EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT IN THE UPPER GREAT MARSH: Emergent Phragmites australis
EME Source: Massachusetts Audubon Society RGENT PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS: EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT IN THE UP
PREPARED FOR: EIGHT TOWNS & THE BAY/MERRIMACK VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
PROVIDED BY: JENNA RINGELHEIM GINA FILOSA LAUREN BAUMANN JAY ASTLE
TUFTS UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND PLANNING
MAY 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the many people that shared their knowledge and expertise with us through the course of this project.
Peter Phippen - Eight Towns and the Bay John Larsen, Molly Mead, Rusty Russell, and Kelley Whitmore – Tufts University
Barbara Blumeris and Mike Tuttle – Army Corps of Engineers Jay Baker, Bruce Carlisle, and Hunt Durey – Coastal Zone Management Paul Capotosto – Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division Geoff Walker – Ducks Unlimited Tim Purinton and Robert Buchsbaum – Massachusetts Audubon Society Jim Straub – Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Susan Antenen, Karen Lombard, and Jess Murray – The Nature Conservancy Jack Card, Jr. – Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District Geoff Wilson – Northeast Wetlands Restoration Frank Drauszewski and Janet Kennedy – Parker River Wildlife Refuge
While we received much assistance in the preparation of this report, any errors, omissions, or mischaracterizations remain the sole responsibility of the authors.
This report is the result of a joint project administered by the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning at Tufts University and Eight Towns and the Bay/Merrimack Valley Planning Commission.
May 3, 2005
Jenna Ringelheim Gina Filosa Lauren Baumann Jay Astle
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………..……. 1
SECTION 1: THE PROJECT Project Summary………………………………………………………...... 3 Eight Towns and the Bay………………………………………………….... 3 Tufts University……………………………………………………………… 4
SECTION 2: AN INTRODUCTION TO PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS Basic Biology………………………………………………………………... 5 Effects of Phragmites australis on Ecosystem Health………………….….. 7
SECTION 3: THE GREAT MARSH Geography………………………………………………………………….… 7 Salt Marsh Ecology………………………………………………………..... 10 Salt Marsh Hydrology……………………………………………………….. 12 Land Use ……………………………………………………………………. 16
SECTION 4: LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS Eight Towns and the Bay……………………………………………………. 23 Essex County Greenbelt Association………………………………………... 24 Great Marsh Initiative……………………………………………………...... 25 Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (University of New Hampshire). …………………………………………… 25 Massachusetts Audubon Society………………………………………..…... 26 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management/ Office of Coastal Zone Management…………………………………...... 27 Parker River Clean Water Association…………………………………….... 28 The Trustees of Reservations…………………………………………….…. 29 US Army Corps of Engineers – New England District………………….…. 29 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service…………………………………….…….….. 30 Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory…………………………..…….. 30
SECTION 5: CASE STUDIES OF PHRAGMITES MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL Chesapeake Bay………………………………………………………..…… 31 Sandy Neck Management Plan……………………………………..………. 33 Kampoosa Bog………………………………………………..…………….. 34
SECTION 6: RECOMMENDATIONS Immediate Action…………………………………………………..……….. 36 Data Collection Actions…………………………………………..……….... 36 Control and/or Reduction Actions………………………………..……..…… 42 Institutional Actions……………………………………………..………...... 44
Appendices: A: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Documentation & MOU IRB Approval Interview Questions Memorandum of Understanding B: Funding Opportunities C: Increased Staffing Options D: Cornell University Phragmites australis Diagnostic Service Instructions E: Annotated Bibliography
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Great Marsh is considered to be a relatively healthy salt marsh ecosystem that has been protected from many of the stresses degrading other Atlantic coastal marsh regions. Yet one of the biggest threats to the biodiversity and natural productivity of marshes continues to spread in the Great Marsh. The non-native and highly invasive wetland plant Phragmites australis
(common reed) has long populated the marsh, but until recently, its range had been tempered by the healthy ecosystem. In 2004, local residents and stakeholders of the marsh observed the existence of juvenile shoots in previously uninhabited open marsh areas, a cause for concern as
Phragmites can quickly crowd out native vegetation and destroy the diversity and function of the local ecosystem.
A number of stakeholders, including state and federal agencies, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and citizen groups have conducted extensive research on the Great Marsh ecosystem. Despite this fact, comprehensive data collection is still needed to determine the degree to which changes in natural hydrology, pollution, and coastal development contribute to
Phragmites introduction and expansion within this region.
The invasive nature of Phragmites and its ability to modify the ecosystem to perpetuate its own survival require that these plant populations in the Great Marsh be closely monitored and effectively managed. Recommendations to Eight Towns and The Bay for evaluating and managing Phragmites australis include:
1. Immediate Action Remove emergent juvenile Phragmites australis shoots
2. Data Collection Actions Generate a map of existing Phragmites stand locations Establish a comprehensive monitoring program Prioritize a list of Phragmites stands for control and/or reduction
3. Control and Reduction Actions Mechanically reduce and/or remove Phragmites stands in conjunction with other control methods
4. Institutional Actions Organize institutional coordination Establish volunteer programs Promote land owner and resident participation
The Great Marsh contains the largest expanse of coastal salt marsh in New England. For more than 400 years, it has provided diverse habitat and, for area residents, recreational and economic resources. The region’s traditional industries such as fishing, shellfishing, and farming, as well tourism and recreation, are all dependent upon the health of the Great Marsh ecosystem. As such, it is imperative that degradation to this vital resource is minimized so that future generations may enjoy its benefits in the years to come.
