DOCSLIB.ORG

Implications for Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Implications for Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity Forestry Bioenergy in the Southeast United States: Implications for Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity Final Report DRAFT December 5, 2013 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation and Southern Environmental Law Center with funds provided by Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. Patient project management was provided by F.G. Courtney-Beauregard, Julie Sibbing, Ben Larson, and Aviva Glaser of the National Wildlife Federation, as well as David Carr and Derb Carter from Southern Environmental Law Center. Bruce Stein and Barbara Bramble from National Wildlife Federation provided important suggestions and contributions in technical review that greatly improved the fi nal report. Jovian Sackett from Southern Envi- ronmental Law Center provided key GIS datasets and other insights that also were critical to project development and completion. We greatly thank Jacquie Bow, Kristin Snow, Jason McNees, and Leslie Honey of NatureServe for assistance in conducting and interpreting overlay analyses of at-risk (G1-G3) ecological associations. Additional assistance in developing G1-G3 analyses was provided by Matt Elliott, Anna Yellin, and John Ambrose at the Georgia Natural Heritage Program; John Finnegan from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program; and Kirsten Hazler and Karen Patterson of the Virginia Natural Heritage Program. Research for this project was conducted through a collaborative effort between faculty and graduate student researchers at the University of Georgia, University of Florida, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (a.k.a., Virginia Tech University). Chapter 2, authored by Daniel Geller (University of Georgia, College of Engineering) and Jason M. Evans (University of Georgia, Carl Vinson Institute of Government), provides an overview of facilities chosen for the study’s focus. Chapter 3, authored by Divya Vasudev, Miguel Acevedo, and Robert J. Fletcher, Jr. (all from University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation), pro- vides a presentation of conservation analysis methods and identifi cation of indicator species. Chapter 4, authored by Jason M. Evans, provides a technical explanation of spatial modeling methods employed for the facility case studies. Chapters 5-10, authored by Jason M. Evans, Alison L. Smith (University of Georgia, College of Envi- ronment and Design), Daniel Geller, Jon Calabria (University of Georgia, College of Environment and Design), Robert J. Fletcher, Jr., and Janaki Alavalapati (Virginia Tech University, Department of Forest Resources and En- vironmental Conservation) provide the results and discussion of facility case study analyses. Chapter 11, authored by Pankaj Lal (Montclair State University, Department of Earth and Environmental Studies), Thakur Upadhyay (Virginia Tech University, Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation) and Janaki Alava- lapati, provides an overview of forestry biomass energy policies within state, federal, and international contexts, as well as the increasing policy attention to biodiversity concerns. Chapter 12, co-authored by all investigators, synthesizes the results of the report into a series of suggestions for policy consideration and future research stud- ies. Executive Summary and Final Report layout completed by Alison L. Smith. Christopher Stebbins, a graduate student at the University of Georgia’s College of Environment and Design, provided key technical support for developing a number of GIS analyses and map designs. Robinson Schelhas, an undergraduate intern at the University of Georgia, provided tireless assistance with developing maps, assembling literature databases, formatting tables, and taking numerous photographs. Sumner Gann, a graduate student at the University of Georgia’s College of Environment and Design, provided document layout and formatting as- sistance. Cover photo credit: Tiffany Williams Woods TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 7 II. Facility Descriptions 16 III. Indicator Species Selection 20 IV. Spatial Modeling Methodology 34 V. Case Study Of Georgia Biomass, LLC 47 VI. Case Study Of Enviva Pellets Ahoskie 76 VII. Case Study Of Piedmont Green Power 104 VIII. Case Study Of South Boston Energy 131 IX. Case Study Of Carolina Wood Pellets 162 X. Case Study Of Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center 195 XI. Woody Biomass For Bioenergy: A