DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Integrated Non-Native Invasive Plant Control

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Integrated Non-Native Invasive Plant Control United States Department of Agriculture Draft Environmental Forest Service Impact Statement June 2011 Integrated Non-native Invasive Plant Control Project Mark Twain National Forest lands in portions of Barry, Bollinger, Boone, Butler, Callaway, Carter, Christian, Crawford, Dent, Douglas, Howell, Iron, Laclede, Madison, Oregon, Ozark, Phelps, Pulaski, Reynolds, Ripley, Shannon, Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois, Stone, Taney, Texas, Washington, Wayne, and Wright Counties, Missouri. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Integrated Non-native Invasive Plant Control Integrated Non-native Invasive Plant Control Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Mark Twain National Forest Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Cooperating Agencies: Missouri Department of Conservation Responsible Official: Dave Whittekiend, Forest Supervisor Mark Twain National Forest 401 Fairgrounds Road Rolla, MO 65401 For Information Contact: Brian Davidson Interdisciplinary Team Leader 401 Fairgrounds Road 573-341-7414 Abstract: The Mark Twain National Forest proposes a Forest-wide integrated management strategy to control the spread of non-native invasive plant species (NNIP) within the National Forest over the next 10 years, or until circumstances change to the point that the analysis is no longer valid. There are 32 NNIP species currently inventoried and mapped (1,966 sites) which infest approximately 32,428 acres on the Mark Twain National Forest. Three alternatives are analyzed in this EIS. Under alternative 1, no manual, mechanical, chemical, or biological treatment of existing or future NNIP populations would occur. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would implement an integrated program for the prevention, suppression, reduction, and eradication of existing and future NNIP infestations on the forest. Control methods would include various combinations of manual, mechanical, chemical, cultural, and biological treatments. Herbicide is proposed on 0.2 % of the acres dispersed across the Mark Twain NF. Alternative 3 would allow only manual, mechanical, and cultural treatments, and limited use of specific biological agents. No herbicides would be allowed. It is important that reviewers provide their comments in such a way that they are useful to the Agency‟s preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer‟s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer‟s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review (40 CFR 1503.3). Send Comments to: Brian Davidson Interdisciplinary Team Leader 401 Fairground Road Rolla, Missouri 65401 Date Comments Must Be Postmarked: August 8, 2011 i Draft Environmental Impact Statement Integrated Non-native Invasive Plant Control TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ........................................................................ 1 Document Structure .....................................................................................................................1 Background ..................................................................................................................................1 Location .......................................................................................................................................2 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................................2 Proposed Action ...........................................................................................................................4 Decision Framework ....................................................................................................................6 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................................6 Issues ............................................................................................................................................7 Other Related Efforts ...................................................................................................................8 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the proposed action .................................................... 11 Introduction ................................................................................................................................11 Alternatives Considered in Detail ..............................................................................................11 Project Design Criteria ...............................................................................................................19 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ....................................................................................22 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................25 Prevention and education ...........................................................................................................26 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................... 28 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................29 Soil Resources ............................................................................................................................44 Watershed ..................................................................................................................................54 Wildlife Resources and MIS ......................................................................................................69 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ........................................................................91 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species ..........................................................................120 Recreation ................................................................................................................................130 Wilderness ................................................................................................................................136 Heritage Resources ..................................................................................................................141 Social Economics .....................................................................................................................142 Environmental Justice ..............................................................................................................146 Human Health and Safety ........................................................................................................147 Invasive Plants and Climate Change ........................................................................................159 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ..........................................................................160 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...................................................................................................161 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ......................................................161 Monitoring ...............................................................................................................................162 Other Required Disclosures .....................................................................................................164 Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination .................................................................... 167 Preparers and Contributors .......................................................................................................167 References Cited ......................................................................................................................170 Appendices .................................................................................................................. 181 Appendix A – NNIP Species Inventoried on the MTNF .........................................................181 Appendix B
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Invasive Species: a Challenge to the Environment, Economy, and Society
    Invasive Species: A challenge to the environment, economy, and society 2016 Manitoba Envirothon 2016 MANITOBA ENVIROTHON STUDY GUIDE 2 Acknowledgments The primary author, Manitoba Forestry Association, and Manitoba Envirothon would like to thank all the contributors and editors to the 2016 theme document. Specifically, I would like to thank Robert Gigliotti for all his feedback, editing, and endless support. Thanks to the theme test writing subcommittee, Kyla Maslaniec, Lee Hrenchuk, Amie Peterson, Jennifer Bryson, and Lindsey Andronak, for all their case studies, feedback, editing, and advice. I would like to thank Jacqueline Montieth for her assistance with theme learning objectives and comments on the document. I would like to thank the Ontario Envirothon team (S. Dabrowski, R. Van Zeumeren, J. McFarlane, and J. Shaddock) for the preparation of their document, as it provided a great launch point for the Manitoba and resources on invasive species management. Finally, I would like to thank Barbara Fuller, for all her organization, advice, editing, contributions, and assistance in the preparation of this document. Olwyn Friesen, BSc (hons), MSc PhD Student, University of Otago January 2016 2016 MANITOBA ENVIROTHON STUDY GUIDE 3 Forward to Advisors The 2016 North American Envirothon theme is Invasive Species: A challenge to the environment, economy, and society. Using the key objectives and theme statement provided by the North American Envirothon and the Ontario Envirothon, the Manitoba Envirothon (a core program of Think Trees – Manitoba Forestry Association) developed a set of learning outcomes in the Manitoba context for the theme. This document provides Manitoba Envirothon participants with information on the 2016 theme.
