DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix E – Biological Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix E – Biological Evaluation Appendix E – Biological Evaluation Biological Evaluation of the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision on Federal Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species Addison, Bennington, Rutland, Washington, Windham, and Windsor Counties, Vermont USDA Forest Service Green Mountain National Forest 231 North Main Street Rutland, Vermont 05701 (802) 747-6700 Biological Evaluation Appendix E The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication or program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice or TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write the USDA, Director, Office of civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, Washington, DC, or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Page E - 2 Green Mountain National Forest Appendix E Biological Evaluation Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need..................................................................................................................4 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................4 Proposed Management Action and Alternatives.................................................................................4 Consultation History ............................................................................................................................11 Species Evaluated ................................................................................................................................11 Chapter 2 – Overview of Management Context .....................................................................................14 Description of the Planning Area........................................................................................................14 Management Direction .........................................................................................................................19 Analysis and Management Process ...................................................................................................28 Chapter 3 - Analysis of Effects, Federally-listed Species.....................................................................29 Conservation Status Ranks.................................................................................................................29 Summary of Species Determinations .................................................................................................29 Effects Common to All Alternatives ...................................................................................................30 Gray wolf................................................................................................................................................30 Eastern Cougar .....................................................................................................................................32 Canada Lynx..........................................................................................................................................34 Indiana Bat.............................................................................................................................................36 Bald Eagle..............................................................................................................................................46 Chapter 4 – Analysis of Effects, Regional Forester Sensitive Animals ..............................................50 Summary of Species Determinations .................................................................................................50 Effects Common to All Alternatives ...................................................................................................50 Eastern Small-footed Bat .....................................................................................................................51 Bicknell’s Thrush..................................................................................................................................56 American Peregrine Falcon .................................................................................................................60 Common Loon.......................................................................................................................................63 Wood Turtle...........................................................................................................................................66 Jefferson Salamander ..........................................................................................................................71 Boulder Beach Tiger Beetle.................................................................................................................75 Odonates ...............................................................................................................................................77 Brook Floater.........................................................................................................................................81 Creek Heelsplitter .................................................................................................................................83 Chapter 5 – Analysis of Effects, Regional Forester Sensitive Plants..................................................85 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................85 Summary of Species Determinations .................................................................................................87 Effects Common to All Alternatives across Habitats........................................................................87 Species of Alpine and Subalpine Habitats.........................................................................................88 Species of Rock or Cliff Habitat ..........................................................................................................92 Species of Barrens and Open Uplands ..............................................................................................98 Species of Aquatic Habitats ..............................................................................................................103 Species of Shore Habitat ...................................................................................................................108 Species of Open Wetlands.................................................................................................................115 Species of Forested Wetlands...........................................................................................................121 Species of Rich Northern Hardwood Forest ....................................................................................128 Species of Dry, Low-elevation Forests and Woodlands.................................................................135 Species of Conifer Forests ................................................................................................................144 Literature Cited........................................................................................................................................152 Green Mountain National Forest Page E - 3 Biological Evaluation Appendix E Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Introduction This Biological Evaluation (BE) is prepared in accordance with policy provided in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.42 and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This policy is designed to avoid impacts that may cause a trend toward listing of a species under the Endangered Species Act, or loss of species viability. The purpose of this document is to determine the potential effects of the revised Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan or Plan), and its alternatives, on federally-listed threatened, endangered, and proposed (TE) species, and Regional Forester sensitive species (RFSS), that may occur within the GMNF. The need for revision of the GMNF Forest Plan stems from regulations under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) that require Forests to evaluate and revise their management plans every 10-15 years; the current GMNF Forest Plan was approved in 1987. Federally endangered and threatened species are those determined for eligibility based on guidelines listed by the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. The GMNF consulted with the USFWS to determine which federally-listed species to evaluate in this Biological Evaluation (USFWS 2004, USFWS 2006). Species included on the Regional Forester sensitive species list must occur on Forest Service land or within the proclamation boundary of the Forest, and meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) are a candidate for federal listing under ESA; 2) have been delisted under ESA within the last five years; 3) have a global
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]
  • Attitudes Toward English Language Legislation: Predictors and Rationales
    Intercultural Communication Studies XI: 4 2002 Schatz, Sullivan, Flanigan and Black Attitudes toward English Language Legislation: Predictors and Rationales Robert T. Schatz Nancy Sullivan Metropolitan State College Texas A&M University- of Denver Corpus Christi Beverly Flanigan Autumn Black Ohio University Metropolitan State College of Denver Abstract The research investigated predictors of and reasons for people’s attitudes toward English Language Legislation (ELL) in the United States. Survey responses of 660 participants from South Texas, Colorado, and Ohio were examined. Regression analysis of demographic/background factors indicated that Hispanic ethnicity, Spanish-English bilingual language background, and political conservatism were independent predictors of ELL support. The relationship between strength of ethnic identification and ELL attitudes was mediated by respondents’ ethnicity: Increased ethnic identification was associated with support for ELL among European-Americans but with opposition to ELL among Hispanic-Americans. National (U.S.) attachment, most notably concern for the U.S. flag, also predicted pro-ELL attitudes. Further, in support of the “backlash hypothesis,” higher levels of ELL support among European-Americans were found in the region with the highest proportion of Hispanic residents (South Texas) than in the region with the lowest (Ohio). Pro- and anti-ELL respondents’ importance ratings of reasons for their position roughly paralleled the findings of previous research by Sullivan and Schatz (1999). In addition, ethnic differences in these ratings were more pronounced among ELL opponents than among ELL proponents. These findings are discussed within the context of the predictors and underlying motivations of people’s attitudes toward ELL. 121 Intercultural Communication Studies XI: 4 2002 Schatz, Sullivan, Flanigan and Black The status of English in the United States has been debated for over a century.
