DOCSLIB.ORG

Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) April 2005 Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Farm Service Agency United States Department of Agriculture Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY April 2005 2 Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ..................................................... 9 1.1 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................9 1.1.1 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).........................................................................................................9 1.1.2 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)..............................................................................10 1.1.3 Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)............................................................11 1.1.4 Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program The Second Generation (CREPII)...................11 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................................................................................................11 1.3 PURPOSE OF ACTION ........................................................................................................................................12 1.4.1 Red River Basin ..........................................................................................................................................15 1.4.2 Lower Mississippi River..............................................................................................................................16 1.4.3 Southwest Minnesota ..................................................................................................................................18 1.5 LEGISLATIVE MANDATES.................................................................................................................................19 1.6 OTHER PROGRAMS AND PARTNERSHIPS ...........................................................................................................20 1.7 SCOPING...........................................................................................................................................................22 CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION....................... 25 2.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................25 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................................25 2.2.1 Alternative 1-No Action...................................................................................................................................25 2.2.2 Alternative 2- Implement Minnesota CREP II (Preferred Alternative) ......................................................25 2.2.2.1 Eligible Land...............................................................................................................................................26 2.2.2.2 Eligible Conservation Practices..................................................................................................................26 2.2.2.3 Contract Periods ........................................................................................................................................27 2.2.2.4 Payment Options .......................................................................................................................................27 2.2.2.5 Program Costs ...........................................................................................................................................28 CHAPTER 3.0 RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 29 3.1 OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT RESOURCES ...............................................................................29 3.1.1 Red River and it’s Watershed .....................................................................................................................29 3.1.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................29 3.1.1.2 Relevant Affected Resources ..................................................................................................................31 3.1.2 The Lower Mississippi Basin....................................................................................................................40 3.1.2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................40 3.1.2.2 Relevant Affected Resources .......................................................................................................................43 3.1.3 The Missouri and Des Moines Basins.........................................................................................................52 3.1.3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................52 3.1.3.2 Relevant Affected Resources .....................................................................................................................55 3.2 Profile of Minnesota Agriculture................................................................................................................64 3.2.1 Minnesota CREP Area ..................................................................................................................................65 CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...................................................... 69 4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1-NO ACTION/ WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROGRAM ..................................................................69 Contemplated Future Actions ...................................................................................................................................74 4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2-ENROLLMENT OF TARGETED ACREAGE AS PER THE 2004 MOA............................................75 4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE CREP ALTERNATIVE.............................................................................................82 4.