DOCSLIB.ORG

Revised Corrective Measures Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revised Corrective Measures Study U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration c/o EPA Office of Site Remediation and Restoration (HIO) 5 Post Office Square, OSRR-07-1 Boston, MA 02109 26 May 2011 Mr. Bob Cianciarulo U.S. EPA Office of Site Remediation and Rest. 5 Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 Dear Bob: Below is a nearly identical copy of the 20 December 2010 version of my Revised Corrective Measure Study Report that I sent to Susan Svirsky. Please pass this on to the EPA National Remedy Review Board. NOAA’s interest in this site since settlement of the Natural Resources damages is modest, nevertheless a few comments are provided below mostly general in nature with an attempt to find a final remedy compromise between EPA and GE. Concerning the Addendum: Given that the second paragraph of the Introduction states that “GE has a fundamental disagreement with EPA regarding whether exposure to PCBs at environmental levels causes adverse effects on human health and the environment” it is immediate to the reader that GE subscribes to a different set of peer-reviewed literature and furthermore has ignored past remedial measures in the US. Nevertheless, I did find their discussion concerning the benthos and fish IMPGs technically fair but find that the GE assumptions move to far afield from the precautionary principal. For example, GE states that their higher IMPGs for the benthic invertebrates are more scientifically sound that those of EPA. But it is EPA’s calculation of 3-10 mg/kg that is better supported by past work in this field. Nevertheless, rather than pounding their chest that their calculations are better, an attempt to compromise with EPA likely would result in a sediment concentration amenable to both parties (7-10 mg/kg that overlaps both GE and EPA’s concentration range?). Similarly, concerning Fish Protection on Page 5, both EPA and GE make use of assumptions due to the uncertainty inherent in this two phase study. I prefer the more conservative approach advanced by EPA but some compromise – although closer to EPA’s fish tissue concentration – by both parties could resolve this disagreement. For example lowering the number of meals from 55 to 14 for human health impacts from fish tissue exposure. Concerning the Revised Corrective Measures Study: Given NOAA’s very indirect natural resource trustee concerns at this site, I thought it best not to debate Section 2 (Description of Evaluation Criteria) or address the issues concerning the model (Section 3.2) or remediation impacts and the complexity of restoration (Section 5). The regulators and other stakeholders with more direct and local interests certainly will cover this. Rather I thought it best to provide an opinion that Sediment/Floodplain Alternative #3 is the best alternative for reaching consensus. This remedy provides the most river and floodplain habitat improvement for the least amount of cost given the relatively limited dredging and capping. Of note, this is the alternative highlighted by GE during their initial CMS presentation in Pittsfield in March 2008. Although not a complete cleanup of the “Rest or River” this remedy goes a long way in improving the general health of the river ecosystem. That because most of the PCB mass is removed or covered. Most importantly, this remedy reaches well into the 90th percentile for decreasing PCB loading, considerably higher than its closest analogue SED 10/FP 3 yet much less expensive than any of the more comprehensive remedial measures. As stated in the Executive Summary on Page 21: The model results indicate that, under SED 10, the mass of PCBs passing both Woods Pond and Rising Pond Dams would decrease by 62% relative to current levels, while the PCB mass transported to the Reach 5/6 floodplain would decrease by 68%. Under SED 3, the modeled total decrease in these three PCB loads (i.e., mass transport) would be 94%, 87%, and 97%, respectively. For alternatives greater than SED 3, the modeled reductions in all three loads level off, and are generally greater than 95%, achieving little additional reduction. Similarly, remedy SED 3/FP 3 potentially reduce PCB concentrations in the fish fillets by as high as 100%, considerably higher than the 50-80% reduction when using SED 10/FP 9. GE spends much time promoting SED 10/FP 9 explaining