Attached, is a job opening at Arnold Air Force Base Tennessee.  The surrounding communities are; Tullahoma, Manchester, and Winchester, TN.

For more info Contact:

Faye Mathews

931.454.6143   
faye.mathews@...
MS-2208
100 Kindel Dr., Suite B208
Arnold AFB, TN 37389-2208

<<TECH SPEC 2 SS4 1152.doc>>

Kevin C. Fitch

Plant Ecologist

AEDC Conservation
1103 Ave. B
Arnold AFB, TN 37389-1800
P:931.454.6313
F:931.454.5126
E:kevin.fitch@...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Book in Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration Series
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

GREAT BASIN RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS
Ecology, Management, and Restoration
Edited by Jeanne C. Chambers, Jerry R. Miller

Established by the USDA Forest Service in 1993, the Great Basin
Ecosystem Management Project for Restoring and Maintaining Sustainable
Riparian Ecosystems is a large-scale research study that uses an
interdisciplinary approach to examine the effects of climate change
and human disturbance on riparian areas.

The book, GREAT BASIN RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS, edited by Jeanne C.
Chambers and Jerry R. Miller, presents the approach used by the
researchers to study and understand riparian areas in the Great Basin
region. It summarizes the current state of knowledge about those areas
and provides insights into the use of the information generated by the
project for the restoration and management of riparian ecosystems.

GREAT BASIN RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS addresses restoration over a variety
of scales and integrates work from multiple disciplines, including
riparian ecology, paleoecology, geomorphology, and hydrology. While
the focus is on the Great Basin, the general approach is widely
applicable, as it describes a promising new strategy for developing
restoration and management plans, one based on sound principles
derived from attention to natural systems.

For more information, go to:
http://www.islandpress.org/books/detail.html?SKU=1-55963-987-3


Susan Shoup Soldavin
Electronic Marketing Coordinator
Island Press
1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20009
202-232-7933 x26, fax: 202-234-1328
ssoldavin@...
www.islandpress.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jil_Swearingen@...>
To: <apwg@...>; <ma-eppc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:10 PM
Subject: [ma-eppc] Fw: Midwest Invasive Plant Network Coordinator - Job
Opening


>
>
>
>
> Please refer to message below.
> Thank you.
> Jil
>
> ----- Forwarded by Jil Swearingen/NCR/NPS on 05/20/2004 03:07 PM -----
>
>                       karen brown
>                       <kpb@...        To:
<fleppc@...>
>                       l.edu>                   cc:       (bcc: Jil
Swearingen/NCR/NPS)
>                       Sent by:                 Subject:  Midwest Invasive
Plant Network Coordinator - Job Opening
>                       FLEPPC-owner@flep
>                       pc.org
>
>
>                       05/19/2004 02:36
>                       PM AST
>

>
>
>
>
> Please share broadly.   A new position hosted by the Nature Conservancy
> with partial funding from Region 9 to support a Coordinator for the
Midwest
> Invasive Plant Network.  An exciting position!
> _________________________________
>
> Nancy Lizette Berlin
> Non-native Invasive Species & Botany Program Manager
> USDA Forest Service Eastern Region
> 626 East Wisconsin Avenue
> Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53202
>
> nberlin@...
> 414.297.1868  FAX: 414.944.3963
> _________________________________
>
> Attached is a job description for the Midwest Invasive Plant Network
> Coordinator.  The position will be hosted by The Nature Conservancy, and
> will work directly with the steering committee of the Midwest Invasive
> Plant Network.  Please forward this to anyone who might be interested -
> thanks.
>
> Ellen M. Jacquart
> Director of Stewardship
> Indiana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy
> 1505 N. Delaware St. #200
> Indianapolis, IN  46202
> 317-951-8818
> ejacquart@...
> (See attached file: MIPN Coordinator Job Description.doc)
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to
> ma-eppc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> For problems or questions about the list, write to
> ma-eppc-owner@egroups.com (Messages sent to ma-eppc@egroups.com go to the
whole list.)
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Please respond directly to Clare if you have any suggestions or models from
other states. Thank you!

Lisa L. Smith
Ecological Consultant
286 Stoneylonesome Rd.
Stahlstown, PA  15687
wildflower@...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clare Hydock" <chydock@...>
To: <Gary.L.Clement@...>
Cc: <abradford@...>; <aeg2@...>; <amoore02@...>;
<anross@...>; <block@...>; <c-jfuller@...>;
<cfirestone@...>; <deggen@...>;
<Gary.L.Clement@...>; <jdemko@...>;
<jeff@...>; <jim@...>; <jmiele@...>;
<jwhaley@...>; <kbergner@...>; <kmckenna@...>;
<ksewak@...>; <kvalley@...>;
<lnicholas@...>; <mwertz@...>; <pennag@...>;
<ppingel@...>; <rhoadsaf@...>; <thall@...>;
<Timothy_E._Newcamp@...>; <waadams@...>;
<wayne_millington@...>; <wildflower@...>;
<wpeechatka@...>; <wsc2@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:38 AM
Subject: weed free top soil?


>
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
> In case I haven't met everyone yet, I'm the Botanist on the Allegheny
> National Forest.  I have a question I hope you can help me with.  This is
> something I have never dealt with in my career - so it's a great learning
> opportunity!
>
> On Monday, May 17, a tanker truck carrying about 7500 gallons of Kensol 30
> (chemical name petroleum hydrocarbon) consisting of a 100% solution of
> Stoddard Solvent, overturned on Highway 59, west of the Bradford Ranger
> District office.  Approximately 7400 gallons were spilled onto the ground.
> As part of the clean-up effort, contaminated soil is to be removed.  At
> this point I don't know just how much soil will be removed, and whether or
> not soil will be removed from the whole site (3-5 acres), or just pockets
> of contaminated soil. They will have to replace whatever soil is removed,
> and rehab the site back to what it was (or nearly so).  They are talking
> about bringing in top soil, and my questions are:
>
> How can the Forest Service insure that any top soil brought in is weed
> free?  Is commercially available top soil already "weed free" because of
> how it's processed?  Are there any State laws that regulate top soil (what
> it can contain, how much of it can contain weeds)?
>
> Any help you can give me will be appreciated.  Please reply by the end of
> the week or Monday at the latest.
>
> Thanks all!
> Clare Hydock
> Botanist
> Allegheny National Forest
> Bradford Ranger District
> 29 Forest Service Drive
> Bradford, PA 16701
> 814/362-4613 x173
> 362-2761 FAX
>
>
>