SECTION 1: THE PROJECT
Project Summary
The observation of invasive juvenile Phragmites australis stands by local stakeholders in the open marsh of the Newbury portion of the Upper Great Marsh in the 2004 has lead to concern for the ecological status of the marsh. In a proactive attempt to investigate the cause of these stands and the actions necessary to address them, Eight Towns and the Bay (8T&B) initiated a project to be undertaken by the Tufts University Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and
Planning (UEP). The project aim was to evaluate and determine action strategies for management of Phragmites in the Newbury portion of the Upper Great Marsh. Under the direction of 8T&B, the Tufts UEP team reviewed available literature and data sources and interviewed local stakeholders to develop a more complete understanding of the factors that contribute to Phragmites establishment and expansion. Using this information, the team produced an action plan that will provide 8T&B with a solid base upon which a full management plan can be built. This report also includes an annotated bibliography to accommodate further research needs in establishing the long-term plan.
Eight Towns and the Bay
Eight Towns and the Bay (8T&B) is the upper North Shore Local Governance Committee for the
Massachusetts Bays Program and works closely with the communities of Salisbury, Amesbury,
Newburyport, Newbury, Rowley, Ipswich, Essex, Rockport, and Gloucester.
The coalition includes representatives from each of these towns, as well as
educators, state and local officials, nonprofit organizations, and interested citizens that are dedicated to the protection of the coastal waters and watersheds on the upper
North Shore of Massachusetts Bay. Eight Towns and the Bay works with local communities to foster stewardship of the coastal resources by heightening public awareness of solutions to pollution problems, providing technical assistance, and supporting local research and education projects.
Tufts University
The Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning (UEP) Masters degree program at Tufts
University challenges its graduates to incorporate the social, economic, and natural resource issues of communities into planning solutions. The program emphasizes the role of nonprofit and community-based organizations in achieving this goal.
An important aspect of this education is the required core course, Field Projects: Planning and
Practice. The course provides an opportunity for students to combine theory and practice through their consulting work on substantive issues affecting the community. Student teams undertake extensive research and practical planning projects for the duration of the semester. Each team, consisting of three to four students, is assigned to a project within their area of interest.
SECTION 2: AN INTRODUCTION TO PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS
Basic Biology
Phragmites australis, or common reed, is a perennial rhizomatous grass found widely distributed on every continent except Antarctica (Marks et al., 1993). There are three biological factors that enable Phragmites to flourish in Newbury and elsewhere in the world. First, Phragmites has a unique ability to withstand a vast range of habitat stresses. In coastal regions, this habitat includes oligo and mesohaline marshes where there is enough soil salinity and water salinity to restrict most other plant species. The extensive root system of Phragmites ensures its own survival in these conditions by accessing fresh groundwater as far as five meters below the surface (Haslam, 1971). Recent research by Kristin Saltonstall (2002) indicates the Initial Phragmites invasion into salt marshes occurs at the existence of a genotype that is non- native to North America, yet has upper edges of the region and then moves out into the flourished during the past century. marsh only as far as its tolerance for salinity will take it Massachusetts and Connecticut, in particular, have felt the most significant effect of the introduced (Buchsbaum et al., 1998). Phragmites is also routinely genotype. Saltonstall showed that as early as 1940, all Phragmites found in open marsh areas where there is a slightly higher samples were the non-native type. This eradication of the area’s native elevation, resulting from sediment deposition, or a reliable genotypes, according to Saltonstall, is remarkable given the clonal nature source of fresher, less brackish water, such as groundwater of the species in general and suggests that this invasive genotype is exceedingly aggressive. or a natural spring (Buchsbaum et al., 1998). Furthermore, To facilitate detection of non-native whereas competing species are negatively affected by stands, Cornell University offers a free Phragmites Diagnostic Testing higher nutrients levels, Phragmites will grow rapidly in service to determine whether a submitted stand sample is native or introduced. (See Appendix D) areas where excess nutrients from runoff and pollution sources flow into coastal regions (Tibbetts, 2001).
The second biological factor that contributes to broad Phragmites distribution is the speed at which it reproduces. Reproduction can occur either vegetatively through its rhizomes (roots), which produce genetically identical offspring, or less successfully through seed dispersal
(Haslam, 1971; Marks et al., 1993). Phragmites also has the ability to establish in new locations through the translocation and rooting of rhizome pieces that have been severed from an established stand (Antenen, personal communication, 2005).
In the temperate Northeast, young Phragmites shoots begin to grow in late April and May, flower in late August, and finally wither and die after the first few frosts (Ostendorp, 2003). While the above- ground portion of the plant may die during the fall frosts, the underground root system survives and can persist for hundreds of years if stable conditions exist (Haslam, 1971). This growing cycle, as well as the Phragmites’ methods of reproduction, is important when considering appropriate control and management measures.
