[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
MILL D@ 44 t vtt -'k f--X@r k V19- P4 mod jft r-. INT, r -I- P-r-"W COASTAL WE I EANDS OF MA LAN t THE COASTAL WETLANDS OF MARYLAND Jack McCormick and s@ Horace A. Somes, Jr. 'T- Prepared for Maryland Department of Natural Resources Coastal Zone Management Program By Jack McCormick and Associates, Inc. A subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc. Chevy Chase, Maryland 1982 Preparation of this report was partially funded by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dedicated To The Memory of Jack Sovern McCormick, 1929-1979 Wetlands Ecologist FOREWORD Maryland's coastal wetlands are extremely valuable habitats for many kinds of plants and animals. They supply vital nutrients to finfish, shellfish, crustaceans, and waterfowl, Many wetland@,w-e_r_e)ost through unregulated dredging, filling, and dumping prior to the passage of the Maryland Wetlands Act it019770 9-,the Act established a permit program to regulate wetland activities in accordance with the public policy of the Stiie to preserve tidal wetlands, taking into account varying ecological, recreational, aesthetic, developmental, and economic values. The first major task of the Department of Natural Resources in implementing the Wetlands Act was to map the upland boundary of the coastal wetlands to establish regulatory jurisdiction. This effort was completed under the technical direction of a contractor, Dr. Jack McCormick, during 1972. After several years it became evident to the Department that additional information on the types of wetland vegetation, the extent of each type, and the natural functions of each type would be of great value in making regulatory decisions. To meet this need, the present analysis was initiated during 1975. The work that culminates in this report aimed to identify, measure, and analyze the coastal wetland vegetation of Maryland and to describe the habitat values of those wetlands systematically. Vegetation types were mapped in detail from aerial photographs, and the acreage of each type was tallied by county, by major watershed, and statewide. The available information on coastal wetland values was reviewed, and the existing literature was supplemented by original field data on above-ground standing crops. An innovative ranking scheme for the comparative evaluation of individual wetlands was devised and calibrated for freshwater, brackish, and saline conditions using the Maryland inventory. The mapping, field verification, and measurement of productivity were accomplished during 1976 and 1977. Literature review and development of the evaluation scheme continued through 1978, as successive draft sections were critiqued by the Department and returned with comments to the contractor. Final revisions were underway at the time of the sudden and unanticipated death of Dr. McCormick during early 1979. The major tasks of checking quantitative tabulations, of finalizing cross-references, of laying out several appendices, and of general editing for consistency were performed by Elder A. Ghigiarelli, Jr., of the Department, from 1979 through 198 1. The results of the present work, as presented in this report and in the nearly 2,000 regulatory photomaps (scale, 1:2,400), are a source of pride for the Department and for the contractor. The detailed maps and acreage measurements establish the historical baseline against which regulators can compare proposed actions and scientists can assess natural and man-made changes. The vegetation types are described fully and are illustrated photographically for the benefit of future users. Relationships with previous classifications are indicated. The review of wetland values will benefit all those concerned with the coast of the mid-Atlantic states. The evaluation and comparative ranking of individual wetlands will provide food for thought to persons formulating methods for habitat evaluation. General readers will treasure Dr. McCormick's clear prose style and his ability to capture in words the key aspects of complex environmental relationships. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in his splendid account of seasonal changes in the freshwater tidal marsh. The evaluation scheme provides a relative measure of the quality of a given wetland with reference to nearby wetlands and to other Maryland wetlands with similar salinity and other characteristics. The scheme is expected to provide valuable input into wetlands planning and to form a rational basis for comparing ecological values. The results, however, are not intended as the sole basis for regulatory decision-making by the Department. James A. Schmid, Ph.D. (Former) Vice President Jack McCormick & Associates Division A Subsidiary of WAPORA, Inc. May 1981 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The contractor expresses special appreciation to Elder A. Ghigiarelli,jr., project manager of this study for the Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration; to William S. Sipple, formerly Chief, Wetlands Permit Division, Water Resources Administration (and presently with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency); and Harold M. Cassell, Chief, Wetlands Permit Division, Water Resources Administration, for the technical information and assistance they provided and for their critical reviews of multiple work products. Special efforts were made by Elder Ghigiarelli in preparing Dr. McCormick's final manuscript for the press. He was assisted on various sections and in preparing the index by Mr. Wayne Klockner of the Wetlands Permit Division. Thanks are extended also to all other individuals in the Department of Natural Resources who contributed their time in reviewing draft materials. The work of the contractor was directed by Dr. Jack McCormick and by Horace A. Somes,jr. Airphoto interpretation, field checking of mapped types, and collection and handling of standing crop samples were the responsibility of John W. Munro and Charles D. Rhodehamel. John Munro also took the report photographs. Acreage measurements from the vegetation types were made primarily by Judith Rhodehamel and Glen Davis. Graphics specialists, field assistants, and typists included William L. Bale, Jr., Jerome H. Gold, Connie Gibbons, Kenneth Cranston, Nancy Daoud, and Anne Pagano. The principal author of the final report was Dr.Jack McCormick. Horace Somes drafted sections of the report and handled day to daycoordination into 1978. Minoreditorial assistance was provided by Dr.James A. Schmid, formerly Vice President, Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. (and presently with Schmid & Company, Consulting Ecologists). vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Foreword ...................................................................................... v Acknowledgments ............................................................................... vii Table of Contents ............................................................................... ix List of Tables ................................................................................... xi List of Figures .................................................................................. xiii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. xv 1. THE COASTAL WETLANDS OF MARYLAND ................................................. 1 1.1. Inland (Upper) Boundary ................................................................ 1 1.2. Wetland Types and Areas ................................................................ 1 Shrub Swamps ....................................................................... 4 Swamp Forests ....................................................................... 4 Fresh Marshes ....................................................................... 12 Brackish High and Low Marshes ........................................................ 22 Saline High and Low Marshes .......................................................... 30 Unvegetated Wetlands ................................................................ 35 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation .......................................................... 35 1.3. Summary of Wetlands by Counties and Watersheds ........................................... 40 1.4. The Flora of the Wetlands ............................................................... 41 1.5. Previous Classifications of the Coastal Wetlands of Maryland ................................... 46 2. VALUES OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS ..................................................... 53 2.1. Food Web of the Coastal Wetlands ........................................................ 53 2.2. Primary Biological Productivity ........................................................... 54 Methods ............................................................................ 54 Original Estimates of Standing Crops .................................................... 55 Average Primary Production of Wetland Vegetation Types .................................. 55 Summary of Detailed Data on Primary Production .......................................... 62 Comments on the Tabulated Data ....................................................... 62 Evaluation of Production Data .......................................................... 62 2.3. Detritus ................... ........................................................... 67 2.4. Wildlife Food Plants of the Coastal Wetlands ................................................ 68 Emergent Plants Used as Food .......................................................... 70 Submerged Plants Used as Food ......................................................... 80 2.5. Animals of the Coastal Wetlands .......................................................... 81 Invertebrates of Saline Marshes ......................................................... 81 Birds of Saline Marshes ................................................................ 89 Invertebrates of Brackish Marshes ....................................................... 90 Birds of Brackish Marshes .............................................................. 90 Birds of Fresh Marshes ................................................................ 97 Birds of Shrub Swamps and Swamp Forests ............................................... 102 Mammals of the Coastal Wetlands ....................................................... 103 Amphibians and Re tiles of the Coastal Wetlands ........................................... 105 p Fish Habitats ........................................................................ 106 2.6. Water Pollution Abatement by Wetlands ................................................... 106 2.7. Sedimentation ......................................................................... 107 2.8. Erosion Control Capacity ................................................................. 108 3. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS .................................. Ill 3.1. Approaches to Wetlands Evaluation ....................................................... ill 3.2. Philosophy of an Evaluation Scheme for Maryland ............................................ 112 3.3. General Premises of the Maryland Scheme .................................................. 113 3.4. Restrictions and Assumptions in the Maryland Scheme ........................................ 113 4. EVALUATION OF VEGETATION TYPES ..................................................... 115 4.1. Vegetation Type Value .................................................................. 115 Net Primary Production Variable ........................................................ 115 ix Page Replacement Cost Factor ............................................................... 115 Calculation of Vegetation Type Values ................................................... 117 Recommendations for Improvement ..................................................... 117 4.2. Wildlife Food Value ..................................................................... 117 Predominant Genera of Plants .......................................................... 121 Wildlife Values of Predominant Genera .................................................. 121 Weighting of Wildlife Values ........................................................... 121 Calculation of Scores for Vegetation Types ................................................ 121 Recommendations for Improvement ..................................................... 124 5. EVALUATION OF WETLAND SITES ......................................................... 125 5.1. Vegetation Resource Group .............................................................. 125 Wetland Production Variable ........................................................... 125 Vegetation Richness Factor ............................................................. 126 5.2. Wildlife Resource Group ................................................................. 126 Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable ................................................. 126 Vegetation Form Variable .............................................................. 127 Vegetation Interspersion Factor ......................................................... 130 Wildlife Food Score ................................................................... 130 6. APPLICATION OF THE EVALUATION SCHEME .............................................. 131 6.1. Application to All the Coastal Wetlands and to Each Salinity Category ........................... 131 Descriptions of New Calculations ........................................................ 131 Interpretations of the Scores ............................................................ 131 6.2. Application to Three Test Marshes ........................................................ 137 6.3. Application to the Major Coastal Watersheds and to the Tidewater Counties ...................... 137 6.4. Wetland Size as a Consideration ........................................................... 139 6.5. Overriding Factors ...................................................................... 140 Overriding Factors Associated with Vegetation Types ....................................... 140 Overriding Factors Associated with Wetland Areas ......................................... 141 6.6. Other Potential Scalars .................................................................. 144 Other Potential Scalars for Vegetation Types .............................................. 144 Other Potential Geographic Scalars ...................................................... 145 7. LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................... 149 8. GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS USED IN THE TEXT ........................................ 161 APPENDIX 1. COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS ................... 163 APPENDIX 2. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS OF THE PRODUCTIVITY AND DIVERSITY OF WETLANDS ... 175 APPENDIX 3. DESCRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO MEASURE ACREAGES OF TYPES ............ 193 APPENDIX 4. WETLAND EVALUATION SHEETS FOR OLDMANS CREEK MARSH, SALISBURY MARSH, AND TINICUM MARSH IN THE DELAWARE RIVER ESTUARY ............ 197 APPENDIX 5. WETLAND EVALUATION SHEETS FOR THE MAJOR COASTAL WATERSHEDS AND TIDEWATER COUNTIES ........................................................ 201 APPENDIX 6. CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 233 INDEX ..................................................................... ................. 239 LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Types of tidal wetlands recognized in the coastal zone of Maryland ................................ 2 2. Areas occupied by coastal (tidal) wetland types in Maryland ...................................... 2 3. Types 11, 12, 13: floristic components of shrub swamps ......................................... 12 4. Types 21, 22, 23: floristic components of swamp forests ......................................... 13 5. Types 30 through 39: floristic components of fresh marshes ...................................... 15 6. Heights of plants in freshwater tidal wetlands ................................................. 18 7. Types 41 through 51: floristic components of brackish marshes ................................... 28 8. Salinity and pH of brackish wetland soil ...................................................... 30 9. Types 61 through 72: floristic components of saline marshes ..................................... 33 10. Plants of saline marshes on Assateague Island ................................................. 34 11. Plants of beaches on Assateague Island ....................................................... 37 12. Ranges of salinities associated with submerged aquatic plants ..................................... 38 13. Total area of coastal wetlands in major watersheds ............................................. 41 14. Acreages of wetland types in major watersheds ................................................ 42 15. Percentage of total wetlands in major watersheds, by type ........................................ 43 16. Total area of coastal wetlands in tidewater counties ............................................. 44 17. Acreages of wetland types in tidewater counties ................................................ 44 18. Percentage of total wetlands in each county, by type ............................................ 45 19. Correlation of wetland types used in different surveys ........................................... 50 20. Comparison of estimates of area of coastal wetlands by different surveys ........................... 50 21. Average peak standing crops of wetland types ................................................. 56 22. Standing crops and net production of wetland types ............................................. 56 23. Chemical composition of wetland plants ...................................................... 63 24. Caloric content of marsh plants ............................................................. 66 25. Some estuarine and marsh animals that utilize detritus .......................................... 69 26. Emergent plants whose seeds or fruits are eaten by wildlife ...................................... 70 27. Emergent plants whose vegetative parts are eaten by wildlife ..................................... 73 28. Wetland shrubs and trees which are eaten by wildlife ........................................... 75 29. Submerged and floating plants eaten by wildlife ................................................ 78 30. Densities of marsh fiddler crabs and saltmarsh snails in saline and brackish marshes ................. 82 31. Densities of mussels, isopods, and sand fleas in saline and brackish marshes ......................... 82 32. Spiders in coastal wetlands in North Carolina .................................................. 83 33. Insects in coastal wetlands in North Carolina .................................................. 87 34. Densities of insects and spiders in saline marshes .............................................. 88 35. Densities of various animals in brackish and saline wetlands ..................................... 90 36. Clapper rail nests in saline wetlands ......................................................... 90 37. Foods of waterfowl in moderately brackish estuarine bays ........................................ 91 38. Foods of waterfowl in highly brackish estuarine bays ............................................ 93 39. Foods of waterfowl in coastal marshes ........................................................ 94 40. Birds of a freshwater tidal marsh ............................................................ 98 41. Foods of waterfowl in fresh estuarine bays .................................................... 99 42. Foods of waterfowl in tidewater river wetlands and floodplain forests .............................. 100 43. Birds of shrub swamp and swamp forest habitats ............................................... 103 44. Replacement cost factors ................................................................... 117 45. Vegetation type values ..................................................................... 118 46. Total weighted food values of predominant wetland plants ....................................... 119 47. Wildlife food values of shrub swamps and swamp forests ........................................ 121 48. Wildlife food values of fresh marshes ........................................................ 122 49. Wildlife food values of brackish marshes ...................................................... 123 50. Wildlife food values of saline marshes ........................................................ 123 51. Wildlife food values for the vegetation types .................................................. 124 52. Mean vegetation type values for categories of vegetation ......................................... 125 53. Calculation of wetland production variable .................................................... 126 54. Values of the vegetation/ water interspersion variable ........................................... 127 55. Correlation of wetland types with vegetation forms ............................................. 128 xi Page 56. Vegetation forms in wetlands of three salinities ................................................ 128 57. Relative values of vegetation forms ........................................................... 128 58. Relation of product and score for vegetation form variable ....................................... 129 59. Calculation of vegetation form variable ....................................................... 129 60. Calculation of the wildlife food score ......................................................... 130 61. Evaluation sheet for analyses of wetlands ..................................................... 132 62. Evaluation sheet for all subaerial coastal wetlands .............................................. 133 63. Evaluation sheet for fresh coastal wetlands .................................................... 134 64. Evaluation sheet for brackish coastal wetlands ................................................. 135 65. Evaluation sheet for saline coastal wetlands ................................................... 136 66. Comparison of scores for wetlands of different salinities ......................................... 137 67. Comparison of scores for three test wetlands .................................................. 137 68. Test scores as percentages of statewide scores .................................................. 137 69. Scores for wetlands in the major coastal watersheds ............................................. 138 70. Acreage, by salinity, of wetlands in major watersheds ........................................... 138 71. Scores for wetlands in the tidewater counties .................................................. 138 72. Acreage, by salinity, of wetlands in tidewater counties ........................................... 138 73. Scores for test wetlands as percentages of State, watershed, and county ............................. 139 74. Wetland types considered to be scarce ........................................................ 140 75. Areas of watersheds occupied by vegetated wetlands ............................................ 142 76. Areas of counties occupied by vegetated wetlands ............................................... 142 TABLES IN APPENDICES Appendix 1 77. Common and scientific names of submerged aquatic plants ....................................... 165 78. Common and scientific names of trees, shrubs, and woody vines .................................. 165 79. Common and scientific names of broadleaf herbaceous plants ..................................... 166 80. Common and scientific names of grasses and grasslike plants ..................................... 167 81. Common and scientific names of animals ...................................................... 168 Appendix 2 82. Herbaceous standing crop and litter crop sampling locations ..................................... 178 83. Standing crop of swamp rose shrub swamp, Type 11 ............................................ 186 84. Standing crop of red maple/ash shrub swamp, Type 13 .......................................... 186 85. Standing crop of baldcypress swamp forest, Type 21 ............................................ 186 86. Standing crop of red maple/ash swamp forest, Type 22 ......................................... 186 87. Standing crop of loblolly pine swamp forest, Type 23 ........................................... 187 88. Standing crop of smartweed/rice cutgrass marsh, Type 30 ....................................... 187 89. Standing crop of spatterdock marsh, Type 31 .................................................. 187 90. Standing crop of pickerelweed/arrowarurn marsh, Type 32 ....................................... 187 91. Standing crop of sweetflag marsh, Type 33 .................................................... 188 92. Standing crop of rosernallow marsh, Type 35 .................................................. 188 93. Standing crop of wildrice marsh, Type 36 ..................................................... 188 94. Standing crop of big cordgrass marsh, Type 38 ................................................. 188 95. Standing crop of common reed marsh, Type 39 ................................................ 189 96. Standing crop of meadow cordgrass/spikegrass marsh, Type 41 ................................... 189 97. Standing crop of marshelder/groundselbush marsh, Type 42 ..................................... 189 98. Standing crop of needlerush marsh, Type 43 ................................................... 189 99. Standing crop of cattail marsh, Type 44 ....................................................... 190 100. Standing crop of rosernallow marsh, Type 45 .................................................. 190 101. Standing crop of switchgrass marsh, Type 46 .................................................. 190 102. Standing crop of threesquare marsh, Type 47 .................................................. 190 103. Standing crop of common reed marsh, Type 49 ................................................ 191 Xii Page 104. Standing crop of smooth cordgrass marsh, Type 51 ............................................. 191 105. Plant diversity in swamp types .............................................................. 191 106. Plant diversity in fresh marsh types .......................................................... 192 107. Plant diversity in brackish marsh types ....................................................... 192 Appendix 4' 108. Evaluation Sheet for Oldmans Creek Marsh ................................................... 198 109. Evaluation Sheet for Salisbury Marsh ......................................................... 199 110. Evaluation Sheet for Tinicum Marsh .......................................................... 200 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Type 11, swamp rose shrub swamp ........................................................... 5 2. Type 12, smooth alder/black willow shrub swamp ............................................... 5 3. Type 13, red maple/ash shrub swamp ......................................................... 5 4. Sample wetlands map of vegetation typing in a freshwater wetland ................................. 6 5. Sample wetlands map of vegetation typing in a brackish wetland ................................... 8 6. Sample wetlands map of vegetation typing in a saline wetland ..................................... 10 7. Type 21, baldcypress swamp forest ........................................................... 14 8. Type 22, red maple/ash swamp forest ......................................................... 15 9. Type 23, loblolly pine swamp forest .......................................................... 15 10. Type 30, smartweed/rice cutgrass fresh marsh .................................................. 19 11. Type 31, spatterdock fresh marsh ............................................................ 20 12. Type 32, pickerelweed/arrowarum fresh marsh ................................................. 20 13. Type 33, sweetflag fresh marsh .............................................................. 20 14. Type 34, cattail fresh marsh ................................................................. 21 15. Type 35, rosemallow fresh marsh ............................................................ 22 16. Type 36, wildrice fresh marsh ............................................................... 23 17. Type 37, bulrush fresh marsh ................................................................ 23 18. Type 38, big cordgrass fresh marsh ........................................................... 23 19. Type 39, common reed fresh marsh ........................................................... 24 20. Type 41, meadow cordgrass/spikegrass brackish high marsh ...................................... 24 21. Type 42, marshelder/groundselbush brackish high marsh ......................................... 24 22. Type 43, needlerush brackish high marsh ...................................................... 25 23. Type 44, cattail brackish high marsh .......................................................... 25 24. Type 45, rosernallow brackish high marsh ..................................................... 26 25. Type 46, switchgrass brackish high marsh ..................................................... 26 26. Type 47, threesquare brackish high marsh ..................................................... 26 27. Type 48, big cordgrass brackish high marsh .................................................... 27 28. Type 49, common reed brackish high marsh .................................................... 27 29. Type 51, smooth cordgrass brackish low marsh ................................................. 27 30. Type 61, meadow cordgrass/spikegrass saline high marsh ........................................ 31 31. Type 62, marshelder/groundselbush saline high marsh ........................................... 31 32. Type 63, needlerush saline high marsh ........................................................ 31 33. Type 71, tall growth smooth cordgrass saline low marsh .......................................... 32 34. Type 72, short growth smooth cordgrass saline low marsh ........................................ 32 35. Type 80, pond ............................................................................ 36 36. Type 81, mudflat .......................................................................... 36 37. Type 91, beach/sandbar .................................................................... 36 38. Type 101, submerged aquatic plants ........................................................... 37 39. Major watersheds and sub-basin designations in tidewater counties ................................. 41 Xiii Page FIGURES IN APPENDICES Appendix 2 40. Sampling location for Type 33 ................................................................ 180 41. Sampling location for Type 39 ............................................................... 181 42. Sampling locations for Types 11, 12, 22, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 41, 49, 51 ............................ 182 43. Sampling locations for Types 45 and 46 ....................................................... 183 44. Sampling locations for Types 23, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 .............................................. 184 45. Sampling location for Type 21 ............................................................... 185 xiv INTRODUCTION The Maryland Wetlands Act, which was approved during 1970, is administered by the Wetlands Permit Division of the Water Resources Administration, an agency of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The intent of the Act is to conserve the coastal (tidal) wetlands, and to ensure the wisest use of these valuable areas. During 1971 and 1972,jack McCormick & Associates UMA), under contract to the Raytheon Corporation, delineated the inland boundary of the coastal (tidal) wetlands on photomaps. After public review, these maps were promulgated and established the area of regulatory jurisdiction. From September 1975 through March 1978, under con 'tract to the Coastal Zone Management Program of DNRJMA conducted a wetlands management study to refine and expand the existing information on the regulated coastal wetlands of Maryland. This project was funded, in part, by the Office of Coastal Zone Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce. The purposes of the study were to develop detailed information on the vegetation of the coastal wetlands, and the location, extent, and values of different types of wetland vegetation, to aid DNR in its wetland management activites. Data on the values of various qualitative features of wetlands and quantitative estimates of the productivity of wetland vegetation will enable DNR to determine the relative value of specific wetlands in relation to local areas, as well as to the entire estuarine system of the State. These determinations, in turn, can be used to identify wetlands that are in need of special preservation and those that are most resistant to various types of human activities. With regard to its uses in the day to day activities of DNR, the following is a list of the benefits that resulted from the study: � Identification and location of vegetation types in the coastal wetlands of Maryland; � Aid in identifying public and private wetlands in tidewater areas,- � Knowledge of the vegetation types within a wetland area provides information on the physical features of the marsh, such as salinity, inundation, soil types, and drainage; � The provision of additional information for specific wetland case work, including: -comparisons of local and regional extent of vegetation types, -identification of important waterfowl and wildlife areas on the basis of available food, -productivity-diversity information to aid in filling the gaps which existed, and -a literature review and value assessment to synthesize available information; � A historical baseline has been established which will allow DNR to follow changes that will occur in wetland vegetation, wildlife and waterfowl habitat, wetland productivity, natural succession, erosion, and man-induced changes; � Aid in relating vegetation types to mosquito breeding areas so that environmentally compatible mosquito control measures can be designed to eliminate problem areas; Aid in reviewing areas to be acquired by the public; and Vegetation type information aids in the siting of waterfowl and wildlife management ponds and impoundments. The wetlands management study consisted of six principal tasks. The purpose and scope of each of these tasks were: Task 1. Value Assessment The object of this task was to assemble data on the ecological features and environmental processes of each vegetation type to serve as a basis for assessing the relative value of the individual vegetation types and of wetland areas. The characteristics that are assessed in this report are primary productivity, nutrient content of predominant plants, plant species diversity, water pollution abatement capacity, erosion control capacity, fish habitat values, wildlife habitat and food values, and sediment entrapment capacity. Information on various other aspects of differential values between types was sought, but was not found. The approach to this task was to conduct a search of the available published and unpublished information on coastal wetlands. In addition to material in theJMA library, resources that were utilized to assemble information included computer searches of the reports of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Techn@cal Information Service. Task 2. Vegetation Classification and Delineation To provide a basis for management planning, for the development of regulatory strategies, and to facilitate comparative evaluations of the coastal wetland resources of Maryland, the distribution of thirty-two types of wetland vegetation and three unvegetated wetland types were mapped in the tidewater sections of sixteen counties. Areas of 0.25 acre or larger that are occupied by types were delineated. The mapping was conducted by interpreta- tion of vegetation types recorded on natural-color stereoscopic aerial photographs (Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Harford, Kent, Prince George's, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Talbot, Wicomico, and xv Worcester Counties) and on false-color infra-red and black and white infra-red aerial photographs (Charles, Calvert, and Somerset Counties). The vegetation types were delineated and identified by numerical symbols on approxi- mately 2,000 mylar photomaps (scale 1:2,400, or 1 inch = 200 feet). These maps are on file at DNR and copies may be obtained from the Department. Task 3. Productivity-Diversity Study To provide more substantial data on which to base management and regulatory decisions, a representative estimate of the primary production and plant species diversity was obtained for appropriate wetland vegetation types. Available published and unpublished estimates of primary production and of plant species diversity were assembled for types of coastal wetland vegetation that occur in Maryland. For seventeen types, little or no information was found, and the standing crop in each of these types was sampled by six 0.25 meter square plots, three in each of two stands. The samples were collected and floristic observations were made during August 1976. Task 4. Information Summary The presence or absence of each type of wetland vegetation was recorded for each of the 2,000 photomaps. The acreages of types that were present on each map were determined by dot gridding, and these acreages were totaled, by vegetation type, for each major watershed, for each county, and for the State. Task 5. Recommendations Based upon the information gathered and the experience gained in the other tasks of the study, recommendations on policies and procedures were made for consideration by DNR to facilitate and expedite the rational management of the coastal wetland resources of Maryland. Task 6. Acquisition of Photography The objective of this task was to acquire approximately eighty aerial photographs (scale 1:12,000) of areas of wetlands that were not represented on existing photographs. Approximately 300 exposures of true color film were made during October 1976. Positive color contact prints were made from 140 of these exposures, and 80 of these were selected for the preparation of additional base photomaps for future wetland mapping by DNR. Work on this contract was completed during March 1978. This project report was assembled to present and correlate the substantive results of the study. Specifically, it includes discussion of the wetland vegetation types, the detailed results of the value assessment, the productivity-diversity study, the information summary, and an environmental evaluation scheme for Maryland's coastal wetlands. xvi 1. THE COASTAL WETLANDS OF MARYLAND 1.1. INLAND (UPPER) BOUNDARY The Maryland Wetlands Act of 1970 recognizes two per thousand) or more. At the other extreme, the fresh- categories of coastal wetlands. State wetlands are defined water wetlands near the head of tide in the estuaries are as "any land under the navigable waters of the state never exposed to water with more than 0.5 ppt salt. The below the mean high tide, affected by the regular rise and brackish wetlands occupy a large proportion of the area fall of the tide. Wetlands of this category which have between these two extremes. been transferred by the state by valid grant, lease, patent Definitions of the environmental limits of the brack- or grant confirmed by Article 5 of the Declaration of ish wetlands, and thus of the other two classes, necessar- Rights of the Constitution shall be considered 'private ily must be arbitrary. The basic variable feature along the wetland' to the extent of the interest transferred." Pri- wetland continuum is salinity. But the salinity at a par- vate wetlands are "any land not considered 'state wet- ticular location varies seasonally, and it may change land'bordering on or lying beneath tidal waters, which is greatly, even during periods of several hours or a few subject to regular or periodic tidal action and supports days. aquatic growth. This in@ludes wetlands, transferred by Physiognomy, or the general structure and appearance the state by a valid grant, lease, patent, or grant con- of the vegetation, is used to sort the shrub swamps firmed by Article 5 of the Declaration of Rights of the (Types 11, 12, and 13) from the swamp forests (Types Constitution, to the extent of the interest transferred." 21, 22, and 23), and to distinguish these two groups of The term "Regular or periodic tidal action" means "the woody vegetation types from the herbaceous marshes rise and fall of the sea produced by the attraction of the and the unvegetated wetlands. Salinity is not considered sun and moon uninfluenced by wind or any other in the designation of these woody types, but all of the circumstance." shrub swamps and two of the swamp forests (Types 21 The inland boundary is the interface between the and 22) commonly are restricted to freshwater areas of coastal (tidal) wetlands and upland areas or between the wetland system. Loblolly pine swamp forests gener- coastal wetlands and wetlands that do not border on tidal ally occur in the brackish segment of the system. waters. The boundary was established by the interpreta- Nineteen of the 26 types of marsh vegetation are tion of aerial photography and by field inspections to paired. That is, a particular type of vegetation may be validate vegetation determinations and to verify tidal designated as one numbered type or as another num- association. The upper inland boundary was delineated bered type on the basis of relative salinity. For this on a series of approximately 2,000 aerial photomaps at a regional inventory of the coastal wetlands of Maryland, scale of 1:2,400 (1 inch = 200 feet). the Department of Natural Resources assigned the vege- tation types to the salinity classes on the basis of floristic 1.2 WETLAND TYPES AND AREAS composition (i.e., unpaired types), on the basis of spatial associations with other types (i.e., paired types were The system that is utilized by the Department of correlated with the unpaired types with which they' Natural Resources to characterize and describe the coast- occurred), and on the basis of geographic location. al wetlands of the State of Maryland recognizes four All wetland vegetation in the principal seaside bays forms of vegetation (shrub swamp, swamp forest, her- (Assawoman Bay, Chincoteague Bay, and so on) is con- baceous marsh, and submerged plants), three categories sidered to represent the saline wetland class. All stands of unvegetated wetlands (open water, mudflats, and of meadow cordgrass/spikegrass in the seaside bays, beaches and sandbars), three ranges of salinity within therefore, are assigned to Type 61 (saline) rather than to the marshes (fresh, brackish, and saline), and two tidal the paired Type 41 (brackish) on the basis of geographic ranges within the brackish and saline marshes (low, or location. Similarly, in the seaside bays, stands of mar- regularly flooded, and high, or less frequently flooded). shelder/groundselbush are assigned to Type 62, rather In total, thirty-five types of wetlands are distinguished than to Type 42; stands of needlerush are assigned to (Table 1). Each type was assigned a two or three digit Type 63, rather than to Type 43; and stands of smooth number, from I I to 10 1, to identify it on the maps of the cordgrass are assigned to Type 71 (tall) or Type 72 coastal wetlands of Maryland. The names of the thirty- (short), rather than to Type 51. one types of wetlands with subaerial vegetation indicate No saline wetland is considered to occur outside the the species of plants which form the bulk of the cover, seaside bays. In Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, there- but no more than two taxa are used to characterize a fore, any stand of a vegetation type that is represented by particular type. a saline/brackish pair is designated as the brackish The various kinds of wetlands merge gradually from member of that pair. For example, all stands of meadow one to the other and, thus, form a continuum. At one cordgrass/spikegrass that are adjacent to Chesapeake extreme of this continuum are the saline wetlands that Bay are characterized as Type 41 (brackish) rather than regularly are flooded by the water of the Atlantic Ocean, as the paired Type 61 (saline). Owing to the underlying which contains salts at concentrations of 35 pt (parts geographic basis for these designations, no mixture of P saline and brackish types was mapped. Table 1. Types of tidal wetlands recognize d in the coastal zone of Maryland SHRUB SWAMPS 11 Swamp rose Rosa palustris 12 Smooth alder/Black willow Alnus serrulatalSalix nigra 13 Red maple/Ash Acer rubrumlFraxinus spp. SWAMP FORESTS 21 Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 22 Red maple/Ash Acer rubrumlFraxinus spp. 23 Loblolly pine Pinus taeda FRESH MARSHES 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass Polygonum spp.lLeersia oryzoides 31 Spatterdock Nuphar advena 32 Pickerelweed/Arrowarum Pontederia cordatalPeltandra virginica 33 Sweetflag Acorus calamus 34 Cattail Typha spp. 35 Rosernallow Hibiscus spp. 36 Wildrice Zizania aquatica 37 Bulrush Sci-rpus spp. 38 Big cordgrass Spartina cynosuroides 39 Common reed Phragmites communis BRACKISH HIGH MARSHES 41 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass Spartina patensl Distichlis spicata 42 Marshelder/Groundselbush Iva frutescensIBacchary's halimifolia 43 Needlerush juncus roemeiianus 44 Cattail Typha spp. 45 Rosernallow Hibiscus spp. 46 Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 47 Threesquare Scirpus spp. 48 Big cordgrass Spartina cynosuroides 49 Common reed Phragmites communis BRACKISH LOW MARSHES 51 Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora SALINE HIGH MARSHES 61 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass Spartina patensl Distichlis spicata 62 Marshelder/Groundselbush Iva frutescenslBaccharis halimifolia 63 Needlerush juncus roemetianus SALINE LOW MARSHES 71 Smooth cordgrass, tall growth form Spartina alterniflora 72 Smooth cordgrass, short growth form Spartina alterniflora OPEN WATER 80 Pond SANDBAR/ BEACH/ MUDFLATS 81 Mudflat 91 Sandbar/Beach SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION 101 Submerged aquatic plants Table 2. Areas occupied by the 35 mapped types of coastal wetland in Maryland expressed in acres and as a percentage of the total area that was mapped. TYPE ACRES PERCENTAGE SHRUB SWAMPS I I Swamp Rose 51 0.02 12 Smooth Alder/Black willow 524 0.20 13 Red maple/Ash 2,025 0.78 2,600 1.00 Table 2. Areas occupied by the 35 mapped types of coastal wetland in Maryland expressed in acres and as a percentage of the total area that was mapped (concluded). SWAMP FORESTS 21 Baldcypress 4,154 1.59 22 Red maple/Ash 11,391 4.36 23 Loblolly p ine 1,253 0.48 16,798 6.43 FRESH MARSHES 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass 2,924 1.12 31 Spatterdock 1,774 0.68 32 Pickerelweed/Arrowarum 3,925 1.50 33 Sweetflag 431 0.16 34 Cattail 9,018 3.45 35 Rosemallow 1,256 0.48 36 Wildrice 776 0.30 37 Bulrush 2,808 1.07 38 Big cordgrass 1,904 0.73 39 Common reed 747 0.29 25,563 9.78 BRACKISH HIGH MARSHES 41 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass 31,072 11.89 42 Marshelder/Groundselbush 10,559 4.04 43 Needlerush 48,685 18.63 44 Cattail 5,691 2.18 45 Rosernallow 281 0.11 46 Switchgrass 2,165 0.83 47 Threesquare 18,965 7.26 48 Big cordgrass 8,196 3.14 49 Common reed 955 0.36 126,569 48.44 BRACKISH LOW MARSHES 51 Smooth cordgrass 25,079 9.59 151,648 58-0.3 SALINE HIGH MARSHES 61 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass 2,304 0.88 62 Marshelder/Groundselbush 1,780 0.68 63 Needlerush 121 0.05 4,205 1.61 SALINE LOW MARSHES - 71 Smooth cordgrass, tall 95 0.04 72 Smooth cordgrass, short 9,449 3.61 9,544 3.65 13,749 5.26 OPEN WATER 80 Ponds 5,556 2.13 MUDFLATS AND SANDBAR/ BEACHES 81 Mudflat 852 0.33 91 Sandbar/Beach 945 0.36 1,797 0.69 SUBMERGED VEGETATION 101 Submerged aquatic vegetation 42,309 16.19 UNTYPED WETLANDS 1,289a 0.49 Total Area of Mapped Types 261,309 100.00 allntyped wetlands represent areas in which the vegetation could not be classified and delineated because of inadequate photographic coverage. 3 Distinctions between brackish marshes and fresh sprouts of red maple and ash, cover 2,600 acres (1 %) of marshes, in contrast, are based on floristic composition the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Table 2). Individual and on the association between stands that are repre- shrub swamps range in size from a fraction of an acre to a sented by paired types and stands of unpaired types. All hundred acres or more. These stands occur in the form of stands of five unpaired types are considered to represent linear thickets along the upland margins of fresh and fresh marshes whenever they occur. These are: smart- brackish marshes, as well as relatively extensive shrub weed/rice cutgrass (Type 30), spatterdock (Type 31), swamps along the upper reaches of many tidewater pickerelweed/arrowarurn (Type 32), sweetflag (Type streams. 33), and wildrice (Type 36). Stands of fresh/brackish Three types of shrub swamps are recognized in the pairs that occur in wetlands that largely are characterized coastal wetlands of Maryland. Swamp rose (Type 11, by unpaired types of fresh marsh vegetation are assigned Figure 1) was mapped on 51 acres, most of which occurs to the fresh marsh member of the pair. For example, a in Anne Arundel County. Smooth alder/black willow stand of cattail that is surrounded principally by spatter- swamps (Type 12, Figure 2) cover 524 acres of wetlands, dock and wildrice would be assigned to Type 34 (fresh) and are developed most extensively in Cecil County and rather than to Type 44 (brackish). In contrast, if the Prince George's County. The alder and the willow are stand of cattail is associated with meadow cordgrass more abundant on slightly elevated ground landward (Type 41) and marshelder/groundselbush (Type 42), it from the wetland boundary than they are in the wetlands. would be assigned to Type 44 (brackish). Stands of rose- The most extensive type of shrub swamp, the red mallow (Type 35/Type 45), Scirpus spp. (Type 37/Type maple/ash (Type 13, Figure 3) occupies 2,025 acres 47), big cordgrass (Type 38/Type 48), and common reed (Table 2). This type represents an early stage of forest (Type 39/Type 49) are characterized in a similar regrowth, and about half of its total area is in Dorchester manner. County, where red maple/ash swamp forests (Type 22) In certain localities, especially near the midpoint in are widespread. the length of longer estuaries, the wetland complex is composed of both fresh marsh types and brackish marsh Herbaceous plants that are prominent in fresh marshes types. For example, wildrice (Type 36), which is a fresh- form the undergrowth in the shrub swamps. The species water indicator, and smooth cordgrass (Type 5 1), which that are known to occur in each of the shrub swamp types is a brackish to saline indicator, occur in mixture in many are listed in Table 3. places. Other combinations of this nature that were Three other kinds of tall shrubs are associated closely observed and mapped are: threesquare (Type 47) and with saline and brackish marshes (Tables 7 and 9). low-growth smooth cordgrass (Type 72); smartweed/ rice Marshelder, groundselbush, and bayberry commonly cutgrass (Type 30) and smooth cordgrass (Type 5 1); and occur at the upland margin of the wetlands, and may root smartweed/rice cutgrass (Type 30) with pickerelweed/ on low levees or turf banks along tidal creeks and ditches arrowarum (Type 32) and smooth cordgrass (Type 5 1). that extend through coastal marshes. All three kinds of Whenever the mapping required a mixture of vegeta- these shrubs form thickets on low islands in the marshes, tion types, i.e. 30/34, the first type is the predominant and the marshelder may be abundant in sections of the type. In this example, Type 30 (smartweed/ rice cutgrass) wetland that are more frequently flooded. Stands of these is the predominant type with Type 34 (cattail) also being shrubs, however, usually are a minor component of the present. wetland; only in a few places do they cover areas exten- Figures 4, 5, and 6 show examples of the vegetation sive enough to be termed swamps, so they are not type mapping that was performed on each of the approx- included in this section. imately 2,000 photomaps. A sample map is shown representative of a freshwater wetland (Figure 4), a brackish wetland (Figure 5), and a saline wetland (Figure SWAMP FORESTS (TYPES 21, 22, 23) 6). In the uppermost reaches of the estuaries, the coastal The results of measurements of the areas of the thirty- freshwater wetlands are forested. These tidewater swamp five types of wetlands that were mapped in the coastal forests merge almost imperceptibly into inland swamp region of the State are summarized in Table 2. More forests in many localities. The tidewater areas usually detailed analyses of these results are presented in Section have more pronounced hummocks, and trees of the same 1.3. age noticeably are smaller in the coastal wetlands than in areas that are removed from the influence of tides. The SHRUB SWAMPS (TYPES 11, 12,13) tidewater forests appear to develop autumnal color ear- Swamp rose and a variety of other shrubs, as well as 'The common and scientific names of the plants and animals that are mentioned in the text are correlated in Appendix 1. 4 Ar Jr L jv- PF!' Y'W % A T a@ %4v --L144 k '4 Figure 1. Swamp rose shrub swamp (Type 11) along Figure 2. Smooth alderlblack willow shrub swamp Hunting Creek in Caroline County. Fresh marsh plants (Type 12) along the Ch optank River in Caroline County. formed an herh layer in this stand. Only black. willow was present in this stand. Cattail marsh (Type 44) is in the background. 0 IN n) 14 7 '4114, N@ JAI. AL Figure 3. Red maplelash shrub swamp (Type 13) along Hunting Creek in Caroline County. Only red maple was present in this stand. Spatterdock marsh (Type 31) is in the foreground. 5 SHRUB SWAMP CATEGORY 11 ROSA PALUSTRIS SWAMP ROSE 12 ALUNUS SERRULATA/SALIX NIGRA SMOOTH ALDER/BLACK WILLOW 13 ACER RUBRUM/FRAXINUS SPP. WOODED SWAMP CATEGORY 21 TAXODIUM DISTICHUM BALDCYPRESS 22 ACER RUBRUM/FRAXINUS SPP. RED MAPLE/ASH PINUS TAEDA LOBLOLLY PINE FRESH MARSH CATEGORY 30 POLYGONUM SPP./LEERSIA ORYZOIDES SMARTWEED/RICE CUTGRASS 31 NUPHAR AVENA SPATTERDOCK 32 PONTERIA COROATA/PELTANDRA VIRGINICA PICHERELWEED/ARROWARUM 33 ACORUS CALAMUS SWEETFLAG 34 TYPHA SPP. GATTAIL 35 HIBISCUS SPP. ROSEMALLOW 36 ZIZANIA AQUATICA WILDRICE 37 SCORPUS SPP. BULRUSH 38 SPARTTINA CYNOSUROIDES BIG CORDGRASS 39 PHRAGMITES COMMUNIS COMMON FEED BRACK HIGH MARSH CATEGORY 41 SPARTINA PATENS/DISTICHLIS SPICATA MEADOW CORDGRASS/SPIKEGRASS 42 IVA FRUCTESCENS/BACCHARIS HALIMFOLIA MARSHELDER/GROUNDSELBRUSH 43 JUNCUS ROEMERIANUS NEEDLEBRUSH 44 TYPHA SPP CATTAIRL 45 HIBISCUS SPP. ROSEMALLOW 46 PANICUM VIRGATUM SWITCHGRASS 47SCIRPUS SPP THREESQUARE 48 SPARTINA CYONSUROIDES BIG CORDGRASS 49 PHRAGMITES COMMUNIS COMMON REED BRACKISH LOW MARSH CATEGORY 51 SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA SMOOTH CORDGRASS SALINE HIGH MARSH CATEGORY 61 SPARTINA PATENS/DISTICHLIS SPICATA MEADOW CORDGRASS/SPIKEGRASS 62 IVA FRUCTESCENS/BACCHARIS HALIMIFOLIA MARSHELDER/GROUNDSELBUSH 63 JUNCUS ROEMERIANUS NEEDLEBRUSH 71 SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA SMOOTH CORDGRASS, TALL GROWTH FORM 72 SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA SMOOTH CORDGRASS,SHORT GROWTH OPEN WATER CATEGORY 80 POND MUD/SANDBAR/BEACH CATEGORY 81 MUDFLAT 91 SANDBAR/BEACH SUBMERGED AQUATICS CATEGORY 101 SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGITATION PREFIX"B" AERIAL IMAGERY INDICATES THE MARSH HAS BEEN BURNED THE VEGITATION SIGNATURES AND BOUNDARIES ARE DISTORTED. VEGITATION CLASSIFICATIONS AND DELINEATIONS PREPARED BY JACK MCCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC. - BERWYN,PA. A SUBSIDIARY OF WAPORA, INC. UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARTIALLY FUNDED BY THE OFFICE OF COSAL ZONE MANAGEMENT,NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION. Figure 4. Sample wetlands photomap showing vegetation typing in afresh water wetland at the tidal head of Elk River at Elkton Landing, Cecil County. The numerous types and their mixed assemblage reveal the high floristic diversity and random distribution of vegetation which are characteristic of freshwater wetlands. The figure on the right, which shows the area outlined in the above figure, depicts the actual size and detail of the vegetation typing. The scale is identical to that of the wetlands photomaps (1:2400, or 1" = 200'). 6 AQW -v- ELKTON LANDING "'\34 33 /34 34 30/34 30 34 I.3f,Y 34 3G- w 33 1@i@ A 3G @34J 30-- jiv Af .2W -k@ 77, X- -10T , A, C -4 wk @@ % -N." A x , A, nET1,A11'DS E.OU=,R.1.1S ..... .. .. . ..... @@43) ---Al IRI .1 VEGETATION TYPING INDEX SHRUB SWAMP CATEGORY BRACKISH LOW MARSH CATEGORY SUBMERGED AQUATICS CATEGORY 11 36 ZIZANJA A-TICA 5t =,TINA AUERNIFORA 101 SURWERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION 12 ALMWSERRIJI-ATAISALIX NIGRA 37 $CIRRUS SPP. S LINE HIGH MARSH CATEGORY - A A"'" A - 13 ZER ZBRUM/ FRAAINUS SPP MSZRTINA CYNOSUPOIDES A-A.. 61 =NA PATEN / OISTICNUS '=IS WOODED SWAMP CATEGORY 39 PNRAGMI ES COMMUNIS 62 IQ FRUTOCENS/ PRE IX H IMIFOU AARI IAII" 1"1111TIS T11 Ill IEII .:C -.A. ". V_TA_N S'GA_A'S AN. =,ES 21 TAWDIUM DISTICHUM BRACKISH HIGH MARSH CATEGORY 63 JUNZSD"RCEMEN1ANUS 22 ZER RUBRUM / FRAXINUS SPP. 41 SMRT NA PATENS / DISTICIALtS SPICATA All IA" ' '@ ":- -*"' ' SALINE LOW MARSH CATEGORY -111FICAT11S AND 111NIA 10"I PREPlAED Y ".@S TAE 4E '@ PRUTE-IlS I -A.I. HA41MIFOLIA 71 =INA AUER IFWRA 'ACA M..RMC. . AS_ATES I INC - UP.YN' PA@ A 1U111- @ -CRA. INC FRESH MARSH CATEGORY 421 1-US R=NUS" J11R T"I D111-11 IF T"I 111LAID -R-NT C, - RAI 1@ SRAIRTI A ERNI-A _0UR All PARTALL, __ S, _ FF"E OF Z"@`Pf@ - '-MAGEMENT. NATIONAL WEANIC All ATAICSA,, 1. TAL 30 ZL@YTGONU'MASP%/T-EE'A'SIA -MOES .4 TY T. CAR-A.. -T A.- E.IC AA, CA"A" AMINISTAXII01. 31 :%ZAR ADV9NA -3C.' SPIP OPEN WATER CATEGORY U =TMMAOWCATA KMNDRA VIRGINICA @IRGATUM SO ,A A- 33 ACORUS CALAMUS MUD/SANDSAR/8EACH CATEGORY 34 TYPHA SPP. SPARTINA CYN0i 81 MUDFLAT 91 SANDMA/SEACH 49 PHRMMITES CUMUNIS .... _A Figure 5. Sample wetlands photomap showing vegetation typing in a brackish wetland on a peninsula separating Marshy Creek and Cabin Creek on Prospect Bay in Queen Anne's County. Thefigure on the right, which shows the area outlinedin the above figure, depicts the actual size and detail of the vegetation typing. The scale is identical to that of the wetlands photomaps (1:2400, or 1- = 200'). 8 7W of 19, 42', lot 0(41i 41 @ Nx ILI" 10, it *464-, A Ab IV Au ", jo, Jill, or to ir OL, 41 0@4 W-.w -!@-o AL SHRUB SWAMP CATEGORY 11 ROSA PALUSTRIS SWAMP ROSE 12 ALUNUS SERRULATA/SALIX NIGRA SMOOTH ALDER/BLACK WILLOW 13 ACER RUBRUM/FRAXINUS SPP. WOODED SWAMP CATEGORY 21 TAXODIUM DISTICHUM BALDCYPRESS 22 ACER RUBRUM/FRAXINUS SPP. RED MAPLE/ASH PINUS TAEDA LOBLOLLY PINE FRESH MARSH CATEGORY 30 POLYGONUM SPP./LEERSIA ORYZOIDES SMARTWEED/RICE CUTGRASS 31 NUPHAR AVENA SPATTERDOCK 32 PONTERIA COROATA/PELTANDRA VIRGINICA PICHERELWEED/ARROWARUM 33 ACORUS CALAMUS SWEETFLAG 34 TYPHA SPP. GATTAIL 35 HIBISCUS SPP. ROSEMALLOW 36 ZIZANIA AQUATICA WILDRICE 37 SCORPUS SPP. BULRUSH 38 SPARTTINA CYNOSUROIDES BIG CORDGRASS 39 PHRAGMITES COMMUNIS COMMON FEED BRACK HIGH MARSH CATEGORY 41 SPARTINA PATENS/DISTICHLIS SPICATA MEADOW CORDGRASS/SPIKEGRASS 42 IVA FRUCTESCENS/BACCHARIS HALIMFOLIA MARSHELDER/GROUNDSELBRUSH 43 JUNCUS ROEMERIANUS NEEDLEBRUSH 44 TYPHA SPP CATTAIRL 45 HIBISCUS SPP. ROSEMALLOW 46 PANICUM VIRGATUM SWITCHGRASS 47SCIRPUS SPP THREESQUARE 48 SPARTINA CYONSUROIDES BIG CORDGRASS 49 PHRAGMITES COMMUNIS COMMON REED BRACKISH LOW MARSH CATEGORY 51 SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA SMOOTH CORDGRASS SALINE HIGH MARSH CATEGORY 61 SPARTINA PATENS/DISTICHLIS SPICATA MEADOW CORDGRASS/SPIKEGRASS 62 IVA FRUCTESCENS/BACCHARIS HALIMIFOLIA MARSHELDER/GROUNDSELBUSH 63 JUNCUS ROEMERIANUS NEEDLEBRUSH 71 SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA SMOOTH CORDGRASS, TALL GROWTH FORM 72 SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA SMOOTH CORDGRASS,SHORT GROWTH OPEN WATER CATEGORY 80 POND MUD/SANDBAR/BEACH CATEGORY 81 MUDFLAT 91 SANDBAR/BEACH SUBMERGED AQUATICS CATEGORY 101 SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGITATION PREFIX"B" AERIAL IMAGERY INDICATES THE MARSH HAS BEEN BURNED THE VEGITATION SIGNATURES AND BOUNDARIES ARE DISTORTED. VEGITATION CLASSIFICATIONS AND DELINEATIONS PREPARED BY JACK MCCORMICK & ASSOCIATES, INC. - BERWYN,PA. A SUBSIDIARY OF WAPORA, INC. UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARTIALLY FUNDED BY THE OFFICE OF COSAL ZONE MANAGEMENT,NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION. Figure 6. Sample wetlands photomap showing vegetation typing in a saline wetland area on Wallops Neck in Worcester County. The large area of Type 72 (smooth cordgrass, shortform) indicates that much of this wetland is low saline marsh. Higher elevations of the wetland are indicated by Types 61 (meadow cordGrass spikegrass) and 62 (marshelder/ground- selbush). The figure on the right, which shows the area outlined in the above figure, depicts the actual size and detail of the vegetation typing. The scale is identical to that of the wetlands photomaps (1:2400, or 1" = 200'). 10 12 61 _AALLOPS Ilk A'W 70V .MEL A T 2 4716 61 IV 62 72 Sol 41, 41 AL iL lier and, from the air, the crowns of the trees appear to be imperceptible changes in the elevation of the surface of more compact and lower than are those in adjacent the wetland (Whigharn and Simpson 19.75). inland swamps. Three types of swamp forest occupy a total of 16,798 Table 3. Floristic components of shrub swamp types in acres in the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Tables 1, 2). the coastal wetlands of Maryland. Numbers and symbols Baldcypress forests (Type 21) cover 4,154 acres in Wor- in table refer to footnoted sources. cester County (3,595 acres) and Somerset County (559 acres), and constitute one of the fifteen plant associations that were mapped in Maryland by Brush and others Alder/ Maple/ (1976). The baldcypress is a winterbare, needleleaf tree. Type Name Rose Willow Ash It forms small, nearly pure stands in a few places, but it Type Number 11 12 13 grows more commonly in narrow fringes along the mar- Trees gins of such streams as the Pocomoke River (Figure 7). Red maple X The canopies of most stands that were mapped as Type Green ash X 21 are composed principally of broadleaf trees, with 20 t7o Sweetbay or more of the cover contributed by baldcypress (Table 4). Blackgum The most extensive (11,391 acres) and most widely Shrubs and Vines distributed (15 of the 16 tidewater counties) swamp Smooth alder 1 X forest in coastal wetlands of the State is the red maple/ Buttonbush 3 ash type (Type 22). The principal trees in this broadleaf Winterberry 3 forest type are red maple, green ash, blackgum, and sweetbay (Figure 8). In Dorchester County, red maple/ Silky dogwood ash swamp forests cover 5,727 acres of tidewater Poison ivy wetlands. Forests of this type also are prominent in Swamp rose X 3 1 Worcester County (2,400 acres) and Wicomico County Blackberry (1,304 acres). Black willow X The loblolly pine swamp forest type (Type 23) gener- Bullbrier 2 ally occupies sites that are adjacent to brackish marshes, and the undergrowth in the pine forests may be a conti- Shrubform herbs nuation of the marsh vegetation (Figure 9). Many stands Rosemallow 1,2 1 of loblolly pine are open and savannalike, with widely Forbs (Broadleaf herbs) spaced trees, but elsewhere the stands are more dense. In Waterhemp 1 1 some stands, broadleaf trees are mixed with the pine, Beggarticks 1 whereas many other stands are nearly pure pine forests. In total, Type 23 was mapped on 1,25 3 acres (Table 2). It Dodder 1 is developed most extensively in Dorchester County (806 Spotted touch-me-not 1 acres), and is represented about equally in Somerset Spatterdock 1 County (181 acres) and Wicomico County (171 acres). Royal fern 1 Arrowarum 1 FRESH MARSHES (TYPES 30 THROUGH 39) Smartweeds I The fresh marshes, which comprise nearly 25,600 Pickerelweed I acres @of the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Table 2), are Waterdock I composed of a great variety of plants (Table 5). As shown in succeeding sections of this report, the number of Grasses and species of plants in the coastal wetlands declines as the grasslike plants salinity of the water increases, so the freshwater wet- Rice cutgrass I lands exhibit the greatest floristic diversity, the brackish Narrowleaf cattail 1 wetlands are of intermediate diversity (Table 7), and the Common cattail 2 saline wetlands are least diverse (Table 9). The vegeta- X Genus or species utilized to designate type tion in saline wetlands and in brackish wetlands also 1. Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc., field notes (MD) tends to be banded; that is, the different types of vegeta- 2. Thompson 1974 (MD) tion occur in a more or less predictable sequence from the 3. Chrysler 1910 (MD) shore to the upland edge of the wetland. In contrast, most of the different types of vegetation in freshwater wetlands are distributed more randomly, and do not occur in a regular spatial sequence or in a repetitive areal relation one to the other. There is some evidence, how- ever, that the various types of fresh marsh vegetation do occur on sites that differ from one another by almost 12 Table 4. Floristic components of swamp forests in the coastal wetlands of Maryland. Numbers and symbols in table refer to footnoted sources. Maple/ Maplel Type Name Baldcypress Ash Pine] Type Name Baldcypress Ash Type Number: 21 22 23 Type Number: 21 22 23 Trees Red maple 1,2 x American mistletoe 1,2 Black alder 2 Poison ivy 1,2 1 Bluebeech 2 Greenbrier 1 1 1 Southern white cedar 2 Laurelleaf greenbrier 2 Fringetree 2 Redberry greenbrier 2 Persimmon 1 Muscadine 2 'Green ash 1,2 x Shrubform Herbs American holly 2 Water willow 1,2 Red cedar 2 Rosernallow 1 Sweetgum 1,2 1 Forbs (Broadleaf herbs) Sweetbay 1,2 1 Waterhemp I Blackgurn 1,2 1 Groundnut 2 Swamp blackgum 2 Swamp milkweed 2 Pond pine 2 Aster 2 Loblolly pine 1,2 x Burmarigold I Willow oak I Beggarticks 2 Baldcypress x Rayless burmarigold 2 Shrubs Boghemp 2 Smooth alder Turtlehead 2 Groundselbush 2 Spotted cowbane 2 Buttonbush 2 Swamp dodder 2 Sweet pepperbush 1,2 1 Whorled yam 2 Silky dogwood 2 1 Yerba-de-tago 2 Strawberrybush 2 Catesby gentian 2 Winterberry 2 Water pennywort 2 Virginia willow 2 Spotted touch-me-not 1,2 1 Fetterbush 2 Blueflag 2 Spicebush 1,2 Cardinalflower 2 Maleberry 2 Seedbox 2 Bayberry 1 Reddot bugleweed 2 Red chokeberry 2 Climbing hempweed 2 Pinxterflower 2 Spatterdock 1,2 1 Clammy azalea 1,2 1 Goldenclub 2 Black willow I Cowbane 2 Highbush blueberry I Arrowarum 1 Witherod 2 Smartweed 1 1 Southern arrowwood 1,2 Halberdleaf tearthumb, 2 Possumhaw 2 Waterpepper 2 Blackhaw 2 Arrowleaf tearthumb 2 Woody vines Pickerelweed 2 Crossvine 2 Cutleaf coneflower 2 Trumpetcreeper 2 Lizardtail 2 Japanese honeysuckle 2 Waterparsnip 2 Virginia creeper 2 Goldenrod 13 Table 4. Floristic components of swamp forests (Concluded). Type Name Baldcypress Maple/ P i nje Ash Type Number: 21 22 23 Forbs (Broadleaf herbs), Continued Muskratweed 1,2 1 Grasses and grasslike plants Longhair sedge 2 Weak sedge 2 Follicled sedge 2 Swollen sedge 2 Hop sedge 2 Softstem sedge 2 Reedgrass 2 Peat mannagrass 2 Eastern cutgrass 2 Switchgrass Hornrush 2 Common reed Meadow cordgrass V77 1.* Ferns Cinnamon fern 2 1 Figure 7. Baldcypress swamp forest (Type 21) along the Royal fern 2 1 Pocomoke River in Worcester County. Spatterdock Resurrection fern 2 marsh (Type 31) occurs between the swamp and the Netted chainfern 2 open water of the River. Mosses change to shades of yellow and brown, and begin to Sphagnum 2 deteriorate rapidly. There may be a burst of flowering X Genus or species utilized to designate type during late September and early October, but by Novem- 1. Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc., field notes (MD) ber much of the vegetation has withered. From late 2. Beaven and Oosting 1939 (MD) November through March, large portions of the inter- tidal areas appear to be barren mudf lats. Throughout the winter, tawny stands of cattails and common reed form The common components of freshwater marshes island-like clumps that are scattered over the surfaces of form stands of medium to tall grasses or grasslike plants the marshes and along their margins. During April the (wildrice, big cordgrass, common reed, threesquares, leaves of perennials begin to appear above the muck, and bulrushes, cattails, and sweetf lag), masses of broad, erect seedlings of annual plants develop in profusion. leaves that extend above the muck surface of the marsh Spatterdock and arrowarum apparently lack any mech- and are nearly inundated daily during periods of high anism to insure dormancy throughout the winter. New Water (spatterdock, arrowarum, burreeds, pickerelweed, shoots appear from both of these plants whenever the arrowheads, and white waterlily), stands of tall, single- temperature remains above freezing for several consecu- stemmed herbaceous plants (burmarigolds, waterhemp, tive days. During the next cold snap, however, these spotted touch-me-not), low to rather tall, erect or matted shoots wither. herbaceous thickets (smartweeds, tearthumbs, burmari- The first real evidence of renewed plant life in the golds), low stands of tangled grasses (rice cutgrass), and freshwater marshes is the emergence of the leaves of shrublike thickets (rosemallow, water willow). Although spatterdock early in April. Within a few days, new leaves there is a wide range in stature, the predominant plants of arrowarum also extend upward through the muck of freshwater marshes generally are taller than those in from long-lived rhizomes; seeds of wildrice germinate saline and highly brackish marshes. Measurements of 27 during the last half of April, and a haze of green seedlings species are presented in Table 6. spredds over the marsh surface. By the end of April, the The appearance of the freshwater tidal marshes con- leaves of spatterdock and arrowarum are well developed, stantly is changing. From June through August, they are and they form a low, relatively uniform canopy over lush and green. In September, many kinds of plants much of the werland. 14 OL Figure 8. Red maplelash swamp forest (Type 22) along Figure 9. Loblolly pine swamp forest (Type 23) on Hunting Creek in Caroline County. Only red maple was Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Dorchester present in this stand. Shrub swamp plants form an County. A common reed marsh (Type 39) is the fore- undergrowth. ground. Common reed also extends into the swamp forest as an undergrowth. The leaves of sweetflag and cattail also emerge early, through earlyjune previously have been obscured by the grow rapidly, and are developed fully by mid-June. earlier growth, but by late July or early August they also Flower clusters that will mature in autumn begin to form begin to tower above the arrowarum and the large leaves on the cattail plants during June. of spatterdock in many parts of the marsh. Touch-me- By early July, wildrice plants are 6 to 10 feet tall, and not, smartweeds, tearthumbs, burmarigolds, Walter they become particularly conspicuous as panicles of millet, and waterhemp are among the most common of flowers open later in the month. Many other kinds of these plants. plants that germinated during the period from late April Table 5. Floristic components of fresh marsh types in the coastal zone of Maryland and other Middle Atlantic States. Numbers and symbols in the body of the table refer to footnoted sources. Supplementary Types (U 0@ (U E 0 to IJ 0 c1l t u 0 E 0 cd U) 04 U 04 PQ P4 V) 0 30 3@ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 3A 313 3C 3L 311 3S 3G Shrubs and Vines Groundselbush 11 Buttonbush 5 Marshelder 11 Virginia creeper 3 Multiflora rose 5 Swamp rose 11 Shrubform Herbs Rosernallow X X X 9,11 3,4 X 5 9 Seashore mallow Spiked loosestrife X Forbs (Broadleaf herbs) Waterhemp 3 X 4 X X X 5 6,7 Water plantain 7 5 15 Table 5. Floristic components of fresh marsh types in the coastal zone of Maryland and other Middle Atlantic States. Numbers and symbols in the body of the table refer to footnoted sources (continued). SU Dplementary Types c's (u Qj Q@ :2 E Qj 0 E 0 13 to M cd 0 to v "a 0 Cd U 0 V E t 0 E It 71 .40 0 U C; 0 E (U E E W Ij 0 Id 0 ji Cd i2 In U-1 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 3A 3B 3C 3L 3R 3S 3G Forbs (Broadleaf herbs) Continued Giant ragweed 6 x Swamp milkweed 1 13 11 4 7 Burmarigolds 3,9 3 3 x Spanishneedles 6 Leafybract beggarticks 6 Swamp beggarticks 5 5 Black beggarticks 6 Smooth burmarigold 6 4,7 7, 13 6 X 7 Waterhemlock 12 Bindweed 3,6 Field bindweed 7 Hedge bindweed 4, 13 Dodders 3,5 3 5 Marsh fern 11 Joe-pye-weed 7 Stiff marsh bedstraw Spotted touch-me-not x 9 X 3,7 X 3 5 4 X 7 4,7 5 6,7 9 Red morninglory 7 7 Creeping primrosewillow 5 Small duckweed 5 Waterpurslane 11 European bugleweed 5 Climbing hempweed 1 7 7 Spatterdock 1,5 X 6,7 9,4 3 6,8 6,7 7 5 6,7 9 White waterlily 12 Sensitive fern 11 11,12 7 Goldenclub x Arrowarurn x X X X X 3,12 x 4 X 6,7 4,7 5 6,7 9,12 Clearweed 1, 5 7 5,7 Smartweeds x 9 3 X 9,7 9, 3 3 3 7 2 Halberdleaf tearthumb 1, 11 12 3,7 4, 13 4 4,6 6,7 X 6,7 12 Swamp smartweed 5 Common smartweed 5 Mild waterpepper 11 Pinkweed 6 6 6 Ladysthumb 7 7 7 7 Dotted smartweed 1,5 7 6,7 6,7 4,6 8 4 6,7 6,7 x 5 6,7 Arrowleaf tearthumb, x 12 x 13 5 6,7 7 6 12 Pickerelweed 1 6 X 4,5 12 x Mock bishopweed I Waterdock 3 Arrowheads 3 x Duckpotato 5 6,7 X 7 x x 4 7 x 6,7 12 Bittersweet nightshade 7 12 Burreeds 9 9 16 Table 5. Floristic components of fresh marsh types in the coastal zone of Maryland and other Middle Atlantic States. Numbers and symbols in the body of the table refer to footnoted sources (conclude le ntary Types 4! -0 0 0 0 W 0 "a V 00 CQ Cd M 0 E X E 0 Cd U 0 t 0 U E E -0 r. 0 a 0 0 En ch go OQ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 3A 3B 3C 3L 3R 3S 3G Branching burreed 5 5 Great burreed I Grasses and grasslike plants Sweetflag 12 X 11, 12 6 12 Sedges 9 9 Broadwing sedge 12 Fringed sedge 12 Sp ading sedge 12 Umbrella sedges 4 4 4 Walter millet 6 6 6 Common spikerush I Autumn sedge 5 Yellow iris 5 12 Blueflag 12 Rushes 5 11 9 Sharpfruit rush 1 Rice curgrass x 1 3 Reed canarygrass x 5 Common reed x Bulrushes 9 x Common threesquare 1 1 Woolgrass 1 1 Stout bulrush 11 Softstem bulrush 9, 1 12 12 9 Smooth cordgrass 11 4 Big cordgrass I x Cattails 9 9 3 9 9, 3 9 9, 12 Narrowleaf cattail 1 6 x 11 6 Blue cattail 8 Southern cattail 10 Common cattail 5 x 4 Wildrice 9, 5 x 9 3 4 9 x 4,7 7 Tabulated numerals represent the following sources; parenthetical abbreviations indicate the states in which investigations were conducted; an -X" indicates that the taxon is used to designate the type or was reported in three or more sources. Supplementary types were not mapped, and some may not occur in Maryland. The giant ragweed type was mentioned by Chrysler (1910) and a photograph of a stand on Curtis Bay, Anne Arundel County was included in his report. 1. Anderson and others 1968 (MD) 8. Whigham and Simpson 1975 (NJ) 2. Good and others 1975 (NJ) 9. Shima, Anderson, and Carter 1976 (MD) 3. Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc., field notes (MD) 10. Stewart 1962 (MD) 4. Johnson 1970 (MD) 11. Williamson 1974 (MD) 5. McCormick 1970 (PA) 12. Thompson 1974 (MD) 6. McCormick and Ashbaugh 1972 (NJ) 13. Chrysler 1910 (MD) 7. McCormick Mss. (NJ) 17 The plants which produce abundant crops of seeds Table 6. Maximum heights of plants in freshwater tidal that are most attractive to wildlife -wildrice, Walter wetlands in the estuary of the Delaware River (McCor- millet, tearthumbs, and s martweeds -reach the peak of mick 1977a). Measurements are of individuals in sample fruiting during the period from mlid-August to mid- plots and may not be extremes for the locality. Data from September. Birds of many species flock to the marshes at Oldmans Creek, New Jersey, were recorded by 0.5 m this time and consume large numbers of seeds from the classes; those at Tinicum Marsh, Pennsylvania, were plants or from the mud where many of the seeds fall. recorded to the nearest 0.01 m. Although the birds and other types of wildlife are effi- cient harvesters, a small percentage of the seeds escapes Tinicum Marsh Oldmans Creek their predation. Seeds that are not washed away or buried Feet Meters Feet Meters develop into new plants the following spring. For ex- Common reed 16.08 4.90 11.5 3.5 ample, stands of wildrice produce more than 150 million Giant ragweed 12.47 3.80 8.2 2.5 seeds per acre. In spring, however, fewer than a million Narrowleaf cattail 11.65 3.55 9.8 3.0 seedlings per acre germinate from the muck soils Wildrice 10.89 3.32 14.8 4.5 (Whigham 1975; Whigham and Simpson 1977). Common cattail 10.83 3.30 Stands of pickerelweed are inconspicuous during the Halberdleaf tearthumb 9.84 3.00 8.2 2.5 early summer. During August or September, however, Spiked loosestrife 9.19 2.80 the relatively tall leaves of the plants become tinted with Waterhemp 8.37 2.55 8.2 2.5 purple, and the stands are distinctive and conspicuous Smooth burmarigold 8.2 2.5 features of the wetland landscape. As most of the marsh Arrowarum 8.04 2.45 4.9 1.5 plants begin to wither and turn yellowish or brown, the Common smartweed 7.71 2.35 brilliant golden flowers of the burmarigolds unfold. Massive displays of these flowers dominate many parts Swamp beggarticks 6.73 2.05 of the wetland, and signal the end of the growi .ng season. Spotted jewelweed 6.73 2.05 6.6 2.0 The period of bloom lasts from late September through Sweetflag 6.6 2.0 mid-October. Walter millet 6.6 2.0 Pinkweed 6.6 2.0 By early November, severe frosts kill most of the Arrowleaf tearthumb 6.6 2.0 remaining leaves. Much of the plant material is decom- Pickerelweed 6.23 1.90 6.6 2.0 posed or has been carried away by the tides; and large Spatterdock 6.07 1.85 6.6 2.0 sections of the intertidal areas once again appear barren. Swamp smartweed 5.41 1.65 Several previous authors have commented on the Yellow iris 4.92 1.50 gradient of diversity from saline to freshwater areas. Dotted smartweed 4.92 1.50 6.6 2.0 Anderson and others (1968) noted that the flora of one Duckpotato 4.92 1.50 marsh on the Patuxent River, in contrast to another Branching burreed 4.59 1.40 marsh farther downstream, "reflected the decreasing Primrosewillow 3.77 1.15 salinity ... by an increase in species complexity." Gabriel Chestnutsedge 2.95 0.90 and de la Cruz (1974) observed that the diversity of Clearweed 0.59 0.18 species of plants "increases dramatically from saline toward freshwater conditions. . ." They further con- cluded that "distinct lateral zonation is correspondingly About mid-July, the leaves of spatterdock, arrowarum, reduced from saline to freshwater habitats." In other and sweetflag begin to yellow, then brown and die. Small words, the vegetation types in saline and brackish sap-sucking insects or beetles may appear in abundance wetlands generally occur in rather predictable patterns, on the spatterdock leaves, and probably contribute to and in a relatively consistent sequence from the shore to their weakening and death. Otherwise, the phenomenon the uplands. Similar observations were made by Eleute- seems to be controlled internally. A new flush of leaves rius (1972). In contrast, the distribution of different appears from these plants by late September, and this types of vegetation in freshwater wetlands often appears second set of leaves persists until killing frosts occur. In to be random, and no repetitive geographical sequence many areas, however, annual plants, particularly smart- can be discerned from locality to locality. weeds, develop rapidly about the time that sweetflag According to Eleuterius (1972), there is a seasonal stands are drying back. They form dense, matted growths variation in the occurrence, or at least in the conspicuous- that obscure the sweetflag during the remainder of the ness, of certain species of plants in reaction to shifts in growing season. the salinity gradient in estuaries. "During the spring and Plants in the central parts of large stands of wildrice early summer the plants generally found in fresh and low commonly are battered by rain, strong winds, and high salinity marshes extended deep into the brackish and tides by late August. Although the lodged plants become upper saline marsh regions." He attributed this penetra- yellowish, most of them remain alive until the fruits tion of freshwater species into normally brackish or mature and drop. Rice plants on the banks of tidal chan- saline regions to the abundance of fresh water in the nels and in areas adjacent to other types of vegetation estuary during the spring. By mid-summer, saline and remain erect and green until late September. brackish waters extended farther upstream in the estuar- 18 ies, and this "prevented the growth of some species and acres, and covers 5% of the fresh marsh area. allowed the growth of others. . ." This kind of floristic Scattered plants of arrowarum, pickerelweed, arrow- response by rooted plants to seasonal variations has not head, burmarigold, spotted touch-me-not, smartweeds, been reported from localities in Maryland. and wildrice may grow in stands of spatterdock (Type Eleuterius (1972) also observed that the response of 3 1), but most of the stands virtually are pure (Figure 11). vegetation to the gradient of salinities in an estuary can Spatterdock commonly occupies sites that are elevated best be interpreted as a continuum. There are no sharp only slightly above the level of mean low water. The delineations in the broad pattern of species distribution; stands, therefore, are covered during almost every period rather, there are gradual changes in the floristic compo- of high water; the sites they occupy are submerged rela- sition of the vegetation as one progresses from saline to tively deeply; and each period of inundation is rather freshwater habitats. This is produced by a two-way pene- long. tration of species of plants into the estuary. A group that The mature rhizomes, or rootstalks, of spatterdock are is most typical of freshwater habitats, particularly spat- about 2 inches thick. The plant spreads by the elongation terdock, arrowarum, and various smartweeds, extends and branching of these underground stems. Based on downstream from the head of the estuary into brackish evaluations of aerial photographs and direct inspections areas. A second group that is most characteristic of saline from aircraft, it appears that a single plant, within 15 to habitats, among which smooth cordgrass is notable, 20 years, may cover an area of several thousand square extends upstream in the estuary from areas adjacent to feet. Each of the larger stands of the spatterdock type the sea into brackish sites. appear to be formed by the coalescence of several to In saline and brackish water areas, similar changes in many of these vegetatively multiplied clones. The indi- the floristic composition of the vegetation may occur vidual clones retain their identity by virtue of their nearly between the edge of the water and the upland boundary circular shapes and subtle differences in the colors of of the wetland. Such gradients are particularly sharp in their leaves. Extensive stands, thus, have scalloped areas that are underlain by porous sands, and in which perimeters; each rounded scallop represents the outer fresh groundwater is discharged continuously along the edge of one of the component clones in the stand. upland boundary. Smaller stands that are formed by the fusion of only a few Ten types of vegetation are recognized for the purposes clones resemble rows of overlapping circles of various of mapping in the fresh coastal marshes of Maryland sizes. In marshes in the estuary of the Delaware River, (Table 1). Eight of these types typically are represented there are approximatley 400 to 550 thousand erect leaves by more or less pure stands of the species for which each of spatterdock per acre in these stands (McCormick, is named. The cattail type (Type 34) is the most preva- 1970; McCormick and Ashbaugh 1972). lent of these pure types. Its stands were mapped on 9,018 acres, or on approximately 35 % of the total area of fresh marshes (Table 2). The pickerelweed/arrowarum type (Type 32), which commonly is formed principally by arrowarum, is the second most widespread vegetation type in the fresh marshes. It covers 3,925 acres, or about 15% of the total area of the fresh coastal marshland in the State. The other pure types, in the order of areal extent, are: common threesquare (Type 37; 2,808 acres), big cordgrass (Type 38; 1,904 acres), spatterdock (Type 31; 1,774 acres), wildrice (Type 36; 776 acres), common reed (Type 39; 747 acres), and sweetflag (Type 33; 431 4 acres). Stands that are characterized as the smartweed/ rice cutgrass type (Type 30, Figure 10) may be composed Al, A, almost wholly of one or several species of smartweeds or tearthumbs. Many stands that were mapped as this type, however, are formed by variable mixtures of smartweeds, tearthumbs, rice cutgrass, arrowarum, waterhemp, beg- garticks, burmarigolds, dodders, and the spotted touch- me-not. The aggregate area covered by these stands is 2,924 acres, so the type is the third most prevalent grouping and occupies about 11.5% of the fresh marsh area. Stands of rosernallow (Type 35) include a mixture of herbaceous plants. Smartweeds, burmarigolds, spotted Figure 10: Smartweed/rice cutgrass fresh marsh (Type touch-me-not, arrowarum, and cattails have been re- 30) along Hunting Creek in Caroline County. Only ported from the few stands that have been examined smartweeds were present in this stand. A spatterdock (Table 5). This vegetation grouping occurs on 1,256 marsh (Type 31) occupies the near background. 19 Stands of the rosernallow type (Type 35) include vari- %; ANL& able mixtures of burmarigolds, spotted touch-me-not, smartweeds, arrowarum, and cattails (Figure 15). Al- though it is a perennial herb, and it dies back to the ground each winter, the rosernallow has a shrubby rowth form. Plants of this kind, which include the water Wa 'o 9 willow, are known as half shrubs, or shrublike herbs. Akio _N WWI Figure 11. Spatterdock fresh marsh (Type 31) along Hunting Creek in Caroline County. Stands of arrowarum (Type 32), in which pickerel- weed may be a common associate, occur in many wetland areas as fringes of varying width along the banks of Figure 12: Pickerelweedlarrowarum fresh marsh (Type tidewater creeks and guts (Figure 12). In these sites, the 32) along Hunting Creek in Caroline County. This stand surface is covered during most periods of high water; the is composed predominantly of arrowarum. water is relatively deep; and the duration of flooding is long. The arrowarum type also grows on more elevated sections of the wetlands and, in these areas, commonly 7 7 intergrades w@jh such other types of fresh marsh vegeta- tion as the smartweed/rice cutgrass type (Type 30). . . . . . . @At During the spring and early summer, before the annual plants of the marsh have grown very tall, stands of sweetflag (Type 33) appear to be pure or to be mixed with arrowhead or other perennial plants (Figure 13). By middle or late summer, however, the irislike leaves of sweetflag may be lodged by rain, wind, and high tides, and water smartweed, pinkweed, waterhemp, and other kinds of annuals that have developed to full stature may overtop and nearly obscure the sweetflag (McCormick and Ashbaugh 1972). Narrowleaf cattail is the principal component of tide- water stands of the cattail type (Type 34). Arrowarum is the most constant associate in these stands, but spotted touch-me-not, water smartweed, arrowhead, smartweeds, rosernallow, rice cutgrass, and big cordgrass also may be present (Figure 14). Common cattail is associated with the narrowleaf cattail in some stands, and it may be relatively abundant in stands near the upper, inland boundary of the wetands. Little information is available on the occurrences of southern cattail and the blue cattail, Figure 13: Sweetflag marsh (Type 33) along the Chester but both have been reported to grow in fresh or slightly River in Queen Anne's County. Arrowheadforms a scat- brackish tidal marshes in Maryland (Table 5). tered undergrowth in this stand. 20 Figure 14. Cattailfresh marsh (Type 34) along Hunting Creek in Caroline County. Smartweed (Type 30) also occurs in this stand. The wildrice type (Type 36) is conspicuous and widely narrow bands along the creeks and tidal guts that cross or distributed in the fresh coastal wetlands of the Middle extend into wetlands (Figure 18). Narrowleaf cattail Atlantic Region (Figure 16). Unlike the other predomi- grows with the big cordgrass in some areas, particularly nant grasses of the coastal wetlands, wildrice is an annual, where the stands are broader than usual. Arrowarum and The plants germinate from seeds during the spring; they pickerelweed also may be associated with big cordgrass, grow to heights as great as 11 feet by August (Table 6); but these plants generally are limited to sites at the edges then they produce seeds and die. of creeks and guts. Scattered plants of arrowhead, spatterdock, pickerel- Common reed (Type 39) also forms tall, dense, virtu- weed, and arrowarum, singly or in various combinations, ally pure stands (Figure 19). This perennial grass com- commonly form a discontinuous undergrowth in stands monly develops on sites that have been disrupted by such of wildrice (Figure 16). In wetlands that occupy sites actions of man as the placement of fill or dredged mate- within the transition zone between the freshwater and rial, the excavation of the wetland surface, or the intro- brackish segments of the estuaries, smooth cordgrass duction of toxic pollutants or high concentrations of may grow along the banks of the channels of tidewater nutrients. The rhizomes, or underground stems, of creeks and guts that extend through stands of wildrice. common reed elongate rapidly. An inch-long fragment Stands of the bulrush type (Type 37) are formed prin- of rhizome may lodge in a barren area and begin to grow. cipally by common threesquare (Figure 17). Softrush, Within a few months, this minute fragment may pro- arrowarum, and cattail are associated species in most duce new rhizomes, culms, and leaves that cover several stands of the type. square meters of the soil surface. Big cordgrass grows in nearly pure stands (Type 38) in 21 4* - '77 _T k7l", zt Figure 15. Rosemallow fresh marsh (Type 35) along Hunting Creek in Caroline County. Smartweed, cattail, and spotted touch-me-not also are present in this stand. HIGH AND LOW BRACKISH MARSHES more frequent inundation than are the other sites, the (TYPES 41 THROUGH 51) stands are composed principally of marshelder. Needlerush (Type 43, Figure 22), meadow cordgrass/ Stands of big cordgrass (Type 48) line the banks of spikegrass (Type 41, Figure 20), and threesquare (Type many tidewater creeks and guts, and cover a total of 47,Figure 26) cover 38.5%,24.5%,and 15.0%, respective- about 8,196 acres (6.5%) of the high brackish marshes ly, of the 126,569 acres of wetlands that are characterized (Figure 27). Other types of vegetation that compose the as high brackish marshes (Table 2). Olney threesquare is high brackish marshes, in the order of their areal abun- predominant in most of the areas that are covered by the dance, are: cattail (Type 44, Figure 23), switchgrass threesquare type, but common threesquare and stout (Type 46, Figure 2 5), common reed (Type 49, Figure 28), bulrush may be abundant in the more landward sections and rosemallow (Type 45, Figure 24). Species of plants of the marshes. that have been reported to be components of the various The shrubby marshelder/groundselbush type (Type types of brackish wetland vegetation in the Middle 42, Figure 2 1), which forms 8.3 96 of this habitat complex, Atlantic Region are listed in Table 7. Most of these occupies sites along the upland margin of the wetlands, species, but not necessarily all of them, are present in on natural levees and turf banks, and on the surfaces of stands of these types in Maryland. the wetlands. In the latter sites, which are subject to 22 XZ f Atv/ I V 6 4@ltp@ J@ 1@@ V 41@ bo. MA A 1 tl- f 7 Figure 16. Wildricefresh marsh (Type 36) along Hunting Creek in Dorchester County. Pickerelweedand rosemalloware visible in the foreground. e L . . . . . . . . . . . . ri Figure 17. Bulrush fresh marsh (Type 37) along Hunting Figure 18. Big cordgrass fresh marsh (Type 38) along Creek in Caroline County. Hunting Creek in Caroline County. 