The primary mode of cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica) dispersal in Florida
appears to be from contaminated soil.  Topsoil 'guidelines' exist for mine
reclamation and landscaping, but there are apparently no state or federal
regulations on topsoil content.  It looks like a 'buyer beware' situation.
In terms of a restoration project, it would be wise to get a performance bond
or settlement agreement from the responsible party to treat a (likely) future
outbreak of weeds in off-site soil.  On the plus(?) side, you will know
within a year or so if the soil is contaminated ("Where did all that grass
come from?").

"It should be noted that there is no official or legal definition for what is
commonly referred to as topsoil."
<http://www.rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/pdfs/fs901.pdf>

"Topsoil should be free from noxious weeds and weed seeds, and not previously
treated with herbicides having a long residual effect. It is difficult and
expensive to test for weeds and herbicides. Ask the topsoil supplier whether
the material was treated to control noxious weeds and if so what the residual
or planting restriction time is for the chemical used."
<http://www.extension.usu.edu/publica/agpubs/agso02rev.pdf>

Contaminated soils should be a concern for natural areas managers in the
context of internal or adjacent road work.  In one of our state forests, I
noticed several graded dirt roads lined with cogon grass.  Left untreated,
the grass would have quickly spread into the adjacent pine flatwoods.

The NAA committee on invasive species may want to include a mention of
contaminated soil if it develops invasive plant management guidelines.

-Rook


Ruark L. "Rook" Cleary
Upland Weeds Program
Bureau of Invasive Plant Management
3900 Commonwealth Blvd, MS 705
Tallahassee, Florida  32399-3000
ruark.cleary@...
Office: 850-245-2809 x4828
SunCom 205-2809, Fax 850-245-2835
<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/invaspec/index.htm>

"If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is inherently
bad-I don't think we know enough about how the world works to say that."
-Interior Department Assistant Secretary Craig Manson, LA Times, 11/14/2003

"The highest function of ecology is the understanding of consequences."
-Pardot Kynes, Imperial Planetologist



-----Original Message-----
From: lisa [mailto:wildflower@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 8:33 AM
To: naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [naturalareasassociation] Fw: weed free top soil?

Please respond directly to Clare if you have any suggestions or models from
other states. Thank you!

Lisa L. Smith
Ecological Consultant
286 Stoneylonesome Rd.
Stahlstown, PA  15687
wildflower@...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clare Hydock" <chydock@...>
To: <Gary.L.Clement@...>
Cc: <abradford@...>; <aeg2@...>; <amoore02@...>;
<anross@...>; <block@...>; <c-jfuller@...>;
<cfirestone@...>; <deggen@...>;
<Gary.L.Clement@...>; <jdemko@...>;
<jeff@...>; <jim@...>; <jmiele@...>;
<jwhaley@...>; <kbergner@...>; <kmckenna@...>;
<ksewak@...>; <kvalley@...>;
<lnicholas@...>; <mwertz@...>; <pennag@...>;
<ppingel@...>; <rhoadsaf@...>; <thall@...>;
<Timothy_E._Newcamp@...>; <waadams@...>;
<wayne_millington@...>; <wildflower@...>;
<wpeechatka@...>; <wsc2@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:38 AM
Subject: weed free top soil?
>
> Hi everyone,
> In case I haven't met everyone yet, I'm the Botanist on the Allegheny
> National Forest.  I have a question I hope you can help me with.  This is
> something I have never dealt with in my career - so it's a great learning
> opportunity!
>
> On Monday, May 17, a tanker truck carrying about 7500 gallons of Kensol 30
> (chemical name petroleum hydrocarbon) consisting of a 100% solution of
> Stoddard Solvent, overturned on Highway 59, west of the Bradford Ranger
> District office.  Approximately 7400 gallons were spilled onto the ground.
> As part of the clean-up effort, contaminated soil is to be removed.  At
> this point I don't know just how much soil will be removed, and whether or
> not soil will be removed from the whole site (3-5 acres), or just pockets
> of contaminated soil. They will have to replace whatever soil is removed,
> and rehab the site back to what it was (or nearly so).  They are talking
> about bringing in top soil, and my questions are:
>
> How can the Forest Service insure that any top soil brought in is weed
> free?  Is commercially available top soil already "weed free" because of
> how it's processed?  Are there any State laws that regulate top soil (what
> it can contain, how much of it can contain weeds)?
>
> Any help you can give me will be appreciated.  Please reply by the end of
> the week or Monday at the latest.
>
> Thanks all!
> Clare Hydock
> Botanist
> Allegheny National Forest
> Bradford Ranger District
> 29 Forest Service Drive
> Bradford, PA 16701
> 814/362-4613 x173
> 362-2761 FAX

-----Original Message-----
From: lisa [mailto:wildflower@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 2:25 PM
To: ma-eppc@egroups.com; naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [naturalareasassociation] invasives management documentation forms

Hello friends,

 

I am currently working with a local group here in the Pittsburgh area that is implementing a landscape restoration plan that primarily focuses on invasive plant removal.  They are going to use Student Conservation Association students for six weeks beginning in mid-June.  Students will be overseen by SCA adult crew leaders.

 

One of the recommendations of the plan is to document management actions.  Certainly photodocumentation is one means of meeting this goal. 

 

Can anyone provide examples of forms that have been used to document management of this sort(including tracking photos that are taken of the site for documentation purposes)?  I am hoping to locate forms that are user-friendly for volunteers.

 

Any help that you can provide is greatly appreciated!!!

