Common Reed (Phragmites australis) in the Chesapeake Bay:
A Draft Bay-wide Management Plan
Prepared by:
The Chesapeake Bay Phragmites australis Working Group
Chaired by: Julie A. Thompson of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake
Bay Field Office
October 2003

-------
Chesapeake Bay Phragmites australis Working Group
Chris Firestone, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Doug Forsell, United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Lisa Jameson, National Park Service
William Jones, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife
Kirk Mantay, RK&K Engineers
Glenn Markwith, Department of Defense
Joseph McCauley, United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Dave Nonis, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Rick Osman, Academy of Natural Sciences Estuarine Research Center
Kristin Saltonstall, Horn Point Laboratory
Julie Thompson, United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Donald Webster, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
1

-------
Table of Contents
Phragmites australis Chesapeake Bay Working Group	i
Executive Summary 	1
I.	Introduction	2
A.	Summary of Biology and Ecology	3
B.	Introduction History	4
C.	Summary of Ecological Impacts 	5
D.	Distribution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed	6
E.	Management of Phragmites 	7
F.	Management Efforts in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed	7
G.	Policy Background	9
II.	Management Actions - Explanatory Text for the Implementation Table	10
A.	Leadership, Coordination and Regulatory Authority	10
B.	Prevention 	10
C.	Control and Management	11
D.	Communication and Information Access 	11
TTT. Implementation Table	12
A.	Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory Authority	13
B.	Prevention 	14
C.	Control and Management	17
D.	Communication and Information Access 	19
Literature Cited	21
Figure 1 -Phragmites Presence in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed	27
ii

-------
Executive Summary
Phragmites australis has been present in North America for over 3,000 years (Orson, 1999).
Over the past century, however, Phragmites has invaded large areas of marsh in the mid-Atlantic.
Recent genetic analysis of Phragmites collected throughout the world has revealed that an aggressive,
competitively superior strain has been introduced from Europe and Asia to North America, competing
with and limiting distribution of the native strain throughout the East Coast (Saltonstall, 2002).
Resource managers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed face multiple challenges in managing marsh
habitat for wildlife. Invasion of Phragmites in many of these marshes further increases the difficulty of
managing for wildlife. Once Phragmites becomes established in a marsh, it often forms expansive
stands, excluding native marsh plants and providing little food and shelter for wildlife. Resource
managers are further challenged by the difficulty in controlling Phragmites once it becomes established.
Control options are limited and costly. Finally, there are native stands of Phragmites that remain in the
region that must be preserved at the same time the introduced strain is controlled. There is an urgent
need for a bay wide approach to preventing new invasions and prioritizing control efforts of
Phragmites in areas where effective management can be achieved and native plant diversity can be re-
established.
To better coordinate prevention and control efforts for aquatic invasive species on a Bay wide basis,
the Chesapeake Bay Program's Invasive Species Workgroup (CBP's ISWG) developed the following
two goals for the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement: "By 2001, identify and rank non-native aquatic and
terrestrial species which are causing or have the potential to cause significant negative impacts to the
Bay's aquatic ecosystem. By 2003, develop and implement management plans for those species
deemed problematic to the restoration and integrity of the Bay's ecosystem." In September 2001, the
ISWG developed a questionnaire that was sent to the CBP signatory jurisdictions and federal partners
to identify six species that are causing or have the potential to cause adverse ecological effects in the
Bay's ecosystem. Phragmites australis was identified as one of the six priority species in which a
Bay-wide management plan would be written. In May 2002, the CBP in partnership with Maryland
Sea Grant College, sponsored a workshop in Baltimore, Maryland aimed at developing draft Bay-wide
management strategies for each of the six species. In 2003, a Chesapeake Bay Phragmites australis
Working Group, was appointed by the CBP, comprised of many of the workshop participants, as well
as other natural resource managers and researchers, to develop a final Bay-wide management plan.
This final management plan is a product of the draft Bay-wide management strategy developed for
Phragmites at the May 2003 workshop. Workshop participants developed a draft management
strategy utilizing four different components: 1) Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory Authority; 2)
Prevention; 3) Control and Management; and 4) Communication and Information Access. Participants
identified specific actions within each of the components that should be taken to meet the goal of their
management strategy. An implementation table was developed and included a time frame for
completing the actions, identification of agencies responsible for leading actions, the partners that should
be involved, the funding/cost share, and the source of funding. To insure that the draft management
1

-------
strategy developed at the workshop was realistic in terms of feasability of implementing actions,
including agency leads and sources of funds available to implement actions, a Bay-wide Working
Group was established to evaluate the draft management strategy, make changes if needed, and
develop a final plan to be submitted to the Implementation Committee of the Chesapeake Program for
approval.
The goal of this plan is as follows:
By 2005, have a permitting process in development in each state (MD, VA, and PA) that includes
control of Phragmites as a wetland permit condition, which will assist the states in achieving a long
term goal of a no net gain in Phragmites acreage.
I. Introduction
Phragmites is among the most widespread and productive plant species in the world (den Hartog
et al., 1989). It has been a component of eastern United States marshes for at least 3,000 years
(Niering et al., 1977; Orson, 1999). Prior to the last one hundred years, Phragmites was commonly
found along the marsh upper border in mixed associations with plants such as sedges and cattails. In the
last century, however, Phragmites has become dominant in many mid-Atlantic marshes, where it is
commonly found growing in monocultures that reduce both species diversity and wildlife habitat (Cross
and Fleming, 1989). Recent genetic analysis of Phragmites collected throughout the world has
revealed that an aggressive, competitively superior strain has been introduced from Europe and Asia to
North America, competing with and limiting distribution of the native strain throughout the East Coast
(Saltonstall, 2002). Marshes invaded by Phragmites can pose a problem for natural resource
managers that are managing these areas for waterfowl and wildlife habitat.
Efforts to control introduced Phragmites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been extensive.
Many of the states in the watershed are mandated to control Phragmites on state owned wildlife
management areas and provide cost-sharing for private landowners that have substantial stands of
Phragmites that are deemed a significant threat to preservation of valuable wildlife habitat. However,
after extensive research on this species, we now know that there are native Phragmites lineages
present in the Bay watershed and that Phragmites may have positive attributes in certain areas. This
new knowledge demonstrates the need for a Bay wide approach to preventing new establishment and
prioritizing control efforts for non-native genotypes in invaded areas where effective management can
be achieved and native plant diversity can be re-established.
In January 2003, the CBP ISWG convened a Chesapeake Bay Phragmites Workgroup comprised
of researchers and federal and state natural resource managers, to develop a management plan for the
prevention and control of Phragmites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The overall goal of this Bay
wide management plan is to have a permitting process in development in each state that includes control
of Phragmites as a wetland permit condition, which will assist the states in achieving a long term goal
of a no net gain in Phragmites acreage. The management plan consists of an introduction which
summarizes our current understanding of the biology and ecology of this species, its invasion history,
ecological impacts, current distribution and management efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and
finally, state policies regarding management. A Management Actions section consists of the objectives
2