23 -J, A '. U1 A t1 1 'J'-'- 777@ 3- Figure 19. Common reed fresh marsh (Type 39) along the Choptank River in Caroline County. W AW N" ""4 N " <'@ Figure 20. Meadow corYgrasslspikegrass brackish high Figure 21. Marshelderlgroundselbush brackish high marsh (Type 41) near Savannah Lake in Dorchester marsh (Type 42) near Elliott Island in Dorchester County. A cattail brackish high marsh,. (Type 44) forms County. This stand contained a mixture of smooth cord- the background. grass, switchgrass, and myrtles. 24 With the exception of the marshelder/groundselbush type (Type 42) and the rosernallow type (Type 45), the types of vegetation in the brackish wetlands are repre- sented in most places by nearly pure stands of the predominant species. In stands of marshelder and groundselbush, the undergrowth commonly is formed by meadow cordgrass. Spikegrass, switchgrass, smooth cord- grass, big cordgrass, Olney threesquare, seaside golden- rod, rosernallow, and other herbaceous plants also may be present. Near the upland edge of the marshes, bay- berry, blackberry, and poison ivy also may be associates (Table 7). Switchgrass, Olney threesquare, narrowleaf cattail, and various smartweeds have been reported to be associates of the rosernallow. There is a considerable variation in the salinity of the V soil in brackish wetlands, but the pH of the soil varies little from place to place (Table 8). Meadow cordgrass and spikegrass generally occupy the most saline soils, and narrowleaf cattail, among the types investigated, grows on the least saline sites. -7 7 Figure 22. Needlerush brackish high marsh (Type 43) near Elliott Island in Dorchester County. Low brackish marsh sites occupy approximately 25,079 acres in the coastal wetland region of Maryland (Table 2). The low marsh sites, therefore, compose about 16.5 L76 of the total area of brackish wetlands, and high marsh sites compose the remaining 83.5 t7o . The two classes of sites differ in relative elevation, so that low marsh sites are partly or wholly inundated during most periods of high water, and in the kinds of vegetation they support. Stands of smooth cordgrass (Type 5 1) are considered to characterize the low marsh (Figure 29), and no stand of this species was included in the high marsh complex. In the low brackish marshes, the smooth cordgrass generally is of a short to intermediate height. Particu- larly in Somerset County, however, stands of a tall growth form, equivalent to Type 71 in the saline wetlands, occur in small, but discrete stands, and in narrow bands between tidal channels and stands of needlerush on high brackish wetland sites. The stands of the tall form are most extensive on South Marsh Island and Smith Island, Figure 23. Cattail brackish high marsh (Type 44) near and the channel fringe stands are conspicuous near Cedar Savannah Lake in Dorchester County. Rosemallow is Island and around Tangier Sound. scattered through this stand. 25 NJ 14. *Ali A& 7 Z w limb W W, '14 :4, k, --,I- -C . i _g@ M" @ T ;hfU vp-f"4 R., Figure 25. Switchgrass brackish high marsh (Type 46) nearElliott Islandin Dorchester County. A redmaple swampforest (Type 22) is conspi.cuous in the right background, and a loblolly pine swamp forest (Type 23) forms the distant background. 7 lr7z V AIN ON 7 00 4 @J f Figure 24. Rosemallow brackish high marsh (Type 45) along Transquaking River in Dorchester County. Asso- Figure 26. Threesquare brackish high marsh (Type 47) ciated plants in this stand included smooth cordgrass, near Elliott Island in Dorchester County. A loblolly pine switcbgrass, and meadow cordgrass. swamp forest (Type 23) forms the background. 26 "it At, A iA 'A 4, Figure 27. Big cordgrass brackish high marsh (Type 48) along Hunting Creek in Dorchester County. Smooth cordgrass marsh (Type 5 1) forms a narrow band in foreground. 4d 01 Figure 28. Common reed brackish high marsh (Type 49) Figure 29. Smooth cordgrass brackish low marsh (Type on Eastern Neck Island in Kent County. 51) on Eastern Neck Island in Kent County. 27 Table 7. Floristic components of brackish marsh types in the coastal zone of Maryland and other Middle Atlantic States. T Qj M 0 Q 0 72 0 X 0tIO 6 -LI E x 0 E 0 o E 0@ V) 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49. 51 Trees Red maple 7 Persimmon 4,11 Shrubs and Vines Groundselbush 4, 11 x Marshelder x x 9,10 7, --10 4 10 Bayberry 11 4, 11 7 Waxmyrtle 11 Poison ivy 4, 11 7 Swamp rose 11 Blackberry 4, 11 Southern arrowwood 7 Shrublike Herbs Rosernallow 9,11 x x x 9 x 12 4 Seashore mallow 11 9,11 11 4 10 9,11 Forbs Waterhemp 9,11 12 4 X Groundnut 1 Swamp milkweed 1 1 12 Annual marsh aster 11 11 Perennial marsh aster 11, 12 11 11 11 Hastate orach 12 Spreading orach 11 11 11 1 2,11 Dodder 11,12 Searocket 11 Seaside gerardia 11, 12 Purple gerardia 12 2 Carolina sealavender 12 Nash sealavender 11 11 11 Bugleweed .8 Narrowleaf loosestrife x 11 x 11 Climbing hempweed 11,12 Arrowarum 1 1 1 Camphorweed 8,12 9,12 12 9 Marsh fleabane 4,11 11 4 3 4 11, 12 Smartweeds 4 4 4 Mild waterpepper 9 9 9 Dotted smartweed 11 2 Arrowleaf tearthumb 12 1 Pickerelweed 4 Mock bishopweed 12 1 Waterdock 4 Marshpink 11, 12 11,12 11 Slender glasswort I 1 11 Duck potato 8 Seaside goldenrod x x 11 7 10,12 11,12 Marsh wildbean 12 12 American germander 1 Marsh fern 9 28 Table 7. Floristic components of brackish marsh types in the coastal zone of Maryland and other Middle Atlantic States (concluded). x 0 0to r E E (U M E 1 t "1 1 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 Grasses and Grasslike Plants Hair sedge 10 Broadwing sedge 2 -Stretched sedge 11 Strawcolor u brella sedge 11 12 Spikegrass x x 11 4,10 9 x 8, 10 Reedgrass 11 Walter millet 4 4 4 Creeping spikerush 1 Dwarf spikerush 2 Beaked spikerush 6 Narrow plumegrass 4 Chestnut sedge I 1 1 Rushes 9 4 Sharpfruit rush 1 Blackrush 11 Needlerush 10, 11 x 4 11 Switchgrass 4,11 x 10 4 x 4 4 Common reed 4,10 x Bulrushes 10 7 Twopart rush 11 Common threesquare 11 11 1, 11 1 1 11 Olne threesquare x x to x 4 9 x 10 4 9,10 Stout bulrush 10,11 11 2,12 12 11 Sof tste m bulrush 2 Giant bristlegrass 11 11 Knotroot bristlegrass 11 11 11 Smooth cordgrass x 9,10 10,11 9,10 X 8,10 4 x Big cordgrass 9, 10 9 x 4 4,9 Meadow cordgrass x x x 4 9 x 10 4 10,11 Gamagrass 4 Narrowleaf cattail 10 x 4 Common cattail 5 Wildcelery 2 Wildrice 4 Tabulated numerals represent the following sources; parenthetical abbreviations indicate the states in which investigations were conducted; an "X" indicates that the taxon is used to designate the type or was reported in three or more sources. Supplementary types were not mapped, and some may not occur in Maryland. 1. Anderson and others 1968 (MD) 5. Johnson 1970, corrected (MD) 9. Jenkins and Williamson 1973 (MD) 2. Flowers 1973 (MD) 6. Stearns and others 1940 (DEL) 10. Williamson 1974 (MD) 3. Good 1965 (NJ) . 7. McCormick 1952 (NJ) 11. Thompson 1974 (MD) 4. Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc., 8. Connell 1940 (DEL) 12. Chrysler 1910 (MD) field notes (MD) 29 Table 8. Salinity and pH-of water in soils that support the ducted to determine the net cost or benefit of marsh characteristic plants in brackish coastal wetlands in Del- burning in relation to the overall natural or economic aware (Daigh, MacCleary, and Stearns 1938). productivity of the estuarine system of the Chesapeake Bay region. Salinity' pH In regard to the 1975/1978 Wetlands Management Optimum Range Mean Study, the burning of the brackish marshes complicated the identification and the delineation of vegetation types. Narrowleaf cattail 5.35 0.12 - 32.79 5.06 Wetlands that had been burned during the current year Olney threesquare 9.85 2.71 - 18-30 4.75 and during the previous year were recordedon some of Smooth cordgrass 17.14 1.86-46.19 4.93 the aerial photographs that were taken during the late Meadow cordgrass 21.89 4.48 - 55.62 4.97 autumn. The wetlands that had been burned recently Spikegrass 29-56 9.96 - 67.54 5.10 appear as brown to black areas on the photographs, and 'Salinities were calculated from chlorinity, in parts per little or no vegetation is distinguishable within them. In thousand, by the formula: Salinity (ppt) = 0.030 + areas that have been burned earlier, vegetation is visible (1.8050 x chlorinity). on the photographs, but it differs strikingly in appearance from similar vegetation on unburned wetlands. This Many of the extensive brackish marshes on the Eastern variation apparently is produced by the absence of dead Shore are burned intentionally during November and plant material on the ground in the burned areas. What- December of each year. The fires generally are set in ever the cause, however, the unique textures and colors stands of meadow cordgrass (Type 41), needlerush of the vegetation of different types in the burned marshes (Type 43), cattail (Type 44), threesquares (Type 47), big made difficult their correlation with similar types in cordgrass (Type 48), and common reed (Type 49), in unburned marshes. which flammable dead plant materials persist after the The types of vegetation on all of the areas of burned growing season is completed. marsh were identified and the extent of each stand was Observations from the ground and from aircraft dur- delineated by the interpretation of the aerial photo- ing 1976 revealed that marsh burning is practiced most graphs, by ground inspections, and by inspections from extensively in Dorchester County (approximately 57,400 aircraft. To denote these areas, and to serve as a reminder acres during 1975/1976) and Somerset County (12,200 that the accuracy of the mapping in such areas may be acres). The sections of Dorchester County in which less than that in unburned areas, the letter "B" was burned marshes were prominent included the Taylors prefixed to the symbol for each type of vegetation in Island Wildlife Management Area, Bishops Head, Fish- burned marshes. ing Bay, and the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Elliot Island, and nearby areas in the wetlands of the. HIGH AND LOW SALINE MARSHES Blackwater River. In Somerset County, fires had been set (TYPES 61, 62, 63, 71 AND 72) in the marshes at Deal Island, Dames Quarter, Fairmount In Maryland, saline coastal wetlands are recognized in Neck, Jersey Island, and Johnson Creek. the seaside bays of Worcester County. Stands of smooth On such publicly-owned tracts as the Deal Island Wild- cordgrass characterize the low marsh sites and cover life Area, which is burned during alternate years, fire is 9,544 acres, or 69.417o of the total area of the saline used as a tool for the management of wildlife habitats. wetlands (Table 2). On 95 acres along the margins of The removal of the dead leaves and culms of the plants bays and tidal channels, the grass grows to heights of 2 to that grew during the previous summer will expose the 4 feet or more (Type 7 1, Figure 3 3). Farther back on the new shoots, which develop during the following spring, marsh surface, a shorter form of the smooth cordgrass, so that they will be available more readily to waterfowl. which generally does not exceed I foot in height (Type Fires also may be set on privately-owned marshes in 72, Figure 34) covers nearly 9,450 acres. Plants of the tall an effort to improve conditions for waterfowl, muskrats, and short growth forms are genetically indistinguishable and other kinds of wildlife. They also are used to pro- and reflect environmental diffe'rences in their habitats mote the growth of meadow cordgrass and common (Mobberly 1956; Mooring and others 1971; Shea and threesquare, to eliminate needlerush, to control insects, to others 1975). Glassworts, which have fleshy stems and improve access for trapping, and to minimize the poten- minute, scale-like leaves, commonly are scattered through tial for accidental fires. Many of the marsh fires, perhaps the two cordgrass zones. most of them, however are set by arsonists for unknown Landward from these areas, where the marsh surface reasons Uack McCormick & Associates, Inc., interviews is a few inches higher in elevation, meadow cordgrass by field personnel, 1976 and 1977). and spikegrass (Type 61) form the vegetation on about Regardless of the perceived reasons of the owners, 5 5 % of the high marsh (Figure 30). These grasses grow managers, and arsonists who set these fires, intentionally- in mixed stands, or either may occur in nearly pure set fires and accidental fires oxidize the large mass of stands. On about 3% of the area of the high saline organic material that is produced by the marsh vegeta- wetlands, particularly on the bayside of Fenwick Island, tion. Thus, the fires remove potentially significant stands of the needlerush (Type 63) cover areas near the amounts of detritus and nutrients from the estuarine upland margins or extend from the edge of the bay nearly food web. Apparently no investigation has been con- to the uplands (Figure 32). 30 Two shrubby plants, the bayberry and the groundsel- bush (Type 62), cover 42% of the saline high wetlands (Table 2). These shrubs occur in mixture near the upland border of the saline marshes and on higher ground that is adjacent to, or scattered through the wetlands. Marsh- N A elder may occur with the other two shrubs near the upland edge of the wetland, but it also grows on parts of the high marsh that are flooded more frequently (Figure 31). In most wetland areas, meadow cordgrass forms a dense ground cover beneath these shrubs. Tall stands of smooth cordgrass are subject to regular and deep flooding on nearly every high tide (Lagna 1975). Similarly, some stands of needlerush also are regularly flooded. Parts of the stands of short form smooth cordgrass also may be inundated frequently, but other sections are covered only by spring tides and wind- driven tides. Similarly, stands of meadow cordgrass and spikegrass generally are covered only by the higher tides of each month. The shrubby stands of marshelder and groundselbush are inundated by the highest of the spring tides and also by storm tides. Regardless of the frequency of flooding, the soil beneath all of these types is peren- nially saturated, and the water table usually is within a I few inches of the surface. Figure 31. Marsbelderlgroundselbush saline high marsh (Type 62) at Coffman Marsh in Worcester County. This sta nd co ntain ed o nly ma rf h elder. Meado w co rdgrass a nd spikegrass occur in the undergrowth of this stand. A needlerufh marsh (Type 63) is visible in the background. :4 'N' d V@, A Figure 30. Meadow cordgrasslspikegrass saline high marsh (Type 61) at Coffman Marsh in Worcester County. Marshelder is visible in the left background, and smooth cordgrass, short growth form (Type 72) is in the right Figure 32. Needlerusb saline high marsh (Type 63) near background. Ocean City in Worcester County. A, -4 44 AA A i@ T t, 4_4 L Figure 34. Smooth cordgrass, short growthform, saline low marsh (Type 72) on Assateague Island in Worcester County. A shallow salt pond (Type 80) occupies the central area. Species of plants that have been reported as compo- nents of the vegetation types of saline wetlands are listed in Table 9. Two floristic investigations of saline wetlands also are summarized in Table 10. Studies of this last type merely indicate that certain species were observed in saline habitats, but they do not indicate the vegetation types in which the species occur. Although such floristic studies cannot be used to compile lists for the individual types of vegetation, they do indicate the potential diver- sity of species in saline habitats. Fifty taxa are included in '7 Table 10. There are various environmental gradients in a saline wetland. Flooding generally is most regular, of longest duration, and of greatest depth along the shores of the seaside bays and tidal channels near inlets between the barrier islands. Fresh water enters from the inland mar- gin of the wetland as runoff, and the soil moisture in marginal areas may be brackish to fresh. In areas that are flooded frequently, the salinity of the soil moisture paral- lels the salinity of the water in the adjacent bay. The intermediate areas of high marsh, between the low marsh, which is flooded frequently, and the sections of the high marsh that receive runoff from the uplands, commonly are the most saline owing to the concentration of salts by evaporation and transpiration. Salinity is at an Figure 33. Smooth cordgrass, tall growth form, saline extreme in pans. These are slight depressions which low marsh (Type 71) near Purnell Pond in Worcester support temporary ponds, but which may be coated by County. crystallized salts during dry spells. 32 The relatively low diversity of species in saline tain of those types are composed. wetlands reflects the environmental gradients which act Most of the vegetation of the saline coastal marshes to sort the species that are available and to limit their persists in a withered condition through the winter. The ranges. Many pans are barren or are occupied only by predominant plants are perennials, and new growth glassworts, orach, or marsh fleabane. Smooth cordgrass begins to appear through the dead remains of the last forms nearly pure stands over a large proportion of the season of growth during late April or early May. Flower- saline wetlands. The meadow cordgrass-spikegrass zone ing begins rather late in the summer and continues into also is not particularly rich in species. autumn. In southern New Jersey, Good (1965) recorded The diversity of species increases near the upland the earliest flowering of the most important and most periphery of the wetlands, but this increase appears to be conspicuous plants: meadow cordgrass (1 July), big cord- less pronounced in the saline wetlands of Maryland than grass (14 July), smooth cordgrass and spikegrass (15 it is in similar habitats in other sections of the Middle August), sealavender (24 August), and marshelder and Atlantic Region (Good 1965). The increased diversity is groundselbush (I October). Seed production is at a max- a product of both the greater variety of vegetation types imum during September and October, but only a few which may occur along the upper boundary of the kinds of wildlife concentrate their feeding on this wetland and the larger number of species of which cer- resource (Tables 27 and 39). Table 9. Floristic components of saline marsh types in the coastal zone of Maryland and other Middle Atlantic States. Supplementary Types @3 0 0 E V) E C: 0to -a C: 0 0 0 0 0 0 E E X Cn - (n E 61 62 63 71 72 7A 7M Trees Red maple 5 Red cedar 5 Shrubs and woody vines Groundselbush 7 X Sea oxeye 7 Marshelder X X Bayberry 5 Shining sumac 5 Poison ivy 5 Forbs Waterhemp 2 Annual marsh aster 2 Perennial marsh aster X 2,6 6 Spreading orach 6 2 X Seaside gerardia 2,6 6 Carolina sealavender X X X I Seaside plantain 6 Camphorweed 2 2 Stinking fleabane 2 Marsh fleabane I I I Dwarf glasswort 6 Slender glasswort X X X Perennial glasswort 5 33 cn C/) un V) C/) cp cn a n c E7. @r 'a J= 0 n Cn cn >cn cn 0 C4 PCI @T" 0 cr 2 ;. 0 " @F" n r) 0;- 0 D) r- w " r. C) 0 cr n LA r) Pr x CD 9 CL 0 4 0 t7^ o n Fr r, rb n CL P r-L W n =) , CD =1 = @1: ,- (:;N (D 0 CL 0 0 sn rb Z7 C) n n 0 \0 \.A 0 rL 0 -o m r CL I cf) JQ 9 O'Q tJ CA n " Z n M n CD r- =@:r :@ .,:r cn cr CD PT, tQ sn -- a. J,5 ;-,T; UQ nn CD n rb n n n > m a W CD \,o n n CD tz-, CA CL CD r-L 0 0 ("D M::3 X X > x x C) CD CD CL 0 rb rb 0 p cp cn C/) cn r) 0 ITI c CD m P C) n An) 3 o rL C) rL C) (D , 0 n CD PIN, 4 4 - w ",- (4 (D x " 'a C) m CD CL w 0 CL CD 0,0* 0 cr, E: @:) CD 0 CD CL =.a w CN 0 0 0 r-L \0 0 rb 'i 0 0 r-L I'd m - - n = Z) CD M - C/) rb CD 0- n 0 C*) C\ C\ > CD rb (D ("D > 0 SI) CD n n RD 00 z CD Iz- Sr, CD n 0 CL PI Table 10. Plants observed in saline marshes on Assateague Island, Maryland and Virginia (Concluded). Assateague' NewJersey Assateague' NewJersey Hairy seablite X X Grasses and grasslike plants Sea oxeye X Bermudagrass X X Searocket X Beach umbrella sedge X Coastblite X Tufted meadowgrass X Seaside gerardia X Spikegrass X X Purple gerardia X Creeping spikerush X Sea milkwort X Dwarf spikerush X X Lilaeopsis X Beaked spikerush X Carolina sealavender X Purple lovegrass X Seedbox X Chestnutsedge X X Cutleaf waterhorehound X Bristly rush X Seaside plantain X Flatleaf rush X Marsh plantain X Blackrush X X Camphorweed X Needlerush X Marsh fleabane X Torrey rush X Whorled milkwort X Spreading alkaligrass X Seabeach knotweed X Common threesquare X X Pinkweed X Stout bulrush X Shore knotweed X Smooth cordgrass X X Bushy knotweed X Big cordgrass X Seaside crowfoot X Marsh cordgrass X X aThis list is drawn from Appendix Il of Higgins andothers (1971),but is selectedand modifiedby reference to habitat lists on pages 19, 20, and 21 and by information in Table I of the source. Because the term "pan" is used variously to include interdune swales as well as tidal marsh features, species listed only from such habitats are omitted. Because fresh, nontidal marshes also are present, species listed only from "marshes" also are omitted here. Other species were excluded because information in Appendix 11 conflicted with habitat associations listed elsewhere in the source. UNVEGETATED WETLANDS and other seaside bays, Chesapeake Bay, and a host of (TYPES 80,81, AND 91) smaller bays, and tidewater rivers, creeks, guts, and Three types of wetland that are recognized in the ditches also are unvegetated wetlands. These areas are coastal zone of Maryland generally are devoid of rooted not assigned to a numbered type on the photomaps, but plants. One of these types comprises relatively small they are distinctive and easily recognized. They were not bodies of water that are surrounded by vegetated wet- surveyed or measured during the present investigation lands, have no major connection to tidal waters, and because they are incompletely covered by the aerial pho- which support no detectable submerged vegetation. tographs that were taken during 1971. Those photo- These are categorized as ponds (Type 80; Figure 35). graphs were intended to record the locations of the The two numbered types of unvegetated, intertidal vegetated wetlands, particularly the private wetlands, wetlands are mudflats (Type 81) and beaches/ sandbars and to facilitate the delineation of the upper or inland (Type 91). Mudflats and sandbars are shoals that are boundary of the coastal wetlands. The photographic exposed during at least some periods of low water slack. inventory, therefore, was not extended to areas of deeper They differ in that mudflats are composed of clay, silt, water or to waters remote from the shores because those and organic material (Figure 36), whereas sandbars are areas are State wetlands that are subject not only to the composed predominantly of sand, pebbles, or shells Wetlands Act, but also to the more powerful controls (Figure 37). that are associated with public ownership. Beaches are features of the shore, and their upper, landward edges generally are continued by higher ground SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION that is not a part of the wetlands. A beach may be (TYPE 101) composed of sand, a mixture of sand and shells, pebbles, At least 24 species of flowering plants and'sevenkinds cobbles, or other material. of macroscopic algae characteristically grow beneath the The main area of the beach, which is situated approx- surface of the water in the tidewater rivers and creeks, imately between the low water line and the mean high marsh ponds, and bays of the coastal region (Table 77; water line, lacks rooted plants. The upper beach, which is Figure 38). They form sparse to dense, relatively small to the section that lies between the mean high water line extensive stands, but are subject to cataclysmic fluctua- and the extreme high water line, usually supports scat- tions in their populations (Elser 1967; Steenis, Stotts, tered plants. The species of plants that are known to and Rawls 1971; Southwick and Pine 1975; Maldeis occur in this habitat in the Middle Atlantic States are 1978; Bayley and others 1978). Areas covered by luxur- listed in Table 11. ious stands of submerged plants one year may be nearly Many areas of the Atlantic Ocean, Assawoman Bay barren the next year. The stands may redevelop within a 35 few months; they may require several years; or they may fail to redevelop. The plants are significant as food pro- ducers and their stands serve as habitats for vertebrates and invertebrates, as well as sediment stabilizers (Gosner 1968; Orth 1975). The bottom in areas covered by submerged flowering plants commonly is composed of soft mud. The mud, however, may represent sediment trapped by the plants rather than the condition of the bottom when it first was colonized by the plants (Good and others 1978). Sub- merged plants grow in a zone that extends approximately from the level of mean low water to a maximum depth of about 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3.5 m) below mean low water in areas with relatively clear water. Where the water is constantly turbid or intensely colored, the depth to which the plants extend is reduced and, in very turbid waters, submerged plants may be unable to survive at any depth. Most of the submerged flowering plants, as well as three of the algae, grow in areas of fresh water (Table 12). Only ten species of flowering plants and two kinds of algae, however, appear to be restricted to freshwater areas. Eelgrass, wigeongrass, and various species of red algae are known to occur from slightly brackish areas to saline coastal bays. Sealettuce, a leaflike green alga, and enteromorpha, another leafy green alga, range from mod- erately brackish waters to those with the salinity of seawater. Brown algae are restricted to the saline waters of Assawoman, Isle of Wight, Sinepuxent, Newport, and Figure 36. Mudflat (Type 81) along the Manokin River Chincoteague Bays. The northern naiad has been re- in Somerset County. Stands of smooth cordgrass (Type corded from a moderately brackish station on the Patux- 51) and marsh elder1groundselbush (Type 42) form the ent River (Anderson 1969, 1972) and from the fresh to background. autumnally brackish Susquehanna Flats (Bayley and oth- ers 1978). 'o' ZZ, % 3 3v j Figure 35. Pond (Type 80) on Deal Island in Somerset Figure 37. Beacb1sandbar (Type 91) along the Manokin County. A mixed stand of meadow cordgrass and three- River in Somerset County. Smooth cordgrass (Type 51) square (Types 41 and 47) occupies the foreground and and marsh elderlgroundselbush (Type 42) form the background. background. 36 n, 3- t 44 Figure 38. Submerged aquatic plants (Type 101) along the Little Choptank River in Dorchester County. Marshelderl groundselhush (Type 42), meadow cordgrass (Type 41), and smooth cordgrass (Type 51) brackish marsh vegetation occupies the foreground. This is an aerial plot in which the offshore mottled pattern reflects the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation. Table 11. Plants that occur on the beaches of Assateague at Dyke Marsh, Smoot Cove, and nearby locations, the Island, Maryland and Virginia (Higgins and others roiling of sediments by increasing numbers of introduced 197 1), and in NewJersey (Scone 1911). All species listed European carp, the discharge of untreated or inade- are forbs (broadleaf herbaceous plants). quately treated sewage effluents, and contaminated storm runoff from rapidly spreading, urbanized areas Assateague NewJersey have increased the turbidity of the waters of the estuary. Seabeach pigweed X X Pollutants from these sources also depleted the dissolved Seabeach sandwort X X oxygen in the waters of the estuary, and promoted exten- Seabeach orach X sive growths of blue-green algae. Toxic substances that Searocket X X were released as these blue-green algae decayed are Seabeach knotweed X believed to have damaged or killed many submerged Saltwort X X plants (Keating 1978). Still further deterioration of the Seapurslane X submerged vegetation occurred during a prolonged Beach cocklebur X drought from 1930 to 1932, and probably during subse- quent droughts, when brackish water encroached up- stream in the River at least to the mouth of Occoquan Historically, the upper sections of the estuary of the Bay. Also during the 1930's, the introduced waterchest- Potomac River were occupied by luxuriant and diverse nut, an aggressive, annual floating plant, increased in stands of various submerged plants. Deterioration of the abundance with explosive rapidity in many localities. quality of the-water and other conditions that are related The coarse growths of waterchestnut produced dense to human activities apparently have resulted in the de- shade and, thus, resulted in the elimination of submerged struction of most stands of submerged vegetation during plants from areas it occupied (Gwathmey 1945). the past few decades (Stewart 1962). Accelerated erosion of soil from the watersheds of the upper Potomac River, gravel-mining in or adjacent to the channel of the River 37 Table 12. Ranges of salinities in waters in which submerged aquatic plants were observed by Stewart (1962). Scientific names are listed in Table 77. Saline Brackish Fresh Brown algae Highly Moderately Slightly Sealettuce Enteromorpha Eelgrass Red algae Wigeongrass Horned pondweed Sago pondweed Redhead pondweed Eurasian watermilfoil Common waterweed Muskgrasses Curlyleaf pondweed Wildcelery Southern naiad Grassleaf pondweed Coontail Nuttall waterweed Floating pondweed Largeleaf pondweed Leafy pondweed Ribbonleaf pondweed Robinson pondweed Variableleaf pondweed Pinnate watermilfoil Slender watermilfoil Waternymph Waterstargrass Nitella Spirogyra Northern naiad The classifications used by Stewart (1962) and the equivalents used in this table are: coastal bays (saline); salt estuarine bays (highly brackish); brackish estuarine bays (moderately brackish); slightly brackish estuarine bays (slightly brackish); fresh estuarine bays (fresh). *Asterisks indicate occurrences that were mentioned by Anderson (1972) that are outside the limits of salinity that were described by Stewart (1962). The extension of Nuttal waterweed is based on data from Phillip and Brown (1965). Spaghettigrass (Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides), a filamentous green alga reported from Virginia (Hillson 1975), grows in salinities that range from 17.5 to 40 ppt (Good and others 1978). During the early 1960's, Stewart (1962) reported that at a locality in the Potomac River south of Alexandria, submerged vegetation was absent from the segment of Virginia (Ward 1881; Reed 1977). The plant drew little the estuary of the Potomac River from the boundary of notice during the ensuing sixty years or so. Then it the District of Columbia downstream to Chicamuxen became aggressive and colonies appeared throughout the Creek, in Charles County, Maryland. There were, upper Potomac River estuary during the 1940's or 1950's. however, extensive beds of submerged plants in the During the 1950's and early 1960's, Eurasian watermil- fresh waters of the estuary from Chicamuxen Creek to foil spread explosively throughout the Chesapeake Bay Maryland Point. These waters were moderately turbid (Springer and Stewart 1959; Steenis and King 1964; and, apparently as a result, the submerged vegetation Elser 1966; Bayley and others 1968, 1978). This spread was restricted to narrow bands in the shallow areas near was curtailed sharply about 1963, and since then the the shores. Wildcelery, southern naiad, redhead pond- Eurasian watermilfoil has been declining in abundance weed, and common waterweed were the most common throughout the region. This decline apparently is the native plants. result of the interaction of high turbidities and disease Eurasian water milf oil, an introduced species, first was (Elser 1966, 1967; Bean and others 1972, 1973; South- observed in the Chesapeake Bay Region during the 1870's wick and Pine 1975). 38 Changes in the extent and composition of the sub- the extensive marshes along the upstream section of the merged vegetation on the Susquehanna Flats, at the Blackwater River, apparently as a result of the intense northern end of Chesapeake Bay, were followed closely color of the water. Elsewhere in Dorchester County, sago by Bayley and others (1978) from 1958 through 1975. pondweed occurred in most marsh areas, and other kinds The changes appear to be similar to those which occurred of submerged plants were common locally. In Savannah in the upper estuary of the Potomac River several Lake, which is a large marsh pond, wildcelery, redhead decades earlier. pondweed, sago pondweed, pinnate watermilfoil, and During the late 1950's, submerged native vegetation slender watermilfoil formed extensive, mixed beds. was luxuriant on the Susquehanna Flats (Stewart 1962). Wildcelery, southern naiad, common waterweed, curly- Wildcelery and southern naiad ordinarily were the most leaf pondweed, grassleaf pondweed, coontail, and stone- abundant plants at depths that ranged from 1.5 to 8 feet. worts were the principal species of submerged plants Muskgrasses, which are algae, generally were predomi- that occurred in the marshes along the "necks" of Balti- nant in shallower areas, particularly where the bottom more County and Harford County. was formed by compacted sand. Pondweeds of several The two principal areas of slightly brackish estuarine species, coontail, waternymph, common waterweed, bays that were recognized by Stewart (1962) are: the waterstargrass, nitella, and spirogyra also grew in the estuary of the Potomac River, from Cobb Island to Mary- area, and were most abundant at depths that ranged from land Point in Charles County, including the Wicomico 1.5 to 6 feet. River, the Port Tobacco River and Nanjemoy Creek; and Eurasian watermilfoil was found at I % of the stations the western shore of Chesapeake Bay, from Pinehurst in that were considered to be suitable for plant growth on Anne Arundel County, to Leges Point on Gunpowder the Susquehanna Flats during 1958. By 1961, the aggres- Neck in Harford County. The latter area includes the sive introduced plant was encountered at 89% of the Patapsco River, Back River, Middle River, and Seneca stations (Bayley and others 1978). The extent of the Creek and the downstream section of the Gunpowder predominant native species of submerged plants re- River. Minor areas are: the upstream sections of the mained relatively constant during this period of rapid estuaries of the Magothy River and the Severn River and colonization by the Eurasian watermilfoil. During 1962, the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay in Kent County, however, the beds of milfoil spread and became more from Swan Point to Worton Point. dense, and the extent of all of the native species declined Except for sections that have been polluted severely dramatically. with domestic or industrial wastes, the shallower parts of Subsequent to 1962, the population of Eurasian water- all of these areas support luxuriant stands of submerged milfoil declined more or less regularly from year to year. plants. In some places, beds of submerged plants had Concurrently, stands of the native wildcelery, naiads, and been destroyed, at times, by waterfowl, by clam-dredging common waterweed increased in number and size. By operations or by control measures designed to clear areas 1966, the population of wildcelery was judged to be more for swimming or boating. Redhead pondweed, wildcel- than half as great as its pre- 1962 levels, and from 1966 to ery, and wigeongrass were the most abundant plants. 1971 wildcelery was more aburidant than Eurasian Sago pondweed, grassleaf pondweed, horned pondweed, watermilfoil. southern naiad, common waterweed, stoneworts, and The general trend toward recovery that was observed several kinds of red algae also were relatively common during the mid- and late 1960's was restricted primarily and widely distributed. Curlyleaf pondweed and coontail to areas in which the water was less than 4.5 feet deep at occurred in a few, scattered patches. In the Potomac times of mean low water. The factors that were respon- estuary, Eurasian watermilfoil formed dense, nearly pure sible for the reduction in the amount of submerged stands in sheltered coves and in the tidewater segments vegetation in areas of deeper water are unknown. It of tributary streams. appears, however, that the increased turbidity of the The shallower parts of most of the brackish estuarine water, with the concomitant reduction in the penetration bays of the Upper Chesapeake Region supported exten- of light, may be the primary deterrent to the survival of sive, widely distributed beds of submerged plants submerged plants in these habitats. (Stewart 1962). Wigeongrass was the most abundant The recovery of the submerged vegetation was termi- species (Phillip and Brown 1965; Orth 1975); redhead nated abruptly by the effects of tropical storm Agnes pondweed and sago pondweed also were principal com- which passed through the Chesapeake Bay region during ponents of these beds. Eelgrass was abundant in several June 1972 (Anderson and others 1973). The populations areas. Other species that were common locally include: of all the submerged plants on the Susquehanna Flats common waterweed, sealettuce, enteromorpha, and two virtually were annihilated and they remained low or three kinds of red algae. Horned pondweed grew in throughout the remainder of the period of observations some areas in scattered patches, and Eurasian watermil- (Bayley and others 1978). foil was abundant in many coves and tributaries in the Prior to the regional decline that followed tropical Potomac River estuary. storm Agnes, the abundance of submerged aquatic plants The tidal creeks, guts, and ponds in the marshes that varied greatly from place to place in the fresh estuarine fringe the moderately brackish bays of the Upper Chesa- bay marshes of the Upper Chesapeake Region (Stewart peake Region generally are highly turbid, and their silt- 1962). Submerged vegetation was sparse and scattered in laden waters scour the bottoms and sides of the channels. 39 Apparently as a result of these conditions, submerged the average depth of the water and in the average plants are absent from, or are relatively scarce in, these temperature of the water during the four-year period. habitats (Stewart 1962). In permanent ponds on the The most marked difference, however, was in salinity. marsh surface, however, wigeongrass generally was the Atcording to the authors, "Salinity decreased uniformly predominant plant. Stoneworts were abundant in some and significantly over the ... [northern section of the] Bay ponds, and sago pondweed was present in a few ponds. by an average of 5.78 ppt from 1971 to 1972." The Eelgrass, wigeongrass, and sealettuce were the most average salinity during 1972 was 15.44 ppt. The average widely distributed submerged plants in the highly brack- decreased after tropical storm Agnes to 9.66 ppt during ish estuarine bays of the Upper Chesapeake Region 1972. It increased to 10.37 ppt in 1973 and to 13-49 ppt (Stewart 1962). Sago pondweed was abundant in several during 1974. The transparency of the water was not places; horned pondweed and enteromorpha occurred in measured during 1971. During 1972 and 1973, the aver- very widely scattered patches; and two or three kinds of age transparencies were nearly equal. The average trans- red algae were common and widely distributed over the parency during 1974, however, was significantly greater. bay bottoms. Wigeo .ngrass also was abundant in the Salinity and turbidity, therefore, appear to be related to ponds and creeks in the marshes that adjoin the highly the growth, distribution, and abundance of submerged brackish bays. plants. The shallow sections of the saline, coastal bays sup- ported small, scattered beds of sealettuce, enteromorpha, and several kinds of red and brown algae (Stewart 1962). 1.3 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS Prior to a widespread dieback during the 1920's and early BY COUNTIES AND WATERSHEDS 1930's, extensive stands of eelgrass were characteristic of these coastal bays (Cottarn and Munro 1954). A gradual The area covered by each type of wetland vegetation regrowth of eelgrass in many parts of Chesapeake Bay was estimated by grid counts on the approximately 2,000 was documented from aerial photographs by Burkholder wetland photomaps. A standard grid was used on which and Doheny (1968). During the 1970's, however, large two series of lines, spaced 1.04 inches apart, were areas of eelgrass have been destroyed by the rooting of inscribed at right angles to form a series of squares. At cownose rays which feed on mollusks in the underlying the scale of the photomaps (I inch equals 200 feet), each sediments (Orth 1975). square represented an area of I acre. Sealettuce generally grows at the mouths of tidal To estimate the acreages of the types that were creeks in the saline wetlands adjacent to the coastal bays. represented on a particular photomap, the grid was Sparse stands of wigeongrass grow in permanent ponds placed over the map. The point at the top, left side of that dot the wetlands, and the stands may be better each square on the grid was considered to represent that developed in artificial ponds that have been formed square, or to characterize the 1 acre outlined by the behind gut plugs or small dams. square. One technician examined the grid to determine During August and September of the four years from the type of vegetation that was present at each gridpoint 1971 through 1974, Kerwin, Munro, and Peterson in wetland areas. A second technician recorded these (1976) sampled the submerged vegetationa't 613 to 629 determinations by vegetation type. stations in Chesapeake Bay north of the mouth of the Grid points that fell in mixed types of vegetation (i.e., Potomac River. Their study began in the year prior to 41/51/47) were recorded as the predominant type of the tropical storm Agnes (June 1972) and continued for two mixture (e.g., 41 in this example). Rosernallow and smart- years after that storm. weeds commonly were recorded as associated types in Submerged vegetation was found at 2996 of the sta- mixed stands, so the calculated acreages of these types tions that were sampledduring 1971, butatonly 21% of understate the actual areas on which they occur. the stations during 1972 and at 10176 during 1973. The The scheme that was utilized to designate watersheds decline of submerged vegetation apparently was checked and to number sub-basins is illustrated in Figure 39. The after 1973, because plants were found at 15% of the acreages of coastal wetlands in these watersheds are stations during 1974. summarized in Table 13. These data indicate that 66.4% Throughout the period, although its frequencies varied of the coastal wetlands of Maryland are concentrated in from year to year, wigeongrass was the most common the watersheds of the Pocomoke River, Nanticoke River, species of submerged flowering plant. telgrass was the and Choptank River on the Eastern Shore. The acreages second most common species during 1971 and 1972, but of the individual wetland types are summarized for each it declined to fourth most common in 1973. Redhead watershed in Table 14, and these measurements are pondweed was the third most common species in 1971. expressed as percentages in Table 15. After tropical storm Agnes in 1972, sago pondweed More than a third (36.4%) of the coastal wetlands of became the third most common flowering plant. In 1973 Maryland are included in Dorchester County, and more and 1974, redhead pondweed was the second most com- than a quarter (26.096) are located in Somerset County mon species. Sago pondweed remained as the third (Table 16). The acreages of the 35 types of wetland ranked species in 1973, but eelgrass became third most vegetation are analyzed by county in Table 17, and the common during 1974. measurements are expressed as percentages in Table 18. Environmental measures indicated slight variations in 40 1.4. THE FLORA OF THE WETLANDS This list is arranged taxonomically, and it is annotated to characterize briefly the salinity regimes in which most of The vascular plants of Maryland were cataloged by the species grow. There are no descriptions, however, of Norton and Brown (1946). Although these authors vegetation types or of their components. included all of the larger plants that occur in the coastal An annotated list of the plants that were collected wetlands, their list does not specify habitats or localities from twelve marsh areas in the Maryland section of the from which the plants were collected, and it does not Chesapeake estuary was. compiled by Thompson (1974). consider vegetation types. Although this checklis t is not a complete flora of the A comprehensive flora of the intertidal zone of Chesa- intertidal zone, it includes 453 species of vascular plants peake Bay was prepared by Krauss and others (1970). which represent 79 families. -13-06 0214-03 ....... 11021308 02.13.07 702-13-09 02-14-2 @02, r 0 . 3.04 _4 @SHINGTON J02-0-11 o 0244.01 02-1303 7_ 02-1310 0 A@' 6 -- J. 'I -- 'k Figure 39. Major watersheds and corresponding sub-basin designation numbers in the tidewater counties of Maryland. Code numbers are defined in Table 13. Table 13. Total area of coastal wetlands in the major watersheds of Maryland. The measurements are expressed in terms of acres and as percentages of the total area of coastal wetlands in the State. SUB-BASIN DESIGNATION WATERSHED ACRES PERCENTAGE 02-12-02 Lower Susquehanna River 841 0.3 02-13-01 Coastal Area 17,225 6.6 02-13-02 Pocomoke River 53,246 20.4 02-13-03 Nanticoke River 83,409 31.9 02-13-04 Choptank River 36,877 14.1 02-13-05 Chester River 16,204 6.2 02-13-06 Elk River 3,848 1.5 02-13-07 Bush River 5,992 2.3 02-13-08 Gunpowder River 2,599 1.0 02-13-09 Patapsco River 819 0.3 02-13-10 West Chesapeake Bay 3,419 1.3 02-13-11 Patuxent River 6,773 2.6 02-13-99 Chesapeake Bay 21,321 8.2 02-14-01 Lower Potomac River 8,438 3.2 02-14-02 Washington Metropolitan Area 298 0.1 Total 261,309 100.0 41 Table 14. Acreages of the 35 types of coastal wetland vegetation in the 15 major watersheds of Maryland. The letter "a" indicates that stands of that type were present, but were not measured by the method of estimation. ACREAGE TOTAL TYPE LSus CstA Poco Nant Chop Ches Elk Bush Gunp Ptap WChB Ptux ChBa LPot Wash BY TYPE Shrub Swamp Category 11 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 10 25 0 7 0 51 12 4 0 1 0 0 0 120 11 11 1 0 339 0 7 30 524 13 1 29 75 897 150 34 482 52 13 1 22 97 0 167 5 2,025 Wooded Swamp Category 21 0 2 4,152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,154 22 4 35 2,884 7,024 1,066 19 144 103 4 0 2 14 0 12 80 11,391 23 0 4 159 866 133 0 0 73 0 0 1 6 0 11 0 1,253 Fresh Marsh Category 30 9 4 454 360 241 19 312 95 99 89 7 889 0 252 94 2,924 31 0 0 143 769 597 6 21 17 5 0 a 0 132 0 26 58 1,774 32 6 0 77 1,254 945 238 497 459 144 21 0 128 0 155 1 3,925 33 2 0 0 169 7 5 61 145 25 0 1 15 0 0 1 431 34 13 0 166 1,394 1,035 473 1,248 2,442 1,064 256 14 714 2 186 11 9,018 35 0 0 105 44 52 10 113 657 212 12 0 25 0 26 0 1,256 36 0 0 3 196 26 0 112 154 39 0 0 237 0 0 9 776 37 0 0 0 1,041 145 23 25 906 393 89 0 73 0 104 9 2,808 38 0 0 348 386 186 246 0 239 63 4 0 122 0 310 0 1,904 39 1 0 0 32 3 20 104 139 71 94 0 270 13 0 0 747 Brackish High Marsh Category 41 0 18 10,716 9,775 5,630 1,759 7 2 0 18 442 384 1,557 764 0 31,072 42 0 50 2,441 1,582 2,965 1,694 4 2 1 17 350 337 383 733 0 10,559 43 0 0 13,177 15,156 8,909 296 0 0 0 0 0 2 11,036 109 0 48,685 44 0 46 186 2,212 674 685 97 0 22 34 615 838 0 282 0 5,691 45 0 2 4 52 26 19 34 0 0 1 12 42 7 82 0 281 46 0 23 251 1,144 474 72 0 139 23 5 15 11 3 5 0 2,165 47 0 348 1,102 15,078 812 338 26 0 18 6 60 362 15 800 0 18,965 48 0 0 868 4,295 621 227 0 0 0 2 19 865 1 1,298 0 8,196 49 0 26 34 481 92 169 11 0 1 29 80 25- 1 6 0 955 Brackish Low Marsh Category 51 0 26 5,066 15,731 1,490 505 11 0 14 61 424 449 528 774 0 25,079 Saline High Marsh Category 61 0 2,304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,304 62 0 1,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,780 63 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 Saline Low Marsh Category 71 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 72 0 9,449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,449 Open Water Category 80 0 638 1,689 2,080 344 213 100 13 17 16 55 177 178 36 0 5,556 Mudflat/Sandbar/ Beach Category 81 2 136 7 214 46 176 25 46 33 58 47 15 46 1 0 a 852 91 2 503 81 52 91 33 12 38 7 4 11 8 51 52 0 945 Submerged Aquatics Category 101 797 1,586 9,057 1,098 10,109 8,925 282 259 320 1 1,232 51 7,500 1,092 0 42,309 Untyped Wetlands 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 1,141 0 1,289 42 Table 15. Percentage of the wetlands in each major watershed that is composed of a particular type. The letter "a" indicates that stands of that type were present, but were not measured by the method of estimation. PERCENTAGE TYPE LSus CstA Poco Nant Chop Ches Elk Bush Gunp Ptap WChB Ptux ChBa LPot Wash Shrub Swamp Category 11 0 0 0 0 <0. 1 0 0 <0. 1 0 0 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0 12 0.5 0 <0.1 0 0 0 3.1 0.2 0A 0.1 0 5.0 0 0.1 10.1 13 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.4 0.2 12.5 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.6 1.4 0 2.0 1.7 Wooded Swamp Category 21 0 <0. 1 7.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0.5 0.2 5.4 8.4 2.9 0.1 3.7 1.7 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 26.8 23 0 <0. 1 0.3 1.0 0.4- 0 0 1.2 0 0 <0. 1 0.1 - 0- 0.1 0 Fresh Marsh Category 30 1.1 <0. 1 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.1 8.1 1.6 3.8 10.9 0.2 13.1 0 3.0 31.5 31 0 0 0.3 0.9 1.6 <0. 1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0. 0 1.9 0 0.3 19.5 32 0.7 0 0.1 -1.5 2.6 1.5 12.9 7.7 5.5 2.6 0 1.9 0 1.8 0.3 33 0.2 0 0 0.2 <0. I <0. 1 1.6 2.4 1.0 0 <0. 1 0.2 0 0 0.3 34 1.5 0 0.3 1.7 2.8 2.9 32.4 40.8 40.9 31.3 0.4 10.5 <0. 1 2.2 3.7 35 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.9 11.0 8.2 1.5 0 0.4 0 0.3 0 36 0 0 <0. 1 0.2 0.1 0 2.9 2.6 1.5 0 0 3.5 0 0 3.0 37 0 0 0 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 15.1 15.1 10.9 0 1.1 0 1.2 3.0 38 0 0 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.5 0 4.0 2.4 0.5 0 1.8 0 3.7 0 39 0.1 0 0 <0. I <0. 1 0:1 2.7 2.3 2,7 11.5 0 4.0 0.1 0 0 Brackish High Marsh Category 41 0 0.1 20.1 11.7 15.3 10.9 0.2 <0. 1 0 2.2 12.9 5.7 7.3 9.1 0 42 0 0.3 4.6 1.9 8.0 10.5 0.1 <0. I <0, 1 2.1 10.2 5.0 1.8 8.7 0 43 0 0 24.7 18.2 24.2 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 <0. 1 51.8 1.3 0 44 0 0.3 0.3 2.7 1.8 4.2 2.5 0 0,8 4.2 18.0 12.4 0 3.3 0 45 0 <0. I <0. 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0 0 0.1 0.4 0.6 <0. 1 1.0 0 46 0 0.1 0.5 1.4 1.3 0.4 0 2.3 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 <0. 1 0.1 0 47 0 2.0 2.1 18.1 2.2 2.1 0.7 0 0.7 0.7 1.9 5.3 0.1 9.5 0 48 0 0 1.6 5.1 1.7 1.4 0 0 0 0.2 0.6 12.8 <0. 1 15.4 0 49 0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.3 0 <0. 1 3.5 2.3 0.4 <0. 1 0.1 0 Brackish Low Marsh Category 51 0 0.2 9.5 18.9 4.0 3.1 0.3 0 0.5 7.4 12.4 6.6 2.5 9.2 0 Saline High Marsh Category 61 0 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 10.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saline Low Marsh Category 71 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- -0 0 72 0 54.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Open Water Category 80 0 3.7 3.2 2.5 0.9 1.3 2.6 0.2 0,7 2.0 1.6 2.6 0.8 0.4 Mudflat/Sandbar/ Beach Category 81 0.2 0.8 <0. 1 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.8 L3 7.1 1.4 0.2 0.2 <0. 1 0 91 0.2 2.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 o.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0 Submerged Aquatic Category 101 94.8 9.2 17.0 1.3 27.4 55.1 7.3 4.3 12.3 0.1 36.0 0.8 35.2 12.9 0 Untyped Wetlands 0 0 0 <0. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 13.5 0 43 Table 16. Total area of coastal wetlands in the tidewater COUNTY ACRES PERCENTAGE counties of Maryland. The measurements are expressed in terms of acres and as percentages of the total area of Harford 7,036 2.7 coastal wetlands in the State. Kent 7,974 3.1 COUNTY ACRES PERCENTAGE Prince George's 2,801 1.1 Anne Arundel 3,643 1.4 Queen Anne's 7,912 3.0 Baltimore 2,400 0.9 Somerset 67,990 26.0 Calvert 2,695 1.0 St. Mary's 4,176 1.6 Caroline 3,392 1.3 Talbot 9,183 3.5 Cecil 3,212 1.2 Wicomico 13,753 5.3 Charles 5,769 2.2 Worcester 24,156 9.2 Dorchester 95,217 36.4 Total 261,309 100.0 Table 17. Acreages of the 35 types of coastal wetland vegetation in the 16 tidewater counties of Maryland. The letter "a" indicates that stands of that type were present, but were not measured by the method of estimation. ACREAGE TOTAL TYPE AnAr Bait Calv Caro Cec Char Dor Harf Kent PrGe QuAn Somr StMa Talb Wico Worc BYTYPE Shrub Swamp Category 11 35 0 0 3 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 51 12 84 10 6 0 124 1 0 13 0 263 0 1 22 0 0 0 524 13 32 6 IS 2 157 165 906 59 354 40 4 67 37 27 110 41 2,025 Wooded Swamp Category 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 559 0 0 0 3,595 4,154 22 16 3 0 871 77 11 5,727 104 83 80 7 519 1 188 1,304 2,400 11,391 23 1 0 0 0 0 3 806 73 0 0 0 181 14 0 171 4 1,253 Fresh Marsh Category 30 228 147 25 196 305 248 173 127 26 740 7 63 12 40 180 407 2,924 31 43 3 6 466 10 26 430 19 17 141 0 0 0 118 352 143 1,774 32 31 129 79 572 413 155 283 496 229 -20 86 61 0 381 952 38 3,925 33 14 25 0 2 61 0 12 146 5 3 0 11 0 6 146 0 431 34 151 835 195 393 904 186 934 2,909 636 421 152 132 0 667" 400 103 9,018 35 6 81 11 7 60 18 11 800 54 8 9 26 8 44 33 80 1,256 36 113 35 28 6 112 0 132 158 0 105 0 0 0 5 79* 3 776 37 0 431 4 35 25 104 1,038 957 23 78 0 0 0 110 3 0 2,808 38 0 59 14 12 0 310 85 247 223 108 23 190 0 172 284 177 1,904 39 23 140 66 1 98 0 7 176 17 183 9 1 0 2 24 0 747 Brackish High Marsh Category 41 315 47 303 1 0 349 12,728 2 706 22 935 13,236 605 552 1,253 18 31,072 42 313 20 190 13 0 276 3,361 2 524 2 897 3,057 640 1,076 133 55 10,559 43 0 0 2 0 0 7 23,131 0 7 0 281 22,543 102 122 2,490 0 48,685 44 369 30 664 196 0 237 2,330 0 192 171 493 197 320 380 66 46 5,691 45 12 8 7 1 0 43 26 0 34 0 15 4 74 27 28 2 281 46 9 20 10 120 0 0 1,301 150 52 0 18 253 12 80 112 28 2,165 47 21 39 220 203 0 669 14,891 0 296 126 65 1,656 186 46 199 348 18,965 48 21 0 447 232 0 970 2,167 0 13 274 212 1,093 472 314 1,981 0 8,196 49 82 4 36 0 0 3 488 0 61 8 105 38 9 78 17 26 955 Brackish Low Marsh Category 51 380 31 331 35 0 320 12,280 0' 398 8 104 6,901 653 341 3,271 26 25,079 Saline High Marsh Category 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,304 2,304 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,780 1,780 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 121 44 Table 17. Acreages of the 35 types of coastal wetland vegetation in the 16 tidewater counties of Maryland. The letter "a" indicates that stands of that type were present, but were not measured by the method of estimation (Concluded). ACREAGE TOTAL TYPE AnAr Bait Calv Caro Cec Char Dor Harf Kent PrGe QuAn Somr StMa Talb Wico Worc BY TYPE Saline Low Marsh Category 71 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 95 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09,449 9,449 Open Water Category 80 55 10 16 22-- 0 16 2,271 37 140 0 134 1,829 189 131 68 638 5,556 Mudfla r/Sandba r/ Beach Category 81 46 91 16 3 03 0 210 48 85 0 107 18 1 20 71 136 852 91 11 17 1 0 5 0 98 40 8 0 21 119 59 37 26 503 945 Submerged Aquatic Category 101 1,232 179 0 0861 383 9,391 472 3,791 0 4,228 15,208 760 4,214 01,590 42,309 Untyped Wetlands 0 0 0 0 01,262 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 -1,289 Table 18. Percentage of the coastal wetlands in each county that is composed of a particular type. The letter "a" indicates that stands of that type were present, but were not measured by the method of estimation. PERCENTAGE TYPE AnAr Bait Calv Caro Cec Char Dor Harf Kent PrGe QuAn Somr StMa Talb Wico Worc Shrub Swamp Category I 1 1.0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 <0. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 12 2.3 0.4 0.2 0 3.9 <0. 1 0 0.2 0 9.4 0 <0. 1 0.5 0 0 0 13 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.1 4.9 2.9 1.0 1.1 4.4 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.3 0 0.2 Wooded Swamp Category 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 14.9 22 0.4 0.1 0 25.7 2.4 0.2 6.0 1.5 1.0 2.9 0.1 0.8 <0. 1 2.0 9.5 9.9 23 <0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.8 1.0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 1.2 <0. I Fresh Marsh Category 30 6.3 6.1 0.9 5.8 9.5 4.3 0.2 1.8 0.3 26.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 oA 1.3 1.7 31 1.2 0.1 0.2 13.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 5.0 0 0 0 1.3 2.6 0.6 32 0.9 5.4 2.9 16.9 12.9 2.7 0.3 7.0 2.9 0.7 1.1 0.1 0 4.2 6.9 0.2 33 0.4 1.0 0 0.1 1.9 0 <0. 1 2.1 0.1 0.1 0 <0. 1 0 0.1 1.1 .0 34 4.1 34.8 7.2 11.6 28.1 3.2 1.0 41.3 8.0 15.0 1.9 0.2 0 7.3 2.9 0.4 35 0.2 3.4 0.4 0.2 1.9 0.3 <0.1 11.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 <0. 1 0.2 -0.5 0.2 0.3 36 3.1 1.5 1.0 0.2 3.5 0 0.1 2.2 0 3.7 0 0 0 0.1 0.6 <0. 1 37 0 18.0 0.1 1.0 0.8 1.8 1.1 13.6 0.3 2.8 0 0 0 1.2 <0. 1 0 38 0 2.5 0.5 0.4 0 5.4 0.1 3.5 2.8 3.9 0.3 0.3 0 1.9 2.1 0.7 39 0.6 5.8 2.4 <0. 1 1.0 0 <0. 1 2.5 0.2 6.5 0.1 <0. 1 0 <0. 1 0.2 0 Brackish High Marsh Category 41 8.6 2.0 11.2 <0. 1 0 6.0 13.4 <0. 1 8.9 0.8 11.8 19.5 14.5 6.0 9.1 0.1 42 8.6 0.8 7.1 0.4 0 4.8 3.5 <0. 1 6.6 0.1 11.3 4.5 15.3 11.7 1.0 0.2 43 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 24.3 0 0.1 0 3.6 33.2 2.4 1.3 18.1 0 44 10.1 1.3 24.6 5.8 0 4.1 2.4 0 2.4 6.1 6.2 0.3 7.7 4.1 0.5 0.2 45 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0 0.7 --0.1 0 0.4 0 0.2 <0. 1 1.9 0.3 0.2 <0.1 46 0.2 0.8 0.4 1.5 0 0 1.4 2.1 0.7 0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.1 47 0.6 1.6 8.2 6.0 0 11.6 15.6 0 3.7 4.5 0.8 2.4 4.5 0.5 1.4 1.4 48 0.6 0 16.6 6.8 0 16.8 2.3 0 0.2 9.8 2.7 1.6 11.3 3.4 14.4 0 49 2.3 0.2 1.3 0 0 0.1 0.5 0 0.8 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 Brackish Low Marsh Category 51 10.4 1.3 12.3 1.0 0 5.5 12.9 0a 5.0 0.3 1.3 10.2 15.6 3.7 23.9 0.1 Saline High Marsh Category 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.5 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.4 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 45 Table 18. Percentage of the coastal wetlands in each county that is composed of a particular type. The letter "a" indicates that stands of that type were present, but were not measured by the method of estimation (Concluded). PERCENTAGE TYPE AnAr Balt Calv Caro Cec Char Dor Harf Kent PrGe QuAn Somr StMa Talb Wico Worc Saline Low Marsh Category 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39.1 Open Water Category 80 1.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0 0.3 2.4 0.5 1.8 0 1.7 2.7 4.5 1.4 0.5 2.6 Mudflat/Sa ndbar/ Beach Category 81 1.3 3.8 04 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.7 1.1 0 1.4 <0. 1 <0. 1 0.2 0.5 o.6 91 0.3 0.7 <0, 1 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0 0.3 0.2 1.4 0.4 0.2 2.1 Submerged Aquatics Category 101 33.8 7.5 0 0 26.9 6.6 9.9 6.7 47.5 0 53.4 22.4 18.2 45.9 0 6.6 Untyped Wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 21.9 0 0 0 0 0 <0. 1 0 0 0 0 1.5. PREVIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS may be relatively abundant in the vegetation are OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS arrowarum, grasses, pickerelweed, sedges, spike- rushes, smartweeds, and Walter millet. OF MARYLAND Type III. Threesquare type The earliest detailed study of the wetlands of Mary- The threesquare type is restricted to the upper sec- land, including those of the coastal zone, was conducted tions of the Blackwater River and its tributaries. during 1908 by the Maryland Conservation Commission Stands of Olney threesquare cover most of the area (1910). This survey was initiated to identify areas that in which this type is recognized. Small stands of 11 should be made available for agricultural purposes." cattail may occur in the matrix of threesquare, and Wetlands in the coastal area were categorized as fresh- big cordgrass grows in narrow stands along the water swamps or saltwater marshes. banks of the larger streams. Tidal fluctuations are During the early 1950's, the Department of Natural irregular, but areas of this type seldom are flooded Resources and the Department of Research and Educa- deeply. The water ranges from slightly brackish in tion mapped the marshes of the Eastern Shore and the the most inland sections to moderately brackish in Atlantic coast of Maryland (Nicholson and Van Deusen the lower part of the Blackwater River drainage 1953, 1954). The marshes were categorized according to area. Spikegrass, meadow cordgrass, smooth cord- six general types. Species of plants that form substantial grass, needlerush, and stout threesquare are of portions of the vegetation apparently were the key iden- minor importance in the vegetation. tification features. The types used were: Type IV. Threesquare-saltmeadow-needlerush type Olney threesquare, needlerush, and meadow cord- Type L Cattail-aquatic type grass occur in about equal proportions in the infre- This type occurs in the upper reaches of fresh to quently flooded areas characterized as Type IV very slightly brackish, tidal rivers and streams. The marshes. The threesquare typically grows in shal- abundance of cattail varies, but it forms thick, low, low sites which are moister than the remainder extensive stands in some areas. Pickerelweed, wild- of the marsh. Spikegrass, smooth cordgrass, big rice, arrowarum, spikerushes, sedges, grasses, smart- cordgrass, and stout threesquare also contribute to weeds, and Walter millet also contribute to the the vegetation. emergent vegetation. Type V. Ne'edlermsh-saltmeadow type Type 11. Threesquare- cattail type The sites on which Type V marshes occur are rela- Marshes that are similar to the cattail-aquatic type, tively dry and are flooded only occasionally by the but contain Olney threesquare, meadow cordgrass, tides. Needlerush and meadow cordgrass are pre- and smooth cordgrass, which are more characteristic dominant in the vegetation, but marshelder and of brackish areas, are classed as Type Il wetlands. groundselbush are common on ridges of higher These marshes occur along the slightly brackish ground. Switchgrass also may cover large areas of sections of the larger tidal rivers and streams. Big the marshes adjacent to their upland boundaries. cordgrass forms stands along the banks of the Stout threesquare and spikegrass may be common streams in most of these areas. Other plants that locally. 46 Type VL Saltmarsh type Type 13-Deep Fresh Marshes Areas along the seaside bays of the Atlantic Ocean At high water slack, the soils in these marshes are in Worcester County are flooded regularly by saline covered by water 0.5 to 3 feet deep. Wildrice, pick- waters. Smooth cordgrass, which is the most abun- erelweed, spatterdock, and cattail are the principal dant plant on these areas, may grow to heights of 2 components of the vegetation. to 3 feet along the banks of creeks and ditches, but Type 14-Open Fresh Water on other sites it seldom exeeds I foot in height. This type is formed by shallow, more or less Meadow cordgrass grows near the upland boundar- enclosed tidal ponds and pondlike areas that are ies of these marshes, and marshelder and groundsel- susceptible to artificial drainage or filling. Pond- bush occupy low ridges and knolls of higher ground weeds, naiads, muskgrass, or other submerged which dot the marshes. plants may occupy the bottoms. As part of a nationwide survey of wetlands, the United Coastal Saline A reaf States Fish and Wildlife Service conducted an inventory Type 16-Salt Meadows of the wetlands of Maryland during 1953 and 1954 (Office Salt meadows seldom are flooded by the tides, but of River Basin Studies 1954). The Service employed a the soil is saturated throughout the growing season. slight modification of a scheme devised by Martin and Meadow cordgrass and spikegrass are the principal others (1953) that was designed to be useful in the components of the vegetation, but threesquares evaluation of wetlands in regard to wildlife utilization. grow in the fresher sections. This scheme was republished in Circular 39 of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Shaw and Fredine 1956). Circular Type 17-Irregularly Flooded Salt Marshes 39 is a summary report on the results of the nationwide Wind tides occasionally flood the soils in marshes of survey, and includes photographs, estimates of acreage, this type. Needlerush is predominant in the vegeta- and range maps for the various wetland types. This tion, and wigeongrass grows in many of the ponds report has been distributed widely, and the Martin that are scattered through the marshes. scheme outlined in it has been used by many field Type 18-Regularly Flooded Salt Marshes workers, principally wildlife biologists, during the past The soils in marshes of this type are covered by two decades. water 0.5 feet or more in depth at mean high water The primary features that serve as the basis for classi- slack. Smooth cordgrass is the principal component fication in the Martin system are: The geographic loca- of the vegetation. tion of the wetland (inland, or non-tidal; coastal, or tidal); salinity (fresh; saline); the presence or absence of Type 19-Sounds and Bays vegetation on the surface (swamp or marsh; open water); For the survey of Maryland wetlands, this type was the depth of water during the growing season (shallow; limited to mud-flats which are exposed at mean low deep); the frequency of flooding by tides (irregular; regu- water slack. These areas generally are devoid of lar); and the growth form of the predominant plants larger plants. (shrub swamp; wooded swamp; marsh). The following The maps of the Eastern Shore and Atlantic coastal types were utilized in the coastal areas of Maryland for marshes that had been prepared by the State agencies the Federalsurvey: were adapted for use in the Federal inventory. Most Inland Fresh Areas marshes in Types 1, 11, and III of the Nicholson-Van Type 6-Shrub Swamps Deusen Scheme were included in the Federal Type 12. The soil normally is saturated during the growing Deep marshes in Type 1, which were identified by refer- season, and may be covered by water to a depth of ence to the United States Geological Survey topographic 0.5 feet. Alders, willows, and buttonbush are promi- maps, were placed in Federal Type 13. Approximately nent in the vegetation. 67176 of the Type IV marshes and 50% of the Type V Type 7- Wooded Swamps marshes were assigned to Federal Type 16; and the The soil normally is saturated to within a few inches remainders were classed as Type 17 wetlands. No expla- from the surface throughout the growing season, nation of the determinants used to make these allocations was given. All Type VI marshes were categorized as and may be covered by water to a depth as great as 1 Federal Type 18 wetlands. I foot. Red maple, sweetgum, cypress, pin oak, and During the period fromjuly 1955 tojanuary 1956, the river birch are common trees. Maryland Game & Inland Fish Commission (1956) con- Coastal Fresh Areas ducted an "inventory of potential wetland developmen- T e 12-Shallow Fresh Marshes tal areas." Whereas the United States Fish and Wildlife Yp The soil is saturated throughout the growing sea- Service (Office of River Basin Studies 1954) had con- son, and may be covered by water as much as 0.5 foot ducted a survey of wetland areas in the Coastal Plain, deep at high water slack. Cattails, common reed, big and had limited the survey to areas that contain 40 acres cordgrass, arrowarum, threesquares, and panicgrass, or more, the Commission designed its study to be state- in nearly pure stands or in various mixtures, form wide and to survey areas of 0.5 acre or more which are of the bulk of the vegetation. importance to most species of game and fur-bearing 47 animals. Approximately one week was allocated for or less enclosed, tidal ponds or pondlike areas sus- work in each county. Inspections were made in the field ceptible to drainage or fill." Wigeongrass was added by one surveyor and a local game warden or wildlife field to pondweeds, naiads, coontail, waterweeds, and superintendent. Each wetland area was outlined on a muskgrasses in the list of submerged aquatic plants topograpic map, (scale, 1:62,500), and was rated as of that may be common at depths as great as 6 feet, and high, medium, or low value for various kinds of animals. wildcelery and milfoils were deleted. The areas also Continuous units of wetland were subdivided, insofar were described as being bordered by cattail, meadow as possible, according to the classification established by cordgrass, common reed, smooth cordgrass, myrtles, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Martin and marshelder, groundselbush, and threesquares. others 1953). Several of the federal types, however, were Type 16-Salt Meadows (Coastal) redefined slightly to adapt them more closely to condi- Meadow cordgrass and spikegrass were retained in tions in Maryland. In regard to areas that may be coastal the description of principal species, but blackrush wetlands, these changes were: was deleted. The description also was revised to Type 6-Shrub Swamp indicate that the main vegetation is interrupted by The description of the composition of the vegeta- patches of, or bordered by, smooth cordgrass, big tion of shrub swamps was expanded to include cordgrass, threesquares, needlerush, myrtles, marsh- young or cutover forests by adding "small maples elders, groundselbush, and panicgrasses. and sweetgums." Swamp rose was listed as another Type 17-Irregularly Flooded Salt Marshes type of shrub; dogwood and swamp privet were The Federal description was supplemented by a list deleted; and associated herbs, including tearthumb, of associated species. These are smooth cordgrass, beggarticks, beggarlice, jewelweed, joe-pye-weed, meadow cordgrass, and marshelder. loosestrife, and native grasses and sedges, were mentioned. Type 18-Regularly Flooded Salt Marshes Type 7- Wooded Swamp Meadow cordgrass, spikegrass, marshelder, bay- The Federal description of composition was deleted, berry, waxmyrtle, and glasswort were added to the and red maple, river birch, sweetgum, pin oak, and Federal list as associates of smooth cordgrass. cypress were listed as the principal trees. Sycamore, Type 19-Sounds and Bays oaks, tuliptree, blacklocust, eims, beech, ash, wal- The Federal definition of this type, "water of nuts, hickories, aspen, poplar, blackgum, and other variable depth," was discarded, and the type was oaks and maples were described as other important redefined as follows: "Mud flats exposed at mean trees that compose wooded swamps. Sweetbay, low tide; may be very sparsely vegetated with pond- pawpaw, holly, spicebush, winterberry, blackberry, weeds, wigeongrass, eelgrass, waterweeds, or coon- greenbrier, honeysuckle, and grapes were noted to tail." be present in the undergrowth as smaller trees, Coastal wetlands were identified in sixteen counties. shrubs, and vines. Herbaceous plants, including The data for shrub swamps (Type 6) and wooded lizardtail, nettle, beggarlice, burmarigolds, touch- swamps (Type 7), as well as for the coastal wetland types, me-not, and various grasses and sedges, were de- in these counties are totaled in Table 20. The 1956 survey scribed as components of the forest floor growth. tallied 237,032 acres of coastal marshes or 35,972 acres Type 12-Shallow Fresh Marsh (Coastal) more than did the 1954 Federal survey. This difference A new list of the principal component species was consisted of an increase in fresh (19,254 acres) and saline substituted for the Federal description. These (24,074 acres) marshes, and a decrease in brackish marsh marshes were described as composed mostly of cat- (7,356 acres). tails, common reed, big cordgrass, arrowarum, pick- During 1964, pursuant to a joint resolution from the erelweed, goldenclub, threesquares, panicgrasses, General Assembly, the Governor of Maryland appointed and rosemallows. Walter millet, swamp rose, rice a Commission on Hunting Spaces. The Commission was cutgrass, waterparsnip, waterhemp, meadow cord- charged with the responsibility to formulate recommen- dations for an expanded program of state action for the grass, smooth cordgrass, waxmyrtle, marshelder, continued preservation of lands to serve the increasing and groundselbush were listed as associated plants. demand for hunting areas open to the public. The Com- Type 13-Deep Fresh Marsh (Coastal) mission recognized the need for an inventory of the Waterlilies, arrowarum, goldenclub, smartweeds, current habitats of the principal game and fur-bearing and tearthumbs were added to the list of the princi- animals of the State, and requested the State Planning pal species of plants in the vegetation of these Department to conduct such an inventory. marshes. Open water areas within the marshes Henry W. Dill,jr., of th'e United States Department of were described as habitats for such submerged the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, initiated the plants as coontail and wildcelery, as well as for inventory during 1964 (Maryland State Planning Depart- pondweeds. ment 1965). Aerial photographs taken during the period Type 14-Open Fresh Water (Coastal) from 1962 to 1964 were utilized as the source of informa- This type was redefined to include "shallow, more tion. More than 2,500 plots, each containing 100 acres, 48 were established randomly on the photographs, and these tee made in the 1956 descriptions, and the slightly modi- represented a 476 sample of the total land area of Mary- fied names of the types it developed were: land. Habitats were categorized into sixteen classes, and Type 14-Coastal Open Fresh Water subclasses were recognized in the four forest classes. The This type was expanded to include "shallow but data on these habitat classes were summarized by six variable depth portions of open water along fresh subregions of the State. These subregions and the tidal rivers and sounds." smaller division within each of them do not correspond with political units or with watersheds of major streams. Type 18-Regularly Flooded Salt Marshes It is not possible, therefore, to compare the results of the Probably on the basis of the results of the 1956 1964/1965 investigation with those of the present sur- inventory, marshes of this type were considered to vey in any detail. be "located almost exclusively in estuaries in Wor- Wetland habitats were divided into five classes: cester County where the tidal range is influenced by wooded swamp, shrub swamp, fresh-water marsh, salt- the Atlantic Ocean." Wigeongrass, eelgrass, pond- water marsh, and agricultural wet meadow. The name weed, common waterweed, and coontail were said implies that salt-water marshes are tidal, but otherwise to occur in permanent open water in these marshes. there was no distinction between tidewater wetlands and Type 19-Submerged Lands inland (non-tidal) wetlands. In the original Federal system (Martin 1953), Type In total, 168,000 acres of salt-water marshes were 19 was defined as "Water of variable depth." The identified on the 1962/1964 photographs. The fact that Office of River Basin Studies (1954) and the Game the number is nearly equal to the total acreage of brackish and Inland Fish Commission (1956) included only and saline marshes that was determined by the present intertidal mud flats in this category. The Committee survey (165,397 acres) apparently is coincidental. Salt- redefined Type 19 to include the bottoms of "the water marshes were listed from two of the six subregions open waters of Chesapeake Bay proper and ... its that were recognized by the Maryland State Planning sounds, bays, tidal rivers, mud flats from mean low Department (1965). These two subregions include only tide seaward. Also included are the submerged lands seven of the eleven counties that contain 1,000 acres or under the waters of bays behind the barrier beach more of brackish and/or saline wetlands (Table 17). The islands on the ocean side of Worcester County." No extensive brackish tidal wetlands of Anne Arundel, Cal- measurements were made, however, of the areas of vert, Charles, and St. Mary's Counties, as well as smaller submerged wetlands included in Type 19. areas elsewhere, apparently were grouped with "fresh- The Martin scheme, and the modification used in the water marshes" in the study for the Commission on State surveys, recognizes only two classes of coastal Hunting Spaces. wetlands: fresh and saline. There is no category for In response to House Resolution No. 2 (1967), the brackish wetlands, and no specific definition is presented Department of Natural Resources, the Department of to distinguish between fresh and saline wetlands. The Economic and Community Development, and the Depart- decision on the classification of a particular area must be ment of State Planning joined to form the Wetlands intuitive, and is based on geographical location and the Technical Advisory Committee and to conduct an inven- floristic composition of the vegetation. Arrowarum, cat- tory of the wetlands of Maryland. The inventory was tail, goldenclub, and pickerelweed apparently are con- completed within two years. A draft report was prepared sidered to be characteristic plants in marshes within the by the Maryland Department of State Planning (1969), freshwater range. Blackrush, needlerush, and spikegrass and the final report was published during 1973 (Metzgar are characteristic of saline wetlands. Smooth cordgrass 1973). and meadow cordgrass, which usually are considered to The survey conducted during 1953/54 by the Federal be indicative of saline to brackish wetlands, also may Office of River Basin Studies considered only wetlands occur in association with Type 14 freshwater areas (Fish that covered 40 or more contiguous acres and the and Inland Game Commission 1956; Metzgar 1973). 1955/56 inventory of the Game and Inland Fish Com- Where they are prominent in the vegetation, however, mission included wetlands of 0.5 acres or more. The the cordgrasses would indicate areas to be categorized as 1967/69 State survey, in contras tconsidered wetlands of saline in the Martin system, 5 acres or more. The results of the survey by the Office of River Basin The Wetlands Technical Advisory Committee adopted Studies (1954) and of the inventories conducted by the the Federal scheme of classification of wetlands (Martin State agencies are not comparable. This is due only partly and others 1953), as modified by the Game and Inland to the difference between the minimum sizes of the areas Fish Commission (1956). The Committee modified the considered in the three investigations. Principally it is scheme further-to include shrub swamps (Type 6) and the reflection of inconsistencies between the applications wooded swamps (Type 7) in its Fresh Water Coastal of the typing scheme in the investigations. For example, Wetlands grouping, as well as in its Inland Wetlands nearly 3,000 acres were considered to be Deep Fresh grouping. No separate accounting was made, however, Marshes (Type 13) by the Federal surveyors and the of those areas of Types 6 and 7 which are affected by tides State Game Commission, but only 169 acres were classed (coastal) and those areas which are not affected (inland). as Type 13 by the State agencies in the 1967/69 The more significant of the changes that the Commit- inventory. 49 The previous classification schemes used in compre- salinity less than 0.5 ppt. The "Riverine System" includes hensive surveys of the coastal area of Maryland have tidally influenced mudflats, submersed aquatic vegeta- been intended to characterize wetland complexes, and tion beds, and non-persistent marshes subject to salinity not to detail the precise distribution of vegetation types. less than 0.5 ppt. These systems each are sub-divided It is not possible, therefore, to compare the earlier into classes and subclasses based upon substrate type and schemes directly with the official State Wetland Mapping vegetation life form. The final level of detail in this System utilized for vegetation type delineations during hierarchical scheme is "Dominance Type." All of the 1975/78. The diagram in Table 19, however, illustrates types recognized in Maryland's typing scheme are equiva- the general relationship between the three principal lent to Dominance Types in the Cowardin classification schemes. scheme. The reports by the Game and Inland Fish Commission (1956) and the State agencies (Metzgar 1973) include a Table 19. Correlation of types used during the 1975/1978 series of county maps to indicate the types and locations inventory of coastal wetlands with those used by Nichol- of the wetlands surveyed. In contrast, the results of the son and Van Deusen in 1953, by the Office of River Basin survey by the Office of River Basin Studies (1954) were Studies in 1953/1954, and the Wetlands Technical summarized tabularly, but no maps were produced to Advisory Committee during 1967/1969. show the locations and sizes of the specific wetlands. A generalized map was included but did not employ the classification scheme used during the survey. The map in Shrub Swamp Freshwater Brackish Saline the Federal report categorizes wetlands according to Swamp Forest Marshes Marshes Marshes their relative values to wildlife. In the State survey Types 11-13 21-23 30-39 41-51 61-72 (1973) only the general location of each wetland surveyed was shown, and each was numbered to correspond to an 1975/784 11 4 .0 inventory sheet which provided general information on 1953 the wetland type and habitat characteristics. Recently, a new scheme of wetland classification was introduced by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin and others 1979). This scheme has been app- 14- -IV_40. lied preliminarily in Maryland as part of the National Wetlands Inventory, begun in 1974. The coastal wet- r-vi--* lands of Maryland are encompassed by three systems of 1953/54 @4 6 "I-7-J this new scheme, depending upon form and salinity. The 12 -14 "Estuarine System" includes all tidally influenced wet- lands subject to an ocean-derived salinity 0.5 ppt or greater. The "Palustrine System" includes those tidally 1956 and 4 6 J*-7 -,I 1967/69 1*--12-14- 1_!_.4L16-18-* influenced swamps and persistent marshes subject to I Table 20. A comparison of estimates of the area (in acres) of the coastal wetlands of Maryland by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of River Basin Studies (1954), the Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission (1956), Stewart (1962), Metzgar (1973), and the present study (1978). The 1962 survey included an unstated number of acres in Delaware and Virginia. 1954 1956 1962 1973 1978 6 Shrub swamp (Types 11-13) 4,150. 3,847 a - 6,364a 2,600 8 Wooded swamp (Types 21-23) 72,890. 83,240. - 80,867. 16,798 Subtotal: Swamps (77,040). (87,087). (87,231). (19,398) 12 Coastal fresh marsh, shallow 64,410 83,756 - 73,272 13 Coastal fresh marsh, deep 2,920 2,828 - 208 Estuarine river marsh - - 67,000, - Fresh estuarine bay marsh 30,000 - Fresh marshes (Types 30-39) - 25,563 Subtotal: Fresh marsh (67,330) (86,584) (97,000) c (73,480) (25,563) 16 Coastal salt meadow 64,790 57,434 - 80,755 Brackish estuarine bay marsh - - 47,000 - - Brackish marshes (Types 41-51) - 151,648 Subtotal: Brackish marsh (64,790) (57,434) (47,000) (80,755) (151,648) 17 Salt marsh, irregularly flooded 53,050 72,411 67,711 IS Salt marsh, regularly flooded 15,890 20,603 14,614 50 Table 20. A comparison of estimates of the area (in acres) of the coastal wetlands of Maryland by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of River Basin Studies (1954), the Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission (1956), Stewart (1962), Metzgar (1973), and the present study (1978). The 1962 survey included an unstated number of acres in Delaware and Virginia (Concluded). 1954 1956 1962 1973 1978 Coastal embayed marshes - - 21,000 - - Salt estuarine bay marshes 113,000 - Saline marshes (Types 61-72) - 13,749 Subtotal: Saline marsh (68,940) (93,014) (134,000) (82,325) (13,749) Untyped coastal wetlands 1,289 Ponds (Type 80) 5,556 Subtotal: Coastal marsh (201,060) (237,032) (278,000) (236,560) (197,805) Mudflat (Type 81) 3,730 970 831 852 Sandbar/Beach (Type 91) - - - 945 14 Coastal open fresh water 4,770 10,973 1,022 - Submerged aquatic vegetation (Type 101) - - - 42,309 Subtotal: Coastal wetlands (228,958)b (268,373)b (297,398)b (257,811) b (261,309) Open tidewater areas Fresh estuarine bays, shoal waters - - 61,000 - - Fresh estuarine bays, deeper waters - - 96,000 - - Subtotal: Fresh bays - - (157,000) - - Slightly brackish estuarine bays, shoal waters - - 24,000 - - Slightly brackish estuarine bays, deeper waters - - 158,000 - - Subtotal: Slightly brackish bays - - (182,000) - - Brackish estuarine bays, shoal waters - - 70,000 - - Brackish estuarine bays, deeper waters - - 292,000 - - Subtotal: Brackish bays - - (362,000) - - Salt estuarine bays, shoal waters - - 196,000 - - Salt estuarine bays, deeper waters - - 727,000 - - Subtotal: Salt bays - - (923,000) - - Coastal bays, shoal waters - - 83,000 - - Coastal bays, deeper waters - - 2,000 - - Subtotal: Coastal bays - - (85,000) - - Oceanic littoral zone, shoal waters - - 1,000 - - Oceanic littoral zone, deeper waters - - 25,000 - - Subtotal: Oceanic littoral zone - - (26,000) - - Subtotal: Shoal waters - - (435,000) - - Subtotal: Deeper waters - - (1,300,000) - - 19 Permanently submerged lands (sounds and bays) - - 1,650,868 - - - (1,735,000) (1,650,868) - aTidal and nontidal. bFor tidal swamps, 19,398 acres were included in these totals. cFresh and brackish estuarine river marshes were not distinguished. 