Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdiction^ Wetlands
AN IIMTERAGENCY COOPERATIVE PUBLICATION
Fish and
Wildlife Service
Department of
the Army
Environmental
Protection Agency
Soil Conservation
Service
January 1989
-------
Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands
An Interagency Cooperative Publication
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service
JANUARY 10, 1989
-------
For eale by the Superintendent of Documents. U S Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402
-------
Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands
We, the undersigned, hereby adopt this Federal Manual as the technical
basis for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands in the
United States.
Frank Dunkle
Director
Fish and Wildlife Service
Robert W. Page
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works)
Department of Army
Rebecca Hanmer
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Wilson Scaling
Chief
Soil Conservation Service
S7 41
January 10, 1989
-------
Preface
fl This manual describes technical criteria, field indicators and other sources of information, and
1 Y methods for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands in the United States. This manu-
J/, al is the product of many years of practical experience in wetland identification and delineation
W/ by four Federal agencies: Army Corps of Engineers (CE), Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Soil Conservation Service (SCS). It is the culmi-
nation of efforts to merge existing field-tested wetland delineation manuals, methods, and pro-
cedures used by these agencies. This manual draws heavily upon published manuals and methods, specifi-
cally Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, EPA’s Wetland Identification and Delineation
Manual, and S CS’s Food Security Act Manual wetland determination procedure.
The manual has been reviewed and concurred in by an interagency committee composed of the four Feder-
al agencies. This committee was established for purposes of reconciling differences in wetland delineation
procedures and developing a single interagency manual for identification and delineation of wetlands. The
committee consisted of the following individuals: Robert Pierce, Bernie Goode, and Russell Theriot of the
Corps of Engineers; John Meagher, Bill Sipple, and Charles Rhodes of the Environmental Protection
Agency; David Stout, Ralph Tiner, and Bill Wilen of the Fish and Wildlife Service; and Steve Brady,
Maurice Mausbach, and Billy Teels of the Soil Conservation Service. The manual was prepared by Ralph
Tiner based on interagency committee decisions. The negotiations were facilitated by Howard Bellman and
Leah Haygood.
This report should be cited as follows:
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delin-
eating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative
technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.
-------
II
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Preface i
Part I. Iniroduction 1
Purpose 1
Organization of the Manual 1
Use of the Manual 1
Background 1
Federal Wetland Definitions 2
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 2
Food Security Act of 1985 2
Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wetland Classification System 3
Summary of Federal Defmitions 3
Part H. Mandatory Technical Criteria for Wetland Identification 5
Hydrophytic Vegetation 5
Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion 5
Hydric Soils 6
Hydric Soil Criterion 6
Wetland Hydrology 7
Wetland Hydrology Criterion 7
Summary 7
Part Ill. Field Indicators and Other Available Information 9
Hydrophytic Vegetation 9
Dominant Vegetation 9
Field Indicators 10
Other Sources of Information 10
Hydric Soils 10
Soil Colors 11
Hydric Organic Soils 12
Hydric Mineral Soils 12
National and State Hydric Soils Lists 12
Soil Surveys 13
Use of the Hydric Soils List and Soil Surveys 13
Field Indicators 13
Wetland Hydrology 15
Recorded Data 16
Aerial Photographs 16
Field Indicators 16
UI
-------
Page
Part IV. Methods for Identification and Delineation of Wetlands 21
Selection of a Method 21
Description of Methods 23
Offsite Determinations 23
Offsite Determination Method 23
Onsite Determinations 24
Routine Onsite Determination Method 31
Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure 31
Plant Community Assessment Procedure 33
Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method 35
Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method 39
Quadrat Sampling Procedure
Point Intercept Sampling Procedure 46
Disturbed Area and Problem Area Wetland Determination Procedures 50
Disturbed Areas 50
Problem Area Wetlands 55
References 61
Glossary 65
Appendix A. Selected Wetland References A-i
Appendix B. Examples of Data Sheets B-i
Appendix C. Sample Calculation for Herb Stratum Dominants C-i
Appendix D. Sample Problem for Application of Point Intercept Sampling Method D-i
iv
-------
Part I.
Introduction
Purpose
1.0. The purpose of this manual is to
J/ provide users with mandatory technical
fJ criteria, field indicators and other sourc-
es of information, and recommended
methods to determine whether an area is
jurisdictional wetland or not, and to delineate the
upper boundary of these wetlands. The document
can be used to identify jurisdictional wetlands sub-
ject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and to
the “Swampbuster” provision of the Food Security
Act, or to identify vegetated wetlands in general for
the National Wetlands Inventory and other purpos-
es. The term “wetland” as used throughout this
manual refers to jurisdictional wetlands for use by
Federal agencies. This manual, therefore, provides
a single, consistent approach for identifying and
delineating wetlands from a multi-agency Federal
perspective.
Organization of the Manual
1.1. The manual is divided into four major parts:
Part I — Introduction, Part II— Mandatory Tech-
nical Criteria for Wetland Identification, Part ifi —
Field Indicators and Other Available Information,
and Part IV — Methods for Identification and De-
lineation of Wetlands. References, a glossary of
technical terms, and appendices are included at the
back of the manual.
Use of the Manual
1.2. The manual should be used for identification
and delineation of wetlands in the United States.
Emphasis for delineation is on the upper boundary
of wetlands (i.e., wetland-upland boundary) and
not on the lower boundary between wetlands and
other aquatic habitats. The technical criteria for
wetland identification presented in Part II are man-
datory, while the methods presented in Part IV are
recommended approaches. Alternative methods are
offered to provide users with a selection of meth-
ods that range from office determinations to de-
tailed field determinations, if the user departs from
these methods, the reasons for doing so should be
documented.
Background
1.3. At the Federal level, four agencies are princi-
pally involved with wetland identification and de-
lineation: Army Corps of Engineers (CE), Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). Each of these agencies have developed
techniques for identifying the limits of wetlands for
various purposes.
1.4. The CE and EPA are responsible for making
jurisdictional determinations of wetlands regulated
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (former-
ly known as the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344). The CE also makes juris-
dictional determinations under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
Under Section 404, the Secretary of the Army, act-
ing through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to
issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill
materials into the waters of the United States, in-
cluding wetlands, with program oversight by EPA.
The EPA has the authority to make final determina-
tions on the extent of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
The CE also issues permits for filling, dredging,
and other construction in certain wetlands under
Section 10. Under authority of the Fish and Wild-
life Coordination Act, the FWS and the National
Marine Fisheries Service review applications for
these Federal permits and provide comments to the
CE on the environmental impacts of proposed
work. In addition, the FWS is conducting an in-
ventory of the Nation’s wetlands and is producing
a series of National Wetlands Inventory maps for
the entire country. While the SCS has been in-
volved in wetland identification since 1956, it has
recently become more deeply involved in wetland
determinations through the “Swampbuster” provi-
sion of the Food Security Act of 1985.
1.5. The CE and EPA have developed technical
manuals for identifying and delineating wetlands
subject to Section 404 (Environmental Laboratory
1987 and Sipple 1988, respectively). The SCS has
developed procedures for identifying wetlands for
1
-------
compliance with “Swainpbuster” While it has no
formal method for delineating wetland boundaries,
the FWS has established guidelines for identifying
wetlands in the form of its official wetland classifi-
cation system report (Cowardin, et al. 1979).
1.6. In early 1988, the CE and EPA resumed pre-
vious discussions on the possibilities of merging
their manuals into a single document, since both
manuals were produced in support of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. At that time, it was recom-
mended that the FWS and SCS be invited to partic-
ipate in the talks to take advantage of their technical
expertise in wetlands and to discuss the possibili-
ties of a joint interagency wetland identification
manual. On May 19-20, 1988, the first meeting
was held in Washington, D.C., to discuss technical
differences between the CE and EPA manuals. Af-
ter the meeting, it was decided that a second meet-
ing should be held to resolve technical issues and
to attempt to merge the two manuals and possibly
develop an interagency manual for the four agen-
cies. This meeting was held on August 29-31,
1988, at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Each of the
four Federal agencies (CE, EPA, FWS, and SCS)
was represented by three persons, with outside fa-
cilitators moderating the session. During the three-
day meeting, the four agencies reached agreement
on the technical criteria for identifying and delineat-
ing wetlands and agreed to merge the existing pub-
lished methods (CE, EPA, and SCS) into a single
wetland delineation manual. A draft combined
manual was prepared, and then reviewed by the in-
teragency group. On January 10, 1989, the manual
was formally adopted by the four agencies as the
recommended manual for identifying and delineat-
ing wetlands in the United States.
Federal Wetland Definitions
1.7. Several definitions have been formulated at
the Federal level to define “wetland” for various
laws, regulations, and programs. These major Fed-
eral definitions are cited below in reference to their
guiding document along with a few comments on
their key elements.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
1.8. The following definition of wetland is the reg-
ulatory definition used by the EPA and CE for ad-
ministering the Section 404 permit program:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas.
(EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3)
1.9. This definition emphasizes hydrology, vegeta-
tion, and saturated soils. The Section 404 regula-
tiOns also deal with other “waters of the United
States” such as open water areas, mud flats, coral
reefs, riffle and pooi complexes, vegetated shal-
lows, and other aquatic habitats.
Food Security Act of 1985
1.10. The following wetland definition is used by
the SCS for identifying wetlands on agricultural
land in assessing farmer eligibility for U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture program benefits under the
“Swampbuster” provision of this Act:
Wetlands are defined as areas that have a
predominance of hydric soils and that are in-
undated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of hydrophytic
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions, except lands in Alaska
identified as having a high potential for agri-
cultural development and a predominance of
permafrost soils.*
(National Food Security Act Manual, 1988)
* Special Note: The Emergency Wetlands Resources
Act of 1986 also contains this definition, but with-
out the exception for Alaska.
2
-------
1.11. This definition specifies hydrology, hydro-
phytic vegetation, and hydric soils. Any area that
meets the hydric soil criteria (defined by the Na-
tional Technical Committee for Hydric Soils) is
considered to have a predominance of hydric soils.
The definition also makes a geographic exclusion
for Alaska, so that wetlands in Alaska with a high
potential for agricultural development and a pre-
dominance of permafrost soils are exempt from the
requirements of the Act.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wetland Clas-
sification System
1.12. The FWS in cooperation with other Federal
agencies, State agencies, and private organizations
and individuals developed a wetland definition for
conducting an inventory of the Nation’s wetlands.
This definition was published in the FWS’s publi-
cation “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States” (Cowardin, et al.
1979):
Wetlands are lands transitional between ter-
restrial and aquatic systems where the water
table is usually at or near the surface or the
land is covered by shallow water. For pur-
poses of this classification wetlands must
have one or more of the following three at-
tributes: (1) at least periodically, the land
supports predominantly hydrophytes, (2)
the substrate is predominantly undrained
hydric soil, and (3) the substrate is nonsoil
and is saturated with water or covered by
shallow water at some time during the
growing season of each year.
1.13. This definition includes both vegetated and
nonvegetated wetlands, recognizing that some
types of wetlands lack vegetation (e.g., mud flats,
sand flats, rocky shores, gravel beaches, and sand
bars). The classification system also defines “deep-
water habitats” as “permanently flooded lands lying
below the deepwater boundary of wetlands.” Deep-
water habitats include estuarine and marine aquatic
beds (similar to “vegetated shallows” of Section
404). Open waters below extreme low water at
spring tides in salt and brackish tidal areas and usu-
ally below 6.6 feet in inland areas and freshwater
tidal areas are also included in deepwater habitats.
Summary of Federal Definitions
1.14. The CE, EPA, and SCS wetland definitions
include only areas that are vegetated under normal
circumstances, while the FWS definition encom-
passes both vegetated and nonvegetated areas. Ex-
cept for the FWS inclusion of nonvegetated areas
as wetlands and the exemption for Alaska in the
SCS definition, all four wetland definitions are
conceptually the same; they all include three basic
elements - hydrology, vegetation, and soils - for
identifying wetlands.
3
-------
4
-------
Part II.
Mandatory Technical
Criteria for Wetland
Identification
2.0. Wetlands possess three essential
characteristics: (1) hydrophytic vegeta-
tion, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland
hydrology, which is the driving force
creating all wetlands. These characteristics and their
technical criteria for identification purposes are de-
scribed in the following sections. The three techni-
cal criteria specified are mandatory and must all be
met for an area to be identified as wetland. There-
fore, areas that meet these criteria are wetlands.
Hydrophytic Vegetation
2.1. For purposes of this manual, hydrophytic
vegetation is defined as macrophytic plant life
growing in water, soil or on a substrate that is at
least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of
excessive water content. Nearly 7,000 vascular
plant species have been found growing in U.S.
wetlands (Reed 1988). Out of these, only about 27
percent are “obligate wetland” species that nearly
always occur in wetlands under natural conditions.
This means that the majority of plant species grow-
ing in wetlands also grow in nonwetlands in vary-
ing degrees.
2.2. The FWS in cooperation with CE, EPA, and
SCS has published the “National List of Plant Spe-
cies That Occur in Wetlands” from a review of the
scientific literature and review by wetland experts
and botanists (Reed 1988). The list separates vas-
cular plants into four basic groups, commonly
called “wetland indicator status,” based on a plant
species’ frequency of occurrence in wetlands: (1)
obligate wetland plants (OBL) that occur almost al-
ways (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands un-
der natural conditions; (2) facultative wetland plants
(FACW) that usually occur in wetlands (estimated
probability 67-99%), but occasionally are found in
nonwetlands; (3)facultative plants (FAC) that are
equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands
(estimated probability 34-66%); and (4)facultative
upland plants (FACU) that usually occur in non-
wetlands (estimated probability 67-99%), but occa-
sionally are found in wetlands (estimated probabili-
ty 1-33%). If a species occurs almost always
(estimated probability >99%) in nonwetlands under
natural conditions, it is considered an obligate up-
land plant (UPL). These latter plants do not usually
appear on the wetland plant list; they are listed only
when found in wetlands with a higher probability
in one region of the country. If a species is not on
the list, it is presumed to be an obligate upland
plant. The “National List of Plant Species That Oc-
cur in Wetlands” has been subdivided into regional
and state lists. There is a formal procedure to peti-
tion the interagency plant review committee for
making additions, deletions, and changes in indica-
tor status. Since the lists are periodically updated,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be con-
tacted to be sure that the most current version is be-
ing used for wetland determinations. The appropri-
ate plant list for a specific geographic region should
be used when making a wetland determination and
evaluating whether the following hydrophytic veg-
etation criterion is satisfied.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion
2.3. An area has hydrophytic vegetation
when, under normal circumstances: (1)
more than 50 percent of the composition
of the dominant species from all strata are
obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wet-
land (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC)
species, or (2) a frequency analysis of all
species within the community yields a
prevalence index value of less than 3.0
(where OBL = 1.0, FACW = 2.0, FAC =
3.0, FACU = 4.0, and UPL = 5.0). CA U-
TION: When a plant community has less
than or equal to 50 percent of the domi-
nant species from all strata represented by
OBL, FACW, and/or FAC species, or a
frequency analysis of all species within
the community yields a prevalence index
value of greater than or equal to 3.0, and
hydric soils and wetland hydrology are
present, the area also has hydrophytic
vegetation. (Note: These areas are consid-
ered problem area wetlands.)
2.4. For each stratum (e.g., tree, shrub,
and herb) in the plant community, domi-
nant species are the most abundant plant
species (when ranked in descending order
5
-------
of abundance and cumulatively totaled)
that immediately exceed 50 percent of the
total dominance measure (e.g., basal area
or areal coverage) for the stratum, plus
any additional species comprising 20 per-
cent or more of the total dominance meas-
ure for the stratum. All dominants are
treated equally in determining the presence
of hydrophytic vegetation.
2.5. (Note: The “National List of Plant Species
that Occur in Wetlands” uses a plus (+) sign or a
minus (-) sign to specify a higher or lower portion
of a particular wetland indicator frequency for the
three facultative-type indicators; for purposes of
identifying hydrophytic vegetation according to this
manual, however, FACW+, FACW-, FAC+, and
FAC are included as FACW and FAC, respective-
ly, in the hydrophytic vegetation criterion.)
Hydric Soils
2.6. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are satu-
rated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in
the upper part (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Serv-
ice 1987). In general, hydric soils are flooded,
ponded, or saturated for usually one week or more
during the period when soil temperatures are above
biologic zero 410 F as defined by “Soil Taxonomy”
(U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff 1975). These soils
usually support hydrophytic vegetation. The Na-
tional Technical Committee for Hydric Soils has
developed criteria for hydric soils and a list of the
Nation’s hydric soils (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service 1987). (Note: Caution must be exercised in
using the hydric soils list for determining the pres-
ence of hydric soil at specific sites; see p. 12.)
Hydric Soil Criterion
2.7. An area has hydric soils when the
National Technical Committee for Hydric
Soils (NTCHS) criteria for hydric soils
are met.
Criteria for Hydric Soils
Soil Conservation Service
2. Soils in Aquic suborders, Aquic sub-
groups, Albolls suborder, Salorthids
great group, or Fell great groups of
Vertisols that are:
a. somewhat poorly drained and have
water table less than 0.5 feet from
the surface for a significant period
(usually a week or more) during
the growing season, or
b. poorly drained or very poorly
drained and have either:
(1) water table at less than 1.0
feet from the surface for a sig-
nificant period (usually a week
or more) during the growing
season if permeability is equal
to or greater than 6.0 inches/
hour in all layers within 20
inches, or
(2) water table at less than 1.5
feet from the surface for a sig-
nificant period (usually a week
or more) during the growing
season if permeability is less
than 6.0 inches/hour in any
layer within 20 inches; or
3. Soils that are ponded for long dura-
tion or very long duration during the
growing season; or
4. Soils that are frequently flooded for
long duration or very long duration
during the growing season.”
(Note: Long duration is defined as inundation for a
single event that ranges from seven days to one
month; very long duration is defined as inundation
for a single event that is greater than one month; fre-
quently flooded is defined as flooding likely to occur
often under usual weather conditions - more than 50
percent chance of flooding in any year or more than
50 times in 100 years. Other technical terms in the
NTCHS criteria for hydric soils are generally de-
fined in the glossary.)
“1. All Histosols except Folists; or
NTCHS
(U.S.D.A.
1987):
6
-------
Wetland Hydrology
2.8. Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil sat-
uration to the surface, at least seasonally, are the
driving forces behind wetland formation. The pres-
ence of water for a week or more during the grow-
ing season typically creates anaerobic conditions in
the soil, which affect the types of plants that can
grow and the types of soils that develop. Numer-
ous factors influence the wetness of an area, in-
cluding precipitation, stratigraphy, topography,
soil permeability, and plant cover. All wetlands
usually have at least a seasonal abundance of wa-
ter. This water may come from direct precipitation,
overbank flooding, surface water runoff due to
precipitation or snow melt, ground water dis-
charge, or tidal flooding. The frequency and dura-
tion of inundation and soil saturation vary widely
from permanent flooding or saturation to irregular
flooding or saturation. Of the three technical criteria
for wetland identification, wetland hydrology is of-
ten the least exact and most difficult to establish in
the field, due largely to annual, seasonal, and daily
fluctuations.
Wetland Hydrology Criterion
2.9. An area has wetland hydrology when
saturated to the surface or inundated at
some point in time during an average rain-
fall year, as defined below:
1. Saturation to the surface normally
occurs when soils in the following
natural drainage classes meet the
following conditions:
A. In somewhat poorly drained
mineral soils, the water table is
less than 0.5 feet from the sur-
face for usually one week or
more during the growing season;
or
B. In low permeability (<6.0 inch-
es/hour), poorly drained or very
poorly drained mineral soils, the
water table is less than 1.5 feet
from the surface for usually one
week or more during the grow-
ing season; or
C. In more permeable (. 6.0 inch-
es/hour), poorly drained or very
poorly drained mineral soils, the
water table is less than 1.0 feet
from the surface for usually one
week or more during the grow-
ing season; or
D. In poorly drained or very poorly
drained organic soils, the water
table is usually at a depth where
saturation to the surface occurs
more than rarely. (Note: Organic
soils that are cropped are often
drained, yet the water table is
closely managed to minimize ox-
idation of organic matter; these
soils often retain their hydric
characteristics and if so, meet
the wetland hydrology
criterion.)
2. An area is inundated at some time if
ponded or frequently flooded with
surface water for one week or more
during the growing season.
(Note: An area saturated for a week during the
growing season, especially early in the growing
season, is not necessarily a wetland. However, in
the vast majority of cases, an area that meets the
NTCHS criteria for hydric soil is a wetland.)
Summary
2.10. The technical criteria are mandatory and
must be satisfied in maldng a wetland determina-
tion. Areas that meet the NTCHS hydric soil crite-
ria and under normal circumstances support hydro-
phytic vegetation are wetlands. Field indicators and
other information provide direct and indirect evi-
dence for determining whether or not each of the
three criteria are met. Sound professional judge-
ment should be used in interpreting these data to
make a wetland determination. It must be kept in
mind that exceptional and rare cases are possibili-
ties that may call any generally sound principle into
question.
7
-------
8
-------
Part III.
Field Indicators and
Other Available
Information
fl 3.0. When conducting a field inspec-
) tion to make a wetland determination,
J/ the three identification criteria, listed in
.!J Part II of this manual, alone may not
provide enough information for users to
document whether or not the criteria
themselves (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and wetland hydrology) are met. Various
physical properties or other signs can be readily
observed in the field to determine whether the three
wetland identification criteria are satisfied. Besides
these field indicators, good baseline information
may be available from site-specific studies, pub-
lished reports, or other written material on wet-
lands. In the following sections, field indicators
and primary sources of information for each of the
three criteria are presented to help the user identify
wetlands.
Hydrophytic Vegetation
3.1. All plants growing in wetlands have adapted
in one way or another to life in permanently or per-
iodically inundated or saturated soils. Some plants
have developed structural or morphological adapta-
tions to inundation or saturation. These features,
while indicative of hydrophytic vegetation, are
used as indicators of wetland hydrology in this
manual, since they are a response to inundation and
soil saturation. Probably all plants growing in wet-
lands possess physiological mechanisms to cope
with prolonged periods of anaerobic soil condi-
tions. Because they are not observable in the field,
physiological and reproductive adaptations are not
included in this manual.
3.2. Persons making wetland determinations
should be able to identify at least the dominant wet-
land plants in each stratum (layer of vegetation) of
a plant community. Plant identification requires use
of field guides or more technical taxonomic manu-
als (see Appendix A for sample list). When neces-
sary, seek help in identifying difficult species.
Once a plant is identified to genus and species, one
should then consult the appropriate Federal list of
plants that occur in wetlands to determine the “wet-
land indicator status” of the plant (see p. 5). This
information will be used to help determine if hy-
drophytic vegetation is present.
Dominant Vegetation
3.3. Dominance as used in this manual refers
strictly to the spatial extent of a species that is di-
rectly discernable or measurable in the field. When
identifying dominant vegetation within a given
plant community, one should consider dominance
within each stratum. All dominants are treated
equally in characterizing the plant community to de-
termine whether.hydrophytic vegetation is present.
The most abundant plant species (when ranked in
descending order of abundance and cumulatively
totaled) that immediately exceed 50 percent of the
total dominance measure for a given stratum, plus
any additional species comprising 20 percent or
more of the total dominance measure for that stra-
tum are considered dominant species for the stra-
tum. Dominance measures include percent areal
coverage and basal area, for example.
3.4. Vegetative strata for which dominants should
be determined may include: (I) tree ( . 5.0 inches
diameter at breast height (dbh) and 20 feet or tall-
er); (2) sapling (0.4 to <5.0 inches dbh and 20 feet
or taller); (3) shrub (usually 3 to 20 feet tall includ-
ing multi-stemmed, bushy shrubs and small trees
and saplings); (4) woody vine; and (5) herb (herba-
ceous plants including graminoids, forbs, ferns,
fern allies, herbaceous vines, and tree seedlings).
Bryophytes (mosses, horned liverworts, and true
liverworts) should be sampled as a separate stratum
in certain wetlands, including shrub bogs, moss-
lichen wetlands, and wooded swamps where bryo-
phytes are abundant and represent an important
component of the community; in most other wet-
lands, bryophytes should be included within the
herb stratum due to their scarcity.
3.5. There are many ways to quantify dominance
measures; Part IV provides recommended ap-
proaches. Alternatively, one may wish to visually
estimate percent coverage when possible or per-
form a frequency analysis of all species within a
9
-------
given plant Community. These are accepted meth-
ods for evaluating plant communities.
Field Indicators
3.6. Having established the community dominants
for each stratum or performed a frequency analysis,
hydrophytic vegetation is considered present if:
1) OBL species comprise all dominants in the
plant community (Note: In these cases, the area can
be considered wetland without detailed examination
of soils and hydrology, provided significant hydro-
logic modifications are not evident); or
2) OBL species do not dominate each stratum,
but more than 50 percent of the dominants of all
strata are OBL, FACW, or FAC species (including
FACW+, FACW-, FAC+, and FAC-); or
3) A plant community has a visually estimated
percent coverage of OBL and FACW species that
exceed the coverage of FACU and UPL species; or
4) A frequency analysis of all species within the
community yields a prevalence index value of less
than 3.0 (where OBL = 1.0, FACW = 2.0, FAC =
3.0, FACU = 4.0, and UPL = 5.0); or
5) A plant community has less than or equal to
50 percent of the dominant species from all strata
represented by OBL, FACW, and/or FAC species,
or a frequency analysis for all species within the
community yields a prevalence index value greater
than or equal to 3.0, and hydric soils and wetland
hydrology are present. (Note: In other words, if the
hydric soil and wetland hydrology criteria are met,
then the vegetation is considered hydrophytic. For
purposes of this manual, these situations are treated
as disturbed or problem area wetlands because
these plant communities are usually nonwetlands.)
Other Sources of Information
3.7. Besides learning the field indicators of hydro-
phytic vegetation presented above, one should also
become familiar with the technical literature on wet-
lands, especially for one’s geographic region.
Sources of available literature include: taxonomic
plant manuals and field guides; scientific journals
dealing with botany, ecology, and wetlands in par-
ticular; technical government reports on wetlands;
proceedings of wetland workshops, conferences,
and symposia; and the FWS’s national wetland
plant database, which contains habitat information
on about 7,000 plant species. Appendix A presents
examples of the first four sources of information.
In addition, the FWS’s National Wetlands Invento-
iy (NW!) maps provide information on locations of
hydrophytic plant communities that may be studied
in the field to improve one’s knowledge of such
communities in particular regions.
Hydric Soils
3.8. Due to their wetness during the growing sea-
son, hydric soils usually develop certain morpho-
logical properties that can be readily observed in
the field. Prolonged anaerobic soil conditions typi-
cally lower the soil redox potential and causes a
chemical reduction of some soil components, main-
ly iron oxides and manganese oxides. This reduc-
tion affects solubility, movement, and aggregation
of these oxides which is reflected in the soil color
and other physical characteristics that are usually
indicative of hydric soils. (Note: Much of the back-
ground material for this section was taken from
“Hydric Soils of New England” [ Tiner and Vene-
man 1987].)
3.9. Soils are separated into two major types on
the basis of material composition: organic soil and
mineral soil. In general, soils with at least 18 inch-
es of organic material in the upper part of the soil
profile and soils with organic material resting on
bedrock are considered organic soils (Histosols).
Soils largely composed of sand, silt, and/or clay
are mineral soils. (For technical definitions, see
“Soil Taxonomy”, U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff
1975).
3.10. Accumulation of organic matter in most or-
ganic soils results from prolonged anaerobic soil
conditions associated with long periods of submer-
gence or soil saturation during the growing season.
These saturated conditions impede aerobic decom-
position (oxidation) of the bulk organic materials
such as leaves, stems, and roots, and encourage
their accumulation over time as peat or muck. Con-
sequently, most organic soils are characterized as
very poorly drained soils. Organic soils typically
form in waterlogged depressions, and peat or muck
deposits may range from about two feet to more
10
-------
than 30 feet deep. Organic soils also develop in
low-lying areas along coastal waters where tidal
flooding is frequent.
3.11. Hydric organic soils are subdivided into
three groups based on the presence of identifiable
plant material: (1) muck (Saprists) in which two-
thirds or more of the material is decomposed and
less than one-third of the plant fibers are identifia-
ble; (2) peat (Fibrists) in which less than one-third
of the material is decomposed and more than two-
thirds of the plant fibers are still identifiable; and
(3) mucky peat or peaty muck (Hemists) in which
the ratio of decomposed to identifiable plant matter
is more nearly even (U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff
1975). A fourth group of organic soils (Folists) ex-
ists in tropical and boreal mountainous areas where
precipitation exceeds the evapotranspiration rate,
but these soils are never saturated for more than a
few days after heavy rains and thus do not develop
under hydric conditions. All organic soils, with the
exception of the Folists, are hydric soils.
3.12. When less organic material accumulates in
soil, the soil is classified as mineral soil. Some
mineral soils may have thick organic surface layers
due to heavy seasonal rainfall or a high water table,
yet they are still composed largely of mineral matter
(Ponnamperuma 1972). Mineral soils that are cov-
ered with moving (flooded) or standing (ponded)
water for significant periods or are saturated for ex-
tended periods during the growing season are clas-
sified as hydric mineral soils. Soil saturation may
result from low-lying topographic position,
groundwater seepage, or the presence of a slowly
permeable layer (e.g., clay, confining bedrock, or
hardpan).
3.13. The duration and depth of soil saturation are
essential criteria for identifying hydric soils and
wetlands. Soil morphological features are com-
monly used to indicate long-term soil moisture re-
gimes (Bouma 1983). The two most widely recog-
nized features that reflect wetness in mineral soils
are gleying and mottling.
3.14. Simply described, gleyed soils are predomi-
nantly neutral gray in color and occasionally green-
ish or bluish gray. In gleyed soils, the distinctive
colors result from a process known as gleization.
Prolonged saturation of mineral soil converts iron
from its oxidized (ferric) form to its reduced (ferro-
us) state. These reduced compounds may be com-
pletely removed from the soil, resulting in gleying
(Veneman, et al. 1976). Mineral soils that are al-
ways saturated are uniformly gleyed throughout the
saturated area. Soils gleyed to the surface layer are
hydric soils. These soils often show evidence of
oxidizing conditions only along root channels.
Some nonhydric soils have gray layers (E-
horizons) immediately below the surface layer that
are gray for reasons other than saturation (e.g.,
leaching due to organic acids). These soils often
have brighter (e.g., brownish or reddish) layers
below the gray layer and can be recognized as non-
hydric on that basis.
3.15. Mineral soils that are alternately saturated
and oxidized (aerated) during the year are usually
mottled in the part of the soil that is seasonally wet.
Mottles are spots or blotches of different colors or
shades of colors interspersed with the dominant
(matrix) color. The abundance, size, and color of
the mottles usually reflect the duration of the satu-
ration period and indicate whether or not the soil is
hydric. Mineral soils that are predominantly gray-
ish with brown or yellow mottles are usually satu-
rated for long periods during the growing season
and are classified as hydric. Soils that are predomi-
nantly brown or yellow with gray mottles are satu-
rated for shorter periods and may not be hydric.
Mineral soils that are never saturated are usually
bnght-colored and are not mottled. Realize, how-
ever, that in some hydric soils, mottles may not be
visible due to masking by organic matter (Parker,
et a!. 1984).
3.16. It is important to note that the gleization and
mottle formation processes are strongly influenced
by the activity of certain soil microorganisms.
These microorganisms reduce iron when the soil
environment is anaerobic, that is, when virtually no
free oxygen is present, and when the soil contains
organic matter. If the soil conditions are such that
free oxygen is present, organic matter is absent, or
temperatures are too low (below 4 1°F) to sustain
microbial activity, gleization will not proceed and
mottles will not form, even though the soil may be
saturated for prolonged periods of time (Diers and
Anderson 1984).
Soil Colors
3.17. Soil colors often reveal much about a soil’s
wetness, that is, whether the soil is hydric or non-
hydric. Scientists and others examining the soil can
determine the approximate soil color by comparing
11
-------
the soil sample with a Munsell soil color chart. The
standardized Munsell soil colors are identified by
three components: hue, value, and chroma. The
hue is related to one of the main spectral colors:
red, yellow, green, blue, or purple, or various mix-
tures of these principal colors. The value refers to
the degree of lightness, while the chroma notation
indicates the color strength or purity. In the Mun-
sell soil color book, each individual hue has its
own page, each of which is further subdivided into
units for value (on the vertical axis) and chroma
(horizontal axis). Although theoretically each soil
color represents a unique combination of hues, val-
ues, and chromas, the number of combinations
common in the soil environment usually is limited.
Because of this situation and the fact that accurate
reproduction of each soil color is expensive, the
Munsell soil color book contains a limited number
of combinations of hues, values, and chromas. The
color of the soil matrix or a mottle is determined by
comparing a soil sample with the individual color
chips in the soil color book. The appropriate Mun-
sell color name can be read from the facing page in
the “Munsell Soil Color Charts t ’ (Koilmorgen Cor-
poration 1975). Chromas of 2 or less are consid-
ered low chromas and are often diagnostic of hy-
dric soils. Low chroma colors include black,
various shades of gray, and the darker shades of
brown and red.
Hydric Organic Soils
3.18. Hydric organic soils can be easily recog-
nized as black-colored muck and/or as black to dark
brown-colored peat. Distinguishing mucks from
peats based on the relative degree of decomposition
is fairly simple. In mucks (Saprists), almost all of
the plant remains have been decomposed beyond
recognition. When rubbed, mucks feel greasy and
leave hands dirty. In contrast, the plant remains in
peats (Fibrists) show very little decomposition and
the original constituent plants can be recognized
fairly easily. When the organic material is rubbed
between the fingers, most plant fibers will remain
identifiable, leaving hands relatively clean. Be-
tween the extremes of mucks and peats, organic
soils with partially decomposed plant fibers (Hem-
ists) can be recognized. In peaty mucks up to two-
thirds of the plant fibers can be destroyed by rub-
bing the materials between the fingers, while in
mucky peats up to two-thirds of the plant remains
are still recognizable after rubbing.
3.19. Besides the dominance of organic matter,
many organic soils (especially in tidal marshes) also
emit an odor of rotten eggs when hydrogen sulfide
is present. Sulfides are produced only in a strongly
reducing environment.
Hydric Mineral Soils
3.20. Hydric mineral soils are often more difficult
to identify than hydric organic soils because most
organic soils are hydric, while most mineral soils
are not. A thick dark surface layer, grayish subsur-
face and subsoil colors, the presence of orange or
reddish brown (iron) and/or dark reddish brown or
black (manganese) mottles or concretions near the
surface, and the wet condition of the soil may help
identify the hydric character of many mineral soils.
The grayish subsurface and subsoil colors and
thick, dark surface layers are the best indicators of
current wetness, since the orange-colored mottles
are very insoluble and once formed may remain in-
definitely as relict mottles of former wemess (Diers
and Anderson 1984).
National and State Hydric Soils Lists
3.21. The SCS in cooperation with the National
Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS)
has prepared a list of the Nation’s hydric soils.
State lists have also been prepared for statewide
use. The national and State lists identify those soil
series that meet the hydric soil criteria according to
available soil interpretation records in SCS’s soils
database. These lists are periodically updated, so
make sure the list being used is the current list. The
lists facilitate use of SCS county soil surveys for
identifying potential wetlands. One must be careful,
however, in using the soil survey, because a soil
map unit of an upland (nonwetland) soil may have
inclusions of hydric soil that were not delineated on
the map or vice versa. Also, some map units (e.g.,
alluvial land, swamp, tidal marsh, muck and peat)
may be hydric soil areas, but are not on the hydric
soils lists because they were not given a series
name at the time of mapping.
3.22. Because of these limitations of the national
and State lists, the SCS also maintains lists of hy-
dric soil map units for each county in the United
States. These lists may be obtained from local SCS
district offices and are the prefened lists to be used
when locating areas of hydric soils. The hydric soil
12
-------
map units lists identify all map units that are either
named by a hydric soil or that have a potential of
having hydric soil inclusions. The lists provide the
map unit symbol, the name of the hydric soil part
or parts of the map unit, information on the hydric
soil composition of the map unit, and probable
landscape position of hydric soils in the map unit
delineation. The county lists also include map units
named by miscellaneous land types or higher levels
in ‘Soil Taxonomy” that meet hydric soil criteria.
Soil Surveys
3.23. The SCS publishes county soil surveys for
areas where soil mapping is completed. Soil sur-
veys that meet standards of the National Coopera-
tive Soil Survey (NCSS) are used to identify delin-
eations of hydric soils. These soil surveys may be
published (completed) or unpublished (on file at lo-
cal SCS district offices). Published soil surveys of
an area may be obtained from the local SCS district
office or the Agricultural Extension Service office.
Unpublished maps may be obtained from the local
SCS district office.
3.24. The NCSS maps four kind of map units: (1)
consociations, (2) complexes, (3) associations, and
(4) undifferentiated groups. Consociations are soil
map units named for a single kind of soil (taxon) or
miscellaneous area. Seventy-five percent of the
area is similar to the taxon for which the unit is
named. When named by a hydric soil, the map unit
is considered a hydric soil map unit for wetland de-
terminations. However, small areas within these
map units may not be hydric and should be exclud-
ed in delineating wetlands.
