DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Strategy for Tahoe Yellow Cress (Rorippa Subumbellata)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Strategy for Tahoe Yellow Cress (Rorippa Subumbellata) Conservation Strategy for Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata) Sarah Kulpa/USFWS Prepared by Alison E. Stanton and the Tahoe yellow cress Adaptive Management Working Group and Executive Committee For the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Domestic Grant 13-DG-11272170-010 October 23, 2015 Conservation Strategy for Tahoe yellow cress 2015 Acknowledgements Several members of the Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG) have been involved since the implementation of the Conservation Strategy for Tahoe yellow cress in 2002 and deserve special recognition: Jan Brisco, Tamara Sasaki, Roland Shaw, and Mike Vollmer. Other long-time AMWG members made significant contributions of time and resources: Steve Caicco, Jody Fraser, Eric Gillies, Shana Gross, Sarah Kulpa, Susan Levitsky, and Peter Maholland. Current members of the AMWG participated in the development of this document: Jason Brand, Jan Brisco, Janel Johnson, Sarah Kulpa, Patrick Moeszinger, Dana Olson, Jason Ramos, Stuart Roll, Courtney Rowe, Tamara Sasaki, Mark Sedlock, Roland Shaw, Mike Vollmer, Selena Werdon, and Svetlana Yegorova. Past participants in the AMWG logged thousands of hours in the implementation of the conservation strategy from 2003 to 2014: Leslie Allen, Cheryl Beyer, Daniel Burmester, Eileen Carey, Dana Dapolito, Gail Durham, Gretchen Eichar, Jacqui Grandfield, Jay Howard, Gretchen Huie, Adam Lewandowski, Myrnie Mayville, James Navicky, Jennifer Newmark, Tim Nosal, Stu Osbrack, Jerry Owens, Rick Robinson, Jane Schmidt, Coleen Shade, and Dan Shaw. Dr. Bruce Pavlik developed the first Conservation Strategy for Tahoe yellow cress and dramatically increased understanding of the species. He compiled survey and monitoring data from all of the partner agencies and applied novel analysis techniques that dramatically improved understanding of the species. Funding for the development of this document came from the Bureau of Land Management through a grant from the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) administered by U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station staff, Jonathan Long and Tiffany van Huysen. Citation: Stanton, A., and Tahoe yellow cress Adaptive Management Working Group and Executive Committee. 2015. Conservation strategy for Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata). USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. 130 pp. + appendices. Photos: All photos by Alison E. Stanton, unless otherwise stated. 2 Conservation Strategy for Tahoe yellow cress 2015 Table of Contents List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.0 TYC Ecology .................................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Species description and taxonomy .................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Growth and reproduction ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Genetics ......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 2.4 TYC distribution ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 2.5 TYC population dynamics ...................................................................................................................................... 28 2.6 Population size and persistence .......................................................................................................................... 30 2.7 Ranking TYC populations for conservation .................................................................................................... 33 2.8 TYC habitat in the Lake Tahoe shorezone ....................................................................................................... 40 2.8.1 Shoreline geomorphology ............................................................................................................................. 40 2.8.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................................. 43 2.8.3 Competition ......................................................................................................................................................... 46 2.8.4 Effect of fencing on persistence .................................................................................................................. 48 3.0 Threats to TYC .............................................................................................................................................................. 49 3.1 Water management .................................................................................................................................................. 49 3.2 Recreation .................................................................................................................................................................... 50 3.3 Development ............................................................................................................................................................... 52 3.4 Climate change ........................................................................................................................................................... 54 4.1 Pre-2000 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 58 4.1.1 Educational institutions and non-profit and private entities ......................................................... 58 4.1.2 Regional and federal agencies ..................................................................................................................... 59 4.1.2 State and local agencies .................................................................................................................................. 60 4.2 Adaptive management 2000–2014 ................................................................................................................... 60 4.2.1. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ................................................................................................ 61 4.2.2 Adaptive management framework ............................................................................................................ 62 4.2.3 Lake-wide monitoring .................................................................................................................................... 64 4.4 Key Management Question framework ........................................................................................................... 67 3 Conservation Strategy for Tahoe yellow cress 2015 4.4.1 Field research 2003 to 2010 ........................................................................................................................ 68 4.4.2 Capacity for TYC outplanting and translocation .................................................................................. 