DOCSLIB.ORG

Depressional Wetland Quality Baseline (Wq-Bwm1-06)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Depressional Wetland Quality Baseline (Wq-Bwm1-06) z c Status and Trends of Wetlands in Minnesota: Depressional Wetland Quality Baseline March 2012 Authors The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs John Genet by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our website Contributors / acknowledgements for more information. Mark Gernes MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer Michael Bourdaghs recycled content paper manufactured without Dan Helwig chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us Document number: wq-bwm1-06 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 Assessing wetland quality ....................................................................................................................... 6 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 7 Wetland classification ............................................................................................................................. 7 Scope of survey ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Geographic classification ........................................................................................................................ 9 Survey design ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Field methods ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Statewide Results and Discussion .......................................................................................... 18 Extent of depressional wetlands ........................................................................................................... 19 Wetland condition ................................................................................................................................ 21 Wetland stressors ................................................................................................................................. 26 Wetland functions ................................................................................................................................ 29 Function versus condition ..................................................................................................................... 32 Mixed Wood Plains ................................................................................................................ 36 Extent of depressional wetlands ........................................................................................................... 37 Wetland condition ................................................................................................................................ 37 Wetland stressors ................................................................................................................................. 40 Wetland functions ................................................................................................................................ 42 Temperate Prairies ................................................................................................................ 45 Extent of depressional wetlands ........................................................................................................... 46 Wetland condition ................................................................................................................................ 46 Wetland stressors ................................................................................................................................. 49 Wetland functions ................................................................................................................................ 51 Mixed Wood Shield ............................................................................................................... 54 Extent of depressional wetlands ........................................................................................................... 55 Wetland condition ................................................................................................................................ 55 Wetland stressors ................................................................................................................................. 58 Wetland functions ................................................................................................................................ 60 Interannual Variability ........................................................................................................... 62 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 64 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. 65 Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 65 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................ 69 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................ 71 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................ 71 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................ 73 Figures Figure 1. Biological condition of Minnesota’s depressional wetlands and ponds according to macroinvertebrate and plant indices of biological integrity (IBIs), including the estimated number of wetlands within each condition category............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Extent of stressors and their relative risk to plant and macroinvertebrate communities in Minnesota depressional wetlands and ponds ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Functional ratings for Minnesota depressional wetlands and ponds. Included for each function is a comparison of estimates for natural vs. man-made wetlands. ............................................................................ 