DOCSLIB.ORG

EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257-0945.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257-0945.Pdf Draft Pre-Decisional Document for Agency Review Purposes Only: Do Not Distribute DRAFT Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Pesticides General Permit National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources Silver Spring, MD 20910 Consultation History ................................................................................................................................................. 8 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................. 10 Pesticides General Permit ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Obtaining Authorization under the PGP ............................................................................................................ 12 Protective Measures ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Limitations on Coverage .................................................................................................................................... 24 Overview of NMFS’ Assessment Framework ........................................................................................................ 25 Application of this Approach to this Consultation .................................................................................................. 25 Evidence Available for the Consultation ................................................................................................................ 29 ACTION AREA ......................................................................................................................................................... 30 STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ............... 31 Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action .................................. 34 Endangered and Threatened Marine Mammals .................................................................................................. 34 Endangered and Threatened Sea Turtles ............................................................................................................ 35 Endangered and Threatened Marine Fish ........................................................................................................... 36 Endangered and Threatened Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................. 37 Johnson’s Seagrass ............................................................................................................................................. 38 Climate Change....................................................................................................................................................... 38 Species and Critical Habitat Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action ......................................... 42 Anadromous Fish Species .................................................................................................................................. 42 Southern Pacific Eulachon Southern .................................................................................................................. 42 Sturgeon ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 Salmonid Anadromous Fish Species .................................................................................................................. 50 Chum Salmon ..................................................................................................................................................... 64 Coho Salmon ...................................................................................................................................................... 68 Sockeye Salmon ................................................................................................................................................. 74 Steelhead ............................................................................................................................................................ 78 ii Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................................................... 97 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale ................................................................................................................................... 97 Killer Whale Southern Resident Species.......................................................................................................... 101 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE .......................................................................................................................... 103 The Changing Landscapes of the United States ............................................................................................... 104 Status and Trends of Waters of the United States ............................................................................................ 106 Integration and Synthesis of the Environmental Baseline ................................................................................ 110 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................... 112 Potential Stressors ................................................................................................................................................. 113 Use Patterns to be Authorized by the Proposed Permit .................................................................................... 114 Pesticide Occurrence in Rivers and Streams .................................................................................................... 117 Degradate Occurrence ...................................................................................................................................... 118 Environmental Mixtures ................................................................................................................................... 118 Consequences of Exposing Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat ................................................... 119 Components of the Proposed PGP Designed to Minimize or Prevent Exposure ............................................. 130 Evaluation of Those Components of the Proposed PGP Designed to Minimize or Prevent Exposure ............ 140 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 151 INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................ 151 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 153 Listed Species and Critical Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 153 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................ 154 RPA Element 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 155 Rationale .......................................................................................................................................................... 156 RPA Element 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 158 Rationale .......................................................................................................................................................... 158 RPA Element 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 159 Rationale .......................................................................................................................................................... 159 iii INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 160 Amount or Extent of Take .................................................................................................................................... 160 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ........................................................................................................................ 161 Terms and Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 162 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 162 REINITIATION NOTICE ...................................................................................................................................... 163 LITERATURE CITED ..........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Fate of Imidazolinone Herbicides and Their Enantiomers