    [Show full text]
  • Are All Flea Beetles the Same?
    E-1274 Are All Phyllotreata cruciferae Flea Beetles Crucifer Flea Beetle Versus the Same? Leafy Spurge Flea Beetles Denise L. Olson Assistant Professor, Entomology Dept. Janet J. Knodel Extension Crop Protection Specialist, NCREC, NDSU Aphthona lacertosa “FLEA BEETLE” is a common name describing many species of beetles that use their enlarged hind legs to jump quickly when disturbed. The adults feed on the leaves of their host plants. Heavily fed-on leaves have a shot-hole appearance. The larvae (wormlike immature stage) usually feed on the roots of the same host plants as adults. Common flea beetles that occur in North Dakota include the Flea beetles crucifer flea beetle (Phyllotreata cruciferae) and the leafy spurge have enlarged flea beetles (Aphthona species). The crucifer flea beetle is a hind legs that non-native insect pest that accidentally was introduced into they use to jump North America during the 1920s. Phyllotreata cruciferae now quickly when can be found across southern Canada and the northern Great disturbed. Plains states of the United States. The leafy spurge flea beetles are non-native biological control agents and were introduced for spurge control beginning in the mid-1980s. These biological control agents have been released in the south-central prov- inces of Canada and in the Upper Great Plains and Midwest Crucifer flea beetle is states of the United States. Although P. cruciferae and Aphthona an exotic insect pest. species are both known as flea beetles and do look similar, they differ in their description, life cycle and preference of host plants. Leafy spurge flea beetle species are introduced biological control North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105 agents.
    [Show full text]
  • CDA Leafy Spurge Brochure
    Frequently Asked Questions About the Palisade Insectary Mission Statement How do I get Aphthona beetles? You can call the Colorado Department of We are striving to develop new, effective Agriculture Insectary in Palisade at (970) ways to control non-native species of plants 464-7916 or toll free at (866) 324-2963 and and insects that have invaded Colorado. get on the request list. We are doing this through the use of biological controls which are natural, non- When are the insects available? toxic, and environmentally friendly. We collect and distribute adult beetles in June and July. The Leafy Spurge Program In Palisade How long will it take for them to control my leafy spurge? The Insectary has been working on leafy Biological Control You can usually see some damage at the spurge bio-control since 1988. Root feeding point of release the following year, but it flea beetles are readily available for release of typically takes three to ten years to get in early summer. Three other insect species widespread control. have been released and populations are growing with the potential for future Leafy Spurge What else do the beetles feed on? distribution. All of the leafy spurge feeding The beetles will feed on leafy spurge and insects are maintained in field colonies. cypress spurge. They were held in Additional research is underway to explore quarantine and tested to ensure they would the potential use of soilborne plant not feed on other plants before they were pathogens as biocontrol agents. imported and released in North America What makes the best release site? A warm dry location with moderate leafy spurge growth is best.
