MARINE WETLAND BOUNDARY DEFINITION:
EVALUATION OF METHODOLOGY
by
H. Peter Eilers
Alan Taylor
William Sanville
LIBRARY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLfS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB
200 SH 3STH ST
CCJRVALUS. OREOON 97333
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97333
June 1981
-------
MARINE WETLAND BOUNDARY DEFINITION:
EVALUATION OF METHODOLOGY
H. Peter Eilers
Alan Taylor
William Sanvllle
CERL - 054
June 1981
-------
ABSTRACT
With legislation to protect wetlands and current pressures to convert
them to other uses, it is often necessary to accurately determine a wetland-
upland boundary. We investigated 6 methods to establish such a boundary based
on vegetation. Each method was applied to a common data set obtained from 295
quadrats along 22 transects between marsh and upland in 13 Oregon and
Washington intertidal wetlands. The multiple occurrence, joint occurrence,
and five percent methods required plant species to be classified as wetland,
upland, and non-indicator; cluster and similarity methods required no initial
classification. Close agreement between wetland-upland boundaries determined
by the 6 methods suggests that preclassification of plants and collection of
plant cover data may not be necessary to arrive at a defensible boundary
determination. Examples of each method and lists of indicator plant species
for coastal California, Oregon, and Washington are provided.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Figures .
Tables
Acknowledgements . . .
Introduction
Methods for Boundary Determination
Indicator Species
Five Percent
Joint Occurrence
Multiple Occurrence
Cluster
Similarity ISJ and ISE
Lists of Indicator Species.
Comparison of Methods
Discussion and Recommendations
Literature Cited
Appendices
A. Examples of vegetation methods to determine wetland boundaries. .
B. Salt marsh, non-indicator, and upland plant species of
California, Oregon, and Washington
C. Upper limit of marsh and lower limit of transition zone
determined by 6 methods applied to 22 transects
D. Sample field data sheet
E. Computer software available at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1. Flow diagram to facilitate choice of vegetation method to
determine upper limit of wetland
TABLES
Table 1. Lower transition zone limit (LTZ) and upper limit of marsh
(ULM) as determined by 6 methods applied to 22 transects
from Frenkel et al_. (1978). Limits expressed as distance
(M) along transect where distance increases from marsh to
upland
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The refinement of indicator species lists was possible through the effort
of numerous scholars: Michael G. Barbour, University of California, Davis;
Lawrence C. Bliss, University of Washington; Kenton L. Chambers, Oregon State
University; Wayne R. Ferren, University of California, Santa Barbara; Keith
Macdonald, Woodward-Clyde Consultants; Robert Ornduff, University of
California, Berkeley; David H. Wagner, University of Oregon; and Joy Zedler,
San Diego State University. We greatly appreciate their time and effort.
We also thank Theodore Boss for comments and criticism, and Jo Oshiro for
help with computer graphics.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Two decades of intensive research following the suggestions of Odum
(1961) and the work of Teal (1962) have firmly established values attributed
to undisturbed coastal salt marshes. These intertidal wetlands were noted for
high macrophyte production and for export of energy-rich organic detritus and
dissolved organic carbon to estuarine waters. They serve as juvenile fish and
wildlife habitat, as buffer to erosion of sediment, and have potential for
water purification.
Accompanying the increase in awareness of salt marsh values and poten-
tials, however, has been the rapid conversion of coastal marsh to urban,
suburban, and agricultural uses through diking, filling, and construction
activities (Darnell 1976). Recent federal legislation is designed to retard
this rapid conversion and thereby protect what now remains of the nation's
wetland resources. Most notable are the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 and 1977 (Water Act) which, in Section 404 provide for a
permit review process to regulate dredge and fill projects.
To fully implement Section 404 requires that those involved in the review
process be equipped to: (1) identify wetland; and (2) determine boundaries,
especially that between the marsh and upland. Yet, while the identification
of wetlands may be accomplished by noting the presence of standing water and
plants adapted to growth in saturated soil conditions, the determination of
the upper limit of wetland is difficult. Instead of exhibiting a sharp break,
the characteristics of wetland are more likely to gradually shift to those of
upland along a transition. In salt marsh, the influence of the tide gradually
1
-------
diminishes with increasing surface elevation, soils become better drained, and
vegetation gradually changes to that of non-wetland. An ecotone with inter-
digitation of marsh and upland plant species occurs between the two systems.
To better understand the nature of the marsh-upland ecotone and to
develop methodologies to delineate a defensible intertidal marsh boundary, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers began a major research effort in 1976. Following the completion
of two pilot projects (Frenkel and Eilers 1976, Jefferson 1976), five groups
were funded to investigate transition zones and upper limits. Individually
they covered salt marshes along the coasts of California (Harvey et al_. 1978);
Oregon and Washington (Frenkel et al_. 1978); Alaska (Batten et al. 1978);
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina (Boon et al^. 1978); and
freshwater marsh along the shores of the Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and
Lake Huron (Jefferson 1978). The reports provide an excellent floristic
description of marsh-upland ecotones and they identify major approaches to
boundary determination based on vegetation.
The purpose of this report is to: (1) evaluate the methods applied by
these researchers; (2) present alternative methods; (3) recommend the best
approach to wetland boundary delineation based on vegetation; and (4) provide
appropriate plant lists and computer software to apply methodology to Pacific
Coast intertidal marshes. We consider the methods presented as applicable to
wetland-upland boundary determination in general, not to marine wetlands
alone. We acknowledge, however, that vegetation should not be the only
criteria considered. The best approach will incorporate vegetation, soils,
and hydrology. The methods provided here are a first approximation. As our
knowledge of physical factors across the wetland-upland ecotone is increased,
2
-------
methods will be enlarged and refined. At the moment we must rely primarily on
a vegetation approach.
METHODS FOR BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
Methods to determine wetland boundaries presented by these researchers
listed above vary from those with an emphasis on indicator species and little
quantitative data to those requiring classification of all plant species
recorded and intensive quantitative treatment. We will consider the less
quantitative approach favored by Batten et al_. (1978) and Jefferson (1978),
then the more quantitative methods of other researchers. To this we will add
other quantitative approaches.