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS .....................................................................................................................................83 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...............................................................................................................................85 CHAPTER 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS......................................... 86 CHAPTER 6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 88 April 2005 3 Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment APPENDICIES ............................................................................................................................... A-1 FOOTNOTES.............................................................................................................................. A-278 April 2005 4 Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment ABSTRACT FEDERAL ACTION: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA), proposes to evaluate alternatives to and potential effects of a voluntary enrollment type of conservation program in the State of Minnesota. The goals of this program are to control erosion, improve water quality and enhance wildlife habitat within three targeted watersheds including the Red River of the North, the Missouri and the Minnesota portion of the Lower Mississippi basin. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a component of the USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the largest and most comprehensive Federal conservation program. LEAD AGENCIES: FSA, through funding provided by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), is the lead Federal Agency for administering CREP. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resource (BWSR), a partner with FSA, is the lead State agency. BWSR and cooperating agencies contribute to the monitoring and mapping occurring within the CREP area. AUTHORITY: CREP is authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.), and promulgated in 7 CFR 1410. DOCUMENT TYPE: Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA), prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), as amended, 40 CFR 1500-1508, and FSA environmental regulations at 7 CFR Part 799. CONTACT: Jeff Johnson, State Environmental Coordinator Farm Service Agency Box 994 Willmar, Minnesota 56201-0994 Phone: (320) 235-3540 x 113 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/epb/assessments.htm COMMENTS: This Final PEA was prepared in accordance with the United States Department of Agriculture FSA National Environmental Policy Act Implementation Procedures found in 7 CFR 799, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 1 January 1970, as amended. A Notice of Availability for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rare Animals in the Hardwood Hills and Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains Ecological Subsections of West-Central Minnesota Final Report
    Rare Animals in the Hardwood Hills and Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains Ecological Subsections of West-Central Minnesota Final Report Prepared by Elizabeth Harper Gerda Nordquist Steve Stucker Carol Hall Minnesota County Biological Survey Division of Ecological Services Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Biological Report No. 86 February 2006 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 2 Methods.................................................................................................................................. 4 Survey Site Selection ................................................................................................. 4 Survey Timing and Techniques ................................................................................. 4 Small mammal Surveys ...................................................................................... 4 Foraging Bat Surveys........................................................................................... 5 Breeding-season Bird Surveys............................................................................. 6 Amphibian and Reptile Surveys .......................................................................... 7 Nongame Fish Surveys .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in The
    PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM SUBBASINS IN THE SANOCKI PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM RIVER,SUBBASINS THE UPPER IN CEDAR RIVER, UPPER WAPSIPINICON ROCK SHELL ANDRIVER, UPPER WAPSIPINICON RIVER, UPPER CEDAR RIVER, SHELL ROCK OFR 99-471 RIVER, AND WINNEBAGO RIVER BASINS, SOUTHERN MINNESOTA AND NORTHERN IOWA MINNESOTA SOUTHEASTERN BASINS, RIVER, WINNEBAGO By Christopher A. Sanocki Open-File Report 99-471 Prepared in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation 99-471 OFR Mounds View, Minnesota 2000 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey 3K\VLFDO &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI 6WUHDP 6XEEDVLQV LQ WKH 8SSHU :DSVLSLQLFRQ 5LYHU 8SSHU &HGDU 5LYHU 6KHOO 5RFN 5LYHU DQG :LQQHEDJR 5LYHU %DVLQV 6RXWKHUQ 0LQQHVRWD DQG 1RUWKHUQ ,RZD %\ &KULVWRSKHU $ 6DQRFNL $EVWUDFW Data that describe the physical characteristics of stream subbasins upstream from selected sites on streams in the Upper Wapsipinicon River, Upper Cedar River, Shell Rock River, and Winnebago River Basins, located in southern Minnesota and northern Iowa are presented in this report. The physical characteristics are the drainage area of the subbasin, the percentage area of the subbasin covered only by lakes, the percentage area of the subbasin covered by both lakes and marsh, the main-channel length, and the main-channel slope. Stream sites include outlets of subbasins of at least 5 square miles, and locations of U.S. Geological Survey high-flow, and continuous-record gaging stations. ,QWURGXFWLRQ Selected data for sites on streams at outlets of subbasins larger than about 5 square miles; at This is the 16th report in a series detailing locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) high- subbasin characteristics of streams in Minnesota flow, and continuous-record gaging stations and adjacent states.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Summaries of Selected Iowa Streamflow Data--Table 1
