DOCSLIB.ORG

PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW Rio Grande Regional Water Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW Rio Grande Regional Water Plan DRAFT CHAPTER 1: PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW Rio Grande Regional Water Plan B&V PROJECT NO. 192863 . rightsAll reserved. 7 PREPARED FOR Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group 10 JULY 2019 ©Black& Veatch Holding Company 201 Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group | CHAPTER 1: PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Planning Area Overview ........................................................................................... 3 1.1. Planning Background ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.2. The Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Area ...................................................................... 5 1.2.1. Climate ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.2.2. Population and Economy ......................................................................................... 6 1.2.3. Surface Water Resources....................................................................................... 10 1.2.4. Surface Water Quality ............................................................................................. 13 1.2.5. Drought of Record .................................................................................................... 14 1.2.6. Groundwater Resources ........................................................................................ 16 1.2.7. Groundwater Quality .............................................................................................. 17 1.3. Current Water Use ........................................................................................................................... 17 1.3.1. Demands ....................................................................................................................... 17 1.3.2. Major Water Providers ........................................................................................... 18 1.3.3. Agricultural and Natural Resources ................................................................. 20 1.3.4. Threats to Agricultural and Natural Resources ........................................... 26 1.4. Existing Local and Regional Water Plans ............................................................................... 29 1.4.1. Drought Planning ...................................................................................................... 29 1.4.2. Existing Regional Water Plans ............................................................................ 31 1.4.3. Public Water Supply Systems .............................................................................. 33 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Region M Water Planning Group ................................................................................ 3 Table 1-2 Median Household Income, Poverty, and Unemployment Rate, by County ................................................................................................................................. 10 Table 1-3 Firm Yield Projections, Amistad-Falcon Reservoir System 2020- 2070 (Acre-feet/year) ................................................................................................. 15 Table 1-4 Region M Major Water Providers ............................................................................ 18 Table 1-5 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species in Region M ..................... 25 Table 1-6 Local Water Plans Filed with TCEQ ........................................................................ 29 Table 1-7 Summary of Region M Water Loss Audit Data, 2010 (million gallons, %) ........................................................................................................................ 33 BLACK & VEATCH | Error! No text of specified style in document. i CHAPTER 1: PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW | Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Rio Grande Regional Planning Area (Region M) .................................................. 5 Figure 1-2 Region M Historical Populations, US Census Bureau ......................................... 6 Figure 1-3 Major Metropolitan Areas of Region M .................................................................... 7 Figure 1-4 Pre-Tax Gross Farm Income by County, USDA 2017 Agriculture Census .................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 1-5 Direct County Travel Spending ($ Millions) ............................................................ 9 Figure 1-6 Hydrologic Map of the Arroyo Colorado showing floodway systems (Arroyo Colorado Watershed Protection Plan, 2017 Update) ............................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 1-7 River Basin in Region M .............................................................................................. 12 Figure 1-8 Reservoir Storage for the Amistad-Falcon System, US and Combined .......................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 1-9 Major and Minor Aquifers in Region M ................................................................. 16 Figure 1-10 Water Demand Projections for Each WUG Type in Region M (Acre-feet/year) ............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 1-11 Region M Land Use Map ......................................................................................... 20 Figure 1-12 Deliveries from Mexico under 1944 Treaty (IBWC) .................................. 