Indicator Species
Batten et aL (1978) investigated Alaskan coastal salt marshes and
collected information on plant species percent cover from quadrats located
along the elevation gradient between marsh and upland. Based on their data
and knowledge of plant species habitat preference, they developed lists of
indicator species that signal the shift from salt marsh to terrestrial upland
or freshwater marsh. The lower limit of the transition zone (LTZ) was estab-
lished at a point where species abundant in upland or freshwater wetland first
become "abundant" in the marsh and the upper limit of marsh (ULM) was reached
when all ttie species characteristic of the vegetation type bordering the marsh
are present in "appropriate amounts." No definition of "abundant" or "appro-
priate amounts" is given and thus the placement of a boundary in the field
following this approach would be highly subjective and ill-suited to cases
involving close legal scrutiny.
3
-------
Jefferson (1978) likewise developed indicator plant species lists from
the study of freshwater marshes along the shores of the Great Lakes. Her
treatment of the marsh-upland ecotone is exhaustive, yet little attention is
given to boundary delineation. She states that "by using the community
descriptions and lists of dominant, prevalent, and differential species,
detection of the ecotone and its limits should be facilitated." As with
Batten et ah (1978), this approach requires much subjective judgment and may
be expected to yield only an approximate boundary determination.
Five Percent
The initial approach of Boon et ah (1978) and Harvey et ah (1978) was
similar to those above but carried further. Following acquisition of plant
cover estimates from transects along the transition from marsh to upland, a
"five percent" method was utilied such that the upper limit of the transition
zone was defined as the point "at which the amount of ground coverage by
upland plants is at least five percent and is contiguous with the upland
proper" (Boon et ah (1978). The lower transition limit is defined similarly
with coverage of upland plants less than five percent. Both research groups
classified plant species as to marsh, transition, upland (Boon et ah 1978);
or marsh, upland, non-indicator (Harvey et ah 1978) and present results
graphically. Harvey et ah (1978) applied the following procedures: (1) when
a five percent cover value of the appropriate cover type, either marsh or
upland, occurred in a quadrat and no trace occurred in the adjacent, more
distal quadrat, the quadrat with five percent cover was marked as the transi-
tion; (2) if the adjacent quadrat distal to the five percent cover plot had a
trace of the vegetation type in question, the adjacent quadrat was marked as
the transition limit; (3) if two plots in sequence had a trace of either type
4
-------
vegetation, the more distal quadrat was marked as the limit; (4) if the five
percent cover level fell between two quadrats, the limit was located by inter-
polation; (5) if no overlap of upland and marsh species occurred either due to
bare ground and/or cover by non-indicator species, a point midway between
quadrats in which each type was represented was chosen. Appendices A and C
contain examples of this and other methods described.
Joint Occurrence
After applying the five percent method, Harvey et aK (1978) sought a
"quicker, easier, but equally accurate approach." Their choice was a modifi-
cation of Fager's (1957) measure of joint occurrence which takes the form
I - 2J
aMU nM + nU
where, for any single quadrat, J is the number of joint occurrences of marsh
and upland species, nM is the number of marsh species, and nU is the number of
upland species. Non-indicator species are disregarded.
Plotting for quadrats along a transect shows a series of zeros for
pure wetland followed by a rise to a peak in the transition and a fall to zero
again in pure upland. In practice, however, Harvey et al_. (1978) found it
difficult to interpret such a graph when natural or man-made "patchiness" was
present. This problem was largely eliminated by computing and plotting a
standardized cumulative index (SCI) for each quadrat
XMU
SCI. = I „ J and SCI =1.0
1 i=l I IMUi n
i=l
5
-------
where n is the total number of quadrats. After plotting index values, Harvey
et al_. (1978) identified the lower and upper limits of the transition as 0.5 m
above the rise of the data line from the abscissa and 0.5 m above SCI = 1.0,
respectively (given 1 m distance between sample quadrats or one-half the
distance between quadrats if greater than 1 m). Close agreement between the
SCI and the five percent method transition boundaries was observed.
Multiple Occurrence
Frenkel et al^. (1978) applied an expanded plant classification with four
categories—low marsh, high marsh, non-indicator, and upland—and computed a
score for quadrat data collected along transects between marsh and upland.
The "multiple occurrence method" (MOM) score (M) required the assignment of a
weighting coefficient:
Weighting
Species Type Coefficient
Low marsh 2
High marsh 1
Upland -2
Non-Indicator 0
The quadrat score was calculated as
M= 2 W.C.,
1=1 1 1
where W. is the weighting coefficient for species, i^, C. is cover value for
species i_, and n is total number of species in the quadrat sample. Cover
values were after the classes of Daubenmire (1959): 0-5% = 1, 5-25% = 2,
25-50% = 3, 50-75% = 4, 75-95% = 5, 95-100% = 6. Species present but with
negligible cover were disregarded.
6
-------
Positive M values were interpreted as marsh, the upper limit of marsh was
defined as M = 0, and M < 0 denoted upland. However, further interpretation
Was necessary because M values did not always descend to a single M = 0 and
thereafter remain negative. Two additional cases were noted. One contained
more than one M = 0 in succession, and the other with M scores alternating
above and below zero. In both cases, the portion of the transect between
first and last M = 0 were considered as the transition zone and the upper
limit of marsh was placed midway through this zone. In our interpretation of
this method we have assigned the upper limit of the transition zone as the
ULM, a shift agreed to by Frenkel (personal communication).
Cluster
We reasoned that if marsh and upland are floristically different, cluster
analysis (Boesch 1977) of data collected from quadrats along transects between
the two systems might be used to identify wetland limits. Such an approach
would have the advantage of not requiring preclassification of plant species
into "marsh," "upland," "non-indicator," and would provide a more objective
instrument. We chose the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity measure (Clifford and
Stephenson, 1975),
n
2 x - x
Djk = W xi,i
4, (xij * V
where x is cover value for species 2 in quadrats ^ and k, and n is the total
number of species. A "flexible" fusion strategy with Beta = -0.25 (Boesch,
1977) was utilized. The end product is a dendrogram showing quadrat clusters
7
-------
which form at decreasing levels of dissimilarity. We identified the upland
cluster as that containing the highest numbered quadrats (when quadrats were
numbered from wetland to upland). The upper limit of marsh was interpreted as
being half the distance (on the transect) between the lowest numbered member
of the upland cluster and the next lowest group of quadrats.