    Table 1 1 Table 1. Streamgages in Iowa included in this study. [no., number] Map Streamgage number Streamgage name Link to streamflow statistics for streamgage number (fig. 1) 1 05387440 Upper Iowa River at Bluffton, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05387440_stats.docx 2 05387500 Upper Iowa River at Decorah, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05387500_stats.docx 3 05388000 Upper Iowa River near Decorah, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05388000_stats.docx 4 05388250 Upper Iowa River near Dorchester, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05388250_stats.docx 5 05388500 Paint Creek at Waterville, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05388500_stats.docx 6 05389000 Yellow River near Ion, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05389000_stats.docx 7 05389400 Bloody Run Creek near Marquette, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05389400_stats.docx 8 05389500 Mississippi River at McGregor, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05389500_stats.docx 9 05411400 Sny Magill Creek near Clayton, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05411400_stats.docx 10 05411600 Turkey River at Spillville, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05411600_stats.docx 11 05411850 Turkey River near Eldorado, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05411850_stats.docx 12 05412000 Turkey River at Elkader, Iowa http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05412000_stats.docx 13 05412020 Turkey River above French Hollow Creek at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1214/downloads/05412020_stats.docx
    [Show full text]
  • A Fish Habitat Partnership
    A Fish Habitat Partnership Strategic Plan for Fish Habitat Conservation in Midwest Glacial Lakes Engbretson Underwater Photography September 30, 2009 This page intentionally left blank. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 I. BACKGROUND 7 II. VALUES OF GLACIAL LAKES 8 III. OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS TO GLACIAL LAKES 9 IV. AN ECOREGIONAL APPROACH 14 V. MULTIPLE INTERESTS WITH COMMON GOALS 23 VI. INVASIVES SPECIES, CLIMATE CHANGE 23 VII. CHALLENGES 25 VIII. INTERIM OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS 26 IX. INTERIM PRIORITY WATERSHEDS 29 LITERATURE CITED 30 APPENDICES I Steering Committee, Contributing Partners and Working Groups 33 II Fish Habitat Conservation Strategies Grouped By Themes 34 III Species of Greatest Conservation Need By Level III Ecoregions 36 Contact Information: Pat Rivers, Midwest Glacial Lakes Project Manager 1601 Minnesota Drive Brainerd, MN 56401 Telephone 218-327-4306 [email protected] www.midwestglaciallakes.org 3 Executive Summary OUR MISSION The mission of the Midwest Glacial Lakes Partnership is to work together to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance sustainable fish habitats in glacial lakes of the Midwest for the use and enjoyment of current and future generations. Glacial lakes (lakes formed by glacial activity) are a common feature on the midwestern landscape. From small, productive potholes to the large windswept walleye “factories”, glacial lakes are an integral part of the communities within which they are found and taken collectively are a resource of national importance. Despite this value, lakes are commonly treated more as a commodity rather than a natural resource susceptible to degradation. Often viewed apart from the landscape within which they occupy, human activities on land—and in water—have compromised many of these systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Delineation Percentage
    Lake Superior - North Rainy River - Headwaters Lake Superior - South Vermilion River Nemadji River Cloquet River Pine River Rainy River - Rainy Lake Little Fork River Mississippi River - Headwaters Leech Lake River Upper St. Croix River Root River Big Fork River Mississippi River - Winona Upper/Lower Red Lake Kettle River Mississippi River - Lake Pepin Mississippi River - Grand Rapids Mississippi River - La Crescent Crow Wing River Otter Tail River Mississippi River - Reno Mississippi River - Brainerd Zumbro River Redeye River Upper Big Sioux River Mississippi River - Twin Cities Snake River Des Moines River - Headwaters St. Louis River Rum River Lower Big Sioux River Lower St. Croix River Cottonwood River Minnesota River - Headwaters Cannon River Mississippi River - St. Cloud Long Prairie River Lake of the Woods Lower Rainy North Fork Crow River Mississippi River - Sartell Lac Qui Parle River Buffalo River Wild Rice River Minnesota River - Mankato Sauk River Rock River Redwood River Snake River Chippewa River Watonwan River Clearwater River East Fork Des Moines River Red River of the North - Sandhill River Upper Red River of the North Blue Earth River Red River of the North - Marsh River Roseau River Minnesota River - Yellow Medicine River Le Sueur River Little Sioux River Bois de Sioux River Cedar River Lower Minnesota River Pomme de Terre River Red Lake River Lower Des Moines River Upper Iowa River Red River of the North - Tamarac River Shell Rock River Two Rivers Rapid River Red River of the North - Grand Marais Creek Mustinka River South Fork Crow River Thief River Winnebago River Upper Wapsipinicon River 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% %Altered %Natural %Impounded %No Definable Channel wq-bsm1-06.
    [Show full text]
  • Shetek-Eaw.Pdf
