DOCSLIB.ORG

Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Decision Notice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Decision Notice United States Forest National Forests in North Carolina 160 ZILLICOA ST STE A Department of Service Supervisor’s Office ASHEVILLE NC 28801-1082 Agriculture 828-257-4200 File Code: 1950-2 Date: February 24, 2009 Dear Interested Parties: The Decision Notice for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Environmental Assessment (EA) was signed on February 23, 2009. I have chosen to implement Alternative 3 of the EA. The selected alternative proposes up to 1,100 acres of non-native invasive plant treatment across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Treatments will include an integrated combination of herbicide, manual, mechanical, and fire methods to treat identified infestations. A copy of the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is enclosed. The DN and FONSI discuss the decision in detail and rationale for reaching that decision. I am also enclosing a copy of the Environmental Assessment for this project. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal, including attachments, must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date this notice is published in The Asheville Citizens Times. The Appeal shall be sent to USDA, Forest Service, ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer, 1720 Peachtree Rd, N.W., Suite 811N, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-9102. Appeals may be faxed to (540) 265-5145. Hand-delivered appeals must be received within normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Appeals may also be mailed electronically in a common digital format to [email protected] Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. For further information on this decision, contact Gary Kauffman, Forest Botanist, at 828-257-4861. If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 business days following the date of appeal disposition. (36 CFR 215.9). Thank you for your continued interest in management of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Sincerely, /s/ Marisue Hilliard MARISUE HILLIARD Forest Supervisor Enclosures Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact & Project-Specific, United States Non-Significant Forest Plan Department of Agriculture Amendment #23 Forest Service February 2009 Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Nantahala National Forest: Graham, Swain, Jackson, Macon, Cherokee, and Clay Counties, North Carolina Pisgah National Forest: Haywood, Madison, Avery, Burke, Caldwell, McDowell, Buncombe, Henderson, Mitchell, Transylvania, and Yancey Counties, North Carolina Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, & Non-Significant Forest Plan Amendment #23 Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Control USDA Forest Service Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, North Carolina Decision and Rationale for with a string trimmer, chainsaw, brush blade, the Decision or mower. = Use of a propane weed torch to spot-burn Decision targeted invasive plants. The weed torch Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have works not by starting a ground fire but by decided to select Alternative 3 of the Non- using the torch’s flame to burn the target Native Invasive Plant Environmental Assessment plant. The weed torch would only be used (EA) on the Nantahala and Pisgah National during times of low fire danger. Its use would Forests (NPNFs). The Selected Alternative primarily be within plant communities that includes: have a low potential to carry fire, such as Southern Appalachian bogs or rich cove = Annual treatment of up to 1,100 acres of forest communities. non-native invasive plants (NNIPs) using an = integrated combination of manual, Amendment to the Forest Plan (see Forest mechanical, cultural, and chemical control Plan Consistency below). treatment methods. Rationale = Use of herbicides to control NNIP One of the goals of the Nantahala and Pisgah infestations where manual or mechanical Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest means would be cost-prohibitive or result in Plan) is to maintain and enhance the diversity of excessive soil disturbance or other resource plant and animal communities of the Southern damage. All herbicides would be used Appalachians, favoring plant and animal according to manufacturer’s label direction communities that warrant special attention for rates, concentrations, exposure times, and (Forest Plan Amendment 5 p. III-1). Given the application methods. Herbicides would be current distribution of NNIP infestation sites on directly applied to the target plants (i.e., the the NPNFs, there is a need to implement a NNIP species) using spot treatment. comprehensive and integrated program of NNIP Techniques that could be used include control to protect the integrity of natural plant spraying foliage using a hand-held wand or communities. backpack sprayer, basal bark and stem I selected Alternative 3 because it accomplishes treatments using spraying or painting these objectives and meets the purpose and need (wiping) methods, cut surface treatments for action. (spraying or wiping), and woody stem injections. Other Alternatives Considered = Manual or mechanical methods to control small spot infestations. Examples of hand In addition to the Selected Alternative, I tools that might be used include shovels, considered two other alternatives in detail: saws, axes, loppers, hoes, or weed-wrenches. Alternative 1 – Proposed Action and Alternative Mechanical methods could include cutting 2 – No Action. A comparison of these Decision Notice and FONSI 2 Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Control alternatives can be found in Section 2.4 of the project to cover more of the Nantahala National EA. Forest. Alternative 1 Finding of No Significant Impact Alternative 1 was similar to the selected alternative, except that it failed to After considering