Section 4. Terrestrial Habitats

Similar documents
Potential Natural Vegetation Group (PNVG) West Gulf Coastal Plain Pine-Hardwood Woodland/Forest Upland. General Information

Vegetative Dynamic Modeling for the SAMBI DSL Project

1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE / COVER TYPES (SEE GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS ON PAGE 7) A 2. ADJACENT LANDS & EASEMENTS 3. FAMILY AGRICULTURAL LEGACY

West Fork White River Watershed Conservation Map Summaries. Prepared for the Beaver Watershed Alliance. By the Watershed Conservation Resource Center

APPLICATIONS OF NATURE S NETWORK WORKSHOP PINE BARRENS RESTORATION

Western Muddy Creek, Oregon Landuse / Landcover. Legend. Version 21: 9/ 27/ Landuse / Landcover. Sources: 100 Acres.

Nantahala Pisgah NF Plan Process - Natural Range of Variation. Gary Kauffman National Forests in NC Ecologist

Wisconsin Natural Community Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments Vulnerability Determination Process

Science Plan. Executive Summary. Introduction

Future Opportunities. Important Conservation Priorities

FSC-US DRAFT HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE FOREST ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

The list of SGCN identified in the 2005 Kansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan was revised according to the following decisions:

Monitoring the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices for the Reduction of Total Suspended Solids in Agricultural Runoff

RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER

Habitat Restoration, Longleaf Pine Forests, and the Flatwoods Salamander. Goals of Today s Talk. Habitat Restoration. Habitat Restoration

APPENDIX D EXTINCTION-DEPTH DETERMINATION

Principles of Wildlife Ecology & Management Maryland Woodland Stewards Training Workshop

P ARISH OF EAST B ATON ROUGE, L OUISIANA BREC S TRATEGIC P LAN

New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles

Status of New Hampshire s Conservation Lands

Ohlenbusch, P.D Establishing Native Grasses, Kansas State University Extension

***OFFICIAL Common Reed (Phragmites australis) ASSESSMENT*** Answers are underlined and in bold, comments are inserted in italics

Center for Urban Rural Interface Studies. Pearl River County, Mississippi Land Cover Analysis

Adapting to Climate Change in the Northeast: Experiences from the Field. Climate Projections for Forests: A Quick Summary

Adapting to Climate Change in the Northeast: Experiences from the Field

Crow s Foot Conservation Area Feasibility Study

GUIDE TO THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA FOURTH APPROXIMATION. March 2012

Characteristics of Land Resources

Red Wolf Canis rufus. mrewo. Taxa: Mammalian Order: Carnivora Family: Canidae

Benefits of SSSIs in England and Wales


MURPHY DRAIN CATCHMENT

***OFFICIAL Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) ASSESSMENT*** Answers are underlined and in bold, comments are inserted in italics

8/5/2011. Lesson Overview. Disturbance/Fragmentation. Shifting Mosaic. Number one cause of biodiversity loss. Types of disturbance. - Scale, frequency

Very slight to negligible limitations no special land management practices required.

Overview of Minnesota Agriculture. D.J. Mulla Dept. Soil, Water, and Climate University of Minnesota

Responsible Forest Management IS Wildlife Management

Ecological Land Cover Classification For a Natural Resources Inventory in the Kansas City Region, USA

24. Wildlife Habitat on Farmland

3.6 Riparian Ecosystem Wildlife

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES SURVEYS IN THE PINELANDS AREA. March 25, 2006 INTRODUCTION

Fire and Biodiversity in British Columbia Ze ev Gedalof, Climate & Ecosystem Dynamics Research Lab, University of Guelph

University of Florida Conservation Areas Land Management Plan University Park Arboretum

Chapter 13: Wildlife and Vegetation

PROSPECTUS FOR THE BAYOU DE LOUTRE MITIGATION SITE UNION COUNTY, ARKANSAS ARKNASAS STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTAITON DEPARTMENT

