DOCSLIB.ORG

Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region States of Oregon and Washington, Including Portions of Del Norte and Siskiyou Counties in California, and Portions of Nez Perce, Salmon, Idaho, and Adams Counties in Idaho Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Linda Goodman, Regional Forester Pacific Northwest Region 333 SW First Ave. PO Box 3623 Portland, OR 97208 For More Information: IPEIS, Eugene Skrine, Team Leader PO Box 3623 Portland, OR 97208 Ph: (503) 808-2685 Fax: (503) 808-2699 Email: [email protected] www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis Abstract: The Forest Service proposes to add management direction to all existing National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans in the Pacific Northwest Region (Region Six). This direction would standardize invasive plant prevention, and expand the set of invasive plant treatment tools available for use on National Forests in Region Six. The FEIS considers four alternatives in detail (including No Action). Adoption of the standards in any of the action alternatives would likely reduce the extent and rate of spread of invasive plants across the region, and help prevent new infestations. All of the action alternatives include standards to protect human health and the environment. The Forest Service preferred alternative is the Proposed Action. Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2005 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ii Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2005 Contents SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................1 The Proposed Action ..............................................................................................................2 Decision to be Made...............................................................................................................3 Public Involvement and Issues ...............................................................................................7 DEIS Comment Period.......................................................................................................7 Key Issues...........................................................................................................................7 The No Action Alternative .....................................................................................................8 The Other Action Alternatives ...............................................................................................9 Alternative B ......................................................................................................................9 Alternative D ......................................................................................................................9 Inventory and Monitoring.....................................................................................................10 Effects of the Alternatives....................................................................................................11 No Action .........................................................................................................................11 Action Alternatives...........................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...........................................................1-1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Need for Action .............................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Decision to be Made......................................................................................................1-3 1.4 Project Location.............................................................................................................1-4 1.5 What is Not Included.....................................................................................................1-5 1.6 Public Participation, Scoping and Issues.......................................................................1-9 1.6.1 Key Issues.............................................................................................................1-10 1.6.2 Other Issues ..........................................................................................................1-13 1.6.3 DEIS Comment Period.........................................................................................1-14 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................2-1 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail .................................................................................2-1 2.3 Current Direction and the No Action Alternative .........................................................2-4 2.3.1 Prevention...............................................................................................................2-5 2.3.2 Treatment and Restoration .....................................................................................2-8 2.3.3 Inventory and Monitoring.......................................................................................2-9 2.4 Management Direction Common to All Action Alternatives......................................2-11 2.4.1 Desired Future Conditions, Goals and Objectives ...............................................2-12 2.4.2 Inventory and Monitoring Plan Framework.........................................................2-15 iii Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2005 2.5 Management Direction Unique to Each Action Alternative .......................................2-16 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives.........................................................................................2-25 2.7 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study ...................................2-33 2.7.1 Prohibiting OHVs, Grazing, Logging, and other Land Management Activities..2-33 2.7.2 No Treatment of Invasive Plants ..........................................................................2-33 2.7.3 No Use of Herbicides ...........................................................................................2-34 2.7.4 Additional Use of Herbicides ...............................................................................2-35 2.7.5 No use of Biocontrol Agents ................................................................................2-35 2.7.6 Prohibit Aerial Application Of Herbicides...........................................................2-36 2.7.7 Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative (RNEA).................................................2-36 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Current Extent of Invasion .....................................................................................3-2 3.1.2 Invasive Plant Species in Region Six .....................................................................3-5 3.1.3 Mechanisms of Invasion.........................................................................................3-9 3.2 Influence of Invasive Plants on Ecosystem Components............................................3-26 3.2.1 Soils ......................................................................................................................3-27 3.2.2 Water Quality .......................................................................................................3-31 3.2.3 Riparian ................................................................................................................3-35 3.2.4 Aquatics................................................................................................................3-37 3.2.5 Native Plants and Plant Communities ..................................................................3-40 3.2.6 Wildlife.................................................................................................................3-47 3.2.7 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Species ..................................3-49 3.2.8 Social and Economic ............................................................................................3-66 3.2.9 Congressionally Designated Areas.......................................................................3-70
Recommended publications
  • Botany, Invasive Plants, Native Plants, Genetics

