The Nationwide Plant List, October 2012

Recommendations

Info

ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11 3 Figure 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation regions of the U.S. For this update, the NP developed the technical changes to the wetland rating system previously used by the FWS. The definitions of the wetland plant rating groups were refined three times. The first was by the National Panel (NP) in 2008 (Lichvar and Minkin), the second by the NP and the National Technical Committee for Wetland Vegetation (NTCWV) (Lichvar and Gillrich 2011), and finally by the NP (Table 2) (Lichvar et al. 2012). The current definitions do not use numerical categories with frequency units because no data exist to support that method of assigning ratings; instead, the new definitions use field-based ecological terminology. The numerical wetland categories were not eliminated but were reassigned for use in any “challenges or requests” as part of a process to change specific species wetland ratings using a specific sampling method developed by the NP and the NTCWV.
ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11 4 Table 2. Short version of the NWPL wetland indicator status groups. More complete definitions, including examples of wetland plants and descriptions of wetland features, were published by Lichvar et al. (2012). Wetland Indicator Status Definition Obligate Wetland (OBL) Almost always occur in wetlands Facultative Wetland (FACW) Usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands Facultative (FAC) Occur in wetlands or non-wetlands Facultative Upland (FACU) Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands Obligate Upland (UPL) Almost never occur in wetlands The NWPL also differs from the former FWS lists in other ways: • The 2012 NWPL rates wetland plants at only the species level. The NP recognized that there are over 1200 infraspecific species associated with the 8154 species. The knowledge required to assign wetland ratings to 2400 infraspecific taxa isn’t available in most cases; most of the infraspecific taxa had not been rated in previous lists and would require extensive and in-depth investigation into these taxa’s habitat preferences. Additionally, the professional wetland community generally doesn’t work at this lower level of plant classification. • This update dropped the +/– rating symbols applied to many former FWS wetland species ratings. This action reflects the lack of data to support those ratings. • The NWPL no longer uses the symbols NA (no agreement), NO (no occurrence), and NI (no indicator) because this update either used additional professional input to resolve species ratings or verified the geographic occurrence, which eliminated the need for those categories. Following previous protocols used by the FWS for developing wetland plant lists, the NP established Regional Panels (RPs) as the core working groups for updating the NWPL. For each of the 10 Corps wetland delineation regions, the NP selected as an RP primary member one botanist or ecologist from each of the four collaborating agencies, with many members having an alternate. The NP established requirements for being an RP member and filled positions after reviewing resumes from agency applicants. They also developed a website that provided all previous digital information obtained from the FWS (http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil/). This website hosted literature gathered by the FWS to support their lists, as well as any previous input (votes) made by
Page 1 and 2: ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11 Cold Regions Re
Page 3 and 4: The National Wetland Plant List Rob
Page 5 and 6: ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11 iii Table of Co
Page 7 and 8: ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11 v Preface This
Page 9: ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11 2 2 Updating th
Page 13 and 14: ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11 6 To assign the
Page 15 and 16: ERDC/CRREL TR-12-11 8 This national
Page 18 and 19: Appendix A. 2012 Final NWPL Ratings
Page 20 and 21: Species Authorship AGCP AK AW CB EM
Page 60 and 61:
Species Authorship AGCP AK AW CB EM
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Appendix B. NWPL Ratings for Subreg
Page 216 and 217:
Appendix C. NWPL Ratings for the We
Page 218 and 219:
Species Authorship Rating Common Na
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224:
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Appr
show all

The Nationwide Plant List, October 2012

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?