 

Lisa L. Smith
Land Conservation Consultant
286 Stoneylonesome Rd.
Stahlstown, PA  15687
wildflower@...

Lisa-

I attached a Word form that the Association of Conservation Executives (ACE)
Land Managers Group is currently working on to help the members of ACE-LM track
similar data accros the Eastern PA Region in our efforts to do restoration.

If you haven't worked with forms in Word, I recommend skimming the help files,
but it is very simple-- to move from field to field, just hit <TAB>.  When the
form is "locked", it will only allow you to enter data.  To edit the form
itself, you need to open the "forms" toolbar under the "View" menu and hit the
padlock button.

This simple form is still being finalized, but ACE members agree it is inportant
info and it should be very helpful to others down the road to see and compare
results in standard format.

Let me know if yu have any questions.  Best of Luck,

Mark Fallon
Senior Naturalist
Briar Bush Nature Center
Abington, PA
www.briarbush.org
215-887-6603




_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

Lisa,

You meet check with the Green Center in University City, MO.  http:
//www.thegreencenter.org/
They are conducting a restoration project in Ruth Park Woods and a
wetland resoration  along River DesPeres.  They work with volunteers
and have worked to document their restoration efforts.

This is also a very good example of an urban restoration project.
University City is a suburb of St. Louis and is very inner city in
character.

Charlie Nilon
University of Missouri-Columbia

--- In naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com, "lisa" <wildflower@l..
.> wrote:
> Hello friends,
>
> I am currently working with a local group here in the Pittsburgh
area that is implementing a landscape restoration plan that primarily
focuses on invasive plant removal.  They are going to use Student
Conservation Association students for six weeks beginning in mid-June.
  Students will be overseen by SCA adult crew leaders.
>
> One of the recommendations of the plan is to document management
actions.  Certainly photodocumentation is one means of meeting this
goal.
>
> Can anyone provide examples of forms that have been used to document
management of this sort(including tracking photos that are taken of
the site for documentation purposes)?  I am hoping to locate forms
that are user-friendly for volunteers.
>
> Any help that you can provide is greatly appreciated!!!
>
> Lisa L. Smith
> Land Conservation Consultant
> 286 Stoneylonesome Rd.
> Stahlstown, PA  15687
> wildflower@l...

From E&E Daily--

Alexander, Landrieu float $1.4 billion CARA look-alike
Dan Berman, Greenwire reporter

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) yesterday became
the latest Capitol Hill lawmakers to attempt to resurrect the idea of using
oil and gas receipts to pay for land conservation and wildlife protection
programs, introducing a multibillion-dollar bill in the Senate.

The bill would divert $1.4 billion in outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and
gas receipts per year for six years to pay for a wide variety of conservation
programs. The idea mirrors the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which faced
stiff opposition from property rights advocates that contributed to its
paralysis in the 107th Congress.

Alexander and Landrieu admitted the bill is fashioned after CARA, but believe
the new legislation has a greater chance of being approved by Congress.
"We've learned some lessons" from the CARA debate, Alexander said at a press
conference yesterday.

"We believe there is a huge conservation majority in the United States of
America, and there will be a huge conservation majority on the floor of the
United States Senate," Alexander added.

One lesson the sponsors learned is that federal land acquisition programs are
controversial on both sides of the Hill. The new legislation currently does
not include federal land acquisition funds, but Alexander plans to offer an
amendment to the bill that would provide an additional $450 million for land
acquisition. Such an amendment would come "only after we have consulted
further with our colleagues to develop a consensus," he said.

As introduced, the Senate bill would provide a total of $1.425 billion, with
$500 million headed to oil and gas producing coastal states and wetland
restoration efforts.

Landrieu said it is time coastal states like Louisiana and Texas get a return
on offshore oil and gas leases, noting more than $130 billion in OCS receipts
since 1955. "That money has gone for a variety of worthy purposes," Landrieu
said. "But it is past time to take a portion of these revenues and create a
conservation royalty."

The bill would also provide $450 million to stateside grants administrated by
the National Park Service under the Land and Water Conservation Fund, $350
million for a number of wildlife conservation programs and $125 million to
fully fund the Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery Program.

This is the second time lawmakers have attempted to resurrect CARA in recent
months. In April, CARA sponsors in the House -- Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska)
and George Miller (D-Calif.) -- unveiled a bill that would dedicate $3.125
billion annually from OCS receipts to land conservation and federal land
acquisition programs under the guise of promoting public health and fighting
obesity (E&E Daily, April 2).

Previous incarnations of CARA have not had an easy time in Congress. In 2000,
the House passed a version of CARA by a 315-102 vote, but it never reached
the Senate floor after the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
cleared a slightly different version of the bill. A second CARA was under
consideration in the House in the 107th Congress but eventually failed after
the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks changed funding priorities.

The political climate has changed as well. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), an
outspoken critic of previous CARA legislation, is in his first term as
chairman of the House Resources Committee, where he has consistently
questioned the need for additional federal land acquisition.

"They can use all the lipstick in the world to dress that thing up, but a pig
is a pig," said House Resources spokesman Brian Kennedy. "That bill has
already been dealt with in congresses past, so it will be dead on arrival
here in this Congress."

The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a major issue this spring as
Congress considers the Interior Department spending bill. The House last week
approved its appropriations bill, H.R. 4568, that provided $50 million for
land acquisition and nothing for new projects. Earlier this week, the Senate
Interior Appropriations Committee approved a spending bill that would provide
$215 million for the federal land acquisition programs.


