DOCSLIB.ORG

Classification of Lentic Riparian Areas: Challenges and Opportunities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Classification of Lentic Riparian Areas: Challenges and Opportunities Classification of Lentic Riparian Areas: Challenges and Opportunities Linda Vance Montana Natural Heritage Program University of Montana SRM Lentic Symposium Billings, MT February 9,2011 Goals of the presentation Introduce the concept of wetland classification and its benefits Discuss the various classification systems in effect and under development Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of major systems Assess potential for crosswalking across systems Lentic vs. Lotic Wetlands Lentic riparian wetlands: are associated with still water systems. occur in basins, on slopes or on flats lack a defined channel and floodplain. Lotic riparian wetlands are associated with running water systems contain a defined channel and floodplain. have am open-conduit channel carrying flowing water and dissolved and suspended material. We’re done, right? No: defining wetlands is not the same as classifying them. Why classify? Inventory and mapping Assessment Monitoring Management Inventory and mapping Classifying wetlands into discrete types allows us to track change over time, and to identify trends that may only affect specific types of wetlands Example: USFWS Status and Trends measures changes in acreage by wetland class Assessment Wetlands are typically assessed in relation to a “reference standard” representing minimally disturbed, least disturbed, or best available condition. Requires ability to distinguish between attributes that result from different geographic or environmental drivers or those that have been brought about by human disturbance Monitoring By classifying wetlands into similar types, it is easier to track the impacts of environmental variables such as drought or to predict return intervals for processes like fire Classification also helps predict transitions, expected restoration pathways, and community composition, so that natural change over time can be distinguished from anthropogenic change Management Classifying wetlands into discrete types helps managers by identifying specific responses to management actions, susceptibility to invasives, sensitivity to disturbance, etc. Great idea, let’s do it…. Multiple classification systems already in effect and in development across the country Three main kinds of classification: Structurally-based, generally not regionally specific Structure and geography- based, emphasizing regional groupings Geography-based with strict boundaries Classification based on structure: Cowardin Cowardin classification is best Landform: Palustrine, known Lacustrine, Riverine Designed to facilitate mapping Vegetation/Habitat: Forested, emergent, shrub-scrub, aquatic bed Directed at waterfowl management efforts: describes water and food availability Water regime: Seasonally flooded, permanently flooded, saturated, etc Widely used as a result of National Wetlands Inventory Hydrogeomorphic modifiers: Excavated, ditched, diked, Consistent across the country impounded PALUSTRINE AQUATIC BED PERMANENTLY FLOODED PALUSTRINE EMERGENT SEMI-PERMANENTLY FLOODED PALUSTRINE SHRUB-SCRUB SEASONALLY FLOODED Fact that this is in the Middle Rockies is irrelevant for classification purposes Classification based on structure: HGM Hydrogeomorphic method is used Geomorphic: lacustrine fringe, by the ACOE and many state tidal fringe, slope, mineral flats, transportation and water quality organic flats, depressional, agencies riverine The HGM emphasizes the Water source: precipitation, functions that particular classes of groundwater, surface flow wetlands provide, e.g., flood attentuation, ground water Hydrodynamics: direction and recharge, sediment capture, strength of flow nutrient cycling, steam flow maintenance, aquatic habitat, etc. It is especially useful in permitting and mitigation contexts GEOMORPHOLOGY: DEPRESSIONAL WATER SOURCE: SURFACE HYDRODYNAMICS: THROUGHFLOW Regional handbooks have been developed to provide further guidance to classification, e.g., for prairie potholes, wet pine flats in the Atlantic coast, rainwater basin depressional wetlands in Nebraska…..but again, emphasis on geomorphology rather than vegetation Classification based on structure and geography: GAP/Landfire Recurring groups of biological Level 1: Lifeform (Forest, communities in similar physical Grassland, Sparse and Barren) environments that are influenced by similar dynamic Level 2: Climatic and ecological processes, like fire elevational gradients (e.g., or flooding alpine grassland, montane 551 ecological systems and 39 grassland) land use classes at the national level Level 3: Geographic gradients, Designed for use with e.g., “Northern Rocky predictive distribution models Mountain Conifer Swamp” but of wildlife species and for “Intermountain Basin predicting fire intervals and Greasewood Flat”” severity NORTH AMERICAN ARID WEST EMERGENT MARSH Ecological systems are linked to the National Vegetation Classification Standard, and detailed information on dynamics, structure, composition and (in some cases) restoration and management is available through Natureserve and Heritage programs Classification based on structure and geography: The National Vegetation Classification Standard There are 8 classification levels based