    Botany, Invasive Plants, Native Plants, Genetics

    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest FY-16 Region Program Accomplishments Calochortus umpquaensis, Umpqua mariposa lily, is found only in the Umpqua River watershed of Botany southwestern OR. A big "anthophorid" bee is tucked into the flower. Invasive Plants Native Plants Genetics U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
  • Sensitivity of Freshwater Snails to Aquatic Contaminants: Survival and Growth of Endangered Snail Species and Surrogates in 28-D

    Sensitivity of Freshwater Snails to Aquatic Contaminants: Survival and Growth of Endangered Snail Species and Surrogates in 28-D

    Sensitivity of freshwater snails to aquatic contaminants: Survival and growth of endangered snail species and surrogates in 28-day exposures to copper, ammonia and pentachlorophenol John M. Besser, Douglas L. Hardesty, I. Eugene Greer, and Christopher G. Ingersoll U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri Administrative Report (CERC-8335-FY07-20-10) submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Project Number: 05-TOX-04, Basis 8335C2F, Task 3. Project Officer: Dr. David R. Mount USEPA/ORD/NHEERL Mid-Continent Ecology Division 6201 Congdon Blvd, Duluth, MN 55804 USA April 13, 2009 Abstract – Water quality degradation may be an important factor affecting declining populations of freshwater snails, many of which are listed as endangered or threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Toxicity data for snails used to develop U.S. national recommended water quality criteria include mainly results of acute tests with pulmonate (air-breathing) snails, rather than the non-pulmonate snail taxa that are more frequently endangered. Pulmonate pond snails (Lymnaea stagnalis) were obtained from established laboratory cultures and four taxa of non-pulmonate taxa from field collections. Field-collected snails included two endangered species from the Snake River valley of Idaho -- Idaho springsnail (Pyrgulopsis idahoensis; which has since been de-listed) and Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola) -- and two non-listed taxa, a pebblesnail (Fluminicola sp.) collected from the Snake River and Ozark springsnail (Fontigens aldrichi) from southern Missouri. Cultures were maintained using simple static-renewal systems, with adults removed periodically from aquaria to allow isolation of neonates for long-term toxicity testing.
  • 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Remove the Bliss Rapids Snail

    12-Month Finding on a Petition to Remove the Bliss Rapids Snail

    47536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules (2) The amount of the allotment for (1) The State has submitted to the claimed during a 2-year period of each of the 50 States and the District of Secretary, and has approved by the availability, beginning with the fiscal Columbia, and for each of the Secretary a State plan amendment or year of the final allotment and ending Commonwealths and Territories (not waiver request relating to an expansion with the end of the succeeding fiscal including the additional amount for FY of eligibility for children or benefits year following the fiscal year. 2009 determined under paragraph under title XXI of the Act that becomes Authority: (Section 1102 of the Social (c)(2)(ii) of this section) is equal to the effective for a fiscal year (beginning Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302) product of: with FY 2010 and ending with FY (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (i) The percentage determined by 2013); and Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance dividing the amount in paragraph (2) The State has submitted to the Program) (e)(2)(i)(A) by the amount in paragraph Secretary, before the August 31 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (e)(2)(i)(B) of this section. preceding the beginning of the fiscal Program No. 93.767, State Children’s Health (A) The amount of the State allotment year, a request for an expansion Insurance Program)) allotment adjustment under this for each of the 50 States and the District Dated: June 19, 2009.
  • National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996

