DOCSLIB.ORG

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment DEIS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment DEIS Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Changes between the DEIS and FEIS for Section 3.1 Section 3.1 has been rewritten for clarity based on public comments and internal review. The original information from the DEIS remains, although may be numbered differently. This section adds 3.1.3 Incomplete and Unavailable Information, Section 3.1.2 Basis for Cumulative Effects - This section is reworded to describe the incremental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, both on National Forest System lands and other adjacent federal, state, or private lands. 3.1 Introduction This chapter describes both the existing conditions of the project area, and the environmental effects of implementing the alternatives described in Chapter 2. Effects are defined as: • Adverse and/or beneficial direct effects occur at the same time and in the same general location as the activity causing the effects. • Adverse and beneficial indirect effects are those that occur at a different time or location from the activity causing the effects. Both types of effects are described in terms of increase or decreases, intensity, duration, and timing. • Cumulative Effects result from the incremental impacts of the Proposed Actions/alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, both on the Forest and Wild and Scenic River corridor as well as other adjacent federal, state, or private lands. Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8). 3.1.1 Project Area The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, (see Vicinity Map) located in the northeast corner of Oregon and west central edge of Idaho, covers 2.3 million acres. The Forest extends to the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and encompasses four wilderness areas, and eleven wild and scenic rivers. It lies within Wallowa, Union, Baker, Malheur, Umatilla, and Grant Counties in Oregon and Adams, and Nez Perce Counties in Idaho. The Forest is located on the east edge of the Blue Mountains and encompasses the Elkhorn and Wallowa Mountains, and ranges in elevation from 875 feet on the Snake River in the bottom of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area to 9,845 feet in the Eagle Cap Wilderness of the Blue Mountains. The Forest is the largest administrative unit in the Pacific Northwest Region. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is the home of the deepest river gorge in the nation (Hells Canyon), the largest wilderness area in Oregon (Eagle Cap), and hosts a portion of the Oregon Trail. 97 Chapter 3 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental Impact Statemen 3.1.2 Basis for Cumulative Effects Analysis Introduction This section discusses cumulative effects: the incremental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives when added to effects of other actions both on National Forest System lands and other adjacent federal, state, or private lands (40 CFR 1508.7). Adverse and beneficial direct and indirect effects are predicted as a result of implementing any of the alternatives (and are discussed at length throughout Chapter 3). How these effects might interact with other actions is difficult to discern. Invasive plants are dynamic; some infestations may stay relatively static for a time, while other infestations may expand rapidly, and new infestations may be introduced in areas that are not currently infested. Ongoing land uses and natural events such as drought, weather, and wildfires, are likely to result in introduction and spread of invasive plants. Invasive plants cross property lines and infest other landowners’ properties. Effective treatment would reduce potential for spread onto other ownerships. Effective treatment of adjacent populations off National Forest System land would increase the effectiveness of the overall treatment. Currently, 22 invasive weed sites (approximately 6,600 acres) are adjacent to other land ownerships on the Forest (Table 14). The largest reported area is the common bugloss site located on Hells Canyon National Recreation Area4. Table 14-Invasive weeds located on land adjacent to National Forest System lands Percent of Total Mapped Invasive plant species Adjacent Infested Acres acres Russian knapweed 23.3 0.4 Common bugloss 5472.9 82.5 White-top 51.3 0.8 Diffuse knapweed 155.6 2.3 Spotted knapweed 81.6 1.2 Knapweed species 76.4 1.2 Yellow star thistle 60.7 0.9 Rush skeleton weed 5.0 0.1 Canada thistle 131.6 2.0 Poison hemlock 1.4 0.0 Common crupina 188.6 2.8 Houndstongue 76.8 1.2 Scotch broom 0.1 0.0 Leafy spurge 1.9 0.0 Meadow hawkweek 0.0 0.0 St john's wort 103.0 1.6 Dalmation toadflax 107.3 1.6 Yellow toadflax 0.3 0.0 Scotch thistle 83.5 1.3 Sulphur cinquefoil 6.5 0.1 Tansy ragwort 2.3 0.0 Medusahead 3.4 0.1 Total 6633.6 100.0 4 It is likely that more acres are present, as these acres represent small scale cooperative weed mapping projects. 