DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands: an Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands: an Introduction ONE Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands: An Introduction RebeCCA R. SHARITZ, DAROLD P. BATZER, and STeveN C. PENNINGS WHAT IS A WETLAND? WHY ARE WETLANDS IMPORTANT? CHARACTERISTicS OF SeLecTED WETLANDS Wetlands with Predominantly Precipitation Inputs Wetlands with Predominately Groundwater Inputs Wetlands with Predominately Surface Water Inputs WETLAND LOSS AND DeGRADATION WHAT THIS BOOK COVERS What Is a Wetland? The study of wetland ecology can entail an issue that rarely Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and needs consideration by terrestrial or aquatic ecologists: the aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or need to define the habitat. What exactly constitutes a wet- near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. land may not always be clear. Thus, it seems appropriate Wetlands must have one or more of the following three to begin by defining the wordwetland . The Oxford English attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is pre- Dictionary says, “Wetland (F. wet a. + land sb.)— an area of dominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is land that is usually saturated with water, often a marsh or nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow swamp.” While covering the basic pairing of the words wet water at some time during the growing season of each year. and land, this definition is rather ambiguous. Does “usu- ally saturated” mean at least half of the time? That would This USFWS definition emphasizes the importance of omit many seasonally flooded habitats that most ecolo- hydrology, soils, and vegetation, which you will see is a gists would consider wetlands. Under this definition, it also recurring theme in wetland definitions. The U.S. Army seems that lakes or rivers could be considered wetlands. A Corps of Engineers (USACE), the primary permitting more refined definition is clearly needed for wetland sci- agency for wetlands of the United States, adopted a slightly ence or policy. different wording (Environmental Laboratory 1987): Because definingwetland is especially important in terms of policy, it is not surprising that governmental agencies The term “wetlands” means those areas that are inundated began to develop the first comprehensive definitions (see or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency Chapter 8). One influential definition was derived for the and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation 1979): typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 1 UC-Batzer-TEXT_00-CH4.indd 1 6/7/14 10:56 AM Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and much as 1 meter of water (Fig. 1.1), yet competent delinea- similar areas. tors following USACE criteria determined that the major- ity of the floodplain area did not meet the legal US defini- This definition also incorporates hydrology, soils, and vege- tion of a wetland (hydric soil was not present). However, tation, but it is more restrictive than the USFWS definition. the determination that these floodplains were not jurisdic- The USACE definition requires all three features to be pres- tional wetlands did not affect the responses of soil-dwell- ent, while the USFWS Cowardin definition indicates that ing arthropods and herbaceous plants that were covered only one of the three conditions needs to occur. Despite its by the water or the functioning of waterfowl or fish that exclusive nature, the USACE definition has been adopted as were swimming and feeding in those habitats. Although the authority to define legal (or jurisdictional) wetlands of definitions do serve a purpose, especially for regulation (see the United States. Chapter 8), ecologists should not be constrained by them In Canada, a very similar definition forwetland is used by when studying wetlands. the National Wetlands Working Group (NWWG). This defi- Nonetheless, for ecologists seeking a biologically use- nition also focuses on hydrology, soils, and vegetation, but ful definition for wetlands, we recommend the simple, is more expansive, acknowledging that aquatic processes straightforward, yet inclusive, definition put forward by and biologic factors other than just soils and plants may Paul Keddy (2000): also be useful for classification (NWWG 1988): A wetland is an ecosystem that arises when inundation Wetland is defined as “land that has the water table at, by water produces soils dominated by anaerobic processes near, or above the land surface or which is saturated for and forces the biota, particularly rooted plants, to exhibit a long enough period to promote wetland or aquatic pro- adaptations to tolerate flooding. cesses as indicted by hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and various kinds of biological activity that are adapted to the wet environment.” Why Are Wetlands Important? Wetlands comprise only about 6% of the earth’s land sur- The NWWG definition