JOHN
DAY FOSSIL
BEDS NATIONAL
MONUMENT
INTEGRATED
PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN
John Day Fossil Beds National Monument (JODA) was authorized
as a unit of the National Park Service (NPS) on October 26, 1974 , and established October 8, 1975, under authority of Public Law
93-486. That law described the
establishment of the monument to preserve, protect, and interpret the extensive
Tertiary fossils found in the geologic formations of the area. In addition, the monument contains a
number of significant natural and cultural resources, including the James Cant
Ranch Historic District and the 84 year old Cant Ranch House. The Ranch House will be restored to its
1920 appearance and maintained as an integral part of the monument. A Classified Structural Field Inventory
Report was prepared for the site in 1976.
The Monument’s General Management Plan (October 1979) states
that the purpose of the Monument is "To
identify, interpret, and protect the geologic, paleontological, natural, and
cultural resources along the central and upper John Day River and to provide
facilities that will promote and assist visitor recreational enjoyment and
understanding of the same."
JODA is located in Grants and
Wheeler
Counties in eastern
Oregon and contains 14,056 acres
of land situated in 3 separate units.
The Sheep Rock Unit contains 8,916 acres of land; the Painted Hills Unit
contains 3,129 acres of land; and the Clarno Unit contains 1,969 acres of
land. About 88 percent of the
monument is federally-owned land, 11 percent is privately-owned land, and the
balance is state- or county-owned land (mostly highway rights-of-way). There are 13 privately-owned tracts of
land within the monument, varying in size from less than an acre to almost 1,000
acres. A 10-acre tract of land
owned by the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry within the Clarno Unit is not
included within the monument boundaries.
The four main preservation objectives are:
-to preserve the significant
paleontological resources found in the park.
-to preserve and protect the
significant collections contained in the museum and archives.
- to re-create a visual example of the 200 acre Cant Ranch through a
demonstration of historic ranching practices, historic buildings, hayfields,
irrigation ditches, fences, animal pens, and ranch equipment representative of
the period from 1920 to 1950.
- to "....conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and
the wild life therein and to provide for
the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations..." (from the National
Park Service Organic Act of 1916).
There are no annual or commemorative events or activities at
JODA where livestock or animal feed could be brought into the park and result in
the importation of weeds or pests.
However, there are several other potential means by which pests can be
introduced into the park. Visitors
and pets on leashes entering the park may introduce pests (or weed seeds) from
other locations and pests can be easily transported into the park from adjacent
agricultural lands, roadways, trails, and by means of water courses, wind, and
wildlife.
There is a strong need for a detailed and extensive IPM Plan
and program that combines all of the latest scientific information and
technology for the National Park Service employees at the John Day Fossil Beds
to use in their daily work activities.
The Monument is at a critical juncture in non-native plant
control. Careful treatment and monitoring can prevent the establishment and
spread of many of the noxious weeds, while continuing to protect the invaluable
natural resources and historic features contained within the 14,000 acres of
land entrusted to its care. The National Park Service (NPS) defines nonnative
species as any animal or plant species that occurs in a given location as a
result of direct, indirect, deliberate, or accidental actions by humans (USDI
1996). Invasive nonnative plants are able to out-compete native plants for
resources through aggressive root systems, high seed production, allelopathic
chemical releases, and/or lack of natural herbivores/insects/diseases to
restrict their expansion. Many are able to quickly invade disturbed ground and
prevent the establishment of native species, while others can actually become
established and completely overcome pristine, native plant communities.
The Monument has direct responsibility to preserve and
maintain the historical buildings, artifacts, and landscape designated within
the boundaries of the James Cant Ranch National Historic District. This 200 acre
district is located at the headquarters area within the Sheep Rock Unit.
Approximately 75 acres of irrigated hay meadows and a small 3 acre orchard are
important components of the district and the visual scenery. Native rodents like
the northern pocket gopher and Belding's ground squirrel find that these
agricultural areas make ideal habitats which allow for cyclic population
explosions. Unfortunately, the digging activities and heavy use of the meadow
plants can quickly remove the established grasses and legumes while causing
serious damage to farm equipment. Gophers can also do serious damage to the
orchard tree roots and elk and deer can damage the trees through browsing,
especially on the many young trees being planted to restore the historic
orchard. Insects and other diseases can also inflict heavy mortality on both
young and mature trees, therefore these are also considered within the IPM
planning effort. There is an extensive museum collection of not only
paleontological resources, but also historic artifacts, natural resource voucher
collections, historic documents and scientific reports, etc.
Safety concerns and issues must be addressed in order to
protect the NPS employees and Monument visitors. Being prepared to handle
interactions between wildlife and humans is vital in the rural setting. Concerns
range from bee stings, to rattlesnake bites, to rabies exposure from bats, or
hantavirus exposure from rodent droppings. The IPM plan specifically deals with
each of these issues.
Most animal and arthropod pests come into direct contact with
rotting debris, soil, and other sources of disease organisms as a result of
their feeding and secretive habits and may spread diseases to humans. The potential for the spread of disease
to humans is one of the more important reasons supporting aggressive pest
management.
Because of recent Hantavirus outbreaks in the United States,
all persons engaged in rodent monitoring, trapping, inspecting programs or clean
up of rodent debris or other duties where brought into contact with rodents or
rodent debris will wear approved personal protective equipment and follow
appropriate Oregon Department of Health and Federal Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) guidelines for both personal safety and removal of rodent feces/debris. At
a minimum, personal protective equipment will include rubber gloves, hard hat,
coveralls, and a respirator capable of filtering particles as small as 0.3
microns in size (e.g., HEPA filter).
The use of a respirator equipped with a HEPA filter may also be required
to prevent other aerosol-transmitted diseases such as spore-borne valley
fever. Prior to use, persons
wearing respirators will conform with OSHA guidelines for a Respiratory Program,
29 CFR 1910.134.
Employees and residents will be informed about the mode of
transmission of Hantavirus (and other pest-borne diseases and ectoparasites) and
will follow CDC recommendations for controlling rodent populations and handling,
disinfecting, and disposing of pest feces, debris, traps and other soiled
items.
Some of the other more common and important rodent-borne
diseases that can affect humans are: bubonic plague, murine typhus,
leptospirosis, salmonellosis, lymphocytic choriomeningitis, rickettsial pox, rat
bite fever, trichinosis, tapeworms, ringworms, tetanus, and hemorrhagic fever.
Rodents (and other mammals) and birds can also carry
parasites that spread diseases to humans.
In disease endemic areas, the State Health Departments recommend
controlling rodent parasites (specifically ticks and fleas) both before and
during rodent control programs in order to lessen the spread of parasite-borne
diseases to humans.
Bird nests on buildings and rodent nests, dead carcasses, and
stored foods inside of structural voids attract a variety of insect pests (i.e.,
stored product pests) which often invade human food supplies or seriously damage
museum collections. Many people who
live in structures infested with cockroaches, mice, or birds develop serious
allergies or otherwise become ill as a result of inhaling air-borne pest
droppings or body parts.
Mice often nest in, under, and around electrical and kitchen
appliances where they can damage wiring, reduce ventilation around electrical
motors, and contaminate foods.
Rodents that gnaw on electrical wiring are considered to be an important
initial cause of many structural fires.
Serious consequences can result when rodents damage electrical wiring or
fluid hoses of emergency vehicles.
It is not uncommon, especially for children, to be bitten
while trying to feed, touch, or catch rodents (ground squirrels and chipmunks)
or other wildlife. Although rabies
is relatively common in some parts of this country, rodents seldom carry the
disease and rodent bites more likely result in tetanus. Venomous bites by rattlesnakes are a
safety and health concern. Visitors
are sometimes stung by harvester ants, scorpions, bees, wasps, and yellow
jackets on trails as well as in developed areas. Adequate public warnings will be posted
to inform visitors and staff of potential hazards surrounding wildlife. Picking
up injured, sick or baby bats can lead to bites from bats and the subsequent
need for rabies treatments.
In areas where larger animals are known to be possible
disease carriers, mammals caught in live- or other kinds of traps and dead
animals should be handled with gloves.
In disease-endemic areas, it may be advisable to control parasites
(fleas, ticks, etc.) before approaching trapped animals. Local health authorities should be
consulted for the latest recommendations on parasite control.
Snap, Conibear body-gripping, snare, and foot traps used in
above ground locations are not selective and may, if unprotected, kill or injure
non-target animals or persons. Thus these will only be considered as a last
alternative at JODA. Whenever possible, traps used to control wildlife will be
covered or protected to prevent injury to non-target species. Traps will be checked at least twice a
day to prevent curious people/animals from being bitten or coming into contact
with captured animals.
A number of both native and exotic plants are potentially
dangerous because they are either poisonous, bear sharp spines or thorns, or produce
allergic rashes when they contact the skin. Some species of the knapweed family
can produce carcinogenic substances that should be avoided if pulling weeds.
Pesticides are insecticides, herbicides, fungicides,
rodenticides and other chemicals used to control, prevent, destroy, repel, or
regulate pests. As toxicants
(poisons), they detrimentally affect living organisms and usually have adverse
effects on other forms of life.
Because of their poisonous nature, pesticides can injure or kill people,
pets, and livestock; damage beneficial insects, birds, fish, and other wildlife;
and can harm desirable plants. It
is mandatory that all such materials be very carefully managed and handled
during storage, transport, mixing and loading, application, and disposal. It is critical to stress the importance
of safe pesticide use and to assure the park Safety Officer has an important
management role in the park IPM program.
The following issues were developed from the scoping process
and were used to drive the NEPA process.
Many exotic plants out-compete and replace native plants over
time. This decreases the diversity of native plant communities. Exotic plants,
particularly invasive ones, are capable of diminishing site productivity,
degrading ecosystems, and decreasing plant species diversity. Over 240 plants
and flowers have adapted to the growing conditions found here, including 80 or
more non-native species. Two Research Natural Areas are found in the Sheep Rock
Unit and protect nearly pristine vegetative communities. The exclusion of fire
has allowed western juniper, which is a native tree, to increase its range and
population size. Due to its extensive root system and aggressive water use,
research has found entire plant communities changed when juniper overstories
exceed 50% canopy cover. The Monument is experiencing this encroachment
throughout all of the units and is therefore addressing this threat to native
plant communities.
The NPS is mandated to identify and promote the conservation
of Federally listed threatened or endangered species, or species proposed for
listing under the Endangered Species Act and their critical habitats within the
park boundaries. To-date, no known plant species occur in the park that are
listed as threatened or endangered under the authorities of the Engangered
Species Act. The NPS will also identify all state and locally listed threatened,
endangered, rare, declining, sensitive, or candidate species that are native to
and present in the parks. All management actions will be assessed for the
protection and perpetuation of these special status species. Fourteen species
occur within the Monument that fit within these classifications and could be
impacted by nonnative species or IPM activities (See Appendix D for current
list).
A total of over 50 species of mammals, 14 species of
reptiles, 5 species of amphibians,10 species of fish, and over fifty species of
birds have been identified as yearlong or migrant residents during recent
inventory efforts. These species are dependent on native plants for escape and
thermal cover, mating and rearing areas, and forage or prey habitat. Nonnative
plants outcompete native plants, which decreases the diversity, quantity, and
quality of forage and the habitat carrying capacity. They also affect insect
populations, which effect can cascade throughout the food chain. Loss of native
plant populations to juniper encroachment may also cause the loss of various
bird and rodent species as the site ecology is altered.
The NPS is mandated to identify and promote the conservation
of Federally listed threatened, endangered, or species proposed for listing
under the Endangered Species Act and their critical habitats within the park
boundaries. The NPS will identify all state and locally listed threatened,
endangered, rare, declining, sensitive, or candidate species that are native to
and present in the parks (See Appendix D for current lists provided by the
USF&WS and NMFS at the time this EA was initiated). Those bird species also
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which are potential or confirmed
visitors to the Monument have been identified (see Appendix H). Essential Fish
Habitat for chinook salmon has also been designated within the waters of the
Monument. All management actions will be assessed for the protection and
perpetuation of these special status species. The Oregon Natural Heritage
Program has identified sixty two species that may occur at the Monument that fit
within these classifications and could be threatened by nonnative species or IPM
activities. This list includes several extirpated species (See Appendix I for
the list of species in Grant and
Wheeler
Counties).
Nonnative plants typically have less fibrous root systems
than native plants. As nonnative species increase in an area, infiltration of
precipitation decreases and soil erosion levels can increase. This increases
sedimentation in streams and reduces water quality. After the streams leave the
park, they eventually cross onto private land and are used for irrigation,
livestock watering, and drinking purposes by local residents. The
John Day
River has both developed and
primitive campsites downstream of the Monument units and is designated a Wild
and Scenic
River in the lower portion. Changes
in the hydrology and availability of both surface and ground water are occurring
as native western juniper encroaches into a watershed in large numbers. These
changes have had detrimental effects on the watersheds ability to trap and store
water, thus increasing runoff and erosion while decreasing late season water
availability to plants and animals.
Noxious seeds, plants and plant parts may be introduced via
air or water, domestic and wild animals, earth fill, construction equipment,
stock feed and visitors. Park visitors can unwittingly transport plant parts in
the undercarriage or doors of their vehicles, tire treads, pet's coats,
clothing, and the soles of their shoes. Established park populations of exotic
plants are able to spread through these same routes.
IPM activities can impact visitors through contact by them or
their pets with traps or pesticide residues, or impacts to the visitor
experience through visual changes to the cultural scene or discomfort with
seeing IPM control options in progress.
There are certain amounts of health and safety risks
associated with implementation of an IPM program. The inappropriate application
of chemical herbicides has the potential to enter into the human environment,
waterways, and the natural food chain, thus adversely affecting human and
wildlife health. The application process alone, if not done according to
established standards, can pose health risks to the applicator. Treating
nonnative plants by any means along roadways and developed sites puts employees
at risk from inattentive motor vehicle operators. Hand pulling of some of weeds
can expose employees and volunteers to carcinogenic plant chemicals from the
knapweeds, poisonous toxins from the hemlocks, and injuries from thorns, spines
or wrenched backs while pulling some of the other weeds. Trapping and baiting
activities, using insecticides to control the various insect populations,
rodenticides used to control mice populations within structures, all have varied
considerations related to health and safety. On the other hand, allowing
uncontrolled rodent and bat access to buildings and visitor use areas can lead
to unacceptable risks and exposure to hantavirus, rabies and other diseases.
Interactions with stinging insects, rabid predatory animals, overly tame big
game, or rattlesnakes can all have negative impacts on human safety and health
and must be addressed.
The National Park Service has a direct mandate by the
Congress and citizens of the Untied States to protect and maintain those lands,
structures, resources, and artifacts entrusted in their care. It is vital that a
full consideration is made on all options for pest management and that those
options selected are cost effective, environmentally sound, and do not impact
the natural resources. The various effects of the alternatives on the buildings,
the resources and aesthetic values of the historic district, and the items
stored in the museum collections must be considered before any pest control
actions occur.
Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands - There are no lands
within the Monument that have been designated as unique agricultural lands.
There are 7 soils that are listed as soils constituting prime farmland only if
irrigated. The majority of these are within the James Cant Ranch National
Historic District and are irrigated to maintain the introduced grass and legume
hayland species and the cultural scene. Weed control activities and
gopher/ground squirrel damage control activties will occur periodically to
maintain the pasture grass and
alfalfa stands. No actions proposed in this EA or IPM plan will change the
status of or impact the prime farmland designation. There is no adjoining
cropland that might be impacted by weed control herbicide applications.
Therefore this potential affected area will not receive further
consideration.
No other issues were considered and then dropped from further
analysis in this EA.
The decision of National Park Service administrators to use
integrated pest management (IPM) methods as the preferred means for managing
pests in parks and monuments was based on the following Federal laws,
regulations, executive orders, presidential memorandum; NPS policies and
guidelines; and state regulations concerning pesticide use.