    September 10, 2004 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES RE: Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Enclosed is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project, Murray County. The EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and is being distributed for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The comment period will begin the day the EAW availability notice is published in the EQB Monitor, which will likely occur in the September 13, 2004 issue. Comments will be accepted through October 13, 2004. In addition to the EAW, the MPCA’s draft National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit will also be available for public comment concurrently. The contact person for the Permit is Lisa McCormick at (320) 214-3786. Comments received on the EAW will be used by the MPCA in evaluating the potential for significant environmental effects from this project and deciding on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A final decision on the need for an EIS will be made by the MPCA Commissioner after the end of the comment period. If a request for an EIS is received during the comment period, or if the Commissioner recommends the preparation of an EIS, the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) will make the final decision. The final EIS need decision will also be made by the Board if so requested by the project proposer, other interested parties or MPCA staff and if this request is agreed to by one or more members of the Board or the MPCA Commissioner.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Kansas Spiders
    A Pocket Guide to Common Kansas Spiders By Hank Guarisco Photos by Hank Guarisco Funded by Westar Energy Green Team, American Arachnological Society and the Chickadee Checkoff Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center i Table of Contents Introduction • 2 Arachnophobia • 3 Spider Anatomy • 4 House Spiders • 5 Hunting Spiders • 5 Venomous Spiders • 6-7 Spider Webs • 8-9 Other Arachnids • 9-12 Species accounts • 13 Texas Brown Tarantula • 14 Brown Recluse • 15 Northern Black Widow • 16 Southern & Western Black Widows • 17-18 Woodlouse Spider • 19 Truncated Cellar Spider • 20 Elongated Cellar Spider • 21 Common Cellar Spider • 22 Checkered Cobweb Weaver • 23 Quasi-social Cobweb Spider • 24 Carolina Wolf Spider • 25 Striped Wolf Spider • 26 Dotted Wolf Spider • 27 Western Lance Spider • 28 Common Nurseryweb Spider • 29 Tufted Nurseryweb Spider • 30 Giant Fishing Spider • 31 Six-spotted Fishing Spider • 32 Garden Ghost Spider Cover Photo: Cherokee Star-bellied Orbweaver ii Eastern Funnelweb Spider • 33 Eastern and Western Parson Spiders • 34 Garden Ghost Spider • 35 Bark Crab Spider • 36 Prairie Crab Spider • 37 Texas Crab Spider • 38 Black-banded Crab Spider • 39 Ridge-faced Flower Spider • 40 Striped Lynx Spider • 41 Black-banded Common and Convict Zebra Spiders • 42 Crab Spider Dimorphic Jumping Spider • 43 Bold Jumping Spider • 44 Apache Jumping Spider • 45 Prairie Jumping Spider • 46 Emerald Jumping Spider • 47 Bark Jumping Spider • 48 Puritan Pirate Spider • 49 Eastern and Four-lined Pirate Spiders • 50 Orchard Spider • 51 Castleback Orbweaver • 52 Triangulate Orbweaver • 53 Common & Cherokee Star-bellied Orbweavers • 54 Black & Yellow Garden Spider • 55 Banded Garden Spider • 56 Marbled Orbweaver • 57 Eastern Arboreal Orbweaver • 58 Western Arboreal Orbweaver • 59 Furrow Orbweaver • 60 Eastern Labyrinth Orbweaver • 61 Giant Long-jawed Orbweaver • 62 Silver Long-jawed Orbweaver • 63 Bowl and Doily Spider • 64 Filmy Dome Spider • 66 References • 67 Pocket Guides • 68-69 1 Introduction This is a guide to the most common spiders found in Kansas.
    [Show full text]
  • West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan
    West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan September 2009 Submitted by: Heron Lake Watershed District In cooperation with the TMDL Advisory and Technical Committees Preface This implementation plan was written by the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD), with the assistance of the Advisory Committee, and Technical Committee, and guidance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) based on the report West Fork Des Moines River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Final Report: Excess Nutrients (North and South Heron Lake), Turbidity, and Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impairments. Advisory Committee and Technical Committee members that helped develop this plan are: Advisory Committee Karen Johansen City of Currie Jeff Like Taylor Co-op Clark Lingbeek Pheasants Forever Don Louwagie Minnesota Soybean Growers Rich Perrine Martin County SWCD Randy Schmitz City of Brewster Michael Hanson Cottonwood County Tom Kresko Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Windom Technical Committee Kelli Daberkow Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Jan Voit Heron Lake Watershed District Ross Behrends Heron Lake Watershed District Melanie Raine Heron Lake Watershed District Wayne Smith Nobles County Gordon Olson Jackson County Chris Hansen Murray County Pam Flitter Martin County Roger Schroeder Lyon County Kyle Krier Pipestone County and Soil and Water Conservation District Ed Lenz Nobles Soil and Water Conservation District Brian Nyborg Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District Howard Konkol Murray Soil and Water Conservation District Kay Clark Cottonwood Soil and Water Conservation District Rose Anderson Lyon Soil and Water Conservation District Kathy Smith Martin Soil and Water Conservation District Steve Beckel City of Jackson Mike Haugen City of Windom Jason Rossow City of Lakefield Kevin Nelson City of Okabena Dwayne Haffield City of Worthington Bob Krebs Swift Brands, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 10-Year Watershed Management Plan