on 5 criteria: Level 1 Formation Class Diagnostic growth forms Level 2 Formation Subclass Dominant growth forms Compositional similarity Level 3 Formation Diagnostic species Dominant species Level 4 Division Biogeographic criteria enter at Level 5 Macrogroup Level 4, e.g., Level 6 Group Division: North American wet Meadow, Riparian and Marsh Macrogroup: Great Plains Freshwater Wet Meadow, Level 7 Association Riparian and Marsh Group: Great Plains Prairie Level 8 Alliance Pothole Classification based on defined biogeographic boundaries: Ecological sites Interagency effort to define common units for inventory, monitoring and analysis Depends on defined biogeographic boundaries established through expert knowledge or analysis (MLRAs, LTAs) Includes climate features, soil features, ecological dynamics; includes state & transition models, and wildlife habitat elements and vegetation Ecological s ECOLOGICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS ECOLOGICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site Type: Rangeland Site Type: Rangeland Site Name: Draft Wet Meadow (WM) RRUSite 46- CName: 15-19" p.z.Draft Wet Meadow (WM) RRU 46- / / Carex rostrata - Carex aquatilis var. aquatilisC 15-19" p.z. ( / / beaked sedge - water sedge) Site ID: R046XC518MT (Carex rostrata - Carex aquatilis var. aquatilis Major Land Resource Area: 046-Northern( beaked Rocky Mountain sedge Foothills - water sedge) Site ID: R046XC518MT Major Land Resource Area: 046-Northern Rocky Mountain Foothills Strengths and weaknesses MAPPING INVENTORY ASSESSMENT MONITORING MANAGEMENT NWI Strong Strong Weak Weak Weak HGM Strong-weak Strong * Strong Moderate Moderate LF/GAP Strong Depends Moderate** Strong Moderate-weak NVC Depends Depends Depends Depends Depends ESD Weak Depends Strong Strong Strong Crosswalks allow for effective information mining Palustrine Aquatic bed/ Palustrine emergent, semi-permanently flooded Depressional, surface water through-flow Arid West Emergent Marsh Typha latifolia western herbaceous vegetation No ESD (not rangeland) Take home messages Classification systems are vexing, but classification is vital to many monitoring and management activities Range professionals with an interest in wetlands need to familiarize themselves with the classification systems and their uses MORE INFO: www.mtnhp.org.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
    Pfego-/6^7fV SDMS DocID 463450 ^7'7/ Biological Services Program \ ^ FWS/OBS-79/31 DECEMBER 1979 Superfund Records Center ClassificaHioFF^^^ V\Aetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States KPHODtKtD BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFOR/V^ATION SERVICE U.S. IKPARTMEN TOF COMMERCt SPRINGMflO, VA. 22161 Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) C # The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fish . and Wildlife Service to supply scientific information and methodologies on key environmental issues which have an impact on fish and wildlife resources and their supporting ecosystems. The mission of the Program is as follows: 1. To strengthen the Fish and Wildlife Service in its role as a primary source of Information on natural fish and wildlife resources, par­ ticularly with respect to environmental impact assessment. 2. To gather, analyze, and present information that will aid decision­ makers in the identification and resolution of problems asso­ ciated with major land and water use changes. 3. To provide better ecological information and evaluation for Department of the Interior development programs, such as those relating to energy development. Information developed by the Biological Services Program is intended for use in the planning and decisionmaking process, to prevent or minimize the impact of development on fish and wildlife. Biological Services research activities and technical assistance services are based on an analysis of the issues, the decisionmakers involved and their information neeids, and an evaluation of the state^f-the-art to Identify information gaps and determine priorities. This Is a strategy to assure that the products produced and disseminated will be timely and useful.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Classification As Per Cowardin Et Al. 1979
    Wetland Classification as per Cowardin et al. 1979 PSS01-e0tg Ω PEM01-f0tg PAB03-h0tg Matthew J. Gray University of Tennessee Why Classify Wetlands? 1) Delineate their edges •Boundary of development 2) Estimate their area •Management, Excavation, Mitigation 3) To Create maps Caribbean Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm FWS/OBS-79/31 December 1979 Lewis Cowardin (USFWS) Virginia Carter (USGS) Francis Golet (URI) Edward LaRoe (NOAA) Biological Classification System •Wetlands •Deepwater Habitats Jurisdictional USACE 1987 Manual 1 Boundary Between Wetland and Deepwater Systems Non-tidal: Emergent Plants! >2 m (6.6 ft) in Depth (low water level—fall) Permanently flooded rivers and lakes Tidal: Extreme low water level (spring tides) Permanently flooded brackish marshes or marine areas The Classification System Hierarchical Structure Systems (5), Subsystems (8), Classes (11), Subclasses (28), Dominance Type, Modifiers (3) Marine Estuarine Riverine Lacustrine Palustrine •Hydrologic •Geomorphic •Chemical •Biological Hierarchical Structure 2 Marine System Open ocean overlying the continental shelf and its coastline, where salinities are >30 ppt except at the mouths of estuaries. OR, 1) Extreme high water 3) Estuarine system OR, limit of spring tides If #2 not present 2) Wetland emergent 4) Continental shelf vegetation (ocean extent) “High-energy Systems” Subsystems: Subtidal: Substrate is continuously submerged (deepwater) Intertidal: Substrate is exposed and flooded by tides (wetland) Marine Subsystems Intertidal Subtidal Splash Zone Estuarine System Tidal deepwater systems and wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly- obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Alberta Wetland Classification System – June 1, 2015