51 2. VALUES OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS The coastal wetlands of Maryland are of value to man The herbivores also are known as "primary consumers in many ways. Together with the tidewater creeks and because they are the first to utilize the energy stored by rivers, the coastal bays, and the ocean, they form an the plants. Predators that eat herbivores are the secon- extensive and aesthetically appealing system of open dary consumers. Still other predators that eat the secon- spaces. They are utilized as habitats by thousands of dary consumers are known as tertiary consumers. The species of plants and animals. Many of these species, number of links differs from one food chain to another, particularly the fish, shellfish, and furbearing animals, but it is not common to have fourth or higher level are of direct commercial value. Others provide recreation consumers. for fishermen, hunters, and naturalists. All of them pro- Organisms that feed on dead plant or animal material vide an important education and scientific resource. are termed scavengers if they are larger animals, sapro- The marshes, shrub swamps, swamp forests, and sub- votes if they are insects or other small, macroscopic merged vegetation of the coastal wetlands are the animals, saprophytes if they are macroscopic plants, and principal sources of food for the animals that inhabit the decomposers if they are microorganisms (as bacteria and waters of the Chesapeake Bay estuary, coastal bays, and many kinds of fungi), Any of these organisms that feed the nearshore ocean. The details of the production, on particulate organic material also may be referred to as distribution, and consumption of this food supply still detritivores. Omnivores are animals which have varied are not known, but the available information is adequate diets, which include plant material, animal prey, and in to demonstrate that a wealth of food is produced; that some cases, carrion or detritus. part of it is harvested directly by animals, but that much In most wetlands, the plant-herbivore-predator of the food is utilized in a finely pulverized form, as food web apparently utilizes a relatively small propor- detritus; and that the production of fish, shellfish, tion of the energy fixed by the green plants. The few waterfowl, furbearers, and other valuable forms of life measurements that have been made in Maryland (Cahoon would decline if the area of wetlands were reduced 1975; Stevenson, Cahoon, and Seaton 1976) arid else- significantly. where (Teal 1959; Smalley 1959, 1960; Kraeuter and Wolf 1974) suggest that 15 % or less of the plant energy in saline wetlands is harvested directly by insects, snails, 2.1 FOOD WEB OF THE COASTAL birds, mammals, and other animals. In the fresh wetlands WETLANDS of Maryland, the animals may harvest as much as 35 to 40% of the plant material that is produced. Food chains are series in which one organism is eaten Part of the plant material is decomposed in the by a second organism, the second organism is eaten by a wetlands or accumulates as organic material in the third, and so on. For example, grass is eaten by cows, and wetland soils. The dead plant material is fed upon by cows are eaten by human beings - this is a simple food fiddler crabs, snails, amphipods, polychaete worms, and chain from grass to man. other macroscopic invertebrates, as well as by great In any community of living organisms, there are many numbers of fungi, bacteria, and other microorganisms, food chains. One kind of organism may be fed upon by before it is broken down to its original inorganic compo- many species of predators, and most kinds of predators nents. Approximately 40% to 50% of the material pro- eat many different species of prey. Thus, the food chains duced by the wetland vegetation is consumed by this interlock at various points (species) and, conceptually, decomposer population. form a network, or food web. Another portion of the dead plant material that is The green plants of the wetlands, the grasses, rushes, utilized by decomposers -about 55,76 at maximum, but bulrushes, cattails, broadleaf herbs (forbs), shrubs, and typically less-is transported from the wetlands by tidal trees, as well as the submerged vascular plants and the currents. This material becomes detritus, and it is util- macroscopic and microscopic algae, are the original, or ized by a host of organisms that range from microscopic primary, food producers of the wetlands. With the water animals known as zo oplankton, to shellfish and energy derived from sunlight, these green plants com- fish. Detritus is described in greater detail in Section 2.3 bine carbon dioxide and water from the air and soil or of this report. water into energy-rich food compounds. This plant food A radionuclide tracer was used by Marples (1966) to is used, directly or indirectly, as a source of energy and determine the food relationships of the predominant nutrients by all of the animals and by the multitude of arthropods in a saline coastal wetland in Georgia. In each fungi, bacteria, and other non-green plants of the of two large plots, orthophosphate labeled with phos- wetland ecosystem. In various forms, part of the energy phorus-32 was injected into 200 stems scattered through- and nutrients fixed by the plants is transported into the out dense stands of smooth cordgrass. On a third plot of water of the estuary and to the nearshore ocean waters the same size, the tracer was sprayed on the sediment where it is utilized by fish, shellfish, and other organisms. around plant bases to label deposits of detritus. A smaller Herbivores are animals that graze or browse on plants plot was established around an ant colony, and 18 stems and, thus, obtain their foods directly from the producers. of smooth cordgrass within it were labeled. Sweep nets 53 were used to collect insects and spiders from the plots on partially decomposed remains of plant tissues, is consi- several occasions for periods as long as 63 days after the dered to be an important form of wetland production. initial treatment. Specimens of snails and crabs occa- This material supports dense colonies of fungi and bacte- sionally were collected by hand. ria which convert the plant products into body tissue and A true bug (Trigonotylus sp.), a sapsucking leaf- related substances. hopper (Prokelisia marginata), a grasshopper (Orchel- Organic detritus is considered to be an important form imum fidicinium), and another true bug (Ischnodemus for the storage and transport of food in the estuarine badius), roughly in that order, are the principal herbi- system. A large proportion of the organic matter pro- vores that feed on smooth cordgrass. Ants also appear to duced during the growing season is stored in the be herbivores, but they lost the tracer rapidly after a large wetlands as decomposing matter and is released subse- initial uptake. This pattern may reflect the use by ants of quently as particulate detritus and dissolved organic a tissue of cordgrass that does not retain the label for compounds. The detritus and dissolved substances can be more than a few days. transported by tidal currents for considerable distances Marsh periwinkles, marsh fiddler crabs, and square- from the point of primary production and, thus, are back crabs (Sesarma cinereum) are deposit feeders. They available to organisms throughout the estuaries and labeled rapidly in the plot in which the detritus was nearshore ocean waters. Owing to the characteristic marked with the tracer, Predatory dolichopid flies and storage, delayed release, and transportability of detritus, ephydrid flies obtain energy from both the grazing.and it also serves as a nutritive buffer for the functioning of detritus food chains. They became labeled in the plot in the estuarine system. Detritus is available throughout which plants were marked and in a plot in which the the year, whereas primary production in the wetlands is sediment was marked. They may ingest detritus inciden- concentrated in the growing season. tally as they feed on organisms in the sediment. Although much of the plant material (the net primary Spiders, parasitic wasps, and flies (Oscinella insularis, production) of a coastal wetland is consumed in the Chaetopsis apicalis, C aenea, Hoplodicta sp.) did not wetland, a significant proportion may be exported to the become highly labeled, or they became noticeably labeled surrounding waters of the estuary and sea. Tidal currents only three to four weeks after the initial treatments of are the principal mechanisms for the export of detrius. the plots. These species did not feed actively on the live In Maryland and elsewhere, ice-rafting of detritus also grass or on the detritus. The spiders are predators. The may be of some importance. Certain organisms, such as adult parasitic wasps and flies may not feed or they may the grass shrimp, may consume detritus in the wetland eat nectar, or pollen which absorb little or none of the and, by their movement into the estuary, transport part tracer. of the energy and nutrients obtained from the detritus into the estuary. Approximately 45 % to 5 5 % of the net primary pro- 2.2 PRIMARY BIOLOGICAL duction of a salt marsh is ekported to the adjacent tidal PRODUCTIVITY waters (Teal 1962; Heald 1969; Cameron 1972; Day and others 1973; Odurn and Skjei 1974; Eilers 1975). The Primary biological productivity is the rate at which actual proportion of material that is exported from any various organisms, principally green plants, synthesize particular wetland is determined by its relationship to gaseous and dissolved inorganic chemicals into organic tidal planes and open channels. In high marshes that are matter. The organic matter so produced is utilized by a remote from channels, less than 10% of the annual wide variety of other organisms as a source of energy and production may be exported. As much as 70% of the net nourishment. annual production may be exported from a strearnside The primary production of flowering plants, benthic marsh (Kirby and Gosselink 1976). algae, and phytoplankton in coastal wetlands is an METHODS important food source for organisms in the marshes, Most investigators have compared the productivity of estuaries, and the sea. Herbivores feed directly on the herbaceous coastal wetland vegetation by measuring the plants. Detritus, which is composed of plant fragments peak aerial standing crops (Whigharn and others 1978). in various stages of decay, is utilized by filter feeders and Because the standing crop usually is at a maximum dur- other kinds of animals and decomposer organisms. ing the late summer or autumn, an investigator may base The total amount of organic matter formed by green his calculations on a single harvest during the period plants during a particular period of time is known as from middle August through early October. There is no gross primary production. Some of the material is con- objective method to determine the exact moment at sumed by the life process of the producers. The remaining which the peak crop exists, so'there is an inherent varia- material, which is available for use by other organisms, is bility and potential error in the single-harvest method. known as the net production. Generally, the method underestimates the actual produc- Generally, 10 % to 30 96 of the net primary production tion of the aerial plant parts and, of course, it provides no of a coastal wetland is consumed by herbivores while the information about the amount of material produced by plants are alive. The bulk of the plant material, including the roots and other underground organs. The total leaves, culms, and flower parts, dies and is decomposed belowground productivity of needlerush in Mississippi, by scavengers and saprophytes. Detritus, the fragmented, for example, was estimated to be 1360 grams per square 54 meter per year, or 80% as great as the aboveground ORIGINAL ESTIMATES OF STANDING CROPS productivity (de la Cruz 1974; de la Cruz and Hackney During the period from 17 through 31 August 1976, 1977). In stands of the tall and short forms of smooth JMA biologists harvested all herbaceous vegetation from cordgrass along the Atlantic Coast, belowground produc- 135 sample plots in the coastal wetlands of Maryland. tivity ranged from 12 to 3976 and 25 to 3917o as great as Forty-five stands that represented 22 types of wetland the aboveground production, respectively (Stroud 1976; vegetation were investigated. The estimated weights of Valiela and others 1976; de la Cruz and Hackney 1977). the standing crops in these types are included in Table Belowground production in stands of wildrice, an annual 22. Details of the field investigations, including diversity plant, was equal to about 20% of the aboveground pro- of the selected vegetation types, are contained in Appen- duction (Whigham and Simpson 1977). dix 2. The single-harvest method, per se, does not account for plant tissues that develop and die during the growing THE AVERAGE PRIMARY PRODUCTION OF season or for materials consumed by herbivores. A varia- WETLAND VEGETATION TYPES tion of the method is to examine the harvested plants A thorough review of the literature was conducted to and to determine the number of empty nodes that sup- obtain published and unpublished estimates of the prim- ported leaves earlier in the season. The data then are ary production of types of wetland vegetation that occur corrected to account for the weight of the missing tissues. in the State of Maryland. Data from Maryland, Virginia, This method variation is useful in studies of smooth North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, cordgrass marshes, but has not been applied successfully and localities around Long Island Sound were considered to other vegetation types. most relevant. A few estimates from Georgia are Multiple harvest techniques, in which collections are included. Because the production of some saline marshes made at intervals of several days to several weeks in Georgia apparently is more than twice as great as that throughout the growing period, have been used in sev- of saline wetland vegetation along the Middle Atlantic eral studies of coastal wetlands. Some authors have used Coast, the Georgia data for these types are excluded from the data only to identify and describe the peak standing this summary. crop in each vegetation type that they studied. Even No previous study of the primary production of within a single vegetation type, these studies indicate shrubby or forested coastal wetlands was found. Sim- that the peak standing crop on one plot may occur 7 to 10 ilarly, no previous study of the production of a brackish weeks before the peak on another plot. rosernallow vegetation was found. The only available The data from multiple harvests also may be used to data for these types were generated by the original sam- estimate the total annual net production of a vegetation pling conducted for this report. No samples were col- type. In this method, the weights of living and dead lected from black alder/willow shrub swamp (Type 12). harvested materials are arranged chronologically. Any No previous measurements for a freshwater bulrush increase in the total weight of organic material (live plus marsh (Type 37) were located, and no samples were dead) between successive harvests is considered to be collected from this type by the JMA biologists. net production. If there is an increase in the weight of Data are summarized in Table 21 for 39 types of live material coupled with a loss of weight of the dead coastal wetland vegetation. No data are available for material, the dead material is ignored and the increase of Type 12 or Type 37. Twenty-nine of the types are among live weight is counted as net production for the period. those officially recognized in the State of Maryland When the weight of dead material increases, but the wetland mapping program. For six of these types, only weight of live material decreases, the loss is added alge- information from collections made byjMA during 1976 braically to the gain and the result is considered to be net is available. Previous estimates were found in the litera- production. When there are losses in the weights of both ture for 23 of the recognized types. Information for eight living and dead material, net production for the period is other types mentioned in the literature also is included. scored as zero. The sum of the incremental estimates of No stand of these types has been observed to be large net production is considered to equal the annual net enough to delineate on the official wetlands maps, but production. larger scale studies of individual wetland areas may indi- Stroud and Cooper (1969) analyzed data from multi- cate one or more of the types to be of local significance. ple harvests and found that dead material was underes- These supplemental types were assigned alpha-numerical timated. They attributed this to removal of material by symbols in Tables 21 and 22 (3A, 3B, 3C, 3L, 3R, 3S, 7A, tides between sampling dates and to errors in their and 7M). classification of various components of the dead mate- rial, To calculate more nearly correct values, the field data were fitted to a fourth degree polynomial in the time variable by use of a computer program. Approximations of the weights of live and dead materials were generated for all twelve months and these were used to estimate annual net production. For most types, the computer- approximated annual net production exceeded that cal- culated directly from the original field data. 55 Table 21. Average mass of the aerial peak standing crops of thirty-nine vegetation types of the coastal wetlands of the Middle Atlantic States, derived from information listed in Table 22. Values are weights of oven-dry plant tissue. Estimates do no include woody tissues. Grams per Grams per Tons per Square Tons per Square Type Predominant Species Acre Meter Type Predominant Species Acre Meter 38 Big cordgrass (fresh) 10.3 2311 33 Sweetflag (fresh) 3.8 857 46 Switchgrass (brackish) 10.1 2270 32 Pickerelweed/arrowarum (fresh) 3.1 687 49 Common reed (brackish) 9.6 2155 11 Swamp rose shrub 3.0 669 39 Common reed (fresh) 8.3 1850 71 Medium smooth cordgrass (saline) 2.9 649 35 Rosernallow (fresh) 7.6 1714 31 Spatterdock (fresh) 2.8 627 3L Spiked loosestrife (fresh) 7.2 1616 47 Threesquare (brackish) 2.7 606 30 Smartweed/rice cutgrass (fresh) 6.4 1425 3C Reed canarygrass (fresh) 2.5 566 44 Cattail (brackish) 6.1 1361 13 Red'maple/ash shrub 2.5 560 45 Rosernallow (brackish) 6.0 1354 23 Loblolly pine forest 2.3 506 43 Needlerush (brackish) 5.8 1290 22 Red maplelash forest 2.2 485 36 Wildrice (fresh) 5.4 1218 61 Meadow cordgrass/spikegrass 311 Giant ragweed (fresh) 5.4 1205 (saline) 2.1 467 63 Needlerush (saline) 5.2 1160 72 Short smooth cordgrass (saline) 2.0 456 71 Tall smooth cordgrass (saline) 5.2 1157 3S Duckpotato (fresh) 1.9 432 34 Cattail (fresh) 5.1 1136 101 Submerged vegetation 1.8 409 48 Big cordgrass (brackish) 4.8 1085 21 Baldcypress forest 1.5 344 3B Burmarigold (fresh) 4.5 1017 7M Short smooth cordgrass/ meadow 51 Smooth cordgrass (brackish) 4.2 942 cordgrass 1.0 216 3A Waterhemp (fresh) 4.2 940 7A Spreading orach 0.8 172 41 Meadow cordgrass/spikegrass 62 Marshelder/groundselbush (saline) 0.7 154 (brackish) 4.0 897 12 Smooth alder/black willow shrub No estimate 42 Marshelder/groundselbush 37 Bulrush (fresh) No estimate (brackish) 4.0 895 Table 22. Summary of data on mean peak standing cops and net annual production of the vegetation of the coastal wetlands of Maryland and other Middle Atlantic States. Numbered sources are listed at the end of the table. Peak Standing Crop. Annual Production (Tops) Tons/acre gm-2 Tops Roots Dead Tops Roots Dead Tons/acre gm-2 Kcalm-2 State Source Shrub Swamp Types 11 Swamp rose 2.7b 615b MD JMA 3,2b 723b MD JMA 12 Smooth alder/Black willow NA NA 13 Red maple/Ash 1.6b 365b MD JMA 1.6b 754b MD JMA Swam Forest Types 21 Baldcypress 1.5b 333b MD JMA 1.6b 355b MD JMA 22 Red maple/Ash 2.Ob 445h MD JMA 2.3b 525b MD jM 23 Loblolly pine 1.9b 435b MD JMA 2.6b 576b MD JMA Freshwater Marsh Types 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass 9.2 2052 MD JMA 10.0 2232 MD JMA 6.9 1547 VA 34 3.4 2.3 769 507 NJ 8 2.3 523 PA 18 31 Spatterdock 2.0 447 MD JMA 2.6 580 MD JMA 1.1 245 VA 34 2.7 600 3.2 724 NJ 19 4.0 886 4.5 1002 NJ 19 56 Table 22. Standing scrops and net annual production of coastal wetland vegetation (Continued). Peak Standing Crop. Annual Production (Tops) Tons/acre gM-2 Tops Roots Dead Tops Roots Dead Tons/acre gM-2 Kcalrn-2 State Source 2.3 516 NJ 20 2.7 5.11 605 1146 NJ 9 1.7 380 NJ 35 1.9 427 NJ 35 2.1 460 NJ 35 2.3 521 NJ 35 2.4 548 NJ 35 3.7 840 NJ 35 4799 3.5 780 NJ 35 5.2 1171 PA 18 5.3 1178 PA 18 32 Pickerelweed/Arrowarum 2.7 613 MD JMA 3.0 682 MD JMA 4.4 o.6 988 132 MD 4 2.5 553 NJ 8 5.7 11.0 1286 2463 NJ 9 4.1 919 NJ 20 1.2 269 NJ 20 2.1 468 NJ 35 2.2 504 NJ 35 2.6 576 NJ 35 2.6 593 NJ 35 3.6 802 NJ 35 2.9 650 NJ 35 3.0 677 5.0 1126 NJ 19 33 Sweetflag 4.7 1045 MD JMA 5.8 1303 MD JMA 2.7 605 NJ 20 3.2 712 NJ 35 3.2 722 NJ 35 4.0 896 NJ 35 4.2 946 NJ 35 2.8 623 4.8 1071 NJ 19 34 Cattail 6.o 1.7 1346 391 MD 4 4.6 1.2 1003 268 MD 4 4.3 966 8.3 1868 MD 15 4300 MD 15 4.4 987 NJ 29 3.8 8.0 850 1800 NJ 20 4.0 6.1 894 1371 NJ 8 5.0 1119 NJ 9 5.3 1189 NJ 35 7.1 1582 NJ 35 5.9 1320 NJ 35 5.4 1199 6.8 1534 NJ 19 3.6 22.5 804 5053 NJ 39 3.9 881 PA 18 4.3 975 PA 18 9.2 2073 PA 18 35 Rosernallow 6.8 1517 MD JMA 8.5 1910 MD JMA 2200 MD 29 36 Wildrice 7.0 1574 MD JMA 11.6 2607 MD JMA 6.0 0.5 1349 120 MD 4 4.1 0.3 909 73 MD 4 4.6 0.3 1023 77 MD 4 6.4 1432 MD 4 2.5 560 VA 34 6.2 1390 NJ 20 7.1 3.2 1600 721 NJ 9 3.1 700 3.7 824 NJ 35 57 Table 22. Standing crops and net annual production of coastal wetland vegetation (Continued). Peak Standing Crop. Annual Production (Tops) Tons/acre gm-2 Tops Roots Dead Tops Roots Dead Tons/acre gM-2 Kcalyr2 State Source Fresh Marsh Types (Continued) 3.6 796 7.2 1619 NJ 35 3.8 841 9.6 2163 NJ 35 5.0 1125 5.5 1234 NJ 35 9.4 2108 NJ 35 6.0 1346 6.8 1520 Nj(area) 19 3.0 664 PA 18 7.0 1569 PA 18 37 Bulrush NA NA 38 Big cordgrass 15.2@ 3418c MD JMA 16.4c 3669c MD JMA 4.2 1.1 951 241 MD 4 5.4 1207 7.0 1572 MD 15 39 Common reed 15.3 3437 MD JMA 20.3 4560 MD JMA 3900 MD 29 3.6 o.6 811 130 MD 4 6.7 1.0 1498 230 MD 4 8.0 3.0 1792 680 MD 4 6.5 1451 7.5 1678 MD 15 7.7 1727 NJ 20 6.7 1493 9.2 2066 NJ 19 4.8 1074 NJ 39 2.9 654 PA 18 3A Waterhemp 5.0 1112 6.9 1547 NJ 19 3.4 2.5 768 560 NJ 9 3B Burmarigold 3.4 756 NJ 35 5.2 1160 NJ 35 5.2 1162 NJ 35 4.1 910 NJ 35 4.9 1109 7.9 1771 NJ 19 4.0 900 PA 18 3C Reed canarygrass 2.5 566 NJ 35 3L Spiked loosestrife 9.4 2104 9.4 2100 NJ 35 4.4 995 PA 18 7.8 1750 PA 18 3R Giant ragweed 5.2 1160 5.2 1160 NJ 35 5.6 1252 PA 18 5.4 1202 PA 18 3S Duckpotato 2.9 649 4.8 1071 NJ 19 1.0 214 NJ 9 Brackish Marsh Types 41 Meadow cotdgrass/Spikegrass 3.3 744 MD JMA 3.3 746 MD JMA 8.4 1879 MD JMA 2.0 445 MD 3 2.5 570 MD 10 1.2 274 MD 10 2.2 503 MD 10 3.0 5A 680 1209 MD 4 2800 MD 29 6.8d 1525d MD 12 6.8d 1525d MD 12 2.1 480 2.6 572 VA 22 4.4 993 NY 2 5.8 1296 NC 2 42 Marshelder/Groundselbush 3.4 766 MD JMA 6.2 1386 MD JMA 2.4 534 MD 3 58 Table 22. Standing crops and net annual production of coastal wetland vegetation (Continued). Peak Standing Crop@ Annual Production (Tops) Tons/acre gM-2 Tops Roots Dead Tops Roots Dead Tons/acre gro-2 Kcalm-2 State Source Brackish Marsh Types (Continued) 43 Needlerush 6.0 1349 MD JMA 8.3 1855 MD JMA 3.7 820 MD 10 5.2 1167 MD 10 5.6 1258 MD 10 44 Cattail 5.1 1148 MD JMA 7.8 1757 MD JMA 2.8 626 MD 3 5.2 5.0 1170 1113 MD 4 6.7 3.6 1496 814 MD 4 10.4 0.7 2338 167 MD 4 6.4 1435 MD 12 4.1 919 VA 34 45 Rosernallow 5.4 1200 MD JMA 6.7 1507 MD JMA 46 Switchgrass 16.8 3775 MD JMA 19.1 4282 MD JMA 2.9 652 MD I 1.6 369 MD 3 47 Threesquare 2.7 600 MD JMA 4.5 1003 MD JMA 1.3 292 MD 1 2.0 440 MD 1 2.1 472 MD 3 2.3 0.9 514 212 MD 4 3.8 1.4 844 314 MD 4 5.1 1.6 1141 358 MD 4 2.5 561 VA 34 0.9 193 NJ 7 48 Big cordgrass 3.3 740 MD 1 5.3 1195 MD 1 3.0 672 MD 3 7.4 5.5 1650 1232 MD 4 9.6 o.6 2160 137 MD 4 3.1 1.1 706 257 MD 4 4.2 936 VA(min.) 34 6.5 1452 VA(mean) 34 8.1 1814 VA(max.) 34 2.5 560 2.5 563 VA 22 2.3 1.4 515 310 3.7 825 3482 GA 25 3.4 0.5 762 110 3.9 872 3680 CA 25 3.5 0.6 785 125 4.o 910 3840 GA 25 5.5 3.8 1242 850 9.3 2092 8828 GA 25 49 Common reed 15.2 3398 MD JMA 17.0 3802 MD JMA 8.9 1.5 1992 326 MD 4 5.0 1114 MD 3 2.1 471 NJ 14 9.6 2155 NJ 14 51 Smooth cordgrass 3.2 717 MD JMA 5.7 1288 MD JMA 2.6 587 MD 3 3.6 807 MD 12 5.5 1233 MD 12 10.8 2410 VA 34 5.3 1184 NJ 26 4.3 971 NJ 14 0.7 154 NJ 14 3.2 725[41 NJ 39 Saline Marsh Types 59 Table 22. Standing crops and net annual production of coastal wetland vegetation (Continued). Peak Standing Crop. Annual Production (Tops) Tons/acre gm-2 Tops Roots Dead Tops Roots Dead Tons/acre gM-2 KcaIjn-2 State Source Saline Marsh Types (Continued) 61 Meadow cordgrass/Spikgrass 2.7 605 VA 34 2.5 563 5.6 1262 DE 23 0.04 8 NJ 7 0.07 15 NJ 7 0.08 19 NJ 7 0.09 20 NJ 7 0.09 20 NJ 7 0.07 16 Nj(mean) 7 1.1 254 Nj(mowed) 7 0.3 61 NJ 7 0.8 177 Nj(mowed) 7 2.9 649 NJ 13 3.6 817 NJ 27 2.9 646 NY 32 2.2 502 NY 32 2.8 628 RI 31 3.2 717 RI 31 1.9 430 RI 24 62 Marshelder/Grounselbush 0.7 154 NJ 7 63 Needlerush 2.9 650 VA 34 5.3 1184 NC 17 5.3 1198 NC 17 8.5 1917 NC 17 8.8 1973 NC 17 8.8 1977 NC 17 3.1 704 2.5 560 NC 40 2.7 605 4.0 895 NC 39 3.3 743 3.4 754 NC 37 2.9 654 5.4 1215 5346 NC 30 71 Smooth cordgrass 7.0 1570 VA 34 Tall form 2.1 480 4.3 956 DE 24 2.4 532 NJ 7 6.9 1555 NJ 13 7.1 1592 6261 NJ 28 3.7 825 NY 32 3.5 785 RI 31 3.7 840 RI 24 6.7 1500 7.4 1650 NC 36 5.2 1171 433 7.0 1563 6471 NC 30 5.8 1300 NC 38 7.7 1735 NC 38 Non-stunted 1.3 300 Nj(mean) 7 Undifferentiated 1.6 362 1.6 362 VA 22 1.0 230 Nj(mean) 7 2.4 545 2.9 650 NC 36 71 Smooth cordgrass 1.9 415 324 2.1 471 1856 NC 30 Medium form 3.6 800 4.5 1000 NC 36 2.7 610 NC 38 3.4 770 NC 38 72 Smooth cordgrass 2.5 1.1 558 242 MD/VA 16 Short form 2.3 1.8 518 396 MD/VA 16 3.0 695 VA 34 1.3 298 DE 23 1.5 332 2.1 465 DE 23 2.4 539 NJ 13 2.6 592 NJ 28 2.3 509 NY 32 1.2 269 RI 31 2.2 493 RI 31 1.9 432 RI 24 1.0 223 196 1.2 280 1106 NC 30 1.6 350 1.6 350 NC 36 60 Table 22. Standing crops and net annual production of coastal wetland vegetation (Continued). Peak Standing Crop. Annual Production (Tops) Tons/acre gM-2 - Tops Roots Dead Tops Roots Dead Tons/acre gM-2 Kcalrn-2 State Source 72 Smooth cordgrass 1.7 370 NC 38 Short form, continued 3.0 633 NC 38 7A Spreading orach 0.8 172 NJ 7 7M Smooth and meadow cordgrass 1.9 2.2 427 497 MD/VA 16 (Mixed community) 0.5 108 NJ 7 0.4 90 NJ 7 0.2 48 NJ 7 0.1 21 NJ 7 0.3 59 NJ 7 3.4 762 RI 31 Other 80 Water 81 Mudflat 91 Beach-sandbar 101 Submerged vegetation 2.19 490.5 MD 38 0.81 181.0 MD 38 2.48 556.1 f NJ 40 Algae, edaphic Saline marsh Tall smooth cordgrass 0.7 15& DE 6 Short smooth cordgrass 0.9 19& DE 6 Spikegrass 0.5 122@ DE 6 Bare bank 03 7& DE 6 Pan 0.8 182@ DE 6 Freshwater Spatterdock 0.02 5.3 NJ 35 Burmarigold 0.01 2.9 NJ 35 Wildrice 0.01 3.2 NJ 35 Cattail 0.02 3.6 NJ 35 Spiked loosestrife 0.01 3.1 NJ 35 Pickerelweed/Arrowarum 0.02 5.0 NJ 35 Bank 0.02 4.2 .The term "roots" is intended to include all underground organs. bHerbaceous plants and leaves of woody plants; no wood is included. @These are adjusted estimates. The weights of all harvested materials in the two samples were 5416 gm-2 and 5875 gM-2. The dried materials were examined and tissues identifiable unquestionably as current-year production were separated from the remainder. Figures cited are for this component of the collections. An undetermined proportion of the remaining material may also have been produced during the current year. dSamples included exposed rhizome mat. Estimated annual standing crop was 5.0 to 6.0 tons per acre. @Ash-free dry weight, gross production. fBiotted dry, but not oven-dried. LIST OF SOURCES 21 Marshall 1970 (Standing crop cited is maximum minus minimum 1Anderson, Brown, and Rappleye 1968 during year) 2de la Cruz 1973 22 Mendelssohn and Marcellus 1976 (standing crop estimated from 3Drake and Hayes 1973 graph) 4Flemer and others 1978 23 Morgan 1961 (data recalculated from table) 5Foster 1968 (Fide Williams and Murdoch 1972; total live standing 24 Nixon and Oviatt 1973 crop estimated) 25 Odum and Fanning 1973 6Gallagher and Daiber 1974 26 Potera and MacNamara Mss. 7Good 1965 27 Slavin, Good, and Squiers 1975 8Good and Good 1975 28 Squiers and Good 1974 9Good and others 1975 29 Stevenson and others 1976 10 Heinle 1972 30 Stroud and Cooper 1968 (standing crop cited is maximum minus 11 Heinle and others 1974 minimum during year) 12 Jack McCormick & Associates 1973. 31 Stuckey 1970 13 Jack McCormick & Associates 1973b 32 Udell and others 1969 14 Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1974 33 Waits 1967 (fide Williams and Murdoch 1972) 15 Johnson 1970 (Annual production calculated from tables; Type 38 34 Wass and Wright 1969 at Fenno incorrectly labeled S. alterniflora) 35 Whigham and Simpson 1975 16 Keefe and Boynton 1973 36 Williams and Murdoch 1969 17 Kuenzler and Marshall 1973 37 Williams and Murdoch 1972 (Data interpreted from graphs) 18 McCormick 1970 38 Maldeis 1978 19 McCormick 1977b 39 Walker and Good 1976 20 McCormick and Ashbaugh 1972 40 Moeller 1964 SUMMARY OF DETAILED DATA ON PRIMARY measurements. The underground mass of materials of PRODUCTION herbaceous perennials, such as cattail and spatterdock, The wetland vegetation types are numbered and listed however, accumulates over a period of years.Thus, esti- in Table 22 to correspond with the official list of coastal mates of the below-ground standing crop do not corre- wetland types in the State of Maryland. The major asso- spond to those for the more ephemeral aerial structures. ciations are shrub swamp types (numbers I I through No estimate of the annual underground production of a 13), swamp forest types (21 through 23), freshwater perennial plant in the coastal wetlands of the Middle marsh types (30 through 39), brackish marsh types (41 Atlantic Region was found during this literature review. through 51), and saline marsh types (61 through 72). Data on production are listed either as "Peak Standing EVALUATION OF PRODUCTION DATA Crop" or as "Annual Production (Aerial)." Most esti- Estimates of the mass of the plant tissue produced mates of standing crops included values only for the annually by different herbaceous vegetation types that living, aerial plant materials ("Tops"), but several stud- have been mapped in the coastal wetlands of Maryland ies presented information on the weight of standing range from less than I ton per acre (154 gm-1) to 10.3 dead material ("Dead"). A few investigators also esti- tons per acre (2311 gM-2) on a dry weight basis. The mated the amount of material present in live roots and unweighted average of the standing crops of these types rhizomes ("Roots"). All estimates of standing crops in of vegetation is approximately 4.4 tons per acre. This is Table 22 are expressed in both tons per acre and grams less than the actual primary production, which probably per square meter (grri-2). is in the range from 5 to 6 tons per acre per year (Odum Annual production is an estimate of the total net pro- and Skjei 1974). Equal masses of raw plant material from duction during the entire year. It is expressed in terms of different vegetation types, however, may not'be equal in mass per unit area (tons per acre and grams per square ecological value. meter) and (or) in terms of the equivalent energy stored Part of the biomass of plants is composed of relatively in chemical form (kilogram-calories per square meter). inert material that remains as ash when the tissues are incinerated (Table 23). Based on the data assembled COMMENTS ON THE TABULATED DATA during this review, submerged plants, particularly the Measurements of the peak standing crop represent sealettuce which is an alga, have a higher ash content the approximate maximum amount of plant tissue pres- than the emergent plants. Plants of freshwater marshes ent at any one instant during the year. They are consi- appear to have a higher ash content than do those of dered to be estimates of the minimum amount of annual saline marshes. More certainly, the available data indi- production. cate that the ash content of individuals of a particular This interpretation is predicated on the fact that the species may vary significantly during the growing season plant tissue present is herbaceous and that all of it was (Bayly and O'Neill 1972). A more ecologically approp- produced during the contemporary growing season. The riate unit of comparison for the net production of differ- method is not appropriate for use in woody vegetation ent types of vegetation, therefore, is the ash-free dry types because part of the standing crop would have been weight of plant tissue. produced during earlier years. Some herbaceous parts The proportions of nitrogen, fats, and fiber in the that were initiated during the summer or autumn in tissues of various species of plants differ widely (Table marshes in North Carolina and other southern states, 23). The nutritive value of the species to herbivores, however, may persist and continue to grow during the thus, varies in relation to the proportions of the several following season. In multiple harvest studies that are food types present. This matter is complicated further, conducted in these areas, the minimum standing crop however, by the fact that the nutrient content of differ- (usually measured during January through March) is ent parts of a single plant are not the same-the leaves, subtracted from the weight of the peak standing crop to the stems, the roots, the flowers, and the fruits and seeds. estimate the biomass produced during the current grow- Some herbivores graze indiscriminately on the entire ing season. In Maryland and elsewhere, some leaves and plants, whereas others are highly selective, and many stems (culms) that were formed during the previous year utilize only the seeds. In addition, the few estimates may be mixed with the dead, standing material in stands which are available suggest that relatively little, probably of big cordgrass, common reed, switchgrass, meadow less than 15 % in saline areas, but as much as 3 5 to 40 % cordgrass, cattail, and other types of vegetation. It usually in fresh areas, of the net production of plant tissue in a is not possible to distinguish the older materials from tidal wetland is consumed by herbivores (Smalley 1959, those that were formed during the current growing sea- 1960; Stevenson, Cahoon, and Seaton 1976). Although son, and measurements of the standing crop, therefore, exact knowledge of nutrient content may prove to be of may overestimate the minimum production for the cur- value in comparisons of production in the future, as our rent year. knowledge of nutrient conversion and cycling increases, Data on the standing crops of roots and rhizomes that at present the information is too scarce to permit its are included in Table 22 should be used with discretion. evaluation or use (Table 23). The underground mass of materials of annual plants, Preliminary investigations of detritus suggest that the such as wildrice, is produced in one growing season and, fragmentary plant material present in the detritus lar- thus, estimates of this mass correspond to the aerial gely is in the form of crude fiber and that it serves 62 principally as a substrate for the growth of microorgan- value is extracted and their nutrients are cycled. It seems isms. The high nutrient value of the detritus, therefore, reasonable, therefore, to assume that the total energy appears largely to be a product of the microbial popula- contained in the plant tissues produced by different vege- tions rather than an artifact or a reprocessed form trace- tation types, per unit of area, is a rough measure of able to the original plant materials. The first colonizers relative ecological importance. Several investigators of the plant tissue may draw all or most of their suste- have measured the caloric content of different species of nance directly from the tissue, but subsequent colonizers wetland plants (Table 24). The values obtained (ex- apparently do not. pressed as calories per unit of weight) then are multip- Most analyses of detritus have been conducted on lied by the estimated biomass of plant tissue produced materials derived from smooth cordgrass. There is no per unit area to approximate the energy equivalent of the information available, therefore, upon which compari- net annual production. As more of these estimates sons of the detrital value of tissues from different species become available, their utility for the evaluation of vege- of wetland plants can be based. If, indeed, there are tation types can be assessed more thoroughly. significant differences in the detrital value of the various In summary, current comparisons of the productivity species, measurements of that value would be useful, in of different wetland vegetation types appear to be combination with measurements of net production, to limited to evaluations of the mass of plant material compare vegetation types from an ecological point of produced. Most investigators report the estimated peak view. standing crop and base these estimates on a single har- Several investigations have indicated that nutrients vest during late summer or early autumn. and energy also may be transported through the estua- The comparisons can be enhanced by utilizing multi- rine system in the form of dissolved organic materials. ple harvest techniques to estimate the net annual pro- These dissolved substances may be absorbed and utilized duction of vegetation types. Furthermore, data expressed by various kinds of organisms, and they may be the in terms of ash-free weight of plant materials will pro- source of food utilized by detritus -enriching microorga- vide a more rational basis for ecological evaluations. nisms. As our knowledge of the origin, circulation, and Within the present state of the art, the determination fate of these dissolved substances grows, some measure of the caloric content of the plant material would further of the contribution made by the various kinds of marsh increase the information available for comparisons. In plants should enhance the value of comparisons of combination with the estimates of the biomass of tissue production. produced, measurements of caloric content can be used to Regardless of how the organic materials produced by express the net annual production in terms of energy per the marsh plants are utilized in the system-directly by unit area. (Caloric content per unit area is independent of herbivores or decomposers, or indirectly in a dissolved the unit employed to express biomass-that is, whether form-there is no question that ultimately their energy or not biomass is expressed on an ash-free basis.) Table 23. Chemical composition of plants known to occur in the coastal wetlands of Maryland or other Middle Atlantic States. Values are expressed as percentages of the total oven-dry weight of tissue. Numbered sources are listed at the end of the table. Ni- Phos- Crude Crude Species Ash Carbon trogen phorus Protein Fiber Fat Source Sweetflag 2.53 23 Smooth burmarigold 2.43 23 Carex canescens 1.42 11 Carex rostrala 1.72 11 Carex vesicaria 1.92 11 Twigrush 1.55 11 Spikegrass 5.5 9.6 34.9 1.7 22 36.6 0.46 0.24 9 6.7 0.85 5.3 32.4 1.7 20 Creeping spikerush 237 11 Spotted touch-me-not 3.45 23 Softrush 1.05 11 Needlerush 43.2 0.78 0.14 9 41.9 0.95 24 justicia americana 2.0 2 3.6 2 63 Table 23. Chemical composition of wetland plants (Continued). Ni- Phos- Crude Crude Species Ash Carbon trogen phorus Protein Fiber Fat Source 2.83 0.18 3 1.63 0.09 3 Spatterdock Tops, date 6/24 26.0 10 6126 20.1 10 7/10 15.6 10 8/16 25.1 10 9/17 21.8 10 Rhizomes, date 6/24 44.2 10 6/26 44.1 10 7/10 38.7 10 8/16 29.7 10 Tops, mean 21.7 10 Rhizomes, mean 39.2 10 Arrowarum 3.59 23 Tops, date 6/14 12.9 10 6/18 12.8 10 7/10 32.3 10 8/16 27.8 10 8/27 32.8 10 9/21 37.7 10 Rhizomes, date 6/14 20.0 10 6/18 18.8 10 7/10 19.6 10 8/16 42.2 10 8/27 56.4 10 Tops, mean 26.1 10 Rhizomes, mean 31.4 10 Reed canarygrass 1.73 23 Common reed 1.76 0.12 8 1.56 0.14 8 1.80 0.17 19 0.90 0.08 19 0.65 0.05 19 1.88 0.17 1 1.59 0.07 1 2.04 0.15 1 1.30 0.03 1 1.60 0.10 1 2.11 0.12 1 2.70 0.15 1 3.57 1 Arrowleaf tearthumb 2.30 23 Duckpotato 2.04 2 2.91 2 0.30 4 Common threesquare 40.8 0.80 0.10 9 Smooth cordgrass Short form 20.6 14.4 9.2 1.6 22 Stand 13.3 8.8 30.4 2.4 20 Stand, live 16.2 38.7 0.70 0.15 15 Stand, dead 26.2 33.0 0.61 0.08 15 64 Table 23. Chemical composition of wetland plants (Continued). Ni- Phos- Crude Crude Species Ash Carbon trogen phorus Protein Fiber Fat Source With Distichlis, live 18.0 @6.7 0.79 0.12 15 With Distichlis, dead 33.4 29.9 0.68 0.08 15 With tall form, live 22.2 35.7 0.80 0.15 15 With tall form, dead 48.2 21.6 1.36 0.12 15 Litter 37.2 5.0 18 Smooth cordgrass Medium form 7.9 14.9 17.2 2.9 22 Mature leaves 11.7 0.13 5.7 27.9 2.4 5 Weathered leaves 13.9 0.05 4.0 35.6 0.8 5 Tall form 10.6 17 11.0 12.4 17.9 2.3 22 Mature leaves 9.8 0.17 -8.5 29.4 2.8 5 Mature leaves 11.5 0.18 9.8 31.0 2.4 5 Mature leaves, stems 10.6 0.14 7.9 31.2 2.2 5 Young leaves 12.8 0.25 13.2 29.8 3.0 5 Live 12.6 7.5 39.7 18 Litter 34.7 6.1 18 -Form unspecified Live 41.3 1.57 7 Live 38.3-- 25 Live 0.54 21 Live 1.40 13 Sprout 13.0 25 Mature 14.0 25 Dead 28.0 25 Dead 46.7 1.60 16 Big cordgrass 1.20 0.14 12 32.1 0.45 0.10 9 5.3 16 Meadow cordgrass 7.4 10.0 16.9 1.5 22 9.0 0.96 6.o 30.0 2.2 20 Narrowleaf cattail Tops, date 6/18 7.0 10 7/16 5.8 10 8/22 7.9 10 9/17 5.8 10 Rhiz mes, date 6/18 21.2 10 7/16 27.8 10 8/22 33.1 10 Tops, mean 6.6 10 Rhizomes, mean 27.7 10 1.92 11 Common cattail 1.4 0.17 14 0.9 0.13 14 2.3 0.14 14 2.0 0.18 14 3.6 0.30 14 Sealettuce 58.2 20.8 2.3 0.5 22 Wildrice Tops, date 6/18 26.0 10 6/26 16.7 10 65 Table 23. Chemical composition of wetland plants (Concluded). Ni- Phos- Crude Crude Species Ash Carbon trogen phorus Protein Fiber Fat Source 7/16 7.8 10 8/06 9.9 10 8/27 9.5 10 9/17 13.3 10 Roots, date 6/18 21.9 10 6/26 33.4 10 7/16 22.9 10 8/06 26.7 10 8/27 25.5 10 To s, mean 13.9 10 Roots, mean 26.1 10 0.9 23 Eelgrass 19.8 14.6 4.3 1.1 6 Leaves 44.5 1.91 0.04 6 Partly decayed 42.8 1.95 6 Rhizomes 34.1 1.01 6 LIST OF SOURCES 1Allen and Persall 1963* 10 Good and others 1975 18 Squiers and Good 1974 2Boyd 1968* 11 Gorham 1953* 19 Stake 1967*, 1968* 3Boyd 1969* 12 Johnson 1970 20 Stuckey 1970 4Boyd 1970* 13 Hall and others 1970 21 Taschdjian 1954* 5Burkholder 1956 14 Harper and Daniel 1934* 22 Udell and others 1969 6Burkholder and Doheny 1968 15 Keefe and Boynton 1973 23 Whigham and Simpson 1975 7Burkholder and others 1959 16 Odum and de la Cruz 1967 24 Williams and Murdoch 1972 8Buttery and others 1965* 17 Odum and Fanning 1973 25 Williams and Murdoch 1969 9de la Cruz 1973 *References followed by an asterisk were not consulted; cited data are from a review by Keefe (1972). Table 24. Caloric content of marsh plants. Values are expressed as gram-calories per gram of oven-dry tissue (dry weight) or per gram of ash-free tissue. Values from Udell and others (1969) were recalculated by using factors listed by Odurn (1971). Numbered sources are listed at the end of the table. Dry Weight Species Total Ash-Free State Source Dry Weight Spikegrass 2556 NY 14 Species Total Ash-Free State Source Live plants 4498 MS 4 Arrowarum 4654 MS 5 Tops, 14 June 3745 4301 NJ 6 Needlerush 4397 NC 15 Tops, 10 July 2953 4359 NJ 6 Live leaves 4740 MS 4 Tops, 21 September 2660 4270 NJ 6 Live leaves 4791 FL 7 Rhizomes, 14 June 3349 4184 NJ 6 Dead leaves 4641 Ms 4 Rhizomes, 10 July 3528 4391 NJ 6 Dead leaves 4279 FL 7 Tops, mean 3119 4310 NJ 6 Partially decayed 4711 Ms 4 Rhizomes, mean 3439 4288 NJ 6 Particulate detritus 4911 MS 4 Common threesquare 4692 MS 1 Live plants 4523 Ms 4 Diverse-leaved watermilfoil 4459 Ms 5 Tops, early summer 3961 TN I Smooth cordgrass Spatterdock Tall form 3900 4350 NJ 12 Tops, early summer 4315 TN 1 3423 NY 14 Tops, 24 June 3079 4162 NJ 6 4135 NC 13 Tops, 10 July 2391 3898 NJ 6 4100 4590 GA 10 Tops, 16 August 3124 4173 NJ 6 Mature leaves 3748 4157 GA 2 Rhizomes, 24 June 2224 3988 NJ 6 Mature leaves 3616 4085 GA 2 Rhizomes, 16 August 3109 4425 NJ 6 Mature leaves and stems 3726 4169 GA 2 Tops,mean 2865 4078 NJ 6 Young leaves 3704 4249 GA 2 Rhizomes, mean 2667 4207 NJ 6 Weathered stems 3704 4299 GA 2 66 Table 24. Caloric content of marsh plants (Concluded). Dry Weight Dry Weight Species Total Ash-Free State Source Species Total Ash-Free State Source Medium form 3284 NY 14 Rhizomes, mean 3114 4313 NJ 6 3940 NC 13 Common cattail 4028 GA 11 Tops, early summer 4262 TN 1 Leaves only 4113 GA 11 Sealettuce 1814 NY 14 Mature leaves 3594 4071 GA 2 Dead stems 3777 GA 11 Various aquatic macrophytes Short form 3900 4530 NJ 12 Mean 4300 1 2676 NY 14 Wildrice 3948 NC 13 Tops,18june 3292 4448 NJ 6 Unspecified form Tops, 26 June 3636 4364 NJ 6 Live plants 3922 GA 3 Tops, 27 August 3922 4332 NJ 6 Live plants 4094 LA 8 Tops, 17 September 3567 4114 NJ 6 Dead plants 3788 GA 3 Roots, 18 June 2656 3400 NJ 6 Dead plants 3884 LA 8 Roots, 26 June 3150 4732 NJ 6 Partially decayed 3832 GA 3 Roots, 16 July 2614 3391 NJ 6 Particulate detritus 3525 GA 3 Roots, 27 August 3012 3938 NJ 6 Big cordgrass 4220 4460 GA 10 Tops, mean 3604 4315 NJ 6 4560 MS 4 Roots, mean 2858 3865 NJ 6 4597 MS 5 Eelgrass 3239 NY 14 Meadow cordgrass 3194 NY 14 LIST OF SOURCES Narrowleaf cattail I Boyd 1968, 1970 8Kirby 1971 Tops, 18 June 4082 4390 NJ 6 2 Burkholder 1956 9Odum 1971 Tops, 22 August 4097 4449 NJ 6 3 de la Cruz 1965 10 Odum and Fanning 1973 Tops, 17 September 4170 4424 NJ 6 4 de la Cruz 1973 11 Smalley 1960 Rhizomes, 18 June 3413 4329 NJ 6 5 Gabriel and de la Cruz 1974 12 Squiers and Good 1974 Rhizomes, 22 August 2875 4296 NJ 6 6 Good and others 1975 13 Stroud and Cooper 1968 oTops, mean 4116 4421 NJ 6 7 Heald 1969 14 Udell and others 1969 2.3. DETRITUS rial is brought to the surface by such burrowing orga- nisms as fiddler crabs and polychaete worms, and it is The net aboveground production of vascular plant exposed by erosion and by human activities (de la Cruz materials in the coastal wetlands of the Middle Atlantic and Hackney 1977). The amount of this material is small Coast averages about 4 to 5 tons per acre per year, in comparison with the aerial tissues, but it becomes exclusive of the materials that are eaten by herbivorous mixed with, and supplements, the aboveground material. animals. The herbaceous aerial parts of most of the The primary production of submerged aquatic plants plants die during the autumn, and nearly all of the soluble also is important to the estuarine system (Burkholder food materials are leached from the dead remains when and Doheny 1968; McRoy 1970). Approximately 20 % of they next are flooded or when the next rain falls. Less is the fresh leaves of eelgrass and 12% of the senescent known about the amount and fate of net belowground leaves are formed by water soluble organic material production, which may be nearly equal to the above- (Mann 1972). These soluble constituents leach rapidly ground production in some types of wetland vegetation. when the leaves die, and they add to the dissolved organic At least a part, however, must seep through the soil and material available to aquatic organisms (Fenchel 1977). into the water column in dissolved form (Gardner 1975; The dead leaves are surrounded by water, so all of the de la Cruz and Hackney 1977). Dissolved organic matter insoluble material enters the water column. Some of the from the plants is absorbed from the water rapidly by insoluble tissue may be lost to the aquatic system when it microorganisms in the sediments and in the water is washed ashore and subsequently carried farther inland column. by winds or when accumulations are removed from The leaching of dead planis releases such vitamins as beaches and deposited on inland disposal sites. biotin, cobalanin, niacin, and thiamin, as well as quanti- Fungi and bacteria are the principal agents in the ties of nutritious sugars. Organic acids, amino acids, and decomposition of the plant tissues. Their actions, in polypeptides, which also are released, may form com- combination with mechanical erosion by tidal waters and plexes with such micronutrients as copper, iron, man- the activities of amphipods, grass shrimp, crabs, insects, ganese, phosphate, and zinc, and thus may make these and other wetland animals, fragment the plant materials micronutrients available to the plankton organisms. (Fenchel 1970; Hargrave 1970; May 1974; Welsh 1975). The bulk of the dead plant tissues falls to the surface of Those pieces that are near the limit of visibility, and the wetland within a few weeks. Some of this material is which become suspended in the water as the tides flood carried, more or less intact, into the waters of the estuary the wetland, are known as particulate detritus (de la Cruz or the nearshore ocean by tidal currents. The remainder 1973). begins to decompose in place. Belowground plant mate- The minute plant fragments are composed of cellulose 67 and lignin. These substances, which are the basic com- The rate of flow of energy through the detritus food ponents of wood, are so resistant that they are of little web of the estuary from season to season is less variable value as food to macroinvertebrates and larger animals, than the rate of flow through the herbivore food web, and are relatively resistant to further decomposition by which is based on green plants (Keefe 1972). Although microorganisms. The fragments serve as rafts and as a the amount of dead vegetation is at a maximum during growth substrate for bacteria, fungi, and protozoa. These late autumn and winter, it decomposes relatively slowly microorganisms colonize the particles of plant material; owing to low temperatures. During late spring and feed on the cellulose and, to a lesser extent, on the lignin; throughout the'surnmer and early autumn, temperatures and absorb dissolved organic materials from the sur- are relatively high, and the decomposition of the remain- rounding water. ing dead vegetation progresses rapidly. As a result of The value of particulate detritus, with its adhering these variations in the supply of material and in the rate bacteria, as food for filter feeders was recognized by of its decomposition, there is a continuous and relatively Blegvard (1914), Bond (193 3), Waksman 0 934), ZoBell constant supply of food available to the detritus feeders. (1946), and many more recent investigators. Waksman Tidal wetlands are the principal source of organic (1933) also observed that "marine humus," or organic material, as measured by carbon, in most of the estuaries matter that is mixed with bottom muds and sand, is of the Middle Atlantic Coast. In the upper section of utilized as a source of food by such deposit feeders as Chesapeake Bay, however, Biggs and Flemer (1972) shrimp and segmented worms. found that tree leaves and other materials derived from The activities and growth of the colonizing microor- the uplands collectively are the largest single source of ganisms increase the concentrations and complexity of carbon. In regard to the entire Bay, however, the quantity the proteins in the detrital materials, and maintain or of carbon from upland sources is estimated to be about enhance the caloric value of the detritus (Burkholder equal to the quantity fixed by algae that live in the water, 1956; Odum and de la Cruz 1967; Keefe 1972; Ranwell but approximately 80% of the total available carbon 1972; de la Cruz 1973). The fatty acid content of the originates from tidal wetlands (Flemer and others 1970). detritus also is increased by the activities of the microor- Stable marshes, in which the levees of creeks and ganisms, and becomes several times as great as that in rivers are lined with stands of big cordgrass, and scoured the plants before death (Schultz and Quinn 1973). marshes, which appear to be of more recent origin and Although the original fragments of plant material are which have no levees, were recognized along the Patux- not utilized directly as food by most macroscopic ani- ent River by Heinle and others (1975). They estimated mals, the detritus particles are rich in proteins, fatty that less than 1 % of the annual production of the stable acids, and other nutritious substances. In point of fact, the marshes is moved into the waters of the estuary. Heinle microbe-rich detritus is believed to be nutritionally a and others (1974), however, found that 6 to 9916 of the more useful food for marine animals than are the origi- production of Gotts Slough, a stable marsh, was exported. nal green plant tissues (Starr 1956; de la Cruz 1965; In contrast, it was estimated that virtually all of the Odum and de la Cruz 1967; Heald 1969; Odum 1970; de material produced annually is moved, largely by ice- la Cruz and Gabriel 1974; Odum and Skjei 1974). Var- rafting, from the scoured marshes into the estuary dur- ious studies now are underway to determine the degree ing the period frornJanuary through March (Heinle and to which different aquatic organisms may be sustained by others 1975). The carbon budget of the estuary, and the detritus. It appears, however, that filter feeders, benthic supply of detritus, therefore, may be considerably greater scavengers, and other organisms are the principal during years with severe winters and widespread ice than "detritivores" or detritus feeders (Table 25). during years in which the winters are mild and little or Detritivores apparently ingest the detritus particles no ice is formed on the marshes. and strip them of their coatings of microorganisms. They derive their nutrition, thus, from the fungi, bacte- 2.4 WILDLIFE FOOD PLANTS OF THE ria, and protozoa, as well as from the plant material COASTAL WETLANDS (Baier 1935; ZoBell and Feltham 1938,1942; Adams and Angelovic 1970; Fenchel 1970,1972). Some of the plant Food, cover, water, space, and freedom from distur- particles, which may be broken into still smaller pieces bance are the basic requirements of wildlife. The availa- by the digestive processes of the animals, are excreted. bility of these resources and their geographic relation to The excreted fragments then may be recolonized by one another generally determine the relative value of a microorganisms, and the detritus may be recycled several particular habitat. times before the plant substrate is disintegrated (Nelson In the level, rockless coastal wetlands of Maryland, 1947; Keefe 1972; Heinle and others 1974). Microorga- plants are the sole source of cover, All food is derived nisms may not be able to colonize extremely small parti- directly or indirectly from plants. Many kinds of wetland cles (20 microns or less; Weibe and Pomeroy 1972), but wildlife are herbivores (plant eaters) or omnivores such particles may reaggregrate and be colonized densely (general feeders). The predators feed on these animals (Odum, Zieman, and Heald 1972). or on other predators which have fed on the plant eaters. Detritus is the base of the decomposer food web. The Detritus feeders, which obtain energy and materials primary consumers, or detritivores, are eaten by other from decaying plant remains, form another major circuit animals-the secondary consumers-and those, in turn, which utilizes and transfers food originally formed by are fed upon by tertiary consumers. plants. 68 Table 25. Some estuarine and saline marsh animals that utilize detritus as part of their normal diets (Teal 1962; Adams and Angelovic 1970; de la Cruz 1973). The names of species in which organic detritus composed 25 % or more of the food of some stage in the life history (Darnell 1961) are preceded by a star (*). Letters following names indicate: F, filter feeder; D, deposit feeder; and S, scavenger, which feeds on large organic debris, as animal bodies (Dexter 1947). Common name Scientific name Crustaceans: Crabs Sponges *Blue crab (juvenile, adult) Callinectes sapidus Sponge Chalina oculata (F) Rock crab Cancer irroratus (S) Hydroids, Anemones Green crab Carcinus maenus (S) Hermit crab Pagurus longicarpus (S) Hydroid Abietienaria abietina (F) Marsh crab Sesarma reticulatum Hydroid Clava leptostyla(F) Fiddler crabs Uca spp. Hydroid Obelia spp. (F) Tunicates Hydroid Sertularia pumila (F) Hydroid Tubularia spectabilis (F) Sea grapes Mogula manhattensis (F) Sea anemone Metridium senile (F) Fish Bryozoans Ladyfish (juvenile) Elops saurus Bryozoan Bugula turrita (F) American eel Anguilla rostrata (F) Bryozoan Lichenopora hispida (F) Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus (F) Mollusks: Snails and Slugs *Gulf menhaden (young, Snail Bittium varium juvenile) Brevoortia patronus Atlantic herring Clupea h. harengus (F) Perwinkles Littorina spp. *Gizzard shad (adult) Dorosoma cepedianum Marsh snails Melampus spp. Threadfin shad (juvenile) Dorosoma petenense Limpet Acmaea testudinalis (F) *Bay anchovy (juvenile, adult) Anchoa mitchilli Limpet Crepidula fornicata (F) Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax (S) Mollusks: Bivalves *Blue catfish (juvenile, adult) Ictalurus furcatus Razor clam Ensis directus (F) *Channel catfish (juvenile) Ictalurus punctatus Gem shell Gemma gemma (F) *Sea catfish (juvenile, adult) Arius felis Bivalve Hiatella arctica (F) Pollock Pollachius virens (F) Baltic macoma Macoma balthica (F) *Atlantic needlefish (adult) Strongylura marina Atlantic ribbed Mussel Modiolms demissus (F) Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus Blue mussel Mytilus edulis (F) Mummichog, killifish Fundulus spp. (F,S)l *Common rangia clam Rangia cuneata Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Sand-bar clam Siliqua costata (F) Sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna Bivalve Solemya velum (F) Tidewater silverside (adult) Menidia beryllina Segmented Worms Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus (F) Polychaete worm Clymenella torquata (D) Yellow bass (adult) Morone mississippiensis Blood worm Glycera dibranchiata Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix (F) Polychaete worm Lumbrinereis tenuis (D) Pinfish (juvenile, adult) Lagodon rhomboides Polychaete worm Spirorbis spirillum (S) Freshwater drum (juvenile) Aplodinotuf grunniens Insects Silver perch (adult) Bairdiella chrysura Springtails Sand seatrout (juvenile, Dolichopodid flies adult) Cynoscion arenarius Ephyrid flies Spotted seatrout (juvenile, Crustaceans: Barnacles adult) Cynoscion nebulosus *Spot (juvenile, adult) Leiostomus xantburus Acorn barnacle Balanus balanoides (F) *Atlantic croaker (all ages) Micropogon undulatus Acorn barnacle Balanus eburneus (F) Red drum (adult) Sciaenops occellata Crustaceans: Isopods Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus (F) Isopods Unidentified species *Striped mullet (juvenile, Isopod Philoscia vittata (S) adult) Mugil cephalus Crustaceans: Amphipods Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus (F) Amphipod Caprella penantis (S) Grubby Myoxocephalus aenaeus (S) Amphipods Gammarus spp. (S) Longhorn sculpin Myoxocephalus Amphipod Talorchestia longicornis (S) octodecemrpinosus (F) Amphipod Orchestia platensis (S) Shorthorn sculpin Myoxocephalus scorpius (S) Crustaceans: Shrimp *Hogchoker (adult) Trinectes macalatus Sand shrimp Crangon septemspinosa (D) Schmelz 1964; Jeffries 1972; Lottich 1975. *River shrimp Macrobranchium ohione Grass shrimp Paleomonetes pugio *White shrimp Penaeus setiferus 69 Water permeates the exposed wetlands and covers to wildlife. Animals that feed on the products of trees submerged wetlands. The major regional control of and shrubs are tallied in Table 28, and those that feed on water, other than to produce the saturated condition of submerged plants are evaluated in Table 29. the wetlands, is exerted through its quality. The gradient Numerals in the tables are estimates of the relative of salinity from the ocean to the uppermost reaches of importance of each kind of plant in the diets of animals the tidal streams largely determines the nature and dis- that utilize it. These symbols are defined in Table 26. The tribution of wetland vegetation types. Locally, the dura- higher numerals indicate that a greater proportion of the tion and depth of water are important habitat deter- diet is composed of the species. minants. These values are based on analyses of the contents of Space is a psychological requirement of territorial gizzards, crops, stomachs, and/or droppings, and on animals. This is evident among predatory mammals and qualitative field observations. The types and number of certain kinds of waterfowl, which appear to require vis- analyses vary from one species of animal to another, and ual isolation from other nesting pairs. Because vegeta- the analyses were conducted in different seasons. In the tion can obscure visual contact, it can substitute for spa- laboratory analyses and in examinations of droppings, tial separation for waterfowl. Vegetation also affords resistant materials are over-represented. Soft-bodied nest sites, nesting materials, refuge from floodwaters, insects, fleshy fruits, and other easily digested materials hunting perches, song posts, and other requirements in are disintegrated quickly after they are ingested, and they addition to basic food and cover. are under-represented in the analyses. Thus, plant foods Most kinds of animals appear to relate more closely to may be overrated in the total diets of some kinds of the gross form of vegetation than to the species of plants animals, and plants that lack resistant parts may be of which the vegetation is composed. Although there are underrated. Nevertheless, the system that is utilized in several major structural types of vegetation in the coastal this section yields the most usable indexes to the relative wetlands -herbaceous marshes, shrub swamps, and importance of different kinds of plants to wildlife. The forested swamps-the bulk of the wetlands are formed values for any particular species of animal may not depict by the herbaceous marshes. More subtle features of vege- accurately the true mix of its diet. When the values are tation structure, correlated tidal characteristics, asso- summed for each species of plant, however, the totals ciated distributions of smaller food animals, such as crabs allow a rough approximation of overall relative impor- and clams, and plant palatability appear to be principal tance to all types of wildlife. A large difference between determinants of marsh wildlife habitat suitability. the sums for any two kinds of plants suggests that one kind of plant is more valuable to wildlife in general than EMERGENT PLANTS USED AS FOOD the other. Small differences probably are not significant. Information on the utilization by wildlife of various A plant that is indicated to be of low value to wildlife in wetland plants for food is summarized in the four general may be a prime food of one or a few species. If accompanying tables. Emergent plants which produce only the soft, easily digested parts of a plant are eaten, fruits or seeds that are eaten by birds and/or mammals however, the rating derived from this system probably are listed in Table 26. The foliage, stems, and/or root- will be erroneously low. The tables, therefore, should be stocks of emergent plants listed in Table 27 are of value used with appropriate discretion. Table 26. Emergent herbaceous wetland plants whose seeds or fruits are utilized as food by wetland wildlife (Martin and others, 195 1).' 0 W CU (n 0 0 to 0 to UV 0 0 V to T X U :3 E M cd 14 -0 (d 0 ed M 0 cd 4'@ U Q Q @D 0 P., P-@ Cn V) J Waterfowl Coot 5 2 2 2 5 Duck.. Baldpate 4 3 3c 2 2 3 3 Black 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 4 Bufflehead 2 2 2 3 Canvasback 5 4 Gadwall 5 2c Goldeneye, American 2 2 Mallard 4 2 2 5 3 4 5 70 Table 26. Emergent herbaceous wetland plants whose seeds or fruits are utilized as food by wetland wildlife (Continued). AM AH BL BM BR CG CT CP GW GR PN PK RG RC S SW SP TM U WH WL WR Pintail 5 4 2 5 2 4 4 Redhead 4 2 2 3 5 Ringneck 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 Ruddy 4 2 Scaup, greater 2 3 2 2 Scaup, lesser 3 2 2 4 Shoveller 5 2 2 3 Teal, blue-winged 4 2 3c 3 3 3 2 3 Teal, green-winged 5 2 5c 4 4 4 4 Wood 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 Goose, snow 3 Swan, whistling 2 4 Marsh and Shore Birds Dowitcher, eastern 2d 2 Gallinule, purple 2 3_ Knot, American 2d Rails Clapper 2d 3 2 2 King 2 3 2d 2 2 Sora 4d 2 3 2 3 3 5 7 5 3 Virginia 3d 3 2 2 2 4 Yellow 2d 4 4 Sandpipers Pectoral 2d 2 2 Sernipalmated 3d 2 2 Stilt 2d 2 White-rumped 2 Snipe, Wilson 3d 2 2 3 2 Songbirds Blackbirds Red-winged 5 4 2 4 Rusty 4 Bobolink 3 3 2 5 Bunting, snow 2 2 Cardinal 3 Cowbird 5 Creeper, brown 2 Crow, fish 3 Goldfinch 3 Grackle, boattailed 3 71 Key: Arrowarum - AM Reedgrass - RG Arrowheads - AH Rice Cutgrass - RC Bulrushes - BL Sedge - S Burmarigold - BM Smartweeds - SW Burreeds - BR Spatterdock - SP Canarygrass - CG Touch-me-not - TM Cattails - CT Umbrellasedge - U Cordgrasses - CD Waterhemp - WH Glassworts - GW Walter millet - WL Goldenrod - GR Wildrice - WR Orach - O Panicgrass - PN Pickerelweed - PK Table 26. Emergent herbaceous wetland plants whose seeds or fruits are utilized as food by wetland wildlife (Continued). AM AH BL BM BR CG CT CD GW GR PN PK RG RC S SW SP TM U WH WL WR Songbirds, continued Grosbeak, blue 4 Hummingbird, ruby-throated 4b 4b Junco 2 3 Lark, horned 2 Longspur, Lapland 3 Meadowlark, eastern 2 2 Pipit, American 2 Siskin, pine Sparrows 2 Bachman's 5 Chipping 3 English 2 Field 4 Grasshopper 2 2 3 Henslow 2 Ipswich 5 Ipswich 4 2 Lincoln 5 Savannah Savannah 4 3 3 Seaside 5 4 3 Sharp-tailed 6 2 2 4 4 Song 2 4 3 5 2 4 Swamp 2 2 4 3 5 5 4 Tree 2 4 3 3 Vesper 3 White-crowned 4 White-throated 3 Upland Game Birds Dove, mourning 3 3 Grouse, ruffed 2 Pheasant, ringneck 2 2 2 2 Quail, bobwhite 2 5 2 Turkey, wild 2 Woodcock 2 Mammals Cottontail, eastern 2c Meadow vole, eastern 2c 2 Mouse, whitefoot 2 Muskrat 72 Key: Arrowarum - AM Reedgrass - RG Arrowheads - AH Rice Cutgrass - RC Bulrushes - BL Sedge - S Burmarigold - BM Smartweeds - SW Burreeds - BR Spatterdock - SP Canarygrass - CG Touch-me-not - TM Cattails - CT Umbrellasedge - U Cordgrasses - CD Waterhemp - WH Glassworts - GW Walter millet - WL Goldenrod - GR Wildrice - WR Orach - O Panicgrass - PN Pickerelweed - PK Table 26. Emergent herbaceous wetland plants whose seeds or fruits are utilized as food by wetland wildlife (Concluded). 0 -.0 Cd a4 i:z P4 (n V) Cn @-4 Summary Waterfowl Number of user species 1 0 17 1 10 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 12 15 1 0 5 1 7 15 Total of Scores 4 0 66 3 25 0 0 8 6 0 0 13 4 0 0 29 45 3 0 14 2 22 58 Marsh and Shore Birds Number of user species 1 1 11 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 8 8 1 0 0 0 3 2 Total of scores 2 3 27 0 6 0 2 9 0 0 0 9 0 3 3 21 24 2 0 0 0 10 7 Songbirds Number of user species 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 3 28 0 0 2 3 8 0 1 2 0 2 6 Total of Scores 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 11 0 11 10 89 0 0 6 10 28 0 4 5 0 522 Upland Game Birds Number of user species 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Total of scores 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 Mammals Number of user species 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total of Scores 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 a Numerical scores indicate extent of use: (1) undetermined; (2) 0.5 to 2% of diet; (3) 2 to 5% of diet; (4) 5 to 10% of diet; (5) 10 to 25% of diet; (6) 25 to 50% of diet. b Utilizes nectar c Also utilizes foliage d Also utilizes rootstocks Table 27. Emergent herbaceous wetland plants whose vegetative parts are utilized as food by wildlife (Martin and others 195 1). Except as indicated by footnotes, the rootstocks are utilized. Scores are defined in Table 26. 0 X -a 7@ @I (A W 0 0 Cd Z 0 04 04 04 cn Cn Waterfowl American brant 2 Ducks Baldpate 4d Black 3d 2c Canvasback 2d Gadwall 4d Mallard 2d 3d Pintail 3d 2d Ringneck 3d 3d 73 Table 27. Emergent herbaceous wetland plants whose vegetative parts are utilized as food by wildlife (Martin and others 1951). Except as indicated by footnotes, the rootstocks are utilized. Scores are defined in Table 26 (Concluded). V. AH BL BR CT CD GW GR PN RC RH SP SK Ruddy 2d Scaup, lesser 3d 2d Shoveller 2c Teal, bluewing 2d 3d Teal, greenwing 3d Wood 3d 2d Geese Canada 5b 6 2b 2c Snow 5 3c Swan, whistling 4d Upland Game Birds Grouse, ruffed 2 Mammals Beaver 4a Deer, whitetail 2 Muskrat 4 5a 5 6a 4b 4a 3 Summary Waterfowl Number of user species 11 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 8 0 0 4 Total value 31 5 0 0 13 2 0 0 22 0 0 9 Upland Game Birds Number of user species 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total value 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Mammals Number of user species 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total value 4 5 5 6 0 0 2 4 4 3 4 0 aUtilizes aerial parts as well as rootstocks. bUtilizes only aerial parts. cUtilizes young plants, rootstocks, and seed heads. dAlso utilizes seeds. Key: Arrowheads - AH Bulrushes - BL Burreeds - BR Cattails - CT Cordgrasses - CD Glassworts - GW Goldenrod - GR Panicgrass - PN Rice Cutgrass - RC Spatterdock - SP Rushes - RH Spikegrass - SK 74 Table 28. Wetland shrubs and trees which are utilized as food by wildlife (Martin and others 195 1). Numerical scores are defined in Table 26. Plant parts eaten are indicated by footnotes. 0 0 0 0 E 0 Q) Z to 64 14 C6 C: 0 U4 0 04 a4 Waterfowl Ducks Gadwall 2d 2d Mallard 2d 2d 3d 2d Ring-necked 2d Teal, blue-tailed 2d Teal, green-tailed 2d Wood 2d 3d 2d 2d 3d Gull, herring 3d Marsh and Shore Birds Dowitcher 2d Rails Clapper 2d King 2d Virginia 2d Yellow 2d Songbirds Blackbirds Red-winged 2d 2d Rusty 2d 2d Bluebird 2d 2d 4d 3d 3d Bunting, indigo ld Cardinal 2d 2d 4d 4d 3d Catbird 5d 3d 3d 4d 3d 2d Chat, yellow-breasted 5d 3d Chickadees Black-capped 2d 2d 4d Carolina 2b 2d 4d 2d Id Creeper, brown 3d Crow Common 2d 2d 2d 3d Fish 4d 2d 2d Crossbills Red 7d White-winged 5d Finch, purple 3d 2d 3d 3b 3d 4d Flicker 2d 3d 2d 3d 2d 2d Flycatcher, crested 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d Goldfinch 3d 2b 2d 4d 4d Grackle Boat-tailed 2d 75 Table 28. Wetland shrubs and trees which are utilized as food by wildlife (Martin and others 195 1). Numerical scores are defined in Table 26. Plant parts eaten are indicated by footnotes (Continued). (U E :3 44 0 -0 to Q @: v J4 0 0 7; 0 0 0 P. P4 CZ [h E-4 Purple 3d 4d Grosbeak Evening 2d 2d 6d 6b Pine 3d 5d 3d 4b 6d Rose-breasted 3d 3b 2d Hummingbird, ruby-throated le Jay, blue 3d 2d 6d junco, 2d 2d Kingbird 2d 2d 3d 2d Meadowlark, eastern 3d 2d 3d Mockingbird 3d 3d 2d 2d Id Nuthatches Brown-headed 6d Rose-breasted 3b 6d White-breasted 5d 3d Oriole Baltimore 3d 2d Orchard 4d 3d Phoebe 2d 2d 2d Robin 2d 4d 4d 2d 4d 3d 2d Sapsucker, yellow-bellied 2e 2e 3d 2e 2e 2e ld 2e le 2e Siskin, pine 4d Sparrows Bachman's 3d 2d Fox 4d Henslow 3d Ipswich 2d Tree 2d 2d Starling 2d 3d 2d 3d 2d Swallow, tree 6d Tanagers Scarlet 3d 2d 5d 2d 2d Summer 5d Thrasher, brown 5d 3d 3d 3d 3d 3d 3d Thrushes Gray-cheeked 2d 2d 3d 3d 4d 2d Hermit 2d 2d 2d 3d 2d 2d Olive-backed 2d 2d 2d 3d Wood 3d 3d 2d 4d 4d 76 Table 28. Wetland shrubs and trees which are utilized as food by wildlife (Martin and others 195 1). Numerical scores are defined in Table 26. Plant parts eaten are indicated by footnotes (Continued). 0 .2 0 0 E "a Cd 0 0 .- 'AZ 0 0 -0 to W Qj V 0 U 0 C@O Cc '2 Cd >1 Cd Cd 0 'd 0 4 0 1- Titmouse,'tufted 3d 2d 3d 2d 4d 2d Towhee, rufous-sided 4d 3d 2d 4d 3d 2d Veery 3d 3d 3d Vireos Philadelphia 2d Red-eyed 2d 2d 3d 2d 2d Warbling 3d White-eyed 3d 2d 3d Warblers Myrtle 3d 3d 2d 2d Pine 3d 4d Waxwing, cedar 3d 2d 3d 2d 4d 3d Woodpeckers Downy 3d 2d Hairy 2d 2d Pileated 2d 4d 2d Red-bellied 2d 2d 3d 5d 3d Red-headed 2d 5d Wren, Carolina 2d 2d 2d 2d Upland Game Birds Bob-white quail 3d 3d 2b 3b 2d 3b 3m 2d 2d Mourning dove 3m Ruffed grouse 2b 2d 3d 2b 2m 2b 2a 2d 2b 3h Ring-necked pheasant 2d 5d 2b 3b 2d Wild turkey 2d 2d 2d 2b 2m 4b 2a 2d 6b 2d 3m Woodcock 2b 2d Mammals Beaver 3f 3g 3C 4m 5g 1g 4f Chipmunk, eastern 3d 3c 3d 4d 4c 2d Cottontail 2d 4c 2M Deer, whitetail 2h 3h 3h 3m 3h 2h 6h 2d 3c 2d 2h 2h 1h 4c Fox, gray 2m 2d Fox,red 2m 2d 2d Meadow vole, eastern__ 2d 2c 2c Mouse, red-backed 1M Mouse, white-footed Id 2d 1C 4m 2d 2d 3d 4c 3d 2d 3d Muskrat 2c 2c Opossum 2d 2m 3d Raccoon 2d 2m 2c 6c 4d Skunk, eastern 2d 2c 3m 1M 2m 77 Table 28. Wetland shrubs and trees which are utilized as food by wildlife (Martin and others 195 1). Numerical scores are defined in Table 26. Plant parts eaten are indicated by footnotes (Concluded). 0 0 0 -0 0 0 -0 V 0 0 t --I@ @@4 0 P4 P4 Squirrels Flying 3c 4c Fox 29 3c 2d 2m 5C Gray 29 2c 3d 3m 4c -6c 3m 3d 2d Red 2c 4c 4c 3m 2m 3d 2c Summary Waterfowl Number of user species 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 6 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Total of scores 0 0 2 4 0 3 3 12 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Marsh and Shore Birds Number of user species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total of scores 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Songbirds Number of user species 1 9 6 0 38 20 25 0 28 3 8 23 17 6 22 1 9 8 7 0 Total of scores 3 19 14 0 113 50 62 0 83 6 25 65 55 13 78 2 21 20 15 0 Upland Game Birds Number of user species 2 3 2 0 5 3 2 0 4 0 2 3 4 1 3 0 2 1 0 1 Total of scores 4 6 5 0 15 6 4 0 11 0 4 6 14 2 9 0 4 2 0 3 Mammals Number of user species 1 7 3 0 7 5 8 1 5 2 9 1 11 5 6 4 0 3 5 5 Total of scores 3 14 8 0 17 12 19 3 11 4 31 2 42 13 17 8 0 10 10 14 aBuds, twigs, seeds bSeeds, buds and/or flowers cSeeds, bark, twigs, buds and/or flowers dSeeds or fruits eSap or nectar fWood, foliage gWood, also seeds for some species hTwigs, foliage and/or buds mFruit, stems, foliage Table 29. Submerged and floating aquatic plants utilized as food by wildlife (Martin and others 195 1). The leaves, stems and seeds of most of these plants are eaten. Scores are defined in Table 26. -I:; V 0 C: 0 0 0 Z a4 Waterfowl Brant, American 4 5 78 Table 29. Submerged and floating aquatic plants utilized as food by wildlife (Martin and others 195 1). The leaves, stems and seeds of most of these plants are eaten. Scores are defined in Table 26. (Continued). cl Q) 7Z cl W 0 0 0 0 0 Z Coot 3 3 6 3- 5 3 Ducks Baldplate 2 2 2 3 4 5 5 3 Black 2 3 4 5 3 3 Bufflehead 2 2 4 3 3 Canvasback 2 2 5 5 2 6 Gadwall 4 4 3 5 Goldeneye, American 2 4 2 2 -3 Mallard 2 2 2 2 3 5 2 4 Pintail 2 3 5 2 4 2 Redhead 3 3 2 3 6 4 2 5 Ringneck 3 3 6 3 2 3 Ruddy 2 3 5 3 4 Scaup, greater 3 3 4 5 2 5 4 Scaup, lesser 2 2 4 4 5 3 2 5 Scoter, American 3 2 Scoter,surf 3 2 2 Scoter, whitewing 3 2 Shoveller 3 2 2 4 3 3 Teal, bluewing 5 4 4 3 3 Teal, greenwing 4 2 3 3 2 2 Wood 3 5 4 -3 Goose, Canada 2 2 5 Swan, whistling 5 5 Marsh and Shore Birds Dowitcher, eastern 3* 2 Gallinule, purple 4 2 '2 Knot, American 2* 2* 3 Rail King 2 2* 2 Sora 2 2* Virginia 2* Sandpiper Pectoral 2* 2 Sernipalmated 2 Stilt 2* 2 Whiterump 3 Snipe, Wilson 2* 79 Table 29. Submerged and floating aquatic plants utilized as food by wildlife (Martin and others 195 1). The leaves, stems and seeds of most of these plants are eaten. Scores are defined in Table 26. (Concluded). 7:) _1Z; V 0. Q) 0 _(U 0 0 @r@ Mammals Beaver 4 Muskrat 3 3 Summary Waterfowl Number of user species 11 11 11 7 16 21 9 2 20 16 Total of scores 28 33 29 17 52 93 29 5 64 58 Marsh and Shore Birds Number of user species 0 2 1 0 1 8 1 0 8 0 Total of scores 0 6 2 0 2 17 2 0 18 0 Mammals Number of user species 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 Total of scores 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 *Values followed by an asterisk indicate that birds utilize only the seeds. SUBMERGED PLANTS USED AS FOOD bling ducks as the mallard, black duck, pintail, gadwall, Submerged vascular plants are of direct and significant American wigeon, shoveller, blue-winged teal, and green- value to waterfowl as food. They are of indirect value to winged teal, and by redheads, canvasbacks, ring-necked waterfowl, as well, because the dense beds that are ducks, lesser scaup, common goldeneyes, buffleheads, formed by submerged vascular plants serve as cover and oldsquaws, ruddy ducks, whistling swans, Canada geese, as food for many kinds of fish and aquatic invertebrates and American coots (Tables 37, 38, 39, 41, and 42). upon which the waterfowl feed (Gosner 1968; Nixon Owing to its abundance, wide distribution, and inten- and Oviatt 1972; Thayer and others 1975; Kikuchi and sive utilization, the wigeongrass is considered to be the Peres 1977). most important food plant for waterfowl in the coastal The relative values to wildlife of several species or zone of Maryland (Stewart 1962; Metzgar 1973). The groups of species of submerged vascular plants are listed redhead pondweed generally is ranked as the second in Table 29. The data on which the table is based are most important, although Anderson (1972) concluded drawn from the entire northeastern United States and that this species and Eurasian watermilfoil are not used include analyses from inland areas as well as from coastal intensively by waterfowl. Wildcelery, eelgrass, and coon- regions. Nevertheless, they parallel closely the several tail are important locally. published evaluations for coastal Maryland. When eelgrass was abundant along the Atlantic Coast, In regard to waterfowl, the tabulated data support it virtually was the only food used by wintering American previous evaluations which have ranked wigeongrass as brant (Cottam, Lynch, and Nelson 1944). Since the the most valuable of the submerged plants (McAtee decline of eelgrass, which was complete by 193 1, sealet- 1939). As a group, the several species of pondweed are of tuce has become the principal food of wintering brant in high value to waterfowl, but wildcelery is the second the saline coastal bays. Where it still occurs, or has most important species that is ranked individually. Eel- recovered, eelgrass is utilized most intensively by brant grass and coontail are of nearly equal value to waterfowl. in saline to slightly brackish waters, but wigeongrass Wigeongrass, which has thin, almost hairlike leaves, now is the most important item in the diet of brant in covers large areas of the bottom in shallow waters of the these habitats (Stewart 1962; Ponkala 1973). Eelgrass brackish section of the Chesapeake Bay and many of its stems and leaves also are eaten by the black duck, gad- tributaries (Phillip and Brown 1965; Orth 1975). Its wall, American wigeon, greater scaup, lesser scaup, seeds and/or vegetative parts are utilized by such dab- common goldeneye, bufflehead, oldsquaw, and redhead. '80 The mute swan was introduced into Chesapeake Bay amphipods, shrimplike decapod crustaceans, insects, and when a pair of the birds escaped from a pen on the Miles spiders, are eaten by various birds and mammals, and the River during a storm in March 1962 (Ringle 1977). The distribution and relative abundance of these inverte- birds nested successfully, and apparently gave rise to a brates influence the occurrence and activities of the population that numbered about 300 within 15 years. larger animals. The swans, unlike the large native waterfowl, are not Meiofauna, which are very small invertebrates that migratory. They feed on eelgrass, and each may eat as range in size from springtails, which are insects, to much as 10 pounds of plants per day throughout most of barely visible nematodes, are the most abundant macro- the year. Although the birds still are localized, their scopic animals of the marsh. Although their role in the feeding habits and their demonstrated capacity for suc- food web of the marsh is not known in detail, the meio- cessful and rapid reproduction pose a potential new fauna are food items of snapping shrimp, fiddler crabs, threat to beds of submerged plants in Chesapeake Bay. polychaete worms, snails, spiders, fish, and other animals In brackish or fresh waters, sago pondweed is promi- of the wetlands. The dead remains of meiofauna also are nent in the diet of the whistling swan, Eurasian wigeon, important in the food cycle, because they decay rapidly American wigeon, lesser scaup, goldeneye, ruddy duck, and contribute to detritus in the soil and water. and canvasback (Tables 37, 39). Wildcelery is important in the diet of the whistling swan, American wigeon, greater scaup, common goldeneye, bufflehead, ruddy Crustaceans duck, American coot, and canvasback (Table 37) in fresh The marsh fiddler crab is the characteristic member of and slightly brackish waters. The redhead pondweed is its genus in saline areas. It feeds on algae, detritus, utilized by mallards, black ducks, gadwalls, American shrimp, small fish, and other organisms, and is preyed wigeons, lesser scaup, buffleheads, ruddy ducks, red- upon by a variety of birds and mammals, as well as by the heads, ring-necked ducks, canvasbacks, and American diamondback terrapin (Shuster 1966; Kraeuter and Wolf coots (Tables 37, 38, 39). Naiads are eaten by the gad- 1974; Welsh 1975). In the State of Delaware, marsh wall, ruddy duck, redhead, common goldeneye, and Eura- fiddlers are most abundant in sections of estuaries in sian wigeon. The common waterweed is fed upon by which the salinity ranges from 21 to 29 ppt (Miller and redheads and American wigeons, and the Nuttall water- Maurer 1973). They also occur in large numbers in most weed is an item in the diet of the wood duck. Gadwalls of the saline wetlands of Maryland, and are the principal and ruddy ducks are known to eat the grassleaf pond- food of the clapper rail. Surveys in NewJersey indicated weed. The ribbonleaf pondweed is eaten by wood ducks; that the marsh fiddler is most abundant in dense stands Eurasian watermilfoil is eaten by the American coot; of the tall growth form of smooth cordgrass (Type 71) muskgrass is eaten by the American wigeon; and red along the banks of tidal waters (Table 30). In areas in algae are fed upon by the gadwall. which the salinity ranges from 10 to 20 ppt, the sand Submerged plants are of relatively little value to fiddler crab also is present, but no quantitative censuses marsh and shore birds. Wigeongrass and pondweeds, of its populations have been found. however, each are utilized by at least eight species, and The food habits of another decapod crustacean, the the seeds of eelgrass are used by the American knot. marsh crab, are similar to those of the marsh fiddler crab. Muskrats also feed on pondweeds when they are available. The marsh crab, however, also feeds directly on smooth cordgrass (Crichton 1960; Daiber and Crichton 1967). A single crab may consume as much as 0.06 gram (dry 2.5. ANIMALS OF THE COASTAL weight) of cordgrass per day. The activities of large WETLANDS numbers of crabs can reduce a stand of cordgrass to a stubble during the summer. Except for birds, animals generally are not conspicuous Blue crabs utilize the small marsh creeks as nursery in the landscape of the coastal wetlands. The lodges of areas. The crabs mature about 18 months after they muskrats may dot t 'he landscape, but muskrats them- hatch, and they molt approximately 27 times during this selves are seen only occasionally. Most of the other period (Dudley and Juday 1973). During the spawning marsh creatures are small; many dwell on or in the litter season, which begins in May, adult females congregate at layer and soil; and most crawl or hop among the dense the mouths of estuaries, at inlets, and along ocean vegetation or swim beneath the surface of the water. To beaches where their eggs mature and hatch. The hatched experience the animal life of the wetlands, one cannot larvae, or zoeae, swim, or are carried by currents, as far as merely view the scene from a distance. It is essential to 40 miles off shore. The zoeae molt six to eight times enter the wetlands and to search among the plants, before they transform into the megalops stages of devel- beneath the litter, and along the edge of the water. opment. The megalops have been found as far as 80 miles off shore. By October the young crabs, now about INVERTEBRATES OF SALINE MARSHES 2.5 to 5.0 mm wide, begin to move into the estuaries. The Fiddler crabs, marsh crabs, snails, and mussels are crabs swim through the bays and into the small creeks in conspicuous and familiar large invertebrates of the saline the tidal marshes, where they remain until the following marshes. These animals, as well as numerous, but smaller spring. During April and May, the juvenile crabs move 81 into the bays and remain there until they are mature. (Hausman 1932) and Newjersey (Table 30), the popula- During their residence in the estuarine habitats, the tions of the saltmarsh snail are most dense in the short crabs molt 18 to 20 times and grow to widths of 127 mm growth form of smooth cordgrass (Type 72). Investiga- or more. tions in Maryland also indicated that the snails are most An isopod (Philoscia vittata) and, in combination, the abundant in stands of the short form of smooth cord- sand flea and the beach flea, are most abundant in stands grass (Personal communication, William Sipple and of meadow cordgrass in New Jersey (Table 3 1). The Harold Cassell 1977). second most dense population of the isopod occurs in stands of marshelder where no sand fleas or beach fleas were observed. The second most dense population of the sand and beach fleas occupies stands of the short growth form of smooth cordgrass. The population of isopods in Table 31. Densities (individuals per square meter) of this type was about equal in density to that in stands of Atlantic ribbed mussels, an onoscoid isopod, and sand spikegrass. No individuals of these small crustaceans fleas in vegetation zones of saline and brackish marshes were collected from stands of switchgrass, Olney three- in New Jersey. square, or common reed. Sand Flea Type Predominant plant Mussel Isopod. Beach Flea. Table 30. Densities (individuals per square meter) of Northerna Southernb marsh fiddler crabs and saltmarsh snails in vegetation 46 Switchgrass 0 NA 0 0 zones of saline and brackish marshes in Newjersey. 47 Olney threesquare 0 NA 0 0 49 Common reed 0 NA 0 0 61 Meadow cordgrass <1 <1 319 208 Marsh Fiddler Crab Saltmarsh Snail 61 Spikegrass 0 NA 65 22 Type Predominant plant Northerm Southernb Northern. Southernb 62 Marshelder 0 NA 127 0 46 Switchgrass 0.0 NA 0.0 NA 71 Tall smooth 47 Olney threesquare 0.0 NA 0.0 NA cordgrass 85 5 4 35 49 Common reed 0.0 NA 139.0 NA 72 Short smooth 61 Meadow cordgrass 0.6 3 467.9 2 cordgrass 4 <1 68 54 61 Spikegrass 1.7 NA 179.5 NA NA means no data are available. 62 Marshelder 21.2 NA 211.7 NA Trout and Widjeskog 1976, Ocean County. 71 Tall smooth cordgrass 192.2 46 183.4 21 bFerrigno and others 1969, Cumberland and Cape May Counties. 