Source: www.image.google.com Phragmites
The third biological factor that leads to the extensive proliferation of Phragmites is its aggressive and competitive nature. An excessive height advantage allows Phragmites to capture abundant amounts of sunlight while at the same time limiting the amount that is available to other, lower- level plants. The density of Phragmites stands also successfully keeps out invading species, as the dead stalks form a thick litter mat that prevents rival seeds from germinating (Haslam, 1971).
Furthermore, the litter mat aids in Phragmites’ own reproduction by providing winter insulation for the upper rhizomes near the soil surface – those which are necessary for new shoot
development come spring.
Effects of Phragmites australis on ecosystem health
The expansion of Phragmites is considered to have a detrimental effect on an ecosystem. Its negative impacts include:
formation of a monoculture, thereby limiting the local biodiversity,
alteration of salt marsh light and temperature dynamics,
possible alteration of wildlife composition, breeding habits, and food sources, and
retention of nutrients needed by native species.
While it is widely regarded that Phragmites reduces the species diversity of vegetation in a salt marsh its impacts on other aspects of salt marsh ecosystems are poorly understood (Fell et al.,
1998). Although many believe that Phragmites is a problem species that degrades salt marshes because it changes the physical habitat, others have pointed out that Phragmites does provide important habitat for a few species of wildlife (Geller, 1972; Roman et al., 1984; Marks et al.,
1993). Phragmites also has the ability to stabilize erosion and support higher trophic levels, thereby protecting water quality (Chambers et al. 1999).
SECTION 3: THE GREAT MARSH
Geography
The Great Marsh is a coastal marsh ecosystem that comprises more than 17,000 acres that stretch from Amesbury to Rockport along the north shore of Massachusetts.
Source: Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
The Great Marsh includes the coastal areas of nine towns: Salisbury, Amesbury, Newburyport,
Newbury, Rowley, Ipswich, Essex, Rockport, and Gloucester. It is within the Newbury portion of the Great Marsh that heightened concern about emergent juvenile stands of Phragmites australis has arisen. Given the reported location of these stands, as well as other natural and political delineations within the marsh, we have designated the specific study area of this report to be limited to the portion of the marsh that is bordered by the Plum Island Turnpike in the north
– which connects mainland Newbury to Plum Island - and by Pine Island Road to the south.
Although there are indications that Phragmites locations are known in this area, the density, size, and growth rate of these existing stands has yet to be determined. Data concerning the emergent shoots recently observed by a few local stakeholders also has yet to be collected or recorded.
Saltwater Marsh Ecology
Saltwater marshes, also known as tidal marshes, occur in the zone between low and high tides in low energy coasts (minimal wave action) and estuaries. Saltwater marshes are characterized in part by their unique aquatic grasses as well as the grasses that grow along the water’s edge.
These marshes are also distinguished by their brackish waters (a varying mixture of fresh and salt water), sedges and brush, coastal birds, and extensive marine life. Salt marshes are divided into two general vegetation zones. The Low Marsh is flooded twice daily by the incoming tide and is dominated by Spartina alterniflora (saltmarsh cordgrass). The High Marsh is flooded sporadically and is dominated by Spartina patens (saltmeadow cordgrass). Salt marshes contain tidal creeks, pools and “islands” of high ground, and serve as highly efficient pollution filters.
Source: Eights Towns and the Bay
The primary function of a saltwater marsh is to support and maintain the normal ecology of marine life. Scientists have also documented the critical importance of wetlands for clean water, flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, and groundwater supply. Salt marshes provide habitat for
several species of plants and animals in various stages of life, including a number of threatened and endangered species. They also act as a nursery to shellfish, fishes and crustaceans, provide food for young sea-life, and afford smaller creatures in the tall marsh vegetation protection from avian predators and large fish. In addition to the role that they play in providing habitat that fosters ecosystem diversity, saltwater marshes are capable of reducing the amount of pollution entering estuaries through their unique grasses, which are able to absorb chemicals and pollutants as well as trap particles of sand and soil. A final productive feature of saltwater marshes is their ability to reduce shoreline and upland erosion through wave absorption and the strength of their vegetative root systems.
Source: Massachusetts Audubon Society
The Great Marsh is a highly productive ecosystem that offers habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals, including migratory birds and anadromous fish. In early settlement times, the local inhabitants were drawn to the abundant natural resources provided by the marsh and coastal waters, and these resources influenced their development patterns. Farmers in the region depended on the resources of the marsh as well. Nearly all of the farms in the area included swaths of salt marsh, which were harvested for marsh hay and used as fodder for cattle. Today,
communities still rely on the marsh for economic benefits, including the shellfish and finfish industries, and traditional recreational activities such as hunting, boating, birding, and other naturalist activities. The marsh also serves as a prime scenic attraction for residents and visitors and as inspiration for artists.