    Alberta Wetland Classification System June 1, 2015 ISBN 978-1-4601-2257-0 (Print) ISBN: 978-1-4601-2258-7 (PDF) Title: Alberta Wetland Classification System Guide Number: ESRD, Water Conservation, 2015, No. 3 Program Name: Water Policy Branch Effective Date: June 1, 2015 This document was updated on: April 13, 2015 Citation: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2015. Alberta Wetland Classification System. Water Policy Branch, Policy and Planning Division, Edmonton, AB. Any comments, questions, or suggestions regarding the content of this document may be directed to: Water Policy Branch Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 7th Floor, Oxbridge Place 9820 – 106th Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6 Phone: 780-644-4959 Email: [email protected] Additional copies of this document may be obtained by contacting: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Information Centre Main Floor, Great West Life Building 9920 108 Street Edmonton Alberta Canada T5K 2M4 Call Toll Free Alberta: 310-ESRD (3773) Toll Free: 1-877-944-0313 Fax: 780-427-4407 Email: [email protected] Website: http://esrd.alberta.ca Alberta Wetland Classification System Contributors: Matthew Wilson Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Thorsten Hebben Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Danielle Cobbaert Alberta Energy Regulator Linda Halsey Stantec Linda Kershaw Arctic and Alpine Environmental Consulting Nick Decarlo Stantec Environment and Sustainable Resource Development would also
    [Show full text]
  • The Representation of Wetland Types and Species in RAMSAR Sites in The
    The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 1 2 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area White waterlily, Nymphaea alba The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area In order to get a better reference the future and long-term planning of activities aimed for the protection of wetlands and their ecological functions, WWF Sweden initiated an evaluation of the representation of wetland types and species in the RAMSAR network of protected sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area. The study was contracted to Dr Mats Eriksson (MK Natur- och Miljökonsult HB, Sweden), who has been assisted by Mrs Alda Nikodemusa, based in Riga, for the compilation of information from the countries in Eastern Europe. Mats O.G. Eriksson MK Natur- och Miljökonsult HB, Tommered 6483, S-437 92 Lindome, Sweden With assistance by Alda Nikodemusa, Kirsu iela 6, LV-1006 Riga, Latvia The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 3 Contents Foreword 5 Summary 6 Sammanfattning på svenska 8 Purpose of the study 10 Background and introduction 10 Study area 12 Methods 14 Land-use in the catchment area 14 Definitions and classification of wetland types 14 Country-wise analyses of the representation of wetland types 15 Accuracy of the analysis 16 Overall analysis of the
    [Show full text]
  • Part 1: Wetland Wildlife Values
    Amy Marrella, Acting Commissioner www.ct.gov/dep P a r t 1 : Wetland Wildlife V a l u e s Presentation Objectives Introduce wetland wildlife concepts Identify different types of freshwater wetlands using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USF&W) Wetland Classification System Identify wetland wildlife values 2 Introduction to Wetland Wildlife Concepts 3 Introduction Wetlands are highly productive ecosystems with diverse habitats and vegetative structure. The various types of wetlands provide food and cover for a variety of wildlife. 4 Introduction For example, a vernal pool, which is temporarily flooded, provides critical spring breeding habitat for salamanders but is not suitable for beavers which require permanently flooded areas. 5 Biogeography of Wetland Wildlife Wildlife Distribution Factors Open water to vegetation ratio Adjacent land-use Topography 6 Biogeography Generally speaking the larger the wetland, and the more diverse the habitat, the greater the wildlife diversity. This concept is called biogeography. The park area in the photograph, while aesthetically pleasing, provides little cover and food for wildlife because of minimal habitat diversity. 7 1. The size and shape of the wetland 2. The adjacent topography, landscape, water depth and water quality 3. Type and structure of vegetation present in the wetland 4. The amount of open water and Wetland Wildlife Distribution time of year it is Factors present 8 The distribution of vegetation in comparison to the amount of open water, is also important. Muskrats, for example, prefer 20% open water versus 80% vegetation. Waterfowl, on the other hand, prefer a one to one ratio between open Open Water to Vegetation Ratio water and vegetation.