72 Short smooth cordgrass 7.2 37 1,036.6 468 NA means that no data are available. Bivalves .Trout and Widjeskog 1976, Ocean County. bFerrigno and others 1969, Cumberland and Cape May Counties. Ribbed mussels, which are filter-feeding detritivores, are most abundant along the banks of creeks, guts, bays, and ditches where they grow in clusters among the roots of smooth cordgrass (Shuster 1966). In Newjersey, the Snails densities of ribbed mussels ranged from 85 per square Most snails of the coastal wetlands feed on detritus meter in the tall smooth cordgrass (Type 7 1), to one per and on algae and microorganisms that they rasp from the 14.3 square meters in meadow cordgrass marsh (Type surfaces of plants, from the bottom, and from pilings and 6 1), and none in stands of marshelder (Table 3 1). These rocks (Kraeuter and Wolf 1974). The marsh periwinkle, bivalve mollusks feed on bacteria, diatoms, and fine par- for example, commonly is observed on the stems of ticles of organic detritus that they filter from the water. cordgrass. Studies with radionuclide tracers indicated Each mussel pumps more than a gallon of sea-water that the snails do not obtain food directly from the during each hour that it is covered by a flooding tide. plants. When sediments were labeled, however, the snails picked up the tracer rapidly. This indicated that it Spiders is a detritivore. The populations of spiders that dwell among the The saltmarsh snail is eaten by killifish, by many kinds plants and on the ground in five types of vegetation in of shore birds, and by song sparrows, swamp sparrows, the saline coastal wetlands of North Carolina were stu- marsh wrens, red-winged blackbirds, and other marsh- died by Barnes (1953). He sampled with sweep nets and dwelling birds (Hausman 1932). Although it is not the pitfall traps, and utilized the results to rank the relative dominant item in the diet of any species,this snail also is abundance of the more common spiders in each vegeta- an important food for wintering black ducks and other tion type. waterfowl (Ferrigno and others 1969). In Connecticut In total, 40 species of spiders were listed in the collec- 82 Table 32. Spiders observed in five types of coastal wetland vegetation in North Carolina (Barnes 1953). Numbers indicate ranks of relative abundance in a vegetation type. Presence is indicated by an X. rA C: C: "o "o cl I - w 0 0 0 0 0 V, 0 0 to 0 U to Zn (@) U U -0 U U "a cl :3 (U U :3 w 0 @n X w ;@ w) to 0 0 to 0 -a - 0 0 to @: -S, 0 E -a a "a V @n 7; "0 0 110 "ICI V A -C; 71 0 Q 0 -@4 0 @4 W E E Cn (J z Cn Among Plants (Cont.) Among Plants Zygoballus bettini x Eustata anastera 3 x Phidippus sp. x 3 Hyctia pikei 2 2 x Agassa cerulea x Dictyna savanna 3 X 2 3 Agiope aurantia x Grammonota trivittata 4 Allotheridion murarium x Argiope seminola 5 x x 5 Aysba gracilis x Tibellus duttoni x I x Ceratinosis nigriceps x Tetragnatha pallescens x 3 Coleosoma normale x 00 Paraphidippus marginatus X 4 4 Latrodectus mactans x Neoscona pratensis x 5 2 Leucauge venusta x Hyctia bina x x Misumenops celer x Latinia directa x x Neoscona minima x Acanthepeira stellata x x Oxypes salticus x Ceraticelus paschalis x Xysticus sp. x Ceratinopsis savanna x Number of species 23 8 8 8 19 Clubiona littoralis x Eperigone bryanti x On the Ground Pelopatis undulata x Lycosa modesta 1 1 1 Poecilocbroa capulata x A rctosa furtiva 2 Poecilochroa unimaculata x Pardosa floridana x 2 2 Singa keyserlingi x Pirata suwaneus x 1 Singa rubens x Lycosa rabida x 2 Tetragnatha caudata x Gnapbosa sericata 3- x Tberidula sphaerula x Clubiona plumbi 3 Hentzia ambigua x x Poecilochoroafamula 3 Pisaurina mira x Drassyllus creolus Mangora gibberosa x 2 Number of Species 0 6 2 2 5 tions from the coastal wetlands. A web-weaver, Eustata tation type are web-builders. They may be the species anastera, was the only species that was found in all five that compete best for the limited number of suitable vegetation types (Table 32). It was the most abundant construction sites. spider in three of the types. A jumping spider, Hyctia Ground-dwelling spiders were absent from the fre- pikei, was predominant in mixed stands of meadow quently flooded stands of smooth cordgrass, and only two cordgrass, broomsedge, and switchgrass. This spider was species were reported from stands of needlerush and the second most abundant species in stands of smooth mixed stands of meadow cordgrass, spikegrass, and cordgrass and meadow cordgrass, and it also was present glasswort (Table 32). Six species were listed from mea- in mixed stands of meadow cordgrass, spikegrass, and dow cordgrass marshes, and 14 kinds of ground-dwelling glasswort. In the meadow cordgrass marsh, a crab spider, spiders were collected in the infrequently flooded stands Tibellus duttoni, was the most abundant species. The of meadow cordgrass, broomsedge, and switchgrass. crab spider also was collected from smooth cordgrass Wolf spiders (Family Lycosidae) were the predominant vegetation and from mixed stands of meadow cordgrass, ground inhabitants. These hunters are cursorial, or run- broomsedge, and switchgrass, but it was not among the ning, forms that are most active at night. most abjjndant species in those vegetation types. Twenty-six kinds of spiders were observed in only one vegetation type. No species was limited to the meadow cordgrass type or the needlerush type, and only one Insects spider was restricted to the meadow cordgrass, spike- Numerous observations and studies of the mosqui- grass, glasswort mixed type. About half of the kinds of toes, midges, and other obnoxious insects of coastal spiders that were collected from the smooth cordgrass wetlands have been published. There have been few type (12 of 23 species listed) were not seen elsewhere. studies, however, of the great variety and abundance of Approximately 70% (13 of 19 species listed) of the the other kinds of insects which are important compo- spiders that were observed in the mixed stands of mea- nents of the wetland ecosystem. The only comprehen- dow cordgrass, broomsedge, and switchgrass were not sive investigation of the adult insect populations of coas- observed in the other wetland vegetation types, but eight tal wetlands along the Atlantic Coast was conducted in of them also were collected in upland vegetation types. five types of vegetation in the saline marshes of North Twenty-three species of spiders were listed from the Carolina (Davis and Gray 1966). A similar, but less aerial herbaceous stratum of smooth cordgrass stands, detailed, survey was conducted in eight types of vegeta- and 82% of the total number of individuals that were tion in a coastal wetland in NewJersey (Ferrigno 1975; collected were web-building spiders. In contrast, only Trout and Widjeskog 1976). On the Pacific Coast, eight species of spiders were found in the aerial stratum Cameron (1972) conducted a detailed survey of insects in of stands of meadow cordgrass, and 64% of the individu- two types of coastal wetland vegetation in California. als were hunting spiders that do not construct webs. The results of the North Carolina and New Jersey Web-builders and hunters were about equally abundant surveys are most relevant to the conditions expected in in the mixed stands of meadow cordgrass, broomsedge, Maryland owing to the geographic proximity of the and switchgrass, and a total of 19 species was listed from states and the similarity of the vegetation types in their this vegetation type. coastal wetlands. The San Francisco Bay wetlands are Smooth cordgrass, broomsedge, and switchgrass are 3 remote from Maryland, and no species of plant or insect to 4 feet tall; their stalks diverge from a single base and that was found in the two California wetland communi- may be branched; and they bear numerous leaves that ties is known to occur on the Middle Atlantic Coast. angle out from the stalks, The structure of the vegetation Nevertheless, the habitats on the east and west coasts are that is formed by these plants, therefore, offers numer- subject to similar, although not identical, tidal influences ous sites that are suitable for the construction of webs of and seasonal variations. The predominant plants in the different sizes. Meadow cordgrass is shorter, usually not two types of western marshes that were studied, a cord- more than 1.5 feet tall, and stands of meadow cordgrass grass and a saltwort, also have important counterparts in become flattened and matted by winds, rain, and tides the coastal wetlands along the East Coast. early in the growing season. As a result, the structure of Opportunities to make direct comparisons between this vegetation is not suitable for the support of large the results of the investigations in North Carolina and webs. New Jersey and in California are limited because the Although the plants grow to heights of 4 to 5 feet, only methods used in the field differed significantly. The eight kinds of spiders were observed in stands of needle- limitation on comparisons is increased by the methods rush. The low number of species may reflect the struc- used to present and to analyze the results of the studies. ture of this vegetation type, which is formed by cylindri- Davis and Gray (1966) relied on the relative densities of cal, unbranched stalks that grow more or less vertically specimens representative of different orders of insects; and nearly parallel. Webs that are strung between the Trout and Widjeskog (1976) analyzed the data obtained stalks are subject to damage when the stalks are moved by Ferrigno (1975) to estimate the actual densities of by the wind, by tides, or by other forces. The three individuals of five groups of insects in each of eight spiders that were most common in the needlerush vege- vegetation types (Table 34); Cameron (1972) restricted 84 his descriptions to considerations of the variations in the reports had hypothesized that wetland insects frequently diversities of populations of herbivorous insects, sapro- are inundated by the tides and that they have developed phagous insects, and predaceous insects. adaptations that permit them to remain under the water The North Carolina survey focused on adult insects for periods as long as several hours. Observations in the that inhabit the aerial herbaceous stratum that is formed field and in the laboratory, however, indicated that by the stalks, leaves, and flowering parts of the plants. marsh insects escape inundation by crawling to parts of Sampling was conducted at several, widely spaced sta- the plants that remain above the water, by flying or tions, and each station was sampled about three times swimming to exposed surfaces, or by hopping on the per month from June through August. Selected stations surface film of the water until they locate a safe refuge. were sampled one time per month from September Several kinds of marsh insects were able to endure pro- through May. Collections were made with sweep nets, longed submergence, but their capacities to do so may be and the contents of the nets immediately were placed in equaled by related insects from terrestrial habitats. killing jars. In the laboratory, the insect specimens were In California, as along the Middle Atlantic Coast, there sorted from the plant debris by hand. This sweeping is a pronounced annual cycle of biological activity in the technique samples large, but quantitatively undefined coastal wetlands. During the autumn, the aerial parts of areas. It is suitable for general faunistic surveys, and it is plants in stands of most types of herbaceous vegetation particularly effective for the capture of rapidly moving become yellowish and brownish, and primary production insects that hop or fly. Because the exact area or volume slows and ceases. Concurrently the activities of insects in of space that is sampled is unknown, the absolute density the coastal wetlands begin to decline as the temperatures of insects and similar quantitative measures cannot be of the air and water drop and as the vegetation dies back computed. to the ground. Most adult insects die, and their bodies Collections in the NewJersey wetland area were made enter the detritus food chain. Eggs that were laid during only during August. Ninety-four sample plots, each I the summer or autumn represent the life stage in which square meter, were distributed in the eight vegetation most kinds of insects will endure the winter. types in numbers proportional to the areas occupied by Two general categories of insects were recognized by the types. Only one plot was assigned to the switchgrass Cameron (1972) on the basis of the periodicity of activi- type, for example, whereas thirty-five plots were sampled ties of the adults. Persistent species are those that are in stands of the short growth form of smooth cordgrass. represented by adults throughout the year. The adults of In the California wetlands, Cameron (1972) utilized a seasonal species are present only during the growing clip-plot method to sample the insect populations in one season of the vegetation (herbivores) or at times of the stand of each of two vegetation types. A stand was an maximum accumulation of dead plant material (litter- area of about 1.75 acres (0.71 ha). Each week throughout feeders). Little evidence of large migrations of insects the year, he cut all of the plants within five small, into the wetlands from other habitats was found in the randomly-selected plots, each of which was about 20 three studies. The seasonal species, therefore, are as- inches square (0.25 M2). After the clipped material was sumed to be represented in the wetlands by eggs, larvae, removed, he scraped the litter from the surface of the and/or pupae during most of the year. soil. These materials were bagged and taken to the labor- Sampling in the San Francisco Bay wetlands indicated atory where the adult insects were extracted with a that most kinds of litter-feeding insects are persistent Berlese-Tullgren funnel. This device gently heats the species. Most herbivores are seasonal species. The adults plant material to force the insects to move to the bottom of most of the herbivorous insects appear in the spring of the funnel where they fall into a jar. This clipping after the growth of plants begins. A major eruption of method is most effective for the collection of sedentary seasonal species, which accounted for 30 to 40176 of the and ground-dwelling forms. Active flying or hopping number of species of herbivores seen during the year, insects may escape while the plot is being marked or occurred during the nine weeks in which the marsh while the plants are being clipped. Because a defined area plants were flowering. is sampled, the results from clipped plots can be used to Insects that inhabit the litter layer of the wetlands calculate densities and other quantitative parameters of were not surveyed in North Carolina or New Jersey. In populations. The standing crop of the vegetation at the the herbaceous stratum, however, torpid adults of a few time of sampling also can be determined and correlated kinds of insects were found to survive during the winter with the measures of the insect populations. in sheltered places. These include several kinds of plan- One general finding of the North Carolina investiga- thoppers, grasshoppers, marsh flies, shore flies, a seed tion was that most of the characteristic insects of the bug, and at least one kind of midge. On warm days, even coastal wetlands are restricted to the coastal region, and in midwinter, these adults become active and may be most occur only in the wetlands. Some also utilize inland, seen moving about the marsh. Midges and planthoppers freshwater marshes and other wetland habitats, and a may be active on all but the coldest days during the late few range widely throughout terrestrial habitats. winter and early spring. Another general finding of that investigation was that The plants of the saline wetlands in North Carolina insects of the coastal wetlands are unable to survive initiate new growth during middle or late April. The prolonged periods of submergence. Numerous earlier eggs of insects may start to hatch during April, but the 85 populations of insects develop most rapidly during May. grass and meadow cordgrass, but they were considered to Many kinds of insects reach their summer levels of abun- have strayed into these types from nearby stands of dance in June.1 smooth cordgrass. The densities of grasshoppers and true bugs generally Flies (Diptera) were predominant in stands of mea- reach their peaks during middle or late summer and dow cordgrass, and Homopterans constituted the second decline sharply by September. The populations of some most abundant group. In other vegetation types, flies Homopterans are largest in summer or early autumn, ranked second in abundance in smooth cordgrass and in but those of other species of Homopterans and of several mixtures of smooth cordgrass, glasswort, and seala- flies vary only slightly during the same period. Adult salt vender, and they ranked third in stands of spikegrass and marsh mosquitoes attain their maximum numbers dur- needlerush. All of the flies that were captured in needle- ing September and October. rush stands were believed to have been strays from other By late October or early November, the vegetation of types of vegetation. A frit fly, Coniofcinella infesta, was the North Carolina marshes dies back, and temperatures the commonest fly in all five of the vegetation types. decline. Adult insects become increasingly scarce, and the True bugs (Hemiptera) were the second most com- winter period of dormancy begins once again. mon group of insects in spikerush stands, and grass- A similar pattern of seasonal changes in the popula- hoppers (Orthoptera) were the second most abundant tions of marsh insects was apparent in the San Francisco group in stands of needlerush. In other types, true bugs Bay region (Cameron 1972). In the spring, the adults of contributed less than 10% of the total number of indiv- most species of herbivorous insects begin to appear iduals collected, and grasshoppers were represented by about two to three weeks after the growth of their food no more than 3% of the specimens. plants is renewed. During the autumn, there is a similar The density of insects varied substantially from stand lag of two to three weeks between the time of the min- to stand in the low marsh vegetation types. The average imum standing crop of live vegetation and the wholesale number of insects captured per unit effort of sampling in disappearance of adult herbivorous insects. The popula- the most productive stand of smooth cordgrass, for tions of predaceous insects are synchronized with those example, was 42 times as great as the number captured in of their prey, and they increase and decrease as do those the least productive stand. The variability in needlerush of the herbivores. stands was considerably less (7x). The maximum varia- The fluctuations of the populations of litter-feeding bility in high marsh types was about 2x in meadow insects in California were correlated with variations in cordgrass and it was less than 2x between stands of amounts of litter. These insects were most abundant spikegrass. during the late autumn and winter. Occasional high tides The largest average number of insects per sample redistributed the litter and the litter-feeding insects, and (2,529 individuals) was obtained from stands of smooth may have carried some into the Bay. Springtails (Xenylla cordgrass. The average density of individuals in samples baconae) were the most abundant litter-feeding insects from spikegrass (1,345) was 539o' as great; that from in cordgrass stands. They represented about 80% of the meadow cordgrass (196) was 8% as great; and the aver- total number of individuals collected during the year, and age from needlerush (63) was 2.5% as great. Only one their average density was nearly 28,000 per square meter stand of the smooth cordgrass, glasswort, and seala- (112 million per acre). Large numbers of these minute vender type was surveyed, and the average density of insects apparently were carried into the sample area by insects there (411 per sample) was 16 % as great as the high tides, because the density of their population average in six stands of smooth cordgrass. increased by four to six times immediately after periods The spikegrass vegetation type supported the greatest of inundation. number of species of insects. Four species of insects, Summer is the period of maximum activity by insects. however, contributed approximately 80% of the total In the paragraphs that follow, the summer populations number of individuals collected from stands of spike- of the characteristic insects in five types of coastal grass. These were Delphacodes detecta, a planthopper; wetland in North Carolina are described and compared. Amphicephalus littoralis, a leafhopper; Trigonotylus These descriptions are based on the averages of several americanus, a leaf bug (Hemiptera); and Coniosanella collections, so they ignore the temporal variations that infesta, a frit fly (Diptera). The last species also occur during the summer and early autumn. contributed 3 5 % of the total number of insects collected Leafhoppers and other Homopterans were the most from stands of meadow cordgrass. No other species in abundant insects in four of the five saline wetland vege- meadow cordgrass habitats, however, was represented tation types that were surveyed (Table 33). A delphacid by an unusually large proportion of the total number of planthopper, Delphacodes deteaa, was widely distribj individuals. uted and relatively abundant in stands of all types, other Leafhoppers also were the most abundant insects in than needlerush. Another member of the same family, the coastal wetlands of New Jersey (Table 34). Their Prokelisia marginata, was the most abundant Homopte- numbers ranged from 6 to 152 individuals per square ran in stands of smooth cordgrass and in mixtures of meter (24,000 to 615,000 per acre) in the eight types of smooth cordgrass, glasswort, and sealavender. Individ- vegetation that were sampled. No other group of insects uals of this species also were frequent in stands of spike- was represented in stands of Olney threesquare, com- 86 Table 33. Composition of insect populations in five types of saline coastal wetlands in North Carolina (Davis and Gray 1966). Numbers indicate percentage of total number of insect individuals collected in each type that represented the relevant order. The symbol -X" indicates a characteristic member of the insect fauna; "s" indicates a member of lesser importance. 7@ 0 0 U 0 0 X a: -R 0 - a:> 0 > 0 0 0 'n 0 0 0 0w) - U E E E E ;4 Cn 'n 0 con z Cn Homoptera 90% 78% 72% 57% 30% Hemiptera 2% 4% 3% 19% 9% Prokelisia marginata x x s s Ischnodemus badius x Sanctanus aestuarium x x Trigonotylus uhleri x x Draeculacephala portola x x Trigonotylus americanus x Delphacodes detecta x x x x Rhytidolomia saucia x Sanctanus sanctus x Cymus breviceps s S S x x 00 Keyflana hastata x Rhynchomitra microrhina x Orthoptera <1% 3% 11% 1 % 3% Amphicephalus littoralis x Orchelimum fidicinium x Spangbergiella vulnerata x Conocephalus spp. x x x x Tumidagena terminalis x x Orphulella olivacea x x s Neomegamelanus dorsalis x x Paroxya clavuliger x Hapalaxius enotatus x Nemobius sparsalsus x Aphelone,na simplex s x Clinocephalus elegans x x Mermiria intertexta S x Diptera 7% 13% 10 t7o 19% 4417o Coleoptera <1970 1 % <1% 2% 4% Chaetopsis apicalis x x Isohydnocera tahida x Chaetopsis fulvifrons x x s S S Mordellistena spp. x Conioscinella infesta x x s x x Collops nigriceps x s Dimecoenia austrina x Naemia serriata s x s Pelastoneurus lamellatus x s s Isohydnocera aegra x Oscinella ovalis x x GIVphonyx sp. x Ceropsilopa costalis x Tomosvaryella coquilletti x Hymenoptera < 1 C70 <1% 3% 1 % 9% Hippelates particeps s s x Crematogaster clara s s S s s vorymyrmex pyramicus x Pseudomyrmex pallida s s x Iyidom_yrmex pruinosus s x Other Orders <1910 <1% <1% <190, I % mon reed, or tall-form smooth cordgrass. The densities of true bugs (order Hemiptera) ranged from less than I Table 34. Densities (individuals per square meter) of @to 21 per square meter (<4,000 to 85,000 per acre), and insects and spiders in vegetation zones of saline and they formed the second most common group of insects in brackish marshes in New Jersey (Trout and Widieskog stands of switchgrass, spikegrass, and marshelder. Orthop- 1976). terans were the second most abundant group in stands of meadow cordgrass, where the densities of grasshoppers Leaf- Grass- and crickets were equal (3 per square meter, or about Type Predominant plant hoppers hoppers Crickets Ants Bugs Spiders 12,000 of each per acre). 46 Switchgrass 53 0 0 0 21 90 The highest density of insects in the New Jersey 47 Olney threesquare 33 0 0 0 0 132 49 Common reed 6 0 0 0 0 46 wetland area was observed in the meadow cordgrass type 61 Meadow cordgrass 152 3 3 0 0 121 (158 per square meter; Table 34). The densities of 61 Spikegrass 134 0 0 0 3 99 insects in stands of spikegrass (137 per square meter), 62 Marshelder 18 0 0 6 13 297 71 Tall smooth short growth form smooth cordgrass (96), and switch- cordgrass 29 0 0 0 0 22 grass (74) ranged from 8717o to 47% as great as the 72 Short smooth density in the meadow cordgrass type. In the other four cordgrass 95 <1 0 0 <1 48 types of vegetation, the densities ranged from 4% to 2396 as great as that in meadow cordgrass. The shelter and food that are available were consi- dered by Davis and Gray (1966) generally to be more nesting ants, however, were relatively abundant only in important than relative tidal inundation in establishing stands of meadow cordgrass, although they foraged into the numbers and kinds of insects that can be supported other types of vegetation. The virtual limitation of nests by a particular type of wetland. The dense, short carpet to the areas occupied by meadow cordgrass apparently that is formed by spikegrass, for example, was consi- was governed by the more frequent flooding of other dered to provide ample food and cover for many herbi- habitats by tides. vorous insects. Smooth cordgrass is taller than spike- The majority of the species of insects and of the grass, so it provides a larger volume of space for insects. individual insects that were collected from wetland vege- Because its stands are more open, the quality of cover tation in North Carolina and California were herbivores, that is afforded by smooth cordgrass is less than that of or forms that feed directly on the plants. No specific spikegrass. Needlerush, in contrast to the preceding analysis was presented by Davis and Gray (1966), but types, is formed by slender, cylindrical stalks that are Cameron (1972) found that approximately 50% of the highly fibrous and bear no expanded leaves. Stands of species were herbivores, 3596 were litter-feeders, and needlerush, therefore, provide little cover from preda- 15% were predators. Some of the herbivores, particu- tors, slight protection from wind, and a scant supply of larly the grasshoppers and ants, have chewing mouth- food for most herbivores. The high relative importance parts and eat the tissues of the plants. The Homopterans of grasshoppers in stands of this type may reflect the and Hernipterans have piercing/ sucking mouthparts ability of grasshoppers to utilize the tough tissues of which they use to obtain sap from the plants. Picture- needlerush for food more effectively than other insects. wing flies (Chaetopsis fulvifrons, C apicalis) and a frit The floristic diversity of the vegetation also may be an fly (Conioscinella infesta) in the North Carolina wetlands important determinant of the diversity of the insect are equipped with sponging mouthparts that allow them fauna of a vegetation type. Davis and Gray (1966) noted to obtain secretions from the surfaces of the plants. that herbivorous insects commonly feed only on a few, These flies also may eat detritus and bacteria that adhere closely related species of plants. The greater the variety to the surfaces of the plants. The larvae of most of the f rit of plants in a vegetation type, therefore, the greater is flies live in the stalks of grasses and feed on the internal the potential variety of insects that can be supported by tissues of the plants. that type. Owing to the method used to sample insects, Spiders were considered to be the most abundant and Davis and Gray were not able to correlate each species of important predatory arthropods in the marsh vegetation herbivorous insect with the species of plants on which it both in California and North Carolina. Many insects, was feeding. Furthermore, fewer than 100 of the more however, obtain their food by eating other insects or common species of the nearly 400 kinds of insects that sucking the fluids from the bodies of insects, snails, were collected by Davis and Gray were mentioned in mammals, or other animals. In North Carolina, adult their report. A future, more detailed faunistic analysis dragonflies, which were seen most frequently in stands will be required to determine the extent of restricted of needlerush, prey on flying insects. Other predators plant-insect relationships in coastal wetlands and to that feed on tissues include soft-winged flower beetles evaluate the ecological importance of such relationships. (Collops nigriceps), checkered beetles (Isohydnocera One kind of ant, Crematogaster clara, was collected tabida, L aegra), and ladybird beetles (Naemia se-rriata). from all of the wetland vegetation types in North Carol- The larvae of chamaemyiid flies prey on aphids and ina. This species nests in hollow, dead stems of smooth mealybugs. cordgrass that remain erect (Teal 1962). Ground- Several kinds of flies obtain food by sucking the body 88 fluids from other kinds of animals. Robber flies (Family sandy areas within the saline marshes. A typical nesting Asilidae, not listed by species) prey on insects as large as habitat is formed where small mounds of dredged mate- grasshoppers. Marsh flies (Dictya oxybeles, Hoplodictya rials have been deposited in an extensive marsh system. spinicornis) were observed in stands of smooth cord- In some cases, the full colony may surround a heronry grass and mixed stands of smooth cordgrass, glasswort, established by glossy ibises or black-crowned night her- and sealavender. The larvae of these flies prey on snails ons. Where trees or shrubs are present, the heronries and may attack the marsh periwinkle in the coastal may be utilized by snowy egrets, great egrets, little blue wetlands. Assassin bugs (Doldina interjungens, Sinea herons, cattle egrets, Louisiana herons, yellow-crowned diadema, Zelus cervicalis) and damsel bugs (Nabis capsi- night herons, great blue herons, green herons, or mix- formis) prey on insects, whereas midges (unidentified) tures of two or more of these species (Kane and Farrar and mosquitoes (Aedes sollicitans) prey on warm- 1976). Cattle egrets generally are scavengers, but the blooded vertebrates. other species feed on fish and invertebrates that they Adult parasitic-wasps, including chalcids, braconids, obtain from the bays and tidal streams. ichneumons, tiphiids, and scelionids, were observed in Laughing gulls may establish their nesting colonies in all five of the wetland vegetation types. It was assumed, the smooth cordgrass zone. Occasionally a laughing gull therefore, that the larvae, which are internal parasites of colony will encircle a colony of herring gulls that has adult insects, insect larvae, and eggs, also were present in been assembled on a sandy hillock. Common terns or the stands. The larvae of a big-headed fly (Tomosva- Forster's terns may nest nearby, but they invariably are ryella coquilletti) are parasites of various leafhoppers segregated from the gull colony. The terns traditionally and planthoppers. deposit their eggs on bare sand. Recent surveys along the The adults of most of the long-legged flies (Chrysotus New Jersey coast, however, suggest that the intensive discolor, C picticornis, Paraclius vicinus, P. claviculatuf, human use of beaches and the usurpation by gulls of Pelastoneurus lamellatus, Thinophilus ochrifacies) are other sandy areas may force the terns to nest in areas that predaceous on smaller insects. The larvae are detriti- are covered with meadow cordgrass or common reed votes. The larvae of shore flies (Psilopa flavida, Cerop- (Kane and Farrar 1976). silopa costalis, Notiphila bispinosa) also are detritus The Atlantic brant and snow goose winter in saline feeders. marshes. The brants feed largely on submerged aquatic plants, particularly on sealettuce, eelgrass, and wigeon- Meiofauna grass. The principal food of the snow goose, however, is the rootstock of smooth cordgrass. Where the birds feed The total number of meiofauna ranges from 1.2 mil- heavily, they may cause eatouts, or areas devoid of plant lion per square meter during November to 10.6 million cover. These areas are slightly depressed, and they fre- duringJune in smooth cordgrass stands along the Dela- quently develop into barren pans or shallow marsh ware Bay in New Jersey (Brickman 1972). The biomass ponds. of these individually small organisms ranges from 2.19 The rootstocks and leaves of smooth cordgras5 and to 17.59 grams per square meter (20 to 157 pounds per spikegrass are important items in the diet of the Canada acre) during the year. Vertically, 6996 of the animals are goose, and the seeds of the cordgrass may be utilized by contained in the uppermost 5 cm of the soil. Nematodes the black duck. Glassworts, which usually are scattered account for 97% of the total number of organisms and through the cordgrass stands, are minor food sources. 93% of the total biomass. Predatory and omnivorous Geese eat the fleshy branches, and ducks feed on the individuals compose about 3176 of the total nematode seeds (Tables 26 and 39). population; about 1496 are of species that feed on the Several kinds of shore birds feed along the margins of slime that coats the surfaces of plant rootstocks and soil shallow ponds in the short-growth, smooth cordgrass particles; and the majority feed on detritus. marshes, particularly during the spring and autumn periods of migration. These include the greater yellow- legs, lesser yellowlegs, dowitchers, pectoral sandpiper, least sandpiper, stilt sandpiper, and whimbrel. Ponds BIRDS OF SALINE MARSHES' that are bordered by mudflats or sand are utilized by the willet, sernipalmated sandpiper, western sandpiper, dun- The abundance of crustaceans, mollusks, and other lin, knot, sernipalmated plover, black-bellied plover, and invertebrates in the smooth cordgrass zone of the tidal other shore birds. Willets may nest in short-growth, marsh attracts herons, egrets, boat-tailed grackles, laugh- smooth cordgrass near the ponds. ing gulls, seaside sparrows, and other birds to feed. Dur- Clapper rails are associated strongly with the smooth ing their migratory visits, especially in autumn, forty or cordgrass. The principal food of these predatory birds is more species of shorebirds, including sandpipers, plov- the marsh fiddler crab, which is most abundant in the ers, and the whimbrel and willet, forage over the saline smooth cordgrass zone. Investigations in New Jersey marshes and tidal flats and in shallow pools. (Table 35) and near Chincoteague, Virginia (Stewart Gulls are scavengers, but they also feed on marsh invertebrates, on eggs, and on other available items. 'Except as noted, most of the information on the birds of Nesting colonies of herring gulls may be established on the coastal wetlands was obtained from Meanley (1975). 89 1951), revealed that approximately 80 to 90% of the wetlands. Instead, they have grouped most brackish nests of the clapper rail are constructed in smooth cord- wetlands with the saline marshes; and only the least grass, and particularly in stands of the tall growth form brackish have been included with freshwater wetlands. (Table 36). In Maryland, some rails also may utilize As a result, the literature contains few references to stands of needlerush (Meanley 1975). brackish wetlands as such. Marshelder occurs in linear stands along levees that The meiofauna population in managed stands of mea- are adjacent to tidal creeks and ditches, as well as on open dow cordgrass (Type 41) in NewJersey ranges in density shorelines. These narrow bands of shrubby vegetation are from 0.036 million per square meter during October to utilized as nesting habitat by the black duck, bluewinged 1.2 million during June (Brickman 1972). The biomass teal, longbilled marsh wren, seaside sparrow, and marsh also is less than that of smooth cordgrass stands (Type hawk. 5 1), and ranges from approximately 0.07 to 2.02 grams Utilization of the meadow cordgrass-spikegrass marsh per hectare (0.6 to 18 pounds per acre) during the year. type is discussed in the section on Birds of Brackish Vertically, 92% of the population is contained in the Marshes. This marsh type also is characteristic of the upper 5 cm of soil. Nematodes are predominant. They higher, less-frequently flooded sections of the saline contribute 64% of the total number of individuals and wetlands. 59% of the total biomass. Copepods are more prominent than in the smooth cordgrass stands. In meadow cord- Table 35. Densities of populations of several kinds of grass they accounted for 28% of all individuals and for animals in vegetation types in brackish and saline 32% of the total biomass of the meiofauna. wetlands in New Jersey (Ferrigno, MacNamara, and Red-jointed fiddler crabs (Uca minax) are present in Jobbins 1969). saline marshes, but they reach a peak of abundance in Type mixed stands of meadow cordgrass and spikegrass (Kerwin 1971). Near Solomons Island, Maryland, Gray 71 72 61 49 (1972) found that most red-jointed fiddlers were in Smooth Cordgrass Meadow Common stands of big cordgrass and paspalum. Tests in the State Tall Short Cordgrass Reed of Delaware indicated that the salinity of the water Waterfowl' 3.15 2.35 0.67 0.02 ranges from 0 to 12 ppt in areas in which the red-jointed Clapper raiIS2 0.14 0.41 0.03 0 fiddler crab is most abundant, and that the marsh fiddler Muskrats' 3.7 0.2 0.08 0.01 and the red-jointed fiddler may be equally abundant in Fiddler crabS3 46.3 36.9 3.2 0 areas in which the salinities range from 8 to 12 ppt Saltmarsh snails' 20.5 468.2 2.36 0 (Miller and Maurer 1973). No habitat data have been Ribbed MUSSeIS4 4.68 0.21 0.07 0 found for the sand fiddler crab, but it apparently is most Mosquitoes' 0 2.9 9.1 6.2 abundant in brackish areas where salinities are interme- 'Individuals per acre. diate (12 to 20 ppt) between those which seem to favor 'Successful nest hatches per acre. the other two species. 30ccupied burrows per square meter. 4Number per square meter. The ribbed mussel is the only bivalve mollusk that is Medes individuals per net dip. common in brackish marshes (Stewart 1962). It occurs principally along the margins of tidal creeks and ponds. Table 36. Association of nests of the clapper rail with The saltmarsh snail and another small snail (Littori- vegetation types in saline wetlands. Values are percen- dinops sp.) are the two most abundant and widely dis- tages of the total number of nests. tributed gastropod mollusks in the brackish wetlands. In contrast to the distribution reported in saline marshes, New Jersey Long Island Kerwin (1972) found that saltmarsh snails were more - abundant in meadow cordgrass-spikegrass stands than in Kozicky and Ferrigno MacNamara and smooth cordgrass stands in the brackish wetland that he Schmidt 1949 1966 Udell 1966 Smooth cordgrass, tall 73 91 16 investigated (Table 30). Periwinkles, however, are rather common in the vegetation along tidal creeks (Stewart Smooth cordgrass, short 4 - 1962). Smooth cordgrass/ In addition to fiddler crabs, a variety of other crusta- meadow cordgrass 7 4 - ceans inhabits the brackish wetlands. These include Meadow cordgrass/ ostracods, copepods, isopods, amphipods, mud crabs, and spikegrass 0 6 32 the blue crab (Stewart 1962). The characteristic insects Marshelder 14 <1 16 in these wetlands include mole crickets, dragonfly Common reed 0 0 9 nymphs, water boatmen, giant water bugs, adult and MiscellaneoUSa 2 <1 5 larval mosquitoes, midge larvae, predaceous diving bee- aBlackrush, bayberry tles, water scavenger beetles, and weevils. INVERTEBRATES OF BRACKISH MARSHES BIRDS OF BRACKISH MARSHES Wildlife biologists generally have not recognized brackish marshes as a separate category of coastal During the autumn and spring periods of migration, 90 waterfowl are abundant on the brackish marshes along nesting habitat of the black rail, and also are utilized for the bays in the upper Chesapeake region of Maryland nest sites by willets, redwinged blackbirds, seaside spar- (Stewart 1962). The most abundant waterfowl are: rows, and sharp-tailed sparrows (Stewart and Robbins Primary Species 1958; Meanley 1975). Black duck Blue-winged teal The brackish marshes also serve as breeding areas for Green-winged teal American wigeon comparatively large numbers of waterfowl (Stewart Secondary Species 1962). Black ducks utilize sites in all of the typical vegeta- Canada goose Pintail tion types, including big cordgrass and switchgrass, and Mallard Northern shoveller also nest in marginal upland habitats. Blue-winged teal Gadwall Hooded merganser nest principally in stands of meadow cordgrass (Type Casual or Irregular Visitors 41). Gadwalls establish widely spaced nests, and usually Whistling swan Common goldeneye are not abundant. Snow goose Bufflehead The contents of the gullets and gizzards of 348 speci- Blue goose Ruddy duck mens of waterfowl that were collected from brackish Redhead Common merganser estuarine bay marshes in Maryland were analyzed by Canvasback American coot Stewart (1962). The results of this investigation indicate Lesser scaup that large volumes of the leaves, stems, rootstocks, and seeds of wigeongrass are eaten by nearly all kinds of Black ducks and green-winged teal occur generally waterfowl in these marshes, and that the wigeongrass is throughout the brackish marshes, but they tend to con- the most important food for waterfowl that utilize this gregate near creeks and ponds in which mudflats are habitat (Table 39). The seeds of Olney threesquare also exposed during periods of low water. Gadwalls and are important in the diets of many kinds of waterfowl. American wigeons typically utilize permanent ponds Other plant foods that are utilized rather intensively that support extensive stands of wigeongrass or musk- include the seeds of marshelder, the seeds of stout bu-1- grass. Ponds with surface areas of 5 acres or more seem rush, and the vegetative parts of the alga, muskgrass. to be most attractive to Canada geese, and hooded mer- Canada geese eat large quantities of the rootstocks and gansers generally occupy only the larger tidal creeks. culms of common threesquare and Olney threesquare. Other kinds of waterfowl that are characteristic of the Seeds of twigrush apparently are carried by currents brackish marshes do not exhibit definite habitat affini- from fresh marsh areas and are deposited along tidal ties, but most of them seem to be most numerous on and creeks and ponds in the brackish wetlands. These seeds around permanent ponds. Foods that are utilized by were well represented in the analyses. waterfowl in the moderately brackish and highly brack- Animal items that were present in the ingested mass ish bays of the upper Chesapeake region are summarized of food in one or more kinds of ducks included the in Tables 37 and 38. saltmarsh snail, another small snail (Littoridinops sp.) Dunlins, greater yellowlegs, and lesser yellowlegs and copepods. Small fish had been ingested by black scour the open mudflats and shallow pools of the mea- ducks that were collected during the winter, but these dow cordgrass and Olney threesquare marshes to obtain ducks feed most intensively on the larvae and pupae of invertebrates. Meadow cordgrass stands are the prime mosquitoes during the warmer seasons. Table 37. Foods of waterfowl during late autumn, winter, and early spring in moderately brackish estuarine bays of the upper Chesapeake region, Maryland (Stewart 1962). Names followed by a superscript "t" indicate birds from areas of turbid water. Figures represent the percentage of the total number of birds sampled in which the particular food item composed 5176 or more of the contents of the gullet and gizzard, by volume. C r 0 r 0 lu > > E E r E 0 Qj Qj Qj 9 U U @4 .4 U 4 Number of Birds Examined: 42 8 13 40 5 57 81 41 9 9 13 14 7 18 6 9 9 Plants, Vegetative Parts Submerged Aquatics (71) (100) (38) (75) (60) (98) (90) (56) (22) (33) (23)- (29) (22) (50) Wildcelery - - 8 - - - - - - - Zosteraceae, unidentified - - - - - - - - - 11 - Eelgrass 100 8 42 53 30 22 11 22 8 14 11 33 Pondweed, unidentified - - - - - I - - - - - - - Redhead pondweed 5 23 50 20 70 53 46 8 Sago pondweed 21 - 2 - 2 - - Wigeongrass 69 100 8 28 20 47 14 10 11 8 14 22 17 Southern naiad - - - 2 91 Table 37. Foods of waterfowl during late autumn, winter, and early spring in moderately brackish estuarine bays, upper Chesapeake region (Continued). C 0 56 0 30 U .16 4 S 4j > E V E x a E .0 < con Common waterweed 20 11 14 Sealetruce - 4 5 Filamentous green algae 2 2 1 Enteromorpha 2 2 1 Emergent Plants (2) (2) Unidentified 2 - Smooth cordgrass - 2 Plants, seeds (2) (69) (60) (80) (5) (28) (37) (22) (38) (7) (22) (33) (11) Submerged Aquatics Grassleaf pondweed - - - Redhead pondweed 31 28 20 4 25 32 15 17 22 Sago pondweed - - - 2 8 - - Southern naiad - - - - - 22 Wigeongrass 46 42 20 6 17 22 31 17 11 Emergent Plants, Herbaceous Undetermined - 8 - - - - - - Great burreed 2 German millet 2 Olney threesquare 8 2 20 1 7 Stout bulrush - 2 - Smartweed, unidentified 8 Dotted smartweed 15 Pale smartweed 0 Pinkweed 8 20 Emergent Plants, Shrubs and Trees Swamp rose 8 Holly 8 Marshelder - 8 2 Blackgum 2 - Crop Plants (Bait) (10) (46) (25) (20) (2) (23) (24) (33) (22) (54) (14) (29) (22) (17) Corn 10 38 25 20 2 23 24 33 22 54 14 29 22 17 Wheat - 8 - - - 2 - - 8 - - 17 Animal Foods (55) (8) (45) (40) (2) (10) (80) (100) (100) (77) (100) (100) (89) (100) (67) (100) Mollusks Undetermined - 2 - - 2 22 - - - - - - - - Gastropods Bittimm Varions 20 7 - 22 7 11yanassa obsoleta - Saltmarsh snail 2 New England dog whelk 2 7 Odostomia impressa 2 11 21 - 11 Retrara candica4sta - 8 64 14 44 Sayella chesapeakea 11 15 7 - 11 Ttiphora perversa 2 - - 14 Bivalves Undetermined 2 - - M - 33 Bent mussel 8 2 22, 23 29 6 17 - Gem shell 5 7 23 - 17 17 11 Morton's cockle 2 11 - 36 - - Baltic macoma 31 8 32 2 2 56 78 11 15 36 14 22 11 56 Alacoma phenax 2 - 2 - - - 7 - I 1 56 - Atlantic ribbed mussel - 2 - - - 8 7 43 Coot dam 17 11 44 38 50 - 11 11 44 Common soft-shelled dam 26 1 7 - - 15 7 6 33 - Mytilidae - 2 - Stout razor clam 2 Segmented Worms Undetermined polychaetes 2 CJam worm 6 17 - Arthropods Crustaceans Unidentified crustaceans 6 17 11 92 Table 37. Foods of waterfowl during late autumn, winter, and early spring in moderately brackish estuarine bays, upper Chesapeake region, (Concluded). r r 0 r u 72 > > E C r. 0 0 9 U U 0 .4 U M 04 94 Unidentified barnacles - - 33 - - Acorn barnacles 22 - Unidentified isopods - 14 - Chiridotea coeca 36 22 Cyalhura spp. 20 11 - 6 Erichsonella spp. 2 - 7 - 11 17 Unidentified amphipods 17 Unidentified gammarids 2 - 15 14 14 11 - 22 11 Ampithoids 20 - - - - - - Unidentified decapods - 2 - 8 7 - - 50 Unidentified mud crabs 2 5 24 11 43 22 - Bluecrab 20 - - - - Neopanope taxana sayi - 17 Ladycrab 2 Sesarma spp. 14 Myriapods Unidentified species - 6 - Chordates Unidentified tunicates 17 Mogula spp. 2 - Seagrapes - Unidentified fish 2 43 11 33 Table 38. Foods of waterfowl during the autumn and winter in highly brackish estuarine bays of the upper Chesapeake region, Maryland (Stewart 1962). Figures represent the percentage of the total number of birds sampled in which the particular food item composed 5 % or more of the contents of the gullet and gizzard, by volume. Common Brant Redhead Canvasback Greater scaup Lesser scaup goldeneye Bufflehead Number of Birds Examined: 5 6 6 15 7 10 4 Plants, Vegetative Parts Submerged Aquatics (100) (50) (17) (47) (43) - - Eelgrass 33 17 47 43 Redhead pondweed 17 - - - Wigeongrass - 17 7 Sealettuce 100 - - - Plants, Seeds - (14) Submerged Aquatics Wigeongrass 14 Emergents Olney threesquare - - - 14 - Crop plants (bait) (83) (67) (27) (57) (70) Corn 83 67 27 57 70 Sorghum 33 - - - Wheat - 17 - - - Animal Foods (33) (83) (93) (100) (90) (100) Mollusks Undetermined - 50 27 - - - Gastropods Anachis avara - 27 - Bittium sp. - - 57 Bittium vatium 17 53 - Cerithiopsis subulata - 7 Clathurella jewetti 13 - - Ilyanassa ohsoleta 13 14 10 Lora sp. - - 25 Mitrella lunata 53 14 - New England dog whelk 33 - 25 Odostomia impressa 7 14 25 Plearotoma sp. - 7 - 93 Table 38. Foods of waterfowl during the autumn and winter in highly brackish estuarine bays of the upper Chesapeake region, Maryland (Stewart 1962). Figures represent the percentage of the total number of birds sampled in which the particular food item composed 5% or more of the contents of the gullet and gizzard, by volume (Concluded). Common Brant Redhead Canvasback Greater scaup Lesser scaup goldeneye Bufflehead Number of Birds Examined: 5 6 6 15 7 10 4 Pyramidella sp. - - - 7 - - - Retrusa canaliculata - - 17 13 14 - 25 Rissoidae, unidentified - - - - 14 - - Sayella chesapeakea - - 17 - - - - Tiphora perversa - - - - 14 - - Turbonilla sp. - - - 7 - - - Bivalves Undetermined - - - - 14 20 - Bent mussel - - - - - 30 - Platform mussel - - 17 - - - - Gem shell - 17 - 7 14 - 25 Morton's cockle - - - 13 - - - Baltic macoma - - 33 20 - 10 50 Coot clam - - 17 - 14 20 50 Spisula sp. - - 17 - - - - Veneridae, unidentified - - - - - 10 - Polychaetes, undetermined - - 17 - - - - Crustaceans Undetermined isopods - - - - - 10 - Erichosonella filiformis - 17 - - - - - Undetermined gammarids - - - - 14 20 50 Undetermined mud crabs - - - - - 40 25 Blue crab - - 17 - - - - Table 39. Foods of waterfowl that were collected from coastal marshes in the upper Chesapeake region of Maryland from autumn through late spring (Stewart 1962). Most of the specimens were obtained from brackish marshes, but a few were taken in fresh marshes and nineteen black ducks were from saline marshes. Figures represent the percentage of the total number of birds sampled in which the particular food item composed 5% or more of the contents of the gullet and gizzard, by volume. Northern Hooded American Green-winged Blue-winged shoveller merganser Whistling swan Canada goose Mallard Black duck Gadwall Pintail wigeon teal teal Number of Birds Examined: 4 10 28 133 24 13 86 34 43 12 2 Plants, Vegetative Parts Submerged Aquatics (75) (30) (32) (31) (88) (38) (93) - (12) (17) - Undetermined species - - - 1 - - - - - - - Eelgrass - - - - 17 - 1 - - - - Pondweed, unidentified - - 4 2 - - - - 2 - - Grassleaf pondweed - - - - 4 - - - - - - Redhead pondweed - - - 1 8 - 3 - - - - Sago pondweed - - 4 - - 8 2 - - - - Wigeqongrass 50 30 21 23 67 31 78 - 5 8 - Common waterweed - - - - 4 - - - - - - Pinnate watermilfoil - - - - 4 - - - - - - Muskgrass 25 - 11 2 12 - 27 - 5 17 - Sealettuce - - - 2 - - - - - - - Filamentous green algae - - - - 4 - 1 - - - - Enteromorpha - - - 2 - - - - - - - Emergent Plants, Herbaceous (75) (70) (7) (5) (8) - (6) - - (8) - Undetermined species 25 - 7 - - - - - - - - Grass, rootstalks, unidentified - - - 1 - - - - - - - Spikegrass 25 20 - 3 8 - 3 - - - - Cordgrass, unidentified - - - - - - - - - 8 - Smooth cordgrass - 10 - 2 - - 2 - - - - Threesquare, unidentified 25 60 - - - - - - - - - 94 Table 39. Foods of waterfowl that were collected from coastal marshes, upper Chesapeake region, Maryland, autumn through late spring (Continued). Whistling swan Canada goose Mallard Black duck Gadwall Pintail American Wigeon Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal Northern shoveller Hooded merganset Number of Birds Examined: 4 10 28 133 24 13 86 34 43 12 2 Plants, Seeds - (30) (68) (70) (25) (85) (7) (100) (95) (75) - Submerged Aquatics Redhead pondweed - - - - 4 - - - 2 - - Sago pondweed - - 4 1 - 8 - - 2 - - Wigeongrass - - 25 23 8 46 3 59 51 25 - Emergent Plants, Herbaceous Common burreed - - 4 - - 8 - - - - - Spikegrass - - 14 7 - 8 3 9 7 17 - Cordgrass, unidentified - - - - - 23 - - 5 - - Big cordgrass - - - 2 - - - - - - - Smooth cordgrass - - 14 6 8 - - 6 - - - Rice cutgrass - - - 1 - - - 3 - - - Crabgrass - - - - - 15 - - - - - Knucklegrass - - - - - 8 - - - - - Walter millet - - - 1 - 8 - - - - - Foxtail grass - - - - - 8 - - - - - Fragrant umbrellasedge - - - - - - - 3 - - - Common spikerush - - - - - - 1 - - - - Dwarf spikerush - - - - - - - 9 - - - Chestnutsedge - - - - - - - 3 - - - Bulrush, unidentified - - - 1 - - - - - - - Common threesquare - 20 - 1 - 8 - 6 - - - Olney threesquare - - 29 32 8 23 2 85 77 33 - Softstern bulrush - - 7 2 - - - 3 2 - - Stout bulrush - - 7 10 - - - 12 16 - - Twigrush - 10 25 14 - 23 1 15 14 8 - Needlerush - - - 1 - - - 3 - - - Smartweed, unidentified - - - 1 - - - - - - - Dotted smartweed - - 4 6 - - - 3 - - - Pinkweed - - 4 - - - - - - - - Spreading orach - - - 1 - - - - - - - Mermaidweed - - - - - - - 3 - - - Carolina sealavender - - - 1 - - - - - - - Dodder, unidentified - - - 1 - - - - - 8 - Bluecurls - - - 1 - - - - - - - Emergent Plants, Shrubs and Trees Bayberry - - - 1 - - - - - - - Waxmyrtle - - - 1 - 8 - - - - - Blackberry - - - 1 - - - - - - - Possumhaw - - - 1 - - - - - - Buttonbush - - - 1 - 8 - - - - - Groundselbush - - - 1 - - - - - - - Marshelder - - 7 7 - - - 6 12 - - Blackgum - 10 - 1 - 8 - - - - - Crop Plants (Bait) - (10) (25) (7) - (15) - (6) (2) - - Corn - 10 25 7 - 15 - 6 2 - - Wheat - 10 - 1 - - - - - - - Animal Foods - - (25) (56) (4) (31) (2) (59) (44) (67) (100) Cnidarians Hydromedusae Undetermined species - - - - - - 1 - - - - Mollusks Gastropods Undetermined species - - - - - - - - 2 - - Bittiam varium - - - 2 - - 1 3 - 8 - Littoridinops spp, - - - 6 - - - 12 23 33 - Littorina irrorata - - - 1 - - - - - - - Saltmarsh snail - - - 27 - 8 - 9 2 - - Bivalves Atlantic ribbed mussel - - 11 5 - 8 - - 2 - - 95 Table 39. Foods of waterfowl that were collected from coastal marshes, upper Chesapeake region, Maryland, autumn through late spring (Concluded). c: > Lx0 0 C4 -E 0"J 0 0 CIQ to E E T QJ M 0 X Coot clam Mytiliclae, unidentified Segmented Worms Clam worms Arthropods Crustaceans Unidentified ostracods 9 7 - Unidentified cladeocerans - - 8 Unidentified copepods - 25 Leptochelia savignyi - - 12 - Chiridotea coeca 4 2 6 - Unidentified amphipods 4 6 21 8 Unidentified decapods 4 5 - - - Unidentified mud crabs - - 100 Insects Unidentified insects 3 - - Dragonfly nymphs 5 8 - 2 Mole crickets 2 - - True bug nymphs I Giant water bugs Water boatmen Beetles, unidentified 6 7 Weevils - - 5 Fly larvae - 3 - Mosquito larvae 4 - Midge larvae 9 - Ants - 2 Chordates Tunicates Afolgula spp. 4 - - Sea grapes - 8 - Vertebrates Fish eggs - - 5 - - Fish, mostly killifish 4 17 4 - 17 100 Two shrubs, the marshelder and groundselbush, col- may have an overstory of loblolly pine. These stands are onize low banks along marsh channels, and marshelder nesting habitat for short-billed marsh wrens and king also may cover rather extensive sections of the marsh rails. The grass produces relatively large seeds which are adjacent to the uplands. Even where the shrubs are utilized as an autumnal food by several kinds of birds. scattered widely through the marsh, however, they are Although the grass becomes yellowish brown during important components of the habitat for birds. Red- autumn, it maintains its form and provides cover winged blackbirds, long-billed marsh wrens, and least throughout the winter and spring. This marsh type is bitterns, for example, may be attracted to marshes in used moderately for nesting cover by the red-winged which weak-stemmed herbaceous plants are predomi- blackbird. nant if shrubs are dotted through the areas. In these The predominant plants in some types -of coastal places, the birds construct nests in the shrubs, and forage wetland vegetation have coarse stems that are strong in the surrounding herbaceous marshes (Stewart 1949). enough, and tall enough, to support nests above the level Stands of the shrubs form prime nesting habitat for the of normal high tides. In other types of vegetation, the red-winged blackbird and boat-tailed grackle (Higman stems of the most abundant plants are short or weak, and 1972). Of 650 active nests of the red-winged blackbird, will not support elevated nests. Most of the brackish Meanley and Webb (1963) found 50% among the marsh types are composed of robust plants which do branches of marshelder and 28% in the crowns of the provide adequate substrates for elevated nests (Stewart groundselbush. Swamp sparrows also may nest in the 1949). shrubs in certain coastal localities. The long-billed marsh wren is the most common Stands of switchgrass (Type 46) occupy the highest nesting bird in needlerush marshes (Type 43). Nests of sections of some brackish wetlands, and in places they seaside sparrows frequently are placed in needlerush, and 96 these stands are used as nest sites by a few clapper rails. the plants remain erect and provide cover throughout Nests of the long-billed marsh wren, together with those most of the winter. In contrast, the leaves and stems of of the red-winged blackbird and least bittern, also are most other herbaceous plants of the freshwater wetlands common to abundant in stands of cattail (Type 44). King decompose rapidly, and most of the wetland area is rails and Virginia rails nest in cattail marshes, but the devoid of cover from November through March. birds are secretive and their nests are inconspicuous, so Seed production is at a peak in the freshwater tidal they seldom are seen. Red-winged blackbirds nest rather marshes from mid-August through mid-September, and abundantly in stands of stout bulrush (Type 37) and these wetlands become extensive granaries for wildlife. common reed (Type 39). Long-billed marsh wrens and Redwings, bobolinks, rails, and teals and other ducks least bitterns also utilize the common reed habitat, whe- flock to the marshes to feed (Stewart 1949). Smartweeds, reas short-billed marsh wrens, seaside 'sparrows, Virgi- wildrice, and Walter millet are the prime sources of seed. nia rails, and king rails construct nests in stands of stout Analyses of the stomachs of 241 soras from freshwater bulrush. wetlands long the Patuxent River, for example, indicated Big cordgrass, which commonly is 7 to 8 feet tall, that seeds of the halberdleaf tearthumb (37 % by volume), forms narrow stands along the tidal rivers and marsh Walter millet (19%), dotted smartweed (15%), and channels (Type 48). This grass is not a significant source arrowleaf tearthumb (8%) formed 7996 of the stomach of food for wildlife, but it provides dense cover that contents (Meanley 1965). persists through the winter. The red-winged blackbird Analyses of the contents of the stomachs of 130 and long-billed marsh wren are common in these stands, red-winged blackbirds from the fresh marshes along the and clapper rails and king rails also utilize the habitat tidewater section of the Patuxent River during late (Stewart 1949). Marsh wrens and, in a few areas, swamp summer revealed that the seeds of dotted smartweed sparrows nest in big cordgrass stands. formed 38 % of the total volume and occurred in 88 % of Meadow cordgrass/spikegrass marsh (Type 41), switch- the stomachs (Meanley 1961). Seeds of wildrice, which grass (Type 46), Olney threesquare marsh (Type 47), was the most abundant and conspicuous plant in the and smooth cordgrass marsh (Type 5 1) are composed of marshes, occurred in 6197c of the stomachs and formed plants that are not strong enough to support nests at 24176 of the volume of foods present. Walter millet seeds elevations that are above the normal range of the tide. occurred in 46% of the birds and constituted 11 % of the The low stands of meadow cordgrass are the principal food, but the seeds of each of seven other wild plants habitat of the sharp-tailed sparrow, and the density of formed I % or less of the volume of food and were noted the breeding population may be as great as one pair per in 4% or fewer of the stomachs. These plants were acre. Many eastern meadowlarks, and small numbers of halberdleaf tearthumb, ragweed, panicgrass, arrowleaf secretive black rails, also utilize this habitat for their nest tearthumb, rice cutgrass, crabgrass, and waterhemp. sites. Meadowlarks generally also are common nesters in Large numbers of red-winged blackbirds begin to flock stands of switchgrass. Stands of switchgrass, however, to the fresh marshes during late July at the time of the are of special importance as the optimum habitat in the onset of molt (Meanley 1961, 1964). The birds fre- upper Chesapeake region for the short-billed marsh quently perch on wildrice plants, and hundreds of the wren and the American bittern. Rails, which construct birds may be seen hovering in the air to grasp the bouyant nests, are the most characteristic breeding birds flowering panicles of rice plants to loosen flowers or in stands of Olney threesquare and smooth cordgrass. immature seeds. By mid-August to early September, as The Virginia rail is common in threesquare marsh, and many as 50,000 red-wings may roost in the wildrice the clapper rail is the prevalent bird in areas covered by stands on the Patuxent River to feed on the ripe seeds. By the cordgrass (Stewart 1949). late September the remaining rice seeds have fallen to Populations of muskrats are dense in most stands of the ground and become embedded in the mud. At this Olney threesquare (Type 47), cattail (Type 44), and big time, molting is complete, and the red-wings begin to cordgrass (Type 48), and the mammals construct com- migrate to the southeastern states. plex systems of runways through these thick marsh The results of analyses of the contents of the gullets growths. Especially in threesquare marshes, king rails and gizzards of waterfowl that were collected from use the muskrat runs as avenues of movement and as freshwater bays and from estuarine river marshes in the sites from which to collect aquatic invertebrates. The upper Chesapeake region are summarized in Tables 41 bird's also feed on red-jointed fiddler crabs and periwin- and 42. Seeds of the dotted smartweed are the principal kles that are common in most brackish wetlands. The plant food of marsh birds, but seeds of common burreed, king rail nests in threesquare marshes, but the nests wildrice, Walter millet, common threesquare, softstem almost invariably are placed in the branches of rosemal- bulrush, river bulrush, and halberdleaf tearthumb also low plants which are scattered through the stands. are well represented in the analyses (Stewart 1962). BIRDS OF FRESH MARSHES Wood ducks feed most intensively on the seeds of arrow- arum, but these seeds do not seem to be particularly The freshwater marshes are composed of more than attractive to other waterfowl or to marsh birds. sixty species of flowering plants, and are floristically the Seeds of the cattails are not significant as wildlife food, most diverse of all of the tidal wetlands. The aerial but the tubers are a winter food of geese. More impor- portions of cattail and common reed die in autumn, but tantly, the dense stands formed by cattails are utilized as 97 nesting habitat by long-billed marsh wrens, common gullets and gizzards of waterfowl collected from tide- gallinules, least bitterns, and red-winged blackbirds. water river wetlands and floodplains are presented in Many of the maturing fruits of wildrice are eaten or Table 42. are dislodged by winds and rains during late July and During the spring and autumn periods of migration, August. Those that remain ripen by late August and the following species of waterfowl are characteristic of shower to the ground almost immediately. After the rice the estuarine river marshes of the upper Chesapeake seeds have dropped, red-winged blackbirds and rails region (Stewart 1962): concentrate on the seeds of dotted smartweed, arrowleaf Principal Species tearthumb, and halberdleaf tearthumb. Large congrega- Mallard Green-winged teal tions of dabbling ducks-black ducks, mallards, pintails, Black duck Blue-winged teal shovellers, blue-winged teal, and green-winged teal, in Pj-ntail Wood duck particular-also secure seeds directly from the marsh Secondary Species plants, but more commonly they scoop up the,soupy Canada goose Hooded merganser muck from marsh channels and strain it through their American wigeon Common merganser bills to glean fallen seeds. Bobwhite quail also feed on the Ring-necked duck American coot seeds, and these small gamebirds utilize the marsh edges Casual or Irregular Visitors throughout the year (Office of River Basin Studies 1954). Whistling swan Redhead The Canada goose and the black duck are the most Gadwall Common goldeneye common migrant waterfowl during the autumn and Northern shoveller Ruddy duck spring in the fresh marshes along the estuarine bays of the upper Chesapeake region of Maryland (Stewart 1962). The geese utilize large, shallow ponds, particu- Table 40. Birds associated most closely with the Oldmans larly those ponds that support stands of Olney threes- Creek NJ freshwater tidal marsh. Values are expressed as quare or other threesquares or bulrushes. Black ducks, as percentages of the total number of individuals observed well as green-winged teal and blue-winged teal, are most in all types of habitats (Total Records) on a rural tract of numerous in tidal ponds and creeks in which mudflats 2,000 acres (McCormick 1976). are exposed during periods of low water. Ring-necked ducks and, to a lesser extent, other diving ducks utilize deeper tidal ponds. Whistling swans, gadwalls, Ameri- During all seasons Tidal Marsh Total Records can wigeons, and American coots, in contrast, are seen Ringbilled gull 49% 648 most often in ponds that are clear enough to support Greater yellowlegs 73 217 stands of submerged aquatic plants. Great blackbacked gull 76 105 The results of investigations of the contents of the Autumn, winter and spring gullets and gizzards of waterfowl collected from fresh Pintail 99 5,674 estuarine bay marshes during the migration periods are Whistling swan 68 945 included in Table 41. The analyses indicated that the Green-winged teal 51 209 principal plant foods utilized by waterfowl were the Common snipe 95 60 seeds of twigrush; the seeds and rootstalks of Olney Dunlin 55 11 threesquare; the rootstalks of common threesquare; and Spring and summer - the leaves and rootstalks of redhead pondweed and Longbilled marsh wren' 78 94 wigeongrass. Killifish, gammarids (amphipod crusta- King rail 100 3 ceans), and midge larvae were the most important Spring, summer and autumn animal foods, and were utilized principally by black Pectoral sandpiper 95 37 ducks. Virginia rail 73 11 During a yearlong survey of the wildlife on a 2,000 Least sandpiper 55 11 acre rural tract adjacent to a tributary of the Delaware Spring and autumn River in southern New Jersey, 207 kinds of birds were Lesser yellowlegs 76 37 observed to visit or nest (McCorrnick 1976). Of these, 67 'Nests in the tidal marshes. species were associated most closely with fresh tidal marshes that occupied about 500 acres. More than 40% of the individuals of fourteen species were observed in the wetlands (Table 40). Fresh estuarine river marshes in the upper Chesa- peake region of Maryland are especially noted as habitat for large numbers of -sora during the autumn (Stewart 1962). Bobolinks, red-winged blackbirds, common snipe, and many other kinds of marsh birds also occur in myriads. In contrast, birds are comparatively scarce in typical brackish estuarine river marshes in the region. The results of investigations of the contents of the 98 Table 4 1. Foods of waterfowl in fresh estuarine bays of the upper Chesapeake region, Maryland (Stewart 1962). Figures represent the percentage of the total number of birds sampled in which the particular food item composed 5 % or more of the contents of the gullet and gizzard, by volume. Whistling swan Canada goose Redhead Ring-necked duck Canvasback Greater scaup Lesser scaup Common goldeneye Ruddy duck Hooded merganser Number of Birds Examined: 4 5 11 17 30 19 22 6 11 3 Plants, Vegetative Parts Submerged Aquatics (100) (20) (64) (82) (90) (84) (36) (67) (55) - Pondweed, unidentified - - 45 53 - 11 9 33 9 - Grassleaf pondweed - - 9 6 - - 9 - - - Redhead pondweed 25 20 - - - - 14 - - - Sago pondweed - - 18 6 17 - - 17 9 - Wigeongrass - - - - - - 14 - - - Naiad - - 9 24 3 - 9 - - - Wildcelery 100 20 - 6 70 74 9 17 55 - Muskgrass - - - - - 5 - - - - Emergent Plants (Rootstalks) - - - - (3) - (5) - - - Arrowhead - - - - 3 - 5 - - - Plants, Seeds - - (55) - (47) (42) - (33) (18) - Submerged Aquatics Pondweed, unidentified - - - - 7 32 - 17 - - Grassleaf pondweed - - - - - - - - 9 - Redhead pondweed - - - - 20 - - - - - Sago pondweed - - 9 - 20 5 - 17 - - Wigeongrass - - 9 - - 5 - - 9 - Naiad - - 18 - - - - 17 - - Common waterweed - - 9 - - - - - - - Emergent Plants, Herbaceous Wildrice - - 9 - - - - - - - Bulrush - - 9 - - - - - - - Corncockle - - - - - - - - 9 - Crop Plants (Bait) - (100) - - - - (18) - (27) - Corn - 100 - - - - 18 - - - Wheat - - - - - - 5 - 27 - Animal Foods - - (18) (47) (3) (74) (77) (67) (18) (100) Mollusks Undetermined - - - - - - - 17 - - Gastropods Undetermined - - - - - 37 36 33 - - Amnicola spp. - - - - - 11 23 - - - Bittium spp. - - - - - - 5 - - - Gillia altilis - - - - - - 14 - - - Oxytrema virginica - - - 35 - 26 36 17 - - Planorbis spp. - - 18 - - - 14 - 9 - Rissoidea, unidentified - - - - - - 5 - - - Valvata tricarinata - - - - - - 5 - - - Bivalves Undetermined - - - - - - 14 - - - Gem shell - - - - - 5 - - - - Sphaerium spp. - - - - - - 5 - - - Unionidae, unidentified - - - - - - 14 17 - - Arthropods Crustaceans Unidentified cladocerans - - - - - - 5 - - - Unidentified amphipods - - - - - 5 - - - - Unidentified decapods - - - - - - - 17 - - Insects Mayfly larvae - - - - 3 - - - - - Dragonfly larvae - - - - - - - 17 - - Caddisfly larvae - - - 6 - - - 17 - 33 99 Table 41. Foods of waterfowl in fresh estuarine bays of the upper Chesapeake region, Maryland (Stewart 1962). Figures represent the percentage of the total number of birds sampled in which the particular food item composed 5 % or more of the contents of the gullet and gizzard, by volume (Concluded). Whistling Canada Redhead Ring-necked Canvasback Greater Lesser Common Ruddy Hooded swan goose duck scaup scaup goldeneye duck merganser Number of Birds Examined: 4 5 11 17 30 19 22 6 11 3 Midge larvae - - - - - - - - 9 - Chordates Fish Unidentified - - - - - - - 17 - 100 Table 42. Foods of waterfowl during early autumn to spring in tidewater river wetlands and floodplain forests in the upper Chesapeake region of Maryland (Stewart 1962). Figures represent the percentage of the total number of birds sampled in which the particular food item composed 5 % or more of the contents of the gullet and gizzard, by volume. Estuarine River Marshes Forested Riverbottom Habitats Mallard Black Pintail Green-winged Blue-winged Wood Mallard Black Wood Hooded duck teal teal duck duck duck merganser Number of Birds Examined: 12 15 4 8 10 20 17 17 57 3 Plants, Vegetative Parts Submerged Aquatics - (7) - - - - (18) - (25) - Ribbonleaf pondweed - - - - - - - - 14 - Common waterweed - 7 - - - - - - - - Nuttall waterweed - - - - - - - - 7 - Coontail - 7 - - - - - - - - Niella (alga) - - - - - - 18 - 4 - Spirogyra (alga) - - - - - - - - 2 - Emergent Plants, Herbs (25) (7) - - (10) (5) - (12) - - Unidentified rootstalks 8 - - - - 5 - - - - Unidentified leaf fragments - - - - - - - 6 - - Common burreed rootstalks - - - - - - - 6 - - Grassleaves - 7 - - 10 - - - - - Bulrush rootstalks 17 - - - - - - - - - Plants, Small Seeds (100) (93) (100) (100) (100) (100) (59) (65) (47) - Submerged Aquatics Pondweed, unidentified - - - - - 5 - - - - Grassleaf pondweed 8 - - - - - - - - - Ribbonleaf pondweed - - - 12 - - - - - - Emergent Plants, Herbs Common burreed 17 13 - - 30 10 - 6 7 - Great burreed 17 13 - - 20 30 - - - - Arrowhead - - - 12 - - - - - - Big cordgrass 8 - - - - - - - - - Rice cutgrass - - - 12 - - - 6 - - Wildrice - 13 25 - 10 10 - - - - Panicgrass - 7 - - - - - - - - Walter millet 8 - 25 12 60 - - - - - Common spikegrass - - - - 10 - - - - - Bulrush, unidentified - 7 - - - - - - - - Common threesquare 42 7 50 - 20 - - - - - Olney threesquare 8 7 - - - - - - - - River bulrush - - - 38 - - - - - - Softstem bulrush 42 - 25 50 40 - - - - - Stout bulrush 8 - - - - - - - - - Fringed sedge - - - - 10 - - - - - Long sedge - - - - - - - - 2 - Bladder sedge - - - - - - - - 2 - Hop sedge - - - - - 5 - - - - Sallow sedge 8 - - - - 5 - - - - 100 Table 42. Foods of waterfowl during early autumn to spring in tidewater river wetlands and floodplain forests, upper Chesapeake region (Continued). Estuarine River Marshes Forested Riverbottom Habitats 0 72 0 0 l 0 0 0 5 Number of Birds Examined: 12 15 4 8 10 20 17 17 57 3 Arrowarum 25 13 25 60 Pickerelweed 20 20 Waterdock 8 Smartweed, unidentified 7 5 Common smartweed 6 Dotted smartweed 58 60 100 88 80 12 Southern smartweed 5 Arrowleaf tearthumb 13 25 20 Halberdleaf tearthumb 33 27 50 38 30 15 14 Waterhemp 25 12 30 Dodder, unidentified 50 Emergent Plants, Shrubs and Woody Vines Waxmyrtle 17 Blackberry 7 Swamp rose 10 Poison ivy 6 18 2 Winterberry 7 5 2 Grape 17 6 12 4 Rosemallow 7 5 Silky dogwood 10 Buttonbush 7 Emergent Plants, Trees Bluebeech 47 41 14 Sweetbay 6 Sweetgum 12 6 7 Black cherry 6 Blackgum 8 25 12 7 Plants, Mast (100) (53) (84) Beech 76 35 46 Oak, unidentified 6 24 Pin oak 14 White oak 24 30 Willow oak 2 Crop Plants (5) Corn 5 Animal Foods (20) (25) (12) (24) (53) (2) (100) Mollusks Gastropods Undetermined species 7 Ambloxis decisum 41 Gyraulus spp. 6 Phyqsa sppq. 12 6 Rissoidae, undetermined 7 Bivalves Pqisidqium atlaqnticum 25 Sphaqeqrqium spp. 12 Arthropods Crustaceans Corophium spp. 12 Unidentified gammarids 7 Cambarus spp. 33 Spiders Unidentified 2 Insects Dragonfly nymphs 7 6 101 Table 42. Foods of waterfowl during early autumn to spring in tidewater river wetlands and floodplain forests in the upper Chesapeake region (Concluded). Estuarine River Marshes Forested Riverbottom Habitats to E lu V 0 0 V 0 0 E! 0 M @rl 2 Number of Birds Examined: 12 15 4 8 10 20 17 17 57 3 Chordates Fish Centrarchidae - - - - - - - - - 67 Ictaluridae 33 Cyprinidae 33 Johnny darter 67 American eel 33 The fresh and slightly brackish marshes commonly tats, the song sparrow (1,670 records), cardinal (1,000 freeze over for long periods during most years. Further- records), and common grackle (600 records), were the more, the vegetation of the fresh marshes, particularly most common. All of these species and at least thirty-one such types as the wildrice, spatterdock, pickerelweed/ar- other kinds of birds were observed, or are believed, to rowarum, sweetflag, and smartweed/rice cutgrass, pro- nest in shrub swamps and/or wooded swamps (Table duce abundant seed, but they provide little or no cover 43). during the cold seasons. Waterfowl, therefore, generally The vegetation of the wooded bottomlands along the are scarce in fresh marshes during the late autumn, Patuxent River was described by Hotchkiss and Stewart winter, and early spring. (1947), and the utilization of this habitat complex by waterfowl was discussed by Stewart (1962). Hooded BIRDS OF SHRUB SWAMPS AND SWAMP mergansers, which are predators on such aquatic animals FORESTS as fish and crayfish, are restricted to the River. They Dense thickets of lowland shrubs and the multi- composed about 5% of the population of transient layered lowland forests provide excellent cover, a great waterfowl. Wood ducks (40% of the population), mal- variety of nest sites, an abundance of animal and plant lards (30%), black ducks (20%), and pintails, green- foods, and a constant supply of water. These habitats winged teal, blue-winged teal, American wigeons, ring- provide cover and a diversity of foods, and they are necked ducks, common goldeneyes, bufficheads, and important production sites for wood ducks, mallards, common mergansers (5 %, in combination), also utilized herons, egrets, ibises, and other waders, as well as for the surface of the river. many kinds of songbirds (Table 42). Shrub swamps are The numbers of these transient waterfowl vary from of high value to woodcocks and of moderate value to one year to another. The abundance of migratory mal- bobwhite quail for food and cover. Rusty blackbirds, lards, black ducks, and wood ducks apparently is corre- most of which are migrants in Maryland, usually are lated with the size of the local mast crop, particularly associated with alder shrub swamps along marsh edges with the crops of beechnuts, pin oak acorns, and white (Meanley 1975). Swamp forests are of high value to the oak acorns in the floodplain forests. During years of low quail and of moderate value to the woodcock (Office of mast production, there may be no more than 20 birds per River Basin Studies 1954). square mile of forest, whereas during years of high pro- Approximately 66%, or 136 of 207 species, of the duction, there may be 50 to 100 birds per square mile. different kinds of birds observed in all habitats during a The results of analyses of the contents of the gullets yearlong survey of a 2,000 acre rural tract in southern and gizzards of 94 specimens of transient waterfowl New Jersey were seen at least once in shrub swamps or from the wooded bottomlands along the Patuxent River wooded swamps and 99 species were recorded from are summarized in Table 42. These results indicate that shrub swamps. Forty percent or more of the habitat mallards, wood ducks, and black ducks feed preferentially records for 65 species were obtained from the two on beechnuts and acorns. The seeds of bluebeech, poison swamp types (Table 43). ivy, grape, blackgum, sweetgum, halberdleaf tearthumb, Although they were observed more frequently in and dotted smartweed also are important in the diets of other types of habitat, the red-winged blackbird (3,400 these waterfowl, and probably are utilized more inten- records from swamps), starling (2,400 records), mourn- sively during years of low mast production. The leaves ing dove (2,000 records), and American robin (740 and stems of submerged aquatic plants, particularly rib- records), were the most common permanent residents in bonleaf pondweed and Nuttall waterweed, also are eaten, the shrub and wooded swamps. Of the species that were and small mollusks are a supplementary food for black seen more frequently in the swamps than in other habi- ducks and, to a lesser degree, for mallards. 102 Table 43. Birds observed most frequently in shrub swamp and swamp forest habitats during a yearlong investigation of a 2,000 acre rural tract in Gloucester County, Newjersey (McCormick mss.). At least 4096 of the sightings of species listed were from the two swamp habitats, Only species for which at least five sightings (Total Records) were made on the entire tract are included. Asterisks (*) indicate species which are known or believed to nest in the swamp habitats. A plus mark indicates that at least 40% of the records for the species were from upland forest habitats. Shrub Wooded Total Shrub Wooded Total Swamp Swamp Records Swamp Swamp Records During All Seasons M (%) (Number) (70) (%) (Number) *Song sparrow 16 36 3,218 *Indigo bunting 4 45 173 *Cardinal 11 48 1,721 *Green heron 29 24 124 *Common grackle 8 36 1,378 *House wren 3 57 75 *Carolina wren 7 55 645 *Willow flycatcher 52 25 67 *Blue jay 6 41+ 611 *Red-eyed vireo 0 48+ 64 *American goldfinch 12 30 591 *Northern oriole 2 41 44 *Common flicker 8 42 539 *Yellow-billed cuckoo 2 70 44 *Swamp sparrow 40 21 497 American redstart 0 46+ 37 *Carolina chickadee 12 42+ 420 *Wood thrush 0 70 27 *Downy woodpecker 9 49 408 Cape May warbler 0 48+ 23 *Eastern kingbird 14 40 232 Blackpoll warbler 0 55+ 20 *Rufous-sided towhee 4 51+ 196 *Great crested flycatcher 0 40+ 15 *Common crow 9 31 171 Northern waterthrush 7 57 14 *Tufted tirmouse 10 41+ 78 *Black-billed cuckoo 8 46 13 *Hairy woodpecker 7 39+ 61 *White-eyed vireo 20 60 10 Belted kingfisher 26 30 54 *Least bittern 44 11 9 *American woodcock 3 39 38 Swainson's thrush 11 78 9 Red-bellied woodpecker 7 45+ 29 Eastern wood pewee 14 29+ 7 *Fish crow 0 58+ 12 American bittern 80 20 5 *Great horned owl 0 50 12 Canada warbler 0 40+ 5 Black-crowned night heron 0 57 7 Spring and/or autumn Autumn, winter, and spring Yellow-rumped warbler 4 45 168 White-throated sparrow 7 51 2,053 Ruby-crowned kinglet 8 49+ 78 Rusty blackbird 25 54 347 Eastern Phoebe 35 15 20 Tree sparrow 18 29 263 Black and white warbler 0 67 12 Red-tailed hawk 6 54 50 Northern parula 0 67 12 Purple finch 6 57 47 Black-throated blue warbler 0 43+ 7 Fox sparrow 21 32+ 19 Magnolia warbler 0 43+ 7 House finch 89 11 9 Ovenbird 0 43+ 7 Red-shouldered hawk 20 60 5 Scarlet tanager 0 50+ 6 Red-breasted nuthatch 0 40 5 Spring, summer, and autumn Tennessee warbler 0 60+ 5 *Yellow warbler 21 53 618 Summer only *Gray catbird 19 49 541 *Yellowthroat 21 38 493 Summer tanager 8 46 13 *Yellow-breasted chat 67 11 9 MAMMALS OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS County, red foxes generally do not utilize the marsh area during the winter and spring, but they do inhabit dens on The abundant food resources of the wetlands are islands in the wetlands. Meadow voles are the most attractive to many kinds of mammals. Most of the important item in the diet of red foxes that hunt on the wetlands are remote from intensive human activities and marshes, and they were found in 49% of the fox scats provide extensive protected areas in which animals can that were examined by Heit (1944). Muskrat remains hunt and feed. Permanent ponds and channels which are were found in 3991o; seeds of persimmon and blackberry interspersed through the wetlands al@o are suitable habi- were found in 11 %; and insects weie found in 9%. tat for several semi-aquatic mammals. Whitetail and Sika deer commonly graze in marsh Mammals that are more characteristic of upland habi- areas near the landward margin of the wetlands. Shrub tats frequently venture into the wetlands to feed (McA- swamps are considered to be moderately valuable for tee 1939; Shuster 1966). Cottontails, striped skunks, red food and cover throughout the year for raccoons, deer, foxes, gray foxes, raccoons, longtail weasels, and opos- and cottontails. The edges of saline, brackish, and fresh- sums are among these visitors. Owing to disturbances by water marshes are of moderate value to cottontails and of trappers in the Blackwater marshes of Dorchester high value to raccoons. Raccoons also venture farther out 103 into the more deeply flooded sections of the freshwater 1975). Panicgrass and common reed each represented marshes, and these are rated to be of moderate value to about 6% of the annual diet. Creeping spikegrass con- the animals. Similarly, the meadow cordgrass-spikegrass tributed only 1.6% of the diet of nutria throughout the and threesquare zones in saline and brackish wetlands year, but it formed 5 3 % of the plant food eaten during are of high value to raccoons, but the more frequently August. Groundselbush, algae, narrowleaf cattail, corn, flooded stands of needlerush and smooth cordgrass are of spikegrass, and big cordgrass each contributed approxi- low value (Office of River Basin Studies 1954). mately 1 % of the annual diet of the nutria. Mink and river otters utilize tidal streams and feed in Beaver feed principally on woody plants. Red maple, the marshes, but they seldom are abundant in the willow, alder, bluebeech, pond pine, loblolly pine, and marshes. In contrast, two other aquatic mammals, the willow oak are the preferred foods in the swamp forests muskrat and the nutria, are characteristic inhabitants of and shrub swamps in the coastal wetlands (Maryland the marshes. Beavers recently have been reintroduced in Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Depart- the region, but they currently are neither abundant nor ment of Agriculture 1972). In the inland wetlands and widespread in the coastal wetlands. uplands adjacent to the coastal wetlands, beaver also feed Smooth cordgrass, meadow cordgrass, spikegrass, and heavily on beech, birch, cherry, hawthorn, oaks, pines, needlerush apparently are not particularly attractive to serviceberry, and witchhazel. muskrats as food plants, and the saline wetlands gener- Where muskrat and/or nutia populations are dense, ally do not support large populations of these mammals the feeding of the animals may produce 1. eatouts," or (Smith 1938; Dozier 1947; Harris 1952; Office of River areas devoid of vegetation (Lynch, O'Neill, and Lay Basin Studies 1954). In brackish marshes, the average 1947). In the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, weight of muskrats was least (2.16 to 2.20 pounds) in extensive eatouts develop in areas in which the number areas covered by meadow cordgrass, smooth cordgrass, of muskrat houses is equal to, or greater than, 2.5 per and tall cordgrass, and greatest (2.25 to 2.26 pounds) in acre. During the late 1930's and early 1940's, the average stands of Olney threesquare and cattail (Dozier, Markley, densities of houses on the Refuge ranged from 0.24 to and Llewellyn 1948). Stands of Olney threesquare, com- 5.23 per acre (Dozier 1947; Dozier, Markley, and Llewel- mon threesquare, and cattail form prime habitat for lyn 1948). The denuded areas commonly become ponds, muskrats, and these plants may constitute 80% of the and emergent vegetation may not re-cover them for a diet of the animals (Smith 1938; Stearns and Goodwin decade or more. During the period of re-vegetation, how- 1941). The rootstocks of threesquare and cattail are ever, these openings provide habitats which support a eaten by the animals, and the culms of the plants are used variety of submerged aquatic plants and other species in house construction. that are absent from, or infrequent in, other sections of During the period from 1971 to 1973, twenty-three the marsh. The larger ponds, particularly those which muskrats were collected from shallow, brackish tidal support submerged vegetation, are especially attractive marshes at the Deal Island Wildlife Management Area to waterfowl (Stewart 1962). in Somerset County, on the eastern shore of Maryland Dense stands of big cordgrass line the banks of many (Willner, Chapman, and Goldsberry 1975). Specimens channels in brackish wetlands, but the plant generally is were collected during all seasons, and the results of not predominant over large expanses of the marshes. analyses of the contents of their stomachs were summar- Muskrats and nutria utilize the culms of the big cordgrass ized for bimonthly periods of the calendar year (i.e. to construct their houses and platforms, respectively, and January-February, March-April, and so on). Three to five also may feed heavily on the plants (Stearns and others animals were available for each bimonthly period. 1940; personal communication, William Sipple 1977). Roots constituted nearly 80% of the plant material As sources of food and/or cover throughout the year that was eaten by the muskrats. Stems of plants were a (Office of River Basin Studies 1954), freshwater tidal significant proportion of the diet (30 to 50%) only marshes are of high value to muskrats. Cattails, sweet- during the period from July through October, but leaves flag, arrowarum, and other marsh plants are utilized as did not contribute measurably to the diet at any time food and in house construction. Around concentrations during the year. More than half of the plant material that of houses, the muskrats may feed so intensively that they was consumed (5 8.5 %) was from the narrowleaf cattail; create barren eatouts. The initial excavations by the 17.4 % was from the Olney threesquare; and 8.0 % was muskrats often are magnified by oxidation or erosion of from Walter millet. The threesquare was present in the the exposed muck soil. The depressions that are formed stomachs of all muskrats that were collected from Janu- commonly become shallow ponds in which arrowheads, ary through April, and cattail was present in all, or nearly arrowarums, and spatterdock become established (Mean- all (80%, July-August), of the stomachs from animals ley 1975)* that were obtained from May through December. Uni- Small mammal populations of the saline marshes are dentified algae composed about 5 976 of the annual diet, most dense in the shrubby habitats that are formed by but they appeared in the stomachs only during the period marshelder and groundselbush (McAtee 1939; Paradiso from March through June. and Handley 1965; Shure 1971). Herbivorous meadow Olney threesquare formed 78% of the annual plant voles, which are the most abundant small mammals in diet of nutria in the coastal marshes of Dorchester these wetlands, usually occur in increasing numbers from County, Maryland (Maryland Wildlife Administration the zone of smooth cordgrass to areas covered by mea- 104 dow cordgrass, and reach their peak density in stands in are aquatic. Their local distributions, therefore, are which meadow cordgrass forms a low cover beneath the related closely to the water and to the availability of prey, groundselbush (Type 62). During the period from mid- and the animals move from one vegetation type to April through early November 1975, however, Bosen- another. The knowledge of the amphibians and reptiles berg (1976) found meadow mice to be equally abundant of the Chesapeake Bay region was reviewed by Hardy in stands of meadow cordgrass, spikegrass, and mar- (1972a, 1972b), but records for only two species of rep- shelder. They were slightly less-abundant in stands of tiles were cited for occurrences in the intertidal zone. short-form smooth cordgrass, and were scarce in stands Leopard frogs, green frogs, pickerel frogs, bullfrogs, of tall smooth cordgrass. Meadow jumping mice, white- and spring peepers are common in freshwater wetlands footed mice, and house mice, which also are herbivores, and in slightly brackish marshes. During a yearlong and carnivorous least shrews generally are restricted to survey of the vertebrates on a 2,000 acre rural tract in the shrubby thickets along the upland margin of the southern New Jersey, 9176 of the bullfrogs observed were wetlands. Rice rats, which feed on insects and crabs, are in a freshwater tidal marsh, 6% were in a diked area of associated with tall stands of smooth cord2rass along freshwater wetland, and 3 t7b were in shrub swamp habi- tidal channels. These small mammals construct nes@s tats. Spring peepers (1376 of the adults), green frogs among the tops of big cordgrass or needlerush, (19%), and leopard frogs (1 19o') were found in the tidal Little research has been conducted on small mammal marsh (McCormick 1976). Salamanders also may be rela- populations of the brackish and freshwater tidal wetlands. tively abundant in freshwater areas (Metzgar 1973). Several observations are available, however, on the use Fowler's toads generally remain in upland areas, and by small mammals of muskrat lodges as nest sites and they breed in freshwater pools, but they do range into the retreats. In brackish wetlands in New Jersey, for exam- higher portions of freshwater, brackish, and saline ple, Rhoads (1903) found nests of rice rats, meadow wetlands. During the yearlong survey in NewJersey, 7 % voles, and least shrews in the parts of muskrat houses of the Fowler's toads that were observed were in shrub that extended above the level of mean high water. In swamp habitats. The remainder were found in upland stands of Olney threesquare in brackish wetlands in habitats (McCormick 1976). Maryland, Harris (1952, 1953) noted that rice rats, mea- Several kinds of snakes range into the wetlands from dow voles, and house mice, as well as raccoons, utilized adjacent upland areas or from the waterways. The red- occupied and unoccupied muskrat lodges. Star-nose bellied water snake is an inhabitant of swamp forests and moles, white-footed mice, and Norway rats, and such shrub swamps, and it also ranges into brackish wetlands. larger mammals as eastern cottontails, woodchucks, Ribbon snakes venture into freshwater and brackish foxes, minks, striped skunks, and house cats have been wetlands. Common watersnakes, black ratsnakes, black- reported to use muskrat lodges in inland (non-tidal) racers, eastern kingsnakes, eastern gartersnakes, and wetlands in various ocher states (Kiviat 1978). Except rough greensnakes have been observed in saline marshes for the spatial associations, there apparently is no special as well as in freshwater and brackish wetlands (McCau- interaction between the various inhabitants of the ley 1945). Two hognosed snakes were reported from lodges. brackish water by Hardy and Olmon (1971), and one of Observations in freshwater wetlands in southern New these was swimming more than 0.5 mile from shore in Jersey revealed intensive utilization by muskrats, but the York River, Virginia. A copperhead was captured on they suggested that small mammal utilization of the a sandy barrier island beach (Hardy 1972b), but individ- marsh vegetation was minimal (McCormick 1976). uals are more apt to be found in upland areas. In the New Norway rats were observed in marsh vegetation, and Jersey survey, black ratsnakes, northern blackracers, mink were reported by local trappers. Meadow voles eastern gartersnakes, and northern watersnakes were were obtained along the edge of the marsh, but frequent seen in shrub swamps. Gartersnakes and blackracers also tidal flooding apparently precluded permanent residence were observed in swamp forests. by the voles or other species. Rice rats are reported to Only one lizard generally is associatedwith wetlands. range into freshwater marshes in Maryland (Paradiso The bluetailed skink inhabitats baldcypress swamp 1969), but their nesting and feeding habits in these areas forests. have not been described. Muskrats, Norway rats, opos- The painted turtle is a common species in the channels sums, and cottontails were noted in shrub swamps dur- and along the banks of freshwater wetlands. Several ing the New Jersey survey. The greatest diversity of other species, including the spotted turtle, mud turtle, mammals in the wetland habitats, however, was observed redbellied turtle, and snapping turtle occur in both in the wooded swamps. These were inhabited by white- freshwater and brackish wetlands. The diamondback ter- footed mice, shorttail shrews, Norway rats, southern rapin is the only turtle of saline marshes (Shuster 1966; flying squirrels, gray squirrels, cottontails, and whitetail Harris 1975). It also ranges into brackish wetlands and, deer (McCormick mss.). less commonly, into freshwater wetlands (McCauley AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF THE 1945; Schwartz 1967). Snapping turtles, redbellied tur- COASTAL WETLANDS tles, eastern mud turtles, diamondback terrapins, and eastern painted turtles were observed in a freshwater Amphibians and reptiles largely are carnivorous. Most tidal marsh during a yearlong survey in southern New of the kinds that are known to occur in the wetlands also Jersey (McCormick 1976). Snapping turtles, box turtles, 105 redbellied turtles, and eastern painted turtles were noted concentrations of dissolved oxygen were increased by in shrub swamps. 43%, and the concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand, nitrate nitrogen, and phosphates were reduced FISH HABITATS by 5 %, 8 %, and 18 %, respectively, during the residence of the water on the marsh surface. Four sewage treat- Coastal wetlands and associated estuaries are vital to ment plants discharged directly into the experimental the maintenance of commercial and sport fisheries and marsh, so these data may not be representative of the shellfisheries. At least 60% of the species important to nutrient removal efficiency of freshwater coastal wetlands these activities in Maryland are dependent on the estua- in general. rine environments during at least part of their lives A saline marsh, covered by smooth cordgrass (Type (Metzgar 1973). 71), in Massachusetts also was shown to be effective in Chesapeake Bay is inhabited, or visited seasonally, by the retention of nutrients (Valiela and others 1973). fish of about 200 species. Of these, 60 or more are caught After it was treated with sewage sludge, the wetland held commercially. Observations made in Maryland suggest 80 to 94% of the nitrogen and 91 to 94% of the phos- that saline and brackish wetlands are utilized by a greater phorus that was contained in the material. There were variety of fish than are freshwater wetlands. strong seasonal fluctuations in degree of retention of the Submerged aquatic plants are important to juvenile nutrients, and retention was least during the cold season. and adult fish as sources of food and cover (Anderson In a similar experiment in Delaware, the production 1972; Metzgar 1973). The plants, as well as bacteria, of short form smooth cordgrass (Type 72) increased algae, protozoans, and other small invertebrates that nearly threefold after it was fertilized with inorganic attach to the plants, are eaten by fish. As much as 7.5 % of nitrogen (Sullivan and Daiber 1974). The weight of the the standing crop of rooted aquatics may be consumed vegetation on plots that were treated only with an inor- each day. Submerged plants also usually are covered by a ganic phosphate fertilizer, however, did not increase gelatinous film of diatoms. These minute, highly special- measureably. These results indicate that the supply of ized algae are eaten by the larvae of insects, worms, nitrogen in the natural marsh environment is limiting, crustaceans, and mollusks, and these, in turn, are preyed but that of phosphorus is not limiting, to the production on by carnivorous fish. of the short form smooth cordgrass. No detailed ecological information on the shellfish of An earlier investigation in Georgia demonstrated that Maryland was found. An investigation in Georgia, how- smooth cordgrass "pumps" phosphorus from depths as ever, indicated that oyster reef communities utilize great as 3.3 feet (100 cm) or more in the marsh soil approximately 1% of the production that is exported (Reimold 1972). Supplies in excess of the requirements from adjacent wetlands (Bahr 1976). of the cordgrass are excreted and dissolve in the water Fish enter the wetlands during periods of high water. when the plants are flooded or wetted by rain. Phospho- Except that areas which are flooded most frequently are rus absorbed by the marsh is retained by the sediments utilized most intensively, no information was found to and their microbiota (Pomeroy and others 1972). The describe the relative values to fish of different wetland capacity of the sediments is so great that the concentra- vegetation types. tion of phosphate in the water varies little from day to 2.6 WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT BY day, regardless of the variability of phosphate that enters the wetland system. WETLANDS Effluent from a secondary sewage treatment plant was applied by spray irrigation to a freshwater tidal marsh in Many studies have been conducted to determine the the upper Delaware River estuary by Whigharn and effectiveness of coastal and inland wetlands in regard to Simpson (1976a, 1976b). They found that the high water pollution abatement. Except for a few unpublished marsh areas apparently act as sinks for nitrogen and studies, these investigations have been designed to mon- phosphate during the summer, then release those nut- itor the water that enters the wetland and the water that rients back into the marsh complex slowly during the leaves the wetland. The wetland area, thus, is treated as a autumn and winter. Based on the results of their initial "black box," and the results do not describe the relative experiments, the authors concluded that the freshwater effectiveness of the several vegetation types present, nor tidal marshes can process as much as 2 to 5 inches of do they allow any determination of the relative effec- wastewater per day, or about 1 to 2.5 million gallons per tiveness of the soil, the microbiota, and the macroscopic day per 18.4 acres. vegetation of the wetland. The effect on nitrogen of wetlands on a tributary to On five occasions, from late July through early the Hackensack River was evaluated by Mattson (1974) October, analyses were made of water as it began to flood and Mattson and others (1975). During a 12-hour day- over stands of spatterdock (Type 31), cattail (Type 34), time tidal cycle in August, approximately 6% of the and wildrice (Type 36), and as it drained from the stands, nitrogen that entered the wetland system was retained. in a freshwater tidal marsh adjacent to the Delaware The rates of removal during tidal cycles in January and River (Grant and Patrick 1970). The results were not April were approximately 0.7% and 1.0%, respectively consistent between paired stands of a particular type or (Mattson and Vallario 1976). The.area occupied by the between the various dates. On the average, however, the wetland system, below the level of mean high water, was 106 approximately 260 acres and the overbank area was balance rather early in the growing season. Subsequently, approximately 222.6 acres. If the removal of nitrogen is the plants excrete an amount of nutrients about equal to equal during the day and the night, and if the rate of the amount they absorb. During autumn, when the aerial removal is equal in the channels and on the marsh parts of the plants die, the soluble organic matter and surface, the wetland removes approximately 2 kg per nutrients they contain are leached rapidly-within a few acre per day in August, 0.2 kg per acre per day injanuary, days-into the water, and are absorbed almost imme- and 0.34 kg per acre per day in April. If only the over- diately by microorganisms. bank, largely vegetated area is effective, the rates of Large proportions of the nutrients are absorbed removal are 2.37 kg, 0.23kg, and 0.40 kg per day per acre, throughout the growing season by microorganisms in respectively, during August, January, and April. This the sediments, on the surface of the sediments, and on ten-fold seasonal variation suggests a significant biologi- the surfaces of the large plants. Severe frosts, however, cal component in the nitrogen removal process. may kill many of the microorganisms. The soluble No study of the removal of nutrients by a tidal swamp organic materials and nutrients, thus, are freed, and are forest type is known to have been published, but Boyt dissolved in the water column until they are reabsorbed and her co-workers (1977) investigated the fate of was- by other, living organisms or adsorbed by the sediments. tewater effluents discharged to a nontidal ash/baldcy- The most stable sink for nutrients is the marsh soil. If press/blackgum swamp forest in Florida. At a point 0.3 the amount of nutrients absorbed by the soil microbiota mile (490 m) from the discharge point, the concentra- is discounted, however, the mineral and organic sedi- tions of total phosphorus and total nitrogen were 6.4 ments retained only about 10% of the total amount of mg/1 and 15.3 mg/1, respectively. After the water had nutrients applied in the various experiments. This com- traveled an additional 2 miles (3,200 m), the average ponent is not affected measureably by temperatures concentration of total phosphorus was 0.124 mg/l and within the normal seasonal range, and does not produce that of total nitrogen was 1.61 mg/l, or reductions of large pulses of dissolved substances at the onset of freez- 98% and 89%, respectively. Human fecal bacteria in the ing temperatures as do the larger plants and micro- dischage were removed before the effluent had traveled I organisms. mile through the swamp forest. On the basis of these Our present knowledge of the pollution abatement findings, the authors observed that swamp forests can be capactiy of wetlands is limited in detail, but it is adequate used as an alternative to tertiary treatment of waste- to indicate that all, or most, wetlands act as seasonally water. Insofar as their study site was concerned, the variable sinks for nutrients. Data that are available sug- authors found that the 20 acres utilized for direct treat- gest that microorganisms largely are responsible for the ment, plus 480 acres used as a buffer zone, provided purification functions of wetlands; that sediments play treatment equivalent to facilities that would cost $2 mil- an important, but secondary role; and that the net lion to build and maintain if capitalized over a 25 year absorption by higher plants is of some significance dur- period. ing the early part of the growing season, but that most of Based on a review of the European literature, Geller the nutrients are returned to the water in dissolved form (1972) stated that common reed is able to reduce the when the plants die. Wetlands in which the substrate is concentration of phosphate in water by 74176. She also composed of 50% or more organic matter appear to be cited investigations from Russia that indicate that spills capable of long-term storage of nitrogen and phosphates and slicks of oil deteriorate two to seven times more (Whigharn and Bayley 1978). rapidly in common reed vegetation than in other, unspec- No definitive information is available to rate the rela- ified wetland types that were tested. tive effectiveness of different wetland vegetation types No specific evaluation of submerged aquatic plants in regard to nutrient removal. Similarly, the information was found in the literature. Metzgar (1973), however, that is available is not adequate to determine the relative observed that these plants contribute dissolved oxygen effectiveness of general wetland groups (saline, brackish, to the water as a by-product of photosynthesis, and also freshwater) or wetland forms (marsh, shrub swamp, reduce turbidity and expedite sedimentation of sus- swamp forest) in regard to nutrient removal. pended solids through the stabilization of the bottom and interference with currents. Several unpublished studies have been conducted on 2.7 SEDIMENTATION model wetlands that were established artificially in small test cells. The cells were designed to meter the flow of Tidal wetlands can be formed by any one, or a combi- water and dissolved nutrients as they entered and exited. nation, of several processes. The processes which are of During the experiments, and at the end of the test greatest importance along the modern coast of the Mid- periods, which generally correspond to the growing sea- dle Atlantic Region are submergence and accretion. son in the locality, samples of the large plants, the sedi- Submergence is a process whereby the surface of the ments, and the microbiota were collected and analyzed, land is lowered, relative to the concurrent mean sea level. The results of these cell experiments are in general This lowering may be produced by crustal movement, agreement. They indicate that the larger plants absorb a whereby the land actually sinks; it may be the result of a relatively small proportion of the applied nutrients, and rise in sea level; or it may reflect the interaction of both that the nutrient contents of the plants reach a dynamic of these subprocesses. 