    [Show full text]
  • Riverfront Master Plan
    Village of Plainfield Riverfront Master Plan Prepared by Hitchcock Design Group in association with Business Districts, Inc., Hey & Associates and Civiltech Engineering June 18, 2007 Acknowledgements VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF TRUSTEES James A. Waldorf, President Michael Collins (Former Trustee) Jeffrey Dement (Chairperson-Steering Committee) Paul Fay Bill Lamb Walter O. Manning Jim Racich Larry Vaupel (elected May 2007) PLAINFIELD PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Larry Newton, President (term 2007-2009) John Primiano, Vice President Michael Brann (elected May 2007) Wayne Ford (Former Commissioner) John Wilson Michelle Kelly VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD STAFF Chris Minick, Village Administrator James F. Testin, AICP, Community Development Director (Steering Committee) Michael S. Garrigan, AICP, Village Planner Michael J. Schwarz, AICP, Planner (Steering Committee) Ken Blaauw, Village Engineer Eric Gallt, Traffic Engineer Allen Persons, Director of Public Works PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP PARK DISTRICT STAFF Greg Bott, Executive Director (Steering Committee) Cameron Bettin, Superintendent of Planning (Steering Committee) OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTICIPANTS MainStreet Plainfield, Inc. Plainfield Economic Partnership Plainfield Area Chamber of Commerce Plainfield Historical Society Baxter & Woodman, Village Consulting Engineer Conservation Foundation Conservation Plainfield 1 Executive Summary 2 Introduction: Approach 4 Opportunity Analysis 5 Riverfront Vision 6 Strategic Approach: Summary 8 Strategic Approach: Central Riverfront District 20 Strategic
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO
    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area August 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: United States Air Force Academy Department of Natural Resources Recommended Citation: Smith, P., S. S. Panjabi, and J. Handwerk. 2015. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Front Cover: Documenting weeds at the US Air Force Academy. Photos courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program © Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area El Paso County, CO Pam Smith, Susan Spackman Panjabi, and Jill Handwerk Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, orders, and policies require land managers to control noxious weeds. The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide to manage, in the most efficient and effective manner, the noxious weeds on the US Air Force Academy (Academy) and Farish Recreation Area (Farish) over the next 10 years (through 2025), in accordance with their respective integrated natural resources management plans. This plan pertains to the “natural” portions of the Academy and excludes highly developed areas, such as around buildings, recreation fields, and lawns.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Hoc Evaluation of the Efficacy of Aphthona Iacertosa at Le Spurge Bi0conri:Ol Release Sites Abstract
    DENSïN AND EFFICACY OF THE FLEA BEETLE APHTHONA UCERTûSA (ROSENHAUER), AN INTRODUCED BIOCONTROL AGENT FORLEAEV SPURGE, IN ALBERTA Andrea Ruth Kalischuk B. Sc., University of Lethbridge, 1997 A Thesis Submitted to the Council on Graduate Studies of the University of Lethbridge in Partial FuifiUment of the Requiremeats for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE LETHBRlDGE, ALBERTA MAY 2001 "~ndreaKalischuk, 200 1 uisiaons and Acqursitians et "iBib iographic Senricas se- biWographiques The author has granteâ a non- L'auteur a accordé une Licence non exclusive licence aüowing the exclusive permettant h la National LiTbrary of Canada to BibliotheqUe nationaie du Canada de reproduce, lm, distribute or sel1 reproduire, pr8teq distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownershrp of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts hmit Ni la thèse ni des substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimes reproduced without the author's ou antrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. DEDICATION " Yow reason and your passion are the mdder and the sails ofyour seafnring soul. Ifeitheryour sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drif or else be held at a standrtill in mid-seas. For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and pasion, unattended, ir a flame that burns to ifsown destruction." (Kahlil Gibran, 1923) To my mother - thanks for mendimg the hysin my rudder and sails.
    [Show full text]
  • New DNA Markers Reveal Presence of Aphthona Species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Believed to Have Failed to Establish After Release Into Leafy Spurge
    Biological Control 49 (2009) 1–5 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Control journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon New DNA markers reveal presence of Aphthona species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) believed to have failed to establish after release into leafy spurge R. Roehrdanz a,*, D. Olson b,1, G. Fauske b, R. Bourchier c, A. Cortilet d, S. Sears a a Biosciences Research Laboratory, Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1605 Albrecht Blvd, Fargo, ND 58105, United States b Department of Entomology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, United States c Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB, Canada d Agricultural Resources Management and Development Division - Weed Integrated Pest Management Unit, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN, United States article info abstract Article history: Six species of Aphthona flea beetles from Europe have been introduced in North America for the purpose Received 28 September 2007 of controlling a noxious weed, leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). In the years following the releases, five of Accepted 10 December 2008 the species have been recorded as being established at various locations. There is no evidence that the Available online 31 December 2008 sixth species ever became established. A molecular marker key that can identify the DNA of the five established species is described. The key relies on restriction site differences found in PCR amplicons Keywords: of a portion of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene. Three restriction enzymes are required to Flea beetles separate the immature specimens which are not visually separable. Adults which can be quickly sepa- Leafy spurge rated into the two black species and three brown species require only two restriction enzymes to resolve Euphorbia esula Aphthona the species.
