VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, Vegetationan Ecological MANAGEMENT: Approach an Ecoregional Approach 122 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT: an Ecoregional Approach
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, VEGETATIONAn Ecological MANAGEMENT: Approach An Ecoregional Approach 122 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT: An Ecoregional Approach Edited by Bonnie Harper-Lore, retired FHWA Restoration Ecologist Maggie Johnson, EPA Botanist William F. Ostrum, FHWA Environmental Specialist 3 13 12 Vegetation Management, An Ecological Approach VEGETATION MANAGEMENT: An Ecoregional Approach CONTENTS Foreword 7 Acknowledgement 9 Introduction 11 FOREWORD APartCKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 –Why an Ecoregional Approach? 13 I NTRODUCTIONIntroduction 15 Chapter 1 – Ecology 16 Chapter 2 – Ecoregions 18 PART I. WHYChapter AN 3 –ECOLOGICAL Ecoregion Map Choices APPROACH 19 C HAPTER 1 - ECOLOGY Part- 2Importance – State Ecoregion to Vegetation Maps, Managers Models, and Resources 25 Introduction 27 - UnderstandingAlabama - Wyoming Critical Ecological Principles 28 - Guidelines for Decision-Making in Planning CPartHAPTER 3 – Applied2 - ECOREGIONS Ecology, The Nebraska Model 129 - UsefulnessIntroduction to Land Managers 131 Chapter 1 - Landscape and Corridor Objectives 132 C HAPTERChapter3 - AGENCIES 2 - Nebraska USE VARIOUS Region M“D”APS Example 134 - MajorChapter Cooperative 3 - Plant EcologicalSpecies Match Efforts Objectives 137 - EcoLogical, an Interagency Approach Part 4 – Native Plant Establishment 141 - InternationalIntroduction Ecoregional Efforts 143 C HAPTERChapter4 - PLANT 1 - TheCOMMUNITIES Midwest Model WITHIN ECOREGIONS 145 Chapter 2 – Design Considerations 146 - WhatChapter are Plant 3 – Planning Communities? a Seed Mix 150 - GrasslandChapter 4Communities – Plant Species Fit Selection Roadside Needs 152 Chapter 5 – Native Seed Specification 156 - WhatChapter is Native 6 – Erosion and what Control is not? Use 159 CHAPTER 5 - 50 STATE ECOREGION MAPS, MODELS AND RESOURCES Part 5 – Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management 167 PART 2. IntroductionAN APPLIED ECOLOGY EXAMPLE 169 Chapter 1 – Planning Ahead – How to Develop an IRVM Plan 172 C HAPTERChapter1 - MATCHING 2 – RoadsideECOLOGICAL Succession AND PROJECT NEEDS 174 Chapter Chapter2 - Nebraska 3 – How Department to Inventory of Vegetation Roads Use of Ecoregions 176 Chapter 4 – Noxious Weed or Invasive Plant? 178 - ObjectivesChapter 5for – Roadsides Corridors for Wildlife 184 - Nebraska?s Classification Map CPartHAPTER 6 – On-the-Ground3 - HOW IT WORKS Applications 193 Introduction 195 - MatchingChapter of 1 -Landscape Basic Mowing and Strategies Classification to Region D 196 - NebraskaChapter Species 2 - Basic list Spraying for Region Strategies D 198 Chapter 3 - How to Control 40 Common Invasive Plants 201 Chapter 4 - Other Successful Tools 205 PART 3. ChapterHOW TO 5 - FourESTABLISH Modern Partnerships NATIVE VEGETATION 207 CHAPTER 1 - ESTABLISHING A NATIVE GRASSLAND COMMUNITY Part- 7Native – Appendix grassland characteristics 215 Introduction 217 - NativeChapter Plant 1 - RequirementsClassroom and Field Exercises for Instructor Use 218 - HowChapter to Protect 2 - Additional Native Remnants Reading and Resources 223 Chapter 3 - Memorandum of Understanding Examples 226 - WhyChapter Ecoregion 4 - Requirements Ecotypes are That Important Support an Ecological Approach 234 5 13 Vegetation Management, An Ecological Approach CHAPTER 2 - DESIGNING AND PLANNING NATIVE PLANT USE - How to Match Seed Species to Conditions - Cover Crop Considerations - Lessons of Nonnative Legumes - How to write a Native Seed Specification - How to Read a Native Seed Label - How to Seed Native Vegetation CHAPTER 3 - PLANNING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL USE - Why Plan for Erosion Control - Native Grasses Minimize Erosion (drawings) - How to Use Native Species for Erosion Control - How to Develop a SWPP Plan - BMPs for Erosion and Sediment Control? PART 4 - HOW TO MANAGE ALL VEGETATION - Importance of Integrated Vegetation Management 12 FOREWARDFOREWORD When we first started using an “ecoregional approach” to roadside vegetation manage- ment, we received an inquiry from a newspaper in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. They Whenwanted we to first know started why using we weren’t an “ecological mowing approach” and spraying to roadside more (or vegetation all) of the management, non-paved we receivedareas of thean inquiry transportation form a newspaper corridors. in Our the Minneapolis-St.response was that Paul roadsides area. They fit wantedthe definition to know whyof rangelands we weren’t or mowing grasslands, and spraying even where more largely (or all) wooded. of the non-paved The roadsides areas of are the nottransportation agricul- tural lands, manicured lawns nor parklands. Rangelands are mainly managed by