3.25. Complexes and associations are soil map
units named by two or more kinds of soils (taxa) or
miscellaneous areas, if all taxa for which these map
units are named are hydric, the soil map unit may
be considered a hydric soil map unit for wetland
determinations. If only part of the map unit is made
up of hydric soils, only those portions of the map
unit that are hydric are considered in wetland deter-
minations.
3.26. Und(fferentiared groups are soil map units
named by two or more kinds of soils or miscellane-
ous areas. These units are distinguished from the
others in that “and” is used as a conjunction in the
name, while dashes are used for complexes and as-
sociations, If all components are hydric, the map
unit may be considered a hydric soil map unit. If
one or more of the soils for which the unit is
named are nonhydric, each area must be examined
for the presence of hydric soils.
Use of the Hydric Soils List and
Soil Surveys
3.27. The hydric soils list and county soil surveys
may be used to help determine if the hydric soil cri-
tenon is met in a given area. When making a wet-
land determination, one should first locate the area
of concern on a soil survey map and identify the
soil map units for the area. The list of hydric soils
should be consulted to determine whether the soil
map units are hydric. If hydric soil map units are
noted, then one should examine the soil in the field
and compare its morphology with the correspond-
ing hydric soil description in the soil survey report.
If the soil’s characteristics match those described
for hydric soil, then the hydric soil criterion is met,
unless the soil has been effectively drained (see
disturbed areas section, p. 50). In the absence of
site-specific information, hydric soils also may be
recognized by field indicators.
Field Indicators
3.28. Several field indicators are available for de-
termining whether a given soil meets the definition
and criteria for hydric soils. Other factors to con-
sider in recognizing hydric soils include obligate
wetland plants, topography, observed or recorded
inundation or soil saturation, and evidence of hu-
man alterations, e.g., drainage and filling. Any one
of the following may indicate that hydric soils are
present:
1) Organic Soils — Various peats and mucks are
easily recognized as hydric soils. Organic soils that
are cropped are often drained, yet the water table is
closely managed to minimize oxidation of organic
matter. These soils often retain their hydric soil
characteristics and, if so, meet the wetland hydrol-
ogycnterion.
2) Histic epipedon.s — A histic epipedon (organ-
ic surface layer) is an 8- to 16-inch organic layer at
or near the surface of a hydric mineral soil that is
saturated with water for 30 consecutive days or
more in most years. It contains a minimum of 20
percent organic matter when no clay is present or a
13
-------
minimum of 30 percent organic matter when clay
content is 60 percent or greater. Soils with histic
epipedons are inundated or saturated for sufficient
periods to greatly retard aerobic decomposition of
organic matter, and are considered hydric soils. In
general, a histic epipedon is a thin surface layer of
peat or muck if the soil has not been plowed
(U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff 1975). Histic epiped-
ons are technically classified as Oa, Oe, or Oi sur-
face layers, and in some cases the terms “mucky”
or “peaty” are used as modifiers to the mineral soil
texture term, e.g., mucky loam.
3) Sulfidic material — When soils emit an odor
of rotten eggs, hydrogen sulfide is present. Such
odors are only detected in waterlogged soils that are
essentially permanently saturated and have sulfidic
material within a few inches of the soil surface.
Sulfides are produced only in reducing environ-
ment. Under saturated conditions, the sulfates in
water are biologically reduced to sulfides as the or-
ganic materials accumulate.
4) Aquic or peraquic moisture regime — An aq-
uic moisture regime is a reducing one, i.e., it is vir-
tually free of dissolved oxygen, because the soil is
saturated by ground water or by water of the capil-
lary fringe (U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff 1975). The
soil is considered saturated if water stands in an un-
lined borehole at a shallow enough depth that the
capillary fringe reaches the soil surface, except in
noncapillary pores. Because dissolved oxygen is
removed from ground water by respiration of mi-
croorganisms, roots, and soil fauna, it is also im-
plicit that the soil temperature be above biologic
zero (41°F) at some time while the soil is saturated.
Soils with peraquic moisture regimes are character-
ized by the presence of ground water always at or
near the soil surface. Examples include soils of tidal
marshes and soils of closed, landlocked depres-
sions that are fed by permanent streams. Soils with
peraquic moisture regimes are always hydric under
natural conditions. Soils with aquic moisture re-
gimes are usually hydric, but the NTCHS hydric
soil criteria should be verified in the field.
5) Direct observations of reducing soil condi-
tions — Soils saturated for long or very long dura-
tion will usually exhibit reducing conditions at the
time of saturation. Under such conditions, ions of
iron are transformed from a ferric (oxidized) state to
a ferrous (reduced) state. This reduced condition
can often be detected in the field by use of a colon-
metric field test kit. When a soil extract changes to a
pink color upon addition of a-a-dipynidil, ferrous
iron is present, which indicates a reducing soil en-
vironment at the time of the test. A negative result
(no pink color) only indicates that the soil is not re-
duced at this moment; it does not imply that the soil
is not reduced during the growing season. Further-
more, the test is subject to error due to the rapid
change of ferrous iron to ferric iron when the soil
is exposed to air and should only be used by exper-
ienced technicians. (CAUTION: This test cannot be
used in hydric mineral soils having low iron con-
tent or in organic soils. Also it does not determine
the duration of reduced conditions.)
6) Gleyed, low chroma, and low chromal
mottled soils — The colors of various soil compo-
nents are often the most diagnostic indicator of hy-
dric soils. Colors of these components are strongly
influenced by the frequency and duration of soil
saturation which leads to reducing soil conditions.
Hydric mineral soils will be either gleyed or will
have low chroma matrix with or without bright
mottles.
A) Gleyed soils — Gleying (bluish, green-
ish, or grayish colors) immediately below the A-
horizon is an indication of a markedly reduced soil,
and gleyed soils are hydric soils. Gleying can oc-
cur in both mottled and unmottled soils. Gleyed
soil conditions can be determined by using the gley
page of the “Munsell Soil Color Charts” (Kolimor-
gen Corporation 1975). (CAUTION: Gleyed con-
ditions normally extend throughout saturated soils.
Beware of soils with gray E-horizons due to leach-
ing and not to saturation; these latter soils can often
be recognized by bright-colored layers below the
E-horizon.)
B) Other low chroma soils and mottled soils
(i.e., soils with low matrix chroma and with or
without bright mottles) — Hydric mineral soils that
are saturated for substantial periods of the growing
season, but are unsaturated for some time, com-
monly develop mottles. Soils that have brightly
colored mottles and a low chroma matrix are indi-
cative of a fluctuating water table. Hydric mineral
soils usually have one of the following color fea-
tures in the horizon immediately below the A-
horizon:
(1) Matrix chroma of 2 or less in
mottled soils, or
(2) Matrix chroma of I or less in un-
mottled soils.
14
-------
(Note: See p. 59 for mollisols exception.)
Colors should be determined in soils that
are or have been moistened. The chroma require-
ments above are for soils in a moistened condition.
Colors noted for dry (unmoistened) soils should be
clearly stated as such. The colors of the topsoil are
often not indicative of the hydrologic situation be-
cause cultivation and soil enrichment affect the
original soil color. Hence, the soil colors below the
A-horizon (usually below 10 inches) often must be
examined.
(CAUTION: Beware of problematic hydric soils
that have colors other than those described above;
see problem area wetlands section, p. 55.)
7) Iron and manganese concretions — During
the oxidation-reduction process, iron and manga-
nese in suspension are sometimes segregated as
oxides into concretions or soft masses. Concre-
tions are local concentrations of chemical com-
pounds (e.g., iron oxide) in the form of a grain or
nodule of varying size, shape, hardness, and color
(Buckman and Brady 1969). Manganese concre-
tions are usually black or dark brown, while iron
concretions are usually yellow, orange or reddish
brown. In hydric soils, these concretions are also
usually accompanied by soil colors described
above.
8) Coarse-textured or sandy hydric soils —
Many of the indicators listed above cannot be ap-
plied to sandy soils. In particular, soil color should
not be used as an indicator in most sandy soils (see
problem area wetlands section, p. 55). However,
three soil features may be used as indicators of hy-
dric sandy soils:
A) High organic matter content in the sur-
face horizon — Organic matter tends to accumulate
above or in the surface horizon of sandy soils that
are inundated or saturated to the surface for a sig-
nificant portion of the growing season. The mineral
surface layer generally appears darker than the min-
eral material immediately below it due to organic
matter interspersed among or adhering to sand par-
ticles. (Note: Because organic matter also accumu-
lates on upland soils, in some instances it may be
difficult to distinguish a surface organic layer asso-
ciated with a wetland site from litter and duff asso-
ciated with an upland site unless the species com-
position of the organic materials is determined.)
B) Dark vertical streaking of subsurface ho-
rizons &y organic matter — Organic matter is moved
downward through sand as the water table fluctu-
ates. This often occurs more rapidly and to a great-
er degree in some vertical sections of a sandy soil
containing high content of organic matter than in
others. Thus, the sandy soil appears vertically
streaked with darker areas. When soil from a dark-
er area is rubbed between the fingers, the dark or-
ganic matter stains the fingers.
C) Wet Spodosols — As organic matter is
moved downward through some sandy soils, it
may accumulate at the point representing the most
commonly occurring depth to the water table. This
organic matter may become slightly cemented with
aluminum. Spodic horizons often occur at depths
of 12 to 30 inches below the mineral surface. Wet
spodosols (formerly called “groundwater podzolic
soils”) usually have thick dark surface horizons
that are high in organic matter with thick, dull gray
E-horizons above a very dark-colored (black)
spodic horizon. (CAUTION: Not all soils with
spodic horizons meet the hydric soil criterion; see
p. 58.)
(Note: In recently deposited sandy material,
such as accreting sand bars, it may be impossible
to find any of the above indicators. Such cases are
considered natural, problem area wetlands and the
determination of hydric soil should be based on
knowledge of local hydrology. See p. 57-58).
Wetland Hydrology
3.29. The driving force creating wetlands is “wet-
land hydrology”, that is, permanent or periodic in-
undation, or soil saturation for a significant period
(usually a week or more) during the growing sea-
son. All wetlands are, therefore, at least periodical-
ly wet. Many wetlands are found along rivers,
lakes, and estuaries where flooding is likely to oc-
cur, while other wetlands form in isolated depres-
sions surrounded by upland where surface water
collects. Still others develop on slopes of varying
steepness, in surface water drainageways or where
ground water discharges to the land surface in
spring or seepage areas.
3.30. Numerous factors influence the wetness of
an area, including precipitation, stratigraphy, to-
pography, soil permeability, and plant cover. The
15
-------
frequency and duration of inundation or soil satura-
tion are important in separating wetlands from non-
wetlands. Duration usually is the more important
factor. Areas of lower elevation in a floodplain or
marsh have longer duration of inundation and satu-
ration and often more frequent periods of these
conditions than most areas at higher levels. Flood-
plain configuration may significantly affect the du-
ration of inundation by facilitating rapid runoff or
by causing poor drainage. Soil permeability related
to the texture of the soil also influences the duration
of inundation or soil saturation. For example, clay-
ey soils absorb water more slowly than sandy or
loamy soils, and therefore have slower permeabili-
ty and remain saturated much longer. Type and
amount of plant cover affect both degree of inunda-
tion and duration of saturated soil conditions. Ex-
cess water drains more slowly in areas of abundant
plant cover, thereby increasing duration of inunda-
tion or soil saturation. On the other hand, transpira-
tion rates are higher in areas of abundant plant cov-
er, which may reduce the duration of soil
saturation.
3.31. To determine whether the wetland hydrolo-
gy criterion is met, one should consider recorded
data, aerial photographs, and field indicators that
provide direct or indirect evidence of inundation or
soil saturation.
Recorded Data
3.32. Recorded hydrologic data usually provides
both short- and long-term information on the fre-
quency and duration of flooding, but little or no in-
formation on soil saturation periods. Recorded data
include stream gauge data, lake gauge data, tidal
gauge data, flood predictions, and historical flood
records. Use of these data is commonly limited to
areas adjacent to streams and other similar areas.
Recorded data may be available from the following
sources:
1) CE district offices (data for major waterbod-
ies and for site-specific areas from planning and
design documents)
2) U.S. Geological Survey (stream and tidal
gauge data)
3) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (tidal gauge data)
4) State, county and local agencies (flood data)
5) SCS state offices (small watershed projects
data)
6) private developers or landowners (site-
specific hydrologic data, which may include water
table or groundwater well data).
Aerial Photographs
3.33. Aerial photographs may provide direct evi-
dence of inundation or soil saturation in an area. In-
undation (flooding or ponding) is best observed
during the early spring in temperate and boreal re-
gions when snow and ice are gone and leaves of
deciduous trees and shrubs are not yet present.
This allows detection of wet soil conditions that
would be obscured by the tree or shrub canopy at
full leaf-out. For marshes, this season of photogra-
phy is also desirable, except in regions character-
ized by distinct dry and rainy seasons, such as
southern Florida and California. Wetland hydrolo-
gy would be best observed during the wet season
in these latter areas.
3.34. It is most desirable to examine several con-
secutive years of early spring or wet season aerial
photographs to document evidence of wetland in-
undation or soil saturation. In this way, the effects
of abnormally dry springs, for example, may be
minimized. In interpreting aerial photographs, it is
important to know the antecedent weather condi-
tions. This will help eliminate potential misinterpre-
tations caused by abnormally wet or dry periods.
Contact the U.S. Weather Service for historical
weather records. Aerial photographs for agricultu-
ral regions of the country are often available at
county offices of the Agi-icultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service.
Field Indicators
3.35. At certain times of the year in most wet-
lands, and in certain types of wetlands at most
times, wetland hydrology is quite evident, since
surface water or saturated soils (e.g., soggy or
wetter underfoot) may be observed. Yet in many
instances, especially along the uppermost boundary
of wetlands, hydrology is not readily apparent.
Consequently, the wetland hydrology criterion is
16
-------
often impracticable for delineating precise wetland
boundaries. Despite this limitation, hydrologic in-
dicators can be useful for confirming that a site
with hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils still
exhibits wetland hydrology and that the hydrology
has not been significantly modified to the extent
that the area is now effectively drained. In other
words, while hydrologic indicators are sometimes
diagnostic of the presence of wetlands, they are
generally either operationally impracticable (e.g., in
the case of recorded data) or technically inaccurate
(e.g., in the case of some field indicators) for de-
lineating wetland boundaries. In the former case,
surveying the wetland boundary according to ele-
vation data related to recorded flood data, for ex-
ample, is generally too time-consuming and may
not actually be a true correlation. In the latter case,
it should be quite obvious that indicators of flood-
ing often extend well beyond the wetland boundary
into low-lying upland areas that were flooded by an
infrequent flood. Consequently the emphasis on
delineating wetland boundaries should be placed on
hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils in the ab-
sence of significant hydrologic modification, al-
though wetland hydrology should always be con-
sidered.
3.36. If significant drainage or groundwater alter-
ation has taken place, then it is necessary to deter-
mine whether the area in question is effectively
drained and is now nonwetland or is only partly
drained and remains wetland despite some hydro-
logic modification. Guidance for determining
whether an area is effectively drained is presented
in the section on disturbed areas (p. 50). In the ab-
sence of visible evidence of significant hydrologic
modification, wetland hydrology is presumed to
occur in an area having hydrophyflc vegetation and
hydric soils.
3.37. The following hydrologic indicators can be
assessed quickly in the field. Although some are
not necessarily indicative of hydrologic events dur-
ing the growing season or in wetlands alone, they
do provide evidence that inundation or soil satura-
tion have occurred at some time. One should use
good professional judgement in deciding whether
the hydrologic indicators demonstrate that the wet-
land hydrology criterion has been satisfied. When
considering these indicators, it is important to be
aware of recent extreme flooding events and heavy
rainfall periods that could cause low-lying nonwet-
lands to exhibit some of these signs. It is, there-
fore, best to avoid, if possible, field inspections
during and immediately after these events. If not
possible, then these events must be considered in
making a wetland determination. Also, remember
that hydrology varies seasonally and annually as
well as daily, and that at significant times of the
year (e.g., late summer for most of the country) the
water tables are at their lowest points. At these low
water periods, signs of soil saturation and flooding
may be difficult to fmd in many wetlands.
1) Visual observation of inundation — The most
obvious and revealing hydrologic indicator may be
simply observing the areal extent of inundation.
However, both seasonal conditions and recent
weather conditions should be considered when ob-
serving an area because they can affect whether
surface water is present on a nonwetland site.
2) Visual observation of soil saturation — In
some cases, saturated soils are obvious, since the
ground surface is soggy or mucky under foot. In
many cases, however, examination of this indicator
requires digging a hole to a depth of 18 inches and
observing the level at which water stands in the
hole after sufficient time has been allowed for wa-
ter to drain into the hole. The required time will
vary depending on soil texture. In some cases, the
upper level at which water is flowing into the hole
can be observed by examining the wail of the hole.
This level represents the depth to the water table.
The depth to saturated soils will always be nearer
the surface due to a capillary fringe. In some heavy
clay soils, water may not rapidly accumulate in the
hole even when the soil is saturated. If water is ob-
served at the bottom of the hole but has not filled to
the 12-inch depth, examine the sides of the hole
and determine the shallowest depth at which water
is entering the hole. Saturated soils may also be de-
tected by a “squeeze test,” which involves taking a
soil sample within 18 inches (actual depth depends
on soil permeability) and squeezing the sample. if
free water can be extracted, the soil is saturated at
the depth of the sample at this point in time. When
applying the soil saturation indicator, both the sea-
son of the year and the preceding weather condi-
tions must be considered. (Note: It is not necessary
to directly demonstrate soil saturation at the time of
inspection. If the NTCHS criteria for hydric soil
are met, it can be assumed that an area is saturated
to the surface or inundated at some point in time
during an average rainfall year.)
3) Oxidized channels (rhizospheres) associated
with living roots and rhizomes — Some plants are
17
-------
able to survive saturated soil conditions (i.e., a re-
ducing environment) because they can transport ox-
ygen to their root zone. Look for iron oxide concre-
tions (orangish or reddish brown in color) forming
along the channels of living roots and rhizomes as
evidence of soil saturation (anaerobic conditions)
for a significant period during the growing season.
4) Water marks — Water marks are found most
commonly on woody vegetation but may also be
observed on other vegetation. They often occur as
stains on bark or other fixed objects (e.g., bridge
pillars, buildings, and fences). When several water
marks are present, the highest usually reflects the
maximum extent of recent inundation.
5) Dr(ft lines — This indicator is typically found
adjacent to streams or other sources of water flow
in wetlands and often occurs in tidal marshes. Evi-
dence Consists of deposition of debris in a line on
the wetland surface or debris entangled in above-
ground vegetation or other fixed objects. Debris
usually consists of remnants of vegetation (branch-
es, stems, and leaves), sediment, litter, and other
water-borne materials deposited more or less paral-
lel to the direction of water flow. Drift lines provide
an indication of the minimum portion of the area in-
undated during a flooding event; the maximum lev-
el of inundation is generally at a higher elevation
than that indicated by a drift line.
6) Water-borne sediment deposits — Plants and
other vertical objects often have thin layers, coat-
ings, or depositions of mineral or organic matter on
them after inundation. This evidence may remain
for a considerable period before it is removed by
precipitation or subsequent inundation. Sediment
deposition on vegetation and other objects provides
an indication of the minimum inundation level.
When sediments are primarily organic (e.g., fine
organic material and algae), the detritus may be-
come encrusted on or slightly above the soil surface
after dewatering occurs.
7) Water-stained leaves — Forested wetlands
that are inundated earlier in the year will frequently
have water-stained leaves on the forest floor. These
leaves are generally grayish or blackish in appear-
ance, darkened from being underwater for signifi-
cant periods.
8) Suiface scoured areas — Surface scouring oc-
curs along floodplains where overbank flooding
erodes sediments (e.g., at the bases of trees). The
absence of leaf litter from the soil surface is also
sometimes an indication of surface scouring. Fo-
rested wetlands that contain standing waters for rel-
atively long duration will occasionally have areas of
bare or essentially bare soil, sometimes associated
with local depressions.
9) Wetland drainage patterns — Many wetlands
(e.g., tidal marshes and floodplain wetlands) have
characteristic meandering or braided drainage pat-
terns that are readily recognized in the field or on
aerial photographs and occasionally on topographic
maps. (CAUTION: Drainage patterns also occur in
upland areas after periods of considerable precipita-
tion; therefore, topographic position also must be
considered when applying this indicator.)
10) Morphological plant adaptations — Many
plants growing in wetlands have developed mor-
phological adaptations in response to inundation or
soil saturation. Examples include pneumatophores,
buttressed tree trunks, multiple trunks, adventitious
roots, shallow root systems, floating stems, float-
ing leaves, polymorphic leaves, hypertrophied len-
ticels, inflated leaves, stems or roots, and aeren-
chyma (air-filled) tissue in roots and stems (see
Table 1 for examples). As long as there is no evi-
dence of significant hydrologic modification, these
adaptations can be used as hydrologic indicators.
Moreover, when these features are observed in
young plants, they provide good evidence that re-
cent wetland hydrology exists. (Note: While some
people may consider these morphological adapta-
tions as indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, for
purposes of this manual, they are treated as indica-
tors of wetland hydrology because they typically
develop in response to permanent or periodic inun-
dation or soil saturation.)
11) Hydric soil characteristics — In the absence
of the above indicators, if an area meets the field in-
dicators for hydric soils and there is no indication
of significant hydrologic modification, then it can
be assumed that the area meets the wetland hydrol-
ogy criterion. If the area has been significantly dis-
turbed hydrologically, refer to the section on dis-
turbed areas (p. 50). (CAUTION: Listing of a soil
on the NTCHS list of hydric soils does not neces-
sarily mean the wetland hydrology criterion is met,
nor does exclusion of a soil from the list demon-
strate that the wetland hydrology criterion has not
been met. However, soils on the NTCHS list rep-
resent those soils which typically meet the wetland
hydrology criterion, unless effectively drained or
otherwise altered.)
18
-------
Table 1. Morphological or structural adaptations of plants for growing
In permanently or periodically flooded or saturated soils.
Adaptations Examples of Plants Possessing Adaptation
Buttressed (swollen) Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum), Black Gum
Tree Trunk (Nyssa sylvatica var. b/flora), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvan-
ica var. subintegerima), Water Gum (Nyssa aquatica), and
Ogechee Tupelo (Nyssa ogechee)
Multiple Trunks Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Silver maple (Acer saccharinum),
Swamp Privet (Forestiera acuminata), and Ogechee Tupelo
Pneumataphores Bald Cypress, Water Gum, and Black Mangrove (Rhizophora
mangle)
Adventitious Roots Box Elder (Acer negundo), Sycamore (Platanus
(arising from stem above occidentalis), Pin Oak (Quercus palustris),
ground) Black Willow (Salix nigra), Green Ash, Alligatorweed (Alter-
nanthera philoxeroides), Water Primroses (Ludwigia spp.),
Water Gum, Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and Wil-
lows (Salixspp.)
Shallow Roots (often Red Maple and Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia)
exposed to ground surface)
Hypertrophied Lenticels Red Maple, Silver Maple, Willows, Black Mangrove, Water Lo-
cust (Gleditsia aquatica), and Sweet Gale (Myrica gale)
Ae renchyma (air-filled Eastern Bu r-reed (Sparganiurn americanum),
tissue) in Roots & Stems Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), Soft-stemmed Bulrush (Scirpus
validus), Water Shield (Brasenia schreberi), Umbrella Sedges
(Cyperus spp.), other Rushes (Juncus spp.), Spike-rushes
(Eleocharis spp.), Twig-rush (Clad/urn mariscoides), Buckbean
(Menyanthes trifoliata), Giant Bur-reed (Sparganium eurycar-
pum), and Cattails (Typhaspp.)
Polymorphic Leaves Arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.) and Water Parsnip (Slum suave)
Floating Leaves Water Shield, Spatterdock Lily (Nuphar luteum), and White
Water Lily (Nyrnphaea odorata)
Sources: Environmental Laboratory (1987) and Tiner (1988).
19
-------
20
-------
Part IV.
Methods for Identifica-
tion and Delineation of
Wetlands
fl 4.0. Four basic approaches for identify-
\ Li ing and delineating wetlands have been
/ developed to cover situations ranging
‘iVi from desk-top or office determinations
to highly complex field determinations
for regulatory purposes. These methods
are the recommended approaches and the reasons
for departing from them should be documented.
Remember, however, that any method for making a
wetland determination must consider the three tech-
nical criteria (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and wetland hydrology) listed in Part II of
this manual. These criteria must be met in order to
identify a wetland. In applying all methods, rele-
vant available information on wetlands in the area
of concern should be collected and reviewed. Table
2 lists primary data sources.
Selection of a Method
4.1. The wetland delineation methods presented in
this manual can be grouped into two general types:
(1) offsite procedures and (2) onsite procedures.
The offsite procedures are designed for use in the
office, while onsite procedures are developed for
use in the field. When an onsite inspection is unne-
cessary or cannot be undertaken for various rea-
sons, available information can be reviewed in the
office to make a wetland determination. If available
information is insufficient to make a wetland deter-
mination or if a precise wetland boundary must be
established, an onsite inspection should be con-
ducted. Depending on the field information needed
or the complexity of the area, one of three basic
onsite methods may be employed: (1) routine, (2)
intermediate-level, or (3) comprehensive.
4.2. The routine method is designed for areas
equal to or less than five acres in size or larger are-
as with homogeneous vegetation. For areas greater
than five acres in size or other areas of any size that
are highly diverse in vegetation, the intermediate-
level method or the comprehensive method should
be applied, as necessary. The comprehensive meth-
od is applied to situations requiring detailed docu-
mentation of vegetation, soils, and hydrology.
Assessments of significantly disturbed sites will
often require intermediate-level or comprehensive
determinations as well as some special procedures.
In other cases where natural conditions make wet-
land identification difficult, special procedures for
problem area wetland determinations have been
developed. These procedures are subroutines of the
three onsite determination methods. In maldng wet-
land determinations, one should select the appro-
priate method for each individual unit within the
area of concern and not necessarily employ one
method for the entire site. Thus, a combination of
determination methods may be used for a given
site.
4.3. Regardless of the method used, the desired
outcome or final product is a wetland/nonwetland
determination. Depending on one’s expertise,
available information, and individual or agency
preference, there are two basic approaches to delin-
eating wetland boundaries. The first approach
involves characterizing plant communities in the
area, identifying hydrophytic plant communities,
examining the soils in these areas to confirm the
presence of hydric soil, and finally looking for evi-
dence of wetland hydrology. This approach has
been widely used by the CE and EPA and to a large
extent by the FWS. A second approach involves
first delineating the boundary of hydric soils, and
then verifying the presence of hydrophytic vegeta-
ijon and looking for signs of wetland hydrology.
This type of approach has been employed by the
SCS and to a limited extent by the FWS. Since
these approaches yield the same result, this manual
incorporates both approaches into most of the
methods presented.
21
-------
Data Name
Table 2. Primary sources of Information that may be helpful
in making a wetland determination.
Source
Topographic Maps (mostly 1:24,000;
1:63,350 for Alaska)
National Wetlands Inventory Maps
(mostly I 24,000; 1:63,350
for Alaska)
County Soil Survey Reports
National Hydric Soils Ust
State Hydnc Soils List
County Hydric Soil Map Unit List
National Insurance Agency
Flood Maps
Local Wetland Maps
Land Use and Land Cover Maps
Aenal Photographs
Satellite Imagery
National List of Plant Species
That Occur in Wetlands
(Stock No. 024.010.00682-0)
Regional Lists of Plants that
Occur in Wetlands
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
(Call 1.800-USA-MAPS)
U S. Fish and Wildhfe Service
(FWS) (Call 1-800-USA-MAPS)
U.S D A Soil Conservation Service (SCS) District Offices
(Unpublished reports--local district offices)
SCS National Office
SCS State Offices
SCS District Offices
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
State and local agencies
USGS (1-800-USA-MAPS)
Various sources--USGS, U S D A Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, other Federal and State agencies, and pri-
vate sources
EOSAT Corporation, SPOT Corporation, and others
Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents
Washington, DC 20402
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Head
Spnngfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
National Wetland Plant Database
FWS
Stream Gauge Data
CE District Offices and USGS
Soil Drainage Guides
Environmental Impact Statements
and Assessments
Published Reports
Local Expertise
SCS District Offices
Various Federal and State agencies
Federal and States agencies, universities, and others
Universities, consuftants, and others
Site-specific Plans and
Engineering Designs
Private developers
22
-------
Description of Methods
Offsite Determinations
4.4. When an onsite inspection is not necessary
because information on hydrology, hydric soils,
and hydrophytic vegetation is known or an inspec-
tion is not possible due to time constraints or other
reasons, a wetland determination can be made in
the office. This approach provides a best approxi-
mation of the presence of wetland and its bounda-
ries based on available information. The accuracy
of the determination depends on the quality of the
information used and on one’s ability and experi-
ence in an area to interpret these data. Where relia-
ble, site-specific data have been previously collect-
ed, the wetland determination should be reasonably
accurate. Where these data do not exist, more gen-
eralized information may be used to make a preim-
inaly wetland determination. In either case, howev-
er, if a more accurate delineation is required, then
onsite procedures must be employed.
Offsite Determination Method
4.5. The following steps are recommended for
conducting an offsite wetland determination:
Step I. Locate the area of interest on a
U.S.Geological Survey topographic map and
delineate the approximate subject area boundary on
the map. Note whether marsh or swamp symbols
or lakes, ponds, rivers, and other waterbodies are
present within the area. If they are, then there is a
good likelihood that wetland is present. Proceed to
Step 2.
Step 2. Review appropriate National Wet-
lands Inventory (NW!) maps, State wetland maps,
or local wetland maps, where available. If these
maps designate wetlands in the subject area, there
is a high probability that wetlands are present
unless there is evidence on hand that the wetlands
have been effectively drained, filled, excavated,
impounded, or otherwise significantly altered since
the effective date of the maps. Proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Review SCS soil survey maps
where available. In the area of interest, are there
any map units listed on the county list of hydric
soil map units or are there any soil map units with
significant hydric soil inclusions? If YES, then
assume that at least a portion of the project area
may be wetland. If this area is also shown as a
wetland on NW! or other wetland maps, then there
is a high probability that the area is wetland unless
it has been recently altered (check recent aerial pho-
tos, Step 4). Areas without hydric soils or hydric
soil inclusions should in most cases be eliminated
from further review, but aerial photos still should
be examined for small wetlands to be more certain.
This is especially true if wetlands have been desig-
nated on the National Wetlands Inventory or other
wetland maps. Proceed to Step 4.
Step 4. Review recent aerial photos of the
project area. Before reviewing aerial photos, evalu-
ate climatological data to determine whether the
photo year had normal or abnormal (high or low)
precipitation two to three months, for example,
prior to the date of the photo. This will help pro-
vide a useful perspective or frame-of-reference for
doing photo interpretation. In some cases, aerial
photos covering a multi-year period (e.g., 5-7
years) should be reviewed, especially where recent
climatic conditions have been abnormal.
During photo interpretation, look for one or more
signs of wetlands. For example:
1) hydrophytic vegetation;
2) surface water,
3) saturated soils;
4) flooded or drowned out crops;
5) stressed crops due to wetness;
6) greener crops in dry years;
7) differences in vegetation patterns due to
different planting dates.
if signs of wetland are observed, proceed to Step 5
when site-specific data are available; if site-specific
data are not available, proceed to Step 6.
(CAUTION: Accurate photo interpretation of cer-
tain wetland types requires considerable expertise.
Evergreen forested wetlands and temporarily flood-
ed wetlands, in general, may present considerable
difficulty. if not proficient in wetland photo inter-
pretation, then one can rely more on the findings of
other sources, such as NW! maps and soil sur-
veys, or seek help in photo interpretation.)
Step 5. Review available site-spec jjlc infor-
mation. In some cases, information on vegetation,
soils, and hydrology for the project area has been
collected during previous visits to the area by agen-
cy personnel, environmental consultants or others.
23
-------
Moreover, individuals or experts having firsthand
knowledge of the project site should be contacted
for information whenever possible. Be sure, how-
ever, to know the reliability of these sources. After
reviewing this information, proceed to Step 6.
Step 6. Determine whether wetlands exist in
the subject area. Based on a review of existing
information, wetlands can be assumed to exist if:
1) Wetlands are shown on NW! or other
wetland maps, and hydric soil or a soil with hydric
soil inclusions is shown on the soil survey; or
2) Hydric soil or soil with hydric soil inclu-
sions is shown on the soil survey, and
A) site-specific information confirms
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and/or wet-
land hydrology, or
B) signs of wetland are detected by
reviewing aerial photos; or
3) Any combination of the above or parts
thereof (e.g., vegetated wetland on NW! maps and
signs of wetland on aerial photos).
If after examining the available reference
material one is still unsure whether wetland occurs
in the area, then a field inspection should be con-
ducted, whenever possible. Alternatively, more
detailed information on the site characteristics may
be sought from the project sponsor, if applicable, to
help make the determination.
4.6. Offsite procedures are dependent on the avail-
ability of information for maldng a wetland determi-
nation, the quality of this information, and one’s
ability and experience to interpret these data. In
most cases, therefore, the offsite procedure yields a
preliminary determination. For more accurate
results, one must conduct an onsite inspection.
Onsite Determinations
4.7. When an onsite inspection is necessary, be
sure to review pertinent background information
(e.g., NW! maps, soil surveys, and site plans)
before going to the subject site. This information
will be helpful in determining what type of field
method should be employed. Also, read the sec-
tions of this manual that discuss disturbed and
problem area wetlands before conducting field work
(see p. 50-59). Recommended equipment and mate-
rials for conducting onsite determinations are listed
in Table 3.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the conceptual approaches
for making onsite wetland determinations. These
figures are NOT decision matrices for making wet-
land determinations.
Equipment
Table 3. Recommended equipment and materials for onsite determinations.
Materials
Soil auger, probe, or spade
Sighting compass
Pen or pencil
Penknife
Hand lens
Vegetation sampling frame
Camera/Aim
Binoculars
Tape measure
Pnsm or angle gauge
Diameter tape
Vasculum (for plant collection)
Caiculator
Dissecting kit
Data sheets and clipboard
Field notebook
Base (topographic) map
Aerial photograph
National Wetlands Inventory map
Soil survey or other soil map
Appropriate Federal interagency wetland plants list
County hydric soil map unit list
Munsell scoil color book
Plant identification field guides/manuals
National List of Scientific Plant Names
Flagging tape/wire flags/wooden stakes
Plastic bags (for collecting plants and soil samples as needed)
* Needed for comprehensive determination
24
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
4.8. For every upcoming field inspection, the fol-
lowing pre-inspection steps should be undertaken:
Step 1. Locate the project area on a map
(e.g., U.S. Geological Survey topographic map or
SCS soil survey map) or on an aerial photograph
and determine the limits of the area of concern.
Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Estimate the size of the subject area.
Proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Review existing background infor-
mation and determine, to the extent possible, the
site’s geomorphological setting (e.g., floodplain,
isolated depression, or ridge and swale complex),
its habitat or vegetative complexity (i.e , the range
of habitat or vegetation types), and its soils. (Note:
Depending on available information, it may not be
possible to determine the habitat complexity with-
out going on the site; if necessary, do a field recon-
naissance.) Proceed to Step 4.
Step 4. Determine whether a disturbed con-
dition exists. Examine available information and
determine whether there is evidence of sufficient
natural or human-induced alteration to significantly
modify all or a portion of the area’s vegetation,
soils, and/or hydrology. If such disturbance is not-
ed, identify the limits of affected areas for they
should be evaluated separately for wetland deterrni-
nation purposes (usually after evaluating undis-
turbed areas). The presence of disturbed areas
within the subject area should be considered when
selecting an onsite determination method. (Note: It
may be possible that at any time during this deter-
mination, one or more of the three characteristics
may be found to be significantly altered. If this
happens, follow the disturbed area wetland deter-
mination procedures, as necessary, noted on p.
50.) Proceed to Step 5.
Step 5. Determine the field determination
method to be used. Considering the size and com-
plexity of the area, determine whether a routine,
intermediate-level, or comprehensive field determi-
nation method should be used. When the area is
equal to or less than five acres in size or is larger
and appears to be relatively homogeneous with
respect to vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology, use
the routine method (see below). When the area is
greater than five acres in size, or is smaller but
appears to be highly diverse with respect to vegeta-
tion, use the intermediate-level method (p. 35).
When detailed quantification of plant communities
and more extensive documentation of other factors
(soils and hydrology) are required, use the compre-
hensive method regardless of the wetland’s size (p.
39.) Significantly disturbed sites (e.g., sites that
have been filled, hydrologically modified, cleared
of vegetation, or had their soils altered) will gener-
ally require intermediate-level or comprehensive
methods. In these disturbed areas, it usually will be
necessary to follow a set of subroutines to deter-
mine whether the altered characteristic met the
applicable criterion prior to its modification; in the
case of altered wetland hydrology, it may be neces-
sary to determine whether the area is effectively
drained. Because a large area may include a diver-
sity of smaller areas ranging from simple wetlands
to vegetatively complex areas, one may use a com-
bination of the onsite determination methods, as
appropriate.
