ANNUAL STATUS REPORT 1988
RL'\)I, "1, h'rl L,uderdak Office
QUANTUM
(( )I~PORATE
P\RK.
R n,r--".,-;r-,. ~
1 -i -;~
\L.C "-'..4_:_ I Li n
--"..J....p'
SE.P ~3 1.2
Jo f'LANNII''4G DEPT
-
.. r.--:;:---::-'-
September 21, 1989
Ms Carolyn E Kindell
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee FL 32399-2400
Re Quantum Park, Permit No 501268889, Transmittal of
Second Monitoring Report for the Non-Jurisdictional
Wetlands
Dear Carolyn
Enclosed please find the second monitoring report for
the Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands at Quantum Park If you
have any questions concerning the report, please contact
either myself or Dr Donald Richardson at your earliest
opportunity
ve~y%;
(tr:t;! Toll
Development Manager
MJT/bw
enclosure
cc George W Zimmerman
Carmen Annunziato
Michapl Flusha
Dan C'J.rv
Dr Don RIchardson
David Pressly Esq
" f)clIf.\'ch Irelal/d Properties-
IUeh-il/ SWUJ// lO/llt Vel/ture
The 110 Tower · 21 st Floor. 110 c:.;olltheast Sixth Street. Fort Lauderdale Florida 13301 341"
Broward (305) 76J-HHHH · FAX (30S) 763-H99b . Palm Beach (407) 734- IS,),) . Dade I I()') ) 94')-HIIO . 10100-421 ')114
The Building. 1125 Northeast 12:'> <;trt~et . North \:1Jami Florida 33161
11(hi X'!I-()KO('. F\ \. (I()')) l)'h-K241
SECOND MONITORING
REPORT FOR THE
QUANTUM PARK NON-JURISDICTIONAL
HARDWOOD WETLANDS
13 September 1989
by
Donald Richardson, ph D.
Ecological Consultants
7301 Summerbridge Drive
Tampa, Florida 33614
Introduction
As specified In the Department of Environmental Regulation
Permit #501268889 under Specific Conditions Numbers 5 and 6, all
exotic vegetation will be removed from the non jurisdictional
wetlands and replanted with hardwood swamp species Specific
item Number 6 requires the locations, numbers and species of
plants that will be removed and a list of those to be installed.
The following report details a plan to remove the existing punk
trees (Melaleuca quinquenervia) from both wetlands and the
recovery of the impacted areas.
The southern wetland (2.2 acres) was dominated by two dense
stands (0.11 acres) of punk trees in the northwest corner and
western edge (Figure 1). A smaller group of trees were also
found within a 20 foot band along the southeast and eastern edges
of the wetland.
As per the requirements establ ished wi thin the Development
Order, most of the fringing Melaleuca trees (ca. 361) were
removed from the wetland by the general contractor. Each tree
was removed from the berm with a front end loader and a chain.
This would preclude the need for heavy equipment in the wetland
since the peat layers exceed 4 feet in many areas.
The dense stands required special consideration since they
extend out into the wetland beyond the limits of the heavy
equipment. A berm was constructed out into the wetland several
meters in order to reach the southern extent of the Melaleuca
head. All berm materials were removed to existing grade to allow
germination from existing seed sources. Under the present water
3
conditions, most of the naturally occurring herbaceous species
should germinate from the existing muck layers in the impacted
areas
Isolated trees within the wetland (ca. 80 saplings) will be
treated with the herbicide, Arsenal. This herbicide was
requested for use at Quantum Park by the Florida Department of
Agriculture. Arsenal has been used effectively for control of
Melaleuca and Brazilian pepper within Florida. Prior to the
treatment of isolated Melaleuca trees, the water table within the
wet land wi 11 be sl ightly lowered to wi thin a few inches of the
muck layer or applied during spring drought conditions. All
treatments will be administered so that n6 herbicide reaches the
water table. Application to Melaleuca will be done using the
frill/girdle technique as indicated in the Supplemental Labeling
report (EPA SLN No. FL-87f2lf2lll) for Arsenal. Since most of the
trees are less than 6 inches in circumference, approximately 50%
of the bark will be removed and a cut made into at least two
growth rings. Undiluted Arsenal will be brushed into each cut.
Re-application may be required for those trees that are not
killed during the first treatment.
