DOCSLIB.ORG

The Oklahoma Wetlands Reference Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Oklahoma Wetlands Reference Guide TheThe OklahomaOklahoma WWetlandsetlands ReferenceReference GuideGuide Oklahoma Conservation Commission The Oklahoma Wetlands Reference Guide Oklahoma Conservation Commission Oklahoma City, Oklahoma James E. Henley USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Mark S. Harrison Oklahoma Conservation Commission i Oklahoma Conservation Commission 2800 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 160 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4201 http://www.okcc.state.ok.us Suggested citation: Oklahoma Conservation Commission. 2000. The Oklahoma Wetlands Reference Guide (James E. Henley and Mark S. Harrison, authors). Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This publication, printed by Heritage Press of El Reno, Oklahoma, is issued by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission as authorized by Executive Director Mike Thralls, with funding through a grant from the U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency. Two thousand copies were prepared at a cost of $10.78 each. Copies have been deposited with the Publications Clearinghouse of the Oklahoma State Department of Libraries. All programs and services of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission and Oklahoma’s Conservation Districts are offered on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, gender, marital status or physical disability. Copyright © 2001, Oklahoma Conservation Commission 2800 N. Lincoln Blvd., Suite 160, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 ii Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................ iv Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Closed Depression ............................................................................................ 9 Ames Closed Depression................................................................................. 10 Cimarron Terrace ............................................................................................ 14 Big Lake ........................................................................................................... 18 Forested Wetlands .......................................................................................... 19 Grassy Slough Hill Side Seep .......................................................................... 22 Little River National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................. 24 Red Slough WRP ............................................................................................ 28 Oxbow Lake .................................................................................................... 30 Okmulgee Wildlife Management Area ............................................................ 33 Red River Oxbow ............................................................................................ 34 Playa Lakes ..................................................................................................... 38 High Plains Playa ............................................................................................. 39 Arcadia Lake .................................................................................................... 42 Riparian Corridor .......................................................................................... 43 Beaver River Wildlife Management Area......................................................... 47 Cloud Creek .................................................................................................... 48 Fort Cobb State Park ....................................................................................... 53 Little Sahara .................................................................................................... 55 Okmulgee Wildlife Management Area ............................................................ 58 Swamp ............................................................................................................. 62 Grassy Slough WRP ........................................................................................ 63 Little River National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................. 66 Appendix Ecoregions ......................................................................................................... v Major Land Resource Areas .............................................................................xx Glossary ......................................................................................................... xxvi Fauna ........................................................................................................... xxxii Flora ........................................................................................................... xxxvii References ................................................................................................... xxxix Index .............................................................................................................. xlii iii Acknowledgments This Wetlands Reference Guide for the State of Oklahoma is published by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission and was made possible through a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An integral collaborator in this endeavor has been the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in Oklahoma. Technical descriptions were written by James E. Henley, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and editing, design, layout and all photography was done by Mark S. Harrison, Oklahoma Conservation Commission. Matthew Mercer, Oklahoma Conservation Commission Wetlands Program coordinator, assisted with final gathering of data and resources