Ruark L. "Rook" Cleary
Upland Weeds Program
Bureau of Invasive Plant Management
3900 Commonwealth Blvd, MS 705
Tallahassee, Florida  32399-3000
ruark.cleary@...
Office: 850-245-2809 x4828
SunCom 205-2809, Fax 850-245-2835
<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/invaspec/index.htm>

"If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is inherently
bad-I don't think we know enough about how the world works to say that."
-Interior Department Assistant Secretary Craig Manson, LA Times, 11/14/2003

"The highest function of ecology is the understanding of consequences."
-Pardot Kynes, Imperial Planetologist

From Rook Cleary

"Upland invasive weeds infested approximately 15% of public
conservation lands statewide [in Florida, USA] in 2003 and are
currently under maintenance control on 110,000 acres.  Approximately
$6.3 million were spent controlling 34,409 acres of upland weeds on
101 publicly managed areas during FY 2003. Public land managers are
responsible for maintenance control of areas initially treated through
bureau funding.  The bureau provided herbicide to assist land managers
with maintenance control at a cost of $109,885 for FY 2003." -from the
Executive Summary

As part of its commitment to outreach and education, the Florida
Bureau of Invasive Plant Management (BIPM) is providing online its
program annual report.  This 208-page full color report contains
information on aquatic and upland invasive exotic plant control
operations, biocontrol research, program costs and funding, and much
more.  The BIPM Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Annual Report can be found at:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/invaspec/index.htm
Look for the links under "What's New."  This is a large (19.5 Mb) PDF
document, so for the broadband-challenged we have a mini-CD version
(that comes in an attractive and informative brochure) available upon
request.

If you have any questions about this report, or about Florida's
invasive plant programs in general, please contact our office as
provided below.

And remember, "Weeds Won't Wait!"

Cheers,

-Rook



Ruark L. "Rook" Cleary
Upland Weeds Program
Bureau of Invasive Plant Management
3900 Commonwealth Blvd, MS 705
Tallahassee, Florida  32399-3000
ruark.cleary@...
Office: 850-245-2809 x4828
Fax 850-245-2835 <http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/invaspec/index.htm>

"If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is
inherently bad-I don't think we know enough about how the world works
to say that." -Interior Department Assistant Secretary Craig Manson,
LA Times, 11/14/2003

"The highest function of ecology is the understanding of consequences.
" -Pardot Kynes, Imperial Planetologist

Lisa,

I'm Executive Director of The Wilderness Center in northeast, Ohio. We
have several oil and gas wells on land we own. This is worth a
telephone conversation rather than just e-mail. Call me at 330-359-5235
I'll be in the office after a short vacation in July 14th.
Gordon Maupin
On Jul 8, 2004, at 4:42 PM, lisa wrote:

> Hello,
>  
> I am working with a land trust that owns a natural area that is the
> subject of a gas lease.  They have an opportunity to "spell out" the
> specific restoration actions for the access road and well site. 
>  
> Does anyone have examples of this type of information from your own
> experiences that you would be willing to share?
>  
> Thanks!
> Lisa L. Smith
> Land Conservation Consultant
> 286 Stoneylonesome Rd.
> Stahlstown, PA  15687
> wildflower@...
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <lrec_companion_043004.gif>
> <l.gif>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>  •  To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturalareasassociation/
>  
>  • 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> naturalareasassociation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
>  • 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>

Horticulture and Landscape Professions Liaison

Lisa,

Greg Eckert, NPS Restoration Ecologist and Chair of the Plant Conservation
Alliance's Restoration Working Group may be able to help you.

Gregory E. Eckert, PhD
Restoration Ecologist
National Park Service
Natural Resource Program Center
Suite 200
1201 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO  80525
970/225-3594 phone
970/225-3585 fax
greg_eckert@...

The PCA Restoration Working Group web page is at:
http://www.nps.gov/plants/restore/index.htm

Bye,

Jil




                       "lisa"
                       <wildflower@laure        To:      
<naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com>, <ma-eppc@yahoogroups.com>,
                       lweb.net>                 <pabiodiv@...>
                                                cc:       (bcc: Jil
Swearingen/NCR/NPS)
                       07/08/2004 04:42         Subject:  [ma-eppc] restoration
specs for gas well sites
                       PM AST





Hello,

I am working with a land trust that owns a natural area that is the subject
of a gas lease.  They have an opportunity to "spell out" the specific
restoration actions for the access road and well site.

Does anyone have examples of this type of information from your own
experiences that you would be willing to share?

Thanks!
Lisa L. Smith
Land Conservation Consultant
286 Stoneylonesome Rd.
Stahlstown, PA  15687
wildflower@...



To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to
ma-eppc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

For problems or questions about the list, write to
ma-eppc-owner@egroups.com (Messages sent to ma-eppc@egroups.com go to the
whole list.)


                            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                                ADVERTISEMENT
            (Embedded image moved to file: pic09695.gif)click here


  (Embedded image moved to file: pic19618.gif)




Yahoo! Groups Links
       To visit your group on the web, go to:
       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ma-eppc/

       To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
       ma-eppc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

       Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

The following article appeared in the Monday issue of the Duluth,
Minnesota News Tribune and was shared with several NAA members.

Are similar things happening in other states?
Charlie Nilon

Posted on Mon, Jul. 12, 2004

Counties in charge of state land
MINNESOTA: A law requiring unprecedented county approval over
management of scientific and natural areas quietly passed the 2004
Legislature at the last minute.
BY JOHN MYERS
NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

An obscure amendment approved during the final hours of the 2004
Minnesota Legislature will give county boards unprecedented veto power
over state management of any new scientific and natural areas.

The law could prevent the Department of Natural Resources from
designating SNAs, small tracts of Minnesota's most environmentally
sensitive lands.

The amendment, five lines added to a 74-page bill, requires the DNR to
get county board approval for SNA management plans.

"The way it sits now, everyone else could agree that we need to
protect an old-growth stand of forest, but the county boards could say
'no' and it won't happen," said Bob Djupstrom, SNA program director
for the DNR. "The worse-case scenario is that we'll have 87 different
philosophies on how to manage state SNAs."

The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Dave Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, and was
spurred by a DNR plan to expand the Moose Mountain SNA, just outside
of Duluth, from 55 to 177 acres.

The Moose Mountain expansion will be among the first tests of the new
law when it goes before the St. Louis County Board at 10:30 a.m.
Tuesday at the courthouse.

While formal public comments to the DNR overwhelmingly supported the
Moose Mountain expansion, Dill has joined with opponents because it
limits public use of the land to low-impact activities.