    [Show full text]
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 Wetland Classification: a Review Lewis M
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Natural Resources Science Faculty Publications Natural Resources Science 1995 US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: A review Lewis M. Cowardin Francis C. Golet University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/nrs_facpubs Terms of Use All rights reserved under copyright. Citation/Publisher Attribution Cowardin, L.M. & Golet, F.C. Vegetatio (1995) 118: 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045196 Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00045196 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources Science at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Science Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vegetatio 118: 139-152, 1995. 139 (~) 1995 Kluwer Academic ['ublishers. Printed in Belgium. US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: A review* Lewis M. Cowardin I & Francis C. Golet 2 1us Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND 58401, USA; 2Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R102881, USA Key words: Classification, Definition, United States, Wetland Abstract In 1979 the US Fish and Wildlife Service published and adopted a classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. The system was designed for use in a national inventory of wetlands. It was intended to be ecologically based, to furnish the mapping units needed for the inventory, and to provide national consistency in terminology and definition. We review the performance of the classification after 13 years of use.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Vegetation to Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands
    United States Environmental Office of Water EPA-822-R-02-020 Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002 Methods for evaluating wetland condition #10 Using Vegetation To Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands United States Environmental Office of Water EPA-822-R-02-020 Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002 Methods for evaluating wetland condition #10 Using Vegetation To Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands Major Contributors Department of Biology, Kenyon College Siobhan Fennessy Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Mark Gernes Ohio Environmental Protection Agency John Mack Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center Denice Heller Wardrop Prepared jointly by: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Health and Ecological Criteria Division (Office of Science and Technology) and Wetlands Division (Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds) United States Environmental Office of Water EPA-822-R-02-020 Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002 Notice The material in this document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) technical review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. The information contained herein is offered to the reader as a review of the “state of the science” concerning wetland bioassessment and nutrient enrichment and is not intended to be prescriptive guidance or firm advice. Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey, and should not be interpreted as conveying official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation. Appropriate Citation U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Using Vegetation To Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-020. This entire document can be downloaded from the following U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
    FGDC–STD-004-2013 Second Edition Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States Adapted from Cowardin, Carter, Golet and LaRoe (1979) Wetlands Subcommittee Federal Geographic Data Committee August 2013 Federal Geographic Data Committee Established by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) promotes the coordinated development, use, sharing, and dissemination of geographic data. The FGDC is composed of representatives from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, State, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); the Library of Congress; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the National Archives and Records Administration; and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Additional Federal agencies participate on FGDC subcommittees and working groups. The Department of the Interior chairs the committee. FGDC subcommittees work on issues related to data categories coordinated under the circular. Subcommittees establish and implement standards for data content, quality, and transfer; encourage the exchange of information and the transfer of data; and organize the collection of geographic data to reduce duplication of effort. Working groups are established for issues that transcend data categories. For more information about the committee, or to be added to the committee’s newsletter mailing list, please contact: Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat c/o U.S. Geological Survey 590 National Center Reston, Virginia 22092 Telephone: (703) 648-5514 Facsimile: (703) 648-5755 Internet (electronic mail): [email protected] Anonymous FTP: ftp://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/pub/gdc/ World Wide Web: http://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/fgdc.html This standard should be cited as: Federal Geographic Data Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Classification As Per Cowardin Et Al. 1979
    Wetland Classification as per Cowardin et al. 1979 PSS01-e0tg Ω PEM01-f0tg PAB03-h0tg Matthew J. Gray University of Tennessee Why Classify Wetlands? 1) Delineate their edges 2) Estimate their area •Boundary of development 3) To create maps •Management, Excavation, Mitigation Caribbean Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm FWS/OBS-79/31 December 1979 Lewis Cowardin (USFWS) Virginia Carter (USGS) Francis Golet (URI) Edward LaRoe (NOAA) Biological Classification System •Wetlands •Deepwater Habitats Jurisdictional USACE 1987 Manual 1 Boundary Between Wetland and Deepwater Systems Non-tidal: Emergent Plants! >2 m (6.6 ft) in Depth (low water level—fall) Permanently flooded rivers and lakes Tidal: Extreme low water level (spring tides) Permanently flooded brackish marshes or marine areas The Classification System Hierarchical Structure Systems (5), Subsystems (8), Classes (11), Subclasses (28), Dominance Type, Modifiers (3) Marine Estuarine Riverine Lacustrine Palustrine •Hydrologic •Geomorphic •Chemical •Biological Hierarchical Structure 2 Palustrine System All freshwater wetlands dominated (>30% coverage) by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens •Non-tidal or tidal Also, all wetlands lacking above vegetation (or dominated by non-persistent emergents) having all these 4 characteristics: 1) <8 ha in size 3) Depth <2 m 2) No active wave formed 4) Salinity <0.5ppt shoreline No subsystem!! No Palustrine System subsystems!!
