DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of Risks to Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in the Far North Prescribed Wells Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of Risks to Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in the Far North Prescribed Wells Area Assessment of risks to groundwater dependent ecosystems in the Far North Prescribed Wells Area Department for Environment and Water October, 2020 DEW Technical report 2020-07 Department for Environment and Water Government of South Australia October 2020 81-95 Waymouth St, ADELAIDE SA 5000 Telephone +61 (8) 8463 6946 Facsimile +61 (8) 8463 6999 ABN 36702093234 www.environment.sa.gov.au Disclaimer The Department for Environment and Water and its employees do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use, or results of the use, of the information contained herein as regards to its correctness, accuracy, reliability, currency or otherwise. The Department for Environment and Water and its employees expressly disclaims all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice. Information contained in this document is correct at the time of writing. With the exception of the Piping Shrike emblem, other material or devices protected by Aboriginal rights or a trademark, and subject to review by the Government of South Australia at all times, the content of this document is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence. All other rights are reserved. © Crown in right of the State of South Australia, through the Department for Environment and Water 2020 ISBN 978-1-925964-35-6 Preferred way to cite this publication Department for Environment and Water (DEW) (2020). Assessment of risks to groundwater dependent ecosystems in the Far North Prescribed Wells Area, DEW Technical report 2020-07, Government of South Australia, Department for Environment and Water, Adelaide. Download this document at https://www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au DEW Technical report 2020-07 i Foreword The Department for Environment and Water (DEW) is responsible for the management of the State’s natural resources, ranging from policy leadership to on-ground delivery in consultation with government, industry and communities. High-quality science and effective monitoring provides the foundation for the successful management of our environment and natural resources. This is achieved through undertaking appropriate research, investigations, assessments, monitoring and evaluation. DEW’s strong partnerships with educational and research institutions, industries, government agencies, Landscape SA Boards and the community ensures that there is continual capacity building across the sector, and that the best skills and expertise are used to inform decision making. John Schutz CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT AND WATER DEW Technical report 2020-07 ii Acknowledgements This work is the product of collaboration between the DEW Science, Information and Technology branch, the Water Security, Policy and Planning branch and the South Australian Arid Lands Landscape region. The authors acknowledge the contribution of subject matter and policy experts who participated in this risk assessment. We thank Lloyd Sampson, Glen Scholz, Jason VanLaarhoven, Trevor Hobbs, Mark Keppel, David Leek, Simone Stewart, Lynn Brake, Lisa Stribley, Travis Gotch, Katelyn Ryan, Doug Green, Andrew West, Hugh Wilson and Shahin Sohrabi. DEW Technical report 2020-07 iii Contents Foreword ii Acknowledgements iii Summary vii 1 Context 10 1.1 Far North Prescribed Wells Area water allocation plan 10 1.2 GDEs in the Far North PWA 11 1.3 Purpose and scope of risk assessment 11 1.4 Approach to risk assessment 12 2 Risk identification 14 2.1 Pathway of risk 14 2.2 Consequence criteria 15 2.2.1 Context 15 2.2.2 Levels of consequence severity 16 2.3 Likelihood criteria 17 2.4 Asset types 17 3 Risk analysis 20 3.1 Method 20 3.1.1 Expert elicitation method 20 3.1.2 Risk factors and controls 20 3.1.3 Likelihood and consequence 21 3.2 Results 21 3.2.1 Asset type 1 – Channel floodplain 21 3.2.2 Asset type 2 – Permanent waterhole 24 3.2.3 Asset type 3 – Large non-permanent waterhole. Unrestricted floodplain. 25 3.2.4 Asset type 4 – Freshwater Lake 27 3.2.5 Asset type 5 – Isolated local aquifers 29 3.2.6 Asset type 6 – Terminal lake 31 4 Risk evaluation 32 4.1 Introduction 32 4.2 Criteria for level of risk 32 4.3 Method 33 4.4 Risk evaluation results – profile of risks to GDEs 34 5 Risk treatment 36 5.1 Approach to risk treatment 36 5.2 Mapping GDEs dependent on isolated local aquifers 36 5.3 Determination of buffer distance as a treatment for risk 38 6 Discussion and Conclusions 42 6.1 Reliability of the risk assessment 42 DEW Technical report 2020-07 iv 6.2 Conclusion and recommendations 42 7 References 44 DEW Technical report 2020-07 v List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Far North PWA (after SAAL 2009) ................................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 2. AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 risk management process (after DEWNR 2012) ........................................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Asset type 1 – Channel floodplain (Kallakoopah Creek). Photo by G. Scholz..................................................................................... 