    [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]
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps
    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
    [Show full text]
  • Ganesh Sitaraman's Idealized American History
    GANESH SITARAMAN’S IDEALIZED AMERICAN HISTORY DAVID LYONS A popular theme among patriots is to celebrate America’s special virtues, which distinguish it radically from European models. Ganesh Sitaraman tells us that political constitutions have generally been designed to prevent socially destabilizing class warfare between the rich, who seek greater domination, and the poor, who would like to redistribute the former’s wealth. America’s Constitution is distinctive because it was consciously designed for a society in which the middle class is large enough to preserve social stability. That is why Sitaraman calls it a “middle-class constitution.” Sitaraman credits the Founders with understanding that America was capable of avoiding class warfare and its consequences. They understood that the young nation was blessed with “economic equality,” which for present purposes means a middle class large and strong enough to maintain a balance of political power. America’s Constitution was designed to exploit and preserve that equilibrium. But the Founders did not anticipate developments that would challenge the viability of their design, not least the displacement of independent farmers (who are counted here as “middle class”) by low-wage factory workers and their affluent employers. Today, as has happened in past eras, America’s political system faces a compound crisis: America’s increasingly concentrated wealth distorts its electoral system, and its greatly intensified inequality prevents the shrinking middle class from performing its constitutional function. America, accordingly, faces the prospect of open class warfare, from which will emerge an oppressive oligarchy comprising the wealthy elite, perhaps followed by a bloody revolt by the poor.
    [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]
  • Integrating the MAPS Program Into Coordinated Bird Monitoring in the Northeast (U.S
    Integrating the MAPS Program into Coordinated Bird Monitoring in the Northeast (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5) A Report Submitted to the Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership and the American Bird Conservancy P.O. Box 249, 4249 Loudoun Avenue, The Plains, Virginia 20198 David F. DeSante, James F. Saracco, Peter Pyle, Danielle R. Kaschube, and Mary K. Chambers The Institute for Bird Populations P.O. Box 1346 Point Reyes Station, CA 94956-1346 Voice: 415-663-2050 Fax: 415-663-9482 www.birdpop.org [email protected] March 31, 2008 i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 3 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Collection of MAPS data.................................................................................................................... 5 Considered Species............................................................................................................................. 6 Reproductive Indices, Population Trends, and Adult Apparent Survival .......................................... 6 MAPS Target Species......................................................................................................................... 7 Priority
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Paradigms in Critical Mixed Race Studies G
    Emerging Paradigms in Critical Mixed Race Studies G. Reginald Daniel, Laura Kina, Wei Ming Dariotis, and Camilla Fojas Mixed Race Studies1 In the early 1980s, several important unpublished doctoral dissertations were written on the topic of multiraciality and mixed-race experiences in the United States. Numerous scholarly works were published in the late 1980s and early 1990s. By 2004, master’s theses, doctoral dissertations, books, book chapters, and journal articles on the subject reached a critical mass. They composed part of the emerging field of mixed race studies although that scholarship did not yet encompass a formally defined area of inquiry. What has changed is that there is now recognition of an entire field devoted to the study of multiracial identities and mixed-race experiences. Rather than indicating an abrupt shift or change in the study of these topics, mixed race studies is now being formally defined at a time that beckons scholars to be more critical. That is, the current moment calls upon scholars to assess the merit of arguments made over the last twenty years and their relevance for future research. This essay seeks to map out the critical turn in mixed race studies. It discusses whether and to what extent the field that is now being called critical mixed race studies (CMRS) diverges from previous explorations of the topic, thereby leading to formations of new intellectual terrain. In the United States, the public interest in the topic of mixed race intensified during the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama, an African American whose biracial background and global experience figured prominently in his campaign for and election to the nation’s highest office.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Potamogeton Hillii Morong Hill's Pondweed