Of the 104 comments the DNR received on the expansion, 90 percent were
from Duluth or Lakewood Township. Of those, 70 favored the expansion,
10 opposed it and the others didn't express a general opinion. That
support, Djupstrom said, should spur county commissioners to support
the plan.

"We've worked well with St. Louis County on these issues before," he
said.

The law appears to be unprecedented, officials said, because it allows
county government to have veto power on how the DNR manages land that
state taxpayers already own, such as within a state park or forest or
land purchased as an SNA but not yet designated as such.

The amendment was added without public input or committee hearing at
the Capitol. It came two weeks after a similar bill was offered and
defeated on the House floor. That legislation, also proposed by Dill,
would have demanded both county board and township board approval to
designate any state land as an SNA. It failed by five votes.

State legislation was necessary because the DNR is adding too many
SNAs without public input, Dill said. He defended the Legislature's
adoption process, however, even though it excluded public input.

"Hundreds of bills pass that way in the last few days of the session.
... I'm just doing what my constituents asked me to do," said Dill,
who added that he had received hundreds of phone calls opposing the
Moose Mountain expansion.

Dill said he might support new SNAs, but only if there's a compelling
reason to add restrictions to public use on state land. He said there
seems to be little justification for the Moose Mountain parcel being
designated, arguing that state scientists are wrongly labeling the
land as ecologically important.

"There's already a road through there and a power line. ... I don't
think they have a good reason to keep people from using that land," he
said. "This goes to the heart of the question of how much public land
(in Northeastern Minnesota) is enough to lock up from logging and ATVs
and snowmobiles."

Rep. Jean Wagenius, DFL-Minneapolis, opposed the legislation on the
floor of the House. She said it sends the wrong message to state
residents who may want to donate land to the state for habitat
preservation.

"It shows we really don't care about preserving critical habitat. It
might work in some areas where there already is a lot of land set
aside. But what about counties where there is very little land left"
untrammeled, she said.

DNR officials said they didn't have the opportunity to change the
final legislation before it passed. The agency officially had
supported a compromise that would have treated SNAs like other DNR
acquisitions, giving counties input only on new land purchases, not on
the designation of existing state land, said C.B. Bylander, DNR
communications director.

DNR managers "really didn't have a chance to oppose the final
amendment at all, and neither did the public," Djupstrom said, "but
we'll make it work."

Djupstrom noted, for example, that the Stearns County board on Tuesday
gave preliminary approval for SNA designation for a 700-acre tract
that includes rare fens and bog.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the legislation despite opposition from DNR
Commissioner Gene Merriam. Merriam recommended that Pawlenty veto the
bill because of the SNA provision and because of another controversial
provision that extends private cabin leases on state land along Lake
Superior near Hovland.

Dill and others urged the governor to sign the bill over Merriam's
objections. Dill insists that at least one DNR representative agreed
to the final language, but he declined to identify that person.

"I think he (Pawlenty) decided that there were so many important land
issues within the bill that the good outweighed the bad," Djupstrom
said.

The law won't affect the original 55-acre Moose Mountain SNA that was
designated in the 1980s. But if St. Louis County opposes the 122 new
acres, its status will be murky. The expansion land already is in the
state SNA system and is required to be an SNA by another state law
because the money used for the purchase comes from a fund dedicated
for SNAs.

"We've never crossed that bridge before. If the county says no, it
(the expansion) will technically be an SNA but couldn't be managed
like an SNA. We're really not sure what that means," said Steve
Wilson, regional SNA coordinator for the DNR.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
JOHN MYERS covers the environment, natural resources and general news.
He can be reached at (218) 723-5344 or at jmyers@....

Hi all,

I work with the Task Force to Bring Back the Don to restore natural
areas in the Don River valley in Toronto, Ontario. Recently we have
begun dealing with a group of mountain bikers who are using a
sensitive forest area for their activities.

Our concern is that this use is incompatible with our natural area
restoration goals. Based on our concerns, the city (which owns the
land) brought in a group called the International Mountain Biking
Association (IMBA). They held a workshop where they showed the bikers
how to build and maintain sustainable trails. They mentioned that they
have built trails across the US and had the confidence of many owners
of natural areas.

While the IMBA website lists many of their accomplishments, I would
like hear it from the viewpoint of someone involved in ecological
restoration. If there is anyone in this group that has had experience
with IMBA activities, I'd like to hear about it, whether it's good or
bad feedback.

Thanks,
John Routh

from:
http://www.plosbiology.org/archive/1545-7885/2/7/pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.002
0208-S.pdf

On the Brink: How Biology and Humans Affect Extinction Risk

Close to a quarter of the world's mammals are at high risk of extinction.
Save for the periodic "great extinctions," mammalian extinction has been a
relatively rare event in geological terms, with one species disappearing from
the fossil record every 1,000 years or so. Over the past 400 years, species
have been disappearing 50 times faster than this "background" rate, with one
vanishing every sixteen years. Human population growth and all its
consequences-habitat destruction, propagation of invasive species,
poaching-are largely to blame. Top predators often suffer heavily from
encounters with humans, especially when those predators are perceived as
economic threats. Thirty-four Mexican gray wolves have been reintroduced in
Arizona since 1998, and five have been shot, reportedly by ranchers.

Species in the most densely populated areas are expected to face the greatest
risk, yet some survive while others perish, suggesting biological factors
play a role in their fate. If, for example, the same external force
drastically reduces populations of species with different biological
profiles, then a species with a relatively short gestation period may stand a
better chance of recovering than a long-gestating species.

Effective conservation strategies depend on understanding which factors are
likely to increase extinction risk, but it's unclear how important intrinsic
biological traits are relative to external pressures from humans and whether
biology's influence on survival depends on the intensity of the threat.
Ecologists often use human population density as a proxy for anthropogenic
threats such as habitat destruction and hunting. To tease out the relative
importance of all these factors, Marcel Cardillo et al. analyzed the impact
of various biological traits and human population density on extinction risk
in the mammal order Carnivora, which includes the red panda, lion, and
members of the photogenic weasel-like viverrid family. By identifying the
most salient factors in predicting extinction, the authors have created a
model to identify those species at greatest risk.