98 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Potential effects of herbicide treatment to nontarget vegetation, including SOLI, on National Forest System land is relatively small as reported in the direct/indirect section above. Data from 2007 shows glyphosate would likely make up the majority of use off of National Forest System land. Since this herbicide is nonselective, SOLI and other nontarget plants may be killed if an accidental spill, drift, or run off reaches them. However, used according to label, these impacts may be avoided, especially because glyphosate is not biologically active once it binds to organic matter and is rapidly absorbed by target plants. Alternative A would not result in cumulative beneficial effects because these populations would not be effectively treated. Alternative B would have the greatest potential effectiveness. Restrictions in Alternatives C and D may result in less cumulative benefit of integrated treatments occurring on and off forest. Spread of invasive plants would result in increased future costs to the Forest Service and thus to tax payers to treat larger, more widespread populations that would continue to develop over time. The specific timing, place and prescription for invasive plant treatments during the life of this project are not known. A catalog of specific foreseeable future actions within any 6th field watershed or river basin is not possible to obtain. Thus, the cumulative effects analysis must rely on certain assumptions and past reports to characterize the potential cumulative effects of the alternatives. CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making (40 CFR 1508.7). Human activities are known to have influenced the spread of invasive plants into North America, the Pacific Northwest and specific sites within the project area. A catalog of past actions is unnecessary to understand how land uses have contributed to the current distribution of invasive plants. The vectors and mechanisms of invasive plant spread are discussed at length in the R6 2005 FEIS. The baseline for cumulative effects analysis is the current condition. In terms of present and foreseeable future actions, the analysis assumes that current land uses will continue. On the Wallowa-Whitman NF, invasive plant prevention measures will be applied to land uses and activities, which would help address specific vectors of invasive plant spread. Invasive plant prevention measures, including those currently implemented on the Wallowa- Whitman NF, are predicted to reduce rates of, but not stop, invasive plant spread (R6 2005 FEIS). However, Forest Service projections suggest that recreational use of roads and trail (both motorized and nonmotorized) will continue to increase and will continue to be conduits for the distribution of invasive plants. Other land management and use activities such as grazing, vegetation management, fuels management (Healthy Forest Initiative), wildfire, and fire suppression will continue to cause ground disturbances that can contribute to the introduction, spread and establishment of invasive plants on National Forest System lands (USDA 2005). Many of these uses and activities on the Forest and adjacent ownerships have, and will continue in the vicinity of Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 99 Chapter 3 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental Impact Statemen The following bulleted list
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forests of Eastern Oregon: an Overview Sally Campbell, Dave Azuma, and Dale Weyermann
    Forests of Eastern Oregon: An Overview Sally Campbell, Dave Azuma, and Dale Weyermann United States Forest Pacific Northwest General Tecnical Report Department of Service Research Station PNW-GTR-578 Agriculture April 2003 Revised 2004 Joseph area, eastern Oregon. Photo by Tom Iraci Authors Sally Campbell is a biological scientist, Dave Azuma is a research forester, and Dale Weyermann is geographic information system manager, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 SW Main, Portland, OR 97205. Cover: Aspen, Umatilla National Forest. Photo by Tom Iraci Forests of Eastern Oregon: An Overview Sally Campbell, Dave Azuma, and Dale Weyermann U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, OR April 2003 State Forester’s Welcome Dear Reader: The Oregon Department of Forestry and the USDA Forest Service invite you to read this overview of eastern Oregon forests, which provides highlights from recent forest inventories.This publication has been made possible by the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program, with support from the Oregon Department of Forestry. This report was developed from data gathered by the FIA in eastern Oregon’s forests in 1998 and 1999, and has been supplemented by inventories from Oregon’s national forests between 1993 and 1996.This report and other analyses of FIA inventory data will be extremely useful as we evaluate fire management strategies, opportunities for improving rural economies, and other elements of forest management in eastern Oregon.We greatly appreciate FIA’s willingness to work with the researchers, analysts, policymakers, and the general public to collect, analyze, and distrib- ute information about Oregon’s forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • IMBCR Report
    Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): 2015 Field Season Report June 2016 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies 14500 Lark Bunting Lane Brighton, CO 80603 303-659-4348 www.birdconservancy.org Tech. Report # SC-IMBCR-06 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Connecting people, birds and land Mission: Conserving birds and their habitats through science, education and land stewardship Vision: Native bird populations are sustained in healthy ecosystems Bird Conservancy of the Rockies conserves birds and their habitats through an integrated approach of science, education and land stewardship. Our work radiates from the Rockies to the Great Plains, Mexico and beyond. Our mission is advanced through sound science, achieved through empowering people, realized through stewardship and sustained through partnerships. Together, we are improving native bird populations, the land and the lives of people. Core Values: 1. Science provides the foundation for effective bird conservation. 2. Education is critical to the success of bird conservation. 3. Stewardship of birds and their habitats is a shared responsibility. Goals: 1. Guide conservation action where it is needed most by conducting scientifically rigorous monitoring and research on birds and their habitats within the context of their full annual cycle. 2. Inspire conservation action in people by developing relationships through community outreach and science-based, experiential education programs. 3. Contribute to bird population viability and help sustain working lands by partnering with landowners and managers to enhance wildlife habitat. 4. Promote conservation and inform land management decisions by disseminating scientific knowledge and developing tools and recommendations. Suggested Citation: White, C. M., M. F. McLaren, N. J.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Treatments Record of Decision
    Attachment B – Conservation Measures for Special Status Species Introduction These Conservation Measures were displayed in Appendix 5 of the Final EIS. They are the product of the PEIS Biological Assessment and adopted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Consultation, and apply to listed and proposed species as described in those consultation documents. These do not apply where a No Effect determination can be made without them, or where site-specific consultation identifies alternative ways to achieve appropriate protection. PEIS Mitigation Measures adopted by this Record of Decision also require implementation of certain of these conservation measures “When necessary to protect Special Status plant/fish and other aquatic organisms/wildlife species….” (see Attachment A). Conservation Measures for Birds Conservation Measures for the California Brown Pelican Although treatment activities are unlikely to negatively affect the brown pelican or its habitat, extra steps could be taken by the BLM to ensure that herbicide treatments conducted in brown pelican wintering habitat did not result in negative effects to the species: • If feasible, conduct vegetation treatments in brown pelican wintering habitat outside the period when pelicans are likely to be present. • If herbicide treatments in brown pelican habitats must be conducted during the wintering period: ◦ Do not use 2,4-D in pelican wintering habitat. ◦ Prior to conducting herbicide treatments on pelican wintering habitat, survey the area for pelicans. Wait for pelicans to leave the area before spraying. ◦ Do not broadcast spray clopyralid, glyphosate, hexazinone, picloram, or triclopyr in pelican wintering habitats. ◦ If broadcast spraying imazapyr or metsulfuron methyl in pelican wintering habitats, use the typical rather than the maximum application rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: a Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators
    USDA United States Department of Agriculture Research Natural Areas on Forest Service National Forest System Lands Rocky Mountain Research Station in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, General Technical Report RMRS-CTR-69 Utah, and Western Wyoming: February 2001 A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and E'ducators Angela G. Evenden Melinda Moeur J. Stephen Shelly Shannon F. Kimball Charles A. Wellner Abstract Evenden, Angela G.; Moeur, Melinda; Shelly, J. Stephen; Kimball, Shannon F.; Wellner, Charles A. 2001. Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-69. Ogden, UT: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 84 p. This guidebook is intended to familiarize land resource managers, scientists, educators, and others with Research Natural Areas (RNAs) managed by the USDA Forest Service in the Northern Rocky Mountains and lntermountain West. This guidebook facilitates broader recognitionand use of these valuable natural areas by describing the RNA network, past and current research and monitoring, management, and how to use RNAs. About The Authors Angela G. Evenden is biological inventory and monitoring project leader with the National Park Service -NorthernColorado Plateau Network in Moab, UT. She was formerly the Natural Areas Program Manager for the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Northern Region and lntermountain Region of the USDA Forest Service. Melinda Moeur is Research Forester with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation in Moscow, ID, and one of four Research Natural Areas Coordinators from the Rocky Mountain Research Station. J. Stephen Shelly is Regional Botanist and Research Natural Areas Coordinator with the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Headquarters Office in Missoula, MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Wolverines in Northeast Oregon – 2011