-------
and strategies that will work to meet the goal of the plan. Objectives and strategies were developed
under four components, which include: 1) Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory Authority; 2)
Prevention; 3) Control and Management; and 4) Communication and Information Access. Finally, an
Implementation Section was developed to task appropriate cooperating agencies to lead
implementation of specific strategies and includes a budget, source of funding, and a time line to
accomplish the strategies.
A. Summary of Biology and Ecology
Phragmites australis, (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steudel or Common Reed, is a perennial, coarse wetland
plant, belonging to the family Poaceae. Phragmites can be described as having erect culms 2-4 m tall
that support broad sheath-type leaves that are 1-4 cm wide near the base, tapering to a point at the
end. The foliage is grey-green during the growing season, with purple-brown plumes appearing by late
June. The plant turns brown in the fall and most leaves drop off, leaving only the plume-topped shoot
(VANHP Fact Sheet).
Phragmites is found throughout the temperate regions of North America. It is found primarily in
and near fresh to brackish wetlands, growing at or above mean high water, but can also inhabit riparian
areas, riverbanks, and lakeshores. The species is especially common in disturbed or polluted soils,
ditches, and dredged areas. Along the Atlantic Coast, it is common in moist uplands and wet areas of
the dune systems of coastal barrier islands (Gleason and Cronquist, 1963; Fernald, 1970; Brown and
Brown, 1984).
Phragmites colonization is commonly associated with disturbed marsh areas, which usually means
areas where plant communities, hydrology, and topography have been altered through natural events
(e.g., storms, lightning strikes, fires) or anthropogenic events (e.g., logging, mining, waste disposal,
intentional flooding, dredge spoil disposal, and shoreline development). The plant can tolerate standing
water, low oxygen levels, and acidic sediments, which allow it to thrive in disturbed habitats often
unsuitable for other plants (Marks et al., 1994; Bart and Hartman, 2000). Numerous studies report on
changes in disturbed marsh hydrology with the development of Phragmites stands (see Marks et al.,
1994; Chambers et al., 2002). Other researchers (Ailstock et al., 2001; Bart and Hartman, 2000;
Burdick and Konisky, 2002) suggest that Phragmites has been successful in establishing itself, in part,
because of an ability to modify disturbed habitats into conditions highly conducive to its further
propagation and establishment. Osgood et al. (2002) reported that through physiological effects on ion,
oxygen, and carbon balance, respectively, salinity, sulfide, and prolonged flooding combine to constrain
the invasion and spread of Phragmites.
This plant is a highly successful colonizer due to a combination of unique adaptive features. It
propagates in several ways, by seed dispersion and vegetatively from vertical and horizontal rhizomes
and stolons. Disturbance of wetland substrate provides opportunities for seed germination. Spoil
banks associated with ditching and filling marshes (especially along roads) disturbs the soil, and bare,
oxidized soil provides an appropriate site for colonization by seed (Haslam, 1971; Wijte and Gallagher,
1996). Colony expansion, however, occurs primarily by rhizomes in wet organic soils and rhizomes
and stolons in sandy soils. Under optimal conditions, there can be growth in excess of 10 m in one
growing season. Such rapid growth is possible because the horizontal stems of Phragmites exhibit
3

-------
strong apical dominance. Growth is channeled to the extension of these stems rather than the
production of new aerial stems from subtending nodes (Ailstock, 2000). Hydrological alterations are
perhaps the major factor leading to the invasion of native marshes by pre-existing stands of
Phragmites. Alterations to the natural hydrology of salt marshes include, (1) tidal restrictions that
lower flood frequency as well as salinity, which in high levels, may kill Phragmites (Roman et al., 1984;
Burdick et al., 1997); and (2) increasing fresh water discharge in channels, over the soil surface, and
through ground water (Burdick et al., 2001).
Phragmites has abundant aerenchyma and stomatal densities, found on both sides of the leaves,
which provides a much more efficient pathway for acquiring oxygen for aerobic respiration, carbon
dioxide for photosynthesis, and mineral nutrients for growth and development than other emergent
marsh vegetation. Phragmites also possesses three adaptations that inhibit the growth of other species
of wetland vegetation. The quantity and arrangement of mechanical tissues allows Phragmites to attain
greater heights than other species and stem densities observed in monotypic colonies is high. In mature
stands, an average of 30-400 shoots per m2 can be counted (Haslam, 1972). Phragmites occupies
the maximum available space and prevents light penetration, providing very little opportunity for other
species to inhabit an area (Haslam, 1971). The combination of mechanical tissue and high stem
densities results in a third adaptive strategy that makes use of dead aerial stems. These stems tend to
persist but when they break, they generally do so at the first or second node above the soil surface. As
a consequence, Phragmites colonies tend to form a dense thatch layer that can block sunlight from
reaching the soil and inhibit the growth of other plants species in that area (Ailstock, 2000).
B. Introduction History
Paleoecology studies of peat samples show that Phragmites has grown in New England tidal
marshes for at least the last 3,000 years (Orson et al., 1987). Phragmites has also been found at
historical depths in marshes in Delaware (Kraft, 1971) and New Jersey (Waksman, 1943). Further,
research by Kiviat and Hamilton (2001), Ford et al. (1970) and others have shown that Phragmites
was used by native Amerind populations throughout North America prior to European settlement.
Prior to the 1900s, Phragmites was often found along the marsh upper border in mixed associations
with plants such as sedges and cattails. Many researchers (Blossey and McCauley, 2000; Norris et
al., 2002; Rice et al., 2000) note that during the 1900s, in parts of North America, Phragmites rapidly
expanded its range and successfully invaded high and low marsh zones where historically it has been
scarce. Estimates indicate that in some states along the eastern U.S. coast, as much as one third of the
tidal wetland acreage is now occupied by Phragmites (Chambers et al., 1999).
Although there is ongoing research to better understand the aggressive nature of expanding
populations, many concur with Marks et al. (1994) and Roman et al. (1984) that the rapid population
expansion of Phragmites may partially be driven by human activities that have led to habitat
destruction, sedimentation, eutrophication, and decreased oxygen levels in water and sediments in
marsh areas. There is also a growing concern in the region that the use of constructed wetlands to
replace natural wetlands (lost to development) may compromise the function and value of the wetland
ecosystem due to their susceptibility to invasion by Phragmites (Havens, 2000; Havens, 2002).
Others speculate that present expansion rates are due to an introduced genetic strain of Phragmites
4

