DOCSLIB.ORG

Conference on Endangered P in the Southeast PROCEED

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conference on Endangered P in the Southeast PROCEED USDA Forest Seruice General Technical Report S E-I I March 1977 Conference on Endangered P in the Southeast PROCEED Betula uber May 11- 13, Asheville, North Caro Forest Seruice - U. S. Department of Agriculture Sou theastern Forest Experiment Stat ion Asheuille, North Carolina Conference on Endangered Plants in the Southeast PROCEEDINGS May 11- 13, 1976 Asheville, North Carolina Sponsored by Southeastern Forest Experiment Station USDA Forest Service University of North Carolina -Asheville Citation: USaA Forest Service 1977. Conference on endangered plants in the southeast proceedings. USnA For. Sew. Gen, Tech, Rep. SE-11, 104 PO Southeast. For. Exp, Stn,, Asheville, N. C. BMECTIVES OF THE 68NFEEMCE .................... James D, Perq DEFINITION AYD CUSSIFICATZOM OF ENDANGEBD ar.liD TENED PUNT SPECIES (I) ................. James F. Nadthews DEFINITION AND CUSSIPICATION OF ENBANGEWE) AND ATENED PUW SPECIES (11) ................. Thomas M. fillen A WVIEW OF Tm EWDANGEWD SPECIES ACT OF I973 ........... James D, WJ1Li;azns and Gail S, Baker TE ENDARGEMD AND T ATENED PUm PROG U,S, FISM AND WILDLIFE SewecE ................ Gail S, Baker and Bruce mcBryde ............... PEBEML AND STATE PRW ON ENMHGEWB PUNTS .......... FranZ;; B. Barick EXPLOITATION OF ENITDANGEmD PUNTS AHD THEIR MBLTATS ........ Jerv McCollum R0U OF FISH Am WILDLIFE SERVICE CB%a@EBS;IIMG ENWNGEMD FWM ....................... Vernon 6, Henq A 60mWkT APPROACH TO THE PROTECTION OF ENMNGEmD SPECIES .... Charles M. Parrish IIE Tm STATE HATURBL BERLTAGE PRW ................ Robert M. Chipley NAWUL AWAS IN "XI AAPPAUCHIAN SECTSOM UGISTEWD WITR "li" SSCSICXEW OF RECAN PBMSTERS ............... Keith A, Argow NING DISTRIBUTION, ..................... Roy 8, Clarkssn a-APREmSSmPORT . , . , . , , 75 Robert Kra% ENBANGEmD SPECIES - QUESTIONS OF SCIENCE* ETM96S AKD UW e r m s s 81 J, Frank McCormick SPECIES BIOLWY: DEFINITION, DIWCTIOM, DATA AMD DECZSIBMS~~coea~eo*~e~mrs~~ro~~~~~~r88 J, R, Massey and Paul D, Whitson NAWI"bPIL AmA CUSSIElCATfON SPS"SlH: A STANDASDIZATION SCBm e~~o~~~~~e+~e~a~a~~ersm~~~~e95 Albert E, Radford COWEmNGE OM ENDANGEWD BUmS EN THE SOUTHEAST . 102 6, R, Naggle OBJECTIVES OF THE CO4P9%I?ERENGE James D, Perry-11 It is obvious from the program that this conference is not an attempt to derive another list of plants which are endangered in one way or another. Rather, it is an effort to arrive at some ways of standardizing our screening procedures and research priorities. It is generally agreed that we must strength- and broaden our knowledge of plant di~tpibutisns~sf habitat preferences, of population dynamics, and of species biology in general. Although we all have some built-in notion of what species are rare or endangered in our areas, we need so-me workable definitions to use in elassifyiag these, and the first tvvo papers coneern this. Subsequent papers explore federal and state legislation affecting our actions and the question of propagation and c ornrnercial exploitation of endangered plants, such as the Venus' fly-trap. In the second session, five papers concern preservation sf sufficient suitable habitat--naturalareas or even whole communities--and on what bases such areas may be considered worthy of preservation. The remain- ing papers present research needs, dealizrg with what botanists should do to expand knowledge of specizs biology and distribution. This is a pressing need of professional foresters and othzrs who manage public Lands. In order to manage public lands in such a way as to preserve areas critical to given species, field personnel need to know what these species are and what their requirements are. In addition, field personnel may lack the time or training to identigy plants limited in distribution, An efficient means of inventory, storage, and retrieval of inforrnati~nis needed, Some of the questions we must face, and hopefully reach some consensus about, are: I) How rnay we categorize endangered species in a realistic and consistent way from state to state so future legislaticn will have teeth in it? 2) What are the best ways to preserve rare, endangered, and endemic species? 3) What research approaches do we need in order to establish priorities as time runs out 3 This conference was also enliisionrd as a means of communicating, so that we from various states can find out what those in other states are doing and the different problems being faced. L' Chairman, Departnlent of Biology, University of North Carolina at Asheville. DEFINITION mD CLASSIFICATION OF EMDMGERED I4ND "rNREATENETr PLmT SPECIES James F, ~atthews' Abstract -- Definitions and categories of classification for endangered and threatened vascular plants, as determined by the N,C. Endangered and Threatened Piant Committee, are de- tailed, along with the philosophical guidelines used in pro- ducing a primary list of rare species and a secondary list of endangered and threatened peripheral species. The definition and classification of endangered and threatened species is the heart oS any successful effort in conservation and protection. Ev- eryone interested in endangered and threatened species has probably been frustrated by plans, programs, definitions and lists which often compli- cate the situation rather than improve