applying corridors.ecological Ourprinciples response to wasthe developmentthat roadsides andfit the manipulation definition of ofrangelands, the vegetation. grasslands An ecologi-even wherecal approach largely wooded.required Thea longer roadsides time wereframe not to agronomic produce favorable nor a house results. lawn Aor newspaper a park. Rangelandsresponded thatare mainly it sounded managed good by but applying seemed ecological to be just principles another to name the development for “don’t mow and the grass and let the weeds grow.” And so it often may appear at first. Time is an important manipulationelement in the of developmentthe vegetation. of Andthings such in annature. approach required a longer time frame to produce favorable results. A wag responded that it sounded good but seemed to be just another name for “don’tStarting mow from the zero grass in and 1900, let theindependent weeds grow.” motorized And so it vehicles often may (cars appear and attrucks) first. Timeincreased is an importantso rapidly elementthat by aboutin the development1930 there was of thingsone car in fornature. every six citizens (today there is more than one per citizen). Highway structures had to increase accordingly and became the “Arteries of the Nation.” They are the most widespread and visible of all public improve- Startingments. Infrom 1932, zero the in Roadside1900, independent Development motorized Committee vehicles in (cars the andDesign trucks) Division increased of the so rapid- lyHighway that by aboutResearch 1930 Board there was oneestablished car for every to research six citizens and (todaydisseminate there is information more than one per regarding roadside care and use (termed “development”). Later there was a Committee on citizen).Roadside Highway Maintenance structures in the had Maintenance to increase accordingly Division. Inand time, became the Americanthe “Arteries Association of the Nation.”of State HighwayThey are theOfficials most widespread (AASHO) and formed visible a ofsomewhat all public improvements.parallel committee In 1932 to exchange the Roadsideinformation Development on the subject Committee between in the the Design States. Division In the late of the1960’s, Highway the AASHO Research committee Board was was re-established in a different form and name. established to research and disseminate information regarding roadside care and use (termed “development”).With the “Great Depression”Later there was in athe Committee 1930’s, highway on Roadside work Maintenance projects of thein the Works Maintenance Project Division.Administration In time (WPA) the American employed Association many architects of State Highway and landscape Officials architects. (AASHO) formedIt was natural a some- whatthat a parallel “dressed-manicured” committee to exchange agronomic information approach on shouldthe subject result. between The termthe states. “front In yards the lateof the nation” came into vogue. This carried with it the image of front lawns, fairways and 1960’sparkways the AASHO(as per thecommittee Washington was eliminated, and Taconic but Parkways)later yet it wasdeveloped somewhat at that re-established time. The in a differentagronomic form approach and name. was in the forefront. With the start of the Interstate highway program, late 1950’s, early 1960’s, the acreage Withinvolved the “Greatrapidly Depression” increased andin the so 1930’s,did soil highway erosion work and costs.projects By of the the late Work 1960’s Project roadside Administrationpolicy modifications (WPA) employedbecame common many architects – “limited and contours”landscape architectsand “architectural on these projects.mowing” It wasand naturalspot spraying that a “dressed-manicured” are examples. Then agronomic in the 1970’s approach came shouldthe fuel result. shortages The termand “frontcost infla- tion to increase the mood for change. Applications of the ecological approach were show- yardsing results of the and nation” gaining came public into vogue. acceptance. This carried with it the image of front lawns, fairways and parkways (as per the Washington and Taconic Parkways) developed at that time. The agronom- icThe approach transportation was in the structure forefront. exists between the two right-of-way boundaries. Its primary purpose is to provide a safe, smooth, solid surfaced area to move vehicles on efficiently. All other concerns are secondary or less. Thus the main purpose of the non-surfaced areas Withi.e., fore the slope,start of ditch, the Interstate back slope highway and other program, vegetated late 1950’s, areas early – is to1960’s, provide the stabilityacreage involved to and rapidlyprotection increased for the and surfaced so did erosionareas from and costs.damage By or the traffic late 1960’s interruption. roadside policy The modificationsecological ap- becameproach iscommon a naturally – “limited stabilizing contours” approach and “architectural for vegetation mowing” whereas and the