecta Evaluation of Effectiveness Traditional • Focus on maximum area/numbers of plants • 1st-Year Survivorship (re-plant?) • No long-term data Current • Increased focus on similarity to natural climax communities • Poor results observed anecdotally at many past sites • Possible to evaluate 15 to 25-year-old sites Study Methods • Non-Systematic, Qualitative Surveys – 2 distinct association-level mature woodland communities – noted dominant species within 4 vertical strata • Belt-Transect Surveys – 9 Sites (3 direct-seed, 5 transplant, 1 control) – counted all individual woody plants within 2 to 3-m belt Ebenopsis ebano – Ehretia anacua / Condalia hookeri Forest Texas Ebony – Anacua / Brasíl
    [Show full text]
  • Research Advances on Leaf and Wood Anatomy of Woody Species
    rch: O ea pe es n A R t c s c Rodriguez et al., Forest Res 2016, 5:3 e e r s o s Forest Research F DOI: 10.4172/2168-9776.1000183 Open Access ISSN: 2168-9776 Research Article Open Access Research Advances on Leaf and Wood Anatomy of Woody Species of a Tamaulipan Thorn Scrub Forest and its Significance in Taxonomy and Drought Resistance Rodriguez HG1*, Maiti R1 and Kumari A2 1Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Carr. Nac. No. 85 Km. 45, Linares, Nuevo León 67700, México 2Plant Physiology, Agricultural College, Professor Jaya Shankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Polasa, Jagtial, Karimnagar, Telangana, India Abstract The present paper make a synthesis of a comparative leaf anatomy including leaf surface, leaf lamina, petiole and venation as well as wood anatomy of 30 woody species of a Tamaulipan Thorn Scrub, Northeastern Mexico. The results showed a large variability in anatomical traits of both leaf and wood anatomy. The variations of these anatomical traits could be effectively used in taxonomic delimitation of the species and adaptation of the species to xeric environments. For example the absence or low frequency of stomata on leaf surface, the presence of long palisade cells, and presence of narrow xylem vessels in the wood could be related to adaptation of the species to drought. Besides the species with dense venation and petiole with thick collenchyma and sclerenchyma and large vascular bundle could be well adapted to xeric environments. It is suggested that a comprehensive consideration of leaf anatomy (leaf surface, lamina, petiole and venation) and wood anatomy should be used as a basis of taxonomy and drought resistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Populations in Texas
    Wildlife Populations in Texas • Five big game species – White-tailed deer – Mule deer – Pronghorn – Bighorn sheep – Javelina • Fifty-seven small game species – Forty-six migratory game birds, nine upland game birds, two squirrels • Sixteen furbearer species (i.e. beaver, raccoon, fox, skunk, etc) • Approximately 900 terrestrial vertebrate nongame species • Approximately 70 species of medium to large-sized exotic mammals and birds? White-tailed Deer Deer Surveys Figure 1. Monitored deer range within the Resource Management Units (RMU) of Texas. 31 29 30 26 22 18 25 27 17 16 24 21 15 02 20 28 23 19 14 03 05 06 13 04 07 11 12 Ecoregion RMU Area (Ha) 08 Blackland Prairie 20 731,745 21 367,820 Cross Timbers 22 771,971 23 1,430,907 24 1,080,818 25 1,552,348 Eastern Rolling Plains 26 564,404 27 1,162,939 Ecoregion RMU Area (Ha) 29 1,091,385 Post Oak Savannah 11 690,618 Edwards Plateau 4 1,308,326 12 475,323 5 2,807,841 18 1,290,491 6 583,685 19 2,528,747 7 1,909,010 South Texas Plains 8 5,255,676 28 1,246,008 Southern High Plains 2 810,505 Pineywoods 13 949,342 TransPecos 3 693,080 14 1,755,050 Western Rolling Plains 30 4,223,231 15 862,622 31 1,622,158 16 1,056,147 39,557,788 Total 17 735,592 Figure 2. Distribution of White-tailed Deer by Ecological Area 2013 Survey Period 53.77% 11.09% 6.60% 10.70% 5.89% 5.71% 0.26% 1.23% 4.75% Edwards Plateau Cross Timbers Western Rolling Plains Post Oak Savannah South Texas Plains Pineywoods Eastern Rolling Plains Trans Pecos Southern High Plains Figure 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Big Tree Registry a List of the Largest Trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas a & M Forest Service
    Texas Big Tree Registry A list of the largest trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas A & M Forest Service Native and Naturalized Species of Texas: 320 ( D indicates species naturalized to Texas) Common Name (also known as) Latin Name Remarks Cir. Threshold acacia, Berlandier (guajillo) Senegalia berlandieri Considered a shrub by B. Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, blackbrush Vachellia rigidula Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' acacia, Gregg (catclaw acacia, Gregg catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. greggii Was named A. greggii 55'' or 4.6 ' acacia, Roemer (roundflower catclaw) Senegalia roemeriana 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, sweet (huisache) Vachellia farnesiana 100'' or 8.3 ' acacia, twisted (huisachillo) Vachellia bravoensis Was named 'A. tortuosa' 9'' or 0.8 ' acacia, Wright (Wright catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. wrightii Was named 'A. wrightii' 70'' or 5.8 ' D ailanthus (tree-of-heaven) Ailanthus altissima 120'' or 10.0 ' alder, hazel Alnus serrulata 18'' or 1.5 ' allthorn (crown-of-thorns) Koeberlinia spinosa Considered a shrub by Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' anacahuita (anacahuite, Mexican olive) Cordia boissieri 60'' or 5.0 ' anacua (anaqua, knockaway) Ehretia anacua 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Carolina Fraxinus caroliniana 90'' or 7.5 ' ash, Chihuahuan Fraxinus papillosa 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, fragrant Fraxinus cuspidata 18'' or 1.5 ' ash, green Fraxinus pennsylvanica 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Gregg (littleleaf ash) Fraxinus greggii 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, Mexican (Berlandier ash) Fraxinus berlandieriana Was named 'F. berlandierana' 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Texas Fraxinus texensis 60'' or 5.0 ' ash, velvet (Arizona ash) Fraxinus velutina 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, white Fraxinus americana 100'' or 8.3 ' aspen, quaking Populus tremuloides 25'' or 2.1 ' baccharis, eastern (groundseltree) Baccharis halimifolia Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' baldcypress (bald cypress) Taxodium distichum Was named 'T.