DOCSLIB.ORG

W a Sh in G to N Na Tu Ra L H Er Itag E Pr Og Ra M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
W a Sh in G to N Na Tu Ra L H Er Itag E Pr Og Ra M PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Wetland Ecosystem Conservation Priorities for Washington State. An Update of Natural Heritage Classification, Inventory, and Prioritization of Wetlands of High Conservation Value. Prepared for WASHINGTON U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Prepared by F. Joseph Rocchio, Rex C. Crawford, and Rebecca Niggemann December 31, 2015 Natural Heritage Report 2015-05 Wetland Ecosystem Conservation Priorities for Washington State. An Update of Natural Heritage Classification, Inventory, and Prioritization of Wetlands of High Conservation Value. Washington Natural Heritage Program Report Number: 2015-05 December 31, 2015 Prepared by: F. Joseph Rocchio, Rex C. Crawford, and Rebecca Niggemann Washington Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Resources Olympia, Washington 98504-7014 . ON THE COVER: Photograph by: Joe Rocchio Table of Contents Page Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii Figures............................................................................................................................................ iv Tables .............................................................................................................................................. v Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Scope ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Products and Outputs ......................................................................................................... 4 2 Methods........................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Natural Heritage Methodology .......................................................................................... 6 2.2 Element Occurrence vs. Wetland of High Conservation Value ........................................ 6 2.3 Prioritizing Conservation of Wetland & Riparian Vegetation Types: The Conservation Status Rank ........................................................................................................ 9 2.4 Wetland & Riparian Definitions ...................................................................................... 11 2.5 Ecological Classification of Native Wetland & Riparian Vegetation of Washington -- A New Classification Framework for Washington’s Wetland Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 12 2.6 Updating Existing and Searching for New Wetlands of High Conservation Value ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.7 Level 1 Ecological Integrity Assessment Model Development ...................................... 23 2.8 Developing the Floristic Quality Assessment Method .................................................... 25 2.9 Identifying Reference Standard Wetlands ....................................................................... 28 3. Results/Discussion .................................................................................................................... 30 3.1 Ecological Classification of Native Wetland & Riparian Vegetation of Washington: A Summary of Types ...................................................................................... 30 3.2 Conservation Status Ranks Assignments......................................................................... 30 ii 3.3 Field Surveys of Existing and New Wetlands of High Conservation Value ................... 36 3.4 WHCV Deleted from WNHP’s Biotics Database ........................................................... 36 3.5 Level 1 EIA Results ......................................................................................................... 37 3.6 FQA Results..................................................................................................................... 41 3.7 EcoObs Database ............................................................................................................. 42 3.8 Preliminary List of Reference Standard Wetlands .......................................................... 42 4.0 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 46 4.1 Contributions to Advancing Wetland Conservation ........................................................ 46 4.2 Limitations of Data .......................................................................................................... 46 4.3 Outreach & Information Transfer .................................................................................... 47 5.0 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................... 49 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 50 Appendix A: Natural Heritage Methodology ............................................................................... 59 A.1 Natural Heritage Methodology ....................................................................................... 59 A.2 Elements of Biodiversity ................................................................................................ 60 A.3 Element Conservation Status Rank................................................................................. 62 A.4 Element Occurrences ...................................................................................................... 64 A.5 Element Occurrence Ranks (Ecological Integrity Assessment Rank) ............................ 65 Appendix B: Ecological Classification of Native Wetland & Riparian Vegetation of Washington (December 2015 Version) ........................................................................................ 68 Appendix C: Level 1 EIA GIS Protocol Development ................................................................. 69 Appendix D: Field Forms ............................................................................................................. 