Although salt marshes are among the most productive ecosystems, they have been viewed and treated historically as mosquito-breeding wastelands that were suitable for transformation into subdivisions, parking lots, landfills, and industrial areas. Stormwater runoff, road and rail lines that restrict or cut off tidal flow, and other impacts have degraded much of the remaining wetland acreage. Source: Mass Audubon
In 1963, Massachusetts adopted its Wetlands Protection Act to protect inland wetlands and coastal salt marshes and additional state and federal legislation aimed at protecting salt marshes and other wetlands has been enacted. Unfortunately, these regulatory changes do not address historic loss and ongoing degradation of salt marshes. The primary threats to the Great Marsh continue to be changes to the natural hydrology, pollution, and coastal development, all of which facilitate the growth of Phragmites.
Salt Marsh Hydrology
The hydrological regime of a marsh drives the physical, chemical, and biological processes that determine the ecosystem health and stability. The rates of these processes are dependent upon the amount, frequency, and duration of flooding (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998).
Research has shown that changes in the natural hydrology of a marsh such as in-fill, dredging,
and infrastructure development can contribute to the growth of Phragmites. Any changes that reduce the level of tidal flow to the marsh decrease the level of salinity present in the system. In ecosystems with low salinity, marsh plants that depend on salt water flushing begin to decline and Phragmites, which can thrive in low salinity environments, has the ability to invade and establish itself.
Hydrologic History of the Upper Great Marsh
The hydrology of the Newbury section of the Great Marsh is dictated by the water flow into the marsh from Merrimack River in the north as well as from Plum Island Sound in the south. The hydrologic regime was natural until the early 1800’s, at which time the Plum Island Turnpike was constructed across the northern portion of the marsh to provide access to Plum Island from the mainland (Army Corps of Engineers, 2005). The initial turnpike structure allowed unimpeded tidal flow through a main channel and two side channels of the open timber pile construction. In 1972, this structure was replaced by a bridge that has only one central opening that is substantially narrower than that of the old bridge (Army Corps of Engineers, 1998). Due to local complaints about flooded properties, the Army Corps of Engineers performed a study in the late 1990’s to determine if the tidal flow was restricted as a result of the reduced flow channel from the 1972 bridge. Using a computer model, the Corps determined that the narrowing of the bridge opening had no significant impact on the maximum water surface elevations on either the north or south sides of the bridge (Army Corps of Engineers, 1998;
Antenen, personal communication, 2005)
In addition to the bridge, there are other hydrological restrictions along the turnpike. Along
Plumbush Creek, observers have noted a complete loss of tidal flow in spite of an existing
culvert that originally connected the north and south sections under the turnpike. The Army
Corps of Engineers (2005) assessed the benefits of reintroducing tidal flow through functional culverts, but ultimately recommended that the culvert be left in its current, non-functional status.
Citing salinity tests and the results of a concurrent study on the flow of freshwater coming from the Merrimack River to the north, the Corps pointed out that salinity levels were similar on both sides of the turnpike at the Plumbush Creek location. By going through with the installation of functional culvert, the Corps feared that freshwater from the Merrimack River would cross through the reinstalled culvert and decrease the salinity of the marsh to the south. This, in turn, might create favorable conditions for the growth and expansion of Phragmites.
Another hydrological alteration in this region of the marsh is mosquito ditching. Mosquito ditching, aimed at eradicating salt marsh mosquito populations, was initially used to combat malaria shortly after the Civil War. The Roosevelt administration then resurrected it during the
Depression to provide work for government-sponsored labor projects (Rozsa, 1995). The process involved digging a parallel network of ditches within the marsh in order to increase drainage of standing marsh water, a prime breeding location for salt marsh mosquitoes. The spoils from these ditches were often piled alongside the newly dug ditch, raising the relative freshwater table on the side opposite the ditch and offering attractive conditions for Phragmites.
With increased access to this less brackish water, Phragmites began to stake new ground in open marsh locations where it was previously unable to grow.
A technique known as Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) has since been used to try and mitigate the problems associated with mosquitoes while avoiding some of the problems
associated with mosquito ditching. This technique involves the selective excavation of small ponds and ditch networks to reduce mosquito production in mosquito breeding areas
(Wolfe, 2005). While this method is an improvement to the extensive grid-work pattern of ditching that leads the marsh draining and it is often used with the goal of reducing the amount of chemical insecticides needed to control mosquito populations (Wolfe, 2005), it still entails manipulating the natural hydrology of the marsh.
Current Hydrological Status of Upper Great Marsh
The most significant restriction to natural tidal flow in Newbury faces is due to the Plum Island
Turnpike. While this bridge provides much less area for tidal flow than the previous structure, the aforementioned studies have shown that this decreased area has not altered the amount or level of water that reaches the marsh on the south side of the turnpike (Army Corps of Engineers,
1998). The lack of impact that this structure has is likely attributed to the openness of the southern portion of the Newbury marsh that also receives inflow from Plum Island Sound.
Tidal cycles and sea level are influential factors on salinity levels, flushing rates, and vegetation in the Great Marsh (Woods Hole, 2001). A rising sea level, and tidal heights in particular, would increase the salinity due to a corresponding increase in ocean water entering the marsh area.