27 ii JULY 2019 Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group | CHAPTER 1: PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW CHAPTER 1: PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW 1.1. PLANNING BACKGROUND The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) was established in 1957 through a state constitutional amendment and is charged with preparing a comprehensive and flexible long-term plan for the development, conservation, and management of the state’s water resources. Historically, the State Water Plan had been prepared by the TWDB with input from other state and local agencies and the public. Senate Bill 1 (SB1) was enacted in 1997 by the 75 th Legislature, which established a “bottom up” approach whereby State Water Plans are based on Regional Water Plans prepared and adopted by the 16 appointed Regional Water Planning Groups (RWPGs). SB1 states that the purpose of regional water planning is to: “Provide for the orderly development, management, and conservation of water resources and preparation for and response to drought conditions in order that sufficient water will be available at a reasonable cost to ensure public health, safety, and welfare; further economic development; and protect the agricultural and natural resources of that particular region.” SB1 also provides that future regulatory and financing decisions of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the TWDB be consistent with the current State Water Plan (SWP). In 2013 House Bill 4 (HB4) was enacted, which lends greater weight to the SWP by committing an additional funding pool to the implementation of projects recommended in the plan by way of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT). The TWDB is the state agency designated to oversee the planning effort, with Mr. William Alfaro currently serving as the Project Manager for Region M. The Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group (Region M) members, listed in Table 1-1, act as the decision-making body for the regional water planning effort. The Lower Rio Grande Development Council (LRGVDC) serves as the political subdivision to administer the Regional Water Planning Grant, and Black and Veatch Corporation was selected as the prime consultant for the planning and engineering tasks required for development of the Regional Water Plan. Table 1-1 Region M Water Planning Group INTEREST NAME RESIDENT COUNTY Thomas Rodriguez * Public Webb Laredo Joe Rathmell Zapata County Judge, Zapata Counties David L. Fuentes Hidalgo Precinct 1 Commissioner, Weslaco Jorge Flores Maverick Municipalities Eagle Pass Water Works, Eagle Pass John Bruciak Cameron BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Background 3 CHAPTER 1: PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW | Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group INTEREST NAME RESIDENT COUNTY Brownsville PUB, Brownsville Riazul Mia Webb City of Laredo Donald K. McGhee * Industries Cameron Hydro Systems, Inc., Harlingen Neal Wilkins, Ph.D. Jim Hogg East Wildlife Foundation Agriculture Dale Murden Hidalgo Texas Citrus Mutual, Mission Jaime Flores Environmental Hidalgo The Arroyo Colorado Watershed Carlos Garza Hidalgo AEC Engineering, LLC, Edinburg Small Business Nick Benavides * Webb Nick Benavides Co. Electric Generating Utilities VACANT VACANT Mayor James Darling River Authorities Hidalgo Rio Grande Regional Water Authority Sonny Hinojosa * Hidalgo HCID No. 2, San Juan Water Districts Tom McLemore Cameron Harlingen Irrigation District Dennis Goldsberry Water Utilities Hidalgo North Alamo Water Supply Corporation Groundwater Management Armando Vela Hidalgo Area Red Sands GCD Frank Schuster * Hidalgo Val Verde Vegetable Co. Other Glenn Jarvis Hidalgo Attorney, McAllen *Executive Committee Member The Regional Water Plans (RWP) are updated every five years and used as a part of the update to the State Water Plan (SWP). The RWP are based on an assessment of future water demands and currently available water supply, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Disastrous Impacts of Trump's Border Wall on Wildlife
    a Wall in the Wild The Disastrous Impacts of Trump’s Border Wall on Wildlife Noah Greenwald, Brian Segee, Tierra Curry and Curt Bradley Center for Biological Diversity, May 2017 Saving Life on Earth Executive Summary rump’s border wall will be a deathblow to already endangered animals on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. This report examines the impacts of construction of that wall on threatened and endangered species along the entirety of the nearly 2,000 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. TThe wall and concurrent border-enforcement activities are a serious human-rights disaster, but the wall will also have severe impacts on wildlife and the environment, leading to direct and indirect habitat destruction. A wall will block movement of many wildlife species, precluding genetic exchange, population rescue and movement of species in response to climate change. This may very well lead to the extinction of the jaguar, ocelot, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl and other species in the United States. To assess the impacts of the wall on imperiled species, we identified all species protected as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, or under consideration for such protection by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“candidates”), that have ranges near or crossing the border. We also determined whether any of these species have designated “critical habitat” on the border in the United States. Finally, we reviewed available literature on the impacts of the existing border wall. We found that the border wall will have disastrous impacts on our most vulnerable wildlife, including: 93 threatened, endangered and candidate species would potentially be affected by construction of a wall and related infrastructure spanning the entirety of the border, including jaguars, Mexican gray wolves and Quino checkerspot butterflies.