Policy Overview 226 XII. Summary And Conclusions 234 XIII. References 240 LIST OF FIGURES PLACEHOLDER LIST OF FIGURES PLACEHOLDER List of Acronyms AF&PA - American Forest and Paper Association ATFS – American Tree Farm System BCF - Biomass Conversion Facility BCAP - Biomass Crop Assistance Program BMP – Best Management Practice CoC- Chain of Custody DWM – Downed Woody Matter EA - Environmental Assessment FMP – Forest Management Plan FNP - Forests No Pasture* G1 – Critically Imperilled (Nature Serve Classifi cation) G2 - Imperiled (Nature Serve Classifi cation) G3 - Vulnerable (Nature Serve Classifi cation) FSA - Farm Services Agency FONSI - Finding of no Signifi cant Impact FNW – Forests no Wetlands* FOR – Forests* FSC - Forest Stewardship Council FSP – Forest Stewardship Program GAP – National Gap Analysis Program GHG – Greenhouse Gas GIS – Geographic Information Systems HAO – Harvest Area Objective HNW - Hardwood No Wetlands* HWD – All Hardwood* MCE – Multi-Criteria Evaluation MOLA - Multiple Objective Land Allocation NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act NIPF - Nonindustrial Private Forest PDP - Plantation, Disturbed and Pasture* PEFC - Programme on the Endorsement of Forest Certifi cation PNP - Plantation and Disturbed, No Pasture* PO – Plantation Only* RPS - Renewable Portfolio Standards SE – Southeastern (US) SFI - Sustainable Forestry Initiative SFM - Sustainable Forest Management SHARP - Sustainable Harvesting and Resource Professional SMZ - Streamside Management Zone SWAP – State Wildlife Action Plan UPL – Uplands* WLC – Weighted Linear Combination *Land Cover Sourcing Screen Forestry Bioenergy in the Southeast United States: Implications for Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity Page 7 FINAL DRAFT: 12/05/2013 I. INTRODUCTION Spanning across the low-lying and sandy despite these direct habitat stressors and ad- soils of the Coastal Plain, the gentle slopes ditional secondary effects from large-scale and clay soils of the Piedmont, and the habitat fragmentation, today’s SE forest steep sloping terrains of the southern Ap- landscape still contains large areas of high palachian Mountains, the forests of the quality habitat that together support the vast southeastern (SE) U.S. are widely recog- majority of native plant and wildlife species nized for their high biodiversity. Differenti- originally found in the region at the time of ated across the region by various terrains, European discovery (Trani 2002). precipitation patterns, annual temperature ranges, and dominant tree species, SE for- This study was commissioned jointly by the ests broadly share a wet and humid climate National Wildlife Federation and Southern with mild winters that produce minimal to Environmental Law Center for the purpose no persistent snow cover in even the coldest of developing and discussing scenario-based locations. These favorable climate condi- assessments of wildlife habitat risks from tions support high primary forest produc- the woody biomass to bioenergy industry tivity as compared to most other U.S. forest in the SE U.S. The rationale behind the regions and similar temperate latitudes study that the SE U.S. forest region – which across the world. This high productivity and the U.S. Forest Service defi nes as including terrain heterogeneity together support the the forested areas of Alabama, Arkansas, wide diversity of ecological associations and Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mis- wildlife habitats found throughout the SE sissippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma South region. Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia – is currently experiencing what is perhaps the Land cover change and management fac- world’s most rapid growth in the develop- tors have prompted signifi cant popula- ment of woody biomass production facili- tion and range area declines for a number ties (Mendell and Lang 2012). According of native forest-dependent plants and to recent estimates by Forisk Consulting animals throughout the SE over the past (2013), U.S. wood pellet production may ex- two centuries. Specifi c factors that have ceed 13.7 million tons in 2014, representing served as primary stressors to native for- an 87% increase from 2012 and with most est biodiversity in the SE region include: of this production likely being supplied by 1) historic logging of virtually all original forests of the SE U.S. Due mostly to ongo- primary forests; 2) large-scale clearing of ing renewable energy mandates in the EU primary and naturally regenerated forests being implemented under the Kyoto