-------
(Metzler and Roza, 1987; Tucker, 1990; Mikkola and Lafontaine, 1994; Besitka, 1996). Recent
genetic analysis of Phragmites samples collected throughout the world has revealed that there are 11
haplotypes that are unique to North America. One haplotype (Haplotype M), however, which is the
most common today in North America, Europe, and Asia, was found in few samples collected from the
Atlantic Coast before 1910. Since 1910, this haplotype has dramatically increased its distribution and
dominates marshes in the Chesapeake Bay region, while only a few relict native populations exist
(Saltonstall, 2002). It is likely that this competitive and agressive haplotype was introduced to North
America given that its genetic makeup is most closely related to EurAsian types (Saltonstall, 2002).
This introduction probably occurred during the early part of the 19th century, most likely at one of many
coastal ports along the Atlantic Coast. In the 1800's Phragmites was documented as growing in
places where ship's ballast was dumped or used to fill marsh lands being converted to railroad and
shipping hubs (Saltonstall, 2002).
C. Summary of Ecological Impacts
Many jurisdictions in the United States are concerned about the rapid invasion of Phragmites and
the threat it may pose to biodiversity and ecosystem function. Phragmites can be considered a
noxious weed and management of it is often aggressive. Many studies (Warren et al., 2001; Meyerson
et al., 2000; Chambers et al., 1999; Weisser and Parsons, 1981; Szczepanska and Szczepanski, 1982;
Galinato and van der Valk, 1986; Marks et al., 1994) report that stands of Phragmites are not
conducive to the establishment of other plant species and that colonization of disturbed wetland areas
by this wetland plant usually ensures the development of dense stands. By forming monocultures,
Phragmites can take the place of other wetland species that are considered to be more important as
food and cover for wildlife (Ailstock, 2001). Phragmites commonly replaces dominant plant species
of tidal marshes, including Spartina species in salt marshes (Windham, 1995) and Typha species in
freshwater marshes (Chambers et al., 1999) but can also threaten rare and endangered plant
populations (Marks et al., 1993). Beyond the common lack of plant species diversity in Phragmites-
dominated wetlands, however, other aspects of ecological change are less clear.
Intertidal marsh macroinvertebrates, most of which occupy habitats on or just below the marsh
sediment surface, can be sensitive to habitat dominance by Phragmites. In this case, these changes
may include reduced microtopographic relief (Windham and Lathrop, 1999) and lower abundance of
intertidal standing water microhabitats, increased detritus loading, decreased soil salinity, increased soil
aeration, increased depth to the water table (Windham, 1995; Windham and Lathrop, 1999), increased
shading and decreased benthic microalgal productivity (Wainright et al., 2000) and altered patterns of
predation pressure (Levin and Talley, 2000). Angradi et al. (2001) found that changes in intertidal
habitat of tidal brackish marshes in New Jersey resulting from the conversion from Spartina to
Phragmites marsh influenced the structure of macroinvertebrate fauna and reduced biodiversity.
Alternatively, Fell et al. (1998) found that the diversity and abundance of trophically important salt
marsh macroinvertebrates was similar or greater within Phragmites for certain taxa.
Able and Hagan (2000) evaluated the impact of Phragmites on fish and decapod crustacean use of
the marsh surface in the brackish water reaches of the Mullica River, in southern New Jersey. They
reported that there was an overall negative effect of Phragmites on larval and small juvenile fish,
5

-------
particularly on Fundulus heteroclitus, an abundant resident fish that plays an important role in the
transfer of energy from the marsh surface to adjacent subtidal rivers and thus estuarine food webs.
Able et al. (2002) found fish abundance to be higher in treated Phragmites sites versus Spartina or
Phragmites dominated sites. Additionally, Raichel et al. (2002) found that F. heteroclitus was more
abundant on the marsh surface in the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey in Spartina dominated
habitats versus Phragmites habitat. Other juvenile fish assemblages were similar in the different
habitats. Alternatively, Fell et al. (2002) reported that fish (/•'. heteroclitus) and shrimp
(Palaemonetes pugio) abundance was similar in Phragmites, Typha angustifolia, and treated
Phragmites areas in the lower Connecticut River tidelands. A relatively small number of larval and
juvenile F. heteroclitus were captured in Phragmites dominated marsh, however, suggesting that
Typha and brackish meadow marshes may provide better nursery habitat.
Although Phragmites stands are considered important wildlife habitat in Europe (Holisova, 1975;
Hudec and Stasny, 1978; Bibby and Lunn, 1982), there has been much dispute in North America
regarding its value as food and habitat for birds and other wildlife. In examining northeastern
saltmarshes, Benoit and Askins (1999) discovered that ecological specialists and rare species such as
willet, seaside sparrow, and sharp-tailed sparrow were less abundant in Phragmites versus non-
Phragmites vegetation. They theorized that while prey species may be abundant in Phragmites, stands
may not be suitable habitat for birds if the density of the vegetation makes prey inaccessible or
substantially reduces hunting efficiency. Additionally, Roman et al. (1984) reported that waterfowl
usage was reduced substantially in Phragmites dominated marshes. Alternatively, Parsons (2003)
found that Phragmites marsh at colony sites, such as Pea Patch Island in Delaware Bay, provides
critical nesting habitat for nesting wading birds both as substrate for nesting and buffer habitat to control
human disturbance.
More than 70 species of birds breed in Phragmites stands and many use Phragmites as nesting
material. Information is scarce, however, on nesting success in Phragmites versus non-Phragmites
vegetation. Phragmites is more important to North American wildlife for shelter than food, and wildlife
seems to use Phragmites edges, mixed stands, and patchy stands more than extensive dense interiors
(Kiviat et al., 2002).
Rooth and Windham (2000) argue that Phragmites dominated habitats can have positive attributes.
For example, Phragmites can serve as an important soil stabilizer through root growth and thatch
accumulation in areas prone to erosion and it may enhance water quality through nutrient cycling and
transpirational water loss (Ailstock, 2001). Further, in highly polluted or disturbed areas it may be the
only plant that can survive under those conditions. Ailstock (2001) suggested that control programs be
evaluated in light of costs, the goals of enhancing biodiversity, and the system attributes that influence
conversion to Phragmites dominated plant communities.
D. Distribution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Phragmites is now the dominant macrophyte in a wide variety of intertidal environments in the
Chesapeake Bay (Stevenson and Rooth, 2002) and in freshwater tidal wetlands (Ailstock et al., 2001).
6