is not an official legal standard in face, but ecologically they are disproportionately impor- Canada but is widely used or adapted by various govern- tant. For example, 25% of the plant species in Malaysia mental agencies for setting policy about wetlands (personal occur in only one wetland type, peat swamps (Anderson communication, Barry Warner, University of Waterloo, 1983). Almost 10% of the world’s fish fauna occurs in the Ontario, Canada). Amazon basin (Groombridge and Jenkins 1998). The vast An international definition forwetland was developed majority of amphibians are linked to wetlands, even if only for the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for reproduction. Wetlands are particularly important hab- regarding wetland conservation initiated in 1971 (which itats for birds, with many species occurring only in asso- met in Ramsar, Iran). The most recent information (see ciation with wetlands. Bird watching and waterfowl hunt- www.ramsar.org) provides this definition: ing are major human activities related to wetlands. Because wetlands support both terrestrial and aquatic biota, they are Wetlands are areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, unusually diverse (Gopal et al. 2000). Those taxa unique to whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, wetlands will contribute significantly to the overall diver- with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, sity of regions containing numerous wetlands. including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres. Besides supporting the plethora of plants and animals of interest to ecologists and nature enthusiasts, wetlands The emphasis on soils and plant adaptations found in other provide an assortment of ecosystem services of consider- definitions is absent from this one, possibly because it tar- able value to all people. Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the gets non-scientists who may not be familiar with what con- economic values of services provided by the world’s ecosys- stitutes wetland conditions. However, hydrology remains tems and found that, on a per-hectare basis, estuaries and a focal tenet. This definition is currently being applied freshwater floodplains/swamps were the world’s two most to identify wetlands in countries in Asia (e.g., Gong et al. valuable ecosystem types (Table 1.1). The value of these 2010). wetlands to people stem primarily from their roles in nutri- As ecologists, we must realize that political definitions ent cycling, water supplies, disturbance (flood) regulation, may not cover all habitats that function ecologically as wet- and wastewater treatment. However, recreation, food pro- lands. For example, mud flats devoid of vegetation, flood- duction, and cultural (aesthetic, artistic, educational, spiri- plains that primarily flood in winter outside the “growing tual, or scientific) values are also important (Costanza et season,” and flooded areas of floodplains where anoxic soil al. 1997). Many of these services are accomplished by wet- conditions do not develop are all probably ecological wet- land biota (microbes, plants, and animals). In Canada, an lands but may not fit some legal definitions. In Georgia, for assessment of the economic values of the country’s wet- example, we have seen floodplains repeatedly covered by as lands (see NWWG 1988, Table 10-15) came up with an esti- 2 chapter one UC-Batzer-TEXT_00-CH4.indd 2 6/7/14 10:56 AM FIGURE 1.1. Flooded riparian wetland of the North Oconee River, Georgia. Although the site floods almost yearly, it does so in winter, out of the growing season. Additionally, hydric soils are not extensive. As such, using current criteria for delineating wetlands in the United States, most of the floodplain is not considered a jurisdictional wetland. table 1.1. mate of almost $10,000,000,000 (1985 Canadian dollars), Estimated Relative Economic Values per Hectare of of which almost half was attributed to recreational values Services Provided by the World’s Ecosystems (nature appreciation activities, fishing, and hunting). How- ever, despite the considerable economic value of wetlands, 1997 US$ there is a long history of humans destroying or degrading Ecosystem Type ha–1yr–1 the world’s wetland resources. Estuaries 22,832 Characteristics of Selected Wetlands Swamps/floodplains 19,580 Throughout the world, the types of plant and animal com- Coastal sea grass/algae beds 19,004 munities that occur in wetlands are a result of climate, geo- Tidal marsh/mangrove 9,990 morphology and landscape position, soils, water source and Lakes/rivers 8,498 chemistry, and numerous environmental factors including disturbance. Wetlands are found on every continent except Coral reefs 6,075 Antarctica and extend from the tropics to the tundra. Esti- Tropical forests 2,007 mates of the extent of the world’s wetlands vary, but gen- Coastal continental shelf 1,610 erally range from around 7 to 10 million square kilometers Temperate/boreal forests 302 (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Approximately 30% occur in tropical and 24% in subtropical regions, 12% in temperate Open oceans 252 areas, and 30% in boreal regions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BMP #: Constructed Wetlands