Ac- for conversion into agriculture, plantation cord, some analysts expect similar demand pine forestry, and suburban development; 3) increases for SE wood pellets to continue long-term suppression of fi re from forest through 2020 and beyond (Goh et al. 2013). ecosystems dependent on this disturbance; and 4) establishment and spread of various Opportunities and Risks invasive plants, animals, and pathogens (see, Expansion of the bioenergy industry is e.g., Martin 1993; Griffi th et al. 2003). But prompting wide-ranging discussion about FINAL DRAFT: Page 8 Forestry Bioenergy in the Southeast United States: Implications for Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity 12/05/2013 opportunities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Biosphere Consulting 14908 Tilden Road ‐ Winter Garden FL 34787 (407) 656 8277
    Biosphere Consulting 14908 Tilden Road ‐ Winter Garden FL 34787 (407) 656 8277 www.BiosphereNursery.com The following list of plants include only native wetland and transitional species used primarily in aquascaping, lakefront and wetland restoration. Biosphere also carries a large number of upland species and BIOSCAPE species, as well as wildflower seeds and plants. The nursery is open to the public on Tuesday through Saturday only from 9:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Prices are F.O.B. the nursery. * Bare root plants must be ordered at least two (2) days prior to pick-up. PRICE LIST NATIVE WETLAND AND TRANSITIONAL SPECIES HERBACEOUS SPECIES *Bare Root 1 Gal. 3 Gal. Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) .50 2.50 --- Bulrush (Scirpus californicus & S.validus) .50 --- 8.00 Burrmarigold (Bidens leavis) --- 2.00 --- Canna (Canna flaccida) .60 2.00 --- Crinum (Crinum americanum) 1.50 3.00 10.00 Duck Potato (Sagittaria lancifolia) .60 2.00 --- Fragrant Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata) 5.00 --- 12.00 Hibiscus (Hibiscus coccinea) --- 3.00 8.00 Horsetail (Equisetum sp.) .80 2.00 --- Iris (Iris savannarum) .60 2.00 --- Knotgrass (Paspalum distichum) .50 2.00 --- Lemon Bacopa (Bacopa caroliniana) --- 3.50 --- Lizards Tail (Saururus cernuus) .60 2.50 --- Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) .50 2.00 --- Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) .50 2.00 --- Redroot (Lachnanthes carolinana) .60 2.00 --- Sand Cord Grass (Spartina bakeri) .50 3.50 --- Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) .60 3.00 --- Softrush (Juncus effusus) .50 2.00 --- Spikerush (Eleocharis cellulosa) .70 2.00 ---
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Test of Assisted Migration for Conservation of Locally Range-Restricted Plants in Alberta, Canada
    Global Ecology and Conservation 17 (2019) e00572 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Ecology and Conservation journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco Original Research Article Experimental test of assisted migration for conservation of locally range-restricted plants in Alberta, Canada Yuzhuo Wang a, b, 1, Jennine L.M. Pedersen c, 1, S. Ellen Macdonald c, * ** Scott E. Nielsen c, , Jian Zhang a, b, a Zhejiang Tiantong Forest Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station & Shanghai Key Lab for Urban Ecological Processes and Eco-Restoration, School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200241, PR China b Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, 200092, PR China c Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada article info abstract Article history: Given projected rates of climate change, species with limited dispersal may be unable to Received 10 October 2018 migrate at the pace necessary to maintain their current climate niches. This could lead to Received in revised form 19 February 2019 increased risk of extirpation or extinction, especially for locally range-restricted species Accepted 19 February 2019 within fragmented landscapes. Assisted migration has been suggested as a proactive conservation tool to mitigate these risks. We tested assisted migration for Liatris ligulistylis Keywords: and Houstonia longifolia, two perennial forbs considered ‘vulnerable’ and ‘imperilled’, Assisted migration respectively, in Alberta, Canada, where they are at their northern and western range limits. Range-restricted species Climate change Both mature plants and seeds were translocated to replicate sites at four geographic lo- Range shift cations along a north-south gradient representing the current ranges of the species Vulnerability (central) and areas south (warmer) and north (cooler) of their current range.