    Monitoring Wolverines in Northeast Oregon – 2011 Submitted by The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. Title: Monitoring Wolverine in Northeast Oregon – 2011 Authors: Audrey J. Magoun, Patrick Valkenburg, Clinton D. Long, and Judy K. Long Funding and Logistical Support: Dale Pedersen James Short Marsha O’Dell National Park Service Norcross Wildlife Foundation Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Seattle Foundation The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. U.S. Forest Service Wildlife Conservation Society Special thanks to all those individuals who provided observations of wolverines in the Wallowa- Whitman National Forest and other areas in Oregon. We also thank Tim Hiller, Mark Penninger, and Glenn McDonald for their assistance in the field work. This document should be cited as: Magoun, A. J., P. Valkenburg, C. D. Long, and J. K. Long. 2011. Monitoring wolverines in northeast Oregon – 2011. Final Report. The Wolverine Foundation, Inc., Kuna, Idaho, USA. 2 INTRODUCTION The Oregon Conservation Strategy lists “species data gaps” and “research and monitoring needs” for some species where basic information on occurrence and habitat associations are not known (ODFW 2006; pages 367-368). For the Blue Mountains, East Cascades, and West Cascades Ecoregions of Oregon, the Strategy lists wolverine as a species for which status is unknown but habitat may be suitable to support wolverines. ODFW lists the wolverine as Threatened in Oregon and the USFWS has recently placed the species on the candidate list under the federal Endangered Species Act. Wolverine range in the contiguous United States had contracted substantially by the mid-1900s, probably because of high levels of human-caused mortality and very low immigration rates (Aubry et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Wolverines in Northeast Oregon
    Monitoring Wolverines in Northeast Oregon January 2011 – December 2012 Final Report Authors: Audrey J. Magoun Patrick Valkenburg Clinton D. Long Judy K. Long Submitted to: The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. February 2013 Cite as: A. J. Magoun, P. Valkenburg, C. D. Long, and J. K. Long. 2013. Monitoring wolverines in northeast Oregon. January 2011 – December 2012. Final Report. The Wolverine Foundation, Inc., Kuna, Idaho. [http://wolverinefoundation.org/] Copies of this report are available from: The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. [http://wolverinefoundation.org/] Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife [http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/publications.asp] Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation [http://www.owhf.org/] U. S. Forest Service [http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/wallowa-whitman/landmanagement] Major Funding and Logistical Support The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation U. S. Forest Service U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wolverine Discovery Center Norcross Wildlife Foundation Seattle Foundation Wildlife Conservation Society National Park Service 2 Special thanks to everyone who provided contributions, assistance, and observations of wolverines in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and other areas in Oregon. We appreciate all the help and interest of the staffs of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, U. S. Forest Service, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the National Park Service. We also thank the following individuals for their assistance with the field work: Jim Akenson, Holly Akenson, Malin Aronsson, Norma Biggar, Ken Bronec, Steve Bronson, Roblyn Brown, Vic Coggins, Alex Coutant, Cliff Crego, Leonard Erickson, Bjorn Hansen, Mike Hansen, Hans Hayden, Tim Hiller, Janet Hohmann, Pat Matthews, David McCullough, Glenn McDonald, Jamie McFadden, Kendrick Moholt, Mark Penninger, Jens Persson, Lynne Price, Brian Ratliff, Jamie Ratliff, John Stephenson, John Wyanens, Rebecca Watters, Russ Westlake, and Jeff Yanke.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 - Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity in the Andes and Amazon 1: Biodiversity
    Lyonia 9(1) 2006 - Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity in the Andes and Amazon 1: Biodiversity Volume 9 (1) February 2006 ISSN: 0888-9619 Introduction In 2001, the 1. Congress of Conservation of Biological and Cultural Diversity in the Andes and the Amazon Basin in Cusco, Peru, attempted to provide a platform to bridge the existing gap between Scientists, Non Governmental Organizations, Indigenous Populations and Governmental Agencies. This was followed by a 2. Congress in 2003, held in Loja, Ecuador together with the IV Ecuadorian Botanical Congress. The most important results of these conferences were published in Lyonia 6 (1/2) and 7 (1/2) 2004. Since then, the "Andes and Amazon" Biodiversity Congress has become a respected institution, and is being held every two years in Loja, Ecuador, where it has found a permanent home at the Universidad Tecnica Particular. In 2005, the 3. Congres on Biological and Cultural Diversity of the Andes and Amazon Basin joined efforts with the 2. Dry Forest Congress and the 5. Ecuadorian Botanical Congress, to provide an even broader venue. The Tropical Dry Forests of Latin America as well as the Andes and the Amazon Basin represent one of the most important Biodiversity-Hotspots on Earth. At the same time, both systems face imminent dangers due to unsustainable use. Attempts of sustainable management and conservation must integrate local communities and their traditional knowledge. Management decisions need to include the high importance of natural resources in providing building materials, food and medicines for rural as well as urbanized communities. The traditional use of forest resources, particularly of non-timber products like medicinal plants, has deep roots not only in indigenous communities, but is practiced in a wide section of society.