Routine Onsite Determination Method
4.9. For most cases, wetland determinations can
be made in the field without rigorous sampling of
vegetation and soils. Two approaches for routine
determinations are presented: (1) hydric soil
assessment procedure, and (2) plant community
assessment procedure. In the former approach, are-
as that meet or may meet the hydric soil criterion
are first delineated and then dominant vegetation is
visually estimated to determine if hydrophytic veg-
etation is obvious. If so, the area is designated as
wetland. If not, then the site must undergo a more
rigorous evaluation following one of the other
onsite determination methods presented in the man-
ual. The second routine approach requires initial
identification of representative plant community
types in the subject area and then characterization
of vegetation, soils, and hydrology for each type.
After identifying wetland and nonwetland commu-
nities, the wetland boundary is delineated. All per-
tinent observations on the three mandatory wetland
criteria should be recorded on an appropriate data
sheet.
4.10. Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure
Step 1. Identify the approximate limits of
areas that may meet the hydric soil criterion within
the area of concern and sketch limits on an aerial
photograph. To help identify these limits use
sources of information such as Agricultural Stabii-
31
-------
zation and Conservation slides, soil surveys, NWT
maps, and other maps and photographs. (Note:
This step is more convenient to perform offsite, but
may be done onsite.) Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Scan the areas that may meet the
hydric soil criterion and determine f disturbed con-
ditions exist. Are any significantly disturbed areas
present? If YES, identify their limits for they
should be evaluated separately for wetland determi-
nation purposes (usually after evaluating undis-
turbed areas). Refer to the section on disturbed are-
as (p. 50), if necessary, to evaluate the altered
characteristic(s) (vegetation, soils, or hydrology);
then return to this method and continue evaluating
characteristics not altered. (Note: Prior experience
with disturbed sites may allow one to easily evalu-
ate an altered characteristic, such as when vegeta-
tion is not present in a farmed wetland due to culti-
vation.) Keep in mind that if at any time during this
determination, one or more of these three character-
istics are found to have been significantly altered,
the disturbed area determination procedures should
be followed. If the area is not significantly dis-
turbed, proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Scan the areas that may meet the
hydric soil criterion and determine if obvious signs
of wetland hydrology are present. The wetland
hydrology criterion is met for any area or portion
thereof where it is obvious or known that the area
is frequently inundated or saturated to the surface
during the growing season. If the above condition
exists, the hydric soil criterion is met for the sub-
ject area and the area is considered wetland. If
necessary, confirm the presence of hydric soil by
examining the soil for appropriate field indicators.
(Note: Hydrophytic vegetation is assumed to be
present under these conditions, i.e., undrained
hydric soil, so vegetation does not need to be
examined. Moreover, hydrophytic vegetation
should be obvious in these situations.) Areas lack-
ing obvious indicators of wetland hydrology must
be further examined, so proceed to Step 4.
Step 4. Refine the boundary of areas that
meet the hydric soil criterion. Verify the presence
of hydric soil within the appropriate map units by
digging a number of holes at least 18 inches deep
along the boundary (interface) between hydric soil
units and nonhydric soil units. Compare soil sam-
ples with descriptions in the soil survey report to
see if they are properly mapped and look for hydric
soil characteristics or indicators. In this way, the
boundary of areas meeting the hydric soil criterion
is further refined by field observations. In map
units where only part of the unit is hydric (e.g.,
complexes, associations, and inclusions), locate
hydric soil areas on the ground by considering
landscape position and evaluating soil characteris-
tics for hydric soil properties (indicators). (Note:
Some hydric soils, especially organic soils, have
not been given a series name and are referred to by
common names, such as peat, muck, swamp,
marsh, wet alluvial land, tidal marsh, sulfaquents,
and sulfihemists. These areas are also considered
hydric soil map units. Certain hydric soils are
mapped with nonhydric soils as an association or
complex, while other hydric soils occur as inclu-
sions in nonhydric map units. Only the hydric soil
portion of these map units should be evaluated for
hydrophytic vegetation in Step 7.) If the area meets
the hydric soil criterion, proceed to Step 5. (Note:
These areas are also considered to have met the
wetland hydrology criterion.)
Step 5. Determine whether normal environ-
mental conditions are present. Determine whether
normal environmental conditions are present by
considering the following:
1) Is the area presently lacking hydrophytic
vegetation or hydrologic indicators due to annual,
seasonal or longterm fluctuations in precipitation,
surface water, or ground-water levels?
2) Are hydrophytic vegetation indicators
lacking due to seasonal fluctuation in temperature
(e.g., seasonality of plant growth)?
If the answer to either of these questions is YES or
uncertain, proceed to the section on problem area
wetland determinations (p. 55). If the answer to
both questions is NO, normal conditions are
assumed to be present, so proceed to Step 6. II
Step 6. Select representative observation
area(s). Identify one or more observation areas that
represent the area(s) meeting the hydric soil criteri-
on. A representative observation area is one in
which the apparent characteristics (determined vis-
ually) best represent characteristics of the entire
community. Mark the approximate location of the
observation area(s) on the aerial photo. Proceed to
Step 7.
32
-------
Step 7. Characterize the plant community
within the area(s) meeting the hydric soil criterion.
Visually estimate the percent area! cover of domi-
nant species for the entire plant community. (Note:
Dominant species are the most abundant species in
each stratum, see p. 9.) If dominant species are not
obvious, use one of the other onsite methods. Pro-
ceed to Step 8 or to another method, as appropri-
ate.
Step 8. Record the indicator status of domi-
nant species within each area meeting the hydric
soil criterion. Indicator status is obtained from the
interagency Federal list of plants occurring in wet-
lands for the appropriate geographic region.
Record information on an appropriate data form.
Proceed to Step 9.
Step 9. Determine whether wetland is
present or additional analysis is required. If the
estimated percent areal cover of OBL and FACW
species exceeds that of FACU and UPL species,
the area is considered wetland and the wetland-
nonwetland boundary is the line delineated in Step
3. If not, then the point intercept or other sampling
procedures should be performed to do a more rig-
orous analysis of site characteristics.
4.11. Plant Community Assessment
Procedure
Step 1. Scan the entire project area, fpossi-
ble, or walk, f necessary, and identzj y plant com-
munity types present. In identifying communities,
pay particular attention to changes in elevation
throughout the site. (CAUTION: In highly variable
sites, such as ridge and swale complexes, be sure
to stratify properly.) If possible, sketch the approx-
imate location of each plant community on a base
map, an aerial photograph of the project area, or a
county soil survey map and label each community
with an appropriate name. (Note: For large homo-
geneous wetlands, especially marshes dominated
by herbaceous plants and shrub bogs dominated by
low-growing shrubs, it is usually not necessary to
walk the entire project area. In these cases, one can
often see for long distances and many have organic
mucky soils that can be extremely difficult to walk
on. Forested areas, however, will usually require a
walk through the entire project area.)
In examining the project area, are any significantly
disturbed areas observed? If YES, identify their
limits for they should be evaluated separately for
wetland determination purpose (usually after evalu-
ating undisturbed areas). Refer to the section on
disturbed areas (p. 50) to evaluate the altered char-
acteristic(s) (i.e., vegetation, soils, or hydrology);
then return to this method to continue evaluating
characteristics not altered. Keep in mind that if at
any time during this determination one or more of
these three characteristics are found to have been
significantly altered, the disturbed area procedures
should be followed. If the area is not significantly
disturbed, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Determine whether normal environ-
mental conditions are present. Determine whether
normal environmental conditions are present for
each plant community by considering the follow-
ing:
1)Is the area presently lacking hydrophytic
vegetation or hydrologic indicators due to annual,
seasonal or long-term fluctuations in precipitation,
surface water, or ground-water levels?
2) Are hydrophytic vegetation indicators
lacking due to seasonal fluctuations in temperature
(e.g., seasonality of plant growth)?
If the answer to either of these questions is YES or
uncertain, proceed to the section on problem area
wetland determinations (p. 55). If the answer to
both questions is NO, normal conditions are
assumed to be present, so proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Select representative observation
area(s). Select one or more representative observa-
tion areas within each community type. A represen-
tative observation area is one in which the apparent
characteristics (determined visually) best represent
characteristics of the entire community. Mark the
approximate location of the observation areas on
the base map or photo. Proceed to Step 4.
Step 4. Characterize each plant community
in the project area. Within each plant community
identified in Step 1, visually estimate the dominant
plant species for each vegetative stratum in the rep-
resentative observation areas and record them on an
appropriate data form. Vegetative strata may
include tree, sapling, shrub, herb, woody vine,
and bryophyte strata (see glossary for definitions).
A separate form must be completed for each plant
community identified for wetland determination
33
-------
purposes. (Note: Dominant species are those spe-
cies in each stratum that, when ranked in decreas-
ing order of abundance and cumulatively totaled,
immediately exceed 50 percent of the total domi-
nance measure for that stratum, plus any additional
plant species comprising 20 percent or more of the
total dominance measure for the stratum.) After
identifying dominants within each vegetative stra-
tum, proceed to Step 5.
Step 5. Record the indicator status of domi-
nant species in all strata. Indicator status is
obtained from the interagency Federal list of plants
occurring in wetlands for the appropriate geograph-
ic region. Record indicator status for all dominant
plant species on a data form. Proceed to Step 6.
Step 6. Determine whether the hydrophytic
vegetation criterion is met. When more than 50 per-
cent of the dominant species in each community
type have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and!
or FAC, the vegetation is hydrophytic. Complete
the vegetation section of the data form. Portions of
the project area failing this test are usually not wet-
lands, although under certain circumstances they
may have hydrophytic vegetation (follow the prob-
lem area wetland determination procedures on p.
55). If hydrophytic vegetation is present, proceed
to Step 7.
Step 7. Determine whether soils must be
characterized. Examine vegetative data collected for
each plant community (in Steps 5 and 6) and identi-
fy any plant community where: (1) all dominant
species have an indicator status of OBL, or (2) all
dominant species have an indicator status of OBL
and FACW and the wetland boundary is abrupt.
For these communities, hydric soils are assumed to
be present and do not need to be examined; proceed
to Step 9. Plant communities lacking the above
characteristics must have soils examined; proceed
to Step 8.
Step 8. Determine whether the hydric soil
criterion is met. Locate the observation area on a
county soil survey map, if possible, and determine
the soil map unit delineation for the area. Using a
soil auger, probe, or spade, make a hole at least 18
inches deep at the representative location in each
plant community type. Examine soil characteristics
and compare if possible to soil descriptions in the
county soil survey report. If soil colors match
those described for hydric soil, then record data
and proceed to Step 9. If not, then check for hydric
soil indicators below the A-horizon (surface layer)
and within 18 inches for organic soils and for min-
eral soils with low permeability rates (<6.0 inches!
hour), within 12 inches for coarse-textured (sandy)
mineral soils with high permeability rates (6.0
inches/hour), and within 6 inches for somewhat
poorly drained soils. (Note: If the A-horizon
extends below the designated depth, look immedi-
ately below the A-horizon for signs of hydric soil.)
Are hydric soil indicators present (see pp. 13-15)?
if so, list indicators present on an appropriate data
form and proceed to Step 9. If soil has been
plowed or otherwise altered, which may have elim-
inated these indicators, proceed to the section on
disturbed areas (p. 50). If field indicators are not
present, but available information verifies that the
hydric soil criterion is met, then the soil is hydric.
Complete the soils section on the appropriate data
sheet. (CAUTION: Become familiar with proble-
matic hydric soils that do not possess good hydric
field indicators, such as red parent material soils,
some sandy soils, and some floodplain soils, so
that these hydric soils are not misidentified as non-
hydric soils; see the problem area wetlands discus-
sion on p. 55.)
Step 9. Determine whether the wetland
hydrology criterion is met. Examine the area of
each plant community type for indicators of wet-
land hydrology (see pp. 17-19). The wetland
hydrology criterion is met when:
or
1) one or more field indicators are present;
2) available hydrologic records provide suf-
ficient evidence; or
3) the plant community is dominated by
OBL, F4 CW and/or FAC species or has a preva-
lence index of less than 3.0, and the area has not
been hydrologically disturbed. ft
If the area is hydrologically disturbed, proceed to
the section on disturbed areas (p. 50). Record
observations and other evidence on the appropriate
data form. Proceed to Step 10.
Step 10. Make the wetland determination.
Examine data forms for each plant community
identified in the project area. Each community
meeting the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil,
and wetland hydrology criteria is considered wet-
land. If all communities meet these three criteria,
34
-------
then the entire project area is a wetland. If only a
portion of the project area is wetland, then the wet-
land-nonwetland boundary must be established.
Proceed to Step 11.
Step 11. Determine the wetland-nonwetland
boundary. Where a base map or annotated photo
was prepared, mark each plant community type on
the map or photo with a “W” if wetland or an “N”
if nonwetland. Combine all ‘W” types into a single
mapping unit, if possible, and all “N” types into
another mapping unit. On the map or photo, the
wetland boundary will be represented by the inter-
face of these mapping units. If flagging the bound-
ary on the ground, the boundary is established by
determining the location where hydrophytic vegeta-
tion and hydric soils give way to nonhydrophytic
vegetation and nonhydric soils. This will often
require sampling a few more holes to better define
the limits of the hydric soils and thereby establish
the limits of hydrophytic vegetation.
Intermediate-level Onsite Determination
Method
4.12. On occasion, a more rigorous sampling
method is required than the routine method to
determine whether hydrophytic vegetation is
present at a given site, especially where the bound-
ary between wetland and nonwetland is gradual or
indistinct. This circumstance requires more inten-
sive sampling of vegetation and soils than pre sent-
ed in the routine determination method. This meth-
od also may be used for areas greater than five
acres in size or other areas that are highly diverse in
vegetation.
4.13. The intermediate-level onsite determination
method has been developed to provide for more
intensive vegetation sampling than the routine
method. Two optional approaches are presented:
(1) quadrat transect sampling procedure, and (2)
vegetation unit sampling procedure. The former
procedure involves establishing transects within the
project area and sampling plant communities along
the transect within sample quadrats, with soils and
hydrology also assessed as needed in each sample
plot. In contrast, the vegetation unit sampling pro-
cedure offers a different approach for analyzing the
vegetation. First, vegetation units are designated in
the project area and then a meander survey is con-
ducted in each unit where visual estimates of per-
cent areal coverage by plant species are made. Soil
and hydrology observations also are made as
necessary. Boundaries between wetland and non-
wetland are established by examining the transi-
tional gradient between them.
4.14. The following steps should be completed:
Step 1. Locate the limits of the project area
in the field and conduct a general reconnaissance of
the area. Previously the project boundary should
have been determined on aerial photos or maps.
Now appropriate ground reference points need to
be located to insure that sampling will be conducted
in the proper area. In examining the project area,
were any significantly disturbed areas observed? If
YES, identify their limits for they should be evalu-
ated separately for wetland determination purposes
(usually after evaluating undisturbed areas). Refer
to the section on disturbed areas (p. 50) to evaluate
the altered characteristic(s) (i.e., vegetation, soils,
or hydrology); then return to this method to Contin-
ue evaluating the characteristics not altered. Keep
in mind that if at any time during this determina-
tion, one or more of these three characteristics is
found to have been significantly altered, the dis-
turbed areas procedures should be followed. If the
area is not significantly disturbed, proceed with
Step 2.
Step 2. Decide how to analyze plant com,nu-
nines within the project area: (1) by selecting repre-
sentative plant communities (vegetation units), or
(2) by sampling along a transect. Discrete vegeta-
tion units may be identified on aerial photographs,
topographic and other maps, and/or by field
inspection. These units will be evaluated for hydro-
phytic vegetation and also for hydric soils and wet-
land hydrology, as necessary. If the vegetation unit
approach is selected, proceed to Step 3. An alterna-
tive approach is to establish transects for identify-
ing plant communities, sampling vegetation and
evaluating other criteria, as appropriate. If the tran-
sect approach is chosen, proceed to Step 4.
Step 3. Identifying vegetation units for sam-
pling. Vegetation units are identified by examining
aerial photographs, topographic maps, NWI maps,
or other materials or, by direct field inspection. All
of the different vegetation units present in the pro—
ject area should be identified. The subject area
should be traversed and different vegetation units
specifically located prior to conducting the sam-
pling.
35
-------
Field inspection may refine previously identified
vegetation units, as appropriate. It may be advisa-
ble to divide large vegetation units into subunits for
independent analysis. (CAUTION: In highly varia-
ble terrain, such as ridge and swale complexes, be
sure to stratify properly.) Decide which plant com-
munity to sample first and proceed to Step 7.
Step 4. Esrablish a baseline for locating
sampling transects. Select as a baseline one project
boundary or a conspicuous feature, such as road,
in the project area. The baseline should be more or
less parallel to the major watercourse through the
area, if present, or perpendicular to the hydrologic
gradient (see Figure 4). Determine the approximate
baseline length. Proceed to Step 5.
BASELINE
STARTING
POINT
— ‘ ‘ I ‘ —
I I I I
STREAM
FIgure 4. General orientation of baseline and
transects (dashed lines) In a hypothetical prolect
area. The letters A, B, “C and “D represent
different plant communities. All transects start at the
midpoint of a baseline segment except the first, which
was repositioned to Include commun y type A.
Step 5. Determine the required number and
position of transects. Use the following to deter-
mine the required number and position of transects
(specific site conditions may necessitate changes in
intervals):
Divide the baseline length by the number of
required transects to establish baseline segments
for sampling. Establish one transect in each result-
Number of
BaselIne length Transects
Less than one mile 3
One mile to two miles 3-5
Two miles to four miles 5-8
Four miles or longer 8 or morV
Transect Inlervals should not exceed 0.5 mIle.
ing baseline segment (see Figure 4). Use the mid-
point of each baseline segment as a transect starting
point. For example, if the baseline is 1,200 feet in
length, three transects would be established: one at
200 feet, one at 600 feet, and one at 1,000 feet
from the baseline starting point. Make sure that all
plant convnunity types are included within the tran-
sects; this may necessitate relocation of one or
more transect lines or establishing more transects.
Each transect should extend perpendicular to the
baseline (see Figure 4). Once positions of transect
lines are established, go to the beginning of the
first transect and proceed to Step 6.
Step 6. Locate sample plots along the tran-
sect. Along each transect, sample plots are esta-
blished within each plant community encountered
to assess vegetation, soils, and hydrology. When
identifying these sample plots, two approaches
may be followed: (1) walk the entire length of the
transect, taking note of the number, type, and loca-
tion of plant communities present (flag the location,
if necessary), and on the way back to the baseline,
identify plots and perform sampling, or (2) identify
plant communities as the transect is walked and
sample the plot at that time (“sample as you go”).
The sample plot should be located soit is represen-
tative of the plant community type. When the plant
community type is large and covers a signifi ant
distance along the transect, select an area that is no
closer than 300 feet to a perceptible change in plant
community type; mark the center of this area on the
base map or photo and flag the location in the field,
if necessary. (CAUTION: In highly variable ter-
rain, such as ridge and swale complexes, be sure to
stratify properly to ensure best results.) At each
plant community, proceed to Step 7.
Step 7. Determine whether normal environ-
mental conditions are present. Determine whether
normal environmental conditions are present by
considering the following:
BASEUNE
SEGMENT
TRAN-
SECT I
36
-------
1) Is the area presently lacking hydrophytic
vegetation or hydrologic indicators due to annual,
seasonal, or long-term fluctuations in precipitation,
surface water, or ground-water levels?
2) Are hydrophytic vegetation indicators
lacking due to seasonal fluctuations in temperature
(e.g., seasonality of plant growth)?
If the answer to either of these questions is YES or
uncertain, proceed to the section on problem area
wetland determinations (p. 55), then return to this
method and continue the wetland determination. If
the answer to both questions is NO, normal condi-
tions are assumed to be present, so proceed to Step
8.
Step 8. Characterize the vegetation of the
vegetation unit or the plant community along the
transect.
If analyzing vegetation units, meander through the
unit making visual estimates of the percent area
covered for each species in the herb, shrub,
sapling, woody vine, and tree strata; alternatively,
for the tree stratum determine basal area using the
Bitterlich method (Dilworth and Bell 1978; Avery
and BUrkhart 1983). Then:
1) Within each stratum determine and record
the cover class of each species and its correspond-
ing midpoint. The cover classes (and midpoints)
are: T = <1% (none); 1 = 1-5% (3.0); 2 = 6-15%
(10.5); 3 16-25% (20.5); 4 = 26-50% (38.0); 5
= 51-75% (63.0); 6 = 76-95% (85.5); 7 = 96-
100% (98.0).
2) Rank the species within each stratum
according to their midpoints. (Note: If two or more
species have the same midpoints and the same or
essentially the same recorded percent areal cover,
rank them equal; use absolute areal cover values as
a tie-breaker only if they are obviously different.)
3) Sum the midpoint values of all species
within each stratum.
4) Multiply the total midpoint values for
each stratum by 50 percent. (Note: This number
represents the dominance threshold number and is
used to determine dominant species.)
5) Compile the cumulative total of the
ranked species in each stratum until 50 percent of
the sum of the midpoints (i.e., the dominance
threshold number), for the herb, woody vine,
shrub, sapling, and tree strata (or alternatively
basal area for trees) is immediately exceeded. All
species contributing areal cover or basal area to the
50 percent threshold are considered dominants,
plus any additionul species representing 20 percent
or more of the total cover class midpoint values for
each stratum or the basal area for tree stratum.
(Note: If the threshold is reached by two or more
equally ranked species, consider them all domi-
nants, along with any higher ranked species. If all
species are equally ranked, consider them all domi-
nants.)
6) Record all dominant species on an appro-
priate data sheet and list indicator status of each.
Proceed to Step 9.
If using the transect approach, sample vegetation in
each stratum (e.g., tree, shrub, herb, etc.) occur-
ring in the sample plots using the following quadrat
sizes: (1) a 5-foot radius for bryophytes and herbs,
and (2) a 30-foot radius for trees, saplings, shrubs,
and woody vines. Plot size and shape may be
changed as necessary to meet site conditions.
Determine dominant species for each stratum by
estimating one or more of the following as appro-
priate: (1) relative basal area (trees); (2) areal cover
(trees, saplings, shrubs, herbs, woody vines, and
bryophytes); or (3) stem density (shrubs, saplings,
herbs, and woody vines). (Note: Dominant species
within each stratum are the most abundant plant
species that when ranked in descending order of
abundance and cumulatively totaled immediately
exceed 50 percent of the total dominance measure
for the stratum, plus any additional species com-
prising 20 percent or more of the total dominance
measure.) Record all dominant species on an
appropriate data sheet and list the indicator status of
each. Proceed to Step 9.
Step 9. Determine whether the hydrophytic
vegetation criterion is met. When more than 50 per-
cent of the dominant species in the vegetation unit
or sample plot have an indicator status of OBL,
FACW, and/or FAC, hydrophytic vegetation is
present. If the vegetation fails to be dominated by
these types of species, the unit or plot is usually
not wetland. However, this vegetation unit or plot
may constitute hydrophytic vegetation under certain
circumstances (refer to the disturbed areas or prob-
lem area wetland determination sections on pp. 50-
59). If hydrophytic vegetation is present, proceed
37
-------
to Step 10 after completing the vegetation section
of the data sheet.
Step 10. Determine whether soils must be
characterized. Examine vegetative data collected for
the vegetation unit or plot (in Steps 8 and 9) and
identify any units or plots where: (1) all dominant
species have an indicator status of OBL, or (2) all
dominant species have an indicator status of OBL
and FACW, and the wetland boundary is abrupt.
For these units or plots, hydric soils are assumed
to be present and do not need to be examined; pro-
ceed to Step 12. Vegetation units or plots lacking
the above characteristics must have soils examined;
proceed to Step 11.
Step 11. Determine whether the hydric soil
criterion is met. Locate the sample plot or vegeta-
tion unit on a county soil survey map if possible,
and determine the soil map unit delineation for the
area. Using a soil auger, probe, or spade, make a
hole at least 18 inches deep in the area. (Note: In
applying the vegetation unit approach, one or more
soil samples should be taken.) Examine soil char-
acteristics in the sample plot or vegetative unit and
if possible compare them to soil descriptions in the
county soil survey report. If soil colors match
those described for hydric soil in the report, then
record data and proceed to Step 12. If not, then
check for hydric soil indicators below the A-
horizon (surface layer) and within 18 inches for
organic soils and poorly and very poorly drained
mineral soils with low permeability rates (<6.0
inches/hour), within 12 inches for poorly and very
poorly drained, coarse-textured (sandy) mineral
soils with high permeability rates ( 6.0 inches/
hour), and within 6 inches for somewhat poorly
drained soils. (Note: If the A-horizon extends
below the designated depth, look immediately
below the A-horizon for signs of hydric soil.) Are
hydric soil indicators present (see pp. 13-15)? If
so, list indicators present on data form and proceed
to Step 12. If soil has been plowed or otherwise
altered which may have eliminated these indicators,
proceed to the section on disturbed areas (p. 50),
then return to this method to continue the wetland
determination. If field indicators are not present,
but available information verifies that the hydric
soil criterion is met, then the soil is hydric. Com-
plete the soils section on an appropriate data sheet.
Proceed to Step 12. (CAUTION: Become familiar
with problematic hydric soils that do not possess
good hydric field indicators, such as red parent
material soils, some sandy soils, and some flood-
plain soils, so that these hydric soils are not misi-
dentified as nonhydric soils; see the section on
problem area wetlands, p.55.)
Step 12. Determine whether the wetland
hydrology criterion is met. Examine the sample
plot or vegetation unit for indicators of wetland
hydrology (see pp. 17-19) and review available
recorded hydrologic information. The wetland
hydrology criteria is met when:
1) one or more field indicators are materially
present; or
2) available hydrologic records provide
necessary evidence; or
3) the plant community is dominated by
OBL, FACW, and/or FAC species, and the area’s
hydrology is not significantly disturbed.
If the area’s hydrology is significantly disturbed,
proceed to the section on disturbed areas (p. 50).
Record observations and other evidence on an
appropriate data form. Proceed to Step 13.
Step 13. Make the wetland determination for
the plant Community or vegetation unit. Examine
the data forms for the plant community (sample
plot) or vegetation unit. When the community or
unit meets the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil,
and wetland hydrology criteria, the area is consid-
ered wetland. Complete the summary data sheet;
proceed to Step 14 when continuing to sample the
transect or other vegetation units, or to Step 15
when determining a boundary between wetland and
nonwetland plant communities or units. (Note:
Before going on, double check all data sheets to
ensure that the forms are completed properly.)
Step 14. Sample other plant communities
along the transect or other vegetation units. Repeat
Steps 6 through 13 for all remaining plant commu-
nities along the transect if following transect
approach, or repeat Steps 7 through 13 at the next
vegetation unit. When sampling is completed for
this transect, proceed to Step 15, or when sampling
is completed for all vegetation units, proceed to
Step 16.
Step 15. Determine the wetland-nonwetland
boundary point along the transect. When the tran-
sect contains both wetland and nonwetland plant
communities, then a boundary must be established.
38
-------
Proceed along the transect from the wetland plot
toward the nonwetland plot. Look for the occur-
rence of UPL species, the appearance of nonhydric
soil types, subtle changes in hydrologic indicators,
and/or slight changes in topography. When such
features are noted, establish a new sample plot and
repeat Steps 8 through 13. (Note: New data sheets
must be completed for this new plot.) If this area is
a nonwetland, move halfway back along the tran-
sect toward the last documented wetland plot and
repeat Steps 8 through 13, varying plot size as
appropriate. Continue this procedure until the wet-
land-nonwetland boundary point is found. It is not
necessary to complete new data sheets for all inter-
mediate points, but data sheets should be complet-
ed for each plot immediately adjacent to the wet-
land-nonwetland boundary point (i.e., data sheets
for each side of the boundary). Mark the position
of the wetland boundary point on the base map or
photo and stake or flag the boundary in the field, as
necessary. Continue along the transect until the
boundary points between all wetland and nonwet-
land plots have been established. (CAUTION: In
areas with a high interspersion of wetland and non-
wetland plant Communities, several boundary
determinations will be required.) When all wetland
determinations along this transect have been com-
pleted, proceed to Step 17.
Step 16. Determine the wetland-nonweziand
boundary between adjacent vegetation units.
Review all completed copies of the data sheets for
each vegetation unit. Identify each unit as either
wetland (W) or nonwetland (N). When adjacent
vegetation units contain both wetland and nonwet-
land communities, a boundary must be established.
Walk the interface between the two units from the
wetland unit toward the nonwetiand unit and look
for changes in vegetation, soils, hydrologic indica-
tors, and/or elevation. As a general rule, at 100-
foot intervals or whenever changes in the vegeta-
tion unit’s characteristics are noted, establish a new
observation area and repeat Steps 8 through 13.
(Note: New data sheets must be completed for this
new area.) If this area is nonwetland, move back
down the gradient about halfway back toward the
wetland unit and make additional observations
along the interface until wetland is identified.
(Note: Soils often are more useful than vegetation
in establishing the wetland-nonwetland boundary,
particularly if there is no obvious vegetation break
or when FAC plant species dominate two adjacent
vegetation units.) At each designated boundary
point, complete data sheets for areas immediately
upsiope and downslope of the wetland-nonwetland
boundary (i.e., one set for the wetland unit and one
for the nonwetland unit), record the distance and
compass directions between the boundary points
and their respective pair of soil samples. Mark the
position of the wetland boundary point on the base
map or photo and stake or flag the boundary in the
field, as necessary. Based on observations along
the interface, identify a host of boundary points
between each wetland unit and nonwetland unit.
Repeat this step for all adjacent vegetation units of
wetland and nonwetland. When wetland boundary
points between all adjacent wetland and nonwet-
land units have been established, proceed to Step
18.
Step 17. Sample other transects and make
wetland determinations along each. Repeat Steps 5
through 15 for each remaining transect. When wet-
land boundary points for all transects have been
established, proceed to Step 18.
Step 18. Determine the wetland-nonwetland
boundary for the entire project area. Examine all
completed copies of the data sheets, and mark the
location of each plant community type along the
transect on the base map or photo, when used.
(Note: This has already been done for the vegeta-
tion unit approach.) Identify each plant community
as either wetland (W) or nonwetland (N), if it has
not been done previously. If all plant communities
are wetlands, then the entire project area is wet-
land. If all communities are nonwetlands, then the
entire project area is nonwetland. If both wetlands
and nonwetlands are present, identify the boundary
points on the base map and connect these points on
the map by generally following contour lines to
separate wetlands from nonwetlands. Confirm this
boundary by walldng the contour lines between the
transects or vegetation units, as appropriate.
Should anomalies be encountered, it will be neces-
sary to establish short transects in these areas to
refine the boundary; make any necessary adjust-
ments to the boundary on the base map and/or on
the ground. It also may be worthwhile to flag these
boundary points, especially when marking the
boundary for subsequent surveying by engineers.
Comprehensive Onsite Determination
Method
4.15. The comprehensive determination method is
the most detailed, complex, and labor-intensive
39
-------
approach of the three recommended types of on site
determinations. It is usually reserved for highly
complicated and/or large project areas, and/or when
the determination requires rigorous documentation.
Due to the latter situation, this type of onsite deter-
mination may be used for areas of any size.
4.16. In applying this method, a team of experts,
including a wetland ecologist and a qualified soil
scientist, is often needed, especially when rigorous
documentation of plants and soils are required. It
is, possible, however, for a highly trained wetland
boundary specialist to singly apply this method.
4.17. Two alternative approaches of the compre-
hensive onsite determination method are presented:
(1) quadrat sampling procedure and (2) point inter-
cept sampling procedure. The former approach
establishes quadrats or sampling areas in the project
site along transects, while the latter approach
involves a frequency analysis of vegetation at sam-
pling points along transects. The point intercept
sampling procedure requires that the limits of
hydric soils be established prior to evaluating the
vegetation. In many cases, soil maps are available
to meet this requirement, but in other cases a quali-
fied soil scientist may need to inventory the soils
before applying this method. The quadrat sampling
procedure, which involves identifying plant com-
munities along transects and analyzing vegetation,
soils, and hydrology within sample plots (quad-
rats), may be the preferred approach when soil
maps are unavailable or the individual is more
familiar with plant identification.
Quadrat Sampling Procedure
4.18. Prior to implementing this determination
procedure, read the sections of this manual that dis-
cuss disturbed area and problem area wetland deter-
mination procedures (pp. 50-59); this information
is often relevant to project areas requiring a com-
prehensive determination.
Step 1. Locate the limits of the project area
in the field. Previously, the project boundary
should have been determined on aerial photos or
maps. Now appropriate ground reference points
need to be located to ensure that sampling will be
conducted in the proper area. Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Srrar fy the project area into dWerent
plant community types. Delineate the locations of
these types on aerial photos or base maps and label
each community with an appropriate name. (CA U-
TION: In highly variable terrain, such as ridge and
swale complexes, be sure to stratify properly to
ensure best results.) In evaluating the subject area,
were any significantly disturbed areas observed? If
YES, identify their limits for they should be evalu-
ated separately for wetland determination purposes
(usually after evaluating undisturbed areas). Refer
to the section on disturbed areas (p. 50) to evaluate
the altered characteristic(s) (i.e., vegetation, soils,
and/or hydrology); then return to this method to
continue evaluating the characteristics not altered.
Keep in mind that if at any time during this determi-
nation, it is found that one or more or these three
characteristics have been significantly altered, the
disturbed areas wetland determination procedures
should be followed. If the area is not significantly
disturbed, proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Establish a baseline for locating sam-
pling transects. Select as a baseline one project
boundary or a conspicuous feature, such as a road,
in the project area. The baseline ideally should be
more or less parallel to the major watercourse
through the area, if present, or perpendicular to the
hydrologic gradient (see Figure 5). Determine the
approximate baseline length and record its origin,
length, and compass heading in a field notebook.
When a limited number of transects are planned, a
baseline may not be necessary provided there are
sufficient fixed points (e.g., buildings, walls, and
fences) to serve as starting points for the transects.
Proceed to Step 4.
Step 4. Determine the required number and
position of transects. The number of transects
necessary to adequately characterize the site will
vary due to the area’s size and complexity of habi-
tats. In general, it is best to divide the baseline into
a number of equal segments and randomly select a
point within each segment to begin a transect (see
Figure 5).
Use the following as a guide to determine the
appropriate number of baseline segments:
40
-------
BaselIne
Number
Baseline
Length
of
Segment
(It)
Segments
(It)
variable
*If the baseline exceeds five miles, baseline seg-
ments should be 0.5 mile in length.
TRANSECT
STARTING
BASELINE POINT
SEGMENT
ili :‘: B 1
I I I
I I TRANSECT
I I I I
I I u i D
STREAM
FIgure 5. General orientation of baseline and
transects in a hypothetical project area The letters
“A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” represent different plant
communities Transect positions were determined
using a random numbers table.
Use a random numbers table or a calculator with a
random numbers generation feature to determine
the position of a transect starting point within each
baseline segment. For example, when the baseline
is 4,000 feet, the number of baseline segments will
be five, and each baseline segment length will be
800 feet (4,000/5). Locate the first transect within
the first 800 feet of the baseline. If the random
numbers table yields 264 as the distance from the
baseline starting point, measure 264 feet from the
baseline starting point and establish the starting
point of the first transect. If the second random
number selected is 530, the starting point of the
second transect will be located at a distance of
1,330 feet (800 + 530) from the baseline starting
point. Record the location of each transect in a field
notebook. When a fixed point such as a stone wall
is used as a starting point, be sure to record its
position also. Make sure that each plant community
type is included in at least one transect; if not,
modify the sampling design accordingly. When the
starting points for all required transects have been
located, go to the beginning of the first transect and
proceed to Step 5.
Step 5. Identify sample plots along the tran-
sect. Along each transect, sample plots may be
established in two ways: (1) within each plant
community encountered (the plant community fran-
sect sampling approach); or (2) at fixed intervals
(the fixed interval transect sampling approach);
these plots will be used to assess vegetation, soils,
and hydrology.
When employing the plant community transect
sampling approach, two techniques for identifying
sample plots may be followed: (1) walk the entire
length of the transect, taking note of the number,
type, and location of plant communities present
(flag the locations, if necessary) and on the way
back to the baseline, record the length of the tran-
sect, identify sample plots and perform sampling;
or (2) identify plant communities as the transect is
walked, sample the plot at that time (“sample as
you go”), and record the length of the transect.
When conducting the fixed interval transect sam-
pling approach, establish sampie plots along each
transect using the following as a guide:
Interval
Between
the Center
of Sample
Plots (feet)
100
100—1,000
(based on
length of
transect)
1,000
The first sample plot should be established at a dis-
tance of 50 feet from the baseline. When obvious
nonwetlands occupy a long segment of the transect
<1,000
I 1000 — 5,000
5 ,000 — 10,000
>10,000k
3
5
7
18— 333
200—1,000
700—1,400
2,000
BASELINE
STARTING
POINT
Transect
Length
(feet)
<1,000
1,000 — <10,000
10,000
Number
of
Sample
Plots
<10
10
>10
41
-------
from the baseline, begin the first plot in the non-
wetland at approximately 300 feet from the point
where the nonwetland begins to intergrade into a
potential wetland community type. Keep in mind
that additional plots will be required to determine
the wetland-nonwetland boundary between fixed
points. In large areas having a mosaic of plant
communities, one transect may contain several wet-
land boundaries.