    [Show full text]
  • (Leafy Spurge), on a Native Plant Euphorbia Robusta
    Non-target impacts of Aphthona nigriscutis, a biological control agent for Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge), on a native plant Euphorbia robusta John L. Baker, Nancy A.P. Webber and Kim K. Johnson1 Summary Aphthona nigriscutis Foudras, a biological control agent for Euphorbia esula L. (leafy spurge), has been established in Fremont County, Wyoming since 1992. Near one A. nigriscutis release site, a mixed stand of E. esula and a native plant, Euphorbia robusta Engelm., was discovered in 1998. During July of 1999, A. nigriscutis was observed feeding on both E. esula and E. robusta. A total of 31 E. robusta plants were located and marked on about 1.5 ha of land that had an E. esula ground-cover of over 50%. Eighty-seven percent of the E. robusta plants showed adult feeding damage. There was 36% mortality for plants with heavy feeding, 12% mortality for plants with light feeding, and no mortality for plants with no feeding. By August of 2002, the E. esula ground-cover had declined to less than 6% and the E. robusta had increased to 542 plants of which only 14 plants (2.6%) showed any feeding damage. For the four-year period, the E. esula ground-cover was inversely correlated to E. robusta density and posi- tively correlated to A. nigriscutis feeding damage, showing that as E. esula density declines so does Aphthona nigriscutis feeding on E. robusta. Keywords: Aphthona, density, Euphorbia, mortality, non-target impacts. Introduction established populations. These sites were monitored annually to assess the establishment of the bioagents. A parcel of land 4.8 km (3 miles) south-west of Lander, There was a strong contrast between the Majdic land Fremont County, Wyoming has been infested with and the Christiansen properties where the insects were Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge) for over 30 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) in Azerbaijan
    Turk J Zool 25 (2001) 41-52 © T†BÜTAK A Study of the Ecofaunal Complexes of the Leaf-Eating Beetles (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) in Azerbaijan Nailya MIRZOEVA Institute of Zoology, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, pr. 1128, kv. 504, Baku 370073-AZERBAIJAN Received: 01.10.1999 Abstract: A total of 377 leaf-eating beetle species from 69 genera and 11 subfamilies (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) were revealed in Azerbaijan, some of which are important pests of agriculture and forestry. The leaf-eating beetle distribution among different areas of Azerbaijan is presented. In the Great Caucasus 263 species are noted, in the Small Caucasus 206, in Kura - Araks lowland 174, and in Lenkoran zone 262. The distribution of the leaf-eating beetles among different sites is also described and the results of zoogeographic analysis of the leaf-eating beetle fauna are presented as well. Eleven zoogeographic groups of the leaf-eating beetles were revealed in Azerbaijan, which are not very specific. The fauna consists mainly of the common species; the number of endemic species is small. Key Words: leaf-eating beetle, larva, pest, biotope, zoogeography. AzerbaycanÕda Yaprak Bšcekleri (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) FaunasÝ †zerinde AraßtÝrmalar …zet: AzerbeycanÕda 11 altfamilyadan 69 cinse ait 377 YaprakbšceÛi (Col.: Chrysomelidae) tŸrŸ belirlenmißtir. Bu bšceklerden bazÝlarÝ tarÝm ve orman alanlarÝnda zararlÝ durumundadÝr. Bu •alÝßmada YaprakbšcekleriÕnin AzerbeycanÕÝn deÛißik bšlgelerindeki daÛÝlÝßlarÝ a•ÝklanmÝßtÝr. BŸyŸk KafkasyaÕda 263, KŸ•Ÿk KafkasyaÕda 206, KŸr-Aras ovasÝnda 174, Lenkaran BšlgesiÕnde ise 262 tŸr bulunmußtur. Bu tŸrlerin farklÝ biotoplardaki durumu ve daÛÝlÝßlarÝ ile ilgili zoocografik analizleride bu •alÝßmada yer almaktadÝr. AzerbeycanÕda belirlenen Yaprakbšcekleri 11 zoocografik grupda incelenmißtir. YapÝlan bu fauna •alÝßmasÝnda belirlenen tŸrlerin bir•oÛu yaygÝn olarak bulunan tŸrlerdir, endemik tŸr sayÝsÝ olduk•a azdÝr.