    [Show full text]
  • USFWS 2010 Georgia, Symphyotrichum Georgianmum Species Assessment
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FORM SCIENTIFIC NAME: Symphyotrichum georgianum COMMON NAME: Georgia aster LEAD REGION: 4 INFORMATION CURRENT AS OF: March 2010 STATUS/ACTION Species assessment - determined species did not meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act and, therefore, was not elevated to Candidate status ___ New candidate _X_ Continuing candidate ___ Non-petitioned X Petitioned - Date petition received: May 11, 2004 90-day positive - FR date: 12-month warranted but precluded - FR date: Did the petition request a reclassification of a listed species? FOR PETITIONED CANDIDATE SPECIES: a. Is listing warranted (if yes, see summary of threats below)? yes b. To date, has publication of a proposal to list been precluded by other higher priority listing actions? yes c. If the answer to a. and b. is “yes”, provide an explanation of why the action is precluded. Higher priority listing actions, including court-approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory deadlines for petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude the proposed and final listing rules for the species. We continue to monitor populations and will change its status or implement an emergency listing if necessary. The “Progress on Revising the Lists” section of the current CNOR (http://endangered.fws.gov/) provides information on listing actions taken during the last 12 months. __ Listing priority change Former LP: __ New LP: __ Date when the species first became a Candidate (as currently defined): 10/25/1999 ___ Candidate removal: Former LP: ___ A – Taxon is more abundant or widespread than previously believed or not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Download
    The Revolution Transforming Agriculture & Environment Biochar: Ancient Origins, Modern Solution A Biochar Timeline Author Paul Taylor PhD This complete book is available at www.TheBiocharRevolution.com Biochar: Ancient Origins, Modern Solution A Biochar Timeline Author Paul Taylor PhD This complete book is available at www.TheBiocharRevolution.com FIRST EDITION 2010 Copyright 2010 NuLife Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. National Library of Australia Cataloguing–in–Publishing entry: Taylor, Paul, 1945– The Biochar Revolution: Transforming Agriculture & Environment. 1st ed. ISBN: 978 1 921630 41 5 (pbk.) 1. Ashes as fertilizer. 2. Carbon sequestration. 3. Charcoal. 4. Soil amendments 631.4 Published by NuLife Publishing PO Box 9284 GCMC Qld 9726 Australia Email: [email protected] For further information about orders: Email: [email protected] Website: www.thebiocharrevolution.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for the interest, support, patience, and effort expressed consistently— yet in unique ways—by each and every author, as we went though many revisions together. They are listed in the front of the book, with their bios in the back, under contributing authors. I owe special thanks to Hugh McLaughlin and Paul Anderson for their belief, interest, advice and support in the book as a whole. Both read, and offered valuable editing suggestions on, diverse chapters. Hugh reviewed most of the final manuscript. Gary Levi played a crucial role as chief editor and editorial advisor. He edited every chapter numerous times, and stayed with the project as it extended from 5 weeks to 5 months, working generously and meticulously to shape and organize the book.
    [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]
  • Proceedings IUFRO: Evaluation and Planning of Forestry Research
    united States oepartment of Agriculture Proceedings Forest Service Northeastern IUFRO Station NE-GTR-111 Evaluation and Planning 1986 of Forestry Research S6.06 - S6.06.01 Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 July 25-26, 1985 IUFRO PROCEEDINGS EVALUATION AND PLANNING OF FORESTRY RESEARCH S6.06 - S6.06.01 Compiled by Denver P. Burns Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA July 25-26, 1985 Sponsored by INTERNATIONAL UNION OF FORESTRY RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS and NORTHEASTERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION, USDA FOREST SERVICE Papers are published in this proceedings in camera-ready form as submitted by the authors. The authors are responsible for the content of their papers. PROGRAM July 25, 1985 Introduction: Denver P. Burns, Director, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Broanall, PA SESSION I - RESB.Alial FRONTIERS Moderator: Dr. Eldon Ross Resear·ch Frontiers. W. Franklin Harr·is, Deputy Division Director, Biotic Systems and Resources, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. SESSION II - RESBARQI FROIITIBRS FOR FORESTRY Applying Frontier Biotechnologies to Tree Improvement: Opportunities and Limitations. F. Thomas