    [Show full text]
  • Cypress Weevil, Eudociminus Mannerheimii (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)1 Albert E
    EENY-360 Cypress Weevil, Eudociminus mannerheimii (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)1 Albert E. Mayfield, III2 Introduction The cypress weevil, Eudociminus mannerheimii (Boheman), is a native insect that breeds primarily in scarred, weak- ened, or fallen bald cypress (Taxodium distichum [L.] L.C. Rich) and pond cypress (T. ascendens Brongn.). In Florida, adult feeding has caused limited wounding and girdling of pond cypress stump sprouts and planted seedlings. Small diameter bald cypress nursery stock has also been damaged by larvae tunneling through the main stem and root collar. Apart from entries in species checklists and catalogs, published information about the cypress weevil is extremely limited (Hopkins 1904, Blatchley and Leng 1916, Baker and Bambara 1999). Although the cypress weevil has not been a frequent pest of major economic importance, its occasional damage should be recognized, and the lack of information regarding its biology, potential hosts, and management, warrants further research. Figure 1. Adult cypress weevil, Eudociminus mannerheimii (Boheman), dorsal view. Distribution Credits: Lyle Buss, University of Florida The cypress weevil is reported to range from New York to Florida and Louisiana (AL, DC, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, NJ, NY) (O’Brien and Wimber 1982). In Florida, it has Description been collected as far south as Broward County, as well as Adult: 10.5 to 17.0 mm long; black, covered with thick, throughout central and western Florida (Peck and Thomas small, brown and tan scales; thorax slightly wider at base 1998). The cypress weevil has also been collected in central than long; sides (and sometimes top) of thorax striped Mexico (Jones et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report Water System Improvements
    Environmental Report (ER) Village of Vinton Proposed Water System Improvements August 10, 2012 Prepared by Souder, Miller & Associates 401 North Seventeenth Street, Suite 4 Las Cruces, NM 88005 (575) 647-0799 www.soudermiller.com Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 1.0 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action ....................................................................... 1 2.0 Alternatives Considered ..........................................................................................................3 2.1 Alternative A – No Action .................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Alternative B – Installation of Waterline and Appurtenances (Recommended) .......... 3 3.0 Affected Environment / Environmental Consequences........................................................4 3.1 Land Use/Important Farmland/Formally Classified Lands ........................................... 4 3.2 Floodplains........................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Diversifying Tree Choices for a Shadier Future
    Diversifying Tree Choices for a Shadier Future Adam Black Director, Peckerwood Garden Hempstead TX With special cameo appearance by Dr. David Creech Dr. David Creech Who is this guy? • Former horticulturist at Kanapaha Botanial Gardens, Gainesville FL • Managed Forest Pathology and Forest Entomology labs at University of Florida • Former co-owner of Xenoflora LLC (rare plant mail- order nursery) • Current Director of Peckerwood Garden, Hempstead, Texas Tree Diversity in Landscapes Advantages of diverse tree assemblages • Include many plant families attracts biodiversity (pollinators, predators, etc) that all together reduce pest problems • Diversity means loss is minimal if a new disease targets a particular genus. • Generate excitement and improve aesthetics • Use of locally adapted forms over mainstream selections from distant locations • Adaptations for specific conditions (salt, alkalinity, etc) • If mass plantings are necessary, use seed grown plants for genetic diversity rather than clonally propagated selections Disadvantages of diverse tree assmeblages • Hard to find among the standard issue trees available locally • Hard to convince nurseries