22 Figure 4. Asset type 2 - permanent waterhole (Algebuckina waterhole). Photo by G. Scholz. ...................................................................... 24 Figure 5. Asset type 3 – Large non-permanent waterhole (Hookey's waterhole). Photo by G. Scholz. ..................................................... 26 Figure 6. Asset type 4 - Freshwater lake (Coongie Lakes). Photo by G. Scholz..................................................................................................... 28 Figure 7. Asset type 5 – Isolated local aquifers. Photo by G. Scholz. ........................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 8. Risk evaluation criteria - 3 levels of risk according to likelihood and consequence ....................................................................... 32 Figure 9. Risk evaluation. Asset type 1: channel floodplain. Low risk. ...................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 10. Risk evaluation. Asset type 5: isolated local aquifers. Medium risk...................................................................................................... 34 Figure 11. Classification of low and elevated risk GDEs .................................................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 12. Classification of low and elevated risk GDEs - zoomed. ........................................................................................................................... 38 List of Tables Table 1. Elements of risk pathway. ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 2. Consequence criteria - risk to GDEs....................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 5. Likelihood criteria (after DEW, 2018) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 4. GDE asset types and case studies ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 4. Risk analysis process ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 6. Risk register. Risk level by asset type. ................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 7. Stratigraphy, hydrostratigraphy and geology of the Lake Eyre Basin in SA (DEW 2011, Drexel and Preiss 1995) ............... 39 Table 8. Attributes of Lake Eyre Basin unconfined Quaternary aquifers.................................................................................................................. 40 Table 9. Drawdown at distance from pastoral well ........................................................................................................................................................... 40 DEW Technical report 2020-07 vi Summary The Far North Prescribed Wells Area (FN PWA) covers a large area in the northeast corner of South Australia (Figure 1). Underground water, from the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) and other aquifers, supports the pastoral, mining, petroleum and tourist industries in the region. It is also critical to the health of groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). The FN PWA was prescribed under the Water Resources Act 1997 in 2003 in order to achieve responsible use of underground water, eliminate wasteful practices, ensure ecosystem health and clarify the rights and responsibilities of underground water users. The current water allocation plan (WAP) (SAAL NRMB, 2009), adopted in 2009, describes the prescribed resource and its dependencies and establishes water allocation criteria. Consistent with the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, the 2009 Far North Prescribed Wells Area (PWA) WAP aims to maintain, and where appropriate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interdunal Wetland
    Interdunal Wetland (Global Rank G2?; State Rank S1) Overview: Distribution, Abundance, Environmental Setting, Ecological Processes !( !( !( Interdunal Wetland is an extremely rare natural community in Wisconsin, where it is restricted to a small number of sites on Great Lakes coasts. By definition, these commu- nities are associated with and dependent on Great Lakes dunes in which wind, water, or currents have created hollows between the dunes or beach ridges that intersect the water !( table. Such sites are colonized by a distinctive assemblage of wetland plants, which include habitat specialists of high con- servation significance because of their rarity, habitat needs, or limited distribution. All Wisconsin occurrences are small, seldom encompass- !( ing more than 10 acres. Great Lakes shoreline environments are extremely dynamic, and interdunal wetlands will shift in !( size, shape, and location as the dunes themselves move. As long as the shoreline processes of sand movement, deposi- tion, and erosion remain functional, new interdunal wetlands will be created as others are destroyed. On Lake Superior, Interdunal Wetlands are associated with sandspits and baymouth bars, which may support low dunes of less than one to several meters in height. The configura- Locations of Interdunal Wetland in Wisconsin. The deeper hues tions of these wetlands may change radically depending on shading the ecological landscape polygons indicate geographic Lake Superior water levels, and the frequency, severity, and areas of greatest abundance. An absence of color indicates that approach direction of major storms. There is at least one Lake the community has not (yet) been documented in that ecological Superior site where human excavations on a sandspit have landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • FOIR-Coongie-Road-Survey-Project