Similarity ISJ and ISE
By computing the similarity in species content of adjacent quadrat
samples along a transect and graphing these values, we expected to observe a
decrease in similarity at the marsh-upland border. In this case, we chose two
measures. One was Jaccard's index (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenburg, 1974) which
requies binary data (presence-absence):
ISJ = a + b + c x 100'
where c is the number of species common to two quadrats, a is the number of
species unique to the first quadrat, and b is the number of species unique to
the second quadrat. The other was Ellenberg's (1956 in Mueller-Dombois and
Ellenberg, 1974) modification of Jaccard's index which accepts species
quantities:
ISE = Mc^2 log
Ma + Mb + Mc:2 x luu'
Here, Mc is the sum of cover values of species common to both quadrats, Ma is
the sum of the cover values of the species restricted to the first quadrat,
and Mb is the corresponding sum for species restricted to a second quadrat.
Species noted as present but with negligible cover where assigned a value of
0.25.
8
-------
LISTS OF INDICATOR SPECIES
Lists of indicator species for California, Oregon, and Washington coastal
marshes are found in Appendix B. They represent a consensus of EPA
researchers and local authorities. We sent tentative plant lists to recog-
nized authorities in botany and wetland ecology for review (see Acknowledge-
ments) and made numerous adjustments. The lists are still evolving, but they
provide a good approximation in present form. In addition, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is now compiling nationwide lists of wetland plant species
through the National Wetlands Inventory program.
COMPARISON OF METHODS
To compare the results obtained by the quantitative methods presented
above (excluding the indicator species method), we applied each to a common
data set. We chose 22 transects (12%) at random from the 190 sampled by
Frenkel et ah (1978). The data were collected from 50 x 50 cm quadrats.
Transects were located with the foot well into wetland, the head well into
upland, and the orientation parallel to the elevation gradient. Plant species
in each quadrat were recorded as to cover class (Daubenmire 1959) except that
those with negligible cover were assigned "present" status only. As we calcu-
lated LTZ and ULM by each method, we kept careful note of time involved and
ease of application. We concentrated our efforts on comparison of ULM
identification because of its direct relationship to jurisdictional questions.
We considered the ULM to be synonmous with the upper limit of the transition
zone and thus the true limit of wetland.
Table 1 and Appendix C reveal close agreement in LTZ and ULM positions
obtained by the six methods. ULM location agreed within 1.0 m on 9 transects
(45%) and within 2.5 m on 13 transects (65%). ULM for two transects (0808 and
9
-------
1606) was not identified by all methods, suggesting that the transects did not
extend far enough to include marsh and upland quadrats. The range of ULM
estimates was greatest for transect 1703 (25.5 m), but cluster and similarity
plots for this transect show discontinuities at positions in agreement with
other methods that could be interpreted as ULM. In general, methods with
species classification built in (five percent, joint occurrence, and multiple
occurrence) exhibit low intragroup variability, as do those without species
classification.
All methods, with the exception of cluster, involve simple calculations
that can be done by hand. Cluster requires a computer. We found little time
difference involved in applying each method given basic field data and plant
classifications, so that the choice of method should be attuned to time avail-
able for field work and the availability of a valid list of indicator species.
Perhaps the most important result of this comparative treatment is that
use of species presence-absence yields ULM positions identical or nearly
identical to those requiring species percent cover. Thus, the extended field
effort required to obtain plant cover is not necessary and the greatest return
for time spent might be expected from utilizing species occurrence only.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The above methods fall into two basic groups. The first comprises five
percent, joint occurrence, and multiple occurrence and is characterized by
reliance on pre-established lists of wetland and upland indicator species. A
consensus of ecological thought as it pertains to plant species is built into
these methods. The field researcher must have botanical expertise but, theor-
etically, a valid ULM determination could be made without in-depth knowledge
10
-------
of wetland ecology. We caution, however, that results from all methods
reviewed must remain valid under evaluation by wetland specialists.
The second group—cluster, similarity ISJ and similarity ISE--does not
require preclassification of plant species. Instead, it is assumed that
species are distributed along transects in such a way as to form groups char-
acteristic of wetland, transition, and upland, and that these groups can be
identified objectively. We have demonstrated that this is a viable approach
and that results are comparable to those obtained by preclassification
methods. We consider cluster and similarity methods to be very sophisticated
and caution should be given to inexperienced users. Transect 1703 (Table 1,
Appendix C) provides an illustration of this point. A ULM of 31.5 m is
suggested by strict adherence to procedure, but it is likely that a position
closer to 7.0 m as indicated by five percent, joint occurrence, and multiple
occurrence would have been the selected ULM given on-site review by trained
personnel. All six methods should be viewed as tools with strong indicator
value and whether classification of plant species is involved or not, the
final boundary placement should involve the judgment of trained personnel.
We recommend the general vegetation approach to wetland boundary identi-
fication outlined in Figure 1. If classification of plants is available, the
joint occurrence method is the best approach because it reduces field time and
yields results close to the five percent and multiple occurrence methods. If
accepted plant classifications are unavailable, as is the present case for
most freshwater wetlands, the c.luster method or similarity ISJ applied to
presence-absence data provide defensible boundaries and have the added
advantage of helping to establish a classification. Cluster and similarity
methods are very sensitive to zonal vegetation patterns but, as stated above,
it is the task of trained personnel to interpret results to obtain the ULM.
-------
If the requisite information to apply the joint occurrence method is avail-
able, it is still advisable to employ either cluster or similarity ISJ or both
to support the initial decision.
Even though a vegetation approach to ULM determination is likely to be
satisfactory, because plant distributions reflect environmental conditions,
our present knowledge of physical factors, such as soils and hydrological
regimes, across the transition is very limited. We assume that certain plants
indicate physical conditions of wetland, transition, and upland, but we do not
know tolerance limits for species so classified. Research underway at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
designed to provide a more holistic treatment of the wetland boundary problem.
