DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Non-Native Invasive Plant Management Chippewa National Forest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Non-Native Invasive Plant Management Chippewa National Forest Environmental Assessment Non Native Invasive Plant Management Chippewa NF Environmental Assessment Non-Native Invasive Plant Management Chippewa National Forest 7/5/2011 10:55 AM Page - 1 - Environmental Assessment Non Native Invasive Plant Management Chippewa NF Contents Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND ISSUES .. 7 1.1 Document structure ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 1.2.1 Maximum herbicide treatment acres by species ............................................................ 8 1.3 Purpose and need ............................................................................................................................ 9 1.3.2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 9 1.3.3 Laws, Regulations and Policies that direct us to manage invasive species ............................. 9 1.3.4 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................. 10 1.3.5 Desired Condition .................................................................................................................. 11 1.3.6 How to meet Purpose and Need............................................................................................. 12 1.3.7 Timing .................................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 Project area ................................................................................................................................... 13 1.5 Proposed Action (Original) ........................................................................................................... 13 1.6 Scoping and public Involvement .................................................................................................. 14 1.7 - Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 15 1.7.1 Key Issues .............................................................................................................................. 15 1.7.2 Non-Key Issues ...................................................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................... 17 2.1 Development Of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Forest Plan Management Direction And Consistency .................................................................. 17 2.3 Alternatives Analyzed In Detail ................................................................................................... 17 2.3.1 Alternative A - No Action ..................................................................................................... 17 2.3.2 Alternative B – Programmatic Integrated Pest Management ................................................ 17 2.3.3 Alternative C - Programmatic Integrated Pest Management With Only Site Specific Use of Herbicides on Leech Lake Reservation .......................................................................................... 18 2.3.3 Alternative D - No Use of Herbicides. .................................................................................. 18 2.4 Treatment Details .......................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.1 Programmatic Treatment ....................................................................................................... 18 2.4.2 Treatment Methods ................................................................................................................ 18 Table 2.4.1 – Sequence and priority of treatments by species ........................................................ 23 Table 2.4.2 Herbicide Treatment Summary ................................................................................... 28 Table 2.4.3 -- Proposed Herbicides ................................................................................................ 31 2.4.3 Treatment Strategies .............................................................................................................. 32 7/5/2011 10:55 AM Page - 2 - Environmental Assessment Non Native Invasive Plant Management Chippewa NF 2.5 New Species .................................................................................................................................. 32 2.6 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study .................................................... 33 2.6.1 - The Original proposed action as Scoped ............................................................................. 33 2.6.2 - Close Selected Roads to Minimize NNIP Spread ............................................................... 33 2.7 Project Design Features and MItigation Measures ....................................................................... 33 2.7.1 Tribal Consultation ................................................................................................................ 33 2.7.2 General ................................................................................................................................... 34 2.7.3 Storage and Disposal ............................................................................................................. 34 2.7.4 Drift Avoidance ..................................................................................................................... 34 2.7.5 Neighbors ............................................................................................................................... 34 2.7.6 Soil and Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 35 2.7.7 Wildlife and Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species ............................................... 35 2.7.8 Water ...................................................................................................................................... 