-------
Delaware
There have been no formal surveys conducted to determine Phragmites distribution in Delaware.
The Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) through control efforts, however, note that this
species is distributed statewide. Largest concentrations of Phragmites are found in coastal brackish-
fresh marshes specifically in the tax ditch drainage system, freshwater ponds, bordering the inland Bays,
and dredge spoil areas (William Jones, personal communication).
Maryland
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office (USFWS CBFO)
conducted aerial surveys of tidal marshes in Maryland and Virginia from 1995 to 1997. The largest
patches of Phragmites occur in dredge spoil areas. The greatest extent of Phragmites in natural
marshes occurred on the lower Eastern Shore from the Nanticoke River south to the Pocomoke River,
the Eastern Bay and Chester River area, Baltimore Harbor, C&D Canal, and Aberdeen Proving
Grounds (Figure 1).
Pennsylvania
Highest concentrations of Phragmites in Pennsylvania occur in the southeast corner of the state
along the Delaware estuary system (Figure 1).
Virginia
Occurrence of Phragmites is widespread in eastern Virginia and in some areas of western Virginia.
The USFWS CBFO survey detected the largest expanses of Phragmites located in or near dredge
spoil areas and highly disturbed marshes. Natural marshes with the greatest extent of Phragmites were
the upper Eastern Shore south of the Pocomoke River, on the lower James River, and in marshes near
the Tappahannock and the lower Pamunkey River (Figure 1).
E.	Management of Phragmites
Methods to control Phragmites include chemical spraying with glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)
glycine), wicking (wipe-on herbicide application), and sulfide treatments. Mechanical control options
include water management, disking, bulldozing, dredging, seasonal mowing, cutting, use of plastic
barriers, perimeter ditching, burning, and shading. Over 100 insects are known to attack Phragmites
in Europe and about 50% of these are Phragmites specialists. Blossey (2000) is currently assessing
their potential as biocontrol agents. Norris et al. (2002) and Marks et al. (1993) provide a
comprehensive reviews of control options.
F.	Management Efforts in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Delaware
The DFW initiated monitoring for Phragmites in 1949. At the same time, DFW began a
cooperative study with USFWS aimed at developing Phragmites control methods in Delaware
marshes. The DFW continued experimenting with different control methods up until the mid 1980's.
7

-------
Delaware's current strategy for Phragmites control involves aerially applying 4 pints Rodeo®/acre
plus 1/2% non-ionic surfactant (LI-700®) per total spray volume in 5 gallons of water per acre. Dead
canes are burned the following spring. The DFW has used the "herbicide and burn" technique
operationally on state wildlife areas and private lands since 1986. The Division cost shares 50/50 for
private landowners on two helicopter applications of Rodeo®, with the option to spray an additional
year under the original agreement. Landowners can then sign up for another three years if they desire.
Landowners must have between 5 and 200 acres of Phragmites to treat on their property, and the
property cannot be in a "developed" area. In 2002, DFW sprayed 2,410 acres of private lands and
provided $64,585 in state match.
Maryland
Maryland initiated & Phragmites chemical control program in 1995 with private landowners. As
part of a legislatively mandated program, landowners that have substantial stands of Phragmites that
are deemed a significant threat to preservation of valuable wildlife habitat, are allowed to control
Phragmites on their own property (Maryland General Assembly, SB65, HB 535). The State of
Maryland offers landowners a 50 percent cost share program coordinated through the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in cooperation with the Maryland Department of
Environment (MDE). Participants cannot receive more than $12,000/year and MDNR cannot spend
more than $60/acre on control (Maryland General Assembly, SB65, HB 535). The mandating
legislation, SB65, has no appropriation so, in 2002, MDE and MDNR provided support for control of
approximately 688 acres of Phragmites on private lands in Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, Caroline
and Talbot counties (D. Webster, personal communication). A Landowner's Guide is distributed by the
MDNR to encourage participation in the program.
MDNR also applied Glypro® by helicopter to 500 acres of Phragmites on State owned Wildlife
Management Areas on the Lower Eastern Shore and the Patuxent River (Maryland DNR, 2003).
Phragmites management on public lands is supported by the Maryland Waterfowl Stamp Fund.
Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania State Parks system treats limited acreage of Phragmites with herbicide.
Additionally, in Presque Isle State Park in the Lake Erie area the State Parks Department has an
ongoing applied research program on control management strategies for Phragmites (John Melei,
personal communication).
Virginia
Cooperative efforts between state and federal agencies, academia, private landowners, and non-
governmental organizations have resulted in a number of Phragmites control and management efforts in
the Coastal Bays areas, including Parramore and Hog Island (Chris Hutto, personal communication).
A control and restoration demonstration project was conducted on 600 acres of the Hog Island
Wildlife Management Area by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. They reported a
reduction in Phragmites after two years of treatment; however, cessation of treatment resulted in
recolonization within one year (Askins, 2000).
8