107 Accretion, in the context of tidal wetlands, implies the which also may be intensive during the summer, results appearance of land above the plane of mean low water. in the coagulation of particles and their more rapid This may occur as a result of crustal movement, when the settlement. land rises and sections of the bottom of the sea, a bay, or Rainfall generally begins to increase during the an estuary protrude into the intertidal zone. Accretion to autumn, and salinities decline. Wind-driven waves dur- the land also may result from a drop in the level of the ing thunderstorms and hurricanes mobilize the sedi- sea, by the deposition and accumulation of sediments, or ments, and wash them higher onto the wetland. Because by some combination of these subprocesses acting con- the vegetation commonly is at a peak of development at currently or in sequence. this time, the sediments fall out of the water column During the past several millennia, submergence has rapidly, and are trapped by the plants. been the predominant force in the formation of tidal The particles that are carried into the wetland are rich in wetlands throughout all or most of the world. Sea level nutrients. The British studies, however, indicated that the fell as much as 100 meters along the Middle Atlantic concentrations of nutrients in the soil decreased from the Coast during late Pleistocene time, and has been rising seaward edge to the landward edge of a salt marsh that was more or less continuously during the past 10,000 years. not subject to significant upland runoff. This gradient in- Whereas only a small proportion of the existing coast- dicates that the surficial sediments in the wetl@nds are al wetlands has been formed primarily by accretion, this continuously reworked, and gradually are carried farther process appears to be essential to the persistence of the and farther from the seaward edge. The sediments at any existing wetlands along the Middle Atlantic Coast. particular location on the wetland, thus, are derived by the Because the level of the sea appears still to be rising, the resuspension and redeposition of sediments from the next surface of a wetland must accumulate sediments at the most seaward location. rate of about 0.022 inch (81 cubic feet per acre) per year, The aboveground parts of submerged aquatic plants if it is to remain in a constant position relative to the slow the movement of water and, thus, promote the depo- tides (Wass and Wright 1969; Metzgar 1973). sition of suspended solids (Anderson 1972; Good and Sediments enter a coastal wetland from two general others 1978). This trapping of sediment generally results sources. They are carried from the adjacent body of water in an increase of the elevation of the bottom in areas by tidal currents, and they are carried by runoff from covered by submerged vegetation as compared to nearby adjacent upland areas (Geller 1972). Because tides norm- areas without vegetation (Burrell and Schubel 1977). No ally cover the wetlands only shallowly, and because the definitive measurement of the rate of sediment accumula- flow oi water over the surfaces of the wetlands is tion by submerged vegetation is available from the Middle impeded and intricately diverted by the leaves and stems Atlantic region. of abundant plants, the wetlands act as settling basins No measurements of the modern rate of accumulation which trap and retain silt and other suspended solids. of sediment in wetlands of the Middle Atlantic Coast have The gradual accumulation of sediments increases the been found. Similarly, no study in which the rate of elevation of the wetland relative to the adjacent upland accumulation of sediments in any particular type of areas. Generally, the rate of sedimentation is so slow that vegetation has been measured is known. the accretion is not noticeable. Occasionally, however, a severe storm may be accompanied by waves high enough to wash across a barrier island, and to carry tons of sand 2.8 EROSION CONTROL CAPACITY into the wetlands along the seaside bays. Intense rainfall, which accelerates erosion and runoff, also may result in Coastal wetlands occupy sites which range in elevation rapid sedimentation of adjacent wetlands. from slightly below mean sea level to a few inches or feet The continuous, nearly imperceptible accumulation of above mean high water. The profile of a wetland becomes sediments by a wetland, as well as the periodic entrap- more nearly plane as its width, perpendicular to the shore- ment of great volumes of sediment, is a function that line, increases. Furthermore, shoal waters commonly fie benefits other aquatic resources. Oyster bars, for exam- immediately seaward from the wetlands (Metzgar 1973). ple, are protected from siltation, and the volume of This system has a high erosion control capacity. material that must be dredged to maintain berths, har- The shoal waters, which are relatively shallow, reduce bors, and shipping channels is reduced (Metzgar 1973). the energy of waves before the waves reach the wetland. If the sediments form intertidal plateaus and the marsh The low profile of an extensive wetland affords no abrupt grows seaward or toward the center of a tidewater physical barrier to waves, but dissipates the remaining stream or bay, the protection afforded the adjacent energy of the waves as the water spreads across the upland against wave damage and flooding is enhanced. wetland surface. The vegetation of the wetland also Investigators in Great Britain found that sediments absorbs the energy of waves and, thereby, reduces the tend to accumulate along the seaward edges of tidal velocity of the flow of water. wetlands during periods of highest salinity. In the Mid- As a result of these functions, areas landward of coastal dle Xtlantic Region of the United States, salinities at wetlands are protected from severe damage during storms, high slack water are greatest during the summer (Au- and seldom are affected by damaging floods. Owing to this rand and Daiber 1973). At such times, suspended solids protection, the wetlands have been termed, "nature's are flocculated by the high salinities. Biological activity, counterpart to bulkheads, groins, and revetments for 108 erosion abatement in areas not subject to direct ocean areas also may be affected by intensified erosion (Orth exposure" (Garbisch and others 1975b). 1975). Submerged aquatic plants also minimize coastal erosion The value of the protective functions of coastal wetlands owing to the stabilization of the bottom by their perennial is recognized widely. No studies in which the relative root systems (Gosner 1968; Anderson 1972; Good and effectiveness of different wetland types has been deter- others 1978). The bottom in areas from which eelgrass mined are known. Similarly, no investigation was found in beds have been eliminated is subject to rapid erosion which the various energy dissipation mechanisms have (Wilson 1949;Cottam and Munro 1954), and nearby beach been evaluated. 109 3. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS Through the riparian trust doctrine, as well as by is capitalized to derive the value of the property. purchases and gifts, the Federal government, the state This capitalization approach can be used to calculate governments, and countless local governments are the the value of a coastal wetland from which saleable pro- trustees or owners of hundreds of thousands of acres of ducts are harvested. For example, the net annual profit estuarine and coastal waters and wetlands. Furthermore, from the sale of marsh hay, oysters, muskrat pelts, beef by legislation and by the exercise of more general police cattle, forest products, and/or other commodities from a powers, these various levels' of government also have wetland can be capitalized to determine a per-acre mone- promulgated a range of regulatory controls over adjacent tary value. In Georgia, intensive oyster culture would wetlands in which there is partial or complete private produce about $350 per acre per year, and intensive raft interest. There is an urgent need, therefore, to develop a culture would produce nearly $900 per year. The equiva- rational, objective scheme for the evaluation of coastal lent income -capitalization values would be $7,000 and wetlands based on their environmental worth. This eva- $18,000 (Gosselink, Odum, and Pope 1973). luation can be utilized by public and private owners for The evaluations described above are techniques to specific planning and management purposes, and by estimate the worth of a wetland, in monetary units, to a governmental agencies as a basic resource for broad private owner. The capitalization method also has been regional planning and as a fundamental consideration in used to estimate the monetary worth of a tidal marsh to regulatory decisions. society (Gosselink, Odum and Pope 1973). The proration of the total value of the coastal fishery and of recreation, for example, suggests that each acre of marsh is worth 3.1. APPROACHES TO about $100 per year, or $2,000 on an income-capitaliza- WETLAND EVALUATION tion basis. Nutrient removal by the marshes was ap- praised by determining the cost to construct physical- Tidal marshes and other coastal wetlands can be evalu- chemical treatment facilities that would be capable of ated by several techniques. The most traditional tech- removing the same proportions of nutrients. This cost nique is that of the open market, in which an owner then was capitalized to obtain an estimate of the mone- offers a tract of wetland for sale and, ultimately, nego- tary value of the marsh to society ($280,000 per acre). tiates with a buyer to establish a monetary value for his Whether or not the capacity of the wetland to remove interest in the land. This open market technique is com- nutrients actually is being used by society at the present plex and highly subjective. The monetary value, if the time is not necessarily a factor, because the potential is purchaser is interested in some potential non-wetland present. use of the tract, will reflect some combination of several In another approach, the same authors argued that, considerations. These may include location, the size and because many potential uses are conflicting, it is difficult shape of the tract, existing zoning and/or other legal to integrate the calculated values for different compo- constraints, estimated penalty costs (filling, piling, dredg- nents of use to obtain a total value. They suggested, ing, legal and technical fees, and so on), and associated therefore, that the "total work of nature" be translated speculative issues. The environmental values of the into monetary terms. This would avoid the need to spec- wetland on the tract generally are ignored. ify how "the work flow might be divided into different When a marsh or other wetland that is held privately uses and functions." To accomplish this, the authors is condemned by a public body, the private owner must noted that 10 quadrillion Kilocalories of energy (1016) be paid a fair and reasonable value for his interests in the are consumed annually to produce a Gross National property. This value may be determined by an analysis of Product of $ 10 trillion dollars (1012), so that 10 thousand the prices paid on the open real estate market for similar Kilocalories of energy (104) is approximately equal to $ 1. tracts in the region (Porto 1977). After adjustment for They utilized an estimate of 10,250 Kilocalories per differences between the locations, legal constraints, and square meter for the annual gross primary production of other factors of the tracts that were sold on the open the tidal marsh, and obtained a value of $4,147 per year. market and those of the condemned property, the fair The income-capitalized value, thus, would be $82,940 and reasonable value of the condemned property is per acre. determined by negotiation or by litigation. This estimated In any event, this capitalization technique results in monetary value, of course, is a derivative of the open relatively high estimates of the per-acre value of tidal market value, and is similarly complex. marshes. But, when capitalization is applied to the value Another method that commonly is used to estimate of off-site benefits, it-is an expression of value to society property value is known as the capitalization approach as a whole, and not necessarily of value to a private (Porto 1977). This usually is employed for tracts that owner, except as he is a member of society. contain structural improvements. The fair rental price Another application of the capitalization approach is for the property is determined, and from this, the costs presented by the estimation of replacement cost in associated with carrying the property are calculated and monetary terms (McCormick 1974). On the basis of the deducted. The resulting figure for the annual profit then best available data, an ecologist familiar with the type of ill biotic community that is under consideration estimates "development interests have not chosen to attack the the amount of plant material and animal material general validity of the ecological rationale for marsh necessary to establish a new stand identical in every way preservation. Instead .... the ecological value of particu- to the stand in question. In the absence of evidence to the lar marshes has been questioned by those seeking to contrary, the ecologist assumes that the biotic commun- convert them into marinas, parking lots, housing plots, ity must develop through several different stages until etc. As the economic incentives for development have the appropriate state is reached. This will require a grown, so have the political pressures on management certain minimum number of years. The initial cost of and regulatory agencies to make exceptions, to accept purchasing materials and preparing the site is calculated, trade-offs, or to establish priorities for marsh preserva- and any costs of maintenance in subsequent years are tion. The argument seems simple and appealing: if estimated and discounted back to the initial year. The marshes are valuable, it follows that some marshes are cost of the land at the new site is added, and the total more valuable than others." then is capitalized over the time required to produce the The stated purpose, or the assumption of the investi- new, identical stand. The capitalized cost can be con- gators, in the Rhode Island study was to develop a scheme sidered to be equal to the dollar value of the marsh. that will produce a value to be used as a criterion to decide A relative replacement cost also can be expressed as which tidal marshes are to be preserved, and which are to the estimated time required to develop a new stand be surrendered for non-wetland development. This identical to the one in question (McCormick 1974) or as approach is unwarranted, at least in other states, and the known or estimated age of the stand under considera- does not appear to reflect an appreciation for the dyna- tion (Graber and Graber 1976). Such an evaluation may mism of our wetlan 'd resources or a grasp of their unique be particularly useful in planning and assessment. Com- role in the total estuarine/ near-shore marine system. munity types that can be replaced in 1 to 5 years would be The basic assumption of an evaluation scheme for considered to be of less environmental value, in general, Maryland is that all coastal wetlands are of exceptional than would types with replacement times that are value, and that none should be surrendered for alterna- counted in tens or hundreds of years. tive, non-wetland uses. Exceptions would be made only The term "replacement cost," was used by Fischer when the alternative uses offer overriding benefits to the (1970) to describe "the added cost of replacing the sacri- public or relieve great private hardships, and when those ficed benefits over what it would have cost in the marsh." uses cannot be located elsewhere without significant In other words, he defined replacement costs as the cost reduction in the benefits or reliefs. In these exceptional that would be experienced to provide, in alternative cases, the scheme for environmental evaluation that is ways, all of the benefits to s -ociety that derive from a presented here will aid decision-makers to identify the coastal wetland. The construction of tertiary treatment location that will result in the least sacrifice of existing facilities to remove nutrients, for example, would bea natural resources. cost to replace one wetland function. It is also assumed, on the basis of local, continental, Direct measurements of plant vigor and community and worldwide evidence, that wetlands are dynamic structure were utilized as scalars by Oviatt and others resources. Some changes are continuous and slow and are (1977) in an attempt to rank ten stands of smooth perceptible only after years or centuries. Other changes cordgrass in Rhode Island. They employed estimates of are rapid, even catastrophic, and may be apparent within the standing crop, height, density, seed production (by a few months or even within a few days or hours. weight per stalk), and seed length of cordgrass; the Although the value scheme can be applied at any time density of fish eggs and larvae, and the density and during this spectrum of change, the values calculated for relative volume of adult fish in spring and autumn; the various wetland types and wetland areas will change standing crops of grass shrimp and insects; the density of eventually. A given set of values, therefore, is similar to a fiddler crabs; and the number of species of birds and the snapshot. It is a static record, at a single point in time, of number of individual birds observed during two hours in a continuously changing resource. each stand. The rating derived from a scheme for the environ- Oviatt and her co-workers concluded that large varia- mental evaluation of the coastal wetlands, per se, is not a tions in most of the parameters that they considered decision-making tool. If all coastal wetlands are of excep- prohibited them from separating the ten stands with tional value and, in toto, are a unique resource, there is no statistical significance. In their opinion, the effort neces- reason to consider that the least valuable wetlands in the sary to collect information sufficient to permit a statisti- current snapshot should be "written off for develop- cally significant ranking of stands would not be practical ment." They still are of exceptional value, and in point of for regular use in wetland evaluation programs. fact, the vegetation that will develop on them at some point in time in the future may be ranked as the most valuable. 3.2. PHILOSOPHY OF AN EVALUATION SCHEME FOR MARYLAND In the introduction to their report, Oviatt and her co-workers (1977) commented that, in Rhode Island, 112 3.3. GENERAL PREMISES C. Wetlands of one regime of salinity (fresh, brack- OF THE MARYLAND SCHEME ish, or saline) ordinarily should not be compared with those of another regime of salinity or with Any scheme for the evaluation of the tidal wetlands average Statewide values for all coastal wetlands. must be objective, and must be accepted widely as a On a unit area basis, saline wetland types rank well rational technique to compute a meaningful ranking for below brackish or fresh wetlands when they are all of the units under consideration. It should be based on appraised by the current Maryland scheme. When scientifically substantiated principles; should employ data become available to incorporate parameters quantified parameters; and should be understandable to to evaluate wetlands as habitats for such other laymen. organisms as fish and aquatic invertebrates, includ- For regional applications, such a scheme should ing shellfish, the relative values of wetlands in employ parameters that can be measured at a relatively different regimes of salinity may be more nearly low cost in time and money per unit area. Because the equalized. Currently, however, this is not the case. scheme presentedhere is pyramidal, or nested, there also Comparative studies, as alternative site evalua- must be a continuity of parameters from one level, or tions, could be biased' consi s tently as a result of scale, of evaluation to another. In other words, similar these inequalities. parameters must be used at each level of application. D. The Maryland scheme, in its present form, pro- Particularly for site-specific management or regula- duces numerical relative rankings of the value of tory considerations, the scheme should employ para- the vegetation, the value to wildlife, and the meters that are not unreasonably expensive to measure average overall biological value of a particular in terms of man-power requirements, level of skill, and wetland system. These ranks have no spatial di- cost of equipment. If a scheme employs parameters that mension. The actual size of the wetland, in acres, require long-term field measurements or measurements hectares, square miles, square kilometers, or rela- that must be made during a particular time of the year, tive square measures, is not considered in the the scheme should include alternative methods to utilize scheme. standardized values for appropriate parameters. Specifi- cally, it should be possible to use site-specific data E. The Maryland scheme is intended for use in coast- extracted from the regionwide inventory that is de- al zone planning and management and as an aid in scribed in the present report. If such inventory data are the regulation of coastal wetlands. For these pur- utilized, those data should be verified by a field inspection poses, it was decided that a scheme based on the of the site. In any regional inventory, there may be slight relative values of natural resources is more useful to major inaccuracies from site to site, and, when one than a scheme that ranks wetlands on the basis of deals with a resource that is in constant flux, the condi- assumed monetary values. Monetary values are tion of a specific site may change between the date of one not considered in the scheme, and rankings that inspection and the date of the next. are based on monetary consideratiQns could differ markedly from the rankings produced by this scheme. 3.4. RESTRICTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS The Maryland scheme for the evaluation of coastal IN THE MARYLAND SCHEME wetlands, in its current form, is based on the recognition that 31 distinct types of vegetation form the marshes and Numerous techniques for the evaluation of coastal swamps of the tidewater sections of the State. Relative wetlands were developed and tested during the formula- rankings of these vegetation types are developed in tion of the scheme that is presented in this report. The Chapter 4. Parameters for the evaluation of specific areas experience gained from these tests resulted in the adop- of wetlands are described in Chapter 5. The application tion of the following restrictions and assumptions for of the scheme is explained and demonstrated in Chapter the "Maryland scheme." 6, and guidance is provided for the interpretation of the A. A finite number of subaerial types of vegetation results. must be recognized and used as standard catego- The computations of the relative rankings of the sub- ries for the analyses of wetland areas of any size. aerial types of wetland vegetation require several kinds of information. This information is of greatest relevance B. Estimations of the relative value of the different when it is obtained by investigations of stands of the types of subaerial vegetation must be based on types in the area in which the scheme will be applied. characteristics that are common to all of the types Data from stands of the appropriate types that are and for which measurements are available from, located in a more extensive region, however, are valid for or for which substantiated estimates can be made use in the computations. Adequate information was not for, all of the types. The parameters selected, available from studies conducted in Maryland, for ex- furthermore, generally should reflect the inherent ample, so data from investigations that were conducted features of the vegetation (productivity, palatabil- in the region from North Carolina to Long Island Sound ity, height, and so on) and not features of the were utilized in the relative evaluations of vegetation environment (salinity, temperature, and so on). types (Subsections 2.2 and 2.4). 113 The application of the Maryland scheme requires a the coastal wetlands have been mapped at a scale of detailed inventory of the types of vegetation in the area 1:2400 (1 inch equals 200 feet), with an accuracy of 0.25 selected for evaluation. The interpretation of the results acre, and the acreage of each type of wetland vegetation of such an evaluation presupposes the existence of a has been measured and totaled by watersheds (Table 14), detailed inventory of the typesof vegetation throughout by counties (Table 17), and for the State as a whole the region to which the scheme is to be applied. In the (Table 2). State of Maryland, for example, the vegetation types of 114 4. EVALUATION OF VEGETATION TYPES To facilitate the description, mapping, and evaluation To develop the vegetation type value, measures of of the coastal wetlands of the State of Maryland, the productivity and measures of replacement cost are com- plant cover of the wetlands is considered to be composed bined by weighting the estimated annual production by a of 32 types of vegetation (Chapter 1). By definition, factor that represents the replacement cost. This opera- these types differ from one another in the species of tion is explained in the following subsections of the text. plants of which they are composed or in the proportion They result in a series of "raw values" that range from of the total plant mass that is formed by particular 205 to 2,311. To reduce this spread, each raw value is species of plants. There are numerous secondary differ- transformed into a percentage of the highest raw value. ences between the vegetation types. These include dif- The maximum spread of the transformed values, there- ferences in the mass of plant material formed annually fore, is from some fraction to 100. The actual spread of per unit area, the nutritional value of that material, the the transformed values is from 9 to 100. rate of decomposition of dead vegetation, and so on. NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION VARIABLE Because the vegetation types differ from one another Gross primary production is the total amount of in many ways, it is assumed that the types also vary in energy that is transformed by plants, or the total mass of their relative values to the total estuarine system. In an matter produced by plants, per unit of time. Part of the attempt to find an objective basis for the determination energy or matter is utilized by the plants in their own of these relative values, all available information on the metabolism. The remainder is known as the net primary coastal wetlands of Maryland was reviewed (Chapter 2). production, and it is this net production that is the base This review resulted in the identification of two groups of the consumer food web. All animals, either directly, as of data that contain information that is more or less herbivores or decomposers, or indirectly, as predators, uniform for all or most of the 32 types of vegetation. One obtain their energy and nutrients from plant tissue. Bac- of these groups comprises the estimates of peak standing teria, fungi, and other non-autotrophic microorganisms crops of plant material and the other is formed by the similarly are dependent upon primary production for results of studies of wildlife food plants. The other bodies energy and nutrients. .of information that were reviewed, including chemical The bulk of plant tissue produced annually in the composition of the plants, energy content, detritus pal- coastal wetlands is formed by vascular plants. Some of atability, water pollution abatement capacity, sediment- this material is consumed in place by herbivores or decay trapping capacity, erosion control capacity, and secon- organisms; some falls to the ground and is decomposed dary productivity, was not addressed to specific vegetation at or near the place of production; and some is carried types, was applicable to only one or a few of the types, or from the wetland into the adjoining estuary and ocean by was not suitable for quantification. upland runoff, storm surges, and/or tidal currents. The For the Maryland environmental evaluation scheme, best available data on the net annual production of the two parameters are developed in the following subsec- vegetation types of the coastal wetlands of Maryland are tions to evaluate vegetation types. The "Vegetation Type estimates of the peak standing crop (Table 45, leftmost Value" is based largely on the peak standing crops of column). plant materials and is a relative measure of an intrinsic The averages listed in Table 45 do not include woody feature of the vegetation. The "Wildlife Food Value" is tissues. An adjustment must be made, therefore, in the derived from analyses of the plants ingested by various means from shrub swamp types (Types 11, 12, and 13), species of animals and is a relative measure of an extrin- swamp forest types (Types 21, 22, and 23), and marsh sic feature of vegetation. The two parameters vary inde- types that include shrubs (Types 42 and 62). No quanti- pendently, and each is dimensionless. That is, the units tative measurements of the annual net production of in which they are expressed are relative numbers that do woody tissue in these types are available. Johnson and not relate directly to area, volume, mass, time, or velocity. Risser (1974), however, found that tree leaves and her- baceous undergrowth produced about 40 91o of the annual 4. 1. VEGETATION TYPE VALUE net production in an upland oak forest. To be conserva- tive, it is estimated that herbaceous materials contribute The vegetation type value is based on two assump- 67916 of the net production in wetlands. The average tions. One of these is that the relative importance of a peak standing crop of each of the swamp forest types, vegetation type to the estuarine system is related directly therefore, should be multiplied by 1.5, and the averages to the mass of plant material that is produced per unit for shrub swamps should be multiplied by 1.33. These area each year. The other assumption is that the propor- adjustment factors also are listed in Table 45. tion of vegetation types that composed the coastal wetlands of Maryland at the time of mapping is ideal. REPLACEMENT COST FACTOR The importance attributed to any vegetation type, there- With appropriate preparation, and under proper fore, should increase as the time, or money, required to management, it theoretically is possible to produce con- re-establish that type on an appropriate, barren site ditions suitable for the growth of any vegetation type. increases. The conditions required for some types, however, are 115 much less specialized than those necessary for other areas that are exposed to storm waves and blowing sand. types. Similarly, the time needed to produce a mature By the second growing season, the primary production of stand of one vegetation type may be a few months, the new stands was equal to that of a long-established whereas it may require a century or more to produce a marsh. mature stand of another type. Replacement value, there- Garbisch and others (1975a, 1975b) planted potted fore, is a relative measure of the maturity of an existing seedlings of smooth cordgrass, meadow cordgrass, big stand of vegetation, and it reflects the cost-in dollars or cordgrass, and spikegrass on dredged material and sandy in time-to produce a new stand, of similar age and shores in brackish areas in Chesapeake Bay. Growth composition, on another site (McCormick 1974; Graber generally was rapid during the first growing season at and Graber 1976). elevations near and above mean high water. On one site If the replacement cost is calculated in dollars, it that was investigated during the second growing season, should include: the probable cost to acquire and prepare nearly 70% of the standing crop had been harvested by an alternate site that now is -barren or is occupied by a Canada geese during the winter. By September, however, vegetation type considered not to be sensitive or to have the plants developed new crowns and formed a dense, a lower replacement value; the cost to acquire and plant natural- appea ring growth. The authors also found that suitable transplants or seeds of proven regional geno- benthic invertebrate populations, comparable in density type; and the cost to tend, protect, and manage the and diversity to those in natural wetland areas, develop vegetation until it reaches an age and condition identical in artificially-established marshes within one year. to the now existing mature vegetation. For certain kinds A variety of native freshwater wetland plants volun- of projects in certain types of vegetation, a "restoration tarily colonized dredged material in a containment area value" might be more appropriate for consideration than in the James River, Virginia, during the first growing is the replacement value. Rights-of-way for aerial trans- season after completion of the disposal operations mission facilities across coastal marshes, for example, (Anon 1975). The operation was designed so that most may involve construction disturbances, but virtually no of the surface of the dredged material would be within long-term loss if the contour of the ground is not altered. the intertidal range. This section was covered largely by For the purposes of the statewide evaluation of coastal pickerelweed and duckpotato. wetland resources, the replacement cost can be expressed The present record for marsh reestablishment includes as the approximate time required to produce a mature numerous failures, as well as many successes. Long-term stand of a particular type of vegetation on an appropriate studies to document the stability of man-made wetlands barren site. Although little information currently is are lacking, and most investigators have not considered available on this subject, considerable effort is being the populations of algae, diatoms, meiofauna, larger devoted throughout the coastal zone of the nation to invertebrates, and vertebrates in these areas. Further- determine the most rapid and effective methods to estab- more, only a few types of vegetation have been subject to lish new wetlands. These studies have become especially study, and most of these, but not all, are types character- critical since the enactment of Section 150 of the 1976 istic of saline or highly brackish sites. The estimates in Water Resources Development Act (PL 94-587), which Table 44 of the number of years necessary to establish enables the Corps of Engineers "to plan and establish mature, viable, fully populated wetland vegetation of wetland areas as a part of an authorized water resources different types, therefore, are professional judgments development project. . ." Most of the current investiga- that are based on the knowledge presently available. tions are directed principally toward the establishment of vegetation on deposits of dredged material, and have In Table 44, the types of vegetation that are recognized led to the development of preliminary techniques for the in the coastal wetlands of Maryland are listed. For each selection and design of wetland habitats (Anon 1977a, type, the approximate time, in years, considered to be 1977b,1977c). necessary to develop a mature, fully populated stand is In East Bay, on the south shore of Long Island, Terry, given in the center column. The number for each type in Udell and Zandusky (1974) planted seeds, seedlings, and the column on the right is the replacement cost factor plugs of smooth cordgrass on a 200-foot wide right-of- which is used in subsequent calculations. way in which a sewer pipeline had been installed one or The replacement cost factors, which are comparative two years earlier. The best results were obtained with expressions of the time needed to establish particular transplanted seedlings, but only 50% of the seedlings types of vegetation, are assigned arbitrary values, as survived the first year. Sections of the right-of-way in follows: which the substrate was highly organic and physically Time Needed to Relative Replacement soft apparently were toxic to the seedlings and plugs of E.stablish (Years) Cost Factor the cordgrass, and the mortality was 100% on these sites. Woodhouse and others (1974) and Broome and others I to 10 1 (1974) experimented with the establishment of smooth 11 to 20 2 cordgrass on dredged material on intertidal sites in 21 or more 3 North Carolina. Seeding and transplanting both were successful, but the survival and growth of transplants were better than those of newly developed seedlings in 116 CALCULATION OF VEGETATION 4.2. WILDLIFE FOOD VALUE TYPE VALUES A relative value, based on intrinsic features of the The seeds, fruits, leaves, roots, and other organs of vegetation, is assigned to each type of vegetated wetland plants are eaten by many kinds of animals. The purpose by multiplying the average peak standing crop, with any of the wildlife food value is to provide a relative evalua- necessary adjustment for types with woody components, tion of the different types of wetland vegetation in regard by the replacement cost factor, and dividing that product to their overall usefulness to wildlife as sources of food. (the "raw value") by the highest raw value for any type. To develop the scores for this parameter, information (1) APSC - ADJ - RCF = RV (2) Vegetation Type Value= (RV -* HRV) x 100 Where: Table 44. Replacement cost factors for the vegetation ADJ is the adjustment for Woody Production types recognized in the coastal wetlands of Maryland. (Page 115) Years to Replacement RCF is the Replacement Cost Factor (Table 44) Develop Cost Factor RV is the Raw Value SHRUB SWAMPS HRV is the Highest Raw Value 11 Swamp rose 10 1 The numbers that are applicable to each type of vege- 12 Smooth alder/Black willow 15 2 tation in the coastal wetlands of Maryand are collected in 13 Red maple/Ash 15 2 Table 45, and the raw value and vegetation type value of SWAMP FORESTS each type is calculated. The highest raw value is that of 21 Baldcypress 50 3 Type 38, the freshwater big cordgrass type (2311 points). 22 Red ma le/Ash 50 3 Each of the raw values was divided by 2311 to transform P it to a percentil e scale. These range from 9 for the saline 23 Loblolly pine 50 3 marshelder/groundselbush type (Type 62) to 100 for the FRESH MARSHES freshwater big cordgrass type (Type 38). 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass 5 1 31 Spatterdock 10 1 32 Pickerelweed/Arrowarum 10 1 33 Sweetflag 10 1 34 Cattail 5 1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 35 Rosernallow 5 1 Estimates of peak standing crops are utilized for the 36 Wildrice 5 1 net primary production variable because such estimates 37 Bulrush 5 1 are available for nearly all of the vegetation types in the 38 Big cordgrass 5 1 coastal wetlands of Maryland. Measurements of peak 39 Common reed 5 1 standing crops,'however, underestimate the net amount BRACKISH HIGH MARSHES of annual primary production. If the degree of under- 41 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass 5 1 estimation were constant from one type to another, it 42 Marshelder/Groundselbush 5 1 would have no effect on relative rankings. The under- 43 Needlerush 5 1 estimation is not constant, however, so that the use of 44 Cattail 5 1 peak standing crops affords a differential weighting to 45 Rosemallow 5 1 stands composed predominantly of a single species in 46 Switchgrass 5 1 which the bulk of the plants mature concurrently. The 47 Threesquare 5 1 calculation of vegetation type values will be improved by 48 Big cordgrass 5 1 the use of estimates of net annual primary production. 49 Common reed 5 1 Currently, these estimates are available from few vegeta- BRACKISH LOW MARS14ES tion types and from only a small percentage of the stands 51 Smooth cordgrass 5 1 that have been sampled (Table 22). Only limited observational information is available in SALINE HIGH MARSHES regard to the time required to replace the various types of 61 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass 5 1 coastal wetland vegetation. The replacement cost factors, 62 Marshelder/Groundselbush 5 1 therefore, were based on professional judgments. The 63 Needlerush 5 1 utility of this factor will be increased by substituting the times that are determined in the future by investigations SALINE LOW MARSHES conducted in Maryland and in other Middle Atlantic 71 Smooth cordgrass, tall growth form 5 1 States. Definitive information from such investigations 72 Smooth cordgrass, short growth form 5 1 also can be used to narrow the increments of time to SUBMERGED VEGETATION intervals of five years, and to expand the range of factors 101 Submerged vegetation 5 1 from three to five. 117 in Chapter 1 was utilized to formulate a list of the marsh and shorebirds were weighted most heavily, and predominant genera of plants in each vegetation type. those eaten by songbirds were weighted least. The The analyses that are summarized in Section 2.4 of Chap- weighted values for each genus were summed and then ter 2 then were used to express the value of each predom- were utilized to calculate scores for the vegetation types. inant genus to the several groups of wildlife. Because the These raw scores ranged from 2 to 817. To reduce this wildlife in the several groups are not equally dependent spread, the raw scores were transformed by percentages on coastal wetlands, the plant values were weighted of the highest raw score. The lowest transformed value, differentially. Plants that are eaten by waterfowl and by by definition, is I and the highest is 100. Table 45. Vegetation type values for the coastal wetlands of Maryland. Vegeta- Standing Adjust- Replacement Raw tion Type Crop g1ml ment Cost Factor Value Value SHRUB SWAMPS 11 Swamp rose 669 1.33 1 890 39 12 Smooth alder/Black willow NA 1.33 2 [1190] [52] 13 Red maple/Ash 560 1.33 2 1490 64 SWAMP FORESTS 21 Balclcypress 334 1.5 3 1503 65 22 Red maple/Ash 485 1.5 3 2183 94 23 Loblolly pine 506 1.5 3 2277 99 FRESH MARSHES 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass 1425 1.0 1 1425 62 31 Spatterdock 627 1.0 1 627 27 32 Pickerelweed/Arrowarum 687 1.0 1 687 30 33 Sweetflag 857 1.0 1 857 37 34 Cattail 1136 1.0 1 1136 49 35 Rosernallow 1714 1.0 1 1714 74 36 Wildrice 1218 1.0 1 1218 53 37 Bulrush NA 1.0 1 [606] [26] 38 Big cordgrass 2311 1.0 1 2311 100 39 Common reed 1850 1.0 1 1850 80 BRACKISH HIGH MARSHES 41 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass 897 1.0 1 897 39 42 Mars helder/ Groundselbush 895 1.33 1 1190 51 43 Needlerush 1290 1.0 1 1290 56 44 Cattail 1361 1.0 1 1361 59 45 Rosernallow 1354 1.0 1 1354 59 46 Switchgrass 2270 1.0 1 2270 98 47 Threesquare 606 1.0 1 606 26 48 Big cordgrass 1085 1.0 1 1085 47 49 Common reed 2155 1.0 1 2155 93 BRACKISH LOW MARSHES 51 Smooth cordgrass 942 1.0 1 942 41 SALINE HIGH MARSHES 61 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass 467 1.0 1 467 20 62 Mars helder/ Groundselbush 154 1.33 1 205 9 63 Needlerush 1160 1.0 1 1160 50 SALINE LOW MARSHES 71 Smooth cordgrass, tall growth form 1157 1.0 1 1157 50 72 Smooth cordgrass, short growth form 456 1.0 1 456 20 SUBMERGED VEGETATION 101 Submerged vegetation 409 1.0 1 409 18 118 Table 46. Total weighted food values of the predominant plants in the vegetation types of the coastal wetlands of the Middle Atlantic States. Predominant plants are from Tables 3,4,5,7, and 9. Total values of scores for the plants are from Tables 26, 27, and 28. Waterfowl Marsh and Shore Birds Songbirds Upland Game Birds Mammals Total Value of Scores Total Value of Scores Total Value of Scores Total Value of Scores Total Value of Scores Total Grand Weighted Grand Weighted Grand Weighted Grand Weighted Grand Weighted Weighted Fruits Other Total Value Fruits Other Total Value Fruits Other Total Value Fruits Other Total Value Fruits Other Total Value Value Trees Ashes - - 2 6 - - 0 0 - - 14 14 - - 5 5 - - 8 16 41 Baldcypress - - 4 12 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 12 Blackgum - - 3 9 - - 0 0 - - 50 50 - - 6 6 - - 12 24 89 Maples - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 25 25 - - 4 4 - - 31 62 91 Pines - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 78 78 - - 9 9 - - 17 34 121 Sweetbay - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 6 6 - - 0 0 - - 4 8 14 Sweetgum - - 2 6 - - 0 0 - - 20 20 - - 2 2 - - 10 20 20 Shrubs Alders - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 3 3 - - 4 4 - - 3 6 13 Azaleas - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND 10a Groundselbush - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND 10a Marshelder - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND 10a Mistletoes - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND 10a Poison ivy - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND 10a Roses - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 2 2 - - 0 0 - - 8 16 18 Spicebush - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 21 21 - - 4 4 - - 0 0 25 Sweet pepperbush - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND - - ND ND 10a Viburnums - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 19 19 - - 6 6 - - 14 28 53 Willows - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 3 3 - - 14 28 31 Shrublike Herbs Spiked loosestrife ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10a Rosemallow ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10a Waterwillow ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10a Forbs Arrowarum 4 0 4 12 2 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Arrowheads 0 31 31 93 3 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 110 Asters ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10a Bindweeds ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10a Burmarigolds 3 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 13 Burreeds 25 0 25 75 6 0 6 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 10 103 Glassworts 6 2 8 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Goldenclub ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10a Table 46. Total weighted food values of the predominant plants in the. vegetation types of the coastal wetlands of the Middle Atlantic States (Concluded). Waterfowl Marsh and Shore Birds Songbirds Upland Game Birds Mammals Total Value of Scores Total Value of Scores Total Value of Scores Total Value of Scores Total Value of Scores Total Grand Weighted Grand Weighted Grand Weighted Grand Weighted Grand Weighted Weighted Fruits Other Total Value Fruits Other Total Value Fruits Other Total Value Fruits Other Total Value Fruits Other Total Value Value Goldenrod 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 11 0 2 2 2 4 2 6 12 25 Loosestrife ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 102 Muskratweed ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10. Orach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Pickerelweed 4 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 16 Ragweeds ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10. Sealavenders ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10@ Smartweedse 45 0 45 135 24 0 24 72 28 0 28 28 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 240 Spatterdock 3 0 3 9 2 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 23 Touch-me-nots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 6 0 6 6 2 0 2 4 14 Waterbemp 2 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Grasses and Grasslike Plants Bulrushes 66 5 71 213 27 0 27 81 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 2 5 7 14 312 0 - -- Canarygrass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 Cattails 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 12 18 Cordgrasses 8 13 21 63 9 0 9 27 11 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 Rice cutgrass 0 22 22 66 3 0 3 9 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 89 Panicgrassesg 13 0 13 39 9 0 9 27 89 0 89 89 11 0 11 11 0 4 4 8 174 Common reed ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10- Rushes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 6 Spikegrass 0 9 9 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Sweetflag ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10a Wildrice 58 0 58 174 7 0 7 21 22 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 217 ND means No Data are available. These plants were assigned a value of 10. bIncludes species known as arrowwoods. cIncludes duckpotato dIncludes species known as beggarticks and Spanishneedles eIncludes species known as pinkweed, tearthumb, and waterpepper fIncludes species known as threesquares and woolgrass gIncludes switchgrass PREDOMINANT GENERA OF PLANTS multiplied by three), are of major value to relatively The lists of the floristic components of the vegetation few kinds of mammals (values multiplied by two), and types that are recognized in the coastal wetlands of Mary- are one of several habitats that are utilized by upland land (Tables 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9) were utilized to identify the game birds and most kinds of songbirds (values multi- predominant genera of each type. Any genus of plant plied by one). Although the ratio of 3:2:1 is arbitrary, that is a diagnostic component of a type (i.e., is listed in there currently is no objective basis for the assignment of the name of the type), or any genus that has been other weighting factors. reported in three or more investigations to be an asso- ciate component of a type, is considered to be a predomi- nant genus. Each of these genera is indicated by an X in CALCULATION OF SCORES Tables 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9. A few predominant genera are FOR VEGETATION TYPES shown in the tables to have been reported by at least three The weighted values for the five groups of wildlife are investigators, but no single species of a particular genus summed to produce the total weighted food value for has been reported frequently enough to be marked by an each kind of plant in Table 46. Four tables then were X. For the baldcypress swamp forest (Table 4, Type 2 1), constructed to indicate the predominant genera of plants any genus that was reported in both of the two available in shrub swamps and swamp forests (Table 47), in fresh floristic surveys is considered to be a predominant genus. marshes (Table 48), in brackish marshes (Table 49), and WILDLIFE VALUES OF in saline marshes (Table 50). The total weighted value of PREDOMINANT GENERA each genus is entered in these tables in the appropriate The genera of plants that are predominant in one or cells and, for each type of vegetation, the values of the more types of vegetation are listed in Table 46. Informa- predominant genera are summed to produce a total wild- tion on the wildlife food values of many of these taxa is life food score for the type. tabulated in Section 2.4. For these taxa, the summary The total wildlife food score of the smartweed/rice lines, which are labeled "total value of scores" in the cutgrass fresh marsh (Type 30) is the highest of the 39 tables for fruits or seeds of herbaceous plants (Table 26), total scores that were calculated. To compute the wildlife for vegetative parts of herbaceous plants (Table 27), and food values of these types, the total score for each type is for any parts of woody plants that are eaten by wildlife divided by the score for Type 30 and the dividend is (Table 28), are entered in Table 46. There are at least five multiplied by 100 to express it as a percentage. All values such values for each genus of plant, one each for water- are rounded to the nearest 196, and any value that is less fowl, marsh and shorebirds, songbirds, upland game than I t7o is raised to 1 t7o to avoid fractions. birds, and mammals. In Table 46, the values are grouped The wildlife food values of the 31 types of subaerial under these five wildlife categories. vegetation that are recognized in the coastal wetlands of Maryland are summarized in Table 5 1. In this table, the WEIGHTING OF WILDLIFE VALUES values are rounded to the nearest 5 %, and any value that The "total values of scores" for the five groups of is less than 5t7o is set equal to 596. These adjustments wildlife in Table 46 were weighted differentially to were made to avoid any suggestion that the methodology reflect the fact that wetlands generally are of greatest is sensitive enough to distinguish differences that are value to waterfowl and to marsh and shore birds (values less than 5 96. Table 47. Computation of wildlife food values of the vegetation types of the shrub swamps and swamp forests of the coastal wetlands of Maryland. The predominant plants were selected from Tables 3 and 4. The total weighted food values entered in this table are from Table 46. Vegetation Types Vegetation Types 11 12 13 21 22 23 11 12 13 21 22 23 Trees Poison ivy 10 Green ash 41 41 41 Swamp rose 18 Baldcypress 12 Spicebush 25 Blackgum 89 Sweet pepperbush 10 Red maple 91 91 91 Black willow 31 Loblolly pine 121 121 Shrubform Herbs Sweetbay 14 Waterwillow 10 Sweetgum 48 Forbs Shrubs and Vines Muskratweed 10 Smooth alder 13 Spatterdock 23 Southern arrowwood 53 Spotted touch-me-not 14 Clammy azalea 10 American mistletoe 10 Total 18 44 132 591 132 121 Wildlife Food Value 2 5 16 72 16 15 121 Table 48. Computation of wildlife food values of the vegetation types of the fresh marshes of the coastal wetlands of Maryland. The predominant plants were selected from Table 5. The total weighted food values entered in this table are from Table 46. Vegetation Types 30 31 32 33 34 _35 36 37 38 39 3A 3B 3C 3L 3R 3S 3G Shrubform Herbs Spiked loosestrife 10 Rosernallow 10 10 10 10 Forbs Arrowarum 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Arrowheads' 110 110 110 110 110 Bindweeds 10 BurmarigoldS2 13 13 Burreeds 103 Goldenclub 10 Pickerelweed 16 16 Giant ragweed 10 Smartweeds 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 Spatterdock 23 Touch-me-nots 14 14 14 14 Waterhemp 6 6 6 6 Grasses and Grasslike Plants Bulrushes 312 312 312 Reed canarygrass 2 Cattails 18 18 Cordgrasses 101 Rice cutgrass 89 Common reed 10 Sweetflag 10 Wildrice 217 217 Total 817 258 710 274 410 10 367 312 341 302 246 369 2 10 10 350 10 Wildlife Food Value 100 32 87 34 50 1 45 38 42 37 30 45 1 1 1 43 1 'Includes duckpotato 21ncludes beggarticks and tearthumbs 122 Table 49. Computation of wildlife food values of the vegetation types of the brackish marshes of the coastal wetlands of Maryland. The predominant plants were selected from Table 7. The total weighted food values entered in this table are from Table 46. Vegetation Types 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 Shrubs Groundselbush 10 Marshelder 10 10 Shrubform Herbs Rosernallow 10 10 10 10 Forbs (Broadleaf Herbs) Waterhemp 6 Narrowleaf loosestrife, 10 10 Seaside goldenrod 25 25 Grasses and Grasslike Plants Bulrushes 312 312 312 312 312 Cattails 18 Cordgrasses 101 101 101 101 101 101 Common reed 10 Rushes 6 Spikegrass 27 27 27 Switchgrass 174 174 Total 485 669 107 340 10 174 460 101 10 419 Wildlife Food Value 59 82 13 42 1 21 56 12 1 51 Table 50. Computation of wildlife food values of the vegetation types of the saline marshes of the coastal wetlands of Maryland. The predominant plants were selected from Table 9. The total weighted food values entered in this table are from Table 46. Vegetation Types 61 62 63 71 72 7A 7M Shrubs Groundselbush 10 Marshelder 10 10 Forbs Asters 10 Glassworts 24 24 24 Orach 10 Sealavender 10 10 10 Grasses and Grasslike Plants Cordgrasses 101 101 101 101 Needlerush 6 Spikegrass 27 Total 182 20 6 135 135 10 101 Wildlife Food Value 22 2 1 17 17 1 12 123 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT More accurate wildlife food values could be obtained Table 5 1. Wildlife food values for the thirty-one types of for certain vegetation types by obtaining more compre- subaerial vegetation in the coastal wetlands of Maryland. hensive qualitative data on the predominant plant genera The values are rounded to the nearest 5% from the in those types. Data are needed particularly for the shrub values listed in Tables 47 through 50. swamp and swamp forest types. At present, the wildlife TYPE VALUE food values in Table 47 are biased towards Type 21 (baldcypress) due to the more comprehensive floristic SHRUBSWAMP surveys available for this type. Another example is the 11 Swamp rose ...................... 5 computation of the score for Type 62 (marshelder/ 12 Smooth alder/Black willow .......... 5 groundselbush) (Table 50). Meadow cordgrass may be 13 Red maple/Ash ................... 15 present as an understory in a stand of this type. How- SWAMP FORESTS ever, because this genus has not been reported frequently 21 Baldcypress ....................... 70 enough in floristic surveys, the total weighted food value 22 Red maple/Ash ................... 15 of 101 for cordgrasses (Table 46) is not included in the 23 Loblolly pine ...................... 15 wildlife food value for Type 62. The wildlife food variable will be more useful when FRESH MARSHES quantitative data are available for its computation. Com- 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass ........... 100 prehensive investigations of the utilization of plants by 31 Spatterdock ....................... 30 wildlife in Maryland can produce more complete and 32 Pickerelweed/ A rrowa rum ........... 90 relevant information than was available for this first 33 Sweetflag ........................ 35 approximation. Quantitative studies of all of the vegeta- 34 Cattail ........................... 50 tion types will permit the wildlife food values to be 35 Rosemallow ...................... 5 weighted to reflect the role of the various plants in the 36 Wildrice ......................... 45 vegetation or, more appropriately, in terms of the stand- 37 Bulrush .......................... 40 ing crop of the material that is eaten by wildlife. In the 38 Big cordgrass ..................... 40 current scheme, owing to the absence of such quantitative 39 Common reed ..................... 35 studies, all floristically predominant plants are treated as BRACKISH HIGH MARSHES equal in terms of the amount of food that is available. 41 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass ....... 60 Food values should be expanded to encompass the 42 Marshelder/Groundselbush .......... 80 animal foods available in the various types of vegetation. 43 Needlerush ....................... 15 Several investigations indicate that such species as the 44 Cattail ........................... 40 ribbed mussel, marsh fiddler crab, and periwinkle are 45 Rosernallow ...................... 5 most abundant in the smooth cordgrass marsh; that salt 46 Switchgrass ....................... 20 marsh snails are most abundant in the meadow cordgrass 47 Threesquare ...................... 55 zone; and that many invertebrates abound in beds of 48 Big cordgrass ................ : .... 10 eelgrass and other submerged plants. No comprehensive 49 Common reed ..................... 5 study has been made, however, to evaluate the animal foods that are available in all of the vegetation types of BRACKISH LOW MARSHES the coastal wetlands. No uniform base of data is avail- 51 Smooth cordgrass .................. 50 able, therefore, to permit the formulation of a scheme for SALINE HIGH MARSHES rating animal food values of the 31 types that are recog- 61 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass ....... 20 nized in Maryland. 62 Marshel der/ Grou ndsel bush .......... 5 63 Needlerush ....................... 5 SALINE LOW MARSHES 71 Smooth cordgrass, tall growth form ... 15 72 Smooth cordgrass, short growth form. . 15 124 5. EVALUATION OF WETLAND SITES Values are assigned to vegetation types, without that cover a specific wetland site. The percentage of the regard to specific geographic positions, in the preceding site that is occupied by each type is used as the weighting chapter. The purpose of the present chapter is to describe factor. parameters which are utilized in a scheme to evaluate To provide specific scalars for the interpretation of specific wetland complexes and specific tracts of wetland. the scores for the wetland production variable, the State- Geographical scalars are characteristic of a wetland wide measurements of acreages of vegetation types complex that can be identified and quantified from aerial (Table 14, rightmost column) were used with the vegeta- photographs or maps equivalent in detail to the topo- tion type values (Table 45) to calculate weighted mean grapic quadrangles of the United States Geological Sur- vegetation group values for the different hierarchical vey. They represent information that is useful to provide categories of coastal wetlands. The results of these calcu- an areal context to the resource evaluations. lations are summarized in Table 52. Biological variables are included in resource groups The weighted mean values range from 16, for the that are intended to appraise the values of the vegetation Saline High Marshes, to 87 for Swamp Forests. The and the terrestrial wildlife of coastal wetland complexes weighted mean for all of the Brackish Marshes, which and tracts. Owing to the lack of appropriate information, compose the bulk (7217o) of the subaerial vegetated the evaluation scheme does not incorporate scalars for wetlands, is 46 and the weighted mean for all subaerial the invertebrates of wetlands. herbaceous wetlands is 45. Table 52. Weighted means of vegetation type values for 5.1. VEGETATION RESOURCE GROUP categories of vegetation types of the coastal wetlands of Maryland. The maps of the vegetation types of the coastal Category Weighted Means wetlands of Maryland, on which this report is based, were prepared from aerial photographs that were taken All Wetland Vegetation Types during 197 1. The photographs and maps are changeless, (Types 11-72, 101) 43 but the wetlands are dynamic. Owing to the various All Subaerial Vegetated Types natural processes and to direct and indirect actions of (Types 11-72) 48 man, the types of vegetation that occupy a particular area of wetland may change over a period of years. The Wooded Wetlands (Types 11-23) 84 configuration of the wetland area and the proportional Shrub swamp types (Types 11-13) 61 distribution of land and water also may change, particu- Swamp forest types (Types 21-23) 87 larly as a result of severe storms. Herbaceous Subaerial Wetlands (Types 30-72) 45 When a specific wetland site is to be appraised, the Fresh marshes (Types 30-39) 49 maps on which the area is depicted should be compared Brackish marshes (Types 41-49, 51) 46 with the existing condition of the site. Any error in the Brackish high marshes (Types 41-49) 47 original interpretations and any changes in the types of Brackish low marshes (Type 51) 41 wetland vegetation, in the distribution of types, or in the Saline marshes (Types 61-63, 71, 72) 19 areal extent of the types should be noted. The existing Saline high marshes (Types 61-63) 16 condition is to be used in the following analyses. Saline low marshes (Types 71, 72) 20 In some cases, a new map of the wetland vegetation of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (Type 101) 18 a site may be prepared to provide a greater detail of information. To insure that the new mapping is compat- These statewide averages for wetland vegetation ible with this environmental evaluation scheme, the tidal groupings suggest that the values for freshwater marshes wetland types that are listed in Table 1 should be utilized. and brackish marshes generally are comparable. An If a greater range of distinctions is required, new catego- average score would be about 46 to 49 points. Scores ries should be treated as subtypes of the 35 types listed in significantly less or greater than this range would indi- Table 1. cate wetlands that are less or more productive than the Eight wetland vegetation types that have been recog- average. nized in other middle Atlantic states, but not in Mary- Procedure: The area of each vegetation type in the land, are listed in Table 21 (Types 3A, 3B, 3C, 3L, 3R, 3S, subject wetland is measured, and then expressed as a 7A, and 7M). Should one or more of these types occupy a fraction (percentage) of the total area of the wetland. significant acreage of a site for which a new or revised The vegetation type value of each type is multiplied by map is prepared, the data in Table 21 can be utilized to the corresponding fractional area, and the products are compute the vegetation type values. summed to produce the score for this variable. This method of calculation is demonstrated in Table 53. WETLAND PRODUCTION VARIABLE The wetland production variable is the weighted aver- Supplementary Procedure: If measurements of the age of the wetland type values of the vegetation types peak standing crops of the various vegetation types in 11)" Table 5 3. Example of the calculation of the value of the wetland production variable. Data are for the fresh marsh category of the coastal wetlands of Maryland and were obtained from Table 14. Vegetation type values are from Table 45. Percent Vegetation of Total Type Value Product Vegetation Type Acres (a) (b) (a x b) 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass 2,924 11.44 62 7.1 31 Spatterdock 1,774 6.94 27 1.9 32 Pickerel weed/ Arrowa rum 3,925 15-35 30 4.6 33 Sweetflag 431 1.69 37 0.6 34 Cattail 9,018 35.28 49 17.3 35 Rosernallow 1,256 4.91 74 3.6 36 Wildrice 776 3.04 53 1.6 37 Bulrush 2,808 10.98 [26] 2.9 38 Big cordgrass 1,904 7.45 100 7.4 39 Common reed 747 2.92 80 2.3 TOTAL 25,563 100.00 49.3 the subject wetland are available, they can be substituted susceptible to wholesale instability because it is not likely for the average statewide values utilized in Table 45. If that all types will be defoliated or become diseased this alternative is employed, the standard calculation also simultaneously. should be made to permit comparisons. Procedure: The weights assigned to different ranges VEGETATION RICHNESS FACTOR of the number of vegetation types present in a particular Thirty-one subaerial types of vegetation are recog- wetland are listed below. The appropriate weight is used nized in the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Table 1, as a multiplier to adjust the score of the wetland produc- Types 11 through 72). The vegetation richness factor is tion variable, and to produce the number that is known an arbitrary measure of the number of vegetation types as the "Vegetation Resource Group Score" (Table 61). that are present in the wetland area that is being 10 or more 6-9 4-5 2-3 1 evaluated.' 1.50 1.38 1.25 1.13 1.00 Various investigations that are reviewed in Section 2.5 of this report demonstrate that the vegetation richness of a wetland is correlated positively with the diversity of 5.2. WILDLIFE RESOURCE GROUP animals that inhabit a wetland. Different types of vege- tation make different species of plants available as food Detailed investigations of wildlife populations are and cover to animals, and different types may vary greatly available only for a few types of wetlands. The data from in structure and vertical development. The floristic these studies are not an adequate basis for the develop- information that is presented in Sections 1.2 and 2.2 is ment of quantitative scalars to compare the wildlife evidence that vegetation richness also is an index of the values of all types of coastal wetlands. It is necessaryi variety of plant foods that may be exported to the estua- therefore, to rely on professional judgments for relative rine waters with which the subject wetland is associated. evaluations. These are articulated by various qualitative A greater variety of foods presumably will provide sus- appraisals of the habitat features of the wetland (Golet tenance for a wider range of estuarine organisms. 1972). Vegetation richness also is related to the biological stability of a wetland. Any particular type of vegetation, VEGETATION/WATER especially if it is composed principally of one species, is INTERSPERSION VARIABLE susceptible to severe defoliation by insects or other her- Wildlife biologists generally consider that wetlands bivores (McCormick 1970; McCormick and Ashbaugh which are of greatest value to wildlife are composed of 1972); or to damage or death by disease. A wetland that is equal proportions of vegetated areas and areas of open covered by only one type of vegetation, therefore, poten- water and that the vegetation and water are thoroughly tially is subject to great instability. Wetlands with a interspersed (Golet 1972, 1973a, 1973b; Larson 1973). larger variety of vegetation types, especially if the areas The values of the vegetation/ water interspersion vari- occupied by those types are more or less equal, is less able are arbitrary and are based on the percentage of the 'Vegetation richness, thus, is a measure of the diversity of vegetation types in a particular wetland area. In contrast, floristic diversity (page 144) is a measure of the number of species that are present in a single type of vegetation. There is no uniform relationship between vegetation richness and combined floristic diversity. For example, the floristic diversity of one type [e.g., the fresh smartweed/rice cutgrass marsh (Type 30)] may be greater than the combined floristic diversity of two or more other types, such as the saline meadow cordgrass/spikegrass marsh (Type 61), the saline needlegrass marsh (Type 63), and the saline tall growth smooth cordgrass marsh (Type 7 1). Within a particular salinity regime, however, vegetation richness generally, but not invariably, will be paralleled by total floristic diversity. 1 W, wetland that is occupied by open water and on the degree VEGETATION FORM VARIABLE to which the water and the vegetation are interspersed. Animals relate primarily to the general form and The range of values of the vegetation/ water intersper- structure of the vegetation, and secondarily to floristic sion variable is displayed in a 5 x 3 matrix in Table 54. types within a particular form. For example, many of the The five horizontal divisions of the matrix are con- species of birds and mammals that inhabit forested structed to recognize spans of approximately 20% in the wetlands are absent from, or scarce in, nearby grassy proportion of a wetland that is occupied by open water. marshes. There also may be differences between the The values in each horizontal array are related in the forests and the marshes. ratio 1:2:3:2:1. This reflects that the greatest values to The vegetation form variable ignores the individual wildlife are associated with wetlands that are composed floristic vegetation types and serves as an evaluation of of nearly equal areas of vegetation and water, and that the relative diversity of gross vegetation forms in a the value to wildlife diminishes as the proportion of wetland complex (Golet 1972, 1973a, 1973b). Five vege- water increases or decreases. tation form categories are recognized in the coastal The vertical divisions of the matrix are assigned to wetlands of Maryland, and each category includes from three degrees of interspersion (Table 54). The open two to eighteen floristic vegetation types. The allocation water area in a wetland is considered to be of least value of vegetation types to the form categories is shown in to wildlife when it is collected into a single body that is Table 55. edged by more or less concentric or parallel bands of The percentages of the total areas of fresh, brackish, vegetation (Golet 1972). The open water area is of great- and saline coastal wetlands of Maryland and of the total est value when it is represented by anastomosing area of coastal wetlands that are covered by each of the channels and/or ponds that are distributed evenly five vegetation forms are displayed in Table 56. The throughout the vegetated area. To reflect the relative maximum percentages, which range from 317o to 92176 values to wildlife associated with the degrees of vegeta- for the various forms, were the basis for the establish- tion/water interspersion, the values in each vertical array ment of the four ranges of percentages that are utilized are related in the ratio 3:2:1. in the matrix of relative values (Table 57). The interaction of the horizontal and vertical ratios in The span from 3% to 92% is too wide to define a the matrix results in a series of fifteen values that differ useful range for the assignment of relative values. Three by ratios as great as 1:9. The highest value (135) is of the five maxima, however, are 20% or less. The lowest assigned to a wetland in which open water represents range, therefore, was set equal to 1 to 25%. 40% to 59176 of the total area and is dispersed through- The next highest maximum, that for the swamp forest out the vegetated area. The lowest values (15) are form, is equal to 36%. The second range was established assigned to wetlands in which open water represents 017c to include that value, and it was set equal to 26 to 509o'. to 19% or 80% to 1009o' of the total area and is contained The highest maximum is 92%, for grasslike marshes in a single body that surrounds an island of wetland in the brackish wetland series. The third range of percen- vegetation or is fringed by wetland vegetation. tages was equated to the span from 51 to 95 % to incor- porate this maximum. The fourth range, from 96 to 100176, will accommodate forms that cover all, or nearly all, of the wetland that is subject to analysis. Table 54. Values of the vegetation/ water interspersion Relative values of 20, 15, 10, and 5 were assigned to variable. the four percentile ranges that were established. The highest relative value is associated with the range from I Dispersion to 25% to reflect the fact that a wetland that contains of Water Open Water as Percentage of Total Area several vegetation forms generally is of greatest value to 0-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-100 wildlife. When several forms are present, most will occupy 25% or less of the wetland area. The lowest Throughout 45 90 135 90 45 relative value is associated with the range from 96 to Intermediate 30 60 90 60 30 100176. In this range, the vegetation form is so homo- Single Body 15 30 45 30 15 geneous that the wetland generally will be of value only to the types of wildlife that are associated with the predominant form. The standard progression of relative values is inter- Procedure: By visual estimate, or by measurements rupted in the columns for the swamp forest form and the with a planimeter or other device, the examiner calcu- grasslike marsh form. A value of 20 is entered in these lates the percentage of the area of the wetland complex columns for the ranges of percentages that include the that is occupied by ponds, small channels, and ditches maximum percentages of these two forms (36 and 92 %, that contain water at all normal stages of tide. The respectively, from Table 56). The intermediate range (26 examiner then estimates the degree to which the open to 50%) in the column for grasslike marshes (GM), water is dispersed through the vegetated parts of the which includes the percentage for freshwater coastal wetland. The appropriate value for the vegetation/ water wetlands (36% , from Table 56), also was assigned a interspersion factor is obtained from Table 54. relative value of 20. 127 Table 55. Correlation of the types of coastal wetlands designated by DNR with vegetation form categories that are used in the evaluation scheme. Total Acres t7o Grand Total SS Shrub Swamp Vegetation Form 14,939 7.10 11 Swamp Rose 12 Smooth alder/Black willow 13 Red maple/Ash 42 Marshelder/Groundselbush (brackish) 62 Marshelder/Groundselbush (saline) SF Swamp Forest Vegetation Form 16,798 7.99 21 Baldcypress 22 Red maple/Ash 23 Loblolly pine SM Shrubform Herb Marsh Vegetation Form 1,537 0.73 35 Rosernallow (fresh) 45 Rosernallow (brackish) FM Forb Marsh Vegetation Form 8,623 4.10 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass (fresh) 31 Spatterdock (fresh) 32 Pickerelweed/Arrowarum (fresh) GM Grasslike Marsh Vegetation Form 168,461 80.08 33 Sweetflag (fresh) 34 Cattail (fresh) 36 Wildrice (fresh) 37 Bulrush (fresh) 38 Big cordgrass (fresh) 39 Common reed (fresh) Subtotal Fresh Marshes (15,684) (7-45) 41 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass (brackish) 43 Needlerush (brackish) 44 Cattail (brackish) 46 Switchgrass (brackish) 47 Threesquare (brackish) 48 Big cordgrass (brackish) 49 Common reed (brackish) 51 Smooth cordgrass (brackish) Subtotal Brackish Marshes (140,808) (66.94) 61 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass (saline) 63 Needlerush (saline) 71 Smooth cordgrass, tall growth form (saline) 72 Smooth cordgrass, short growth form (saline) Subtotal Saline Marshes (11,969) (5.69) TOTAL 210,358 100.00 Table 56. Percentage of the total area of wetlands in each Table 57. Relative values, by percentage of the total of the three principal salinity ranges, and in the entire wetland area occupied, for the five vegetation forms. The Statewide area of coastal wetlands, covered by each of the use of this table is explained in the text in a subsection five vegetation forms. Abbreviations are identified in headed "Procedure." Table 55. Acreages were derived from Table 14. Percentage SS SF SM FM GM of Area Relative Value of Vegetation Form Fresh 6 36 3 20 36 SS SF SM FM GM Brackish 7 1 1 0 92 1 to 25 20 20 20 20 20 Saline 13 0 0 0 87 26 to 50 15 20 15 15 20 Statewide 7 8 1 4 80 50 to 95 10 10 10 10 20 Maximum C70 13 36 3 20 92 Minimum % 6 1 1 4 36 96 to 100 5 5 5 5 5 128 Procedure: To compute the value of the vegetation ish vegetation types in the coastal wetlands of Maryland form variable, the percentage measurements of the areas were utilized (Table 59). Relative values were obtained of the various vegetation types in the wetland are grouped from Table 57 after the percentage of the wetland area according to their vegetation forms (Table 55); the total that is covered by each form was calculated. The final acreage of each vegetation form is determined; and the score of 40 was obtained from the tabulation in the total is converted to the corresponding percentage of the preceding text. total acreage of the entire wetland. Any value that is more than zero (0), but less than I %, is set equal to I %. The percentage of the area of the wetland that is Table 58. Relation of the vegetation form product to the covered by each vegetation form is translated to a relative score of the vegetation form variable. The use of this value by reference to the matrix in Table 57. The relative table is explained in the text in a subsection headed values then are summed, and the total is multiplied by "Procedure." the number of vegetation forms that are represented in the wetland. The product of this multiplication is com- Product: 5-15 20-55 60-70 75-140 pared with the tabulation in Table 58 to determine the Score: 5 10 15 20 score for this variable. Product: 145-200 205-240 245-300 305-500 To illustrate the method by which the value of the Score: 25 30 35 40 vegetation form variable is calculated, data for the brack- Table 59. Example of the calculation of the value of the vegetation form variable. Data are for the brackish vegetation types in the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Table 14). Type Form Form Relative Vegetation Form/Type Acres Acres % Value SS Shrub Swamp 10,559 6.91 20 42 Marshelder/Groundselbush 10,559 SF Swamp Forest 1,253 0.82 20 23 Loblolly pine 1,253 SM Shrubform Herb Marsh 281 0.18 20 45 Rosernallow 281 FM Forb Marsh 0 0 0 (None) 0 GM Grasslike Marsh 140,808 92.09 20 41 Meadow Cordgrass/Spikegrass 31,072 43 Needlerush 48,685 44 Cattail 5,691 46 Switchgrass 2,165 47 Threesquare 18,965 48 Big cordgrass 8,196 49 Common reed 955 51 Smooth cordgrass 25,079 TOTAL 152,901 152,901 100.00 80 Number of vegetation forms = 4 4 x 80 = 320 Score for vegetation form variable (from Table 58) 40 129 VEGETATION INTERSPERSION FACTOR roughly with one another in a more or less random Most kinds of animals require more than one form of or haphazard pattern ................... 2.00x vegetation to satisfy their needs for food, cover, and nesting. Generally, therefore, the density and diversity of WILDLIFE FOOD SCORE wildlife are greater in places where two or more forms of The wildlife food score is the weighted average of the vegetation occur in proximity (Golet 1972). Large wildlife food values of the vegetation types that cover the expanses of a homogeneous habitat commonly are of wetland that is subject to analysis. The percentage of the least value to wildlife. Maximum wildlife values generally wetland that is covered by each type of vegetation is used are associated with wetlands in which stands of different as the weighting factor. vegetation forms are thoroughly intermingled. The wildlife food score for all of the subaerial vegeta- The vegetation interspersion factor is a measure of the tion in the coastal wetlands of Maryland is 39. Owing to degree to which different forms of vegetation in a their extent and relatively high wildlife food value, the wetland are represented by patches that are intermingled brackish wetlands, including the types and total acreages with one another (Golet 1972). An aerial photograph or listed in Table 14, contribute 74 % of the Statewide score a map of the area is examined, and the pattern of vegeta- (29 points). Freshwater marshes contribute 17 %; swamp tion is determined and compared with the following forests contribute 6%; saline wetlands contribute 2%; descriptions. and shrub swamps contribute less than I%. Procedure: The appropriate weighting factor is se- The total score for each major grouping of the coastal lected from the four outlined below. It then is used in the wetlands also was determined by dividing the acreage of application that is explained in Chapter 6 as a multiplier each type of vegetation by the total acreage of the group to adjust the score of the vegetation form variable. and multiplying that fraction times the wildlife food The wetland area is covered largely (75 % or more) value of the type. The sum of the products, multiplied by by one form of vegetation. Associated forms occur the vegetation richness factor, is the total score for the along channels or ditches and/or they are developed grouping. principally near the upland boundary. Extensive The fresh marsh category exhibits the highest wildlife areas are covered by more or less homogeneous food score (56), and the brackish wetlands have the vegetation ............................ 1.00x second highest score (40). The wildlife food score for swamp forests is 29. Saline wetlands (14) and shrub Each vegetation form occupies less than 75 % of the swamps 03) have nearly equal scores. wetland area. The different forms of vegetation Procedure: To determine the wildlife food score for a occur principally in more or less distinct bands that particular wetland, the area occupied by each vegetation are parallel to channels and ditches or to the upland type, expressed as a percentile fraction, is multplied by boundary ............................. 1.33x the appropriate wildlife food value from Table 5 1.1 The Each vegetation form occupies less than 75 % of the products are summed, and the total is the wildlife food wetland area. The vegetation forms occur partially score. An example of these computations is presented in in bands or large polygonally shaped areas and inter- Table 60. digitation or mingling is moderate ........ 1.67x Each vegetation form occupies no more than 60% 'If, by site visit, the biologist can expand upon the list of predominant plant genera for a given type at a specific site, it is suggested that a of the wetland area. The vegetation forms occur new, more accurate wildlife food value be calculated using Table 46 principally in island-like stands that are mixed tho- and 'he technique described in Section 4.2. Table 60. Example of the calculation of the wildlife food score. Data are for the fresh marsh category of the coastal wetlands of Maryland and were obtained from Table 14. Wildlife food values are from Table 51. Percent Wildlife of Total Food Value Product Vegetation Type Acres (a) (b) (a x b) 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass 2,924 11.44 100 11.44 31 Spatterclock 1,774 6.94 30 2.08 32 Pickerelweed/ Arrowa rum 3,925 15-35 90 13.82 33 Sweetflag 431 1.69 35 0.59 34 Cattail 9,018 35.28 50 17.64 35 Rosernallow 1,256 4.91 5 0.25 36 Wildrice 776 3.04 45 1.37 37 Bulrush 2,808 10.98 40 4.39 38 Big cordgrass 1,904 7.45 40 2.98 39 Common reed 747 2.92 35 1.02 TOTAL 25,563 100.00 55-58 130 6. APPLICATION OF THE EVALUATION SCHEME A recommended standard evaluation sheet is pre- plexities of the methods used to calculate the two com- sented as Table 61. The sheet is designed to facilitate the ponent values, similar scores for this adjusted value can entry of data for a specific wetland; it arranges the types result from widely different field conditions. The highest by vegetation forms; and it contains the type values and values, however, will be associated with wetlands that wildlife food values that are needed to compute the are composed of several forms of vegetation that occur in wetland production value and the wildlife food score. patches of varying sizes. The adjusted vegetation form value for all of the subaerial vegetation types in the coastal wetlands of 6. 1. APPLICATION TO ALL THE Maryland is 40 (Table 62). The value for the brackish COASTAL WETLANDS AND TO EACH wetlands is identical (Table 64). The highest value (67) SALINITY CATEGORY is associated with the fresh wetlands (Table 63), and the lowest value (20) is that for the saline wetlands (Table Copies of the standard evaluation sheet are utilized in 65). Tables 62, 63, 64, and 65 to demonstrate the use of the (j) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score form. The information in these tables is from the survey The wildlife food score (i) is multiplied by the vegeta- of the coastal wetlands of Maryland. tion richness factor (c) to reflect the relative diversity of The values in Tables 62 through 65 are utilized to food types that are available in the subject wetland. The calculate the wetland value scores for the entire area of potential range of values is from 5 to 150, but the actual coastal wetlands and for the three salinity categories of range is expected to be from about 10 to 70. the coastal wetlands. The steps in these computations are recorded fully and cross references are included to (k) Wildlife Resource Group Score pages on which methods are detailed. The value of this score is calculated by adding the vegetation/ water interspersion variable (e), the adjusted DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW CALCULATIONS vegetation form variable (h), and the adjusted wildlife In the following subsections, steps in the computation food score (j) and dividing the sum by three. The poten- of the wetland value score that are not explained in tial range of values of the wildlife resource group is Chapter 5 are described. The approximate ranges of the approximately 8 to 105. intermediate values also are given. These subsections are The wildlife resource group score for all subaerial lettered to correspond with the steps in the computation vegetation types in the coastal wetlands of Maryland is (Table 61). 