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Texas
    Ecoregions of Texas 23 Arizona/New Mexico Mountains 26 Southwestern Tablelands 30 Edwards Plateau 23a Chihuahuan Desert Slopes 26a Canadian/Cimarron Breaks 30a Edwards Plateau Woodland 23b Montane Woodlands 26b Flat Tablelands and Valleys 30b Llano Uplift 24 Chihuahuan Deserts 26c Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks 30c Balcones Canyonlands 24a Chihuahuan Basins and Playas 26d Semiarid Canadian Breaks 30d Semiarid Edwards Plateau 24b Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands 27 Central Great Plains 31 Southern Texas Plains 24c Low Mountains and Bajadas 27h Red Prairie 31a Northern Nueces Alluvial Plains 24d Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands 27i Broken Red Plains 31b Semiarid Edwards Bajada 24e Stockton Plateau 27j Limestone Plains 31c Texas-Tamaulipan Thornscrub 25 High Plains 29 Cross Timbers 31d Rio Grande Floodplain and Terraces 25b Rolling Sand Plains 29b Eastern Cross Timbers 25e Canadian/Cimarron High Plains 29c Western Cross Timbers 25i Llano Estacado 29d Grand Prairie 25j Shinnery Sands 29e Limestone Cut Plain 25k Arid Llano Estacado 29f Carbonate Cross Timbers 25b 26a 26a 25b 25e Level III ecoregion 26d 300 60 120 mi Level IV ecoregion 26a Amarillo 27h 60 0 120 240 km County boundary 26c State boundary Albers equal area projection 27h 25i 26b 25j 27h 35g 35g 26b Wichita 29b 35a 35c Lubbock 26c Falls 33d 27i 29d Sherman 35a 25j Denton 33d 35c 32a 33f 35b 25j 26b Dallas 33f 35a 35b 27h 29f Fort 35b Worth 33a 26b Abilene 32c Tyler 29b 24c 29c 35b 23a Midland 26c 30d 35a El Paso 24a 23b Odessa 35b 24a 24b 25k 27j 33f Nacogdoches 24d Waco Pecos 25j
    [Show full text]
  • Final Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan
    FINAL FINAL NOVEMBER 13, 2015 BOWMAN PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN PREPARED FOR COUNTY OF BEXAR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 233 N. PECOS, SUITE 420 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78207 PREPARED BY BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD. 3101 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 100 AUSTIN, TX 78746 WITH JACKSON WALKER LLP ZARA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC WENDELL DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES M.E. ALLISON & ASSOCIATES FINAL SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN BOWMAN © 2015 PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT IS THE SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN? The Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan (“SEP-HCP” or the “Plan”) is a way for Bexar County and the City of San Antonio (the “Permittees”) to assist with compliance of the Endangered Species Act. These compliance issues threaten the economic growth of the greater San Antonio region. The purposes of the SEP-HCP are to: (1) Promote regional conservation; (2) Provide support for Camp Bullis; (3) Involve local stakeholders in conservation planning; (4) Streamline endangered species permitting; (5) Implement locally appropriate and cost-effective permitting and conservation strategies; and (6) Leverage available resources. Upon approval of the SEP-HCP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”), a 30-year Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) would be issued. The Permit would authorize a limited amount of “incidental taking” of nine federally listed endangered species (the “Covered Species”) within the jurisdictions of Bexar County and the City of San Antonio. In return, the SEP-HCP will promote the conservation of the Covered Species and related natural resources in Bexar County and other counties of the Southern Edwards Plateau.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Lower Rio Grande Valley and Santa Ana National Wildlife
    Final Lower Rio Grande Valley and Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 1997 (Reprint March 1999) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cover Artwork by Brian Cobble Table of Contents VISION........................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary................................................................................................................... 6 1.0 Introduction and Regional Setting................................................................................. 8 1.1 LRGV Challenges............................................................................................... 8 2.0 Planning Perspectives and Considerations................................................................ 9 2.1 National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................... 9 2.2 The Service & Ecosystem Management ...................................................... 9 2.3 Refuge Complex and Management Districts........................................... 10 2.4 Laguna Atascosa NWR -- A Partner with LRGV NWR............................ 10 2.5 Planning Perspectives.................................................................................... 10 2.6 The Issues.......................................................................................................... 11 2.7 The Need for Action........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion
