DOCSLIB.ORG

GHG Final Biological Assessment for Occidental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GHG Final Biological Assessment for Occidental Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) Ethane Cracker, Markham Ethylene Pipeline, and San Patricio Pipeline Project Biological Assessment Prepared for: Occidental Chemical Corporation 5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110 Houston, TX, 77046 (713) 215-7000 Prepared by: Tetra Tech 285 Ellicott Street Buffalo, NY, 14203 (716) 849-9419 Tetra Tech Project No. 112C04710 DRAFT February 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Purpose and Need ............................................................................... 3 1.2 Purpose and Objective of Biological Assessment............................................. 3 1.3 Permits and Regulatory Requirements ............................................................. 3 1.3.1 Clean Air Act .......................................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................... 6 1.3.3 Migratory Bird Act................................................................................................... 7 1.3.4 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .................................................................. 7 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 8 2.1 Existing Shoreline Structures ........................................................................... 8 2.2 Project Facilities ............................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Ethane Cracker Facility .......................................................................................... 8 2.2.1.1 Thermal Oxidizers ................................................................................ 10 2.2.1.2 Emergency Ground Flare .................................................................... 11 2.2.1.3 Material Storage .................................................................................. 11 2.2.1.4 Staging Areas ...................................................................................... 11 2.2.1.5 Wastewater Management .................................................................... 12 2.2.1.6 Stormwater Management .................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Pipelines ............................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2.1 Pipelines .............................................................................................. 12 2.2.2.2 Measurement and Regulation Stations ............................................... 12 2.2.2.3 Additional Temporary Work Space and Storage Areas ....................... 12 2.2.2.4 Access Roads ...................................................................................... 13 2.3 Construction ....................................................................................................13 2.3.1 Construction Schedule ......................................................................................... 13 2.3.2 Ethane Cracker Facility ........................................................................................ 13 2.3.2.1 Construction Elements ......................................................................... 13 2.3.2.2 Ethane Cracker Facility Construction Sequencing .............................. 14 2.3.2.3 Ethane Cracker Facility Best Available Control Technology ............... 14 2.3.3 Pipeline Construction ........................................................................................... 17 2.3.3.1 Construction and Sequencing of Soil Disturbing Activities .................. 17 2.3.3.2 Surveying and Staking ......................................................................... 18 2.3.3.3 Clearing and Grading ........................................................................... 18 2.3.3.4 Temporary Environmental Controls ..................................................... 19 2.3.3.5 Topsoiling ............................................................................................ 19 2.3.3.6 Trenching ............................................................................................. 19 i 2.3.3.7 Pipe Stringing and Bending ................................................................. 19 2.3.3.8 Pipe Assembly and Field Welding ....................................................... 20 2.3.3.9 Nondestructive Examination, Inspection, and Weld Repair ................ 20 2.3.3.10 Pipe Coating, Inspection, and Repair .................................................. 20 2.3.3.11 Lowering-In, Padding, and Rough Backfill........................................... 20 2.3.3.12 Pressure Testing and Final Tie-ins ...................................................... 21 2.3.3.13 Cleanup, Restoration, and Revegetation ............................................. 21 2.3.3.14 Specialized Pipeline Crossings and Methods...................................... 21 2.3.3.15 Environmental Training ........................................................................ 22 2.3.4 Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................... 22 2.4 Operation and Maintenance Information .........................................................23 2.4.1 Ethane Cracker Facility ........................................................................................ 