DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment for the Eagle Pass Road and Various Infrastructures Project Del Rio Sector, Office of Border Patrol Maverick County, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment for the Eagle Pass Road and Various Infrastructures Project Del Rio Sector, Office of Border Patrol Maverick County, Texas Final ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE EAGLE PASS ROAD AND VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURES PROJECT DEL RIO SECTOR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection Washington, D.C. January 2007 Final ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE EAGLE PASS ROAD AND VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURES PROJECT DEL RIO SECTOR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL MAVERICK COUNTY, TEXAS January 2007 Lead Agency: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Headquarters Facilities and Engineering Room 3-4-D 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20229 Point of Contact: Mr. Glenn Bixler Environmental Planner Fort Worth District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 819 Taylor Street, Room 3A14 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Fax (817) 886-6499 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROPOSED ACTION: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Office of Border Patrol (OBP) propose improvements to 1.3 miles of existing patrol roads along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande and the construction and maintenance of 1.1 miles of a permanent ornamental security fence. In addition, the Proposed Action includes the installation of 15 permanent lights along the eastern boundary of the Eagle Pass Golf Course, and the removal of giant cane (Arundo donax) along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. Revegetation with native species would occur where giant cane is removed. These proposed actions are located within the City of Eagle Pass, Texas. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed action is to provide enhanced FOR THE PROPOSED operational capabilities, a safer working environment for the OBP ACTION: agents, and to further facilitate the OBP’s mission to gain, maintain, and extend control of the U.S.-Mexico border. The need of the proposed project is to increase deterrence of illegal aliens (IAs), improve OBP agents’ line of sight to the Rio Grande, provide improved access and visibility along the Rio Grande for rescue operations, to enhance the safety of OBP agents and citizens of the U.S., reduce IA foot traffic through the Eagle Pass golf course and athletic fields, and increase the safety of the citizens of Eagle Pass. ALTERNATIVES: One other alternative was considered in the Environmental Assessment: the No Action Alternative, which would preclude the implementation of the Proposed Action. ENVIRONMENTAL The Proposed Action would impact approximately 15 acres of soil; IMPACTS OF THE however, 2.4 acres have already been disturbed from the existing PROPOSED ACTION: patrol roads. Approximately 9 acres of vegetation would be affected primarily from the removal of giant cane along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. The giant cane located between the new patrol road and the Rio Grande would be replaced with native Texas plant species typical of thorny-scrub habitat types. No direct impacts are expected to Federally protected species; however, approximately 9 acres of potential migration and foraging habitat for the Gulf Coast jaguarundi (Felis yaguarondi) and ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) would be temporarily impacted from the removal of giant cane along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande. The impacts from the proposed action may affect, but not likely to adversely affect these species and would be compensated by replacing the giant cane with native Texas thorny-scrub plant species to provide travel corridors. Section 7 concurrence has been granted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Appendix C). Eagle Pass Road EA iii Final No significant impacts are anticipated regarding water, air, and noise quality. Temporary impacts to water quality of the Rio Grande along the boundaries of the project area are anticipated to occur during construction; however, these impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Section 106 concurrence has been granted by the Texas Historical Commission (Appendix B). Concurrence included the condition that a qualified archeologist be present during construction within the vicinity of the one site that was observed near the northern boundary of the project area. CONCLUSIONS: Only minor, adverse impacts are anticipated to any resource analyzed within this document other than at the aforementioned cultural resource site. Therefore, no further analysis or documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. The CBP, in implementing this decision, would employ all practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the local environment. Eagle Pass Road EA iv Final TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................1-3 1.1.1 CBP Strategic Intent and Priorities .....................................................................1-3 1.1.2 OBP Strategic Intent and Priorities.....................................................................1-3 1.1.3 Joint Task Force - North .....................................................................................1-4 1.2 PROJECT AREA LOCATION........................................................................................1-4 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED..................................................................................................1-4 1.4 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS..........................1-7 1.5 REGULATORY AUTHORITY ........................................................................................1-7 2.0 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................2-1 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .........................................................................................2-1 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..........................................................................2-2 2.2.1 Roads and Bridge...............................................................................................2-2 2.2.2 Low Water Crossings..........................................................................................2-9 2.2.3 Ornamental Security Fence................................................................................2-9 2.2.4 Permanent Lights................................................................................................2-9 2.2.5 Vegetation Removal .........................................................................................2-14 2.3 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................2-14 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................3-1 3.1 LAND USE.....................