to try something new • Initial trialing of new material, many failures among the winners • A disadvantage in some cases – non-native counterparts may be superior to natives. Diseases: • Dutch Elm Disease (Ulmus americana) • Emerald Ash Borer (Fraxinus spp.) • Laurel Wilt (Persea, Sassafras, Lindera, etc) • Crepe Myrtle Bark Scale (Lagerstroemia spp.) • Next? Quercus virginiana Quercus fusiformis Quercus fusiformis Weeping form Quercus virginiana ‘Grandview Gold’ Quercus nigra Variegated Quercus tarahumara Quercus crassifolia Quercus sp. San Carlos Mtns Quercus tarahumara Quercus laeta Quercus polymorpha Quercus germana There is one in the auction! Quercus rysophylla Quercus sinuata var. sinuata Quercus imbricaria (southern forms) Quercus glauca Quercus acutus Quercus schottkyana Quercus marlipoensis Lithocarpus edulis ‘Starburst’ Lithocarpus henryi Lithocarpus kawakamii Platanus rzedowski incorrectly offered as P.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Selected Provenances of Taxodium Distichum For
    EVALUATION OF SELECTED PROVENANCES OF TAXODIUM DISTICHUM FOR DROUGHT, ALKALINITY AND SALINITY TOLERANCE A Dissertation by GEOFFREY CARLILE DENNY Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2007 Major Subject: Horticulture EVALUATION OF SELECTED PROVENANCES OF TAXODIUM DISTICHUM FOR DROUGHT, ALKALINITY AND SALINITY TOLERANCE A Dissertation by GEOFFREY CARLILE DENNY Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Michael A. Arnold Committee Members, Leonardo Lombardini Wayne A. Mackay W. Todd Watson Head of Department, Tim D. Davis May 2007 Major Subject: Horticulture iii ABSTRACT Evaluation of Selected Provenances of Taxodium distichum for Drought, Alkalinity and Salinity Tolerance. (May 2007) Geoffrey Carlile Denny, B.S., Texas A&M University; M.A., The University of Texas Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Michael A. Arnold Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. is a widely adaptable, long-lived tree species for landscape use. It is tolerant of substantial soil salt levels, but tends to defoliate in periods of extended or severe drought, when leaves come into contact with salty irrigation water, and tends to develop chlorosis on high pH soils. The purpose of this research was to identify provenances which may yield genotypes tolerant of these stresses. The appropriate name for baldcypress is Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. var. distichum, for pondcypress is T. distichum var. imbricarium (Nutt.) Croom, and for Montezuma cypress is T. distichum var.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sabal May 2017
    The Sabal May 2017 Volume 34, number 5 In this issue: Native Plant Project (NPP) Board of Directors May program p1 below Texas at the Edge of the Subtropics— President: Ken King by Bill Carr — p 2-6 Vice Pres: Joe Lee Rubio Native Plant Tour Sat. May 20 in Harlingen — p 7 Secretary: Kathy Sheldon Treasurer: Bert Wessling LRGV Native Plant Sources & Landscapers, Drew Bennie NPP Sponsors, Upcoming Meetings p 7 Ginger Byram Membership Application (cover) p8 Raziel Flores Plant species page #s in the Sabal refer to: Carol Goolsby “Plants of Deep South Texas” (PDST). Sande Martin Jann Miller Eleanor Mosimann Christopher Muñoz Editor: Editorial Advisory Board: Rachel Nagy Christina Mild Mike Heep, Jan Dauphin Ben Nibert <[email protected]> Ken King, Betty Perez Ann Treece Vacek Submissions of relevant Eleanor Mosimann NPP Advisory Board articles and/or photos Dr. Alfred Richardson Mike Heep are welcomed. Ann Vacek Benito Trevino NPP meeting topic/speaker: "Round Table Plant Discussion" —by NPP members and guests Tues., April 23rd, at 7:30pm The Native Plant Project will have a Round Table Plant Discussion in lieu of the usual PowerPoint presentation. We’re encouraging everyone to bring a native plant, either a cutting or in a pot, to be identified and discussed at the meeting. It can be a plant you are unfamiliar with or something that you find remarkable, i.e. blooms for long periods of time or has fruit all winter or is simply gor- geous. We will take one plant at a time and discuss it with the entire group, inviting all comments about your experience with that native.