    Potamogeton hillii Morong Hill’sHill’s pondweed pondweed, Page 1 State Distribution Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Status: State threatened 1980’s. The type locality for this species, in Manistee County, has been destroyed. Global and state rank: G3/S2 Recognition: The stem of this pondweed is slender Other common names: pondweed and much branched, reaching up to 1 m in length. The alternate leaves are all submersed, and very narrow Family: Potamogetonaceae (pondweed family) (0.6-2.5 mm), ranging from 2-6 cm in length. The leaves are characterized by having three parallel veins Synonyms: Potamogeton porteri Fern. and a short bristle tip. The stipules are relatively coarse and fibrous (shredding when old) and are free Taxonomy: An extensive molecular analysis of the from each other and the leaf stalk bases. Short Potamogetonaceae, which largely corroborates the (5‑15 cm), curved fruiting stalks (peduncles) are separation of broad-leaved versus narrow-leaved terminated by globose flower/fruit clusters that pondweed species, is provided by Lindqvist et al. arise from leaf axils or stem tips. The tiny (2-4 mm) (2006). fruits have ridges along the backside. Other narrow- leaved species that lack floating leaves have either Range: This aquatic plant is rare throughout much of narrower leaves ( less than 0.5 mm in width, such as its range, which extends from Vermont to Michigan, and P. confervoides and P. bicupulatus), stipules that are south to Pennsylvania. Centers of distribution appear attached near their bases (P. foliosus, P. pusillus), to be in western New England and the north central longer peduncles (1.5-4 mm) (P.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of Isoetes
    BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ISOETES ALLEN, B.M. 1975. A note on the distribution of Isoetes in the Cadiz Province, Spain. Fern Gaz. (U.K.) 11 (2-3): 163-164 (1975). ALONSO, PAZ, E. 1989. Notas sobre plantas nuevas o interesantes para la flora Uruguaya: 1. (Notes on new or interesting plants for the Uruguayan flora: 1.) Comun. Bot. Mus. Hist. Nat. Montevideo 5 (91): 1-4 (1989) - Isoetes pp.2-3 ALSTON, A.H.G. 1982. Isoetaceae: 1. In Steenis, C.G.G.J. van, Holttum, R. E., eds. Flora Malesiana, series 2. Pteridophytes, volume 1. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, Dr. W. Junk Publ. 62-64 (1982)- illus., chrom. nos., key. ANDREIS, C., RODONDI, G. 1987. Alcune stazioni di Isoetes echinospora Dur. nel Bresciano e osservazioni al SEM delle spore delle Isoetes della flora Italica. Natura Bresciana no.23: 119-130 (1986 publ. 1987) - illus., maps. 4, ANTHONY, N.C., & E.A. SCHELPE, 1985. Two new taxa and a new combination in southern African Pteridophyta. Bothalia, 15 (3 & 4): 554-555 (1985) ARREGUIN-SANCHEZ, M., 1986. Nuevos registros y taxa interesantes de pteridofitas del Valle de Mexico. (Isoetaceae, Psilotaceae y Selaginellaceae) Phytologia 59 (7): 451-453 (1986) ASH, S., & K.B. PIGG. 1991. A new Jurassic Isoetites (Isoetales) from the Wallowa Terrane in Hells Canyon Oregon and Idaho. Amer. J. Bot. 78: 1636-1642. BAJPAI, U., & H.K. MAHESHWARI,1985. EM studies on the megaspores of Isoetes coromandelina. Phytomorphology, 34 (1-4): 226-231 (1984 publ. 1985) - illus. BALDWIN, W.K.W. 1933. The organization of the young sporophyte of Isoetes engelmanni, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Potamogeton Ogdenii Hellquist & Hilton Ogden's Pondweed
    New England Plant Conservation Program Potamogeton ogdenii Hellquist & Hilton Ogden's Pondweed Conservation and Research Plan for New England Prepared by: C. Barre Hellquist and Timothy Mertinooke-Jongkind Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts North Adams, Massachusetts 01247 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, December 2002 i SUMMARY Potamogeton ogdenii Hellquist & Hilton (Potamogetonaceae) is a rare aquatic vascular plant historically reported at 18 locations worldwide: 11 in New England, five in New York, and two in Ontario. In New England, there are six current sites; worldwide, there are ten extant sites. It is listed G1 globally, and S1 by Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. It is a fertile hybrid found in ponds, lakes, and slow moving streams with high alkalinity. Potamogeton ogdenii faces serious threats to its survival because of eutrophication, competition with invasive species, its restricted habitat, and low population numbers. Conservation Objectives 1. Maintain and improve the conditions at the six current locations in New England with an eventual goal of 15-20 sites with 500-1000 plants in 20 years 2. Conduct extensive searches in New England in an attempt to locate 10-15 new, viable populations 3. Reduce competition with invasive species at P. ogdenii sites 4. Reduce eutrophication at present sites and at sites where it may occur in the future Conservation Actions Needed 1. Reduce eutrophication at P. ogdenii sites by imposing stricter septic laws, establish buffer zones along edges of waterways, and control runoff from paved surfaces 2.
    [Show full text]