National Park Service policy and recent legislation (National
Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998) requires that park managers know the
condition of natural resources under their stewardship and monitor long-term
trends in those resources in order to fulfill the mission of conserving parks
unimpaired. The following laws and management policies provide the mandate for
controlling nonnative plants in national parks:
The mission of the NPS is "…to promote and regulate the use of the
Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter
specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of
the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" (National
Park Service Organic Act, 1916).
"Naturally evolving
plant and animal populations, and the human influences on them, will be
monitored to detect any significant unnatural changes. Action will be taken in
the case of such changes based on the type and extent of change and the
appropriate management policy" (NPS Management Policies 2000). The Natural
Resources Management Guideline, NPS-77, 4:12 states: "Management of populations of exotic plant
and animal species, up to and including eradication, will be undertaken wherever
such species threaten park resources or public health…High priority will be
given to the management of exotic species that have a substantial impact on park
resources and that can be reasonably expected to be successfully
controlled." Removal of nonnative plants is acceptable under 516 DM6 App.
7.4 E(7) “Removal of park resident
individuals of non-threatened/endangered species which pose a danger to
visitors, threaten park resources or become a nuisance in areas surrounding the
park is acceptable, when such removal is included in an approved resource
management plan."
Current Department of Interior and NPS policies (NPS-77
Natural Resource Management Guideline and Director’s Order 77) requires each
park to develop and implement an IPM Program.
The General Management Plan, October 1979, for the Monument
states that "Where exotic plants occur as
a result of man's use of the land, causing natural growth and reproduction to be
jeopardized, rehabilitation programs should be implemented to stop the adverse
effect and restore ground cover to natural levels… The current program of
ridding the Monument of what Grant and Wheeler counties have classified as
noxious, nonnative weeds will continue."
NPS policy contained in DO 77-7 and Reference Manual 77-7
regarding the use of chemical treatment options (herbicides, pesticides,
poisons, gas cartridges, fumigants, over-the-counter treatments, etc.) requires
a yearly review and approval by the regional IPM Coordinator before any
treatments using chemicals may occur. The use of the approved chemicals is
reported and tracked through a NPS computer reporting system. Current and
cumulative effects of these chemical treatments are carefully considered before
approval and application of the chemicals may occur.Oregon state law also
requires that the Monument reports the name, amount, and location of use of all
herbicides applied each year.
Authority to use biological controls comes from National Park
Service Management Policies (2001, 4.4.4.1); "…an exotic species may be introduced or
maintained to meet specific, identified management needs when all feasible and
prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm have been taken, and is… used to
control another, already established exotic species."
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947;
amended by P.L. 92 516 (82
Stat. 973) and P.L. 94-140 (89 Stat. 751)
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 135 et.seq.)
President Carter's 1979 Executive Order requiring all Federal Agencies to
use integrated pest
management technology for pest control and to reduce use of toxic
pesticides
President Clinton's April 26, 1994, Memorandum concerning
economically beneficial practices on
Federal landscaped grounds
Secretary Babbitt's July 12,
1994, Memorandum concerning the Department of Interior and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Executive Order 11870 concerning Animal Damage Control
Executive Order 11987 concerning Exotic Organisms
Executive Order 12088 concerning Pollution Control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR 165) dealing with
pesticide disposal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Endangered Species Act
Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (29
CFR 1910.1200)
And Respiratory Program Standard (29 CFR 1910.134).
Guide for Pesticide Use in the National Park Service, WASO (Sept 1985),
and the Director's Memorandum NSO (485), 1985:
My authority to
approve pesticide use proposals has been delegated to the Associate Director,
Natural Resources, who is provided technical support by the Servicewide IPM
Coordinator in the Biological Resources Division. Regional IPM Coordinators will review
all pesticide use requests submitted by parks and act on those requests by
either denying them, suggesting changes, or recommending to the Servicewide IPM
Coordinator that they be approved.
NPS Management Policies (1978, revised in 1991):
The Director
shall approve the Service's use of all pesticides. Application shall be in accordance with
applicable laws, Departmental and Service guidelines, and Environmental
Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
regulations.
Implementing IPM practices in NPS field areas has been a Servicewide goal
since 1979. Information describing
the design, application, and evaluation of park IPM programs (and regulations
and policies governing them) are found in Chapter 2, Integrated Pest Management,
of NPS-77, the NPS Natural Resources Management Guidelines (also reiterated in
Director's Order 77-7 and Reference Manual 77-7). These guideline provides program details
under the following headings:
- Overview of IPM
- Components of an IPM program
- IPM Program Operations
- Roles and Responsibilities
- Report forms and directions for completing them
Additional guidelines relating to the park's IPM program appear in other
chapters of NPS-77, Natural Resources Management Guide:
Chapter 2: Vegetation Management; Native Animal Management;
Freshwater Resources
Management; Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Management; Exotic
Species Management; Hazardous Waste
Management; and Public Health and Safety.
Chapter 3: Agricultural Use, Right-of-Way and Easements, and
Backcountry Recreation
Management.
Chapter 4: Environmental Compliance
Chapter 5: Special Use Permits and Collections.
The NPS
Museum Handbook, Part
I, Museum Collections (revised September 1990) affords guidance on instituting a
museum IPM program, identification of museum pests, and proper actions to take
if pests are discovered in a museum.
The National Park Service pesticide review and approval process was
changed when the IPM Program was reorganized. The current pesticide review and
approval processes follow procedures identified in the March 10, 1997, IPM Re-engineering
Memorandum. One new aspect of the
IPM program for those parks having an approved IPM Plan is that pesticides
specified in the Plan are automatically approved for four years and do not
require annual re-approval. The
pesticides authorized for four year use at JODA will be found in the individual
pest description sections under the heading, "Approved Chemicals for JODA" and
in the comprehensive listing found in Appendix G.
The State of Oregon
requires Federal employees who apply restricted-use or state-limited-use
pesticides by any means to be licensed as a Pesticide Applicator or be
supervised by a certified Pesticide Applicator. Certified Pesticide Applicators must
receive at least 6 hours of approved pest management continuing education each
year to maintain certification.
In 2002, the State of
Oregon also put in place a
pesticide use reporting system that is required. JODA will report all pesticide
use as a public entity of the state.
The laws and regulations of the State of
Oregon which govern the general
use of pesticides are set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 634 and
Associated Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 603, Division 57. For a copy of the state pesticide
regulations and certification testing, contact the Oregon Department of
Agriculture, Pesticide Division, 615 Capitol Street
N.E., Salem, Oregon
97301-2532; 503/986-4635; www.oda.state.or.us/pesticide/info.html
and http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/634.html.
The Oregon initiative to
ban the use of body-gripping and foot-hold traps to capture outdoor wildlife did
not pass and agents or employees of the Federal government can use traps to
capture pest animals on Federal property.
For additional information, contact the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 2501 SW 1st Avenue, P.O. Box 59,
Portland, Oregon
97207; 503/872-5268 or the Oregon
State Police (contracted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to
enforce state fish and wildlife laws) at 503/378-3720.
Recent court decisions in 2003 included restrictions on the use of a
number of herbicides near waterways of the states of
Washington and
Oregon. These court decisions will
be followed until appeals or higher court decisions are finalized and changes to
the manufacturers labels occur.
Alternative A – No Action Alternative – Do Not Develop a Complete
Integrated Pest Management Plan.
Under this alternative, an complete IPM plan would not be
developed. Alternative A would involve the continuation of existing conditions
which meet the minimum requirements of Department of the Interior policy.
Individual Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices would be developed as
specific tasks or problems are identified related to Invertebrate Accidental
Pests, Museum Pests, Orchard Pests, Vertebrate Pests, and, ExoticWeeds and
Native Plant Pests. This alternative may result in the eventual preparation of
exotic weed, vertebrate pest, museum pest, and/or vegetation management plans in
a very piecemeal and time consuming process. Under the current management and
staffing, the Maintenance Division is responsible for invertebrate accidental
pests and those vertebrate pests found in NPS buildings. Tha Natural Resource
Division is responsible for orchard oests, the majority of the vertebrate pests,
and all of the exotic weed and native plant pests. The Paleontology Division is
responsible for museum pests. This alternative would continue the current,
uncoordinated efforts in using IPM measures on the various pests.
Compliance and documentation related to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) would need to be completed for each IPM
practice or plan developed under this alternative. All actions would fall within
current federal, state, Department of Interior and NPS regulations.
Develop An Integrated Pest Management Plan With The Complete
Range Of Treatment Options
Alternative B results in the development of an in-depth
Integrated Pest Management Plan with the complete range of treatment options for
Invertebrate Accidental Pests, Museum Pests, Orchard Pests, Vertebrate Pests,
and, ExoticWeeds and Native Plant Pests. Under this alternative, a combination
of inspection and monitoring, mechanical, non-chemical (exclusion, habitat
modification), chemical, and biological controls will be compiled, considered,
and utilized in a fully developed Integrated Pest Management Plan. This plan
will be made available to all management sections of the Monument and will be
the guidance document for handling each pest management situation encountered.
The plan will address management of invertebrates, museum pests, orchard pests,
animals, and weed control. All actions recommended therein will comply with NPS
guidance and policy manuals and regulations. The IPM plan will be updated
periodically to include new technologies and developments.
John Day
Fossil Beds
National Monument is located in an
environment that supports a wide array of native and exotic insect, vertebrate,
and plant pests. Control of noxious
and destructive pests is important not only for helping to preserve the park's
historic and natural resources but also for providing for the health, safety,
and comfort of park staff, residents, and visitors. The best approach for resolving pest
problems in the park is through use of IPM methods which combine the widest
possible spectrum of mechanical, physical, cultural, biological, and chemical
control alternatives.
The Monument proposes to prepare and implement an Integrated
Pest Management plan for a multi-year program. Action thresholds have been
established for all proposed IPM activities ranging from noxious weed control,
to pest management in the agricultural areas, to pest management for preserving
the historic buildings and museum collections, to dealing with human-wildlife
interactions and human safety. The IPM plan entails well over 350 pages of NPS
policy guidance, management strategies, scientific information on each species,
treatment options and information, and appendices of applicable information.
The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan for John Day Fossil
Beds National Monument (JODA) will
provide basic pest management guidelines to help protect the health and safety
of park staff, visitors, and residents and to assist in preserving the cultural,
natural, and scenic resources of the park.
Because new information and improvements in pest management technology
continue to be developed, it is imperative that this plan be reviewed annually
for outdated techniques or deficiencies. A thorough review and update should be
completed every 5 years. If substantial changes in control measures or
management guidelines are necessary, then the environmental compliance process
and documentation may need to be revisited.
During the process of developing this plan, best management
practice options were gathered from
experts within the National Park Service, OSU Extension Service, Oregon
Department of Agriculture, research reports, and private company product
information. The National Park
Service hired a private consultant to thoroughly review and prepare the options,
recommendations, and action thresholds necessary to address the wide assortment
of current and potential pest management
situations that the Monument may encounter. NPS staff have met with many
of the adjoining private and public land neighbors to discuss treatment options
and addressing pest problems on an area and even watershed scale.
There are four principal areas that must be considered as an
IPM plan is developed in order to have a comprehensive document. These
include:
Native Species
In accordance with IPM program goals (to protect human health
and welfare and protect natural and cultural park resources), native plant and
animal pests will be allowed to function unimpeded at JODA except where control
is necessary for one or more of the following reasons:
- to prevent the loss of the host or host-dependent species from the park
ecosystem.
- to preserve threatened, endangered, or unique faunal/floral specimens
or communities.
- to preserve, maintain, or restore the historical integrity of cultural
resources.
- to preserve fauna and flora in developed zones.
- to manage human health hazards.
- to prevent a significant public safety threat.
- to keep a pest infestation from spreading to other floral or faunal
populations
Historic Areas
Pest control in Historic areas/zones can be undertaken to
prevent a pest outbreak from spreading to uninfected floral or faunal resources
outside the park or to preserve, maintain, or restore the historical integrity
of significant cultural resources present during (or representative of) the time
of commemorated events. However,
consideration should first be given to the fact that the presence of a specific
endemic pest might be typical to a historical, pesticide-free time.
Exotic Species
Exotic species are those which occur in some given location
as a result of the direct, indirect, deliberate, or accidental actions by
humans. Exotic plant and animal
species already present in the park will be manipulated or eradicated whenever
such species:
- are detrimental to public health.
- disrupt the presentation or interpretation of historic scenes.
- damage historic and archeological resources.
- threaten natural features, ecological communities, natural processes,
or native species.
- interfere with the management of adjacent lands.
Any decision to control exotic species in the park will evaluate all
available alternative control methods, their probabilities for their success,
and any likely impacts a given control may have on park resources. The decision
to control exotic pests for any of the above reasons will follow prescribed
Servicewide IPM guidelines and, where necessary, will include provisions for
public review and comment. Extreme
care will be taken to assure attempts at controlling exotic pests do not
ultimately result in significant or unexpected damage to native species, natural
ecological communities or processes, historic objects, or public health. The decision to use pesticides as a
controlling mechanism will be made only as a last resort and after other IPM
methods have not proven to be successful.
Pesticides used will be of the least toxic nature necessary to satisfy
control objectives.
Museum Collections
Museum collections include documents, historic artifacts,
collected voucher specimens of plant and animal species, and other items that
can be impacted by rodents, insects, fungi, and other pests. Detailed and
comprehensive plans for protection, inspection, monitoring, and treatments are
an integral part of an IPM plan which includes museum collections.
Unacceptable levels of pest damage are controlled through an IPM program
by combining all feasible mechanical, physical, chemical, cultural, and
biological pest management methods in a manner that poses the least possible
hazard to people or the environment.
The decision-making IPM approach is cost-effective, site-specific, and
reduces risk. Unlike single methods
of pest control, an IPM approach becomes more effective because it combines such
tactics as inspection, monitoring, sanitation, exclusion, habitat modification,
and (only when necessary) judicious use of specific pesticides and lethal
controls.
The basic guidelines for the park IPM program have been described in a
nine-step process wherein protocols and written records are developed to help
prevent pest damage and protect park resources. The elements of the nine-step process
are:
Adherence to NPS policies.
Close adherence
to NPS policies to assure pest management actions, in whatever form
administered, do not adversely affect natural or cultural resources or the
health and safety of visitors or employees.
Involvement of all park employees in the IPM process.
Park staff familiar with IPM methods and objectives are able
to identify potential pest problems in the park, take remedial actions before
problems develop, and inform visitors or others about the beneficial aspects of
the IPM program. The park IPM Coordinator will take the lead to educate the park
staff relative to park IPM issues, concerns, and methodologies. The park IPM
Coordinator will coordinate the monitoring actions of park staff in relation to
landscape and structural pests. Park interpretation staff will carry the message
of the park's IPM program and efforts to the visiting public.
Pest identification.
Correct and accurate identification of a suspected pest is
essential for being able to obtain additional information on the species. This
often helps to explain the underlying reasons for a pest problem. All potential problem pests at JODA will
be identified to genus and, if possible.
Inspection and monitoring.
Inspection and
monitoring are basic to the success of any IPM program. Often, the underlying reasons for a pest
infestation becomes apparent during either the initial inspection or
pre-treatment monitoring.
"Inspection" refers to the initial
discovery of pests or conditions that may support pests. "Monitoring" refers to watching or measuring changing conditions
over time so as to be able to determine if pest populations are static,
increasing, or decreasing and to use those findings to support pest management
decisions and set injury action levels.
Monitoring is also used to determine the time and place treatments will
be most effective, least disruptive to natural controls, and least hazardous to
human health or the environment.
Monitoring (required throughout a pest management program) regularly
evaluates pest populations and their natural enemies, sanitation practices (the
availability of food, water, and harborage to pests), weather conditions,
and management decisions and
practices affecting pest populations.