Physical factors between wetland and upland are being intensively monitored at
numerous wetland sites; greenhouse studies are testing species tolerance to
various field conditions, such as inundation and soil saturation, and methods
are being devised which incorporate both vegetation and physical factors to
identify wetland limits. In the near future, our ability to establish bound-
aries will be enhanced beyond the tenuous reliance on vegetation indicators
alone.
12
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Batten, A. R., S. Murphy, and 0. F. Murray. 1978. Definition of Alaskan
wetlands by floristic criteria. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Boesch, D. F. 1977. Application of numerical classification in ecological
investigations of water pollution. Special Scientific Report No. 77,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Boon, J. D., D. M. Ware, and 6. M. Silberhorn. 1978. Survey of vegetation
and elevational relationships within coastal marsh transition zones in
the central Atlantic coastal region. Report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Clifford, H. T. and W. Stephenson. 1975. An introduction to numerical class-
ification. Academic Press, New York.
Darnell, R. M. 1976. Impacts of construction activities in wetlands of the
United States. U.S. EPA, Corvallis, Oregon. Publ. No. EPA-600/3-76-045.
Daubenmire, R. F. 1959. Canopy coverage method of vegetation analysis.
Northwest Sci. 33:43-64.
Fager, E. W. 1957. Determination and analysis of recurrent groups. Ecology
38:586-595.
Frenkel, R. E. and H. P. Eilers. 1976. Tidal datums and characteristics of
the upper limits of coastal marshes in selected Oregon estuaries. Report
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
13
-------
Frenkel, R. E., T. Boss, and S. R. Schuller. 1978. Transition zone vegeta-
tion between intertidal marsh and upland in Oregon and Washington.
Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Harvey, H. T., M. J. Kutilek and K. M. DiVittorio. 1978. Determination of
transition zone limits in coastal California wetlands. Report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Hitchcock, A. S. 1950. Manual of the grasses of the United States. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Misc. Publ. No. 200.
Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest.
University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Jefferson, C. A. 1976. Relationship of vegetation and elevation at upper and
lower limits of the transition zone between wetland and upland in
Oregon's estuaries. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Jefferson, C. A. 1978. Vegetative delineation of the upper limit of coastal
wetlands of the upper Great Lakes. Report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Munz, P. A. and D. D. Keck. 1963. A California flora with supplement, 1968.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Odum, E. P. 1961. The role of tidal marshes in estuarine production. The
Conservationist 15:12-13.
Teal, J. M. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem of Georgia.
Ecology 43:614-624.
14
-------
Is classification of plant
species by wetland, non-
indicator, upland available?
Yes
I
Does time permit collection
of percent cover?
Use five percent
method or
multiple
occurrence
method
Use joint
occurrence
method
No
I
Does time permit collection
of percent cover?
Yes
Is computer
available?
Yes
Use
cluster
method
No
No
Is computer
available?
Yes
Use
cluster
method
No
Use
similarity
ISE
method
Use
similarity
ISJ
method
Figure 1. Flow diagram to facilitate choice of vegatation method to determine
upper limit of wetland.
15
-------
ible
¦ansei
lumbe
0105
0208
0301
0310
0402
0407
0704
0706
0710
0804
0808
0809
0910
1001
1103
1201
1606
1610
1611
1612
1703
1802
Lower transition zone limit (LTZ) and upper limit of marsh (ULM) as determined by 6 methods applied to 22 transects from Frenkel et aK
(1978). Limits expressed as distance (m) along transect where distance Increases from marsh to upland.
Joint Multiple Similarity Similarity
Five Percent Occurrence Occurrence Cluster ISJ ISE
— ULM ULM ULM
Location LTZ ULM LTZ ULM LTZ ULM LTZ ULM LTZ ULM LTZ ULM Mean S.O. Range
OREGON
Coqullle Estuary
11.0
14.5
9.0
14.5
11.5
13.0
9.0
14.5
11.5
15.5
12.5
14.5
14.4
0.8
2.5
Coos Bay
16.5
19.5
16.5
21.5
—
21.0
—
19.5
...
21.5
—
21.5
20.8
1.0
2.0
Alsea Bay
9.0
15.5
—
15.5
10.0
15.0
9.0
15.5
9.0
15.5
9.0
15.5
15.4
0.2
0.5
Alsea Bay
—
13.0
—
13.5
10.0
12.0
9.0
13.5
7.0
13.5
9.0
13.5
13.2
0.6
1.5
Yaquina Bay
—
19.5
—
19.5
—
18.5
13.5
19.5
13.5
19.5
,13.5
19.5
19.3
0.4
1.0
Yaquina Bay
4.5
19.5
4.5
19.5
7.5
19.5
1.5
19.5
10.5
19.5
10.5
19.5
19.5
0.0
0.0
Nehalem Bay
1.0
11.0
1.0
11.5
—
8.0
7.0
15.5
—
9.0
—
9.0
10.7
2.7
7.5
Nehalem Bay
10.5
13.0
10.5
13.5
10.5
11.1
10.5
15.5
7.0
16.5
12.5
16.5
14.4
2.2
5.4
Nehalem Bay
—
16.0
—
15.5
—
15.0
—-
15.5
...
15.5
...
15.5
15.5
0.3
1.0
WASHINGTON
Willapa Bay
14.5
15.5
14.5
16.5
11.0
15.0
9.0
15.5
9.0
15.5
9.0
15.5
15.6
0.5
1.5
Willapa Bay
—
...
—
—
8.0
—
5.0
15.5
—
...
...
...
...
—
Willapa Bay
15.0
22.5
22.5
15.0
22.0
19.0
22.5
20.5
22.5
19.0
22.5
22.4
0.2
0.5
Willapa Bay
84.5
87.5
—
87.5
63.5
87.5
—
87.5
65.0
87.5
65.0
87.5
87.5
0.0
0.0
Willapa Bay
256.0
265.0
—
265.0
248.0
259.0
—
259.0
—
249.0
...
249.0
257.7
7.2
16.0
Grays Harbor
105.5
146.0
105.5
147.5
117.5
129.5
117.5
147.5
117.5
147.5
98.0 '
147.5
144.3
7.3
18.0
Gray's Harbor
18.5
19.5
—
19.5
—
19.0
17.0
19.5
17.0
19.5
17.0
19.5
19.4
0.2
0.5
Thorndyke Bay
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10.5
—
10.5
—
—
Thorndyke Bay
6.0
3.5
7.5
—
3.0
—
10.5
...
