wetlands to determine its uniqueness in the state. The plant species composition is similar to otherwetlands observed in the high plateau region of the county, which suggests it is unlikely to be of statesignificance. Locally, the area is somewhat unique because it hosts a broad range of communitytypes and contains fairly deep peat in some areas.Broad outlying areas of the wetland are only seasonally inundated; these are characterized bytussocks of cinnamon- or interrupted- fern (Osmunda sp.) as the dominant herbaceous vegetation.Sphagnum moss and three-seeded sedge (Carex trisperma) are also common, and other sedges (Carexfolliculata, Carex projecta or cristatella) scattered among the fern tussocks.The predominant vegetation at the site is a mosaic of shrub and herbaceous species, variablydominated by different sedge and shrub species. Prevalent sedge species include Carex echinata,Carex canescens, Carex folliculata, Carex gynandra, Carex intumescens, and woolgrass (Scirpuscyperinus). Shrubs present include lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium and Vacciniumpallidum), with-rod (Viburnum cassinoides), steeplebush (Spiraea tomentosa), huckleberry(Gaylussacia baccata), arrow-wood (Viburnum recognitum), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia),winterberry (Ilex verticillata), inkberry (Nemopanthus mucronatus), and sweetfern (Comptoniaperegrina). Other species present are swamp dewberry (Rubus hispidus), poverty grass (Danthoniaspicata), needle and thread grass (Brachyelytrum erectum), teaberry (Gaultheria procumbens),running-pine (Lycopodium clavatum), ground pine (Lycopodium hickeyi), New York fern (Thelypterisnoveboracensis), deer tongue grass (Panicum clandestinum), swamp candles (Lysimachia sp.),rattlesnake mannagrass (Glyceria canadensis), wrinkle-leaved goldenrod (Solidago rugosa), a sedgespecies (Carex debilis), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), cutgrass (Leersia virginica), fowlmannagrass (Glyceria striata), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and leafy bulrush (Scirpus polyphyllus).Sapling and adult trees are scattered, and include: Pitch pine (Pinus rigida), red maple (Acer rubrum),black cherry (Prunus serotina), white oak (Quercus alba), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and yellowbirch (Betula allegheniensis). The northern end becomes boggy, with general sphagnum cover, sedgeand cottongrass (Eriophorum virginicum) tussocks, round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), andareas of open muck with standing water.Surveys have not been conducted to document animal species utilizing the wetland; it may providesuitable habitat for amphibians, as well as semi-aquatic insects such as dragonflies and damselflies.Some of these species primarily inhabit wetlands, while others also depend on upland areassurrounding a wetland for habitat. Because amphibians may depend on surrounding habitat up to adistance of 159-290 meters (Semlitsch and Bodie 2003), the core habitat area includes the wetlandsplus 250 m of surrounding forest that may be amphibian habitat.The Supporting <strong>Natural</strong> Landscape is the immediate watershed of the wetland; much of it is forested.The watershed influences the water quality of the wetland, and its current forested condition supportsthe long-term health and viability of the wetland community (Mensing et al. 1998, Findlay andBourdages 2000, Spackman and Hughes 1995, Barclay 1980, Karr and Schlosser 1978).Threats and StressesCore Habitat Area— Amphibians are sensitive to the physical structure and microclimatic conditions(i.e., temperature, moisture level) on the forest floor. Forest canopy removal within this area maynegatively impact the quality of the habitat for amphibians by increasing temperatures and decreasinghumidity on the forest floor. Compaction, removal or disruption of herbaceous growth and organicdebris, or other direct disturbances to the structure of the forest floor may also degrade the habitat foramphibians.131
Supporting <strong>Natural</strong> Landscape—Use of chemical weed and pest controls within the watershed of thewetland may harm wetland flora and fauna. The watershed of the wetland contains two majorhighways, I-80 and SR 153, which isolate the wetland on three sides from surrounding natural areas.Highway runoff also contains many water quality pollutants; although studies show these compoundsmainly accumulate within 50 m of the roadside, the high traffic volume and the possibility of localhydrological patterns conducting runoff into the wetland raises concern that pollutants could bereaching the wetland. See Anderson Creek BDA, pg. 100, for further information on road runoffpollution.RecommendationsCore Habitat Area—Based on the area range which amphibians may occupy surrounding thewetland, it is recommended that a full forest canopy be maintained and disturbance to the forest floorbe avoided within 250 m of the wetland edge in order to avoid detrimentally impacting amphibianpopulations. Further surveys to document amphibian and insect species utilizing the wetland are alsorecommended, as these groups are likely to form a significant component of the wetland’sbiodiversity, to provide a baseline to guide future management decisions.Supporting <strong>Natural</strong> Landscape— Chemical weed and pest controls, as well as other discharges oftoxic materials, should be avoided within the watershed. The wetland should be evaluated todetermine whether highway runoff pollutants are accumulating within it.132