23 2.4.2 Pipeline Facilities ................................................................................................. 23 2.5 Safety Controls ...............................................................................................23 2.5.1 Ethane Cracker Facility ........................................................................................ 23 2.5.1.1 Spill Containment ................................................................................. 23 2.5.1.2 Hazard Detection System .................................................................... 23 2.5.1.3 Fire Protection System ........................................................................ 23 2.5.2 Pipeline Facilities ................................................................................................. 24 2.5.2.1 Training and Licensing......................................................................... 24 2.5.2.2 Corrosion Protection and Detection Systems ...................................... 24 2.5.3 Emergency Response Procedures ...................................................................... 24 3.0 ACTION AREA, SPECIES LIST, AND HABITAT, AIR, AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................25 3.1 Action Area .....................................................................................................25 3.2 Species List ....................................................................................................27 3.3 Habitat Analysis ..............................................................................................28 3.4 Waterbodies Traversed by the MEP Centerline ..............................................48 3.5 Air Quality Analysis and Results .....................................................................49 3.5.1 Estimated Annual Emission Rate ......................................................................... 50 3.5.2 Area of Impact Dispersion Modeling Methodology .............................................. 50 3.5.3 Dispersion Modeling ............................................................................................ 50 3.6 Water Quality Analysis ....................................................................................53 3.6.1 Chemical Discharge ............................................................................................. 53 3.6.2 Thermal Discharge ............................................................................................... 55 4.0 EFFECTS OF ACTION ...............................................................................................56 4.1 Gulf Coast jaguarundi (Herpailurus yaguarondi cacomitli) ...............................56 4.1.1 Distribution ........................................................................................................... 56 4.1.2 Endangerment Factors ........................................................................................ 56 4.1.3 Life History Requirements .................................................................................... 56 4.1.4 Field Survey Results ............................................................................................ 56 4.1.5 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan April2006 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND Wll...DLIFE SERVICE P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 In Reply Refer To: R2/NWRS-PLN JUN 0 5 2006 Dear Reader: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proud to present to you the enclosed Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). This CCP and its supporting documents outline a vision for the future of the Refuge and specifies how this unique area can be maintained to conserve indigenous wildlife and their habitats for the enjoyment of the public for generations to come. Active community participation is vitally important to manage the Refuge successfully. By reviewing this CCP and visiting the Refuge, you will have opportunities to learn more about its purpose and prospects. We invite you to become involved in its future. The Service would like to thank all the people who participated in the planning and public involvement process. Comments you submitted helped us prepare a better CCP for the future of this unique place. Sincerely, Tom Baca Chief, Division of Planning Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Sherman, Texas Prepared by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Planning Region 2 500 Gold SW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Comprehensive conservation plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Suitability of Parkinsonia Aculeata (L.) Wood Grown As an Architectural Landscape Tree in North Darfur State for Interior Design and Furniture