The biology of a species combined with human population density, the
researchers found, is a stronger predictor of risk than exposure to humans
alone; those biological traits that increase risk vary depending on a
species' exposure to human populations. Carnivores with low exposure to
humans, for example, are likely to be at greater risk if their population
density is low and they have small ranges, possibly because this makes them
more vulnerable to loss of habitat. Species living near densely populated
human areas must often contend with hunting and other direct threats on top
of habitat loss and are more at risk if they also have long gestation
periods-they can't repopulate fast enough to offset the additional pressures.
Based on projected human population growth, this model predicts the addition
of a number of species-mostly from Africa, where population growth rates
largely exceed the global average-to the endangered list by the year 2030.
Most of these species-including African viverrids such as the common genet,
which not only lives in areas where human populations are rapidly expanding
but is also biologically predisposed to decline-are currently considered a
low conservation priority.

While it's possible that the direct effects of human population density are
past-that is, species most sensitive to human incursions are already
gone-human population density likely modulates biology. That might explain
why gestation length didn't predict risk for species living in sparsely
populated areas-all else being equal, their numbers remained relatively
stable. A species with a small population forebodes a high extinction risk
regardless of human density, though species with long gestation periods,
again, face greater danger in the company of humans.

Altogether, these results suggest that as human population pressures
increase, the importance of species-specific biology in predicting extinction
risk also increases, with biology affecting which species are most vulnerable
to external threats. With most conservation efforts focused on damage
control, these findings make the case for interceding before a species
reaches the brink of extinction. "There is no room for complacency about the
security of species," the authors warn, "simply because they are not
currently considered threatened."

Cardillo M, Purvis A, Sechrest W, Gittleman JL, Bielby J, et al. (2004) Human
population density and extinction risk in the world's carnivores. DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.0020197

---
Ruark L. "Rook" Cleary
Upland Weeds Program
Bureau of Invasive Plant Management
3900 Commonwealth Blvd, MS 705
Tallahassee, Florida  32399-3000
ruark.cleary@...
Office: 850-245-2809 x4828
SunCom 205-2809, Fax 850-245-2835
<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/invaspec/index.htm>

From Carol Hodge - The Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy seeks to fill the Colorado and Oklahoma State
Director vacancies.  State Directors work closely with staff, chapter
trustees, supporters, and partners to develop and implement
conservation strategies, forge new partnerships, and secure major
private and public funds to accomplish stretch goals.  The ideal
candidates will possess exceptional leadership, managerial and
team-building skills, conservation/business acumen, and political
savvy. A proven track record building a visionary institution,
demonstrated success in major-gift fundraising, a wealth of people
development skills, and experience collaborating with non-profit
boards required. Send cover letter/resume by August 15, 2004 to
jobs@... (indicate appropriate job title in subject line). EOE.
www.nature.org/careers

Hi folks,

 

How is the invasive removal in your natural area going? You can send

a letter to your congressmen on this. In reference to working with our

natural areas, including North Carolina and Pennsylvania, to remove

non-native invasive plants the following information may be of value

in providing matching funds for every hour a volunteer works with

contract or staff work at parks and natural areas to control invasives

in ways volunteers cannot do effectively. Thanks. Marc

Marc Imlay,
Board member of the Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council,
Hui o Laka at Kokee State Park, Hawaii
Vice president of the Maryland Native Plant Society,
Chair of the Biodiversity and Habitat Stewardship Committee for the
Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club.


At the 2004 Native Plants in the Landscape Conference in Millersville
many individuals asked to be informed about opportunities to act on
passage of S144 which would provide federal matching funds for
non-native invasive plant control projects to rescue our native plants
and animals at a level more commensurate with the scope of the problem.

There is a remarkable concensus in the conservation community,
world-wide, that alien (non-native) invasive species form monocultures
over 30-90% of our parkland and other natural areas depending
on the ecoregion. We also now know that it is practicable to control
most of them, but at about ten times the present effort.

The House Committee on Resources passed The Noxious Weed
Control Act of 2004, S. 144, a bill that would authorize $500
million over five years to to provide assistance through states to control
or eradicate harmful non-native weeds on public and private
lands. S144 is now in the Agriculture Committee. The Senate passed
S. 144 early last year.

Your United States representative is especially important to contact
at this time to express support for S.144 which will leverage lots of
local participation and in-kind support. Each letter is very effective

and essential since there is little opposition to this bill but many

representatives are not aware of the importance of this bill. They

will vote for it if they know their constituents want it and there is little

opposition. You may go to www.house.gov , then enter zip code on

upper left under Find Your Representative.

The federal matching funds provided for in the bipartisan bill
constitute a critical lifeline for cash-strapped weed control and
eradication efforts. It combines volunteer work with contract
or staff work at parks and natural areas to control weeds in
ways volunteers cannot do effectively or find hard to do as
equal matching in kind contributions, about $15 for every hour
a volunteer works.

This will be a great morale booster that I believe will expand our
program many fold. I believe it will mean many times as much
area now covered by alien plants will instead once again be
covered by native plants and animals than would otherwise be
the case because it is the booster most needed.

The bill provides federal matching funds to state and local weed
control projects on public and private lands to help defray the costs
of expertise, labor, and educational efforts, as well as those
associated with keeping inventories, mapping, management,
monitoring, and equipment.

This is a good bipartisan bill with support and buy-in as to provisions
from both environmental and economic interests. For example, the
Maryland Native Plant Society contributed the IPM requirement,
SEC. 5 (a) (7) below, in comments on the draft language.

I suggest we follow a strategy to move the national legislation
these thousands of volunteers need so much to get the assistance
they need and maintain morale.