35 2.7.9 Herbicide Transportation and Handling Safety/Spill Prevention and Containment .............. 36 2.8 Comparison of alternatives ........................................................................................................... 37 Table 2.8.1 Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 37 2.9 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................... 39 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................... 40 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 40 3.2 Human Health and Safety ............................................................................................................. 40 3.2.1 Issue ....................................................................................................................................... 40 3.2.2 Scope of the Analysis ............................................................................................................ 40 3.2.3 Regulation of Pesticides ........................................................................................................ 40 3.2.4 Extra Steps for Safety ............................................................................................................ 41 3.2.5 Analysis methods ................................................................................................................... 41 3.2.6 Direct and Indirect Effects ..................................................................................................... 42 Table 3.2.1 Scenarios exceeding human toxicity hazard quotients from herbicide applications. .. 44 3.2.7 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 45 3.2.8 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................ 45 3.3 Traditional Practices ..................................................................................................................... 46 3.3.1 Issue ....................................................................................................................................... 46 3.3.2 Scope of the Analysis ............................................................................................................ 46 3.3.3. Management Direction and Forest Plan Consistency ........................................................... 46 3.3.4 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................. 47 7/5/2011 10:55 AM Page - 3 - Environmental Assessment Non Native Invasive Plant Management Chippewa NF 3.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • Polyploidy19 Program.Pdf
    Preface Yves Van de Peer The study of polyploidy dates back more than 100 years to the work of biologists such as Hugo de Vries and G. Ledyard Stebbins Jr. It has since then been realized that polyploidy is widespread and commonplace in plants. Although polyploidy is much rarer in animals, there are also numerous cases of currently polyploid insects, fishes, amphibians and reptiles. For a long time, ancient polyploidy events, dating back millions of years, were much less well documented and it was not until the advent of genomic technologies that conclusive evidence of ancient whole genome duplications (WGD) events became available and we now have evidence for tens, or even hundreds, of ancient WGD events. Explanations of the short-term success of polyploids are usually centered on the effects of genomic changes and increased genetic variation, which are mediated by changes in gene expression and epigenetic remodeling. Increased genetic variation, together with the direct cytogenetic conse- quences of genome doubling, can potentially affect the morphology and physiology of newly formed polyploids and could lead to alterations of ecologically and envi- ronmentally suitable conditions. For instance, it has repeatedly been proposed that polyploids have increased environmental robustness than do diploids, potentially leading to evolutionary advantages during periods of environmental turmoil. More- over, polyploidy has also sometimes been linked with higher diversification rates. Long(er)-term implications of WGD might be evolutionary innovation and increase in biological complexity by the biased retention of regulatory and developmental genes, which, given time, might diversify in function or cause rewiring of gene regulatory networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Nested Whole-Genome Duplications Coincide with Diversification And
    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17605-7 OPEN Nested whole-genome duplications coincide with diversification and high morphological disparity in Brassicaceae Nora Walden 1,7, Dmitry A. German 1,5,7, Eva M. Wolf 1,7, Markus Kiefer 1, Philippe Rigault 1,2, Xiao-Chen Huang 1,6, Christiane Kiefer 1, Roswitha Schmickl3, Andreas Franzke 1, Barbara Neuffer4, ✉ Klaus Mummenhoff4 & Marcus A. Koch 1 1234567890():,; Angiosperms have become the dominant terrestrial plant group by diversifying for ~145 million years into a broad range of environments. During the course of evolution, numerous morphological innovations arose, often preceded by whole genome duplications (WGD). The mustard family (Brassicaceae), a successful angiosperm clade with ~4000 species, has been diversifying into many evolutionary lineages for more than 30 million years. Here we develop a species inventory, analyze morphological variation, and present a maternal, plastome-based genus-level phylogeny. We show that increased morphological disparity, despite an apparent absence of clade-specific morphological innovations, is found in tribes with WGDs or diversification rate shifts. Both are important processes in Brassicaceae, resulting in an overall high net diversification rate. Character states show frequent and independent gain and loss, and form varying combinations. Therefore, Brassicaceae pave the way to concepts of phy- logenetic genome-wide association studies to analyze the evolution of morphological form and function. 1 Centre for Organismal Studies, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 345, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. 2 GYDLE, 1135 Grande Allée Ouest, Québec, QC G1S 1E7, Canada. 3 Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Benátská 2, 128 01, Prague, Czech Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Neobeckia Aquatica Eaton (Greene) North American Lake Cress