4 Figure 4. Examples of depressional wetlands found in Minnesota ....................................................................... 9 Figure 5. Examples of man-made ponds found in Minnesota ............................................................................. 10 Figure 6. Omernik Level II ecoregions in Minnesota. .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 7. Locations of annual sites across the state. ........................................................................................... 13 Figure 8. Generalized depiction of the distribution (represented as a boxplots) of indicator values at reference sites and the process for using this information to categorize the (A) condition and (B) stressor levels of each sample site. ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 9. Estimates of the total number and total area of depressional wetlands in Minnesota and these estimates broken down into various subcategories. .......................................................................................... 20 Figure 10. The condition of Minnesota’s depressional wetlands based on plant and macroinvertebrate IBIs, reporting according to A) number of depressional wetland basins and B) area of depressional wetlands ........... 22 Figure 11. Comparison of condition estimates across wetland size categories, reporting based on the number of depressional wetlands (By Basin) and their area (By Acres). .............................................................................. 23 Figure 12. Comparison of condition estimates across wetland landowner categories, reporting based on the number of depressional wetlands (By Basin) and their area (By Acres). ............................................................. 25 Figure 13. Stressor levels in Minnesota depressional wetlands, reporting based on the number of depressional wetlands. .......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 14. Extent of measured stressors and relative risk estimates for plant and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Eastern Africa Coastal Forests Ecoregion
    The Eastern Africa Coastal Forests Ecoregion Strategic Framework for Conservation 2005 – 2025 Strategic Framework for Conservation (2005–2025) The Eastern Afrca Coastal Forests Ecoregon Strategc Framework for Conservaton 2005–2025 The Eastern Africa Coastal Forests Ecoregion Publshed August 2006 Editor: Kimunya Mugo Design and layout: Anthony Mwangi Cover design: Kimunya Mugo Front cover main photo: WWF-EARPO / John SALEHE Front cover other photos: WWF-UK / Brent STIRTON / Getty Images Back cover photo: WWF-EARPO / John SALEHE Photos: John Salehe, David Maingi and Neil Burgess or as credited. © Graphics (2006) WWF-EARPO. All rights reserved. The material and geographic designations in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. WWF Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office ACS Plaza, Lenana Road P.O. Box 62440-00200 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 3877355, 3872630/1 Fax: +254 20 3877389 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.panda.org/earpo Strategic Framework for Conservation (2005–2025) Contents Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... iv Foreword........................................................................................................................... v Lst of abbrevatons and acronyms.............................................................................. v A new approach to
    [Show full text]
  • Grasslands 4/16/03 3:46 PM
    Ecoregion: Grasslands 4/16/03 3:46 PM Grasslands INTRODUCTION About 25% of Earth’s land surface is covered by temperate grassland. These large expanses of flat or hilly country cover much of North America, as well as large areas of Europe, Asia, and South America. Most grasslands are found in the interiors of continents, where there is too little rainfall for a forest but too much rain for a desert. Art Explosion Art Explosion Rolling hills covered with grasses and very few trees A few scattered trees are found on savannas, are typical of North American grassland prairies. tropical grasslands of Africa. Temperate grasslands have subtle differences and different names throughout the world. Prairies and plains of North America are grasslands with tall grasses, while the steppes of Russia are grasslands with short grasses. Veldts are found in South Africa, the puszta in Hungary, and the pampas in Argentina and Uruguay. Savannas are tropical grasslands that support scattered trees and shrubs. They often form a transitional biome file:///Ecoregion/grass/content.html Page 1 of 6 Ecoregion: Grasslands 4/16/03 3:46 PM between deserts and rain forests. Some temperate grasslands are also called savannas. The word savanna comes from the Spanish word zavanna, meaning “treeless plain.” Savannas cover almost half of Africa (mostly central Africa) and large areas of Australia and South America. ABIOTIC DATA The grassland climate is rather dry, averaging about 20 to 100 centimeters (8–40 inches) of precipitation a year. Summers are very hot and may reach 45°C (113°F). Winter temperatures often fall below freezing, which is 0°C (32°F).
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet- Central California Coast Ecoregion