-------
The Rappahannock Phragmites Action Committee, a coalition of federal, state, and private interests,
initiated control of Phragmites in marshland along the Rappahannock River in 2001 (Wellford, 2001).
This on-going program is supported by the USFWS. Other management efforts in Virginia include a
monitoring and control program at the Dameron Marsh Natural Area Preserve in Northumberland
County, Virginia. Funded by the Wetland Trust Fund, this program was initiated in 2000 and will
continue until 2004.
G. Policy Background
Delaware
The existence of Phragmites in Delaware is considered a public and common nuisance. The
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) may make investigations,
studies, and determinations to ascertain the extent of growth and infestation of Phragmites and its
effect on wildlife and the environment. The Department may institute programs of control and
eradication and may enter into agreements with federal or state entities to effect these controls. The
Department may enter into an agreement with a county to control and eradicate Phragmites within that
county. Under the agreement, the Department and county may conduct surveys to determine the
location and amount of infestation, may provide technical and financial assistance to landowners on a
cost-sharing basis in a cooperative control or eradication program, and may effect a program of
mowing, spraying, or other control or eradication practices on road rights-of-way, drainage ditch
banks, parks, playgrounds, and other public or private lands (Del. Code tit. 7 §3802).
Maryland
Although considered a public and common nuisance on lands and wetlands used for wildlife habitat
areas, Phragmites is not a state listed noxious weed. As mentioned previously, legislation was enacted
in 1995 to provide cost sharing assistance for private landowners (MD Code Ann. Nat. Res. §8-
2101). Further, the Department of Natural Resources is required to implement a program to control
the spread of Phragmites, where appropriate on lands that the Department owns (MD Code Ann.
Nat. Res. §8-2105).
Virginia
The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage is partnering with
the Virginia Native Plant Society through the Invasive Plants Cooperative Project to identify alien plant
species that have the potential to become invasive in Virginia; document the threat posed by specific
invasive alien plant species; educate the public about the issue; coordinate with other agencies and
organizations to identify mutual concerns and develop reasonable solutions; and develop and implement
sound practices for the control of invasive alien plants in natural areas. An exception to the rules
regulating the burning of woods, brush, and debris is made for prescribed burns being conducted to
control exotic and invasive plant species that cannot be accomplished at times of the year that would
otherwise satisfy regulations (VA Code Ann. §10.1-1142). Phragmites is on the Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation's advisory list, which is a non-regulatory list. Phragmites received the
highest "invasiveness" ranking on the list.
9

-------
Pennsylvania
Phragmites is not on the Pennsylvania's noxious weed list and thus not managed by the state's
Department of Agriculture (Leo Dunn, personal communication).
II. Management Actions - Explanatory Text for the Implementation Table
Goal:
By 2005, have a permitting process in development in each state (MD, VA, and PA) that includes
control of Phragmites as a wetland permit condition, which will assist the states in achieving a long
term goal of a no net gain in Phragmites acreage.
A.	Leadership, Coordination and Regulatory Authority
Needs:
Workshop participants and regional workgroup members all agreed that there needs to be better
coordination among the states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed with regard to management and
understanding of Phragmites. Workshop participants suggested establishing a single Phragmites
coordinator for each state. Regional workgroup members, however, believe that it would not be
feasible to fund such a position due to budgetary constraints in many of the states.
Actions:
1.1-1.3: A web based information clearinghouse will be used to document research, monitoring, and
management activities within the states in the watershed. This will initially require creation of a directory
of agencies, research institutions, and individuals that manage, monitor, or conduct research on
Phragmites. The website then can provide a description of annual activities of these entities. A lead
contact should be identified in each state to assist in the creation of the directory.
B.	Prevention
Needs:
Workshop and regional workgroup members believe that development of a permitting process that
requires wetland permit applicants to monitor and control Phragmites is the key to achieve a no net
gain in Phragmites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Actions:
1. Review the wetland permitting process in each of the states.
1.1: Determine if there are requirements for monitoring or controlling Phragmites in created wetland
sites or other wetland areas where mosquito ditching, road development, and other activities that result
in wetland disturbance are permitted by a federal, state, or local agency.
1.2: Identify agencies and individuals involved with reviewing permits concerning wetland construction
or disturbances and incorporate into the web based clearinghouse.
1.3: If current permit conditions are insufficient, work to develop new permit conditions that will assist
10

-------
in preventing new invasions from occurring in these sites. This will require working with state
legislatures and agencies.
2. Monitoring
2.1: Establish a baseline rate of expansion in different physiographic regions using aerial surveys, aerial
photography, or ground surveys.
2.2: Require monitoring of Phragmites as a condition of a wetland permit.
2.3: Determine whether NWI will be able to map Phragmites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed as
part of their wetland mapping efforts in the northeast.
2.4: Determine the willingness and usefulness of watershed organizations or other citizen monitoring in
mapping and coordinating control efforts for Phragmites.
2.5: Identify native stands of Phragmites and make information available on a GIS web based
clearinghouse for resource managers actively involved in controlling Phragmites.
C. Control and Management
1.	Control
Needs: Workshop participants and regional workgroup members believe that there needs to be an
assessment of which geographic areas in each of the states should be given high priority for control
based on specified criteria.
1.1: Determine what geographic areas should receive the highest priority for control based on specified
criteria.
1.2: Evaluate long term effectiveness of control efforts (large versus small stands).
1.4: Develop "Best Management Practices" for federal, state, and local agencies that are involved with
the wetland regulatory process.
1.5: Develop a control checklist that can be used by federal, state, and local natural resource
managers to evaluate control options.
2.	Research
2.1: Evaluate reproductive strategies of the native genotype and determine how it persists and
competes with the non-native strain. Determine consistent morphological characteristics that can be
utilized in identification of the native genotype in the field.
2.2: Evaluate biocontrol options for Phragmites.
11

-------
D. Communication and Information Access
Needs:
Communication needs to be enhanced between the states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed regarding
management and research of Phragmites.
Actions:
1.1: A web based clearinghouse will be established to provide ready access to information associated
with management actions which are implemented within the plan but will also include a directory of
agencies, academic institutions, and individuals associated with the management and research of
Phragmites and agencies involved with the wetland regulatory process. The site can also be utilized to
sustain a current synthesis of results in the areas of research and management activities.
1.2: Produce a "Best Management Practices" brochure for wetland regulatory agencies; post on web
based clearinghouse. The brochure can be given to permit applicants to assist them in preventing new
invasions of Phragmites
1.3: Produce a "Control Checklist" brochure for natural resource management agencies and private
landowners; post on web based clearinghouse.
III. Implementation Table
An implementation table is provided for each of the four management components. For each action
identified under the components, we have identified a time frame for completing the actions,
identification of agencies responsible for leading actions, the partners that should be involved, the
funding/cost share, and the source of funding.
12