43 (Table 62). The value for the brackish wetlands (43) is the same (Table 64). The highest value (54) is that for (d) Vegetation Resource Group Score the fresh wetlands (Table 63), and the lowest value (23) The product of the wetland production value (b) and is associated with the saline wetlands (Table 65). the vegetation richness factor (c) is a relative estimate of (1) Total Resource Score the value of the quantity and diversity of the plant mate- This score is computed by adding the vegetation rial that is produced by the subject wetland. The lowest resource group score (d) to the wildlife resource group possible value (9.00) represents a hypothetical saline score (k). The potential range of the values of these wetland that is covered entirely by marshelder/ ground- scores is from 14 to 239, but the expected range is from selbush vegetation (Type 62). The highest possible value about 40 to 160 or less. The score for all of the subaerial (145-34) represents a fresh wetland in which 91% of the vegetation types in the coastal wetlands in the State is area is covered by big cordgrass (Type 38) and each of the 116 (Table 62). The scores for the fresh brackish, and nine other types occur on I% of the ground. Neither of saline wetlands, respectively, are 149, 114, and 47 these configurations is expected to occur on any large wetland area, but they do define the potential limits of (Tables 63, 64, and 65). the value of this step in the calculations. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SCORES The value of the vegetation resource group score for Three scores produced by the Maryland scheme are all of the subaerial types of vegetation in the coastal useful for the relative evaluations of wetlands. These are wetlands of Maryland is 73 (Table 62). The scores for the the vegetation resource group score (d), the wildlife principal salinity groups are 95 for fresh wetlands, 70 for resource group score (k), and the total resource score (1). brackish wetlands, and 24 for saline wetlands (Tables 63, The values of these scores differ substantially for 64, and 65). wetlands of the three ranges of salinity (Table 66). The (h) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable values for saline wetlands consistently are the lowest and The product of the vegetation form variable (f) times the values for fresh wetlands consistently are the highest. the vegetation interspersion factor (g) adjusts the vege- Owing to the predominance of brackish wetlands, which tation form variable to integrate the description of the form the bulk of the coastal wetlands of Maryland, the degree to which the forms are interspersed. The poten- scores for brackish wetlands are similar to the Statewide tial range of values is from 5 to 80. Owing to the com- averages. 131 Table 61. Wetland evaluation sheet for statistical analyses of wetlands. Type values are from Table 45 and wildlife food values are from Table 5 1. The use of the form is explained in the text. Wetland 7o of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - -11 - - 39 5 12 - - [52] 5 13 - - 64 15 42 - - 51 80 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 21 - - 65 70 22 - - 94 15 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 35 - - 74 5 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 30 - - 62 100 31 - - 27 30 32 - - 30 90 GM - - 33 - - 37 35 34 - - 49 50 36 - - 53 45 37 - - [261 40 38 - - 100 40 39 - - 80 35 41 - - 39 60 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 - - 98 20 47 - - 26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: (a) (b) (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) Water as % Sum Water Interspersion: Number of forms Total Throughout Product Intermediate Number of Vegetation Single Body Types Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable (Page 125) (b) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable (Page 126) (e) Vegetation Form Variable (Page 127) (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor (Page 130) - (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) - (h) Wildlife Food Score (Page 130) (i) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) - 0) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 (k) Total Resource Score (d + k) 132 Table 62. Wetland evaluation sheet with entries for all of the subaerial coastal wetlands of Maryland to illustrate the use of the form. Acreages are from Table 14. Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 7.10 20 - - - I 1 -51 0.02 - 39 0.008--- 5 0.001 12 524 0.25 - [52] 0.130 5 0.012 13 2,025 0.96 - 64 0.614 15 0.144 42 10,559 5.02 - 51 2.560 80 4.016 62 1,780 0.85 - 9 0.077 5 0.042 SF - - 7.99 20 - - - - 21 4,154 1.97 - - 65 1.281 70 1.379 22 11,391 5.42 - 94 5.094 15 0.813 23 1,253 0.60 - - 99 0.594 15 0.090 Sm :_- - 0.73 20 - - - - 35 1256 0.60 - - 74 0.444 5 0.030 45 281 0.13 - - 59 0.076 5 0.006 FM - - 4.10 20 - - - - 30 2,924 1.39 - - 62 0.861 100 1.390 31 1,774 0.84 - 27 0.226 30 0.252 32 3,925 1.87 - - 30 0.561 90 1.683 GM - - 80.10 20 - - - - 33 431 0.20 - - 37 0.074 35 0.070 34 9,018 4.29 - - 49 2.102--- 50 2.145 36 776 0.37 - - 53 0.196 45 0.166 37 2,808 1.33 - - [261 0.345 40 0.532 38 1,904 0.91 - - 100 0.910 40 0.364 39 747 0.36 - - 80 0.288 35 0.126 41 31,072 14.77 - - 39 5.760 60 8.862 43 48,685 23.14 - - 56 12.958 15 3.471 44 5,691 2.71 - - 59 1.598 40 1.084 46 2,165 1.03 - - 98 1.009 20 0.206 47 18,965 9.02 - - 26 2.345 55 4.961 48 8,196 3.90 - - 47 1.833 10 0.390 49 955 0.45 - - 93 0.418 5 0.022 51 25,079 11.92 - - 41 4.887 50 5.960 61 2,304 1.10 - - 20 0.220 20 0.220 63 121 0.06 - - 50 0.030 5 0.003 71 95 0.05 - - 50 0.025 15 0.007 72 9,449 4.49 - - 20 0.898 15 0.673 Total: 210,358(a) 100.02 100.02 100 48.422 (b) 39.120(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 210,358 Water as % 2.57 Sum 100 Water Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 215,914 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body 31 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable (Page 125) 48.42 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 72.63 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable (Page 126) 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable (Page 127) 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor (Page 130) 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 40 (h) Wildlife Food Score (Page 130) 39 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 58.68 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 42.89 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 115-52(l) 133 Table 63. Wetland evaluation sheet with entries for fresh vegetation types in the coastai wetlands of Maryland. Acreages are from Table 14. Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 5.95 20 - - - - 11 51 0.12 - - 39 0.05 5 0.01 12 524 1.20 - - [32] 0.62 5 0.06 13 2,025 4.63 - - 64 2.96 15 0.69 42 - - 51 80 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 35.56 20 - - - - 21 4,154 9.50 - - 65 6.18 70 6.65 22 11,391 26.06 - 94 24.50 15 3.91 23 - - 99 15 Sm - - 2.87 20 - - - - 35 1,256 2.87 - - 74 2.12 5 0.14 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 19.73 20 - - - - 30 2,924 6.69 - - 62 4.15 100 6.69 31 1,774 4.06 - 27 1.10 30 1.22 32 3,925 8.98 - - 30 2.69 90 8.08 GM - - 35.89 20 - - - - 33 431 0.99 - - 37 0.37 35 0.35 34 9,018 20.63 - - 49 10.11 50 10.32 36 776 1.78 - - 53 0.94 45 0.80 37 2,808 6.42 - - [26] 1.67 40 2.57 38 1,904 4.36 - - 100 4.36 40 1.74 39 747 1.71 - - 80 1.37 35 0.60 41 - - 39 60 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 - - 98 20 47 - - 26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 43,708(a) 100.00 100.00 100 63-19(b) 43.830) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 43,708 Water as % 2.44 Sum 100 Water 1,093 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 44,801 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 15 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable (Page 125) 63.19 (br) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 94.79 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable (Page 126) 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable (Page 127) 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor (Page 130) 1.67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (I x g) @6,80 (h) Wildlife Food Score (Page 130) 43.83 (i) 1.50 (c) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) 65.75 (j) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score'-- (i x c) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 54.18 (k) 3 Total Resource Score = (d + k) 134 Table 64. Wetland evaluation sheet with entries for all brackish vegetation types in the coastal wetlands of Maryland. Acreages are from Table 14. Werland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score ss 6.91 20 - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - [52] 5 13 - - 64 15 42 10,559 6.91 - - 51 3.52 80 5.53 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 0.82 20 - - - - 21 - 65 70 22 - 94 15 23 1,253 0.82 - - 99 0.81 15 0.12 SM - 0.18 20 - - - - 35 - - 74 5 45 281 0.18 - - 59 0.11 5 0.01 FM - - - - - - 30 - - 62 100 31 - - 27 30 32 - - 30 90 GM 92.08 20 - - 33 - - 37 35 34 - - 49 50 36 - 53 45 0 - - [26] 40 38 - - 100 40 39 - - 80 35 41 31,072 20-32 - - 39 7.92 60 12.19 43 48,685 31.84 - - 56 17.83 15 4.78 44 5,691 3.72 - - 59 2.19 40 1.49 46 2,165 1.42 - - 98 1.39 20 0.28 47 18,965 12.40 - - 26 3.22 55 6.82 48 8, t96 5.36 - - 47 2.52 10 0.54 49 955 0.62 - - 93 0.58 5 0.03 51 25,079 16.40 - - 41 6.72 50 8.20 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 152,901(a) 99.99 99-99 80 46.81 (b) 39.990) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 152,901 Water as % 2.44 Sum 80 Water 3,825 Interspersion: Number of forms 4 Total 156,726 Throughout Product 32-0 Intermediate x Number of VegStation Single Body Types 11 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable (Page 125) 46.81 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 70.22 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable (Page 126) 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable (Page 127) 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor (Page 130) 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) =(h) Wildlife Food Score (Page 130) 39.99 (i) 1.50 (c) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) 59.99 (j) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 43.33 (k) 3 Total Resource Score = (d + k) 113.55(1) 135 Table 65. Wetland evaluation sheet with entries for saline vegetation types in the coastal wetlands of Maryland. Acreages are from Table 14. Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS 12.95 20 - - if - - 39 5 12 - - [521 5 13 - - 64 15 42 - - 51 80 62 1,780 12.95 - - 9 1.17 5 0.65 SF - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 - - 94 15 23 - - 99 15 Sm - 35 - - 74 5 45 - - 59 5 FM - 30 - - 62 100 31 - - 27 30 32 - - 30 90 GM 87.05 20 - - 33 - - 37 35 34 - 49 50 36 - 53 45 37 - (261 40 38 - 100 40 39 - 80 35 41 - 39 60 43 - 56 15 44 - 59 40 46 - - 98 20 47 - - 26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 2,3o4 16.76 - - 20 3.35 20 3.35 63 121 0.88 - - 50 0.44 5 0.04 71 95 0.69 - - 50 0.35 15 0.10 72 9,449 68.72 - - 20 13.74 15 10.31 Total: 13,749(a) 100.00 100.00 40 19.05 (b) 14.450) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 13,749 Water as % 4.43 Sum 40 Water 638 Interspersion: Number of forms 2 Total 14,387 Throughout Product 36- Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 5 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable (Page 125) 19-05 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) i.77(c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 23-81 @d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable (Page 126) 30-(e) Vegetation Form Variable (Page 127) 20 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor (Page 130) 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 20 (h) 14.45 (i) Wildlife Food Score (Page 130) 1.25 (c) Vegetation Richness Factor (Page 126) 18.06 (j) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 22.69 (k) 3 Total Resource Score = (d + k) 46,500) 136 Table 66. Comparison of scores for wetlands in the three Table 67. Comparison of scores for Oldmans Marsh (838 ranges of salinity and of scores for all coastal wetlands in acres), Salisbury Marsh (37.1 acres), and Tinicum Marsh Maryland. (577.68 acres) in the freshwater section of the Delaware Resoufce Range of Salinity All Coastal River, near Chester, Pennsylvania. Computations are Group Fresh Brackish Saline Wetlands presented in Tables 108 through 110 in Appendix 4. Vegetation 95 70 24 73 Resource Wildlife 54 43 23 43 Group Oldmans Salisbury Tinicum Total 149 114 47 116 Vegetation 58 47 62 Based on this comparison, it is not considered to be Wildlife 57 43 41 appropriate to compare wetlands from different ranges Total 115 90 103 of salinity or to use the Statewide averages for all coastal Table 68. Data in Table 67 expressed as percentages of wetlands as standards for the quality to be expected in the scores@ from all freshwater wetlands in Maryland. the wetlands of some smaller area. The tabulated data, Parenthetical values are rounded to nearest 5 however, do provide standards for the quality to be expected in wetlands within each of the three ranges of Resource salinity. Group Oldmans Salisbury Tinicum Vegetation 61(60) 49(50) 65(65) 6.2. APPLICATION TO THREE Wildlife 106(105) 80(80) 76(75) TEST MARSHES Total 77(80) 60(60) 69(70) No available study conducted in Maryland was found that includes data suitable for analysis by the present The following narrative categories are recommended scheme. Three detailed investigations of fresh marshes to describe the transformed values. These categories in the estuary of the Delaware River, however, do reflect the assumption that the Statewide average for the include such data and can be utilized to demonstrate the wetlands in a particular range of salinities is an ideal. application of the scheme for comparison of different Individual wetland areas are unlikely to contain all of the wetland areas (McCormick and Ashbaugh, 1972; and types of vegetation included in the range and, therefore, McCormick, 1970). The sites of the three studies are generally will exhibit scores that are lower than the Oldmans Creek Marsh in Salem and Gloucester Coun- Statewide w -eighted averages. ties, NewJersey; Salisbury Marsh in Gloucester County, Percentile Range Narrative Category New Jersey; and Tinicum Marsh in Delaware and Phila- delphia Counties, southeastern Pennsylvania. 40% or less Lower Quality The detailed computations on the wetland evaluation 45% to 65% Average Quality sheets for the three marshes are contained in Appendix 4 70 % to 90176 High Quality (Tables 108-110). For comparative purposes in this dis- 95% or more Very High Quality cussion, the vegetation resource group, wildlife resource The quality of the vegetation resource group in the group, and total resource scores resulting from the com- three test areas is average (Table 68). The rounded putations are presented in Table 67. The scores indicate scores range from 50% (Salisbury Marsh) to 65 % (Tini- that the vegetation resource group is of highest quality in cum Marsh). In Tinicum Marsh (75%) and Salisbury Tinicum Marsh. The wildlife resource group, however, is Marsh (80%), the wildlife resource group is of high of greatest quality in Oldmans Marsh. On the basis of the quality. In Oldmans Marsh, the quality of the wildlife total resource scores, Oldmans Creek is of the greatest resource group is very high (105 %). On the basis of the quality; Tinicum Marsh ranks second; and Salisbury total resource group, Salisbury Marsh (60176) is of aver- Marsh is of the lowest quality of the three areas. age quality and Tinicum Marsh (70%) and Oldmans For the purposes of demonstration, the three test Marsh (80%) are of high quality. marshes can be treated as if they were located in Mary- land. The scores for all of the freshwater wetlands of the 6.3. APPLICATION TO THE MAJOR State (Table 66), therefore, are utilized as standards to COASTAL WATERSHEDS AND TO provide a greater degree of uniformity to the compari- THE TIDEWATER COUNTIES sons of the test marshes. This is accomplished by trans- forming the original scores (rable 67) to percentages of The use of the weighted Statewide averages will serve the standard scores and rounding the results to the as a unifying procedure for all wetland evaluations. nearest 5 % (Table 68). This process does not alter the Comparisons of the scores for a specific evaluation with proportional relationships between the scores for the the weighted averages for the relevant major watershed, three marsh areas, but it does facilitate an evaluation of however, will provide information directly applicable to the relative importances of the marshes in a Statewide the estuarine section in which the subject wetland is context. located. 137 The scores for each of the 15 major coastal watersheds Table 70. Acreage of subaerial fresh, brackish, and saline are listed in Table 69.1 To provide an evaluation of the vegetated coastal wetlands in the major watersheds of relative qualities of the coastal wetlands in these water- Maryland.* This summary is based on data from Table sheds, a "composite base" was calculated for each 14. The extent of each watershed is illustrated in Figure watershed by dividing the acreages of fresh, brackish, 39. and saline wetlands by the total acreage of vegetated Watershed Fresh Brackish Saline Total subaerial wetlands in the watershed (Table 70). The resulting fractions were multiplied by the total resource Lower Susquehanna River 40 0 0 40 score for the appropriate salinity range (Table 66), and Coastal Area 70 543 13,749 14,362 Pocomoke River 8,408 34,004 0 42,412 the products were summed to yield the composite base, Nanticoke River 13,566 66,372 0 79,938 or average total resource score. When the total resource Choptank River 4,461 21,826 0 26,287 score for the coastal wetlands in a watershed is expressed as a percentage of the composite base for the watershed, Chester River 1,093 5,764 0 6,857 the percentage is a comparative measurement of the Elk River 3,239 190 0 3,420 quality of the wetlands of the watershed. Any percentage Bush River 5,420 216 0 5,636 Gunpowder River 2,143 79 0 2,222 that is greater than 100% suggests that the combination Patapsco River 567 173 0 740 of types present in the watershed is of higher quality than would be expected on the basis of Statewide West Chesapeake Bay 56 2,018 0 2,074 averages. Patuxent River 3,080 3,321 0 6,401 The average weighted resource scores for the coastal Chesapeake Bay 15 13,531 0 13,546 Lower Potomac River 1,252 4,864 0 6,116 wetlands of each of the sixteen tidewater counties are Washington Metropolitan listed in Table 7 1. The total resource group score for each Area 298 0 0 298 county is compared with the composite base score that STATE TOTAL 43,708 152,901 13,749 210,358 was calculated in the way described above. The analyses listed in Table 72 were used in the calculations. *The types included in each salinity category are: The resource scores for the county in which an evalu- Fresh-Types 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, and 30-39. ated wetland is located also can be used to determine Brackish -Types 2 3, 41-49, and 5 1. whether the quality of the wetland is of low, average, Saline-Types 61-63, 71, and 72. high, or very high quality in terms of the particular ,political unit. Such evaluations do not relate to closely Table 71. Comparison of scores for coastal wetlands in integrated hydrologic systems, but they are useful for the tidewater counties of Maryland. The composite base resource management purposes and will contribute to is explained in the text. the rational basis for local resource decision- making. Resource Group Composite % of County Vegetation Wildlife Total Base Base 'Detailed computations for each coastal watershed and each tide- Anne Arundel 77 59 136 126 108 water county are contained in Appendix 5. Baltimore 73 48 121 146 83 Calvert 73 46 119 120 99 Caroline 84 58 142 141 101 Table 69. Comparison of scores for wetlands in the major Cecil 77 64 141 149 95 coastal watersheds of Maryland. Locations of watersheds Charles 72 46 118 124 95 are shown in Figure 39. The composite base is explained Dorchester 73 43 116 118 98 in the text. Harford 79 54 133 148 90 Kent 77 58 135 129 105 Resource Group Composite % of Prince George's 84 62 146 141 104 Watershed Vegetation Wildlife Total Base Base Lower Susquehanna River 75 60 135 149 91 Queen Anne's 75 59 134 117 115 Coastal Area 30 31 61 50 122 St. Mary's 70 56 126 115 110 Pocomoke River 79 44 124 121 102 Somerset 74 42 116 115 101 Nanticoke River 73 43 116 120 97 Talbot 77 63 140 127 110 Choptank River 76 44 120 120 100 Wicomico 78 42 120 124 97 Chester River 74 60 134 120 112 Worcester 57 50 107 82 130 Elk River 80 61 141 147 96 Bush River 79 54 133 148 90 Table 72. Acreage of subaerial fresh, brackish, and saline Gunpowder River 74 47 121 148 82 Patapsco River so 49 129 141 91 vegetated coastal wetlands in the tidewater counties of Maryland.* This summary is based on data from Table West Chesapeake Bay 75 49 124 115 108 17. Patuxent River 78 56 134 131 102 Chesapeake Bay 80 28 108 114 95 County Fresh Brackish Saline Total Lower Potomac River 71 46 117 121 97 Anne Arundel 776 1,523 0 2,299 Washington Metropolitan Baltimore 1,904 199 0 2,103 Area 91 57 148 149 99 Calvert 452 2,210 0 2,662 138 should include provisions for substantial public benefit Table 72. Acreage of subaerial fresh, brackish, and saline or private relief as well as extraordinary measures to vegetated coastal wetlands in the tidewater counties of mitigate Lny reduction in the quality of the wetland. Maryland.* This summary is based on data from Table 17 (Concluded). County Fresh Brackish Saline Total 6.4. WETLAND SIZE AS A Caroline 2,566 801 0 3,367 CONSIDERATION Cecil 2,346 0 0 2,346 The area of the subject wetland is not considered Charles 1,231 2,877 0 4,108 directly in the evaluations produced by the Maryland Dorchester 9,738 73,509 0 83,247 scheme. The scores produced by the scheme are relative Harford 6,212 227 0 6,439 Kent 1,667 2,283 0 3,950 evaluations, or dimensionless averages, of the quality of Prince George's 2,190 611 0 2,801 the entire area that was subject to analysis. Because the number of vegetation types and the number of forms of Queen Anne's 297 3,125 0 3,422 vegetation included in a wetland generally will increase St. Mary's 80 3,087 0 3,167 as the area encompassed becomes larger, size is treated Somerset 1,630 49,159 0 50,789 Talbot 1,765 3,016 0, 4,781 indirectly. In the examples listed in Tables 67 and 68, for Wicomico 3,867 9,721 0 13,588 example, the scores apply to areas of 37 acres, 578 acres, and 838 acres, and their values are related in the same Worcester 6,987 553 13,749 21,289 order as their sizes. STATE TOTAL 43,708 152,901 13,749 210,358 Green (1972) believed that area is an important scalar *The types included in each salinity category are: for wetland evaluations. In Virginia, Silberhorn, Dawes, Fresh-Types 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, and 30-39. and Bernard (1974) declared that, "any marsh which is Brackish-Types 23, 41-49, and 51. greater than 1/ 10 of an acre in size may have, depending Saline-Types 61-63, 71, and 72. on type and viability, significant values in terms of pro- ductivity, detritus availability and wildlife habitat." The data for Oldmans Marsh (Table 67) can be No universally applicable formula for the considera- employed to demonstrate the use-of the Statewide values tion of the size of a wetland area has been determined for for particular salinity ranges (Table 66), the average use in relation to the Maryland scheme. Concern for size scores for watersheds (Table 69), and the average scores generally will be related to a purpose, and the concern for the tidewater counties (Table 71) for evaluative pur- will vary from one purpose to another. Quality scores poses. For this demonstration, Oldmans Marsh will be that are produced by the scheme will serve as general assumed to be located in the Elk River watershed in Cecil guidance to the relative resource values of two or more County. The scores from Oldmans Marsh are shown as areas. If the areas are similar in size, the scores will be rounded percentages of the corresponding baseline directly comparable. scores in Table 73. For purposes of environmental assessment, it may be useful to employ a proportional analysis of size. For example, if a particular project proposes to eliminate 50 Table 73. Resource group scores for Oldmans Marsh acres of fresh wetlands, this would represent 71 % of the expressed as rounded percentages of the corresponding fresh wetland resource in the Coastal Area watershed in scores for all fresh coastal wetlands in Maryland, for all contrast to 0.3796 of the fresh wetlands in the Nanticoke coastal wetlands in the Elk River watershed, and for all River watershed (Table 70). Wherever the project is coastal wetlands in Cecil County. Narrative interpreta- proposed for location, it potentially would usurp 0. 11 % tions are explained in the text. of the total area of fresh wetlands in the State. Resource Group Another analytic approach that may be useful for Vegetation Wildlife Total some considerations is that of effective size. For example, Tinicum Marsh (578 acres), if it were in Maryland, Statewide 60 (Average) 105 (Very high) 80 (High) would represent 1.327o of the total area of fresh wet- Watershed 75 (High) 95 (Very high) 80 (High) lands (Table 72). The total resource score for Tinicum County 75 (High) 90 (High) 80 (High) Marsh, however, is 70% as great as the weighted score for all freshwater wetlands in the State (Table 68). The This comparative analysis yields a consistent rating of 11 effective acreage" of the Marsh, therefore, is 578 acres "High Quality" at all levels for the total resource group x 0.70, or 405 acres. This represents 0.93% of fresh of Oldmans Marsh (Table 73). The vegetation resource marsh resource value. If one project, such as an express group is rated as of "Average Quality" on a statewide highway, was proposed to eliminate approximately 1 % basis, and of "High Quality" on the local scale. In con- of a resource as valuable as the fresh wetlands, an trast, the wildlife resource group is rated as of "Very especially thorough and critical investigation of the High Quality" on a statewide basis and in the watershed justification of the project and feasible alternatives to the and of "High Quality" in the county. These evaluations proposed plan would be mandatory. suggest that the subject wetland is a prime candidate for Proportional analyses, either of actual acreage or preservation, and that any proposal to alter the tract effective acreage, are expected to be most relevant when 139 they are applied to data for the watershed in which the sented by nearly pure stands of common reed. This grass subject wetland is located. Analyses with Statewide data is a natural component of the coastal wetlands of the will provide a uniform scale for evaluations, but impact Middle Atlantic Region, as well as of other coastal areas, assessments will be most meaningful when they are but it also exhibits weedy characteristics on disturbed based on localized evaluations. sites. During evaluations of specific areas of wetland, therefore, stands of common reed should be examined to 6.5. OVERRIDING FACTORS determine if they occupy characteristic wetland sites or if the sites are atypical owing to increased elevation or Certain characteristics of the types of coastal wetland unusual substrate composition (i.e., building rubble, solid vegetation and of wetland complexes are of such impor- waste, or other exotic substances) as the result of the tance to society that they override the relative values that deposition of dredged material or fill material. A stand are determined by the multivariate scheme for evalua- should be considered to represent one of the scarce types tion. These overriding factors indicate areas that should only if it is at an elevation similar to those in the be protected and conserved, and types that should be surrounding wetland, and if it is rooted in a substrate considered for special management and for emphasis in composed of natural materials, even if they have been programs to develop new wetland areas. transported to the site. OVERRIDING FACTORS ASSOCIATED Local Scarcity, By Watershed WITH VEGETATION TYPES The total area of vegetated wetlands that was mapped The inventory of the types of vegetation of the coastal in the various sub-basins ranges from 298 acres in the wetlands of Maryland can be utilized to identify certain Washington Metropolitan Region to 81,036 acres in the important facts about the relative supplies of the differ- Nanticoke River watershed (Table 75). Because scarcity ent types and about critical geographical relations. Types is based on the relative areal abundance of types of and/or stands that are identified as scarce, unusual, or vegetation that differ from one another in floristic com- unique, are worthy of protection regardless of their rank- position, and because no floristic types were differen- ing on the basis of multivariate tests. tiated in the diverse grouping that is characterized as submerged vegetation (Type 101), submerged vegeta- Statewide Scarcity tion is eliminated from the appraisal of local scarcity. The acreages of the 35 types of coastal wetlands that When data become available to determine the distribu- are recognized in Maryland are presented in Table 2, and tion and acreage of each of the floristic types of sub- they also are expressed as percentages of the total acreage merged vegetation, they can be included or can be of wetlands. These data indicate that 5 of 32 vegetated assessed independently. types of wetlands compose, collectively, 63.56976 of the coastal wetlands of the State [brackish smooth cordgrass (Type 51), 9.599o; brackish meadow cordgrass/ spike- Table 74. Types of vegetated wetlands that are con- grass (Type 41), 11.89%; submerged vegetation (Type sidered to be scarce in the coastal zone of Maryland. 101), 16.19%; brackish needlerush (Type 43), 18-63%; Excerpted from Table 2. and brackish threesquare (Type 47), 7.269o]. Type Acres Percentage Twenty of the 32 types of vegetated wetlands com- SHRUB SWAMPS pose, individually, less than 1 67o of the total wetland area. I I Swamp rose 51 0.02 All of these types can be considered to be underrepre- 12 Smooth alder/black willow 524 0.20 sented areally in the coastal wetland complex of- the State. Nevertheless, the total area of the wetlands is large SWAMP FORESTS (261,309 acres, or about 408 square miles). A type that 23 Loblolly pine 1,253 0.48 occupies only I% of this area still would cover about 4 square miles, and could not be considered scarce. FRESH MARSHES On a statewide basis, it is reasonable to consider a type 33 Sweetflag 431 0.16 of vegetation to be scarce if it contributes 0.50% (1,300 36 Wildrice 776 0.30 acres) or less of the total wetland acreage. By this criter- 39 Common reed 747 0.29 ion, 10 of the 32 vegetated types of wetlands are scarce (Table 74). These range from the swamp rose shrub BRACKISH MARSHES swamp (Type 11), which covers 51 acres, to the loblolly 45 Rosemallow 281 0.11 pine swamp forest (Type 23), which covers 1,253 acres. 49 Common reed 955 0.36 Two notable inclusions are the freshwater wildrice marsh (Type 36), which also is of unusual importance to SALINE MARSHES migratory waterfowl and other wetland birds, and the 63 Needlerush 121 0.05 tall form of the saline smooth cordgrass marsh, which is 71 Smooth cordgrass, tall growth 95 0.04 developed extensively in the coastal wetlands of the southeastern United States. Vegetated, subaerial types of wetlands occupy from 40 Two of the ten types of wetland that are considered to acres to 79,938 acres in the various sub-basins (Table 75). be scarce by the application of this criterion are repre- Owing to this great range in areal extent, it is not rational 140 to consider as locally scarce any vegetation type that Specially Significant Stands composes 0.596 or less of the subaerial wetlands in a Certain stands of vegetation have a special signifi- particular watershed. If this criterion were applied, the cance owing to their geographic location, large size, the threshold area would be 0.2 acre in the Lower Susque- environment in which they occur, some intrinsic feature, hanna River sub-basin region and 399.3 acres in the or any unusual association with other vegetation types. A Nanticoke River watershed. stand that is at the limit of the distribution of the vegeta- To provide continuity from place to place within the tion type, for example, is of special significance. Sim- State, locally scarce wetland types are defined as: (1) ilarly, the most upstream or downstream stand of a those types that are considered to be scarce on a state- vegetation type on a particular river system is especially wide basis, and/or (2) those types that are represented significant. A stand that occupies an area in an environ- by stands whose areas cumulate to 100 or fewer acres ment that is not typical of the vegetation type also is within the particular watershed (Table 14). A type that is significant. And natural stands that occur in a unique or judged to be scarce in one watershed by the second of very unusual positional relationship to stands of other these criteria, however, may not be scarce in another kinds of vegetation have a special significance. All of watershed. these examples are of unusual scientific interest and The first of these two criteria is designed to render should be protected as potential research sites. local scarcity subsidiary to statewide scarcity. For ex- ample, wildrice (Type 36) is considered to be scarce on a OVERRIDING FACTORS ASSOCIATED statewide basis. In each of 4 of the 15 sub-basins, the WITH WETLAND AREAS aggregate areas of stands of wildrice exceed 100 acres Certain characteristics of wetland complexes or spe- (Table 14), and wildrice would not be designated as cific tracts override all other characteristics in a determi- locally scarce if only the second criterion were utilized. nation of relative value. Even if the particular complex or Local Scarcity, By County tract might score in a medial or low rank if it were Subaerial vegetated types of coastal wetlands cover evaluated by a multivariate technique, it should be con- from 2,103 acres in Baltimore County to 83,247 acres in sidered to possess outstanding value if it exhibits at least Dorchester County (Table 76). Based on the considera- one of the following features. tions that are discussed in the preceding subsection, Essential Habitats locally scarce wetland types are defined as: (1) those Pursuant to Federal and State laws, species of plants types that are considered to be scarce on a statewide scale, and animals that are considered to be in danger of extinc- and (2) those types that are represented by stands whose tion may be designated as Endangered Species. Other areas cumulate to 100 or fewer acres within the particu- taxa, although not presently in danger of extinction, are lar county (Table 17). considered to be so susceptible to changes induced by Because any particular coastal wetland is located in one man or nature that they may become endangered in the of the 16 tidewater counties and in one of the 15 major foreseeable future. These taxa may be designated as tidally influenced watersheds of the State, any type of Threatened Species. Wetlands that provide nest sites vegetation that is present in the wetland will be and/or food resources that are essential to the survival of considered locally scarce if it is designated as such for the one or more endangered or threatened species are consi- county or for the watersheds. For example, stands of dered to be essential habitats. smartweed/rice cutgrass (Type 30) in the watershed of the Patuxent River are not considered to be locally scarce. Specially Significant Habitats If such a stand were located on the Patuxent River at a In addition to species that are designated as endan- location in Calvert County, however, it would be desig- gered or threatened under Federal or State law, other nated as locally scarce owing to the fact that the type is kinds of plants and animals may deserve special consid- considered to be scarce in that county. Conversely, a eration owing to their local rarity or other characteristics. stand of Type 34, the cattail fresh marsh type, in Harford Wetland areas that provide nest sites and/or food County would not be considered to be locally scarce resources that are essential to the survival of such species unless it is situated in Lower Susquehanna River sub- are considered to be specially significant habitats. basin. 141 Table 75. Areas of watersheds occupied by vegetated coastal wetlands. VEGETATED TOTAL' UNVEGE- DESIGNATION WATERSHED TYPED TATED TOTAL SUBMERGED SUB-AERIAL 02-12-02 Lower Susquehanna River 841 4 837 797 40 02-13-01 Coastal Area 17,225 1,277 15,948 1,586 14,362 02-13-02 Pocomoke River 53,246 1,777 51,469 9,057 42,412 02-13-03 Nanticoke River 83,382 2,346 81,036 1,098 79,938 02-13-04 Choptank River 36,877 481 36,396 10,109 26,287 02-13-05 Chester River 16,204 422 15,782 8,925 6,857 02-13-06 Elk River 3,848 137 3,711 282 3,429 02-13-07 Bush River 5,992 97 5,895 259 5,636 02-13-08 Gunpowder River 2,599 57 2,542 320 2,222 02-13-09 Patapsco River 819 78 741 1 740 02-13-10 West Chesapeake Bay 3,419 113 3,306 1,232 2,074 02-13-11 Patuxent River 6,652 200 6,452 51 6,401 02-13-99 Chesapeake Bay 21,321 275 21,046 7,500 13,546 02-14-01 Lower Potomac River 7,297 89 7,208 1,092 6,116 02-14-02 Washington Metropolitan Area 298 0 298 0 298 Total 260,020 7,353 252,667 42,309 210,358 'Does not include untyped acreage figures (see Table 14). Table 76. Areas of counties occupied by vegetated coastal wetlands. VEGETATED TOTAL' UNVEGE- COUNTY TYPED TATED TOTAL SUBMERGED SUB-AERIAL Anne Arundel 3,643 112 3,531 1,232 2,299 Baltimore 2,400 118 2,282 179 2,103 Calvert 2,695 33 2,662 0 2,662 Caroline 3,392 25 3,367 0 3,367 Cecil 3,212 5 3,207 861 2,346 Charles 4,507 16 4,491 383 4,108 Dorchester 95,217 2,579 92,638 9,391 83,247 Harford 7,036 125 6,911 472 6,439 Kent 7,974 233 7,741 3,791 3,950 Prince George's 2,801 0 2,801 0 2,801 Queen Anne's 7,912 262 7,650 4,228 3,422 Somerset 67,963 1,966 65,997 15,208 50,789 St. Mary's 4,176 249 3,927 760 3,167 Talbot 9,183 188 8,995 4,214 -4,781 Wicomico 13,753 165 13,588 0 13,588 Worcester 24,156 1,277 22,879 1,590 21,289 Total 260,020 7,353 252,667 42,309 210,358 'Does not include untyped acreage figures (see Table 17). The following criteria are proposed for the recogni- biologists. Such species always may have been repre- tion of "specially considered species": sented by few individuals, and/or they may occupy 1. Native species of animals and plants are specially habitats which are of very limited areal extent or considered species if they are endangered or threat- which are liable to be destroyed, modified signifi- ened with extirpation from a county, watershed, or cantly, or otherwise affected detrimentally by the estuarine system in the judgment of experienced field actions of man or nature. 142 2. Some native species of animals or plants are suffi- Exceptional Habitats for Migrants ciently abundant that they are neither endangered nor or Winter Residents threatened, but their numbers may be declining as a Migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, marshbirds, and result of natural causes or human activities. These are wading birds depend on wetlands for feeding and resting specially considered species, and can be termed areas along their flyways. Thousands of such birds also "depleted species." reside in the coastal marshes of Maryland during the 3. Native species of animals or plants that are repre- winter, and are even more dependent upon them for sented by local populations with unique or unusual survival than are the transients. Similarly, swamp forests genotypical characteristics are specially considered are used intensively by songbirds and other animals. species. The qualifying genotypical characteristics Areas of outstanding value to these species should be should not be those that are related to normal geo- afforded special protection. graphical variations within the species population. Outstanding Examples of Noteworthy Specimens Geomorphological Processes Whether or not they are representatives of species The many processes which shape and reform the fea- regarded as specially significant, and whether or not they tures of coastal areas operate universally. In most locali- are native, individual plants may be considered to be ties, however, several forces operate simultaneously or 11 noteworthy specimens." This recognition of unique- sequentially, and it is difficult to identify, study, and ness or unusualness may be made on the basis of great appreciate the dynamics of any one of the forces. Struc- age, large size, atypical form or color, hybrid origin, or tures built by man in the water or on the land also modify some other characteristic. Where such a noteworthy or obscure the processes of nature, and their effects may specimen is present, it should be considered to be an extend far beyond the actual locations of the structures. overriding factor in the evaluation of the wetland area Areas in which natural processes have not been altered that is essential for its maintenance or survival. significantly and, particularly, those areas in which one Certain plant novelties' may qualify as noteworthy process or a series of related processes is operating with specimens on the basis of age, size, or some other charac- little or no obfuscation by a second process, are of excep- teristic. Individuals or clones of taxa that are plant novel- tional value for educational and research purposes. ties also should be considered to be eligible for designa- Type Localities tion as noteworthy specimens if they represent the only Each species of animal or plant that now is recognized specimen, or one of a few specimens, of that taxon in the and labeled with a scientific name is based on a "type State, watershed, or county. Many troublesome weeds, specimen." These specimens are valuable records to however, once were novelties. Any plant novelty, there- which scientists refer to determine evolutionary relation- fore, should be examined carefully for potential pest ships and to compare with other specimens which are traits before it is afforded a degree of protection. suspected to be new, but related, species. The area from which a type specimen was collected is known as the 'Plant novelties are representatives of exotic taxa which appear 11 type locality," and it should be afforded the status of a spontaneously or are persisting in semi-natural habitats long after scientific memorial or landmark. These areas also may be planting. used as environmental monitoring stations. Reanalyses of the modern populations of the species originally de- Exceptional Primary Production scribed from a type locality may provide early warnings The average peak standing crop of most coastal of potential imbalances, pollution, or other problems. wetlands in the Middle Atlantic States probably ranges from about 3 to 6 tons per acre (670 to 1350 grams per Research Sites square meter). Wetlands on which the average peak The societal values of wetland complexes or tracts are standing crop (for all vegetation types over the entire enhanced immensely by their use as sites of intensive area) exceeds 7.5 tons per acre (1680 grams per square and/or long-term biological, chemical, geological, clima- meter) should be considered exceptional. Stands of a tological, historical, archaeological, or other research single vegetation type in which the standing crop exceeds related directly and intimately to the features and pro- 15 tons per acre (3370 grams per square meter) also are cesses of the wetland. Such areas are of exceptional value exceptional. to educational programs, and particularly, for continuing Exceptional Secondary Production research (Golet 1972; McCormick 1971). The Rhode This designation is for wetland complexes or wetland River estuary, south of Annapolis, for example, is usee tracts, usually in association with adjacent open waters, intensively by scientists from the Smithsonian Institu- which are outstanding breeding areas for waterfowl, tion Uenkins and Williamson 1973). shorebirds, wading birds, songbirds, mammals, reptiles ' Contaminated Areas amphibians, fish, shellfish, or some other form of animal The sediment in the subject wetland area should be life. Significant pests or important vectors of communi- analyzed to determine the concentrations of arsenic, cable diseases should be excluded from this evaluation. cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, and any other heavy metals that may be present in greater than normal concentrations. The concentrations should be expressed as the ratios between the observed concen- and/or the number of individual plants that compose the trations and the normal background concentrations vegetation type. The greater the floristic diversity of a expected in uncontaminated tidal marsh sediments. The particular type, the greater is the number of species and background concentration for mercury, for example, is species populations present per unit area. (When diver- 0.05 ppm. An observed concentration of 1 ppm would be sity formulas are based on the number of species and the expressed as a score of 20. If the score of any metal is number of individuals, the concept of area becomes rela- greater than 1.0, special consideration should be given to tive, and diversity values for vegetation types composed a more intensive testing program. Should any score of plants of widely different sizes may not be directly exceed 10.0, a more intensive testing program can be comparable.) considered mandatory. Floristic diversity also is believed to be related to Manmade compounds may be present in the sediment stability and wildlife habitat values. It also may be a of certain areas at 'concentrations that are hazardous to factor in aesthetics, replacement value, and productivity. the biota and, at least indirectly, to human beings. Gas At present, scientists have not quantified these relation- chromatograph scans for chlorinated hydrocarbons that ships. have been used as pesticides, including kepone, DDT, Data that presently are available are not adequate to aldrin, and dieldrin, and for such toxic industrial com- calculate diversity indexes for any vegetation type in the pounds as PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls), should be coastal wetlands. The floristic data are summarized in included in investigations of areas considered for public another section of this report, but no extensive, quantita- acquisition or which are proposed as the sites for private tive information has been collected. or public actions. There are no natural background levels Stability for these substances, but the State can establish maxi- No vegetation is changeless or everlasting. Some mum concentrations that are considered to be safe in types, however, are not self-perpetuating on a particular sediments. site and gradually mature, stagnate in growth, degener- ate, and are replaced by another type. 6.6. OTHER POTENTIAL SCALARS In the herbaceous vegetation that develops on fallow agricultural lands, changes may be rapid and may occur Several other scaling parameters could be developed from one summer to the next. Certain forest types, such for the environmental evaluation of coastal wetlands if as the Virginia pine forest, may mature in 50 to 60 years, sufficient information were available. These are de- and then deteriorate rapidly. Other types of vegetation scribed in the following subsections. The discussion also are self-perpetuating. Although individual plants do suc- highlights areas of research that are in critical need of cumb to disease, climatic damage, or other agencies, they investigation, and suggests that some standardization of are replaced by other individuals of species characteristic wetland classification in Maryland and other states of the of the type. These vegetation types are said to undergo fluctuations, and some of them may be referred to as Middle Atlantic Region could enhance the practical value climax" vegetation types. of research. The more stable a vegetation type, or the longer its life OTHER POTENTIAL SCALARS expectancy, the more likely it will be that efforts to FOR VEGETATION TYPES preserve it will assure that the type will be a component Several other features could be useful for the evalua- of the natural landscape in perpetuity. The less stable the tion of the vegetation types of coastal wetlands. For some vegetation type, the less likely it will be that efforts to of these features, insufficient information now is avail- preserve it will result in long-term maintenance of the able to permit their utilization. Others, after examina- type without intrusive management. tion, seem to be more appropriate for detailed planning No long-term investigation of the stability of coastal and/or management, rather than for broad-scale plan- wetland vegetation types of the Middle Atlantic States ning or overall regulatory strategy development. has been conducted. Except for forested wetlands, no method has been developed to determine the approxi- Aesthetic Value mate age of the perennial plants which are predominant Some types of coastal wetland vegetation, owing to in many wetlands. Research on this aspect of wetlands is their general appearance, seasonal colors, flowers, fruits, needed, and the information that it will develop will be or other, less tangible features, probably appeal to the useful in wetlands planning, regulation and evaluation. human emotions more than do other types. To utilize Resistivity aesthetic value as an objective parameter for wetland The ability of a vegetation type to accept and encapsule evaluation, area-wide scales of aesthetic rankings of a limited disturbance can be termed its resistivity. The vegetation types should be developed by interviews or original boundaries of a small clearing in one type of other techniques (Gupta and Foster 1973). swamp forest, for example, might remain unchanged Floristic Diversity indefinitely, whereas in another type the boundaries Floristic diversity is the relationship between the would expand outwardly as a result of windfalls, disease, number of plant species which compose a vegetation sunscorch, and other mechanisms. Similarly, intensive type and the area that is occupied by the vegetation type feeding by waterfowl, mammals, or other animals in 144 some types may result in eat-outs that develop into water freezes during the winter. Thus, nutrient loads barren flats, pans, or ponds. This is a phenomenon that are contributed by human activities may move to the which the Blackwater River wetlands of Dorchester bays and ocean with only minor effects on the upstream County are experiencing. In other types, feeding damage sections of the estuarine system. may be repaired rapidly by rhizome proliferation, sprout- Sediment Trapping Capability ing, or seedling development. Few quantitative data are available to describe or pre- Characteristics of the site also might be included in the dict the ability of different vegetation types or different consideration of resistivity. Most wetland types, for ex- wetlands to trap and retain sediments. Ranwell (1972) ample, will be affected adversely by slight but prolonged developed a regression equation to describe sediment changes in water level or salinity. A project that directly entrapment by English grass marshes: impacts only a few acres, thus, might have extensive secondary effects if it were to block the flow of the tides' Accretion = 0.643 (mean height of site above 0.D.,1 impound surface water, or otherwise change water in meters)+ levels. 0.0462 (mean height of vegetation, in Information on resistivity has not been collected sys- . centimeters)+ tematically, and it has not been organized. Although it 0.00135 (averagedry weightof vegetation may be useful for the evaluation of wetlands, such infor- in grams per meter square)-1,143 mation probably will be more appropriate for direct The three additive factors in this equation are based on application to planning and management. units of measurement which bear a numerical relation- Environmental Protection ship of I (meters): 100 (centimeters): 1000 (grams of dry No comprehensive, systematic studies have been con- matter per square meter, generally). When these relative ducted, but it virtually is certain that wetland vegetation values are multiplied by the appropriate coefficients, the types differ in their relative abilities to reduce soil ero- ratio between elevation, standing crop, and vegetation sion, absorb pollutants from the water, absorb and height is approximately 1:2:7. This suggests that sedi- adsorb pollutants from the air, induce sedimentation, ment trapping capability largely is a function of the and to perform other environmentally protective func- height of the vegetation (70%) and the bulk of vegeta- tions. Although information about these functions could tion present (20 76). Big cordgrass, common reed, cattail, be of great relevance in the evaluation of wetlands, our and wildrice, among the grass types present in Maryland, knowledge presently is inadequate to discriminate be- which are tall (Table 6), would be considered to be of tween the functions of various types of vegetation. greatest value according to Ranwell's equation. Flood storage capacity, or water storage potential (Neafsey 1974), is a function of all coastal wetlands as a 'Ordinance datum, O.D., is approximately equivalent to mean sea result of their locations adjacent to tidal waters and their level. relatively low elevations. This capacity, however, varies inversely with distance from the body of tidal water and OTHER POTENTIAL GEOGRAPHIC SCALARS with the elevation of the substrate above the mean high water level. It is not related directly to the type of Wetland Interface Variable wetland vegetation present. The boundary of the wetland complex, as delineated All wetlands also have the ability to absorb nutrients on the map or aerial photograph, canbe measured to and other constituents from the water and, thus, to provide information for several geographic scalars. The perform a water purification function. This aspect of simplest of these is the "Shoreline Development Factor," wetlands currently is receiving considerable research or "Wetland Interface Variable." It is calculated by divid- attention, especially in relation to the potential for the ing the length of the wetland boundary by the length of use of natural or artificially-established wetlands as sew- the perimeter of a circle with an area equal to that of the age treatment facilities. These studies generally indicate subject wetland (Shuster 1966). The resulting value, that vascular plants are of relatively little importance in which always is 1.0 or greater, is a dimensionless number pollution abatement. They have a limited capacity to that serves as a relative measure of the amount of edge. absorb nutrients, reach an equilibrium stage during the Specifications: The following subspecifications ' are seasonal growth cycle, and lose nutrients rapidly by preliminary, and should be revised on the basis of actual leaching when their aerial parts die back during the measurements of wetland boundaries. The values of the autumn. Silt/clay size particles, organic components, and preliminary ratio calculations are presented as column microorganisms in the soil of a wetland are the major headings and associated values are listed beneath the agents in pollution abatement. In areas in which the soil headings. freezes, however, the microorganisms also are subject to 1.0-1.25 1.26-1-50 1.51-1.75 1.76- winter killing, and return nutrients to the water in large 25 50 75 100 11 pulses." Abatement functions, thus, are substantially curtailed throughout the winter. The ability of other Interpretation: Accessibility to a wetland, both from components of the aquatic system, particularly algae and adjacent uplands and from the water, enhances its values submerged aquatic plants, to absorb nutrients and to in many ways. Terrestrial wildlife has a greater oppor- grow rapidly also may be limited in areas in which the tunity to venture into the wetland, and various edge- 145 nesting species are benefited as upland edges increase in Terrestrial Aquatic length. As the interface with the water increases, it is Water (OW) 21-40176 likely that tidal flushing is more widespread, and that 1 11 Illa aquatic organisms will have more effective aceess to the 50-74 !@10 0 80 40 wetland (Odurn and Skjei 1974; Gucinski 1978). The two 25-49 :520 :520 80 40 subsequent variables embellish this information, and 0-24 @!20 @!20 60 20 require more definitive measurements. Water and Upland Interface Variable Water (OW) 41-6076 A more detailed analysis of the wetland edge requires 1 11 Illa the measurement of those segments which are adjoined 25-49 :S: 10 60 60 by water and those adjoined by terrestrial habitats. If the 0-24 !560 :5;60 20 40 area that is being evaluated is a real estate tract, and if the wetlands on the tract are adjacent to other wetlands, the Water (OW) 61-80% adjoining wetlands should be considered to be water for 1 11 Illa this characterization. The data are presented as percent- 25-39 :5 10 slo 40 80 ages of the total perimeter. 0-24 !5 3 9 !!:-39 20 60 Specifications: Two sets of values are presented in the tabulation of specifications. The column headings repre- Water (OW) 81-100% sent the percentage of the interface that abuts on water. 1 11 Illa The first line in the table contains values to be used'in 10-19 !@_9 :S9 20 100 association with terrestrial resource evaluations. The 0-10 :!@-lq 10 80 values in the second line are intended for use in evalua- aGroup 1: Wetland, forest, scrub, pasture tions of aquatic resources. Group II: Cultivated land, residential land 0-20% 21-4091c 41-60% 61-809o' 81-100% Group III: Commercial, industrial, transportation uses 100 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 100 Interpretation: The basic concept, in regard to the Interpretation: The terrestrial and aquatic values are interface with water and the. interface with land, is the reversed, and reflect decreasing accessibility from the same as that expressed in the explanation for the water upland and increasing accessibility from the water, from and upland interface factor. This section includes, in left to right in the table. addition, the characterization of the natural features and the human uses on the upland areas. As the intensity of Adjacent Use Variable utilization increases, the value to terrestrial natural Still more detail can be extracted from wetland edge resources becomes less. There also is a reduction in the measurements if the information available from the map value to aquatic resources, but this value is not so sensi- or aerial photographs permits. In this step, the wetland tive as that for terrestrial resources. perimeter is measured in segments which are character- Isolation Variable ized by different adjoining features or uses. Such fea- A linear measurement, in feet or meters, is made of tures as open water (OW), wetland (WL), forest (F), and the distance from the midpoint of the wetland to the scrub (S), and such uses as cultivated land (CL), pasture nearest area of upland. The value is half of the average of (P), residential (R), commercial (Co), industrial (In), several measurements of the distance from the upland to and transportation Jr), should be recognized. The data water, or from the upland on one side of the wetland to are presented as percentages of the total perimeter. the upland on the opposite of a "pocket" wetland, at Specifications: Values for this variable are related to equally spaced points along the upland boundary. specific features and uses in the following table. Abbre- Specifications: Values are assigned.to the linear mea- viations in the headings are defined in the previous surements from the following table. The column head- paragraph. The first column of values is for application ings are distances in feet. to terrestrial evaluations; and the second column con- tains values for use in aquatic evaluations. <500 501-1000 1001-1500 1501-2000 >2000 Terrestrial Aquatic 20 40 60 80 100 Water (OW) 0-20% Interpretation: The isolation variable is a relative 1 11 Illa indication of one dimension of the size of a wetland. >75 !S10 0 100 20 Originally, it was intended principally as an index to the 50-74 9-20 0-20 75 20 degree of disturbance to which animals in the wetland 25-49 21-50 21-50 50 15 may be exposed, particularly from upland uses. It also is 0-24 5 1 L>51 25 10 of value in regard to aesthetics, because it provides a concept of the breadth of the view across the wetlands from the adjoining uplands and from the water. It a4so may have some value as a gross index to tidal flushing. The greater the value of the isolation variable, the 146 greater is the probability that a large proportion of the their values should be reduced in proportion to their wetland area is not subject to regular, diurnal flows. probably restricted longevity. Wetlands that are subject Wetland Location Factor to accelerated sedimentation from upland sources may be Stream orders usually are assigned from the head- susceptible to preservation if the source can be abated. waters to the mouth of a river. To evaluate tidal wetland Upstream sources generally are more diffuse, and much locations, a system of reverse ordering is employed. of the sediment may originate from bank erosion. Wet- Specifications: Complexes that front on the ocean or lands that are receiving sediments from these upstream on a bay that is connected directly to the ocean are sources generally are a benefit to water quality. As long designed as first order wetlands (value = 5). Second as a wetland of this type has a capacity to accept and order wetlands are located on the main stems of streams retain sediments, the value assigned to it should not be that discharge into the bays or directly into the ocean reduced. (value = 4). Wetlands on the main stems of tributaries Preliminary Specifications: No quantitative analysis that discharge to streams which support second order of the rate of erosion of a wetland area has been found, so wetlands are of the third order (value = 3), and so on. there is no objective basis for specification for this factor. No value is to be less than 1. The final value is used as a Generally, however, erosion appears to be a function of weighting factor. wave energy, and it is correlated with fetch length in relation to wind vectors. There also may be a relation to Wetland Longevity Factor ship and boat traffic owing to erosion by wakes. Wetlands that are exposed to strong wave action The specifications for this parameter should be formu- and/or to wakes from boats or ships may be subject to lated from measurements of fetch length, or the distance accelerated erosion, and may be receding rapidly. Other across open water that adjoins the wetland. Fetch lengths wetlands are subject to accelerated sedimentation from should be measured along transects that represent the upland or upstream sources, and the accretion of sedi- major compass points (N, NNE, NE, ENE, E, and so on) ments may be sufficient to eliminate the wetland charac- so that they can be correlated with data on frequencies of teristics of the site. Still other areas may be at or near wind directions and wind velocities (Personal communi- equilibrium, and may show no evidence of imminent loss cation, 1977, Dr. Robert Reimold, University of Georgia). by erosion or by sedimentation. The component for water traffic should be based on No special consideration need be given to wetlands wake energy related to the size and speed of the ship or that are in apparent equilibrium. Wetlands that are erod- boat, the distance of the navigation channel from the ing at a rate that is readily measured generally cannot be wetland, and an index of traffic for the area. preserved without special structural protection, and 147- 7. LITERATURE CITED Adams, Sidney Marshall, and J. W. Angelovic, 1970. Anonymous. No date. Evaluation of Virginia wetlands. Assimilation of detritus and its associated bacteria Typewritten manuscript, Virginia Institute of by three species of estuarine animals. Chesapeake Marine Sciences, 9 p. Science 11:249-254. Aurand, Don, and Franklin C. Daiber. 1973. Nitrate and Allen, S. E., and W. H. Pearsall. 1963. Leaf analysis and nitrite in the surface waters of two Delaware salt shoot production in Phragmites. Oikos 14:176-189. marshes. Chesapeake Science 14:105-111. American Ornithologists Union. 1957. Checklist of Bahr, Leonard M., Jr. 1976. Energetic aspects of the North American birds, 5th edition. The American intertidal oyster reef community at Sapelo Island, Ornithologists Union, Port City Press, Inc., Balti- Georgia (USA). Ecology 57:121-131. more, MD, 691 p. Baier, C. R. 1935. Studien zur Hydrobakteriologie ste- American Ornithologists Union. 1973. Thirty-second hender Binnengewasser. Archiv f. Hydrobiologie supplement to the American Ornithologists Union 29-.183-264. (Fide ZoBell and Feltharn 1942). checklist of North American birds. The Auk Bailey, Vernon. 1937. The Maryland muskrat marshes. 90:411-419, 887. journal of Mammalogy 18:350-354. American Ornithologists Union. 1976. Thirty-third Barnes, Robert D. 1953. The ecological distribution of supplement to the American Ornithologists Union spiders in non-forest maritime communities at checklist of North American birds. The Auk Beaufort, North Carolina. Ecological Monographs 93:875-879. 23:315-337. Anderson, Aven M., W. J. Davis, M. P. Lynch, and J. R. Bayley, Suzanne, H. Rabin, afid Charles H. Southwick. Schubel [Editors]. 1973. Effects of Hurricane Agnes 1968. Recent decline in the distribution and abun- on the environment and organisms of Chesapeake dance of Eurasian milfoil in Chesapeake Bay. Chesa- Bay. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, peake Science 9:73-181. Philadelphia. The Chesapeake Bay Research Coun- Bayley, Suzanne, Vernon D. Stotts, Paul F. Springer, and cil-Chesapeake Bay Institute, Chesapeake Biologi- John Steenis. 1978. Changes in submerged aquatic cal Laboratory, and Virginia Institute of Marine macrophyte populations at the head of Chesapeake Sciences, 172 p. Bay, 1958-1975. Estuaries 1:73-84. Anderson, Richard R. 1969. Temperature and rooted Bayly, Isabel L., and Tom A. O'Neill. 1972. Seasonal ionic aquatic plants. Chesapeake Science 10: 157-164. fluctuations in a Typha glauca community. Ecology Anderson, Richard R. 1972. Submerged vascular plants 53:714-719. of the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries. Chesapeake Bean, G. A., M. Fusco, and W. L. Klarman. 1973. Studies Science 13 (supplement): S87-S89. on the "Lake Venice disease" of eurasian milfoil in Anderson, Richard R., Russell G. Brown, and Robert D. the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Science 14:279- Rappleye. 1968. Water quality and plant distribu- 280. tion along the upper Patuxent River, Maryland. Bean, G. A., and W. L. Klarman. 1972, Diseases of rooted Chesapeake Science 9:145-156. aquatic plants. Cheasapeake Research Consortium, Anonymous. 1975. Progress report, James River marsh Annual Report 1972, P. 331. development study. Dredged Material Research Beaven, George Francis, and Henry J. Oosting. 1939. (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Pocomoke Swamp: a study of cypress swamp on the Station) Miscellaneous Paper D-75-9, p. 2-4 Eastern Shore of Maryland. Torrey Botanical Club Anonymous. 1975. Progress report, James River marsh Bulletin 66:367-389. development study. U.S. Army Engineer Water- Biggs, R. B., and David A. Flemer. 1972. The flux of ways Experiment Station. Dredged Material Re- particulate carbon in an estuary. Marine Biology search, Miscellaneous Paper D-77-9, 2-4. (Berlin) 12:11-17. Anonymous. 1977a. Section 150-wetland habitat de- Blegvad, H. 1914. Food and conditions of nourishment velopment. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exper- among the communities of invertebrate animals iment Station. Dredged Material Research D-77-1, found on or in the sea bottom in Danish waters. p. 9-16. Danish Biological Station Report 35:50. (Fide Dex- Anonymous. 1977b. Recent and planned marsh establish- ter 1947). ment work throughout the contiguous U.S.-a Blum, John L. 1968. Salt marsh spartinas and associated survey and basic guidelines. U.S. Army Engineer algae. Ecological Monographs 38:199-221. Waterways Experiment Station. Dredged Material Research D-77-6, p. 6-7. Bond, R. M. 1933. A contribution to the study of the Anonymous. 1977c. Establishment and growth of selected natural food cycle in aquatic environments, with marsh plants. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways particular consideration of micro-organisms and Experiment Station. Dredged Material Research dissolved organic matter. Bingham Oceanographic D-77-6, p. 7-11. College Bulletin 4(4):1-89. (Fide Dexter 1947). 149 Bosenberg, Robert. 1976. Rodent populations (Cedar Buttery, B. R., W. T. Williams, andj. M. Lambert. 1965. Run Estuarine Evaluation Study). New Jersey De- Competition between Glyceria maxima and Phrag- partment of Environmental Protection, Division of mites communis in the region of Surlingham Broad. Fish, Game and Shellfish, Bureau of Wildlife Man- II. The fen gradient. journal of Ecology 53:183-195. agement, Trenton NJ. Performance Report Project Cahoon, Donald. 1975. Net productivity of emergent W-53-R-4,15 p. vegetation at Horn Point salt marsh. M.S. thesis, Boyd, C. E. 1968. Fresh-water plants: aTotential source University of Maryland. of protein. Economic Botany 22:359-368. Cameron, G. N. 1972. Analysis of insect trophic diversity Boyd, C. E. 1969. Production, mineral nutrient ab- in two salt marsh communities. Ecology 53:58-73. sorption, and biochemical assimilation by Justicia Chapman, V. J. 1960. Salt marshes and salt deserts of the americana and Alternanthera philoxeroides. Arch. world. Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York NY, Hydrobiol. 66:139-160. 392 p. Boyd, C. E. 1970. Amino acid, protein, and caloric content Chrysler, Minton Asbury. 1910. Coastal zone, Western of vascular aquatic macrophytes. Ecology 51:902- Shore District. In Forest Shreve, Minton Asbury 906. Chrysler, Frederick H. Blodgett, and F. W. Besley, Boyt, Florence L., Suzanne E. Bayley, andjohn Zoltek,jr. The plant life of Maryland. Maryland Weather Ser- 1977. Removal of nutrients from treated municipal vice Special Publication 3, p. 149-197. wastewater by wetland vegetation. Water Pollution Conant, Roger. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and Control Federation journal 49:789-799. amphibians of eastern and central North America. Brickman, Laurence Michael. 1972. Base food chain rela- Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston MA, 429 p. tionships in coastal salt marsh ecosystems. Ph.D. Connell, W. A. 1940. Tidal inundation as a factor limit- dissertation, Lehigh University, Lehigh PA, 179 p. ing the distribution of Aedes spp. on a Delaware salt (National Technical Information Service COM-73- marsh. New Jersey Mosquito Extermination Asso- 11320, 179 p.) ciation Annual Meeting Proceedings 20',166-177. Broome, Stephen W., W. W. Woodhouse,jr., and Ernest Cottam, Clarence, and David A. Munro. 1954. Eelgrass D. Seneca. 1,974. Propagation of smooth cordgrass, status and environmental relations. journal of Wild- Spartina alterniflora, from seed in North Carolina. life Management 18:449-460. Chesapeake Science 15:214-221. Cottam, Clarence, John J. Lynch, and Arnold L. Nelson. Brush, Grace S. 1976. The natural forests of Maryland. 1944. Food habits and management of American Record of the Maryland Power Plant Siting Act 5 sea brant.journal of Wildlife Management 8:36-56. (2):1-6. Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, Brush, Grace S., Cecilia Lenk, andjoanne Smith. 1976. A and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of vegetation map of Maryland, the existing natural wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United forests, Williams and Heintz, Washington DC. States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Burkholder, Paul R. 1956. Studies of the nutritive value Wildlife Service, 103 p. of Spartina grass growing in the marsh areas of Chrichton, 0. 1960. Marsh crab, intertidal tunnel-maker coastal Georgia. Torrey Botanical Club Bulletin and grass-eater. Estuarine Bulletin 5:3-10. 83:327-334. Daiber, Frank C., and 0. Crichton. 1967. Caloric studies Burkholder, Paul R., and G. H. Bornside. 1957. Decom- of Spartina and the marsh crab Sesarma reticulatum position of marsh grass by aerobic bacteria. Torrey (Say). University of Delaware, 1966-1967 Annual Botanical Club Bulletin 84:366-383. Pittman- Robertson Report to Delaware Board of Burkholder, Paul R., L. M. Burkholder, and J. A. Rivero. Game and Fish Commissioners, Project W-22-R-Z, 1959. Some chemical constituents of turtle grass, job 4, 20 p. (Fide Kraeuter and Wolf 1974). Thalassia testudinum. Torrey Botanical Club Bul- Daiber, Franklin C., Lawrence L. Thornton, Karen A. letin 86:88-93. Bolster, Thomas G. Campbell, Oliver W. Crichton, Burkholder, Paul R., and T. E. Doheny. 1968. The biology Gerald L. Esposito, David R. Jones, and John M. of eelgrass. Lamont Geological Observatory Contri- Tyrawski. 1976. An atlas of Delaware's wetlands bution 1227, Palisades, New York. (Department of and estuarine resources. Delaware State Planning Conservation and Waterways, Contribution 3, Office, Delaware Coastal Management Program Town of Hempstead, Long Island, New York), 120 Technical Report 2, 530 p. p- Daigh, F.C., Donald MacCreary, and L.A. Stearns. 1938. Burrell, D. C., andj. R. Schubel. 1977. Seagrass ecosystem Factors affecting the vegetative cover of Delaware oceanography. In C. P. McRoy and C. Helfferich marshes. NewJersey Mosquito Extermination Asso- (Editors), Seagrass ecosystems, a scientific perspec- ciation Annual Meeting Proceedings 25:209-216. tive. Marcel Dekker, New York NY, p. 195-232. Darnell, Rezneat M. 1959. Studies on the life history of Burt, William Henry. 1964. A field guide to the mam- the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus Rathbun) in mals. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston MA, 284 Louisiana waters. American Fisheries Society Trans- p- actions 88:294-304. 150 Darnell, Rezneat M. 1961. Trophic spectrum of an estua- abundance and distribution of juvenile blue crabs in rine community based on studies of Lake Pontchar- Core Sound, N.C. 1965-68. Chesapeake Science train, Louisiana. Ecology 42:553-568. 4:51-55. Davis, Luckett V., and 1. E. Gray. 1966. Zonal and sea- Eilers, H. P. 1975. Primary production and tide levels in sonal distribution of insects in North Carolina salt an Oregon coastal salt marsh. Ecological Society of marshes. Ecological Monographs 36:275-295. America Bulletin 56:46. Day, J. W., Jr., W. G. Smith, P. R. Wagner, and W. C. Eleuterius, L. N. 1971. The marshes of Mississippi. Cas- Stowe. 1973. Community structure and carbon tanea 37:153-168. budget of a salt marsh and shallow bay estuarine Elser, H. J. 1966. Status of aquatic weed problems in system in Louisiana. Louisiana State Uiversity, Cen- tidewater Maryland, spring, 1966. Manatee Project, ter for Wetland Resources Publication LSU-SG-72- Annapolis MD, mimeographed report, 9 p. 04, 80 p. Elser, H. J. 1967. Observations on the decline of milfoil de la Cruz, Armando A. 1965. A study of particulate and other aquatic plants in Maryland 1962-67. organic detritus in a Georgia salt marsh-estuarine Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Anna- ecosystem. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geor- polis MD, Reference 67-12-1, 14 p. gia, 110 p. (Dissertation Abstracts 27:363). Fenchel, T. 1970. Studies on the decomposition of organic de la Cruz, Armando A. 1973. The role of tidal marshes in detritus derived from the turtle grass Thalassia tes- the productivity of coastal waters. ASB (Association tudinum. Limnology and Oceanography 15:14-20. of Southeastern Biologists) Bulletin 20:147-156. Fenchel, T. 1972. Aspects of decomposer food chains in de la Cruz, Armando A., and Benjamin C.Gabriel. 1974. marine benthos. Verhandlung Deutches Zoologia Caloric, elemental, and nutritive changes in decom- Gesellschaft 65 (14):14-22. posingjuncus roemerianus leaves. Ecology 55:882- Fenchel, T. 1977. Aspects of the decomposition of sea- 886. grasses. In C. P. McRoy and C. Helfferich (Editors), de la Cruz, Armando A., and Courtney T. Hackney. 1977. Seagrass ecosystems, a scientific perspective. Mar- Energy value, elemental composition, and produc- cel Dekker, New York NY, p. 123-145. tivity of belowground biomass of a Juncus tidal Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. marsh. Ecology 58:1165-1170. Eighth (Centennial) Edition. American Book Com- Dexter, Ralph W. 1947. The marine communities of a pany, New York NY, 1632 p. tidal inlet at Cape Ann, Massachusetts: a study in Ferrigno, Frederick. 1966. Some aspects of the nesting bio-ecology. Ecological Monographs 17:261-294. biology, population dynamics, and habitat associa- Dozier, Herbert L. 1947. Salinity as a factor in Atlantic tions of the clapper rail. M.S. thesis, Rutgers, The coast tidewater muskrat production. North Ameri- State Vniversity, New Brunswick NJ, 69 p. can Wildlife Conference Transactions 12:398-420. Ferrigno, Fred. 1975. Marsh productivity (Cedar Run Dozier, Herbert L., Merle H. Markley, and Leonard M. Estuarine Evaluation Study). New Jersey Depart- Llewellyn. 1948. Muskrat investigations on the ment of Environmental Protection, Division of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Maryland, Fish, Game and Shellfisheries, Bureau of Wildlife 1941-194 5. journal of Wildlife Management 12:177- Management, Trenton NJ, Pittman -Robertson 190. Project W-53-R- I, Job I-A, 13 p. Drake, Bert G. 1972. Summary of data for standing crop Ferrigno, Fred, Lester G. MacNamara, and D. M.Jobbins. in Hog Island and Muddy Creek Marsh, summer 1969. Ecological approach for improved manage- 1972. Unpublished xerox copy, 2 p. ment of coastal meadowlands. NewJersey Mosquito Drake, Bert G. 1976. Seasonal changes in reflectance and Extermination Association Annual Meeting Pro- standing crop biomass in three salt marsh commun- ceedings 56:188-203. ities. Plant Physiology 58:696-699. Fischer, David W. 1970. An economist examines the Drake, Bert and [?]. Hayes. 1973. Correlations of cover, costs of conservation. Rhode Island Resources spectral signature, and productivity in Hog Island 16(3):5-7 Marsh. In Dale W. Jenkins and Francis S. L. William- Flemer, David A., D. Heyward Hamilton, Carolyn W. son, Collection and analysis of remotely-sensed data Keefe, andjoseph A. Mihursky. 1970. The effects of from the Rhode River estuary watershed. Prepared thermal loading and water quality on estuarine under Contract No. NAS6-1913 by Smithsonian primary production. Final Technical Report for the Institution, Chesapeake Bay Center for Environ- period August 1968 to August 1970. Submitted to mental Studies. Annual Report October 10, 197 1, to Office of Water Resources Research, U.S. Depart- October 9, 1972. National Aeronautics and Space ment of Interior. University of Maryland, Natural Administration, Wallops Station, Wallops Island Resources Institute, Chesapeake Biological Labora- VA, NASA Contractor Report NASA CR-62094, p. tory, Solomons MD, NRI Reference 71-6, 201 p. 70-71. Flemer, David A., Donald R. Heinle, Carolyn W. Keefe, Dudley, Donnie L., and Mayo H. Judy. 1973. Seasonal and D. Heyward Hamilton. 1978. Standing crops of 151 marsh vegetation of two tributaries of Chesapeake Golet, Frank C. 1973a. Classification and evaluation of Bay. Estuaries 1:157-163. freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat in the gla- Flemer, David A., Donald R. Heinle, Martha Cole, Eric ciated Northeast. Paper presented at the Northeast Hughes, Bruce Zeisel, Joseph Ustach, and Richard Fish & Wildlife Conference, Mt. Snow, Vermont, Murtagh. 1973. Summary report of marsh produc- 3-6june 1973. Massachusetts Cooperative Wildlife tion studies for the upper Patuxent River estuary Research Unit, 27 p. (mimeographed). and Parker Creek, Maryland, during the summer Good, Ralph E. 1965. Salt marsh vegetation, Cape May, 1973. In Donald R. Heinle and others, 1974. The New Jersey. New Jersey Academy of Science Bul- role of organic debris and associated microorga- letin 10 (1):1-11. nisms in pelagic estuarine food chains. University Good, Ralph E., and Norma F. Good. 1975. Vegetation of Maryland, Water Resources Research Center. and production of the Woodbury Creek-Hessian Technical Report 22, Appendix C, 30 pp. Run freshwater tidal marshes. Bartonia 43:38-45. Flowers, Margaret G. 1973. Vegetational zonation in two Good, Ralph E., Robert W. Hastings, and Roy E. successional brackish marshes of the Chesapeake Denmark. 1975. An environmental assessment of Bay. Chesapeake Science 14:197-200. wetlands: a case study of Woodbury Creek and Gabriel, Benjamin C., and Armando A. de la Cruz. 1974 associated marshes. Rutgers University-the State Species composition, standing crop, and net pri- University of New Jersey, Marine Sciences Center mary production of a salt marsh community in Technical Report 75-2, 49 p. Mississippi. Chesapeake Science 15:72-77. Good, Ralph E., Edward Lyszczek, Michael Miernik, Gallagher;John L., and Franklin C. Daiber. 1974. Prim- Charles Ogrosky, Norbert P. Psuty, Janice Ryan, ary production of edaphic algal communities in a and Frederick Sickels, with Richard Kantor. 1978. Delaware salt marsh. Limnology and Oceanography Analysis and delineation of submerged vegetation 19:390-395. of coastal New Jersey: A case study of Little Egg Garbish, E. W., Jr. 1973. Tidal marsh synthesis in the Harbor. Cartography by Janice Limb. Prepared for Chesapeake Bay. Potomac Appalachian Magazine the Office of Coastal Zone Management, Division 1973:17-27. of Marine Services, New Jersey Department of Garbisch, E. W., Jr., and L. B. Colman, [1977] . Tidal Environmental Protection. Center for Coastal and freshwater marsh creation. 1. Pontederia cordata Environmental Studies, Rutgers-the State Uni- and Peltandra virginica. Environmental Concern versity of New Jersey, 58 p. + I plate. Inc., St.Michaels MD, typescript, unpaged, 32 p. Gorham, E. 1953. Chemical studies on the soils and Garbisch, Edgar W., Jr., Paul B. Woller, William J. Bos- vegetation of waterlogged habitats in the Emlish tian, and Robert J. McCallum. 1975. Biotic tech- Lake District. journal of Ecology 41:345-360. niques for shore stabilization. Estuarine Research Gosner, Kenneth L. 1968. Eelgrass-blight and recovery. 2:405-426. New Jersey Nature News 23:98-103. Garbisch, E. W.,Jr., Paul B. Woller, and RobertJ. McCal- Gosner, Kenneth L. 1971. Guide to identification of lum. 1975. Salt marsh establishment and develop- marine and estuarine invertebrates, Cape Hatteras ment. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal to the Bay of Fundy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir VA, York NY, 693 p. Technical Memorandum 52, 110 p. Gosselink, James G., Eugene P. Odum, and R. M. Pope. Garbisch, E. W., Jr., and others. 1974. Biotic techniques 1973. The value of the tidal marsh. University of for shore stabilization. Proceedings Second Interna- Florida, Urban and Regional Development Center, tional Estuarine Research Conference, Myrtle Work Paper 3, 32 p. Beach, South Carolina. Graber, jean W., and Richard R. Graber, 1976. Environ- Gardner, L. R. 1975. Runoff from an intertidal marsh mental evaluations using birds and their habitats. during tidal exposure-recession curves and chemi- Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 97, cal characteristics. Limnology and Oceanography 39 p. 20:81-89. Grant, Robert R., Jr., and Ruth Patrick. 1970. Tinicurn Geller, Molly S. 1972. Phragmites: life preserver of the marsh as a water purifier. In Jack McCormick, salt marsh. Underwater Naturalist (Bulletin of the Robert R. Grant, Jr., and Ruth Patrick. Two studies American Littoral Society) 7(3):4-11, 45. of Tinicum Marsh, Delaware and Philadelphia Golet, Francis Charles. 1972. Classification and evalua- Counties, Pennsylvania. The Conservation Founda- tion, Washington DC. 123 p. tion of freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat in the glaciated Northeast. Doctor of Philosophy disserta- Gray, Ellen H. 1942. Ecological and life history aspects of tion, Graduate School of the University of Massa- the red-jointed fiddler crab, Uca minax (Le Conte), chusetts, Amherst MA, 180 p. region of Solomons Island, Maryland. Maryland Golet, Frank C. 1973. Freshwater wetlands-who needs Board of Natural Resources, Department of Re- them? Rhode Island Resources 18(2):1-4. search and Education, Chesapeake Biological Labor- atory Publication 51, 20 p. 152 Green, Ralph. 1972. Wetlands on Long Island. Prepared communication to Craig Ten Broeck, Program Plan- for the Regional Marine Resources Council, Nassau- ning and Evaluation, Water Resources Administra- Suffolk Regional Planning Board, under Sea Grant tion, Maryland, 15 November 1972, 1 p. University Project GH063, National Science Foundation. The of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. Center for the Environment and Man, Inc., Hart- Natural Resources Institute, Solomons, Maryland. ford CT, CEM-4103-460, variously paged, 80 p. Heinle, Donald R., David A. Flemer, Joseph F. Ustach, Gucinski, Hermann. 1978. A note on the relation of size Richard A. Murtagh, and Roger P. Harris. 1974. to ecological value of some wetlands. Estuaries The role of organic debris and associated micro- 1:151-156. organisms in pelagic estuarine food chains. Univer- Gupta, Tirath R.,andjohn H. Foster. 1973. Valuation of sity of Maryland, Water Resources Research Cen- visual-cultural benefits from freshwater wetlands in ter, Technical Report 22, 54 p. Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts, De- Heinle, Donald R., David A. Flemer, Joseph F. Ustach, partment of Agricultural and Food Economics, and Richard A. Murtagh. 1975. Contributions of Amherst, MA, 12 p. (typescript). tidal wetlands to estuarine food chains. University Gwathmey, John H. 1945. Potomac River cleared of of Maryland, Water Resources Research Center, floating islands. Maryland Conservationist 22(l):21- Technical Report 29, 18 p. 23, Heit, William S. 1944. Food habits of red foxes of the Hall, K. J., W. C. Weimer, and G. F. Lee. 1970. Amino Maryland marshes. journal of Mammalogy 25:55- acids in an estuarine environment. Limnology and 58. Oceanography 15:162-164. Higgins, Elizabeth A. T., Robert D. Rappleye, and Rus- Hardy, Jerry D., Jr. 1972a. Amphibians of the Chesa- sell G. Brown. 197 1. The flora and ecology of Assa- peake Bay region. Chesapeake Science 13 (supple- teague Island. University of Maryland, Agricultural ment):S123-S128. Experiment Station Bulletin A-172, 70 p. Hardy, Jerry D., Jr. 1972b. Reptiles of the Chesapeake Higman, Daniel. 1972. Emergent vascular plants of Che- Bay region. Chesapeake Science 13 (supplement): sapeake Bay wetlands. Chesapeake Science 13 (Sup- S128-S134. plement):S89-S93. Hardy,Jerry D.,Jr., andj. E. Olmon. 1971. Zoogeography Hildebrand, Samuel F., and William C. Schroeder. 1928. in action: observations on the movements of terres- Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Reprinted, 1972, Smith- trial vertebrates across open water. Maryland Her- sonian Institution, Washington DC, 388 p. petological Society Newsletter 1971(l):4-6. Hillson, C. J. 1976. Codium invades Virginia waters. Hargrave, B. J. 1970. The effect of a deposit-feeding Torrey Botanical Club Bulletin 103:266-267. amphipod on the metabolism of benthic microflora. Hotchkiss, Neil, and Robert E. Stewart. 1947. Vegeta- Limnology and Oceanography 15:21-30. tion of the Patuxent Research Refuge, Maryland. Harper, H.J., and H. A. Daniel. 1934. Chemical composi- American Midland Naturalist 38:1-75. tion of certain aquatic plants. Botanical Gazette Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1973a. An environ- 96:186-189. mental inventory of the Queen Anne's harbor tract, Harris, Herbert S., Jr. 1975. Distributional survey (Am- Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Devon, Pennsyl- phibia/Reptilia): Maryland and the District of vania, 85 p. Columbia. Maryland Herpetological Society Bul- Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1973b. Environmen- letin 11:73-167. tal impact statement on the construction and opera- Harris, Van T. 1952. Muskrats on tidal marshes of tion of Ocean Harbor, a residential and commercial Dorchester County. Maryland Board of Natural Re- development in the City of Brigantine, Atlantic sources, Department of Research and Education, County, New Jersey. Prepared for Brigantine Har- Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Publication 91, bour, Inc., New York, NY. Devon, Pennsylvania, 36 p. 206 p. Harris, Van T. 1953. Ecological relationships of meadow Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1974. Standing crop voles and rice rats in tidal marshes. journal of vegetation analysis of SPA- 1. (Hackensack Meadow- Mammalogy 34:479-487. lands Development Commission, Specially Planned Hausman, Sibyl A. 1932. A contribution to the ecology of Area 1, Secaucus, Hudson County, NJ). In James A. the salt marsh snail, Melampus bidentatus Say. Schmid, 1974. Letter, Schmid, JMA, to Harold American Naturalist 66:541-545. Rosen, Hartz Mountain Industries, 4 November Heald, E.J. 1969. The production of organic detritus in a 1974, 11 p. and 3 attachments. south Florida estuary. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- Jeffries, H. P. 1972. Fatty-acid ecology of a tidal marsh. sity of Miami, 110 p. Limnology and Oceanography 17-.433-440. Heinle, Donald R. 1972. Estimate of standing crops (dry Jenkins, Dale W., and Francis S. L. Williamson. 1973. weight) of marsh vegetation on two Eastern Shore Collection and analysis of remotely sensed data sites. (Somerset County). I table In Heinle written from the Rhode River estuary watershed. Prepared 151 under Contract No. NAS6-1913 by Smithsonian Kerwin, James A., and Robert A. Pedigo. 1971. Synecol- Institution, Chesapeake Bay Center for Environ- ogy of a Virginia salt marsh. Chesapeake Science mental Studies. Annual Report October 10, 197 1, to 12:125-130. October 9, 1972. National Aeronautics and Space Kikuchi, T., andj. M. Peres. 1977. Consumer ecology of Administration, Wallops Station, Wallops Island seagrass beds. In C. P. McRoy and C. Helfferich VA, NASA Contractor Report NASA CR-62094, (Editors), Seagrass ecosystems, a scientific perspec- 72 p. tive. Marcel Dekker, New York NY, p. 147-193. Jenkins, R. E. 1972. Ecosystem restoration. Proceedings Kirby, Conrad J., Jr. 197 1. The annual net primary pro- Third Midwest Prairie Conference, Kansas State duction and decomposition of the salt marsh grass University, Manhattan, Kansas. Spartina alterniflora Loisel in the Barataria Bay Johnson, F. L., and P. G. Risser. 1974. Biomass, annual estuary, Louisiana. Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana net primary production, and dynamics of six min- State University, 74 p, eral elements in a post oak-blackjack oak forest. Kirby, Conradj., andjames G. Gosselink. 1976. Primary Ecology 55:1246-1258. production in a Louisiana Gulf Coast Spartina alter- Johnson, Martin. 1970. Preliminary report on species niflora marsh. Ecology 57:1052-1059. composition, chemical composition, biomass, and Kiviat, Erik. 1978. Vertebrate use of muskrat lodges and production of marsh vegetation in the upper Patux- burrows. Estuaries 1:196-200. ent Estuary, Maryland. In Final technical report for the period August 1968 to August 1970. Submitted Kozicky, Edward L., and Francis V. Schmidt. 