Ledig, Project Leader, Institute of Forest Genetics, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA For·est Service, Berkeley, CA Biotechnologies - The Potential Role of Somaclonal Variation in Forestry. Darroll D. Skilling and Michael E. Ostry, Principal Plant Pathologists, Nor·th Central Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, MN Frontiers in Wood Utilization Research in the United States. John R. Erickson, Director·, Forest Products Laboratory, USDA For·est Service, �.adison, WI Fr·ontiers in Handling Wood. C. R. Silversides, Forestry Consultant, Prescott, Ontar·io SESSION III - IDBIITIFIING RBSBARal NEEDS Moderator: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Aesculus Flava (Yellow Buckeye, Sweet Buckeye) Aesculus Flava Is a Medium to Large Deciduous Tree
    Aesculus flava (Yellow buckeye, sweet buckeye) Aesculus flava is a medium to large deciduous tree. The palmate compound leaves turn yellow in the fall. Large yellow flower appears in mid spring. Do not use this specimen as a street tree because of the litter produced by the falling leaves. Used as a shade tree. Landscape Information Pronounciation: ESS-kew-lus FLAY-vuh Plant Type: Tree Heat Zones: 5, 6, 7, 8 Hardiness Zones: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Uses: Screen, Specimen, Shade Size/Shape Growth Rate: Moderate Tree Shape: oval Canopy Symmetry: Symmetrical Canopy Density: Dense Canopy Texture: Coarse Height at Maturity: Over 23 Spread at Maturity: 8 to 10 meters Time to Ultimate Height: More than 50 Years Plant Image Aesculus flava (Yellow buckeye, sweet buckeye) Botanical Description Foliage Leaf Arrangement: Opposite Leaf Venation: Pinnate Leaf Persistance: Deciduous Leaf Type: Palmately Compound Leaf Blade: 5 - 10 cm Leaf Shape: Oval Leaf Margins: Serrate Leaf Textures: Coarse Leaf Scent: No Fragance Color(growing season): Green Color(changing season): Yellow Flower Flower Showiness: True Flower Size Range: 7 - 10 Flower Type: Panicle Flower Image Flower Sexuality: Monoecious (Bisexual) Flower Scent: No Fragance Flower Color: Yellow Seasons: Spring Trunk Trunk Has Crownshaft: False Trunk Susceptibility to Breakage: Generally resists breakage Number of Trunks: Single Trunk Trunk Esthetic Values: Not Showy Fruit Fruit Type: Nut Fruit Showiness: True Fruit Size Range: 1.5 - 3 Fruit Colors: Brown Seasons: Spring Aesculus flava (Yellow buckeye, sweet
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Illinois Native Trees
    Technical Forestry Bulletin · NRES-102 Checklist of Illinois Native Trees Jay C. Hayek, Extension Forestry Specialist Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences Updated May 2019 This Technical Forestry Bulletin serves as a checklist of Tree species prevalence (Table 2), or commonness, and Illinois native trees, both angiosperms (hardwoods) and gym- county distribution generally follows Iverson et al. (1989) and nosperms (conifers). Nearly every species listed in the fol- Mohlenbrock (2002). Additional sources of data with respect lowing tables† attains tree-sized stature, which is generally to species prevalence and county distribution include Mohlen- defined as having a(i) single stem with a trunk diameter brock and Ladd (1978), INHS (2011), and USDA’s The Plant Da- greater than or equal to 3 inches, measured at 4.5 feet above tabase (2012). ground level, (ii) well-defined crown of foliage, and(iii) total vertical height greater than or equal to 13 feet (Little 1979). Table 2. Species prevalence (Source: Iverson et al. 1989). Based on currently accepted nomenclature and excluding most minor varieties and all nothospecies, or hybrids, there Common — widely distributed with high abundance. are approximately 184± known native trees and tree-sized Occasional — common in localized patches. shrubs found in Illinois (Table 1). Uncommon — localized distribution or sparse. Rare — rarely found and sparse. Nomenclature used throughout this bulletin follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System —the ITIS data- Basic highlights of this tree checklist include the listing of 29 base utilizes real-time access to the most current and accept- native hawthorns (Crataegus), 21 native oaks (Quercus), 11 ed taxonomy based on scientific consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Human Activities