    Structural BMP Criteria BMP #: Constructed Wetlands Constructed Wetlands are shallow marsh sys- tems planted with emergent vegetation that are designed to treat stormwater runoff. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001 Key Design Elements Potential Applications z Adequate drainage area (usually 5 to 10 acres Residential Subdivision: YES minimum) Commercial: YES Ultra Urban: LIMITED Industrial: YES z Maintenance of permanent water surface Retrofit: YES Highway/Road: YES z Multiple vegetative growth zones through vary- ing depths Stormwater Functions z Robust and diverse vegetation Volume Reduction: Low z Relatively impermeable soils or engineered liner Recharge: Low Peak Rate Control: High z Sediment collection and removal Water Quality: High z Adjustable permanent pool and dewatering Pollutant Removal mechanism Total Suspended Solids: x Nutrients: x Metals: x Pathogens: x Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Manual 1 Section 5 - Structural BMPs Figure 1. Demonstration Constructed Wetlands in Arizona (http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/arroyo/094wet.html) Description Constructed Wetlands are shallow marsh systems planted with emergent vegetation that are designed to treat stormwater runoff. While they are one of the best BMPs for pollutant removal, Constructed Wetlands (CWs) can also mitigate peak rates and even reduce runoff volume to a certain degree. They also can provide considerable aesthetic and wildlife benefits. CWs use a relatively large amount of space and require an adequate source of inflow to maintain the perma- nent water surface. Variations Constructed Wetlands can be designed as either an online or offline facilities. They can also be used effectively in series with other flow/sediment reducing BMPs that reduce the sediment load and equalize incoming flows to the CW.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Swamp Forest and Phragmites Australis
    COMPARISON OF SWAMP FOREST AND PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS COMMUNITIES AT MENTOR MARSH, MENTOR, OHIO A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jenica Poznik, B. S. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Master's Examination Committee: Approved by Dr. Craig Davis, Advisor Dr. Peter Curtis Dr. Jeffery Reutter School of Natural Resources ABSTRACT Two intermixed plant communities within a single wetland were studied. The plant community of Mentor Marsh changed over a period of years beginning in the late 1950’s from an ash-elm-maple swamp forest to a wetland dominated by Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel. Causes cited for the dieback of the forest include salt intrusion from a salt fill near the marsh, influence of nutrient runoff from the upland community, and initially higher water levels in the marsh. The area studied contains a mixture of swamp forest and P. australis-dominated communities. Canopy cover was examined as a factor limiting the dominance of P. australis within the marsh. It was found that canopy openness below 7% posed a limitation to the dominance of P. australis where a continuous tree canopy was present. P. australis was also shown to reduce diversity at sites were it dominated, and canopy openness did not fully explain this reduction in diversity. Canopy cover, disturbance history, and other environmental factors play a role in the community composition and diversity. Possible factors to consider in restoring the marsh are discussed. KEYWORDS: Phragmites australis, invasive species, canopy cover, Mentor Marsh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project like this is only possible in a community, and more people have contributed to me than I can remember.
    [Show full text]
  • Shrub Swamp State Rank: S5 - Secure
    Shrub Swamp State Rank: S5 - Secure cover of tall shrubs with Shrub Swamp Communities are a well decomposed organic common and variable type of wetlands soils. If highbush occurring on seasonally or temporarily blueberries are dominant flooded soils; They are often found in the transition zone between emergent the community is likely to marshes and swamp forests; be a Highbush Blueberry Thicket, often occurring on stunted trees. The herbaceous layer of peat. Acidic Shrub Fens are shrub swamps is often sparse and species- peatlands, dominated by poor. A mixture of species might typically low growing shrubs, along include cinnamon, sensitive, royal, or with sphagnum moss and marsh fern, common arrowhead, skunk herbaceous species of Shrub Swamp along shoreline. Photo: Patricia cabbage, sedges, bluejoint grass, bur-reed, varying abundance. Deep Serrentino, Consulting Wildlife Ecologist. swamp candles, clearweed, and Emergent Marshes and Description: Wetland shrubs dominate turtlehead. Invasive species include reed Shallow Emergent Marshes Cottontail, have easy access to the shrubs Shrub Swamps. Shrub height may be from canary grass, glossy alder-buckthorn, are graminoid dominated wetlands with and protection in the dense thickets. The <1m to 5 meters, of uniform height or common buckthorn, and purple <25% cover of tall shrubs. Acidic larvae of many rare and common moth mixed. Shrub density can be variable, loosestrife. Pondshore/Lakeshore Communities are species feed on a variety of shrubs and from dense (>75% cover) to fairly open broadly defined, variable shorelines associated herbaceous plants in shrub (25-75% cover) with graminoid, around open water. Shorelines often swamps throughout Massachusetts. herbaceous, or open water areas between merge into swamps or marshes.