it. Me of the North Carolina En- dangered and Threatened Plant Cornittee (The Committee is listed at the end of this paper.) have felt this same frustration, aile meeting to prepare a report for a state-wide Symposium on Endangered and Threatened Biota in November 1975, we decided to make some decisions, right or wrong, to initiate positive action toward conservation and protection. We had to analyze those species to be included, define the categories and evaluate the current status of each species a91 in the context of the long range process of conservation, The full text of that Symposium is being published by the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Wistory and will be available through the Museum, What I want to do today is to discuss some of the definitions and cat- egories, and to give some of the philosophical concepts used in reaching decisions. First, it is important to recognize that each state cannot in- dependently develop a list of endangered and threatened species now that the Federal Government has published a list through the Smithsonian Tnsti- tution (1974) and through the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (1975). Every state list should be so carefully compiled that it would stand up in court, as it will be tested in the halls of the State Legislature. Inclusion of all the popular wildfEowers produces a list that cannot be defended, ends up being riddled, thus losing its veracity. How do you defend the query ""Bt the Federal List has only 88 species for our state and yours has 328, why the discrepancy?" Me were comitted to gen- erating a defendable primary list of species, realizing that many of the showy, dramatic, and peripheral species would be omitted, Because of this, we also developed a secondary list of endangered and threatened peripheral species, Developing different lists with the possibility of various levels of concern dictates different laws to govern each category, an aspect that will be discussed in a later paper, l~rofessorof Biology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, N. C. 28223. Finally, we tried not to become fwalved in the futtle exercise of perserving names* As Core (1955) so aptly said it, "~2vescsitgis not merely subjective or superficiall It is the result sf fundamental discon- tinuity of genetic systems*" We wanted to reeognlze the diversity in the North Carolina flora as realistica15y as possible, Our basic reference was the Manual of the Vascular Flora --sf the Gas~lfnas(Radford -et -9a1 19681, and our noaenclature, for the most past, follows their interpretam tion, We included 9% species in the primary list, Some of' these are hy- brids, and same have infraspeeiffc designations, Chance hybrids were not included, but species of well documented ancient hybrid origin, such as Wright" cliff-break fern (Pellaea X Hooker) and the Tennessee bladder fern Q X tennesseensis Shaver) were included because they represent distinct species of no less concern than those derived by other mechanisms- Spontaneous hybrids, even though given a binomial name suck as Habenaria X andrewsii mite ex Mile sr X radfordii Ahles, however rare, were not included, especially since the parental gene pools are knom, In the infraspecific category, we wanted ts recognize any gene pool designated as a subspecies or variety which fit our criteria for species included on the list, ise, Mountain paper birch var , (Regel) FemaLd), The degree sf taxo is not as important as genetic discontinuity. Whether we, as taxonomists, call something a species, subspecies or variety is insignificant if we are eon- cerned with preserving unique genotypes, We accepted the Smithssnian definition of endangered and threatened as a working model, with same modifications: : An endangered species is one whose survival in North Caroli to be in serious jeopardy, Its peril may result from destruction or drastic modification of its specific: habitat, over-exploitation by man, disease, predation, or specific competitian due to natural successisn, h endangered species must receive protection, or extinction in North Carolina probably will follow, Threatened: A threatened species is me that may Eikeiy becone endangered if its habitat is not maintained, or if it is greatly exploited by man, These are sften quite rare in North Carolina and should be
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Endangered Species Expenditure Report (1998)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures Fiscal Year 1998 January 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... ii What is the purpose of this report? ....................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are reported?.......................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are not included?.................................................................................................... ii What are the expenditures reported for FY 1998?................................................................................ ii How does the 1998 expenditure report compare to other years? ......................................................... ii ENDANGERED SPECIES EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998...................................................1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................1 What does "Reasonably Identifiable Expenditures" mean? .........................................................1 What is not included in the report? ...............................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • United States of America