    COONGIE ROAD BIRDS, MAMMALS & VEGETATION SURVEY 2014 A project undertaken by the Friends of the Innamincka Reserves Dune near Coongie Road, Innamincka Regional Reserve i REPORT ON THE COONGIE ROAD BIRDS, MAMMALS & VEGETATION SURVEY 2014 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 A. Project coordinator and field team 1 B. Background 1 C. Approach 2 D. Objectives 2 E. Programme of research 2 METHODS 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6 A. Bird survey data 6 B. Habitats 9 C. Flora 11 D. Mammals 13 E. Reptiles and amphibians 15 F. Threats and potential impacting factors 15 G. Archeological sites 18 CONCLUSIONS 19 APPENDIX I - Location of Census Stops 20 APPENDIX II - Transect Bird Data 23 APPENDIX III - Photographic and Habitat Records 27 APPENDIX IV - Using a GPS to Navigate a Transect 49 ii REPORT ON THE COONGIE ROAD BIRDS, MAMMALS & VEGETATION SURVEY 2014 INTRODUCTION A. PROJECT COORDINATOR AND FIELD TEAM Coordinator: Kate Buckley Team Leaders: Euan Moore, Jenny Rolland, Rose Treilibs, Vern Treilibs Field Team: Daphne Hards, Sonja Ross, Karen and Geoff Russell, Jen and Len Kenna, Barbara and Peter Bansemer, Fae and Jim Trueman, Jan and Ray Hutchinson In 2014 this project was carried out as a volunteer activity by members of the Friends of Innamincka Reserves (FOIR). There was no external funding for the project. B. BACKGROUND The Coongie Road extends from Innamincka north- west to Malkumba-Coongie Lakes NP via Kudriemitchie. It passes through a range of habitat types from dry grasslands to wetlands. While average rainfall is low (177 mm per annum), the Innamincka area is in a region of maximum rainfall variability for Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for Ossineke ERA Complex
    Management Plan for Ossineke ERA Complex Administrative Information: ERA names o Ossineke Swale ERA, Ossineke Fen ERA and Ossineke Marsh ERA Location o Atlanta FMU, Compartment 84, Alpena Lake Plane MA o T29N, R08E, Sec. 12 and 13; T29N, R09E, Sec. 7 and 18; Sanborn Township of Alpena County Contact information o Plan writer: Richard Barber Ownership o State of Michigan Existing infrastructure/facilities o Ossineke State Forest Campground includes Ossineke and is adjacent to the swale, fen and marsh. o Two forest roads enter the ERA’s. Other documents related to this ERA (pre‐existing plans at a different scale, species specific management/conservation plans, MOU/MOAs with partners, reports with area specific information, etc.) o Ossineke Swale ERA . Natural Community Management Guidance: Interdunal Wetland . MNFI Great Interdunal Wetland Community Abstract . MNFI Element Occurrence Record EOID 18834, Ossineke Swale o Ossineke Marsh ERA . Natural Community Management Guidance: Great Lakes Marsh . MNFI Great Lakes Marsh Community Abstract . MNFI Element Occurrence Record EOID 18835, Ossineke Marsh o Ossineke Fen ERA . Natural Community Management Guidance: Northern Fen . MNFI Northern Fen Community Abstract . MNFI Element Occurrence Record EOID 18836, Ossineke Fen Conservation Values Natural community occurrence for which each ERA is recognized o Ossineke Swale ERA . EO ID 18834, EO RANK BC, Last observed 2011.09.21. This community is ranked S2 due to rarity. Interdunal wetland is a rush, sedge, and shrub dominated wetland situated in depressions within open dunes or between beach ridges along the Great Lakes and possibly other large freshwater lakes, experiencing a fluctuating water table seasonally and yearly in synchrony with lake level changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
    MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. PROGRAM FOR CONSIDERATION ON September 9, 2009 A. National Wildlife Refuge System Proposals 1. Tulare Basin Wildlife Management Area 2. Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge 3. Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge 4. Silvio 0 . Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge - Pondicherry Division 5. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge 6. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge 7. Silvio 0. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge - Mohawk River Division 8. Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge B. North American Wetlands Conservation Act Proposals United States Wetlands Conservation Standard Grant Proposals MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MIG RA TORY BIRD CONSERVATION COMMISSION Held in Washington, D.C., on June 10, 2009 The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (Commission) met on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, in the Main Interior Building, Secretary's Conference Room 5160. The following Commission members were present: HON. TOM STRICKLAND, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, Chairman HON. THAD COCHRAN, Senator from Mississippi HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, Senator from Arkansas HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, U.S. Representative from Michigan HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, U.S. Representative from Virginia HON. ANN BARTUSKA, Acting Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture HON. ROBERT WOOD, Acting Deputy Office Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency A representative from Canada was present: MS. CHRISTINA JUTZI, Program Officer, Environment and Energy, Embassy of Canada The following State Ex Officio members were present: MR. STEVE FRIEDMAN, Chief of Real Estate, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia MR.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Water Needs of Riparian and Wetland Vegetation in the Western United States