and grant coordination. All maps for this publication were generated by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission’s Geographic Information Systems division. Other agencies and organizations who have contributed to this publication include the following: Office of the Secretary of Environment, State of Oklahoma Oklahoma Biodiversity Task Force Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service Oklahoma Water Resources Board Oklahoma’s Wetlands Working Group University of Oklahoma Biological Survey U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special acknowledgment is deserved by the following individuals for their assistance in completion of this project: Bob Springer, Oklahoma Conservation Commission Shanon Haraughty, Oklahoma Conservation Commission Derek Johnson, Oklahoma Conservation Commission Wes Shockley, Oklahoma Conservation Commission Brooks Tramell, Oklahoma Conservation Commission Steve Tully, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Dwaine Gelnar, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Jennifer Lee Myers, Office of the Secretary of Environment Bruce Hoagland, Oklahoma Biological Survey and the University of Oklahoma And thanks to the staffs of Oklahoma’s local conservation districts and NRCS field offices for their assistance in accessing the wetland reference sites. iv Introduction he Oklahoma Wetlands Reference Guide has been developed to help a T variety of users in identifying and understanding the ecology of the most common natural wetland types found in Oklahoma. It is the authors’ intention that this book provides natural resource professionals, educators and private landowners with a guide that can be used to evaluate changes in similar wetland types, measured against a common standard. This guide is not intended for use as a wetland delineation manual nor is it a substitute for wetland determinations performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. he term “wetland” is an umbrella term, and includes marshes, swamps, T bogs, playas and other areas that are wet enough to support hydrophytic vegetation. Wetlands represent a transitional zone between upland and deep water ecosystems, supporting rich biodiversity and providing unique habitat to many plants and animals (e.g., Odland, 1997; Barry et al., 1996; Bawa and Seidler, 1998). Therefore, wetlands are one of the most important ecological features on the landscape, providing benefits to humans and nature alike (e.g., Wakeley and Roberts, 1996; Killgore and Baker, 1996; Reedy et al., 1996). Wetlands often contain features common to upland and deep water ecosystems, and as a result may be difficult to recognize by the untrained eye. Wetlands exist in nearly every climatic zone and on every continent, except Antarctica (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Estimates suggest that more than half of the wetlands nationwide have been lost since the mid-1800s, leaving approximately six percent of the Earth covered by wetlands today (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). In 1988 the U.S. Department of Interior determined that 87 percent of wetland conversion was due to agriculture, eight percent to urban development and another five percent for various reasons (Steiner et al., 1994). However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has attempted to reverse this trend. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) restored 915,000 acres of wetlands nationwide between October 1996 and July 2000 (NRCS, 2001). There are a wide variety of wetland types found across the state of Oklahoma. The climate tends to get warmer and wetter as one moves across the state from northwest to southeast. As a result, the predominant wetland type changes from
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wetlands: an Overview of Issues
    Order Code RL33483 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Updated November 25, 2008 Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Summary The 110th Congress, like earlier ones, considered numerous policy topics that involve wetlands. A few of the topics were new to this Congress, such as wetlands provisions in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), while most were examined but not resolved in earlier Congresses, such as applying federal regulations on private lands, wetland loss rates, and restoration and creation accomplishments. The 110th Congress also considered wetland topics at the program level, responding to legal decisions and administrative actions affecting the jurisdictional boundary limits of the federal wetland permit program in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Perhaps the issue receiving the greatest attention was determining which wetlands should be included and excluded from permit requirements under the CWA’s regulatory program, as a result of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 (in the SWANCC case) that narrowed federal regulatory jurisdiction over certain isolated wetlands, and in June 2006 (in the Rapanos-Carabell decision) that left the jurisdictional reach of the permit program to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the 110th Congress, House and Senate committees held hearings on legislation intended to reverse the Court’s rulings (H.R. 2421, S. 1870). Wetland protection efforts continue to engender intense controversy over issues of science and policy. Controversial topics include the rate and pattern of loss, whether all wetlands should be protected in a single fashion, the effectiveness of the current suite of laws in protecting them, and the fact that 75% of remaining U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Peat and Peatland Resources of Southeastern Ontario
    THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”).