Title: Flow-ecology relationships and environmental flows assessment for the Ozark-Ouachita Interior Highlands and the West Gulf Coastal Plains

AP Environmental Science

FERRUGINOUS HAWK AND GOLDEN EAGLE HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES

Highlands Environmental Resource Inventory for the Town of Phillipsburg

719 Griswold, Suite 820 Detroit, MI DANVERS POND DAM REMOVAL AND STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT

Appendix B: Site Index Curves for Selected Tree Species. Interpreting Site Index Curves

Ecological Sustainability Report

Intermittent Stream Reclamation

DRAFT Environmental Assessment EAST FORK ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT UNIT COMPARTMENTS SCOTT COUNTY, ARKANSAS

Species Dataform and Scoresheet for Hedera helix L (English ivy) Dataform and Scoresheet

What Are Environmental (Instream) Flows?

Plantation Forestry: A Global Look

Wetland Monitoring. City of Edmonton. Edmonton Wetlands Workshop December 4-5, 2013

WATERSHED. Maitland Valley. Report Card 201

Jefferson Township Highlands Environmental Resource Inventory. April 2012

By Nancy J. Bissett The Natives

deer. However, these treatments are more expensive and difficult to plan and accomplish. Deer rarely travel across broad expanses

Implementation of Priority CRP Conservation Practices and Estimated Nutrient Load Reductions

Classification of Forest Dominate Types Using an Integrated Landsat and Ecological Model

Narragansett Bay and Watershed Restoration Bond Fund

NatureServe. Camas NWR. Ecological Integrity Assessment, Watershed Analysis and Habitat Vulnerability Climate Change Index

Gulf of Mexico Program

The Safe Harbor Program for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in North Carolina

Highlands Environmental Resource Inventory for the [insert municipality name]tewksbury Township

Shortleaf Pine-Bluestem Restoration

1.6 Influence of Human Activities and Land use Changes on Hydrologic Cycle

Enclosed farmland: Arable and Horticultural, Improved and Neutral Grasslands

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation

Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund. Gregg J. Cassidy RI DEM, Sustainable Watersheds Office

!!!!!!HOT TOPIC!!!!!!! ARKANSAS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE????? Water Again and?are extinctions important?

WONDERFUL, WATERFUL WETLANDS

Central Texas vegetation: the role of fire

Wood Thrush. Appendix A: Birds. Hylocichla mustelina. New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Appendix A Birds-216

Proposed Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project At Walking Iron Wildlife Area August 6, 2015

Nancy L. Young, Forester USAID/USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

RIVERSIDE OXBOW FORT WORTH, TEXAS CHAPTER 3 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

New Castle County, DE. Floodplain Regulations

Feasibility Report with Integrated Environmental Assessment Rip Rap Landing HREP APPENDIX M MONITORING & ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Information Request 37

Roaring Fork Watershed

Presentation plan General aims, approaches and tools Our approaches to zoning and classification of vegetation at hierarchical levels General backgrou

University of Florida Conservation Areas Land Management Plan Trillium Slope (Golf Course Woods)

Ecology and Management of Rabbits in Mississippi

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSIDERATIONS IN MANAGED FORESTS

WETLANDS AND OPEN WATERS Compensatory Mitigation Definitions of Factors

Public Notice ISSUED: 26 December 2017 EXPIRES: 26 January 2018

FOREST COMPOSITION CHANGE IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES

Climate: describes the average condition, including temperature and precipitation, over long periods in a given area

AMERICA S VULNERABLE WATERS: Assessing the Nation s Portfolio of Vulnerable Aquatic Resources since Rapanos v. United States

Conservation Assessment of the Neuse River Lowgrounds and Mill Creek Watersheds in Johnston County

FFs59. General Description. Natural Disturbance Regime. Natural Stand Dynamics & Growth-stages. Growth Stage Key. Tree Behavior

SW-74 SERENOVA PRESERVE SITES 2, 3, 4, 8 MITIGATION PLAN

Biophysical Indicators of Longleaf Pine Sandhill Change. Ryan R. Jensen Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology

8. ASSESSMENT OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

a. Title: Range, population size, and habitat utilization of the Texas frosted elfin (Callophrys irus hadros).