the environmental effects comprehensively address NNIPs on the described in the EA, I have determined that Nantahala National Forest and proposed up to these actions will not have a significant effect on 550 acres annually. The most consistent the quality of the human environment comment that was received on the proposed considering the context and intensity of impacts action was that it did not include treatment of (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental NNIPs on the Nantahala National Forest. Many impact statement will not be prepared. I base my of the design features and treatment protocols finding on the following: from this alternative were carried forward in 1. The action will not violate Federal, State, and Alternative 3. local laws or requirements for the protection Alternative 2 – No Action of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA. The Under Alternative 2, current management plans action with its project-specific Forest Plan would continue to guide management of the amendment is consistent with the Nantahala project area. This alternative was not selected and Pisgah National Forests Land and because it would not respond to the immediate Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) threat that NNIPs pose to our native forest (EA, Section 1.1.1 and 1.6). ecosystem. 2. The actions of this project are consistent In addition, populations of T&E and rare species with the Forest Plan because mitigation on the NPNFs are at risk of being locally measures for impacts have been fully applied extirpated by NNIPs if they are left untreated in in the planned actions. The project is feasible this alternative. and reasonable, and will result in applying Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from management practices that meet the Forest Detailed Study Plan overall direction of protecting the environment while producing goods and Section 2.5 of the EA addressed a non-herbicide services. alternative that was considered but eliminated from detailed study. Since this alternative was 3. There will be no significant effects on public not considered in detail in the EA, it was not health and safety (EA, Section 3.4.3). considered in the range of alternatives for my 4. The actions will not have any detrimental decision. effects on any unique characteristics of the area such as park lands, prime farmlands, Public Involvement wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas in the project area. The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of It may have positive effects in maintaining Proposed Actions on April 1, 2007. A scoping ecologically or culturally important areas in letter explaining the project proposal was mailed their current condition. (EA, Chapter 3). to 90 interested and affected parties on January 30, 2007. In addition, a legal notice for public 5. Based on public involvement and analyses, comment was published in the Asheville Citizen the effects on the quality of the human Times on February 2, 2007. Comments were environment are not likely to be highly received from ten individuals and organizations. controversial (EA, Chapter 3). Alternative 3 was developed in response to public comments that asked for expansion of the Decision Notice and FONSI 3 Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Non-Native Invasive Plant Control 6. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, NNIPs are already within or immediately unique, or unknown environmental risks to adjacent to these habitats and individual PETS. the human environment. (EA, Chapter 3). We could not meet the objective of protecting these plants and habitats without treating NNIPs 7. The action is not likely to establish a inside of the 60-foot buffer. Amendment 23 precedent for future actions with significant would allow this. effects, because the project is site specific and effects are expected to remain localized and short-term (EA, Chapter 3). Determination That Project-Specific, Forest Plan Amendment #23 Is Not 8. The cumulative effects of the proposed actions have been analyzed and no significant Significant Under NFMA effects are anticipated (EA, Chapter 3).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2018 Biological Evaluation Prospect Hamby Project Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Cherokee County, North Carolina For Additional Information Contact: Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, North Carolina 28906 (828) 837-5152 2-1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Species Considered ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES ................................................... 3 2.1 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Botanical Resources ................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Wildlife Resources ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ........................... 14 3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES ................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 Aquatic
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation for US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements
    Draft Biological Evaluation for US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Prepared by: Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared for: US Forest Service, Chippewa National Forest Minnesota Department of Natural Resources May 2014 US Highwy 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Biological Evaluation This Biological Evaluation was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, and other applicable laws and regulations. For additional information, please contact the team leader for the US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Project. Ms. Christine Brown Chippewa National Forest Address: 200 Ash Avenue NW Cass Lake, MN 56633 Phone: (218) 335-8600 TTY: (218) 335-8632 FAX: (218)335-8637 Prepared by: ______________________________________ _______________ Antony Randazzo, HDR Engineering, Inc. Date Reviewed by: ______________________________________ _______________ Kirk W. Larson, U.S. Forest Service Date Chippewa National Forest Reviewed by: ______________________________________ _______________ Cory Mlodik, U.S. Forest Service Date Chippewa National Forest May 2014 Signature Page Page i US Highwy 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Biological Evaluation Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Report ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Register
    NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER VOLUME 35 ● ISSUE 23 ● Pages 2465 – 2648 June 1, 2021 I. EXECUTIVE ORDERS Executive Orders No. 209-213 ........................................................................ 2465 – 2515 II. PROPOSED RULES Health and Human Services, Department of Child Care Commission .................................................................................. 2516 – 2517 Health Benefits, Division of ........................................................................... 2517 – 2519 Public Health, Commission for ....................................................................... 2519 – 2522 Insurance, Department of Code Officials Qualification Board ................................................................ 2522 – 2524 Public Safety, Department of Private Protective Services Board ................................................................... 2524 – 2526 Environmental Quality, Department of Public Health, Commission for ....................................................................... 2526 – 2535 Occupational Licensing Boards and Commissions Chiropractic Examiners, Board of .................................................................. 2535 – 2541 Funeral Service, Board of ............................................................................... 2541 – 2543 III. APPROVED RULES ........................................................................................ 2544 – 2637 Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Plant Conservation Board Commerce, Department of Commerce - Employment
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Assessment Robinia Pseudoacacia L
    Risk assessment Robinia pseudoacacia L. Naamloos-2 1 15-03-13 08:10 © Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden March 2013 Naamloos-2 2 15-03-13 08:10 Risk assessment Robinia pseudoacacia L. E. Boer March 2012 Naamloos-2 1 15-03-13 08:10 Naamloos-2 2 15-03-13 08:10 Table of contents 1. Introduction — 5 2. Robinia pseudoacacia: description, ecology and history — 6 2.1. Description — 6 2.2. Ecology — 6 3. Risk assessment — 8 3.1. Entry — 8 3.2. Establishment — 8 3.3. Spread — 8 3.4. Endangered areas — 9 3.5. Impact — 10 3.5.1. Ecological impact — 10 3.5.2. Economic impact — 10 3.5.3. Social impact — 11 4. Risk management — 12 4.1. Prevention of deliberate planting — 12 4.2. Prevention of dispersal — 12 4.3. Eradication and control — 12 4.4. Conclusions — 13 5. References — 14 Annex 1 Risk assessment scores using the ISEIA protocol — 16 This report was commissioned by the Invasive Alien Species Team of the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority. Table of contents 3 Naamloos-2 3 15-03-13 08:10 4 Risk assessment Robinia pseudoacacia L. Naamloos-2 4 15-03-13 08:10 1. Introduction Exotic, invasive plant species have a negative impact on biodiversity, economy and/or public health. For this reason the Invasive Alien Species Team of the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority has requested a risk assessment for Robinia pseudoacacia. The current risk assessment will focus on the situation in the Netherlands and discuss the following subjects: • Probability of entry • Probability of establishment in the Netherlands • Probability of spread • Identification of endangered areas based on the results of the three previous subjects • Impact of Robinia pseudoacacia in respect to ecological, economical and public health aspects • Management options to eradicate the species • Management options to control further spread and reduce impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas of the Flora of New England: Fabaceae
    Angelo, R. and D.E. Boufford. 2013. Atlas of the flora of New England: Fabaceae. Phytoneuron 2013-2: 1–15 + map pages 1– 21. Published 9 January 2013. ISSN 2153 733X ATLAS OF THE FLORA OF NEW ENGLAND: FABACEAE RAY ANGELO1 and DAVID E. BOUFFORD2 Harvard University Herbaria 22 Divinity Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138-2020 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Dot maps are provided to depict the distribution at the county level of the taxa of Magnoliophyta: Fabaceae growing outside of cultivation in the six New England states of the northeastern United States. The maps treat 172 taxa (species, subspecies, varieties, and hybrids, but not forms) based primarily on specimens in the major herbaria of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, with most data derived from the holdings of the New England Botanical Club Herbarium (NEBC). Brief synonymy (to account for names used in standard manuals and floras for the area and on herbarium specimens), habitat, chromosome information, and common names are also provided. KEY WORDS: flora, New England, atlas, distribution, Fabaceae This article is the eleventh in a series (Angelo & Boufford 1996, 1998, 2000, 2007, 2010, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c) that presents the distributions of the vascular flora of New England in the form of dot distribution maps at the county level (Figure 1). Seven more articles are planned. The atlas is posted on the internet at http://neatlas.org, where it will be updated as new information becomes available. This project encompasses all vascular plants (lycophytes, pteridophytes and spermatophytes) at the rank of species, subspecies, and variety growing independent of cultivation in the six New England states.