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Approaches for Mapping Tidal Wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays
    remote sensing Article Evaluation of Approaches for Mapping Tidal Wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays Brian T. Lamb 1,2,* , Maria A. Tzortziou 1,3 and Kyle C. McDonald 1,2,4 1 Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The City College of New York, City University of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA; [email protected] (M.A.T.); [email protected] (K.C.M.) 2 Earth and Environmental Sciences Program, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY 10016, USA 3 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 4 Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Group, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 1 July 2019; Accepted: 3 October 2019; Published: 12 October 2019 Abstract: The spatial extent and vegetation characteristics of tidal wetlands and their change are among the biggest unknowns and largest sources of uncertainty in modeling ecosystem processes and services at the land-ocean interface. Using a combination of moderate-high spatial resolution ( 30 meters) optical and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite imagery, we evaluated several ≤ approaches for mapping and characterization of wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Sentinel-1A, Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR), PALSAR-2, Sentinel-2A, and Landsat 8 imagery were used to map wetlands, with an emphasis on mapping tidal marshes, inundation extents, and functional vegetation classes (persistent vs. non-persistent). We performed initial characterizations at three target wetlands study sites with distinct geomorphologies, hydrologic characteristics, and vegetation communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Meadow Pond Final Report 1-28-10
    Comparison of Restoration Techniques to Reduce Dominance of Phragmites australis at Meadow Pond, Hampton New Hampshire FINAL REPORT January 28, 2010 David M. Burdick1,2 Christopher R. Peter1 Gregg E. Moore1,3 Geoff Wilson4 1 - Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 2 – Natural Resources and the Environment, UNH 3 – Department of Biological Sciences, UNH 4 – Northeast Wetland Restoration, Berwick ME 03901 Submitted to: New Hampshire Coastal Program New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 50 International Drive Pease Tradeport Portsmouth, NH 03801 UNH Burdick et al. 2010 Executive Summary The northern portion of Meadow Pond Marsh remained choked with an invasive exotic variety of Phragmites australis (common reed) in 2002, despite tidal restoration in 1995. Our project goal was to implement several construction techniques to reduce the dominance of Phragmites and then examine the ecological responses of the system (as a whole as well as each experimental treatment) to inform future restoration actions at Meadow Pond. The construction treatments were: creeks, creeks and pools, sediment excavation with a large pool including native marsh plantings. Creek construction increased tides at all treatments so that more tides flooded the marsh and the highest spring tides increased to 30 cm. Soil salinity increased at all treatment areas following restoration, but also increased at control areas, so greater soil salinity could not be attributed to the treatments. Decreases in Phragmites cover were not statistically significant, but treatment areas did show significant increases in native vegetation following restoration. Fish habitat was also increased by creek and pool construction and excavation, so that pool fish density increased from 1 to 40 m-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Wetland Mapping Standard
