DOCSLIB.ORG

WVWRAM Reference Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WVWRAM Reference Manual Reference Manual for theWest Virginia Wetland Rapid Assessment Method (WVWRAM) May 1, 2020 Version 1.0 Watershed Assessment Branch Division of Water and Wastewater Management WV Department of Environmental Protection Recommended citation West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2020. Reference Manual for the West Virginia Wetland Rapid Assessment Method. Version 1.0. Watershed Assessment Branch, Division of Water and Wastewater Management, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Charleston, WV. Author Elizabeth A. Byers, Senior Wetland Scientist, WVDEP Acknowledgements Numerous individuals and organizations contributed to the development of the West Virginia Wetland Rapid Assessment Method (WVWRAM). The author and the WVDEP Watershed Assessment Branch are deeply grateful for their contributions and commitment to developing this tool for functional assessment of West Virginia’s wetlands. Funding to develop WVWRAM was provided through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Wetland Program Development Grant #66.461. Natural Resources Conservation Service: Jared Beard, Skip Bell, David Kingsbury, and Jason Teets. Pennsylvania State University: Robert Brooks. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Wes Barnett, Jeremy Couchenour, Justin Elkins, Jared Pritt, Bruce Pruitt, and Andrew Wendt. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Danielle Algazi, Kris DeNardi, Christine Mazzarella, Carol Petrow, Regina Poeske, Annie Rossi, and Gregg Serenbetz. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection: Chad Ashworth, Jeff Bailey, Brian Bridgewater, Pat Campbell, Jack Hopkins, Nick Murray, Danielle Nathanson, Scott Settle, and John Wirts. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources: Roger Anderson, Rich Bailey, Danny Bennett, Steve Brown, Danielle Elliott, Walt Kordek, Keith Krantz, Sue Olcott, Jessica Perkins, Brian Streets, David Thorne, and James Vanderhorst. West Virginia University: James Anderson, John Burkhart, Kurt Donaldson, Yibing Han, Maneesh Sharma, and Walter Veselka. Field-testing of the method was conducted in 2017-2018 with generous expert input or assistance from the following individuals: Chad Ashworth, Brandy Bachman, Quincy Band, Jared Beard, Tomi Bergstrom, Brian Bridgewater, John Burkhart, Kevin Campbell, Neal Carte, Martin Christ, Dane Cunningham, Kurt Donaldson, Danielle Elliott, Tim Ferguson, John i Fickler, Mark Haibach, Yibing Han, Jacob Harrell, Kendall Harris, Alana Hartman, Jack Hopkins, Ed Kirk, Katy Lewis, Holly May, Christine Mazzarella, Craig McDougal, Kit McGinnis, Layton McGinnis, Kristin Mielcarek, Jeff Mihalik, Jacob Miller, Nick Murray, Herb Peddicord, Jessica Perkins, Mike Peters, Dave Reynolds, Kristy Rodrigue, Annie Rossi, Chris Seitz, Gregg Serenbetz, Scott Settle, Maneesh Sharma, Greg Short, Ernie Smith, Jessica Stout, Brian Streets, Jason Teets, Cory Trego, James Vanderhorst, Jared Varner, Anne Wakeford, Brittany Ward, Ryan Ward, Daniel Ware, John Wirts, and Jessica Yeager. ii Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.4 Flow chart of field and GIS components of WVWRAM ...................................................... 4 1.5 Overview of Metrics and Weights ........................................................................................ 5 1.6 Regulatory Use ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.6.1 Regulatory score ............................................................................................................. 8 1.6.2 Representative sampling of certain sites ........................................................................ 9 1.6.3 Year-round assessment ................................................................................................. 10 1.6.4 Scenario planning ......................................................................................................... 10 1.6.5 Linear projects .............................................................................................................. 12 1.6.6 Cumulative impacts ...................................................................................................... 12 1.6.7 Exemplary Wetlands..................................................................................................... 13 1.6.8 Cost-neutral credits/debits ............................................................................................ 15 1.6.9 When is WVWRAM required? .................................................................................... 