The above protocol for exotic removal
installation of some hardwood tree species.
wo uld require the
Approximately 48
wetland trees were installed in the disturbed areas. A mixture
of pond apple (Annona glabra), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) and red
bay (persea palustris) were planted in the scarified areas. All
4
trees (3 gallon nursery grown stock) were installed on 10 foot
centers. Herbaceous species were allowed to germinate from seeds
stored In the muck layers. After the area had been cleared of
Melaleuca, any exposed soil was lowered to grade elevations in
order to prevent Brazilian pepper colonization.
The 3.8 acre wetland to the north and adjacent to the City
Park was dominated by 0.20 acres of dense Melaleuca (Figure 2).
Most of the existing Melaleuca trees (ca 300-500 trees including
saplings) occurred in the southwest corner of the site and
average 3-8 inches dbh, becoming smaller to the east. The
remaining trees were located in a small stand in the northeast
corner of the site.
The natural vegetation of this wetland is dominated by
several herbaceous species and scattered wax myrtles. As stated
above, no herbaceous planting would be initiated unless natural
recruitment does not occur. Approximately 89 trees were
installed in the former Melaleuca areas. A mixture of the same
species as mentioned above were planted on 10 foot centers or in
small clumps to simulate natural swamp development.
A maintenance program was initiated to curtail possible
exotic recruits or to further retreat those trees that might not
have been killed during the initial treatment with herbicide.
Since this herbicide will be applied during low water and by
hand, death the other woody species will be held to a minimal
level Maintenance will occur every 60 days in order to treat
new seedlings or to retreat saplings that were not killed during
5
the first application.
All monitoring reports will be submitted to the developers
of the property for submittal to the required agencies.
Monitoring will occur semi-annually for the first and second year
and at least one event will occur in the wet and dry portions of
the year. A sampling program of line-transects and quadrats were
established for each wetland. A 513 meter line transect was
installed in each wetland from the shore of the wetland out into
the undisturbed portions. All plant material breaking the plane
of the transect was recorded in order to detrmine percent cover
by species. In addition, 6 one meter square quadrats were
establ ished along one side of each transect Percent cover by
species will be recorded in order to monitor changes in the
wetland. A plan view showing the location of the transects and
quadrats is included (Figures 1 and 2). Fixed photographic
sta t ions were establ i shed along each transects wi th photographs
of each quadrat. stations were also established at random
intervals along the edge of each wetland.
Monitoring reports will also include percent mortality of
treated exotics, percent cover by natural wetland species, and
survival data on planted trees.
RESULTS
To date, recovery of the scarified areas of former Melaleuca
has been excellent for both wetland systems. Natural recruitment
has been somewhat better in the southern wetland with nearly 11313%
coverage of disturbed areas.
6
Transect data for the southern wetland indicates that a
total 96% of the transect line was covered with wetland plant
material (Figure 3). In the formerly disturbed areas, spikerush
(Eleocharis baldwinia), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), marsh fleabane (Pluchea
rosea), red root (Lachnanthes caroliniana), Rhynchospora
microcarpa, and Cyperus haspan formed most of the biomass (Table
I). A total of 31 species were recorded along the transect for
both the disturbed and undisturbed portions of the marsh.
In the undisturbed portions of the transect, chain fern
(woodwardia virginica), swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), royal
fern (Osmunda regalis), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis) were the dominant species
Percent cover estimates from one meter square quadrats
(Figures 4-6) indicate similar results as observed along the
transect (Table 2) Spike rush was the dominant ground cover
species, followed by Cyperus haspan, Eupatorium sp , red root,
and hemp vine (Mikania scandens). The ecotone or transition from
the disturbed area to the undisturbed marsh is sharp and well
defined. Most of the disturbed area species are early
successional, pioneer species that require full sunlight in
contrast to the more shade adapted shrubs and ferns of the
undisturbed marsh. Species richness is much reduced in the
undisturbed areas because of the lower light levels imposed by
the much taller vegetation.
Recovery in the scarified portions of the northern wetland
7
(3.2 acre) have been somewhat slower than the one to the so uth
(Figure 7). Species richness is similar with 28 species
recorderd along the transect, however, percent cover estimates
have increased slightly from the last report (Figures 8-10).
Seed bank replenishment in the scarified areas may have been
severely reduced since the area was dominated with mature
Melaleuca for many years The lack of understory vegetation, low
light levels, and the possible release of secondary inhibitory
chemicals from mature trees may have reduced the viability of
soil born seeds prior to Melaleuca establishment. At any rate,
about 70-80% of the scarified area has been recolonized by native
wetland herbs.