    Assessing the Water Needs of Riparian and Wetland Vegetation in the Western United States David J. Cooper David M. Merritt United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-282 September 2012 Cooper, David J.; Merritt, David M. 2012. Assessing the water needs of riparian and wet- land vegetation in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-282. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 125 p. Abstract Wetlands and riparian areas are unique landscape elements that perform a disproportionate role in landscape functioning relative to their aerial extent on the landscape. The purpose of this guide is to provide a general foundation for the reader in several interrelated disciplines for the purpose of enabling him/her to characterize and quantify the water needs of riparian and wetland vegetation. Topics discussed are wetland and riparian classification, character- istics and ecology, surface and groundwater hydrology, plant physiology and population and community ecology, and techniques for linking attributes of vegetation to patterns of surface and groundwater and soil moisture. Keywords: riparian, wetland, groundwater, water requirements, vegetation Authors David J. Cooper, Department of Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. David M. Merritt, National Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants Staff, USDA Forest Service and Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and number.
    [Show full text]
  • A Data Compilation and Assessment of Coastal Wetlands of Wisconsin's Great Lakes Final Report
    A Data Compilation and Assessment of Coastal Wetlands of Wisconsin’s Great Lakes Final Report Authors Eric Epstein, Elizabeth Spencer, Drew Feldkirchner Contributors Craig Anderson, Julie Bleser, Andy Clark, Emmet Judziewicz, Nicole Merryfield, Andy Paulios, Bill Smith Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison WI 53707-7921 PUBL ER-803 2002 Copies of this report can be obtained by writing to the Bureau of Endangered Resources at the above address. This publication is available in alternative format (large print, Braille, audiotape, etc) upon request. Please call (608-266-7012) for more information. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project was provided by the Wisconsin Coastal Zone Management Program. This support is gratefully acknowledged with special thanks to Travis Olson, Department of Administration. A number of individuals conducted inventory work and provided support to complete this project. We would like to extend our thanks to those persons listed below for their assistance. We would also like to extend our appreciation to the private landowners who granted us permission to work on or cross their properties. Data Management/GIS/Graphics Development: Julie Bleser, Natural
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Shore Fen (Global Rank NA; State Rank S2)
    Great Lakes Shore Fen (Global Rank NA; State Rank S2) Overview: Distribution, Abundance, !( !( !(!( !( !( Environmental Setting, Ecological Processes !( The Great Lakes Shore Fen is a circumneutral, moderately minerotrophic, open peatland community of intermediate richness that is an integral part of the diverse vegetation mosaics of estuaries and lagoons at sites along Lake Superior in northwestern Wisconsin and at several protected Lake Michigan embayments on the margins of the Door Peninsula. On Lake Superior, the Great Lakes Shore Fens are often !( partially protected from wind, wave, and ice disturbance by a sandspit. On Lake Michigan, horizontal exposures of dolo- mite bedrock, which sometimes extend well out into the lake, may serve a similar function. Many of the documented occurrences are within estuarine wetland complexes that develop at drowned river mouths, especially along Lake Superior’s southwestern shore. Other examples occur in the complex community mosaics associ- ated with Great Lakes coastal lagoons, such as those on Stock- ton, Outer, and Michigan islands in the Apostles Archipelago. Along Lake Superior’s southwestern shore, drowned river mouths are common features because of the geological phe- nomenon referred to as differential isostatic rebound (Lee and Southan 1994). Wetlands along eastern Lake Superior are Locations of Great Lakes Shore Fen in Wisconsin. The deeper hues becoming more separated from the lake as the land rebounds shading the ecological landscape polygons indicate geographic areas of greatest abundance. An absence of color indicates that the from the historical weight of the glacial ice, while lands on the community has not (yet) been documented in that ecological land- western end of the lake—including the coastal wetlands—are scape.