    Suitability of Parkinsonia aculeata (L.) Wood Grown as an Architectural Landscape Tree in North Darfur State for Interior Design and Furniture Osman Taha Elzaki 1Institute of Engineering Research and Materials Technology, NCR, Khartoum, Sudan Nawal Ibrahim Idris Institute of Engineering Research and Materials Technology, NCR, Khartoum, Sudan Mohamed Elsanosi Adam Habib 2University of Al Fashir; Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources Tarig Osman Khider ( [email protected] ) University of Bahri, College of Applied and Industrial Sciences, Khartoum, Sudan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4494-8402 Research Article Keywords: Parkinsonia aculeata , Architectural landscape, Basic density, Static Bending, Compressive Strength Posted Date: July 14th, 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-40962/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Page 1/11 Abstract Wood samples of Parkinsonia aculeata (L.) were collected from Al bohaira Gardens of Al Fashir Town (the capital of North Darfur State, Western Sudan) where they were planted as architectural landscape trees and studied to determine their physical and mechanical properties as potential wood species for structural and furniture purposes. Moisture content, wood density (basic and oven-dry), as well as radial and tangential shrinkage were determined. The mechanical properties studied included static bending strength, compression strength parallel to the grain, the modulus of elasticity (MOE), the modulus of rupture (MOR), and the maximum crushing strength. The obtained results were compared with those of the well-known dominant small hardwood tree in the same area (Boscia senegalensis ). The wood of P. aculeata has shown medium oven-dry density (534.0 kg m-3) with reasonable bark-to-wood and shrinkage ratio.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Actitis Hypoleucos</I>
    Partial primary moult in first-spring/summer Common Sandpipers Actitis hypoleucos M. NICOLL 1 & P. KEMP 2 •c/o DundeeMuseum, Dundee, Tayside, UK 243 LochinverCrescent, Dundee, Tayside, UK Citation: Nicoll, M. & Kemp, P. 1983. Partial primary moult in first-spring/summer Common Sandpipers Actitis hypoleucos. Wader Study Group Bull. 37: 37-38. This note is intended to draw the attention of wader catch- and the old inner feathersare often retained (Pearson 1974). ers to the needfor carefulexamination of the primariesof Similarly, in Zimbabwe, first-year Common Sandpipers CommonSandpipers Actiris hypoleucos,and other waders, replacethe outerfive to sevenprimaries between December for partial primarywing moult. This is thoughtto be a diag- andApril (Tree 1974). It thusseems normal for first-spring/ nosticfeature of wadersin their first spring and summer summerCommon Sandpipers wintering in eastand southern (Tree 1974). Africa to show a contrast between new outer and old inner While membersof the Tay Ringing Group were mist- primaries.There is no informationfor birdswintering further nettingin Angus,Scotland, during early May 1980,a Com- north.However, there may be differencesin moult strategy mon Sandpiperdied accidentally.This bird was examined betweenwintering areas,since 3 of 23 juvenile Common and measured, noted as an adult, and then stored frozen un- Sandpiperscaught during autumn in Morocco had well- til it was skinned,'sexed', andthe gut contentsremoved for advancedprimary moult (Pienkowski et al. 1976). These analysis.Only duringskinning did we noticethat the outer birdswere moultingnormally, and so may have completed primarieswere fresh and unworn in comparisonto the faded a full primary moult during their first winter (M.W. Pien- and abradedinner primaries.The moult on both wingswas kowski, pers.comm.).
    [Show full text]
  • Purple Sandpiper
    Maine 2015 Wildlife Action Plan Revision Report Date: January 13, 2016 Calidris maritima (Purple Sandpiper) Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) Class: Aves (Birds) Order: Charadriiformes (Plovers, Sandpipers, And Allies) Family: Scolopacidae (Curlews, Dowitchers, Godwits, Knots, Phalaropes, Sandpipers, Snipe, Yellowlegs, And Woodcock) General comments: Recent surveys suggest population undergoing steep population decline within 10 years. IFW surveys conducted in 2014 suggest population declined by 49% since 2004 (IFW unpublished data). Maine has high responsibility for wintering population, regional surveys suggest Maine may support over 1/3 of the Western Atlantic wintering population. USFWS Region 5 and Canadian Maritimes winter at least 90% of the Western Atlantic population. Species Conservation Range Maps for Purple Sandpiper: Town Map: Calidris maritima_Towns.pdf Subwatershed Map: Calidris maritima_HUC12.pdf SGCN Priority Ranking - Designation Criteria: Risk of Extirpation: NA State Special Concern or NMFS Species of Concern: NA Recent Significant Declines: Purple Sandpiper is currently undergoing steep population declines, which has already led to, or if unchecked is likely to lead to, local extinction and/or range contraction. Notes: Recent surveys suggest population undergoing steep population decline within 10 years. IFW surveys conducted in 2014 suggest population declined by 49% since 2004 (IFW unpublished data). Maine has high responsibility for wintering populat Regional Endemic: Calidris maritima's global geographic range is at least 90% contained within the area defined by USFWS Region 5, the Canadian Maritime Provinces, and southeastern Quebec (south of the St. Lawrence River). Notes: Recent surveys suggest population undergoing steep population decline within 10 years. IFW surveys conducted in 2014 suggest population declined by 49% since 2004 (IFW unpublished data).