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 SOILS ............................................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Prime Farmlands ................................................................................................3-2 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................3-5 3.3.1 Vegetation ..........................................................................................................3-5 3.3.1.1 Riparian Community ...............................................................................3-5 3.3.1.2 Urban-Developed Area...........................................................................3-5 3.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Resources ...............................................................................3-9 3.3.2.1 Texas Wildlife .........................................................................................3-9 3.4 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ....................................................3-10 3.4.1 Federal .............................................................................................................3-11 3.4.1.1 Gulf Coast Jaguarundi..........................................................................3-11 3.4.1.2 Ocelot ...................................................................................................3-12 3.4.2 Critical Habitat ..................................................................................................3-12 3.4.3 State .................................................................................................................3-12 3.4.3.1 Interior Least Tern ................................................................................3-13 3.4.3.2 Indigo Snake.........................................................................................3-14 3.5 UNIQUE AND SENSITIVE AREAS .............................................................................3-14 3.5.1 Rio Grande .......................................................................................................3-14 3.5.2 Fort Duncan......................................................................................................3-14 3.5.3 Eagle Pass Army Air Field................................................................................3-17 3.6 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................3-17 3.6.1 Surface Water...................................................................................................3-17
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • United States Army Scouts: the Southwestern
    3-/71 UNITED STATES ARMY SCOUTS: THE SOUTHWESTERN EXPERIENCE, 1866-1890 THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By Carol Conley Nance, B. A. Denton, Texas May, 1975 Nance, Carol Conley, United States Army Scouts: The Southwestern Experience, 1866-1890. Master of Arts (History), May, 1975, 156 pp., 4 maps, bibliography, 107 titles. In the post-Civil War Southwest, the United States Army utilized civilians and Indians as scouts. As the mainstay of the reconnaissance force, enlisted Indians excelled as trackers, guides, and fighters. General George Crook became the foremost advocate of this service. A little-known aspect of the era was the international controversy created by the activities of native trackers under the 1882 recipro- cal hot pursuit agreement between Mexico and the United States. Providing valuable information on Army scouts are numerous government records which include the Annual Report of the Secretary of War from 1866 to 1896 and Foreign Relations of the United States for 1883 and 1886. Memoirs, biographies, and articles in regional and national histori- cal journals supplement government documents. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF MAPS . iv Chapter I. THE SOUTHWEST: CONVENTIONAL ARMY, UNCONVENTIONAL ENEMY 17 II. ARMY SCOUTS: CIVILIANS ON THE TRAIL . 2.17 III. ARMY SCOUTS: SET AN INDIAN TO CATCH AN INDIAN ..................... - - - - 28 IV. GENERAL GEORGE CROOK: UNCONVENTIONAL SOLDIER ........................ - -0 -0 -0 .0 68 V. INDIAN SCOUTS: AN INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSY .......... *........ .100 VI. ARMY SCOUTS: SOME OBSERVATIONS .. o. 142 BIBLIOGRAPHY, . ...........-.-.-. .148 iii LIST OF MAPS Map Following Page 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes and Documents the Texas Frontier in 1850: Dr. Ebenezer Swift
    Notes and Documents The Texas Frontier in 1850: Dr. Ebenezer Swift and the View From Fort Martin Scott by: CALEB COKER AND JANET G. HUMPHREY The Texas Frontier in 1850 was guarded by a line of army forts ranging from Fort Worth to Fort Duncan near Eagle Pass. With the end of the Mexican War, settlers had begun pushing toward the Texas interior, and troops became available to furnish new towns some measure of protection from raiding bands of Indians. 1 Fort Martin bScott, established between the towns of Fredericksburg and Zodiac in December 1848, was one such military post. The letter reproduced here, from the fort's physician, provides a marvelous glimpse of frontier Texas in 1850. It includes candid descriptions of a farm in Austin, life at the fort, and relationships with the local Indians. Native Americans living in the vicinity of Fort Martin Scott belonged to a number of tribes. The least predictable and most feared, however, were the Comanches. White settlements disrupted their wide-ranging lifestyle and threatened the abundant supply of game. In the mid-1840s their primary tactic was to attack settlers in small raiding parties and then vanish, often taking with them horses and other livestock. These hit-and-run assaults terrorized those on the frontier for decades.2 The Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas had purchased 10,000 acres of forested land just north of the Pedernales River on Barron's Creek in December 1845. By the following May, settlers began arriving from New Braunfels at the town site named Fredericksburg.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Atocha Wooden Bed Post, Tag #85413