All pest management measures taken at JODA will first begin with an
initial inspection to identify the sources, kinds, and extent of
infestations. The inspection will
be followed by a monitoring program that regularly evaluates changes in the pest
infestation or habitat. A combination of staff from the natural resource
(primarily landscape pests), maintenance (primarily structural pests), and
paleontology (primarily musuem collections) will carry out the inspection and
monitoring efforts at JODA. The IPM Coordinator will serve as the principle
director and contact for this effort.
Priorities.
Written priorities for initiating pest control (as based on
health, safety, or expected damage factors) assure disruptive pests (or pests
with high potential for becoming disruptive) are treated before treating less
offensive pests. The priorities
should be ranked according to the ease or feasibility of control, necessary
urgency of control action, and costs to be expected should control actions be
delayed. The IPM Coordinator will coordinate with JODA staff on the annual
reviews, rankings, and preparation of the written prioritization documents.
Action Thresholds.
The need for pest control at JODA will be based on
established Action Thresholds,
criteria which justify the initiation of pest controls. Action Thresholds are based on the
findings of inspections or monitoring and on specific biological attributes of
given pests. The principal
objective of the IPM program is not to totally eradicate pests (normally
impossible or very expensive) but rather to suppress or manage pest populations
in ways that keep their numbers (or damage caused) below the established Action
Threshold level. "Working" Action
Thresholds will be initially established for all pest species identified in this
Plan (see Appendix A, descriptions of individual species) and then refined as
information becomes available from monitoring programs and scientific research.
Criteria used to establish Action
Thresholds will be based on estimations or observations of:
- pest population numbers
- documented damage to natural resources or structures
- costs for repair or replacement of damage
- data generated by monitoring programs
- knowledge of pest biology (especially reproductive potential)
- scientific information from other sources
Integrating non-chemical and chemical control measures.
The decision to use a NPS approved, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)-registered pesticide, will only be made after all feasible
non-chemical controls (i.e., revegetation with native plants, biological
controls, mechanical removal of pest plants or animals, habitat modification,
exclusion, improved sanitation, pheromone traps, repellents, etc.) have been
considered, have been determined to not produce acceptable control results in a
reasonable time period, or the scientific literature strongly indicates that
pesticides are the only feasible option. Allowing certain species to become well
established while trying non-chemical controls can be very detrimental to future
control efforts or to the landscapes that are invaded. All pesticides used at JODA, with the
exception of personally owned insect repellents applied to one's own body, will
be approved through this plan or subsequent amendments to the plan.
Evaluations.
Periodic evaluation of pest monitoring data and other aspects
of the IPM Program is a key component of an IPM Plan. Such evaluation allows the efficacy and
environmental effects of treatment actions to be determined and helps to
identify possible modifications that would improve the program. All data derived from pest monitoring
programs will periodically be evaluated by the JODA IPM Coordinator and a
synopsis of the findings will be presented for Superintendent and park staff
review.
Records.
Detailed and accurate record keeping (inspection and
monitoring reports, photo records, notes of exclusion and sanitation measures,
park management practices, etc.) is fundamental to the success of an IPM
program. IPM records are used to
evaluate control programs, justify future treatments, and help resolve any
potential legal questions concerning pesticide applications. The IPM Coordinator
will ensure that field sheets are available for JODA staff use in their assigned
I&M areas and that all records are properly filed and stored.
The primary basis for managing invertebrates at the Monument
is to exclude them from the residences and buildings used by the public.
Maintenance and monitoring will be the key to this effort. The removal or
treatment of individual invertebrates or their colonies may be necessary for
public safety or to protect the Monuments resources.
A similar effort is planned for management of museum pests.
Monitoring for the presence of pests and maintaining the facilities in a manner
that excludes pests from the museum efforts will be the primary actions. Once
again, the occasional treatment for, or removal of, pests may be necessary to
protect the valuable resources in the museum areas,
The historic orchard within the James Cant Ranch National
Historic District will primarily receive only organic related treatments for
pests while fruit production is maintained for the public to enjoy. Only when
pest populations reach levels that impact the health and survival of the trees
will chemical or other options be considered. The continued loss of individual
historic trees to impacts from orchard pests is occurring and is addressed.
Through careful consideration and the use of various
non-lethal options, most native wildlife species addressed within the IPM plan
are managed only when a human-wildlife interaction causes a need. Actions are
then implemented that ensure the least impacts possible to the wildlife species
while preserving human safety.
Ongoing lethal control of native wildlife species will only
be directed towards northern pocket gophers and Belding's ground squirrels
outside of the inhabited buildings. Both are well established within the
agricultural fields in the Sheep Rock Unit and throughout their native habitats.
These fields are managed for their historic value within the James Cant Ranch
National Historic District. During periods of high populations, the rodents
quickly deplete the established hayland species and their extensive burrows and
mounds cause equipment damage to the farming implements and impact the survival
of fruit trees in the historic orchard.
Lethal control of native wildlife species found indoors will
concentrate only on deer mice and house mice. There may arise the need to remove
an occasional woodrat or roosting bat primarily by non-lethal methods from a
building.. The threat of Hantavirus is taken seriously within the NPS and large
concentrations of mice and their droppings are common within the historic
buildings and residences of the Monument. Exposure to rabies is also a concern
for both the employees and the public, so removal of those species that may
serve as possible carriers of this disease, from human use areas, is
necessary.
Nonnative plant management programs are of highest priority
at the Monument. These programs can be complex because each species may require
different monitoring and control strategies. Persistent seed banks, nearby
sources of new seed, and deep rooted plants often require control efforts over
many years to eradicate nonnative plants. Long-term management commitments and
consistent follow-up are essential for successful nonnative plant control
programs. Systematic approaches utilizing a variety of techniques with
consistent monitoring are key to effective control efforts.
There are currently over 80 species of nonnative herbaceous
plants (nearly 1/3 of all plant species) known to occur at the Monument (see
Appendix B). A majority of these are not overly aggressive in establishing
themselves, were introduced for various reasons during the past century of human
and agricultural use, or are limited to very small niches or areas (disturbed
areas, parking lot edges, trails, etc.). Twelve species of noxious weeds are of
utmost concern due to their existence in the Monument, their detrimental effects
on native plant and animal communities, and their high potential to spread
throughout the park. These twelve will be the main emphasis for control and
elimination actions. They are:
Dalmation Toadflax (Linaria
dalmatica)
Whitetop (Cardaria draba)
Russian Knapweed (Centaurea
repens)
Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa)
Diffuse Knapweed (Centaurea
diffusa)
Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)
Musk thistle (Carduus nutans)
Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium)
Medusahead (Taeniatherum
caput-medusa)
Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium)
Poison Hemlock (Conium
maculatum)
Russian Olive (Eleagnus angustifolia)
Twelve other plant species are of concern due to their
proximity to the Monument and high potential to impact the natural resources or
their current widespread existence in the park and their impact on the native
ecosystems. These twelve species will only be targeted for specific control
actions when they are found trying to establish in the park or when they impact
specific projects trying to re-establish native plant communities. They are:
Bouncingbet (Saponaria
officinalis) (currently small patches found in Sheep Rock Unit along
the John Day
River)
Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense)
(currently in Painted Hills lawn & the Sheep Rock/Painted
Hills riparian
areas)
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)
(currently widespread and well established in all 3 Units)
Chicory (Cichorium intybus)
(currently well established in the Sheep Rock agricultural fields
and riparian areas)
Crupina (Crupina vulgaris) (Not in
the Monument, but in Oregon)
Houndstongue (Cynoglossum
officinale) (a few scattered plants have been treated)
Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula)
(Not in the Monument, but in Grant County, OR)
Mediterranean Sage (Salvia
aethiopis) (Not in the Monument, but at
Dayville, OR
and on
surrounding
private lands)
Puncture Vine (Tribulus
terrestris) (In parking lots, along trails, and in historic Field #1)
Rush Skeletonweed (Chondrilla
juncea) (Not in the Monument, but in Grant County, OR)
St.
John's Wort (Hypericum perforatum) (Scattered in small
patches along waterways)
Teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris)
(Persistent in wetlands, riparian areas, and springs/seeps in all 3 Units)
Currently present or new nonnative species that may suddenly
show extensive establishment or new populations may be added to the IPM Plan
through a revision without further analysis through a supplemental EA of this
nature. This EA is reviewing the process and detail that has allowed the
development of the initial IPM plan, Action Thresholds, and Treatment
Options.
Four native species of plants may receive some control
treatments. Due to aggressive plant growth along ditches, the edge of
agriculture fields, and pathways, there may be the occasional need to treat reed
canarygrass ( Phalaris arundinacea) and hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum). Reed
canarygrass inhibits the establishment of native trees as they are planted
during riparian restoration projects and can completely choke off irrigation
ditches. Hemp dogbane is poisonous to livestock and thus must be kept from
encroaching into the hayfields. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) growing in
areas where human contact is possible may also need to be treated. Poison ivy
causes severe allergic reactions for some people and therefore is dangerous as
it grows in ditches and along trails where humans must walk or do routine
maintenance operations.
A fourth native species needing control is addressed in a
separate Fire Management Plan that was completed by the Monument in 1999 and
revised in 2004. It details an effort to bring the natural process of fire back
to the landscape as a control mechanism for encroaching western junipers
(Juniperous occidentalis). Junipers have greatly expanded their range throughout
the western United
States and the Monument due to the exclusion of
fire. In addition to the reintroduction of fire, mechanical or chemical pre-burn
treatments may occur on individual trees or dense stands of trees to enhance the
effects of the burn.
Inspections
The initial site inspection report is usually the first record of a pest
problem. The inspection report
should identify any pests present, the location or distribution of the pests,
deficiencies in the habitat or other conditions supporting the pests, the kinds
of treatments needed, and kind of necessary monitoring program.
Monitoring
An important part of a successful pest management program is
post-treatment monitoring (see Item III. Park Management Strategies, B. IPM
Process, 4. Inspection and Monitoring).
Monitoring allows for evaluation of treatment adequacy, cost-benefit
ratios, and guidance for future programs.
Where treatments are found to be partially or wholly ineffective,
post-treatment monitoring and evaluations will provide ideas for improvements to
lessen cost, make treatments easier or faster, and increase the permanency of
control. A need to improve the
efficacy of treatments may indicate the benefit of re-scheduling treatments to
different times of the season, year, or day or to make treatments at different
stages in a pest's life or activity.
All new ideas or alternatives that appear during control activities
should be evaluated for possible inclusion in the program. Records derived from specific pest
monitoring programs will address the following seven areas:
1. Purpose of the
monitoring.
2. Target or potentially
affected non-target populations being monitored.
3. Frequency of
monitoring.
4. Appropriate number and
description of sampling locations.
5. Monitoring
procedures.
6. Records necessary to
support future pest management decisions.
7. How to use monitoring in
evaluating treatments on both target and non-target organisms.
Additional guidelines for documentation of inspection and monitoring are
found in NPS‑77, Chapter 2, page 226.
The IPM Coordinator will keep completed inspection and monitoring data in
permanent files. Requests for
structural repairs to exclude pests will be forwarded to the Maintenance
Division.
Pesticide Use Proposals or Approvals
This IPM plan describes the pesticides that can be used on specific pests
for the next 3 years or until research can develop other control methods. Any year-to-year changes or additions
for species listed in this plan must be included in an amendment to this plan
and be submitted to the CCSO-IPM Coordinator through the NPS IPM website for
concurrence. At the end of 3 years, the park staff will review this IPM Plan
and, if appropriate, make recommendations to be submitted to the CCSO IPM
Coordinator for his/her concurrence and then request approval of the Plan by the
park superintendent.
New pesticides and pesticides for new noxious weeds not covered by this
plan must be individually approved annually through NPS IPM software by the CCSO
IPM Coordinator.
Pesticide Use Logs
All pesticides applied on lands or facilities owned, managed, or
regulated by JODA must be approved prior to their application by the regional or
WASO IPM Coordinator (through this IPM Plan or in writing). This will occur in accordance with NPS
Reference Manual 77-7 and Director’s Order 77-7 guidelines. This process will
ensure that the current and cumulative effects of any herbicide or pesticide
applied within the park have been thoroughly considered. The park will keep
records on the kinds and amounts of pesticides used during the year and submit
Pesticide Use Reports on NPS pesticide management software (PUPS) to the
regional and national IPM staff at the end of each year. Pesticide reporting as required by the
Oregon Dept. of Agriculture will also be submitted in a timely manner. The
regional IPM Coordinator will check the park Pesticide Use Log for accuracy and
submit the information to the Servicewide IPM Coordinator.
Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
Records of pesticide use, copies of pesticide labels, and MSDS sheets on
all pesticides used or stored in the park will be kept in the park IPM
Coordinator's office. Copies of use
records and pesticide labels will also be kept in the applicator's notebook and
in the dispatch office.
Pest Management Actions Taken
The National Park Service instituted the use of a nationwide IPM software
program in 1996 to facilitate record keeping and tracking of pest management
actions. That database structure
replaces the old Form 10-21A Pesticide Approval Application and provides a
format for tracking pest management actions and pesticide applications.
Pesticide applications are entered into the software at the end of each
year.
Cooperative Agreements
JODA does not have cooperative agreements with any agencies or
individuals that deal with weed or pest management issues. The park, however, may choose to gain
weed control advice from the Oregon State University Cooperative Extension
Office, Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, county Soil & Water Conservation
Districts, or the Grant County Weed Control Board.
Actions common to both alternatives were noted, though they
are arrived at through very different processes. Alternative 1 prepares
individual IPM practices or plans for each of the problem pests or pest emphasis
areas as situations arise. This alternative may lead to the development of
individual management plants related to pests, museum management, orchard
management, exotic weed management or vegetation management. Alternative 2
prepares a comprehensive IPM plan up front with all the best science practices
identified and a full range of options prepared.
Table 3. Summary of
Actions
|
Actions |
Alternative A |
Alternative B |
|
Vegetative Resources |
No change, possible
preparation of a Exotic Plant Management Plan or Vegetation Management
Plan |
Integrated pest
management plans to treat noxious weeds and a few pest native
plants |
|
Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive Plant
Resoucres |
No
change |
Best management practices
developed to protect these resources while treating pest
problems |
|
Wildlife Resources |
No change, possible
preparation of a Vertebrate Pest Management Plan |
Best management practices
developed to protect/handle
native wildlife in human/wildlife interactions |
|
Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive Wildlife
Resources |
No
change |
Best management practices
developed to protect these resources while treating pest
problems |
|
Water Resources |
No
change |
Best management practices
developed to protect these resources while treating pest
problems |
|
Visitors |
No
change |
Best management practices
to treat native wildlife in human/wildlife
interactions |
|
Human Health & Safety |
No
change |
Best management practices
for protecting humans from potentially dangerous human/pest
interactions |
|
Maintaining Structures, Historic Districts, &
Museums |
No change, possible
preparation of a Museum Management Plan |
Best management practices
developed to protect these resources while treating pest
problems |
This section describes the affected environment within the
proposed action area. Included are the conditions found based on existing
management strategies, resource conditions, and collected data in relation to
those issues developed from the scoping process.
Noxious exotic weed plant control has been conducted at JODA,
following standardized methodologies and pesticide product labels, since the
1980's. However, these efforts have not included the full spectrum of IPM
options nor standardized protocols that ranked and targeted species and
contained implementation, effectiveness, or validation monitoring. The principle
control option has been the use of pesticides on the various noxious weeds found
invading the Monument. For a complete list of nonnative plants that are known to
occur in JODA, please see Appendix B.
In accordance with NPS policies, the current and potential
ecological impacts of known nonnative plant species in JODA were examined. A
ranking system was modified from the NPS Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for
Management and Control. Nonnative plants known to be present in the park were
assigned numerical ratings based on current impacts to native plant communities,
ability to spread, and feasibility of treatment or management. Impacts evaluated
were: the number of populations, maximum percent cover, extent of populations,
effect on community composition and wildlife, and threat to riparian areas.