    FGDC Working Draft Wetland Mapping Standard FGDC Wetland Subcommittee and Wetland Mapping Standard Workgroup Submitted by: Margarete Heber Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Date: March 26, 2007 Federal Geographic Data Committee Wetland Mapping Standard Table of Contents 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective.............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Scope.................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Applicability ........................................................................................................ 4 1.5 FGDC Standards and Other Related Practices..................................................... 4 1.6 Standard Development Procedures and Representation ...................................... 5 1.7 Maintenance Authority ........................................................................................ 5 2 FGDC requirements and Quality components............................................................ 6 2.1 Source Imagery .................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Classification.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Swamp Forest (Typic Subtype)
    MARITIME SWAMP FOREST (TYPIC SUBTYPE) Concept: Maritime Swamp Forests are wetland forests of barrier islands and comparable coastal spits and back-barrier islands, dominated by tall trees of various species. The Typic Subtype includes most examples, which are not dominated by Acer, Nyssa, or Fraxinus, not by Taxodium distichum. Canopy dominants are quite variable among the few examples. Distinguishing Features: Maritime Shrub Swamps are distinguished from other barrier island wetlands by dominance by tree species of (at least potentially) large stature. The Typic Subtype is dominated by combinations of Nyssa, Fraxinus, Liquidambar, Acer, or Quercus nigra, rather than by Taxodium or Salix. Maritime Shrub Swamps are dominated by tall shrubs or small trees, particularly Salix, Persea, or wetland Cornus. Some portions of Maritime Evergreen Forest are marginally wet, but such areas are distinguished by the characteristic canopy dominants of that type, such as Quercus virginiana, Quercus hemisphaerica, or Pinus taeda. The lower strata also are distinctive, with wetland species occurring in Maritime Swamp Forest; however, some species, such as Morella cerifera, may occur in both. Synonyms: Acer rubrum - Nyssa biflora - (Liquidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus sp.) Maritime Swamp Forest (CEGL004082). Ecological Systems: Central Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest (CES203.261). Sites: Maritime Swamp Forests occur on barrier islands and comparable spits, in well-protected dune swales, edges of dune ridges, and on flats adjacent to freshwater sounds. Soils: Soils are wet sands or mucky sands, most often mapped as Duckston (Typic Psammaquent) or Conaby (Histic Humaquept). Hydrology: Most Maritime Swamp Forests have shallow seasonal standing water and nearly permanently saturated soils. Some may rarely be flooded by salt water during severe storms, but areas that are severely or repeatedly flooded do not recover to swamp forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooper's Hill Pond 1 (Josh Hellon)
    Photo: Cooper’s Hill Pond 1 (Josh Hellon) 1 Contents 1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4 4 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Site description ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Invertebrate & plant survey ................................................................................................................ 5 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 5 6 References ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Appendix 1 species lists and index calculation ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Contribution of Plant-Induced Pressurized Flow to CH4 Emission
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Contribution of plant‑induced pressurized fow to ­CH4 emission from a Phragmites fen Merit van den Berg2*, Eva van den Elzen2, Joachim Ingwersen1, Sarian Kosten 2, Leon P. M. Lamers 2 & Thilo Streck1 The widespread wetland species Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. has the ability to transport gases through its stems via a pressurized fow. This results in a high oxygen (O2) transport to the rhizosphere, suppressing methane (CH4) production and stimulating CH4 oxidation. Simultaneously CH4 is transported in the opposite direction to the atmosphere, bypassing the oxic surface layer. This raises the question how this plant-mediated gas transport in Phragmites afects the net CH4 emission. A feld experiment was set-up in a Phragmites‑dominated fen in Germany, to determine the contribution of all three gas transport pathways (plant-mediated, difusive and ebullition) during the growth stage of Phragmites from intact vegetation (control), from clipped stems (CR) to exclude the pressurized fow, and from clipped and sealed stems (CSR) to exclude any plant-transport. Clipping resulted in a 60% reduced difusive + plant-mediated fux (control: 517, CR: 217, CSR: −2 −1 279 mg CH4 m day ). Simultaneously, ebullition strongly increased by a factor of 7–13 (control: −2 −1 10, CR: 71, CSR: 126 mg CH4 m day ). This increase of ebullition did, however, not compensate for the exclusion of pressurized fow. Total CH4 emission from the control was 2.3 and 1.3 times higher than from CR and CSR respectively, demonstrating the signifcant role of pressurized gas transport in Phragmites‑stands.