77 Appendix E: EcoObs Database ..................................................................................................... 86 Appendix F: Potential Number of Wetland Reference Standard Sites for Washington ............... 87 iii Figures Page Figure 1. Global Conservation Status Ranks of Washington Wetland Plant Associations .................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 2. State Conservation Status Ranks of Washington Wetland Plant Associations ............. 35 Figure 3. Distribution of Plant Association-Based Wetlands of High Conservation Value in Washington..................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 4. Wetlands of High Conservation Value Deleted and Retained in WNHP’s Information System ....................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 5. Predicted Locations of Wetlands with Excellent Ecological Integrity in Washington ................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 6. Correlation of Mean C vs. Human Stressors. Groupings are Ecological Systems ......................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 7. Potential Reference Standard Sites in the Central Puget Lowlands. ............................. 45 iv Tables Page Table 1. Distribution of Rare Plants (i.e. considered Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive by the Washington Natural Heritage Program) by Wetland Type. Note: Some species occur in more than one wetland type) ...................................................................... 2 Table 3. Decision Matrix to Determine Ecosystem Element Occurrences (e.g. Tracking Guidelines) ...................................................................................................................... 7 Table 5. Stressor Impact Ratings and Scores ................................................................................ 23 Table 6. Level 1 EIA Metrics Used for This Project .................................................................... 24 Table 7. Conversion of Level 1 Raw Values to EIA Ranks ......................................................... 24 Table 8. Western Washington Floristic Quality Assessment Panel Members .............................. 27 Table 9. Eastern Washington Floristic Quality Assessment Panel Members ............................... 28 Table 10. Summary of Types in the Ecological Classification of Native Wetland & Riparian Vegetation of Washington .............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    Appendix C Botanical Resources Table of Contents Purpose Of This Appendix ............................................................................................................. Below Tables C-1. Federal and State Status, Current and Proposed Forest Service Status, and Global Distribution of the TEPCS Plant Species on the Sawtooth National Forest ........................... C-1 C-2. Habit, Lifeform, Population Trend, and Habitat Grouping of the TEPCS Plant Species for the Sawtooth National Forest ............................................................................... C-3 C-3. Rare Communities, Federal and State Status, Rarity Class, Threats, Trends, and Research Natural Area Distribution for the Sawtooth National Forest ................................... C-5 C-4. Plant Species of Cultural Importance for the Sawtooth National Forest ................................... C-6 PURPOSE OF THIS APPENDIX This appendix is designed to provide detailed information about habitat, lifeform, status, distribution, and habitat grouping for the Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive (current and proposed) plant species found on the Sawtooth National Forest. The detailed information is provided to enable managers to more efficiently direct the implementation of Botanical Resources goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. Additionally, this appendix provides detailed information about the rare plant communities located on the Sawtooth National Forest and should provide additional support of Forest-wide objectives. Species of cultural
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • State of Colorado 2016 Wetland Plant List
    5/12/16 State of Colorado 2016 Wetland Plant List Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ Aquilegia caerulea James (Colorado Blue Columbine) Photo: William Gray List Counts: Wetland AW GP WMVC Total UPL 83 120 101 304 FACU 440 393 430 1263 FAC 333 292 355 980 FACW 342 329 333 1004 OBL 279 285 285 849 Rating 1477 1419 1504 1511 User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps Region. 3) Some state boundaries lie within two or more Corps Regions. If a species occurs in one region but not the other, its rating will be shown in one column and the other column will be BLANK. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 1/22 5/12/16 Scientific Name Authorship AW GP WMVC Common Name Abies bifolia A. Murr. FACU FACU Rocky Mountain Alpine Fir Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL UPL FACU Velvetleaf Acalypha rhomboidea Raf. FACU FACU Common Three-Seed-Mercury Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FACU Rocky Mountain Maple Acer grandidentatum Nutt. FACU FAC FACU Canyon Maple Acer negundo L. FACW FAC FAC Ash-Leaf Maple Acer platanoides L. UPL UPL FACU Norw ay Maple Acer saccharinum L. FAC FAC FAC Silver Maple Achillea millefolium L. FACU FACU FACU Common Yarrow Achillea ptarmica L.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Equisetum Giganteum</I>