1949. Nest- to the Office of Water Resources by the University ing habits of the clapper rail in New Jersey. Auk of Maryland, Natural Resources Institute, Chesa- 66:355-364. peake Biological Laboratory, Solomons MD, Refer- Kraeuter,John N., and Paul L. Wolf. 1974. The relation- ence 70-130, p. 164-178. ship of marine macroinvertebrates to salt marsh Kadler, J. A., and W. A. Wentz. 1974. State-of-the-art plants. In RobertJ. Reimold and William H. Queen survey and evaluation of marsh plant establishment [Editors], Ecology of halophytes. Academic Press, techniques: induced and natural. U.S. Army, Corps Inc., New York NY, p. 449-462. of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Krauss, R. W., Russell G. Brown, Robert D. Rappleye. Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Final Report Contract No. Anna Belle Owens, Carol Shearer, and Esther DACW72-74-C-0010. Hsiao. 1970. Check list, plant species of Chesapeake Kane, Richard, and Richard B. Farrar. 1976. 1976 coastal Bay occurring within the high tide limits of the Bay colonial bird survey of New Jersey. New Jersey and its tributaries. University of Maryland, Depart- Audubon 2 (11; Occasional Paper 125): 8-14. ment of Botany, College Park MD, unpaged, 32 p. Keating, Kathleen Irwin. 1978. Blue-green algal inhibi- (mimeographed). tion of diatom growth: transition from mesotrophic Kuenzler, Edward J., and Howard L. Marshall. 1973. to eutrophic community structure. Science 199:97 1- Effects of mosquito control ditching on estuarine 973. ecosystems. University of North Carolina, Water Keefe, Carolyn W. 1972. Marsh production: a summary Resources Research Institute Report 81, 83 p. of the literature. University of Texas, Contributions Lagna, Lorraine. 1975. The relationship of Spartina in Marine Science 16:163-181. alterniflora to mean high water. New York Sea Grant Institute, State University of New York at Keefe, Carolyn W., and Walter R. Boynton. 1973. Stand- Stony Brook, NYSSGP-RS-75-002, 48 p. ing crop of salt marshes surrounding Chincoteague Latimer, E. J. 1968. An investigation of possibilities for Bay, Maryland-Virginia. Chesapeake Science 14:117- creating salt-marsh in the estuaries of the Atlantic 123. and Gulf coasts. In Webb, J. W. (Editor), Proceed- Kerwin, James A. 197 1. Distribution of the fiddler crab ings of the 22nd Conference of Southeastern Asso- (Uca minax) in relation to marsh plants within a ciation of Game and Fish Commissioners, pp. Virginia estuary. Chesapeake Science 12:180-183. 82-88. Kerwin, James A. 1972. Distribution of the salt marsh Larson, Joseph S. [Editor]. 1973. A guide to important snail (Melampus bidentatus Say) in relation to characteristics and values of fresh water wetlands in marsh plants in the Poropotank River area, Virginia. the Northeast. University of Massachusetts, Water Chesapeake Science 13:150-153. Resources Research Center, Amherst MA, 35 p. Kerwin, James A., Robert E. Munro, and W. W. Allen Lotrich, Victor A. 1975. Summer home range and Peterson. 1976. Distribution and abundance of movements of Fundulus heteroclitus (Pisces: Cy- aquatic vegetation in the upper Chesapeake Bay, prinodontidae) in a tidal creek. Ecology 56:191-198. 1971-1974. In The effects of tropical storm Agnes Lynch, John J., Ted O'Neill, and Daniel W. Lay. 1947. on the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. Chesa- Management significance of damage by geese and peake Research Consortium Publication 54, p. muskrats to Gulf Coast marshes.Journal of Wildlife 393-400. Management 11:50-76. 154 McAtee, W. L. 1939. Wildlife of the Atlantic Coast salt Italian ldrobiologie 29 (Supplement): 35 3-383. marshes. U.S. Department of Agriculture Circular Marples, T. G. 1966. A radionuclide tracer study of 520, 28 p. arthropod food chains in a Spartina salt marsh eco- McCauley, Robert H. 1945. The reptiles of Maryland and system. Ecology 47:270-277. the District of Columbia. Published by the author, Marshall, D. E. 1970. Characteristics of Spartina marsh Hagerstown MD, 266 p. which is receiving treated municipal sewage wastes. McCormick, Jack. 1952. The vegetation of a saline tidal In H. T. Odum and A. F. Chestnut [Editors], Studies marsh at Tuckerton NJ. Unpublished manuscript, of marine estuarine ecosystems developing with 13 P. treated sewage wastes. Annual Report of the In- McCormick, Jack. 1970. The natural features of Tinicum stitute of Marine Science, University of South Marsh, with particular emphasis on the vegetation. Carolina. In Jack McCormick, Robert R. Grant, and Ruth Martin, Alexander C., Herbert S. Zim, and Arnold L. Patrick, Two studies of Tinicum Marsh, Delaware Nelson. 195 1. American wildlife & plants. McGraw- and Philadelphia Counties, Pennsylvania. The Con- Hill Book Company, Inc., New York NY, 500 p. servation Foundation, 123 p., with map. Martin, Alexander C., and Neil Hotchkiss, Franc's M. McCormick, Jack. 1971. Preliminary strategy for site evaluation based on vegetation types. Typewritten Uhler, and Warren S. Bourn. 1953. Classification of report submitted to the Commissioner, New Jersey wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wild- Department of Environmental Protection, by Jack life Service Special Scientific Report (Wildlife) 20, McCormick & Associates, 4 p. 14 p. McCormick, Jack. 1974. Vegetation and flora of Cape Martin, William E. 1959. The vegetation of Island Beach May County, criteria for the designation of sensitive State Park, New Jersey. Ecological Monographs vegetation types. p. 29-32. 29:1-46. McCormick, Jack. 1976. A 1-year baseline survey of Maryland Conservation Commission. 1910 [?]. Report mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians on a of the Maryland Conservation Commission for 2000-acre tract in Logan Township, Gloucester 1908-1909. [Not examined. Quoted by Metzgar County NJ. Unpublished manuscript, 20 p. (1973, p. VI-7).] McCormick, Jack. 1977a. Maximum heights of plants in Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the freshwater tidal marshes. New Jersey Academy of U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1972. Maryland Science Bulletin 22(2):28-30. Wildlife: Biology and Management. Wildlife Man- agement Technical Publication 72-1. McCormick,Jack. 1977b. Prod *uctivity of freshwater tidal Maryland State Planning Department. 1965. Classifica- marsh vegetation (Abstract). New Jersey Academy tion and inventory of wildlife habitats in Maryland. of Science Bulletin 22(2):41. A planning report for the Maryland Commission on McCormick, Jack. 1978. Ecology and the regulation of Hunting Spaces. Prepared in cooperation with Mary- freshwater wetlands. In R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, land Department of Game and Inland Fish and U.S. and R. L. Simpson [Editors], Freshwater wetlands: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Production processes and management potential, Recreation, 74 p. Sponsored by the United States Environmental Maryland Wildlife Administration. 1975. Federal Aid Protection Agency. Academic Press, New York NY, Report. Project Number W-49-R, Furbearers In- McCormick, Jack, and Thomas Ashbaugh. 1972. Vegeta- vestigation, June 1974-August 1975. tion of a section of Oldmans Creek tidal marsh and Mason, H. L. 1973. San Francisco Bay and estuary dredge related areas in Salem and Gloucester Counties, disposal study, use of dredged material for marsh- New Jersey. New Jersey Academy of Science Bulle- land development. Lafayette, California, San Fran- tin 17(2):16-17. cisco Bay Marine Research Center. MacNamara, Elden Everett, and- Harold F. Udell. 1966. [Mattson, Chester P.] 1974. Nitrogen budget determina- Clapper rail investigations on the south shore of tion for a selected site in the Hackensack Meadow- Long Island. Linnaean Society New York Proceed- lands estuary. [Hackensack Meadowlands -Devel- ings 71:120-131. opment Commission, Lyndhurst NJ,] 25 p. McRoy, C. P. 1970. Standing stocks and other features of Mattson, Chester P., Richard Trattner, John Teal, and eelgrass (Zostera marina) populations on the coast Ivan Valiela. 1975. Nitrogen import and uptake of Alaska. journal of the Fisheries Research Board measured on marshes of the Hackensack River in of Canada 27:1811-1821. New Jersey. Hackensack Meadowlands Develop- Maldeis, Richard W. 1978. Survey of the submerged ment Commission, [Lyndhurst NJJ 15 p. vascular vegetation of Eastern Bay. A 507o loss. Mattson, Chester P., and Nicholas C. Vallario. 1976. Chesapeake BayJournal 5(l):25, 35. Water quality in a recovering ecosystem. A report Mann, K. H. 1972, Macrophyte production and detritus on water quality research and monitoring in the food chains in coastal waters. Memoires Institute Hackensack Meadowlands 1971-1975. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, [Lynd- erly. New York State College of Agriculture and hurst NJ,] 46 p. Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, SS- May, Mallory S., 111. 1974. Probable agents for the forma- 407, 47 p. tion of detritus from the halophyte, Spartina alter- Nelson, Thurlow C. 1947. Some contributions from the niflora. In RobertJ. Reimold and William H. Queen land in determining conditions of life in the sea. [Editors], Ecology of halophytes. Academic Press, Ecological Monographs 17:337-346. Inc., New York NY p. 429-440. Nicholson, William R., and R. D. Van Deusen. 1953. Meanley, Brooke, 1961. Late-summer food of redwinged Vegetative type mapping of Eastern Shore and blackbirds in a fresh tidal river marsh. Wilson Bul- Atlantic coastal marshes in Maryland. Northeast letin 73:36-40. Section of the Wildlife Society Annual Conference Meanley, Brooke. 1964. Origin, structure, molt, and dis- Proceedings 9:1-6. [Not examined. Lengthy quote posal of a late summer red-winged blackbird popu- in Office of River Basin Studies 1954]. lation. Bird-Banding 35:32-38. Nicholson, William R., and R. D. Van Deusen. 1954. Meanley, Brooke. 1965. Early-fall food and habitat of the Marshes of Maryland. Maryland Game and Inland sora in the Patuxent River marsh, Maryland. Chesa- Fish Commission, Department of Research and peake Science 6:235-237. Education Resource Study Report 6, 12 p. [Not Meanley, Brooke. 1975. Birds and marshes of the Chesa- seen.] peake Bay country. Tidewater Publishers, Cam- Nicholson, William R., and R. D. Van Deusen. 1956. bridge MD, 157 p@ Wetlands of Maryland. Maryland Game and Inland Meanley, Brooke, andjohn S. Webb. 1963. Nesting ecol- Fish Commission, Baltimore MD, Pittman-Robert- ogy and reproductive rate of the red-winged black- son Project W-30-R, 10 p. + tables and maps. bird in tidal marshes of the upper Chesapeake Bay Nixon, Scott W., and Candace A. Oviatt. 1972. Prelimi- region. Chesapeake Science 4:90-100. nary measurements of midsummer metabolism in Mendelssohn, Irvina A., and Kenneth L. Marcellus. 1976 beds of eelgrass, Zostera marina. Ecology 53: Angiosperm production of three Virginia marhes 150-153. in various salinity and soil nutrient regimes. Chesa- Nixon, Scott W., and Candace A. Oviatt. 1973. Ecology of peake Science 17:15-23. a New England salt marsh. Ecological Monographs Metzgar, Roy G. 1973, Wetlands in Maryland. State of 43:463-498. Maryland, Department of Natural Resources, De- Norton,J. B. S., and Russell G. Brown. 1946. A catalog of partment of Economic and Community Develop- the vascular plants of Maryland. Castanea 11:1-50. ment, and Department of State Planning Publica- Odum, Eugene P. 1961..The role of tidal marshes in tion 157, variously paged, 229 p@ estuarine production. The Conservationist (New Miller, Kenneth G., and Don Maurer. 1973. Distribution York Conservation Department) June-July, p. 12- of the fiddler crabs, Uca pugnax and Uca minax, in 15,35. relation to salinity in Delaware rivers. Chesapeake Odum, Eugene P. 197 1. Fundamentals of ecology. 3d edi- Science 14:219-221. tion. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia PA, 574 p. Miller, William R., and Frank E. Egler. 1950. Vegetation Odum, Eugene P., and Armando A. de la Cruz. 1967. of the Wequetequock-Pawca tuck tidal marshes, Particulate organic detritus in a Georgia salt marsh- Connecticut. Ecological Monographs 20:143-172. estuarine ecosystem. In G. H. Lauff (Editor), Estu- Mobberly, D. G. 1956. Taxonomy and distribution of the aries. American Association for the Advancement genus Spartina. Iowa State College journal of of Science, p. 383-388. Science 30:471-574. Odum, Eugene P., and M. E. Fanning. 1973. Comparison Moeller, Henry W. 1964. A standing crop estimate of of the productivity of Spartina alterniflora and some marine plants in Barnegat Bay. New Jersey Spartina cynosuroides in Georgia coastal marshes. Academy of Science Bulletin 9(l):27-30. Georgia Academ@ of Science Bulletin 31:1-12. Mooring, M. T., and Arthur W. Cooper, and E. D. Seneca. Odum, Eugene P., and Alfred E. Smalley. 1959. Compari- 1971. Seed germination response and evidence for son of population energy flow of a herbivorous and height ecophenes in Spartina alterniflora from a deposit-feeding invertebrate in a salt marsh eco- North Carolina. American journal of Botany system. National Academy of Science Proceedings 58:48-55. 45:617-622. Morgan, Marcia Hazelton. 1961. Annual angiosperm Odum, William E. 1970. Pathways of energy flow in a production of a salt marsh. Master's thesis, Univer- south Florida estuary. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- sity of Delaware, Newark DE, 34 p. sity of Miami, Miami FL, 162 p. Neafsey, Joseph A. 1973. Developing criteria for the Odum, William E., and Stephen S. Skjei. 1974. The issue evaluation of wetlands. Administered by the New of wetlands preservation and management: a second 'York State Assembly Scientific Staff and the New view. Coastal Zone ManagementJournal 1: 151-163. York Sea Grant Program, directed byJohn H. Pev- Odum, William E., J. C. Zieman, and E. J. Heald. 1972. 156 The importance of vascular plant detritus to estu- tive account of the furred animals of land and sea, aries. In Second Marsh and Estuary Management both living and extinct, known to have existed in Symposium. Louisiana State University. these states. Privately published, Philadelphia PA, Office of River Basin Studies. 1954. Wetlands inventory 266 p. of Maryland. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish Ringle, Ken. 1977. The mute swan is destroying its and Wildlife Service, Boston, MA, 31 p. image and Bay's ecology. The Washington Post, 28 Orth, R.J. 1975. Destruction of eelgrass, Zostera marina, September, p. Cl, C4. by the cownose ray, Rhinoptera bonasus, in the Robbins, Chandler S., Bertel Bruun, and Herbert S. Zim. Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Science 16:205. 1966. Birds of North America, a guide to field identi- Oviatt, Candace A., Scott W. Nixon, and Jonathan fication. Golden Press, New York NY, 340 p. Garber. 1977. Variation and evaluation of coastal Schme1z, G. W. 1964. A natural history of the mummi- salt marshes. Environmental Management 1:201- chog, Fundulus heteroclitus (Linnaeus), in Canary 211. Creek Marsh. Master of Science thesis, University Paradiso, John L. 1969. Mammals of Maryland. U.S. of Delaware, Newark DE, 65 p. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisher- Schultz, D. M., andJ. G. Quinn. 1973. Fatty acid composi- ies and Wildlife, North American Fauna 66, 193 p. tion of organic detritus from Spartina alterniflora. Paradiso, John L., and Charles 0. Handley, Jr. 1965. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 1:177-190. Checklist of mammals of Assateague Island. Chesa- Schwartz, FrankJ. 1967. Maryland turtles. University of peake Science 6:167-171. Maryland, Natural Resources Institute Educational Penkala, Joseph. 1973. Wetland ecology, food habitat Series 79, 38 p. studies. New Jersey Department of Environmental Shanholtzer, G. Frederick. 1974. Relationship of verte- Protection, Trenton, 6 p. brates to salt marsh plants. In Robert J. Reimold Phillip, C. C., and Russell G. Brown. 1965. Ecological and William H. Queen [Editors], Ecology of halo- studies of transition-zone vascular plants in South phytes. Academic Press, Inc., New York NY, p. River, Maryland. Chesapeake Science 6:73-81. 463-474. Pomeroy, L. R., RobertJ. Reimold, L. R. Shento, and R. Shaw, Samuel P., and C. Gordon Fredine. 1956a. Wet- D. H. Jones. 1972. Nutrient flux in estuaries. In G. lands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife E. Likens (Editor), Nutrients and eutrophication, Service Circular 39, 67 p. American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Shaw, Samuel P., and C. Gordon Fredine. 1956b. Wet- Special Symposia Volume 1:274-296. lands of Maryland. Pittman- Robertson Investiga- Porro, Alfred A. 1977. Confluence of science and law: tion Project W-30-R. [Not seen.] Estuarine zone. Unpublished address, presented at Shaw, Samuel P., and C. Gordon Fredine. 1956c. Per- the Workshop on the Value and Health of a Marsh, manent water inventory-Maryland. United States 13-14 April 1977, held at the Skidaway Institute of Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Ser- Oceanography, University of Georgia,and spon- vice, Office of River Basin Studies, Atlanta GA [Not sored by the Georgia Sea Grant Program and the seen.] Coastal Plains Regional Commission. Photo-repro- Shea, M. L., R. S. Warren, and W. A. Niering. 1975. duced by the Author, Lyndhurst NJ, variously Biochemical and transplantation studies of the paged, 52 p. growth form of Spartina alterniflora on Connecti- Potera, G. T., and Elden Everett MacNamara. 1972. cut salt marshes. Ecology 56:461-466. Spartina alterniflora (tall) productivity in a polluted Shima, L. J., Richard R. Anderson, and Virginia P. Car- NewJersey estuary. NewJersey Academy of Science ter. 1976. The use of aerial color infrared photo- Bulletin 17(l):13-14. graphy in mapping the vegetation of a freshwater Ranwell, D. S. 1972. Ecology of salt marshes and sand marsh. Chesapeake Science 17:74-85. dunes. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London, 258 pp. Shure, DonaldJ. 197 1. Tidal flooding dynamics: its influ- Reed, C. F, 1977. History and distribution of eurasian ence on small mammals in barrier beach marshes. water milfoil in United States and Canada. Phytolo- American Midland Naturalist 85:36-44. gia 36:417-436. Shuster, Carl N., Jr. 1959. A biological evaluation of the Reimold, RobertJ. 1972. The movement of phosphorus Delaware River estuary. University of Delaware, through the salt marsh cordgrass, Spartina alterni- Marine Laboratories Information Series Publica- flora Loisel. Limnology and Oceanography 17:606- tion 3, 77 p. 611. Shuster, Carl N., Jr. 1966. The nature of a tidal marsh. Reimold, Robert J., and William H. Queen [Editors]. The Conservationist (New York Conservation De- 1974. Ecology of halophytes. Academic Press, Inc., partment), August-September, p. 22-23, 26-29, 36. New York NY, 605 pp. Sieburth, John McNeill. 1976. Bacterial substrates and Rhoads, Samuel N. 1903. The mammals of Pennsylvania productivity in marine ecosystems. Annual Review and New Jersey. A biographic, historic and descrip- of Ecology and Systematics 7:259-285. 117 Silberhorn, Gene M. 1976. Tidal wetland plants of Vir- Ecology 50:1087-1089. ginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Educa- Starr, T. J. 1956. Relative amounts of vitamin B11 in tional Series 19, 85 p. detritus from oceanic and estuarine environments Silberhorn, Gene M., George M. Dawes, and Thomas A. near Sapelo Island, Georgia. Ecology 37: 658-664. Barnard,jr. 1974. Guidelines for activities affecting Stearns, L. A., and M. W. Goodwin. 1941. Notes on the Virginia wetlands. Virginia Institute of Marine winter feeding of the muskrat in Delaware. journal Science, Coastal Wetlands of Virginia Interim Re- of Wildlife Management 5:1-12. port 3 (Special Report in Applied Marine Science Stearns, L. A., Donald MacCreary, and F. C. Daigh. 1940. and Ocean Engineering 46), 52 p. Effect of ditching for mosquito control on the Sipple, William S. 1977. The geographical distribution of muskrat population of a Delaware tide-water marsh. the salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora Loi- University of Delaware, Agricultural Experiment sel) in Maryland. Bartonia 45 (1976-1977):49-52. Station Bulletin 225 (Technical Bulletin 26), 55 p. Slavin, Patrick T., Ralph E. Good, and Edwin R. Squiers. Steenis, J. H., and G. M. King. 1964. Report of inter- 1975. Effects of three mosquito larviciding oils on agency workshop meeting on eurasian water milfoil. production of salt marsh Sparti .na grasses. Bulletin U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology Research Center Mimeo Report, 25 p. 13:534-536. Steenisj H., V. D. Stotts, and C. R. Rawls. 1971. Status Smalljohn A., and William E. Martin. 1958. A partially of Eurasian watermilfoil and associated species in annotated catalogue of vascular plants reported the Cheapeake Bay area, 1970 and 1971. Patuxent from, Island Beach State Park, New Jersey. Torrey Wildlife Research Center, mimeographed report, Botanical Club Bulletin 85:368-386. 13 p. Smalley, Alfred E. 1959. The growth cycle of Spartina Stevensonj. Court, Donald R. Cahoon, and Ann Seaton. and its relation to the insect populations in the 1976. Energy flow in freshwater zones of a brackish marsh. University of Georgia, Marine Institute, Chesapeake Bay marsh ecosystem. In Dennis F. Proceedings of a salt marsh conference, Sapelo Whigham, Ralph E. Good, and Robert L. Simpson Island, Georgia, 1958, p. 96-100. (organizers) Abstracts of a symposium on produc- Smalley, Alfred E. 1960. Energy flow of a salt marsh tion ecology of freshwater tidal and non-tidal grasshopper population. Ecology 41:785-790. marshes. Sponsored by the Aquatic Ecology Section, Smith, F. R. 1938. Muskrat investigations in Dorchester Ecological Society of America. Mimeographed, p. 6. County, Maryland, 1930-34. U.S. Department of (Also in Aquatic Ecology Newsletter of the Ecologi- Agriculture Circular 474, 24 p. cal Society of America, volume 9.). Southwick, Charles H., and Frank W. Pine. 1975. Abun- Stewart, Robert E. 1949. Birds of the marshes. Wood dance of submerged vascular vegetation in the Thrush 4:92-99. Rhode River from 1966 to 1973. Chesapeake Stewart, Robert E. 1951. Clapper rail populations of the Science 16:147-151. Middle Atlantic States. North American Wildlife Springer, P. F., and Robert E. Stewart. 1959. Condition of Conference Transactions 17:421-430. waterfowl feeding grounds on the Susquehanna Stewart, Robert E. 1962. Waterfowl populations in the Flats during the fall of 1959, with notes on the Upper Chesapeake region. U.S. Department of the invasion of a serious plant pest. U.S. Fish and Wild- Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport life Service, Patuxent Research Refuge Mimeo Fisheries and Wildlife Special Scientific Report- Report, 7 p. Wildlife 65, 208 p. Squiers, Edwin R., and Ralph E. Good. 1974. Seasonal Stewart, Robert E., and Chandler S. Robbins. 1958. Birds changes in the productivity, caloric content, and of Maryland and the District of Columbia. U.S. chemical composition of a population of salt-marsh Fish and Wildlife Service, North American Fauna cord-grass (Spartina alterniflora). Chesapeake Sci- 62, 401 p. ence 15:63-71. Stone, Witmer. 1911. The plants of southern Newiersey Stake, E. 1967. Higher vegetation and nitrogen in a with special reference to the Pine Barrens and the rivulet in central Sweden. Schweiz. [?] Z. Hydrol, geographic distribution of the species. New Jersey 29:107-124. State Museum Annual Report 1910. Stake, E. 1968. Higher vegetation and phosphorus in a Stroud, L. M. 1976. Net primary production of below- small stream in central Sweden. Schweiz [?] Z. ground material and carbohydrate patterns of two Hydrol. 30:3@53-373. height forms of Spartina alterniflora in two North Stalter, Richard. 1973. Transplantation of salt marsh Carolina marshes. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carol- vegetation 11, Georgetown, South Carolina. Casta- ina State University, Raleigh NC, 140 p. (Fide de la nea 38:132-139. Cruz and Hackney 1977). Stalter, R., and W. T. Batson. 1969. Transplantation of Stroud, L., and A. W. Cooper. 1968. Color-infrared aerial salt marsh vegetation, Georgetown, South Carolina. photographic interpretation and net primary pro- ductivity of a regularly flooded North Carolina salt 158 marsh. Report No. 14, Water Resources Institute, Waksman, Selman A. 1934. The role of bacteria in the University of North Carolina. cycle of life in the sea. Scientific Monthly 38:35-49. Stuckey, Irene H. 1970. Measuring the productivity of Waksman, Selman A., H. W. Reuszer, C. L. Carey, M. salt marshes. University of Rhode Island, Graduate Hotchkiss, and C. E. Renn. 1933. Studies on the School of Oceanography, Maritimes 14(l):9-11. biology and chemistry of the Gulf of Maine, 111. Sullivan, M. J., and F. C. Daiber. 1974. Response in Bacteriological investigations of the sea water and production of cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, to marine bottoms. Biological Bulletin 64:183-205. inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer. Chesa- Walker, R., and Ralph E. Good. 1976. Vegetation and peake Science 15:121-123. production for some Mullica River-Great Bay tidal Taschdjian, E. 1954. A note on Spartina protein. Eco- marshes. (Abstract). New Jersey Academy of Sci- nomic Botany 8:164-165. ence Bulletin 21:20. Teal, John M. 1959. Energy flow in the salt marsh eco- Ward, L. F. 1881. Guide to the flora of Washington and system. University of Georgia, Marine Institute, vicinity. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 22, 764 p. Proceedings of a salt marsh conference, Sapelo Wass, Marvin L., and Thomas D. Wright. 1969. Coastal Island, Georgia, 1958, p. 101-107. wetlands of Virginia. Interim report to the Gover- Teal, John M. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh nor and General Assembly. Virginia Institute of ecosystem of Georgia. Ecology 43:614-624. Marine Science, Gloucester Point VA, Special Terry, Orville W., Harold F. Udell, and John D. Zarud- Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engi- sky. 1974. Tidal marsh restoration at Hempstead, neering 10:1-154. Long Island. Shore and Beach 42(2):36-37. Weibe, W. J., and L. R. Pomeroy. 1972. Microorganisms Thayer, G. W., S. M. Adams, and W. W. LaCroix. 1975. and their association with aggregates and detritus Structural and functional aspects of a recently and its role in aquatic ecosystems. Memorie Dell'In- established Zostera marina community. In L. E. stituto Italiano Di Idrobiologia 29, p. 325-352. Cronin (Editor), Second International Estuarine Welsh, Barbara L. 1975. The role of grass shrimp, Research Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Palaemonetes pugio, in a tidal marsh ecosystem. October 1973, p. 15-18. Ecology 56:513-530. Thompson, Oliver Howie. 1974. An annotated checklist Whigham, Dennis F. 1975. Autecological studies of wild and ecological notes on the plants of the marshes rice (Zizania aquatica). In Dennis Whigham and occurring in the Maryland portion of the Chesa- Robert L. Simpson, Ecological studies of the Hamil- peake Estuary. M.S. thesis, University of Maryland, ton Marshes, progress report for the period June, College Park MD, 100 p. 1974-January, 1975. Biology Department, Rider Trout, J. Richard, and Lee Widjeskog. 1976. Marsh pro- College, Trenton NJ, p. 124-144. ductivity. New Jersey Department of Environmen- Whigham, Dennis F., and Suzanne E. Bayley. 1978. Nut- tal Protection, Division of Fish, Game and Shell- rient dynamics in freshwater wetlands. Chesapeake fisheries, Bureau of Wildlife Management, Trenton Bay Center for Environmental Studies, Smithsonian NJ. Performance Report, Project W-53-R@4, 23 p. Institution, Edgewater MD, and Maryland Coastal Tyrawski,John Michael. 1977. A study of four colonies of Zone Management, Department of Natural Re- the common reedgrass (Phragmites communis sources, Annapolis MD, unpublished manuscript, Trin.) located in the coastal zone areas of Delaware. 24 p. M.S. thesis, University of Delaware, Newark DE. Whigham, Dennis F., Jack McCormick, Ralph E. Good, and Robert L. Simpson, Jr. 1978. Biomass and pri- Udell, Harold F., John D. Zarudsky, T. E. Doheny, and mary production in freshwater wetlands of the Paul R. Burkholder. 1969. Productivity and nutrient Middle Atlantic Coast. In R. E. Good, D. F. values of plants growing in the salt marshes of the Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (Editors), Freshwater town of Hempstead, Long Island. Torrey Botanical wetlands: Production, processes and management Club Bulletin 96:42-51. potential. Sponsored by the United States Environ- Valiela, Ivan, John M. Teal, and N. Y. Persson. 1976. mental Protection Agency. Academic Press, New Production and dynamics of experimentally en- York NY. riched salt marsh vegetation. Limnology and Ocean- Whigham, Dennis F., and Robert L. Simpson. 1975. ography 21:245-252. Ecological studies of the Hamilton Marshes, pro- Valiela, Ivan, John M. Teal, and Warren Sass. 1973. gress report for the period June, 1974-January, Nutrient retention in salt marsh plots experimen- 1975. Biology Department, Rider College, Trenton tally fertilized with sewage sludge. Estuarine and NJ, 185 p. Coastal Marine Science 1:261-269. Whigham, Dennis F., and Robert L. Simpson. 1976a. Waksman, Selman A. 1933. On the distribution of Sewage spray irrigation in a Delaware River fresh- organic matter in the sea bottom and the chemical water tidal marsh. In D. L. Tilton, R. H. Kadlec, and nature and origin of marine humus. Soil Science C. J. Richardson (Editors), Proceedings of. the 36:125-147. National Symposium on Freshwater Wetlands and 159 Sewage Effluent Disposal. University of Michigan Willner, Gale R., Joseph A. Chapman, and James R. Press, Ann Arbor MI, p. 119-144. Goldsberry. 1975. A study and review of muskrat Whigham, Dennis F., and Robert L. Simpson. 1976b. food habits with special reference to Maryland. The potential use of freshwater tidal marshes in the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Mary- management of water quality in the Delaware land Wildlife Administration Publications in Wild- River. In Joachim Tourbier and Robert W. Pierson, life Ecology 1, 25 p. Jr. (Editors), Biological control of water pollution. Wilson, D. P. 1949. The decline of Zostera marina L. at University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia PA, Salcombe and its effects on the shore. Journal of the p. 173-186. Marine Biology Association of the United Kingdom Whigham, Dennis, and Robert Simpson. 1977. Growth, 28:395-412. mortality, and biomass partitioning in freshwater Woodhouse, W. W., and others. 1974. Propagation of tidal wetland populations of wild rice (Zizania Spartina alterniflora for substrate stabilization and aquatica var. aquatica.) salt marsh development. (Abstract.) Dredged Williams, Richard B., and Marianne B. Murdoch. 1969. Material Research (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways The potential importance of Spartina alterniflora in Experiment Station) Miscellaneous Paper D-74-9, conveying zinc, manganese, and iron into estuarine 2 p. food chains. In Daniel J. Nelson and Francis C. Woodhouse, W. W., Jr., E. D. Seneca, and S. W. Broome. Evans (Editors), Symposium of radioecology. U.S. 1972. Marsh building with dredge spoil in North Atomic Energy Commission, Washington DC, pp. Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment 431-439. Station Bulletin 445, 28 P. Williams, Richard B., and Marianne B. Murdoch. 1972. Woodhouse, W. W., Jr., E. D. Seneca, and S. W. Broome. Compartmental analysis of the production of juncus 1974. Propagation of Spartina alterniflora for sub- roemerianus in a North Carolina salt marsh. Chesa- strate stabilization and salt marsh development. peake Science 13:69-79. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineer- Williamson, Francis S. L. 1974. Investigations on classi- ing Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Tech- fication categories for wetlands of Chesapeake Bay nical Memorandum 46. using remotely sensed data. Prepared under Con- ZoBell, Claude E., and Catharine B. Feltham. 1938. Ba:c- tract No. NAS6-1913 by Smithsonian Institution, teria as food for certain marine invertebrates. jour- Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies. nal of Marine Research 4:312-327. Annual Report October 10, 1972 to October 9,1973. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, ZoBell, Claude E., and Catharine B. Feltham. 1942. The Wallops Flight Center, Wallops Island, VA, NASA bacterial flora of a marine mud flat as an ecological Contractor Report NASA CR-137479, 101 p. factor. Ecology 23:69-78. ZoBell, C. E. 1946. Marine microbiology. Waltham MA, 240 p. (Fide Dexter 1947). 160 8. GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS USED IN THE TEXT Biomass. The total amount of organic material present forage, and other useful products. They also are used during a specific instant in a community or in a widely in landscaping and erosion control. particular population or other component of the Herb. Any seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial community. Also termed "standing crop" (q. v.). forb, grass, or grasslike plant that has a soft, rather Community. The plants, animals and/or microorganisms than woody, stem and dies back at least to the soil that occur together in a particular place, and which surface during the winter. interact with one another in various ways. Herbivore. An animal whose diet consists wholly or Consumer. An organism that feeds on living or dead largely of plant material. organic matter and, thus, obtains energy and nutri- Population. All of the individuals of a particular taxon ents by digesting complex organic matter rather which inhabit a particular area or which are related than by synthesizing such matter from inorganic structurally, genetically, or spatially in some way substances. Consumers are said to be heterotrophic that is defined by the author. (other-feeding), whereas green plants and certain Producer. An individual, population, or community of other organisms that synthesize organic matter organisms, usually of green plants, that synthesizes from inorganic substances are said to be autotrophic organic matter from inorganic raw materials and, in (self -feeding). the process, transforms free energy into a fixed Decomposer. A plant or animal that feeds on dead condition in chemical bonds. organic matter and causes its mechanical disintegra- Productivity, gross primary. The rate at which energy is tion or chemical decomposition. Decomposers in- fixed by a particular population or community of clude saprophytes and scavengers, and may be producers. microscopic (bacteria, many fungi) or large (vulture). Productivity, net primary. The rate of increase in the Detritivore. An animal that utilizes particulate organic energy that is contained in a particular population matter for at least a part of its food supply. Suspen- or community of producers after the amount of sion feeders filter organic particles from the water energy that is lost by respiraton is deducted from column. Deposit feeders utilize particulate organic the gross productivity. matter that collects on bottom in a body of water. Saprophyte. A plant which obtains energy, nutrients or Some detritivores are listed in Table 25. other raw materials from dead plant or animal Detritus. Loose material produced by disintegration. bodies. Most organic detritus is produced by the disintegra- Scavenger. An animal that feeds on the wastes or dead tion and decay of plant tissues, principally of leaves bodies of other animals or on refuse. and stems. Shrub. A woody plant that usually has two or more stems Food chain. A linear series of plants and animals that are which arise from the root, and which generally does interrelated by the feeding habits of the animals. A not exceed 12 feet in height at maturity. green plant, a leaf-eating insect, and an insect- Standing crop. See Biomass. Standing crop may be eating bird would form the links in a simple food limited by specific definition to the amount of a chain. particular constituent, such as carbon. Food web. A complex network formed by the numerous Taxon (plural=taxa). A term that is used to describe any interlocking food chains characteristic of any com- classificatory unit or level. It generally is employed munity. Because any particular organism usually to distinguish two or more individuals or popula- represents a link in two to many food chains, when tions that differ from one another in a way that is all possible food chains are represented in a single known or unknown, or to allow for future distinc- diagram, the chains cross and interlink in the form tions. For example, one may refer to "ten taxa" in a of a matrix or web. case in which seven individuals are of different Forb. A broadleaf herbaceous plant. genera and three individuals represent one genus, Grass. Any plant of the Family Gramineae. Characteris- but are of different species. tically, grasses have long, narrow leaves which grow Tree. A woody plant with a single main stem (trunk), a from hollow, herbaceous stems (most bamboos more or less distinct crown of leaves, and which is have woody stems). Perennial grasses develop from 12 or more feet tall. rhizomes, or underground stems. The aerial stems, Vascular plants. Plants that have a specialized system or culms, are able to elongate from the base and, through which fluids are conducted; this group thus, can persist when grazed by animals or mowed. includes horsetails, clubmosses, ferns, conifers, and Grasses economically are the most valuable family flowering plants. of plants because they are the sources of most sugar, 161 APPENDIX 1. COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS THAT ARE MENTIONED IN THE TEXT AND TABLES Table 77. Common and scientific names of submerged Table 78. Common and scientific names of trees, shrubs, aquatic plants that are known to grow in the coastal and woody vines that are cited in the text and tables. waters of Maryland (Stewart 1962; Thompson 1974; Scientific nomenclature is that of Fernald (1950). Bayley and others 1978). Alders Alnus spp. Alder, seaside Alnus maritima Alder, smooth Alnus serrulata Common Names Scientific Names Arrowwood, southern Viburnum dentatum Ashes Fraxinus spp. Green algae Phylum Chlorophyta Ash, green Fraxinus pensylvanica subintegerrima Enteromorpha Enteromorpha spp. Ash, red Fraxinus pensylvanica Sealettuce Ulva lactuca Azalea, clammy Rhododendron viscosum Spirogyra Spirogyra spp. Azalea, pink Rhododendron nudiflorum Nitella Nitella spp. Baldcypress Taxodium distichum Muskgrasses Chara spp. Bayberry Myrica pensylvanica Brown algae Phylum Phaeophyta Beech Fagus grandifolia Red algae Phylum Rhodophyta Birch, river Betula nigra Mosses Blackberries Rubus spp. Water moss Leptodictyum riparium Black cherry Prunus serotina Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica Flowering Plants Blackgum, swamp Nyssa sylvatica biflora Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum Blackhaw Viburnum prunifolium Eelgrass Zostera marina Bluebeech Carpinus caroliniana Naiads Najas spp. Blueberry, highbush Vaccinium corymbosum Naiad, northern Najas flexilis Bullbrier Smilax rotundifolia Naiad, small Najaf minor Buttonbush Cepbalanthus occidentalis Naiad, southern Najas guadalupensis Chokeberry, red Pyrus arbutifolia Pondweeds Potamogeton spp. Cottonwood, swamp Populus heterophylla Pondweed, curlyleaf Potamogeton crispus Crossvine Bignonia capreolata Pondweed, flatstem Potamogeton zosteriformis Dogwoods Cornus spp. Pondweed, floating Potamogeton nodosus Dogwood, silky Cornus amomum Pondweed, grassleaf Potamogeton pusillus Elms Ulmus spp. Pondweed, horned Zannichellia palustris Fringetree Chionanthus virginicus Pondweed, largeleaf Potamogeton amplifolius Grapes Vitis spp. Pondweed, leafy Potamogeton foliosus Greenbriers Smilax spp. Pondweed, redhead Potamogeton perfoliatus bupleuroides Greenbrier, laurelleaf Smilax laurifolia Pondweed, ribbonleaf Potamogeton epihydrus nuttallii Greenbrier, redberry Smilax walteri Pondweed, Richardson Potamogeton richardsonii Groundselbush Baccharis halimifolia Pondweed, Robbins Potamogeton robbinsii Holly, American Ilex opaca Pondweed, sago Potamogeton pectinatus Honeysuckle, Japanese Lonicera japonica Pondweed, sported Potamogeton pulcher Leuchothoe, swamp Leucothoe racemosa Pondweed, variableleaf Potamogelon gramineus Maleberry Lyonia ligustrina Watermilfoil, Eurasian Myriophyllum spicatum Maples Acer spp. Watermilfoil, pinnate Myriophyllum pinnatum Maple, red Acer rubrum Watermilfoil, slender Myriophyllum tenellum Marshelder Iva frutescens Waternymph Najaf gracillima Mistletoe Phoradendron flavescens Waterstargrass Heteranthera dubia Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia Waterstarwort Callitriche beterophylla Myrtles Myrica spp. Waterweed, common Elodea canadensis Nightshade, bittersweet Solanum dulcamara Waterweed, giant Elodea densa Oaks Quercus spp. Waterweed, Nuttall Elodea nuttallii Oak, pin Quercus palustris Wigeongrass Ruppia maritima Oak, white Quercus alba Wildcelery Vallisneria americana Oak, willow Quercus phellos Oxeye, sea Borrichia frutescens Pawpaw Asimina triloba Persimmon Dioqspyros virginiana Pine, loblolly Pinus taeda Pine, pond Pinus serotina Poison ivy Rhus radicans Possumhaw Ilex decidua Red cedar Juniperus virginiana Rose, multiflora Rosa multiflora Rose, swamp Rosa palustris Spicebush Lindera henzoin Sumac, shining Rhus copallina Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Strawberrybush Euonymus americanus Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 165 Table 78 Common and scientific names of trees, shrubs, Table 79. Common and scientific names of the broadleaf and woody vines cited in the text and tables (Concluded). herbaceous plants that are cited in the text (Continued). Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Dodder, swamp Cuscuta compacta Trumpetvine Campsis radicans Duckpotato Sagittaria latifolia Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera Duckweeds Lemna spp. Virginiacreeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Duckweed, small Lemna minor Waxmyrtle Myrica cerifera Fern, cinnamon Osmunda cinnamomea White cedar, southern Chamaecyparis thyoides Fern, marsh Dryopteris thelypteris Willows Salix spp. Fern, netted chain Woodwardia aerolata Willow, black Salix nigra Fern, resurrection Polypodium polypodioides Willow, Virginia Itea virginica Fern, royal 0smunda regalis spectabilis Winterberry Ilex verticillata Fern, sensitive Onoclea sensibilis Witherod Viburnum cassinoides Fleabane, marsh Pluchea purpurascens succulenta Witherod, smooth Viburnum nudum Fleabane, stinking Pluchea foetida Gentian, Catesby Gentiana catesbei Gerardia, purple Gerardia purpurea Gerardia, seaside Gerardia maritima Table 79. Common and scientific names of the broadleaf Germander, American Teucrium canadense herbaceous plants that are cited in the text and tables. Glassworts Salicornia spp. Scientific nomenclature is that of Fernald (1950). Glasswort, dwarf Salicornia bigelovii Glasswort, perennial Salicornia virginica Shrubform Herbs Glasswort, slender Salicornia europaea Loosestrife, spiked Lythrum salicaria Goldenclub Orontium aquaticum Mallow, seashore Kosteletzkya virginica Goldenrods Solidago spp. Rosemallow, pink Hibiscus palustris Goldenrod, seaside Solidago sempervirens Rosemallow, white Hibiscus moscheutos Groundnut Apios americana cleistogama Waterwillow Decodon verticillatus Hempweed, climbing Mikania scadens Joe-Pye-weed Eupatorium fistulosum Forbs (Other broadleaf herbs) Knotweed, bushy Polygonum ramosissimum Arrowarum Peltandra virginica Knotweed, seabeach Polygonum glaucum Arrowgrass, maritime Triglochin maritima Knotweed, shore Polygonum Prolificum Arrowheads Sagittaria spp. Ladysthumb Polygonum persicaria Asters Aster spp. Lilaeopsis Lilaeopsis chinensis Aster, annual marsh Aster suhulatus Lizardtail Saururus cernums Aster, perennial marsh Aster tenuifolius Loosestrifes Lysimachia spp. Aster, smooth heath Aster pilosus demotus Loosestrife, narrowleaf Lythrum lineare Aster, southern annual marsh Aster suhulatus euroauster Marshpink Sabatia stellaris Bedstraw, stiff marsh Galium tinctorium Marshpink, white Sabatia stellaris albiflora Beggarlice Desmodium spp. Meadowbeauty Rhexia virginica Beggarticks Bidens spp. Mermaidweed Prosperpinaca palustris Beggarticks, black Bidens frondosa Milkweed, swamp Asclepias incarnata pulchra Beggarticks, leafybract Bidens comosa Milkwort, sea Glaux maritima Beggarricks, swamp Bidens connata Milkwort, whorled Polygala verticillata Bindweed Convolvulus spp. Morningglory, red Ipomoea coccinea Bindweed, field Convolvulus arvensis Muskratweed Thalictrum polygamum Bindweed, hedge Convolvulus sepium Nettles Urtica spp. Bishopweed, mock Ptilimnium capillaceum Nightshade, bittersweet Solanum dulcamara Bluecurls Trichostema dichotomum Orach,seabeach Atriplex arenaria Boghemp Boehmeria cylindrica Orach, spreading Atriplex patula Bugleweeds Lycopus spp. Orach, hastate Atriplex patula hastata Bugleweed, European Lycopus europaeus Pennywort, water Hydrocotyle umhellata Bugleweed, reddot Lycopus rahellus Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata Burmarigolds Bidens spp. Pigweed, seabeach Amaranthus pumilis Burmarigold, rayless Bidens discoidea Pimpernel, false Lindernia dubia Burmarigold, smooth Bidens laevis Pinkweed Polygonum pensylvanicum Burreeds Sparganium spp. Plantain, marsh Plantago major scopulorum Burreed, branching Sparganium americanum Plantain, seaside Plantago juncoides decipiens Burreed, great Sparganium eurycarpum Primrosewillow, creeping Juissiaea repens glabrescens Camphorweed Pluchea camphorata Ragweed, giant Ambrosia trinfida Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis Saltwort Salsola kali Clearweed Pilea pumila Saltwort, smooth Salsola kali caroliniana Coastblite Chenopodium rubrum Sandspurrey, common Spergularia canadensis Cocklebur, beach Xanthium echinatum Sandspurrey, marsh Spergularia marina Coneflower Rudheckia laciniata Sandwort, seabeach Arenaria peploides Corncockle, tall Agrostemma githago Seablite, hairy Bassia hirsuta Cowbane Oxypolis rigidor ambigma Seablite, matted Suaeda americana Crowfoot, seaside Ranunculus cymbalaria Seablite, tall Suaeda linearis Dock, swamp Rumex verticillatus Sealavenders Limonium spp. Dodders Cuscuta spp. Sealavender, Carolina Limonium carolinianam 166 Table 79. Common and scientific names of the broadleaf Table 80. Common and scientific names of grasses and herbaceous plants that are cited in the text (Concluded). grasslike plants cited in the text and tables (Concluded). Sealavender, Nash Limonium nashii trichogonum Hornrush Rhynchospora corniculata Seapurslane Sesuvium maritimum Iris, yellow Iris pseudacorus Searocket Cakile edentula Knucklegrass Panicum dichbtomiflorum Seedbox Ludwigia alternifolia Lovegrass, creeping Eragrostis hypnoides Smartweeds Polygonum spp. Lovegrass, purple Eragrostis spectabilis Smartweed, common Polygonum hydropiper Mannagrass, peat Glyceria obtusa Smartweed, dotted Polygonum punctatum Meadowgrass, tufted Diplachne fascicularis Smartweed, pale Polygonum lapathifolium Millet, German Setaria italica Smartweed, southern Polygonum densiflorum Millet, tropical Echinochloa cruf-pavonis Smartweed, swamp Polygonum coccineum Millet, Walter Echinochloa walteri Spanishneedles Bidens bipinnata Millet, water Zizaniopsis miliacea Spatterdock Nuphar advena Needlerush Juncus roemerianus Stickseed, Virginia Hackelia virginiana Panicgrasses Panicum spp. Sunflower, tickseed Bidens coronata Paspalums Paspalum spp. Tearthumbs Polygonum spp. Plumegrass, narrow Erianthus strictus Tearthumb, arrowleaf Polygonum sagittatum Reed, common Phragmites communis Tearthumb, halberdleaf Polygonum arifolium Reedgrass Cinna arundinacea Touch-me-nots Impatiens spp. Rushes Juncus spp. Touch-me-not, spotted Impatiens capensis Rush, bristly Juncus biflorus Turtlehead Chelone glabra Rush, flatleaf Juncus platyphyllus Waterchestnut Trapa natans Rush, sharpfruit Juncus acuminatus Waterhemlock Cicuta maculata Rush, Torrey Juncus torreyi Waterhorehound, cutleaf Lycopus americanus Rush, twopart Juncus dichotomus Waterhemp Acnida cannabina Sedges Carex spp. Waterlilly, white Nymphaea odorata Sedge, bladder Carex intumescens Waterparsnip Sium suave Sedge, broadwing Carex alata Waterpepper, mild Polygonum hydropiperoides Sedge, fringed Carex crinita Waterplantain Alisma subcordatum Sedge, hair Bulbostylis capillaris Waterpurslane Ludwigia palustris Sedge, hop Carex luputina Wildbean, marsh Strophostyles umbellata paludigena Sedge, long Carex folliculata Yam, whorled Dioscorea quaternata Sedge, sallow Carex lurida Yerba-de-toga Eclipta alba Sedge, softstem Carex seorsa Sedge, spreading Carex squarrosa Sedge, stalked Carex debilis Sedge, stretched Carex extensa Table 80. Common and scientific names of grasses and Softrush Juncus effusus grasslike plants that are cited in the text and tables. Sorghum (cultivated) Sorghum vulgare Spikegrass Distichlis spicata Scientific nomenclature is that of Fernald (1950). Spikerushes Eleocharis spp. Autumnsedge Fimbristylis autumnalis Spikerush, beaked Eleocharis rostellata Alkaligrass, spreading Puccinellia fasciculata Spikerush,creeping Eleocharis palustris Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon Spikerush, dwarf Eleocharis parvula Blackrush Juncus gerardi Sweetflag Acorus calamus Blueflag Iris versicolor Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Bristlegrass, giant Setaria magna Threesquares Scirpus spp. Bristlegrass, knotroot Setaria geniculata Threesquare, common Scirpus americanus Broomsedge, bushy Andropogon virginicus abbreviatus Threesquare, Olney Scirpus olneyi Bulrushes Scirpus spp. Twigrush Cladium mariscoides Bulrush, river Scirpus flaviatifis Umbrellasedges Cyperus spp. Bulrush, softstern Scirpus validus creber Umbrellasedge, beach Cyperus filiculmis Bulrush, stout Scirpus robustus Umbrellasedge, fragrant Cyperus odoratus Canarygrass, reed Phalaris arundinacea Umbrellasedge, strawcolor Cyperus strigosus Cattails Typha spp. Wheat (cultivated) Triticum aestivum Cattail, blue Typha glauca Whitegrass Leersia virginica Cattail, common Typha latifolia Wildrice Zizania aquatica Cattail, narrowleaf Typha angustifolia Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus Cattail, southern Typha domingensis Chesnutsedge Fimbristylis castanea Cordgrasses Spartina spp. Cordgrass, big Spartina cynosuroides Cordgrass, meadow Spartina patens Cordgrass, smooth Spartina alterniflora Corn (cultivated) Zea mays Crabgrasses Digitaria spp. Cutgrass, rice Leersia oryzoides Foxtails Setaria spp. Gamagrass Tripsacum dactyloides 167 Table 81. Common and scientific names of animals in the coastal wetlands of Maryland. Most of these animals occur in the coastal wetlands of Maryland and adjacent waters. Nomenclature for invertebrates is that of Gosner (1971). Phylum Porifera Sponges Microciona prolifera Red sponge Phylum Cnidaria Hydroids, anemones, medusae Hydromedusa Chrysaora quinquecirrha jellyfish Phylum Ctenophora Comb-jellies mnemiopsis leidyi Pear comb-jelly Phylum Mollusca Mollusks Class Gastropoda Snails and slugs Acetocina canaliculata Ambloxis decisum Amnicola spp. Amnicola limosa Anachis avara Bittium spp. Bittium varium Cerithiopsis subulata Clatburellajewetti Gillia altilis Gyraulus spp. [Orb snails] Ilyanassa obsoleta Littoridinops spp. Listorina irrorata Marsh periwinkle Lora spp. Melampus bidentatus Saltmarsh snail Mitrella lunata Nassarius spp. Dog whelks Nassarius obsoletus Common mud snail Nassarius trivittatus New England dog whelk Odostomia impressa Oxytrema virginica Physa spp. [Pouch snails] Planorbis spp. Pleurotoma spp. Pyramidella spp. Retrusa canaliculata Rissoidae Sayella chesapeakea Triphora perversa Turbonilla spp. Valvata tricarinata Class Bivalvia Bivalve mollusks Anodonta spp. Brachidontes recurvus Bent mussel Congeria leucopheata Platform mussel Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster Cyrenoida florqidana Elliptio complanatum Freshwater mussel Gemma gemma Gem shell Laevicardium mortoni Morton's cockle Macoma baqlthica Baltic macoma Macoma pbenax Mercenatqia mercenaria Quahog Modiolus demissus Atlantic ribbed mussel Mulinia lateralis Coot clam Mya arenaria Common soft-shelled clam Mytilidae Pisidium atlanticum Sphaerium spp. Spisula spp. Tagelus divisus Small razor clam Tagelus plebeius Stout razor clam Unionidae Veneridae Phylum Annelida Segmented worms Nereis spp. Clam worms Phylum Arthropoda Arthropods Class Merostoma Horseshoe crabs Limulus polyphemus Horseshoe crabs Class Arachnida Mites, spiders, pseudoscorpions 168 Table 81. Common and scientific names of animals in the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Continued). Unidentified spiders Hydrachnellae Water mites Class Insecta Insects Ephemeroptera Mayfly larvae Libelluloidea Dragonfly nymphs Gryllotalpa spp. Mole crickets Corixidae Water boatmen Belostomatidae Giant water bugs Sialidae Alderfly larvae Coleoptera Beetles, unidentified Dytiscidae Predacous diving beetles Hydrophilidae Water scavenger beetles Curculionidae Weevils Trichoptera Caddisfly larvae Diptera Fly larvae Culicidae Mosquito larvae Chironomidae Midge larvae Formicidae Ants Class Crustacea Crustaceans Subclass Branchiopoda Order Cladocera Daphnia spp. Water fleas Unidentified species Cladocerans Subclass Ostracoda Unidentified species Ostracods Subclass Copepoda Unidentified species Copepods Subclass Cirripedia Balanus spp. Acorn barnacles Unidentified species Barnacles Subclass Malacostraca Series Eurnalacostraca Superorder Peracardia Order Tanaidacea Tanaids Leptochelia savignyi Order Isopoda Isopods Suborder Anthuridea Cyathura spp. Suborder Valvifera Chiridotea coeca Erichsonella spp. Erichsonella attentuata Erichsonella filiformis Suborder Onoscoidea Philoscia vittata Order Amphipoda Amphipods Suborder Gammaridea Family Ampithoidea Ampithoids Family Corophiidae Corophium spp. Family Gammaridea Gammarids Crangonyx ssp. Gammarus tigrinus Family Talitridae Orchestia grillus Sand flea Orchestia platensir Beach flea Superorder Eucarida Order Decapoda Decapods Infraorder Caridea Caridean shrimp Crangon septemspinosa Sand shrimp Palaemonetes vulgatis Common prawn Infraorder Brachyura True crabs Callinectes sapidus Blue crab Neopanope texana sa_yi Ovalipes ocellatus Lady crab Panopeus herbstii Mud crab Sesarma spp. Sesarma reticulatum Marsh crab Uca minax Red-jointed fiddler crab Uca pugilator Sand fiddler crab 169 Table 81. Common and scientific names of animals in the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Continued). Uca pugnax Marsh fiddler crab Family Xanthidae Mud crabs Phylum Chordata Chordates Subphylum Urochordata Tunicates MoIgula spp. MoIgula manhattensis Sea grapes Subphylum Vertebrata Vertebrates Superclass Pisces Fish Class Chondrichthyes Subclass Eleasmobranchii Family Rajiidae Rhinopterus honasus Cownose ray Class Osteichtyes Family Clupeidae Alosa mediocris Hickory shad Alosa sapidissima American shad Clupea harrengus Herring Family Esocidae Esox niger Chain pickerel Family Cyprinidae Undetermined species Family Ictaluridae Ictalurus nehulosus Brown bullhead Family Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Family Cyprinodonticlae Cyprinodon variegatus Broad killifish Fundulus spp. Killifish Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog Fundulus majalis Striped killifish Family Percichthyidae Morone americanas White perch Morone saxatilis Striped bass Family Centrarchiclae Lepomis gibhosus Pumpkinseed Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass Pomoxis annularis White crapple Family Percidae Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter Perca flavescens Yellow perch Family Pornatomidae Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish Family Sciaenidae Cynoscion regalis Weakfish Leiostomus xanthurus Spot Micropogon undulatus Croaker Family Bothidae Paralichthys dentatus Summer flounder Superclass Tetrapoda Four-limbed animals Class Amphibial Amphibians Order Anura Family Bufonidae Toads Bufo woodhouseifowleri Fowler's toad Family Hylidae Tree frogs Hyla crucifer Northern spring peeper Family Ranidae True frogs Rana cateshiana Bullfrog Rana clamitans melanota Green frog Rana palustris Pickerel frog Rana utricularia Southern leopard frog Class Reptilia Reptiles Order Squamata Lizards and snakes Suborder Lacertilia Lizards Family Scincidae Skinks Eumeces jasciatus Five-lined skink Suborder Serpentes Snakes Family Colubridae Colubrid snakes Coluher constrictor constrictor Northern black racer Elaphne obsoleta obsoleta Black rat snake 'Nomenclature for amphibians and reptiles is that of Conant (1975). 170 Table 81. Common and scientific names of animals in the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Continued). Heterodon platyrhinos Eastern hog-nosed snake Lampropeltis getulus getulus Eastern kingsnake Natrix sipedon sipedon Northern water snake Opheodrys aestivus Rough green snake Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata Red-bellied water snake Thamnophis sauritus sauritus Eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Eastern garter snake Family Viperidae Pit vipers Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen Northern copperhead Order Testudinata Turtles Family Chelydridae Snapping turtles Chelydra serpentina serpentina Snapping turtle Family Emydidae Water turtles Chrysemys picta picta Eastern painted turtle Chrysemys ruhiventris Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata Red-bellied turtle Malaclemmys terrapin terrapin Northern diamondback terrapin Terrapene carolina carolina Eastern box turtle Family Kinosternidae Musk and mud turtles Kinosternon suhruhrum subrubrum Eastern mud turtle Class Aves' Birds Order Anseriformes Waterfowl Family Anatidae Waterfowl Subfamily Cygninae Swans Cygnus olor Mute swan Olor columhianus Whistling swan Subfamily Anserinae Geese Branta canadensis Canada goose Branta bernicla Brant Chen caerulescens Snow goose Subfamily Anatinae Surface-feeding ducks Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Anas ruhripes Black duck Anas acuta Pintail Anas strepera Gadwall Anas americana American wigeon Anas clypeata Northern shoveller � nas difcors Blue-winged teal � nas crecca Green-winged teal Aix sponsa Wood duck Subfamily Athyinae Diving ducks Aythya americana Redhead Aythya valisneria Canvasback Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck Aythya marila Greater scaup Aythya affinis Lesser scaup Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye Bucephala albeola Bufflehead Clangula hymaelis Oldsquaw Subfamily Oxyurinae Ruddy and masked ducks Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy duck Subfamily Merginae Mergansers Mergus merganser Common merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser Order Falconiformes Vultures, hawks, and falcons Family Accipitridae Kites, hawks, and eagles Subfamily Circinae Harriers Circus cyaneus Marsh hawk Subfamily Buteoninae Hawks and eagles Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk Order Galliformes Gallinaceous birds Family Phasianidae Quails, partridges, and pheasants Colinus virginianus Bobwhite Order Ciconiiformes Herons and allies Family Ardeidae Herons, bitterns Casmerodius albus Great egret Egretta thula Snowy egret Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret Taxonomic arrangement is that of Robbins, Bruun, andZim (1966); common andscientific namesarefrom American Ornithologists Union (1957), (1973), 1976). 171 Table 81. Common and scientific names of animals in the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Continued). Ardea herodias Great blue heron Hydrynassa tricolor Louisiana heron Florida caerula Little blue heron Butorides striatus Green heron Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned night heron Botaurus lentigi-nosus American bittern Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern Family Threskiornithidae Ibises and spoonbills Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis Family Rallidae Rails, gallinules, and coots Rallus limicola Virginia rail Porzana carolina Sora Laterallus jamaicensis Black rail Rallus longirostris Clapper rail Rallus elegans King rail Gallinula chloropus Common gallinule Fulica americana American coot Order Charadriformes Shorebirds, gulls, and alcids Family Charadriidae Plovers, turnstones, surfbirds Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied plover Charadrius semipalmatus Sernipalmated plover Family Scolopacidae Woodcocks, snipes, sandpipers Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Catopirophorus semipalmatus Willet Tringa melanoleucus Greater yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Lesser yellowlegs Micropalama himantopus Stilt sandpiper Limnodromus griseus Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed dowitcher Calidris melanotus Pectoral sandpiper Calidris canutus Red knot Calidris alpina Dunlin Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper Calidris pusillus Sernipalmated sandpiper Calidris mauri Western sandpiper Pbilohela minor American woodcock Capella gallinago Common snipe Family Laridae Gulls and terns Subfamily Larinae Gulls Larus marinus Great black-backed gull Larus argentatus Herring gull i.rus delawarensis Ring-billed gull Larus atricilla Laughing gull Subfamily Sterninae Terns Sterna hirundo Common tern Sterna forsteri Forster's tern Order Columbiformes Pigeons and doves Family Columbidae Pigeons and doves Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Order Cucliformes Cuckoos, roadrunners, anis Family Cuculidae Cuckoos, roadrunners, anis Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythrophthalmus Black-billed cuckoo Order Strigiformes Owls Family Strigidae True owls Buho virginianus Great horned owl Order Coraciiformes Kingfishers Family Alcedinidae Kingfishers Megaceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher Order Piciformes Woodpeckers Family Picidae Woodpeckers Colaptes auratus Common flicker Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied woodpecker Picoides villosas Hairy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker Order Passeriformes Perching birds Family Tyrannidae Tyrant flycatchers Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird 172 Table 81. Common and scientific names of animals in the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Continued). Myriarchus crinitus Great-crested flycatcher Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe Empidonax traillii Willow flycatcher Contopus virens Eastern wood pewee Family Corvidae Crows, jays, magpies Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay Corvus brachyrhynchos Common crow Corvus ossifragus Fish crow Family Paridae Chickadees, titmice, bushtits Parus carolinensis Carolina chickadee Parus hicolor Tufted titmouse Family Sittidae Nuthatches Sitta canadensis Red-breasted nuthatch Family troglodytidae Wrens Troglodytes aedon House wren Thryothoras ludovicianus Carolina wren Telmatodytes palustris Long-billed marsh wren Cistothoruf platenis Short-billed marsh wren Family Mimidae Mockingbirds, thrashers Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird Family Turdidae Thrushes Turdus migratorius American robin Hylocichla ustulata Swainson's thrush Family Sylviidae Kinglets, gnatcatchers Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet Family Sturnidae Starlings Sturnus vulgaris Starling Family Vireonidae Vireos Vireo griseus White-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed vireo Family Parulidae Wood warblers Mniotilta varia Black-and-white warbler Vermivora peregrina Tennessee warbler Parula americana Northern parula Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler Dendroica magnolia Magnolia warbler Dendroica tigrina Cape May warbler Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica cacrulescens Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica striata Blackpoll warbler Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird Seiurus noveboracensis Northern waterthrush Geothlypis trichas Yellowthroat Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat Wilsonia canadensis Canada warbler Setophaga ruticilla American redstart Family Ploceidae Weavers Passer do mesticus House sparrow Family Icteridae Meadowlarks, blackbirds, orioles Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Sturnella magna Eastern meadowlark Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird Eupbagus carolinus Rusty blackbird Quiscalus mexicanus Boat-tailed grackle Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle Icterus galbula Northern oriole Piranga olivacea Scarlet tanager Family Fringillidae Grosbeaks, buntings, finches, sparrows Cardinalis cardinalis Cardinal Passerina cyanea Indigo bunting Carpodacuf purpureus Purple finch Carpodacus mexicanus House finch Spinus tristis American goldfinch Pipilo erythrophthalmui- Rufous-sided towhee Ammospiza caudacuta Sharp-tailed sparrow Ammospiza maritima Seaside sparrow Spizella arborea Tree sparrow Zonotrichia alhicollis White-throated sparrow Passerella iliaca Fox sparrow Melospiza georgiana Swamp sparrow 173 Table 81. Common and scientific names of animals in the coastal wetlands of Maryland (Concluded). Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Class Mammalial Mammals' Order Marsupalia Pouched Mammals Family Didelphidae Opossums Didelphis marsupalis Opossum Order Insectivora Insect-eating mammals Family Soricidae Shrews Blarina brevicauda Shorttail shrew Cryptotis parva Least shrew Order Carnivora Flesh-eating mammals Family Procyonidae Racoons Procyon lotor Racoon Family Mustelidae Lutra canadensis River otter Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk Mustela frenata Longtail weasel Mustela vison Mink Family Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox Vulpes fulva Red fox Order Rodentia Rodents Family Sciuridae Castor canadensis Beaver Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel Family Cricetidae Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat Oryzomys palustris Rice rat Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse Family Muridae Old World rats and mice Mus musculus House mouse Rattus norvegicus Norway rat Family Zapodidae jumping mice Zapus hudsonius Meadow jumping mouse Family Capromyidae Myocastor coypus Nutria Order Lagomorpha Pikas, hares, and rabbits Family Leporidae Hares and rabbits Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail Order Artiodactyla Even-toed hoofed mammals Family Cervidae Deer Cervus nippon Sika deer Odocoileus virginianus Whitetail deer 'Nomenclature is that of Burt (1964). 174 APPENDIX 2. FIELD INVESTIGATION OF THE PRODUCTIVITY AND DIVERSITY OF SELECTED TYPES OF VEGETATION IN THE COASTAL WETLANDS OF MARYLAND I A field study was conducted during the late summer a tributary to the Choptank River, in Caroline and Dor- and autumn of 1976 to obtain supplemental information chester Counties; and along Elliott Island Road near on wetland productivity and diversity. Herbaceous stand- Savannah Lake in Dorchester County. Additional loca- ing crops of all erect plant materials were harvested in tions were situated on the Chester River east of Crump- two stands of each of twenty-two wetland types. Litter ton in Queen Anne's County; Choptank River west of crop collections also were made in six of these wetland Tanyard in Caroline County; Little Blackwater River types that are composed partly or predominantly of north of Seward in Dorchester County; and Pocomoke shrubs or trees. Observations also were made of the River at Mattaponi landing in Worcester County. The diversity of plant species in each stand. The samples of locations are indicated specifically on Table 82 and standing crop and litter were dried in a forage dryer and Figures 40 to 45. then weighed. The results of the study are presented in Tables 83 to 107. Herbaceous Standing Crops In two stands of each of the twenty-two wetland types, all above-ground herbaceous vegetation was harvested METHODS from three 0.25 meter square (0.0625 square meter) Sampling Locations plots. The stands were selected during the field work and On the basis of the literature review for the value plots were chosen that typified the overall condition of assessment, twenty-two wetland types were identified the stands. Harvesting was conducted on 17, 19, 23, 24, for which supplemental productivity and diversity data 30, and 31 August 1976. The harvested material was were desired. These wetland types are: dried in an electric forage dryer, and then removed and weighed on 14 October. Shrub Swamps 11 Swamp rose Litter Crop 13 Red maple/Ash Six of the wetland types are composed partly or pre- Swamp Forests dominantly of shrubs or trees: 21 Baldcypress Shrub Swamps 22 Red maple/Ash 11 Swamp rose 23 Loblolly pine 13 Red maple/Ash Swamp Forests Fresh Marshes 21 Baldcypress 30 Smartweed/Rice cutgrass 22 Red maple/Ash 31 Spatterdock 23 Loblolly pine 32 Pickerelweed/Arrowarum Brackish High Marshes 33 Sweetflag 42 Marshelder/Groundselbush 35 Rosernallow 36 Wildrice 38 Big cordgrass Three baskets were installed in each of two stands of each 39 Common reed of these types to collect deciduous leaves and branches of woody trees and shrubs. The baskets were standard fruit Brackish High Marshes baskets with an inside diameter of 35.0 centimeters 41 Meadow cordgrass/Spikegrass (0-096 square meter), and were installed on stakes to be 42 Mars helder/Groundselbus h above the anticipated level of flood tides. The baskets 43 Needlerush were installed at the time of the herbaceous sampling, 44 Cattail and were collected about three months later on 15 45 Rosernallow through 18 November 1976. The collected litter was 46 Switchgrass dried in an electric forage dryer, and then removed and 47 Threesquare weighed on 5 January 1977. The estimated litter crop 49 Common reed production was combined with the estimated herbaceous standing crop to produce an estimate of the total autum- Brackish Low Marshes nal standing crop of deciduous non-woody material for 51 Smooth cordgrass each of the shrub and wooded swamp types. Sampling locations were chosen by utilizing the type classifications and delineations on the wetland photo- Plant Species Diversity maps. The criteria for location selection were accessibil- Observations on diversity were made during the her- ity and variety of wetland types in close proximity. The baceous sampling. The principal plant species associated principal sampling locations were along Hunting Creek, with each stand were noted. 177 RESULTS sample plot, in grams; and the mean dry weight, calcu- The results of the herbaceous standing crop and litter lated from the several samples, in grams per square crop sampling are presented in Tables 83 through 104. meter, in tons per acre, and in kilograms per hectare. The measurements are presented in two forms: the dry Plant species diversity data are displayed in Tables 105 weight of the plants from each 0.0625 square meter through 107. Table 82. Herbaceous standing crop and litter crop sampling locations. Locations are referenced to county, nearest town and watershed. Distances are approximate. WETLANDS TYPE STAND LOCATION MAP PHOTOGRAPH 11 Swamp Rose A Caroline, Preston; Hunting Creek-Choptank River. CA42 CAI-13RL-89 3,250 feet northeast of Back Landing Road B Dorchester, Ellwood, Gravel Run-Hunting Creek- D053 CAI-13RL-89 Choptank River. 3,250 feet east of Back Landing Road 13 Red maple/Ash, shrub A&B Caroline, Preston; Hunting Creek-Choptank River. CA42 CAI-13RL-89 A, 2,750 feet and B, 2,500 feet east of Back Landing Road 21 Baldcypress A&B Worcester, Klej Grange; Pocomoke River. A, 250 W0125 WOI-20RL-119 feet and B, 500 feet west of Mattaponi Landing. 22 Red maple/Ash, wooded A&B Caroline, Preston; Hunting Creek-Choptank River. CA42 CA-13RL-89 A, 2,750 feet and B, 2,500 feet east of Back Landing Road 23 Loblolly Pine A&B Dorchester, Henrys Crossroads; Savannah Lake, D050 D01-18RL-14 Pokata Creek-Island Creek-Fishing Bay. A, 1,750 feet northeast of Savannah Lake and 250 feet south of Elliott island Road; B, 500 feet north of Elliott Island Road at north side of Savannah Lake. 30 Smarltweed/Rice cutgrass A&B Caroline, Preston; Hunting Creek-Choptank River. CA42 CAI-13RL-89 A, 2,750 feet east and B, 3,250 feet northeast of Back Landing Road 31 Spatterdock A Dorchester, Ellwood; Gravel Run-Herring Creek- D053 CAl-13RL-89 Choptank River. 3,250 feet east of Back Landing Road. B Caroline, Preston; Hunting Creek-Choptank CA42 CAl-13RL-89 River. 2,500 feet east of Back Landing Road. 32 Pickerelweed/ Arrowa rum A Dorchester, Ellwood; Gravel Run-Hunting Creek- D053 CAI-13RL-89 Choptank River. 3,000 feet east of Back Landing Road B Caroline, Preston; Hunting Creek-Choptank River. CA42 CAl-13RL-89 3,250 feet east of Back Landing Road 33 Sweetflag A&B Queen Anne's, Crumpton; Chester River. A, 1,250 QA108 QAIRL-5 feet and B, 1,500 feet northeast of Kirby Landing. 35 Rosernallow, fresh A&B Caroline, Preston; Hunting Creek-Choptank River. CA42 CAl-13RL-89 2,750 feet east of Back Landing Road 36 Wildrice A&B Dorchester, Ellwood; Gravel Run-Hunting Creek- D043 CA-DO-2RL-101 Choptank River. A, 1,000 feet and B, 500 feet northwest of Route 331. 38 Big Cordgrass, fresh A&B Caroline, Choptank; Hunting Creek-Choptank CA42 CAI-13RL-89 River. 4,500 feet southwest of Back Landing Road 39 Common Reed, fresh A&B Caroline, Tanyard; Choptank River. 2,750 feet CA33 CAI-14RL-15 southeast of Dover Bridge, and A, 250 feet and B, 500 feet south of Route 331 41 Meadow cordgrass/ Spike- A&B Caroline, Choptank; Hunting Creek-Choptank CA41 CAI-13RL-109 grass, brackish River. A, 2,000 feet northeast of Choptank bridge; B, 250 feet northwest of Choptank bridge C Dorchester, Henrys Crossroads; Savannah Lake, D050 D01-18RL-14 Pokara Creek-Island Creek-Fishing Bay. 500 feet south of Elliott Island Road at north side of Savannah Lake 42 Marshelder/Groundselbush, A&B Dorchester, Henrys Crossroads; Savannah Lake. D050 D01-18RL-14 brackish Pokata Creek-Island Creek-Fishing Bay. 1,750 feet northeast of Savannah Lake and A, north side of Elliott Island Road and B, 500 feet south of Elliott Island Road 43 Needlerush, brackish A&B Dorchester, Henrys Crossroads; Island Creek- D061 DO I - 18RL-44 Fishing Bay. West side of Elliott Island Road be- tween Savannah Lake and Little Savannah Lake 178 Table 82. Herbaceous standing crop and litter crop sampling locations (concluded), WETLANDS TYPE STAND LOCATION MAP PHOTOGRAPH 44 Cattail, brackish A&B Dorchester, Henrys Crossroads; Savannah Lake, D050 D01-18RL-14 Pokata Creek-Island Creek-Fishing Bay. A, 250 feet and B, 500 feet south of Elliott Island Road at north side of Savannah Lake. 45 Rosemallow, brackish A&B Dorchester, Seward; Little Blackwater River- D0199 DOI-7RL-53 Blackwater River, 9,750 feet north of Seward bridge, and A, 1,000 feet and B, 750 feet west of River. 46 Switchgrass A&B Dorchester, Seward; Little Blackwater River- D0199 DOI-7RL-53 Blackwater River, 9,750 feet north of Seward bridge, and A, 1,000 feet and B, 750 feet west of River 47 Threesquare A&B Dorchester, Henrys Crossroads; Savannah Lake, (A) D050 D01-18RL-14 Pokata Creek-Island Creek-Fishing Bay. A, north side of Elliott Island Road, 1,750 feet northeast of (B) D061 D01-18RL-44 Savannah Lake; B, east side of Road between Savannah Lake and Little Savannah Lake 49 Common Reed, brackish A&B Caroline, Choptank; Hunting Creek-Choptank CA41 CAI-13RL-109 River. North end of Choptank bridge. 51 Smooth cordgrass, A&B Caroline, Choptank; Hunting Creek-Choptank (A) CA42 CAI-13RL-89 brackish River. A, 3,250 feet southwest of Back Landing Road; B, west end of Choptank bridge (B) CA41 CAI-13RL-109 179 1100 55' 1110 1120 1130 50' heaterlY i e -.70 Ap. 53 29 i GTON M Co. ja SLOG JO SLOG,k Peaco& le, q 290 Meorn h /V. 3113 o Iap chase I N 20- I V, on P to 55. Z 4j ITP X., BK# ett Cornem z---Ste fnem 3 41 k< t Pte""t' C131 Al 00 It ndt@@ V o -Creik'@! c! Q uble 90 19 SM, a 78 % 67 70 1 co it .70 Sudlersvill' i 'k DadleY 4 4 h A= V@ M Z r: ,IV, 14. 70 r It tj @?A C,1 "M It 00 =:4 W1 0 31 65 3: -Tr- W 68 74 72@ I .= 7 I, JI, an idm Figure 40. Sampling location (indicated by arrow) for sweetflag (Type 33) along the Chester River east of Crumpton in Queen Anne's County. 180 4 0 0 "A 36 % 0 rek 4 3a 350 '54 p"/ IN a ST( IN 30 IN K I NGS T@M 83 0 LANQ1 A M, A -4 roviden as !to 34 V 331 53 C 33 L D 340 a W "d BRI 71 t4 N N, 79 45' rd 579 Bethlehem a M Or @A 11@1j'.A @.@ '3M 330 30 ffErH1eHF4f IN M4 33 2,11 CC% -@-6R@ 4 42 53 320 7 324 0 7 50 Ll d g. I Fre k V V ag 7- JO Figure 4 1. Sampling location (indicated by arrow) for common reed (Type 39) along the Choptank River west of Tanyard in Caroline County. 181 1090 1101 55' 1110 1120 .2 V restog 0; C 4- M uel Ch, C 53 7VI-I Hymn r Z9 7@ A Johns W t4 o" wood.. PO w i AN- naynill Chop -4 Beu ell K 3; A M A @AF 33 % q 5 V 3 - k'. 38 Z 4ells Corrir as nspn hi 16 30 45 N-@ CREEK NECK -'7 CA Qr V "@J h u 7117 HURLCPC r A 39 4L @.t it 11 -A R Z@. A At' Jama A" ecretary -S 32 Ir- 4 M 3 12 27 16 392 -h. h Figure 42. Sampling locations (indicated by arrows) for swamp rose (Type 11), smooth alder/black willow (Type 12), red maple/ash (Type 22), smartweed/rice cutgrass (Type 30), spatterdock (Type 31), pickerelweed/arrowarum (Type 32), rosernallow (Type 35), wildrice (Type 36), big cordgrass (Type 38), meadow cordgrass/spikegrass (Type 41), common reed (Type 49), and smooth cordgrass (Type 5 1) along Hunting Creek, a tributary to the Choptank River, in Caroline and Dorchester Counties. 182 lilt 7 M, J-1 6 44 C Cre P 1* 144M k V Lot IAne 335 Old Field 040 ee -n r. e-r 4'D G-r'ee 4T7 ID a-7n P Y etween Tbe@ Darffs am j=.. 7 CHURCH CREEKFiRE < @Ke-ntuck -swa_?np BucktA am r .4 6 )ZO. am V'@ 8 1Z ;j"F A010- ward- jF- 4w6! ER HQ. ,"@,ISITORS CENT REFUG @G r- n 11@e r MACKWAIER, N@t 4 S W a M_P .41LDUK R GE it - am UT LQ1K .7. Longfiel IOWEIR@ T.0tv oNin Pbnd8 C' RZ -n 4.Ts 'Ha 4@_ .Pond Z4T .17, e Wo Illy % :-And' A) C 7@ S -7F& 2 R Tj I. wnp4 Figure 43. Sampling location (indicated by arrow) for rosernallow (Type 45) and switchgrass (Type 46) along the Little A Blackwater River north of Seward in Dorchester County. 183 AZ 6 fmpps 3 Beaverdam 11 NECK Swa p Deila Hill BM OP. 3 i, BROCK am HOUSE 0 am 7 A, a GRIM NECK Henrys Crossroads 0 FFITH 11 EWI am Bare am \L LDG, 2 s-*,p Cokeland N 4. parish & W` ---. .. P;. .7. -low, -E@ -4 M am 62 3 br am ':,Penknife 'A --7 j ha r d- 7' a-rA em --42- Pbu a h" Gum s,% -tP' Pt ndy Bea C, am_ Un k-Y 15 Upper Groans C"e 0 % Laiw Greens Cow and are @@ei@,-Wetipquin -'Wetipqui nZ ;4eck x Jr @F. Figure 44. Sampling locations (indicated by arrows) for loblolly pine (Type 23), meadow cordgrass/spikegrass (Type 41), marshelder/groundselbush (Type 42), needlerush (Type 43), cattail (Type 44), and threesquare (Type 47) along Elliott Island Road near Savannah Lake in Dorchester County. 184 "U 0 RED LANDING DREXELL. 71@ % 31 RD 11 it 11 Shil.h LANDING N) Church J\ Branc 0. 8TATE 0 -Pq:C0MO 11 . . . . I I I I I I S1 IVER 4 4.-& it 01 (-j ILS N Chudi FORE I ANDI 4 :t 17 it 0 Zh a M 30 2 It it 19 o % 113 it Beth III Church A CMAS M, &fF THEVE V o TIN 7 It If to 0 dl- hilo 0 Klej G Ch 36 st 6 fflow Gi 11 Grove 20 C Ci U0 ----i 1z, 2 30 33 "A % PLr- P 10 A. W- It n /1 11 - it it G oodwfll 1 It R AD 6 .'we ocomOKE 366 ha it It BM '33 @_x 33 G Figure 45. Sampling location (indicatd by arrow) for baldcypress (Type 2 1) along the Pocomoke River near Mattaponi Landing in Worcester County. 185 Table 83. Standing crop of swamp rose shrub swamp, Type 11 - Table 84. Standing crop of red maple/ash shrub swamp, Type 13. Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Weight Standing Crop Weight Standing Crop Sampling Drying Sampling Drying (g/.0625m2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha (g/.0625M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha Herbaceous Herbaceous I A 19 Aug. 20 Aug.-14 Oct. 31.7 1 A 24 Aug. 25 Aug.-14 Oct. 25.2 2 29.1 2 - a 3 35.1 3 - 511 2.3 5110 134 0.6 1340 4 B 24 Aug. 25 Aug.-14 Oct. 54.5 4 B 7.1 5 - a 5 8.4 6 55.1 6 81.1 585 2.6 5850 515 2.3 5150 Litter Litter 1 A 19 Aug. 18 Nov.-5 Jan. 12.2 1 A 24 Aug. 18 Nov.-5 Jan. 21.7 2 to 12.7 2 to 15.6 3 16 Nov. 5.0 3 16 Nov. 29.1 104 0.5 1040 230 1.0 2300 4 B 24 Aug. 18 Nov.-5 Jan. 14.2 4 B 18.1 5 to 14.5 5 32.5 6 16 Nov. 11.2 6 18.2 138 0.6 1380 238 1.1 2380 'No herbaceous materials occurred within the sampling plot. No herbaceous materials occurred within the sampling plot. 00 Table 85. Standing crop of baldcypress swamp forest, Type 21. Table 86. Standing crop of red maple/ash swamp forest, Type 22. Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Weight Standing Crop Weight Standing Crop Sampling Drying Sampling Drying (g/.0625M2) g/mI tons/acre kg/ha (g/.0625M2) g/mI tons/acre kg/ha Herbaceous Herbaceous I A 30 Aug. I Sept.-14 Oct. 4.6 1 A 24 Aug. 25 Aug.-14 Oct. - 2 2 44.9 3 3 25 0.1 250 239 1.1 2390 4 B 2.9 4 B 5 5 6 6.3 6 29.3 49 0.2 490 156 0.7 1560 Litter Litter I A 30 Aug. 18 Nov.-5 Jan. 27.1 1 A 24 Aug. 18 Nov.-5 Jan. 34.1 2 to 34.6 2 to 24.3 3 18 Nov. 33.8 3 16 Nov. 24.1 331 1.5 3310 286 1.3 2860 4 B 28.4 4 B 26.1 5 25.4 5 26.4 6 28.1 6 30.7 284 1.3 2840 288 1.3 2880 No herbaceous materials occurred within the sampling plot. 'No herbaceous materials occurred within the sampling plot. Table 87. Standing crop of loblolly pine swamp forest, Type 23. Table 88. Herbaceous standing crop of smartweed/rice cutgrass fresh Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean marsh, Type 30. Weight Standing Crop Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sampling Drying (g/.0625M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha Sampling Drying Weight Standing Crop Herbaceous (g/.0625M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha I A 31 Aug. I Sept.-14 Oct. 21.8 1 A 19 Aug. 20 Aug.-14 Oct. 150.2 2 29.6 2 99.1 3 50.6 3 135.4 4 B 25.6 544 2.4 5440 4 B 114.1 2052 9.2 20520 5 30.1 5 156.1 6 19.3 6 148.4 400 1.8 4000 2233 10.0 22330 Litter I A 31 Aug. 18 Nov.-5 Jan. 1.7 2 to 4.9 3 16 Nov. 2.7 32 0.1 320 4 B 31 Aug. 18 Nov.-5 Jan. 2.2 5 to 3.9 6 17 Nov. 4.0 35 0.2 350 00 Table89. Herbaceous standing crop of spatterdock fresh marsh, Type 31. Table 90. Herbaceous standing crop of pickerelweed/arrowarum fresh Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean marsh, Type 32. - Weight Standing Crop Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sampling Drying (g/.0625 M2) g/ml tons/acre kg/ha Sampling Drying Weight Standing Crop I A 19 Aug. 30 Aug.-14 Oct. 45.2 (g/.0625m') g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha 2 20.0 1 A 19 Aug. 20 Aug.-14 Oct. 61.2 3 43.6 2 36.4 580 2.6 5800 3 3U 4 B 20.2 682 3.0 6820 5 23.2 4 B 31.9 6 40.4 5 34.8 447 2.0 4470 6 48.3 613 2.7 6130 Table 91. Herbaceous standing crop of sweetflag fresh marsh, Type 33. Table 92. Herbaceous standing crop of rosernallow fresh marsh, Type 3 5. -Sample Stand Schedule' Dry Mean Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean -Weight Standing Crop Weight Standing Crop Sampling Drying Sampling Drying (g/.0625M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha (g/.0625m') g/rnI tons/acre kg/ha 1 A 17 Aug. 20 Aug.-14 Oct. 58.1 1 A 19 Aug. 20 Aug--14 Oct. 99.1 2 71.3 2 94.7 3 66.5 3 90.6 1045 4.7 10450 1517- 6.8 15170 4 B 76.6 4 B 88.7 5 79.3 5 133.1 6 88.5 6 136.4 1303 5.8 13030 1910 8.5 19100 Co 00 Table 93. Herbaceous standing crop of wildrice fresh marsh, Type 36. Table 94. Herbaceous standing crop of big cordgrass fresh marsh, Type Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean 38. Weight Standing Crop Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sampling Drying (g/.0625m') g/ml tons/acre kg/ha Sampling Drying Weight Standing Crop 1 A 19 Aug. 20 Aug.-14 Oct. 156.7 (g/.0625M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha 2 159.9 1 A 19 Aug. 20 Aug.-14 Oct. 326.5 3 172.2 2 404.3 2607 11.6 26070 3 370.8 4 B 137.3 5875 26.2 58750 5 106.7 4 B 299.4 6 51.1 5 215.1 1574 7.0 15740 6 500.9 5415 24.2 54150 Table 95. Herbaceous standing crop of common reed fresh marsh, Type Table 96. Herbaceous standing crop of meadow cordgrass/spikegrass 39. brackish high marsh, Type 41. Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Weight Standing Crop Weight Standing Crop Sampling Drying Sampling Drying (g/.0625M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha (g/.0625 M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha A 23 Aug. 25 Aug.-14 Oct. 124.7 1 A 24 Aug. 25 Aug.-14 Oct. 50.6 2 246.9 2 53.4 3 272.9 3 35.9 3437 15.3 34370 746 3.3 7460 4 B 273.8 4 B 39.6 5 317.3 5 62.8 6 264.1 6 37.1 4561 20.3 45610 744 3.3 7440 7 C 31 Aug. I Sept.-14 Oct. 98.5 8 100.0 9 153.9 1879 8.4 18790 00 Table 97. Standing crop of marshelder/groundselbush brackish high Table 98. Herbaceous standing crop of needlerush brackish high marsh, marsh, Type 42. Type 43. Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Weight Standing Crop Weight Standing Crop Sampling Drying Sampling Drying (g/.0625M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha (g/.0625m') g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha Herbaceous I A 31 Aug. I Sept.-14 Oct. 47.8 1 A 31 Aug. I Sept. - 14 Oct. 27.2 2 215.0 2 90.2 3 85.1 3 121.6 1855 8.3 18550 1275 5.7 12750 4 B 73.3 4 B 39.1 5 127.2 5 54.5 6 52.4 6 35.2 1349 6.o 13490 687 3.1 6870 Litter I A 31 Aug. 18 Nov. - 5 Jan. 10.3 .2 to 8.8 3 15 Nov. 13.1 112 0.5 1120 4 B 5.5 5 9.8 6 7.4 79 0.4 790 Table 99. Herbaceous standing crop of cattail brackish high marsh, Type Table 100. Herbaceous standing crop of rosernallow brackish high, 44. marsh, Type 45. Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sampling Drying Weight Standing Crop Sampling Drying Weight Standing Crop (g/.0625m') g/ rn' tons/acre kg/ha (g/.0625M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha I A 23 Aug. 25 Aug.-14 Oct. 86.6 1 A 31 Aug. I Sept. - 14 Oct. 104.0 2 127.4 2 112.6 3 68.6 3 112.9 1507 6.7 15070 1757 7.8 17580 4 B 75.8 4 B 37.6 5 82.7 5 84.7 6 66.5 6 93.0 1199 5.3 11990 1148 5.1 11480 Table 101. Herbaceous standing crop of switchgrass brackish high Table 102. Herbaceous standing crop of threesquare brackish high marsh, Type 46. marsh, Type 47. Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Weight Standing Crop Weight Standing Crop Sampling Drying Sampling Drying (g/.0625m') g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha (g/.0625M2) g/ml tons/acre kg/ha 1 A 23 Aug. 25 Aug.-14 Oct. 381.4 1 A 31 Aug. I Sept.-14 Oct. 46.5 2 144.1 2 16.9 3 277.3 3 49.1 4282 19.1 42820 600 2.7 6000 4 B 350.3 4 B 79.4 5 209.6 5 70.7 6 147.9 6 37.9 3775 16.8 37750 1003 4.5 10030 Table 103. Herbaceous standing crop of common reed brackish high Table 105. Plant diversity in swamp types. Type species, *; associated marsh, Type 49. species, * . TYPE 11 13 21 22 23 Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean SPECIES STAND A B A B A B A B A B Sampling Drying Weight Standing Crop Acer rubrum (g/.0625M2) g/M2 tons/acre kg/ha Acnida cannabina --us serrulata 1 A 19 Aug. 20 Aug.-14 Oct. 185.2 Bidens sp. 2 301.9 Cephalanthus occidentalis 3 225.7 3802 17.0 38020 Cletbra alnifolia Cornus amomum 4 B 212.0 Cuscuta sp. 5 240.3 Decodon verticillatus 6 184.9 Diospyros virginiana 3398 15.2 33980 Fraxinus sp, Graminae Farn. Hibiscus palustris Impatiens capensis Leersia oryzoides Lindera benzoin Liquidambar styraciflua Liriodendron tulipifera Magnolia virginiana Myrica sp. Nuphar advena Nyssa sylvatica Osmunda cinnamomea Osmunda regalis Table 104. Herbaceous standing crop of smooth cordgrass brackish low Panicum virgatum marsh, Type 51. Peltandra virginica Phoradendron flavescens Sample Stand Schedule Dry Mean Pinustaeda Weight Standing Crop Polygonum sp. Sampling Drying Pontedaria cordata (g/.0625M2) g/rn2 tons/acre kg/ha Quercus phellos I A 24 Aug. 25 Aug.-14 Oct. 47.4 Rbododendron viscosum 2 41.3 Rhus radicans 3 45.8 Rosa palustris 0 717 3.2 7170 Rubus sp. 4 B 75.7 Rumex sp. 5 80.4 Smilax sp. 6 85.4 Solidago sempervirens 1288 5.7 12880 Solidago sp. Spartina patens Taxodium disticbum 0 Thalictrum sp. Typha angustifolia Vaccinium corymbosum Vaccinium sp. Viburnum sp. Mosses Lichens Table 106. Plant diversity in fresh marsh types. Type species, 0; associated species, *. TYPE 30 31 32 33 35 36 38 39 SPECIES STAND A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B Acnida cannabina Acorus calamus Bidens sp. Convolvulus sp. Cuscata sp. Hibiscus palusttis Impatiens capensis Jr Jr Jr Kosteletzkya virginica Leersia oryzoides Nuphar advena 0 0 Parthenocissus quinquefolia Peltandra virginica Pbragmites communis Polygonum arifoliam Polygonum sp. Pontedaria cordata Rumex sp. Sagittaria sp. Spartina cynosuroides Typha angustifolia Zizania aquatica Table 107. Plant diversity in brackish marsh types. Type species, 0; associated species, TYPE 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 51 SPECIES STAND ABC A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B Acnida cannabina Apocynum sp. Baccharis halimifolia Cassia fasciculata Cyperaceae Fam. Diospyros virginiana Distichlis spicata Echinochloa walteri Efianthus strictus Gramineae Fam. Hibiscus palustris Impatiens capensis Iva frutescens Juncaceae Fam. juncus roemerianus Kosteletzkya virginica Myrica sp. Panicum vs .rgatun; Phragmites commum .s Pluchea purpurascens Polygonum sp. Pontedaria cordata Prunus serotina Rhus radicans Rubux sp. Rumex sp. Scirpus olneyi Spartina alterniflora Spartina cynosuroides Spartina patens Typha angurtifolia Zizania aquatica Ferns 192 APPENDIX 3. OUTLINE DESCRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO MEASURE THE ACREAGES OF WETLAND VEGETATION TYPES � Tape the mylar grid sheet to a light table. � Align the photomap over grid sheet so that the outer line on the grid sheet corresponds to the outer line on the photomap. (The legend block at the bottom of the map, consequently, will overlay part of the grid). � If the outer lines of the two mylar sheets do not coincide exactly, align the bottom left and bottom right corners of the photomap with the corresponding corners of the grid sheet. � The grid consists of lines spaced 1.04 inches apart. This produces squares of I acre at a scale of I inch equals 200 feet. � To use the grid, only the intersections of the lines are considered in the tabulations. Start at the top, left of the grid and scan to the right, across the first line that includes any wetlands. Then, drop to the next lower line and scan across that line from the right to the left, and then from the left to the right. Continue this sequence, scanning alternately from the right to the left, and then from the left to the right. This will minimize the chance that lines will be double counted or skipped. � To tabulate the areas of the various types of wetlands, each intersection of vertical and horizontal lines is counted as I acre. The location of one intersection point within an area of any type of wetland is counted as I acre of that type. � When intersection points are exactly on the lines between two types of vegetation, or between a wetland area and an upland area, alternately attribute the intersections to the type on the right hand side and, next, to the type on the left hand side. � When an intersection falls in a mixed vegetation type, only the type that is predominant in the mix is regarded. Thus, a 34/32 mix will be counted in the acreage tally as Type 34 and a 41/51/47 mixed type will be recorded as Type 41. � Tabulations of counts were recorded on a commercially available lab counter with eight separate tally banks and one sum total bank. � On numerous photomaps, one or more types were present that, owing to the small sizes of their stands or their locations, were not sampled by the grid intersections. When this occurred, the tally sheet was marked with a 0 to indicate that the type was present, but was not counted in the tally. � Type 101 was the most difficult type to grid. It also will be underestimated because large areas of open water were not included in the photographs of the wetlands. 