If obstacles such as a body of water or impenetra-
ble thicket prevent access through the length of the
transect, access from the opposite side of the pro-
ject area may be necessary to complete the transect;
take appropriate compass reading and location data.
At each sample plot (i.e., plant community or fixed
interval area), proceed to Step 6.
Step 6. Determine whether normal environ-
mental conditions are present. Determine whether
normal environmental conditions are present by
considering the following:
1) Is the area presently lacking hydrophytic
vegetation or hydrologic indicators due to annual,
seasonal or long-term fluctuations in precipitation,
surface water, or ground-water levels?
2) Are hydrophytic vegetation indicators
lacking due to seasonal fluctuations in temperature
(e.g., seasonality of plant growth)?
If the answer to either of these questions is YES or
uncertain, proceed to the section on problem area
wetland determinations (p. 55). If the answer to
both questions is NO, normal conditions are
assumed to be present. Proceed to Step 7 when fol-
lowing the plant community transect approach. if
following the fixed interval approach, go to the
appropriate fixed point along the transect and pro-
ceed to Step 8.
Step 7. Locate a sample plot in the plant
community type encountered. Choose a representa-
tive location along the transect in this plant commu-
nity. Select an area that is no closer than 50 feet
from the baseline or from any perceptible change in
the plant community type. Mark the center of the
sample plot on the base map or photo and flag the
point in the field. Additional sample plots should
be established within the plant community at 300-
foot intervals along the transect or sooner if a dif-
ferent plant community is encountered. (Note: In
large-sized plant communities, a sampling interval
larger than 300 feet may be appropriate, but try to
use 300-foot intervals first.) Proceed to Step 8.
Step 8. Lay out the boundary of the sample
plot. A circular sample plot with a 30-foot radius
should be established. (Note The size and shape of
the plot may be changed to match local conditions.)
At the flagged center of the plot, use a compass to
divide the circular plot into four equal sampling
units at 90°, 180°, 270°, and 360°. Mark the outer
points of the plot with flagging. Proceed to Step 9.
Step 9. Characterize the vegetation and
determine dominant species within the sample plot.
Sample the vegetation in each layer or stratum (i.e.,
tree, sapling, shrub, herb, woody vine, and bryo-
phyte) within the plot using the following proce-
dures for each vegetative stratum and enter data on
appropriate data sheet (see Appendix B for exam-
ples of data sheet):
1) Herb stratum
A) Sample this stratum using corresponding
approach:
(1) Plant community transect sampling
approach:
(a) Select one of the following designs:
(i) Eight (8) - 8” x 20” sample
quadrats (two for each sampling
unit within the circular plot); or
(ii) Four (4) - 20” x 20” sample
quadrats (one for each sample
unit within the plot); or
(iii) Four (4) - 40” x 40” sample
quadrats (one for each sample
unit).
(Note: Alternate shapes of sample quad-
rats are acceptable provided they are
similar in area to those listed above.)
(b) Randomly toss the quadrat frame
into the understory of the appropri-
ate sample unit of the plot.
(c) Record percent areal cover of each
plant species.
42
-------
F) Designate the indicator status of each domi-
(d) Repeat (b) and (c) as required by
the sampling scheme.
(e) Construct a species area curve (see
example, Appendix C) for the plot to determine
whether the number of quadrats sampled sufficient-
ly represent the vegetation in the stratum; the num-
ber of samples necessary corresponds to the point
at which the curve levels off horizontally; if neces-
sary, sample additional quadrats within the plot
until the curve levels off.
(f) For each plant species sampled, deter-
mine the average percent area! cover by summing
the percent area! cover for all sample quadrats with-
in the plot and dividing by the total number of
quadrats (see example, Appendix C). Proceed to
substep B below.
(2) Fixed interval sampling approach:
(a) Place one (1) - 40” x 40” sample
quadrat centered on the transect
point.
(b) Determine percent area! coverage for
each species. Proceed to substep B
below.
B) Rank plant species by their average percent
area! cover, beginning with the most abundant spe-
cies.
C) Sum the percent cover (fixed interval sam-
pling approach) or average percent cover (plant
community transect sampling approach).
D) Determine the dominance threshold number -
the number at which 50 percent of the total domi-
nance measure (i.e., total cover) for the stratum is
represented by one or more plant species when
ranked in descending order of abundance (i.e.,
from most to least abundant).
E) Sum the cover values for the ranked plant
species beginning with the most abundant until the
dominance threshold number is immediately
exceeded; these species contributing to surpassing
the threshold number are considered dominants,
plus any additional species representing 20 percent
or more of the total cover of the stratum; denote
dominant species with an asterisk on the appropri-
ate data form.
nant.
2) Bryophyte stratwn (mosses, horned liverworts,
and true liverworts): Bryophytes may be sampled
as a separate stratum in certain wetlands, such as
shrub bogs, moss-lichen wetlands, and the wetter
wooded swamps, where they are abundant and rep-
resent an important component of the plant commu-
nity. If treated as a separate stratum, follow the
same procedures as listed for herb stratum. In
many wetlands, however, bryophytes are not abun-
dant and should be included as part of the herb stra-
tum.
3) Shrub stratwn (woody plants usually between 3
and 20 feet tall, including multi-stemmed, bushy
shrubs and small trees below 20 feet):
A) Determine the percent area! cover of shrub
species within the entire plot by walking through
the plot, listing all shrub species and estimating the
percent area! cover of each species.
B) Indicate the appropriate cover class (T and 1
through 7) and its corresponding midpoints (shown
in parentheses) for each species: T = <1% cover
(None); I = 1-5% (3.0); 2 = 6-15% (10.5); 3 = 16-
25% (20.5); 4 = 26-50% (38.0); 5 = 5 1-75%
(63.0); 6 = 76-95% (85.5); 7 = 96-100% (98.0).
C) Rank shrub species according to their mid-
points, from highest to lowest midpoint;
D) Sum the midpoint values of all shrub spe-
cies.
E) Determine the dominance threshold number -
the number at which 50 percent of the total domi-
nance measure (i.e., cover class midpoints) for the
stratum is represented by one or more plant species
when ranked in descending order of abundance
(i.e., from most to least abundant).
F) Sum the midpoint values for the ranked
shrub species, beginning with the most abundant,
until the dominance threshold number is immediate-
ly exceeded; these species are considered domi-
nants, plus any additional species representing 20
percent or more of the total midpoint values of the
stratum; identify dominant species (e.g., with an
asterisk) on the appropriate data form.
43
-------
G) Designate the indicator status of each domi-
nant.
4) Sapling stratum (young or small trees greater
than or equal to 20 feet tall and with a diameter at
breast height less than 5 inches): Follow the same
procedures as listed for the shrub stratum or the
tree stratum (i.e., plot sampling technique), which-
ever is preferred.
5) Woody vine stratum (climbing or twining
woody plants): Follow the same procedures as list-
ed for the shrub stratum.
6) Tree stratwn (woody plants greater than or equal
to 20 feet tall and with a diameter at breast height
equal to or greater than 5 inches). Two alternative
approaches are offered for characterizing the tree
stratum:
A) Plot sampling technique
This technique involves establishing a sam-
ple unit within the 30-foot radius sample plot and
determining the basal area of the trees by individual
and by species. Basal area for individual trees can
be measured directly by using a basal area tape or
indirectly by measuring diameter at breast height
(dbh) with a diameter tape and converting diameter
to basal area using the formula A = 7rd 2 /4 (where A
= basal area, it = 3.1416, and d = dbh). This tech-
nique may be preferred to the plotless technique if
only one person is performing a comprehensive
determination.
steps:
The plot technique involves the following
(1) Locate and mark, if necessary, a sample
unit (plot) with a radius of 30 feet, or change the
shape of the plot to match topography. (Note: A
larger sampling unit may be required when trees are
large and widely spaced.)
(2) Identify each tree, within the plot, meas-
ure its basal area (using a basal area tape) or meas-
ure its dbh (using a diameter tape) and compute its
basal area, then record data on the data form.
(3) Calculate the total basal area for each tree
species by summing the basal area values of all
individual trees of each species.
(4) Rank species according to their total
basal area, in descending order from largest basal
area to lowest.
(5) Calculate the total basal area value of all
trees in the plot by summing the total basal area for
all species.
(6) Determine the dominant trees species;
dominant species are those species (when ranked in
descending order and cumulatively totaled) that
immediately exceed 50 percent of the total basal
area value for the plot, plus any additional species
comprising 20 percent or more of the total basal
area of the plot; record the dominant species on the
appropriate data form.
(7) Designate the indicator status of each
dominant (i.e., OBL, FACW, FAC, FACU, or
UPL).
B) Plotless Sampling Technique
This technique involves determining basal
area by using a basal area factor (BAF) prism (e.g.,
BAF 10 for the East) or an angle gauge to identify
individual trees to measure diameter at breast height
(dbh) or basal area. This approach is plotless in that
trees within and beyond the 30-foot radius plot are
recorded depending on their dbh and distance from
the sampling point.
(1) Standing near the center of the 30-foot
radius plot, hold the prism or angle gauge directly
over the center of the plot at a constant distance
from the eye and record all trees by species that are
“sighted in,” while rotating 360° in one direction.
(Note: Trees with multiple trunks below 4.5 feet
should be counted as two or more trees if all trunks
are “sighted in.” If trunks split above 4.5 feet,
count as one tree if “sighted in.” Sighting level
should approximate 4.5 feet above the ground.
With borderline trees, every other tree of a given
species should be tallied.)
(2) Measure the dbh of all “sighted in” trees.
(Note: This should be done as trees are sighted.)
(3) Compute basal area for each tree. (Note:
When dbh was measured, apply the formula A =
ird 2 /4, where A = basal area, it = 3.1416, and d =
dbh. To expedite this calculation, use a hand calcu-
lator into which the following conversion factor is
44
-------
stored - 0.005454 for diameter data in inches or
0.78535 in feet. Basal area in square feet of an
individual tree can be obtained by squaring the tree
diameter and multiplying by the stored conversion
factor.)
(4) Sum the basal areas for individual trees
by species, then rank tree species by their total
basal area values.
(5) Determine the dominance threshold num-
ber by summing the basal areas of all tree species
(total basal area for the “plot”) and multiplying by
50 percent.
(6) Sum the basal area values for the ranked
tree species, beginning with the largest value, until
the dominance threshold number is immediately
exceeded; all species contributing to surpassing the
threshold number are considered dominants, plus
any species representing 20 percent or more of the
total basal area for the “plot.” (Note: If it is felt that
a representative sample of the trees has not been
obtained from one tally, additional tallies can be
obtained by moving perpendicular from the center
of the plot to another area.) Denote dominant spe-
cies with an asterisk on the appropriate data form.
(7) Designate the indicator status of each
dominant (i.e., OBL, FACW, FAC, FACU, or
UPL).
After determining the dominants for each stratum,
proceed to Step 10.
Step 10. Determine whether the hydrophytic
vegetation criterion is met. When more than 50 per-
cent of the dominant species in the sample plot
have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or
FAC, hydrophytic vegetation is present. Complete
the vegetation section of the summary data sheet. If
the vegetation fails to be dominated by these types
of species, the plot is usually not a wetland, how-
ever, it may constitute hydrophytic vegetation
under certain circumstances (see the problem area
wetland discussion, p. 55). If hydrophytic vegeta-
tion is present, proceed to Step 11.
Step 11. Determine whether the hydric soil
criterion is met. Locate the sample plot on a county
soil survey map, if possible, and determine the soil
map unit delineation for the plot. Using a soil aug-
er, probe, or spade, make a soil hole at least 18
inches deep (2-3 feet to best characterize most
soils) in the sample plot. Examine the soil charac-
teristics and compare if possible to soil descriptions
in the soil survey report. If soil colors match those
described for hydric soil in the report, then record
data and proceed to Step 12. If not, then check for
hydric soil indicators below the A-horizon (surface
layer) and within 18 inches for organic soils and
poorly drained and very poorly drained mineral
soils with low permeability rates (<6.0 inches!
hour), within 12 inches for coarse-textured poorly
drained and very poorly drained mineral soils with
high permeability rates (6.0 inches/hour) and
within 6 inches for somewhat poorly drained soils.
(Note: If the A-horizon extends below the designat-
ed depth, look immediately below the A-horizon
for signs of hydric soil.) If hydric soil indicators
are present (see pp. 13-15), list indicators present
on data form and proceed to Step 12. If the soil has
been plowed or otherwise altered, which may have
eliminated these indicators, proceed to the section
on disturbed areas (p. 50). If field indicators are
not present, but available information verifies that
the hydric soil criterion is met, then the soil is
hydric.
Complete the soils section on an appropriate data
sheet. (CAUTION: Become familiar with proble-
matic hydric soils that do not possess good hydric
field indicators, such as red parent material soils,
some sandy soils, and some floodplain soils, so
that these hydric soils are not misidentified as non-
hydric soils; see the section on problem area wet-
lands, p. 55.)
Step 12. Determine whether the wetland
hydrology criterion is met. Examine the sample
plot for indicators of wetland hydrology (see pp.
17-19) and review available recorded hydrologic
information. If one or more indicators of wetland
hydrology are materially present in the plot, then
the wetland hydrology criterion is met. Available
hydrologic data may also verify this criterion.
Record observations on the appropriate data form
and proceed to Step 13. If no such indicators or
evidence exist, then wetland hydrology does not
occur at the plot complete the hydrology section on
the data sheet.
Step 13. Make the wetland determi nation for
the sample plot. Examine the data forms for the
plot. When the plot meets the hydrophytic vegeta-
tion, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology criteria, it
is considered wetland. Complete the summary data
sheet; proceed to Step 14 when continuing to sam-
45
-------
pie transects, or to Step 15 when determining a
boundary between wetland and nonwetland sample
plots. (Note: Double check all data sheets to ensure
that they are completed properly before going to
another plot.)
Step 14. Take other samples along the tran-
sect. Repeat Steps 5 through 13, as appropriate.
When sampling is completed for this transect pro-
ceed to Step 15.
Step 15. Determine the wetland -nonwetland
boundary point along the transect. When the tran-
sect contains both wetland and nonwetland plots,
then a boundary must be established. Proceed
along the transect from the wetland plot toward the
nonwetland plot. Look for the occurrence of
upland species, the appearance of nonhydric soil
types, subtle changes in hydrologic indicators, and!
or slight changes in topography. When such fea-
tures are noted, establish a new sample plot and
repeat Steps 8 through 12. (Note: New data sheets
must be completed for this new sample plot.) If
this area is a nonwetland, move halfway back
along the transect toward the last documented wet-
land plot and repeat Steps 8 through 12, varying
plot size as appropriate. (Note: Soils generally are
more useful than vegetation in establishing the wet-
land-nonwetland boundary, particularly if there is
no evident vegetation break or when FAC species
dominate two adjacent areas.) Continue this proce-
dure until the wetland-nonwetland boundary point
is found. It is not necessary to complete new data
sheets for all intermediate points, but data sheets
should be completed for each plot immediately
adjacent to the wetland-nonwetland boundary point
(i.e., one set for each side of the boundary). Mark
the position of the wetland boundary point on the
base map or photo and place a surveyor flag or
stake at the boundary point in the field, as neces-
sary. Continue along the transect until the bounda-
ry points between all wetland and nonwetland plots
have been established. (CA(JTION: In areas with a
high interspersion of wetland and nonwetland plant
communities, several boundary determinations will
be required.) When all wetland determinations
along this transect have been completed, proceed to
Step 16.
Step 16. Sample other transects and make
wetland determinations along each. Repeat Steps 5
through 15 for each remaining transect. When wet-
land boundary points for all transects have been
established, proceed to Step 17.
Step 17. Determine the wetland-nonwetland
boundary for the entire project area. Examine all
completed copies of the data sheets and mark the
location of each plot on the base map or photo.
Identify each plot as either wetland (W) or nonwet-
land (N) on the map or photo. If all plots are wet-
lands, then the entire project area is wetland. If all
plots are nonwetlands, then the entire project area
is nonwetland. If both wetland and nonwetland
plots are present, identify the boundary points on
the base map or on the ground, and connect these
points on the map by generally following contour
lines to separate wetlands from nonwetlands. Con-
firm this boundary on the ground by walking the
contour lines between the transects. Should ano-
malies be encountered, it will be necessary to
establish short transects in these areas to refine the
boundary, apply Step 15, and make any necessary
adjustments to the boundary on the base map and!
or on the ground. It may be worthwhile to place
surveyor flags or stakes at these boundary points,
especially when marking the boundary for subse-
quent surveying by engineers.
Point Intercept Sampling Procedure
4.19. The point intercept sampling procedure is a
frequency analysis of vegetation used in areas that
may meet the hydric soil and wetland hydrology
criteria (see Part II, p. 5). It involves first identify-
ing areas that may meet the hydric soil and wetland
hydrology criteria within the area of concern and
then refining the boundaries of areas that meet the
hydric soil criterion. Transects are then established
for analyzing vegetation and determining the pres-
ence of hydrophytic vegetation by calculating a
prevalence index. Sample worksheets and a sample
problem using this method are presented in Appen-
dices B and D, respectively.
Step 1. Identify the approximate limits of
areas that may meet the hydric soil criterion within
the area of concern and sketch limits on an aerial
photograph. To help identify these limits use
sources of information such as Agricultural Stabili-
zation and Conservation Service slides, soil sur-
veys, NW! maps, and other maps and photo-
graphs. (Note: This step is more convenient to
perform offsite, but may be done onsite.) Proceed
to Step 2.
46
-------
Step 2. Scan the areas that may meet the
hydric soil criterion and determine ((disturbed con-
ditions exist. Are any significantly disturbed areas
present? If YES, identify their limits for they
should be evaluated separately for wetland determi-
nation purposes (usually after evaluating undis-
turbed areas). Refer to the section on disturbed are-
as (p. 50), if necessary, to evaluate the altered
characteristic(s) (vegetation, soils, or hydrology),
then return to this method and continue evaluating
characteristics not altered. (Note: Prior experience
with disturbed sites may allow one to easily evalu-
ate an altered characteristic, such as when vegeta-
tion is not present in a farmed wetland due to culti-
vation.) Keep in mind that if at any time during this
determination one or more of these three character-
istics is found to have been significantly altered,
the disturbed area wetland determination proce-
dures should be followed. If the area is not signifi-
cantly disturbed, proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Scan the areas that may meet the
hydric soil criterion and determine ((obvious signs
of wetland hydrology are present. The wetland
hydrology criterion is met for any area or portion
thereof where, it is obvious or known that the area
is frequently inundated or saturated to the surface
during the growing season. If the above condition
exists, the hydric soil criterion is met for the sub-
ject area and the area is considered wetland. If
necessary, confirm the presence of hydric soil by
examining the soil for appropriate field indicators.
(Note: Hydrophytic vegetation is assumed to be
present under these conditions, i.e., undrained
hydric soil, so vegetation does not need to be
examined. Moreover, hydrophytic vegetation
should be obvious in these situations.) Areas lack-
ing obvious indicators of wetland hydrology must
be further examined, so proceed to Step 4.
Step 4. Refine the boundary of areas that
meet the hydric soil criterion. Verify the presence
of hydric soil within the appropriate map units by
digging a number of holes at least 18 inches deep
along the boundary (interface) between hydric soil
units and nonhydric soil units. Compare soil sam-
ples with descriptions in the soil survey report to
see if they are properly mapped, and look for
hydric soil characteristics or indicators. In this
way, the boundary of areas meeting the hydric soil
criterion is further refined by field observations. In
map units where only part of the unit is hydric
(e.g., complexes, associations, and inclusions),
locate hydric soil areas on the ground by consider-
ing landscape position and evaluating soil character-
istics for hydric soil properties (indicators). (Note:
Some hydric soils, especially organic soils, have
not been given a series name and are referred to by
common names, such as peat, muck, swamp,
marsh, wet alluvial land, tidal marsh, sulfaquents,
and sulfihemists. These areas are also considered
hydric soil map units. Certain hydric soils are
mapped with nonhydric soils as an association or
complex, while other hydric soils occur as inclu-
sions in nonhydric soil map units. Only the hydric
soil portion of these map units should be evaluated
for hydrophytic vegetation.) In areas where hydric
soils are not easily located by landscape position
and soil characteristics (morphology), a qualified
soil scientist should be consulted. (CAUTiON:
Become familiar with problematic hydric soils that
do not possess good hydric field indicators, such as
red parent material soils, some sandy soils, and
some fioodplains soils, so that these hydric soils are
not misidentified as nonhydric soils, see section on
problem area wetlands, p. 55.) (Note: If the project
area does not have a soil map, hydric soil areas
must be determined in the field to use the point
intercept sampling method. Consider landscape
position, such as depressions, drainageways,
floodplains and seepage slopes, and look for field
indicators of hydric soil, then delineate the hydric
soil areas accordingly. If the boundary of the hydric
soil area cannot be readily delineated, one should
use the quadrat sampling procedure on p. 40.)
After establishing the boundary of the area in ques-
tion, proceed to Step 5.
Step 5. Determine whether normal environ-
mental conditions are present. Determine whether
normal environmental conditions are present by
considering the following:
1) Is the area presently lacking hydrophytic
vegetation or hydrologic indicators due to annual,
seasonal, or long-term fluctuations in precipitation,
surface water, or ground water levels?
2) Are hydrophytic vegetation indicators
lacking due to seasonal fluctuations in temperature
(e.g., seasonality of plant growth)?
If the answer to either of these questions is YES or
uncertain, proceed to the section on problem area
wetland determinations (p. 55). If the answer to
47
-------
both questions is NO, normal conditions are
assumed to be present. Proceed to Step 6.
Step 6. Determine random starting points
and random directions for three 200-foot line tran-
sects in each area that meets or may meet the hydric
soil criterion. (Note: More than three transects may
be required depending on the standard error
obtained for the three transects.) There are many
ways to determine random starting points and ran-
dom transect direction. The following procedures
are suggested:
1) Starting point — Superimpose a grid over
an aerial photo or map of the study area. Assign
numbers (1, 2, 3 ...N) to each vertical and hori-
zontal line on the grid. Starting points for a transect
are selected by using a table for generating random
numbers or other suitable method. The first select-
ed digit represents a line on the horizontal axis; the
second, the vertical axis. The intersection of the
two lines establishes a starting point.
2) Transect direction — At a starting point,
spin a pencil or similar pointed object in the air and
let it fall to the ground. The direction that the pencil
is pointing indicates the direction of the transect.
Proceed to Step 7.
Step 7. Lay out the transect in the esta-
blished direction. If the transect crosses the hydric
soil boundary (into the nonhydric soil area), bend
the line back into the hydric soil area by randomly
selecting a new direction for the transect following
the procedure suggested above. Mark the approxi-
mate location of the transect on a base map or aerial
photo. Proceed to Step 8.
Step 8. Record plant data (e.g., species
name, indicator group, and number of occurrences)
at interval points along the transect. At the starting
point and at each point on 2-foot intervals along the
transect, record all plants that would intersect an
imaginary vertical line extending through the point.
If this line has no plants intersecting it (either above
or below the sample point), record nothing.
Identify each plant observed to species (or other
taxonomic category if species cannot be identified),
enter species name on the Prevalence Index Work-
sheet, and record all occurrences of each species
along the transect. For each species listed, identify
its indicator group from the appropriate regional list
of plant species that occur in wetlands (i.e., OBL,
FACW, FAC, FACU, and UPL; see p . 5-). Plant
species not recoMed on the lists are assumed to be
upland species. If no regional indicator status and
only one national indicator status is assigned, apply
the national indicator status to the species. If no
regional indicator Status is assigned and more than
one national indicator status is assigned, do not use
the species to calculate a prevalence index. If the
plant species is on the list and no regional or nation-
al indicator Status is assigned, do not use the spe-
cies to calculate the prevalence index. For a transect
to be valid for a prevalence calculation, at least 80
percent of the occurrences must be plants that have
been ident(fied and placed in an indicator group.
Get help in plant identification if necessary. (Note:
Unidentified plants or plants without indicator stat-
us are recorded but are not used to calculate the
prevalence index.) Proceed to Step 9.
Step 9. Calculate the total frequency of occur-
rences for each species (or other taxonomic catego-
ry), for each indicator group of plants, and for all
plant species observed, and enter on the Prevalence
Index Worksheet. The frequency of occurrences of
a plant species equals the number of times it occurs
at the sampling points along the transect. Proceed to
Step 10.
Step 10. Calculate the prevalence index for the
transect using the following formula:
F 0 + 2Ffw + 3Ff ÷ 4Ffu + 5F
Ph = F + Ffw + Ff + Ffu + F
where
P ! 1 = Prevalence Index for transect i;
F 0 = Frequency of occurrence of obligate wetland
species;
Ffw = Frequency of occurrence of facultative
wetland species;
Ff = Frequency of occurrence of facultative
species;
F = Frequency of occurrence of facultative
upland species;
F = Frequency of occurrence of upland species.
After calculating and recording the prevalence index
for this transect, proceed to Step 11.
48
-------
where
Step 11. Repeat Steps 5 through 10 for two
other transects. After completing the three tran-
sects, proceed to Step 12.
Step 12. Calculate a mean prevalence index for
the three transects. To be considered wetland, a
hydric soil area usually must have a mean preva-
lence index (NM) of less than 3.0. A minimum of
three transects are required in each delineated area
of hyciric soil, but enough transects are required so
that the standard error for NM does not exceed
0.20 percent.
Compute the mean prevalence index for the three
transects by using the following formula:
=
N
where
= mean prevalence index for transects;
1 T = sum of prevalence index values for all
transects;
N = total number of transects.
After computing the mean prevalence index for the
three transects, proceed to Step 13.
Step 13. Calculate the standard deviation (s)for
the prevalence index using the following formula:
/ (PIi-P 1 i) 2 + (P12-PIM) 2 + (P13-PIM) 2
s=/
N-i
(Note: See formulas in Steps 8 and 10 for symbol
definitions.)
After performing this calculation, proceed to Step
14.
Step 14. Calculate the standard error (si) of the
mean prevalence index using the following
formula:
S
sX7
s = standard deviation for the Prevalence Index
N = total number of transects
(Note: The s cannot exceed 0.20. If s exceeds
0.20, one or more additional transects are required.
Repeat Steps 6 through 14, as necessary, for each
additional transect.) When s for all transects does
not exceed 0.20, proceed to Step 15.
Step 15. Record final mean prevalence index
value for each hydric soil map unit and make a wet-
land deter,nination. All areas having a mean preva-
lence index of less than 3.0 meet the hydrophytic
vegetation criterion (see p. 5). One should also
look for evidence or field indicators of wetland
hydrology, especially if there is some question as
to whether the wetland hydrology criterion is met.
If such evidence or indicators are present or the
area’s hydrology has not been disturbed, then the
area is considered a wetland. If the area has been
hydrologically disturbed, one must determine
whether the area is effectively drained before mak-
ing a wetland determination (see disturbed area dis-
cussion, p. 50). If the area is effectively drained, it
is considered nonwetland; if it is not, the wetland
hydrology criterion is met and the area is consid-
ered a wetland.
Areas where the prevalence index value is greater
than or equal to 3.0 (especially greater than 3.5) are
usually not wetlands, but can, on occasion, be wet-
lands. These exceptions are disturbed or problem
area wetlands (see discussion on pp. 50-59) and
further evaluation of wetland hydrology must be
undertaken. When the prevalence index falls
between 3.0 and 3.5 (inclusive) in the absence of
significant hydrologic modification, the area is pre-
sumed to meet the wetland hydrology criterion and
is, therefore, wetland; the plant community is con-
sidered hydrophytic vegetation since the plants are
growing in an undrained hydric soil. If the preva-
lence index of the plant community is greater than
3.5, stronger evidence of wetland hydrology is
required to make a wetland determination. Walk
through the area of concern and look for field indi-
cators of wetland hydrology. If field observations,
aerial photographs or other reliable sources provide
direct evidence of inundation or soil saturation
within 6, 12, or 18 inches depending on soil
permeability and drainage class for one week or
more during the growing season, or if oxidized
49
-------
channels (rhizospheres) are present around living
roots and rhizomes of any plants, or if water-
stained leaves caused by inundation are present,
then these areas are considered to meet the wetland
hydrology criteria and are wetlands. If direct evi-
dence or these field indicators are not present, then
one must use best professional judgement to make
the wetland determination. In doing so, one should
review the problem area wetland discussion (p.
55), consider other hydrologic indicators that may
be present (see pp. 17-19), and perhaps even con-
suit with a wetland expert to assist in the determi-
nation.
Disturbed Area and Problem Area Wetland
Determination Procedures
4.20. In the course of field investigations, one
will undoubtedly encounter significantly disturbed
or altered areas, or natural areas where making a
wetland determination is not easy. Disturbed areas
include situations where field indicators of one or
more of the three wetland identification criteria are
obliterated or not present due to recent change. In
contrast, there are other wetlands that, under natu-
ral conditions, are simply difficult to identify, such
as wetlands dominated by FACU species, wetlands
lacking field indicators for one or more of the tech-
nical criteria for wetlands, and wetlands occurring
on difficult to identify hydric soils. These wetlands
are considered problem area wetlands. The follow-
ing sections discuss these difficult, confounding
situations and present procedures for distinguish-
ing wetlands from nonwetlands.
Disturbed Areas
4.21. Disturbed areas have been altered either
recently or in the past in some way that makes wet-
land identification more difficult than it would be in
the absence of such changes. Disturbed areas
include both wetlands and nonweilands that have
been modified to varying degrees by human activi-
ties (e.g., filling, excavation, clearing, damming,
and building construction) or by natural events
(e.g., avalanches, mudslides, fire, volcanic deposi-
tion, and beaver dams). Such activities and events
change the character of the area often making it dif-
ficult to identify field characteristics of one or more
of the wetland identification criteria (i.e., hydro-
phytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland
hydrology). Disturbed wetlands include areas sub-
jected to deposition of fill or dredged material,
removal or other alteration of vegetation, conver-
sion to agricultural land and silviculture planta-
tions, and construction of levees, channelization
and drainage systems, and/or dams (e.g., reser-
voirs and beaver dams) that significantly modify an
area’s hydrology. In cases where recent human
activities have caused these changes, it may be
necessary to determine the date of the alteration or
conversion for legal purposes. (Note: If the activity
occurred prior to the effective date of regulation or
other jurisdiction, it may not be necessary to make
a wetland determination for regulatory purposes.)
In considering the effects of natural events (e.g., a
wetland buried by a mudslide), the relative perma-
nence of the change and whether the area is still
functioning as a wetland must be considered.
4.22. In disturbed wetlands, field indicators for
one or more of the three technical criteria for wet-
land identification are usually absent. It may be
necessary to determine whether the “missing” indi-
cator(s) (especially wetland hydrology) existed
prior to alteration. To do this requires review of
aerial photographs, existing maps, and other avail-
able information about the site, and may involve
evaluating a nearby reference site (similar to the
original character of the one altered) for indicator(s)
of the “altered” characteristic.
4.23. When a significantly disturbed condition is
detected during an onsite determination, the follow-
ing steps should be taken to determine if the “miss-
ing” indicator(s) was present before alteration and
whether the criterion in question was originally
met. Be sure to record findings on the appropriate
data form. After completing the necessary steps
below, return to the applicable step of the onsite
determination method being used and continue
evaluating the site’s characteristics.
Step 1. Determine whether vegetation, soils,
and/or hydrology have been sign(ficantly altered at
the site. Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Determine whether the “altered” charac-
teristic met the wetland criterion in question prior to
site alteration. Review existing information for the
area (e.g., aerial photos, NWI maps, soil surveys,
hydrologic data, and previous site inspection
reports) contact knowledgeable persons familiar
with the area, and conduct an onsite inspection to
build supportive evidence. The strongest evidence
involves considering all of the above plus evaluat-
ing a nearby reference site (an area similar to the
50
-------
one altered before modification) for field indicators
of the three technical criteria for wetland. If a
human activity or natural event altered the vegeta-
tion, proceed to Step 3; the soils, proceed to Step
4; the hydrology, proceed to Step 5.
Step 3. Determine whether hydrophytic vegeta-
tion previously occurred:
1) Describe the type of alteration. Examine
the area and describe the type of alteration that
occurred. Look for evidence of selective harvest-
ing, clearcutting, bulldozing, recent conversion to
agriculture, or other activities (e.g., burning, disc-
ing, the presence of buildings, dams, levees,
roads, and parking lots).
2) Determine the approximate date when the
alteration occurred zf necessary. Check aerial pho-
tographs, examine building permits, consult with
local individuals, and review other possible sourc-
es of information.
3) Describe the effects on the vegetation.
Generally describe how the recent activities and
events have affected the plant communities. Con-
sider the following:
A) Has all or a portion of the area been
cleared of vegetation?
B) Has only one layer of the plant com-
munity (e.g., trees) been removed?
C) Has selective harvesting resulted in
the removal of some species?
D) Has the vegetation been burned,
mowed, or heavily grazed?
E) Has the vegetation been covered by
fill, dredged material, or structures?
F) Have increased water levels resulted
in the death of all or some of the vegetation?
4) Determine whether the area had hydro-
phytic vegetation communities. Develop a list of
species that previously occurred at the site from
existing information, if possible, and determine
presence of hydrophytic vegetation. If site-specific
data do not exist, evaluate a neighboring undis-
turbed area (reference site) with characteristics
(i.e., vegetation, soils, hydrology, and topogra-
phy) similar to the area in question prior to its alter-
ation. Be sure to record the location and major
characteristics (vegetation, soils, hydrology, and
topography) of the reference site. Sample the vege-
tation in this reference area using an appropriate
onsite determination method to determine whether
hydrophytic vegetation is present. If hydrophytic
vegetation is present at the reference site, then
hydrophytic vegetation is presumed to have existed
in the altered area. If no indicators of hydrophytic
vegetation are found at the reference site, then the
original vegetation at the project area is not consid-
ered hydrophytic vegetation. If soils and/or hydrol-
ogy also have been disturbed, then continue Steps
4, 5, and 6 below, as necessary. Otherwise, return
to the applicable step of the onsite determination
method being used.
Step 4. Determine whether or not hydric soils
previously occurred:
1) Describe the type of alteration. Examine
the area and describe the type of alteration that
occurred. Look for evidence of:
A) deposition of dredged or fill material
or natural sedimentation - In many cases the pres-
ence of fill material will be obvious. If so, it will be
necessary to dig a hole to reach the original soil
(sometimes several feet deep). Fill material will
usually be a different color or texture than the origi-
nal soil (except when fill material has been obtained
from similar areas onsite). Look for decomposing
vegetation between soil layers and the presence of
buried organic or hydric mineral soil layers. In
accreting or recently formed sandbars in riverine
situations, the soils may support hydrophytic vege-
tation but lack hydric soil indicators.
B) presence of nonwoody debris at the
surface - This can only be applied in areas where
the original soils do not contain rocks. Nonwoody
debris includes items such as rocks, bricks, and
concrete fragments.
C) subsurface plowing - Has the area
recently been plowed below the A-horizon or to
depths of greater than 10 inches?
D) removal of surface layers - Has the
surface soil layer been removed by scraping or nat-
ural landslides? Look for bare soil surfaces with
exposed plant roots or scrape scars on the surface.
51
-------
B) presence of manmade structures - Are
buildings, dams, levees, roads, or parking lots
present?
2) Determine the approximate date when the
alteration occurred, f necessary. Check aerial pho-
tographs, examine building permits, consult with
local individuals, and review other possible sources
of information.
3) Describe the effects on soils. Consider the
following:
A) Has the soil been buried? If so, record
the depth of fill material and determine whether the
original soil was left intact or disturbed. (Note: The
presence of a typical sequence of soil horizons or
layers in the buried soil is an indication that the soil
is still intact; check description in the soil survey
report.)
B) Has the soil been mixed at a depth
below the A-horizon or greater than 10 inches? If
so, it will be necessary to examine the soil at a
depth immediately below the plow layer or dis-
turbed zone.
C) Has the soil been sufficiently altered
to change the soil phase? Describe these changes. If
a hydric soil has been drained to some extent, refer
to Step 5 below to determine whether soil is effec-
tively drained or is still hydric.
4) Characterize the soils that previously
existed at the disturbed site. Obtain all possible evi-
dence that may be used to characterize soils that
previously occurred on the area. Consider the fol-
lowing potential sources of information:
A) soil surveys - In many cases, recent
soil surveys are available. If so, determine the soils
that were mapped for the area. If all soils are hydric
soils, it is presumed that the entire area had hydric
soils prior to alteration.
B) buried soils - When fill material has
been placed over the original soil without physical-
iy disturbing the soil, examine and characterize the
buried soils. Dig a hole through the fill material
until the original soil is encountered. Determine the
point at which the original soil material begins.