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 3-24-2009 Ecophysiology and Biomechanics of Equisetum Giganteum in South America Chad Eric Husby Florida International University, [email protected] DOI: 10.25148/etd.FI10022522 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Husby, Chad Eric, "Ecophysiology and Biomechanics of Equisetum Giganteum in South America" (2009). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 200. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/200 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida ECOPHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS OF EQUISETUM GIGANTEUM IN SOUTH AMERICA A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in BIOLOGY by Chad Eric Husby 2009 To: Dean Kenneth Furton choose the name of dean of your college/school College of Arts and Sciences choose the name of your college/school This dissertation, written by Chad Eric Husby, and entitled Ecophysiology and Biomechanics of Equisetum Giganteum in South America, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved. _______________________________________ Bradley C. Bennett _______________________________________ Jack B. Fisher _______________________________________ David W. Lee _______________________________________ Leonel Da Silveira Lobo O'Reilly Sternberg _______________________________________ Steven F. Oberbauer, Major Professor Date of Defense: March 24, 2009 The dissertation of Chad Eric Husby is approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Scouring-Rush Horsetail Scientific Name: Equisetum Hyemale Order
    Common Name: Scouring-rush Horsetail Scientific Name: Equisetum hyemale Order: Equisetales Family: Equisetaceae Wetland Plant Status: Facultative Ecology & Description Scouring-rush horsetail is an evergreen, perennial plant that completes a growing season in two years. At maturity, scouring-rush horsetail usually averages 3 feet in height but can be range anywhere from 2 to 5 feet. It can survive in a variety of environments. One single plant can spread 6 feet in diameter. It has cylindrical stems that averages a third of an inch in diameter. Noticeably spotted are the jointed unions that are located down the plant. The stems are hollow and don’t branch off into additional stems. Also, scouring- rush horsetail has rough ridges that run longitudinal along the stem. Although not covered in leaves, tiny leaves are joined together around the stem which then forms a black or green band, or sheath at each individual joint on the stem. This plant has an enormous root system that can reach 6 feet deep and propagates in two ways: rhizomes and spores. Incredibly, due to the fact that this plant is not full of leaves, it is forced to photosynthesize through the stem rather than leaves. Habitat Scouring-rush horsetail is highly tolerant of tough conditions. It can survive and thrive in full sun or part shade and can successfully grow in a variety of soil types. It can also grow in moderate to wet soils, and can survive in up to 4 inches of water. Distribution Scouring-rush horsetail can be found throughout the United States, Eurasia, and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic and Boreal Plant Species Decline at Their Southern Range Limits in the Rocky Mountains
    Ecology Letters, (2017) 20: 166–174 doi: 10.1111/ele.12718 LETTER Arctic and boreal plant species decline at their southern range limits in the Rocky Mountains Abstract Peter Lesica1,2* and Climate change is predicted to cause a decline in warm-margin plant populations, but this hypoth- Elizabeth E. Crone3 esis has rarely been tested. Understanding which species and habitats are most likely to be affected is critical for adaptive management and conservation. We monitored the density of 46 populations representing 28 species of arctic-alpine or boreal plants at the southern margin of their ranges in the Rocky Mountains of Montana, USA, between 1988 and 2014 and analysed population trends and relationships to phylogeny and habitat. Marginal populations declined overall during the past two decades; however, the mean trend for 18 dicot populations was À5.8% per year, but only À0.4% per year for the 28 populations of monocots and pteridophytes. Declines in the size of peripheral populations did not differ significantly among tundra, fen and forest habitats. Results of our study support predicted effects of climate change and suggest that vulnerability may depend on phylogeny or associated anatomical/physiological attributes. Keywords arctic-alpine plants, boreal plants, climate change, fens, marginal populations, peripheral popula- tions, range margins, Rocky Mountains. Ecology Letters (2017) 20: 166–174 2009; Sexton et al. 2009; Brusca et al. 2013), which suggests INTRODUCTION that in some cases climate does not determine a species’ range. Climate of the earth is changing at an unprecedented rate Nonetheless, most plant ecologists believe that climate is an (Jackson & Overpeck 2000; IPCC 2013) and is predicted to important factor determining geographic range limits.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: Vegetation of Sphagnum-Dominated Peatlands
    CHAPTER 5: VEGETATION OF SPHAGNUM-DOMINATED PEATLANDS As discussed in the previous chapters, peatland ecosystems have unique chemical, physical, and biological properties that have given rise to equally unique plant communities. As indicated in Chapter 1, extensive literature exists on the classification, description, and ecology of peatland ecosystems in Europe, the northeastern United States, Canada, and the Rocky Mountains. In addition to the references cited in Chapter 1, there is some other relatively recent literature on peatlands (Verhoeven 1992; Heinselman 1963, 1970; Chadde et al., 1998). Except for efforts on the classification and ecology of peatlands in British Columbia by the National Wetlands Working Group (1988), the Burns Bog Ecosystem Review (Hebda et al. 2000), and the preliminary classification of native, low elevation, freshwater vegetation in western Washington (Kunze 1994), scant information exists on peatlands within the more temperate lowland or maritime climates of the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia). 