72 4.4.3 Research gaps ..................................................................................................................................................... 73 5.0 Management Goals and Action ............................................................................................................................ 74 5.1 Goals ............................................................................................................................................................................... 74 5.2. Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................... 75 5.3 Management Actions ............................................................................................................................................... 79 5.3.1 Fences and enclosures .................................................................................................................................... 79 5.3.2 Refuge Areas ....................................................................................................................................................... 82 5.3.3 Education and outreach ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Cruciferae) – Mustard Family
    BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) – MUSTARD FAMILY Plant: herbs mostly, annual to perennial, sometimes shrubs; sap sometimes peppery Stem: Root: Leaves: mostly simple but sometimes pinnately divided; alternate, rarely opposite or whorled; no stipules Flowers: mostly perfect, mostly regular (actinomorphic); 4 sepals, 4 petals often forming a cross; 6 stamens with usually 2 outer ones shorter than the inner 4; ovary superior, mostly 2 fused carpels, 1 to many ovules, 1 pistil Fruit: seed pods, often used in classification, many are slender and long (Silique), some broad (Silicle) – see morphology slide Other: a large family, many garden plants such as turnip, radish, and cabbage, also some spices; often termed the Cruciferae family; Dicotyledons Group Genera: 350+ genera; 40+ locally WARNING – family descriptions are only a layman’s guide and should not be used as definitive Flower Morphology in the Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) - flower with 4 sepals, 4 petals (often like a cross, sometimes split or lobed), commonly small, often white or yellow, distinctive fruiting structures often important for ID 2 types of fruiting pods: in addition, fruits may be circular, flattened or angled in cross-section Silicle - (usually <2.5x long as wide), 2-valved with septum (replum) Silique - (usually >2.5x long as wide), 2- valved with septum (replum) Flowers, Many Genera BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) – MUSTARD FAMILY Sanddune [Western] Wallflower; Erysimum capitatum (Douglas ex Hook.) Greene var. capitatum Wormseed Wallflower [Mustard]; Erysimum cheiranthoides L. (Introduced) Spreading Wallflower [Treacle Mustard]; Erysimum repandum L. (Introduced) Dame’s Rocket [Dame’s Violet]; Hesperis matronalis L. (Introduced) Purple [Violet] Rocket; Iodanthus pinnatifidus (Michx.) Steud. Michaux's Gladecress; Leavenworthia uniflora (Michx.) Britton [Cow; Field] Cress [Peppergrass]; Lepidium campestre L.) Ait.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Strategy for Tahoe Yellow Cress
    CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR TAHOE YELLOW CRESS (Rorippa subumbellata) August 2002 CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR TAHOE YELLOW CRESS (Rorippa subumbellata) Developed by: Bruce Pavlik, Ph.D. Dennis Murphy, Ph.D. and the Tahoe Yellow Cress Technical Advisory Group August 2002 Citation: Pavlik, B. et al. 2002. Conservation Strategy for Tahoe Yellow Cress (Rorippa subumbellata). Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Lake Tahoe, NV Table of Contents Conservation Strategy TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................EX-1 I. INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND ...............................................................................1 B. HISTORY OF SPECIES CONSERVATION ...........................................5 II. CONSERVATION STRATEGY A. TAHOE YELLOW CRESS AND LAKE TAHOE. ..................................8 B. BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF TAHOE YELLOW CRESS .....................13 C. CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS ............27 D. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA........................................................38 E. CONSERVATION ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS........................62 F. CONSERVATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ASSOCIATED ACTIONS ........................................................................................65 G. DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ...................................73 H. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK .......................................84 I. IMMINENT EXTINCTION CONTINGENCY PLAN.............................89 J. STEWARDSHIP, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH
    [Show full text]
  • Botany Biological Evaluation
    APPENDIX I Botany Biological Evaluation Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi Page 1 of 35 for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project November 2009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project El Dorado County, CA Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi PREPARED BY: ENTRIX, Inc. DATE: November 2009 APPROVED BY: DATE: _____________ Name, Forest Botanist, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATION AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR REQUIREMENTS One population of a special-status bryophyte, three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra), was observed in the survey area during surveys on June 30, 2008 and August 28, 2008. The proposed action will not affect the moss because the population is located outside the project area where no action is planned. The following species of invasive or noxious weeds were identified during surveys of the Project area: cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum); bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare); Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum); oxe-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare); and common mullein (Verbascum Thapsus). The threat posed by these weed populations would not increase if the proposed action is implemented. An inventory and assessment of invasive and noxious weeds in the survey area is presented in the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project (ENTRIX 2009). Based on the description of the proposed action and the evaluation contained herein, we have determined the following: There would be no significant effect to plant species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), administered by the U.S.