    National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996

    National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary Indicator by Region and Subregion Scientific Name/ North North Central South Inter- National Subregion Northeast Southeast Central Plains Plains Plains Southwest mountain Northwest California Alaska Caribbean Hawaii Indicator Range Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes FACU FACU UPL UPL,FACU Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC FACW FAC,FACW Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. NI NI NI NI NI UPL UPL Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir. FACU FACU FACU Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. FACU-* NI FACU-* Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. NI NI FACU+ FACU- FACU FAC UPL UPL,FAC Abies magnifica A. Murr. NI UPL NI FACU UPL,FACU Abildgaardia ovata (Burm. f.) Kral FACW+ FAC+ FAC+,FACW+ Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL FACU- FACU- UPL UPL UPL UPL UPL NI NI UPL,FACU- Acacia choriophylla Benth. FAC* FAC* Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. FACU NI NI* NI NI FACU Acacia greggii Gray UPL UPL FACU FACU UPL,FACU Acacia macracantha Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. NI FAC FAC Acacia minuta ssp. minuta (M.E. Jones) Beauchamp FACU FACU Acaena exigua Gray OBL OBL Acalypha bisetosa Bertol. ex Spreng. FACW FACW Acalypha virginica L. FACU- FACU- FAC- FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperrider FACU- FAC- FACU FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Humm. FAC* NI NI FAC* Acanthomintha ilicifolia (Gray) Gray FAC* FAC* Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl OBL OBL Acer circinatum Pursh FAC- FAC NI FAC-,FAC Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU* FAC FACU FACU*,FAC Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
  • Rare Plant Management Plan Final January 2019

    Rare Plant Management Plan Final January 2019

    Final Rare Plant Management Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2244 Lewis County, Washington Submitted by: P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 January 2019 Rare Plant Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Plan Justification ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Plan .................................................................. 3 2.0 MONITORING PLAN ......................................................................................... 3 2.1 Biological Evaluation ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Project Area Rare Plant Survey .................................................................. 4 2.3 Monitoring .................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Management of Known Rare Plant Occurrences ...................................... 6 3.0 CONSISTENCY WITH AGREEMENTS MADE DURING RELICENSING PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................................. 9 4.0 SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................... 11 5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 12 List of Figures Figure
  • Native Unionoida Surveys, Distribution, and Metapopulation Dynamics in the Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage, UT

    Native Unionoida Surveys, Distribution, and Metapopulation Dynamics in the Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage, UT

    Version 1.5 Native Unionoida Surveys, Distribution, and Metapopulation Dynamics in the Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage, UT Report To: Wasatch Front Water Quality Council Salt Lake City, UT By: David C. Richards, Ph.D. OreoHelix Consulting Vineyard, UT 84058 email: [email protected] phone: 406.580.7816 May 26, 2017 Native Unionoida Surveys and Metapopulation Dynamics Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage 1 One of the few remaining live adult Anodonta found lying on the surface of what was mostly comprised of thousands of invasive Asian clams, Corbicula, in Currant Creek, a former tributary to Utah Lake, August 2016. Summary North America supports the richest diversity of freshwater mollusks on the planet. Although the western USA is relatively mollusk depauperate, the one exception is the historically rich molluskan fauna of the Bonneville Basin area, including waters that enter terminal Great Salt Lake and in particular those waters in the Jordan River-Utah Lake drainage. These mollusk taxa serve vital ecosystem functions and are truly a Utah natural heritage. Unfortunately, freshwater mollusks are also the most imperiled animal groups in the world, including those found in UT. The distribution, status, and ecologies of Utah’s freshwater mussels are poorly known, despite this unique and irreplaceable natural heritage and their protection under the Clean Water Act. Very few mussel specific surveys have been conducted in UT which requires specialized training, survey methods, and identification. We conducted the most extensive and intensive survey of native mussels in the Jordan River-Utah Lake drainage to date from 2014 to 2016 using a combination of reconnaissance and qualitative mussel survey methods.
  • GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST 2015 Year in Review 2015 on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

    GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST 2015 Year in Review 2015 on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

    GIFFORD PINCHOT NATIONAL FOREST 2015 Year in Review 2015 on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest 2015 was an exciting and busy year! The tionships with our communities, I am Gifford Pinchot National Forest contend- confident that we will be up to the task. ed with multiple fires on the forest, com- memorated the 35th anniversary of the As stewards on of public land we en- 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, began deavor to practice the words of the first planning our forest headquarters move, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Gifford and welcomed a few new members to its Pinchot, providing the greatest good for leadership team, all while going about our the greatest number in the long run. work of serving the public and caring for the land. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest is a di- Gina Owens verse place for plants, wildlife, and people. Forest Supervisor This report is a snapshot of the Gifford Pin- chot National Forest in 2015. Many accomplishments were the result of months or years of hard work. Most involved partnership and collaboration from organi- zations, agencies, tribes, volunteers, and individuals who are all invested in the Forest. We look forward to continuing to work together for the future of this remark- able place. 2016 will be a busy year too, full of opportunities and challenges. As I to get to know all the different places in the forest and build rela- 2 The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.
  • Interagency Special Status and Sensitive