    [Show full text]
  • ICD-9 Diagnosis Codes Effective 10/1/2011 (V29.0) Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    ICD-9 Diagnosis Codes effective 10/1/2011 (v29.0) Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 0010 Cholera d/t vib cholerae 00801 Int inf e coli entrpath 01086 Prim prg TB NEC-oth test 0011 Cholera d/t vib el tor 00802 Int inf e coli entrtoxgn 01090 Primary TB NOS-unspec 0019 Cholera NOS 00803 Int inf e coli entrnvsv 01091 Primary TB NOS-no exam 0020 Typhoid fever 00804 Int inf e coli entrhmrg 01092 Primary TB NOS-exam unkn 0021 Paratyphoid fever a 00809 Int inf e coli spcf NEC 01093 Primary TB NOS-micro dx 0022 Paratyphoid fever b 0081 Arizona enteritis 01094 Primary TB NOS-cult dx 0023 Paratyphoid fever c 0082 Aerobacter enteritis 01095 Primary TB NOS-histo dx 0029 Paratyphoid fever NOS 0083 Proteus enteritis 01096 Primary TB NOS-oth test 0030 Salmonella enteritis 00841 Staphylococc enteritis 01100 TB lung infiltr-unspec 0031 Salmonella septicemia 00842 Pseudomonas enteritis 01101 TB lung infiltr-no exam 00320 Local salmonella inf NOS 00843 Int infec campylobacter 01102 TB lung infiltr-exm unkn 00321 Salmonella meningitis 00844 Int inf yrsnia entrcltca 01103 TB lung infiltr-micro dx 00322 Salmonella pneumonia 00845 Int inf clstrdium dfcile 01104 TB lung infiltr-cult dx 00323 Salmonella arthritis 00846 Intes infec oth anerobes 01105 TB lung infiltr-histo dx 00324 Salmonella osteomyelitis 00847 Int inf oth grm neg bctr 01106 TB lung infiltr-oth test 00329 Local salmonella inf NEC 00849 Bacterial enteritis NEC 01110 TB lung nodular-unspec 0038 Salmonella infection NEC 0085 Bacterial enteritis NOS 01111 TB lung nodular-no exam 0039
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands of Saratoga County New York
    Acknowledgments THIS BOOKLET I S THE PRODUCT Of THE work of many individuals. Although it is based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), tlus booklet would not have been produced without the support and cooperation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Patrick Pergola served as project coordinator for the wetlands inventory and Dan Montella was project coordinator for the preparation of this booklet. Ralph Tiner coordi­ nated the effort for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Data compiled from the NWI serve as the foun­ dation for much of this report. Information on the wetland status for this area is the result of hard work by photointerpreters, mainly Irene Huber (University of Massachusetts) with assistance from D avid Foulis and Todd Nuerminger. Glenn Smith (FWS) provided quality control of the interpreted aerial photographs and draft maps and collected field data on wetland communities. Tim Post (N.Y. State D epartment of Environmental Conservation), John Swords (FWS), James Schaberl and Chris Martin (National Park Ser­ vice) assisted in the field and the review of draft maps. Among other FWS staff contributing to this effort were Kurt Snider, Greg Pipkin, Kevin Bon, Becky Stanley, and Matt Starr. The booklet was reviewed by several people including Kathleen Drake (EPA), G eorge H odgson (Saratoga County Environmental Management Council), John Hamilton (Soil and W ater Conserva­ tion District), Dan Spada (Adirondack Park Agency), Pat Riexinger (N.Y. State Department of Environ­ mental Conservation), Susan Essig (FWS), and Jen­ nifer Brady-Connor (Association of State Wetland Nlanagers).
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware Bay Estuary Project Supporting the Conservation and Restoration Of
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Coastal Program Delaware Bay Estuary Project Supporting the conservation and restoration of the salt marshes of Delaware Bay People have altered the expansive salt marshes of Delaware Bay for centuries to farm salt hay, try to control mosquitoes, create channels for boats, to increase developable land, and other reasons all resulting in restricted tidal flow, disrupted sediment balances, or increasing erosion. Sea level rise and coastal storms threaten to further negatively impact the integrity of these salt marshes. As we alter or lose the marshes we lose the valuable habitats and ecological services they provide. tidal creek - Katherine Whittemore Addressing the all-important sediment balance of salt marshes is critical for preserving their resilience. A healthy resilient marsh may be able to keep pace with erosion and sea level rise through sediment accretion and growth Downe Twsp, NJ - Brian Marsh of vegetation. However, the delicate sediment balance of salt marshes is DBEP works to support efforts to learn more about the techniques often disrupted by barriers to tidal influence and altered drainage onto and to conserve and restore salt marshes and support the populations of fish and wildlife that rely on them. We support new and off the marsh resulting in sediment ongoing coastal resiliency initiatives and coastal planning as they starved systems, excessive mudflats, or pertain to habitat restoration and conservation. We are interested increased erosion. in finding effective tools and mechanisms for conserving and restoring salt marsh integrity on a meaningful scale and support efforts that bring partners together to approach this challenge.
    [Show full text]