Transcription:

Section 4. Terrestrial Habitats Components of Reports... 1226 Definition ranking Key factors Indicators of condition Conservation actions Monitoring Terrestrial Habitat Reports... 1231 Caves, Mines, Sinkholes, and other Karst Features Crop Land Crowley s Ridge Loess Slope Forest Cultivated Forest Herbaceous Wetland Interior Highlands Calcareous Glade and Barrens Interior Highlands Dry Acidic Glade and Barrens Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain Grand Prairie Lower Mississippi Flatwoods Woodland and Forest Lower Mississippi River Bottomland Depression Lower Mississippi River Dune, Pond, Woodland and Forest Lower Mississippi River High Bottomland Forest Lower Mississippi River Low Bottomland Forest Lower Mississippi River Riparian Forest Mud Flats Ouachita Montane Oak Forest Ozark-Ouachita Cliff and Talus Ozark-Ouachita Dry Oak and Pine Woodland Ozark-Ouachita Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Ozark-Ouachita Forested Seep Ozark-Ouachita Large Floodplain Ozark-Ouachita Mesic Hardwood Forest Ozark-Ouachita Pine/Bluestem Woodland Ozark-Ouachita Pine-Oak Forest/ Woodland Ozark-Ouachita Riparian Ozark-Ouachita Prairie and Woodland Pasture Land Ponds, Lakes, and Water Holes Urban/Suburban West Gulf Coastal Plain Calcareous Prairie and Woodland West Gulf Coastal Plain Large River Floodplain Forest

West Gulf Coastal Plain Pine-Hardwood Flatwoods West Gulf Coastal Plain Pine-Hardwood Forest/Woodland West Gulf Coastal Plain Red River Floodplain Forest West Gulf Coastal Plain Sandhill Oak and Shortleaf Pine Forest/ Woodland West Gulf Coastal Plain Seepage Swamp and Baygall West Gulf Coastal Plain Small Stream/River Forest West Gulf Coastal Plain Wet Hardwood Flatwoods 1226

Components of Terrestrial Habitat Reports Definition The terrestrial habitat team described the terrestrial habitats of Arkansas in 38 types in Table 4.1. Thirty of 37 terrestrial habitat types in Arkansas were adapted from definitions provided by NatureServe (2005). The remaining seven habitat types (marked with an asterisk) were created for this project by the terrestrial habitat team. Ranking The Habitat Score (Table 4.1) of each terrestrial habitat is a sum of all Species Priority Scores associated with species for which this habitat is associated. A higher score implies a higher quantity of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and/or more greatly imperiled species occurred in the habitats listed below. Table 4.1. Terrestrial Habitat Scores. Habitat Name Sum of Species Priority Scores Caves, Mines, Sinkholes and other Karst Features 6906 Ozark-Ouachita Prairie and Woodland 3571 Ozark-Ouachita Riparian 3500 Ozark-Ouachita Mesic Hardwood Forest 2635 Ozark-Ouachita Dry Oak and Pine Woodland 2344 Pasture Land 1709 West Gulf Coastal Plain Calcareous Prairie and Woodland 1672 Ozark-Ouachita Pine-Oak Forest/Woodland 1590 Ozark-Ouachita Large Floodplain 1536 Ozark-Ouachita Cliff and Talus 1526 Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain Grand Prairie 1507 West Gulf Coastal Plain Large River Floodplain Forest 1213 West Gulf Coastal Plain Small Stream/River Forest 1170 Lower Mississippi River High Bottomland Forest 1143 Lower Mississippi River Riparian Forest 1138 Ponds, Lakes, and Water Holes 1089 Ozark-Ouachita Forested Seep 1055 Lower Mississippi Flatwoods Woodland and Forest 1053 Ozark-Ouachita Dry-Mesic Oak Forest/Woodland 1040 Lower Mississippi River Low Bottomland Forest 1034 West Gulf Coastal Plain Red River Floodplain Forest 926 Crop Land 871 Ozark-Ouachita Pine-Bluestem Woodland 827 Interior Highlands Dry Acidic Glade and Barrens 813 1227