    Title Environmental Fate of Imidazolinone Herbicides and Their Enantiomers in Soil and Water Mohammadkazem Ramezani B.Sc. Agronomy, M.Sc. Weed Science This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy of the University of Adelaide School of Agriculture, Food & Wine The University of Adelaide Waite Campus, South Australia 2007 Declaration This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being made available for loan and photocopying. Mohammadkazem Ramezani ii Abstract Imidazolinones represent a new class of herbicides with low mammalian toxicity that can be used at low application rates, either pre- or post-emergence for the control of a wide range of weeds in broadleaf and cereal crops, and non-crop situations. All imidazolinone herbicides are chiral, containing two enantiomers that derive from the chiral centre of the imidazolinone ring. The inhibitory activity of the R(+) enantiomer is nearly eight times greater than that of the S(-) enantiomer. The use of imidazolinone herbicides has increased in recent years in Australia owing to increased popularity of pulses and the introduction of imidazolinone-tolerant canola and wheat. Concerns have been raised about the potential carry over damage to the subsequent crops grown in rotation with legumes and herbicide tolerant crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk
    Herbicide Mode of Action Table High resistance risk Chemical family Active constituent (first registered trade name) GROUP 1 Inhibition of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (ACC’ase inhibitors) clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Agixa®*, Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold* Decision®*, Hoegrass®), Aryloxyphenoxy- fenoxaprop (Cheetah®, Gold*, Wildcat®), fluazifop propionates (FOPs) (Fusilade®), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones (DIMs) butroxydim (Factor®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) Phenylpyrazoles (DENs) pinoxaden (Axial®) GROUP 2 Inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones (IMIs) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, Lightning®*, Midas®* OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinyl–thio- bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) benzoates Sulfonylureas (SUs) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*, Trimac Plus®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron (Logran®, Logran® B-Power®*), tribenuron (Express®),
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Imazapic/Imazapyr and Other Herbicides in Mixtures for The
    Efficacy of imazapic/imazapyr and other herbicides in mixtures for the control of Digitaria insularis prior to soybean sowing Efectividad de imazapic/imazapyr y otros herbicidas en mezclas para el control de Digitaria insularis en pre-siembra de soya Alfredo Junior Paiola Albrecht1, Leandro Paiola Albrecht1, André Felipe Moreira Silva²*, Romulo Augusto Ramos³, Everson Pedro Zeny³, Juliano Bortoluzzi Lorenzetti4, Maikon Tiago Yamada Danilussi4, and Arthur Arrobas Martins Barroso4 ABSTRACT RESUMEN Herbicide mixtures, use of multiple sites of action, and other Las mezclas entre herbicidas, el uso de múltiples sitios de acción weed management practices are necessary to avoid cases of y otras prácticas de manejo de malezas son necesarias para biotype resistance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evitar otros casos de resistencia de biotipos. El objetivo de este efficiency of imazapic/imazapyr and other herbicides in mix- estudio fue evaluar la eficiencia de imazapic/imazapyr y otros tures to control Digitaria insularis at burndown before soybean herbicidas en mezclas para controlar Digitaria insularis en la sowing. This field research was conducted in Umuarama, State desecación antes de la siembra de soya. Esta investigación de of Parana (PR), Brazil, in the 2018/19 soybean season. The ex- campo se realizó en Umuarama, Estado de Paraná (PR), Brasil, periment was conducted in a randomized block experimental en la cosecha de soya de 2018/19. El experimento se realizó en design with four replicates and 11 treatments composed of the un diseño experimental de bloques al azar, con cuatro repe- application of glyphosate, clethodim, haloxyfop, imazapic/ ticiones y 11 tratamientos, compuestos por la aplicación de imazapyr, glufosinate, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), glifosato, cletodim, haloxifop, imazapic/imazapir, glufosinato, dicamba, triclopyr, and saflufenacil, in mixtures.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(S): Noel M
    Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(s): Noel M. Burkhead Source: BioScience, 62(9):798-808. 2012. Published By: American Institute of Biological Sciences URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.5 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Articles Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 NOEL M. BURKHEAD Widespread evidence shows that the modern rates of extinction in many plants and animals exceed background rates in the fossil record. In the present article, I investigate this issue with regard to North American freshwater fishes. From 1898 to 2006, 57 taxa became extinct, and three distinct populations were extirpated from the continent. Since 1989, the numbers of extinct North American fishes have increased by 25%. From the end of the nineteenth century to the present, modern extinctions varied by decade but significantly increased after 1950 (post-1950s mean = 7.5 extinct taxa per decade).
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Imazapyr and Imazamox for Control of Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum Aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc.)