    [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]
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants and a Brief History of the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands
    United States Department of Agriculture Vascular Plants and a Brief Forest Service Rocky Mountain History of the Kiowa and Rita Research Station General Technical Report Blanca National Grasslands RMRS-GTR-233 December 2009 Donald L. Hazlett, Michael H. Schiebout, and Paulette L. Ford Hazlett, Donald L.; Schiebout, Michael H.; and Ford, Paulette L. 2009. Vascular plants and a brief history of the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-233. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 44 p. Abstract Administered by the USDA Forest Service, the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands occupy 230,000 acres of public land extending from northeastern New Mexico into the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas. A mosaic of topographic features including canyons, plateaus, rolling grasslands and outcrops supports a diverse flora. Eight hundred twenty six (826) species of vascular plant species representing 81 plant families are known to occur on or near these public lands. This report includes a history of the area; ethnobotanical information; an introductory overview of the area including its climate, geology, vegetation, habitats, fauna, and ecological history; and a plant survey and information about the rare, poisonous, and exotic species from the area. A vascular plant checklist of 816 vascular plant taxa in the appendix includes scientific and common names, habitat types, and general distribution data for each species. This list is based on extensive plant collections and available herbarium collections. Authors Donald L. Hazlett is an ethnobotanist, Director of New World Plants and People consulting, and a research associate at the Denver Botanic Gardens, Denver, CO.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 ENUMERATION
    Chapter 6 ENUMERATION . ENUMERATION The spermatophytic plants with their accepted names as per The Plant List [http://www.theplantlist.org/ ], through proper taxonomic treatments of recorded species and infra-specific taxa, collected from Gorumara National Park has been arranged in compliance with the presently accepted APG-III (Chase & Reveal, 2009) system of classification. Further, for better convenience the presentation of each species in the enumeration the genera and species under the families are arranged in alphabetical order. In case of Gymnosperms, four families with their genera and species also arranged in alphabetical order. The following sequence of enumeration is taken into consideration while enumerating each identified plants. (a) Accepted name, (b) Basionym if any, (c) Synonyms if any, (d) Homonym if any, (e) Vernacular name if any, (f) Description, (g) Flowering and fruiting periods, (h) Specimen cited, (i) Local distribution, and (j) General distribution. Each individual taxon is being treated here with the protologue at first along with the author citation and then referring the available important references for overall and/or adjacent floras and taxonomic treatments. Mentioned below is the list of important books, selected scientific journals, papers, newsletters and periodicals those have been referred during the citation of references. Chronicles of literature of reference: Names of the important books referred: Beng. Pl. : Bengal Plants En. Fl .Pl. Nepal : An Enumeration of the Flowering Plants of Nepal Fasc.Fl.India : Fascicles of Flora of India Fl.Brit.India : The Flora of British India Fl.Bhutan : Flora of Bhutan Fl.E.Him. : Flora of Eastern Himalaya Fl.India : Flora of India Fl Indi.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybrid Zones Between Invasive Rorippa Austriaca and Native R
    Heredity (2005) 94, 664–670 & 2005 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0018-067X/05 $30.00 www.nature.com/hdy Hybrid zones between invasive Rorippa austriaca and native R. sylvestris (Brassicaceae) in Germany: ploidy levels and patterns of fitness in the field W Bleeker and A Matthies Department of Systematic Botany, University of Osnabru¨ck, Barbarastr. 11, 49076 Osnabru¨ck, Germany Hybrid zones may serve as natural laboratories for evolu- hybrid zones. In one hybrid zone (Mu¨lheim, Ruhr valley) tionary studies. One common viewpoint is that hybrids may hybrids were pentaploid and showed a relatively high seed always be less fit than their parents due to genetic set, whereas in the second hybrid zone (Randersacker, Main discontinuities. An alternative idea is that genotype–environ- valley) hybrids were triploid and displayed extremely low ment interactions influence the outcome of natural hybridiza- fitness values. Analyses of fitness values in different natural tion. Our comparative study of two different natural hybrid hybrid zones between the same two species may lead to zones between the invasive diploid Rorippa austriaca and very different conclusions about the evolutionary significance the native polyploid R. sylvestris in Germany identified the of natural hybridization. ploidy level as a major determinant of hybrid fitness. Different Heredity (2005) 94, 664–670. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800687 ploidy levels and patterns of fitness were detected in different Published online 20 April 2005 Keywords: AFLP; chloroplast DNA; flow cytometry; hybrid fitness; invasive species Introduction detected in R. sylvestris (Jonsell, 1968). Multiple intro- ductions of R. austriaca into central Europe are leading to A central question in the study of hybrid zone evolution repeated possibilities for the formation of contact zones has been whether hybrids are always less fit than their with native species.