    4 Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Human Activities CO-CHAIRS D. Kupfer (Germany, Fed. Rep.) R. Karimanzira (Zimbabwe) CONTENTS AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND OTHER HUMAN ACTIVITIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 77 4.1 INTRODUCTION 85 4.2 FOREST RESPONSE STRATEGIES 87 4.2.1 Special Issues on Boreal Forests 90 4.2.1.1 Introduction 90 4.2.1.2 Carbon Sinks of the Boreal Region 90 4.2.1.3 Consequences of Climate Change on Emissions 90 4.2.1.4 Possibilities to Refix Carbon Dioxide: A Case Study 91 4.2.1.5 Measures and Policy Options 91 4.2.1.5.1 Forest Protection 92 4.2.1.5.2 Forest Management 92 4.2.1.5.3 End Uses and Biomass Conversion 92 4.2.2 Special Issues on Temperate Forests 92 4.2.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Temperate Forests 92 4.2.2.2 Global Warming: Impacts and Effects on Temperate Forests 93 4.2.2.3 Costs of Forestry Countermeasures 93 4.2.2.4 Constraints on Forestry Measures 94 4.2.3 Special Issues on Tropical Forests 94 4.2.3.1 Introduction to Tropical Deforestation and Climatic Concerns 94 4.2.3.2 Forest Carbon Pools and Forest Cover Statistics 94 4.2.3.3 Estimates of Current Rates of Forest Loss 94 4.2.3.4 Patterns and Causes of Deforestation 95 4.2.3.5 Estimates of Current Emissions from Forest Land Clearing 97 4.2.3.6 Estimates of Future Forest Loss and Emissions 98 4.2.3.7 Strategies to Reduce Emissions: Types of Response Options 99 4.2.3.8 Policy Options 103 75 76 IPCC RESPONSE STRATEGIES WORKING GROUP REPORTS 4.3 AGRICULTURE RESPONSE STRATEGIES 105 4.3.1 Summary of Agricultural Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 105 4.3.2 Measures and
    [Show full text]
  • Mainstreaming Native Species-Based Forest Restoration
    93 ISBN 978-9962-614-22-7 Mainstreaming Native Species-Based Forest Restoration July 15-16, 2010 Philippines Sponsored by the Environmental Leadership & Training Initiative (ELTI), the Rain Forest Restoration Initiative (RFRI), and the Institute of Biology, University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman Conference Proceedings 91 Mainstreaming Native Species-Based Forest Restoration Conference Proceedings July 15-16, 2010 Philippines Sponsored by The Environmental Leadership & Training Initiative (ELTI) Rain Forest Restoration Initiative (RFRI) University of the Philippines (UP) 2 This is a publication of the Environmental Leadership & Training Initiative (ELTI), a joint program of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). www.elti.org Phone: (1) 203-432-8561 [US] E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Text and Editing: J. David Neidel, Hazel Consunji, Jonathan Labozzetta, Alicia Calle, Javier Mateo-Vega Layout: Alicia Calle Photographs: ELTI-Asia Photo Collection Suggested citation: Neidel, J.D., Consunji, H., Labozetta, J., Calle, A. and J. Mateo- Vega, eds. 2012. Mainstreaming Native Species-Based Forest Restoration. ELTI Conference Proceedings. New Haven, CT: Yale University; Panama City: Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. ISBN 978-9962-614-22-7 3 Acknowledgements ELTI recognizes the generosity of the Arcadia Fund, whose fund- ing supports ELTI and helped make this event possible. Additional funding was provided by the Philippine Tropical Forest Conserva- tion Foundation. 4 List of Acronyms ANR Assisted Natural Regeneration Atty. Attorney CBFM Community-Based Forest Management CDM Clean Development Mechanism CI Conservation International CO2 Carbon Dioxide DENR Department of Environment & Natural Resources FAO United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization FMB Forest Management Bureau For.
    [Show full text]
  • Photos from the 48Th Annual Pilgrimage ISSUE
    Volume 92 Number 3 May 2017 Georgia Botanical Society IN THIS Photos from the 48th Annual Pilgrimage ISSUE: Trip Reports - P3, P5 Upcoming Field Trips - P7-11 From Shakerag Hollow (#2): Dutchman’s britches (Dicentra cucullaria) on left, and, on right: Trillium grandiflorum with large-flowered bellwort (Uvularia grandiflora;) photos by Charles Seabrook. Above: the group at Big Soddy Creek Gulf #16 (Photo: Mitchell Kent); Below: the group at Shirley Miller Wildflower Trail #17 (Photo: Jim Drake) Above: Shooting star (Dodecatheon meadia) on trip #23 (Photo:E. Honeycutt) 2 BotSoc News, May 2017 President’s Perspective We have just had another fantastic pilgrimage at our first out-of-state location—Chattanooga. Our program was enriched with sites, field trip leaders, and participants from Tennessee. The weather was gorgeous and the wildflowers on time. Facilities for the social and banquet were excellent—I loved the towing museum and train station venues. This year we had three students receiving scholarships to attend the pilgrimage: Ashley DeSensi from Columbus State, Bridget Piatt from Gordon State, and Loy Xingwen from Emory. If you see any of these students on future field trips, be sure to welcome them. They were joined by Brandi Griffin from Valdosta State University, who was a scholarship recipient in 2015 and who has attended every pilgrimage and several field trips since. It is encouraging to see students continuing to participate. These scholarships are a great way to recruit young professionals BotSoc News into BotSoc. If you know students taking botany-type courses, please encourage is published seven times a year them to apply for scholarships to attend the pilgrimage.
    [Show full text]