Transect data supports the observed differences in cover
estimates. About 91% of the 50 meter transect was occupied by
plant mater ial and much more soil was exposed throughout the
wetland than in the southern system. Species richness was
similar, however, species composition was different (Table 3).
The northern wetland was covered with about 3-12 inches of
standing water. This has allowed the establishment of more
obligate wetland species such as arrowhead (Sagittaria
lancifolia), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), and duck potato
(Sagittaria latifolia), especially in the deeper areas of the
site.
Approximately 97% of the installed trees within the
scarified areas of the wetlands have survived. A few of the bays
have not responded from the initial shock of transplanting. Bald
8
cypress has just started to produce leaves for this season, while
most of the hardwoods were in full leaf with some growth despite
the dry conditions.
Of the original Melaleuca within the southern wetland, only
30-40% of the trees have died following Arsenal application.
Each tree was girdled and full strength Arseanal was applied to
the cambial layers. After approx imately 4 weeks, a second
application was initiated on the trees that had not died. Since
the second application, approximately 300-400 seedlings have
germina ted. About 30% of these were removed from the scar i f i ed
are a, and the r em a i n i n g we r e t rea t ed 15 A P r i 1 19 89 . A t h i r d
application will be conducted in September or early October by a
professional firm for the removal of exotic vegetation. The
maintenance staff will also reduce the ruderal species along the
edge of the wetland near top of bank. This will prevent unwanted
seed rain into the exposed muck areas
Treatment in the northern wetland has been better, about 40%
of the treated trees have died, however, very few seedlings have
resprouted. This may be directly attributed to the removal of
more substrate which contained Melaleuca seeds or sprouts whereas
in the southern wetland the deep muck layers prevented the
r emov a 1 0 f so i 1 borne seeds and sprout s. Most of the exposed
muck layers in the southern wetland have resprouted with sma 11
sapl ings.
As indicated in the original monitoring scheme for these
wetland systems, photographic documentation along the edges of
each wetland was established
9
For the north wetland, photo plot
#1 (Figure 11, upper) was taken from the west bank looking east
across the transect line. Photo plot #2 (Figure 11, lower) is
looking north into the deeper water area where cattails have
established Photo plot #3 was taken looking north approximately
20 meters to the west of photo plot #2 on the south bank (Figure
12, upper) Considerably more standing water occurs in this
portion of the formerly cleared area A shallow pool about 2
feet deep can be seen in the upper left corner of Figure 12,
upper. photo plot #4 (Figure 12, lower) was ta ken from the
southeastern bank looking to the east across the scarified area.
A few cattails have become established on the exposed muck near
photo plot #4. Virtually no Melaleuca seedlings were visible in
the northern photo plots, except the large stand off the property
to the north of the wetland.
In contrast, the southern wetland is far more accessible and
most of the photo plots were taken looking at the mature
vegetation, however, ruderal invasion along the top of bank has
obstructed the view into these areas. photo plot #1 was taken
from the northwest corner along the bike path looking east
(Figure 13, upper). A small stand of sawgrass and buttonbush
occur in this portion of the marsh. Melaleuca sapling can be
seen in the upper left and right of Figure 13, upper Most of
these were treated at the time of this report. photo plot #2 is
looking northeast from the southwest bank into a former Melaleuca
stand that was removed (Figure 13, lower) Several young
10
Melaleuca trees, primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), and
several species of herbs have colonized this area. Photo plot #3
is also looking north from the south bank into an area that had
scattered Melaleuca (Figure 14, upper). Most of the trees along
the southern edge of the south wetland were removed by a chain
attached to the bucket of a front-end loader. Very little
disturbance of the muck was noticed except for a few deeper holes
that have been colonized with arrowhead and other aquatics.
Photo plot #4 (Figure 14, lower) is looking northwest into a
former Melaleuca stand A few Melaleuca saplings have resprouted
from old tree roots left behind after the trees were pulled from
the swamp. Most of the area has been colonized by swamp fern,
cha in fern and some pr imrose wi llow. Photo plot #5 (F igure 15,
upper) was taken from the north bank looking southwest into the
scarified area of the transect Several Melaleuca sapling can be
seen in the lower left portion of the photo and most of these
were treated at the time of this report.