that this option does not result in the substantial and widespread long-term, and in some cases permanent, adverse impacts on the ecosystem of the river that they claim will occur using any of the remedies encompassing SED 3/FP 3 thorough SED 9/ FP 8. However, when comparing SED 3/FP 3 with SED 10/FP 9, Table ES-1 through ES-5 show that the former removes less cubic yardage despite complete cleanup of highly contaminated zone 5A and the bank soil. Granted thin layer capping of Woods Pond and part of Zone 5C only enhances the SED 3/FP 3 remedy but the capping is likely as effective as the partial removal of the Woods Pond sediment used in SED 10, and thereby eliminates the dredging (of Wood Pond) that GE has frequently railed against. Under the SED 3/FP 3 cleanup plan, it will take ten years for completion, not very distant from the 5 year estimate for SED 10/ FP 9. Other more invasive remedies take more time for construction complete - up to 51 years for SED-8. Nevertheless, it will take 20 years for the CT fish to reach a concentration that results in unrestricted fishing. Under all scenarios, the MA fish never do in the 50 year time period modeled. Given the text above, I trust that EPA and GE can reach a consensus concerning the IMPGs and the selected remedy. Compromise must be made by both parties and I believe that SED 3/FP 3 may be the remedy that allows both sides to meet the demands of environmental cleanup without unmanageable habitat destruction, both while keeping costs reasonable. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kenneth Finkelstein, Ph.D CC: Bob Cianciarulo (EPA) Ken Munney (USF&WS) J~ MassAudubon Protectifr.J tlt& Nai:un ofMMsaclmoetts June 22, 2011 EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912 Dear Mr. Cianciarulo: On behalf of the Massachusetts Audubon Society I submit the following comments rega rding the proposed remediation of PCB contamination in the Housatonic - Rest of River area. As the seco nd largest landowner within the Primary Study Area (PSA) we have appreciated the extensive out reach and public engagement process conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) and the thoughtful manner in w hich EPA is approaching this remediation. The following is a summary of the key points raised in our comments: 1. Mass Audubon ha s a direct and substa ntial interest in the proposed cleanup both as the second-largest affected landow ner within the PSA and as a conservation organization whose mission is protecting the nature of Massachusetts for people and for wildlife. Mass Audubon strongly supports the remediation of the Housatonic River in order to reduce PCB concentrations to acceptable levels for humans and wildlife. Mass Audubon does not support monitored natural recovery for Rest of River as an acceptable method of addressing the contamination of the River. We also beli eve that GE should be required to compensate affected landow ners for the short- and long-term harm to public recreational use of lands and waters that will be affected by the remed iation as well as for any direct financial impacts which will result. 2. To date, there ha s been insufficient information prese nted through the public review process rega rding the proposed approach to restoration of remediated areas. Given the hi gh diversity and ecological sensitivity of the habitats along the Housa tonic River and its floodplain, GE must be held to appropriately high standards for this remediation, which should begin with avoidance and minimization of adverse impact s to critical habitats. W here active remediation is necessary, EPA must require functional restoration of all critical habitats affected by remediation activit ies. This requires the establishment of restoration goals, a plan to achieve these goals, and a commitment to pre- and post-remediation monitoring and enhancement as needed until those goals are 208 South Great Road · Lincoln. Massachusetts 0 1773 . tel 781 .259.9500 • fax 781 .259.8899 • IN'NW.massaudubon.org 2 met. We believe that the success of th is project w ill ultimately be measured both by the amount of PCBs removed from the Housatonic River system and by the success of habitat restoration measures. 