Major tidal cycles occur in 18, 90, 180, and 1,800-year increments, but there is also evidence that six and nine year cycles may exist as well (Keeling and Whorf, 1997 and 2001). The Woods
Hole Marine Biological Laboratory’s Plum Island Ecosystem Long Term Ecological Research site (LTER) is currently monitoring groundwater levels as they relate to tidal pressures. But, determining any type of causal relationship between tidal cycles/sea level and Phragmites
expansion is a long way off due to the immense amount of historical data needed to draw conclusions of this nature.
Powerful tidal cycles and tidal restrictions can also affect sediment deposition in a marsh.
Increased flows churn up more sediment that is then left behind as the tide recedes. This effectively raises the elevation of certain areas of the marsh, thereby allowing Phragmites to gain a foothold in a previously uninhabited region. In addition to monthly marsh elevation recordings, the LTER crew is working toward a digital model that will be supplemented with tidal information. The goal is to obtain a better understanding of the spatial distribution of salinity and temperature changes within the Great Marsh (Woods Hole, 2001). Although, again, this holds promise for uncovering long term hydrological affects on Phragmites expansion, it also requires substantial investments of time and money and may be several years before any concrete answers are revealed.
Land Use
The Parker River/Essex Bay was designated by Massachusetts as an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) in 1979. The ACEC designation applies to approximately
25,500 acres and includes the Merrimack, Parker, Ipswich and North Coastal Watersheds in the towns of Essex, Gloucester, Ipswich, Newbury and Rowley. An ACEC is formally designated by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs to protect and preserve resources and ecosystems of critical environmental significance.
Source: Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
The ACEC designation does not create any new regulations for the area, nor does it prohibit or stop any land development in the area. What it does do is require a higher standard of review by state agencies working with existing environmental regulations such as:
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Regulations (301 CMR 11.00) – lowers the
threshold that triggers the required filing of an Environmental Notification Form for
projects located in an ACEC.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Waterways Regulations (310
CMR 9.00) – requires higher standards for certain projects located within ACECs. It
does not allow new fill in ACECs and increases limits on new structures. New dredging
is prohibited within an ACEC (except for the sole purpose of fisheries and wildlife
enhancement) as well as the disposal of dredged material.
Solid Waste Facilities Assignment Regulations (310 CMR 16.00) – prohibits the siting of
new solid waste facilities within an ACECE
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program Regulations (310 CMR 21.00) –
requires any project proposed in an ACEC coastal area that requires a federal permit, is
federally funded, or is a direct federal action to go through a review process by CZM
before the federal activity can take place.
Due in large part to its designation as an ACEC, the upper portion of the Great Marsh is considered a healthy ecosystem, with natural vegetation covering 69 percent of the watershed
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). Land use changes in the coastal region of the Parker
River watershed, in which the Upper Great Marsh is located, were negligible between 1985 and
1999. However, during this period the natural vegetative covering decreased from 73% to 69%.
In addition, the area did experience an increase in development in the salt marsh buffer zone, primarily due to residential and commercial development. The area also witnessed a loss of fields, croplands, and deciduous upland forest to sand and gravel mining. Development that took place in the river-stream buffer zone totaled 317 acres and further contributed to the substantial conversion of forest and fields (Tiner et al., 2002).
Coastal development has a major impact on the health of a salt marsh and thus contributes to the growth of Phragmites australis. Land use change and incompatible development are among the top threats to the ecological health of the Great Marsh (Lombard, 2004; Tiner et al., 2002;
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 2002). Currently, 45 percent of land in Newbury is protected under federal (2,100 acres), state (3,175 acres), or municipal agencies (148 acres), private ownership (150 acres), or through non-profit organizations (1,275 acres). The remaining
55 percent is either already developed land or unprotected open space.
Source: Town of Newbury Estuarine Resource Management Plan
Population growth will certainly put development pressure on Newbury’s unprotected land.
From 1990 to 1999, Newbury experienced a population growth of 18.8 percent (5,623 to 6,717), compared to the state wide growth rate of 6 percent (Massachusetts Initiative of Social and
Economic Research, 2004). The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA) performed a build-out forecast for Newbury, basing its population projections on the town’s minimum lot size and available land in each zoning district. Newbury’s build-out forecast includes a demographic projection of 13,486, which corresponds to an additional 3,142 acres of developed land area, an increase in 2,480 residential units (current level of 2,816), and
35 miles of additional roadway (EOEA, 2001).
An increase in developed land such as that predicted by EOEA’s build-out analysis could negatively impact the health of the Great Marsh if it continues to occur in sensitive areas such as marsh buffer zones. Vegetated buffer zones are critical for the ecological integrity of the marsh as they capture nutrients and pollution from upland development (The Nature Conservancy,
2004). Shoreline development has been significantly correlated with reduced soil salinities and increased nitrogen availability, both of which facilitate the growth and spread of Phragmites australis (Bertness et al., 2002; Sillman and Bertness, 2004).
Removal of the woody vegetation that intercepts and utilizes freshwater runoff to marshes due to shoreline development can lower marsh salinity levels that eventually contribute to Phragmites growth. Sillman and Bertness (2004) have found that marshes with less than 25 percent border development have minimal Phragmites invasion, while marshes with greater than 50 percent border development typically have significant Phragmites populations. They conclude that development decreases marsh soil salinity and increases marsh nitrogen availability, two key components to Phragmites proliferation. Maintaining the integrity of natural habitat borders and minimizing border development is critical for reducing Phragmites prevalence.