15 1.7 Data Management and Review ........................................................................................... 15 1.7.1 GIS and tabular data entry ............................................................................................ 16 1.7.2 Data transfer and review by WVDEP ........................................................................... 17 1.7.3 Data tracking and archival ............................................................................................ 17 2.0 WHAT’S BEHIND THE USER INTERFACE ...................................................................... 18 2.1 Scoring ................................................................................................................................ 18 2.1.1 RegScore: Final Regulatory Score ............................................................................... 19 2.1.2 RegPrelim: Preliminary GIS Regulatory Score ............................................................ 19 2.1.3 RegFunction: Raw Regulatory Function ...................................................................... 19 2.1.4 Function: Comprehensive Functional Score................................................................. 20 2.1.5 Condition: Wetland Condition Score ........................................................................... 20 2.1.6 LandAcquire: WVDNR Land Acquisition Score ......................................................... 21 2.2 Upper-level Roll-up Metrics ............................................................................................... 21 iii 2.2.1 WQFunction: Water Quality ........................................................................................ 21 2.2.2 WQPotential: Water Quality Intrinsic Potential ........................................................... 22 2.2.3 WQOpportun: Water Quality Landscape Opportunity ................................................. 22 2.2.4 WQSociety: Water Quality Value to Society ............................................................... 23 2.2.5 FAFunction: Flood Attenuation.................................................................................... 24 2.2.6 FAPotential: Flood Attenuation Intrinsic Potential ...................................................... 24 2.2.7 FAOpportun: Flood Attenuation Landscape Opportunity ............................................ 25 2.2.8 FASociety: Flood Attenuation Value to Society .......................................................... 25 2.2.9 HFunction: Habitat & Ecological Integrity .................................................................. 25 2.2.10 HFuncNoBR: Habitat & Ecological Integrity without BRank ................................... 26 2.2.11 HCondition: Habitat & Ecological Integrity Condition ............................................. 26 2.2.12 HPotential: Habitat & Ecological Integrity Intrinsic Potential ................................... 27 2.2.13 HOpportun: Habitat & Ecological Integrity Landscape Opportunity ........................ 27 2.2.14 HSociety: Habitat & Ecological Integrity Value to Society ....................................... 27 2.3 Vegetation and Biodiversity Metrics................................................................................... 28 2.3.1 BRank: Site Biodiversity Rank ..................................................................................... 28 2.3.2 MarlPEM: Emergent Wetlands on Marl Substrate ....................................................... 30 2.3.3 VegAll: All Vegetation Types ...................................................................................... 31 2.3.4 VegByLP: Vegetation Fringing Open Water ............................................................... 31 2.3.5 VegFA roll-up: Vegetation for Flood Attenuation ....................................................... 32 2.3.6 VegFQ: Floristic Quality Assessment .......................................................................... 32 2.3.7 VegH roll-up: Vegetation Structure and Quality .......................................................... 37 2.3.8 VegHorInt: Horizontal Interspersion of Vegetation ..................................................... 37 2.3.9 VegPerUng: Persistent Ungrazed Vegetation............................................................... 38 2.3.10 VegVerStr: Vertical Structure of Vegetation ............................................................. 40 2.3.11 VegWoody: Woody Vegetation ................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Peat and Peatland Resources of Southeastern Ontario
    THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”).