    Heron Lake Watershed District 10-Year Watershed Management Plan Cooperating organizations: Heron Lake Watershed District Houston Engineering, Inc. Effective January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2021 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. The Watershed Act ....................................................................................................... 8 1.2. Summary of Watershed Management Plan Content ..................................................... 8 1.3. Description of the Planning Process ............................................................................. 9 1.4. Public and Agency Input Process and Issues .............................................................. 10 1.5. Consistency with Other Planning Documents ............................................................ 12 2. History of the Heron Lake Watershed District ........................................................... 13 2.1. Previous Planning Efforts ........................................................................................... 13 2.2. Heron Lake Watershed District Evolution since Establishment ................................. 13 2.3. Success of the 2001 Watershed Management Plan..................................................... 14 2.4. Review and Assessment of Existing Objectives ......................................................... 15 2.5. Mission Statement ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • REVISION of the JUMPING SPIDERS of the GENUS PHIDIPPUS (ARANEAE: SALTICIDAE) by G
    Occasional Papers of the Florida State Collection of Arthropods Volume 11 2004 REVISION OF THE JUMPING SPIDERS OF THE GENUS PHIDIPPUS (ARANEAE: SALTICIDAE) by G. B. Edwards Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Occasional Papers of the Florida State Collection of Arthropods Volume 11 REVISION OF THE JUMPING SPIDERS OF THE GENUS PHIDIPPUS (ARANEAE: SALTICIDAE) by G. B. EDWARDS Curator: Arachnida & Myriapoda Florida State Collection of Arthropods FDACS, Division of Plant Industry Bureau of Entomology, Nematology, and Plant Pathology P. O. Box 147100, 1911 SW 34th Street Gainesville, Florida 32614-7100 USA 2004 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES DIVISION OF PLANT INDUSTRY and THE CENTER FOR SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY Gainesville, Florida FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner . Tallahassee Terry L. Rhodes, Assistant Commissioner . Tallahassee Craig Meyer, Deputy Commissioner . Tallahassee Richard D. Gaskalla, Director, Division of Plant Industry (DPI) . Gainesville Connie C. Riherd, Assistant Director, Division of Plant Industry . Gainesville Wayne N. Dixon, Ph.D., Bureau Chief, Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology . Gainesville Don L. Harris, Bureau Chief, Methods Development and Biological Control . Gainesville Richard A. Clark, Bureau Chief, Plant and Apiary Inspection . Gainesville Gregory Carlton, Bureau Chief, Pest Eradication and Control . Winter Haven Michael C. Kesinger, Bureau Chief, Budwood Registration . Winter Haven CENTER FOR SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY BOARD OF DIRECTORS G. B. Edwards, Ph.D., President . DPI, Gainesville Paul E. Skelley, Ph.D., Vice-President . DPI, Gainesville Gary J. Steck, Ph.D., Secretary .
    [Show full text]
  • Spider Community Composition and Structure in a Shrub-Steppe Ecosystem: the Effects of Prey Availability and Shrub Architecture
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2012 Spider Community Composition and Structure In A Shrub-Steppe Ecosystem: The Effects of Prey Availability and Shrub Architecture Lori R. Spears Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Spears, Lori R., "Spider Community Composition and Structure In A Shrub-Steppe Ecosystem: The Effects of Prey Availability and Shrub Architecture" (2012). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 1207. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1207 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPIDER COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE IN A SHRUB-STEPPE ECOSYSTEM: THE EFFECTS OF PREY AVAILABILITY AND SHRUB ARCHITECTURE by Lori R. Spears A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Ecology Approved: ___________________________ ___________________________ James A. MacMahon Edward W. Evans Major Professor Committee Member ___________________________ ___________________________ S.K. Morgan Ernest Ethan P. White Committee Member Committee Member ___________________________ ___________________________ Eugene W. Schupp Mark R. McLellan Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2012 ii Copyright © Lori R. Spears 2012 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Spider Community Composition and Structure in a Shrub-Steppe Ecosystem: The Effects of Prey Availability and Shrub Architecture by Lori R.
    [Show full text]
  • Murray County Aquatic Invasive Species Plan
    Murray County Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Prevention and Management Plan December 15, 2020 Drafted by: Murray County Environmental Services Department Murray County AIS Prevention and Management Plan 0 Murray County Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention and Management Plan Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ................................................................................ 3 MURRAY COUNTY BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 3 ACTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4 ELEMENT 1: EDUCATION/AWARENESS ..................................................................................... 4 ELEMENT 2: PREVENTION ...................................................................................................... 7 ELEMENT 3: WATERCRAFT INSPECTIONS .................................................................................... 8 ELEMENT 4: EMERGENCY RESPONSE ......................................................................................... 9 ELEMENT 5: PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................ 10 AIS PROGRAM SUMMARY .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]