SUMMARY
Recovery of the scarified areas within both
nonjurisdictional wetlands has been excellent. Percent cover
estimates show that the northern wetland has progressed at a
somwhat slower pace of recovery than the smaller southern
wetland. Approximately 97% of the installed trees have survived
and new growth was observed on most trees. Melaleuca germination
from seed or resprouts poses a problem in the southern wetland
and removal will be conducted by a professional firm in the next
1
few months. Melaleuca recruitment IS directly attributed to the
lack of root and muck excavation in this system, whereas the
northern wetland was scarified of all Melaleuca roots at the time
of removal.
Herbaceous recruitment has been excellent for both
areas Nearly 100% of the southern wetland
vegetation whereas the northern site is much
moisture conditions and the loss of seed material
is covered by
reduced.
soil
in the muck is
directly linked with the lack of cover in the northern wetland.
Table 1
Percent cover estimates along a 50 meter transect
in the southern (2 2 acre) wetland
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Eleocharis baldwinii
Woodwardia virginica
Eupatorium capilli folium
Sagittaria lancifolia
pluchea rosea
Blechnum serrulatum
Lachnanthes caroliniana
Osmunda regalis
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Rhynchospora microcephala
Cyperus haspan
Scopa ria dulc i s
Hydrocotyle umbel lata
panicum hemitomom
Mikania scandens
persea borbonia (planted)
Ludwigia repens
Lygodium japonicum
Sarcostemma clausum
Cyperus strigosus
Rhynchospora microcarpa
Diodia virginiana
Ludwigia octovalvis
Ammannia coccinea
Polygonum punctatum
Iris hexagona
peltandra virginica
Boehmeria cylindrica
Xyris jupicai
Rhexia cubensis
Cyperus surinamensis
Spec ies: 31
% Cover
Total % Cover:
% COVER
1st Qtr
41 0
11 4
8.4
7 8
7 4
6.4
6 4
4 6
4 0
3.0
2 6
1 8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1 4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
o 6
0.4
13.4
13.4
13.2
13.2
0.2
119.2*
92.4
% COVER
2 nd Qtr
44 1
12 2
6 3
6 9
7.3
6 1
8 1
3.8
4.2
4.1
2.8
1.9
1.5
1 7
1.6
1.4
13.9
1.2
1 13
1.3
1.13
0.7
0.8
13.2
13.6
0.4
13.3
13.2
13.3
1.1
1.2
125 2 *
93.5
* indicates species overlap along transect. Total percent
cover indicates what percentage of the transect was bare
soil.
Table 2
Percent cover by specIes for the 6 quadrats
in the southern wetland
Species
Percent Cover by Species
Plot #
1 2 3 4 5 6
Eleocharis baldwinii
Woodwardia virginica
Eupatorium capillifolium
sagittaria lancifolia
Pluchea rosea
Blechnum serrulatum
Lachnanthes caroliniana
pontederia cordata
Osmunda regalis
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Rhynchospora microcephala
Cyperus haspan
Scoparia dulcis
Hydrocotyle umbellata
Mikania scandens
Ludwigia repens
Lygodium japonicum
Salix caroliniana
Cyperus strigosus
Rhynchospora microcarpa
Diodia virginiana
Ludwigia octovalvis
Ammannia coccinea
52
25
6
11
3
11
22
10
28
14
6
2
Total % Cover
1130
54 100
8 11
4 3
4 7
10 3
15 2
15 8
3
17
9 12
28
13 5
4
5
1130 11313
1013 31
13 19
1 13
113 12
5 9
6
9 4
2 16
3 113
9
3
8
1
11313 11313
37
11
44
33
39
38
26
11313
Table 3. Percent cover estimates along a 50 meter transect
in the northern (3.2 acre) wetland
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Eleocharis baldwinii
pontederia cordata
Sagittaria lancifolia
Ludwigia peruviana
Acrostichum danaeifolium
Woodwardia virginica
Sagittaria latifloia
Mikania scandens
Fuirena breviseta
Habenaria repens
Osmunda regalis
Lygodium japonicum
Centella asiatica
Hydrocotyle umbel lata
Blechnum serrulatum
Salix caroliniana
Mitreola petiolatus
Ludwigia microcarpa
Pluchea rosea
Sarcostemma clausum
Eupatorium capillifloium
Bacopa caroliniana
Diodia virginiana
Echinochloa crusgalli
Cyperus haspan
Ammannia coccinea
Lachnanthes caroliniana
polygonum punctatum
Species. 28
% Cover
Total % Cover
% COVER
1st Qtr.