-------
A. Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory Authority
Action
Tasks
Task DescriDtion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Agencv
Partners
Coordinate Phragmites
Management and
Research Programs in
the Chesapeake Bay
watershed








1.1
Identify agencies,
research facilities,
academic institutions
and individuals within
these entities within the
Chesapeake Bay
watershed that
research and manage
Phragmites
6 months
none, in-
kind
services

CBP fellow
Key contact in
state natural
resource
department
(MDNR,
VDGIF,
PDCNR)

1.2
Determine
management activities,
monitoring, and
research being
conducted by these
entities
6 months to one
year
none, in-
kind
services

CBP fellow
Key contact in
state natural
resource
department
(MDNR,
VDGIF,
PDCNR)

1.3
Incorporate
information on a web
based information
clearinghouse
on-going
in-kind
services

CBP fellow
Key contact in
state natural
resource
department
(MDNR,
VDGIF,
PDCNR)
13

-------
B. Prevention
Action
Tasks
Task Descrintion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Asencv
Partners
Review wetland permit
process








1.1
Determine if there are
requirements for
controlling
Phragnates in created
wetland sites or
wetland areas where
road development,
ditching and other
practices are
permitted
6 months
In-kind
services

USFWS-
CBFO
state natural
resource
agencies
(MDNR,
VDGIF,
PDCNR), MD
Critical Areas
Commission

1.2
Identify agencies and
individuals involved
with reviewing
permits concerning
wetland construction
or disturbances and
incorporate into the
clearinghouse
6 months
In-kind
services

USFWS-CBFO
Key contact in
state natural
resource
department
(MDNR,
VDGIF,
PDCNR)
14

-------
B. Prevention (con.)
Action
Tasks
Task Descrintion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Asencv
Partners

1.3
Work to develop
permit conditions that
will assist in
preventing new
invasions from
occurring in these
wetland sites and
insure that these sites
are monitored and
controlled if
Phragnates becomes
established
One year
In-kind
services

USFWS CBFO
MDE, VADEQ,
VMRC, ACOE
Monitoring








2.1
Establish a baseline
rate of expansion in
different
physiographic
3-5 yrs.
$100,000
DOD?
State
universities
USFWS, NPS,
USGS, ACOE,
state natural
resource
agencies

2.2
Establish monitoring
of Phragmites as a
requirement for a
wetland permit
One year
In-kind
services

MDE, VADEQ,
VMRC, ACOE
ACOE
15

-------
B. Prevention (con.)
Action
Tasks
Task DescriDtion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Agencv
Partners

2.3
Determine feasability
of NWI mapping
Phragnates in the
Chesapeake Bay
watershed as part of
their wetland mapping
efforts in the northeast
6 months

NWI
USFWS
NWI

2.4
Determine feasability
and willingness of
watershed
organizations or other
citizen monitoring
groups in mapping
Phragnates and
coordinating control
efforts
1 year

in-kind
USFWS CBFO
State natural
resource
agencies

2.5
Identify native stands
of Phragmites and
make available on a
GIS web based
clearinghouse;
on-going

in-kind
MD Heritage
Program
(MDNR),
Virginia
Heritage
Program (VA
DCR), VIMS
UMD CEES,
Cornell
University
16

-------
C. Control and Management
Action
Tasks
Task
DescriDtion
Task
Duration
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Agency
Partners
Control








1.1
Establish
regional
priorities for
control of
Phragnates
3 years
in-kind

State natural
resource
agencies
USFWS

1.2
Evaluate
effectiveness
of control
efforts over
time
5-10 years
in-kind

State natural
resource
agencies
USFWS

1.4
Develop a
control
checklist
2 years
in-kind

USFWS CBFO
State natural
resources
agencies

1.5
Develop a
"best
management
practices"
document for
land
disturbing
activities
1 year
in-kind

UMD-CEES
State natural
resource
agencies, FWS,
NPS
17

-------
C. Control and Management (con.)
Action
Tasks
Task
DescriDtion
Task
Duration
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Agency
Partners
Research








2.1
Evaluate
reproductive
strategies of
the native
genotype and
determine how
it persists and
competes with
the non-native
strain
3 years
$50,000-100,000
Sea Grant
Noninidgenous Species
Research Grant?
UMD-CEES
DNREC,
MDNR, USFWS

2.2
Research
biocontrol
options
5 years
$500,000
Federal-Department of
Defense
Cornell
University
USFWS
18

-------
D. Communication and Information Access
Action
Tasks
Task
DescriDtion
Task
Duration
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Agency
Partners
Enhance regional
communication
regarding
management and
research of
Phragmites








1.1
Establish and
maintain a
web based
information
clearinghouse
2 years
$30,000
Sea Grant
Nonindigenous Species
Outreach Grant
CBP
EPA CBP,
USFWS, NPS,
USGS

1.2
Produce a
"Best
Management
Practices"
brochure for
regulatory
agencies
1 year
$10,000
Chesapeake Bay Trust
or Sea Grant
Nonindigenous Species
Outreach Grant
UMD-CEES
USFWS

1.3
Create a
"Control
Checklist" for
natural
resource
management
agencies and
private
landowners
1 year
$10,000
Chesapeake Bay Trust
or Sea Grant
Nonindigenous Species
Outreach Grant
State natural
resource
agencies
USFWS
Agency Abbreviations: Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Maryland
19

-------
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), National Park Service (NPS), National Wetlands Institute (NWI),
Pennsylania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PDCNR), United States Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office (USFWS
CBFO), United States Geological Society (USGS), University of Maryland Center for Estuarine and Environmental Science (UMD-CEES), Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Virginia Marine
Resources Commission (VMRC).
20