Nonnative plant species threaten the existence of so many native
plants, and are devaluing grazing lands so widely! , that both
Republicans and Democrats have recognized the need to act now.
Seventy million acres have already been lost to weed infestations
in areas that previously supported a great diversity of wildlife
such as bighorn sheep, grouse, elk, moose, deer, and wintering
bald eagles. Economic losses include losses due to erosion and
flooding, degradation of habitats that support fishing, tourism,
and other recreational activities, and, perhaps most importantly,
the loss of biodiversity; a critical, nonrenewable source of new
discoveries in science and medicine.

I believe that we all have the responsibility to protect the local
ecosystem that cleans our air and water, stabilizes the soil,
buffers life and property against flood damage, and provides
food and shelter for innumerable species. To date however,
effective action has been hampered by inadequate funding at
all levels of government and by inadequate coordination.



=========
S 144 RFH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 144
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 5, 2003
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee
on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
AN ACT
To require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide
assistance through States to eligible weed management entities to control
or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) NOXIOUS WEED- The term `noxious weed' has the same meaning as in the
Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7702(10)).
(2) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Interior.
(3) STATE- The term `State' means each of the several States of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island,
and any other possession of the United States.
(4) INDIAN TRIBE- The term `Indian tribe' has the meaning given the term in
section 4 of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(5) WEED MANAGEMENT ENTITY- The term `weed management entity' means an
entity that--
(A) is recognized by the State in which it is established;
! (B) is established by and includes local stakeholders, including Indian
tribes;
(C) is established for the purpose of controlling or eradicating harmful,
invasive weeds and increasing public knowledge and education
concerning the need to control or eradicate harmful, invasive
weeds; and
(D) is multijurisdicational and multidisciplinary in nature.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.
The Secretary shall establish a program to provide financial assistance
through States to eligible weed management entities to control or
eradicate weeds. In developing the program, the Secretary shall
consult with the National Invasive Species Council, the Invasive
Species Advisory Committee, representatives from States and
Indian tribes with weed management entities or that have particular
problems with noxious weeds, and public and private entities with
experience in noxious weed management.
SEC. 4. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.
The Se! cretary shall allocate funds to States to provide funding to weed
management entities to carry out projects approved by States to
control or eradicate noxious weeds on the basis of the severity
or potential severity of the noxious weed problem, the extent to
which the Federal funds will be used to leverage non-federal funds,
the extent to which the State has made progress in addressing
noxious weed problems, and such other factors as the Secretary
deems relevant. The Secretary shall provide special consideration
for States with approved weed management entities established by Indian
Tribes, and may provide an additional allocation to a State to meet the
particular needs and projects that such a weed management entity
will address.
SEC. 5. ELIGIBILITY AND USE OF FUNDS.
(a) REQUIREMENTS- The Secretary shall prescribe requirements for
applications by States for funding, including provisions for auditing of
and reporting on the use of the fund! s and criteria to ensure that weed
management entities recognized by States are capable of carrying out
projects, monitoring and reporting on the use of funds, and are
knowledgeable about and experienced in noxious weed management
and represent private and public interests adversely affected by
noxious weeds. Eligible activities for funding shall include--
(1) applied research to solve locally significant weed management
problems and solutions, except that such research may not exceed
8 percent of the available funds in any year;
(2) incentive payments to encourage the formation of new weed
management entities, except that such payments may not
exceed 25 percent of the available funds in any year; and
(3) projects relating to the control or eradication or noxious weeds,
including education, inventories and mapping, management,
monitoring, and similar activities, including the payment of the
cost of personnel and equipment that promote su! ch control or
eradication, and other activities to promote such control or
eradication, if the results of the activities are disseminated to the
public.
(b) PROJECT SELECTION- A State shall select projects for
funding to a weed management entity on a competitive basis considering--
(1) the seriousness of the noxious weed problem or potential problem
addressed by the project;
(2) the likelihood that the project will prevent or resolve the problem, or
increase knowledge about resolving similar problems in the future;
(3) the extent to which the payment will leverage non-Federal funds to
address the noxious weed problem addressed by the project;
(4) the extent to which the weed management entity has made progress in
addressing noxious weed problems;
(5) the extent to which the project will provide a comprehensive approach to
the control or eradication of noxious weeds;
(6) the extent to which the project will reduce the total populati! on of a
noxious weed;
(7) the extent to which the project uses the principles of integrated
vegetation management and sound science; and
(8) such other factors that the State determines to be relevant.
(c) INFORMATION AND REPORT- As a condition of the receipt
of funding, States shall require such information from grant recipients
as necessary and shall submit to the Secretary a report that describes
the purposes and results of each project for which the payment or
award was used, by not later than 6 months after completion of the projects.
(d) FEDERAL SHARE- The Federal share of any project or activity
approved by a State or Indian tribe under this Act may not exceed
50 percent unless the State meets criteria established by the Secretary
that accommodates situations where a higher percentage is necessary
to meet the needs of an underserved area or addresses a critical need
that can not be met otherwise.
SEC. 6. LIMITATIONS.
(A) LAN! DOWNER CONSENT; LAND UNDER CULTIVATION-
Any activity involving real property, either private or public, may be
carried out under this Act only with the consent of the landowner and
no project may be undertaken on property that is devoted to the
cultivation of row crops, fruits, or vegetables.
(b) COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW- A weed management entity
may carry out a project to address the noxious weed problem in more
than one State only if the entity meets the requirements of the State
laws in all States in which the entity will undertake the project.
(c) USE OF FUNDS- Funding under this Act may not be used to carry out a
project--
(1) to control or eradicate animals, pests, or submerged or floating noxious
aquatic weeds; or
(2) to protect an agricultural commodity (as defined in section 102 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602))
other than--
(A) livestock (as defined in section 602 of the Agricultural Trade Act of
1949! (7 U.S.C. 1471); or
(B) an animal- or insect-based product.
SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMS.
Assistance authorized under this Act is intended to supplement, and not
replace, assistance available to weed management entities, areas,
and districts for control or eradication of harmful, invasive weeds
on public lands and private lands, including funding available under
the `Pulling Together Initiative' of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation,
and the provision of funds to any entity under this Act shall have
no effect on the amount of any payment received by a county from
the Federal Government under chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code
(commonly known as the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act).
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
To carry out this Act there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007,
of which not more than 5 percent of the funds made available
for a fiscal year may be used by the Secretary for administrative
costs of Federal agencies.
Passed the Senate March 4, 2003.
Attest:
EMILY J. REYNOLDS,
Secretary.
END