    [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]
  • A Synopsis of the Genus Hoffmannseggia (Leguminosae)
    NUMBER 9 SIMPSON AND ULIBARRI: SYNOPSIS OF HOFFMANNSEGGIA 7 A SYNOPSIS OF THE GENUS HOFFMANNSEGGIA (LEGUMINOSAE) Beryl B. Simpson and Emilio A. Ulibarri Integrative Biology and Plant Resources Center, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 USA Instituto de Botanica Darwinion, IBODA-CONICET, C.C. 22 (Labarden 200), Bl642HYD San Isidro, Argentina Abstract: The genus Hoffmannseggia Cav., now recognized as a monophyletic group distinct from Caesalpinia and Pomaria, consists of 22 species and is amphitropically distributed between North and South America, with 11 species in arid and semi-arid areas of the southwestern USA and adjacent Mexico, and 12 species in southern South America. Recent publications have provided a revision of Hoffmannseggia for North America, a resolved phylogeny, and an analysis of the biogeography of the genus, but there is to date no treatment of all of the taxa. Here we present a key to the genus and its closest relatives, a key to all of the recognized taxa, typification, distributional data for each species, selected specimens examined for the South American taxa, and notes where appropriate. Keywords: Caesalpinia, Caesalpinieae, Hoffmannseggia, Fabaceae, Leguminosae. Resumen: El genero Hoffmannseggia, actualmente reconocido como un grupo mo­ nofiletico distinto de Caesalpinia y Pomaria dentro de Caesalpinieae, consiste en 22 especies con distribuci6n anfitropical en zonas semi-aridas y aridas de Norte y Su­ damerica. De ellas, 11 especies se encuentran en el sudoeste de U. S. A. y norte de Mexico; las otras 12 en America del Sur, creciendo en las zonas andinas y semide­ serticas del Peru, Bolivia, Chile y Argentina. Recientes publicaciones por uno de los autores (B.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 3/Monday, January 6, 2014
    Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Notices 661 Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing utility, and clarity of the information to through applications, semi-annual and Urban Development, 451 7th Street be collected and (4) Minimize the reports, and close out reports. The SW., Washington, DC 20410; email burden of collection of information on information that is collected is used to Colette Pollard at Colette.Pollard@ those who are to respond; including the assess performance. Grantees are units hud.gov or telephone 202–402–3400. use of appropriate automated collection of state and local government, This is not a toll-free number. Persons techniques or other forms of technology, nonprofits and Indian tribes. with hearing or speech impairments e.g., permitting electronic submission of Respondents are initially identified by may access this number through TTY by responses. congress and generally fall into two calling the toll-free Federal Relay This Notice also lists the following categories: Economic Development Service at (800) 877–8339. information: Initiative—Special Project (EDI–SP) Copies of available documents A. Overview of Information Collection grantees and Neighborhood Initiative submitted to OMB may be obtained (NI) grantees. The agency has used the from Ms. Pollard. Title of Information Collection: application, semi-annual reports and Congressional Earmark Grants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This close out reports to track grantee OMB Approval Number: 2506–0179. performance in the implementation of notice informs the public that HUD is Type of Request (i.e. new, revision or approved projects. seeking approval from OMB for the extension of currently approved information collection described in collection): extension of a currently Respondents (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline for UMR Annual Report
    Integrated Science Assessment for the Upper Muddy River, Clark County, Nevada Wetland downstream of the Muddy River & California Wash junction. Photo: Louis Provencher, 2003 Annual Report to the Clark County MSHCP, February, 2004 by Louis Provencher1 The Nature Conservancy, One East First Street, Suite 1007, Reno, NV 89509 [email protected] Rob Andress Otis Bay Riverine Consultants, 1049 South 475 West, Farmington, UT 84025 [email protected] Contract #: 2003-TNC-1-A 1 Citation: Provencher, L. and R. Andress. 2004. Integrated Science Assessment for the Upper Muddy River, Clark County, Nevada. Annual report to the Clark County MSHCP, Nevada. The Nature Conservancy, Reno, Nevada. Annual Report: Integrated Science Assessment for the Upper Muddy River Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. STUDY AREA AND CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE............................................................................... 4 2.2. OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................................................... 4 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 6 3.1 SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Honey Bee Plants1 Mary Christine Bammer, William H Kern, and Jamie D