Remove 18 inches of the original soil from the hole
and look for indicators of hydric soils immediately
below the A-horizon and within 6-18 inches
(depending on soil permeability and drainage
class). Be sure to record the color of the soil
matrix, presence of an organic layer, presence of
mottles or gleying, and/or presence of iron and
manganese concretions. (Note: When the fill mate-
rial is a thick layer, it might be necessary to use a
backhoe or posthole digger to excavate the soil pit.)
If USGS topographic maps indicate distinct varia-
tion in the area’s topography, this procedure must
be applied in each portion of the area that originally
had a different surface elevation.
C) plowed soils - Determine the depth to
which the soil has been disturbed by plowing.
Look for hydric soil characteristics immediately
below this depth.
D) removed surface layers - Dig a hole
18 inches deep and determine whether the entire
surface layer (A-horizon) has been removed. If so,
examine the soil immediately below the top of the
subsurface layer (B-horizon) for hydric soil charac-
teristics. As an alternative, examine an undisturbed
soil of the same soil series occurring at the same
topographic position in an immediately adjacent
undisturbed reference area. Look for hydric soil
indicators immediately below the A-horizon and
within 18 inches of the surface. Record and use
these data to determine the presence of hydric soils
in substep 5 below.
5) Determine whether hydric soils were
present at the project area prior to alteration. Exam-
ine the available data and determine whether indica-
tors of hydric soils were formerly present. If no
indicators and/or evidence of hydric soils are
found, the original soils are considered nonhydric
soils. If indicators and/or evidence of hydric soils
are found the hydric soil criterion has been met.
Continue to Step 5 if hydrology also was altered.
Otherwise, record decision and return to the appli-
cable step of the onsite determination method being
used.
Step 5. Determine whether wetland hydrology
existed prior to alteration or whether wetland
hydrology still exists (i.e., is the area effectively
drained?). To determine whether wetland hydrolo-
gy still occurs, proceed to Step 6. To determine
whether wetland hydrology existed prior to the
alteration:
52
-------
1) Describe the type of alteration. Examine
the area and describe the type of alteration that
occurred. Look for evidence of:
A) dams - Has recent construction of a
dam or some natural event (e.g., beaver activity or
landslide) caused the area to become increasingly
wetter or drier? (Note: This activity could have
occurred at a considerable distance from the site in
question, so be aware of and consider the impacts
of major dams in the watershed above the project
area.)
B) levees, dikes, and similar structures -
Have levees or dikes been recently constructed that
prevent the area from periodic overbank flooding?
C) ditches - Have ditches been recently
constructed causing the area to drain more rapidly?
D) channelization - Have feeder streams
recently been channelized sufficiently to alter the
frequency and/or duration of inundation?
E)fihling of channels and/or depressions
(land-leveling) - Have natural channels or depres-
sions been recently filled?
F) diversion of water - Has an upstream
drainage pattern been altered that results in water
being diverted from the area?
G) groundwater withdrawal - Has pro-
longed and intensive pumping of groundwater for
irrigation or other purposes significantly lowered
the water table and/or altered drainage patterns?
2) Determine the approximate date when the
alteration occurred, if necessary. Check aerial pho-
tographs, consult with local individuals, and
review other possible sources of information.
3) Describe the effects of the alteration on
the area’s hydrology. Consider the following and
generally describe how the observed alteration
affected the project area:
A) Is the area more frequently or less fre-
quently inundated than prior to alteration? To what
degree and why?
B) Is the duration of inundation and soil
saturation different than prior to alteration? How
much different and why?
4) Characterize the hydrology that previous-
ly existed at the area. Obtain and record all possible
evidence that may be useful for characterizing the
previous hydrology. Consider the following:
A) stream or tidal gauge data - If a stream
or tidal gauging station is located near the area, it
may be possible to calculate elevations representing
the upper limit of wetland hydrology based on
duration of inundation. Consult SCS district offic-
es, hydrologists from the local CE district offices
or other agencies for assistance. If fill material has
not been placed on the area, survey this elevation
from the nearest USGS benchmark. If fill material
has been placed on the area, compare the calculated
elevation with elevations shown on a USGS topo-
graphic map or any other survey map that predates
site alteration.
B)field hydrologic indicators onsite or in
a neighboring reference area - Certain field indica-
tors of wetland hydrology may still be present.
Look for water marks on trees or other structures,
drift lines, and debris deposits (see pp. 17-19 for
additional hydrology indicators). If adjacent undis-
turbed areas are in the same topographic position,
have the same soils (check soil survey map), and
are similarly influenced by the same sources of
inundation, look for wetland hydrology indicators
in these areas.
C) aerial photographs - Examine aerial
photographs and determine whether the area has
been inundated or saturated during the growing
season. Consider the time of the year that the aerial
photographs were taken and use only photographs
taken prior to site alteration.
D) historical records - Examine historical
records for evidence that the area has been periodi-
cally inundated. Obtain copies of any such infor-
mation.
E) National Flood Insurance Agency
flood maps - Determine the previous frequency of
inundation of the area from national floods maps (if
available).
F) local government officials or other
knowledgeable individuals - Contact individuals
who might have knowledge that the area was peri-
odically inundated or saturated.
53
-------
If sufficient data on hydrology that existed prior to
site alteration are not available to detennine whether
wetland hydrology was previously present, then
use the other wetland identification criteria (i.e.,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils) to make a
wetland determination.
5) Determine whether wetland hydrology
previously occurred. Examine available data. If no
indicators of wetland hydrology are found, and
other evidence of wetland hydrology is lacking, the
original hydrology of the area is not considered
wetland hydrology. If wetland hydrology indica-
tors and other evidence of wetland hydrology are
found, the area meets the wetland hydrology criter-
ion. Record decision and return to the applicable
step of the onsite determination method being used.
Step 6. Determine whether wetland hydrology
still exists. Many wetlands have a single ditch dis-
secting them, while others may have an extensive
network of ditches. A single ditch through a wet-
land may not be sufficient to effectively drain it; in
other words, the wetland hydrology criterion still
may be met under these circumstances. Undoubt-
edly, when ditches are observed, questions as to
the extent of drainage arise, especially if the ditches
are part of a more elaborate stream channelization
or other drainage project. In these cases and other
situations where the hydrology of an area has been
significantly altered (e.g., dams, levees, ground-
water withdrawals, and water diversions), one
must determine whether wetland hydrology still
exists. If it is present, the area is not effectively
drained. To determine whether wetland hydrology
still exists:
1) Describe the type or nature of the altera-
tion. Look for evidence of:
A) vns,•
B) levees, dikes, and similar structures;
C) ditches;
D) channelizarion;
E) filling of channels and/or depressions,
F) diversion of water; and
0) groundwater withdrawal.
(See Step 5 above for discussion of these factors.)
2) Determine the approximate date when the
alteration occurred, tf necessary. Check aerial pho-
tographs, consult with local officials, and review
other possible sources of information.
3) Characterize the hydrology that presently
exists at the area. The following sequence of
actions is recommended:
A) Review existing information (e.g.,
stream gauge data, groundwater well data, and
recent observations) to learn if data provide evi-
dence that wetland hydrology is still present.
B) Examine early spring or wet growing
season aerial photographs for several recent years
and look for signs of inundation and/or soil satura-
tion. (Note: Large-scale aerial photographs,
1:24,000 and larger, are preferred.) These signs of
wetness indicate that the area still meets the wetland
hydrology criterion. If these signs are observed,
return to the applicable step of the on site determina-
tion method being used. If such signs are not
present, then one should conduct an onsite inspec-
tion as follows.
C) Inspect the site on the ground, look
for field indicators of wetland hydrology, and
assess changes in the plant community, f neces-
sary. If field indicators of wetland hydrology
(excluding hydric soil morphological characteris-
tics) are present, then wetland hydrology exists;
return to the applicable step of the onsite determina-
tion method being used. If such indicators are lack-
ing, then examine the vegetation following an
appropriate onsite determination method. If OBL
and FACW plant species (especially in the herb
stratum) are dominant or scattered throughout the
site and UPL species are absent or not dominant,
the area is considered to meet the wetland hydrolo-
gy criterion and remains wetland. If UPL species
predominate one or more strata (i.e., they represent
more than 50 percent of the dominants in a given
stratum) and no OBL species are present, then the
area is considered effectively drained and no longer
wetland. if the vegetation differs from the above
situations, then the vegetation at this site should be
compared if possible with a nearby undisturbed
reference area, so proceed to sub step 3D; if it is not
possible to evaluate a reference site and the area is
ditched, channelized or tile-drained, go to substep
3E, or else go to substep 3F.
D) Locate a nearby undisturbed reference
site with vegetation, soils, hydrology, and topogra-
phy similar to the subject area prior to its alteration,
examine the vegetation (following an appropriate
onsite delineation method), and compare it with the
vegetation at the project site. if the vegetation is
54
-------
similar, (i.e., has the same dominants or the sub-
ject area has different dominants with the same
indicator status as the reference site) then the area is
considered to be wetland -- the wetland hydrology
criterion is presumed to be satisfied. If the vegeta-
tion has changed to where FACU and UPL species
or UPL species alone predominate and OBL spe-
cies are absent, then the area is considered effec-
tively drained and is nonwetland. If the vegetation
is different than indicated above, additional work is
required -- go to substep 3E if the area is ditched,
channelized, or tile-drained, or to substep 3F if the
hydrology is modified in other ways.
E) Determine the “zone of influence” of
the ditch (or drainage structure) and the effect on
the water table by using existing SCS soil drainage
guides. Obtain the appropriate guide for the project
area’s soil(s) and collect necessary field measure-
ments (e.g., ditch or other drainage structure
dimensions) to use the guide. The zone of
influence is the area affected by the ditch. The size
of this zone depends on many factors including
ditch dimensions, water budget, and soil type. The
guide should help identify the extent of the zone as
well as the water table within the zone. If the zone
of influence has a water table that fails to meet the
wetland hydrology criterion, then the zone is effec-
tively drained and is nonwetland, while hydric soil
areas outside of the zone remain wetland. If the
wetland hydrology criterion is met within the zone,
the entire area remains wetland.
F) Conduct detailed groundwater stud-
ies. Make direct observations of inundation and
soil saturation by establishing groundwater wells
throughout the site, being sure to place them in a
range of elevations so that the data obtained will be
representative of the site as a whole. To maximize
field effort, it may be best to collect data during the
wetter part of the growing season (e.g., early
spring in temperate regions). These direct observa-
tions, when made during a normal rainfall year,
should show whether the wetland hydrology criter-
ion is met. It is advisable, however, to take meas-
urements over a multi-year period. (Note: One
must be aware of regional weather patterns. For
example, observations made during a number of
consecutive dry years may lead to erroneous con-
clusions about wetland hydrology.)
If wetland hydrology still exists, return to the
applicable step in the onsite determination method
being used and continue delineating the wetland.
Problem Area Wetlands
4.24. There are certain types of wetlands and/or
conditions that may make wetland identification
difficult because field indicators of the three wet-
land identification criteria may be absent, at least at
certain times of the year. These wetlands are con-
sidered problem area wetlands and not disturbed
wetlands, because the difficulty in identification is
generally due to normal environmental conditions
and not the result of human activities or catastroph-
ic natural events, with the exception of newly creat-
ed wetlands. Artificial wetlands are also included in
this section because their identification presents
problems similar to some of the natural problem
area wetlands.
4.25. Examples of these problem area wetlands
are discussed below. Be sure to learn how to rec-
ognize these wetlands.
1) Wetlands dominated by FACU plant species
(or communities with a prevalence index greater
than 3.5). Since wetlands often exist along a natu-
ral wetness gradient between permanently flooded
substrates and better drained soils, the wetland
plant communities sometimes may be dominated by
FACU species. Although FACU-dominated plant
communities are usually uplands, they sometimes
become established in wetlands. In order to deter-
mine whether a FACU-dominated plant community
constitutes hydrophytic vegetation, the soil and
hydrology must be examined. If the area meets the
hydric soil and wetland hydrology criteria (see pp.
6-7), then the vegetation is hydrophytic.
In these plant communities, take the following
steps to make a wetland determination:
Step 1. Are 25 percent or more and 50 per-
cent or less of the dominant plants in the plant com-
munity OBL, FACW, and/or FAC species, or does
the community have a prevalence index greater than
3.5 and less than or equal to 4.0 ? If the answer is
YES, then proceed to Step 3. If NO, proceed to
Step 2.
Step 2. Is the community located: (1) in a
depressional or flat area, (2) along a river, stream
or drainageway, or (3) adjacent to a more typical
wetland plant community (i.e., where greater than
50 percent of the dominanzs are OBL, FACW, andl
or FAG, or where the prevalence index is less than
or equal to 3.5)? If YES, proceed to Step 3. If NO,
55
-------
the plant community is usually nonwetland (pro-
ceed to Step 3 if any question). Record the data and
return to the applicable step of the onsite determina-
don method being used.
Step 3. Are hydric soils present? If YES,
record the data and proceed to Step 4. If NO, then
the area is nonwetland and the plant community is
not hydrophytic. Record the data and return to the
applicable step of the onsite determination method
being used. (CAUTION: Become familiar with
problematic hydric soils that do not possess good
hydric field indicators, such as red parent material
soils, some sandy soils, and some floodplain soils,
so that these hydric soils are not misidentified as
nonhydric soils; see pp. 5 8-59.)
Step 4. Answer the following questions:
1) Is there evidence of inundation or soil sat-
uration during the growing season, as indicated by
aerial photographs, recorded hydrologic data, pre-
vious site inspections, testimony of reliable per-
sons, or direct observations?
2) Are oxidized channels (rhizospheres)
present along the living roots and rhizomes of any
plants growing in the area?
3) Are water-stained leaves caused by inun-
dation present in the area?
If the answer is YES to one or more of these ques-
tions, then the area showing these signs is a wet-
land. Record the data and return to the applicable
step of the onsite determination method being used.
If the answer NO to all questions, proceed to Step
5.
Step 5. Use one’s best professional judge-
ment in determining whether the FACU-dominated
community is wetland or nonwetland. Consider the
following questions in making this determination:
1) Are other indicators of wetland hydrology
present? (See pp. 17-19.)
2) Are observations being made during the
dry time of the year? Would conditions be different
enough during the wetter part of growing season to
affect the determination?
3) Could this plant community be one of the
problem area wetlands listed in the following sub-
section?
4) Is the dominant vegetation introduced or
planted? (Note: If YES, one may choose to evalu-
ate a nearby reference site having natural vegeta-
tion.)
5) Could the plant community reflect succes-
sion in a wetland?
6) Are OBL or UPL species present in sub-
stantial numbers?
7) if the area is forested, does a nearby ref-
erence area (where timber has not been harvested)
have a plant community where more than 50 per-
cent of the dominant species from all strata are
OBL, FACW, and/or FAC species, or a plant com-
munity with a prevalence index of less than 3.0?
8) Is the region experiencing a series of dry
years or long-term drought during the natural
hydrologic cycle and could vegetation be reflecting
this condition? if so, is hydrophytic vegetation
present during the wet phase of the cycle?
9)Is the area exposed to wide annual fluctu-
ations in vegetation, i.e., wet season vegetation is
hydrophytic, while dry season vegetation is domi-
nated by FACU and UPL species?
10) Is the area designated as wetland on
National Wetlands Inventory maps, USGS topo-
graphic maps, or other maps?
In making a determination in these situations, it
may be advisable to consult a wetland expert.
Decide whether the area is wetland or nonwetland,
record data, and return to the applicable step of the
onsite determination method being used.
2) Evergreen forested wetlands - Wetlands
dominated by evergreen trees occur in many parts
of the country. In some cases, the trees are OBL,
FACW, and FAC species, e.g., Atlantic white
cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), black spruce
(Picea mariana), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), slash
pine (Pinus elliottii), and loblolly pine (P. taeda).
In other cases, however, the dominant evergreen
trees are FACU species, including red spruce
56
-------
(Picea rubens), Engelmann spruce (P. engelman-
nii), white spruce (P. glauca), Sitka spruce (P.
sitchensis), eastern white pine (Pinus srrobus),
pitch pine (P. rigida), lodgepole pine (P. contorta),
longleaf pine (P. palustris), ponderosa pine (P.
ponderosa), red pine (P. resinosa), jack pine (P.
banksiana), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),
western hemlock (T. heterophylla), Pacific silver
fir (Abies amabilis), white fir (A. concolor), and
subalpine fir (A. lasiocarpa). In dense stands, these
evergreen trees may preclude the establishment of
understory vegetation or, in some cases, understo-
ry vegetation is also FACU species. Since these
plant communities are usually found on nonwet-
lands, the ones established in wetland areas may be
difficult to recognize at first glance. The landscape
position of the evergreen forested areas such as
depressions, drainageways, bottomlands, flats in
sloping terrain, and seepage slopes, should be con-
sidered because it often provides good clues to the
likelihood of wetland. Soils also should be exam-
ined in these situations. For identification, follow
procedures for FACU-dominated wetlands
described above.
3) Wetlands on glacial till - Sloping wetlands
occur in glaciated areas where thin soils cover rela-
tively impermeable glacial till or where layers of
glacial till have different hydraulic conditions that
permit groundwater seepage. Such areas are sel-
dom, if ever, flooded, but downslope groundwater
movement keeps the soils saturated for a sufficient
portion of the growing season to produce anaerobic
and reducing soil conditions. This promotes devel-
opment of hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation.
Indicators of wetland hydrology may be lacking
during the drier portion of the growing season.
Hydric soil indicators also may be lacking because
certain areas are so rocky that it is difficult to exam-
ine soil characteristics within 18 inches.
4) Highly variable seasonal wetlands - In many
regions (especially in arid and semiarid regions),
depressional areas occur that may have indicators
of all three wetland criteria during the wetter por-
tion of the growing season, but normally lack indi-
cators of wetland hydrology and/or hydrophytic
vegetation during the drier portion of the growing
season. In addition, some of these areas lack field
indicators of hydric soil. OBL and FACW plant
species normally are dominant during the wetter
portion of the growing season, while FACU and
UPL species (usually annuals) may be dominant
during the drier portion of the growing season and
during and for some time after droughts. Examples
of highly variable seasonal wetlands are pothole
wetlands in the upper Midwest, playa wetlands in
the Southwest, and vernal pools along the coast of
California. Become familiar with the ecology of
these and similar types of wetlands (see Appendix
A for readings). Also, be particularly aware of
drought conditions that permit invasion of UPL
species (even perennials).
5) Interdunal swale wetlands - Along the U.S.
coastline, seasonally wet swales supporting hydro-
phytic vegetation are located within sand dune
complexes on barrier islands and beaches. Some of
these swales are inundated or saturated to the sur-
face for considerable periods during the growing
season, while others are wet for only the early part
of the season. In some cases, swales may be flood-
ed irregularly by the tides. These wetlands have
sandy soils that generally lack field indicators of
hydric soil. In addition, indicators of wetland
hydrology may be absent during the drier part of
the growing season. Consequently, these wetlands
may be difficult to identify.
6) Vegetated river bars and adjacent flats -
Along western streams in arid and semiarid parts of
the country, some river bars and flats may be vege-
tated by FACU species while others may be colon-
ized by wetter species. If these areas are frequently
inundated for one or more weeks during the grow-
ing season, they are wetlands. The soils often do
not reflect the characteristic field indicators of
hydric soils, however, and thereby pose delinea-
tion problems.
7) Vegetated flats - Vegetated flats are character-
ized by a marked seasonal periodicity in plant
growth. They are dominated by annual OBL spe-
cies, such as wild rice (Zizania aquatica), and/or
perennial OBL species, such as spatterdock
(Nuphar luteum), that have nonpersistent vegeta-
tive parts (i.e., leaves and stems breakdown rapid-
ly during the winter, providing no evidence of the
plant on the wetland surface at the beginning of the
next growing season). During winter and early
spring, these areas lack vegetative cover and
resemble mud flats; therefore, they do not appear to
qualify as wetlands. But during the growing sea-
son the vegetation becomes increasingly evident,
qualifying the area as wetland. In evaluating these
areas, which occur both in coastal and interior parts
of the country, one must consider the time of year
of the field observation and the seasonality of the
57
-------
vegetation. Again, one must become familiar with
the ecology of these wetland types (see Appendix
A for readings).
8) Caprock limestone wetlands - These wet-
lands are found in the Everglades region of south-
ern Florida. The substrate, commonly called “rock-
land,” is composed mainly of Miami oolite or
Tamiami limestone with a very thin covering of
unconsolidated soil material in places. Plant com-
munities are varied ranging from saw grass (Cladi-
umjamaicense, OBL) marshes to slash pine (Pinus
elliottii; FACW) forested wetlands. However,
exotic species with drier indicator statuses are
invading many areas and replacing native species.
These exotics include Brazilian pepper (Schinus
rerebinth folius; FAC), cajeput (Melaleuca quinque-
nervis; FAC), and Australian pines (Casuarina
spp.; FACU). These wetlands are inundated annu-
ally and the water table is at or near the land surface
for prolonged periods, as long as nine months in
places. Hydric soils may not be present in many
places in these wetlands, since substrate (consoli-
dated material) predominates and little or no soil
(unconsolidated material) may exist. Despite the
lack of hydric soils in places, these areas are wet-
lands because they meet the wetland hydrology cri-
terion.
9) Newly created wetlands - These wetlands
include manmade (artificial) wetlands, beaver-
created wetlands, and other natural wetlands. Arti-
ficial wetlands may be purposely or accidentally
created (e.g., road impoundments, undersized cul-
verts, irrigation, and seepage from earth-dammed
impoundments) by human activities. Many of these
areas will have indicators of wetland hydrology
and hydrophytic vegetation. But the area may lack
typical field characteristics of hydric soils, since the
soils have just recently been inundated and/or satu-
rated. Since all of these wetlands are newly esta-
blished, field indicators of one or more of the wet-
land identification criteria may not be present.
10) Entisols (floodplain and sandy soils) - Enti-
sols are usually young or recently formed soils that
have little or no evidence of pedogenically devel-
oped horizons (U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff 1975).
These soils are typical of floodplains throughout
the U.S., but are also found in glacial outwash
plains, along tidal waters, and in other areas. They
include sandy soils of riverine islands, bars, and
banks and finer-textured soils of floodplain terrac-
es. Wet entisols have an aquic or peraquic moisture
regime and are considered hydric soils, unless
effectively drained. Some entisols are easily recog-
nized as hydric soils such as the sulfaquents of
tidal salt marshes, whereas others pose problems
because they do not possess typical hydric soil
field indicators. Wet sandy entisols (with loamy
fine sand and coarser textures in horizons within
20 inches of the surface) may lack sufficient organ-
ic matter and clay to develop hydric soil colors.
When these soils have a hue between 1OYR and
1OY and distinct or prominent mottles present, a
chroma of 3 or less is permitted to identify the soil
as hydric (i.e., an aquic moisture regime). Also,
hydrologic data showing that NTCHS criteria #3 or
#4 (p. 6) are met are sufficient to verify these soils
as hydric. Become familiar with wet entisols and
their diagnostic field properties (see “Soil Taxono-
my”, U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff 1975 and county
soil surveys).
11) Red parent material soils - Hydric mineral
soils derived from red parent materials (e.g.,
weathered clays, Triassic sandstones, and Triassic
shales) may lack the low chroma colors characteris-
tic of most hydric mineral soils. In these soils, the
hue is redder than 1OYR because of parent materi-
als that remain red after citrate-dithionite extraction,
so the low chroma requirement for hydric soil is
waived (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service
1982). Red soils are most common along the Gulf-
Atlantic Coastal Plain (Ultisols), but are also found
in the Midwest and parts of the Southwest and
West (Alfisols), in the tropics, and in glacial areas
where older landscapes of red shales and sand-
stones have been exposed. Become familiar with
these hydric soils and learn how to recognize them
in the field (see “Soil Taxonomy”, U.S.D.A. Soil
Survey Staff 1975 and county soil surveys).
12) Spodosols (evergreen forest soils) - These
soils, usually associated with coniferous forests,
are common in northern temperate and boreal
regions of the U.S. and are also prevalent along the
Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Plain. Spodosols have a gray
eluvial E-horizon overlying a diagnostic spodic
horizon of accumulated (sometimes weakly
cemented) organic matter and aluminum (U.S.D.A.
Soil Survey Staff 1975). A process called podzoli-
zation is responsible for creating these two soil
layers. Organic acids from the leaf litter on the soil
surface are moved downward through the soil with
rainfall, cleaning the sand grains in the first horizon
then coating the sand grains with organic matter
and iron oxides in the second layer. Certain vegeta-
58
-------
tion produce organic acids that speed podzolization
including eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),
spruces (Picea spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), larches
(Larix spp.), and oaks (Quercus spp.) (Buol, et al.
1980). To the untrained observer, the gray leached
layer may be mistaken as a field indicator of hydric
soil, but if one looks below the spodic horizon the
brighter matrix colors often distinguish nonhydric
spodosols from hydric ones. The wet spodosols
(formerly called “groundwater podzolic soils”)
usually have thick dark surface horizons, dull gray
E-horizons, and low chroma subsoils. Become
familiar with these soils and their diagnostic prop-
erties (see “Soil Taxonomy”, U.S.D.A. Soil Sur-
vey Staff 1975 and county soil surveys).
13) Mollisols (prairie and steppe soils) - Molli-
sols are dark colored, base-rich soils. They are
common in the central part of the conterminous
U.S. from eastern illinois to Montana and south to
Texas. Natural vegetation is mainly tall grass prair-
ies and short grass steppes. These soils typically
have deep, dark topsoil layers (mollic epipedons)
and low chroma matrix colors to considerable
depths. They are rich in organic matter due largely
to the vegetation (deep roots) and reworking of the
soil and organic matter by earthworms, ants,
moles, and rodents. The low chroma colors of
mollisols are not necessarily due to prolonged sam-
ration, so be particularly careful in making wetland
determinations in these soils. Become familiar with
the characteristics of mollisols with aquic moisture
regimes, since they are usually hydric, unless
effectively drained, and be able to recognize these
from nonhydric mollisols (see “Soil Taxonomy”,
U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff 1975 and county soil
surveys).
4.26. The steps for making wetland determina-
tions in problem area wetlands, except FACU-
dominated wetlands, are presented below. (Note:
Procedures for FACU-dominated communities are
on pp. 55-56.) Application of these steps is appro-
priate only when a decision has been made during
an onsite determination that wetland indicators of
one or more criteria were lacking. Specific proce-
dures to be used will vary according to the nature
of the area, site conditions, and affected criterion.
A determination must be based on the best available
evidence, including: (1) information obtained from
such sources as aerial photos, wetland maps, soil
survey maps, and hydrologic records; (2) field data
collected during an onsite inspection; and (3) basic
knowledge of the ecology of the particular wetland
type and associated environmental conditions.
(Note: The following procedures should only be
applied to situations not adequately characterized
by the onsite methods in Part IV. Be sure to record
necessary information on appropriate data forms.)
Step 1. Identify each criterion to be reconsi-
dered and determine the reason for further consid-
eration. Consider how environmental conditions
have affected the criterion in question (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soil, and/or wetland hydrology).
If hydrophytic vegetation is the criterion in ques-
tion and the plant community is FACU-dominated,
then follow special procedures presented earlier in
this section (see pp. 55-56). Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Docu,neiu available information on each
criterion in question. Examine the available infor-
mation and consider personal experience and
knowledge of wetland ecology and the range of
normal environmental conditions of the area. Con-
tact local experts (e.g., government agency and
university scientists) for additional information, if
possible. Proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Determine whether each wetland criteri-
on in question is met. If no information can be
found that demonstrates that the wetland criterion
in question is satisfied, the area is nonwetland.
(EXCEPTION: Caprock limestone wetlands do not
meet the hydric soil criterion where limestone rock
is the predominant substrate; this is an exception to
the rule.)
59
-------
60
-------
References
Avery, E.T., and H. Burkhart. 1983. FOREST MEASUREMENTS. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, NY.
Bouma, J. 1983. HYDROLOGY AND SOIL GENESIS OF SOILS WITH AQUIC MOIS-
TURE REGIMES. In: L.P. Wilding, N.E. Smeck, and G.F. Hall (editors), PEDOGENESIS
AND SOIL TAXONOMY. I. CONCEPTS AND INTERACTIONS. Elsevier Science Publish-
ers, B.V. Amsterdam. pp. 253-28 1.
Buckman, H.O., and N.C. Brady. 1969. THE NATURE AND PROPERTIES OF SOILS. Macmillian
Publishing Company, Ontario, Canada.
Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole, and R.J. McCracken. 1980. SOIL GENESIS AND CLASSIFICATION. The
Iowa State University Press, Ames, 10. 406 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS
AND DEEPWATER HABITATS OF THE UNiTED STATES. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washing-
ton, DC. Pubi. No. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
Diers, R., and J.L. Anderson. 1984. PART I. DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL MOTTLING. Soil Survey
Horizons (Winter): 9-12.
Dilworth, J.R., and J.F. Bell. 1978. VARIABLE PLOT SAMPLING -- VARIABLE PLOT AND
THREE-P. Oregon State University Book Stores, Inc., Corvallis, OR.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. 100 pp. plus
appendices.
Eyre, F.H. (editor). 1980. FOREST COVER TYPES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. Soci-
ety of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Fowells, H.A. 1965. SILVICS OF FOREST TREES OF THE UNITED STATES. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Washington, DC. Agricultural Handbook No. 271. 762 pp.
Kolimorgen Corporation. 1975. MUNSELL SOIL COLOR CHARTS. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen
Corp., Baltimore, MD.
Parker, W.B., S. Faulkner, B. Gambrell, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1984. SOIL WETNESS AND AERA-
TION IN RELATION TO PLANT ADAPTATION FOR SELECTED HYDRIC SOILS IN THE MISSIS-
SIPPI AND PEARL RIVER DELTAS. In: PROCEEDINGS OF WORKSHOP ON CHARACTERIZA-
TION, CLASSIFICATION, AND UTILIZATION OF WETLAND SOILS (March 26-April 1, 1984).
International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.
Ponnamperuma, F.N. 1972. THE CHEMISTRY OF SUBMERGED SOILS. Advances in Agronomy 24:
29-96.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. NATIONAL LIST OF PLANT SPECIES THAT OCCUR IN WETLANDS: NA-
TIONAL SUMMARY. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 88(24). 244 pp.
61
-------
Sipple, W.S. 1987. WETLAND IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION MANUAL. VOLUME I. RA-
TIONALE, WETLAND PARAMETERS, AND OVERVIEW OF JURISDICTIONAL APPROACH. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC. 28 pp. plus appendi-
ces.
Sipple, W.S. 1987. WETLAND IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION MANUAL. VOLUME II.
HELD METHODOLOGY. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, Wash-
mgton, DC. 29 pp. plus appendices.
Tiner, Ralph W., Jr. 1985. WETLANDS OF DELAWARE. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Wetlands Inventory, Newton Corner, MA. and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control, Wetlands Section, Dover, DE. Cooperative Publication. 77 pp.
Tiner, Ralph W., Jr. 1985. WETLANDS OF NEW JERSEY. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton
Corner, MA. 117 pp.
Tiner, Ralph W., Jr. 1988. FIELD GUIDE TO NONTIDAL WETLAND IDENTiFICATION. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration, Annapolis, MD. and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 5, Newton Corner, MA. 283 pp. plus 198 color plates.
Tiner, Ralph W., Jr. and P.L.M. Veneman. 1987. HYDRIC SOILS OF NEW ENGLAND. University of
Massachusetts Cooperative Extension, Amherst, MA. Bulletin C-183. 27 pp.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1967. FOREST SURVEY HANDBOOK. National Standards for Forest In-
ventory. Washington, DC. Forest Service Handbook Series No. 4813.1.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1979. PLANT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE FREMONT NATIONAL FOREST.
Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. Publ. No. R6-ECOL-79-004.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1983. FORESTED PLANT ASSOCIATION OF THE OKANAGAN NA-
TIONAL FOREST. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. Publ. No. R6-ECOL-132b-1983.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1983. PLANT ASSOCIATIONS AND MANAGEMENT GUIDE FOR THE
PACIFIC SILVER FIR ZONE. Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland,
OR. Pubi. No. R6-ECOL- I 30a- 1983.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1986. PLANT ASSOCIATIONS AND MANAGEMENT GUIDE FOR THE
WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE. Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland,
OR. Publ. No. R6-ECOL-230A-1986.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1982. HYDRIC SOILS OF THE UNITED STATES. Department of
Agriculture. National Bulletin No. 430-2-7. (January 4, 1982).
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1982. NATIONAL LIST OF SCIENTIFIC PLANT NAMES.
VOLUME I. LIST OF PLANT NAMES. Washington, DC. SCS-TP-159. 416 pp.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1982. NATIONAL LIST OF SCIENTIFIC PLANT NAMES.
VOLUME 2. SYNONYMY. Washington, DC. SCS-TP-159. 438 pp.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1987. HYDRIC SOILS OF THE UNITED STATES. 1987. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. USDA-SCS, Washington, DC.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1988. NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT MANUAL. U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
62
-------
U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff. 1951. SOIL SURVEY MANUAL. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Agriculture Handbook No. 18. 502 pp.
U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Staff. 1975. SOIL TAXONOMY. A BASIC SYSTEM OF SOIL CLASSIFICA-
TION FOR MAKING AND INTERPRETING SOIL SURVEYS. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 754 pp.
Veneman, P.L.M., M.J. Vepraskas, and J. Bouma. 1976. THE PHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SOIL
MOTI’LING IN A WISCONSIN TOPOSEQUENCE. Geoderma 15: 103-118.
63
-------
64
-------
Glossary
Adaptation - The condition of showing fitness for a particular environment, as applied to char-
acteristics of a structure, function, or entire organism; a modification of a species that makes it
more fit for reproduction and/or existence under the conditions of its environment.
Adventitious roots - Roots found on plant stems in positions where roots normally do not oc-
cur.
Aerenchymous tissue (Aerenchyma) - A type of plant tissue in which cells are unusually large, resulting in
large air spaces in the plant organ; such tissues are often referred to as spongy and usually provide in-
creased buoyancy.
Aerobic - A condition in which molecular oxygen is a part of the environment.
Alfisols - Soils having significantly more clay in the B-horizon than in the A-horizon and high base status.
Anaerobic - A condition in which molecular oxygen is absent (or effectively so) from the environment.
Annual - Occurring yearly or, as in annual plants, living for only one year.
Aqualfs - Soils with an aquic or peraquic moisture regime and having clay accumulating in the B-horizon;
wet Alfisols.
Aquents - Soils with an aquic or peraquic moisture regime and lacking distinct soil horizons in the subsoil;
wet Entisols.
Aquepts - Soils with an aquic moisture regime and showing some soil development in the B-horizon; wet
Inceptisols.
Aquic moisture regime - A moisture condition associated with a seasonal reducing environment that is vir-
tually free of dissolved oxygen because the soil is saturated by ground water or by water of the capillary
fringe, as in soils in Aquic suborders and Aquic subgroups.
Aquods - Soils having an accumulation of iron, aluminum, and organic matter in the B-horizon in addition
to having an aquic moisture regime; wet Spodosols.
Area! cover - A measure of dominance that defines the degree to which above ground portions of plants
cover the ground surface; it is possible for the total areal cover for all strata combined in a community or
for single stratum to exceed 100 percent because: 1) most plant communities consist of two or more veget-
ative strata; 2) areal cover is estimated by vegetative layer, and 3) foliage within a single layer may overlap.
Disturbed condition - As used herein, this term refers to areas in which indicators of one or more character-
istics (vegetation, soil, and/or hydrology) have been sufficiently altered by man’s activities or natural
events so as to make it more difficult to recognize whether or not the wetland identification criteria are met.
Artificial wetlands - Wetlands created by the activities of man, either purposefully or accidentally.
Basal area - The cross-sectional area of a tree trunk measured in square inches, square centimeters, etc.;
basal area is normally measured at 4.5 feet above ground level and is used as a measure of dominance; the
most commonly used tool for measuring basal area is a diameter tape or a D-tape (then convert to basal
area).
65
-------
Baseline - A line, generally a highway, unimproved road, or some other evident feature, from which sam-
pling transects extend into a site for which a jurisdictional wetland determination is to be made.
Bench mark - A fixed, more or less permanent reference point or object of known elevation; the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (USGS) installs brass caps in bridge abutments or otherwise permanently sets bench marks
at convenient locations nationwide; the elevations on these marks are referenced to the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD), also commonly known as mean sea level (MSL); locations of these bench marks
on USGS topographic maps are shown as small triangles; since the marks are sometimes destroyed by
construction or vandalism, the existence of any bench mark should be field verified before planning work
which relies on a particular reference point; the USGS or local state surveyors office can provide informa-
tion on the existence, exact location and exact elevation of bench marks.
Biennial - An event that occurs at 2-year intervals.
Bog - A shrub peatland dominated by ericaceous shrubs (Family Ericaceae), sedges, and peat moss
(Sphagnum spp.) and usually having a saturated water regime or a forested peatland dominated by ever-
green trees (usually spruces and firs) and/or larch (Larix laricina).
Boreal region - The geographical area just below the arctic tundra and usually characterized by evergreen
forests.
Bryophytes - A major taxonomic group of nonvascular plants comprised of true liverworts, homed liver-
worts, and mosses.