The level of impervious surface within a watershed greatly impacts its ecological health as well
(Coastal Zone Management, 2002). The Center for Watershed Protection (2003) estimates that when imperious surface is greater than 10 percent, impacts are likely, and when impervious surfaces are greater than 15 percent, there is significant wetland impairment. In 1999, all but one subwatershed within the Parker River watershed had impervious surfaces greater than 10%, and three of these had coverage greater than 15 percent (Coastal Zone Management, media presentation).
1971 1985
0 -5 0 -5 5 - 1 0 5 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 5 1 0 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 1 5 - 2 0
0-5 0-5 5 - 10 5 - 10 10 - 15 1991 10 - 15 1999
15 - 20 0 -5 15 - 20 0 -5 5 - 1 0 5 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 5 1 0 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 1 5 - 2 0
An increase in impervious surface increases non-point pollution sources such as stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff must be effectively managed to limit the negative impacts of impervious surfaces. Following rain or snow melting, “storm water” flows over the ground. In
natural landscapes (those with vegetated land), this storm water runoff seeps into the ground or is lost to evaporation. The vegetation slows the flow of water, filters out sediments, and can either brake down or trap pollutants. In urbanized areas, where a high level of impervious surface cover exists due to paving, the storm water runoff flows over the land and into nearby lakes, streams, or estuaries. Impervious surfaces in urbanized areas include streets, parking lots, and rooftops. Water flowing over these surfaces flows at a greater speed and with more volume and transports pollutants from the land directly into waterways.
Pollutants that are carried by storm water runoff include antifreeze, oil and other metals from automobiles, excess nutrients from fertilizer and pesticide use, coliform bacteria and pathogens from pet waste, sediments such as sand, soil and silt, and litter. Phase II of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting program established under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, regulates storm water management in municipalities and construction projects. Newbury recently submitted an application for an NPDES general permit and as part of the permitting process, the town is being asked to develop best management practices (BMPs) for its stormwater problems. The town has committed to a number of BMPs, several of which will also aid in invasive species control. These include:
♦ Highway department: GIS-based map of storm water outfalls and receiving waters
♦ Building department: bylaw for sewer inspection prior to occupancy
♦ Conservation Commission: bylaw for erosion control
Future development of unprotected lands in Newbury would increase the impervious surface in the area, producing more stormwater runoff and lower water quality (EOEA, 2002). Therefore, it is imperative that not only is a stormwater management plan implemented, but also that all aspects of increased development be carefully evaluated for their impacts on the Great Marsh.
SECTION 4: LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS
The Great Marsh region has no shortage of engaged and productive stewards. Nonprofit organizations and the local, state, and federal governments all contribute a significant amount of work toward the protection and restoration of the marsh. It is therefore important to understand the strengths of these stakeholders and how they can be leveraged to improve local understanding of the conditions responsible for Phragmites expansion as well as to direct the appropriate management responses.
Eight Towns and the Bay
Eight Towns and the Bay (8T&B), an organization of the Massachusetts Bays Program, works to foster stewardship of the coastal waters and watersheds on the upper North Shore of
Massachusetts Bay. It is comprised of representatives from each of its nine member communities: Salisbury, Amesbury, Newburyport, Newbury, Rowley, Ipswich, Essex, Rockport, and Gloucester.
There are two important areas where 8T&B can promote understanding and assist with the management of Phragmites. The first is educating municipalities about the contributing factors of Phragmites expansion and how they can minimize those factors that are in their control. One step toward this is the Voices of the Great Marsh video produced by 8T&B that is used in community presentations to communicate the importance of the marsh to a variety of stakeholders.
The Committee also has previous experience in providing technical support for municipalities looking to write new, or update old, wetland and land use bylaws. The support draws upon the
organization’s expertise in managing salt marsh restoration projects such as Castle View in
Gloucester, Newman Road in Newbury, and at Plumbush Creek in Newbury and Newburyport.
The combination of skills and experience allows 8T&B to provide helpful advice on land use planning, stormwater and sewer outfall issues, and local landowner actions.
The second area that 8T&B can facilitate future Phragmites management is by securing financial support for potential projects in the Great Marsh. In the past several years, 8T&B has obtained close to $1 million in monetary and in-kind support for community projects. In addition to soliciting funds on behalf of local stakeholders, 8T&B also maintains a comprehensive listing of almost 50 grant opportunities available through state and federal agencies that towns and nonprofit organizations can apply for directly.
The Massachusetts Bays Program
The Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP), which established 8T&B as a Local Governance
Committee in the upper North Shore, is a state agency that works to protect the Commonwealth’s coastal health. In 2003, MBP revised their Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan to lend specific attention and weight to invasive species issues and calls for monitoring, rapid assessments, and increased education and outreach.