Ability to spread evaluated mode, cycle, and frequency of reproduction, number
of seeds per plant, modes of seed dispersal, germination requirements,
competitive ability, known negative impacts, and alleleopathy. Feasibility of
control evaluated location of populations, ease of treatment, response to
restoration procedures, and response to grazing. Based on the sum of the
numerical ratings, species that were likely to increase in density and/or
abundance within one year were considered "high" urgency. Species likely to
increase in density and/or abundance in five years were labeled "medium"
urgency. Species unlikely to increase in density and/or abundance in five years
were labeled "low" urgency.
For a review of the ranking criteria process and the ranking
of high priority species, please see Appendix C.
The following table lists the 12 “high” urgency , invading
noxious weeds, and their status in each of the units, currently found at the
Monument.
Table 4. Status of
“High Urgency” Noxious Weeds in the Monument
|
Weed Species |
Impacts to Sheep Rock |
Impacts to Clarno |
Impacts to Painted Hills |
|
Dalmation Toadflax |
Well established & spreading |
Not present |
Not present |
|
Whitetop |
Well established & spreading |
Not present |
Well established & spreading |
|
Russian Knapweed |
Scattered small patches |
Scattered small patches |
Well established & spreading |
|
Spotted knapweed |
Scattered small patches |
Scattered small patches |
Scattered small patches |
|
Diffuse Knapweed |
Scattered small patches |
Scattered small patches |
Scattered small patches |
|
Yellow Starthistle |
Scattered small patches |
Scattered small patches |
Scattered small patches |
|
Musk thistle |
Scattered small patches |
Not present |
Scattered small patches |
|
Scotch thistle |
Well established & spreading |
Scattered small patches |
Well established & spreading |
|
Medusahead |
Scattered patches |
Well established & spreading |
Well established & spreading |
|
Perennial Pepperweed |
Scattered small patches along river |
Not present |
Not present |
|
Poison Hemlock |
Well established & spreading along river |
Not present |
Scattered along creek |
|
Russian Olive |
Scattered small patches |
Not present |
Well established & spreading |
|
Cheatgrass |
Well established & spreading |
Well established & spreading |
Well established &
spreading |
*All estimates are for 2004
JODA encompasses a variety of plant communities distributed
over 2500 vertical feet of relief. The major plant community is primarily
sagebrush-bunchgrass steppe communities with areas of encroaching juniper.
Varied, smaller plant communities are common along the higher elevation
outcroppings; along the riparian areas, and on shallow paleosol soils around the
exposed fossil bearing strata. All are common to the lower elevation, semi-arid
(9-14 inch precipitation) lands found along the John
Day River and within
the Blue
Mountain section of the Columbia
Plateau physiographic region.
The exclusion of fire over the past century has allowed for a
great expansion of the range of native western juniper throughout the West and
within the plant communities where it used to be limited to the rocky bluffs
above. Its ability to thrive in dry environs, outcompete surrounding plants when
precipitation is available, and use copious amounts of water for its own rapid
growth have made allowed it to develop into a major threat to many of the native
plant communities that were historically grasslands or grass-shrub steppes.
As fire has occurred within the landscape recently, either as
wildland fires or prescribed burns, there has been a mixed response by the two
noxious annual grasses, cheatgrass and medusahead rye, to these fire events.
Depending on the health of the native plant community, the degree to which the
species are established at a particular site, the season and intensity of the
burn, and the management strategies in place before and after the burn, invasion
by these two species have range from forming nearly a complete monoculture to
just a few scattered plants showing up.
Long-term monitoring and careful use of fire as a management tool must be
in place in order to not promote these species into new areas. Aggressive IPM
tactics must also be developed before any native range seedings into
monocultures of these two species will be successful.
Fourteen plant species considered sensitive or species of
special concern under state or federal status are listed by the Oregon Natural
Heritage Program (ONHP) as occurring within the 2 counties where the
John Day
Fossil Beds
National Monument is found. No plant
species of endangered, threatened, or candidate status under the Endangered
Species Act are known to exist on the Monument. For specific information on
species status from the USFWS, see Appendix D. For a list of Species of Concern
from the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, see Appendix I
A total of 45 mammals out of 55 species that are expected to
occur in or adjacent to the monument have been documented. A total of 19 species
of herpetofauna are expected to occur and 12 reptiles and all 5 amphibians have
been documented to-date. Over 20 species of fish are expected to occur and 18
species have been documented during ODF&W fish monitoring activities on the
monument. As of 2003, 143 species of birds have been documented out of a
potential list of 144 that may occur. These species are dependent on native
plant and animal communities for cover and food. The loss of native herbaceous
vegetation to nonnative plants can result in a complete loss of wildlife from an
area.
There are currently 8 species of
non-native wildlife that have been documented on the monument. Chukars, bull
frogs, starlings, small mouth bass, and bluegills are the most common of these
species. Appendix B gives a complete list of non-native species. There are
currently no IPM treatments considered or planned for these species.
Excluding the extirpated species, nearly 55 wildlife species
considered sensitive or species of special concern may occur in the two counties
(Grant & Wheeler) in which the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument Units
are found according to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. Each of these could
be impacted by loss of native plant communities. The threatened bald eagle,
mid-Columbia ESU steelhead, and bull trout receive protection under the
Endangered Species Act and have the potential of using the Monument. One
potential species includes the
Columbia spotted frog which is
listed as a candidate species. It has not been found to-date on the Monument
according to historic records and recent inventory efforts. A number of bat and
bird species are listed as Species of Concern and have been found in recent
inventory efforts. For specific information on species status from the USFWS and
NMFS, see Appendix D. For a list of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird
Species Act that have been confirmed or have the potential to visit the
Monument, see Appendix H. For a list of Species of Concern from the Oregon
Natural Heritage Program, see Appendix I.
Nearly 6 miles of the John
Day River flows
through the park, while 1-2 mile segments of each of two of its tributaries,
Rock Creek and Bridge Creek are also within the boundaries. A number of springs,
seeps, and intermittent stream drainages are also present. Many of the noxious
weeds have been introduced along the John
Day River from
upstream sources and there is a great concern in the number of invasive plant
species found in the riparian areas and around spring fed wetlands. The Monument
includes a number of small watersheds and tributaries to the
John Day
River that are all being impacted by
western juniper. Changes in hydrologic patterns and seasonal water availability
are occurring throughout the John Day River Watershed and within the
Monument.
Visitors
The John Day Fossil Beds has averaged yearly visitations of
nearly 100,000. With the addition of the
Thomas
Condon Visitor
Center in 2004, this is expected to
increase. A majority of the visitors either visit the historic buildings around
the Cant
Ranch Visitor
Center or they use the picnic and
restroom facilities and hiking trails located in each of the 3 Units. All of
these activities can lead to common interactions with animals, plants, and NPS
management activities.
Actions associated with nonnative plant management have the
potential to adversely affect the health and safety of both individuals
implementing management actions and the visiting public. Mechanical control of
nonnative plants without proper protective equipment can result in injuries. The
spraying of chemical herbicides with out proper protective equipment can result
in health impacts, which vary depending on the method employed. Herbicide
applications can also affect the health of visitors if they are allowed into an
area immediately following treatment or are sensitive to a particular herbicide.
Public access to the historic buildings, visitor use areas,
hiking trails, historic orchard and fields, riparian areas, and public
facilities all have potential risks associated with human interactions with
wildlife, wildlife feces and nesting materials, insects, plants, and NPS
management activities. In addition, the safety of the Park Service employees as
they carry out their daily activities in these same conditions is also of
concern.
The Monument has a number of administrative and housing
buildings, the James Cant Ranch National Historic District, and an extensive
museum collection that are maintained for the public, NPS staff, and researchers
to use. With the addition of the
Thomas
Condon Visitor
Center in 2004, an additional museum
area and a greatly enlarged visitors area will be added to the list.
There are 3 park residences, 2 small Unit offices, 4 public
restroom areas, and a modern maintenance shop not included in the headquarters
buildings found within the national historic district. The Cant home, a modular
lab in the historic barn, and the blacksmith shop currently house staff and
their offices. A number of wooden historic buildings (chicken coops, privy,
bunkhouse, sheds, etc.) are maintained for interpretive purposes and as visitor
areas for the public to see fossil displays and era ranching information. These
all must be maintained as safe areas for public use or NPS staff work
activities.
In addition to the historic buildings, there are several
corrals, 2 cable cars across the John
Day River, a historic
orchard area, visitor grounds, and approximately 75 acres of agriculture land
that currently produces alfalfa and grass hay that are maintained within the
James Cant Ranch National Historic District. Over 3.5 miles of irrigation water
delivery ditches, a diversion in Rock Creek and three pumping stations are
maintained to irrigate the historic fields.
Currently the museum collection is primarily stored in the
new Thomas Condon Visitor Center Collections area and library. This collection
includes extensive numbers of mammal and plant fossils, a herbarium plant
collection, and many historic artifacts related to the ranching eras at the
historic district. Collections of moths, new plant herbarium sheets, and aquatic
insects are being added in 2004-2005. A large library of reference books and
scientific papers is currently located in the Cant Ranch house. A historic
display of early 1900 furniture, historic era displays, as well as components of
the original sturucture are all found within the Cant house. Complete protection
of these valuable resources is vitally important to the mission of the Monument.
The requirements to store, display, and protect this list of
structures, properties, facilities, and collections is very complicated. To-date
much of the care has come from the experience and dedication of the staff.
Besides referencing a number of NPS reference manuals, there has not been a
detailed or composite reference that could be easily accessed by all of the
staff for viable options and immediate solutions. One goal of this effort is to
meet these needs.
The following text
discusses the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives on natural,
cultural, and other resources of concern. It is very difficult to quantitatively
determine the degree of impact for most of the resources of concern, since a
broad range of IPM practices will be concerned and pest problems will vary
seasonally and yearly. Therefore, mostly qualitative descriptions of the impacts
are considered and used. Inspection and monitoring guidelines will be
established under both options and will be used extensively to determine when
Action Thresholds are reached and when treatments have been successful in
reducing the impacts from the various pests encountered.
As stated earlier,
the National Park Service has an important mission to ensure that actions taken
in the management of the park’s resources do not impair those natural, cultural,
and native resources. In relation to this mission, the following definitions are
applied throughout the environmental assessment:
·
Negligible – the impact is at the lowest levels
of detection
·
Minor – the impacts is slight, but
detectible
·
Moderate – the impact is readily apparent and has
the potential to become major
·
Major – the impact is severe, or if beneficial,
has exceptional beneficial effects
Please go to the end of each
alternative’s environmental consequences section for a brief review of the
overall potential to impair the resources.
In following both
federal and state pest management and pesticide use regulations, and, Department
of Interior and National Park Service policies and guidelines related to IPM,
the cumulative impacts from either alternative will be negligible to minor.
Individual native plants or small areas of native vegetation may be affected by
the various IPM treatment options carried out on exotic plant species. Native
plant, rodent and orchard pest populations that require IPM controls will
encounter local reductions in numbers following treatments, but populations
within the region and throughout the entire species’ range are thriving and in
no jeopardy. In most cases, their numbers have been found to quickly repopulate
in spite of every effort to encourage native predator and natural
controls.
Implementing Alternative 1 results in a poorly coordinated
effort using the full range of IPM tools as related to orchard pests and, exotic
weeds and native plant pests within the John
Day Fossil
Beds National
Monument ecosystem. Management of exotic and native plant
pest species would occur, but without a coordinated effort using an assortment
of tools to take advantage of all control options available for the species
until an Exotic Plant Management and/or Vegetation Management plan could be
prepared. IPM practices for new individual exotic species would be prepared as
they became troublesome.
Control of selected areas of native western juniper would
continue primarily through the reintroduction of fire and mechanical fuels
treatments as outlined in the 2004 Revision to the Fire Management Plan.
Consideration of the full range of IPM treatments and
practices that might occur related to orchard pests, vertebrate pests, and,
exotic weeds and native plant pests would not occur. There are no known
listed federal or state T&E
plant species currently on the Monument, but areas with sensitive or rare plant
species may be impacted as disjointed IPM efforts are carried out for the
various emphasis areas noted.
A detailed Vertebrate Pest Management Plan would need to be
developed under this alternative to enusre proper use of the IPM tools and
visitor safety.
Consideration of the full range of IPM treatments and
practices that might occur related to orchard pests, vertebrate pests, and,
exotic weeds and native plant pests would not occur. There are 3 known listed
federal T&E animal species currently on the Monument and a number of species
of concern. These may be impacted as disjointed IPM efforts are carried out for
the various emphasis areas noted. This could result in impacts due to the sum of
the various actions taken.
Threatened and endangered species would continue to be
protected in accordance with the ESA under this alternative. Sensitive wildlife
species interacting with humans and their facilities would not have defined
guidelines or action thresholds.
Consideration of the full range of IPM treatments and
practices that might occur related to orchard pests, vertebrate pests, and,
exotic weeds and native plant pests would not occur. There could be impacts to
water resources from the cumulative impacts from the various IPM practices and
plans.
Consideration of the full range of IPM treatments and
practices that might occur related to orchard pests, vertebrate pests, and,
exotic weeds and native plant pests would not occur. There could be impacts to
visitors from the cumulative impacts from the various IPM practices and plans.
Contacts between visitors and wildlife would not have established action
thresholds or approved actions and would be handled by individual NPS employees
at their discretion. Increased mortality of native wildlife or dangerous
human/wildlife interactions would be a likely result of this alternative.
Under this alternative, health impacts to employees and the
visiting public would remain status-quo or increase. Uncoordinated treatments of
accidental invertebrate pests, museum pests, orchard pests, vertebrate
pests, and, exotic weeds and native
plant pests may bring the public into much more contact with chemicals from the
various treatments or with the pests themselves. Without a comprehensive IPM
plan, detailed IPM practices or plans for all of the emphasis areas may not be
prepared for many actions that only occur sporadically.
Under this alternative, treating pests that are impacting the
maintenance of the structures, historic district, and museum collections would
continue unchanged from the current status. Pests would be treated as they are
encountered and monitoring for new pests would be minimal.
Mitigation Measures for the
No Action alternative: No mitigation measures for this
alternative were noted as the EA was prepared.
Cumulative effects associated with implementation of the no
action alternative are dependent on the Monument’s efforts in developing
individual IPM plans for the 5 emphasis areas or detailed IPM practices for
individual pest problems as they occur. With current staff and budget
limitations, it is not likely that in-depth and timely plans can be developed.
There is no irreversible commitment of resources associated
with this alternative.
This action does establish a precedent for future actions
which are similar in nature and that might have significant effects.
This alternative does not facilitate the use of a
comprehensive IPM plan. However, the monument must and will follow current state
and federal regulations and departmental policy in carrying out any IPM related
tasks and duties. Because the effort is not coordinated, there may be negligible
to minor impacts on the various native and cultural resources. Overall there
would be no impairment to the resources of the monument.
Adoption of this alternative could reverse most, if not all,
of the negative ecological effects described under the No Action alternative
above.
Implementation of the IPM Plan alternative would provide the
most efficient, widespread, and long-term control of invasive exotic plants.
This alternative can prevent the establishment and spread of pest plants and
allow plant communities, and the concomitant ecosystem functions, to return to
or remain within the historic, natural range of variability for
John Day
Fossil Beds
National Monument. The addition of
biological control methods to the mechanical and chemical tools used in
controlling exotic plants allows for longer-term and larger-scale rehabilitation
of plant communities than would be available with mechanical or chemical methods
alone. It also levels the playing field for the native species as host specific
bio-controls are introduced for non-native species currently not being affected
by the native wildlife, insects, and diseases.
Although the probability is small, the introduction of
non-native biological controls into ecosystems could cause negative effects on
native plant and animal communities. For example, spotted knapweed biological
controls could theoretically prey upon native species or displace ecologically
similar native insects. These concerns are addressed as biological controls are
extensively and thoroughly researched and tested prior to release for use in
native environs.