    ENY-171 Florida Honey Bee Plants1 Mary Christine Bammer, William H Kern, and Jamie D. Ellis2 Several factors influence the flora throughout Florida, While many plants are acceptable pollen producers for including annual freezes, average temperature, annual honey bees, fewer yield enough nectar to produce a surplus rainfall, and soil composition. Because of these variations, honey crop. The tables in this document list the nectar- plants that grow well in one region may not grow well bearing plants that are present to some degree in each in another. Climate, plant communities, and timing of region and the plants’ respective bloom times. Please note, floral resources differ significantly between the three main any nectar plants that are considered invasive in Florida regions in Florida: north Florida, central Florida, and south have been excluded from this list. Florida (north Florida encompasses the panhandle region south through Alachua, Levy, Putnam, and Flagler counties. Central Florida includes Marion County south through Sarasota County. South Florida encompasses the remaining counties including the Keys) (Figure 1). Figure 2. Honey bee on wild mustard. Figure 1. 1. This document is ENY-171, one of a series of the Entomology and Nematology Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date September 2018. Visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. 2. Mary Christine Bammer, Extension coordinator, Department of Entomology and Nematology; William H Kern, associate professor of urban entomology, Department of Entomology and Nematology, UF/IFAS Ft. Lauderdale Research & Education Center; and Jamie D. Ellis, associate professor, Department of Entomology and Nematology, UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 AMENDED BIOLOGICAL OPINION United States Department of the Interior
    2003 AMENDED BIOLOGICAL OPINION United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICE Ecological Services do TAMU-CC, Campus Box 338 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 May23, 2003 Ms. Sylvia A, Waggoner Division Engineer Environmental Management Division International Boundary and Water Commission The Commons, Building C, Suite 310 4171 N. Mesa Street El Paso, TX 79902 Consultation No. 2-11-91-F-144 Dear Ms. Waggoner: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) reinitiated Final Biological Opinion based on our review of the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission's (USIBWC) ongoing implementation of vegetation management practices for the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP) in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Counties, Texas. We have analyzed the proposed action and its effects on the endangered ocelot Leopardus (Felis) pardalis, listed throughout its entire range that includes Texas, Arizona, Mexico to Central and South America, and the Gulf Coast jaguarundi Hemailurus yagouaroundi cacomitli that ranges from Texas to Mexico, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). USffiWC's request and information provided for reinitiation of the 1993 formal consultation and Biological Opinion was considered complete by the Corpus Christi, Texas Ecological Services Field Office (CCESFO) on December 11, 2002. This biological opinion is based on information provided in the April 2002 "Threatened and Endangered Species Report in Support of the Environmental Impact Statement f~r the Maintenance Program of the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project", Volume III of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement {PDEIS) entitled Alternative Vegetation Management Practices for the LRGFCP Cameron, Hildago, and Willacy Counties, Texas, as well as telephone conversations, field investigations, and other relevant sources of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Tree and Tree-Like Species of Mexico: Asteraceae, Leguminosae, and Rubiaceae
    Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 84: 439-470, 2013 Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 84: 439-470, 2013 DOI: 10.7550/rmb.32013 DOI: 10.7550/rmb.32013439 Tree and tree-like species of Mexico: Asteraceae, Leguminosae, and Rubiaceae Especies arbóreas y arborescentes de México: Asteraceae, Leguminosae y Rubiaceae Martin Ricker , Héctor M. Hernández, Mario Sousa and Helga Ochoterena Herbario Nacional de México, Departamento de Botánica, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Apartado postal 70- 233, 04510 México D. F., Mexico. [email protected] Abstract. Trees or tree-like plants are defined here broadly as perennial, self-supporting plants with a total height of at least 5 m (without ascending leaves or inflorescences), and with one or several erect stems with a diameter of at least 10 cm. We continue our compilation of an updated list of all native Mexican tree species with the dicotyledonous families Asteraceae (36 species, 39% endemic), Leguminosae with its 3 subfamilies (449 species, 41% endemic), and Rubiaceae (134 species, 24% endemic). The tallest tree species reach 20 m in the Asteraceae, 70 m in the Leguminosae, and also 70 m in the Rubiaceae. The species-richest genus is Lonchocarpus with 67 tree species in Mexico. Three legume genera are endemic to Mexico (Conzattia, Hesperothamnus, and Heteroflorum). The appendix lists all species, including their original publication, references of taxonomic revisions, existence of subspecies or varieties, maximum height in Mexico, and endemism status. Key words: biodiversity, flora, tree definition. Resumen. Las plantas arbóreas o arborescentes se definen aquí en un sentido amplio como plantas perennes que se pueden sostener por sí solas, con una altura total de al menos 5 m (sin considerar hojas o inflorescencias ascendentes) y con uno o varios tallos erectos de un diámetro de al menos 10 cm.
    [Show full text]