    anran Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GLOBAL FOREST RESOURCES ASSESSMENT COUNTRY REPORTS NITED TATES OF MERICA U S A FRA2005/040 Rome, 2005 FRA 2005 – Country Report 040 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The Forest Resources Assessment Programme Sustainably managed forests have multiple environmental and socio-economic functions important at the global, national and local scales, and play a vital part in sustainable development. Reliable and up- to-date information on the state of forest resources - not only on area and area change, but also on such variables as growing stock, wood and non-wood products, carbon, protected areas, use of forests for recreation and other services, biological diversity and forests’ contribution to national economies - is crucial to support decision-making for policies and programmes in forestry and sustainable development at all levels. FAO, at the request of its member countries, regularly monitors the world’s forests and their management and uses through the Forest Resources Assessment Programme. This country report forms part of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 (FRA 2005), which is the most comprehensive assessment to date. More than 800 people have been involved, including 172 national correspondents and their colleagues, an Advisory Group, international experts, FAO staff, consultants and volunteers. Information has been collated from 229 countries and territories for three points in time: 1990, 2000 and 2005. The reporting framework for FRA 2005 is based on the thematic elements of sustainable forest management acknowledged in intergovernmental forest-related fora and includes more than 40 variables related to the extent, condition, uses and values of forest resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Journal of Science Official Publication of the Virginia Academy of Science
    VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Vol. 60 No. 2 Summer 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES PAGE ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS, 87th Annual Meeting of the Virginia Academy of Science, May 27-29, 2009, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA SECTION ABSTRACTS Aeronautical and Aerospace Sciences 53 Agriculture, Forestry and Aquaculture Science 55 Astronomy, Mathematics and Physics &Materials Science 61 Biology and Microbiology & Molecular Biology 64 Biomedical and General Engineering 72 Botany 72 Chemistry 76 Computer Science 83 Education 84 Environmental Science 86 Medical Science 91 Natural History & Biodiversity 98 Psychology 102 Statistics 107 BEST STUDENT PAPER AWARDS 109 JUNIOR ACADEMY AWARDS 113 NEW FELLOWS 127 AUTHOR INDEX 133 ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS, 87th Annual Meeting of the Virginia Academy of Science, May 27-29, 2009, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond VA Aeronautical and Aerospace Sciences FROM THE EARTH TO SPACE WITH NACA/NASA. M. Leroy Spearman. NASA- Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681 & Heidi Owens, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849. Leonardo da Vinci envisioned man-flight in the 15th century and designed a practical airplane concept in 1490. Many other pioneers proposed various types of flying machines over the next 400 years but it was not until December 17, 1903 that the Wright Brothers, at Kitty Hawk, NC, were credited with achieving the first manned-powered flight. Over the next 100 years, several factors have influenced advances in aviation. The use of aircraft by European nations in World War I resulted in concern that the U.S. was lagging in aviation developments. This lead to an act of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Round-Leaf Birch Recovery Plan
    Virginia Round-Leaf Birch Recovery Plan REGION FIVE, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE VIRGINIA ROUND-LEAF BIRCH (Betula uber REVISED RECOVERY PLAN UPDATE (Original approved March 3, 1982) (Revision approved September, 1985) Prepared by: Terry L. Shank School of Forestry and Wood Products Michigan Technological University Houghton, Michigan 49931 for: Region 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Newton Corner, Massachusetts I Approved: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: ~‘V, (~c3 ) * * * This is an update of the first revision of the Virginia Round- leaf Birch Recovery Plan, which was approved in September 1985. It delineates reasonable actions which are believed to be required to protect and recover this endangered species. It was prepared by Dr. Terry L. Shank for publication by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. This plan does not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individual or agencies involved in plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The recovery plan is subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citations should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Virginia Round—leaf Birch Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, MA. 43 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (301) 429—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 Fees vary according to number of pages.