    [Show full text]
  • National Forest Imagery Catalog Collection at the USDA
    National Forest Imagery Catalog collection at the USDA - Farm Service Agency Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO) 2222 West 2300 South Salt Lake City, UT 84119-2020 (801) 844-2922 - Customer Service Section (801) 956-3653 - Fax (801) 956-3654 - TDD [email protected] http://www.apfo.usda.gov This catalog listing shows the various photographic coverages used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and archived at the Aerial Photography Field Office. This catalog references U.S. Forest Service (FS) and other agencies imagery. For imagery prior to 1955, please contact the National Archives & Records Administration: Cartographic & Architectural Reference (NWCS-Cartographic) Aerial Photographs Team http://www.archives.gov/research/order/maps.html#contact Coverage of U.S. Forest Service photography is listed alphabetically for each forest within a region. Numeric and alpha codes used to identify FS projects are determined by the Forest Service. The original film type for most of this imagery is a natural color negative. Line indexes are available for most projects. The number of index sheets required to cover a project area is shown on the listing. Please reference the remarks column, which may identify a larger or smaller project area than the National Forest area defined in the header. Offered in the catalog listing at each National Forest heading is a link to locate the Regional and National Forest office address and phone number at: http://www.fs.fed.us/intro/directory You may wish to visit the National Forest office to view the current imagery and have them assist you in identifying aerial imagery from the APFO.
    [Show full text]
  • Diurnal and Nocturnal Lepidoptera of Buenaventura (Piñas-Ecuador) Lepidópteros Diurnos Y Nocturnos De La Reserva Buenaventura (Piñas –Ecuador)
    Volume 9 (1) Diurnal and nocturnal lepidoptera of Buenaventura (Piñas-Ecuador) Lepidópteros diurnos y nocturnos de la Reserva Buenaventura (Piñas –Ecuador) Sebastián Padrón Universidad del Azuay Escuela de Biología del Medio Ambiente [email protected] February 2006 Download at: http://www.lyonia.org/downloadPDF.php?pdfID=2.408.1 Diurnal and nocturnal lepidoptera of Buenaventura (Piñas-Ecuador) Resumen En un bosque húmedo tropical en el sur de Ecuador, dentro de un gradiente altitudinal de 600-1000m sobre el nivel del mar, se realizo un inventario de mariposas diurnas y nocturnas elaborando así una lista preliminar de especies. La región de investigación (La Reserva Buenaventura) está ubicada en la parte alta de la provincia del Oro cerca de la ciudad de Piñas, esta reserva presenta una gran diversidad de aves, especies vegetales e insectos. Las comunidades de mariposas diurnas y nocturnas fueron muestreadas durante los meses de Agosto y Septiembre del 2004, para lo cual se utilizo trampas aéreas, de cebo, e intercepción con red y de luz Vapor de Mercurio 250 watt. Las trampas aéreas, de cebo y de intercepción fueron efectuadas a lo largo de transectos definidos dentro de la reserva, estos fueron monitoreados cada dos días dentro de los 24 días de la investigación. La trampa de luz fue ubicada en la estación científica y esta se uso, por tres horas desde 18:30 hasta 21:30, durante 15 noches. Se pudo capturar 550 especimenes las cuales fueron conservadas, montadas e identificación. Se pudo clasificar 255 especies de lepidópteros de las cuales 60 pertenecen a mariposas diurnas y 195 a nocturnas.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol 30 Svsn.Pdf