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Fen Communitynorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1
    Northern Fen CommunityNorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1 Community Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Overview: Northern fen is a sedge- and rush-dominated 8,000 years. Expansion of peatlands likely occurred wetland occurring on neutral to moderately alkaline following climatic cooling, approximately 5,000 years saturated peat and/or marl influenced by groundwater ago (Heinselman 1970, Boelter and Verry 1977, Riley rich in calcium and magnesium carbonates. The 1989). community occurs north of the climatic tension zone and is found primarily where calcareous bedrock Several other natural peatland communities also underlies a thin mantle of glacial drift on flat areas or occur in Michigan and can be distinguished from shallow depressions of glacial outwash and glacial minerotrophic (nutrient-rich) northern fens, based on lakeplains and also in kettle depressions on pitted comparisons of nutrient levels, flora, canopy closure, outwash and moraines. distribution, landscape context, and groundwater influence (Kost et al. 2007). Northern fen is dominated Global and State Rank: G3G5/S3 by sedges, rushes, and grasses (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Additional open wetlands occurring on organic Range: Northern fen is a peatland type of glaciated soils include coastal fen, poor fen, prairie fen, bog, landscapes of the northern Great Lakes region, ranging intermittent wetland, and northern wet meadow. Bogs, from Michigan west to Minnesota and northward peat-covered wetlands raised above the surrounding into central Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec) groundwater by an accumulation of peat, receive inputs (Gignac et al. 2000, Faber-Langendoen 2001, Amon of nutrients and water primarily from precipitation et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Cover for Web.Pmd
    Little River National Wildlife Refuge Swamp/Marsh Site McCurtain County Location. This reference wetland is a portion of the Little River stream system. It is located on the east side of the Little River National Wildlife Refuge. Latitude: 33° 57' 44". Longitude: 94° 37' 36". Legal: Sec 7 T7S R26E. General Description. This reference site represents wetlands that border the Little River stream system in McCurtain County. This wetland landform is characterized by long and narrow depressions in broad flood plains and whose origin can be traced to abandoned stream channels. Surface water accumulation is from out-of-bank flooding and/or runoff from adjacent areas. Sediment loading is limited to large flood events. Groundwater tables are 1 to 3 feet above the surface during the winter and early spring. These wetlands range in size from 2 to 80 acres. Vegetative Community. Vegetation is dominated by an overstory of bald cypress. Understory vegetation is limited to the margins of the ponded water and consists of Hercules club, blue beech and buttonbush. In the ponded water, the sites are dominated by stinkweed and bladderworts. When disturbed by 66 drainage or filling, these sites convert to water primrose, smartweed, frog fruit and lizard’s tail. Tree trunks are buttressed and root systems are fluted. Hydrology. The water in these wetlands are provided by frequent floods of long duration and/or groundwater. Water tables range in depth from one to three feet above the surface the with the highest levels occurring during the winter through early summer. Subsurface water typically moves through out the soil profile.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Outcomes of Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation in Idaho—Assessing Potential Functions, Values, and Condition
    Measuring outcomes of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation in Idaho—Assessing potential functions, values, and condition in a watershed context Wildlife Bureau, Habitat Section Idaho Department of Fish and Game PO Box 25 Boise, Idaho 83707 Franklin Wetland Mitigation (left); Jewel Wetland (right) Chris Murphy Tim Weekley EPA Wetland Program 2012 Development Grant # CD – 00J006-01 ABSTRACT A wetland restoration monitoring and assessment program framework was developed for Idaho. The project goal was to assess outcomes of substantial governmental and private investment in wetland restoration, enhancement and creation. The functions, values, condition, and vegetation at restored, enhanced, and created wetlands on private and state lands across Idaho were retrospectively evaluated. Assessment was conducted at multiple spatial scales and intensities. Potential functions and values (ecosystem services) were rapidly assessed using the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol. Vegetation samples were analyzed using Floristic Quality Assessment indices from Washington State. We compared vegetation of restored, enhanced, and created wetlands with reference wetlands that occurred in similar hydrogeomorphic environments determined at the HUC 12 level. HUC 12s were classified using cluster analysis according to spatially derived hydrologic, geologic, soils, and climate data into watershed ecological groups. A primary outcome of this project was that stakeholders are better informed about how restoration benefits watershed processes, functions,