    [Show full text]
  • In Vitro Propagation and Preservation of Cherry Birch (Betula Lenta L.) By
    In Vitro Propagation and Preservation of Cherry Birch (Betula lenta L.) by Ricki Rathwell A Thesis Presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements For the degree of Master in Science In Plant Agriculture Guelph, Ontario, Canada ©Ricki Rathwell, August 2015 Abstract In Vitro Propagation and Preservation of Cherry Birch (Betula lenta L.) Ricki Rathwell Advisor: University of Guelph, 2015 Dr. Praveen Saxena Cherry birch (Betula lenta L.) is an endangered species in Canada. Protocols were developed for the in vitro propagation and preservation of cherry birch. In vitro technologies facilitate conservation, restoration, and replenishment of endangered plants. Micropropagation involved shoot bud culture initiation, shoot multiplication, rooting, and acclimatization in greenhouse. Optimum shoot growth was achieved with medium supplemented with 6- benzylaminopurine (5 μM). 80% of shoots developed roots on medium enriched with indole-3- butyric acid (20 μM). Rooted plantlets were acclimatized in the greenhouse with a 37% survival rate. Cryopreservation techniques were developed using seeds and shoot tips. Seeds were cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen, and germinated in the greenhouse (21-24%) and under in vitro conditions (12.5%). Droplet vitrification protocol developed for shoot tips resulted in 12 to 13% survival after cryopreservation. These protocols will ensure long-term conservation of cherry birch and help bring this species back from the brink of extinction in Canadian ecosystems. iii Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Praveen Saxena, for his support and guidance throughout my thesis. Thank you to my advisory committee: Dr. Jayasankar Subramanian, Dr. Shelley Hunt, and Dr. Paula Brown for their time and assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • TREES SHRUBS VINES Ferns Groundcovers
    Retail Availability as of: 9/1/2019 ArcheWild is a wholesale, contract grower of native plants www.ArcheWild.com for large restoration programs. This fall, we are offering [email protected] overstock items to the general public. Some species might Phone: 855-752-6862 not be available for sale again. Fax: 855-752-6862 Place a phone order by Ecoregion information is available for all POPULAR WEBSITE LINKS Aug 30 and receive a species; ask a representative at the sales 25% discount. Introduction to Ecoregions event or call. Quantities limited for Native Species Procurement Special Volume Pricing! some species. Buy a whole flat and get a 20% discount. Native Plant Labelling Standards To place your order, call toll-free: 5% discount on orders over $100. Some species only 1700 Native Plants of Bucks County 855-752-6862 available for research 10% discount on orders over $500. 855-PLANT-NATIVE purposes. 20% discount on orders over $1000. NATIVE PLANTS FOR RETAIL SALE TREES Scientific Name Common Name Plugs Quarts Containers Notes Acer saccharum sugar maple $25.00 shade tree for well-drained sites Asimina triloba pawpaw $5.00 $16.00 native fruit, thicket forming Betula alleghaniensis var. macrolepis yellow birch $12.00 lowland variety of yellow birch Betula lenta (uber) Virginia black birch $5.00 $12.00 grown from Betula uber seed Betula populifolia gray birch - sold out - Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory $36.00 wildlife tree for rocky sites Magnolia virginiana sweetbay $24.00 tall tree/shrub for moist sites Populus balsamifera balsam poplar
    [Show full text]
  • VA Round-Leaf Birch
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Virginia Round-leaf Birch Betula uber The Virginia round-leaf birch was the first As if to underscore the point, within a documented in 1981. While tree given protection under the year, 12 of the trees were lost to there are Endangered Species Act. This rare vandalism on the private lands. nearly 1,000 variant was first described by botanist By 1977 the population was down to 26 artificially W. W. Ashe in 1918 as living in a single trees and appeared to be on its way out. propagated creek's drainage area. While Ashe Cattle grazing, illegal plant collecting and trees in botanical considered the birch with the unusual competition from other vegetation was gardens and the round leaves to be a subspecies of the pushing the species to the brink. At that wild, the lack of sweet birch, botanist M.L. Fernald point, people from government agencies, natural elevated it to species level. academic institutions, the conservation reproduction is the community and the private sector came primary reason the But then the tree apparently vanished. together to study, manage and protect the tree is still listed today. For nearly 60 years, no one could locate round-leaf birch. This committee was the Recovery for the Virginia round-leaf the birch with the odd round leaves, and driving force behind the species being birch hinges on the successful the species was assumed to be extinct. In protected by the Endangered Species Act natural reproduction and survival 1975, naturalist Douglas Ogle in 1978. Prominent among these of these populations in the wild.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix G – MIS I George Washington and Jefferson National Forests