5.1 Introduction There are a number of classification schemes and many different peatland types, but most use vegetation in addition to hydrology, chemistry and topological characteristics to differentiate among peatlands. The subject of this report are acidic peatlands that support acidophilic (acid-loving) and xerophytic vegetation, such as Sphagnum mosses and ericaceous shrubs. Ecosystems in Washington state appear to represent a mosaic of vegetation communities at various stages of succession and are herein referred to collectively as Sphagnum-dominated peatlands. Although there has been some recognition of the unique ecological and societal values of peatlands in Washington, a statewide classification scheme has not been formally adopted or widely recognized in the scientific community.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Species-Habitat Relationships: 2016 Project Report
    Field Keys to Groups and Alliances in the National Vegetation Classification: Northern Basin & Range / Columbia Plateau Ecoregions NatureServe Conservation Science Division P r i n c i p a l Investigator Patrick J. C o m e r , Chief Ecologist [email protected] 703.797.4802 November 2017 Photos (clockwise from top left; all used under Creative Commons license CC BY 2.0.): Big sage shrubland, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada. USDA Photo by Susan Elliot. http://flic.kr/p/ax64DY Jeffrey pine woodland, photo by David Prasad. https://www.flickr.com/photos/33671002@N00 Northwest Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie, Dakota Prairie National Grasslands, North Dakota. Western juniper woodland, BLM Black Hills Recreation Area, Oregon. Acknowledgements This work was completed with funding provided by the Bureau of Land Management through the BLM’s Fish, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Resource Management Program under Cooperative Agreement L13AC00286 between NatureServe and the BLM. Suggested citation: Schulz, K., G. Kittel, M. Reid and P. Comer. 2017. Field Keys to Divisions, Macrogroups, Groups and Alliances in the National Vegetation Classification: Northern Basin & Range / Columbia Plateau Ecoregions. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management by NatureServe, Arlington VA. 14p + 58p of Keys + Appendices. See appendix document: Descriptions_NVC_Groups_Alliances_ NorthernBasinRange_Nov_2017.pdf 2 | P a g e Contents Introduction and Background ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Carex of New England
    Field Guide to Carex of New England Lisa A. Standley A Special Publication of the New England Botanical Club About the Author: Lisa A. Standley is an environmental consultant. She obtained a B.S, and M.S. from Cornell University and Ph.D. from the University of Washington. She has published several articles on the systematics of Carex, particularly Section Phacocystis, and was the author of several section treatments in the Flora of North America. Cover Illustrations: Pictured are Carex pensylvanica and Carex intumescens. Field Guide to Carex of New England Lisa A. Standley Special Publication of the New England Botanical Club Copyright © 2011 Lisa A. Standley Acknowledgements This book is dedicated to Robert Reed, who first urged me to write a user-friendly guide to Carex; to the memory of Melinda F. Denton, my mentor and inspiration; and to Tony Reznicek, for always sharing his expertise. I would like to thank all of the people who helped with this book in so many ways, particularly Karen Searcy and Robert Bertin for their careful editing; Paul Somers, Bruce Sorrie, Alice Schori, Pam Weatherbee, and others who helped search for sedges; Arthur Gilman, Melissa Dow Cullina, and Patricia Swain, who carefully read early drafts of the book; and to Emily Wood, Karen Searcy, and Ray Angelo, who provided access to the herbaria at Harvard University, the University of Massachusetts, and the New England Botanical Club. CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • SCOURING RUSH Franklin County Noxious Noxious Weed EQUISETUM SSP
    Franklin County SCOURING RUSH Franklin County Noxious Noxious Weed EQUISETUM SSP. Weed Control Board Control Board The FCWB educates property owners on identification, im- Visit our website! Options for Control pacts and control methods for state-listed noxious weeds and www.fcweedboard.com helps out with the identification and control options of the oc- casional nuisance weed. It is also our job to locate noxious weed infestations that are not being effectively controlled. To achieve this, the program con- ducts annual surveys and fol- low-up checks on existing nox- ious weed locations. Program staff provides the landowner with information on how to identify and control noxious weeds on their prop- erty. If requested, we will meet with the owner or prop- erty manager to review the weed locations and discuss site-specific noxious weed control plans. For more information, contact the FCWB at 509-545-3847 or [email protected]. Physical: 502 Boeing St. Mailing: 1016 N 4th Pasco, WA 99301 509-545-3847 [email protected] www.fcweedboard.com Scouring Rush items such as cooking pots or rhizomes, manual or mechanical control should be drinking mugs. In Japan field done as soon after emergence as possible. horsetail (E. hymale) is still Because of it’s hard, waxy cuticle, high silica content, Scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale) is a nuisance boiled and then dried to be used for final polishing on and aggressive rhizomes, horsetail is very difficult to plant invading landscaping, yards, irrigated ditches, control with herbicides. Herbicide applications are and irrigated farmland in Franklin County.
    [Show full text]