195 APPENDIX 4. WETLAND EVALUATION SHEETS FOR OLDMANS CREEK MARSH, SALISBURY MARSH, AND TINICUM MARSH IN THE DELAWARE RIVER ESTUARY Table 108. Wetland evaluation sheet for Oldmans Creek Marsh in Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey (Data source for vegetation types and acreages: McCormick and Ashbaugh, 1972). Type values are from Table 45 and wildlife food values are from Table 5 1. Wetland 96 of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score ss 0 - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - [52] 5 13 - - 64 15 42 - - 51 80 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 1.9 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 16 1.9 - 94 1.79 15 0.29 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 7.8 20 - - - - 35 65 7.8 - - 74 5.77 5 0.39 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 64.4 10 - - - - 30 - - 62 100 31 126 15.0 - 27 4.05 30 4.50 32 301 35.9 - 30 10.77 90 32.31 3A* 39 4.7 - 20 0.94 30 1.41 3B* 74 8.8 - 22 1.94 45 3.96 GM - - 25.9 20 - - - - 33 16 1.9 - - 37 0.70 35 0.67 34 46 5.5 - - 49 2.70 50 2.75 36 144 17.2 - - 53 9.12 45 7.74 37 - - [261 40 38 - - 100 40 39 11 1.3 - - 80 1.04 35 0.46 41 - - 39 60 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 - - 98 20 47 - - -26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 838(a) 100.0 100.0 70 38.82 (b) 54.48 (i), Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 838 Water as 96 12.4 Sum 70 Water 119 Interspersion: Number of forms 4 Total -@57 Throughout Product T8-0- Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 10 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 38.82 b) Vegetation Richness Factor I C) _L50 ( Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 58.23 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30_ (e) Vegetation Form Variable 35 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable= (f x g) 58.45 (h) Wildlife Food Score 54.48 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 81.72 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 56.72 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 114.950) *Types not officially recognized in Maryland Typing Scheme: 3A (waterhemp), 3B (burmarigold) (see Tables 21 and 22). 198 Table 109. Wetland evaluation sheet for Salisbury Marsh in Gloucester County, NewJersey (Data source for vegetation types and acreages: McCormick and Ashbaugh, 1972). Type values are from Table 45 and wildlife food values are from Table 5 1. Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score ss 0 - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - [52] 5 13 - - 64 15 42 - - 51 80 62 - - 9 5 SF - 0 - - 21 - - 65 70 22 - 94 15 23 - - 99 15 SM - 0 - 35 - - 74 5 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 64.8 10 - - - - 30 - - 62 100 31 7.0 18.9 - - 27 5.10 30 5.67 32 10.0 27.0 - - 30 8.10 90 24-30 3B* 6.o 16.2 - - 22 3.56 45 7.29 3S* 1.0 2.7 19 0.51 45 1.22 GM - - 35.4 20 - - - - 33 3.0 9.1 - - 37 3.00 35 2.94 34 8.0 21.6 - - 49 10.58 50 10.80 36 2.0 5.4 - - 53 2.86 45 2.43 37 0.1 0.3 - - [261 U8 40 OA2 38 - 100 40 39 - - 80 35 41 - - 39 60 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 - - 98 20 47 - - 26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 37.1 (a) 100.2 100.2 30 33.79 (b) 54.67 (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 37.1 Water as % 11.9 Sum 30 Water 5.0 Interspersion: Number of forms 2 Total 42.1 Throughout Product 60 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 8 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 33.79 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.38 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 46.63 @d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 15 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable= (f x g) 25-05 (h) Wildlife Food Score 54 67 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.38 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 75.44 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 43.50 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 90.13(l) *Types not officially recognized in Maryland Typing Scheme: 3B (burmarigold), 3S (duckpotato) (See Tables 21 and 22). 199 Table 110. Wetland evaluation sheet for Tinicum Marsh on Darby Creek in Delaware and Philadelphia Counties, southeastern Pennsylvania (Data source for vegetation types and acreages: McCormick, 1970). Type values are from Table 45 and wildlife food values are from Table 51. Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS 0 - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - [521 5 13 - - 64 15 42 - - 51 80 62 - - 9 5 SF - 0 - - 21 - - 65 70 22 - 94 15 23 - - 99 15 SM - 0 - - 35 - - 74 5 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 59.99 10 - - - 30 130.84 22.65 - - 62 14.04 100 22.65 31 131-33 22.73 - - 27 6.14 30 6.82 32 - - 30 90 3R* 84.38 14.61 - - 26 3.80 5 0.73 GM - - 40.00 20 - - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 79.96 13.84 - - 49 6.78 50 6.92 36 138.09 23.90 - - 53 12.67 45 10.76 37 - - [261 40 38 - - 100 40 39 13.08 2.26 - - 80 1.81 35 0.79 41 - - 39 60 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 - - 98 20 47 - - 26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 577.68(a) 99-99 99-99 30 45.24 (b) 48.67 (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) IZZ�@ Water as % 10.11 Sum 30 Water 65.00 Interspersion: Number of forms 2 Total 642.68 Throughout Product 60 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 6 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 45.24 (@) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.38 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 62.43 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 - (e) Vegetation Form Variable 15 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor L@7-(g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 25-05 (h) Wildlife Food Score 48.67 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.38 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 67.16 j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 40.74 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 103-17(l) *Type not officially recognized in Maryland Typing Scheme: 311 (giant ragweed) (See Tables 21 and 22). 200 APPENDIX 5. WETLAND EVALUATION SHEETS FOR THE MAJOR COASTAL WATERSHEDS AND TIDEWATER COUNTIES Lower Susquehanna River 02-12-02 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score Ss - 12.5 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 4 10.0 - - [52] 5.2 5 0.50 13 1 2.5 - - 64 1.6 15 0.38 42 - - 51 80 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 10.0 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 4 10.0 - 94 9.4 15 1.50 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 0 - - - - 35 - - 74 5 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 37.5 15 - - - - 30 9 22.5 - - 62 13.95 100 22.50 31 - 27 30 .32 6 15.0 - - 30 4.50 90 13.50 GM - - 40.0 20 - - - - 33 2 5.0 - - 37 1.85 35 1.75 34 13 32.5 - - 49 15-93 50 16.25 36 - - 53 45 37 - - [261 40 38 - - 100 40 39 1 2.5 - - 80 2.00 35 0.88 41 - - 39 60 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 - - 98 20 47 - - 26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 40.00(a) 100.00 100.00 75 54.43 (b) 57.26 (i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 40 Water as % 0 Sum 75 Water 0 Interspersion: Number of forms 4 Total Throughout Product 300 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Typts. Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 54.43 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.38 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 7 5-11 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 35 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 2.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) (h) Wildlife Food Score 57.26 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.38 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) [email protected] (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (i) 3 59.67 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 134.78(l) 202 Coastal Area 02-13-01 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score Ss - - 12.94 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - [52] 5 13 29 0.20 - - 64 0.13 15 0.03 42 50 0.35 - - 51 0.18 80 0.28 62 1,780 12-39 - - 9 1.12 5 0.62 SF - - 0.28 20 - - - - 21 2 0.01 - - 65 0.01 70 0.01 22 35 0.24 - 94 0.23 15 0.04 23 4 0.03 - - 99 0.03 15 0.004 SM - - 0.01 20 - - - - 35 - - 74 5 45 2 0.01 - - 59 0.01 5 0.001 FM - - 0.03 20 - - - - 30 4 0.03 - - 62 0.02 100 0.03 31 - 27 30 32 - - 30 90 GM - - 86.72 20 - - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 - - 49 50 36 - - 53 45 37 - - [26] 40 38 - - 100 40 39 - - 80 35 41 18 0.13 - - 39 0.05 60 0.08 43 - - 56 15 44 46 0.32 - - 59 0.19 40 0.13 46 23 0.16 - - 98 0.16 20 0.03 47 348 2.42 - - 26 0.63 55 1.33 48 - - 47 10 49 26 0.18 - - 93 0.17 5 0.01 51 26 0.18 - 41 0.07 50 0.09 61 2,304 16.04 - - 20 3.21 20 3.21 63 121 0.84 - - 50 0.42 5 0.04 71 95 0.66 - - 50 0.33 15 0.10 72 9,449 65.79 - - 20 13.16 15 9.87 Total: 14,362(a) 99.98 99.98 100 20.12 (b) 15.91(i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 14,362 Water as % 4.25 Sum 100 Water Z 3-8 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 15,60-0 Throughout Product 5070 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types L8 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 20.12 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 36---18 (d) .Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) (h) Wildlife Food Score 15-91 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 2T.-87 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score + (h) + (j) 3 31.29 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 61.47(l) 203 Pocomoke River 02-13-02 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - 5.94 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 -1 0.002 - - [521 0.001 50.0001 13 75 0.18 - - 64 0.12 15 0.03 42 2,441 5.76 - - 51 2.94 80 4.61 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 16.96 20 - - - - 21 4,152 9.79 - - 65 6.36 70 6.85 22 2,884 6.80 - 94 6.39 15 1.02 23 159 0.37 - - 99 0.37 15 0.06 SM - - 0.26 20 - - - - 35 105 0.25 - - 74 0.19 50.01 45 4 0.01 - - 59 0.006 50.001 FM - - 1.59 20 - - - - 30 454 1.07 - - 62 0.66 100 1.07 31 143 0.34 - 27 0.09 30 0.10 32 77 0.18 - - 30 0.05 go 0.16 GM - - 75.26 20 - - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 166 0.39 - - 49 0.19 50 0.20 36 3 0.01 - - 53 0.005 45 0.005 37 - - [261 40 38 348 0.82 - - 100 0.82 40 0.33 39 - - 80 35 41 10,716 25.27 - - 39 9.86 60 15-16 43 13,177 31.07 - - 56 17.40 15 4.66 44 186 0.44 - - 59 0.26 40 0.18 46 251 0.59 - - 98 0.58 20 0.12 47 1,102 2.60 - - 26 0.68 55 1.43 48 868 2.05 - - 47 0.96 10 0.21 49 34 0.08 - 93 0.07 50.004 51 5,066 11.94 - - 41 4.90 50 5.97 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5. 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 42,412(a) 100.01 100.01 100 52.90 (b) 42.18(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 42,412 Water as % 3.83 Sum 100 Water 1,68@ Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 44,101 Throughout Product 560 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types @L2 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 52.90 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) [email protected] (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 40 (h) Wildlife Food Score T2.18 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 6T2-7 (i) Wildlife Resource Group Score= (e)+(h)+(j) 3 44.42 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 123.77(l) 204 Nanticoke River 02-13-03 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 3.10 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - [521 5 13 897 1.12 - - 64 0.72 15 0.17 42 1,582 1.98 - - 51 1.01 80 1.58 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 9.87 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 7,024 8.79 - 94 8.26 15 1.32 23 866 1.08 - - 99 1.07 15 0.16 SM - - 0.13 20 - - - - 35 44 0.06 - - 74 0.04 5 0.003 45 52 0.07 - - 59 0.04 5 0.004 FM - - 2.98 20 - - - - 30 360 0.45 - - 62 0.28 100 0.45 31 769 0.96 - 27 0,26 30 0.29 32 1,254 1.57 - 30 0.47 90 1.41 GM - - 83.92 20 - - - - 33 169 0.21 - - 37 0.08 35 0.07 34 1,394 1.74 - - 49 0.85 50 0.87 36 196 0.25 - - 53 0.13 45 0.11 37 1,041 1.30 - - [261 0.34 40 0.52 38 386 0.48 - - 100 0.48 40 0.19 39 32 0.04 - 80 0.03 35 0.01 41 9,775 12.23 - - 39 4.77 60 7.34 43 15,156 18.96 - - 56 10.62 15 2.84 44 2,212 2.77 - 59 1.63 40 1.11 46 1,144 1.43 - - 98 1.40 20 0.29 47 15,078 18.86 - - 26 4.90 55 10-37 48 4,295 5.37 - - 47 2.52 10 0.54 49 481 0.60 - - 93 0.56 5 0.03 51 15,731 19.68 - - 41 8.07 50 9.84 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 79,938(a) 100.00 100.00 100 48.53 (b) 39.52(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 79,938 Water as % 2.54 Sum 100 Water 2E Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 82,018 Throughout Product 5 Co Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 23 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 48.53 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 7T8-O (d) Vegetation/Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 40 (h) Wildlife Food Score 39-52 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 170 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 59.28 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 4 3.09 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 115.89(l) 205 Choptank River 02-13-04 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 11.88 20 - - - - 11 8 0.03 - - 39 0.01 5 0.002 12 - - [52] 5 13 150 0.57 - - 64 0.36 15 0,09 42 2,965 11.28 - - 51 5.75 80 9.02 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 4.57 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 1,066 4.06 - 94 3.82 15 0.61 23 133 0.51 - - 99 0.50 15 0.08 SM - - 0.30 20 - - - - 35 52 0.20 - - 74 0.15 5 0.01 45 26 0.10 - - 59 0.06 5 0.005 FM - - 6.78 20 - - - 30 241 0.92 - - 62 0.57 100 0.92 31 597 2.27 - 27 0.61 30 0.68 32 945 3.59 - - 30 1.08 90 3.23 GM - - 76.47 20 - - - - 33 7 0.03 - - 37 0.01 35 0.01 34 1,035 3.94 - - 49 .93 50 1.97 36 26 0.10 - - 53 0.05 45 0.05 37 145 0.55 - - (26] 0.14 40 0.22 38 186 0.71 - - 100 0.71 40 0.28 39 3 0.01 - - 80 0.01 35 0.004 41 5,630 21.42 - - 39 8.35 60 12.85 43 8,909 33.89 - - 56 18.98 15 5.08 44 674 2.56 - - 59 1.51 40 1.02 46 474 1.80 - - 98 1.76 20 0.36 47 812 3.09 - - 26 0.80 55 1.70 48 621 2.36 - - 47 1.11 10 0.24 49 92 0.35 - - 93 0.33 5 0.02 51 1,490 5.66 - - 41 2.32 50 2.83 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 26,287(a) 100.00 100.00 100 50.92 (b) 41.28(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 26,287 Water as % 1.29 Sum 100 Water 344 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 26,631 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 14 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 50.92 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 7@. 3-8 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variabre = (f x g) 4j- (h) Wildlife Food Score T1.28 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c), Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 6T.-9-2 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) , (j) 3 43.97 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 120-350) 206 Chester River 02-13-05 Werland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - 25.20 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - [521 5 13 34 0.50 - - 64 0.32 15 0.08 42 1,694 24.70 - - 51 12.60 80 19.76 62 - - 9 5 SF 0.28 20 - - 21 - - 65 70 22 19 0.28 - 94 0.26 15 0.04 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 0.43 20 - - - - 35 10 0.15 - - 74 0.11 5 0.01 45 19 0.28 - 59 0.17 5 0.01 FM - - 3.84 20 - - - - 30 19 0.28 - - 62 0.17 100 0.28 31 6 0.09 - 27 0.02 30 0.03 32 238 3.47 - - 30 1.04 90 3.12 GM - - 70.26 20 - - - - 33 5 0.07 - - 37 0.03 35 0.02 34 473 6.90 - - 49 3.38 50 3.45 36 - - 53 45 37 23 0.34 - - [261 0.09 40 0.14 38 246 3.59 - - 100 3.59 40 1.44 39 20 0.29 - - 80 0.23 35 0.10 41 1,759 25.65 - - 39 10.00 60 15.39 43 296 4.32 - - 56 2.42 15 0.65 44 685 9.99 - - 59 5.89 40 4.00 46 72 1.05 - - 98 1.03 20 0.21 47 338 4.93 - - 26 1.28 55 2.71 48 227 3.31 - - 47 1.56 10 0.33 49 169 2.46 - - 93 2.29 5 0.12 51 505 7.36 - - 41 3.02 50 3.68 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 6,857(a) 100.01 100.01 100 49.50 (b) 55.57(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 6,857 Water as 76 3.01 Sum 100 Water 213 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 7,070 Throughout Product 5 FO Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types Lo- Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 49-50 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 7T.725 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 69'-80 (h) Wildlife Food Score 5 5.5 7 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor -7 5-0 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 83-36 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 60.05 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 134.30(l) 207 Elk River 02-13-06 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 17.68 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 120 3.50 - f52] 1.82 5 0.18 13 482 14.06 - 64 9.00 15 2.11 42 4 0.12 - - 51 0.06 80 0.10 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 4.20 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 144 4.20 - 94 3.95 15 0.63 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 4.29 20 - - - - 35 113 3.30 - - 74 2.44 5 0.17 45 34 0.99 - - 59 0.58 5 0.05 FM - - 24.20 20 - - - - 30 312 9.10 - - 62 5.64 100 9.10 31 21 0.61 - 27 0.16 30 0.18 32 497 14.49 - - 30 4.35 90 13.04 GM - - 49.63 20- - - - - 33 61 1.78 - - 37 0.66 35 0.62 34 1,248 36.40 - - 49 17.84 50 18.20 36 112 3.26 - - 53 1.73 45 1.47 37 25 0.73 - - [261 0.19 40 0.29 38 - - 100 40 39 104 3.03 - - 80 2.42 35 1.06 41 7 0.20 - - 39 0.08 60 0.12 43 - - 56 15 44 97 2.83 - - 59 1.67 40 1.13 46 - - 98 20 47 26 0.76 - - 26 0.20 55 0.42 48 - - 47 10 49 11 0.32 - - 93 0.30 5 0.02 51 11 0.32 - - 41 0.13 50 0.16 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 3,429(a) 100.00 100.00 100 53.22 (b) 49.05(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 3,429 Water as % 2.83 Sum 100 Water 100 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 3,529 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 19 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 53.22 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) [email protected] (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 2.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Vacriable = (f x g) 8E-00 (h) Wildlife Food Score 49.05 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x 0 7 @. 5-8 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 61.19 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 141.02(l) 208 Bush River 02-13-07 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - 1.18 20 - - - - I 1 1 0.02 - - 39 0.01 50.001 12 11 0.20 - - [521 0.10 50.01 13 52 0.92 - - 64 0.59 15 0.14 42 2 0.04 - - 51 0.02 80 0.03 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 3.13 20 - - 21 - - 65 70 22 103 1.83 - 94 1.72 15 0.27 23 73 1.30 - - 99 1.28 15 0.19 SM - - 11.66 -20 - - - - 35 657 11.66 - - 74 8.63 50.58 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 10.13 20 - - 30 95 1.69 - - 62 1.05 100 1.69 31 17 0.30 - 27 0,08 30 0.09 32 459 8.14 - - 30 2.44 90 7.33 GM - - 73.93 20 - - - - 33 145 2.57 - - 37 0.95 35 0.90 34 2,442 43.33 - - 49 21.23 50 21.67 36 154 2.73 - - 53 1.45 45 1.23 37 906 16.08 - - [261 4.18 40-6.43 38 239 4.24 - - 100 4.24 40 1.70 39 139 2.47 - - 80 1.97 35 0.86 41 2 0.04 - - 39 0.01 60 0.02 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 139 2.47 - - 98 2.42 20 0.49 47 - - 26 55 - - 47 to 48 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 5,636(a) 100-03 100.03 100 52.37 (b) 43.63(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 5,636 Water as % 0.23 Sum 100 Water 13 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 5,649 Throughout Product 5 FO Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types L8 Value Parameter 52-37 (b) Wetland Production Variable 1.50 (c) Vegetation Richness Factor 7�.56 (d) Vegetation Resource Group Score (b x c) 30 (e) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Form Variable 1.67 (g) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 66.80 (h) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 43.63 (i) Wildlife Food Score 1.50 (c) Vegetation Richness Factor 65-45 (j) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 54.08 (k) 3 Total Resource Score = (d + k) 132.64(l) 209 Gunpowder River 02-13-08 Wetland ,76 of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - 1.14 20 - - - - 11 / - - 39 5 12 11 0@50 - - [521 0.26 50.03 13 13 0,59 - - 64 0.38 15 0.09 42 1 0.05 - - 51 0.03 80 0.04 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 0.18 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 4 0.18 94 0.17 15 0.03 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 9.54 20 - - - - 35 212 9.54 -- - 74 7.06 50.48 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 11.17 20 - - - - 30 99 4.46 - - 62 2.77 100 4.46 31 5 0.23 27 0.06 30 0.07 32 144 6.48 - - 30 1.94 90 5.83 GM - - 78.02 20 - - - - 33 25 1.13 - - 37 0.42 35 0.40 34 1,064 47.88 - - 49 23.46 50 23.94 36 39 1.76 - - 53 0.93 45 0.79 37 393 17.69 - - [261 4.60 40 7.08 38 63 2.84 - - 100 2.84 40 1.14 39 71 3.20 - - 80 2.56 35 1.12 41 - - 39 60 43 - - 56 15 44 22 0.99 - - 59 0.58 40 0.40 46 23 1.04 - - 98 1.02 20 0.21 47 18 0.81 - - 26 0.21 55 0.45 48 - - 47 10 49 1 0.05 - - 93 0.047 50.003 51 14 0.63 - - 41 0.26 50 0.32 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 2,2 2 2 (a) 100.05 100.05 100 49.60 (b) 46.88(i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 2,222 Water as % 0.76 Sum 100 Water D Interspersion: Number of forms -a Total 2,239 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of VegtLation Single Body Types 19 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 49.60 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b - c) 7T.-40 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable z (f x g) 40 (h) Wildlife Food Score 76.88 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 70-32 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score (h) + (j) 3 46.77 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 121.170) 210 Patapsco River 02-13-09 Wetland 76 of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - 2.58 20 - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 1 0.14 - - [52] 0.07 5 0.01 13 1 0.14 - - 64 0.09 15 0.02 42 17 2.30 - - 51 1.17 80 1.84 62 - - 9 5 SF - 0, 21 - 65 70 22 - 94 15 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 1.76 20 - - - 35 12 1.62 - - 74 1.20 5 0.08 45 1 0.14 - - 59 0.08 5 0.01 FM - - 14.87 20 - - - - 30 89 1103 - - 62 T46 100 12-03 31 - 27 30 32 21 2.84 - - 30 0.85 90 2.56 GM - - 80.80 20 - - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 256 34-59 - - 49 16.95 50 17.30 36 - - 53 45 37 89 12.03 - - [261 3.13 40 4.81 38 4 0.54 - - 100 0.54 40 0.22 39 94 12.70 - - 80 10.16 35 4.45 41 18 2.43 - - 39 0.95 60 1.46 43 - - 56 15 44 34 4.59 - - 59 2.71 40 1.84 46 5 0.68 - - 98 0.67 20 0.14 47 6 0.81 - - 26 0.21 55 0.45 48 2 0.27 - - 47 0.13 10 0.03 49 29 3.92 - - 93 3.65 5 0.20 51 61 8.24 - - 41 3.38 50 4.12 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 740(a) 100.01 100.01 80 53.40 (b) 5 1.5 7 (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) L40 Water as % 2.12 Sum 80 Water 16 Interspersion: Number of forms 4 Total 756 Throughout Product 320 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 18 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 5 3.40 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.5u(c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 80-10 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 4�0 (h) Wildlife Food Score 51.57 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 7T-36 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 49.12 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 129.22(l) 211 West Chesapeake Bay 02-13-10 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score Ss - - 18.42 20 - - - - I 1 10 0.48 - - 39 0.19 5 0.02 12 - - [52] 5 13 22 1.06 - - 64 0.68 15 0.16 42 350 16.88 - - 51 8.61 80 13-50 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 0.15 20 - - - - 21- - - 65 70 22 2 0.10 94 0.09 15 0.02 23 1 0.05 99 0.05 15 0.01 SM - - 0.58 20 - - - - 35 - - 74 5 45 12 0.58 59 0.34 5 0.03 FM - - 0.34 20 - - - 30 7 0.34 - - 62 -0.21- 100 0.34 31 - 27 30 32 - - 30 90 GM - - 80.52 20 - - - - 33 1 0.05 - - 37 0.02 35 0.02 34 14 0.68 - - 49 0.33 50 0.34 36 - - 53 45 37 - - [261 40 38 - - 100 40 39 - - 80 35 41 442 21.31 - - 39 8.31 60 12.79 43 - - 56 15 44 615 29.65 - - 59 17.49 40 11.86 46 15 0.72 - - 98 0.71 20 0.14 47 60 2.89 - - 26 0.75 55 1.59 48 19 0.92 - - 47 0.43 10 0.09 49 80 3.86 - - 93 3.59 5 0.19 51 424 20.44 - - 41 8.38 50 10.22 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 2,074(a) 100.01 100.01 100 50.18 (b) 5 1.3 2 (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 2,074 Water as % 2.58 Sum 100 Water 55 Interspersion: Number of forms -5 Total 2,129 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Ve etation Single Body Types 16 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 50.18 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score, (b x c) 7T27 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 40 (h) Wildlife Food Score 71 .3 2 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor ITO (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 76.98 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 48.99 (k) Total Resource Score= (d + k) 124.26(l) 212 Patuxent River 02-13-11 Wetland 17o of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score _SS - - 12.47 20 - - - - 11 25 0.39 - - 39 0.15 5 0.02 12 339 5.30 - - [52] 2.76 5 0.27 13 97 1.52 - - 64 0.97 15 0.23 42 337 5.26 - - 51 2.68 --80 4.21 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 0.31 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 14 0.22 - 94 0.21 15 0.03 23 6 0.09 - - 99 0.09 15 0.01 SM - - 1.05 20 - - - - 35 25 0.39 - - 74 0.29 5 0.02 45 42 0.66 - - 59 0.39 5 0.03 FM - - 17.95 20 - - - - 30 889 13.89 - - 62 8.61 100 13.89 31 132 2.06 - 27 0.56 30 0.62 32 128 2.00 - - 30 0.60 90 1.80 GM - 68.21 20 - - - - 33 15 0.23 - - 371 0.09 35 0.08 34 714 11-15 - - 49' 5.46 50 5.58 36 237 3.70 - - 53 1.96 45 1.67 37 73 1.14 - - [26] 0.30 40 0.46 38 122 1.91 - - 100- 1.91 40 0.76 39 270 4.22 - - 80 3.38 35 1.48 41 384 6.00 - - 39 2.34 60 3.60 43 2 0.03 - - 56 0.02 15 0.005 44 838 13.09 - - 59 7.72 40 5.24 46 11 0.17 - - 98 0.17 20 0.03 47 362 5.66 - - 26 1.47 55 3.11 48 865 13-51 - - 47 6.35 10 1.35 49 25 0.39 - - 93 0.36 5 0.02 51 449 7.01 - - 41 2.87 50 3.51 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 6,401 (a) 99-99 99.99 100 51.71 (b) 48-030) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 6,401 Water as % 2.69 Sum 100 Water 177 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 6,578 Throughout Product 55-0 Intermediate Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 25 Parameter Value Werland Production Variable 51.71 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 77-577(d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable ='(f , g) 66.80 (h) Wildlife Food Score 48.03 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 7TO-5 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score z (e) + (h) + (j) 3 56.28 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 133.85(l) 213 Chesapeake Bay 02-13-99 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS 2.83 20 - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - [52] 5 13 - 64 15 42 383 2.83 - - 51 1.44 80 2.26 62 - - 9 5 SF - 0 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 - 94 15 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 0.05 20 - - - - 35 - - 74 5 45 7 0.05 - - 59 0.03 5 0.003 FM - - 0 - - - - 30 - - 62 100 31 - 27 30 32 - - 30 90 GM - - 97.12 5 - - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 2 0.01 - - 49 0.005 50 0.005 36 - - 53 45 37 - - [26] 40 38 - - 100 40 39 13 0.10 - - 80 0.08 35 0.04 41 1,557 11.49 - - 39 4.48--- 60 6.89 43 11,036 81.47 - - 56 45.62 15 12.22 44 - - 59 40 46 3 0.02 - - 98 0.02 20 0.004 47 15 0.11 - - 26 0.03 55 0.06 48 1 0.01 - - 47 0.005 10 0.001 49 1 0.01 - - 93 0.009 50.0005 51 528 3.90 - - 41 1.60 50 1.95 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 13,546(a) 100.00 100.00 45 53.32 (b) 23@43(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 13,546 Water as % 1.30 Sum 45 Water 178 Interspersion: Number of forms 3 Total 13,724 Throughout Product 135 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 11 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 53.32 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 79.98 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 20 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable= (f x g) 20 (h) Wildlife Food Score 23.43 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 35.15 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 28.38 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 108.36(l) 214 Lower Potomac River 02-14-01 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score Ss - - 14.93 20 - 11 7 0.11 - - 39 0.04 5 0.01 12 7 0.11 - - [52] 0.06 5 0.01 13 167 2.73 - - 64 1.75 15 0.41 42 733 11.98 - - 51 6.11 --80 9.58 62 9 5 SF 0.38 20 - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 12 0.20 - 94 0.19 15 0.03 23 11 0.18 - - 99 0.18 15 0.03 SM - - 1.77 20 - - 35 26 0.43 - - 74 0.32 5 0.02 45 82 1.34 - - 59 0.79 5 0.07 FM - 7.08 20 - - - - 30 252 4.12 - - 62 2.55 100 4.12 31 26 0.43 - 27 0.12 30 0.13 32 155 2.53 - - 30 0.76 90 2.28 GM - 75.83 20 - - - - 33 - - 37@ 35 34 186 3.04 - - 49 1.49 50 1.52 36 - - 53 45 37 104 1.70 - - [261 0.44 40 0.68 38 310 5.07 - - 100 5.07 40 2.03 39 - - 80 35 41 764 12.49 - - 39 4.87 60 7.49 43 109 1.78 - - 56 1.00 15 0.27 44 282 4.61 - - 59 2.72 40 1.84 46 5 0.08 - - 98 0.08 20 0.02 47 800 13.08 - - 26 3.40 55 7.19 48 1,298 21.22 - - 47 9.97 10 2.12 49 6 0.10 - - 93 0.09 5 0.005 51 774 12.66 - - 41 5.19 50 6.33 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 6,116(a) 99-99 99-99 100 47.19 (b) 46.19(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 6,116 Water as % 0.59 Sum 100 Water -79' Interspersion: Number of forms -5 Total 6, f -5-2 Throughout Product 570 Intermediate x Number of VegEa,,on Single Body Types 22 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 47.19 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 7 U. 7-9 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 40 (h) Wildlife Food Score T6.19 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 6 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score (h) + (j) 3 46.43 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 117.22(l) 215 Washington Metropolitan Area 02-14-02 Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 11.75 20 - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 30 10.07 - - [52] 5.24 50.50 13 5 1.68 - - 64 1.08 15 0.25 42 - - 51 80 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 26.84 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 80 26.84 - 94 25@23 15 4.03 23 - - 99 15 Sm - - 0 - - - 35 - - 74 5 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 51-34 10- - - - 30 94 31.54 - - 62 19.55 100 31.54 31 58 19.46 - 27 5.25 30 5.84 32 1 0.34 - - 30 0.10 90 0.31 GM - - 10.07 20 - - - - 33 1 0.34 - - 37 0.13 35 0.12 34 11 3.69 - - 49 1.81 50 1.85 36 9 3.02 - - 53 1.60 45 1.36 37 9 3.02 - - [261 0.79 40 1.21 38 - - 100 40 39 - - 80 35 41 - - 39 60 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 - - 98 20 47 - - 26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 298(a) 100.00 100.00 70 60.78 (b) 47.01(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 298 Water as % 0 Sum 70 Water 0 Interspersion: Number of forms 4 Total 2T8 Throughout Product 280 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 10 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 60.78 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 91.17 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 35 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 2.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 70 (h) Wildlife Food Score T7.01 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 70.52 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score= (e)+(h)+(j) 3 56.84 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 148.01(l) 216 Anne Arundel County Wetland L7o of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - 20.17 20 - - - - 11 35 1.52 - - 39 0.59 5 0.08 12 84 3.65 - - [52] 1.90 5 0.18 13 32 1.39 - - 64 0.89 15 0.21 42 313 13.61 - - 51 6.94 80 10.89 62 - 9 5 SF - - 0.74 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 16 0.70 - 94 0.66 15 0.11 23 1 0.04 - - 99 0.04 15 0.01 SM - - 0.78 20 - - - - 35 6 0.26 - - 74 0.19 5 0.01 45 12 0.52 - - 59 0.31 5 0.03 FM - - 13.14 20 - - - 30 228 9.92 - - 62 6.15 100 9.92 31 43 1.87 - 27 0.50 30 0.56 32 31 1.35 - - 30 0.41 90 1.22 GM - 65.16 20 - - - 33 14 0.61 - - 37 0.23 35 0.21 34 151 6.57 - - 49 3.22 50 3.29 36 113 4.92 - - 53 2.61 45 2.21 37 - - [261 40 38 - - 100 40 39 23 1.00 - - 80 0.80 35 0.35 41 315 13.70 - - 39 5.34 60 8.22 43 - - 56 15 44 369 16.05 - - 59 9.47 40 6.42 46 9 0.39 - - 98 0.38 20 0.08 47 21 0.91 - - 26 0.24 55 0.50 48 21 0.91 - - 47 0.43 10 0.09 49 82 3.57 - - 93 3.32 5 0.18 51 380 16.53 - - 41 6.78 50 8.27 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 2,299(a) 99.99 99-99 100 51.40 (b) 5 3.04 (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 2,299 Water as % 2.34 Sum 100 Water 55 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 2,354 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 22 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 51.40 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 77. 10 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion 'Factor 1.67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 66.80 (h) Wildlife Food Score 5 3.04 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 79.56 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score + (h) + (j) 3 58.79 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 135.89(l) 217 Baltimore County Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 1.72 20 - - -- I I - - 39 5 12 10 0.48 - [521 0.25 50.02 13 6 0.29 - 64 0.18 15 0.04 42 20 0.95 - - 51 0.49 80 0.76 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 0.14 20 - - -- 21 - - 65 70 22 3 0.14 - 94 0.13 15 0.02 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 4.23 20 - - -- 35 81 3.85 - - 74 2.85 50.19 45 8 0.38 - - 59 0.22 50.02 FM - - 13.26 20 - - -- 30 147 6.99 - - 62 4.33 100 6.99 31 3 0.14 - 27 0.04 30 0.04 32 129 6.13 - - 30 1.84 90 5.52 GM - - 80.64 20 - - -- 33 25 1.19 - - 37 0.44 35 0.42 34 835 39-71 - - 49 19.46 50 19.85 36 35 1.66 - - 53 0.88 45 0.75 37 431 20.49 - - [261 5.33 40 8.20 38 59 2.81 - - 100 2.81 40 1.12 39 140 6.66 - - 80 5.33 35 2.33 41 47 2.23 - - 39 0.87 60 1.34 43 - - 56 15 44 30 1.43 - - 59 0.84 40 0.57 46 20 0.95 - - 98 0.93 20 0.19 47 39 1.85 - - 26 0.48 55 1.02 48 - - 47 10 49 4 0.19 - - 93 0.18 50.01 51 31 1.47 - - 41 0.60 50 0.74 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 2,103(a) 99-99 99-99 100 48.48 (b) 50-14(i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 2,103 Water as % 0.47 Sum 100 Water 16 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 2,113 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x @umber of@Vegetation Single Body Types 21 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 48.48 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 72.72 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable ' 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (I x g) LO (h) Wildlife Food Score 50-14 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 75.21 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 48.40 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 121.12(l) 218 Calvert County Werland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS 8.05 20 - - 11 - - 39 5 12 6 0.23 - - [521 0.12 5 0.01 13 18 0.68 - - 64 0.44 15 0.10 42 190 7.14 - - 51 3.64 80 5.71 62 9 5 SF - 0 - - - - 21 - 65 70 22 94 15 23 - - 99 15 SM - 0.67 20 - - - - 35 11 0.41 - - 74 0.30 5 0.02 45 7 0.26 - - 59 0.15 5 0.01 FM - - 4.14 20 - - - - 30 25 0.94 - - 62 0.58 100 0.94 31 6 0.23 - 27 0.06 30 0.07 32 79 2.97 - - 30 0.89 90 2.67 GM - - 87.15 20 - - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 195 7.33 - - 49 3.59 50 3.67 36 28 1.05 - - 53 0.56 45 0.47 37 4 0.15 - - [261 0.04 40 0.06 38 14 0.53 - - 100 0.53 40 0.21 39 66 2.48 - - 80 1.98 35 0.87 41 303 11-38 - - 39 4.44 60 6.83 43 2 0.08 - 56 0.04 15 0.01 44 664 24.94 - 59 14.71 40 9.98 46 10 0.38 - 98 0.37 20 0.08 47 220 8.26 - 26 2.15 55 4.54 48 447 16.79 - 47 7.89 10 1.68 49 36 1.35 - 93 1.26 5 0.07 51 331 12.43 - 41 5.10 50 6.22 61 - 20 20 63 - 50 5 71 - 50 15 72 - 20 15 Total: 2,662 (a) 100.01 100.01 80 48.84 (b) 44.22(i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 2,662 Water as 96 0.60 Sum 80 Water 16 Interspersion: Number of forms 4 Total 2,678 Throughout Product 320 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 21 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 48.84 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 73.26 (d) Vegetation/Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 40 (h) Wildlife Food Score 44.22 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 66.T3 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 45.44 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 118.70(l) 219 Caroline County Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 0.54 20 - - - - 11 3 0.09 - - 39 0.04 50.005 12 - [52] 5 13 2 0.06 - 64 0.04 15 0.01 42 13 0.39 - - 51 0.20 80 0.31 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 25.87 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 871 25.87 - 94 24.32 15 3.88 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 0.24 20 - - - - 35 7 0.21 - - 74 0.16 50.01 45 1 0.03 - - 59 0.02 50.002 FM - - 36.65 15 - - - - 30 196 5.82 - - 62 3.61 100 5.82 31 466 13.84 - 27 3.74 30 4.15 32 572 16.99 - - 30 5.10 90 15.29 GM - - 36.71 20 - - - - 33 2 0.06 - - 37 0.02 35 0.02 34 393 11.67 - - 49 5.72 50 5.84 36 6 0.18 - - 53 0.10 45 0.08 37 35 1.04 - - [261 0.27 40 0.42 38 12 0.36 - - 100 0.36 40 0.14 39 1 0.03 - - 80 0.02 35 0.01 41 1 0.03 - - 39 0.01 60 0.02 43 - - 56 15 44 196 5.82 - - 59 3.43 40 2.33 46 120 3.56 - - 98 3.49 20 0.71 47 203 6.03 - - 26 1.57 55 3.32 48 232 6.89 - - 47 3.24 10 0.69 49 - - 93 5 51 35 1.04 - - 41 0.43 50 0.52 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 3,367(a) 100.01 100.01 95 55.89 (b) 43.58(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 3,367 Water as % 0.65 Sum 95 Water 22 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 3,3T9 Throughout Product 475 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 21 Parameter Value Werland Production Variable 5 5.89 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 83.81 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 2.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 80- (h) Wildlife Food Score T3.58 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.5-0 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 65.37 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 58.46 (k) Total. Resource Score = (d + k) 142.30(l) 220 Cecil County Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 11.98 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 124 5.29 - - [521 2,75 5 0.26 13 157 6.69 - - 64 4.28 15 1.00 42 - - 51 80 62 - 9 5 SF - - 3.28 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 77 3.28 - 94 3.08 15 0.49 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 2.56 20 - -- - - 35 60 2.56 - - 74 1.89 5 0.13 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 31-03 15 - - - 30 305 13.00 - - 62 8.06 100 13.00 31 10 0.43 - 27 0.12 30 0.13 32 413 17.60 - - 30 5,28 90 15.84 GM - - 51.15 20 - - - - 33 61 2.60 - - 37 0,96 35 0.91 34 904 38.53 - - 49 M88 50 19.27 36 112 4.77 - - 53 2.53 45 2.15 37 25 1.07 - - [26] 0.28 40 0.43 38 - - 100 40 39 98 4.18 - - 80 3,34 35 1.46 41 - - 39 60 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 - - 98 20 47 - - 26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 2,346(a) 100.00 100.00 95 51.45 (b) 5 5.07 (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 2,346 Water as 17o 0 Sum 95 Water 0 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 2,346 Throughout Product 475 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 12 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 51.45 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (13 x c) 7777-1-8 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 2.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 870-- (h) Wildlife Food Score 75.07 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 8T6-1 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 64.20 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 141-38(l) 221 Charles County Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score Ss - - 10-93 20 - - - - 11 7 0.17 - - 39 0.07 5 0.01 12 1 0.02 - - (52] 0.01 5 0.001 13 165 4.02 - - 64 2.57 15 0.60 42 276 6.72 - - 51 3.43 80 5.38 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 0.34 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 11 0.27 - 94 0.25 15 0.04 23 3 0.07 - - 99 0.07 15 0.01 SM - - 1.49 20 - - - - 35 18 0.44 - - 74 0.33 5 0.02 45 43 1.05 - - 59 0.62 5 0.05 FM - - 10.44 20 - - - - 30 248 6.04 - - 62 3.74 100 6.04 31 26 0.63 - 27 0.17 30 0.19 32 155 3.77 - - 30 1.13 90 3.39 GM - - 76.81 20 - - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 186 4.53 - - 49 2.22 50 2.27 36 - - 53 45 37 104 2.53 - - [261 0.66 40 1.01 38 310 7.55 - - 100 7.55 40 3.02 39 - - 80 35 41 349 8.50 - - 39 3.32 60 5.10 43 7 0.17 - - 56 0.10 15 0.03 44 237 5.77 - - 59 3.40 40 2.31 46 - - 98 20 47 669 16.29 - - 26 4.24 55 8.96 48 970 23.61 - - 47 11.10 10 2.36 49 3 0.07 - - 93 0.07 5 0.004 51 320 7.79 - - 41 3.19 50 3.90 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 4,108(a) 100.01 100.01 100 48.24 (b) 44.70(i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 4,108 Water as % 0.39 Sum 100 Water 16 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 4,124 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 21 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 48.24 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 7T36 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 40 (h) Wildlife Food Score T4.70 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 67-05 (i) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 45.68 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 118.04(l) 222 Dorchester County Wetland ,7o of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 5.13 20 - - - - I I - - 39 5 12 - - [52] 5 13 906 1.09 - - 64 0.70 15 0.16 42 3,361 4.04 - - 51 2.06 80 3.23 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 7.85 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 5,727 6.88 - 94 6.47 15 1.03 23 906 0.97 - - 99 0.96 15 0.15 SM - - 0.04 20 - - - - 35 -I 1 0.01 - - 74 0.007 5 0.001 45 26 0.03 - - 59 0.02 5 0.002 FM - - 1.07 20 - - - - 30 173 0.21 - - 62 0.13 100 0.21 31 430 0.52 - 27 0.14 30 0.16 32 283 0.34 - - 30 0.10 90 0.31 GM - - 85.92 20 - - - - 33 12 0.01 - - 37 0.004 35 0.004 34 934 1.12 - - 49 0.55 50 0.56 36 132 0.16 - - 53 0.08 45 0.07 37 1,038 1.25 - - [26] 0.33 40 0.50 38 85 0.10 - - 100 0.10 40 0.04 39 7 0.01 - - 80 0.008 35 0.004 41 12,728 15.29 - - 39 5.96 60 9.17 43 23,131 27.79 - - 56 15.56 15 4.17 44 2,330 2.80 - - 59 1.65 40 1.12 46 1,301 1.56 - - 98 1.53 20 0.31 47 14,891 1T89 - - 26 4.65 55 9.84 48 2,167 2.60 - - 47 1.22 10 0.26 49 488 0.59 - - 93 0.55 5 0.03 51 12,280 14.75 - - 41 6.05 50 7.38 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 83,247(a) 100.01 100.01 100 48.83 (b) 38.71(i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 83,247 Water as 176 2.66 Sum 100 Water 2,271 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 85,518 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 23 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 48.83 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 7 3.2 5 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) LO (h) Wildlife Food Score 38.71 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 59.0-7 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 42.69 (k) 3 Total Resource Score = (d + k) 115.94(l) 223 Harford County Weiland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 1.17 20 - - - - 11 1 0.02 - - 39 0.01 50.001 12 13 0.20 - - [521 0.10 50.01 13 59 0.92 - - 64 0.59 15 0.14 42 2 0.03 - - 51 0.02 80 0.02 62 - - 9 5 SF - - @.75 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 104 1.62 - 94 1.52 15 0.24 23 73 1.13 - - 99 1.12 15 0.17 SM - - 12.42 20 - - - - 35 800 12.42 - - 74 9.19 50.62 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 9.97 20 - - - - 30 127 1.97 - - 62 1.22 100 1.97 31 19 0.30 - 27 0.08 30 0.09 32 496 7.70 - - 30 2.31 90 6.93 GM - - 73.69 20 - - - - 33 146 2.27 - - 37 0.84 35 0.79 34 2,909 45.18 - - 49 22.14 50 22.59 36 158 2.45 - - 53 1.30 45 1.10 37 957 14.86 - - [26] 3.86 40 5.94 38 247 3.84 - - 100 3.84 40 1.54 39 176 2.73 - - 80 2.18 35 0.96 41 2 0.03 - - 39 0.01 60 0.02 43 - - 56 15 44 - - 59 40 46 150 2.33 - - 98 2.28 20 0.47 47 - - 26 55 48 - - 47 10 49 - - 93 5 51 - - 41 50 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 6,439(a) 100.00 100.00 100 52.61 (b) 43.60(i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 6,439 Water as % 0.57 Sum 100 Water 3@ Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 6,476 Throughout Product 560 Intermediate x Number.2f VegStation Single Body Types 18 Parameter Value Weiland Production Variable 52.61 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 78.91 (d) Vegetation/Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 6&-80 (h) Wildlife Food Score 43.60 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) [email protected] (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 54-07 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 132.98(l) 224 Kent County Wetland of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS, - - 22.23 20 - - I I - - 39 12 - - [521 5 13 354 8.96 - - 64 5.73 15 1.34 42 524 13.27 - - 51 6.77 80 10.62 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 2.10 20 -- - -- 21 - - 65 70 22 83 2.10 94 1.97 15 0.32 23 99 15 SM - - 2.23 20 - - -- 35 54 1.37 -- - 74 1.01 50.07 45 34 0.86 - - 59 0.51 50.04 FM - - 6.89 20 - - -- 30 26 0.66 - - 62 0.41 100 0.66 31 17 0.43 - 27 0.12 30 0.13 32 229 5.80 -- - 30 1.74 90 5.22 GM - - 66.56 20 - - -- 33 5 0.13 - - 37 0.05 35 0.05 34 636 16.10 - 49 7.89 50 8.05 36 - 53 45 37 23 0.58 - - [26] 0.15 40 0.23 38 223 5.65 - - 100 5.65 40 2.26 39 17 0.43 - - 80 0.34 35 0.15 41 706 17.87 - - 39 6.97 60 10.72 43 7 0.18 - - 56 0.10 15 0.03 44 192 4.86 - - 59 2.87 40 1.94 46 52 1.32 - - 98 1.29 20 0.26 47 296 7.49 - - 26 1.95 55 4.12 48 13 0.33 - - 47 0.16 10 0.03 49 61 1.54 - - 93 1.43 50.08 51 398 10.08 - - 41 4.13 50 5.04 61 - 20 20 63 - 50 5 71 - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 3,950(a) 100.01 100.01 100 51.24 (b) 51.36(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 3,950 Water as % 3.42 Sum 100 Water 140 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 4,5-9-0 Throughout Product 5TO Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 21 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 51.24 (b) t Vegetation Richness Factor I.% (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 7ZT.-86 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 66.80 (h) Wildlife Food Score 51-36 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 77.04 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 57.95 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 134.81(l) 225 Prince George's County Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 10.89 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 263 9.39 - [52] 4.88 5 0.47 13 40 1.43 - 64 0.92 15 0.21 42 2 0.07 - - 51 0.04 80 0.06 62 - 9 5 SF - - 2.86 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 80 2.86 - 94 2.69 15 0.43 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 0.29 20 - - - - 35 8 0.29 - - 74 0.21 5 0.01 45 - - 59 5 FM - - 32.16 15 - - - - 30 740 26.42 - - 62 16.38 100 26.42 31 141 5,03 - 27 1.36 30 1.51 32 20 0.71 - - 30 0.21 90 0.64 GM - - 53.81 20 - - - - 33 3 0.11 - - 37 0.04 35 0.04 34 421 15.03 - - 49 7.36 50 7.52 36 105 3.75 - - 53 1.99 45 1.69 37 78 2.78 - - [261 0.72 40 1.11 38 108 3.86 - - 100 3.86 40 1.54 39 183 6.53 - - 80 5.22 35 2.29 41 22 0.79 - - 39 0.31 60 0.47 43 - - 56 15 44 171 6.10 - - 59 3.60 40 2.44 46 - - 98 20 47 126 4.50 - - 26 1.17 55 2.48 48 274 9.78 - - 47 4.60 10 0.98 49 8 0.29 - - 93 0.27 5 0.01 51 8 0.29 - - 41 0.12 50 0.15 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 2,801 (a) 100.01 100.01 95 55-95 (b) 50.47(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 2,801 Water as % 0 Sum 95 Water 0 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 2,801 Throughout Product 475 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 20 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 55-95 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor T 5-0 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 143-93 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 2.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable= (I x g) 80 (h) Wildlife Food Score 50.47 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor T. -56 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) f-71 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) -1 (j) 3 61.90 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 145-83(l) 226 Queen Anne's County Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS 26-33 15 - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - [52] 5 13 4 0.12 - - 64 0.08 15 0.02 42 897 26.21 - - 51 13-37 80 20.97 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 0.20 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 7 0.20 94 0.19 15 0.03 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 0.70 20 - - - - 35 9 0.26 - - 74 0.19 50.01 45 15 0.44 - - 59 0.26 50.02 FM - - 2.71 20 - - - - 30 7 0.20 - - 62 0.12- 100 0.20- 31 27 30 32 86 2.51 - - 30 0.75 90 2.26 GM - - 70.05 20 - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 152 4.44 - - 49 2.18 50 2.22 36 - - 53 45 37 - - [261 40 38 23 0.67 - - 100 0.67 40 0.27 39 9 0.26 - - 80 0.21 35 0.09 41 935 27.32 - - 39 10.65 60 16.39 43 281 8.21 - - 56 4.60 15 1.23 44 493 14.41 - - 59 8.50 40 5.76 46 18 0.53 - - 98 0.52 20 0.11 47 65 1.90 - - 26 0.49 55 1.05 48 212 6.20 - - 47 2.91 10 .62 49 105 3.07 - - 93 2.86 50.15 51 104 3.04 - - 41 1.25 50 1.52 61 - - 20 20 63 - 50 5 71 - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 3,422(a) 99-99. 99-99 95 49.80 (b) 52.92(i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 3,422 Water as % 3.77 Sum 95 Water 13@ Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 3,556 Throughout Product 475 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 18 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 49.8 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 7@ 7-0 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1-67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) [email protected] (h) Wildlife Food Score 52.92 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 79,38 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 5 8.7 3 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 133.430) 227 Somerset County Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - 6.15 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 1 0.002 - [52] 0.001 5 0.0001 13 67 0.13 - 64 0-.08 15 0.02 42 3,057 6.02 - - 51 3.07 80 4.82 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 2.48 20 - - - - 21 559 1.10 - - 65 0.72 70 0.77 22 519 1.02 - 94 0.96 15 0.15 23 181 0.36 - - 99 0.36 15 0.05 SM - - 0.06 20 - - - - 35 26 0.05 - - 74 0.04 5 0.003 45 4 0.01 - - 59 0.006 5 0.0005 FM - - 0.24 20 - - - - 30 63 0.12 - - 62 0.07 100 0.12 31 - 27 30 32 61 0.12 - - 30 0.04 go 0.11 GM - - 91.06 20 - - - - 33 11 0.02 - - 37 0.007 35 0.007 34 132 0.26 - - 49 0.13 50 0.13 36 - - 53 45 37 - - [261 40 38 190 0.37 - - 100 0.37 40 0.15 39 1 0.002 - - 80 0.002 35 0.0007 41 13,236 26.06 - - 39 10.16 60 15.64 43 22,543 44.39 - - 56 24.86 15 6.66 44 197 0.39 - - 59 0.23 40 0.16 46 253 0.50 - - 98 0.49 20 0.10 47 1,656 3.26 - - 26 0.85 55 1.79 48 1,093 2.15 - - 47 1.01 10 0.22 49 38 0.07 - - 93 0.07 5 0.004 51 6,901 13.59 - - 41 5.57 50 6.80 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 50,789(a) 99-99 99-99 100 49.10 (b) 37.71 (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 50,789 Water as % 3.48 Sum 100 Water 1,829 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 52,618 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Vegetatio Single Body Types 22 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 49. 10 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1-50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 73.65 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (I x g) @LO (h) Wildlife Food Score 37.71 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1,50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x 0 56.56 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score= (e)+(h)+(j) 3 42.19 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 115.84(l) 228 St. Mary's County Wetland of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 22.07 20 - - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 22 0.69 - - [52] 0.36 5 0.03 13 37 1.17 - - 64 0.75 15 0.18 42 640 20.21 - - 51 10.31 80 16.17 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 0.47 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 1 0.03 - 94 0.03 15 0.005 23 14 0.44 - - 99 0.44 15 0.07 Sm - 2.59 20 - - - - 35 -8 0.25 - - 74 0.19 5 0.01 45 74 2.34 - - 59 1.38 5 0.12 FM - 0.38 20 - - - - 30 12 0.38 - - 62 0.24 100 0.38 31 - 27 30 32 - - 30 90 GM - 74.47 20 - - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 - - 49 50 36 - - 53 45 37 - - [26] 40 38 - - 100 40 39 - - 80 35 41 605 19.10 - - 39 7.45 60 11.46 43 102 3.22 - - 56 1.80 15 0.48 44 320 10.10 - - 59 5.96 40 4.04 46 12 0.38 - - 98 0.37 20 0.08 47 186 5.87 - - 26 1.53 55 3.23 48 472 14.90 - - 47 7.00 10 1.49 49 9 0.28 - - 93 0.26 5 0.01 51 653 20.62 - - 41 8.45 50 10-31 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 3,167 (a) 99.98 99.98 100 46.52 (b) 48.07 (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 3,167 Water as % 5.63 Sum I00 Water -189 Interspersion: Number of forms -5 Total 35 5-6 Throughout Product 56-0 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 16 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 46-52 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 69.T8 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.67 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 4T.-80 (h) Wildlife Food Score 48.07 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = @i x c) 7 - Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 56.30 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 126.08(l) 229 Talbot County Wetland of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value �c-ore Ss - - 23.17 20 - - 11 5 0.10 - - 39 0.04 5 0.01 12 - - [52] 5 13 27 0.56 - - 64 0.36 15 0.08 42 1,076 22-51 - - 51 11.48 80 18.01 62 9 SF - - 3.93 20 - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 188 3.93 - 94 3.69 15 0.59 23 - - 99 15 SM - - 1.48 20- - - - - 35 44 0.92 - - 74 0.68 5 0.05 45 27 0.56 - - 59 0.33 5 0.03 FM - - 11.28 20 - - 30 40 0.84 - - 62 0.52 100 0.84 31 118 2.47 - 27 0.67 30 0.74 32 381 7.97 - - 30 2.39 90 7.17 GM - - 60.13 20 - - 33 6 0.13 - 37 0.05 35 0.05 34 667 13.95 - 49 6.84 50 6.98 36 5 0.10 53 0.05 45 0.05 37 110 2.30 [26) 0.60 40 0.92 38 172 3.60 100 3.60 40 1.44 39 2 0.04 --- 80 0.03 35 0.01 41 552 11.55 39 4.50 60 6.93 43 122 2.55 56 1.43 15 0.38 44 380 7.95 59 4.69 40 3.18 46 80 1.67 98 1.64 20 0.33 47 46 0.96 26 0.25 55 0.53 48 314 6.57 47 3.09 10 0.66 49 78 1.63 93 1.52 5 0.08 51 341 7.13 41 2.92 50 3.57 61 20 20 63 50 5 71 50 15 72 20 15 Total: 4,781(a) 99-99 99,99 100 51.37 (b) 52.63(i) Acreage Veg/ Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 4,781 Water as % .2.67 Sum 100 Water 131 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 4,TI 2 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate It Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 23 Parameter Value Werland Production Variable Vegetation Richness Factor 51-37 (b) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 1.50 (c) Vegetationl Water Interspersion Variable 77-06 (d) Vegetation Form Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 40 (f) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) 2.00 (g) Wildlife Food Score LO (h) Vegetation Richness Factor 52.63 (i) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i - C) 1.50 (c) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) I (h) + (j) 78-95 (j) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 3 62-98 (k) 140.04(l) 230 Wicornico County Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS 1.79 20 - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - [521 5 13 110 0.81 - - 64 0.52 15 0.12 42 133 0.98 - - 51 0.50 80 0.78 62 - - 9 5 SF - - 10.86 20 - - - - 21 - - 65 70 22 1,304 9.60 - 94 9.02 15 1.44 23 171 1.26 - - 99 1.25 15 0.19 SM - - 0.45 20 - - - - 35 33 0.24 - - 74 0.18 5 0.01 45 28 0.21 - - 59 0.12 5 0.01 FM - - 10.92 20 - - - - 30 180 1.32 - - 62 0.82 100 1.32 31 352 2.59 - 27 0.70 30 0.78 32 952 7.01 - - 30 2.10 90 6.31 GM - - 75.97 20 - - - - 33 146 1.07 - - 37 0.40 35 0.37 34 400 2.94 - - 49 1.44 50 1.47 36 79 0.58 - - 53 0.31 45 0.26 37 3 0.02 - - [26] 0.01 40 0.01 38 284 2.09 - - 100 2.09 40 0.84 39 24 0.18 - - 80 0.14 35 0.06 41 1,253 9.22 - - 39 3.60 60 5.53 43 2,490 18.32 - - 56 10.26 15 2.75 44 66 0.49 - - 59 0.29 40 0.20 46 112 0.82 - - 98 0.80 20 0.16 47 199 1.46 - - 26 0.38 55 0.80 48 1,981 14.58 - - 47 6.85 10 1.46 49 7 0.13 - - 93 0.12 5 0.01 51 3,271 24.07 - - 41 9.87 50 12.04 61 - - 20 20 63 - - 50 5 71 - 50 15 72 - - 20 15 Total: 13,588(a) 99-99 99-99 100 51.77 (b) 36.92(i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) 13,588 Water as % 0.50 Sum 100 Water 68 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 13,656 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Vegetation Single Body Types 23 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 51.77 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 77.66 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 M Vegetation Interspersion Factor 1.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) @LO (h) Wildlife Food Score 36.92 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 5 @ 3-8 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score = (e) + (h) + (j) 3 41.79 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 11945(l) 231 Worcester County Wetland % of Area Form Type Production Wildlife Food Type Form Acres Type Form Value Value Variable Value Score SS - - 8.81 20 - - - 11 - - 39 5 12 - - (52] 5 13 41 0.19 - - 64 0.12 15 0.03 42 55 0.26 - - 51 0.13 80 0.21 62 1,780 8.36 - - 9 0.75 5 0.42 SF - - 28.18 20 - - - - 21 3,595 16.89 - - 65 10.98 70 11.82 22 2,400 11.27 - 94 10.59 15 1.69 23 4 0.02 - - 99 0.02 15 0.003 SM - - 0.39 20 - - - - 35 80 0.38 - - 74 0.28 5 0.02 45 2 0.01 - - 59 0.006 5 0.0005 FM - - 2.76 20 - - - - 30 407 1.91 - - 62 1.18 100 1.91 31 143 0.67 - 27 0.18 30 0.20 32 38 0.18 - - 30 0.05 90 0.16 GM - - 59.84 20 - - - - 33 - - 37 35 34 103 0.48 - - 49 0.24 50 0.24 36 3 0.01 - - 53 0.005 45 0.005 37 - - [261 40 38 177 0.83 - - 100 0.83 40 0.33 39 - 80 35 1 41 18 0.08 - 39 0.03 60 0.05 43 56 15 44 46 0.22 - - 59 0.13 40 0.09 46 28 0.13 - - 98 0.13 20 0.03 47 348 1.63 - - 26 0.42 55 0.90 48 - - 47 10 49 26 0.12 - - 93 0.11 5 0.01 51 26 0.12 - - 41 0.05 50 0.06 61 2,304 10.82 - - 20 2.16 20 2.16 63 121 0.57 - - 50 0.29 5 0.03 71 95 0.45 - - 50 0.23 15 0.07 72 9,449 44.38 - - 20 8.88 15 6.66 Total: 21,289(a) 99.98 99.98 100 37.79(b) 27.10 (i) Acreage Veg/Water Interspersion Vegetation Form Vegetation (a) ZIZ@2 Water as % 2.91 Sum 100 Water 638 Interspersion: Number of forms 5 Total 21,927 Throughout Product 500 Intermediate x Number of Veizetation Single Body Types 24 Parameter Value Wetland Production Variable 37.79 (b) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Vegetation Resource Group Score = (b x c) 56.69 (d) Vegetation/ Water Interspersion Variable 30 (e) Vegetation Form Variable 40 (f) Vegetation Interspersion Factor 2.00 (g) Adjusted Vegetation Form Variable = (f x g) LO (h) Wildlife Food Score 27. 10 (i) Vegetation Richness Factor 1.50 (c) Adjusted Wildlife Food Score = (i x c) 40.65 (j) Wildlife Resource Group Score + (h) + (j) 3 50.22 (k) Total Resource Score = (d + k) 106.91(l) 232 APPENDIX 6. CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS A variety of recommendations were developed during Although the available aerial imagery and the under- the course of the wetlands management study. The fol- water situation limited detailed mapping and evaluation, lowing is a summary listing of all significant recommen- the submerged aquatic vegetation warrants further study dations. The recommendations are divided into two because of its importance both to marine life and to major categories: management and technical. Manage- waterfowl. The immediate need is for a refinement of ment recommendations relate to general policies and the mapping into more specific types. Subsequent stu- regulatory strategies for wetlands management by DNR. dies should be directed towards a determination of Technical recommendations concern specific details of environmental factors that affect the occurrence and the administration of the wetlands program, and include distribution of submerged aquatics, particularly in regard comments on the wetland typing, aerial photography, to water quality and bottom conditions as affected by and mapping. The arrangement of the recommendations human activities. does not reflect any order of priority. Marsh Burning Winter burning of brackish marshes is conducted MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS extensively in Dorchester and Somerset Counties. Neg- ligible published information was located regarding Update Aerial Imagery marsh burning. It would be useful to study this activity to The 1970-1972 aerial photography is now seven to define more clearly the purposes, to determine whether nine years old. During the field surveys a number of areas the intended goals are achieved, and to evaluate the were observed where natural changes have occurred in impact upon the wetlands (e.g., species selection, pro- the wetlands since the photography was flown. Much of ductivity, substrate conditions). The proportion of fires this was due to shoreline erosion and subsidence, that are set by arsonists should be determined, and the although several wetland coves along the main body of effects of such fires should be evaluated. the Chesapeake Bay had either become tidal or non-tidal Upper Inland Boundary depending upon berm elimination or deposition. Also, A systematic on-going procedure should be established the boundaries of some stands had changed considerably, to revise the wetland maps to indicate alterations of the for reasons which can only be speculated. These changes upper inland wetlands boundary that result from permit- indicate the dynamic nature of the Maryland wetlands, ted activities and natural factors. A program of surveil- and appropriate considerations should be made when lance to detect unauthorized activities in the coastal using the mapping, which reflects only the condition of wetlands also should be developed. the wetlands at a single point in time. Consequently, the Wetland Studies wetland maps will become increasingly outdated as time The wetland value assessment and environmental passes, due to changes in the shoreline, wetland types, evaluation have indicated a number of data deficiencies and the upper inland boundary. At some time in the concerning our knowledge of the wetland ecosystem. future (possibly ten years after the original aerial photo- DNR should enc'ourage researchers to direct their graph) it will be advisable to rephotograph the wetlands wetland studies toward rectifying major data deficiencies. and update the wetlands maps. This will not only pro- More importantly, researchers should be strongly urged vide a current data base for the management program, to use the DNR wetland classification system as a stand- but also provide an invaluable overview of changes in ard for wetlands type descriptions. This would establish wetland conditions. This overview will provide insight a basis for direct comparisons of data from independent into shoreline and wetland changes in relation to erosion research studies. and sedimentation, land subsidence, and human ac- tivities. Computerize Data Submerged Aquatic Vegetation DNR should establish a land-oriented computer pro- The delineation of submerged aquatics (Type 101) on gram for the storage and retrieval of wetland informa- the wetland maps should be considered as a conservative tion. The program could utilize the wetland photomaps representation of their actual extent. Additional beds are as the basic template for data storage, and employ an overlay coordinate grid to identify specific locations believed to exist, but they were masked in the imagery by within the photomaps. Initial data storage could encom- siltation, water depth, background color of bottom sedi- pass the areal measurements of wetland types that were ments, waves, and sun glare. In addition, the occurrence conducted during the wetlands management study. Fu- of submerged aquatics varies greatly from year to year ture programming could be expanded to differentiate and the Type 101 mapping is far less reflective of current State and private wetlands, wildlife and fisheries obser- conditions than the mapping of emergent vegetated wet- vations, water quality information, management pro- lands. Type 101 also is a catch-all for a variety of aquatic grams, and permit activities. plants. This type includes submerged rooted aquatics (e.g., wild celery, eelgrass, wigeongrass), floating rooted TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS (pond lily) and non-rooted (duckweed) plants, and the alga called sea lettuce (Ulva spp.). These subtypes span a Wetland Typing wide variety of salinities, water depth, bottom condi- Shrub Swamp Types. Only a few, small stands of the tions, species composition, and growth form. smooth alder/black willow shrub type (12) on the 234 Patuxent River in Charles County and Anne Arundel guish differences in height. County were mapped in the sixteen-county study area. In Additional Wetland Types. Several minor wetland addition, the swamp rose shrub type (11) and red types could be added to the DNR classification system. maple/ash type (13) are very similar in appearance from These generally occur in association with the existing the air, and could not be distinguished on the existing major wetland types; they may warrant individual con- aerial photographs. Stands of swamp rose were deline- sideration, however, in site-specific studies. ated only where observed during field surveys. Conse- Fresh Marsh Category quently, the occurrence of shrub swamps is biased in Rush (Juncus effusus) favor of Type 13, red maple/ash. Detailed surveys Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) related to specific permit applications and research stu- Waterhemp (Acnida cannabina) dies, however, will be able to evaluate Types I I and 12 Saline High Marsh Category more adequately on a site by site basis. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) Loblolly Pine Wooded Swamp. An additional swamp type-loblolly pine, Type 23-was added to the wetlands Marsh Burning. Marsh burning in Dorchester and typing system after the mapping had been initiated. This Somerset Counties complicated the classifications of type typically consists of closed-canopy or scattered lob- brackish marshes because recent burns in which the lolly pine, with an undergrowth of switchgrass and/or vegetation had been destroyed appeared on some imag- common reed. Subtyping of undergrowth types was not ery, and previous burns had altered the signature of performed, and probably would require low-altitude true wetland types by removing dead plant materials from color photography and intensive field checks. However, the stands prior to each new growing season. The prefix in several areas in Dorchester County, clearly definable "B" was used to classify burned areas, and type classi- stands of common reed were observed growing under f ications are based upon adjoining unburned areas, field the pine. It would be interesting to investigate some of checks, and the position of the area within the marsh. these common reed stands, and determine whether they Future photographs should be taken before I November, reflect pioneer wetland vegetation that is being favored before marsh burning becomes widespread. by increased tidal incursions. Aerial Photography Spatterdock. Delineation of spatterdock (Type 31) is 1970-1972 Imagery. The current photography is diffi- limited in late-season photography after mid-October cult to use because it contains a variety of seasonal imag- due to the deterioration of plant materials. Particular ery in three different years: September, 1970; September difficulty occurs in delineating isolated clones in open through December, 197 1; and July through September water because of the absence of indications of * stand 1972. Consequently, several signature forms exist for boundaries. This problem is aggravated when silty water most wetland types and reflect seasonal changes in plant obscured plant remnants and bottom features at the time form and condition, and annual variation in overall of the original aerial photography. growth conditions. Additional differences exist due to Rosemallow. The identification of rosernallow (Types exposure and processing variations at the times of the 35 and 45) is limited by the nature of the plant and by the different flights. Any major reflights should be planned scale of the current mapping effort. Prior to September, to provide maximum coverage during as short a schedule true color imagery does not differentiate the marsh types as possible. This will simplify signature interpretation well. During September, however, rosernallow drops its considerably. leaves very rapidly, and its occurrence is generally The variation in the season of the photography also screened by other plants. Low-altitude true color photo- can introduce bias as to apparent species dominance. For graphy during the period of flowering should make it example, Peltandra and Acorus are dominant early possible to differentiate the rosernallow types from growth species in some marshes, and early photography other scrub types. will exaggerate the extent of their occurrence because Wild Rice. Consideration should be given to establish- other plant species have not yet developed. Polygonum, ing two growth forms for wild rice: a tall form (possibly however, becomes more abundant as the growing season above 6 feet) in pure freshwater areas; and a low form (6 progresses, and consequently is favored by late photo- feet or less) in slightly-brackish freshwater marshes. graphy. Productivity probably varies considerably between the Color Infra-red Photography. Based primarily upon two forms and the marsh associations also are different. experience in Calvert, Charles, and Somerset Counties, The tall form occurs usually in pure stands, and occasion- color infra-red imagery was found to be too sensitive for ally has an undergrowth of Peltandra, Juncus, Scirpus, use in regional mapping of wetlands. Infra-red signa- Polygonum, S. alterniflora, Echinochloa, and various tures vary greatly and reflect wetness, depth of water, forbs (e.g., cardinal flower, asters, composites, mallow). heat absorption, and physiological conditions in addition Smooth Cordgrass, Tall Growth Form. The delinea- to vegetation types. The detail of the imagery may be tion of the tall growth form of smooth cordgrass (Type useful for intensive site-specific studies. However, natu- 71) is limited due to the narrow width of most stands. ral color imagery is preferable for extensive, more gen- Many of the current photographs were taken during eral, studies because fewer variables are involved in periods of high tide. General glare and reflections of the interpreting the signatures. sun on these photographs made it impossible to distin- The following are examples of signature variations 235 that were encountered in the infra-red imagery in morning or late afternoon should be avoided because Somerset County. This is not intended to be a complete marsh types are overshadowed by adjoining swamps key to infra-red signatures, but it provides examples of and other forests. the complexity of this imagery. Contras t-control printing is used on black-white 1. Type 41: white, tan, gray, brown, pink, light blue. aerial photography to even the tone variation be- 2. Type 43: dark or light gray, greenish gray, silver, tween sun-side and shade-side on individual photo- bluish gray, reddish brown. graphs. This results in more uniform imagery, with- 3. Type 47: gray, brown, green, greenish gray, bluish out a bleached sun side and a dark shaded side. It green; easily confused with Type 43. would be useful to determine whether a similar pro- 4. Mixture of Types 42, 5 1, and 48 adjoining water edges cess could be used with true color photographs. This often cannot be differentiated due to signature would further improve the quality of the imagery by similarity. reducing signature variation. 5. The extent of Types 51 and 42 is exaggerated when 4. Flights should not be made during hazy or cloudy adjacent to Type 43. weather, and should avoid periods of high spring and 6. Mixed Type 41-51 may appear bluish-green and be storm tides. In particular, storm high tides on the confused with Type 47. western shore of Chesapeake Bay obscure wetland 7. Pink: Types 41, 44, 46, 49, and 5 1. types because of the high silt content of the water. 8. White: Types 41, 44, and 48. 5. Flight lines should be planned to provide front-back 9. Some distinctive green, yellow, and white areas have and side-side overlap to permit stereoscopic viewing no relation to vegetation types. of all areas and to provide uniform matching of adja- Aerial Flights. The following are guidelines for the cent maps. planning of flights to secure aerial photography. Photograph Storage and Handling. Mislabeled, dam- 1. Flight lines should be delineated very liberally to aged, and lost photographs complicate the interpretation insure that all wetland areas are imaged during the and use of the wetland photomaps. The following sug- initial flight. This will avoid the need for additional gestions relate to the handling and storage of photo- reflights to photograph missed parcels. Liberal flight graphic materials. lines will require that a greater number of frames be exposed. However, the extra cost of film for the 1. All photographs, particularly prints on paper, should initial exposures will probably always be less than the be stored in separate plastic bags to protect the added costs of a reflight and of the subsequent com- imagery and prevent sticking. plications in obtaining photography that contains 2. Photograph numbers should be placed on all infra- signature variations due to growth and seasonal red transparencies. changes in vegetation condition. 3. DNR should establish a filing and check-out system 2. The best time of the year-for true-color photography to avoid the loss or misplacement of wetlands photos. of wetland vegetation for the purpose of type map- 4. Replacement prints of missing photographs should ping is about 1 October. The period from about 15 be color matched to the tone of the imagery on adja- September to 15 October should be considered for cent prints from the original photography. future statewide photography. This avoids the poor 5. DNR must have absolute control over the original distinctions in the homogeneous green summer film negatives for true color and positives for color imagery in all of the wetland types; it avoids much of infra-red. Subcontractors and clients should be held the autumnal deterioration of plant materials; and it totally responsible for any loss of irreplaceable photo- takes advantage of the differential browning and dry- graphic film. DNR should obtain positive color ing of marsh plants. Brackish and saline marsh types prints of all wetland infra-red imagery that currently deteriorate slower than fresh types, and can be flown is owned and retained by Photoscience, Inc. into late October. Late brackish photography in Dor- 6. For future mapping, heavy paper prints of the photo- chester and Somerset Counties, however, risks en- graphs, at contact scale, should be used by the delinea- conntering marsh burning and also would not be tors. Transparencies are difficult to handle in the optimum for freshwater marshes in these counties. laboratory and, more especially, in the field owing to 3. Imagery of extensive wetlands can contain consider- their tendency to curl and to the need for a light table able glare distortion due to high tide, adjoining for viewing. waters, or wet mud surface. Glare can distort signa- Mapping tures and mask wetlands, particularly in submerged Late-Season Photography. Classifications and delinea- aquatics or low-density vegetation. Glare can be min- tions of fresh marsh types and several brackish types imized by controlling flight time to avoid the mid-day were limited in late-season photography due to plant period. Although this would increase shadow length, deterioration., Particular difficulty was encountered with the shadows would aid classifications in large marshes six fresh types and one brackish type: 30, smartweed/ by accenting height variation between types. Glare cutgrass; 32, pickerelweed/arrowarum; 33, sweetflag; problems generally are most pronounced in the more 34, cattail, when mixed with other types; 35, rosemallow; extensive wetland areas. In small riverine marshes, 36, wild rice; and 45, rosernallow. Moderate difficulty however, photographs that are taken during the early was encountered with four fresh and two brackish types: 236 34, cattail, in pure stands; 37, bulrush; 38, big cordgrass; lands management study, within time and budget 39, common reed; 44, cattail; and 47, threesquare. Deli- constraints. These corrections should be verified, all neations in areas of photography with the above limita- match lines checked, and revised lines inked onto the tions required the delineation of composite mixtures of maps. two and three types. 3. The press-on titles and legends on the maps are badly Trash Rafting. Considerable rafting of flotsam and deteriorated, and should be replaced with ink and/or trash occurs along the main shore of Chesapeake Bay, pre-printed heat-resistant adhesive title blocks. and trash often is deposited on wetlands near the Bay, 4. All maps should be inspected to eliminate inconsis- temporarily destroying the vegetation. This phenome- tencies in the upper inland boundary on adjoining non was particularly apparent in Kent County, where maps. several small cove wetlands that were unobstructed at 5. The upper inland boundary on the Somerset maps the time of the 1971 imagery were covered to a greater or probably was drawn with a #1 pen point. However, lesser degree by driftwood at the times of field inspec- the inland boundary in other counties was a thicker #3 tions during 1976 to 1977. The impact upon wetlands line, and in those counties a #1 point was used for probably varies depending upon the height of storm wetland type delineations so that the two types of tides and upon the direction and magnitude of accom- lines- would be distinguishable. For consistency, a #1 panying winds. Prevailing northwesterly winds tend to line was used for type delineations in Somerset drive driftwood into the wetlands on the western shore County. DNR should widen the upper inland boun- of Kent County from the ship channels in Chesapeake dary on the Somerset maps, so that it will be clearly Bay and from Baltimore Harbor. distinguishable from the type delineations. The mapping of wetlands obscured by trash was based Mappingof Unimaged Areas. During the wetlands upon the aerial photograpy, and not upon current management study, a number of wetland photomaps conditions. were encountered for which the corresponding aerial Map Indices. The map indices should be completed to photography was lost or unavailable. Most of these maps show all wetlands maps and to indicate the accompany- were mapped on the basis of intensified observations ing photograph numbers. during the helicopter surveys. The following maps, how- Map Symbols. Line weights for the upper inland ever, could not be delineated because no suitable photo- boundary, the tick mark system to denote wetlands, and graphic coverage was available and because of budget the letter size for wetland/upland symbols should be constraints. standardized. Tick marks and symbols should be used -Anne Arundel 159, 160, 161, and 162 very sparingly on future wetlands maps, because they interfere with type mapping lines; and should be -Charles 6,7,8,9,10,11,26,45,46,48,49,58,64,74,77, removed when the type mapping is completed. and 78 -Somerset 42 Somerset Photomaps. The following recommenda- tions pertain to the wetlands maps in Somerset County- The following additional maps were delineated on a 1. Scale variation exists among some of the wetlands best-effort basis, utilizing non-stereoscopic imagery from maps due to differential enlargements from the aerial adjoining maps: photographs. The scale of each map should be veri- -Charles 2, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 35, 42, 56, 68, 81, 82, fied, and any necessary corrections made on the and 83 legend. The quality of these delineations is considered to be 2. Match lines between adjoining maps were incom- adequate, but not equal to that achieved on the other plete, and sometimes involve overlaps or gaps. maps for which full stereoscopic photography was Manuscript corrections were made during the wet- available. 237 INDEX Boldface numbers indicate pages that include information in a table, figure or photograph. Acer rubrum (see Maple, red) Detritus, 53, 54, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69 Acorus calamus (see Sweetflag) animals that utilize, 69 Acreages, wetland: composition of, 67 by county, 40, 44-46, 142 transport of, 54, 67, 68 by watershed, 40, 41-43, 142 Distichlis spicata (see Spikegrass) for entire state, 2, 3 Diversity, plant species (see Floristic diversity) of shrub swamps, 2, 4 of swamp forests, 3, 12 Energy cycle, 53, 54, 63, 68 of fresh marshes, 3, 12, 19 Evaluation scheme (see Wetlands evaluation scheme) of brackish marshes, 3, 22,25 of saline marshes, 3, 30, 31 Fiddler crab, 81, 82, 90 of ponds, 3 Fire (see Marsh burning) of mudflats and sandbars/beaches, 3 Fish habitats, 53, 106 of submerged aquatic vegetation, 3 Flora, of wetland types, 1, 4, 18, 19, 41 previous inventories, 48, 49, 50, 51 fresh marshes, 15-17 Alder, smooth, 4, 5, 12 brackish marshes, 28-29 Algae, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 saline marshes,33-35 Alnus serrulata (see Alder) shrub swamps, 12 Amphibians, 105, 106 swamp forests, 13-14 Arrowarum, 14,15-17, 18, 19,20,21 Floristic diversity, 12, 15-17, 18, 19, 28-29, 32, 33-34, growth characteristics, 18, 20 126,144,177,178 senescence, 18 gradient, 18 Ash, green, 4, 12, 12-14, 15 relation to vegetation richness, 126 Average peak standing crop, 54, 55, 56-61, 62, 63, 115, of Maryland wetland types, 191-192 117 Food chain, 53 (see also Primary Production) Food web, 53-54, 68 for Maryland wetland vegetation types, 56, 186-191 primary producers, 53 use in wetlands evaluation, 115, 117, 118 primary consumers, 53 predators, 53 Big Cordgrass (see Cordgrass) Fraxinus spp. (see Ash) Birds, 89, 90, 91-96, 97, 98, 99-102, 102, 103 Freshwater wetlands (see Marsh) of saline marshes, 89, 90 of brackish marshes, 90, 91, 91-96, 96, 97 Groundselbush, 4, 22, 24, 25, 28-29, 31, 31, 33-34, 36,37 of fresh marshes, 97, 98, 99-102 Gross primary production (see Primary production) of shrub swamps and swamp forests, 102, 103 Bivalves, 82 Height, of wetland vegetation, 14, 18, 30, 31, 84, 145 Blue crab, 81, 82 Herbivore, 53, 54 Brackish wetlands (see Marsh) Hibiscus spp. (see Rosemallow) Bulrush (see Threesquare) Caloric content, of marsh plants, 63, 66, 67 Inland wetland boundary, 1 Carbon cycle, 68 Insects, 84-86, 87, 88, 89 Cattail, 5, 14, 15, 15-17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 25, Invertebrates: 28-29, 30, 97 of saline marshes, 81, 82, 82, 83, 84-86, 87, 88, 89 Common reed, 14, 15-17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28-29, of brackish marshes, 90 30 Isopods,82 Cordgrass: Iva frutescens (see Marshelder) big, 14, 15-17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28-29, 30, 33, 97 juncus roemetianus (see Needlerush) meadow, 22, 24, 25, 28-29, 30, 31, 33-34, 91, 97 smooth, 25, 27, 28-29, 30, 31, 32, 33-34, 36, 37, 89, Leersia oryzoides (see Rice cutgrass) 90 Loblolly pine, 12, 13-14, 15, 26 Crustaceans, 81-82 Decomposition, 53, 67, 68 Mammals, 103-105 Detritivore, 53, 68 Maple, red, 4, 5, 12, 12-14, 15 239 Marsh: effect on floristic composition, 18, 19 fresh, 12, 14-21 of wetland soils, 25, 30, 32 brackish, 22-30 relation to floristic diversity, 18, 19 saline, 30-35 vegetation typing scheme, I eatouts, 89, 104, 145 Salix nigra (see Willow) Marsh burning: Sandbar, 35, 36 as wildlife management technique, 30 Scarcity, of vegetation types, 140, 141 effect on marshes, 30, 234 by county, 141 effect on vegetation type mapping, 30 by watershed, 140, 141 Marsh crab, 81 statewide, 140, 140 Marshelder, 4, 22, 24, 25, 28-29, 31, 31, 33-34, 36, 37 Scirpus spp. (see Threesquare) Meadow cordgrass (see Cordgrass) Sediment entrapment, 107, 108, 145 Meiofauna, 81, 89, 90 Shrub swamp (see Swamp) Mudflats, 35, 36 Smartweed, 14, 15-17, 18, 19, 19, 20, 21, 22 Muskrats, 103-105 Smooth alder (see Alder) Smooth cordgrass (see Cordgrass) Needlerush, 22, 25, 28-29, 30, 31, 33-34, 96 Snails, 82, 90 Net primary production variable, in wetlands Spartina alterniflora (see Cordgrass, smooth) evaluation, 115 Spartina cynosaroides (see Cordgrass, big) Net primary productivity (see Primary Production) Spartina patens (see Cordgrass, meadow) Nuphar advena (see Spatterdock) Spatterdock, 5, 14, 14, 15-17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Nutrient content, of marsh plants, 62, 63, 63-66 Spiders, 82, 83, 84 Spikegrass, 22, 24, 25, 28-29, 30, 31, 33-34 Pan, 32 Stability, of vegetation types, 144 Panicum virgatum (see Switchgrass) Standing crop (see Average peak standing crop) Peltandra virginica (see Arrowarum) Submerged aquatic vegetation, 35-40, 37, 38 Phragmites communis (see Common reed) decline in, 38, 39 Physiognomy, of coastal wetlands, I effect of tropical storm Agnes, 39, 40 Pickerelweed, 14, 15-17, 18-20, 20, 21 effect of turbidity on, 36 Pinus taeda (see Loblolly pine) extent and composition, 38, 39 Plant zonation, 12, 18, 19 use by wildlife, 78, 80, 80, 81 Polygonum spp. (see Smartweed) species of, 165 Ponds, 32, 35, 36 Swamp: Ponteda?4a cordata (see Pickerelweed) shrub, 4, 12 Primary biological productivity, 54 forest, 4, 12, 13-14 Primary production: Swamp rose, 4, 5, 12 consumption of, 54 Sweetflag, 14, 15-17, 18-20, 20 errors in measuring, 62 Switchgrass, 22, 25, 26, 28-29, 97 gross, 54, 115, 161 methods of measuring, 54-55, 177 Taxodium distichum (see Baldcyress) net, 54, 143, 161, 177 Threesquare, 14, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-29, of Maryland vegetation types, 55, 56-61, 186-191 30,36,97 transport of, 54 Total resource score, in wetlands evaluation, 131 underground, 54, 55, 62, 67 components of, 131 Red maple (see Maple) computation of, 131 for all coastal wetlands, 131, 133, 137 Replacement cost, 111, 112 for fresh wetlands, 131, 134, 137 Replacement cost factor, in wetlands evaluation, 115, for brackish wetlands, 131, 135, 137 116,117 for saline wetlands, 131, 136, 137 Reptiles, 105, 106 Typha spp. (see Cattail) Resistivity, of vegetation types, 144, 145 Ribbed mussel, 82, 90 Underground production (see Primary production) Rice cutgrass, 14, 15-17, 19, 19, 20 Unvegetated wetlands: Rosa palustfis (see Swamp rose) mudflats, 35, 36 Rosernallow, 14, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26 ponds, 35, 36 sandbars/beaches, 35, 36 Saline wetlands (see Marsh) Upper wetland boundary (see Inland wetland Salinity, 1, 12, 18, 19, 25, 30, 32, 38, 40 boundary) 240 Vegetation form, 127,128 philosophy of, 112 Vegetation form variable, in wetlands evaluation, restrictions and assumptions of, 113-114 127-129, 128, 129 development of, 115-130 basis of, 127, 129 Wetlands evaluation scheme, application of: computation of, 129 to all coastal wetlands, 131, 133, 137 adjustment of, 131 to all fresh vegetation types, 131, 134, 137 Vegetation interspersion factor, in wetlands to all brackish vegetation types, 131, 135, 137 evaluation, 130 to all saline vegetation types, 131, 136, 137 Vegetation resource group, in wetlands evaluation, to specific sites, 137, 197-200 125-126 to coastal watersheds, 137-139, 138, 202-216 Vegetation resource group score, 126, 131 to tidewater counties, 137-139, 138, 139, 217-232 calculation of, 126, 131 Wetlands evaluation sheet (form), 131, 132 for all coastal wetlands, i3l, 137, 137 Wetlands formation: for fresh wetlands, 131, 137, 137 submergence, 107, 108 for brackish wetlands, 131, 137, 137 accretion, 107, 108 for saline wetlands, 131, 137, 137 accumulation of sediments, 108 Vegetation richness, 126 Wildrice, 14, 15-17, 18, 19, 21, 23 versus floristic diversity, 126 Wildlife, of coastal wetlands: relation to wetland stability, 126 birds, 89, 90-103 Vegetation richness factor, in wetlands evaluation, 126 fish, 106 Vegetation type value, in wetlands evaluation, 115-117 food plants used by, 68, 70, 70-80, 80, 81, 89, 91, assumptions of, 115 91-96, 97, 98,99-102, 103, 104 components of, 115, 116 habitat requirements, 68, 70 calculation of, 117 invertebrates, 81-89 for wetland vegetation types, 118 mammals, 103-105 Vegetation typing scheme, 1, 2, 4 reptiles and amphibians, 105-106 shrub swamp types, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 Wildlife food score, in wetlands evaluation, 130 swamp forest types, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13-14 calculation of, 130 fresh marsh types, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 14-21, 15-17 adjustment of, 131 brackish marsh types, 1, 2, 3, 4, 22-30, 28-29 Wildlife food value, 68, 70 sIaline marsh types, 1, 2, 3, 30-34, 33-34, 35 of emergent wetland plants, 70, 70-78 open water (ponds), 2, 3, 35, 36 of submerged plants, 78-80, 80, 81 sandbar/beach/mudflat, 2, 3, 35, 36 Wildlife food value, in wetlands evaluation, 115, submerged aquatic vegetation, 2, 3, 35-40, 37, 38 117-124 paired vegetation types, 1, 4 components of, 121 Vegetation/ water interspersion variable, in wetlands calculation of, 121 evaluation, 126-127, 127 for shrub swamp and forest vegetation types, 121 for fresh marsh vegetation types, 122 Water pollution abatement, 106-107 for brackish marsh vegetation types, 123 Wetland longevity, as potential evaluation factor, 147 for saline marsh vegetation types, 123 Wetland production variable, in wetlands evaluation, for all subaerial vegetation types, 124 125, 126 Wildlife resource group, in wetlands evaluation, Wetland size, consideration in wetlands evaluation, 126-130 139, 140 components of, 126, 127, 129, 130 Wetlands Act, Maryland: Wildlife resource group score, in wetlands evaluation, inland boundary, 1 131 private wetlands, I calculation of, 131 State wetlands, 1 for all coastal wetlands, 131, 133, 137 Wetlands classification: for fresh wetlands, 131, 134, 137 Maryland system, 1, 2, 4 for brackish wetlands, 131, 135, 137 previous classifications, 46-50, 50, 51 for saline wetlands, 131, 136, 137 Federal system, 50 Willow, black, 4, 5, 12 Wetlands evaluation, general, 111, 112 Zizania aquatica (see Wildrice) Wetlands evaluation scheme, Maryland: Zonation (see Plant zonation) 241 NOTES k 243 . q 4 - . IIIIIIIIIIIIND 3 6668 14103 6196 I