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Fen Communitynorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1
    Northern Fen CommunityNorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1 Community Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Overview: Northern fen is a sedge- and rush-dominated 8,000 years. Expansion of peatlands likely occurred wetland occurring on neutral to moderately alkaline following climatic cooling, approximately 5,000 years saturated peat and/or marl influenced by groundwater ago (Heinselman 1970, Boelter and Verry 1977, Riley rich in calcium and magnesium carbonates. The 1989). community occurs north of the climatic tension zone and is found primarily where calcareous bedrock Several other natural peatland communities also underlies a thin mantle of glacial drift on flat areas or occur in Michigan and can be distinguished from shallow depressions of glacial outwash and glacial minerotrophic (nutrient-rich) northern fens, based on lakeplains and also in kettle depressions on pitted comparisons of nutrient levels, flora, canopy closure, outwash and moraines. distribution, landscape context, and groundwater influence (Kost et al. 2007). Northern fen is dominated Global and State Rank: G3G5/S3 by sedges, rushes, and grasses (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Additional open wetlands occurring on organic Range: Northern fen is a peatland type of glaciated soils include coastal fen, poor fen, prairie fen, bog, landscapes of the northern Great Lakes region, ranging intermittent wetland, and northern wet meadow. Bogs, from Michigan west to Minnesota and northward peat-covered wetlands raised above the surrounding into central Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec) groundwater by an accumulation of peat, receive inputs (Gignac et al. 2000, Faber-Langendoen 2001, Amon of nutrients and water primarily from precipitation et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
    United States Department of Field Indicators of Agriculture Natural Resources Hydric Soils in the Conservation Service United States In cooperation with A Guide for Identifying and Delineating the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Hydric Soils, Version 8.2, 2018 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils Version 8.2, 2018 (Including revisions to versions 8.0 and 8.1) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Edited by L.M. Vasilas, Soil Scientist, NRCS, Washington, DC; G.W. Hurt, Soil Scientist, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; and J.F. Berkowitz, Soil Scientist, USACE, Vicksburg, MS ii In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms
    Title 430 – National Soil Survey Handbook Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms Subpart A – General Information 629.0 Definition and Purpose This glossary provides the NCSS soil survey program, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists with landform, geologic, and related terms and their definitions to— (1) Improve soil landscape description with a standard, single source landform and geologic glossary. (2) Enhance geomorphic content and clarity of soil map unit descriptions by use of accurate, defined terms. (3) Establish consistent geomorphic term usage in soil science and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). (4) Provide standard geomorphic definitions for databases and soil survey technical publications. (5) Train soil scientists and related professionals in soils as landscape and geomorphic entities. 629.1 Responsibilities This glossary serves as the official NCSS reference for landform, geologic, and related terms. The staff of the National Soil Survey Center, located in Lincoln, NE, is responsible for maintaining and updating this glossary. Soil Science Division staff and NCSS participants are encouraged to propose additions and changes to the glossary for use in pedon descriptions, soil map unit descriptions, and soil survey publications. The Glossary of Geology (GG, 2005) serves as a major source for many glossary terms. The American Geologic Institute (AGI) granted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) permission (in letters dated September 11, 1985, and September 22, 1993) to use existing definitions. Sources of, and modifications to, original definitions are explained immediately below. 629.2 Definitions A. Reference Codes Sources from which definitions were taken, whole or in part, are identified by a code (e.g., GG) following each definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Compressibility Behavior of Tropical Peat Reinforced with Cement Columns