    [Show full text]
  • The Preservation of Wetlands As Wetland Mitigation
    THE PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS AS WETLAND MITIGATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ♦ LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor ♦ Steven E. Chester, Director www.michigan.gov/deqwetlands When can preservation be accepted as mitigation? Rule 5 (4)(d) of the administrative rules for Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, states that “The preservation of existing wetlands may be considered as mitigation only if the department determines that all of the following conditions are met: (i) The wetlands to be preserved perform exceptional physical or biological functions that are essential to the preservation of the natural resources of the state or the preserved wetlands are an ecological type that is rare or endangered. (ii) The wetlands to be preserved are under a demonstrable threat of loss or substantial degradation due to human activities that are not under the control of the applicant and that are not otherwise restricted by state law. (iii) The preservation of the wetlands as mitigation will ensure the permanent protection of the wetlands that would otherwise be lost or substantially degraded.” In accordance with the mitigation rules no net loss statement, it was not intended that credit for the preservation of existing wetlands be given routinely. All three of the criteria listed above must be met to approve preservation of existing wetlands as mitigation. The wetland to be preserved could be on site or at another property, as long as it meets the criteria. The required mitigation ratio is 10 acres of wetland preservation for 1 acre of permitted wetland impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Site R110XY023IL Organic Interdunal Fen
    Natural Resources Conservation Service Ecological site R110XY023IL Organic Interdunal Fen Last updated: 4/22/2020 Accessed: 09/29/2021 General information Provisional. A provisional ecological site description has undergone quality control and quality assurance review. It contains a working state and transition model and enough information to identify the ecological site. MLRA notes Major Land Resource Area (MLRA): 110X–Northern Illinois and Indiana Heavy Till Plain The Northern Illinois and Indiana Heavy Till Plain (MLRA 110) encompasses the Northeastern Morainal, Grand Prairie, and Southern Lake Michigan Coastal landscapes (Schwegman et al. 1973, WDNR 2015). It spans three states – Illinois (79 percent), Indiana (10 percent), and Wisconsin (11 percent) – comprising about 7,535 square miles (Figure 1). The elevation is about 650 feet above sea level (ASL) and increases gradually from Lake Michigan south. Local relief varies from 10 to 25 feet. Silurian age fractured dolomite and limestone bedrock underlie the region. Glacial drift covers the surface area of the MLRA, and till, outwash, lacustrine deposits, loess or other silty material, and organic deposits are common (USDA-NRCS 2006). The vegetation in the MLRA has undergone drastic changes over time. At the end of the last glacial episode – the Wisconsinan glaciation – the evolution of vegetation began with the development of tundra habitats, followed by a phase of spruce and fir forests, and eventually spruce-pine forests. Not until approximately 9,000 years ago did the climate undergo a warming trend which prompted the development of deciduous forests dominated by oak and hickory. As the climate continued to warm and dry, prairies began to develop approximately 8,300 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 2010 Conservation Investments
    NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION 2010 Conservation Investments The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) protects and restores our nation’s wildlife and habitats. Created by Congress in 1984, NFWF directs public conservation dollars to pressing environmental needs and matches those investments with private contributions. The Foundation works with individuals, foundations, government agencies, non-profits, and corporations to identify and address conservation challenges. In FY 2010, NFWF supported 417 projects in the United States and abroad for fish, wildlife and plant conservation. The Foundation leveraged $60 million in federal and non-federal funds for a total on-the-ground investment of $179 million. Through its Impact-Directed Environmental Accounts (IDEA), NFWF contractually obligated $16.7 million to 147 additional conservation projects. 