Snohomish County, Washington

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE POSITION

Sr Planner-Public Works ($52,292 – $63,522 + Benefits)


With offices in the coastal city of Everett, 30 minutes north of
Seattle, many residents find Snohomish County to be an ideal
combination of metropolitan excitement and relaxed, rural living.
The Transportation & Environmental Services division must fill a
vacancy on the team responsible for agency compliance with
environmental regulations.  Minimum qualifications include a
Bachelor's in wildlife/fisheries biology, planning, environmental
studies, or a related field; AND, two years related planning
experience; OR, a Master's degree.  Work related experience may be
substituted for the required education on a year for year basis.

Specific knowledge and experience in the following areas are needed:
§      Technical writing and preparing environmental documentation

§      Effective communication and professional presentations

§      Interagency coordination

§      Watershed scale ecology related to transportation projects

§      Fish biology and life cycle requirements

§      Environmental regulations, esp. ESA, 404, Critical Areas
ordinances

§      Impact assessment and related mitigation development

§      Wetland/stream delineation and assessment

§      Interpretation of construction plans/specifications, and BMPs

§      Word processing, spreadsheet, database, related applications



Submit letter of qualifications, detailed résumé, and a sample of your
technical writing.  Submittals are scored on content and presentation.
  Scoring will be based on demonstrated qualifications in areas listed
above.



Send to:            Ms. Pat Walter (Re: Plnr, Sr.-PW 8407)

                         Snohomish County Public Works

                         2930 Wetmore, Everett, WA   98201

                         FAX 425.388.6415

                         Email pat.walter@....



Qualifying candidates will be ranked and placed on a hiring roster for
available positions through December 31, 2004.



Deadline:   5 PM on Thursday, August 5, 2004.



Equal Opportunity Employer

Conservation helps rural economies more than resource extraction, according
to a new report by the Sonoran Institute.

Increased protections for federal lands in the West contribute more to the
economies of rural communities than logging, mining or energy development on
those lands, according to a study of over 400 Western counties. The report's
authors and supporters of increased protections on public lands say the
findings debunk arguments that wilderness, national parks and national
monument designations harm local economies because they remove areas for
possible resource extraction.

View the report at:
http://www.sonoran.org/programs/prosperity.html

-----Original Message-----
<<<Please feel free to forward to all interested parties - Thanks!>>>

Dear Friends,

The 2005 Request for Proposals for the "Pulling Together Initiative" is now
available on the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation website. This grant
program, now in its ninth year, provides modest grants to support the
creation of cooperative Weed Management Area partnerships.

Applications for this year's PTI program will be accepted through the
Foundation's online application system.  For more information about
application deadlines, program priorities, and detailed instructions
regarding application procedures, please visit the NFWF PTI website,
http://www.nfwf.org/programs/pti.htm

- Jonathan Mawdsley

----------------------------------------
Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D.
Manager of Project Administration
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036 USA
Phone: (202) 857-0166
Fax: (202) 857-0162
E-mail: jonathan.mawdsley@...
Web: www.nfwf.org

Tim Girmscheid
Natural Areas Manager
Liberty Prairie Conservancy
tim@...
www.libertyprairie.org
32400 North Harris Road
Grayslake, IL. 60030
847.548-5989 Office
847.548-7592 Fax
847.561-1379 Portable
 

Interesting articles, including herbicide factor adjustment and
bird-dispersed weeds:

http://www.weeds.crc.org.au/documents/weed_watch_vol2_no6.pdf

David Borneman, Manager
Natural Area Preservation
Field Operations Service Unit
Public Services Area
City of Ann Arbor
1831 Traver Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Vox: (734) 994-4834
Fax: (734) 997-1072

Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: Call for assistance with staffing and technology at the 2004Natural
Areas Conference


>
>
>
>
>
> CALL FOR HELP FOR THE 2004 NATURAL AREAS CONFERENCE
>
> The final touches are presently going into plans for the 31st Natural
> Areas Conference at the Holiday Inn Mart Plaza in Chicago, Illinois
> October 12-16, 2004. To help keep this year's conference registration
> costs at a minimum, the planning committee will be counting on volunteer
> projectionists as well as notebook computers and "Powerpoint" projectors
> for each of the nine concurrent sessions being conducted during the
> conference. The committee presently is in need of 8 computer projectors
> and 6 notebook PCs capable of running Microsoft Powerpoint (version 2000
> or later) for the conference. The committee also has a great need for
> several dozen volunteers to serve in the pool of projectionists that
> will be required for setting up and running the computer and projector
> used by presenters at each of the concurrent sessions during the
> conference. Projectionists need familiarity with operating notebook PCs
> and Microsoft Powerpoint. However, familiarity with computer projectors,
> while desirable, is not essential. Training will be provided to
> volunteers in computer projectors prior to each day of sessions at the
> conference.
>
> If you have a notebook PC or projector that you are willing to provide
> during the conference or if you are willing to volunteer as a
> projectionist for one or more sessions at the conference, or if you need
> more information, please contact Tara Kieninger - Illinois Dept. of
> Natural Resources at (217) 782-2685 or tkieninger@... .
> Doing so on or before Friday, September 24th would be greatly
> appreciated and, undoubtedly, rewarded in some fashion during the
> conference. Thanks in advance for your help in making this year's
> conference a great success!!
>
> Thanks
> Randy
>
>
>
>
>
> Randy R. Heidorn, Chair
> 31st Natural Areas Conference
> Chicago Holiday Inn Mart Plaza
> October 13-16, 2004
> and
> Deputy Director for Stewardship
> Illinois Nature Preserves Commission
> One Natural Resources Way
> Springfield, IL 62702-1271
>
> 217-785-8686
> rheidorn@...