-------
Literature Cited
Able, K.W. and S.M. Hagan. 2000. Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion on
marsh surface macrofauna: response of fishes and decapod crustaceans. Estuaries 23(5): 633-646.
Able, K.W., S.M. Hagan, and S.A. Brown. 2002. Response of larval mummichogs on the marsh
surface during treatment for Phragmites removal (abstract). In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in
Wolfs Clothing? A Special Technical Forum and Workshop, p. 7. New Jersey Marine Sciences
Consortium Workshop Jan 6-9, 2002. Cumberland County College, Vineland, New Jersey.
Ailstock, M.S. 2000. Adaptive strategies of common reed Phragmites australis in The Role of
Phragmites in the Mid-Atlantic Region, Princess Anne, MD, April 17, 2000.
Ailstock, M.S., C. M. Norman, P.J. Bushmann. 2001. Common reed, Phragmites australis: Control
and effects upon biodiversity in freshwater nontidal wetlands. Restoration Ecology 9(1): 49-59.
Angradi, T.R., S.M. Hagan, and K.W. Able. 2001. Vegetation type and the intertidal
macroinvertebrate fauna of a brackish marsh: Phragmites vs. Spartina. Wetlands 21(1): 75-92.
Bart, D. and J.M. Hartman. 2000. Environmental determinants of Phragmites australis expansion in a
New Jersey salt marsh: an experimental approach. Oikos 89(1): 59-69.
Benoit, L.K. and R.A. Askins. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in
tidal Connecticut marshes. Wetlands 19: 194-208.
Besitka, M.A.R. 1996. An ecological and historical study of Phragmites australis along the Atlantic
Coast. Master's Thesis. Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.
Bibby, C.J. and J. Lunn. 1982. Conservation of reed beds and their avifauna in England and Wales.
Biological Conservation 23: 167-186.
Blossey, B. and J. McCauley. 2000. A plan for developing biological control of Phragmites australis
in North America. Wetland Journal 12(1): 23-28.
Blossey, B. 2002. Biological Control of non-indigenous plants. Cornell University:
http://www.invasiveplants.net/phragmites.
Brown, M.L. and R.G. Brown. 1984. Herbaceous plants of Maryland. Port City Press, Baltimore,
Maryland.
Burdick, D.M., Dionne, M., Boumans, R.M., Short, F.T. 1997. Ecological responses to tidal
21

-------
restorations of two northern New England salt marshes. Wet. Ecol. Manage. 4: 129-144.
Burdick, D.M., R. Buuchsbaum, and E. Holt. 2001. Variation in soil salinity associated with expansion
of Phragmites australis salt marshes. Environmental and Experimental Botany 46: 247-261.
Burdick, D.M. and R. Konisky. 2002. Understanding success of Phragmites australis as it exploits
human impacts to coastal marshes (abstracts). In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in Wolfs Clothing?
A Special Technical Forum and Workshop, p. 7. New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium Workshop
Jan 6-9, 2002. Cumberland County College, Vineland, New Jersey.
Chambers, R.M., L.A. Meyerson and K. Saltonstall. 1999. Expansion of Phragmites australis into
tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany 64: 261-273.
Chambers, R.M., D.T. Osgood, D.J. Bart and F. Montoalto. 2002. Phragmites invasion and
expansion in tidal wetlands: Interactions among salinity, sulfide, and hydrology, (abstract). In
Phragmites australis: A Sheep in Wolfs Clothing? A Special Technical Forum and Workshop, p. 7.
New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium Workshop Jan 6-9, 2002. Cumberland County College,
Vineland, New Jersey.
Cross, D. H. and K.L. Fleming. 1989. Control of Phragmites or common reed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Information Transfer, Ft. Collins, CO, USA. FWS/OIT-13.4.12: 1-5.
den Hartog, C., Kvet, J., Sukopp, H., 1989. Reed: a common species in decline. Aquatic Botany 35,
1-4.
Fell, R.S., S. Warren, and J.K. Light. 2002. Phragmites expansion in Connecticut River tidelands: do
fishes and crustaceans care (abstract)? In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in Wolfs Clothing? A
Special Technical Forum and Workshop, p. 11. New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium Workshop
Jan 6-9, 2002. Cumberland County College, Vineland, New Jersey.
Fernald, M.L. 1970. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. D. VanNostrand Company, New York.
Ford, R.I., H.V. Jones and J. Elias. 1970. A partial bibliography of North American uses of
Phragmites. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Galinato, M.I., and A.G. van der Valk. 1986. Seed germination traits of annuals and emergents
recruited during drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canada. Aquatic Botany 26: 89-102.
Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and
adjacent Canada. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York.
22

-------
Havens, K. 2000. Phragmites australis expansion into constructed wetlands: Are we mortgaging our
wetland future (abstract)? In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in Wolfs Clothing? A Special Technical
Forum and Workshop, p. 11. New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium Workshop Jan 6-9, 2002.
Cumberland County College, Vineland, New Jersey.
Havens, K., W.I. Priest, III and H. Berquist. 2002. Phragmites australis invasion of constructed
wetlands and mechanisms to prevent recolonization (speaker abstract). In Phragmites in Virginia; A
Management Symposium. December 14, 2000. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Haslam, S.M. 1971. Community regulation in Phragmites communis Trin I. Monodominantstands.
Journal of Ecology 59: 65-73.
Haslam, S.M. 1972. Phragmites communis Trin.: biological flora of the British Isles. Journal of
Ecology 60: 585-610.
Holisova, V. 1975. The foods eaten by rodents in reed swamps of Nesyt fish pond. Zoologicke Listy
24: 223-237.
Hudec, K. and K. Stastny. 1978. Birds in the reedswamp ecosystem, p. 366-372. In D. Dykyjova and
J. Kvet (eds.) Pond Litoral Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Kiviat, E. and E. Hamilton. 2001. Phragmites use by Native North Americans. Aquatic Botany 69
(2-4): 341-357.
Kiviat, E., K. Moore, and Lori Benoit. 2002. Phragmites habitat functions for higher vertebrates in
North America (abstract). In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in Wolfs Clothing? A Special Technical
Forum and Workshop, p. 12. New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium Workshop Jan 6-9, 2002.
Cumberland County College, Vineland, New Jersey.
Kraft, J.C. 1971. Sedimentary facies patterns and geologic history of a Halocene marine transgression.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 82: 2131-2158.
Lathrop, R.G. and L. Windham. 2002. Does Phragmites expansion alter the structure and function of
marsh landscapes? Patterns and processes revisited (abstract). In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in
Wolfs Clothing? A Special Technical Forum and Workshop, p. 12. New Jersey Marine Sciences
Consortium Workshop Jan 6-9, 2002. Cumberland County College, Vineland, New Jersey.
Levin, L.A. and T.S. Talley. 2000. Influence of vegetation and abiotic environmental factors on salt
marsh invertebrates, p. 661-707. In M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger (eds.) Concepts and
Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
23