Buried soil - Soil covered by an alluvial, loessal, or other deposit (including manmade), usually to a depth
greater than the thickness of the solum.
Buttressed - The swollen or enlarged bases of trees developed in response to conditions of prolonged in-
undation.
Capillary fringe - A zone immediately above the water table in which water is drawn upward from the wa-
ter table by capillary action.
Chemical reduction - Any process by which one compound or ion acts as an electron donor, in such cases,
the valence state of the electron donor is decreased.
Chroma - The relative purity or saturation of a color, intensity of distinctive hue as related to grayness; one
of the three variables of color.
Comprehensive wetland determination - A type of wetland determination that is based on the strongest
possible evidence, requiring the collection of quantitative data for all three wetland identification criteria.
Concretion - A localized concentration of chemical compounds (e.g., calcium carbonate and iron oxide) in
the form of a grain or nodule of varying size, shape, hardness, and color; concretions of significance in
hydric soils are usually iron oxides and manganese oxides occurring at or near the soil surface, which have
developed under conditions of fluctuating water tables.
Contour - An imaginary line of constant elevation on the ground surface; the corresponding line on a map
is called a “contour line”.
Cover class - A category into which plant species would fit based upon their percent areal cover, the cover
classes used (midpoints in parentheses) are T = <1% cover (0), 1 = 1-5% (3.0), 2 = 6-15% (10.5), 3 =
16-25% (20.5), 4 = 26-50% (38.0), 5 = 5 1-75% (63.0), 6 = 76-95% (85.5), 7 = 96-100% (98.0).
66
-------
Criteria - Technical requirements upon which a judgment or decision may be based.
Deepwater habitat - Any open water area in which the mean water depth exceeds 6.6 feet at mean low wa-
ter in nontidal and freshwater tidal areas, or is below extreme low water at spring tides in salt and brackish
tidal areas, or the maximum depth of emerging vegetation, whichever is greater.
Density - The number of individuals per unit area.
Detritus - Fragments of plant parts found on the soil surface or in water; when fused together by algae or
soil particles, this detritus is an indicator that the soil surface was recently inundated.
Diameter at breast height (dbh) - The width of a plant stem (e.g., tree trunk) as measured at 4.5 feet above
the ground surface.
Dike - An embankment (usually of earth) constructed to keep water in or out of a given area.
Disturbed area - An area where vegetation, soil, and/or hydrology have been significantly altered, thereby
making a wetland determination difficult.
Dominance - As used herein, refers to the spatial extent of a species; commonly the most abundant species
in each vegetation stratum that, when ranked in descending order of abundance and cumulatively totaled,
immediately exceeds 50 percent of the total dominance measure (e.g., areal cover or basal area) for the
stratum, plus any additional species comprising 20 percent or more of the total dominance measure for the
stratum.
Dominance measure - The means or method by which dominance is established, including areal coverage
and basal area; the total dominance measure is the sum total of the dominance measure values for all spe-
cies comprising a given stratum.
Dominance threshold number - The number at which 50 percent of the total dominance measure for a given
stratum is represented by one or more plant species when ranked in descending order of abundance (i.e.,
from most to least abundant); when this number is immediately exceeded, the dominant species for the
stratum are realized.
Dominant species - For each stratum, dominant species are those that, when ranked in descending rank or-
der and cumulatively totaled, immediately exceed 50 percent of the total dominance measure (i.e., the dom-
inance threshold number), plus any additional species comprising 20 percent or more of the total domi-
nance measure for the stratum.
Drained, effectively - A condition where ground or surface water has been removed by artificial means to
the point that an area no longer meets the wetland hydrology criterion.
Drift line - An accumulation of water-carried debris along a contour or at the base of vegetation that pro-
vides direct evidence of prior inundation and often indicates the directional flow of flood waters.
Duff - The matted, partly decomposed, organic surface layer of forested soils.
Duration (of inundation or soil saturation) - The length of time that water stands above the soil surface (in-
undation), or that water fills most soil pores near the soil surface; as used herein, “duration” refers to a per-
iod during the growing season.
Entisols - Soils of slight or recent development; common along rivers and floodplains.
67
-------
Evergreen (plant) - Retaining its leaves at the end of the growing season and usually remaining green
through the winter.
Facultative species - Species that can occur both in wetlands and uplands; there are three subcategories of
facultative species: (1)facultative wetland plants (FACW) that usually occur in wetlands (estimated proba-
bility 67-99%), but occasionally are found in nonwetlands, (2)facultarive plants (FAC) that are equally
likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability 34-66%), and (3) facultative upland
plants (FACU) that usually occur in nonwetlands (estimated probability 67-99%), but occasionally are
found in wetlands (estimated probability 1-33%).
Fern allies - A group of nonflowering vascular plants comprised of clubmosses (Family Lycopodiaceae),
small clubmosses (Family Selaginellaceae), and quillworts (Family Isoetaceae).
Fibrists - Organic soils (peats) in which plant remains show very little decomposition and retain their origi-
nal shape; more than two-thirds of the fibers remain after rubbing the materials between the fingers.
Flooded - A condition in which the soil surface is temporarily covered with flowing water from any
source, such as streams overflowing their banks, runoff from adjacent or surrounding slopes, inflow from
high tides, or any combination of sources.
Flooding, frequent - Flooding is likely to occur often during usual weather conditions (i.e., more that a 50
percent chance of flooding in any year, or more than 50 times in 100 years).
Flora - A list or manual of all plant species that may occur in an area.
Fluvents - Floodplain soils, characterized by buried horizons and irregularly decreasing amounts of organic
matter with depth.
Forbs - Broad-leaved herbs, in contrast to bryophytes, ferns, fern allies, and graminoids.
Frequency (of inundation or soil saturation) - The periodicity of coverage of an area by surface water or
saturation of the soil; it is usually expressed as the number of years the soil is inundated or saturated during
part of the growing season of the prevalent vegetation (e.g., 50 years per 100 years) or as a 1-, 2-, 5-year,
etc., inundation frequency.
Frequency analysis - A method of evaluating vegetation in an area by establishing a transect and counting
the occurrences of plant species at various sampling points along the transect.
Frequency of occurrence - The number of times a given plant species occurs at sample points along a tran-
sect.
Gleization - A process in saturated or nearly saturated soils which involves the reduction of iron, its segre-
gation into mottles and concretions, or its removal by leaching from the gleyed honzon.
Gleyed - A soil condition resulting from gleization which is manifested by the presence of neutral grey,
bluish or greenish colors through the soil matrix or in mottles (spots or streaks) among other colors.
Graminoids - Grasses (Family Gramineae or Poaceae) and grasslike plants such as sedges (Family Cypera-
ceae) and rushes (Family Juncaceae).
Ground water - That portion of the water below the surface of the ground whose pressure is greater than
atmospheric pressure.
68
-------
Growing season - The portion of the year when soil temperatures are above biologic zero (41° F) as de-
fined by “Soil Taxonomy;” the following growing season months are assumed for each of the soil temper-
ature regimes: (1) thermic (February-October); (2) mesic (March-October); (3) frigid (May-September); (4)
cryic (June-August); (5) pergelic (July-August); (6) isohyperthermic (January-December); (7) hyperther-
mic (February-December), (8) isothermic (January-December) and (9) isomesic (January-December).
Hardpan - A very dense soil layer caused by compaction or cementation of soil particles by organic matter,
silica, sesquioxides, or calcium carbonate, for example.
Hemists - Organic soils (mucky peats and peaty mucks) in which plant remains show a fair amount of de-
composition; between one-third and two-thirds of the fibers are still visible upon rubbing the material be-
tween the fingers.
Herb - Nonwoody (herbaceous) plants including graminoids (grass and grasslike plants), forbs, ferns,
fern allies, and nonwoody vines; for the purposes of this manual, seedlings of woody plants that are less
than three feet in height are also considered herbs.
Herb stratum - Any vegetative layer of a plant community that is composed predominantly of herbs.
Histic epipedon - A 8- to 16-inch soil layer at or near the surface that is saturated for 30 consecutive days
or more during the growing season in most years and contains a minimum of 20 percent organic matter
when no clay is present or a minimum of 30 percent of organic matter when 60 percent or more clay is
present; generally a thin horizon of peat or muck if the soil has not been plowed.
Histosols - An order in “Soil Taxonomy” (Soil Survey Staff 1975) composed of organic soils (mucks and
peats) that have organic soil materials in more than half of the upper 32 inches or that are of any thickness
if overlying rock.
Horizon - A distinct layer of soil, more or less parallel with the soil surface, having similar properties such
as color, texture, and permeability; the soil profile is subdivided into the following major horizons: A-
horizon, characterized by an accumulation of organic material; B-horizon, characterized by relative accu-
mulation of clay, iron, organic matter, or aluminum; and the C-horizon, the undisturbed and unaltered par-
ent material. (Note: Some soils have an E-horizon, characterized by leaching of organic and other materi-
al.)
Hue - A characteristic of color related to one of the main spectral colors (red, yellow, green, blue, or pur-
ple), or various combinations of these principle colors; one of the three variables of color; each color chart
in the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Koilmorgen Corporation 1975) represents a specific hue.
Hydric soil - A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to devel-
op anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
Hydrology - The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water.
Hydrophyte - Any macrophyte that grows in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in
oxygen as a result of excessive water content; plants typically found in wetlands and other aquatic habitats.
Hydrophytic vegetation - Plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient
in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.
Hypertrophied lenticels - An exaggerated (oversized) pore on the stem of woody plants through which
gases are exchanged between the plant and the atmosphere; serving to increase oxygen to plant roots dur-
ing periods of inundation or soil saturation.
69
-------
Indicator - An event, entity, or condition that typically characterizes a prescribed environment or situation;
indicators determine or aid in determining whether or not certain stated circumstances exist or criteria are
satisfied.
Inundation - A condition in which water temporarily or permanently covers a land surface.
Levee - A natural or manmade feature of the landscape that restricts movement of water into or through an
area.
Litter - The undecomposed plant and animal material found above the duff layer on the forest floor.
Long duration (flooding) - A duration class in which inundation for a single event ranges from 7 days to 1
month.
Macrophyte - Any plant species that can be readily observed without the aid of optical magnification, in-
cluding all vascular plant species and biyophytes (e.g., Sphagnum spp.), as well as large algae (e.g. C /ia-
ra spp., and Fucus spp.).
Manmade wetland - Any wetland area that has been purposely or accidentally created by some activity of
man; also called artificial wetlands.
Map unit - A portion of a map that depicts an area having some common characteristic.
Matrix - The natural soil material composed of both mineral and organic matter, matrix color refers to the
predominant color of the soil in a particular horizon.
Microbial - Pertaining to work by microorganisms too small to be seen with the naked eye.
Mineral soil - Any soil consisting primarily of mineral (sand, silt, and clay) material, rather than organic
matter.
Mollisols - Grassland soils of steppes and prairies characterized by deep topsoil (mollic epipedon); com-
mon in the Great Plains of the West.
Morphological adaptation - A structural feature that aids in fitting a species to its particular environment
(e.g., buttressed bases, adventitious roots, and aerenchymous tissue).
Morphological features - Properties related to the external structure of soil (such as color and texture) or of
plants.
Moss-lichen wetland - A wetland dominated by mosses (mainly peat mosses) and lichens with little taller
vegetation.
Mottles - Spots or blotches of different color or shades of color interspersed within the dominant matrix
color in a soil layer, distinct mottles are readily seen and easily distinguished from the color of the matrix;
prominent mottles are obvious and mottling is one of the outstanding features of the horizon.
Nonhydric soil - A soil that has developed under predominantly aerobic soil conditions.
Nonpersistent vegetation - Plants that break down readily after the growing season; no evidence of previ-
ous year’s growth at beginning of next growing season.
Nontidal - Not influenced by tides.
70
-------
Nonwetland - Any area that has sufficiently dry conditions that hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and!
or wetland hydrology are lacking; it includes upland as well as former wetlands that are effectively
drained.
Normal circumstances - Refers to the soil and hydrology conditions that are normally present, without re-
gard to whether the vegetation has been removed.
Obligate wetland species - A plant species that is nearly always found in wetlands; its frequency of occur-
rence in wetlands is 99% or more.
Offsite determination method - A technique for making a wetland determination in the office.
Onsite determination method - A technique for making a wetland determination in the field.
Organic soil - See Histosols.
Overbank flooding - Any situation in which inundation occurs as a result of the water level of a river or
stream rising above bank level.
Oxidation-reduction process - A complex of biochemical reactions in soil that influences the valence state
of elements and their ions found in the soil; long periods of soil saturation during the growing season tend
to elicit anaerobic conditions that shift the overall process to a reducing condition.
Oxidized rhizospheres - Oxidized channels and soil surrounding living roots and rhizomes of hydrophytic
plants.
Parent material - The unconsolidated and more or less weathered mineral or organic matter from which the
soil profile is developed.
Pedogenic - Related to soil-building processes occurring within the soil.
Peraquic moisture regime - A soil condition in which reducing conditions always occur due to the presence
of ground water at or near the soil surface.
Perennial (plant) - Living for many years.
Periodically - Used herein, to define detectable regular or irregular saturated soil conditions or inundation,
resulting from ponding of ground water, precipitation, overland flow, stream flooding, or tidal influences
that occur(s) with hours, days, weeks, months, or even years between events.
Permanently flooded - A water regime condition where standing water covers the land surface throughout
the year (but may be absent during extreme droughts).
Permeability - The quality of the soil that enables water to move downward through the profile, measured
as the number of inches per hour that water moves downward through the saturated soil.
Phase, soil - A subdivision of a series based on features such as slope, surface texture, stoniness, and
thickness.
Physiological adaptation - A peculiarity of the basic physical and chemical activities that occur in cells and
tissues of a species, which results in it being better fitted to its environment (e.g., ability to absorb nutri-
ents under low oxygen tensions).
Plant community - The plant populations existing in a shared habitat or environment.
71
-------
Playa - Periodically flooded wetland basin common in parts of the Southwest.
Pneumatophore - Modified roots rising above ground that may function as a respiratory organ in species
subjected to frequent inundation or soil saturation.
Podzolization - The process by which sesquioxides (aluminum and iron) are leached from the A-horizon
and precipitated in the B-honzon, often resulting in a leached layer, the E-horizon.
Polymorphic (leaves) - Two or more different types of leaves formed on plants; in wetland plants, poly-
morphic leaves may develop due to extended flooding.
Ponded - A condition in which free water covers the soil surface, for example, in a closed depression; the
water is removed only by percolation, evaporation, or transpiration.
Poorly drained - A condition in which water is removed from the soil so slowly that the soil is saturated
periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods greater than 7 days.
Pothole - A depressional wetland commonly found in Upper Midwest (North and South Dakota and west-
ern Minnesota) and similar wetlands found elsewhere.
Prevalence index - A weighted average measure of the sum of the frequency of occurrences of all species
along a single transect or as calculated for a plant community by averaging the prevalence index of all sam-
ple transects through the community.
Problem area wetland - A wetland that is difficult to identify because it may lack indicators of wetland hy-
drology and/or hydric soils, or its dominant plant species are more common in nonwetlands.
Profile - Vertical section of the soil through all its horizons and extending into the parent material.
Quadrat - Sample units or plots that vary in size, shape, number, and arrangements, depending on the na-
ture of the vegetation, site conditions, and purpose of study.
Quantitative - A precise measurement or determination expressed numerically.
Range - The set of conditions throughout which an organism (e.g., plant species) naturally occurs.
Reduction - The process of changing an element from a higher to a lower oxidation state as in the reduction
of ferric (Fe3+) iron into ferrous iron (Fe2+).
Relative basal area - An estimate of basal area for trees, such as produced by the Bitterlich sampling tech-
nique.
Relief - The change in elevation of a land surface between two points; collectively, the configuration of the
earth’s surface, including such features as hills and valleys.
Reproductive adaptation - A peculiarity of the reproductive mechanism of a species that results in it being
better fitted to its environment (e.g., prolonged seed dormancy).
Rhizosphere - The zone of soil in which interactions between living plant roots and microorganisms occur.
Salic horizon - A layer 6 inches or more thick comprised of secondary soluble salts.
Salorthids - Soils of arid regions with a salic horizon within 30 inches of the surface and saturated within
40 inches for one month or more in most years; common in playas of the Southwest.
72
-------
Sample plot - As used herein, an observation point at which a wetland determination is made.
Sapling - Woody vegetation between 0.4 and 5.0 inches in diameter at breast height and greater than or
equal to 20 feet in height, exclusive of woody vines.
Saprists - Organic soils (mucks) in which most of the plant material is decomposed and the original con-
stituents cannot be recognized; less than one-third of the fibers remain visible upon rubbing the material
between the fingers.
Saturated - A condition in which all easily drained voids (pores) between soil particles are temporarily or
permanently filled with water, significant saturation during the growing season is considered to be usually
one week or more.
Seedling - A young tree that is generally less than 3 feet high.
Shrub - Woody vegetation usually greater than 3 feet but less than 20 feet tall, including multi-stemmed,
bushy shrubs and small trees and saplings. (Note: Woody seedlings less than 3 feet tall are considered part
of the herbaceous layer.)
Soil - Unconsolidated material on the earth’s surface that supports or is capable of supporting plants out-
of-doors.
Soil horizon - A layer of soil or soil material approximately parallel to the land surface and differing from
adjacent genetically related layers in physical, chemical, and biological properties or characteristics (e.g.,
color, structure, and texture).
Soil mathx - The portion of a given soil having the dominant color, in most cases, the matrix will be the
portion of the soil having more than 50 percent of the same color.
Soil permeability - The ease with which gases, liquids, or plant roots penetrate or pass through a layer of
soil.
Soil phase - A subdivision of a soil series having features (e.g., slope, surface texture, and stoniness) that
affect the use and management of the soil, but which do not vary sufficiently to differentiate it as a separate
series.
Soil pore - An area within soil occupied by either air or water, resulting from the arrangement of individual
soil particles or peds.
Soil profile - A vertical section of the soil through all its horizons and extending into the parent material.
Soil series - A group of soils having horizons similar in differentiating characteristics and arrangements in
the soil profile, except for texture of the surface layer.
Soil structure - The combination or arrangement of primary soil particles into secondary particles, units, or
peds.
Soil surface - The upper limits of the soil profile; for mineral soils, the upper limits of the highest mineral
horizon (A-horizon); for organic soils, the upper limit of undecomposed organic matter.
Soil texture - The relative proportions of the various sizes of particles (silt, sand and clay) in a soil.
Somewhat poorly drained - A condition in which water is removed slowly enough that the soil is wet for
significant periods during the growing season.
73
-------
Species area curve - The curve on a graph produced when plotting the cumulative number of plant species
found in a senes of quadrats against the cumulative number or area of those quadrats; it is used to deter-
mine the number of quadrats sufficient to adequately survey the herb stratum.
Spodic horizon - A subsurface layer of soil characterized by the accumulation of aluminum oxides (with or
without iron oxides) and organic matter; a diagnostic horizon for Spodosols.
Stratigraphy - A term referring to the origin, composition, distribution, and succession of geologic strata
(layers).
Stratum - A layer of vegetation used to determine dominant species in a plant community.
Suborder (soils) - Second highest taxonomic level of the current U.S. soil classification system.
Substrate - nonsoil.
Surface water - Water present above the substrate or soil surface.
Temperate region - The geographic area having a climate that is neither very hot nor very cold.
Tidal - A situation in which the water level periodically fluctuates due to the action of lunar (moon) and so-
lar (sun) forces upon the rotating earth.
Topography - The configuration of a surface, including its relief and the position of its natural and man-
made features.
Transect - A line on the ground along which sample plots or points are established for collecting vegetation
data and in many cases, soil and hydrology data as well.
Translocation - The transfer of matter from one location to another within the soil.
Transpiration - The process in plants by which water is released into the gaseous environment (atmos-
phere), primarily through stomata.
Tree - A woody plant 5 inches or greater in diameter at breast height and 20 feet or taller.
Typical - That which normally, usually, or commonly occurs.
Ultisols - Highly weathered soils having significantly more clay in the B-horizon than in the A-horizon and
having low base status; acidic soils common in the Southeast.
Unconsolidated parent material - Material from which a soil develops.
Upland - Any area that does not qualify as a wetland because the associated hydrologic regime is not suffi-
ciently wet to elicit development of vegetation, soils, and/or hydrologic characteristics associated with wet-
lands. Such areas occurring in floodplains are more appropriately termed nonwetlands.
Value (soil color) - The relative lightness or intensity of color, approximately a function of the square root
of the total amount of light; one of the three variables of color.
Vascular (plant) - Possessing a well-developed system of conducting tissue to transport water, mineral
salts, and foods within the plant.
Vegetation - The sum total of macrophytes that occupy a given area.
74
-------
Vegetation unit - A patch, grouping, or zone of plants evident in overall plant cover, which appears distinct
from other such units because of the vegetation’s structure and floristic composition; a given unit is typi-
cally topographically distinct and typically has a rather uniform soil, except possibly for relatively dry mi-
crosites (e.g., tree bases, old tree stumps, mosquito ditch spoil piles, and small earth hummocks) in an
otherwise wet area or relatively wet microsites (e.g., small depressions) in an otherwise dry area.
Very long duration (flooding) - A duration class in which inundation for a single event is greater than 1
month.
Vertisols - Shrinking and swelling dark clay soils; most common in Texas.
Very poorly drained - A condition in which water is removed from the soil so slowly that free water re-
mains at or on the surface during most of the growing season.
Water mark - A line on vegetation or other upright structures that represents the maximum height reached
in an inundation event.
Water table - The zone of saturation at the highest average depth during the wettest season; it is at least six
inches thick and persists in the soil for more than a few weeks.
Wetlands - As used herein, areas that under normal circumstances have hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and wetland hydrology.
Wetland boundary - The point on the ground at which a shift from wetlands to nonwetlands occurs.
Wetland determination - The process by which an area is identified as a wetland or nonwetland.
Wetland hydrology - In general terms, permanent or periodic inundation or prolonged soil saturation suffi-
cient to create anaerobic conditions in the soil.
Wetland indicator status - The exclusiveness with which a plant species occurs in wetlands; the different
indicator categories (i.e., facultative species, and obligate wetland species) are defined elsewhere in this
glossary.
WOOded swamp - A wetland dominated by trees; a forested wetland.
Zone of influence - The area contiguous to a ditch, channel, or other drainage structure that is directly af-
fected by it.
75
-------
76
-------
Appendix A
Selected Wetland References
I. WETLAND FIELD GUIDES
Burkhalter, A.P., L.M. Curtis, R.L. Lazor, M.L. Beach, and J.C. Hudson. 1973. AQUATIC
WEED IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL MANUAL. Bureau of Aquatic Plant Research
and Control, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, FL. 100 pp.
Chabreck, R.H., and R.E. Condrey. 1979. COMMON VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE
LOUISIANA MARSH. Louisiana State University Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. Sea
Grant Publ. No. LSU-T-79-003. 116 pp.
Clark, L.J. 1974. LEWIS CLARK’S FIELD GUIDE TO WILDFLOWERS OF MARSHES AND WA-
TERWAYS IN THE PACIFIC NORThWEST. Gray’s Publishing, Ltd., Sidney, BC.
Eggers, S.D. and D.M. Reed. 1988. WETLAND PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES OF MINNE-
SOTA AND WISCONSIN. US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, St. Paul, MN. 201 pp.
Eleutrius, L.N. 1980. AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO TIDAL MARSH PLANTS OF MISSISSIPPI
AND ADJACENT STATES. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, Gull Coast Research Laborato-
ry, Ocean Springs, MS. Publ. No. MASGP-77-039. 130 pp.
Eliou, M.E., and E.M. Hall. 1977. WETLANDS AND WETLAND VEGETATION OF HAWAII. US
Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division, Fort Shafter, HI. 344 pp.
Eyles, D.E., and J.L. Robertson. 1963. A GUIDE AND KEY TO THE AQUATIC PLANTS OF THE
SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. USD1, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, Washington, DC. Circular 158 (reprint of Public Health Bulletin 286 (1944)). 151 pp.
Fairbrothers, D.E., E.T. Moul, A.R. Essbach, D.N. Riemer, D.A. Schallock. 1979. AQUATIC VEGE-
TATION OF NEW JERSEY. Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Rutgers-The State University,
New Brunswick, NJ. Extension Bulletin No. 382. 107 pp.
Faber, P.M. 1982. COMMON WETLAND PLANTS OF COASTAL CALIFORNIA. Pickleweed Press,
Mill Valley, CA. 110 pp.
Hotchkiss, N. 1964. PONDWEEDS AND PONDWEEDLIKE PLANTS OF EASTERN NORTH AMER-
ICA. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Circular 187. 30 pp.
Hotchkiss, N. 1965. BULRUSHES AND BULRUSHLIKE PLANTS OF EASTERN NORTH AMERI-
CA. USD1, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Circular 221. 19 pp.
Hotchkiss, N. 1970. COMMON MARSH PLANTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Resources Publication No. 93.
Hotchkiss, N. 1972. COMMON MARSH, UNDERWATER AND FLOATING-LEAVED PLANTS OF
THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
A 1
-------
illinois Department of Conservation. 1988. A FIELD GUIDE TO THE WETLANDS OF ILLiNOIS. State
of illinois. 240 pp.
Klussmann, W.G., F.G. Lowman, and J.T. Davis. 1974. COMMON AQUATIC PLANTS OF TEXAS.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service and Texas A&M University System. Pubi. No. B-1018. 16 pp.
Magee, D.W. 1981. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: A GUIDE TO COMMON INDICATOR PLANTS
OF THE NORTHEAST. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. 245 pp.
Matsumura, Y. 1955. THE TRUE AQUATIC VASCULAR PLANTS OF COLORADO. Colorado Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Colorado Ag. and Mech. College, Ft. Collins, CO. 130 pp.
McCormick, J. 1978. VEGETATION TYPICAL OF ALASKAN WETLANDS. Kenai River Review, US
Army Corps of Engineers District, Alaska Corps of Engineers. 15 pp.
Nelson, E.N., and R.W. Couch. 1985. AQUATIC PLANTS OF OKLAHOMA. I: SUBMERSED,
FLOATING-LEAVED, AND SELECTED EMERGENT MACROPHYTES. Oral Roberts University,
Tulsa, OK. 111 pp.
Otto, N.E. 1980. AQUATIC PESTS ON IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, IDENTIFICATION GUIDE. (2nd.
ed.). Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service, Denver, CO. 90 pp.
Prescott, G.W. 1969. HOW TO KNOW THE AQUATIC PLANTS. Brown Co., Dubuque, IA. 171 pp.
Schlosser, D.W. 1986. A FIELD GUIDE TO VALUABLE UNDERWATER AQUATIC PLANTS OF
THE GREAT LAKES. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 32 pp.
Silberhorn, G.M. 1976. TIDAL WETLAND PLANTS OF VIRGINIA. Virginia Institute of Marine Sci-
ences, Gloucester Point, VA. Educational Series No. 19. 86 pp.
Stemmermann, L. 1981. A GUIDE TO PACIFIC WETLAND PLANTS. US Army Corps of Engineers.
Taylor, J. 1977. A CATALOG OF VASCULAR AQUATIC AND WETLAND PLANTS THAT GROW
IN OKLAHOMA. Southeastern Oklahoma State University Herbarium, Durant, OK. Pub. No. 1. 75 pp.
Tarver, D.P., J.A. Rodgers, M.J. Mahier, R.L. Lazor. 1978. AQUATIC AND WETLAND PLANTS OF
FLORIDA. Bureau of Aquatic Plant Research and Control, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tal-
lahassee, FL. 127 pp.
Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1987. A FIELD GUIDE TO COASTAL WETLAND PLANTS OF THE NORTHEAST-
ERN UNITED STATES. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. 285 pp.
Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1988. FIELD GUIDE TO NONTIDAL WETLAND IDENTIFICATION. Maiyland De-
partment of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA.
283 pp. plus 198 color plates.
US Army Corps of Engineers. Undated. COMMON WETLAND PLANTS OF SOUTHWEST TEXAS.
Galveston Corps of Engineers District, Galveston, TX.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. WETLAND PLANTS OF THE NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT. New
Orleans Corps of Engineers District, New Orleans, LA.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. WETLAND PLANTS OF THE EASTERN UNiTED STATES.
North Atlantic Corps of Engineers Division, New York, NY. Publ. No. 200-1-1.
A-2
-------
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. PRELIMINARY GUIDE TO WETLANDS OF THE GULF
COASTAL PLAIN. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Re-
port Y-78-5.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. SUPPLEMENT TO WETLAND PLANTS OF THE EASTERN
UNITED STATES. North Atlantic Division, New York, NY. NADP-200-1-1, Suppi. 1.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1988. A GUIDE TO SELECTED FLORIDA WETLAND PLANTS AND
COMMUNITIES. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, FL. Pubi. No. CESAOP 7745-2-1. 319 pp.
Weinmann, F., M. Boule, K. Brunner, J. Malek, and V. Yoshino. 1984. WETLAND PLANTS OF THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA. 85 pp.
Winterringer, G.S., and A.C. Lopinot. 1977. AQUATIC PLANTS OF ILLINOIS. Department of Regis-
tration and Education, Illinois State Museum Division and Department of Conservation, Division of Fish-
eries, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL. 142 pp.
II. WETLAND PLANT TAXONOMIC MANUALS AND CHECKLISTS
Beal, E.O. 1977. A MANUAL OF MARSH AND AQUATIC VASCULAR PLANTS OF NORTH CAR-
OLINA WITH HABITAT DATA. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, NC. 298 pp.
Beal, E.O., and J.W. Thieret. 1986. AQUATIC AND WETLAND PLANTS OF KENTUCKY. Ken-
tucky Nature Preserves Commission. Soil and Technical Service Publ. No. 5. 315 pp.
Brooks, E., and L.A. Hauser. 1981. AQUATIC VASCULAR PLANTS OF KANSAS I: SUBMERGED
AND FLOATING LEAVED PLANTS. State Biological Survey of Kansas, The University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS.
Crawford, V. 1981. WETLAND PLANTS OF KING COUNTY AND THE PUGET SOUND LOW-
LANDS. King County, WA. 80 pp.
Correll, D.S., and H.B. Correll. 1972. AQUATIC AND WETLAND PLANTS OF THE SOUTHWEST-
ERN UNITED STATES. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Publ. No. 16030 DNL 01/
72. 1777 pp.
Correll, D.S., and H.B. Correll. 1975. AQUATIC AND WETLAND PLANTS OF SOUTHWESTERN
UNITED STATES. VOLUMES 1 AND 2. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Vol 1-856 pp, Vol.
2-1777 pp.
Fassett, N.C. 1975. A MANUAL OF AQUATIC PLANTS. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,
WI. 405 pp.
Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979. AQUATIC AND WETLAND PLANTS OF SOUTHEASTERN
UNiTED STATES. MONOCOTYLEDONS. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. AQUATIC AND WETLAND PLANTS OF SOUTHEASTERN
UNITED STATES. DICOTYLEDONS. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Hartog, C.D. 1970. THE SEA-GRASSES OF THE WORLD. North-Holland PublishingCompany,
Amsterdam. 275 pp.
A-3
-------
Hermann, F.J. 1975. MANUAL OF THE RUSHES (JUNCUS SPP.) OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS
AND COLORADO BASIN. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta-
tion, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-18. 107 pp.
Hotchkiss, N. 1950. CHECKLIST OF MARSH AND AQUATIC PLANTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
USD1, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Wildlife Leaflet No. 210. 34 pp.
Jones, S.B. 1974. MISSISSIPPI FLORA. I. MONOCOTYLEDON FAMILIES WITH AQUATIC OR
WETLAND SPECIES. Gulf Research Reports 4(3):357-379.
Jones, S.B. 1975. MISSISSIPPI FLORA. IV. DICOTYLEDON FAMILIES WITH AQUATIC OR
WETLAND SPECIES. Gulf Research Reports 5(1):7-22.
Larson, G.E., and W.T. Barker. 1980. THE AQUATIC AND WETLAND VASCULAR PLANTS OF
NORTH DAKOTA. North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute, North Dakota State University,
Fargo, ND. Project No. 064 NDAK, Research Project Technical Completion Report. 453 pp.
Lindstrom, L.E. 1968. THE AQUATIC AND MARSH PLANTS OF THE GREAT PLAINS OF CEN-
TRAL NORTH AMERICA. Ph.D. Dissertation. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. 247 pp.
Mason, H. L. 1957. FLORA OF THE MARSHES OF CALIFORNIA. University of California Press,
CA. 897 pp.
Muenscher, W.C. 1972. AQUATIC PLANTS OF THE UNITED STATES. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, NY.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. NATIONAL LIST OF PLANT SPECIES THAT OCCUR IN WETLANDS: NA-
TIONAL SUMMARY. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 88(24). 244 pp.
Robinson, T.W. 1958. PHREATOPHYTES. USD1, Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Water Supply
Paper No. 1423. 84 pp.
Smeins, F.E. 1967. THE WETLAND VEGETATION OF THE RED RIVER VALLEY AND DRIFT
PRAIRIE REGIONS OF MINNESOTA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND MANITOBA. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Saskatchewan, CN. 226 pp.
Rowell, C.M. 1971. VASCULAR PLANTS OF PLAYA LAKES OF THE TEXAS PAN}IANDLE AND
SOUTH PLAINS. Southwestern Naturalist 1 5(4):407-4 17.
Stewart, A.N., L.J. Dennis, and H.M. Gilkey. 1963. AQUATIC PLANTS OF THE PACIFIC NORTH-
WEST. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 261 pp.
USDA. 1970. MANUAL OF THE CARICES OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS AND COLORADO BA-
SIN. Agric. Handbook No. 374. Washington, DC.
III. OTHER FIELD GUIDES FOR PLANT IDENTIFICATION
Ajilvsgi, G. 1979. WILD FLOWERS OF THE BIG THICKET, EAST TEXAS AND WESTERN LOUI-
SIANA. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX. 360 pp.
Beizer, T.J. 1984. ROADSIDE PLANTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. Mountain Press Publishing
Company, Missoula, MT. 158 pp.
A-4
-------
Brown, C.A. 1972. WILD FLOWERS OF LOUISIANA AND ADJOINING STATES. Louisiana State
University Press, Baton Rouge, LA. 247 pp.
Brown, L. 1976. WEEDS IN WINTER. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.
Cobb, B. 1963. A FIELD GUIDE TO THE FERNS AND THEIR RELATED FAMILIES OF NORTH-
EASTERN AND CENTRAL NORTH AMERICA. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 281 pp.
Courtenay, B. and J.H. Zimmerman. 1972. WILDFLOWERS AND WEEDS. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, New York, NY. 144 pp.
Dawson, E.Y. 1966. SEASHORE PLANTS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA. 103 pp.
Dawson, E.Y. 1966. SEASHORE PLANTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA. 101 pp.
Dean, B.E., A. Mason, and J.L. Thomas. 1973. WILD FLOWERS OF ALABAMA AND ADJOINING
STATES. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. 230 pp.
Duncan, W.H., and L.E. Foote. 1975. WILDFLOWERS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED
STATES. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 296 pp.
Faber, P.M., and R.F. Holland. 1988. COMMON RIPARIAN PLANTS OF CALIFORNIA, A FIELD
GUIDE FOR THE LAYMAN. Pickleweed Press, Mill Valley, CA. 140 pp.
Fleming, G., P. Genelle, and R.W. Long. 1976. WILD FLOWERS OF FLORIDA. Banyan Books, Inc.,
Miami, FL. 96 pp.
Grimm, W.C. 1957. THE BOOK OF SHRUBS. Bonanza Books, NY. 522 pp.
Grimm, W.C. 1970. HOME GUIDE TO TREES, SHRUBS, AND WILDFLOWERS. Bonanza Books,
NY. 320 pp.
Harlow, W.H. 1941. FRUIT KEY AND TWIG KEY TO TREES AND SHRUBS. Dover Publications,
New York, NY.
Harrar, E.S., and J.G. Harrar. 1962. GUIDE TO SOUTHERN TREES. Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, NY. 709 pp.
Harrington, H.D. 1977. HOW TO IDENTIFY GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS. The Swallow
Press, Inc., Chicago. IL. 142 pp.
Heller, C.A. 1966. WILD EDIBLE AND POISONOUS PLANTS OF ALASKA. Cooperative Extension
Service, University of Alaska. Publ. No. 28. 89 pp.
Horn, E.L. 1972. WILDFLOWERS OF THE PACIFIC CASCADES. The Touchtone Press, Beaverton,
OR. 157 pp.
Hunter, C.G. 1984. WILDFLOWERS OF ARKANSAS. The Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock,
AR. 296 pp.
Jolley, R. 1988. A COMPREHENSIVE FIELD GUIDE: WILDFLOWERS OF THE COLUMBIA RIV-
ER GORGE. Oregon Historical Society Press, Portland, OR. 331 pp.
A-5
-------
Justice, W.S., and C.R. Bell. 1968. WILDFLOWERS OF NORTH CAROLINA. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 217 pp.
Knoble, E. 1977. FIELD GUIDE TO THE GRASSES, SEDGES, AND RUSHES OF THE UNITED
STATES. (Reprint). Dover Publishing, Inc., NY. 83 pp.