3. Permanent armoring of the riverbank in Reach 5 will have long term sign ificant and unacceptable impacts on critical habitat features such as wildlife dens, nesting sites, and mature trees, and will fundamentally alter the eco logica l functioning of the riverine/floodplain system. This is one of the most challenging aspects of this remediation. In sofar as feasible, natural ri verin e geomorphologica l processes must be allowed to continue along the river. 4. EPA should require long-term restoration monitoring on a timescale appropriate to the type of habitat being restored and require that appropriate financial and institutional mechanisms (e.g. escrow or other gua ranteed funds) are in place to ensure that all restoration activities are fully implemented and monitored until restoration goals are ach ieved . 5. Adaptive management principles should be applied to the Housatonic River remediation, w ith flexibility to adjust c1ean up and restoration methods over time based on experience and evolving techniques.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Ogden's Pondweed (Potamogeton Ogdenii) Conservation and Research Plan for New England
    Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Adopted under Section 44 of SARA Recovery Strategy for Ogden’s Pondweed (Potamogeton ogdenii) in Canada Ogden’s Pondweed 2016 Recommended citation: Environment Canada. 2016. Recovery Strategy for Ogden’s Pondweed (Potamogeton ogdenii) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 15 pp. + Annexes. For copies of the recovery strategy, or for additional information on species at risk, including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk (SAR) Public Registry1. Cover illustration: © C.B. Hellquist Également disponible en français sous le titre « Programme de rétablissement du potamot d’Ogden (Potamogeton ogdenii) au Canada » © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2016. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-660-03379-2 Catalogue no. En3-4/207-2016E-PDF Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. 1 http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca RECOVERY STRATEGY FOR OGDEN’S PONDWEED (Potamogeton ogdenii) IN CANADA 2016 Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996), the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed to work together on legislation, programs, and policies to protect wildlife species at risk throughout Canada. In the spirit of cooperation of the Accord, the Government of Ontario has given permission to the Government of Canada to adopt the Recovery Strategy for Ogden’s Pondweed (Potamogeton ogdenii) in Ontario (Part 2) under Section 44 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA).
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Monographs in Relation to Global Red Lists
    51 February 2002: 155–158 Kirschner & Kaplan Red Lists and taxonomy BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION Taxonomic monographs in relation to global Red Lists Jan Kirschner & denek Kaplan Department of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, CS-252 43 Pruhonice u Prahy, Czech Republic. kirsvh- [email protected] (author for correspondence); [email protected]. Upon comparison with recent monographs of Juncaceae and Potamogetonaceae, the 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants is shown to be an inadequate information source for conservation decisions. A substantial proportion of names listed in the IUCN RL represent synonyms, often belonging to widespread taxa, or remain doubtful taxonomically. If a new Red List is derived from the two new monographic accounts, and compared with the 1997 IUCN RL, the correct data from the latter represent 10–25% of the former. It may concluded that the overall accuracy of the IUCN list is rather low. The importance of global taxonomic monographs as a source of basic data for the accurate compilation of Red Lists is stressed. KEYWORDS: conservation, IUCN, Juncaceae, Potamogeonaceae, Red Lists, taxonomy. come from all over the world and cover the main diver- INTRODUCTION sity centres and complicated groups of the family. They Red lists (RLs) of threatened plants represent an are: Aaron Wilton (New Zealand), Adolf Ceska important information source for policy-makers and gov- (Canada), Barbara Ertter (California), Carmen Fernandez ernmental nature conservation authorities. Local and Carvajal (Spain), Futoshi Miyamoto (Japan), Henrik regional RLs use the IUCN criteria of classification of Balslev (Denmark), Henry Noltie (Scotland), Janice plants into categories of threat, and they are therefore Coffey-Swab (N.