Control measure for individual western juniper trees or
scattered patches that would not carry fire would be prepared and treatment
could occur following the established guidelines of the IPM plan.
Mitigation
measure: Consider and select from a broad array of control components that
are used within the parameters of current regulations, NPS policy, and ethical
codes to insure the least impact to the natural environment.
Adoption of this alternative would reverse most of the
negative ecological effects described under the No Action alternative above.
This alternative would concentrate on preventing the
establishment and spread of pest plants into TE&S plant communities through
a concerted effort on those non-native species of most concern. Treatments would
be developed that would do minimal injury to each sensitive species while best
limiting the establishment and spread on invasive species. Areas with sensitive
species impacted by encroaching western juniper would also be managed to protect
the sensitive species and reduce the impacts from junipers.
Mitigation
Measure: Inventory sites for sensitive plant species prior to any control
efforts. In areas with sensitive plant species, herbicide use would not be
allowed. Treatment options would be evaluated prior to selection for their
impacts on the sensitive species. The least detrimental treatment will be
selected to control noxious weed infestations.
This alternative provides defined action thresholds for those
wildlife species most likely to have interactions with humans. This allows NPS
employees to handle these interactions, following carefully reviewed guidelines,
in a manner that protects the wildlife and the safety of the employees and
visitors. The action thresholds and treatments also allow for the exclusion,
monitoring, and control of invertebrate and native vertebrate species that may
threaten the health and safety of those working at or visiting the Monument or
the important resources protected by the Monument. Encroaching junipers
impacting wildlife communities would receive treatments as outlined in the IPM
plan to help protect the diversity of the wildlife species.
Mitigation
measures: Emphasize exclusion
of and monitoring for wildlife and invertebrate species rather than only lethal
controls in buildings where human/wildlife interactions could occur.
The environmental consequences to TE&S wildlife resources
have been considered extensively during the preparation of the IPM plan, its
action thresholds, and control alternatives. All control actions follow existing
NPS guidelines and Endangered Species Act regulations, especially as they relate
to the two known species, steelhead and bald eagles, which currently use the
Monument. Bald eagles usually are only winter residents when little pest
management is conducted. Due diligence is given to following existing laws and
regulations and manufacturer label requirements which should protect water
quality and steelhead habitat from pest treatment impacts. A number of species
of concern were added to the species list during the recent 2002-2003 vertebrate
species inventories. These will receive consideration before any control
measures are implemented in areas where they are known to occur. The NPS
implemented a research project in 2003 to identify the maternal and other
roosting sites for several bat species of concern within the Monument’s
boundaries.
Mitigation
measures: No mitigation noted. All control measures taken will not impact
T&E wildlife species.
The combination of control methods available through the
development of the IPM plan has a good chance of controlling and eliminating
nonnative plant populations. By carefully following manufacturer labels and EPA
guidelines, drift and leaching of chemical herbicides into surface or ground
water sources should not occur. Control of nonnative plants would reduce loss of
ground cover and subsequent erosion by maintaining healthy native plant
communities both on the uplands and in the riparian areas.
The use of various control options on native western juniper
would also have the benefit of protecting the hydrologic processes of the
Monuments watersheds and the availability of ground and surface water for the
plants and animal communities. Soils erosion should decrease and water quality
improve as native plant communities are able to maintain complex, healthy
stands.
Mitigation
measure: No mitigation measures noted.
Visitor enjoyment would be maintained under this alternative
as native plant and animal species would be protected and non-native species
would be controlled. The cultural scene of the historic district would be
protected, while allowing continued farming and orchard operations that are
vital to maintaining this scene. NPS employees would have defined action
thresholds and options to handle wildlife and human interactions in an ethical
manner.
Mitigation
measure: No mitigation measures noted.
Under this alternative, health and safety is extremely
important and is closely scrutinized during the development of each control
option as the IPM plan is prepared. Control options that minimize exposure to
Hantavirus or rabies, that reduce exposure to chemicals, and that reduce
human-wildlife interactions by excluding wildlife from buildings are strongly
promoted. The use of herbicides on extensive populations of nonnative plants
does pose potential health impacts to employees performing treatments and the
visiting public if they enter into sites recently treated. There is some risk
from inattentive drivers as weeds along the highways are treated. The IPM plan
allows NPS personnel to use the most judicious option that meets each specific
control situation, thereby enhancing the opportunities for a safe treatment.
Mitigation
measure: No mitigation measures noted.
Under this alternative, progressive monitoring for pests
would occur to detect pests. Action thresholds and a broad range of best
management practices and treatments would be developed to protect the
operations, visitor related, historic, and living quarter structures; the
agricultural fields and orchards in the historic district, and the museum
collections from pest damage. DOI and NPS policies and regulations related to
protection of and pest management in these facilities will be researched and
addressed.
Mitigation
measures: Proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is required during any
control actions related to the IPM plan. Chemical treatments within developed
sites will only be conducted during lower visitor use periods. Sites treated for
a pest, whether chemical or mechanical (i.e. traps), that have a potential for
visitation by the public or NPS staff, will be posted during and for three days
after treatment to inform the public of the need for treatment, the treatment
used, and any precautions. Only NPS approved herbicides will be applied by
licensed and trained applicators and all application rates and techniques will
be followed according to labeled directions.
No cumulative effects are associated with implementation of
this alternative, as invertebrates, museum pests, orchard pests, animals, and
weed control of nonnative plant populations are managed, monitored, and treated
using the most judicious options available at the time of the completion of the
IPM plan or during future revisions.
There are no irreversible commitments of resources associated
with this alternative. There are no irretrievable commitments of resources
associated with this alternative.
This action does not establish a precedent for future
actions, which are similar in nature but that might have significant effects.
This alternative facilitates the use of a comprehensive and
detailed IPM plan. It addresses all of the current state and federal regulations
and departmental policy in carrying out any IPM related tasks and duties.
Because the effort is coordinated between all disciplines and divisions and is
in one management document, all moderate and major impacts do not occur, most
minor impacts are avoided, and thus there will only be negligible impacts on the
various native and cultural resources. Overall, there would be no impairment to
the resources of the monument.
Scoping is an early and open process to solicit public and
internal concerns relating to a proposed action. Issues are generated from
scoping comments and used to drive the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process and determine the range of actions, alternatives and impacts to be
addressed. Federal Register Notice Vol. 49, No. 99 (516 DM-2-4), dated 12, 1984,
and NPS-12 NEPA guidelines require scoping of Federal actions.
The Monument has taken the following actions in its scoping
efforts:
·
Since January of 2001, comments and input have
been solicited from the various disciplines within the Monument as the draft IPM
plan was prepared by a private contractor. Additional information has been
solicited from the contractor and the NPS Regional IPM Coordinator for the
various alternatives addressed herein and on new species that have potential to
impact the Monument.
·
Information on the various noxious weeds, control
options, and herbicide options has been extensively researched by park staff
through reference libraries, contacts with the Grant County Weed Control staff,
contacts with OSU Extension Service and Oregon Department of Agriculture,
internet searches, continuing education related to maintaining Public Pesticide
Applicators licenses in Oregon, and contacts with herbicide dealers.
·
Information on various pest management options
have also been collected from the above sources on many of the cultural
preservation and human/wildlife interaction options available. JODA staff have
attended formal NPS IPM training courses during the preparation of the plan.
·
Contacts have been made with several of the
adjoining landowners to explain the various non-native plant control efforts
in-progress during the formulation of the IPM plan and to educate them on the
threats of the non-native weeds to their lands and resources.
·
Attended the board meetings of the Monument and
Grant County Soil & Water Conservation Districts in 2002 and reviewed some
of our exotic weed control. Have visited with staff from both districts on the
weed control recommendatiosn for private lands and on our efforts to control
exotic weeds within the monument.
·
Requests for lists of threatened, endangered, and
species of concern have been requested from the ODF&W (verbal response in
December 2002), USF&WS (Letter and species list dated November 18, 2002), and NMFS (Letter and species
list dated November 18,
2002). Phone contacts have been made on the status of ongoing
USF&WS. NMFS, and EPA efforts to cooperatively develop best management
practices and guidelines for use of herbicides near waterways.
·
Provided copies of exotic plant IPM strategies
that were being developed to Mark Berry, Manager of the Warm Spring Tribe’s Pine
Creek Ranch (a large landowner and neighbor to the Clarno Unit of the monument).
NPS staff then reviewed and provided comments on their draft Exotic Plant IPM,
as well as several dialogs on treatment alternatives and what had and had not
worked in the past.
·
The decision from the 2003 court ruling on the
use of listed pesticides near and around Northwest waterways has been
thouroughly reviewed. This impacted the use of a couple of the herbicides in our
toolbox and accordingly has led to the use of non-restricted herbicides or other
IPM tools within the designated 20 yard restricted use area.
Alternative B. Develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan
with the Complete Range of
Treatment Options is the Environmentally
Preferred Alternative and the National Park Service Preferred
Alternative based upon the actions most likely to control and contain the
spread of nonnative plants, to maintain the agricultural areas, to protect the
historic buildings and museum specimens, and to direct actions related to human
and wildlife interactions at the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument.
Kenneth J. Hyde, Chief of Integrated Resources
National Park Service. 1991, RM-77 Natural Resource
Management Guidelines.
National Park Service,
Washington Support Office
Washington, D.C.
National Park Service. 1979, General Management Plan -
John Day
Fossil Beds
National Monument.
Pacific
Northwest Region.
National Park Service. 1999, Resource Management Plan -
John Day
Fossil Beds
National Monument
Pacific
Northwest Region. Unpublished.
Kimberly, OR.
National Park Service. 1994, Integrated
Pest Management, Information Guide.Washington Support
Office Washington,
D.C.
National Park Service. 1996. Preserving our natural heritage
- A strategic plan for managing invasive
nonnative plants on National Park
System lands.
National Park Service and John Day Fossil Beds Reference
Libraries: See reference section for each
individual species in the appendices for specific documents.
APPENDIX A: Compendium Of Action Thresholds And
Pesticides for 2004 Through 2007
Once the comprehensive IPM Plan for JODA has been signed
and approved, the park will use the following (or revised) Action Thresholds to
initiate non-chemical and chemical treatments of the pests. Common names of
herbicides for use on noxious weeds that will be submitted for NPS approval
(using specific product names and EPA registration numbers) are included for
public input and as a quick reference sheet. Once reviewed and approved, the
specific products will be approved for use for a 4 year period through 2007.
Common names of the other pesticide products are listed only as a quick
reference. These chemicals will only be submitted for NPS approval and use on an
as needed basis when problem pests are identified through monitoring
activities.
|
PEST |
ACTION
THRESHOLD |
PESTICIDES RECOMMENDED
AND/OR PRINCIPLE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN |
|
ANIMALS |
|
|
|
Accidental Pests
|
The threshold for
taking action against accidental pests is subjective. It depends on the potential such
pests pose for damaging materials or causing health concerns, the relative
number of pests entering the building, and the tolerance levels of the
occupants or office workers.
The important thing to
remember when dealing with outdoor pests that accidentally enter a
structure is that those pests found a way to enter the building. The mere presence of an accidental
pest inside of a building should be the Action Threshold that initiates
inspection and monitoring activities to find and close access points to
keep other pests out of the building. |
Allethrin aerosol spray
(for flying insects)
Boric acid baits
(liquid and solid)
Boric acid dusts for
cracks and crevices
Diatomaceous earth with
or without pyrethrin
Methoprene insect
growth regulator (for prey of centipedes and
scorpions)
Pyrethrin contact
sprays
Resmethrin aerosols for
space & outside treatments
Silica aerogel with or
without pyrethrin for cracks, crevices, and pest pathways
|
|
Bees, wasps, and
hornets |
All colonies of
aggressive wasps, hornets, yellow jackets, bees, or other stinging insects
with nests located in or close to areas of high visitor use or otherwise
posing a threat to visitors or employees will be destroyed with
physical or mechanical means (heat, vacuum, freezing, etc.) or with
properly approved pesticides.
Immediate control
action will be undertaken for severe yellow jacket problems when 20 or
more yellow jacket foragers visit an open garbage can within a 10 minute
period and the public begins reporting stinging incidents.
Carpenter bee activity
seen in or near buildings will be the Threshold for actions to manage this
species. |
Allethrin aerosol space
treatments (for flying insects inside buildings)
Pyrethrin spray (for
flying insects)
Resmethrin spray (or
dust) (for outside treatment of honey and bumble bee
colonies)
Silica aerogel with or
without pyrethrin (for tunnels of carpenter bees and solitary
bees)
Wasp freeze chemicals
(without CFC's) (for wasp and hornet nests) |
|
Scorpions |
The Action Threshold
for scorpion control will be finding one or more scorpions in a residence
or office. After removing the
scorpion(s) a reasonable distance from the building and releasing it,
determine where and how the arthropod was able to enter the
structure.
Outdoors, there is no
established Action Threshold for scorpions and the arthropods will not be
controlled except where they pose an immediate or potential threat to
visitors or employees. |
Boric acid baits
(liquid & solid)
Boric acid dusts (for
cracks and crevices)
Diatomaceous earth with
or without pyrethrin (for cracks and crevices)
Pyrethrin
spray
Silica aerogel with or
without pyretherin (for dusting cracks and
crevices) |
|
Spiders |
The appearance of
significant numbers of poisonous spiders in buildings will be the Action
Threshold to justify controlling invertebrate pests (prey of spiders) and
spiders.
|
Contact pesticides are
not very effective for spiders; see
text
Boric acid dusts (for
cracks and crevices)
Resmethrin aerosol
space treatment
Silica aerogel w/wo
pyretherin (for dusting cracks & crevices) |
|
Museum
Pests |
The Action Threshold
level for pests in the museum area will be a single live specimen because
of the extreme sensitivity of museum collections. The presence of live insects
indicates an ongoing infestation that should be immediately investigated
and treated. Any presence
(adults, larvae, or cast-off larval skins) of fabric pests, clothing
moths, wood destroying pests, or stored product pests in the museum is the
Action Threshold for initiating an extremely thorough inspection of the
museum and artifacts. |
Boric acid insect bait
stations
Inert gasses (carbon
dioxide, nitrogen, argon, etc.) used for oxygen-depletion
sterilization
Insect growth regulator
compounds (fenoxycarb or methoprene) for fleas, ants, cockroaches
Hydramethylnon
cockroach and ant bait stations
Chemical alternatives
requiring CCSO approval are:
Poisonous
Fumigants
Carbon monoxide
Methyl bromide
Sulfuryl fluoride
Ethylene
oxide |
|
Orchard
Pests |
Action Thresholds are
developed by JODA to reflect the basic goals for managing Cant Orchards.
This includes protecting the health and longevity of the individual trees
from disease and insects with little concern for the fruit production. The
use of organic options is preferred with pesticides to be used only as a
last alternative when insects threaten the health of the tree. Specific
controls include:
Tent
caterpillars. Serious infestations of tent
caterpillars in trees over successive years can lower tree vigor. A tree may be treated with Bacillus thuringiensis when it
contains 20 or more caterpillar
tents.
Codling
moth. No Action Threshold is proposed
for treating trees with insecticide because JODA does not commercially
produce and sell fruit to the public. Phermone traps or organic oils may
be used during years of heavy infestations.
2-Spotted
mite. The evidence of small populations
of 2-Spotted mites will be the Action Threshold for applying superior oil
to trees in early spring to reduce mite populations. The Action Threshold for spraying
Omite will be when mites occur in dense masses on
trees.
Pear/Cherry Slug.