    American Journal of Applied Sciences 4 (10): 786-791, 2007 ISSN 1546-9239 © 2007 Science Publications Compressibility Behavior of Tropical Peat Reinforced with Cement Columns 1Youventharan Duraisamy, 2Bujang B.K. Huat and 2Azlan A. Aziz 1University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia 2University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Abstract : This paper presents the compressibility of tropical peat reinforced with cylin- drical cement columns. When a cement column is installed vertically in peat, its compres- sibility is reduced because of the hardened skeleton matrix formed by cement particles bonding with adjacent soil particles in the presence of pore water. The effects of the ce- ment column diameter on the compressibility have been investigated in this study. The results indicated that compressibility index Cc and Cα decreased with increasing diameter of the cement column. Specimens with 45 mm (area ratio = 0.09) diameter and 60 mm (area ratio = 0.16) diameter of single cement column were cured for 7, 14 and 28 days, after which they were subjected to Rowe Cell Consolidation test. Results are also pre- sented from test conducted on groups of cement columns using four (area ratio = 0.04) and nine (area ratio = 0.09) columns of 15 mm diameter each to investigate the influence of number of cement columns on compressibility of peat soil. Based on the results ob- tained, it shows that cement columns can successfully reduce the compressibility of tropi- cal peat. Keywords: Cement columns, deep soil mixing, organic soil, peat soil, Rowe Cell consol- idation. INTRODUCTION Experimental Design and Laboratory Work: The main objective of this research is to find out the effect of Peat represents the extreme form of soft soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Calcareous Fens in Southeast Alaska
    United States Department of Agriculture Calcareous Fens in Southeast Forest Service Pacifi c Northwest Alaska Research Station 1 Research Note Michael H. McClellan, Terry Brock, and James F. Baichtal PNW-RN-536 February 2003 Abstract Calcareous fens have not been identifi ed previously in southeast Alaska. A limited survey in southeast Alaska identifi ed several wetlands that appear to be calcare- ous fens. These sites were located in low-elevation discharge zones that are below recharge zones in carbonate highlands and talus foot-slopes. Two of six surveyed sites partly met the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources water chemistry criteria for calcareous fens, with pH values of 6.7 to 7.4 and calcium concentrations of 41.8 to 51.4 mg/L but fall short with regard to specifi c conductivity (315 to 380 μS/cm). Alkalinity was not determined. The vegetation was predominately herbaceous, with abundant Sitka sedge (Carex aquatilis) and scattered shrubs such as Barclay’s willow (Salix barclayi) and redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea ssp. sericea). The taxa found in these fens have been reported at other sites in southeast Alaska, although many were at the southern limits of their known ranges. The soils were Histosols composed of 0.6 to greater than 1 m of sedge peat. We found no evidence of calcium carbonate precipitates (marl or tufa) in the soil. Keywords: Alaska (southeast), fens, calcareous fens, wetlands, peatlands, karst. Introduction Calcareous fens, a subtype of extremely rich fen, are important because of their rarity, their distinctive water chemistry, and because they frequently harbor rare or endangered plants (Calcareous Fen Technical Committee 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Subsidence to Estimate Carbon Loss from Deforested and Drained Tropical Peatlands in Indonesia
    Review The Use of Subsidence to Estimate Carbon Loss from Deforested and Drained Tropical Peatlands in Indonesia Gusti Z. Anshari 1,2 , Evi Gusmayanti 1,3 and Nisa Novita 4,* 1 Magister of Environmental Science, Universitas Tanjungpura, Pontianak 78124, Indonesia; [email protected] (G.Z.A.); [email protected] (E.G.) 2 Soil Science Department, Universitas Tanjungpura, Pontianak 78124, Indonesia 3 Agrotechnology Department, Universitas Tanjungpura, Pontianak 78124, Indonesia 4 Yayasan Konservasi Alam Nusantara, DKI Jakarta 12160, Indonesia * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Drainage is a major means of the conversion of tropical peat forests into agriculture. Accordingly, drained peat becomes a large source of carbon. However, the amount of carbon (C) loss from drained peats is not