    [Show full text]
  • ASHY DOGWEED (Thymophylla [=Dyssodia] Tephroleuca)
    ASHY DOGWEED (Thymophylla [=Dyssodia] tephroleuca) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photograph: Chris Best, USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office Corpus Christi, Texas September 2011 1 FIVE YEAR REVIEW Ashy dogweed/Thymophylla tephroleuca Blake 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Regional Office: Southwest Regional Office, Region 2 Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Threatened and Endangered Species, 505-248-6641 Wendy Brown, Endangered Species Recovery Coordinator, 505-248-6664 Julie McIntyre, Recovery Biologist, 505-248-6507 Lead Field Office: Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office Robyn Cobb, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 361- 994-9005, ext. 241 Amber Miller, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 361-994-9005, ext. 247 Cooperating Field Office: Austin Ecological Services Field Office Chris Best, Texas State Botanist, 512- 490-0057, ext. 225 1.2 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species once every five years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the species’ status considering the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2009 an Analysis of Possible Risk To
    Project Title An Analysis of Possible Risk to Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Associated with Glyphosate Use in Alfalfa: A County-Level Analysis Authors Thomas Priester, Ph.D. Rick Kemman, M.S. Ashlea Rives Frank, M.Ent. Larry Turner, Ph.D. Bernalyn McGaughey David Howes, Ph.D. Jeffrey Giddings, Ph.D. Stephanie Dressel Data Requirements Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision E—Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms Guideline Number 70-1-SS: Special Studies—Effects on Endangered Species Date Completed August 22, 2007 Prepared by Compliance Services International 7501 Bridgeport Way West Lakewood, WA 98499-2423 (253) 473-9007 Sponsor Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63167 Project Identification Compliance Services International Study 06711 Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 RD 1695 Volume 3 of 18 Page 1 of 258 Threatened & Endangered Plant Species Analysis CSI 06711 Glyphosate/Alfalfa Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 Page 2 of 258 STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIMS The text below applies only to use of the data by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in connection with the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) No claim of confidentiality is made for any information contained in this study on the basis of its falling within the scope of FIFRA §10(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C). We submit this material to the United States Environmental Protection Agency specifically under the requirements set forth in FIFRA as amended, and consent to the use and disclosure of this material by EPA strictly in accordance with FIFRA. By submitting this material to EPA in accordance with the method and format requirements contained in PR Notice 86-5, we reserve and do not waive any rights involving this material that are or can be claimed by the company notwithstanding this submission to EPA.
    [Show full text]
  • Fables and Foibles of the Coexistence Approach
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/016378; this version posted March 10, 2015. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. Grimm et al.; Fables and Foibles of the Coexistence Approach Fables and foibles: a critical analysis of the Palaeoflora database and the Coexistence approach for palaeoclimate reconstruction Guido W. Grimm1,*, Johannes M. Bouchal1,2, Thomas Denk2, Alastair J. Potts3 1 University of Vienna, Department of Palaeontology, Wien; [email protected] 2 Swedish Museum of Natural History, Department of Palaeobiology, Stockholm 3 Nelson-Mandela Metropolitan University, Botany Department, Port Elizabeth * Corresponding author 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/016378; this version posted March 10, 2015. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. Grimm et al.; Fables and Foibles of the Coexistence Approach Abstract The “Coexistence Approach” is a mutual climate range (MCR) technique combined with the nearest-living relative (NLR) concept. It has been widely used for palaeoclimate reconstructions based on Eurasian plant fossil assemblages, most of them palynofloras (studied using light microscopy). The results have been surprisingly uniform, typically converging to subtropical, per-humid or monsoonal conditions. Studies based on the coexistence approach have had a marked impact in literature, generating over 10,000 citations thus far.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Information