When
populations build (especially second hatches in August and September) to
levels that 50% or more of the leaves are defoliated (especially young
trees) then treatment with wood ash, washing all the leaves with high
pressure water, or use of over-the-counter insecticides are recommended
after all blooming is done. |
Bacillus
thuringiensis
Bacillus
tenebrionis
Bacillus
popillae
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccaride (gustatory repellent)
Diatomaceous
earth
Dormant
oils
Glyphosate
(non-selective herbicide)
Insecticidal soap
concentrate (potassium salts of fatty acids)
Nosema
locustae
Paradichlorobenzene
(for use around trees)
Parasitic
nematodes
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrum
Sulphur
dust
Superior
oils
Wood ash on very small
trees
Malathion retail
products after all fruit blooms have occurred & only for unusually
high insect outbreaks. |
|
Badgers |
Although protection of
native predators and biological diversity will continually be sought,
individual predators can be responsible for serious damage to park
resources. The Action
Threshold for managing badgers will be when a specific animal causes
repeated, direct damage to or under cultural resources or
buildings. |
No
Pesticides
Live trapping and
relocation of problem individuals only. |
|
Barn
swallows |
The Action Threshold to
dissuade birds from a nesting site will be finding that birds are
initiating nests in locations where such nests could cause health
concerns. This will primarily only be nest sites inside buildings or
directly above high-use doorways. |
No Pesticides for
swallows
For arthropods and
ectoparasite control under swallow nests
Fenoxycarb insect
growth regulator (IGR)
Methoprene IGR
Allethrin
Phenothrin
Pyrethrin
Germicide to disinfect
feces:
Pyrethrin-based
disinfectant and germicide
Actions: Building
modifications to exclude nesting in off-season
only. |
|
Bats |
The Action Threshold
for bat management will be finding bats or bat colonies inside occupied
structures or guano piles indicating long-term use of occupied structures
or visitor use areas. Live or dead bats discovered in public use areas
should be imediately relocated a safe distance to ensure that children and
older visitors are not exposed to a possible rabies
carrier. |
No
Pesticides.
For arthopods and
ectoparasite control under bat roosts:
Fenoxycarb insect
growth regulator (IGR)
Methoprene IGR
Allethrin
Pyrethrin
Germicide to disinfect
guano:
Pyrethrin-based
disinfectant and germicide
Actions: Building
modifications to exclude bats in off season
only. |
|
Beaver |
Beaver are native to
JODA. Control measures may be considered only when significant or
long-term impacts occur from individuals that burrow extensively in the
ditch banks, thereby causing flooding, or when dam building activities
flood valuable cultural resources. |
No
Pesticides.
Actions: Removal of or
modifications to dams in problem areas. Protect vital riparian trees from
beaver damage. |
|
Belding's ground
squirrel |
The Action Threshold
for initiating control on burrowing animals at the Cant Ranch area,
visitor areas or in the agricultural fields of the Historic District will
be:
finding, at any time of the
year, excessive rodent damage to cultural facilities foundations, wiring,
or other inhabited buildings or finding burrows under 5 percent or more of
the structures (i.e. buildings, walls, walkways, etc.) that could lead to
damage or human-animal confrontations.
finding 20 or more primary
burrows or mounds per acre in the agricultural
fields. |
Rodenticides:
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide gustatory inhibitor
Carbon monoxide gas
fumigation cartridge
Cholecalciferol (if
permitted by state)
For fleas in
burrows:
Pyrenone dust
Actions: Live trapping
and relocation.
Snap trapping in
burrows located in the agricultural fields. |
|
Bullfrogs |
The Action Threshold
for managing bullfrogs will be direct evidence of bullfrogs detrimentally
affecting desirable native amphibian or fish fauna or other wildlife. This evidence will be derived from
field research on bullfrog predation impacts. |
No
Pesticides |
|
Cat
(feral) |
Pet policies will be
strictly enforced at JODA.
The presence of non-controlled (un-leashed or un-fenced) cats
ranging in the park will be the Action Threshold for taking control
actions against the animals. |
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide repellent
Mustard oil and
capsaicin repellent
Actions: Live trapping
and removal from monument. |
|
Deer and
elk |
Frequent or costly
damage to ornamental or orchard plants or other cultural or natural
resources, threats of human injury, or threatening deer and elk found
around visitor use areas will be the Action Threshold for
control. |
Repellents:
Ammonium soaps or
higher fatty acids.
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide.
Coyote urine.
Fermented eggs (BGR,
Big Game Repellent).
Paradichlorobenzene.
Thiram (Arasan) taste
repellent.
Ziram
fungicide. |
|
Mice and
woodrats |
The following, Action
Thresholds for controlling mice and woodrats will be
used:
Outside Locations (i.e.,
near residences, official buildings or historic structures, etc.).
The Action Threshold
for mice in outdoor locations is:
Significant numbers of
rodent burrows in, under, or adjacent to 10 or more percent of building
walls or foundations.
Excessive damage to any
structure, vehicle or cultural resource at any time of the
year.
The Action Threshold
for woodrats in outdoor locations will be any damage the animals or their
nests cause to historical structures or cultural resources.
Inside
Structures. Inside the
Visitor
Center and other occupied
buildings, the evidence of only a single mouse or woodrat will be the
Action Threshold justifying control.
Rodenticide. Occasional use of rodenticides
inside structures may be warrented when large infestations become
apparent. Scattered droppings on the desks and in the offices, evidence of
chewing damage, multiple trails in the dirt under the buildings, etc.
indicate high numbers. Rodenticide baits should only be placed under the
buildings or in areas where deceased mice will not become health
hazards.
Trapping: Current science indicates
that snap traps provide the surest control with the least exposure to
conditions promoting exposure to Hantavirus |
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide gustatory repellent
Vitamin D3 derived
baits in unoccupied buildings.
Rodenticides available
to the general public from retail stores
Actions: Snap traps in
occupied buildings with precautions taken to reduce threats from
Hantavirus.
|
|
Northern flickers and
woodpecker |
The Action Threshold
for initiating control on flickers or woodpeckers will be when birds
damage non-replaceable historic buildings. Flicker or woodpecker damage on
replaceable structures will initiate monitoring activities and possible
exclusion actions. |
No
Pesticides.
Repellents:
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide.
Mirrors placed in new
holes
No control actions.
Scare away and repair damages. |
|
Pocket
gopher |
The Action Threshold
for gopher management will be the presence of: 1 to 5 gopher mounds in
lawns or the orchards or 20 active mounds per acre in the agricultural
fields. At this level they damage machinery, irrigation systems, building
foundations, native plants, tree plantings, or
orchards. |
Rodenticides:
Strychnine coated grain
baits applied by hand or by
tractor pulled burrow building,/ baiting machine.
Actions: Gopher burrow
traps for lethal control of individuals impacting park
resources.
|
|
Porcupine |
The Threshold for
initiating porcupine management actions will be individual animals that repeatably damage desirable
cultural resources, are responsible for causing hazard tree conditions in
areas of human use, or cause damage to several orchard
trees |
No
Pesticides.
Repellent:
Thiram
Actions:Live trap and
relocate problem indivuals. |
|
Rattlesnake |
The observation of a
poisonous snake in a visitor-use, park residence yard, or other area
commonly used by humans will be the threshold for initiating control
actions. |
No
Pesticides.
Repellents
Naphthalene and sulfur
repellent
Actions: Live capture
and relocate problem individuals. Rare cases where the animal is killed
when a threat to humans. |
|
WEEDS |
|
|
Weeds,
miscellaneous |
The Action Threshold
justifying control measures against weeds will be the presence of
non-native, noxious plants that cause damage to cultural or natural
resources or aesthetic values, are exotic to the area, or that have a very
high likelihood of replacing the native plant
community. |
2,4‑D and mixes of
2,4-D with other herbicides (for broadleaf weeds in
grass)
Clethodim (for grassy
weeds)
Glyphosate (contact
herbicide)
Pendimethalin (for
grassy weeds)
Triclopyr (for woody
plants) |
|
Bouncingbet |
The Action Threshold
for taking action on bouncingbet will be immediate action whenever it is
found growing to keep it from further establishing in the monument.
|
2,4-D
Glyphosate (especially
on green starts in the early spring)
Chlrosulfuron
(Telar) |
|
Cheatgrass |
Due to the extensive
areas with established cheatgrass, the Action Threshold for control will
be to control stands of cheatgrass in project areas scheduled for
reseeding to native plant communities. |
Glyphosate
Imazapic ammonium
salt |
|
Chicory |
Chicory in the
agricultural fields will be tolerated unless monitoring shows that it is
replacing all desirable vegetation. A combination of tillage and
herbicides will then be used to reduce the very entrenched populations.
. |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
|
|
Crupina |
The action threshold
for crupina will be the immediate treatment and mapping of any positively
identified plants found trying to establish in the park. Mointoring for
the plant will occur during weed control and monitoring activities for
other noxious weeds. |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Triclopyr |
|
Dalmation
toadflax |
Toadflax is a major and
very serious weed at JODA. Its ability to grow from the river gravel bars
up to the rocky outcroppings and establish in completely undisturbed
environs makes it a serious threat to all of the natural plant
communities. All plants found will be mapped and a yearly effort will be
made to have the staff, pesticides, and time allocated to control this
noxious weed. |
Dicamba (not close to
water sources)
Glyphosate (near water
and in spring)
Picloram (not close to
water sources)
Mixture of picloram,
dicamba, and 2,4-D (not close to water sources)
Mixture of
Chlorsulfuron and picloram |
|
Diffuse
knapweed |
Diffuse knapweed is an
aggressive exotic weed and the Action Threshold initiating control will be
any presence of the plant in the park. |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Picloram
Dicamba
Mixture of
Chlorsulfuron and picloram
Actions: Hand pull and
burn individual plants found. |
|
Hemp
dogbane
(Native) |
Limited control may be
necessary in order to establish new willow and cottonwood trees or native
herbaceous stands at specific project sites or hayfield edges. Monitoring
will be the primary action taken currently. |
2,4-D
Glyphosate |
|
Houndstongue |
Due to the potential
for the spread and establishment of houndstongue at JODA, treatment will
occur immediately on any plants found growing in the
park. |
2,4-D
Triclopyr
Picloram |
|
Leafy
spurge |
Any plants found trying
to establish in the park will receive immediate control
activities. |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Picloram |
|
Mediterranean
sage |
Immediate control
actions will be taken on any plants found trying to establish in the
park. |
2,4-D
Glyphosate (near water)
Picloram
Actions: Pull and burn
individual plants found. |
|
Medusahead rye
|
Medusahead rye is a
detrimental and aggressive weed.
Any presence of the plant in the park will be the Action Threshold
justifying control actions. |
Imazapic ammonium
salt
Clethodim
Glyphosate
Siduron |
|
Musk
Thistle |
The presence of this
species in the park is the threshold for taking control
actions. |
2,4-D
Picloram
Glyphosate
Dicamba
Mixture of
Chlorsulfuron and picloram |
|
Perennial
pepperweed |
Perennial pepperweed is
an undesirable, highly invasive, exotic weed and any presence of the plant
in the park will be the Action Threshold to initiate
control. |
Glyphosate
Chlorsulfuron
2,4-D |
|
Poison
hemlock |
Poison hemlock is an
invasive plant that becomes difficult to control once it gains dominance
in riparian areas. The
presence of monocultures of poison hemlock in riparian restoration project
areas will be the Action Threshold to justify control actions. Incidental
control will occur in high visitor use areas and good riparian habitats
while other weed species are being treated. |
2,4-D
Chlorsulfuron
Glyphosate |
|
Poison
Ivy
(Native) |
The action threshold is
the presence of poison ivy along ditches, trails, or pipelines where
maintenance activities need to occur and humans could come in contact with
and experience allergic reactions. |
Glyphosate |
|
Puncture
vine |
The action threshold
for control will be reached when puncture vine is found growing in the
parking areas, along the visitor trails, or trying to establish in
disturbed areas. |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
|
|
Reed canarygrass
(Native?) |
Reed canarygrass is
well established throughout the park. The action threshold will be the
treatment of reed canarygrass in areas being planted to native tree,
shrub, and herbaceous plants to allow for their
establishment. |
Glyphosate |
|
Rush
skeletonweed |
Rush skeletonweed is an
undesirable, invasive, exotic weed and any presence of the plant in the
park will be the Action Threshold to initiate
control. |
Glyphosate |
|
Russian
knapweed |
Russian knapweed is a
noxious and persistent weed.
Any presence of the plant in the park will be the threshold for
initiating control action. It continues to rank very high as one of the
most serious infestations. |
Glyphosate (near
water)
2,4-D
Picloram
Dicamba
Mixture of picloram,
dicamba, and 2,4-D
Mixture of
Chlorsulfuron and picloram |
|
Russian olive |
The presence of Russian
olive trees in the park will be the threshold for control actions. Russian
olive is extremely invasive and difficult to control as it gains
dominance |
Stump application
of:
Glyphosate
Triclopyr
Actions: Chainsaw trees
before stump applications. |
|
Scotch
Thistle |
The
Action Threshold level is one or more scotch thistle plants. |
Glyphosate (near
water)
Picloram
2,4-D
Dicamba
Chlorsulfuron |
|
Spotted
knapweed |
Spotted knapweed is a
noxious and persistent weed.
Any presence of the plant in the park will be the threshold for
initiating control actions. |
Picloram
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Dicamba
Chlorsulfuron
Actions: Hand pull and
burn individual plants found. |
|
St.
John's
wort |
St.
John's wort is an aggressive,
exotic weed. Any presence of
the plant in the park will be the Action Threshold justifying
control. |
Glyphosate
Chlorsulfuron
Picloram |
|
Teasel |
Teasel has become a
nuisance and in cases a monoculture in wetlands and riparian areas of the
John
Day
Valley and the Monument. The
action threshold is to treat teasel where monocultures have established or
in areas where native riparian or wetland plant communities are being
reestablished. |
Metsulfuron Methyl on
drier sites
Glyphosate spot
treatments near banks and standing water or high water
tables.
2,4-D |
|
Thistle
(Canada) |
Canada Thistle
populations will be monitored. Any populations found to be expanding or
impacting native plants or visitor uses will be evaluated and a course of
action decided upon. Treatment of plants growing in the agricultural
fields will occur to protect hay quality. |
Glyphosate (near water
or spot treatments)
2,4-D
Chlorsulfuron |
|
Western Juniper
(Native) |
The reintroduction of
fire as a natural process has been occurring at JODA since 1999. The Action Threshold for
initiating control activities, other than fire, will be on stands of
western juniper exceeding the 20% to 45% overstory levels that have little
understory to carry fire. Juniper stands near springs, seeps and in
drainages where noticeable surface and subsurface water reductions have
been noted may also have control actions identified. Areas with scattered
junipers where fire would have a negative impact on the native flora/fauna
or might accelerate the invasion of cheatgrass or medusahead will also be
targeted.
“Old Growth”
junipers that are well past
100 years old and have large or extensively branched tops should not be
treated, since they were established under natural fire conditions and
create excellent habitat for birds, cavity nesters, bat roosting,
etc. |
Picloram – Used only on
small junipers (<4’ tall) incidental to spraying noxious
weeds.