    [Show full text]
  • Explorations in Ethnobiology: the Legacy of Amadeo Rea
    Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea Edited by Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea Edited by Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky Copyright 2013 ISBN-10: 0988733013 ISBN-13: 978-0-9887330-1-5 Library of Congress Control Number: 2012956081 Society of Ethnobiology Department of Geography University of North Texas 1155 Union Circle #305279 Denton, TX 76203-5017 Cover photo: Amadeo Rea discussing bird taxonomy with Mountain Pima Griselda Coronado Galaviz of El Encinal, Sonora, Mexico, July 2001. Photograph by Dr. Robert L. Nagell, used with permission. Contents Preface to Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea . i Dana Lepofsky and Marsha Quinlan 1 . Diversity and its Destruction: Comments on the Chapters . .1 Amadeo M. Rea 2 . Amadeo M . Rea and Ethnobiology in Arizona: Biography of Influences and Early Contributions of a Pioneering Ethnobiologist . .11 R. Roy Johnson and Kenneth J. Kingsley 3 . Ten Principles of Ethnobiology: An Interview with Amadeo Rea . .44 Dana Lepofsky and Kevin Feeney 4 . What Shapes Cognition? Traditional Sciences and Modern International Science . .60 E.N. Anderson 5 . Pre-Columbian Agaves: Living Plants Linking an Ancient Past in Arizona . .101 Wendy C. Hodgson 6 . The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesticated Squash (Cucurbita spp .) . .132 Cecil H. Brown, Eike Luedeling, Søren Wichmann, and Patience Epps 7 . The Wild, the Domesticated, and the Coyote-Tainted: The Trickster and the Tricked in Hunter-Gatherer versus Farmer Folklore . .162 Gary Paul Nabhan 8 . “Dog” as Life-Form . .178 Eugene S. Hunn 9 . The Kasaga’yu: An Ethno-Ornithology of the Cattail-Eater Northern Paiute People of Western Nevada .
    [Show full text]
  • Final CCP/EIS Appendices
    Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AFB Air Force Base AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act BCC Birds of Conservation Concern BOD biological oxygen demand BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BRT Biological Review Team CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second cfu colony-forming units dB decibel DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DEA Draft Environmental Assessment DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNT/TNT di- and tri-nitrotoluelenes DoA Department of the Army DOI Department of the Interior DOT Washington State Department of Transportation DPS Distinct Population Segment DU Ducks Unlimited EA Environmental Assessment EE environmental education EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESU evolutionary significant unit FHA Federal Highway Administration FR Federal Register FTE full-time equivalent FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service) FY Fiscal Year GIS Global Information System GMA Growth Management Act GPS Global Positioning System HABS/HAER Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record HB House Bill HUD Housing and Urban Development I-5 Interstate 5 Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 MHHW mean higher high water MHW mean high water Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-1 Nisqually NWR
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Strategic Management Plan for Invasive Species
    New Jersey Strategic Management Plan for Invasive Species The Recommendations of the New Jersey Invasive Species Council to Governor Jon S. Corzine Pursuant to New Jersey Executive Order #97 Vision Statement: “To reduce the impacts of invasive species on New Jersey’s biodiversity, natural resources, agricultural resources and human health through prevention, control and restoration, and to prevent new invasive species from becoming established.” Prepared by Michael Van Clef, Ph.D. Ecological Solutions LLC 9 Warren Lane Great Meadows, New Jersey 07838 908-637-8003 908-528-6674 [email protected] The first draft of this plan was produced by the author, under contract with the New Jersey Invasive Species Council, in February 2007. Two subsequent drafts were prepared by the author based on direction provided by the Council. The final plan was approved by the Council in August 2009 following revisions by staff of the Department of Environmental Protection. Cover Photos: Top row left: Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar); Photo by NJ Department of Agriculture Top row center: Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora); Photo by Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut, Bugwood.org Top row right: Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica); Photo by Troy Evans, Eastern Kentucky University, Bugwood.org Middle row left: Mile-a-Minute (Polygonum perfoliatum); Photo by Jil M. Swearingen, USDI, National Park Service, Bugwood.org Middle row center: Canadian Thistle (Cirsium arvense); Photo by Steve Dewey, Utah State University, Bugwood.org Middle row right: Asian
    [Show full text]