    Mel Fisher’s Treasures – On-Line Research Archives Document ©2019 MOTIVATION, INC Atocha Wooden Bed Post, Tag #85413 By James Sinclair, MA Perhaps one of the more unique finds from the Atocha over the past permit period is that of a turned wooden bed post. Turned Lignum Vitae Bed Post, tag #85413, found by the Dare on 10-18-2014 Length: 144.8 cm. Width: 9.5 cm. Min. Width: 15 mm Weight 8.4 kg. This fragment of opulent furniture was located not far from the Primary Cultural Deposit. The Wood was so hard that when first located crew believed that the object might be modern. The first order of investigation was to identify the type of wood that the bed post was made of. For wood identification we have used the services of; Alden Identification Service 3560 Brookeside Drive Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732 http://woodid.homestead.com/ais.html Property of Motivation, Inc. – PuBlished on Mel Fisher’s Treasures On-Line Research Archives Page 1 of 3 Mel Fisher’s Treasures – On-Line Research Archives Document ©2019 MOTIVATION, INC Dr. Alden identified our post as Lignum Vitae (from Latin “Tree of Life”) a portion of the report follows: 1 - Furniture Lignum-vitae Guaiacum sp. Lignum-vitae (Guaiacum spp. L. /Zygophyllaceae), also known as Guayacan or Gai"ac, is composed of aBout 5 species of slow growing shruBs and trees in the Caltrop Family (Zygophyllaceae), native to subtropical and tropical regions of Central and South America. The five recognized species are: 1. Guaiacum angustifolium Engelm. -Texas Lignum-vitae (Texas, Northeastern Mexico) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Zapata Bladderpod Physaria Thamnophila (Rollins & EA Shaw)
    Zapata Bladderpod Physaria thamnophila (Rollins & E.A. Shaw) O’Kane & Al-Shehbaz (Synonym: Lesquerella thamnophila Rollins & E.A. Shaw) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office Corpus Christi, TX 5-YEAR REVIEW Zapata Bladderpod / Physaria thamnophila (Rollins & E.A. Shaw) O’Kane & Al-Shehbaz (Syn. Lesquerella thamnophila Rollins and E.A. Shaw) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Regional Office: Southwest (Region 2) Brady McGee, Branch Chief of Recovery and Restoration, (505) 248-6657 Jennifer Smith-Castro, Regional Recovery Biologist, (281) 286-8282 x 234 Lead Field Office: Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office Chris Best, Texas State Botanist, Austin Ecological Service Field Office, (512) 490-0057 x 225 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review: This review considers both new and previously existing information from Federal and State agencies, non-governmental organizations, academia, and the general public. Information used in the preparation of the review include the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD), final reports of Section 6-funded projects, monitoring reports, scientific publications, unpublished documents, personal communications from botanists familiar with the species, and Internet web sites. The 5-year review was prepared without peer review by personnel of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office. 1.3 Background: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed Zapata bladderpod as endangered without critical habitat on November 22, 1999 (64 FR 63745). The State of Texas listed Zapata bladderpod as endangered on July 18, 2001. The first use of technical terms and words with arcane meanings in the lexicons of science and government are underlined, and are defined in the glossary on pages 39-41.
    [Show full text]
  • The Report of Lieutenant W. H. C. Whiting's Reconaissance of The
    The report of Lieutenant W. H. C. Whiting’s reconnaissance of the wester frontier of Texas 21 Jan 1850 Original Source Document: Congressional Serial Set No. 562 31st Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Doc. No. 64, Washington DC, July 24, 1850 pp. 235-250 Digital Source Document: Google Books https://books.google.com/books?id=4PFJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA235#v=onepage&q&f=false also Hathi Trust Digital Library http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3983516?urlappend=%3Bseq=287 (scanned at University of California) http://hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.hj1lgd?urlappend=%3Bseq=285 (scanned at Harvard University) This PDF document was obtained from the Bosque County Historical Commission. www.bosquechc.org Sis Congress, [ SENATE. ] With Ex. Doc . st Session. N0. 64. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR, ENCLOSINC 'i report of Lieutenant W. H. C. Whiting's reconnaissance of the ■western frontier of Texas. June 28, 1850. I Read. July 5, 1850. OrJertd to be printed. War Department, Washington, June 27, 1850. mr: I have the honor to transmit herewith a communication from vain Fred. A. Smith, in charge of the Engineer Department, enclosing topy of the report of the reconnaissance of Lieutenant W. H. C. Whi- k, of the Corps of Engineers, of the western frontier of Texas, with a le of the accompanying map, in reply to a resolution of the Senate of t25th instant calling lor such report. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEO. W. CRAWFORD, Secretary of War. Bon. Millard Fillmore, President of the Senate. Engineer Department, Washington, June 26, 1850. Sir: In compliance with the call of the Senate resolution of the 25th stint, herewith I have the honor to enclose a copy of the reconnaissance (Lieutenant W.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Classification List Update for Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande National Wild and Scenic River
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Vegetation Classification List Update for Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande National Wild and Scenic River Natural Resource Report NPS/CHDN/NRR—2011/299 ON THE COVER Chisos Basin, as viewed from Casa Grande Peak. Image provided by NPS Vegetation Classification List Update for Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande National Wild and Scenic River Natural Resource Report NPS/CHDN/NRR—2011/299 James Von Loh Cogan Technology, Inc. 8140 East Lightening View Drive Parker, Colorado 80134 Dan Cogan Cogan Technology, Inc. 21 Valley Road Galena, Illinois 61036 February 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data.
    [Show full text]