    California State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) 2015 Central California Coast Region Annual and Perennial Grassland Habitat About Our Region and the Grassland Habitat Annual grassland habitats are open grasslands composed primarily of annual plant species such as introduced annual grasses and forbs. Annual grasslands also occur as understory plants in Valley Oak Woodland and other habitats. Perennial grassland habitats occur as coastal prairie and interspersed within annual grasslands. Vernal pools also are an important habitat component of many grassland systems. The structure of grasslands depends upon prevailing weather patterns and grazing. A number of wildlife species spend their entire life within grasslands while others use grasslands for foraging and breeding. What are the sensitive species found in the grassland habitat? The following 32 grassland dependent species from this region are found to be sensitive: Amphibian [3] CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER WESTERN SPADEFOOT RED-LEGGED FROG Reptile [1] BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD Bird [15] BURROWING OWL NORTHERN HARRIER CALIFORNIA CONDOR OREGON VESPER SPARROW GIANT KANGAROO RAT PURPLE MARTIN GRASSHOPPER SPARROW SAND-HILL CRANE GOLDEN EAGLE SHORT-EARED OWL LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE SWAINSON’S HAWK LONG-BILLED CURLEW TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD MOUNTAIN PLOVER Mammal [13] BIG FREE-TAILED BAT PALLID SAN DIEGO POCKET MOUSE CALIFORNIA LEAF-NOSED BAT POCKETED FREE-TAILED BATRINGTAIL HOARY BAT SOUTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE JACUMBA POCKET MOUSE SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX LONG-EARED MYOTIS TOWNSEND BIG- EARED BAT MAINLAND
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Ecoregions of Idaho
    1 0 . C o l u m b i a P l a t e a u 1 3 . C e n t r a l B a s i n a n d R a n g e Ecoregion 10 is an arid grassland and sagebrush steppe that is surrounded by moister, predominantly forested, mountainous ecoregions. It is Ecoregion 13 is internally-drained and composed of north-trending, fault-block ranges and intervening, drier basins. It is vast and includes parts underlain by thick basalt. In the east, where precipitation is greater, deep loess soils have been extensively cultivated for wheat. of Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho. In Idaho, sagebrush grassland, saltbush–greasewood, mountain brush, and woodland occur; forests are absent unlike in the cooler, wetter, more rugged Ecoregion 19. Grazing is widespread. Cropland is less common than in Ecoregions 12 and 80. Ecoregions of Idaho The unforested hills and plateaus of the Dissected Loess Uplands ecoregion are cut by the canyons of Ecoregion 10l and are disjunct. 10f Pure grasslands dominate lower elevations. Mountain brush grows on higher, moister sites. Grazing and farming have eliminated The arid Shadscale-Dominated Saline Basins ecoregion is nearly flat, internally-drained, and has light-colored alkaline soils that are Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions Literature Cited: much of the original plant cover. Nevertheless, Ecoregion 10f is not as suited to farming as Ecoregions 10h and 10j because it has thinner soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Taiga Plains
    ECOLOGICAL REGIONS OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Taiga Plains Ecosystem Classification Group Department of Environment and Natural Resources Government of the Northwest Territories Revised 2009 ECOLOGICAL REGIONS OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES TAIGA PLAINS This report may be cited as: Ecosystem Classification Group. 2007 (rev. 2009). Ecological Regions of the Northwest Territories – Taiga Plains. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT, Canada. viii + 173 pp. + folded insert map. ISBN 0-7708-0161-7 Web Site: http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/index.html For more information contact: Department of Environment and Natural Resources P.O. Box 1320 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9 Phone: (867) 920-8064 Fax: (867) 873-0293 About the cover: The small photographs in the inset boxes are enlarged with captions on pages 22 (Taiga Plains High Subarctic (HS) Ecoregion), 52 (Taiga Plains Low Subarctic (LS) Ecoregion), 82 (Taiga Plains High Boreal (HB) Ecoregion), and 96 (Taiga Plains Mid-Boreal (MB) Ecoregion). Aerial photographs: Dave Downing (Timberline Natural Resource Group). Ground photographs and photograph of cloudberry: Bob Decker (Government of the Northwest Territories). Other plant photographs: Christian Bucher. Members of the Ecosystem Classification Group Dave Downing Ecologist, Timberline Natural Resource Group, Edmonton, Alberta. Bob Decker Forest Ecologist, Forest Management Division, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Hay River, Northwest Territories. Bas Oosenbrug Habitat Conservation Biologist, Wildlife Division, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Charles Tarnocai Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Tom Chowns Environmental Consultant, Powassan, Ontario. Chris Hampel Geographic Information System Specialist/Resource Analyst, Timberline Natural Resource Group, Edmonton, Alberta.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain
    92° 91° 90° 89° 88° Ecoregions of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Cape Girardeau 73cc 72 io Ri Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000 and depicts revisions and Literature Cited: PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: Shannen S. Chapman (Dynamac Corporation), Oh ver environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map Barbara A. Kleiss (USACE, ERDC -Waterways Experiment Station), James M. ILLINOIS assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing 2003, Omernik, 1987). This poster is part of a collaborative effort primarily between USEPA Region Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) (supplementary supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, Omernik, (USEPA, retired), Thomas L. Foti (Arkansas Natural Heritage p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. 71 the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the VII, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H., and Commission), and Elizabeth O. Murray (Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Planning Team). 37° environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Ecoregions of the United States