    Appendix B – MIS and T&E Species Population Trends Monitoring and Evaluation Report FY2015 through FY2019 for the 2014 George Washington National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and 2004 Jefferson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Contents Appendix B – MIS and T&E Species Population Trends ....................................................... i Contents .................................................................................................................................... i Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 Identification of Management Indicator Species .................................................................. 3 2014 George Washington Plan Management Indicator Species .......................................................... 3 2004 Jefferson Plan Management Indicator Species ........................................................................... 4 Trends in Forest Service Management Activities Associated with MIS Habitats .............. 5 Forested Age Class Distribution Trend ................................................................................. 7 Monitoring and Evaluation of Management Indicator Species .......................................... 10 Ecological, Biological Community, or Special Habitat Indicators ........................................................ 10 Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving North America's Threatened Plants
    Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants Progress report on Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants Progress report on Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation By Andrea Kramer, Abby Hird, Kirsty Shaw, Michael Dosmann, and Ray Mims January 2011 Recommended ciTaTion: Kramer, A., A. Hird, K. Shaw, M. Dosmann, and R. Mims. 2011. Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants: Progress report on Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation . BoTanic Gardens ConservaTion InTernaTional U.S. Published by BoTanic Gardens ConservaTion InTernaTional U.S. 1000 Lake Cook Road Glencoe, IL 60022 USA www.bgci.org/usa Design: John Morgan, [email protected] Contents Acknowledgements . .3 Foreword . .4 Executive Summary . .5 Chapter 1. The North American Flora . .6 1.1 North America’s plant diversity . .7 1.2 Threats to North America’s plant diversity . .7 1.3 Conservation status and protection of North America’s plants . .8 1.3.1 Regional conservaTion sTaTus and naTional proTecTion . .9 1.3.2 Global conservaTion sTaTus and proTecTion . .10 1.4 Integrated plant conservation . .11 1.4.1 In situ conservaTion . .11 1.4.2 Ex situ collecTions and conservaTion applicaTions . .12 1.4.3 ParameTers of ex situ collecTions for conservaTion . .16 1.5 Global perspective and work on ex situ conservation . .18 1.5.1 Global STraTegy for PlanT ConservaTion, TargeT 8 . .18 Chapter 2. North American Collections Assessment . .19 2.1 Background . .19 2.2 Methodology . .19 2.2.1 Compiling lisTs of ThreaTened NorTh American Taxa .
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Evidence That Invasive Species Are a Significant Contributor to the Decline Or Loss of Threatened Species? Philip D
    Invasive Species Systematic Review, March 2015 What is the evidence that invasive species are a significant contributor to the decline or loss of threatened species? Philip D. Roberts, Hilda Diaz-Soltero, David J. Hemming, Martin J. Parr, Richard H. Shaw, Nicola Wakefield, Holly J. Wright, Arne B.R. Witt www.cabi.org KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................. 1 Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 3 Keywords ................................................................................................................................. 4 Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 4 Background .............................................................................................................................. 5 Objective of the review ............................................................................................................ 7 The primary review question: ....................................................................................... 7 Secondary question 1: ................................................................................................. 7 Secondary question 2: ................................................................................................. 7 Methods
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Round-Leaf Birch (Betula Uber) Due to the Proximity of These 4
    Appendix B. WOODPECKER DESIGN CRITERIA Species Mitigation Measures Virginia round-leaf birch (Betula uber) Due to the proximity of these 4 plantations of the federally threatened Virginia round-leaf birch, coordination with the FWS Betula uber lead biologist, Sumalee Hoskin, was started in April of 2016. Through this coordination the following mitigation measures were designed to eliminate potential effects to the species: A 100 ft. buffer will be applied to plantations for protection from tree felling and herbicide application All trees felled outside the buffer will be directionally felled away from the plantation Herbicide application within adjacent cutting units to the buffer will be targeted and only applied if necessary Forest –Wide Standards For the action alternative (Alternative 1), all applicable Forest Wide (FW) Standards and Management Prescription Standards described in the Forest Plan would be followed and will form the design criteria for this alternative. These standards, many of which pertain to the protection of various resources such as soil, water, fisheries, wildlife, and recreation are hereby incorporated by reference. The following listed standards below (though not exhaustive) from the Forest Plan will be followed with the implementation of Alternative 1: WATER QUALITY: FW-1: Resource management activities that may affect soil and/or water quality follow Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky Best Management Practices, State Erosion Control Handbooks, and standards in the Forest Plan, p. 2-7. FW-5: On all soils dedicated to growing vegetation, the organic layers, topsoil and root mat would be left in place over at least 85% of the activity area and revegetation is accomplished within 5 years, Forest Plan, p.
    [Show full text]