Actions: Prescribed
fire will be the primary tool. Chainsaw cutting of individual trees nears
springs, seeps, and sensitive areas or in dense stands to prepare ground
fuels may occur. |
|
Whitetop |
Whitetop is an
aggressive weed that chokes out other vegetation and creates monocultures
on wetter sites. Any presence
of the plant in the park will be the threshold for initiating control
actions. |
Chlorsulfuron
2,4-D (under dormant
willows & cottonwoods)
Glyphosate (near water
or under dormant trees/shrubs)
Metsulfuron-methyl |
|
Yellow
starthistle |
Because of yellow
starthistles ability to produce seed, invade rangeland and quickly degrade
plant communities, the presence of any plants is considered the threshold
for control actions. |
Picloram
2,4-D
Dicamba
Actions: Hand pulling
& burn indivual plants found. |
|
Hayfield
Management |
Invasion by the listed
species will be handled on a case by case basis. Treatments for spiny or
poisonous plants will begin when a single plant or small cluster of plants
shows up in the hayfields. Treatments for curly dock, field bindweed,
hairy vetch, and teasel will be determined after consultation between the
leasee and NPS natural resource manager. |
2,4-D (Broadscale
treatments of encroaching weeds)
Glyphosate (spot
treatments & prior to reseeding fields if needed to control
rhizomatous weeds) |
|
Exotic Plant
Species |
|
|
|
|
Scientific
Name |
Common
Name |
Est. No. of Acres
Impacted |
No. Acres Targeted for
Treatment |
|
Agropyron
cristatum |
Crested
Wheatgrass |
10 |
0 |
|
Agropyron
elongatum |
Tall
Wheatgrass |
10 |
0 |
|
Agropyron
sibiricum |
Siberian
Wheatgrass |
10 |
0 |
|
Alyssum
alyssoides |
Pale
Alyssum |
1 |
0 |
|
Amaranthus
graecizans |
Pigweed |
5 |
0 |
|
Amsinckia
tessellata |
Fiddleneck |
4000 |
0 |
|
Anthemus
cotula |
Dogfennel |
5 |
0 |
|
Anthriscus
scandicina |
Chervil |
1 |
0 |
|
Arctium
minus |
Burdock |
20 |
0 |
|
Arrhenatherum
elatius |
Tall
Oatgrass |
1 |
0 |
|
Asperugo
procumbens |
Moonwort |
1 |
0 |
|
Bassia
hyssopifolia |
Bassia |
1 |
0 |
|
Bromus
brizaeformis |
Rattlesnake
Grass |
5 |
0 |
|
Bromus
commutatus |
Hairy
Brome |
100 |
0 |
|
Bromus
mollis |
Softchess |
5 |
0 |
|
Bromus
rubens |
Foxtail
Brome |
5 |
0 |
|
Bromus
tectorum |
Cheatgrass |
8000 |
50 |
|
Camelina
microcarpa |
Littlepod
falseflax |
1 |
0 |
|
Capsella
bursa-pastoris |
Shepards
Purse |
500 |
0 |
|
Cardaria
draba |
Whitetop |
200 |
100 |
|
Centaurea
diffusa |
Diffuse
Knapweed |
5 |
5 |
|
Centaurea
maculosa |
Spotted
Knapweed |
5 |
5 |
|
Centaurea
repens |
Russian
Knapweed |
50 |
50 |
|
Centaurea
solstitalis |
Yellow
Starthistle |
5 |
5 |
|
Cerastium
viscosum |
Sticky
Chickweed |
200 |
0 |
|
Chenopodium
album |
Lambsquarters |
5 |
0 |
|
Chenopodium
botrys |
Jerusalem
oak |
1 |
0 |
|
Chorispora
tenella |
Blue
mustard |
500 |
0 |
|
Cichorium
intybus |
Chicory |
100 |
0 |
|
Cicuta
douglasii |
Water
Hemlock |
5 |
5 |
|
Cirsium
arvense |
Canada
Thistle |
20 |
20 |
|
Cirsium
vulgare |
Bull
Thistle |
5 |
5 |
|
Conium
maculatum |
Poison
Hemlock |
50 |
50 |
|
Convolvulus
arvensis |
Field
Bindweed |
200 |
0 |
|
Conyza
canadensis |
Horseweed |
5 |
0 |
|
Cynoglossum
officinale |
Houndstongue |
1 |
1 |
|
Dactylis
glomerata |
Orchardgrass |
50 |
0 |
|
Dipsacus
sylvestris |
Teasel |
200 |
5 |
|
Echinochloa
crusgalli |
Barnyardgrass |
1 |
0 |
|
Eleagnus
angustifolia |
Russian
Olive |
5 |
5 |
|
Erigeron
philadelphicus |
Philadelphia Fleabane |
1 |
0 |
|
Erodium
cicutarium |
Filaree |
200 |
0 |
|
Euphorbia
serpyllifolia |
Thyme-leaf
spurge |
1 |
0 |
|
Heleochloa
alopecuroides |
Helechloa |
1 |
0 |
|
Holosteum
umbellatum |
Jagged
Chickweed |
1 |
0 |
|
Hordeum
leporinum |
Charming
Barley |
1 |
0 |
|
Hypericum
perforatum |
St.
John's
Wort |
1 |
1 |
|
Lactuca
serriola |
Prickly
Lettuce |
5 |
0 |
|
Lepidium
latifolium |
Perennial
Pepperweed |
1 |
1 |
|
Lepidium
perfoliatum |
Clasping
Pepperweed |
1000 |
0 |
|
Linaria
dalmatica |
Dalmation
Toadflax |
4000 |
4000 |
|
Malva
neglecta |
Cheeseweed |
5 |
0 |
|
Marrubium
vulgare |
Horehound |
2 |
0 |
|
Medicago
lupulina |
Hop
Clover |
0 |
0 |
|
Medicago
sativa |
Alfalfa |
0 |
0 |
|
Melilotus
alba |
Sweet
Clover |
200 |
0 |
|
Mentha
spicata |
Spearmint |
20 |
0 |
|
Onopordum
acanthium |
Scotch
Thistle |
1000 |
1000 |
|
Panicum
capillare |
Witchgrass |
1 |
0 |
|
Phalaris
arundinacea |
Reed
Canarygrass |
200 |
5 |
|
Plantago
lanceolata |
Buckhorn
Plantain |
1 |
0 |
|
Poa
bulbosa |
Bulbous
Bluegrass |
1000 |
0 |
|
Poa
pratensis |
Kentucky
Bluegrass |
5 |
0 |
|
Polypogon
monospeliensis |
Rabbitfoot
grass |
1 |
0 |
|
Portulaca
oleracea |
Purslane |
5 |
0 |
|
Ranunculus
testiculatus |
Horned
Buttercup |
10 |
0 |
|
Rorippa
nasturtium-aquaticum |
Watercress |
5 |
0 |
|
Rumex
crispus |
Curly
Dock |
25 |
0 |
|
Salsola
kali |
Russian
Thistle |
200 |
0 |
|
Salvia
aethiops |
Mediterranean
Sage |
1 |
1 |
|
Saponaria
officinalis |
Bouncing
Bett |
5 |
5 |
|
Setaria
lutescens |
Yellow
Bristlegrass |
1 |
0 |
|
Sisymbrium
altissimum |
Jim-hill
Tumblemustard |
1000 |
0 |
|
Solanum
dulcamara |
Nightshade |
1 |
0 |
|
Taeniatherum
caput-medusae |
Medusahead
Rye |
550 |
550 |
|
Tragopogon
dubius |
Yellow
Salsify |
100 |
0 |
|
Tribulus
terrestris |
Puncturevine |
10 |
10 |
|
Trifolium
pratense |
Red
Clover |
50 |
0 |
|
Trifolium
repens |
White
Clover |
50 |
0 |
|
Ulmus
pumila |
Asiatic
Elm |
2 |
0 |
|
Urtica
dioica |
Stinging
Nettle |
25 |
0 |
|
Valerianella
locusta |
European
Corn-salad |
1 |
0 |
|
Verbascum
thapsus |
Flannel
Mullein |
400 |
25 |
|
Xanthium
strumarium |
Cocklebur |
20 |
10 |
|
|
|
15661 |
5904 |
|
Exotic Animal
Species |
|
|
|
|
Scientific
Name |
Common
Name |
No. Acres
Inhabited |
Control Proposed (Y or
N) |
|
Alectoris
chukar |
Chukar |
14000 |
N |
|
Cyprinus
carpio |
Common
Carp |
John Day River |
N |
|
Lepomis
macrochirus |
Bluegill |
John Day River |
N |
|
Micropterus
dolomieui |
Smallmouth
Bass |
John Day River |
N |
|
Passer
dometicus |
House
Sparrow |
100 |
N |
|
Phasianus
colchicus |
Ring-necked
Pheasant |
200 |
N |
|
Rana
catesbeiana |
Bullfrog |
100 |
N |
|
Sturnus
vulgaris |
European
Starling |
1000 |
N |
|
|
Current Level of Impact
Score (60) |
Innate Ability to Be A
Pest Score (60) |
Impact Total (120
pts) |
Feasibility of
Control TOTAL (60) |
TOTAL
(180) |
URGENCY (High, Medium,
Low) |
|
Whitetop |
53 |
55 |
108 |
17 |
125 |
High |
|
Dalmation
Toadflax |
55 |
50 |
105 |
19 |
124 |
High |
|
Yellowstar
Thistle |
27 |
48 |
75 |
47 |
122 |
High |
|
Russian
Knapweed |
37 |
60 |
97 |
21 |
118 |
High |
|
Perennial
Pepperweed |
32 |
55 |
87 |
31 |
118 |
High |
|
Medusahead
Rye |
48 |
44 |
92 |
24 |
116 |
High |
|
Teasel |
37 |
41 |
78 |
36 |
114 |
Medium |
|
Cheatgrass |
48 |
35 |
83 |
28 |
111 |
Low |
|
Leafy
Spurge |
25 |
50 |
75 |
33 |
108 |
None-High |
|
Russian
Olive |
31 |
47 |
78 |
29 |
107 |
High |
|
Rush
Skeletonweed |
13 |
51 |
64 |
41 |
105 |
None-High |
|
Spotted
Knapweed |
26 |
46 |
72 |
32 |
104 |
High |
|
Houndstongue |
16 |
44 |
60 |
44 |
104 |
High |
|
Mediterranean
Sage |
13 |
46 |
59 |
44 |
103 |
None-High |
|
Diffuse
Knapweed |
19 |
51 |
70 |
32 |
102 |
High |
|
Crupina |
13 |
43 |
56 |
42 |
98 |
None-High |
|
Poison
Hemlock |
34 |
38 |
72 |
25 |
97 |
Low |
|
Scotch
Thistle |
23 |
41 |
64 |
30 |
94 |
Medium |
|
Bouncingbet |
22 |
40 |
62 |
31 |
93 |
High |
|
Chicory |
23 |
42 |
65 |
28 |
93 |
Low |
|
St.
John's
Wort |
22 |
40 |
62 |
31 |
93 |
Medium |
|
Canada
Thistle |
23 |
42 |
65 |
31 |
96 |
Medium |
|
Musk
Thistle |
21 |
41 |
62 |
30 |
92 |
Medium |
|
Puncture
Vine |
9 |
35 |
44 |
34 |
78 |
Medium |
United States Department of
the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office
2600 S.E. 98th
Avenue, Suite 100 Portland,
Oregon
97266
(503) 231-6179 FAX:
(503) 231-6195
Reply To: 8330.0491(03) File
Name: Sp49.wpd TS Number: 03-426
Michael
Rees
National Park Service –
Denver
Service
Center
Division of Planning
P.O.
Box 25287
Denver,
Colorado
80225-0287
Subject :
John
Day
Fossil Beds National
Monument
Project
USFWS Reference # (1-7-05-SP-0013)
Dear Mr. Rees:
This is in response to
your Species List Request Form, dated October 7, 2004, requesting information on listed and
proposed endangered and threatened species that may be present within the area
of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument Project in Wheeler and
Grant
Counties. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) received your correspondence on October 7, 2004.
We have attached a list
(Attachment A) of threatened and endangered species that may occur within the
area of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument Project. The list fulfills
the requirement of the Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq. ). National Park Service (NPS)
requirements under the Act are outlined in Enclosure B.
The purpose of the Act
is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems on which they depend may be conserved. Under section 7(a)(1) and
7(a)(2) of the Act and pursuant to 50 CFR 402 et seq., NPS is required to utilize
their authorities to carry out programs which further species conservation and
to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species,
and/or critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction
projects ( or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) which are
major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42
U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the
Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to the Biological
Assessment be prepared to determine whether they may affect listed and proposed
species. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described in
Attachment B, as well as 50 CFR 402.12.
If NPS determines, based
on the Biological Assessment or evaluation, that threatened and endangered
species and/or critical habitat may be affected by the project, NPS is required
to consult with the Service following the requirements of 50 CFR 402 which
implement the Act.
Enclosure A includes a
list of candidate species under review for listing. The list reflects changes to
the candidate species list published May
4, 2004, in the Federal Register (Vol. 69, No.86, 24876) and the
addition of "species of concern." Candidate species have no protection under the
Act but are included for consideration as it is possible candidates could be
listed prior to project completion. Species of concern are those taxa whose
conservation status is of concern to the Service (many previously known as
Category 2 candidates), but for which further information is still needed.
If a proposed project
may affect only candidate species or species of concern, NPS is not required to
perform a Biological Assessment or evaluation or consult with the Service.
However, the Service recommends addressing potential impacts to these species in
order to prevent future conflicts. Therefore, if early evaluation of the project
indicates that it is likely to adversely impact a candidate species or species
of concern, NPS may wish to request technical assistance from this office.
Your interest in
endangered species is appreciated. The Service encourages NPS to investigate
opportunities for incorporating conservation of threatened and endangered
species into project planning processes as a means of complying with the Act. If
you have questions regarding your responsibilities under the Act, please contact
Kevin Maurice or Corissa Larvik at (503)231-6179. All correspondence should
include the above referenced file number. For questions regarding salmon and
steelhead trout, please contact NOAA Fisheries Service,
525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500,
Portland, Oregon
97232, (503) 230-5400.
Enclosures
1-7-05-SP-0013
CC' electronis
Nongame, ODF&W,
Salem OR
Sincerely,
K. J. Maurice for
Kemper
M. McMaster
State Supervisor
7 CFR
Ch. III
(1–1–04
Edition) § 356.9
PART 360—NOXIOUS
WEED
REGULATIONS
Sec.
360.100
Definitions.
360.200 Designation
of noxious weeds.
360.300 General
prohibitions and restrictions on the movement of noxious weeds;
permits.
AUTHORITY: 7 U.S.C.
7711–7714, 7718, 7731, 7751, and 7754; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.3.
§ 360.100
Definitions.
(a) As used in this
part, words in the singular form shall be deemed to import the plural and vice
versa, as the case may require.
(b) As used in this
part, the terms as defined in section 3 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2802) shall apply
with equal force and effect. In addition and except as may be provided otherwise
in this part the following words shall be construed, respectively, to
mean:
Department. The
U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Deputy Administrator. The Deputy
Administrator of the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department, or any other officer or
employee of the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs to whom authority has
heretofore been delegated or may hereafter be delegated to act in his
stead.
Plant Protection and Quarantine
Programs.
The Plant
Protection and Quarantine Programs, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
of the Department. [41 FR 49988, Nov. 12,
1976]
§ 360.200 Designation of noxious
weeds.
As authorized under
section 412 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7712), the Secretary of
Agriculture has determined that the following plants or plant products fall
within the definition of ‘‘noxious weed’’ as defined in section 403 of the Act
(7 U.S.C. 7702(10)). Accordingly, the dissemination in the
United
States of the following plants or plant products
may reasonably be expected to have the effects specified in section 403 of the
Act:
(a) Aquatic and wetland
weeds:
Azolla pinnata R. Brown (mosquito fern,
water velvet)
Caulerpa taxifolia (Mediterranean
clone)
Eichornia azurea (Swartz) Kunth
(anchored waterhyacinth, rooted waterhyacinth)
Hydrilla verticillata (Linnaeus f.)
Royle (hydrilla)
Hygrophila polysperma T. Anderson
(Miramar weed)
Ipomoea aquatica Forsskal
(water-spinach, swamp morning-glory)
Lagarosiphon major (Ridley) Moss
Limnophila sessiliflora (Vahl)
Blume (ambulia)
Melaleuca quenquinervia (Cav.) Blake
(broadleaf paper bark tree).
Monochoria hastata (Linnaeus) Solms-
Laubach
Monochoria vaginalis (Burman
f.) C. Presl
Ottelia alismoides (L.) Pers.