    (iii) ~ Agrl~:::~~;~":,c ullur. Description of the ~:::;. Ecoregions of the ==-'Number 1391 United States •• .~ • /..';;\:?;;.. \ United State. (;lAn) Department of Description of the .~ Agriculture Forest Ecoregions of the Service October United States 1980 Compiled by Robert G. Bailey Formerly Regional geographer, Intermountain Region; currently geographer, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and originally published as an unnumbered publication by the Intermountain Region, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah In April 1979, the Agency leaders of the Bureau of Land Manage­ ment, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, and Soil Conservation Service endorsed the concept of a national classification system developed by the Resources Evaluation Tech­ niques Program at the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, to be used for renewable resources evaluation. The classifica­ tion system consists of four components (vegetation, soil, landform, and water), a proposed procedure for integrating the components into ecological response units, and a programmed procedure for integrating the ecological response units into ecosystem associations. The classification system described here is the result of literature synthesis and limited field testing and evaluation. It presents one procedure for defining, describing, and displaying ecosystems with respect to geographical distribution. The system and others are undergoing rigorous evaluation to determine the most appropriate procedure for defining and describing ecosystem associations. Bailey, Robert G. 1980. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391, 77 pp. This publication briefly describes and illustrates the Nation's ecosystem regions as shown in the 1976 map, "Ecoregions of the United States." A copy of this map, described in the Introduction, can be found between the last page and the back cover of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion
    THE AUTHORS : MARY L. SOMMER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WILDLIFE BRANCH 1812 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 REBECCA L. BARBOZA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SOUTH COAST REGION 4665 LAMPSON AVENUE, SUITE C LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 RANDY A. BOTTA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SOUTH COAST REGION 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 ERIC B. KLEINFELTER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION 1234 EAST SHAW AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93710 MARTHA E. SCHAUSS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION 1234 EAST SHAW AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93710 J. ROCKY THOMPSON CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION P.O. BOX 2330 LAKE ISABELLA, CA 93240 Cover photo by: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Suggested Citation: Sommer, M. L., R. L. Barboza, R. A. Botta, E. B. Kleinfelter, M. E. Schauss and J. R. Thompson. 2007. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 THE CALIFORNIA WOODLAND CHAPARRAL ECOREGION 4 Description 4 Ecoregion-specific Deer Ecology 4 MAJOR IMPACTS TO MULE DEER HABITAT 6 IN THE CALIFORNIA WOODLAND CHAPARRA L CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND SPECIFIC 7 HABITAT GUIDELINES Long-term Fire Suppression 7 Human Encroachment 13 Wild and Domestic Herbivores 18 Water Availability and Hydrological Changes 26 Non-native Invasive Species 30 SUMMARY 37 LITERATURE CITED 38 APPENDICIES 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ule and black-tailed deer (collectively called Forest is severe winterkill. Winterkill is not a mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus ) are icons of problem in the Southwest Deserts, but heavy grazing the American West.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesser Antilles Mangroves
    Lesser Antilles mangroves - Encyclopedia of Earth http://www.eoearth.org/article/Lesser_Antilles_mangroves Encyclopedia of Earth Lesser Antilles mangroves Content Partner: World Wildlife Fund (other articles) Article Topics: Ecology , Conservation biology and Biodiversity This article has been reviewed and approved by the following Table of Contents Topic Editor: Mark McGinley (other articles) 1 Introduction Last Updated: November 17, 2008 2 Location and General Description 3 Biodiversity Features 4 Current Status 4.1 Types and Severity of Threats Introduction 5 Additional information on this ecoregion 6 Further Reading The small islands of the Lesser Antilles have less species diversity than the larger islands of the Greater Antilles but nonetheless have high levels of endemism. They also have a great diversity of habitats associated with environmental conditions related to differences in climate, elevation, rainfall, and salinity found in the different islands. Location and General Description The Lesser Antilles mangrove ecoregion is comprised of a chain of islands at the southeastern edge of the Caribbean Sea from Sombrero and Anguilla in the north, to Grenada in the south. An inner arc is of more recent volcanic origin and of higher elevation up to 1397 meters (m) on Martinique, while the outer arc consists of limestone on top of an eroded igneous rock layer, where elevation is much lower. Climate and rainfall levels are directly related to elevation, annual rainfall ranges from 750 millimeters (mm) on the outer island of Barbuda which has a tropical |arid climate, to 1928 mm on the inner island of Nevis, St. Kitts and Nevis. (Photograph by Roseau/Dominica where the climate is more tropical.