10.5
...
10.5
8.0
3.1
7.5
Thorndyke Bay
9.0
12.5
—
12.5
6.0
12.0
—
10.5
4.5
10.5
4.5
10.5
11.4
1.0
2.0
Thorndyke Bay
—
21.5
—
21.5
1.0
20.0
12.0
23.5
—
12.0
12.0
23.5
20.3
4.3
11.5
Snohomish Estuary
—
7.5
—
7.5
—
6.0
—
31.5
31.5
—
31.5
19.3
13.4
25.5
Oak Bay
26.0
—
25.5
—
25.5
25.5
10.5
25.5
19.5
25.5
25.6
0.2
0.5
-------
APPENDIX A
Examples of Vegetation Methods to Determine Wetland Boundaries
17
-------
FIVE PERCENT
Field data collection
•Quadrats at regular Intervals (I.e., 1 m)
along transects between marsh and upland
•Record all plants occurring In quadrats and
assign percent cover (nearest 52) to each
species In each quadrat
I
Classify plants recorded as to
•Marsh species
•Non-Indicator
•Upland species
I
Compute total percent cover of marsh species and
upland species In each quadrat
1
Plot totals for marsh and upland species against
distance along transect (In bar graph form)
I
Locate LTZ and ULM**
•LTZ Is point at which upland species ° 5t
•ULH Is point at which wetland species = S%
CALCULATION FOR
QUADRAT 5:
TRANSECT
SUMMARY:
Species
XCover
Classification
Quadrat
IMarsh
lUplar
A
30
marsh
1
100
0
B
15
non-Indicator
2
100
0
C
20
marsh
3
100
0
D
5
marsh
4
70
5
E
10
non-Indicator
5
65
10
F
10
marsh
6
30
35
G
10
upland
7
20
65
8
5
80
marsh X cover
« 65
9
0
95
upland % cover
=» 10
10
0
95
11
0
100
12
0
100
I"
o
s
tf »
a
ulh - e
t_TZ - A
~~See text for rules.
il
' ouadrat'
-------
JOINT OCCURRENCE
Field data collection
~Quadrats at regular Intervals (I.e., 1 m)
along transects between marsh and upland
'Record all plants occurring In quadrats
I
Classification of plants recorded as to
~Harsh species
~Non-Indicator
~Upland species
I
Compute Joint occurrence score for each quadrat
I
Compute Standardized Cumulative Index for quadrats
I
Plot Standardized Cumulative Index against distance
along transect
I
Locate LTZ and ULM
~LTZ 1s one half quadrat Interval on transect
above (toward upland) quadrat where SCI
Initially > 0
~ULM Is one half quadrat Interval on transect
above (toward upland) quadrat where SCI
Initially = 1.00
CALCULATION FOR qUADRAT 5: TRANSECT SUMMARY:
Species
Classification
Quadrat
'mu
SI
SCI
A
marsh
0
0
0
B
non-Indicator
2
0
0
0
C
marsh
3
0
0
0
D
marsh
4
.20
.13
.13
E
non-Indicator
5
.40
.27
.40
F
marsh
6
.20
.13
.53
G
upland
7
.10
.07
.60
8
.60
.40
1.00
•mu » ..
2J s 2 a .an
9
0
0
1.00
10
0
0
1.00
nM
+ nU S"
11
0
0
1.00
12
0
0
1.00
H
O
f)
OUADRAT
-------
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
Field data collection
*Quadrats at regular Intervals (I.e., 1 m)
along transects between marsh and upland
'Record all plants occurring In quadrats and
assign cover class value to each species In
each quadrat
Classify plants recorded as to
*Marsh species
*Non-1nd1cator
~Upland species
I
Compute H sc.ore for each quadrat
i
Plot M score against distance along transect
I
Locate LTZ and ULH
*LTZ Is first H =» 0 (If > 1 H = 0) on transect
from wetland to upland
*ULM Is last or only M = 0 on transect from
wetland to upland
CALCULATION FOR QUADRAT 5:
Species
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Cover
Class**
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
Classification
marsh (low)***
non-Indicator
marsh (low)
marsh (low)
non-Indicator
marsh (high)
upland
Weight
0
2
2
0
1
-2
M ¦ £ WfCj
1al
= (3x2)+(2xO)+(Zx2)+(lx2)+(2xOH2xl)+(2x(-2))
= 10
ic
u
«¦•
•» t
•to
-IC
TRANSECT
SUMMARY
Quadrat
M
1
30
2
21
3
14
4
8
5
10
6
0
7
-1
8
-3
9
0
10
-8
11
•10
12
• 12
I S 9 4 § 0 7 9 O 10 11 12 19
QUADRAT
** Frenkel et al (1978) used cover class, but we recorrmend using percent cover rather than class.
***We reconmend assignment of a weight of 2 to all plants classified as marsh.
-------
CLUSTER
Field data collection
~Quadrats at regular Intervals (I.e., 1 m)
along transects between marsh and upland
~Record all plants occurring In quadrats and
assign percent cover (nearest 51) to each
species In each quadrat**
Create computer data file for each transect and
run program Cluster***
Locate LTZ and ULH
*LTZ Is break between marsh and transition
clusters
*ULM Is break between transition and upland
cluster
1.0
1.8
1.9
1.3
s
1.0
C
0.8
5
M
D
0.6
o.