    Interagency Special Status and Sensitive

    Bureau of Land Management/Forest Service September, 2012 Volume 5, Issue 2 Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program-Update CONTENTS Inventory and 2 Monitoring Websites – ISSSSP and Survey & Manage Conservation 2 Planning The Survey and Manage website, hosted by BLM, has a new look. BLM required all websites to be moved into a new standard format. The information has been updated and moved Data Management 3 from the old website, but there are recognized errors on the website. Correcting these errors Update is a priority for ISSSSP personnel over the next few months. As you use the website, if you find errors, please be sure to notify the ISSSSP/S&M Specialist with that information. Thank you. Program 4 Information Web addresses are: Contact 5 Survey & Manage: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/ ISSSSP: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/ Information Inventory and Monitoring The majority of ISSSSP project proposals request funding for inventories to expand range and distribution knowledge or to Key Points in this issue: monitor by simply revisiting sites. There are Survey and Manage website often requests to establish monitoring Specimen Identification Services protocols; ISSSSP can help establish monitoring, With the addition of a vouchering require- updated but it’s up to each field unit to commit the ment for all invertebrates (see memo at resources necessary to continue monitoring http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/ Draft habitat models developed projects. We also fund projects involving inventories/identification.shtml), this is a for Columbia spotted frog and reminder that the Regional Office/Oregon mapping suitable habitat including the Sisyrinchium sarmentosum development and testing of habitat models, State Office has a list of experts who can examining the effects of management provide identification services.
  • Two New Genera of Hydrobiid Snails (Prosobranchia: Rissooidea) from the Northwestern United States

    Two New Genera of Hydrobiid Snails (Prosobranchia: Rissooidea) from the Northwestern United States

    THE VELIGER © CMS, Inc., 1994 The Veliger 37(3):221-243 (July 1, 1994) Two New Genera of Hydrobiid Snails (Prosobranchia: Rissooidea) from the Northwestern United States by ROBERT HERSHLER Department of Invertebrate Zoology (Mollusks), National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, USA TERRENCE J. FREST AND EDWARD J. JOHANNES DEIXIS Consultants, 2517 NE65th Street, Seattle, Washington 98115, USA PETER A. BOWLER Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, California 92717, USA AND FRED G. THOMPSON Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA Abstract. Based on morphological study of recently collected material, Bythinella hemphilli, distributed within the lower Snake-Columbia River basin, is transferred to a new genus, Pristinicola; and Tay- lorconcha serpenticola, new genus and new species, a federally listed taxon restricted to a short reach of the Middle Snake River in Idaho and previously known by the common name, Bliss Rapids Snail, is described. These genera do not appear closely related either to one another or to other North American Hydrobiidae. INTRODUCTION known. Perhaps the most significant unresolved question pertaining to the local described fauna involves the status Among the large freshwater molluscan fauna of the United of Bythinella hemphilli. Pilsbry's original placement of this States, prosobranch snails of the family Hydrobiidae com- species in Bythinella, which is otherwise known only from pose one of the most diverse groups, totaling about 170 Europe (Banarescu, 1990:342), has long been questioned, described species. Although the state of knowledge of these and two other generic assignments have been offered.
  • USFWS National List of Plant Species That Occur