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Ecology and Management in the Pacific Coastal Rainforest
    Articles Riparian Ecology and Management in the Pacific Coastal Rain Forest ROBERT J. NAIMAN, ROBERT E. BILBY, AND PETER A. BISSON FUNDAMENTAL RIPARIAN RESEARCH HAS he last two decades have seen an enormous global Tresearch effort focused on understanding the dynamics SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED WATERSHED and managerial uses of riparian zones. Riparius, a Latin word meaning “belonging to the bank of a river,” refers to MANAGEMENT ON THE NORTHERN biotic communities living on the shores of streams, rivers, PACIFIC COAST ponds, lakes, and some wetlands. Riparian zones strongly influence the organization, diversity, and dynamics of communities associated with aquatic ecosystems (Gregory et al. 1991, Décamps 1996). Riparian areas possess distinct knowledge built by S.V. Gregory and his colleagues (Gre- ecological characteristics because of their interaction with gory et al. 1991). In this article, we summarize the scien- the aquatic system. Thus, their boundaries can be tific advances of the last decade in understanding the ecol- delineated by changes in soil conditions, vegetation, and ogy of PCE riparian zones and show how this other factors that reflect this aquatic–terrestrial interaction understanding directly contributes to better stream and (Naiman and Décamps 1990, 1997). watershed management. Riparian zones vary widely in their physical characteris- tics, which are vividly expressed by an array of life history The Pacific Coastal Rain Forest strategies and successional patterns. Consequently, these The PCE, also known as the Pacific Coastal Rain Forest, areas are among the biosphere’s most complex ecological extends from northern California to south-central Alaska systems and also among the most important for maintain- and east to the crests of the Cascade Mountains in the ing the vitality of the landscape and its rivers (Naiman and south and the Coastal Mountains in the north (Figure 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Miombo Ecoregion Vision Report
    MIOMBO ECOREGION VISION REPORT Jonathan Timberlake & Emmanuel Chidumayo December 2001 (published 2011) Occasional Publications in Biodiversity No. 20 WWF - SARPO MIOMBO ECOREGION VISION REPORT 2001 (revised August 2011) by Jonathan Timberlake & Emmanuel Chidumayo Occasional Publications in Biodiversity No. 20 Biodiversity Foundation for Africa P.O. Box FM730, Famona, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe PREFACE The Miombo Ecoregion Vision Report was commissioned in 2001 by the Southern Africa Regional Programme Office of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF SARPO). It represented the culmination of an ecoregion reconnaissance process led by Bruce Byers (see Byers 2001a, 2001b), followed by an ecoregion-scale mapping process of taxa and areas of interest or importance for various ecological and bio-physical parameters. The report was then used as a basis for more detailed discussions during a series of national workshops held across the region in the early part of 2002. The main purpose of the reconnaissance and visioning process was to initially outline the bio-physical extent and properties of the so-called Miombo Ecoregion (in practice, a collection of smaller previously described ecoregions), to identify the main areas of potential conservation interest and to identify appropriate activities and areas for conservation action. The outline and some features of the Miombo Ecoregion (later termed the Miombo– Mopane Ecoregion by Conservation International, or the Miombo–Mopane Woodlands and Grasslands) are often mentioned (e.g. Burgess et al. 2004). However, apart from two booklets (WWF SARPO 2001, 2003), few details or justifications are publically available, although a modified outline can be found in Frost, Timberlake & Chidumayo (2002). Over the years numerous requests have been made to use and refer to the original document and maps, which had only very restricted distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • East Central Plains (Post Oak Savanna)
    TEXAS CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN East Central Texas Plains (Post Oak Savanna) ECOREGION HANDBOOK August 2012 Citing this document: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2012. Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012 – 2016: East Central Texas Plains Handbook. Editor, Wendy Connally, Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. Austin, Texas. Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 HOW TO GET INVOLVED ............................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 RARE SPECIES and COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 13 PRIORITY HABITATS ..................................................................................................................................... 13 ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 CONSERVATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 28 ECOREGION HANDBOOK FIGURES Figure 1. ECPL Ecoregion with County Boundaries ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]