    [Show full text]
  • Surnames in Bureau of Catholic Indian
    RAYNOR MEMORIAL LIBRARIES Montana (MT): Boxes 13-19 (4,928 entries from 11 of 11 schools) New Mexico (NM): Boxes 19-22 (1,603 entries from 6 of 8 schools) North Dakota (ND): Boxes 22-23 (521 entries from 4 of 4 schools) Oklahoma (OK): Boxes 23-26 (3,061 entries from 19 of 20 schools) Oregon (OR): Box 26 (90 entries from 2 of - schools) South Dakota (SD): Boxes 26-29 (2,917 entries from Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions Records 4 of 4 schools) Series 2-1 School Records Washington (WA): Boxes 30-31 (1,251 entries from 5 of - schools) SURNAME MASTER INDEX Wisconsin (WI): Boxes 31-37 (2,365 entries from 8 Over 25,000 surname entries from the BCIM series 2-1 school of 8 schools) attendance records in 15 states, 1890s-1970s Wyoming (WY): Boxes 37-38 (361 entries from 1 of Last updated April 1, 2015 1 school) INTRODUCTION|A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L|M|N|O|P|Q|R|S|T|U| Tribes/ Ethnic Groups V|W|X|Y|Z Library of Congress subject headings supplemented by terms from Ethnologue (an online global language database) plus “Unidentified” and “Non-Native.” INTRODUCTION This alphabetized list of surnames includes all Achomawi (5 entries); used for = Pitt River; related spelling vartiations, the tribes/ethnicities noted, the states broad term also used = California where the schools were located, and box numbers of the Acoma (16 entries); related broad term also used = original records. Each entry provides a distinct surname Pueblo variation with one associated tribe/ethnicity, state, and box Apache (464 entries) number, which is repeated as needed for surname Arapaho (281 entries); used for = Arapahoe combinations with multiple spelling variations, ethnic Arikara (18 entries) associations and/or box numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands
    Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands Number 11 2005 Contents Contributions welcome . inside front cover Grasslands project action Grassland Project Key Site 2005: Waterton Lakes National Park . 1 Aweme Bioblitz 2004 . 3 Restoration project for the Criddle laboratory . 4 Long term research: Norman Criddle, John Merton Aldrich and the grass fl ies of Aweme . 5 Immigrant insects help restore Canada’s grassland communities . 14 Ants of the South Okanagan grasslands, British Columbia. 17 Web watch: Ants of the tallgrass prairie . 23 Some recent publications . 24 Mailing list for the Grasslands Newsletter . 25 Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands supports the grasslands project of the Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods) by providing information relevant to the study of grassland arthropods in Canada. Chloropid fl ies are common in grasslands, and historical records from early in the 20th century, available because of careful recording and preservation of specimens and documents, allow interesting present- day comparisons in the same places, as explained on page 5. 1 Contributions welcome Please consider submitting items to Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands Grassland site Current research – descriptions project reports Short news items Feature articles Grassland species Selected accounts publications Contributions such as these, as well as other items of interest to students of grasslands and their arthropods, are welcomed by the editor. This publication (formerly Newsletter, Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands) appears annually in March; final copy deadline for the next issue is January 31, 2006. Editor: H.V. Danks Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods) Canadian Museum of Nature P.O. Box 3443, Station “D” Ottawa, ON K1P 6P4 613-566-4787 (tel.) 613-364-4022 (fax) [email protected] Articles without other accreditation are prepared by the Editor.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tradition of Excellence
    A Tradition of Excellence April 7 2017 Via Electronic Mail Shirquita Sharrock Data Acquisition Specialist SmartProcure Direct: 954-834-6739 | Support: 888-998-6348 Email: [email protected] | www.smartprocure.us 700 W. Hillsboro Blvd. Suite 4-100, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 RE: FOIA 17-15 – Response to FOIA Request Thank you for writing to Hinsdale Township High School District 86 with your request for information pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq., received on March 29 2017. You requested the following: SmartProcure is submitting a commercial FOIA request to the Hinsdale Township High School District 86 for any and all purchasing records from 2016-10-13 to current. The request is limited to readily available records without physically copying, scanning or printing paper documents. Any editable electronic document is acceptable. The specific information requested from your record keeping system is: 1. Purchase order number. If purchase orders are not used a comparable substitute is acceptable, i.e., invoice, encumbrance, or check number 2. Purchase date 3. Line item details (Detailed description of the purchase) 4. Line item quantity 5. Line item price 6. Vendor ID number, name, address, contact person and their email address 7. What is the beginning of your fiscal year? Enclosed is documentation responsive to your request. Please note that District purchasing information is available through the District’s Transparency Portal on our website at d86.hinsdale86.org. Select Transparency Portal then select Financial Information then select Check Register to see District purchases by month. [http://d86.hinsdale86.org/Page/923] District purchases are also presented to the Board of Education for approval at their monthly Regular Action Meeting.
    [Show full text]