-------
I
SIMILARITY ISJ
Field data collection
+Quadrats at regular Intervals (I.e., 1 m)
along transects between marsh and upland
•Record all plant species occurring In each
quadrat
I
Compute similarity coefficient ISJ for all
adjacent quadrat pairs along transect
I
Plot similarity values against distance along
transect (values located at raid-point between
quadrats)
I
CLASSIFICATION FOR QUADRATS 5 AND 6:
Quadrat 6
TRANSECT SUMMARY:
Species
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Quadrat 5
x
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
Quadrats
ISJ
T i Z
"SI
2 & 3
50
3 & 4
37
4 & 5
30
5 & 6
63
6 4 7
80
7 & 8
60
8 & 9
66
9 S 10
88
10 ft 11
40
11 S 12
75
ISJ = p
a+b+c
x 100 = . J , x 100
3+1+7
Locate LTZ and ULM
*LTZ Is point of low similarity on transect
below ULM
*ULM Is point of low similarity on transect
closest to upland
TT
x 100 = 63
im.g
w.e
«s.a
7S.S
5"'
gw.Q
V
a 48.0
90.0
20.0
tt.o
• t 3 4 S 0 7 0 D (0 II IS
QUADRAT ' ^
-------
SIMILARITY ISE
Field data collection
~Quadrats at regular Intervals (I.e., 1 m)
along transects between marsh and upland
•Record all plant species occurring In quadrats
and assign percent cover (nearest 5%) to each
species In each quadrat
1
Compute similarity coefficient ISE for all adjacent
quadrat pairs along transect
I
Plot similarity values against distance along
transect (values located at mid-point between
quadrats)
CALCULATION FOR QUADRATS 5 AND 6
I
Locate LTZ and ULM
*LTZ Is point of low similarity on transect
below ULM
*ULM Is point of low similarity on transect
closest to upland
Species
R
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Quadrat 5 Quadrat 6
.25
5.00
35.00
5.00
5.00
35.00
5.00
5.00
15.00
5.00
115.25
TRANSECT
SUMMARY:
Quadrats
ISE
1 S 2
17
2 ft 3
66
3 ft 4
54
4 ft 5
53
5 ft 6
79
6 ft 7
88
7 ft 8
70
8 ft 9
75
9 ft 10
94
10 ft 11
33
11 ft 12
40
5.00
5.00
35.00
.25
.25
15.00
15.00
.25
7577?
loo.¦
MO
60.0
70.0
»-
gao.o
gC9 0|
V
*49.0
90.0
99.0
10.0
9.
-------
APPENDIX B
Salt Marsh, Non-Indicator, and Upland Plant Species
of California, Oregon, and Washington
Plant species contained in this appendix are categorized as follows:
intertidal—plants which are adapted to growth in saturated soils and have a
high fidelity with intertidal marsh habitat; non-indicator—plants with broad
habitat affinities, which can be found in intertidal marshes but are not
restricted to them; upland—plants rarely found in intertidal marshes. It
should be noted that the upland plant list contains only the most commonly
securing species adjacent to wetlands.
24
-------
Intertidal Marsh Plants
California
Plant Species1
Plant Species
Atrip!ex patula
Batis maritima
Carex obnupta *
Cordylanthus maritimus ***
Cuscuta salina
Distich!is spicata **
Epilobium watsoni i *
Frankenia qrandifolia
Grindelia maritima
Grindelia stricta
Jaumea carnosa
Juncus acutus *
Juncus balticus *
Limonium californicum
Monanthochloe littoral is
Orthocarpus castillejoides v. humboldtiensis
Plantago maritima
Potentilla egedei *
Salicornia virqinica
Scirpus americanus *
Scirpus californica *
Scirpus koilolepis *
Sci rpus robustus *
Spartina foliosa
Sparti na spartinae2
Spergularia canadensis
Spergularia macrotheca
Suaeda californica
Triglochin concinnum
Triglochin maritima
1 Nomenclature follows Munz and Keck (1963 with supplement 1968).
2 Hitchcock (1950).
* Also found in areas influenced by brackish and fresh water.
** Intertidal Marsh Plants North of San Francisco Bay, non-indicator plant San
Francisco Bay and South.
*** Variety palustris is a candidate for federal endangered status, spp. maritimus
is a listed federal endangered species.