31. 8
19.0
12.2
11.2
7 8
7 6
4.6
3 8
3.4
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.0
2 13
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
o 6
13.2
0.2
132.2*
88.9
% COVER
2 nd Qtr.
33.1
18 8
12.0
14.2
8.1
7.1
5.3
4.2
3 0
3.9
3.1
11.2
3.8
3.0
2.9
3.9
2.2
2.4
2.3
1.4
1 6
1.3
0.9
0.4
1.1
0.4
13.6
13.5
152.7*
91.13
* indicates species overlap. Total percent cover indicates what
percentage of the transect was bare soil.
Table 4
Percent cover by species for the 6 quadrats
In the northern wetland.
Spec ies
Percent Cover by Species
plot #
1 2 3 4 5 6
Eleocharis baldwinii
Dichromena colorata
pontederia cordata
Woodwardia virginica
Eupatorium capillifolium
Habenaria repens
Centella asiatica
Sagittaria lancifolia
Xyris jupacai
Pluchea rosea
Blechnum serrulatum
Lachnanthes caroliniana
Ludwigia microcarpa
Proserpinaca pectinata
Echinochloa crusgalli
Mitreola petiolatus
Fuirena breviseta
Saururus cernuus
Hydrocotyle umbel lata
Mikania scandens
Ludwigia peruviana
Lygodium japonicum
Acrostichum danaeifolium
Total % Cover
23
51
4
10
11
4
2
92
26
1
11
16
26
2
2
6
10
2
8
11
6
5
3
3
1
2
9
3
2
3
3
14
2
99
95
23 12
1 3
1 2
7 1
7
3
4
3
2
143
7
94 98
61
21
3
7
1
8
1
9
61
19
5
99
Figure 1
LocatIon map of southern (2 2 acre wetland) showing
location of transect, quadrats, and photo plots
If) I
i .
~
CD fl OJ ~ t
~ \ O'l ~ :
... A Ul ~
... 1 ;:
CD . 0
'" : N .
-
"
0
---.------- ----t----- --___
.~.:::_2___~?().
,. ,------...,
- 1, '...
- ,., Ot.::r }"
u, r-r-- r-,.
~1l.NTu}.I"~ ............ -9
., I)~O~~J ~;:~4:~~~ ~:o ~.~Q0J
~ · J '1> '" "'"
t ~ ~ 4C,>- "'" ,
g,; '~'C,-'. '\'
. ..
'b
0-
\~
I n
I ""
I
I
I -
1'1
~
re-
I :..~
0
GO 0
"Ti
I N
'"
1"
"'
-.,
CT1
"1 Ct.
1 t\ It.oOH
~ . ~'l HaO.
'?o
10
-;>',>- '1>J'
D ~
-0 C 1-- ~
=r OJ ~
0 0-
rt """S ~
0 OJ '1--,>-
\.0 rt
"""S VI ~
OJ
-0 OJ ~~
=r --'
0
(') ::l T
\.0
Vl
rt r
OJ -'.
rt ::l
ro
0
::l -i
VI """S
OJ
::l
VI
ro
(')
rt
(')
141 ~ IS ______ ,!fil
sOc:r'..2'. S" .. 6~
'0::
. .
. i - ~I
:' I ,- _ onl
:~ I I ,.. I
I,_L(/-:: '
. ~I c;
I '; 301
! i ~
i !: I
i c
I r ,
~"
, "
- -
.
rl
o
z
t;S, r------ Z
\~
~~ ll.~
~t::! ,x
-.J1O
~: I~
~ II~
CCl{r:"~-:--:-_ "y(""
~ !:- " ~ I\: 9.
51 ; I~
~1< 7
i<~ :; .: I~
~~ ~ ..
- I~ 1.
\..: -- ..,
- . J: < I:::
..' 1 ~ x !~
---------. ..,- r. ~
.----
--.... .....~ --.....0_
.....,.--~ ~..... _ r _ .-..
o ~2~\~S ~~~o~o~-
-~T-~~=~__~~~~~~~
~:r~6 ?:~
::!O~~6~-:
;= _~:-A
~g::.l:~:~':
~ ;.:......1...-:\
..,.......... --....
~ n
"-
::: J:.......
("OO--_~....o__ ~.....