    New England Plant Conservation Program Conservation and Research Plan Neobeckia aquatica Eaton (Greene) North American Lake Cress Prepared by: John D. Gabel and Donald H. Les University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut For: New England Wild Flower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 508/877-7630 e-mail: [email protected] ! website: www.newfs.org Approved, Regional Advisory Council, 2000 SUMMARY The North American lake cress, Neobeckia aquatica (Eaton) Greene (Brassicaceae), is listed as S1 in Vermont, SH in Massachusetts, and “SH?” in Maine. Lake cress likely requires clear, slow-moving water. A requirement of sites is that they have regular fluctuations in water level. Sites are typically located in gently flowing riverine systems and have little or no shoreline development. Special threats include invasive plant species, eutrophication, and development of habitat. All extant New England element occurrences of lake cress are located in Vermont at four sites. VT.002, Orwell is characterized by small population numbers (two to five plants). The site is highly eutrophic and threatened by invasive aquatic plants (Butomus umbellatus, Lythrum salicaria, and Trapa natans). VT.006, Orwell is characterized by a relatively large population (100-500 plants). The site is threatened by invasive aquatic plants (Butomus umbellatus , Lythrum salicaria, and Trapa natans.) VT.009, Shoreham is a highly eutrophic site with 500-1000 plants in the population. VT.010, Isle La Motte represents a population located in a pristine habitat with around 500 plants. The conservation objectives for Neobeckia aquatica in New England are to: C remove the threat of invasive plants from extant lake cress populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Lassen National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    United States Department of Agriculture Lassen National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Use Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Forest Lassen January 2016 Service National Forest In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Vermont CREP PEA 6-6-05
    FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR VERMONT US Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency June 2005 Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Implementation of the Vermont Final Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Agreement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) describes the potential environmental consequences resulting from the proposed implementation of Vermont’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Agreement (Vt CREP , 2005). The environmental analysis process is designed: to ensure the public is involved in the process and informed about the potential environmental effects of the proposed action; and to help decision makers take environmental factors into consideratio n when making decisions related to the proposed action. This PEA has been prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA) in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, and 7 CFR 799 Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns – Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the proposed action is to implement Vermont’s CREP agreement. Under the agreement, eligible farmland in the State that drains into Lake Champlain and the Connecticut River would be voluntarily removed from production and approved conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of China (1994-2013) in English, More Than 100 New Taxa of Chinese Plants Are Still Being Published Each Year
    This Book is Sponsored by Shanghai Chenshan Botanical Garden 上海辰山植物园 Shanghai Chenshan Plant Science Research Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences 中国科学院上海辰山植物科学研究中心 Special Fund for Scientific Research of Shanghai Landscaping ＆ City Appearance Administrative Bureau (G182415) 上海市绿化和市容管理局科研专项 (G182415) National Specimen Information Infrastructure, 2018 Special Funds 中国国家标本平台 2018 年度专项 Shanghai Sailing Program (14YF1413800) 上海市青年科技英才扬帆计划 (14YF1413800) Chinese Plant Names Index 2000-2009 DU Cheng & MA Jin-shuang Chinese Plant Names Index 2000-2009 中国植物名称索引 2000-2009 DU Cheng & MA Jin-shuang Abstract The first two volumes of the Chinese Plant Names Index (CPNI) cover the years 2000 through 2009, with entries 1 through 5,516, and 2010 through 2017, with entries 5,517 through 10,795. A unique entry is generated for the specific name of each taxon in a specific publication. Taxonomic treatments cover all novelties at the rank of family, genus, species, subspecies, variety, form and named hybrid taxa, new name changes (new combinations and new names), new records, new synonyms and new typifications for vascular plants reported or recorded from China. Detailed information on the place of publication, including author, publication name, year of publication, volume, issue, and page number, are given in detail. Type specimens and collections information for the taxa and their distribution in China, as well as worldwide, are also provided. The bibliographies were compiled from 182 journals and 138 monographs or books published worldwide. In addition, more than 400 herbaria preserve type specimens of Chinese plants are also listed as an appendix. This book can be used as a basic material for Chinese vascular plant taxonomy, and as a reference for researchers in biodiversity research, environmental protection, forestry and medicinal botany.