    [Show full text]
  • State Natural Area Management Plan
    OLD FOREST STATE NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM APRIL 2015 Prepared by: Allan J. Trently West Tennessee Stewardship Ecologist Natural Areas Program Division of Natural Areas Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd Floor Nashville, TN 37243 TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 A. Guiding Principles .................................................................................................. 1 B. Significance............................................................................................................. 1 C. Management Authority ........................................................................................... 2 II DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 3 A. Statutes, Rules, and Regulations ............................................................................. 3 B. Project History Summary ........................................................................................ 3 C. Natural Resource Assessment ................................................................................. 3 1. Description of the Area ....................................................................... 3 2. Description of Threats .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Leersia Virginica Plant Guide
    Plant Guide Wildlife: The caterpillars of the butterfly Enodia WHITEGRASS anthedon (Northern Pearly Eye) feed on the foliage of whitegrass. Aside from this, little is known about floral- Leersia virginica Willd. faunal relationships for this species. Plant Symbol = LEVI2 Status Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Contributed by: USDA NRCS Plant Materials Center, Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current Alderson, West Virginia status (e.g., threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). USDA Native Status: L48 (N), CAN (N). Description General: Grass Family (Poaceae) Whitegrass is a perennial grass that is native to eastern North America. It is 1 – 3 feet tall, branching occasionally; it is erect to spawling and flowers from July to October. Whitegrass is a good example of the kinds of grasses that grow in wooded areas. Such grasses usually have delicate tin- textured foliage and their panicles or racemes are slender and lanky with small spikelets. As a general rule, they are not very showy. Whitegrass is fairly easy to identify because its spikelets are appressed together to form a single row along the upper half of each branchlet. Each spikelet is single-flowered, oblongoid, and often ciliate along the margins of its lemma. Each floret of whitegrass produces only 2 anthers; this is unusual, because most grasses produce 3 anthers per floret. It is easily confused with the non-native and invasive Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum). Whitegrass may be distinguished from Japanese stilt grass by its lack of a prominent shiny leaf midvein. It has a short life span relative to most other plant species and a moderate growth rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium Vimineum
    EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION EUROPEENNE ET MEDITERRANEENNE POUR LA PROTECTION DES PLANTES 16-21488 Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium vimineum Microstegium vimineum in the USA. © Luke Flory September 2015 EPPO 21 Boulevard Richard Lenoir 75011 Paris www.eppo.int [email protected] This risk assessment follows the EPPO Standard PM 5/3(5) Decision-support scheme for quarantine pests (available at http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOStandards/pra.htm) and uses the terminology defined in ISPM 5 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (available at https://www.ippc.int/index.php). This document was first elaborated by an Expert Working Group and then reviewed by the Panel on Invasive Alien Plants and if relevant other EPPO bodies. The PRA was reviewed by the EU IAS Scientific Forum in 2016. Cite this document as: EPPO (2014) Pest risk analysis for Microstegium vimineum. EPPO, Paris. Available at http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/Pest_Risk_Analysis/PRA_intro.htm 16-21488 (15-21051) Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium vimineum This PRA follows the EPPO Decision-support scheme for quarantine pests PM 5/3 (5). A preliminary draft was prepared by Ms Asuman Ergün (PPO of Turkey). This document has been reviewed by an Expert Working Group (EWG) that met at the EPPO Headquarters in Paris, France on the 2014-10-21/24. This EWG was composed of: Mr Giuseppe Brundu, University of Sassari, Italy Ms Asuman Ergün, Plant Protection Organization of Turkey Mr Luke Flory, University of Florida, USA Mr Ari Novy, US Botanic Garden, USA Mr Johan van Valkenburg, Plant Protection Organization of the Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomová Práce
    UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE FARMACEUTICKÁ FAKULTA V HRADCI KRÁLOVÉ KATEDRA FARMACEUTICKÉ BOTANIKY A EKOLOGIE DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE Fytochemický výzkum Helianthus annuus L. IV Phytochemical study of Helianthus annuus L. IV Hradec Králové 2008 Jana Podlipná Ráda bych touto cestou podkovala PharmDr. Jan Karlíkové, Ph.D. za odborné vedení, poskytnutí cenných rad a za všestrannou pomoc pi vypracování této diplomové práce. Dkuji PharmDr. Zuzan ehákové, Ing. Katein Macákové a Mgr. Jitce Vytlailové za pomoc pi testování extrakt a jednotlivých frakcí a také všem ostatním pracovníkm katedry farmaceutické botaniky a ekologie za vytvoení dobrých podmínek pro práci. Také bych chtla podkovat RNDr. Alen Tiché, Ph.D. z Geronto-metabolické kliniky Fakultní nemocnice v Hradci Králové za provedení GC/MS analýzy. 2 Tato práce vznikla za finanní podpory grantové agentury Univerzity Karlovy GA UK 118/2006/ B BIO. Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci na téma „Fytochemický výzkum Helianthus annuus L. IV“ vypracovala samostatn a použila jsem jen pramen, které uvádím v piloženém seznamu literatury. 3 OBSAH: I. ÚVOD............................................................................................................................ 8 II. CÍL PRÁCE.................................................................................................................. 11 III. TEORETICKÁ ÁST.................................................................................................... 13 1. Botanická charakteristika ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]