    [Show full text]
  • Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
    United States Department of Field Indicators of Agriculture Natural Resources Hydric Soils in the Conservation Service United States In cooperation with A Guide for Identifying and Delineating the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Hydric Soils, Version 8.2, 2018 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils Version 8.2, 2018 (Including revisions to versions 8.0 and 8.1) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Edited by L.M. Vasilas, Soil Scientist, NRCS, Washington, DC; G.W. Hurt, Soil Scientist, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; and J.F. Berkowitz, Soil Scientist, USACE, Vicksburg, MS ii In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Seneca
    TOWN OF BRISTOL Inventory of Land Use and Land Cover Prepared for: Ontario County Water Resources Council 20 Ontario Street, 3rd Floor Canandaigua, New York 14424 and Town of Bristol 6740 County Road 32 Canandaigua, New York 14424 Prepared by: Dr. Bruce Gilman Department of Environmental Conservation and Horticulture Finger Lakes Community College 3325 Marvin Sands Drive Canandaigua, New York 14424-8395 2020 Cover image: Ground level view of a perched swamp white oak forest community (S1S2) surrounding a shrub swamp that was discovered and documented on Johnson Hill north of Dugway Road. This forest community type is rare statewide and extremely rare locally, and harbors a unique assemblage of uncommon plant species. (Image by the Bruce Gilman). Acknowledgments: For over a decade, the Ontario County Planning Department has supported a working partnership between local towns and the Department of Environmental Conservation and Horticulture at Finger Lakes Community College that involves field research, ground truthing and digital mapping of natural land cover and cultural land use patterns. Previous studies have been completed for the Canandaigua Lake watershed, the southern Honeoye Valley, the Honeoye Lake watershed, the complete Towns of Canandaigua, Gorham, Richmond and Victor, and the woodlots, wetlands and riparian corridors in the Towns of Seneca, Phelps and Geneva. This report summarizes the latest land use/land cover study conducted in the Town of Bristol. The final report would not have been completed without the vital assistance of Terry Saxby of the Ontario County Planning Department. He is gratefully thanked for his assistance with landowner information, his patience as the fieldwork was slowly completed, and his noteworthy help transcribing the field maps to geographic information system (GIS) shape files.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Carbon Protocol Development
    Soil Carbon Protocols Public Scoping Meeting March 6, 2013 Sacramento, CA Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Overview of the Climate Action Reserve 3. Protocol development process 4. Soil carbon scoping a) Grasslands b) Peatlands 5. Feedback & discussion 2 Introductions . Climate Action Reserve − Max DuBuisson, Senior Policy Manager − Teresa Lang, Policy Manager − Sami Osman, Policy Manager . Attendees 3 CLIMATE ACTION RESERVE OVERVIEW 4 What We Do . Mission: to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by pioneering credible market-based policies and solutions . Development of high-quality, stakeholder-driven, standardized project protocols . Accredited offset project registry under the California cap- and-trade program . Serve compliance and voluntary carbon markets . Reputation for integrity and experience in providing best-in- class registry services for offset markets 5 Separation of Roles . Independent from the State of California . Reserve does not fund or develop projects . Does not take ownership of offsets . Is not an exchange . Is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization . Independent from third-party verification – Consistent with international standards – ANSI accreditation, training by Reserve or ARB 6 Serving Multiple Markets . Compliance market: – Compliance buyers under California’s cap-and-trade – Western Climate Initiative – CEQA compliance . Voluntary market: – Voluntary corporate buyers – LEED certification (USGBC) – Retail and individual buyers 7 CA Compliance Offsets . Early action: projects use Reserve protocols, and then move to compliance program through a desk verification . Compliance offsets: credits issued against compliance protocols . 4 Reserve protocols adopted for early action and adapted for compliance use – Forest, Urban Forest, Livestock, Ozone Depleting Substances . Additional protocols will be developed by ARB staff, building upon existing methodologies – Strong interest in agricultural protocols – Next up: Rice Cultivation, Coal Mine Methane – workshop in Sacramento March 28 8 Compliance Offset Market .