Mud Flats 754 West Gulf Coastal Plain Pine-Hardwood Flatwoods 702 Herbaceous Wetland 700 Interior Highlands Calcareous Glade and Barrens 644 West Gulf Coastal Plain Seepage Swamp and Baygall 642 Ouachita Montane Oak Forest 613 Crowley's Ridge Loess Slope Forest 605 Lower Mississippi River Bottomland Depression 564 West Gulf Coastal Plain Pine-Hardwood Forest/Woodland 528 West Gulf Coastal Plain Wet Hardwood Flatwoods 450 West Gulf Coastal Plain Sandhill Oak and Shortleaf Pine 421 Urban/Suburban 399 Cultivated Forest 262 Lower Mississippi River Dune Woodland, Pond, and Forest 229 Key Factors Each terrestrial habitat type is assigned Key Factors which describe those conditions most critical for maintaining the ecological function and viability of associated species. Key Factors (table 4.2) are ecological attributes deemed critical to the long-term integrity of a given habitat. The terrestrial habitat team determined the importance (weight) of the Key Factor to the overall habitat integrity. Table 4.2. Key Factors. Fire Regime No-Activity Protection Zone Canopy Closure Composition Percent Total Herbaceous Ground Coverage Cave/Mine Accessibility Disturbance Policy Spatial Ecology Remoteness Recharge Area Indicators of Terrestrial Habitat Condition One or more measurable Indicators (Table 4.3) are identified for each Key Factor. The Indicator scoring criteria requires that habitat and/or population parameters of all species of conservation concern be expressed in terms that can be quantified, measured, monitored and 1228

influenced. This step also requires that each assumption, assertion and decision be supported by the best science available, including all known literature and expert opinion. Table 4.3. Indicators of Terrestrial Habitat Condition. Road density Spatial extent of buffer Canopy closure Percent total herbaceous ground coverage Exotic forbs and grasses Exotic shrubs and woody vines Broomsedge imbalance Loblolly pine presence Exotic forbs and grasses Exotic forbs and grasses Oak dominance Red oak/overcup oak ratio Cottonwood decline Sugarberry increase Oak component Loblolly encroachment Percent herbaceous groundcover w/minimal woody plants Shortleaf pine decline Percent total herbaceous ground coverage Patch size Patch proximity Average block size Number of blocks Fire seasonality/intensity Fire frequency Road proximity Percent urban/impervious Percent forested Percent pastureland Point source pollution Unpaved road density 1229

Ratings for Indicators For each Indicator, the terrestrial habitat team determined and weighted a range of measurements to assess the relative health of associated Key Factors, which in turn reflect the integrity of the associated habitat: Poor Level: Rapid declines and/or extirpations imminent. Fair Level: Gradual, long-term declines and/or extirpations possible. Good Level: Populations are expected to remain stable indefinitely. Very Good Level: Populations robust; increases in abundance possible. Conservation Actions Conservation actions propose to manage and conserve the identified habitats as determined by the Indicator thresholds. The threshold for viability of the species is defined for each habitat at the Good level. Conservation actions were formulated for each habitat that call for bringing each Indicator s current status up to or above the Good threshold. Using this methodology, 383 measurable conservation actions were formulated for the 38 habitat types using specific, quantified objectives for each Indicator. Current Status and Monitoring In addition to species-specific monitoring strategies presented in Section 2, Arkansas habitat monitoring strategy consists of measuring indicators in the field. In developing the AWAP, we determined one area of weakness is that information on current status, trends and effort to attain goals is lacking. Developing a cost- effective methodology for monitoring status, coordinated with adjacent states and in-state partners, public and stakeholders will be a priority for the near future of AWAP efforts. 1230