25
-------
Non-Indicator Plants
Plant Species1 Plant Species
Atrip!ex watsonii Festuca rubra
Carex barbarae Juncus leseurii
Carex pansa Parapholis i ncurva
Cressa truxillensis Salicornia subterniinalis
Distich!is spicata ** Vicia sativa
Elymus triticoides
26
-------
California
Upland Plants, Page 1
Plant Species
Plant Species
Abronia latifolia
Convolvulus cyclostegius
Abronia umbellata
Convolvulus soldanella
Achillea millefolium
Coreopsis gigantea
Agropyron repens
Descurainia pinnata
Ammophila arenaria
Elymus mollis
Artemisia californica
Elymus vancouverensis
Artemisia douglasiana
Erechites prenanthoides
Atriplex lentiformis
Eriogonum cinereum
Atriplex semibaccata
Eriogonum latifolium
Avena fatua
Eriophyllum staechadifolium
Baccharis pilularis
Erodium cicutarium
Beta vulgaris
Foeniculum vulgare
Brassica campestris
Franseria chamissonis
Bromus madrenitensis
Geranium dissectum
Bromus maritimus
Glehnia leiocarpa
Bromus mollis
Gnaphalium chilense
Bromus rigidis
Heterotheca grandiflora
Cakile edentula
Holcus lanatus
Cakile maritima
Hordeum stebbinsii
Cardionema ramosissimum
Isomeris arborea v. angustata
Centaurea melitensis
Lolium multiflorum
Cirsium arvense
Lolium perenne
Conium maculatum
Lotus purshianus
27
-------
Upland Plants, Page 2
California
Plant Species
Plant Species
Lotus scopari us
Lupinus rivularis
Lycium californicum
Madia subspicata
Malva parviflora
Melilotus albus
Melilotus indicus
Mesembryanthemum edule
Montia perfoliata
Nicotiana glauca
Oenothera cheiranthifolia
Picris echioides
Plantago lanceolata
Poa douglasii
Poa scabrella
Polygonum paronychia
Rhus diversiloba
Rhus integrifolia
Rubus ursinus
Rumex acetosella
Silybum maryanum
Solanum xanti i
Solidago spathulata
Sonchus asper
Sonchus oleraceus
Stellaria media
Tanacetum douglasii
Trifolium wormskioldii
Urtica holosericea
Vicia tetrasperma
Yucca whipplei
28
-------
Oregon, Washington
Intertidal Marsh Plants
Plant Species1
Plant Species
Aster subspicatus *
Atrip!ex patula
Calamagrostis nutkaensis *
Carex obnupta *
Carex lyngbyei
Cordylanthus maritimus **
Cuscuta salina
Deschampsia cespitosa *
Distich!is spicata
Eleocharis palustris *
Epilobium watsonii *
Galium triflorum *
Glaux maritima
Grindeli a integrifolia var. macrophylla
Hordeum brachyantherum *
Jaumea carnosa
Juncus balticus *
Juncus effusus *
Juncus gerardi i *
Lilaeopsis occidental is *
Oenathe sarmentosa
Orthocarpus castillejoides
Physocarpus capitatus *
Plantago maritima
Potentilla pacifica *
Puccinella pumi1 a
Rumex occidental is *
Salicornia virginica
Scirpus americanus *
Scirpus cernuus *
Scirpus maritimus *
Scirpus microcarpus *
Scirpus validus *
Sidalcea hendersonii
Spartina alterniflora
Stellaria humifusa
Spergularia canadensis
Triglochin concinnum
Triglochin maritimum
Zostera nana
1 Nomenclature after Hitchcock and Cronguist (1973).
* Also occurs in areas influenced by fresh and brackish water.
** Variety palustris is a candidate for federal endangered status.
29
-------
Upland Species
Oregon, Washington
Plant Species
Plant Species
Achillea millefolium
Agropyron repens
Angelica lucida
Carex pansa
Elymus mollis
Erechtites arguta
Festuca rubra
Galium aparine
Galium triflorum
Gaultheria shallon
Heracleum lanatum
Holcus lanatus
Hypochaeri s radicata
Lathyrus japonicus
Lonicera involucrata
Maianthemum dilatatum
Picea sitchensis
Plantago lanceolata
Poa pratensis
Rubus ursinus
Spergularia macrotheca
Vicia gi gantea
Oregon, Washington
Non-Indicator Plants
Plant Species
Plant Species
Agrostis alba
Juncus leseurii
Lotus corniculatus
Spergularia macrotheca
Stellaria calycantha
Trifolium wormskjoldii
30
-------
APPENDIX C
Upper Limit of Marsh (ULM) and Lower Limit of Transition
Zone (LTZ) Determined 6 Methods Applied to 22
Transects from Frenkel et ah (1978)
Numbers on the ordinate denote distance (m) along sample transect from
wetland to upland. Arrows indicate LTZ and ULM positions listed in Table 1.
library
SSSSSSK
200 S W 3BTW ST
CORVAULI®. OREGON 6T73SS
-------
TRANSECT 0105
FIVE PERCENT
JOINT OCCURRENCE
I 2 4 0 I II 12 14 II II
MABfiM I t UPLAND
lit.
II
z«
M
Ua
It.l
t.l
SIMILARITY XSJ
4 0 •
MARSH
II IS 14 16
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
-li.t
s
•J
X
SI
i.a
i.t
i.«
i.z
i.e
o.t
0.6
0.4
o.t
CLUSTER
sihzuarxtv zee
nl
HARSH
TRANSITION
un.i
-------
TRANSECT 0208
JOINT OCCURRENCE
• 0
• .0
• •
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
19.0
8.9
£
li.Q
15.0
ft II
I.I
I.ft
1.9
t 1 *
S i.o
CLUSTER
8ZHZLARXTY I8E
r1!
n
HARSH
loan
UPLAND
-------
TRANSECT 0301
C9.9
IS.9
19.9
8.0
II
1
9.0
*
-6.9
X
-19.0
-IS.9
-»l
-2S.0
-S9.9
HULTXPLE OCCURRENCE
mm
s
• II t» M 16 It
I I
1.8
1.8
l.t'
l.f
1.0
D.a
0.8
0.4
o.t
CLUSTER
Al
• ¦ « a ¦
TRANSITION
rq
n
n
119.9
199.9
09.9
99.9
K",
o **.•
8.
a
49.9
39.9
19.9
19.9
9.9
9XHXLARXTV I8C
HARSH UPLAND
9 19 it 14 19 19
f I
-------
TRANSECT 031
0
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
t.°T
i.»
i.i
1.4
fc
wm
S
I.I
1.0
m
Q
O.t
M
O
o.e
o.a
O.t
CLUSTER
trin^m
lit.
IN,
79
0 w,
t
V 6»
&
4*.
SIMILARITY IflC
HARSH
TRANSITION UPLAND
9 !•
t
12 M ie
1
-------
TRANSECT 0402
JOINT OCCURRENCE
9 S 9 9 If If II tl 24
FIVE PERCENT
i-
U
o
s
?-•
• • t> m ta 91 a 0
SIMILARITY I9J
190.8
79.•
V 68 . •
49.9
39.9
I I
-------
TRANSECT 0704
UXONT OCCURReNCe
l.tr
•.e
H
0
ft
• .4
I I
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
I
FIVE PERCENT
SIMILARITY I9J
1 I
• • « 9
• • II tt t»
l.®T
CLUSTER
SIMILARITY X8E
hi n
n
TRANSITION
- 8 a a
marsh upland
119.9
199.9
-------
TRANSECT 0706
JOINT OCCURRENCE
t.e
Mr
^ 4 1 ]| 19 If 14 10 it"
I f
FIVC PERCENT
I I I 1 I T I T I I I I 1 I
9 • 4 9 9Nllltltt4lll9ITII1l
I t
SIMILARITY X90
HUUTIPLE OCCURRENCE
-19.•
CLUSTER
l.t
I.S
1.4
l.f
i
1.0
s
0.S
8
o
0.6
0.
-------
TRANSECT 071
0
l*r
JOXMT OCCURRCNCC
9.2
#i t 4 i « li ii 14 is it a
FIVE PERCENT
I 1 I I I I 1 I
I i 4 • i » tt « n h n
IIM
IN.I
M.t
«».#
|-
o ¦
8.
(•.«
19.•
SZH2LARZTY I9J
*< e I II it" i4 ie
I
14,
It.
I*.
r
w
8
8 «
i •
-t.
-4,
HULTIPLe OCCURRENCE
S
•J
M
s
pm
a
1.8
1.9
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
O.d
0.1
CLUSTER
i« i« ie
I
n«.
in
O •».