simply measured. The current C loss estimate is usually based on a single proxy of the groundwater table, spatially and temporarily dynamic. The relation between groundwater table and C emission is commonly not linear because of the complex natures of heterotrophic carbon emission. Peatland drainage or lowering groundwater table provides plenty of oxygen into the upper layer of peat above the water table, where microbial activity becomes active. Consequently, lowering the water table escalates subsidence that causes physical changes of organic matter (OM) and carbon emission due to microbial oxidation. This paper reviews peat bulk density (BD), total organic carbon (TOC) content, and subsidence rate of tropical peat forest and drained peat. Data of BD, TOC, and subsidence were derived from published and unpublished sources. We Citation: Anshari, G.Z.; Gusmayanti, found that BD is generally higher in the top surface layer in drained peat than in the undrained peat.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Subaqueous Soil Survey
    Outline Introduction to subaqueous soils Chapter 1 - Characterization and mapping of freshwater subaqueous soil resources Chapter 2 - Freshwater subaqueous soils: accumulation of metals (arsenic and lead) and the determination of sedimentation rates Chapter 3 – Freshwater subaqueous soils and carbon accounting Chapter 4 – Aquatic invasive plants, total extractable phosphorus, and freshwater subaqueous soil relationships Subaqueous Soil Investigated as soil for the past 10-15 years Occur in water that is generally <2.5 m deep Support submerged aquatic vegetation Undergoes pedogenesis (soil forming processes) Incorporated in Soil Taxonomy (2010) Little work has been completed in freshwater systems Previous Subaqueous Soil Mapping in Rhode Island NRCS, Mapcoast, URI Coastal ponds and embayments Bathymetry data were used to create landform base maps Delineation of landscape units Vibracoring and field descriptions Mapping and interpretations (i.e. shellfish management, dredged materials, eelgrass restoration, and carbon accounting) Study Sites 3 natural ponds: Worden Pond Watchaug Pond Tucker Pond 3 created ponds: Belleville Pond Bowdish Reservoir Smith & Sayles Reservoir Summary Table of Study Sites Smith Bowdish and Belleville Tucker Worden Watchaug Name Reservoir Sayles Pond Pond Pond Pond Reservoir Area (ha) 103 75 48 39 444 231 Watershed 1478 640 1366 317 317 317 Size (mi²) Maximum 3.0 3.4 2.7 9.8 2.1 13.1 Depth (m) Average 1.8 1.5 1.5 3.4 1.2 2.4 Depth (m) Year 1850 1865 1800 N/A N/A N/A Impounded Summary Table of Study
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Mountain Soils
    2015 In every mountain region, soils constitute the foundation for agriculture, supporting essential ecosystem functions and food security. Mountain soils benefit not only the 900 million people living in the world’s mountainous areas but also billions more living downstream. Soil is a fragile resource that needs time to regenerate. Mountain soils are particularly susceptible to climate change, deforestation, unsustainable farming practices and resource extraction methods that affect their fertility and trigger land degradation, desertification and disasters such as floods and landslides. Mountain peoples often have a deep-rooted connection to the soils they live on; it is a part of their heritage. Over the centuries, they have developed solutions and techniques, indigenous practices, knowledge and sustain- able soil management approaches which have proved to be a key to resilience. This publication, produced by the Mountain Partnership as a contribution to the International Year of Soils 2015, presents the main features of mountain soil systems, their environmental, economic and social values, the threats they are facing and the cultural traditions concerning them. Case studies provided by Mountain Partnership members and partners around the world showcase challenges and opportunities as well as lessons learned in soil management. This publication presents a series of lessons learned and recommendations to inform moun- Understanding Mountain soils tain communities, policy-makers, development experts and academics who support sustainable
    [Show full text]
  • Report for 1972 - Part 1