't) ~ 1"J
d' i~
;; -;<. '::
~ ::;: I-
i~
.-~
~ ,
:c
FigUJ:e
~etland) sho~ing
photO plotS
LOC.Clon map of no<cne<n (3 B 3C<e
f. t. quad~atS' and
10Cat.iOn 0 t~ansec ,
- ---------' -.---
~---------------~-~--------------------~-_::_~~
2
('.....)"J j l
..... .
-0 .a:>
:;s" c:
0 P>
("t' 0-
0 ~
..0 P>
..... ("t'
P> tJl
-0
:;s" P>
..,.A. .-J
n 0
~
1ft tD
("t'
P> r-
("t' ......
...... ~
0 (0
~
tJl -l
.....
P>
~
tJl
(0
()
("t'
~ l [' [l
!~-(
" "
31
'.
1'1 'G C
\ ..
l
<>
J \ :~'
1 \:\,_t
\'- \.
:\ 'i: \~
..~ ~\
~." ~,
'<:to.:. ~\~.
J.< \.
~
f;~
-;l\-'
',. 0,
v~
0.;;
~
r-:1
;:0
': '::l
...
~ ~<
....~.,u,;r
---'
. t
,
~
~ .
,
-:;'1 ~ ::
'"' i ,-::.
::i ~
~ j
, ,,' J;':\
~ ,~. .~ 1 j,
c.-~ "/
~,.-~~~(
\~~f.J ;
~
~
.~
~
r-
..
o
V\
.--- - ~
...
...
-.:.-.:
~ f/ln1. tl ,.1~
:
, ~ " 0 ,
;.
<
0
~ t
'.
'<>0
c
x
~
-..
~
:;
V' ":.
~
^
~ ?~
.- t
...
. r,
..- ~~
...
~
"
<
';
-\.
()
_O'~\
/.\
\~ ~\
~
'"
... ~
~ r-----rW r=- ~:z.
~
"" ~
, 'rltl II
--
.
.-
'"
_ s~~!~~\,~h~~-=-=-=-\\==-
\.:0"00' ~L-_.
fl\~"'>1~~
:\0- ~-l5~~
l-~ '.V- ~~
\ ~.......
~,~~ _ ~ ,_ifSA~ '0
_=_- -eJtD-
II -""'';..:"''''!;....,~, :.,-
-......-'72 ~,.
_ $. -\\1:
.,; .-..... ,J"-'; --...
--------------...
~ ~......
1 ~
{ . c ~-
~ J ~ ,
, I ~ \
- '\ -, ~ ...
_ ~ I ;, ?
~ '
i,r <.." 1\
I r I ~ r -: J , I Z J '! ':....
1 ~\ ...t.f~1,;~
1_ -
.l-- J "-
,- <;
0<
o
- - --
'i~::
_ 0
... ~ J::..... - !-
.... --- -
\/-~- ':.
i:;' -::;.. - -
;
!--C!
,- -------------------
-~-_.--------'~----'
Figure 3
Transect line in southern wetland looking from
quadrat #1 south to the undisturbed portion of
the wetland.
Figure 4
Quadrat #1 (upper) and quadrat #2 (lower) along
transect in southern wetland.
Figure 5
Quadrat #3 (upper) and quadrat #4 (lower) along
transect in southern wetland.
Figure 6. Quadrat *5 (upper) and quadrat #6 (lower) along
transect in southern wetland
Figure 7. Transect line in northern wetland looking north
from quadrat #1 to the undisturbed portion of the
marsh.
Figure 8. Quadrat #1 (upper) and quadrat #2 (lower) along
transect in northern wetland
Figure 9
Quadrat #3 (upper) and quadrat #4 (lower) along
transect in northern wetland.
.....
Fig ure 10 Quad rat #5 (upper) and quad rat #6 (lower) along
transect in northern wetland
Figure 11 Photo plot #1 (upper) and photo plot #2 (lower)
in northern wetland
Figure 12 Photo plot #3 (upper) and photo plot #4 (lower)
in northern wetland
Figure 13. Pho to plot # 1 (upper) and pho to plot #2 (lower)
in southern wetland
....'
~,-t
r'!~ .
t ..
~. .:
r-
. I<< <t .'
Figure 14 Photo plot #3 (upper) and photo plot #4 (lower)
in northern wetland
.~
'figure lS
photO plot 45 in southern ~etland
----------
------------
----------.