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 45: 132-136 Comparison of Imazapyr and Imazamox for Control of Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc.) RYAN M. WERSAL1 AND JOHN D. MADSEN1,2 INTRODUCTION techniques (Moreira et al. 1999). To date, chemical control has been the most effective method for controlling infesta- Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell. Verdc) is an in- tions of M. aquaticum. Contact herbicides such as diquat vasive aquatic plant to the United States that is native to South (6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2’,1’-c) pyrazinedium dibro- America. Myriophyllum aquaticum is described as “stout, stems mide) and endothall (7-oxabicyclo (2.2.1) heptane-2,3-dicar- moderately elongate, partially submersed but with portions of boxylic acid) have been evaluated with mixed results leafy branches emersed (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Emer- (Moreira et al. 1999, Westerdahl and Getsinger 1988). Con- gent leaves are whorled, stiff, usually with 20 or more linear fil- tact herbicides are typically effective for short-term control, iform divisions, appearing feather-like and grayish green. but significant regrowth of M. aquaticum typically occurs and Submersed shoots are comprised of whorls of four to six fila- multiple applications are necessary (Moreira et al. 1999). mentous, pectinate, red or orange, leaves arising from each Therefore, the use of a systemic herbicide may be more ef- node. Flowers are all pistillate, borne in the axils of unreduced fective in controlling this species. leaves (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Myriophyllum aquaticum is Imazapyr (2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)5-oxo- dioecious, however only pistillate plants are found outside of 1H-imazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid) is a systemic herbi- its native range (Sutton 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of the Jordan River Compiled by Dan Potts, Local Naturalist/Ichthyologist, Revised 2011
    Fishes of the Jordan River compiled by Dan Potts, local naturalist/ichthyologist, revised 2011 TROUTS, SALMONS (SALMONIDAE) natives Bonneville cutthroat trout Onchorhynchus clarki rare introduced exotics Brown trout Salmo trutta rare Rainbow trout Onchorhynchus mykiss locally common, stocked annually NOTE: All of the trouts are found primarily in and near tributary streams to the Jordan, except rainbows that are found in areas where they are stocked as sport fish by the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. MINNOWS (CYPRINIDAE) natives Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus locally common Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus locally common Utah chub Gila atraria uncommon introduced exotics Common carp Cyprinus carpio common, pervasive Goldfish Carassius auratus rare Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas rare Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucus rare NOTE: Common carp are so common that they account for the vast majority of the fish by weight throughout the Jordan River. Fathead minnow and golden shiner were introduced into Utah Lake as a prey species and have found their way downstream in very limited numbers. Goldfish were probably introduced as pets, but have persisted over the years. The three remaining natives are less common and mostly found in upstream reaches, especially below the Narrows. SUCKERS (CATOSTOMIDAE) natives Utah sucker Catostomus ardens common Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhychus uncommon June sucker Chasmistes liorus rare NOTE: Utah sucker are the second most abundant fish species by weight in the Jordan River, and are found throughout. Mountain sucker are much less numerous and much smaller. June sucker is a “lake” species of Utah Lake, and are currently listed as an endangered species by the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Version 2020-04-20 June Sucker (Chasmistes Liorus) Species Status
    Version 2020-04-20 June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) Species Status Statement. Distribution June sucker is endemic to Utah Lake and its tributaries. The species spends the majority of the year in Utah Lake, but conducts an annual spawning migration up the tributaries in late spring and early summer (often peaking in June, hence its name). Primary spawning locations are the Provo River, Hobble Creek, and the Spanish Fork River (Fonken, 2017). A refuge population exists in Red Butte Reservoir, and hatchery and grow-out facilities are located at the state fish hatchery in Logan, Utah and at Rosebud Ponds in Box Elder County. Table 1. Utah counties currently occupied by this species. June Sucker BOX ELDER CACHE SALT LAKE UTAH WEBER Abundance and Trends Managers estimated that fewer than 1,000 June sucker existed at the time of their Endangered Species Act listing in 1986 (USFWS, 1999). As self-sustaining populations of this species no longer existed in the wild, managers began a captive breeding program, and stocked artificially propagated June suckers into Utah Lake on an annual basis. Additionally, they established a June sucker refuge population in Red Butte Reservoir. Recent modeling has shown an increasing population in Utah Lake, with current estimates of approximately 3,000 spawning adults (Conner, 2018). Statement of Habitat Needs and Threats to the Species. Habitat Needs In addition to the main body of Utah Lake, June sucker requires complex delta habitat in order to complete its life cycle. Historically, tributaries dispersed into a series of braided channels and wetlands at their interface with Utah Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Herbicide Groups
    List of herbicides Group Scientific name Trade name clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*, Hoegrass®), fenoxaprop (Cheetah® Gold* , Wildcat®), A Aryloxyphenoxypropionates fluazifop (Fusilade®, Fusion®*), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) butroxydim (Falcon®, Fusion®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim A Cyclohexanediones (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) A Phenylpyrazoles pinoxaden (Axial®) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, B Sulfonylureas Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron, (Logran®, Logran® B Power®*), tribenuron (Express®), trifloxysulfuron (Envoke®, Krismat®*) florasulam (Paradigm®*, Vortex®*, X-Pand®*), flumetsulam B Triazolopyrimidines (Broadstrike®), metosulam (Eclipse®), pyroxsulam (Crusader®Rexade®*) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®,), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, B Imidazolinones Lightning®*, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) B Pyrimidinylthiobenzoates bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) C Amides: propanil (Stam®) C Benzothiadiazinones: bentazone (Basagran®,
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation With
    Eurasian watermilfoil in Christmas Lake, 2011 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Prepared for: Prepared by: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Steve McComas Blue Water Science St. Paul, MN 55116 September 2011 1 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Table of Contents page number Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Use of Herbicides as an Aquatic Plant Control Technique ...................................................................................... 2 How Herbicides Work and Their Mode of Action ....................................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Herbicide Impacts on Humans and the Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 8 Where to Find Sources of Specific Information on herbicide Products and Their Active Ingredients ....................... 16 Harvesting, Drawdown, and Biocontrol as Aquatic Plant Control Techniques ................................................... 17 Summary of Control Techniques for Non-Native Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil ................... 25 Control Techniques for Other
    [Show full text]