    [Show full text]
  • A Revised Worldwide Catalogue of Cushion Plants 100 Years After Hauri and Schröter
    1914–2014: A revised worldwide catalogue of cushion plants 100 years after Hauri and Schröter Serge Aubert, Florian Boucher, Sébastien Lavergne, Julien Renaud & Philippe Choler Alpine Botany ISSN 1664-2201 Alp Botany DOI 10.1007/s00035-014-0127-x 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Swiss Botanical Society. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy Alp Botany DOI 10.1007/s00035-014-0127-x ORIGINAL PAPER 1914–2014: A revised worldwide catalogue of cushion plants 100 years after Hauri and Schro¨ter Serge Aubert • Florian Boucher • Se´bastien Lavergne • Julien Renaud • Philippe Choler Received: 6 December 2013 / Accepted: 21 February 2014 Ó Swiss Botanical Society 2014 Abstract Cushion plants have long fascinated botanists forms. A website has been launched to display the cata- for their ability to cope with extreme environments in most logue and enable a collaborative improvement of the mountains and arctic regions of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Assessments: Identifying and Assessing At-Risk Species March 2018
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Assessments: Identifying and Assessing At-Risk Species March 2018 American marten observed resting in a northern goshawk nest, in a lodgepole pine-Engelmann spruce forest on the Gunnison Ranger District. Biologists were visiting the goshawk nest site to check for occupancy and found this marten instead. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • D: Rare Plants Species and Wildlife Habitats
    Appendix D – Rare Plant Species and Wildlife Habitats Rare Plant Species and Wildlife Habitats The habitat profiles created for the Wildlife Action Plan have been developed for the purpose of describing the full range of habitats that support New Hampshire’s wildlife species. However, these habitats can also serve as useful units for identifying rare plant habitats. This appendix provides lists of rare plant species known to be associated with each WAP habitat type. In accordance with the Native Plant Protection Act (NH RSA 217-A), the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB) maintains a list of the state’s rarest and most imperiled plant species. This list has been developed in cooperation with researchers, conservation organizations, and knowledgeable amateur botanists. Plant locations have been obtained from sources including herbarium specimens, personal contacts, the scientific literature, and through extensive field research. The list is updated regularly to reflect changes in information. For each habitat, a list of associated rare plant species is presented. These rare plant – habitat associations are based on known occurrences of each species in New Hampshire. It is possible that an individual species will have different habitat associations elsewhere in its range. For more information on dominant and characteristic plant species for each habitat, refer to the individual habitat profiles. For each species, the following information is provided: Scientific name: The primary reference used is: Haines, Arthur. 2011. Flora Novae Angliae: A Manual for the Identification of Native and Naturalized Higher Vascular Plants of New England. Yale University Press. New Haven and London. Common name: Many plant species have more than one common name, and some common names are applied to multiple species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Alaska Vegetation Classification
    The Alaska Vegetation Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Classification Report PNW-GTR-286 July 1992 L.A. Viereck, CT. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick Authors L.A. VIERECK is a principal plant ecologist, C.T. DYRNESS was a research soil scientist (now retired), and K.J. WENZLICK was a secretary (currently is an editorial assistant, Research information Services, Portland, Oregon 97208), ‘Institute of Northern Forestry, 308 Tanana Drive, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5500; and A.R. BATTEN is research associate at University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-l200. Abstract Viereck, L.A.; Dyrness, C.T.; Batten, A.R.; Wenzlick, K.J. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 278 p. The Alaska vegetation classification presented here is a comprehensive, statewide system that has been under development since 1976. The classification is based, as much as possible, on the characteristics of the vegetation itself and is designed to categorize existing vegetation, not potential vegetation. A hierarchical system with five levels of resolution is used for classifying Alaska vegetation. The system, an agglomerative one, starts with 888 known Alaska plant communities, which are listed and referenced. At the broadest level of resolution, the system contains three formations-forest, scrub, and herbaceous vegetation. In addition to the classification, this report contains a key to levels I, II, and III; complete descriptions of all level IV units; and a glossary of terms used. Keywords: Vegetation, classification, Alaska, tundra, boreal forest, coastal forest, plant communities.
    [Show full text]