Lamb, S.H. 1975. WOODY PLANTS OF THE SOUTHWEST: A FIELD GUIDE WITH DESCRIPTIVE
TEXT. The Sunstone Press, Santa Fe, NM. 177 pp.
Little, E.L. 1985. THE AUDUBON SOCIETY FIELD GUIDE TO NORTH AMERICAN TREES:
EASTERN REGION. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, NY.
Loughmiller, C., and L. Loughmiller. 1984. TEXAS WILDFLOWERS. University of Texas Press,
Austin, TX. 271 pp.
Mathews, F.S. 1915. FIELD BOOK OF AMERICAN TREES AND SHRUBS. G.P. Putnam and Sons,
NY. 537 pp.
Mathews, F.S. 1955. FIELD BOOK OF AMERICAN WiLD FLOWERS. G.P. Putnam and Sons, New
York, NY. 601 pp.
Mattoon, W.R. 1977. FOREST TREES OF FLORIDA. Tenth Edition. Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, Tallahassee, FL. 98 pp.
Moldenke, H.N. 1949. AMERICAN WILD FLOWERS. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York,
NY. 543 pp.
Moyle, J.B. 1953. A FIELD KEY TO THE COMMON NON-WOODY FLOWERING PLANTS AND
FERNS OF MINNESOTA. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN. 72 PP.
Muenscher, W.C. 1950. KEYS TO WOODY PLANTS. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Munz, P.A. 1964. SHORE WILDFLOWERS OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON.
University of California Press, CA.
Nelson, R.A. 1969. HANDBOOK OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANTS. Dale Smart King, Tuscon, AZ.
331 pp.
Newcomb, L. 1977. NEWCOMB’S WILDFLOWER GUIDE. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA.
Niehaus, T.F., and C.L. Ripper. 1976. A FIELD GUIDE TO PACIFIC STATES WILDFLOWERS.
Houghton-Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 432 pp.
Niehaus, T.F., J. Jousey, and J. McLean. 1984. A FIELD GUIDE TO SOUTHWESTERN AND
TEXAS WILDFLOWERS. Houghton-Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 449 pp.
Niering, W.A. and W.C. Olmstead. 1979. THE AUDUBON SOCIETY FIELD GUIDE TO NORTH
AMERICAN WILDFLOWERS: EASTERN REGION. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, NY.
Petrides, G.A. 1958. A FIELD GUIDE TO THE TREES AND SHRUBS. Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston, MA.
Peterson, R.T. and M. McKenny. 1968. A FIELD GUIDE TO WILDFLOWERS OF NORTHEASTERN
AND NORTH CENTRAL NORTH AMERICA. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.
A-6
-------
Rickett, H.W. 1979. WILD FLOWERS OF THE UNiTED STATES. VOLUMES 1-VI PLUS INDEX.
The New York Botanical Garden, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY. Vol. 1-559 pp., Vol II-
688 pp., Vol 111-553 pp, Vol IV-801 pp, Vol V-666 pp, Vol V1-784 pp, Index-152 pp.
Smith, E.C., and L.W. Durrell. 1944. SEDGES AND RUSHES OF COLORADO. Colorado Agricultural
Experiment Station, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Tech. Bull. 32. 63 pp.
Soil Conservation Service. 1972. NATIVE FLOWERS OF TEXAS. USDA, Temple, TX.
Stevenson, G.B. 1969. TREES OF EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK AND THE FLORiDA KEYS.
Everglades Natural History Association, FL. 32 pp.
Tharp, B.C. 1952. TEXAS RANGE GRASSES. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. 125 pp.
Thomas, J.H., and D.R. Parnell. 1974. NATIVE SHRUBS OF THE SIERRA NEVADA. University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA. 127 pp.
Trelease, W. 1931. WINTER BOTANY. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Van Bruggen, T. 1983. WILDFLOWERS, GRASSES AND OTHER PLANTS OF THE NORTHERN
GREAT PLAINS AND BLACK HILLS. University of South Dakota, Vermilion, SD. 96 pp.
Vance, F., J. Jousey, and J. McLean. 1984. WILDFLOWERS OF THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 336 pp.
Warnock, B.H. 1970. WILDFLOWERS OF THE BIG BEND COUNTRY, TEXAS. Sul Ross State Uni-
versity, Alpine, TX. 156 pp.
Warnock, B.H. 1974. WILDFLOWERS OF THE GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS AND THE SAND
DUNE COUNTRY, Texas. Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX
Warnock, B.H. 1977. WILDFLOWERS OF THE DAVIS MOUNTAINS AND MARATHON BASIN,
TEXAS. Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. 274 pp.
Wharton, M.E., and R.W. Barbour. 1971. A GUIDE TO THE WILDFLOWERS AND FERNS OF
KENTUCKY. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 344 pp.
Wherry, E.T. 1964. THE SOUTHERN FERN GUiDE. Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City,
NY. 349 pp.
White, H.A. 1974. ALASKA-YUKON WILDFLOWERS GUIDE. Alaska-Northwest Publishing Compa-
ny, Anchorage, AK. 218 pp.
Wiedemann, A.M., L.J. Dennis, and F.H. Smith. 1974. PLANTS OF THE OREGON COASTAL
DUNES. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 117 pp.
IV. OTHER PLANT TAXONOMIC MANUALS, CHECKLISTS, AND ATLASES
Abrams, L. 1968. ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF THE PACIFIC STATES. VOLUMES 1-4. Stanford Uni-
versity Press, Stanford, CA. Vol. 1-538 pp; Vol 2-635 pp; Vol. 3-866 pp; Vol. 4-732 pp.
Ahmadjian, V. 1979. FLOWERING PLANTS OF MASSACHUSETTS. University of Massachusetts
Press, Amherst, MA. 582 pp.
A-7
-------
Allen, C.M. 1980. GRASSES OF LOUISIANA. University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, LA.
358 pp.
Barbour, M.G. and J. Major. 1977. TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION OF CALIFORNIA. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, NY. 1002 pp.
Barkley, T.M. 1968. A MANUAL OF THE FLOWERING PLANTS OF KANSAS. Kansas State Uni-
versity Endowment Association, Manhattan KS. 402 pp.
Barkley, T.M. 1977. ATLAS OF THE FLORA OF THE GREAT PLAINS. The Iowa State University
Press, Ames, IA. 600 pp.
Batson, W.T. 1977. GENERA OF THE EASTERN PLANTS: A GUIDE TO THE GENERA OF NA-
TIVE AND COMMONLY INTRODUCED FERNS AND SEED PLANTS OF EASTERN NORTH
AMERICA. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Batson, W.T. 1982. GENERA OF THE WESTERN PLANTS. The State Printing Company, Columbia,
SC. 207 pp.
Benson, L., and R.A. Darrow. 1981. TREES AND SHRUBS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN DESERTS.
University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, AZ. 416 pp.
Billington, C. 1948. SHRUBS OF MICHIGAN. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI.
Bulletin 20. 339 pp.
Billington, C. 1952. FERNS OF MICHIGAN. Cranbrook Institute of Science, The Cranbrook Press,
Bloomfield Hills, Ml. Bulletin 32. 240 pp.
Booth, W.E. 1972. GRASSES OF MONTANA. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 64.pp.
Booth, W.E., and J.C. Wright. 1967. FLORA OF MONTANA. PART 2. Montana State University,
Bozeman, MT. 305 pp.
Braun, E.L. 1946. AN ANNOTATED CATALOG OF SPERMATOPHYTES OF KENTUCKY. John S.
Swift Co., Inc., Cincinnati, OH. 161 pp.
Braun, E.L. 1967. THE VASCULAR FLORA OF OHIO. VOLUME I. THE MONOCOTYLEDONEAE.
Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH. 464 pp.
Britton, N.L., and H.A. Brown. 1970. AN ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF THE NORTHERN UNITED
STATES AND CANADA, VOLUMES 1,2, AND 3. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY. Vol. 1-
680 pp, Vol 2-735 pp, Vol 3-637 pp.
Britton, N.L., and W. Wilson. 1924. BOTANY OF PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.
Scientific Survey of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands Vol. 5, 6 Part 1, Descriptive Flora-Spermatophyta.
New York Academy of Sciences, New York, NY.
Brooks, R.E. 1986. VASCULAR PLANTS OF KANSAS: A CHECKLIST. Kansas Biological Survey,
The University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS. 129 pp.
Brown, M.L. and R.G. Brown. 1972. WOODY PLANTS OF MARYLAND. Port City Press, Baltimore,
A-8
-------
Brown, ML. and R.G. Brown. 1984. HERBACEOUS PLANTS OF MARYLAND. Port City Press,
Baltimore, MD.
Clewell, A.F. 1985. GUIDE TO THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE. Uni-
versity Presses of Florida, Tallahassee, FL. 605 pp.
Coker, W.C., and H.R. Totten. TREES OF THE SOUTHEASTERN STATES. University of North Car-
olina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 417 pp.
Correll, D.S., and M.C. Johnston. 1979. MANUAL OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF TEXAS. Uni-
versity of Texas, Dallas, TX. 1881 pp.
Crampton, B. 1974. GRASSES IN CALIFORNIA. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
178 pp.
Cronquist, A.C. 1980. VASCULAR FLORA OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. VOL-
UME I. ASTERACEAE. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 261 pp.
Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren and J.L. Reveal. 1972. INTERMOUNTAIN FLORA -
VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST, USA. Hafner Publishing Company, NY.
(Two Vols.). 584 pp.
Davis, R.J. 1952. FLORA OF IDAHO. William C. Brown Company, Dubuque, IA. 828 pp.
Dean, C.C. 1970. FLORA OF INDIANA. Lehre, J.P. Cramer, NY. 1236 pp.
Dittmer, H.J., E.F. Castetter, and O.M. Clark. 1954. THE FERNS AND FERN ALLIES OF NEW
MEXICO. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. 139 pp.
Dorn, R.D. 1977. MANUAL OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF WYOMING. 2 VOLUMES. Garland
Publishing, Inc., NY. Vol. 1-538 pp; Vol. 11-960 pp.
Duncan, W.H. 1967. WOODY VINES OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. University of
Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 76 pp.
Fernald, M.L. 1970. GRAY’S MANUAL OF BOTANY. D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, NY.
Fowells, H.A. 1965. SILVICS OF FOREST TREES OF THE UNITED STATES. USDA, Agriculture
Handbook No. 271. Washington, DC. 762 pp.
Gilkey, H.M., and L.J. Dennis. 1967. HANDBOOK OF NORTHWESTERN PLANTS. Oregon State
University Bookstores, Inc., Corvallis, OR. 505 pp.
Gleason, H.A. 1952. THE NEW BRITFON AND BROWN ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF THE NORTH-
EASTERN UNITED STATES AND ADJACENT CANADA. Three Vols. 3rd. edition. Hafner Press,
New York, NY. Vol 1-482 pp; Vol 11-655 pp; Vol. 111-595 pp.
Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1963. MANUAL OF VASCULAR PLANTS OF NORTHEASTERN
UNiTED STATES AND ADJACENT CANADA. D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, NY.
Gould, F.W. 1975. 1’HE GRASSES OF TEXAS. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.
653 pp.
A-9
-------
Gould, F.W. 1975. TEXAS PLANTS - A CHECKLIST AND ECOLOGICAL SUMMARY. Texas A&M
University System, The Texas Agricultural Experiment System, College Station, TX. 121 pp.
Gould, F.W., and T.W. Box. 1965. GRASSES OF THE TEXAS COASTAL BEND (CALHOUN, RE-
FUGIO, ARANSAS, SAN PATRICIO, AND NORTHERN KLEBERG COUNTIES). Texas A&M Uni-
versity Press, College Station, TX. 189 pp.
Gould, F.W. 1977. GRASSES OF SOUTI-IWESTERN UNITED STATES. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, AZ. 352 pp.
Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. FLORA OF THE GREAT PLAINS. University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence, KS. 1392 pp.
Grubs, S.J. 1966. FERNS AND FERN ALLIES OF CALIFORNIA. University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA. 104 pp.
Hahn, B.E. 1977. FLORA OF MONTANA: CONIFERS AND MONOCOTS. Montana State University,
Bozeman, MT.
Harlow, W.M. 1957. TREES OF THE EASTERN AND CENTRAL UNITED STATES AND CANADA.
Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY. 288 pp.
Harrington, H.D. 1964. MANUAL OF THE PLANTS OF COLORADO. Swallow Press, Inc., Chicago,
IL. 666 pp.
Harrington, H.D. 1979. MANUAL OF THE PLANTS OF COLORADO. Sage Books, Denver, CO.
(2nd. edition).
Hermann, F.J. 1970. MANUAL OF THE CARICES OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS AND COLORA-
DO BASIN. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Agriculture Handbook No. 374. 397 pp.
Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. MANUAL OF THE GRASSES OF THE UNITED STATES. Dover Publications,
New York, NY. (Two Vols.).
Hitchcock, A.S. and A. Cronquist. 1973. FLORA OF TFIE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. University of
Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Hitchcock, A.S., A.C. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1977. VASCULAR PLANTS OF
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. Vols. 1-5. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Vol 1-9 14 pp,
Vol 2-597 pp, Vol 3-614 pp, Vol. 4-5 10 pp, Vol. 5-343 pp.
Hulten, E. 1960. FLORA OF THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS (SECOND EDITION). Hafner Publishing
Company, New York, NY. 460 pp.
Hulten, E. 1868. FLORA OF ALASKA AND NEIGHBORING TERRITORIES: A MANUAL OF TIlE
VASCULAR PLANTS. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. 1008 pp.
Jepson, W.L. 1975. A MANUAL OF THE FLOWERING PLANTS OF CALIFORNIA. University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1238 pp.
Jones, F.B. 1975. FLORA OF THE TEXAS COASTAL BEND. Mission Press, Corpus Christi, TX.
262 pp.
A- 10
-------
Jones, G.H. 1963. FLORA OF ILLINOIS. American Midland Naturalist Monograph No. 7. University
of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN. 401 pp.
Jones, S.B. 1969. THE PTERIDOPHYTES OF MISSISSIPPI. Sida 3(6):359-364.
Jones, S.B. 1974. MISSISSIPPI FLORA. II. DISTRIBUTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE
ONAGRACEAE. Casranea 39(4):370-379.
Jones, S.B. 1974. MISSISSIPPI FLORA. VI. MISCELLANEOUS FAMILIES. Castanea 4 1(3):
189-2 12.
Jones, S.B. 1975. MISSISSIPPI FLORA. III. DISTRIBUTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE
BRASSICACEAE. Castanea 40(3):238-252.
Jones, S.B. 1976. MISSISSIPPI FLORA. V. THE MINT FAMILY. Castanea 41(1):41-58.
Jones, S.B., and N.C. Coile. 1979. LIST OF GEORGIA PLANTS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GEOR-
GIA HERBARIUM. Herbarium, Department of Botany, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 53 pp.
Kartesz, J.T., and R. Kartesz. 1980. A SYNONYMIZED CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR FLORA
OF THE UNiTED STATES, CANADA, AND GREENLAND. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 498 pp.
Kearney, T.H. and R.H. Peebles. 1960. ARIZONA FLORA. University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA. (2nd. edition).
Kurz, H., and R.K. Godfrey. 1962. TREES OF NORTHERN FLORIDA. University of Florida Press,
Gainesville, FL. 311 pp.
Lakela. 0. 1965. FLORA OF NORTHEAST MINNESOTA. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapo-
lis, MN. 541 pp.
Lakela, 0., and R.W. Long. 1976. FERNS OF FLORIDA. Banyon Books, Miami, FL. 178 pp.
Little, E.L. 1971. ATLAS OF UNITED STATES TRESS, VOLUME, I. CONIFERS AND IMPOR-
TANT HARDWOODS. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Miscellaneous Publ. No. 1146. 9 pp,
200 maps.
Little, E.L. 1976. ATLAS OF UNiTED STATES TREES. VOLUME ifi. MINOR WESTERN HARD-
WOODS. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Miscellaneous Pubi. No. 1314. 13 pp., 210 maps.
Little, E.L. 1976. SOUTHWESTERN TREES. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Agric. Hand-
book No. 9. 109 pp.
Little, E.L. 1978. ATLAS OF UNITED STATES TREES. VOLUME 5. FLORIDA. USDA, Forest Ser-
vice, Washington, DC. Miscellaneous Pubi. No. 1361. 256 pp.
Little, E.L. 1979. CHECKLIST OF UNITED STATES TREES (NATIVE AND NATURALIZED).
USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Agricultural Handbook No. 541. 375 pp.
Little, E.L., R.D. Woodbury, and F.H. Wadsworth. 1974. TREES OF PUERTO RICO AND THE
VIRGIN ISLANDS: SECOND VOLUME. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Agric. Handbook
No. 449. 1024 pp.
A-i 1
-------
Lloyd, R.M., and R.S. Mitchell. 1973. A FLORA OF THE WHITE MOUNTAINS, CALiFORNIA AND
NEVADA. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 202 pp.
Looman, J. 1982. PRAIRIE GRASSES, IDENTIFIED AND DESCRiBED BY VEGETATIVE CHAR-
ACTERISTICS. Agriculture Canada Research Station, Swift Current, SK. PubI. 1413. 244 pp.
Long, R.W. and 0. Lakela. 1976. A FLORA OF TROPICAL FLORIDA. Banyan Books, Miami, FL.
Lowe, E.N. 1921. PLANTS OF MISSISSIPPI. Mississippi State Geological Survey, MS. Bulletin No.
17. 295 pp.
Mackenzie, K.K. 1940. NORTH AMERICAN CARICEAE, VOLS. I-Il. New York Botanical Garden,
NY. 543 pp.
Martin, W.C., and C.R. Hutchins. 1981. A FLORA OF NEW MEXICO. J. Cramer, Braunchweig, West
Germany. 2591 pp.
Massey, A.B. 1961. VIRGINIA FLORA. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Blacksburg, VA.
Tech. Bull. No. 155. 258 pp.
McDougall, W.B. 1973. SEED PLANTS OF NORTHERN ARIZONA. Museum of Northern Arizona,
Flagstaff, AZ. 594 pp.
McGregor, R.L. 1986. FLORA OF THE GREAT PLAINS. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS.
1392 pp.
McMinn, H.E. 1974. AN ILLUSTRATED MANUAL OF CALIFORNIA SHRUBS. University of Cali-
fornia Press, Berkeley, CA. 663 pp.
Mohlenbrock, R.H. 1967. THE ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF ILLINOIS. Multiple Vols. Southern fllinois
University Press, Carbondale, IL.
Mohlenbrock, R.H. 1975. GUIDE TO THE VASCULAR FLORA OF ILLINOIS. Southern fllinois Uni-
versity Press, Carbondale, IL. 494 pp.
Mohlenbrook, R.H., and D.M. Ladd. 1978. DISTRIBUTION OF ILLINOIS VASCULAR PLANTS.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL. 281 pp.
Mohr, C. 1901. PLANT LIFE OF ALABAMA. Alabama Edition, The Brown Printing Company, Mont-
gomery, AL. 519 pp.
Morley, 1. 1969. SPRING FLORA OF MINNESOTA, INCLUDING COMMON CULTIVATED
PLANTS. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 283 pp.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A FLORA OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA. 1086 PP.
Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck. 1959. A CALIFORNIA FLORA. University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Norton, J.B.S., and R.G. Brown. 1946. A CATALOG OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF
MARYLAND. University of Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, College Park, MD.
A- 12
-------
Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture (Forestry Division). 1981. FOREST TREES OF OKLAHO-
MA: HOW TO KNOW THEM. Revised by E.L. Little, Jr. Oklahoma City, OK. Pubi. No. 1, Rev. Ed.
No. 12. 204 pp.
Peattie, D.C. 1930. FLORA OF TI-IE INDIANA DUNES. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago,
IL. 405 pp.
Peck, M.E. 1961. A MANUAL OF THE HIGHER PLANTS OF OREGON. Oregon State University
Press, Portland, OR. 936 pp.
Petersen, N.F. 1912. FLORA OF NEBRASKA. (2nd. edition). N.F. Petersen, Plainview, NE. 217 pp.
Porter, C.L. 1972. A FLORA OF WYOMING. Parts 1,2,5,6,7,8. Agricultural Experiment Station, Uni-
versity of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Bulletin 402, Bulletin 404, Research Journal 14, Research Journal
20, Research Journal 64, Research Journal 65. Part 1-39 pp; Part 2-16 pp; Part 5-37 pp; Part 6-63 pp; Part
7-49 pp; Part 8-40 pp.
Pohi, R.W. 1966. THE GRASSES OF IOWA. Iowa State Journal of Science 40(4):341-566. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA.
Preston, J. 1976. NORTH AMERICAN TREES. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 399 pp.
Preston, R.J., and V.G. Wright. 1982. IDENTIFICATION OF SOUTHEASTERN TREES IN WIN-
TER. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Raleigh, NC. 113 pp.
Putnam, J.A., and H. Bull. 1932. THE TREES OF THE BO’ITOMLANDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIV-
ER DELTA REGION. USDA, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.
Occasional Paper No. 27. 207 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. MANUAL OF THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE
CAROLINAS. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Reed, C. 1953. THE FERNS AND FERN ALLIES OF MARYLAND AND DELAWARE, INCLUDING
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Reed Herbarium, Baltimore, MD.
Rock, J.F. 1974. THE INDIGENOUS TREES OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. Pacific Tropical Botan-
ical Garden, Lawai, Kauai, HA. 548 pp.
Rotar, P.P. 1968. GRASSES OF HAWAII. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HA. 355 pp.
Rydberg, P.A. 1965. FLORA OF THE PRAIRIES AND PLAINS OF CENTRAL NORTH AMERICA.
Hafner Publishing Company, New York, NY. Facsimile of the Edition of 1932. 969 pp.
Rydberg, P.A. 1969. FLORA OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS AND ADJACENT PLAINS. Hafner
Publishing Company, New York, NY. 1143 pp.
Sargent, C.S. 1965. TREES OF NORTH AMERICA. Dover Publications, New York, NY. (Two Vols.).
Scoggan, H.J. 1978. THE FLORA OF CANADA. National Museum of Natural Sciences Publications in
Botany, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Pubi. No. 7. 1711 pp.
Seymour, F.C. 1969. THE FLORA OF VERMONT. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Vermont, Burlington, VT. Bulletin No. 660. 393 pp.
A-13
-------
Shreve, F., and I.L. Wiggins. 1964. VEGETATION AND FLORA OF THE SONORAN DESERT,
VOLUME 1 AND VOLUME 2. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Vol. 1-840 pp,
Vol. 2-1740 pp.
Small, J.K. 1918. FERNS OF TROPICAL FLORIDA. Published by the Author, NY. 82 pp.
Small, J.K. 1933. MANUAL OF THE SOUTHEASTERN FLORA. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Smith, H.V. 1966. MICHIGAN WILDFLOWERS. Cranbrook Institute of Science, The Cranbrook
Press, Bloomfield Hills, MI. Bulletin 42 (Revised).
Smith, E.B. 1978. AN ATLAS AND ANNOTATED LIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF ARKAN-
SAS. University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR. 562 pp.
Stephens, H.A. 1973. WOODY PLANTS OF THE NORTH CENTRAL PLAINS. University Press of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 530 pp.
Stephens, H.A. 1969. TREES, SHRUBS, AND WOODY VINES IN KANSAS. Regents Press of Kan-
sas, Lawrence, KS. 250 pp.
Stevens, O.A. 1963. HANDBOOK OF NORTH DAKOTA PLANTS. North Dakota Institute for Regional
Studies, Fargo, ND. 324 pp.
Steyermark, J.A. 1963. FLORA OF MISSOURI. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
St. John, H. 1963. FLORA OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON. Outdoor Pictures, Escondido, CA.
583 pp.
St. John, H. 1973. LIST AND SUMMARY OF FLOWERING PLANTS IN THE HAWAIIAN IS-
LANDS. Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden, Memoir No. 1, Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii. 519 pp.
Strausbaugh, P.D. and E.L. Core. 1977. FLORA OF WEST VIRGINIA. 4 Vols. West Virginia Universi-
ty Books, Morgantown, WV. Bulletin, Series 70: 7-2. 1079 pp.
Stubbendieck, J., S.L. Hatch, and K.J. Kjar. 1982. NORTH AMERICAN RANGE PLANTS. Universi-
ty of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 464 pp.
Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1979. PLANTS OF THE CHICAGO REGION. The Morton Arboretum,
Lisle, IL. 922 pp.
Tatnall, R.R. 1946. FLORA OF DELAWARE AND THE EASTERN SHORE. Society of Natural History
of Delaware, Intelligencer Printing Company, Lancaster, PA. 291 pp.
Thomson, O.S. 1976. SPRING FLORA OF WISCONSIN. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,
WI. 413 pp.
Thorne, R.F. 1954. THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA. American Midland
Naturalist 52(2): 257-327.
Tidestt om, I. 1969. FLORA OF UTAH AND NEVADA. Reprints of US-Floras, Volume 3, Velag Von J.
Cramer, S-H Service Agency, Inc., New York, NY. 665 pp.
A-i 4
-------
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1982. NATIONAL LIST OF SCIENTIFIC PLANT NAMES.
VOL. 1. LIST OF PLANT NAMES. VOL.2. SYNONYMY. Washington, DC.
Van Bruggen, T. 1985. THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF SOUTh DAKOTA (2ND ED.). Iowa State Uni-
versity Press, Ames, IA. 476 pp.
Viereck, L.A. 1972. ALASKA TREES AND SHRUBS. USDA, Washington, DC. Agric. Handbook No.
410. 265 pp.
Vines, R.A. 1976. TREES, SHRUBS, AND WOODY VINES OF THE SOUTHWEST. University of
Texas Press, Austin, TX. 1104 pp.
Voss, E. 1972. MICHIGAN FLORA. PART I. GYMNOSPERMS AND MONOCOTYLEDONS. Cran-
brook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI. 488 pp.
Voss, E. 1985. MICHIGAN FLORA. PART II. DICOTYLEDONS. Cranbrook Institute of Science,
Bloomfield Hills, MI. 724 pp.
Wagner, W.L., and E.F. Aldon. 1978. MANUAL OF THE SALTBUSHES (A TRIPLEX SPP.) IN
NEW MEXICO. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Col-
lins, CO. General Technical Report RM-57. 50 pp.
Waterfall, U.T. 1979. KEYS TO THE FLORA OF OKLAHOMA. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
OK. 246 pp.
Weber, W.A. 1976. ROCKY MOUNTAIN FLORA. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder,
CO. 479 pp.
Weber, W.A. 1987. COLORADO FLORA: WESTERN SLOPE. Colorado Associated University Press,
Boulder, CO. 530 pp.
Weishaupt, C.G. 1960. VASCULAR PLANTS OF OHIO. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH.
307 pp.
Welsh, S.L. 1973. UTAH PLANTS. Brigham Young University Press, Provo, UT. 474 pp.
Welsh, S.L. 1974. ANDERSON’S FLORA OF ALASKA AND ADJACENT PARTS OF CANADA.
Brigham Young University Press, UT. 724 pp.
West, E., and L.E. Arnold. 1950. THE NATIVES TREES OF FLORIDA. Fourth Printing. University of
Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. 212 pp.
Wheriy, T.E., J.M. Fogg, and H.A. Wahl. 1979. ATLAS OF THE FLORA OF PENNSYLVANIA. The
Morris Arboretum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 390 pp.
Wiegand, K.M., and A.J. Eames. 1926. THE FLORA OF THE CAYUGA LAKE BASIN, NEW YORK.
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Memoir No.
92. 491 pp.
Wiggins, I.L., and J.H. Thomas. 1962. A FLORA OF THE ALASKAN ARCTIC SLOPE. Arctic Insti-
tute of North America, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. Spec. Publ. No. 4. 425 pp.
Wooton, E.O., and P.C. Standley. 1972. FLORA OF NEW MEXICO. Reprints of U.S. - Floras, Vol. 7.
Stechert-Hafner Service Agency, Inc., New York, NY. 794 pp.
A- 15
-------
Wunderlin, R.P. 1982. GUIDE TO THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA. A Universi-
ty of South Florida Book, University Presses of Florida, Tampa. FL. 472 pp.
V. HYDRIC SOILS PUBLICATIONS
Bouma, J. 1983. HYDROLOGY AND SOIL GENESIS OF SOILS WITH AQUIC MOISTURE RE-
GIMES. In: L.P. Wilding, N.E. Smeck, and G.F. Hall (editors), PEDOGENESIS AND SOIL TAXON-
OMY. I. CONCEPTS AND INTERACTIONS. Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V. Amsterdam.
pp. 253-281.
Diers, R., and J.L. Anderson. 1984. PART I. DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL MOULING. Soil Survey Ho-
rizons (Winter): 9-12.
Edmonds, W.J., G.M. Silberhorn, P.R. Cobb, G.P. Peacock, Jr., N.A. McLoda, and D.W. Smith.
1985. CLASSIFICATION AND FLORAL RELATIONSHIPS OF SEASIDE SALT MARSH SOILS IN
ACCOMACK AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES, VIRGINIA. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, VA. Bull. 85-8.
International Rice Research Institute. 1985. WETLAND SOILS: CHARACTERIZATION, CLASSIFICA-
TION AND UTIUZATION. Manila, Philippines.
Lytle, S.A., and B.N. Driskell. 1954. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
PEATS, MUCKS AND CLAYS OF THE COASTAL MARSH AREA OF ST. MARY PARISH, LOUI-
SIANA. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. No. 484. 37 pp.
Phillips, J. 1970. WISCONSIN’S WETLAND SOILS, A REVIEW. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison, WI. Res. Rpt. 57. 22 pp.
Ponnamperuma, F.N. 1972. THE CHEMISTRY OF SUBMERGED SOILS. Advances in Agronomy 24:
29-96.
Soil Survey Staff. 1988. KEYS TO SOIL TAXONOMY (FOURTh PRINTING). Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY. SMSS Technical Monograph No. 6.
Tiner, R.W. Jr. and P.L.M. Veneman. 1987. HYDRIC SOILS OF NEW ENGLAND. University of
Massachusetts Cooperative Extension, Amherst, MA. Bulletin C- 183.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. HYDRIC SOILS OF THE UNITED STATES. Washington,
DC. National Bulletin No. 430-2-7. (January 4, 1982).
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1987. HYDRIC SOILS OF THE UNITED STATES. 1987. In coop-
eration with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. USDA-SCS, Washington, DC.
Veneman, P.L.M., M.J. Vepraskas, and J. Bouma. 1976. THE PHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SOIL
MO1TLING IN A WISCONSIN TOPOSEQUENCE. Geoderma 15: 103-118.
VI. OTHER SOILS MANUALS
Black, C.A. 1968. SOIL - PLANT RELATIONSHIPS. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Birkehead, P.W. 1984. SOILS AND GEOMORPHOLOGY. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
372 pp.
A-i 6
-------
Brady, Nyle C. 1974. THE NATURE AND PROPERTIES OF SOILS. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.
639 pp.
Buckman, H.O., and N.C. Brady. 1969. THE NATURE AND PROPERTIES OF SOILS. Macmillian
Publishing Company, Ontario, Canada.
Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole, and R.J. McCracken. 1980. SOIL GENESIS AND CLASS WICATION. The
Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 406 pp.
Kolimorgen Corporation. 1975. MUNSELL SOIL COLOR CHARTS. Macbeth Division of Koilmorgen
Corporation, Baltimore, MD.
Lytle, S.A. 1968. THE MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND RELIEF RELATIONSHIPS
OF REPRESENTATIVE SOILS IN LOUISIANA. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. No.
631. 23 pp.
Richards, L.A. 1954. DIAGNOSIS AND IMPROVEMENT OF SALINE AND ALKALI SOILS. USDA,
Washington, DC. Agriculture Handbook No. 60. 196 pp. Reprinted Aug., 1969.
USDA $oil Conservation Service. 1975. SOIL TAXONOMY. A BASIC SYSTEM OF SOIL CLASSIFI-
CATION FOR MAKING AND INTERPRETING SOIL SURVEYS. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC. Agriculture Handbook No. 436. 754 pp.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. NATIONAL SOILS HANDBOOK. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1984. SOIL SURVEY MANUAL. Department of Agriculture, Wash-
ington, DC.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1987. HYDRIC SOILS OF THE UNITED STATES. Washington,
DC.
USDA, Soil Survey Staff. 1972. SOIL SERIES OF THE UNITED STATES, PUERTO RICO, AND
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: THEIR TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION. Department of Agriculture, Wash-
ington, DC.
USDA, Soil Survey Staff. 1951. SOIL SURVEY MANUAL. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, DC. Handbook No. 18. 502 pp.
VII. PLANT-SOIL STUDY REPORTS
Allen, S.D., F.C. Golet, A.F. Davis, and T.E. Sokoloski. 1989. SOIL-VEGETATION CORRELA-
TIONS IN TRANSITION ZONES OF RHODE ISLAND RED MAPLE SWAMPS. (In Press.) US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Baad, M.F. 1988. SOIL-VEGETATION CORRELATIONS WITHIN THE RIPARIAN ZONE OF
BU1’TE SINK IN THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. US Fish and Wild-
life Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 88(25). 48 pp.
Christensen, N.L., R.B. Wilbur and J.S. McLean. 1988. SOIL-VEGETATION CORRELATIONS IN
THE POCOSINS OF CROATAN NATIONAL FOREST. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC. Biol. Rpt. 88(28). 97 pp.
A-i 7
-------
Curtis, J. 1971. THE VEGETATION OF WISCONSIN. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
657 pp.
Dick-Peddie, W.A., J.V. Hardesty, E. Muldavin, and B. Sallach. 1987. SOIL-VEGETATION CORRE-
LATIONS ON THE RIPARIAN ZONES OF THE GILA AND SAN FRANCISCO RIVERS IN NEW
MEXICO. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 87(9). 29 pp.
Eicher, A.L. 1988. SOIL-PLANT CORRELATIONS IN WETLANDS AND ADJACENT UPLANDS OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC. Biol. Rpt. 88(21). 35 pp.
Erickson, M.E. and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 1987. SOIL-VEGE FATION CORRELATIONS IN THE SAND-
HILLS AND RAINWATER BASIN WETLANDS OF NEBRASKA. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 87(11). 72 pp.
Erickson, N.E. and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 1989. SOIL-VEGETATION CORRELATIONS IN COASTAL MIS-
SISSIPPI WETLANDS. (In Press.) US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 47 pp.
Hettinger, L.R., and A.J. Lanz. 1974. VEGETATION AND SOILS OF NORTHEASTERN ALASKA.
Northern Engineering Services Company Limited, Arctic Gas. Biological Report Series, Vol. 21; 8 pp.
Hubbard, D.E., J.B. Millar, D.D. Malo, and K.F. Higgins. 1988. SOIL-VEGETATION CORRELA-
TIONS IN PRAIRIE POTHOLES OF BEADLE AND DAUEL COUNTIES, SOUTh DAKOTA. US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 88(22). 97 pp.
Nachlinger, J.L. 1988. SOIL-VEGETATION CORRELATIONS IN RIPARIAN AND EMERGENT
WETLANDS, LYON COUNTY, NEVADA. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt.
88(17). 39 pp.
Palmisano, A.W., and R.H. Chabreck. 1972. THE RELATIONSHIP OF PLANT COMMUNITIES
AND SOILS OF THE LOUISIANA COASTAL MARSHES. Proceedings of the Louisiana Assoc. of
Agronomists.
Parker, W.B., S. Faulkner, B. Gambrell, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1984. SOIL WETNESS AND AERA-
TION IN RELATION TO PLANT ADAPTATION FOR SELECTED HYDRIC SOILS IN THE MISSIS-
SIPPI AND PEARL RIVER DELTAS. In: PROCEEDINGS OF WORKSHOP ON CHARACTERIZA-
TION, CLASSIFICATION, AND UTILIZATION OF WETLAND SOILS (March 26-April 1, 1984).
International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.
VIII. COMMUNITY PROFILE AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION REPORTS
Bahr, L.M., and W.P. Lanier. 1981. THE ECOLOGY OF INTERTIDAL OYSTER REEFS OF THE
SOUTh ATLANTIC COAST: A COMMUNiTY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-81/15. 105 pp.
Brockway, D.G., C. Topik, M.A. Hemstrom, and W.H. Emmingham. 1983. PLANT ASSOCIATION
AND MANAGEMENT GUIDE FOR THE PACIFIC SILVER FIR ZONE. USDA, Forest Service, Port-
land, OR. Pubi. No. R6-ECOL-130a-1983.
Copeland, B.J., R.G. Hodson and S.R. Riggs. 1984. THE ECOLOGY OF THE PAMLICO RIVER,
NORTH CAROLINA: AN ESTUARINE PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Publ. No. FWS/OBS-82f06. 83 pp.
A-18
-------
Curtis, J.T. 1978. THE VEGETATION OF WISCONSIN. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
657 pp.
Damman, A.W.H. and T.W. French. 1987. THE ECOLOGY OF PEAT BOGS IN THE GLACIATED
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES: A COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 85(7.16). 100 pp.