Essex County Greenbelt Association
The Essex County Greenbelt Association (Greenbelt) is a nonprofit land trust that works with landowners and communities to conserve land that is of scenic, ecological, and agricultural significance. A primary focus of Greenbelt’s work is the creation of a network of "greenbelts" that form natural wildlife corridors. Greenbelt owns or manages conservation easements on
significant acreage in the Great Marsh towns of Essex, Gloucester, Newbury, Ipswich, Rockport, and Rowley. The primary strength of Greenbelt is the relationship it has with local landowners that results from their closely maintained and monitored easements on private land.
Great Marsh Initiative
As a result of a two-day “Great Marsh Summit” in 1996 a collaborative approach to protecting the Great Marsh region was initiated. Four teams, composed of representatives from local, state, and government agencies and conservation organizations, were established to address the topics of salt marsh restoration, anadromous fish restoration, land protection, and water quality. The
Salt Marsh Team continues to meet on a quarterly basis and is used primarily as an information conduit for marsh-related matters (Purinton, personal communication, 2005). The relationship between participating organizations is amicable and fruitful, as members will often write letters of support for the funding proposals of peer organizations (Buchsbaum, personal communication, 2005).
The Salt Marsh Team is currently focused on reviewing the Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration program’s Great Marsh Restoration Plan (see Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management/Office of Coastal Zone Management below).
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (University of New Hampshire)
The University of New Hampshire’s Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (JEL) is located at the northern edge of the Great Marsh. The JEL research in tidal marsh ecology focuses on the role that vegetated wetlands play in supporting marine ecosystems, the functions of these habitats, and how plants respond to stresses such as flooding, salinity, and human alterations. One of the
more recent JEL projects was the development of a landscape-scale model of salt marsh responses to restoration efforts. The model is geared toward tracking salinity, elevation, and marsh hydrology – all important factors influencing Phragmites proliferation.
The JEL has also collaborated with the Massachusetts Audubon Society (see Massachusetts
Audubon Society below) on soil salinity studies and played a pivotal role in developing salt marsh monitoring protocols for the Global Programme of Action Coalition (GPAC) for the Gulf of Maine (see Section 6).
Massachusetts Audubon Society
The Massachusetts Audubon Society’s North Shore advocacy office (MA:NS) is the coordinating agency for the Great Marsh Initiative teams. Beyond that role, MA:NS is heavily involved in independent and collaborative salt marsh ecology research, manifested primarily in local education efforts and conservation and restoration projects.
The North Shore advocacy office has a unique project that educates students while also collecting valuable salt marsh data on a consistent basis. One of the goals of the Salt Marsh
Science Project is to compile information about the presence of Phragmites in salt marsh environments utilizing local middle and high school students who work alongside Audubon staff scientists. It is a model for increasing citizen outreach as well as initiating volunteer monitoring programs that contribute significantly to understanding local ecological changes.
Two MA:NS salt marsh projects of note are Argilla Road and Mud Creek. The Argilla Road effort, begun in 1997 and completed in 2002, was an early and experimental undertaking that
involved removal of a tidally restrictive culvert and replacing it with a larger one. The project was a collaboration between public and private entities, including MA:NS, the National Marine and Fisheries Service, the Town of Ipswich, and The Trustees of Reservations. There was only minimal monitoring following the project, limited to tidal heights and soil salinity. Robert
Buchsbaum, a staff scientist on the project, noted that the Phragmites were still present after the project’s completion, but more sparse and shorter than were observed prior to the restoration
(Buchsbaum, personal communication, 2005).
For their Mud Creek study, MA:NS set up monitoring wells for soil salinity in three different areas: upland fringe, open marsh, and the transitional portion between each. Their hypothesis was that in late summer, the saltier water (denser and heavier) was actually staying on top of water that was less salty. This could explain why Phragmites is able to locate itself in water with higher salinity levels, allowing its rhizomes access to comparatively fresher water.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management/Office of Coastal Zone Management
The Parker River/Essex Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is overseen by the state’s Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) office, both of whom administer the ACEC program (see Section 3).
CZM’s Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration program is currently working on a Great Marsh
Restoration Plan that will assist towns with identification and restoration of physically impacted salt marsh regions. This would include tidal restrictions and infill areas, both of which are contributors to Phragmites growth and expansion into new areas. The Plan will encompass 25-
30 such degraded locations and offer management and financial guidance to the appropriate municipalities.
Also under CZM authority is the Salem Sound Coastwatch, one of five local governance entities for the Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program. Coastwatch has two ongoing programs that could be used as models, or at least as suggestive sources: the Coastal Habitat Invasives
Monitoring Program and the Wetland Health Assessment Toolbox. The Monitoring program trains and utilizes volunteers to collect data on invasive species locations and characteristics.
The Toolbox teaches citizen volunteers how to properly assess the overall health of a wetland, including tidal hydrology.
The state’s Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group is administered by CZM as well. This group has developed an aquatic invasive species management plan that aids in coordinating monitoring and prevention strategies and specifying objectives for educating the general public about invasive species problems. Although the management plan designates Phragmites as a high priority for management, this working group does not have any current projects that focus specifically on Phragmites control or reduction (Baker, personal communication, 2005).