    Soil Survey Of England And Wales (1973) Thank you for using eradoc, a platform to publish electronic copies of the Rothamsted Documents. Your requested document has been scanned from original documents. If you find this document is not readible, or you suspect there are some problems, please let us know and we will correct that. Report for 1972 - Part 1 Full Table of Content Soil Survey of England and Wales K. E. Clare Soil Survey of England and Wales , K. E. Clare (1973) Report For 1972 - Part 1, pp 293 - 322 - DOI: https://doi.org/10.23637/ERADOC-1-127 - This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Report for 1972 - Part 1 pp 1 Soil Survey Of England And Wales (1973) SOIL SURVEY OF ENGLAND AND WALES K. E. CLARE The aims of ttre Soil Surveys of England and Wales and of Scotland are to describe, classify and map the different soils in Britain. Classification is mainly on the basis of properties of the soil profile observed in the field, the parent material from which the soit is thought to come, and the etrvironment and use made ol the land. Samples are analysed in the laboratory to confrm and give precision to field observations, to charac- terise the soils further and to study soil-forming proc€sses. The properties of the soils shown on maps are described in accompanying publications, as are the geography, geology, climate, vegetation and land use of the district surveyed. A soil map and text together are a permanent record of the distribution and properties of the various kinds of soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Soils, Hydrology and Geomorphology
    TWO Wetland Soils, Hydrology, and Geomorphology C. RHETT JACKSON, JAMES A. THOMPSON, and RANDALL K. KOLKA WETLAND SOILS Percolation Landscape Position Groundwater Flow Soil Properties Variable Source Area Runoff or Saturated Surface Runoff Soil Profiles Summary of Hillslope Flow Process Soil Processes WETLAND WATER BUDGETS Legal Differentiation of Wetland Soils HYDROPATTERNS HILLSLOPE AND WETLAND HYDROLOGY Hillslope Hydrologic Processes WETLAND HYDRAULICS AND RESIDENCE TIME Interception Infiltration, Soil Physics, and Soil Water Storage GEOMORPHIC CONTROLS ON WETLAND HYDROLOGY Overland Flow EFFECTS OF LAND USE ON WETLAND HYDROLOGY Evapotranspiration Interflow The hydrology, soils, and watershed processes of a wetland and chemical behavior of soils, creating a special class of all interact with vegetation and animals over time to cre- soils known as hydric soils. The hydric soils in turn alter ate the dynamic physical template upon which a wetland’s the movement of water and solutes through the wetland ecosystem is based (Fig. 2.1). With respect to many ecosys- system. The soil is where many of the hydrologic and bio- tem processes, the physical factors defining a wetland envi- geochemical processes that influence wetland function ronment at any particular time are often treated as inde- and ecology occur. A complete understanding of wetland pendent variables, but in fact none of these variables are hydrology, wetland formation, wetland ecology, and wet- independent of the others. For example, the hydropattern land management requires a basic understanding of soils— of a wetland (the time series of water levels) is often consid- including soil properties, soil processes, and soil variabil- ered a master variable that affects the soils, biogeochem- ity— and of the hydrologic processes that control wetland istry, and biology of a wetland, but the hydropattern is in systems.
    [Show full text]
  • SH NWM, NST & Poor Fen ERA Plan Approved 10-24-18.Docx
    Shingl ton North rn W t M adow, North rn Shrub Thick t and Poor F n ERA Plan Figur 1. Shingl ton North rn W t M adow, North rn Shrub Thick t and Poor F n ERA plan locator map. Administrativ Information: • Th Shingl ton North rn W t M adow (NWM), North rn Shrub Thick t (NST) and Poor F n ERA Plan contains thr adjac nt ERAs, on of ach of th natural communiti s list d. • Th s ERA’s ar locat d on Stat For st land in th Shingl ton FMU, in Schoolcraft County, in compartm nts 32, 49, 50, 53. • Th Cr ighton Marsh North rn W t M adow, North rn Shrub Thick t and Poor F n ERAs ar within th S n y Manistiqu Swamp Manag m nt Ar a (MA). • Schoolcraft County, Manistiqu Township, T44N R15W s ctions 26-28, and 33-36; T43N R15W s ctions 1-3, 10-12, 13, and 14; and Doyl Township T43N R14W s ction 7. • Primary plan author: Krist n Matson, For st R sourc s Division (FRD) EUP Inv ntory and Planning Sp cialist; contributors and r vi w rs includ Sh rry MacKinnon, Wildlif Division (WLD) Wildlif Ecologist; K ith Kintigh, FRD For st C rtification and Cons rvation Sp cialist; Cody Norton, WLD Wildlif Biologist; Bob Burnham, FRD Unit Manag r; and FRD For st rs Tori Irving and Adam P tr lius. • Stat of Michigan land surrounds th ERAs on th north and south, with privat own rship to th w st, and th S n y National Wildlif R fug to th north ast.
    [Show full text]