Sagittaria sagittifolia Linnaeus (arrowhead)
Salvinia auriculata Aublet (giant
salvinia)
Salvinia biloba Raddi (giant
salvinia)
Salvinia herzogii de la Sota (giant
salvinia)
Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell
(giant salvinia)
Solanum tampicense Dunal (wetland
nightshade)
Sparganium erectum Linnaeus
(exotic burreed)
(b) Parasitic weeds:
Aeginetia spp.
Alectra
spp.
Cuscuta spp. (dodders), other than
following species:
Cuscuta
americana
Linnaeus
Cuscuta applanata
Engelmann
Cuscuta approximata Babington
Cuscuta attenuata
Waterfall
Cuscuta boldinghii Urban
Cuscuta brachycalyx (Yuncker)
Yuncker
Cuscuta californica Hooker &
Arnott
Cuscuta campestris
Yuncker
Cuscuta cassytoides Nees ex
Engelmann
Cuscuta ceanothii
Behr
Cuscuta cephalanthii Engelmann
Cuscuta compacta
Jussieu
Cuscuta corylii Engelmann
Cuscuta cuspidata
Engelmann
Cuscuta decipiens Yuncker
Cuscuta dentatasquamata
Yuncker
Cuscuta denticulata Engelmann
Cuscuta epilinum
Weihe
Cuscuta epithymum (Linnaeus)
Linnaeus
Cuscuta erosa
Yuncker
Cuscuta europaea Linnaeus
Cuscuta exalta
Engelmann
Cuscuta fasciculata Yuncker
Cuscuta glabrior (Engelmann)
Yuncker
Cuscuta globulosa Bentham
Cuscuta glomerata
Choisy
Cuscuta gronovii Willdenow
Cuscuta harperi
Small
Cuscuta howelliana Rubtzoff
Cuscuta indecora
Choisy
Cuscuta jepsonii Yuncker
Cuscuta leptantha
Engelmann
Cuscuta mitriformis Engelmann
Cuscuta nevadensis I. M.
Johnston
Cuscuta obtusiflora Humboldt, Bonpland,
& Kunth
Cuscuta occidentalis Millspaugh ex Mill
& Nuttall
Cuscuta odontolepis Engelmann
Cuscuta pentagona
Engelmann
Cuscuta planiflora Tenore
Cuscuta plattensis A.
Nelson
Cuscuta polygonorum Engelmann
Cuscuta rostrata Shuttleworth
ex Engelmann
Cuscuta runyonii Yuncker
Cuscuta salina
Engelmann
Cuscuta sandwichiana Choisy
Cuscuta squamata
Engelmann
Cuscuta suaveolens Seringe
Cuscuta suksdorfii
Yuncker
Cuscuta tuberculata Brandegee
Cuscuta umbellata Humboldt,
Bonpland, & Kunth
Cuscuta umbrosa Beyrich ex Hooker
Cuscuta vetchii
Brandegee
Cuscuta warneri
Yuncker
Orobanche spp. (broomrapes), other than
thefollowing species:
Orobanche bulbosa (Gray) G. Beck
Orobanche californica
Schlechtendal & Chamisso
Orobanche cooperi (Gray) Heller
Orobanche corymbosa (Rydberg)
Ferris
Orobanche dugesii (S. Watson) Munz
Orobanche fasciculata
Nuttall
Orobanche ludoviciana Nuttall
Orobanche multicaulis
Brandegee
Orobanche parishii (Jepson) Heckard
Orobanche pinorum Geyer ex
Hooker
Orobanche uniflora Linnaeus
Orobanche valida
Jepson
Orobanche vallicola (Jepson)
Heckard
Striga spp.
(witchweeds)
(c) Terrestrial weeds:
Ageratina adenophora (Sprengel) King
& Robinson (crofton weed)
Alternanthera sessilis (Linnaeus) R.
Brown ex de Candolle (sessile joyweed)
Asphodelus fistulosus Linnaeus
(onionweed)
Avena sterilis Linnaeus (including Avena ludoviciana Durieu) (animated oat,
wild oat)
Carthamus oxyacantha M. Bieberstein
(wild safflower)
Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retzius) Trinius
(pilipiliula)
Commelina benghalensis Linnaeus (Benghal
dayflower)
Crupina vulgaris Cassini (common
crupina)
Digitaria scalarum (Schweinfurth)
Chiovenda (African couchgrass, fingergrass)
Digitaria velutina (Forsskal) Palisot de
Beauvois (velvet fingergrass, annual conchgrass)
Drymaria arenarioides Humboldt &
Bonpland ex Roemer & Schultes (lightning weed)
Emex australis Steinheil (three-cornered
jack)
Emex spinosa (Linnaeus) Campdera
(devil’s thorn)
Galega officinalis Linnaeus
(goatsrue)
Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier &
Levier (giant hogweed)
Homeria spp.
Imperata brasiliensis Trinius (Brazilian
satintail)
Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Raeuschel
(cogongrass)
Ischaemum rugosum
Salisbury (murainograss)
Leptochloa chinensis (Linnaeus) Nees
(Asian sprangletop)
Lycium ferocissimum Miers (African
boxthorn)
Melastoma malabathricum
Linnaeus
Mikania cordata (Burman f.) B. L.
Robinson (mile-a-minute)
Mikania micrantha Humboldt, Bonpland,
& Kunth
Mimosa invisa Martius (giant sensitive
plant)
Mimosa pigra Linneaus var. pigra (catclaw
mimosa)
Nassella trichotoma (Nees) Hackel ex
Arechavaleta (serrated tussock)
Opuntia aurantiaca Lindley (jointed
prickly pear)
Oryza longistaminata A. Chevalier &
Roehrich (red rice)
Oryza punctata Kotschy ex Steudel (red
rice)
Oryza rufipogon
Griffith (red rice)
Paspalum scrobiculatum Linnaeus
(Kodo-millet)
Pennisetum clandestinum Hochstetter ex
Chiovenda (kikuyugrass)
Pennisetum macrourum Trinius (African
feathergrass)
Pennisetum pedicellatum Trinius
(kyasumagrass)
Pennisetum polystachion (Linnaeus)
Schultes (missiongrass, thin napiergrass)
Prosopis alpataco R. A. Philippi
Prosopis
argentina
Burkart
Prosopis articulata S. Watson
Prosopis burkartii
Munoz
Prosopis caldenia Burkart
Prosopis calingastana
Burkart
Prosopis campestris Griseback
Prosopis castellanosii
Burkart
Prosopis denudans Bentham
Prosopis elata (Burkart)
Burkart
Prosopis farcta (Solander ex Russell)
Macbride
Prosopis ferox Grisebach
Prosopis fiebrigii
Harms
Prosopis hassleri Harms
Prosopis humilis Gillies ex
Hooker & Arnott
Prosopis kuntzei
Harms
Prosopis pallida (Humboldt &
Bonpland ex Willdenow) Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth
Prosopis palmeri S. Watson
Prosopis reptans Bentham var.
reptans
Prosopis rojasiana Burkart
Prosopis ruizlealii
Burkart
Prosopis ruscifolia Grisebach
Prosopis sericantha Gillies ex
Hooker & Arnott
Prosopis strombulifera (Lamarck)
Bentham
Prosopis torquata (Cavanilles ex Lagasca
y Segura) de Candolle
Rottboellia cochinchinensis (Lour.) W.
Clayton
Rubus fruticosus Linnaeus (complex)
(wild blackberry)
Rubus moluccanus Linnaeus (wild
raspberry)
Saccharum spontaneum Linnaeus (wild
sugarcane)
Salsola vermiculata Linnaeus (wormleaf
salsola)
Setaria pallide-fusca (Schumacher) Stapf
& Hubbard (cattail grass)
Solanum torvum Swartz (turkeyberry)
Solanum viarum Dunal (tropical
soda apple)
Spermacoce alata (Aublet) de
Candolle
Tridax procumbens Linnaeus (coat
buttons)
Urochloa panicoides Beauvois (liverseed
grass)
[48 FR 20039,
May 4, 1983, as amended at 49
FR 25223,
June 20, 1984; 57 FR 8838, Mar. 13,
1992; 60 FR 35832,
July 12, 1995; 64 FR 12883,
Mar.
16, 1999; 65 FR
33743, May 25, 2000; 66 FR 21060, Apr. 27,
2001]
Once
the comprehensive IPM Plan for JODA has been signed and approved by all parties,
the park has NPS approval to use the following pesticides for a period of
4-years following the Plan approval date.
After that date, the Plan must be reviewed and re-approved before these
or additional pesticides can be used.
|
PEST |
PESTICIDE AND
USE |
|
INVERTEBRATE
PESTS |
|
Accidental Pests
|
Allethrin aerosol spray
(for flying insects)
Boric acid baits
(liquid and solid)
Boric acid dusts for
cracks and crevices
Diatomaceous earth with
or without pyrethrin
Fenoxycarb insect
growth regulator (for prey of centipedes and
scorpions)
Hydramethylnon baits
(for prey of centipedes and scorpions)
Malathion spray (for
boxelder bugs on trees)
Methoprene insect
growth regulator (for prey of centipedes and
scorpions)
Pyrethrin contact
sprays
Resmethrin aerosols for
space treatments and outside applications
Silica aerogel with or
without pyrethrin for cracks, crevices, and pest pathways
|
|
Bees, wasps, and
hornets |
Allethrin aerosol space
treatments (for flying insects inside buildings)
Pyrethrin spray (for
flying insects)
Resmethrin spray (or
dust) (for outside treatment of honey and bumble bee
colonies)
Silica aerogel with or
without pyrethrin (for tunnels of carpenter bees and solitary
bees)
Wasp freeze chemicals
(without CFC's) (for wasp and hornet nests) |
|
Scorpions |
Boric acid baits
(liquid & solid)
Boric acid dusts (for
cracks and crevices)
Diatomaceous earth with
or without pyrethrin (for cracks and crevices)
Pyrethrin
spray
Silica aerogel with or
without pyretherin (for dusting cracks and
crevices) |
|
Spiders |
Contact pesticides are
not very effective for spiders; see
text
Boric acid dusts (for
cracks and crevices)
Resmethrin aerosol
space treatment
Silica aerogel with or
without pyretherin (for dusting cracks and
crevices) |
|
MUSEUM
PESTS |
|
Museum
Pests |
Boric acid insect bait
stations
Inert gasses (carbon
dioxide, nitrogen, argon, etc.) used for oxygen-depletion
sterilization
Insect growth regulator
compounds (fenoxycarb or methoprene) for fleas, ants, cockroaches
Hydramethylnon
cockroach and ant bait stations
Chemical alternatives
requiring CCSO approval are:
Poisonous
Fumigants
Carbon monoxide
Methyl bromide
Sulfuryl fluoride
Ethylene
oxide |
|
ORCHARD
PESTS |
|
Orchard
Pests |
Allethrin
Bacillus
thuringiensis
Bacillus
tenebrionis
Bacillus
popillae
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccaride (gustatory repellent)
Carbon monoxide gas
cartridge (for burrowing rodents)
Diatomaceous
earth
Dormant
oils
Fenoxycarb
Glufosinate ammonium
(non-selective herbicide)
Glyphosate
(non-selective herbicide)
Hydramethylnon
Insecticidal soap
concentrate (potassium salts of fatty acids)
DEET
(N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide; personal insect repellent)
Malathion from retail
stores – (for pear slugs and unusual insect outbreaks after all blooms
have occurred only)
Nosema
locustae
Paradichlorobenzene
(for use around trees)
Parasitic
nematodes
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrum
Resmethrin
Silica aerogel with or
without pyrethrin
Sulphur
dust
Superior
oils
Trichlomonofluoromethane
("Wasp Freeze" for wasp nests) |
|
VERTEBRATE PESTS |
|
Badgers |
None |
|
Barn
swallows |
None for
swallows
For arthropods and
ectoparasite control under swallow nests
Allethrin
Fenoxycarb insect
growth regulator (IGR)
Methoprene
IGR
Phenothrin
Pyrethrin
Germicide to disinfect
feces:
Pyrethrin-based
disinfectant and germicide |
|
Bats |
None for
bats
For arthopods and
ectoparasite control under bat roosts:
Allethrin
Fenoxycarb insect
growth regulator (IGR)
Methoprene
IGR
Pyrethrin
Germicide to disinfect
guano:
Pyrethrin-based
disinfectant and germicide |
|
Beaver |
None |
|
Belding's ground
squirrel |
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide gustatory inhibitor
Carbon monoxide gas
fumigation cartridge
Cholecalciferol (if
permitted by state)
Coyote and fox urine
repellent
Mustard oil and
capsaicin repellent
Neutroleum alpha, odor
eliminator
Tertbutylselfenyldimethyldithiocarbamate
gustatory repellent
For fleas in
burrows:
Fenoxycarb
(IGR)
Flea powder,
commercial
Hypochlorite (household
bleach) sanitizer
Methoprene (IGR)
Pyrenone dust
Pyrethrum contact
sprays
Silica aerogel with or
without pyrethrin |
|
Bullfrogs |
None |
|
Cat
(feral) |
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide repellent
Mustard oil and
capsaicin repellent
|
|
Deer and
elk |
Repellents:
Ammonium soaps or
higher fatty acids.
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide.
Coyote urine.
Fermented eggs (BGR,
Big Game Repellent).
Paradichlorobenzene.
Thiram (Arasan) taste
repellent.
Ziram
fungicide. |
|
Mice and
woodrats |
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide gustatory repellent |
|
Northern flickers and
woodpecker |
None.
Repellents:
Benzyldiethyl methyl
ammonium saccharide. |
|
Pocket
gopher |
None |
|
Porcupine |
None
Repellent:
Thiram |
|
Rattlesnake |
None
Repellents
Naphthalene and sulfur
repellent |
|
|
|
|
PLANT
PESTS |
|
Weeds,
miscellaneous |
2,4‑D and mixes of
2,4-D with other herbicides (for broadleaf weeds in
grass)
Clethodim (for grassy
weeds)
Glyphosate
Pendimethalin (for
grassy weeds)
Siduron (for annual
grasses in grass)
Triclopyr (for woody
plants) |
|
Bouncingbet |
2,4-D
Glyphosate (especially
on green starts in the early spring)
Chlorsulfuron |
|
Cheatgrass |
Glyphosate
Imazapic ammonium
salt |
|
Chicory |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Triclopyr |
|
Crupina |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Triclopyr |
|
Dalmation
toadflax |
Dicamba (not close to
water sources)
Glyphosate
Picloram (not close to
water sources)
Mixture of picloram,
dicamba, and 2,4-D (not close to water sources)
Mixture of
Chlorsulfuron and picloram
|
|
Diffuse
knapweed |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Picloram |
|
Hemp
dogbane |
2,4-D
Glyphosate |
|
Houndstongue |
2,4-D
Triclopyr
Picloram |
|
Leafy
spurge |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Picloram |
|
Mediterranean
sage |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Picloram |
|
Medusahead
rye |
Imazapic ammonium
salt
Clethodim
Glyphosate
Siduron |
|
Perennial
pepperweed |
Glyphosate
Triclopyr |
|
Poison
hemlock |
2,4-D
Glyphosate |
|
Puncture
vine |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
Pendimethalin |
|
Reed
canarygrass |
Glyphosate |
|
Rush
skeletonweed |
Glyphosate |
|
Russian
knapweed |
Glyphosate
Mixture of picloram,
dicamba, and 2,4-D (not close to water sources)
Mixture of
Chlorsulfuron and picloram |
|
Russian
olive |
Stump
application of:
Glyphosate
Triclopyr |
|
Spotted
knapweed |
Picloram
2,4-D
Glyphosate |
|
St.
John's
wort |
Glyphosate
Picloram |
|
Thistle
(Canada) |
Glyphosate |
|
Whitetop |
2,4-D
Glyphosate
(experimentally)
Metsulfuron-methyl |
|
Yellow
starthistle |
Picloram
2,4-D
Clopyralid |