    c/o Museo di Storia Naturale Fontego dei Turchi, S. Croce 1730 30135 Venezia (Italy) Tel. 041 2750206 - Fax 041 721000 codice fiscale 80014010278 sito web: www.svsn.it e-mail: [email protected] Lavori Vol. 30 Venezia 31 gennaio 2005 La Società Veneziana di Scienze Naturali si è costituita a Venezia nel Dicembre 1975 Consiglio Direttivo Presidente della Società: Giampietro Braga Vice Presidente: Fabrizio Bizzarini Consiglieri (*) Botanica: Linda Bonello Maria Teresa Sammartino Didattica, Ecologia,Tutela ambientale: Giuseppe Gurnari Maria Chiara Lazzari Scienze della Terra e dell’Uomo: Fabrizio Bizzarini Simone Citon Zoologia: Raffaella Trabucco Segretario Tesoriere: Anna Maria Confente Revisori dei Conti: Luigi Bruni Giulio Scarpa Comitato scientifico di redazione: Giovanni Caniglia (Direttore), Fabrizio Bizzarini, Giampietro Braga, Paolo Canestrelli, Corrado Lazzari, Francesco Mezzavilla, Alessandro Minelli, Enrico Negrisolo, Michele Pellizzato Direttore responsabile della rivista: Alberto Vitucci Iniziativa realizzata con il contributo della Regione Veneto Il 15 ottobre 1975 il tribunale di Venezia autorizzava la pubblicazione della rivista scientifica “Lavori” e nel gennaio del 1976 la Società Veneziana di Scienze Naturali presentava ai soci il primo numero della rivista che conteneva 13 con- tributi scientifici. In ordine alfabetico ne elenchiamo gli autori: Lorenzo Bonometto, Silvano Canzoneri, Paolo Cesari, Antonio Dal Corso, Federico De Angeli, Giorgio Ferro, Lorenzo Munari, Helio Pierotti, Leone Rampini, Giampaolo Rallo, Enrico Ratti, Marino Sinibaldi e Roberto Vannucci. Nasceva così quell’impegno editoriale che caratterizza da allora la nostra società non solo nel puntuale rispetto dei tempi di stampa, entro il primo trimestre di ogni anno, del volume degli atti scientifici: “Lavori”, ma anche nelle altre pub- blicazione.
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneer Botanist William Cusick: His Dark and Silent World Rhoda M
    Pioneer Botanist William Cusick: His Dark and Silent World Rhoda M. Love 393 Ful Vue Drive, Eugene, OR 97405 (Adapted from an essay that will appear in Plant Hunters of the Pacific Northwest, edited by A.R. Kruckeberg and R.M. Love) otanist William Conklin in Illinois, and when the family Cusick (1842-1922) settled in Oregon he continued Bwas a pioneer in every his public school studies. As a sense of the word. As an eleven- lover of plants, he no doubt year-old lad in 1853 he walked enjoyed his walks to the local across the plains with a covered schoolhouse through the tall wagon train from Illinois to grasses and native wildflowers Oregon’s Willamette Valley. In of Kingston Prairie. At age 20 1872, when he was thirty, he transferred to the now William and his younger extinct school of La Creole brother Frank became two of Academy at Dallas, Polk the earliest settlers of the Powder County. After graduation, he River Valley in eastern Oregon. taught school for two years and Beginning at that time, and for then, in 1864-65, attended four decades until overcome by Willamette University in Salem nearly total deafness and blind- where he studied math, algebra, ness, Cusick undertook the physics, and geology (St. John pioneering botanical explor- 1923, Lange 1956). Although ations of the remote Wallowa he received no formal training and Blue Mountain ranges in in the study of plants, his the extreme northeast corner of knowledge of geology was no our state. doubt a help to him during his later botanizing.
    [Show full text]