- Page 2 and 3:
CLEARFIELD COUNTYNATURAL HERITAGE I
- Page 4 and 5:
Over the history of these studies,
- Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTSPreface………
- Page 8 and 9:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroductionA heal
- Page 10 and 11:
Ground SurveyAreas identified as po
- Page 12 and 13:
Table 1. Natural Heritage Areas cat
- Page 14 and 15:
outcrops occur in conjunction with
- Page 16 and 17:
INTRODUCTIONA healthy natural lands
- Page 18 and 19:
Natural Resilience, Human Activitie
- Page 20 and 21:
Natural Heritage Inventory MappingG
- Page 23:
Natural History Overview of Clearfi
- Page 26 and 27:
SoilsSoil character exerts a strong
- Page 28 and 29:
preventing the establishment of see
- Page 30 and 31:
METHODSThe methods used in the Clea
- Page 32 and 33:
fragmenting feature data to generat
- Page 34:
*Defined as: 2,000 waterfowl (at on
- Page 38 and 39:
RESULTSContiguous Forest Blocks in
- Page 40 and 41:
Table 5. ContinuedSize% Roadless Ac
- Page 44 and 45:
Landscape Conservation AreasThe Lan
- Page 46 and 47:
SGL #120 LCAThis LCA is a contiguou
- Page 48 and 49:
Moravian Run - Alder Run LCAThis LC
- Page 50 and 51:
Threats and StressesIn some portion
- Page 52 and 53:
Gifford Run Valley, west slope37
- Page 54:
Beccaria Township, Coalport Borough
- Page 57:
Bell Township, Mahaffey Borough, &
- Page 60 and 61:
Featherbells(Stenanthium gramineum)
- Page 62 and 63:
Supporting Natural Landscape—To m
- Page 64:
Bigler TownshipPNDI Rank Legal Stat
- Page 67:
Bloom TownshipPNDI Rank Legal Statu
- Page 70:
What It Looks Like:Appalachian Game
- Page 74 and 75:
BOGGS TOWNSHIPThe landscape of the
- Page 77 and 78:
BRADFORD TOWNSHIPThe landscape of B
- Page 80 and 81:
BRADY TOWNSHIPBrady Township falls
- Page 83 and 84:
BURNSIDE TOWNSHIPThe West Branch Su
- Page 85 and 86:
BURNSIDE BOROUGHThe landscape of Bu
- Page 88 and 89:
CHEST TOWNSHIPChest Township is 71%
- Page 90 and 91:
Heron Rookery at Chest Creek Floodp
- Page 93 and 94:
COOPER TOWNSHIPCooper Township lies
- Page 96 and 97:
COVINGTON TOWNSHIPThe northern half
- Page 98 and 99:
Creeping Snowberry(Gaultheria hispi
- Page 100 and 101:
should be avoided within the core a
- Page 103 and 104:
DECATUR TOWNSHIPMost of Decatur Tow
- Page 106 and 107:
FERGUSON TOWNSHIPThe southwestern p
- Page 111 and 112:
GIRARD TOWNSHIPThe northern two-thi
- Page 113 and 114:
The Supporting Natural Landscape is
- Page 115 and 116:
RecommendationsCore Habitat Area—
- Page 120 and 121:
GOSHEN TOWNSHIPMost of Goshen Towns
- Page 122 and 123:
Gifford Run Wetlands (pg. 81)Steepl
- Page 125 and 126:
GRAHAM TOWNSHIPThe landscape of Gra
- Page 128 and 129: GREENWOOD TOWNSHIPGreenwood Townshi
- Page 131: Gulich Township & Ramey BoroughPNDI
- Page 134 and 135: herbaceous layer is somewhat sparse
- Page 136: Huston TownshipPNDI Rank Legal Stat
- Page 139 and 140: Supporting Natural Landscape— Any
- Page 141 and 142: Along the stream channel connecting
- Page 143 and 144: Supporting Natural Landscape—Use
- Page 145: Jordan TownshipPNDI Rank Legal Stat
- Page 148: Karthaus TownshipPNDI Rank Legal St
- Page 151: Knox TownshipPNDI Rank Legal Status
- Page 154: Lawrence Township & Clearfield Boro
- Page 158 and 159: documented in Pennsylvania. It hibe
- Page 160 and 161: allegheniensis) dominant in the can
- Page 162: Morris TownshipPNDI Rank Legal Stat
- Page 165: Penn Township, Grampian Borough,& L
- Page 168: Pike Township & Curwensville Boroug
- Page 171: Pine TownshipPNDI Rank Legal Status
- Page 174 and 175: pine species (Lycopodium dendroideu
- Page 176 and 177: Threats and StressesFoot traffic on
- Page 180: Sandy Township, Dubois City, & Fall
- Page 183 and 184: eeding season, and they will be sen
- Page 185: Union TownshipPNDI RankGlobal State
- Page 188: Woodward Township, Brisbin Borough,
- Page 191 and 192: RECOMMENDATIONSThe following are ge
- Page 193 and 194: situations, the site is effectively
- Page 195 and 196: GLOSSARYAlluvium: detrital deposits
- Page 197 and 198: LITERATURE CITEDAnonymous. 1985. A
- Page 199 and 200: Naeem., S. (Chair), F.S. Chapin III
- Page 201 and 202: GIS DATA SOURCESBedrock geologic un
- Page 203 and 204: APPENDIX IIPENNSYLVANIA NATURAL HER
- Page 205 and 206: Evidence of Disturbance (logging, g
- Page 207 and 208: GLOBAL STATECOMMUNITY NAME RANK RAN
- Page 209 and 210: GLOBAL STATECOMMUNITY NAME RANK RAN
- Page 211 and 212: GLOBAL STATECOMMUNITY NAME RANK RAN
- Page 213 and 214: APPENDIX V bPENNSYLVANIA STATUSNati
- Page 215 and 216: small numbers throughout their rang
- Page 217 and 218: State Element RanksS1 = Critically
- Page 219 and 220: Photo: Lisa SmithHairy rock-cress (
- Page 221: The Sustainable Forestry Initiative