    [Show full text]
  • Ponds and Wetlands to Maintain Healthy Native Plant Communities That Foster the Moist Microclimates Preferred by Amphibians and Forage Plants Needed by Other Wildlife
    Strategic Plan for Assessing Restoration Needs In and Near Depressional Wetlands and Wet Meadows in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed Watershed Management Division Seattle Public Utilities February 2007 Heidy Barnett, Fish and Wildlife Melissa Borsting, Forest Ecology Wendy Sammarco, Forest Ecology Updated by Sally Nickelson, Fish and Wildlife, October 2015 1.0 Introduction Ponds, wet meadows, and other wetlands in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed (CRMW) provide unique habitat for a wide range of plant and animal species. Wetlands distributed throughout the watershed range in character from large open water systems to small wet depressions in meadows. Depressional wetlands provide the primary breeding habitat for amphibians in the watershed as they typically hold water pockets during the early spring when eggs are laid and maintain pools of water for developing larvae. Also important at higher elevations are small wet meadows scattered across the landscape between forest patches. Historically wetlands were not protected during timber harvest in the watershed and most often wetlands and meadows were completely cut over. These practices altered the canopy cover as well as the condition of surrounding forest and riparian areas at wetlands of all types. In addition, some wetlands were near human settlements and thus now have heavy infestations of non-native invasive plants. Sediment input from roads is the other primary threat to wetlands. Despite this history, most depressional wetlands in the CRMW are considered to have few lingering threats to key ecological processes. This document describes methods for assessing the conditions at depressional wetlands and wet meadows in the CRMW, outlines linkages with other restoration activities, and provides suggestions for restoration/enhancement activities near depressional wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification System
    United States Technical Note No. 190–8–76 Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service February 2008 Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification System: An Overview and Modification to Better Meet the Needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service Issued February 2008 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu- nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification System: An Overview and Modification to Better Meet the Needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service Purpose WC provisions was provided if the proposed impacts to the wetland were determined to be minimal. In The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) wetland classification 1990, Congress added the Good Faith exemption if the system was first introduced by Brinson in 1993. To person restores the converted wetland. In 1996, the many wetland scientists, HGM is synonymous with a FSA was amended to allow for an additional exemp- wetland functional assessment approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat and Land Cover Classification Scheme for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
    Habitat and Land Cover Classification Scheme for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Habitat and Land Cover Classification Scheme for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System This document was prepared for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System by: Thomas E. Kutcher Contractor to the Wells Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve [email protected] Technical Contributors: Nina H. Garfield1 Samuel P. Walker2 Kenneth B. Raposa3 Charles Nieder4 Eric Van Dyke5 Tim Reed6 1 Estuarine Reserves Division/OCRM/NOAA 2 University of South Carolina Department of Environmental Health Sciences 3 Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 4 Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve 5 Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve 6 San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve April 2008 The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) was established by Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended. Additional information about the system can be obtained from the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, 1305 East West Highway - N/ORM5, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 2 Preface The NERRS Classification Scheme was developed to standardize the way high-resolution land cover data are classified within the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Progressive iterations of the classification were developed through a transparent and revolving process of debate, compromise, review, and revision; the final product is presented here. Justifications for various elements of the classification are detailed in a previous report (Kutcher et al. 2005). Minor revisions have since been made to address peer reviewer comments; these include removing the Artificial Subclass from the Reef Class, removing the Vegetated Subclass from the Unconsolidated Shore Class, changing the name of the category Dominance Type to Dominant Species, and designating Descriptors and Dominant Species as a Nominal categories.
    [Show full text]