    Supporting Information Mao et al. 10.1073/pnas.1114319109 SI Text BEAST Analyses. In addition to a BEAST analysis that used uniform Selection of Fossil Taxa and Their Phylogenetic Positions. The in- prior distributions for all calibrations (run 1; 144-taxon dataset, tegration of fossil calibrations is the most critical step in molecular calibrations as in Table S4), we performed eight additional dating (1, 2). We only used the fossil taxa with ovulate cones that analyses to explore factors affecting estimates of divergence could be assigned unambiguously to the extant groups (Table S4). time (Fig. S3). The exact phylogenetic position of fossils used to calibrate the First, to test the effect of calibration point P, which is close to molecular clocks was determined using the total-evidence analy- the root node and is the only functional hard maximum constraint ses (following refs. 3−5). Cordaixylon iowensis was not included in in BEAST runs using uniform priors, we carried out three runs the analyses because its assignment to the crown Acrogymno- with calibrations A through O (Table S4), and calibration P set to spermae already is supported by previous cladistic analyses (also [306.2, 351.7] (run 2), [306.2, 336.5] (run 3), and [306.2, 321.4] using the total-evidence approach) (6). Two data matrices were (run 4). The age estimates obtained in runs 2, 3, and 4 largely compiled. Matrix A comprised Ginkgo biloba, 12 living repre- overlapped with those from run 1 (Fig. S3). Second, we carried out two runs with different subsets of sentatives from each conifer family, and three fossils taxa related fi to Pinaceae and Araucariaceae (16 taxa in total; Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Propagation of Taxodium Mucronatum from Softwood Cuttings
    Propogation of Taxosium mucronatum from Softwood Cuttings Item Type Article Authors St. Hilaire, Rolston Publisher University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Desert Plants Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 25/09/2021 03:23:49 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555909 Taxodium St. Hilaire 29 Propagation of Taxodium softwood cuttings could be used to propagate Mexican bald cypress. mucronatum from Terminal softwood cuttings were collected on 16 October Softwood Cuttings 1998 and 1999. Cuttings were selected from the lower branches of an 11-year-old tree at New Mexico State University's Fabian Garcia Science Center in Las Cruces Rolston St. Hilaire1 (lat. 32° 16' 48" N; long. 106° 45' 18" W), from all branches Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Box of a 2-year-old tree at an arboretum in Los Lunas, New Mexico (lat. 34° 48' 18" N; long. 106° 43' 42" W), and 30003, New Mexico State University, from all branches of a 2-year-old tree in the display Las Cruces, NM 88003 landscape of a nursery in Los Lunas. Plants of T. mucronatum grow rapidly. The 11-year-old tree was 12m Abstract tall (::::50 main branches), and the 2-year-old trees had Mexican bald cypress (Taxodium mucronatum Ten.) is reached 2 m (:::: 15 main branches). This facilitated the propagated from seed, but procedures have not been reported collection of at least 30 terminal cuttings per tree in each of for the propagation of this ornamental tree by stem cuttings. the two years. All trees were irrigated as necessary, but not This study evaluated the use of softwood cuttings to fertilized.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ARROYO COLORADO at HARLINGEN FLOOD FLOW IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS Prepared for: United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission El Paso, Texas Prepared by: Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. Austin, Texas May 2020 Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Arroyo Colorado at Harlingen Flood Flow Improvement Project Cameron County, Texas Lead Agency: United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission Preferred alternative: Expanded Vegetation Removal and Sediment Removal along the Arroyo Colorado Floodway Report Designation: Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Abstract: The USIBWC is considering several options that would restore the full flood- conveyance capabilities to a 6.3-mile reach of Arroyo Colorado between U.S. Highway 77 Business (US 77 Business) and Cemetery Road. The Preferred Alternative would dredge sediment from the channel throughout the reach and expand existing vegetation management operations. Vegetation management currently occurs along a 3.7-mile reach of Arroyo Colorado between US 77 Business and Farm-to-Market Road 509 (FM 509). The Preferred Alternative would expand vegetation management operations to include the 2.6-mile reach from FM 509 to Cemetery Road. These actions are intended to restore Arroyo Colorado’s design flood conveyance capacity of 21,000 cubic feet per second. The Draft Environmental Assessment evaluates potential environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. Two additional alternatives were considered and evaluated but were removed from consideration because they were either not effective or not feasible. Potential impacts on natural, cultural, and other resources were evaluated. A Finding of No Significant Impact has been prepared for the Preferred Alternative based on a review of the facts and analyses contained in the Environmental Assessment.
    [Show full text]