-------
Marks, M., B. Lapin, and J. Randall. 1993. Element Stewardship Abstract for Phragmites australis.
The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
Marks, M., B. Lapin, and J. Randall. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis): threats,
management, and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14: 285-294.
Metzler, K. and R. Rosza. 1987. Additional notes on the tidal wetlands of the Connecticut River.
Newsletter of the Connecticut Botanical Society 15: 1-6.
Meyerson, L.A., K. Saltonstall, L. Windham, E. Kiviat, and S. Findlay. 2000. A comparison of
Phragmites australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America. Wetlands
Ecology and Management 8: 89-103.
Mikkola, K. and J.D. Lafontaine. 1994. Recent introductions of riparian noctuid moths from the
Palaearctic region to North America, with the first report of Apamea unanimus (Huebner) (Noctuidae:
Amphipyrinae) Journal of the Lepidopterists Society 48: 121-127.
Niering, W.A., R.S. Warren, C. Weymouth. 1977. Our dynamic tidal marshes: vegetation changes as
revealed by peat analysis. Connecticut Arboretum Bulletin No. 22.
Norris, L., J.E. Perry, K.J. Havens. 2002. A summary of methods for controlling Phragmites. VIMS
Wetlands Program Tech. Rep.
Orson, R.A., R.S. Warren and W.A. Niering. 1987. Development of a tidal marsh in a New England
river valley. Estuaries 10: 20-27.
Orson, R.A. 1999. A paleoecological assessment of Phragmites australis in New England tidal
marshes: change in plant community structure during the last few millennia. Biological Invasions 1: 149-
158.
Osgood, D.T., D.J. Bart, anf F. Montalto. 2002. Phragmites invasion and expansion in tidal wetlands:
interactions among salinity, sulfide, and hydrology (abstract). In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in
Wolfs Clothing? A Special Technical Forum and Workshop, p. 12. New Jersey Marine Sciences
Consortium Workshop Jan 6-9, 2002. Cumberland County College, Vineland, New Jersey.
Parsons, K.C. 2003. Reproductive success of wading birds using Phragmites marsh and upland nesting
habitats. Estuaries 26(2b): 596-601.
Raichel, D.L., K.W. Able, J.M. Hartman. 2002. The influence of Phragmites (Common Reed) on the
distribution, abundance, and potential prey of a resident marsh fish in the Hackensack Meadowlands,
New Jersey. In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in Wolfs Clothing? A Special Technical Forum and
24

-------
Workshop, p. 7. New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium Workshop Jan 6-9, 2002. Cumberland
County College, Vineland, New Jersey.
Rice, R., J. Rooth, and J.C. Stevenson. 2002. Colonization and expansion of Phragmites australis in
upper Chesapeake Bay tidal marshes. Wetlands 20(2): 280-299.
Roman, C.T., Niering, W.A., and Warren, R.S. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to
tidal restriction . Environmental Management 8: 141-150.
Rooth, J.L. and L. Windham. 2000. Phragmites on death row: is biocontrol really warranted?
Wetland Journal 12(1): 29-37.
Saltonstall, K. 2002. Native or introduced? Genetic variation in North American populations of
Phragmites australis (abstract). In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in Wolfs Clothing? A special
technical forum and workshop, January 6-9, 2002, Cumberland County College, Vineland, New
Jersey, New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-
Continent Ecology Division.
Stevenson, J.C. and J. Rooth. 2002. Historical and ecological perspectives of Phragmites australis in
the Mid-Atlantic landscape (abstract). In Phragmites australis: A Sheep in Wolfs Clothing? A
special technical forum and workshop, January 6-9, 2002, Cumberland County College, Vineland,
New Jersey, New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mid-Continent Ecology Division.
Szczepanska, W., and A. Szczepanski. 1982. Interactions between Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin.
ex Steud. and Typha latifolia L. Ekolgia Polska (Polish Journal of Ecology) 30: 165-186.
Tucker, G.C. 1990. The genera of Arundinoidea (Gramineae) in the southeastern United States.
Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 71: 14-171.
Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VA NHP) Invasive Plant Species of Virginia Fact Sheet. Common
Reed (Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steud.). Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Richmond, Virginia USA.
Wainright, S.C., M..P. Weinstein, K.W. Able, and C.A. Currin. 2000. Relative importance of benthic
microalgae, phytoplankton and the detritus of smooth cordgrass (Spartina) and the common reed
(Phragmites) to brackish marsh food webs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 200:
77-91.
Waksman, S.A., H. Schulhoff, C.A. Hickman, T.C. Cordon, and S.C. Stevens. 1943. The peats of
New Jersey and their utilization. Department of Conservation and Development, State of New Jersey,
25

-------
Trenton, NJ.
Warren, R.S., P.E. Fell, J.L. Grimsby, E.L. Buck, G.C. Rilling, R.A. Fertik. 2001. Rate, patterns, and
impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites control on
vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries
24(1): 90-107.
Weisser, P.J., and R.J. Parsons. 1981. Monitoring Phagmites australis increases from 1937 to 1976
in Sayai Lagoon (Natal, South Africa) by means of photo interpretation. Bothalia 13: 553-556.
Wellford, A.S. 2000. Protecting wildlife habitat in a private marsh (speaker abstract). Phragmites in
Virginia: A Management Symposium. Library of Virginia, December 14, 2000. Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation.
Windham, L. 1995. Effects of Phragmites australis invasion on aboveground biomass and soil
properties in brackish tidal marshes of the Mullica River, New Jersey. MS Thesis, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ.
Windham, L. and R. Lathrop. 1999. Effects of Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion on
above-ground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of Mullica River, New Jersey.
Estuaries 22: 927-935.
Witje, A.H.B. and J. Gallagher. 1996. Effects of oxygen availability and salinity on early life stages of
salt marsh plants I. Different germination strategies of Spartina alterniflora over Phragmites australis
(Poeceae). American Journal of Botany 83: 1337-1342.
26

-------
Figure 1.
Phragmites Presence in the Chesapeake Day Watershed
"Jala SnLrcss: I:K?5 U.S. Ffeh antj«/,' itil fr; fjervrjs-s_-vey.
?'• ion- V igir !.a	Atcr.i PrL-fiiWiV L'vc-ys bc-ft.vxin 1 B3~
s.t:1 ?
-------