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]
  • Potamogeton Strictifolius A
    New England Plant Conservation Program Potamogeton strictifolius A. Bennett Straight-leaved pondweed Conservation and Research Plan for New England Prepared by: C. Barre Hellquist and Amy R. Pike Department of Biology Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts North Adams, Massachusetts 01247 USA For: New England Wild Flower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 USA 508/877-7630 e-mail: [email protected] • website: www.newfs.org Approved, Regional Advisory Council, December 2003 i SUMMARY Potamogeton strictifolius A. Bennett (Potamogetonaceae) is an uncommon narrow- leaved pondweed with 40 recorded sites in New England, of which 27 are extant. The species is listed as G5 globally, but is ranked S1 by the states of Maine and Connecticut and S2 by Vermont. It is proposed as an S1 species (State-Endangered) by Massachusetts and also as State-Endangered as of 2003/2004 for Connecticut. Eight other states and provinces also list the species as S1, two list it as S2, two list it as Endangered, and one lists it as Special Concern. Potamogeton strictifolius is most abundant around the Great Lakes, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ontario. In northeastern and northwestern North America, it becomes more uncommon. Potamogeton strictifolius is found in alkaline ponds, lakes, and slow flowing streams. Eutrophication and competition with invasive species (and impacts from their management and/or control) pose the greatest threats to P. strictifolius. Conservation Objectives 1. Maintain and improve the conditions at the current locations in New England with an eventual goal of about 100 plants at each site in 20 years. 2. Through concerted surveys of historical and new sites, attempt to locate 15 to 20 new viable populations, recovering its historical range in New England.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary List of Species Native Within the Adirondack Park Listed Alphabetically by Common Name and Sorted by Habit V.1 Updated 10.23.2006
    Preliminary List of Species Native Within the Adirondack Park Listed Alphabetically by Common Name and Sorted by Habit v.1 Updated 10.23.2006 Purpose The purpose of this list is to provide an information resource to those wishing to plant or otherwise propagate plants native to the Adirondack Park. It could be used by an individual or a group developing a landscaping plan and wishing to use species native to the Park and a particular county. They could use the list as a source of native species and request nurserymen to provide plant materials from it. Although most of these species are not now available from commercial nurseries, it may be that if continued requests are made for them, the nursery industry would see fit to propagate the desired plants. Requesting and planting natives would reduce the call for non-native and potentially invasive species. It should be noted that some of these species will most likely never be sold commercially because of rarity or difficulty in propagation. The list is meant to being a living document with species added and deleted as additional information is collected and verified. Although it may be tempting, plants should never be harvested from the wild. In fact some of these plants are legally protected, and no harvesting can occur on State lands. Refer to the New York Natural Heritage Program website (http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/heritage/plants.htm) for a complete treatment of New York State protected plants and federal and State laws regarding rare plants. Source The source of this list is the New York Flora Atlas produced by the New York Flora Association and available online at http://atlas.nyflora.org .
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts 2012 Final State Wetland Plant List
    MASSACHUSETTS 2012 FINAL STATE WETLAND PLANT LIST Lichvar, R.W. 2012. The National Wetland Plant List. ERDC/CRREL TR‐12‐11. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/search/asset:asset?t:ac=$N/1012381 User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps region. 3) Some state boundaries lie within two or more Corps Regions. If a species occurs in one of the regions but not the other, its rating will be shown in one column and the other column will show a dash. For example, there are two Corps regions in North Dakota, the GP and the MW. Agrostis exarata occurs in the GP but not the MW, so it is listed as: Species Authorship GP MW Common Name Agrostis exarata Trin. FACW ‐ Spiked Bent Species Authorship NCNE Common Name Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC Balsam Fir Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. UPL White Fir Abutilon theophrasti Medik. FACU Velvetleaf Acalypha gracilens Gray FACU Slender Three‐Seed‐Mercury Acalypha rhomboidea Raf. FACU Common Three‐Seed‐Mercury Acalypha virginica L. FACU Virginia Three‐Seed‐Mercury Acer negundo L. FAC Ash‐Leaf Maple Acer nigrum Michx. f. FACU Black Maple Acer pensylvanicum L. FACU Striped Maple Acer platanoides L. UPL Norway Maple Acer rubrum L. FAC Red Maple Acer saccharinum L. FACW Silver Maple Acer saccharum Marsh. FACU Sugar Maple Acer spicatum Lam.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare and Uncommon Native Vascular Plants of Vermont Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department 09 August 2018