    A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion June 2004 © The Nature Conservancy This document may be cited as follows: The Nature Conservancy. 2004. A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion. Edwards Plateau Ecoregional Planning Team, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, TX, USA. Acknowledgements Jasper, Dean Keddy-Hector, Jean Krejca, Clifton Ladd, Glen Longley, Dorothy Mattiza, Terry The results presented in this report would not have Maxwell, Pat McNeal, Bob O'Kennon, George been possible without the encouragement and Ozuna, Jackie Poole, Paula Power, Andy Price, assistance of many individuals and organizations. James Reddell, David Riskind, Chuck Sexton, Cliff Most of the day-to-day work in completing this Shackelford, Geary Shindel, Alisa Shull, Jason assessment was done by Jim Bergan, Bill Carr, David Singhurst, Jack Stanford, Sue Tracy, Paul Turner, O. Certain, Amalie Couvillion, Lee Elliott, Aliya William Van Auken, George Veni, and David Wolfe. Ercelawn, Mark Gallyoun, Steve Gilbert, Russell We apologize for any inadvertent omissions. McDowell, Wayne Ostlie, and Ryan Smith. Finally, essential external funding for this work This project also benefited significantly from the came from the Department of Defense and the U. S. involvement of several current and former Nature Army Corps of Engineers through the Legacy Grant Conservancy staff including: Craig Groves, Greg program. Without this financial support, many of the Lowe, Robert Potts, and Jim Sulentich. Thanks for critical steps in the planning process might not have the push and encouragement. Our understanding of ever been completed. Thank you. the conservation issues important to the Edwards Plateau was greatly improved through the knowledge and experiences shared by many Conservancy staff including Angela Anders, Gary Amaon, Paul Barwick, Paul Cavanagh, Dave Mehlman, Laura Sanchez, Dan Snodgrass, Steve Jester, Bea Harrison, Jim Harrison, and Nurani Hogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rio Grande City Station Road
    DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFIGANT IMPACT (FONSI) RIO GRANDE CITY STATION ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIO GRANDE CITY, TEXAS, RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. BORDER PATROL, RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON, D.C. INTRODUCTION: United States (U.S.) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plans to upgrade and lengthen four existing roads in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Rio Grande City (RGC) Station’s Area of Responsibility (AOR). The Border Patrol Air and Marine Program Management Office (BPAM-PMO) within CBP has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). This EA addresses the proposed upgrade and construction of the four aforementioned roads and the BPAM-PMO is preparing this EA on behalf of the USBP Headquarters. CBP is the law enforcement component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that is responsible for securing the border and facilitating lawful international trade and travel. USBP is the uniformed law enforcement subcomponent of CBP responsible for patrolling and securing the border between the land ports of entry. PROJECT LOCATION: The roads are located within the RGC Station’s AOR, Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, in Starr County, Texas. The RGC Station’s AOR encompasses approximately 1,228 square miles, including approximately 68 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border and the Rio Grande from the Starr/Zapata County line to the Starr/Hidalgo County line. From north to south, the four road segments are named Mouth of River to Chapeno Hard Top, Chapeno USIBWC Gate to Salineno, Salineno to Enron, and 19-20 Area to Fronton Fishing, and all of these segments are located south of Falcon International Reservoir (Falcon Lake), generally parallel to the Rio Grande.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Impacts Technical Report
    Cumulative Impacts Technical Report U.S. Highway 79 (US 79) from Interstate Highway 35 (I-35) to East of Farm-to-Market Road 1460 (FM 1460) Williamson County, Texas TxDOT Austin District CSJ: 0204-01-063 March 2020 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 9, 2019, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Technical Report ................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Overview .......................................................................................... 1 2.0 DEFINITIONS AND GUIDANCE ............................................................................... 2 2.1 Definitions of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts ............................ 2 2.2 Guidance ..................................................................................................... 3 3.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 3 3.1 Step 1 — Resource Study Area, Conditions, and Trends ........................... 4 3.1.1 Identification of Resources ............................................................. 4 3.1.2 Resource Study Area ......................................................................
    [Show full text]