L.
fc
8IKIUARITY ISC
TRAH9STXOH
harsh upland
it it m ii it n
I
-------
TRANSECT 0804
JOINT OCCURRENCE
• •• • i 4 0 i li is m ie ia m
t I
HVE PERCENT
t m
U
s
*
a
i t
SIMILARITY I8J
n.c
n.i
t I
-------
TRANSECT 0808
JOINT OCCURRENCE
I.I
• .8
0.6
H
U
0
• .4
•.2
f *4 *1 ii S ft ft «
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
CLUSTER
SIMILARITY ISE
II It H 16 16
TRANSITION
MARSH S UPLAND
-------
TRANSECT 0809
JOINT OCCURRENCE
n
fXVE PERCENT
h '
z
u
a
s
0
i i I 10 It M 10 II N 8 t< H
uu
• l» It 14
b
I I \
(i a a m i
110.1
100.0
99.9
•0.0
£ 70.0
o •••
a
tf nM
a.
40.0
. ».e
20.0
10.0
0.0
SIMILARITY ISO
lh uu*
B 10 II *0
I t
HULTZPLE OCCURRENCE
CLUSTER
2.0
1.8
l.fi
i.q
1.2
i.a
0.8
0.8
o.q
0.2
r^Ti rTi n n n
2 S 2 • B 0 8
TRANSITION
8 8 ft
UPLAND
110.0
100.0
00.0
00.0
S
0 09.0
(t
W n.t
40.0
30.0
<0.0
10.0
0.
8ZHZLARZTY Z8E
IS
20
I I
-------
TRANSECT 0910
JOINT OCCURRENCE
M 79 69 00 10
119,
IN,
o m.
S
t"
40.0
•0.0
n.i
10.
e.
SIMILARITY ISO
1 I
0 10 to M
« n « o
t t
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
CLUSTER
i.i
2.2
t.o
1.0
~-
1.6
s
i.q
-«
i.t
X
a
1.0
M
a
0.8
0.6
O.d
0.2
RCCIIOIICB«l!tIFIIS''°lll
HARSH UPLAND
0
8
&
SIMILARITY ISC
60 60 70
I
-------
TRANSECT
1 00 1
JOINT OCCURRENCE
•J
t.e
H
0
•
•.4
•4—tr
IS SPiS tm
jLuili
i *
multiple occurrence
CLUSTER
i
n
nfl^Ti
rnlmi?!
BBB?B8°£GEEB8BBBBB8,8??§?8
TRANSITION
UPLAND
HARSH
SIMILARITY X80
ItQ
u m
I
SIMILARITY
-------
TRANSECT 1103
JOINT OCCURRENCE
M
re
llt.tr
SIMILARITY ISO
2 700
g M-.
g ...
t
m.Q
$$ lit itt i4t let
08
a
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
CLUSTER
Itt M
t t
s
SXMXLARXTY Z8E
5 o.a
0.6
o.q
0.8
HARSH
TRANSITIONMARSH UPLAND
-------
TRANSECT
1 20
1
JOINT OCCURRENCE
l.»
•.a
H
0
•
1.1
~tl ft"
a m
Five PERCENT
9IMIUARITV ISJ
I ¦•.Or
tBB.I
I I
I I
MULTIPLE OCCVRRCKCC
SO
K
m
OS
80
n
BO
«>
SO
IS
CLUSTER
SIMILARITY zee
4 • I* 16 N »4
I
m
HARSH
S ! S fl I
TRANSITION UPLAND
I m.t
t I
-------
TRANSECT 1606
JOZKT OCCURRENCE
FIVE PERCENT
0.4
• t
0
* m
V 9
t
« 4 • I 10 ft ft 10
•UU-fL
7t.«
00.0
u
6 •
I
SIMILARITY X8J
0 4 0 0
10 10 14 10
I
-------
TRANSECT
1 © 1
0
JOINT OCCURRENCE
t.tr
I I
t.l
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
X -« •
lt.«
I
rZVE PERCENT
SIMILARITY I9J
V-
1.59
l.JS
l.fO
£ %n
s o.re-
rf 0.75
K
g O.so
° o.w
0.80
O.IS
CLUSTER
SXriXLARXTV JSC
n
0 O
a
go
TRANSITION
S 3
UPLAND
-------
TRANSECT
1 e 1
1
-------
TRANSECT
JOINT OCCURRENCE
re
•.0
0.4
0.2
FIVE PERCENT
li
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
-If.8
1.9
i.e
l.Q
1.2
•-
i
1.0
X
0.0
1
o
0.6
0.4
O.C
CLUSTER
[m
BSCS
TRANSITION
n
1 e 1
2
SIMILARITY ISO
f0.0
SIMILARITY X8E
40.
,0 ¦
10.0
38
HARSH
-------
TRANSECT
JOINT OCCURRENCE
FIVE PERCENT
»- m
Z
U
u
g-
1
-ft is d «
• r
• •t#
+
1 703
SIMILARITY Z80
0
I
fi
it#.
iw.o
oo.o
•e.a
s~
U ».•
6 B.B
41
9».«
».0
tl.l
SIMILARITY X8E
S 8 I
UPLAND
-------
TRANSECT
1 802
JOINT OCCURRENCE
H
0
I)
1 ft—Ik—sr
r JVC PERCENT
t-
z
H
U
5-
i
i I i r
it n h ti
29.1
ll.t
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCE
CLUSTER
U
g it.a
U
0
_ 8.1
•.I
n
x
\ 8 2 • •
TKAHSXtZON
¦ ¦069
UPLAND
SIMILARITY ISO
a.i
a
SIMILARITY ISC
U
C
-
fS
-------
APPENDIX D
Sample Field Data Sheet
-------
and Name
Date
Quadrat (Labeled as distance alonq transect; 1 = wetland)
Plant Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
in
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!
i
18
i
!
i
i
19
!
|
20
i
i
1
! !
-------
APPENDIX E
Computer Software Available at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Con/all is, Oregon
Computer programs are available at the Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon for the cluster, similarity ISJ and ISE, and
joint occurrence methods. We are currently developing an additional program
to process data by the multiple occurrence method. Contact Jo Oshiro, U.S.
EPA/CERL, Corvallis, Oregon 97330 for further information.
------- |