    USFWS National List of Plant Species That Occur

    USFWS National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Oregon Combined 1988 Region 9 List & 1993 Supplement List of plant species that occur in wetlands (Region 9) An asterisk (*) following a regional indicator identifies tentative Change Column: 1 - No change in 1988 indicator assignment assignments based on limited information or conflicting reviews. It 2 - 1993 change in 1988 indicator assignment is intended to encourage submission of additional field review 3 - Species added to list in 1993 information. SCI_NAME WIS Year Change C_NAME NAT_IND AUTHOR Abies amabilis FACU 88 1 FIR,PACIFIC SILVER UPL,FACU (DOUGL.) FORBES ABIES GRANDIS FACU-* 1993 3 FIR,GRAND (DOUGL. EX D.DON) LINDL. Abies lasiocarpa FACU 88 1 FIR,SUBALPINE UPL,FAC (HOOK.) NUTT. Abies magnifica NI 88 1 FIR,CALIFORNIA RED FACU A. MURRAY Acer circinatum FAC- 1993 2 MAPLE,VINE FACU+,FAC PURSH Acer glabrum FAC 88 1 MAPLE,ROCKY MOUNTAIN FACU,FAC TORR. Acer macrophyllum FACU 88 1 MAPLE,BIG-LEAF FACU,FAC PURSH Acer negundo FAC+ 88 1 BOX-ELDER FAC,FACW L. Achillea millefolium FACU 88 1 YARROW,COMMON FACU L. Aconitum columbianum FACW 88 1 MONKSHOOD,COLUMBIA FACW NUTT. Acorus calamus OBL 88 1 SWEETFLAG OBL L. Adiantum pedatum FAC 88 1 FERN,NORTHERN MAIDEN-HAIR FACU,FAC L. Adoxa moschatellina FAC- 88 1 MUSK-ROOT FACU,FAC L. Agoseris aurantiaca FACU 1993 2 FALSE-DANDELION,ORANGE-FLOWER FACU,FAC (HOOK.) GREENE Agoseris elata FAC 88 1 FALSE-DANDELION,TALL FACU,FAC (NUTT.) GREENE Agoseris glauca FAC- 1993 2 FALSE-DANDELION,PALE FACU,FAC (PURSH) D. DIETR. Agoseris lackschewitzii NI 88 1 FACW+? R.
  • NFGEL 1998-99 Annual Report Table of Contents Annual Report 1998-99 (FY99)

    NFGEL 1998-99 Annual Report Table of Contents Annual Report 1998-99 (FY99)

    NFGEL 1998-99 Annual Report Table of Contents Annual Report 1998-99 (FY99) Introduction * Message from the Director * Mission and Purpose Projects * Overview * Silviculture and Tree Improvement * Conservation and Restoration * Forensics Staff Activities Lab Management * Current Staffing * FY99 Budget USDA Forest Service - NFGEL, 2375 Fruitridge Road, Camino CA 95709 530-642-5067 (voice), 530-642-5099 (fax), * Lab Workload * Workload by Region/Agency http://dendrome.ucdavis.edu/NFGEL/NFGEL99/ (1 of 2) [7/30/2003 7:57:26 AM] NFGEL 1998-99 Annual Report * Planned Projects Project Submission FY98 Report http://dendrome.ucdavis.edu/NFGEL/NFGEL99/ (2 of 2) [7/30/2003 7:57:26 AM] ax23234p.aw INTRODUCTION Message from the Director This report details Laboratory accomplishments covering the period October 1998 to October 1999, and corresponds to the Federal 1999 fiscal year (FY99). The National Forest Genetic Electrophoresis Laboratory (NFGEL) was established in 1988 as part of the National Forest System of the USDA-Forest Service. The focus of the lab is to address genetic conservation and management of all plant species using a variety of laboratory techniques including DNA analyses. NFGEL services are provided to managers within the Forest Service, other government agencies, and non-government organizations for assessing and monitoring genetic diversity. We work closely with research institutions to incorporate the latest technological advancements into our program. To date, we have studied 20 different gymnosperm and 20 different angiosperm species. Angiosperms studied include woody species (such as aspen, cottonwood, and oaks) as well as grasses, shrubs, and forbs. Land management questions we study include issues of genetic diversity and structure, taxonomy, and plant identification.
  • Capstone Study Invasive Species in Riparian Habitats of Washington

    Capstone Study Invasive Species in Riparian Habitats of Washington

    Capstone Study Invasive Species in Riparian Habitats of Washington: Using Species Distribution Models to Guide Monitoring Efforts Samantha Nicole Smiley Masters of Natural Resources Oregon State University Capstone Project March 5, 2021 Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Review of Literature on Select Washington Invasive Species ....................................................................................... 8 Potamopyrgus antipodarum (New Zealand mudsnail) .............................................................................................. 8 Lithobates catesbeianus (American Bullfrog) .......................................................................................................... 11 Cipangopaludina chinensisis (Chinese Mystery Snail) ............................................................................................. 14 Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian Watermilfoil) ..................................................................................................... 17 Egeria densa (Brazilian Elodea)...............................................................................................................................