3 UNITED STATES National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Turtle Exclusion Devices Reducing Conflicts Between Grizzly ALABAMA for the Skimmer Trawl Fishery Bears and Oil Development – II Alabama Conservation and Produce and distribute, free of Identify grizzly bear denning habitat, Natural Resources Foundation, Inc. charge, Turtle Exculsion Devices to develop den detection methods, and Alabama Wetland Enhancement Skimmer Trawl Fishermen in the study food conditioning mechanisms Manipulate habitat in five wetland Gulf of Mexico. This incentive for in order to reduce or eliminate areas of Alabama. Project will include voluntary conversion to turtle safe conflicts between bears and North establishment and retention of gear will reduce mortality of sea Slope oil development. wetland areas for wetland/aquatic turtle populations. $113,400 $350,000 migratory birds. Alaska Department of $206,000 National Wild Turkey Federation, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Michigan Wooded Dune and Swale ERA Plan
    Lake Michigan Wooded Dune and Swale ERA Plan Figure 1. Lake Michigan WDS ERA locator map. Administrative Information: • This ERA plan is for four Wooded Dune and Swale (WDS) ERAs, that are all along the Lake Michigan shoreline. • Three of the WDS ERAs are in the Shingleton FMU, Lake Michigan Shoreline Management Area (MA), and one is in the Garden Thompson Plains MA. They are in Compartments 066, 067, 079, 088, 095 and 096. • The ERAs are in Delta County, Garden Township, T39N R18W, sections 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 29; T40N R18W, sections 3 and 4; Schoolcraft County, Thompson Township, T41N R16W, sections 15, 16, 20-22, 28 and 29; and Mueller Township, T41N R13W, sections 7-9, and 15-18. • Primary plan author: Kristen Matson, Forest Resources Division (FRD) Inventory and Planning Specialist. Contributors and reviewers include Sherry MacKinnon, Wildlife Division (WLD) Wildlife Ecologist; Keith Kintigh, FRD Forest Certification and Conservation Specialist; Cody Norton, WLD Wildlife Biologist; Bob Burnham, FRD Unit Manager; Tori Irving and Adam Petrelius FRD Foresters; and Tom Burnis, FRD Forest Technician. • The majority of these ERAs are on state forest land, but there are some private parcels within the ERAs. • Two-track roads exist around the perimeter of the ERAs, extending into the ERAs in some places. A snowmobile trail cuts through the Thompson WDS ERA, and is near the Big Bay De Noc WDS ERA. The Thompson ERA contains a pipeline, powerline, and railroad track. • ERA boundaries are derived from the underling Natural Community EO boundary which are mapped using NatureServe standards.
    [Show full text]
  • WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND RATING SYSTEM for WESTERN WASHINGTON Revised
    WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND RATING SYSTEM for WESTERN WASHINGTON Revised Ecology Publication # 04-06-025 Thomas Hruby, PhD Washington State Department of Ecology August 2004 For more information about the project or if you have special accommodation needs, contact: Thomas Hruby Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504 Telephone: (360) 407-7274 Email: [email protected] Or visit our home page at www.wa.gov/ecology/sea/shorelan.html This report should be cited as: Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington – Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. Ecology is an equal opportunity and affirmative action agency and does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, disability, age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disabled veteran’s status, Vietnam Era veteran’s status or sexual orientation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ii 1. Introduction 1 2. Differences between the second edition and the revised edition 3 3. Rationale for the categories 6 3.1 Category I 6 3.2 Category II 9 3.3 Category III 9 3.4 Category IV 10 4. Overview for users 11 4.1 When to use the wetland rating system 11 4.2 How the wetland rating system works 11 4.3 General guidance for the wetland rating form 11 5. Detailed guidance for the rating form 23 5.1 Wetlands needing special protection 23 5.2 Classification of wetland 24 5.3 Categorization based on functions 32 5.3 1 Potential and Opportunity for Performing Functions 32 5.3.2 Classifying Vegetation 35 5.3.3 Questions Starting
    [Show full text]