    Rare and Uncommon Native Vascular Plants of Vermont Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department 09 August 2018 The Vermont Rare and Uncommon Native Vascular Plants List is produced by the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department's Natural Heritage Inventory with assistance from the Scientific Advisory Group on Flora of the VT Endangered Species Committee. The Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory is the state’s official repository for records of rare, threatened, and endangered species. Information in the Natural Heritage Database is the result of work of botanists, natural resource professionals and interested amateurs. This list is intended to inform naturalists, biologists, planners, developers and the general public about our rare native flora. It contains a listing of the rare and uncommon, native, vascular plants of Vermont. These species may be rare because they have very particular habitat requirements, are subject to habitat loss, are at the edge of their range, are vulnerable to disturbance or collection, or have difficulty reproducing for unknown reasons. Some taxa on this list are rare varieties of otherwise common or exotic species, and are noted as such. Unless noted, varieties/subspecies on this list can be assumed to be the only varieties/subspecies of the species in Vermont. Species with a state status of Threatened or Endangered (T or E) are protected by Vermont’s Endangered Species Law (10 V.S.A. Chap. 123). Those with a federal status of Threatened or Endangered (LT or LE) are protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205). The state and global ranks are informational categories regarding the rarity and extirpation/extinction risk of the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Hill's Pondweed (Potamogeton Hillii)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Hill's Pondweed Potamogeton hillii in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2005 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Hill's pondweed Potamogeton hillii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 19 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Previous report: Brownell, V.R. 1986. COSEWIC status report on the Hill's Pondweed Potamogeton hillii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 34 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Kristina Makkay for writing the update status report on the Hill's pondweed Potamogeton hillii. The report has been overseen and edited by Erich Haber, Co-chair (vascular plants) of the COSEWIC Plants and Lichens Species Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Ếgalement disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le potamot de Hill (Potamogeton hillii) au Canada – Mise à jour. Cover illustration: Hill's pondweed — Illustration courtesy of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2005 Catalogue No.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Quality Assessment with Wetland Categories and Examples of Computer Applications for the State of Michigan
    FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT WITH WETLAND CATEGORIES AND EXAMPLES OF COMPUTER APPLICATIONS FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN REVISED, 2ND EDITION – OCTOBER 2001 Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Natural Heritage Program In Partnership With U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office Chicago, IL U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Rose Lake Plant Materials Center, MI Printed by Authority of: PA 451 of 1994 Copies Printed: 1400 Cost Per Copy: $3.79 Total Cost : $5,300 Michigan Department of Natural Resources FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT WITH WETLAND CATEGORIES AND EXAMPLES OF COMPUTER APPLICATIONS FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN October 2001 Kim D. Herman Wildlife Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources 6833 Hwys US-2, 41 & M-35 Gladstone, Michigan 49837 Linda A. Masters Conservation Research Institute 375 W. First St. Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 Michael R. Penskar Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7944 Anton A. Reznicek University of Michigan Herbarium North University Building Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1057 Gerould S. Wilhelm Conservation Research Institute 375 W. First St. Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 William W. Brodovich King & MacGregor Environmental, Inc. 5860 N. Canton Center Road, Suite 387 Canton, Michigan 48187 Kevin P. Gardiner Natural Heritage Program, Wildlife Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7944 FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT WITH WETLAND CATEGORIES AND
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition
    Ecological Communities of New York State Second Edition A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke’s Ecological Communities of New York State Edited by Gregory J. Edinger D. J. Evans Shane Gebauer Timothy G. Howard David M. Hunt Adele M. Olivero New York Natural Heritage Program NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 March 2014 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor Joe Martens, Commissioner The NY Natural Heritage Program is a partnership between the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. This publication should be cited as: Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero (editors). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke’s Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. ii CONTENTS Preface ...................................................................... vi 1. Spring .............................................................. 22 Acknowledgements (for 2014 edition) ..................... vii 2. Intermittent stream .......................................... 22 Acknowledgements (for 1990 edition) ....................viii 3. Rocky headwater stream ................................. 23 Introduction ............................................................
    [Show full text]