Eyre, F.H. (editor). 1980. FOREST COVER TYPES OF THE UNiTED STATES AND CANADA. Soci-
ety of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ThE SEA ISLAND
COASTAL REGION OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA. 6 Vols. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. Pubi. FWS/OBS-79/40, 79/4 1 & 79/42. Vol 1-212 pp.; Vol 11-32 1 pp.;
Vol. 111-620 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. AN ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF COASTAL MAINE.
(Out of Print) US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pub!. No. FWS/OBS-80/29.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. AN ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CENTRAL AND
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL REGION. 5 Vols. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC. Pub!. Nos. FWS/OBS-80/45 - 80/49. Vol. 1-209 pp.; Vol. 2-593 pp.; Vol 111-1352 pp.; Vol. IV-
1395 pp.; Vol. V-77 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE GREAT LAKES
COASTAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. VOLUMES 1-6. US Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, Washington, DC. Vol. 1-480 pp.; Vol 2-1351 pp.; Vol 3-530 pp.; Vol. 4-834 pp.; Vol 5-1676 pp.;
Vol. 6-90 1 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. ALABAMA COASTAL REGION ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZA-
TION: VOLUME 2. - A SYNTHESIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. Pub!. No. FWS/OBS-82/42. 346 pp.
G!aser, P.H. 1987. THE ECOLOGY OF PA1TERNED BOREAL PEATLANDS OF NORTHERN MIN-
NESOTA: A COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 85
(7.14). 98 pp.
Gosselink, J.G. 1984. THE ECOLOGY OF DELTA MARSHES OF COASTAL LOUISIANA: A COM-
MUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pub!. No. FWS/OBS-84/09.
134 pp.
Halverson, N. M. 1986. MAJOR INDICATOR SHRUBS AND HERBS ON NATIONAL FORESTS OF
WESTERN OREGON AND SOUTHWESTERN WASHINGTON. USDA, Forest Service, Portland,
OR. Pub!. No. R6-TM-229-1098.
Halverson, N.M., C. Topik, and R. Van Vickle. 1987. PLANT ASSOCIATION AND MANAGEMENT
GUIDE FOR THE WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE. USDA, Forest Service, Portland, OR. Pubi. No. R6-
ECOL-232A- 1986.
Hansen, P.L., S.W. Chadde, and R.D. Pfister. 1987. RIPARIAN DOMINANCE TYPES OF MONTA-
NA. Review Draft. Montana Riparian Association, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 358 pp.
Heinecke, T.E. 1987. THE FLORA AND PLANT COMMUNITIES OF ThE MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER VALLEY. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL. 653 pp.
A-19
-------
Herdendorf, C.E., C.N. Raphael, and E. Jawarski. 1986. THE ECOLOGY OF LAKE ST. CLAIR WET-
LANDS: A COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 85
(7.7). 187 pp.
Herdendorf, C.E. 1987. THE ECOLOGY OF COASTAL MARSHES OF WESTERN LAKE ERIE: A
COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 85(7.9). 240 pp.
Hobbie, J.E. 1984. THE ECOLOGY OF TUNDRA PONDS OF THE ARCTIC COASTAL PLAIN: A
COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pubi. No. FWS/OBS-83/25.
52 pp.
Holland, R.F. 1986. PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TERRESTRIAL NATURAL COM-
MUNITIES OF CALIFORNIA. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 156 pp.
Hopkins, W.E. 1979. PLANT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE FREMONT NATIONAL FOREST. USDA,
Forest Service, Portland, OR. Pubi. No. R6-ECOL-79-004. 106 pp.
Hopkins, W.E. 1979. PLANT ASSOCIATIONS OF SOUTH CHILOQUIN AND KLAMATH RANG-
ER DISTRICTS - WINEMA NATIONAL FOREST. USDA, Forest Service, Portland, OR. Pubi. No.
R6-ECOL-79-005.
Hopkins, W.E., and B.L. Kovaichik. 1983. PLANT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE CROOKED RIVER
NATIONAL GRASSLAND, OCHOCO NATIONAL FORESTS. USDA, Forest Service, Portland, OR.
Pubi. R6-ECOL-133-1983. 98 pp.
Josselyn, M. 1983. THE ECOLOGY OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY TIDAL MARSHES: A COMMUNI-
TY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-83/23. 102 pp.
Kovaichik, B.L. 1987. RIPARIAN ZONE ASSOCIATIONS DESCHUTES, OCHOCO, FREMONT,
AND WINEMA NATIONAL FORESTS. USDA, Forest Service, Portland, OR. Pubi. No. R6-ECOL-
TP-274-87.
Kovaichik, B.E., W.E. Hopkins, and S.J. Brunsfeld. 1988. MAJOR INDICATOR SHRUBS AND
HERBS IN RIPARIAN ZONES ON NATIONAL FORESTS OF CENTRAL OREGON. USDA, Forest
Service, Portland, OR. Pubi. No. R6-ECOL-TP-005-88.
Livingston, R.J. 1984. THE ECOLOGY OF APALACHICOLA BAY SYSTEM: AN ESTUARINE PRO-
FILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-82/05. 148 pp.
Nixon, S.W. 1982. THE ECOLOGY OF NEW ENGLAND HIGH SALT MARSHES: A COMMUNITY
PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-81/55. 70 pp.
Odum, W.E., C.C. Mc lvor, and T.J. Smith III. 1982. THE ECOLOGY OF THE MANGROVES OF
SOUTH FLORiDA: A COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pubi.
No. FWS/OBS-81.24.
Odum, W.E., T.J. Smith III, J.K. Hoover, and C.C. Mclvor. 1984. THE ECOLOGY OF TIDAL
FRESHWATER MARSHES OF THE UNITED STATES EAST COAST: A COMMUNITY PROFILE.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pubi. No. FWS/OBS-83/17. 176 pp.
Omhart, R.D., B.W. Anderson, and W.C. Hunter. 1988. THE ECOLOGY OF THE LOWER COLORA-
DO RIVER FROM DAVIS DAM TO THE MEXICO-UNITED STATES BOUNDARY: A COMMUNITY
PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 85(7.19). 296 pp.
A-20
-------
Proctor, C.M., et al. 1980. ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
COAST REGION. 5 Vols. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pub!. No. FWS/OBS-79/l 1.
Vol. 1-224 pp.; Vol. 2-574 pp.; Vol 3-327 pp.; Vol. 4-55 1 pp.; Vol 5-70 pp.
Schomer, N.S., and R.D. Drew. 1982. AN ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LOWER
EVERGLADES, FLORIDA BAY, AND THE FLORIDA KEYS. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washing-
ton, DC. Pub!. No. FWS/OBS-82/58.1. 263 pp.
Schomer, N.S., and R.D. Drew. 1982. AN ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CALOO-
SAHATCHEE RIVER/BIG CYPRESS WATERSHED. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Pubi. No. FWS/OBS-82/58.2. 225 pp.
Seliskar, D.M. and J.L. Gallagher. 1983. THE ECOLOGY OF TIDAL MARSHES OF THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST COAST: A COMMUNiTY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Pubi. No. FWS/OBS-82/32. 65 pp.
Sharitz, R.R. and J.W. Gibbons. 1982. THE ECOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN SHRUB BOGS (POC-
OSINS) AND CAROLINA BAYS: A COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washing-
ton, DC. Pub!. No. FWS/OBS-82/04. 93 pp.
Simenstad, C.A. 1983. THE ECOLOGY OF ESTUARINE CHANNELS OF THE PACIFIC NORTh-
WEST COAST: A COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pub!. No.
FWS/OBS-83/05. 181 pp.
Stout, J.P. 1984. THE ECOLOGY OF IRREGULARLY FLOODED SALT MARSHES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN GULF OF MEXICO: A COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 85(7.1). 98 pp.
Teal, J.M. 1985. THE ECOLOGY OF REGULARLY FLOODED SALT MARSHES OF NEW ENG-
LAND. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pub!. No. 85(7.4). 61 pp.
Volland, L.A. 1982. PLANT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE CENTRAL OREGON PUMICE ZONE.
USDA, Forest Service, Portland, OR. Publ. No. R6-ECOL-104-1982.
Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendleton, and T.W. Sipe. 1982. THE ECOLOGY OF BOTTOM-
LAND HARDWOOD SWAMPS OF THE SOUTHEAST: A COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pubi. No. FWS/OBS-81/37.
Whitlatch, R.B. 1982. THE ECOLOGY OF NEW ENGLAND TIDAL FLATS: A COMMUNITY PRO-
FILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pub!. No. FWS/OBS-81/01. 217 PP.
Wiedemann, A.M. 1984. THE ECOLOGY OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST COASTAL SAND DUNES: A
COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-84/04.
1984.
Windell, J.T., B.E. Willard, D.J. Cooper, S.Q. Foster, C.F. Knud-hansen, L.P. Rink, and G.M. Kila-
dis. 1986. AN ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN MONTANE AND
SUBALPINE WETLANDS. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 85(7.19).
298 pp.
Williams, C.K., and T.R. Lillybridge. 1983. FORESTED PLANT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE OKANO-
GAN NATIONAL FOREST. USDA, Forest Service, Portland, OR. Pub!. No. R6-ECOL-132-1983.
116 pp.
A.21
-------
Williams, C.K., and T.R. Lillybridge. 1985. FORESTED PLANT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE COL-
VILLE NATIONAL FOREST. (Draft). USDA, Forest Service. 96 pp.
Wolfe, S.H., and D.B. Menas. 1988. AN ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE FLORIDA
PANHANDLE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 99(12). 2T7pp.
Zedler, J.B. 1982. THE ECOLOGY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL SALT MARSHES: A
COMMUNITY PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pubi. No. FWS/OBS-81/54.
11 opp.
Zedler, P.H. 1987. THE ECOLOGY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA VERNAL POOLS: A COMMUNI-
1’Y PROFILE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 85(7.11). 136 pp.
IX. OTHER WETLAND BOOKS OF INTEREST
Ash, A.N. 1983. NATURAL AND MODIFIED POCOSINS: LITERATURE SYNTHESIS AND MAN-
AGEMENT OBJECTIVES. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pubi. No. FWS/OBS-83/
04. 156 pp.
Batten, A.R. 1980. A PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK FOR ALASKA WETLAND
AND AQUATIC VEGETATION. Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
135 pp.
Batten, A.R., and B.F. Murray. 1982. A LITERATURE SURVEY OF THE WETLAND VEGETATION
OF ALASKA. Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 222 pp.
Brabander, J.J., R.E. Masters, and R.M. Short. 1985. BOUOMLAND HARDWOODS OF EASTERN
OKLAHOMA. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa, OK and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conserva-
tion, Oklahoma City, OK. 83 pp + appendices.
Chabreck, R.H. 1972. VEGETATION, WATER AND SOIL CHARACFERISTICS OF THE LOUISIA-
NA COASTAL REGION. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge, LA. Bull. 664. 72p.
Clark, J.R. and J. Benforado (editors). 1981. WETLANDS OF BOYFOMLAND HARD WOOD FOR-
ESTS; PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP ON BOTFOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST WETLANDS
OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNiTED STATES. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, NY.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS
AND DEEPWATER HABITATS OF THE UNITED STATES. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-79/31. 107 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL.
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. 100 pp. plus ap-
pendices.
Eyre, F.H. (editor) 1980. FOREST COVER TYPES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. Socie-
ty of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Good, R.E., D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson (editors). 1978. FRESHWATER WETLANDS. Aca-
demic Press, New York, NY.
Groman, H.A., T.R. Henderson, E.J. Meyers, D.M. Burke, and J.A. Kusler (editors). 1985. WET-
LANDS OF THE CHESAPEAKE. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.
A-22
-------
Hall, L.C. 1968. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF FRESHWATER WETLANDS ECOLOGY AND MANAGE-
MENT. Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. Res. Rpt. No. 33.
Hook, D.D. 1978. PLANT LIFE IN ANAEROBIC ENVIRONMENTS. Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. 564 pp.
Hubbard, D.E. 1988. GLACIATED PRAIRIE WETLAND FUNCFIONS AND VALUES: A SYNTHE-
SIS OF THE LITERATURE. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 88(43). 50 pp.
Kozlowski, T.T. (editor) 1984. FLOODING AND PLANT GROWTH. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando,
FL. 356 pp.
Laderman, A.D. (editor) 1987. ATLANTIC WHiTE CEDAR WETLANDS. Westview Press, Inc., Boul-
der, CO.
Lindstrom, L.E. 1968. THE AQUATIC AND MARSH PLANTS OF THE GREAT PLAINS OF CEN-
TRAL NORTH AMERICA. Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. 247 pp.
Markovits, P.S. (editor). 1981. PROCEEDINGS - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WORK-
SHOP ON COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pubi. No. FWS/OBS-80/59. 257 pp.
McCormick, J. 1970. THE PINE BARRENS: A PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY. New
Jersey State Museum, Trenton, NJ. Research Report No. 2. 100 pp.
McDonald, C.B. 1983. POCOSINS: A CHANGING WETLAND RESOURCE. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-83/32. 22 pp.
Mitsch, W.J., et al. 1983. ATLAS OF WETLANDS IN THE PRINCIPAL COAL SURFACE MINING
REGION OF WESTERN KENTUCKY. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Pubi. No.
FWS/OBS-82172. 134 pp.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1936. WETLANDS. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc., New York,
NY.
Niering, W.A. 1984. WETLANDS. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, NY.
Novitzld, R.P. 1979. AN INTRODUCFION TO WISCONSIN WETLANDS: PLANTS, HYDROLOGY,
AND SOILS. US Geological Survey in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin. 19 pp.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. WETLANDS: THEIR USE AND REGULATION. US Con-
gress, Washington, DC.
Penfound, W.T. 1952. SOUTHERN SWAMPS AND MARSHES. Bot. Rev. 18(6): 413-446.
Sipple, W.S. 1987. WETLAND IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION MANUAL. VOLUME I. RA-
TIONALE, WETLAND PARAMETERS, AND OVERVIEW OF JURISDICTIONAL APPROACR U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC. 28 pp. plus appendi-
ces.
Sipple, W.S. 1987. WETLAND IDENTIHCATION AND DELINEATION MANUAL. VOLUME II.
FIELD METHODOLOGY. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, Wash-
ington, DC. 29 pp. plus appendices.
A-23
-------
Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1984. WETLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES: CURRENT STATUS AND RECENT
TRENDS. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. WETLANDS OF DELAWARE. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner,
MA and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. Cooperative
Publication. 77 pp.
Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1985. WETLANDS OF NEW JERSEY. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Cor-
ner,MA. 117 pp.
Wolf, R.B., L.C.Lee, and R.R. Sharitz. 1986. WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION IN THE
UNITED STATES FROM 1970 TO 1985: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY. SPECIAL ISSUE.
Wetlands 6(1):1-87.
A-24
-------
Appendix B
Examples of Data Sheets
B-i
-------
DATA FORM
ROU11NE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD 1
Indicator
Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species
11.
12.
13.
14.
Indicator
Status Stratum
Series/phase:
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? ______ _____
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes ______ ______
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes _____ _____
Matrix Color:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _____ No _____
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes _____ _____
Is the soil saturated? Yes _____ No _____
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: ___________
List other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation.
_____ No _____ Surface water depth:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _____ No _____
Rationale:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes _____ No _____
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: _________________________________________
Field Investigator(s): Date: _______________________
Project/She: State: County:
Applicantiowner: Plant Community #IName: _________________________
Note: If a more detailed site description Is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes _____ No _____ (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes _____ No _____ (If yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1.
2.
3. ____________________
4.
5. ______________________ ______ ______ 15.
6. _____________________ ______ ______ 16.
7. ______________________ ______ ______ 17.
8. _____________________ ______ ______ 18.
9. _____________________ ______ ______ 19.
10. _______________________ ______ ______ 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC —
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes _____ No _____
SOILS
Subgroup: 2
Yes _____ No _____ Undetermined _______________
No _____ Histic epipedon present? Yes _____ No _____
No _____ Gleyed? Yes _____ No _____
Mottle Colors:
This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classificatlon according to “Soil Taxonomy.”
B-2
-------
DATA FORM
INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METhOD
QUADRAT TRANSECT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
(Vegetation Data)
Field Investigator(s).
Project/Site Date:
Applicant/Owner StateS County.
Transect # Plot #
Note. If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES
Indicator Indicator
Herbs (Bryophytes) Status Saplings Status
1. _________________________________________ ___________ 1
2. _____________________________ ________ 2
3. ______________________________ ________ 3.
4. ____________________________ ________ 4
5 ______________ ____ 5
6 ______________ ____ 6
7. ______________________________ ________ 7.
8. _____________________________ ________ 8
9 _____________ 9
10. ____________________________ 10.
11. ______________________________________ ___________ 11.
12. _________________________ 12
13. ____________________________ ________ 13
Shrubs Trees
1. ____________________________________ __________ 1.
2. ___________ 2
3 ___________ 3.
4. ___________ 4.
5. ___________ 5.
6. 6.
7. 7
8. 8.
9. ___________ 9.
10. __________ 10.
11. ______________ 11.
12. __________ 12.
13. 13.
Woody Vines
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Percent of dominant species that are ORL, FACW. and/or FAC__________
B-3
-------
DATA FORM
INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
(Herbs and Bryophytes)
Field Investigator(s): Date _____________________
Project/Site: State ’ County:
Applicant/Owner: Vegetation Unit #/Name ’_______________________________
Note If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook
Percent
Areal
Species ________ Cover
2. _______________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
3. _______________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________ _______
4. _______________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________ _______
5. _______________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________ _______
6. _________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________ _______
7. _______________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________ _______
8 _____________________________________ __________ __________ __________ ________________ ________
9. _________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________
10. _______________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
11. _____________________________________ __________ __________ __________ ________________
12. ______________________________ ________ ________ ________ _____________
13. ______________________________ ________ ________ ________ _____________
14. ____________________________ ________ ________ ____________
15. ___________________________ ________ ________ ________ ____________
16. _________ _________ _________ _____________
17. ______________________________ ________ ________ ________ _____________
18. ______________________________ ________ ________ ________ _____________
19. _______________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
20 ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
21. _____________________________ ________ ________ ________ ____________
22. _______________________________ _________ _________ _____________
23. ______________________________ ________ ________ ________ _____________
24. ______________________________ ________ ________ _____________
25. _______________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
26 ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
27. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
28. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
29. ______________________________ ________ ________ ________ _____________
30. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
31. _____________________________ ________ ________ ________ ____________
32. ______________________________ ________ ________ ________ _____________
33. _______________ ____ ______
34. ____ ____ ____ ______
35. ______________________________ ________ _____________
36. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ _____________
Indicator
Status
Midpoint 1
Cover 1 of Cover
Class Class
Rank 2
8
Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
I Cover classes (midpoints): T<1%(none); I — 1-5% (30); 2— 6-15% (10.5); 3— 16-25% (20.5); 4 — 26-50%
(38.0); 5.51-75% (63.0); 6 — 76-95% (85.5); 7— 96-100% (98.0).
2 To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their midpoints, Then cumulatively sum the midpoints
of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints is immediately exceeded. All species
contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number) plus any add ional species having
20% of the tolal midpoint value should be considered dominants and marked with an asterisk
B-4
-------
DATA FORM
INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATiON METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPUNG PROCEDURE
(Shrubs, Woody Vines and Saplings)
Field Investigator(s): Date
Project/Site: State: County
Applicant/Owner Vegetation Unit #/Name.
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Percent Midpoint 1
Indicator Areal Cover 1 of Cover
Shrub Species Status Cover Class Class Rank 2
2.
3
4
5.
6.
7
8
9.
10
Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
Percent Midpoint 1
Indicator Areal Cover 1 of Cover
Woody Vine Species Status Cover Class Class Rank 2
2.
3
4.
5
Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
Percent Midpoint 1
indicator Areal Cover 1 of Cover
Sapling Species Status Cover Class Class Rank 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
I Cover classes (midpoints): T<1 % (none); 1 — 1-5% (3 D);2 — 6-15% (10.5); 3 • 16-25% (20.5); 4 — 26-50%
(38.0); 5—51-75% (63 0); 6— 76-95% (85.5); 7—96-100% (98 0).
2 To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their midpoints. Then cumulatively sum the midpoints
of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints is immediately exceeded. All species
contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number) plus any additional species having
20% of the total midpoint value should be considered dominants and marked with an asterisk.
B-5
-------
DATA FORM
INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINA11ON METhOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
(Trees)
Field Investigator(s): Date: ____________________
Project/She: State: County:
Applicant/Owner: Vegetation Unit #/Name:______________________________
Nate: 11 a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Percent Midpoint 1
Indicator Areal Cover 1 of Cover
Tree Species (Percent Cover Option) Status Cover Class Class Rank 2
1. _________________________________________ ___________ ___________ ___________ _________________ _________
2. _______________________________ ________ ________ ________ _____________ _______
3. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________ _______
4. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________ _______
5. _______________________________ ________ ________ _________ _____________
6. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________
7. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________
Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
Indicator Tally Total Basal 3
Tree Species (Basal Area Option) Status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Trees Area Rank 2
2. __________________________ _______________ ________ _______
3. ____________________________ _________________ _________ ________ _______
4. ____________________________ _________ _________________ _________ ________ _______
5. ____________________________ _________ _________________ _________ ________ _______
6. ______________________________ _________ __________________ _________ ________
7. ______________________________ _________ __________________ _________ ________
8. ___________________________ ________ ________________ ________ _______
9. ____________________________ _________ _________________ _________ ________
10. _________________ _________ ________
Basal Area Factor (e.g., Prism Used) _________
Total Basal Area of All Species Combined _______
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% of Total Basal Area ______
1 Cover classes (midpoints): Tcl % (none); 1 = 1-5% (3.0); 2 = 6-15% (10.5); 3 = 16-25% (20.5); 4 = 26-50%
(38.0); 5 51-75% (63.0); 6 = 76-95% (85.5); 7 = 96-100% (98.0).
2 determine the dominants, first rank the species by their midpoints (or basal area). Then cumulatively
sum the midpoints (basal area) of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints (or
basal area) Is immediately exceeded. All species contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance
threshold number) plus any additional species having 20% of the total midpoint, or basal area, value
should be considered dominanis and marked with an asterisk.
3 The basal area for a species (on a per acre basis) is determined by dividing the total number of
Individual trees tallied for all tally areas by the number of tallies and multiplying by the basal area factor.
B-6
-------
I
DATA FORM
INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR
COMPREHENSIVE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
(Soils and Hydrology)
Field Investigator(s):
Project/Site: State: County
Applicant/Owner:
Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method _____
Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method ______
Transect # ______ Plot # ______
Vegetation Unit #/Name ______________________________ Sample # Within Veg. Unit: ______
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook
SOILS
Series/phaseS
Is the soil on the hydric soils list?
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes _____
Is the soil. Mottled? Yes _____
Matrix Color
Other hydric soil indicators:
Yes _____ No _____ Undetermined -
No _____ Histic epipedon present? Yes
No _____ Gleyed? Yes _____ No _____
Mottle Colors:
HYDROLOGY
Surface water depth:
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes _____ No _____
Is the soil saturated? Yes _____ No _____
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole _______
Mark other field indicators of surface inundation or soil saturation below:
— Oxidized root zones
Water marks
Drift lines
— Water-borne sediment deposits
Additional hydrologic indicators: —
Comments:
— Water-stained leaves
— Surface scoured areas
— Wetland drainage patterns
— Morphological plant adaptations
This data form can be used for both the Vegetation Unit Sampling Procedure and the Quadrat Transect
Sampling Procedure of the Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method, or the Quadrat Sampling
Procedure of the Compehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used.
2 Cla Ification according to SoiI Taxonomy.
Date:
C, .knrn. in. 2
____ No _____
8-7
-------
DATA FORM 1
INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR
COMPREHENSIVE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
(Summary Sheet)
Field Investigator(s): Data: ____________
Project/Site: State: County:
Applicant/Owner:
Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method ______
Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method ______
Transect # ______ Plot # ______Vegetation Unit #/Name: _________________________
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes ______ No _____ (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes _____ No _____ (If yes, explain on back)
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. ____________________ _____ _____ 14. ____________________ _____
2. ____________________ ______ _____ 15. ____________________ ______
3. _____________________ ______ ______ 16. _____________________ ______
4. _____________________ ______ ______ 17. _____________________ ______
5. 18. _____________________ ______
6. _____________________ ______ 19.
7. ________________________ _______ 20
8. ____________________ ______ 21.
9. ________________________ _______ 22.
10. _____________________ ______ 23. _____________________
11. _____________________ 24. _____________________
12. _____________________ ______ ______ 25. _____________________
13. _____________________ ______ ______ 26. _____________________
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC __________
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _______ No _______
Is the wetland hydrolo9y criterion met? Yes ______ No _______
Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes ______ No ______
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: ________________________________________________________________
This data form can be used for either the Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive
Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which method Is used.
B-8
-------
DATA FORM
COMPREHENSIVE ONSITE DETERMINATION METhOD
QUADRAT SAMPLING PROCEDURE 1
(Herbs and Bryophytes)
Field Investigator(s): ______________________________________________ Date:
Project/Site: StateS County
Applicant/Owner:
Transect # _____ Plot # _____ Vegetation Unit #/Name
Note. If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Indicator Quadrat Percent Areal Cover —
Species Status 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 X Rank’
1.
2
3
4 ____
5 ____
6. _____________________________ _________ ______
7. _____________________________ _________ ______
8. ____________________________ ________ ______
9. _____________________________ _________ ______
10. ____
11. ________
12. ____
13. ____
14. ______
15. ____
16 ____
Total Cover _2
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Total Cover _2
Total of Averages (Xs) ...............3
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Total of Averages (Xs) ____
This data form can be used for both the Plant Community Transect Sampling Approach and the Fixed
Interval Transect Sampling Approach.
2 These entries are only applicable to the Fixed Interval Transect Sampling Approach which uses only one
quadrat per sampling point along a transect.
These entries are only applicable to the Plant Community Transect Sampling Approach which uses
multiple quadrats per sampling point along a transect.
4 To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their cover (or mean cover) Then cumulatively sum
the cover (mean cover) of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species cover (mean cover) is
immediately exceeded. All species contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number)
plus additional species having 20% of the total cover (mean cover) value should be considered
dominants and marked with an asterisk.
B-9
-------
SPECIES-AREA CURVE 1
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
E
z
8
7’
6
5’
4’
3
2
I
I I I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Number of Quadrats 2
1 Plot the cumulative number of species against the quadrats (e.g., if quadrat #1 has 3 species and
quadrat #2 has any, all, or none of those species but has 2 new species, then 5 cumulative species
should be plotted against quadrat #2). The number of quadrats sufficient to adequately survey the
understory will corresdpond to the point on the curve where first levels off and remains
essentially level.
2 specify size of sample quad rat:
B-i 0
-------
DATA FORM
COMPREHENSIVE ONSITE DETERMINATiON METHOD
QUADRAT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
(Shrubs and Woody Vines)
Field Investigator(s): Date: ____________________
ProjeWS e: State: County:
Applicant/Owner:
Transect # _____ Plot # _____ Vegetation Unit #/Name: ___________________________________
Note If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Percent Midpoint 1
Indicator Areal Cover 1 of Cover
Shrub Species Status Cover Class Class Rank 2
1. ___________________________________________ ____________ ____________ ____________ __________________ __________
2. _________ _________ ______________ _______
3.
4. _____________________________ ________ ________ ________ ______
5. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________ _______
6. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________
7. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________ _______
8. ______________________________ ________ ________ ________
9. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________
10. _____________________________ ________ ________ ________
11. ________________________________________ ___________ ___________ ___________ _________________ _________
12
13. _____________________________ ________ ________ ________ ____________ ______
14. ____________________________ ________ ________ ________
Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
Percent Midpoint 1
Indicator Areal Cover 1 of Cover
Woody Vine Species Status Cover Class Class Rank 2
2
3. ________________________________ _________
4. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________
5 __________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________
6. ______________________________ ________ ________ _________ _____________
7. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________
8. ________
9. ________________________________ _________ _________ _________ ______________ _______
10.
11. ________________________________________ ___________ ___________ ___________ _________________ _________
12. _____________________________ ________ ________ ________ ____________ ______
13.
14.
Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
1 Cover classes (midpoints): 1<1% (none); I = 1-5% (3.0); 2 = 6-15% (10.5); 3 = 16-25% (20 5); 4 = 26-50%
(38.0); 5 51-75% (63 0); 6 = 76.95% (85.5); 7 = 96-100% (98.0).
2 To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their midpoints. Then cumulatively sum the midpoints
of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints is immediately exceeded All species
contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number) plus any additional species having
20% of the total midpoint value should be considered dominants and marked w h an astensk.
B-il
-------
DATA FORM
COMPREHENSIVE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
OUADRAT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
(Saplings & Trees)
Field Investigator(s): ____________________________________________ Date: —
Project/Site: County:
Applicant/Owner:
Transect # _____ Plot # _____ Vegetation Unit #IName:
Note: If a more detailed s e description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Percent Midpoint 1
Indicator Areal Cover 1 of Cover
Sapling Species Status Cover Class Class Rank 2
2. ________ ________ _____________ _______
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Sum of Midpoinls
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
Basal
Area (BA) BA Per
Indicator DBH Per Tree Species
Individual Tree Species Status ( inches) ( sq fi) ( sq ft) Rank 2
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Total Basal Area of All Species Combined
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Total Basal Area
I Cover classes (midpoints): 1<1% (none); 1 = 1-5% (3.0); 2 = 6-15% (10.5); 3 = 16-25% (20.5); 4 26-50%
(38.0); 5 51 -75% (63.0); 6 76-95% (85.5); 7 96-100% (98.0).
2 To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their midpoints Then cumulatively sum the midpoints
of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species midpoints is immediately exceeded. All species
conlributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number) plus any additional species having
20% of the total midpoint value should be considered dominants and marked with an asterisk.
B-i 2
-------
PREVALENCE INDEX WORKSHEET
LOCATION _____________________ DATE ___________ EVALUATOR ___
HYDRIC UNIT NAME _______________________________TRANSECT NO.
Frequency of Occurrence of Identified Plants
with Known Indicator Status
Frequency of F 0 F F 1 Ft F
Occurrence
Total for Facult Facult.
Plant Species Each Species Obligate Wet Facull. Upland Upland
Total occurrence for
all plant species
Total occurrences IDd
with known indicator
status
E.l value 1 2 3 4 5
Total occurrences
identified with known indicator status
= % valid occurrences
Total occurrence for all plant species
( iF 0 ) + (2F ) + ( 3 Ff) + (4Fiu) + ( 5 F )
P 1. =
( ÷F +Ff+F u+Fu)
B-i 3
-------
B-14
-------
Appendix C
Sample Calculation for Herb
Stratum Dominants
c-i
-------
DATA FORM
COMPREHENSIVE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
OUADRAT SAMPLING PROCEDURE 1
(Herbs and Bryophytes)
Field Investigator(s): /30 b r& t- ti .cI .8 1 //S / ‘pJ Date: 9 /1 7
Project/SiteS u/ -’ . State: “ -‘° - County: / - “
Applicant/Owner: 3t - e
Transect # / Plot # 2. Vegetation Unit #/Name:
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of deta form or a fietd notebook.
Species
*1. 2e e.r3,a cn-yzo’d 5
2. 12/,7OCM/012 ur’ o 6 o
e 2 1G’-
4: C/I 5e d/, q ( 6c r6 )
5• Bio - ’
6. 7 7L r ja /o6i/o/ia .
7 ) V ‘ ( I ci / /a .- iz
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Total Cover _2
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Total Cover _2
Total of Averages ( X’s)SS ?
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Total of Averages (Xs) 4w
1 This data form can be used for both the Plant Community Transect Sampling Approach and the Fixed
Interval Transect Sampling Approach.
2 These entries are only applicable to the Fixed Interval Transect Sampling Approach which uses only one
quadrat per sampling point along a transect.
3 entries are only applicable to the Plant Community Transect Sampling Approach which uses
multiple quadrats per sampling point along a transect.
4 To determine the dominants, first rank the species by their cover (or mean cover). Then cumulatively sum
the cover (mean cover) of the ranked species until 50% of the total for all species cover (mean cover) is
immediately exceeded. All species contributing to that cumulative total (the dominance threshold number)
plus additional species having 20% of the total cover (mean cover) value should be considered
dominants and marked with an asterisk
Indicator
Status
Quadrat Percent Areal Cover
01 Q2 03 04 05 06 Q7 08 X Rank 4
:ff_ ?_q /
8.
9.
10.
it
___‘LL z .
L - - __
———-a- 7
___L2
_____ 2. 5 3 /5
___ L_ LL L
_____ / . .2 /
___ _ L L_
___ ——-—l
C-2
-------
SPECIES-AREA CURVE 1
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13 -
12
11
. 10.
E
z
8
7 . . . .
6 • •
5
4
3
2
1
I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Number of Quadrats 2
1 Plot the cumulative number of species against the quadrats (e.g., if quadrat #1 has 3 species and
quadrat #2 has any, all, or none of those species but has 2 new species, then 5 cumulative species
should be plotted against quadrat #2). The number of quadrats sufficient to adequately survey the
understory will corresdpond to the point on the curve where ft first levels off and remains
essentially level.
2 Specify size of sample quadrat: 0 1 fl’1
C-3
-------
C-4
-------
Appendix D
Sample Problem for Application of
Point Intercept Sampling Method
D-1
-------
Sample problem for application of point sampling method. Example follows this sample worksheet.
PREVALENCE INDEX WORKSHEET
1o,,1 crme,’ i Co) fl à
LOCATION , C ,,, e2, g 1 7-act 7I/ DATE __________ EVALUATOR , 4 n,,e Ly,
HYDRICUNITNAME 1 bb TRANSECTNO. I
Frequency of Occurrence of Identified Plants
with Known Indicator Status
Frequency of F 0 F F 1 F F
Occurrence
Total for Facult. Facult.
Plant Species Each Species Obligate Wet. Facult. Upland Upland
L,rode’,c/p-on 7 /ip 4 ’era. / 3 ______ _____ _____ ______ _____
P1121p,iuc Occ,den/zdLS 2o ______ _____ ______ ______ _____
4 cer , 6r ,ii _________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______
/ /ea’era Jiaf, I _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
Serr /a,’a __________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
d h /A peH4 1
L wdamhac J/ ra cif/ i ______ ______ ______ ______ ______
Q/l(4rn a per//Lin _________ a ______ ______ ______ ______
6 en zo,, , 3 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________
Lon,cer . jQfbnIC& . _______ ________ 5 ________ _______
7 drnd -c 7 raa’,cppi c _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
V’/ L4r,,u’n feCocjnhI i,n 2 ’ ______ ______ ______
) q,’,spemct 1 / ______ ______ ______ ______ ______
Corp,n eam/iniona . __________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
x/ex OpQcQ .. - /2 . . ______ ______ ______ I ______
7li / 7 pIeric i,oyehorpeer,s, _______ _______ _______ _______ _______
Total occurrence for
all plant species 86
Total occurrences ID’d
with known indicator
status ___________ q
E.l.value I _____ 3 ‘ 7 ’ 5
Total occurrences
identified with known indicator status = % valid occurrences = 100 X
Total occurrence for all plant species 6
( iF 0 ) + (2Ffw) + (3F 1 ) + (4Ftu) + ( 5 F )
P1.
I ( +F +Ff+ u+Fu)
D-2
-------
COMPUTATIONS
Computation of prevalence index (P1) for transect #1
( iF 0 ) + (2F ) + (3Ff) + ( 4 Ffu) + (5Fu )
P1. =
(F 0 .e . F + Ff . 4. Fju .4. Fu )
P 1 1 = ( 1x4) + (2x29) + (3x24) + (4x25 ) = 234 = 2.85
4 +29+24+25 82
where:
P1 1 = Prevalence index for transect i
F 0 = Frequence of occurrence of obligate wetland species
FfW = Frequency of occurrence of lacultative wetland species
Ff = Frequency of occurrence of facultative species
Ffu = Frequency of occurrence of facultative upland species
Fu = Frequency of occurrence of upland species
2. Computation of mean prevalence index ( 1 M) for three transects
where:
= Mean prevalence index for transects
= Sum of prevalence index values for all transects
N = Total number of transects
For example: P1 for Transect 1 = 2.85
P1 for Transect 2 = 3.16
P1 for Transect 3 = 2.93
285+3.16+293 894
= 3 = —i-- =298
D-3
-------
3. Computation of standard deviation (s) for prevalence index (P1):
( P1 1 — + (P1 2 :. PIM) 2 + (P1 3 — P IM) 2
For example:
Transect ( P1 1 — M) ( P1 1 — P 1M 2
1 2.85 2.98 -.0 13 0.01 69
2 3.16 2.98 0 18 0.0324
3 2.93 2.98 —0.05 00025
0 0518
$ = = 0.161
4. Computation of standard error (si) of the prevalence index:
— $ 0.161 0.161
sx = — = =0.093
1.73
Since 0.093 does not exceed 0.20, no additional transects are needed.
5. Record mean prevalence index value.
= 2.98
Since 2.98 is less than 3.0, the area has hydrophytic vegetation. If the wetland
hydrology criterion is met, then the area is a wetland.
D4 e li S Governeent Printing Office 1989—244-108/00499
------- |