    [Show full text]
  • Care Sheet for Sabal Minor Or “Dwarf Palmetto” in Virginia Landscapes Fact and Care Sheet for Virginia Gardens
    Care Sheet for Sabal minor or “Dwarf Palmetto” in Virginia Landscapes Fact and Care Sheet for Virginia Gardens John A. Saia, President, The Virginia Palm Society Joseph W. Seamone, Maryland horticulturist, McFall & Berry Landscape Management, Brookeville, MD Susanne E. Zilberfarb, Virginia Cooperative Extension Master Gardener, Fairfax County, VA Reviewed by Holly Scoggins, Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA Introduction Native to the Southern United States, the Sabal minor or Dwarf Palmetto is a smaller and much shorter cousin to the familiar Sabal palmetto that lines the streets and palisades of cities in the Deep South, where the fronds were once cut to make ladies’ hand fans. Part of the Dwarf Palmetto’s native range includes the extreme southeastern portion of Virginia. As a result, S. minor is one of the most cold-hardy palms that can be grown in the Commonwealth of Virginia. S. minor features evergreen, deep blue-green fanlike fronds of one to three feet in length, depending on the age of the plant. A shrubby, clumping palm, it may form short trunks of one to three feet after many years of growth. At maturity,S. minor can range from six to eight feet tall and wide. Many specimens have endured Zone 7 and lower winter temperatures and being covered in thick ice and deep snow with little or no damage. Given the proper conditions and period of establishment, S. minor should be hardy throughout all Virginia zones. (See Resources, below, to determine your USDA Zone.) 2013 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University HORT-60NP Virginia Cooperative Extension programs and employment are open to all, regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, genetic information, marital, family or veteran status, or any other basis protected by law.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Herpetological Association Newsletter #8 (1995)
    Missouri Herpetological Association NNeewwsslleetttteerr Number 8 1995 Copyright © 1995 Missouri Herpetological Association MISSOURI HERPETOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER NO. 8 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..........…………............................................................................................................................. 2 ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NINTH ANNUAL MHA MEETING ....…………................................................ 2 ABSTRACTS OF PAPER PRESENTED AT THE EIGHTH ANNUAL MHA MEETING ...........…………... 3 Life history, evolution, and adaptive radiation of hemidactyliine salamanders (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Hemidactyliini). T.J. Ryan. Pheromone communication in the Northern Water Snake, Nerodia sipedon. R.D. Aldridge and A.A. Reeves. Seasonal patterns of feedings and coelomic fat mass in the Diamondback Water Snake (Nerodia rhombifer) in Veracruz, México. R.D. Aldridge and K. Williams. A herpetofaunal survey of Ted Shanks Conservation Area. J. Graves and J.M. Jones. Herps are where the habitat is: Ted Shanks Conservation Area. J.M. Jones. Amphibian and reptile surveys of Fort Leonard Wood, Pulaski County, Missouri. S. Sanborn and J. Sternberg. Ecological interactions of vegetation and plethodontid salamanders for Missouri Ozark forests. L.A. Herbeck and D.R. Larsen. Herpetofaunal communities on the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (MOFEP): consistency among communities in pretreatment years? R. B. Renken. Herpetofaunal sampling using the LCTA Method at Lake Wappapello, Butler County, Missouri. R.L. Essner, Jr., A.J. Henderschott, and J.S. Scheibe. Habitat analysis of the Ozark Hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi, in Missouri. T.M. Fobes and R.F. Wilkinson, Jr. The occurrence, habitat use, and breeding status of an aquatic salamander, Amphiuma tridactylum, in southeastern Missouri. C.A. Cunningham and S. Trautwein. Effects of female mate choice on offspring fitness in the Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor). A.M. Welch and R.D. Semlitsch.
    [Show full text]
  • Red River National Wildlife Refuge
    Red River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region July 2008 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red River, and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose and Need for the Plan ...................................................................................................... 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 3 National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................... 4 Legal and Policy Context ................................................................................................................ 6 National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ........................................................ 7 Relationship
    [Show full text]
  • Firewise Plant List - Texas
    Firewise Plant List - Texas This list was created as a reference and an aid in publishing other list. For that reason many features of a typical list such as flower color and growth rate or final size have been omitted since some characteristics vary greatly over the range that this list is intended to cover. The only two characteristics on this list are for the general form. In the form, "wildflower" is used for almost any plant that is not obviously a tree, woody shrub, groundcover, or vine (even in that regard, many list will disagree with others). Wildflowers include both annuals and perinials This column is not intended as a reference, just to aid in finding and grouping plants. For the most part, varieties were not separated. Disclaimer: 1)There is no such thing as a fire-proof plant. 2)The properties pertaining to plants on this list were compiled from multiple resources regarding the flammability, thermal output, individual observations, and other characteristics. Latin Name Species Common Name Secondary Common Name Plant Plant Form -Firewise Flamibility Crinum americanum swamp lily seven sisters Aquatic Low Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed Aquatic Low Equisetum hyemale horsetail (contained) scouringrush horsetail Aquatic Low Nymphaea odorata white water lily American white waterlily Aquatic Low Nymphoides aquatica Floating Heart banana lilly Aquatic Low Sagittaria sp. arrowhead Aquatic Low Saururus cernuus lizard's tail Aquatic Low Thalia dealbata Powdery Thalia powdery alligator-flag Aquatic Low Andropogon gerardi big bluestem
    [Show full text]