Parker River Clean Water Association
The Parker River Clean Water Association (PRCWA) produced the Tidal Crossing Inventory and Assessment Report in 1996 that assessed more than 125 tidal crossings in the Great Marsh.
Sites that appeared to be significantly impeding tidal flow were identified and brought to the attention of local municipal officials. A total of 59 were assessed as potentially restrictive and 25 were characterized as most restrictive. This project led to further outreach that resulted in the
Tidal Crossing Handbook: A Volunteer’s Guide to Assessing Tidal Restrictions, the methodology of which was disseminated to volunteers working throughout the Gulf of Maine region.
The Trustees of Reservations
The Trustees of Reservations, a nonprofit conservation organization, maintain significant Great
Marsh land in Ipswich and Newbury. The Trustees worked collaboratively with Massachusetts
Audubon Society on the Argilla Road tidal restoration, noted above. They also recently completed a significant salt marsh restoration project on the South Shore that won a Special
Recognition award from Coastal America. The project, completed in 2003, placed two culverts in an existing dike to restore tidal flow to an area overrun with Phragmites. Although other marsh grasses have yet to take hold, The Trustees have observed a decline in the Phragmites
(Walsh, 2003).
US Army Corps of Engineers – New England District
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates activities in waterways and wetlands under the authority of several federal laws. The Corps also controls federal navigation projects of their construction and coordinates the "Planning Assistance to States" program.
In February 2005, the New England District of the Army Corps of Engineers published a study on the effects of a non-functional culvert on Phragmites growth at the Plumbush Creek portion of the Plum Island Turnpike. In response to data collected, the Army Corp recommended that established stands located north of the Plum Island Turnpike (just north of the Newbury study site) be physically removed and the elevation of the marsh reduced to the level of adjacent high
marsh elevation. It is hoped that by doing this, salt water flooding will be induced and the natural vegetation will regenerate.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
In the 1940's, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) constructed a 1.5 mile long dike with a tide gate around 140 acres of the Upper Great Salt Marsh to create the North Pool on Plum
Island. The USFWS is now studying restoration options that may include breaching the dike to return natural tidal exchange to the area. In addition, they have comprehensively mapped the vegetation, including Phragmites, in the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge (Kennedy, personal communication, 2005). The restoration of natural tidal exchange would increase the amount of saltwater flushing in this area and most likely induce a reduction in the large population of Phragmites that exists in this area.
Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory
The Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory maintains the Plum Island Ecosystem Long
Term Ecological Research (LTER) site. Its focus is on the estuary and watersheds within the
Great Marsh area. A wide range of data is collected on a daily basis and can be measured against historical data to detect existing trends, if any. The LTER has also set up similar sites in Maine and South Carolina to compare and contrast its findings. Current data measurements include climate (temperature, precipitation, etc.), nutrient loading (nitrogen, phosphorous, etc.), marsh characteristics (sedimentation, vegetation, etc.), and sea level (tidal heights, sea level rise, etc.).
Much of this information is useful in conjunction with other research data in determining salt marsh changes that benefit Phragmites.
SECTION 5: CASE STUDIES OF PHRAGMITES MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
As part of our research, a variety of management plans were reviewed. The three following plans each provide guidance and direction for the development of a Phragmites management plan for the Great Salt Marsh. Below is a brief summary of each plan, highlighting their individual strengths including cross-boundary partnerships, prioritization of actions, and stakeholder coordination.
Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay has experienced a variety of problematic infestations of invasive species.
Natural resource managers determined that to combat the problem, a coordinated prevention and control effort was needed on a Bay-wide basis. In 2001, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s
Invasive Species Workgroup developed a questionnaire that was sent out to Chesapeake Bay stakeholders to identify the top six invasive species that are negatively impacting the Bay.
Phragmites australis was identified as one of the top invasive species, and as result, a working group was established to develop a Bay-wide Phragmites management plan.
The goal of the Phragmites Management Plan is for each state (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia) to have a permitting process that includes control of Phragmites australis as a wetland permit condition by 2005. This will assist the states in achieving a long term goal of no net gain in Phragmites acreage.
The plan identifies specific actions for the four areas, the time frame for completing the actions, the agency responsible for leading the action, partners that should be involved, the cost share between partners, and sources of the funding. The four key areas of action are:
Leadership, coordination and regulatory authority Prevention Control and management
Communication and information access
Leadership, Coordination and Regulatory Authority
Stakeholders agreed that better coordination between the states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed was needed to manage Phragmites more effectively. While establishing a Phragmites coordinator in each state was the preferred solution, limited state budgets prevented such an approach. Instead, a web-based information clearinghouse will be established to document all research, monitoring, and management activities within each state. A lead contact will be identified in each state to assist in the creation of the directory.
Prevention
Stakeholders agreed that a permitting process was needed that required wetland permit applicants to monitor and control Phragmites. If present permitting requirements are deemed insufficient the Working Group will work with state legislature and agencies to develop more structured requirements. Identifying current Phragmites stands and monitoring their growth is vital for controlling the species. The Chesapeake Bay Group will work with local watershed organizations and citizen volunteers to monitor and map existing Phragmites stands. This information will be made available on a GIS web based clearinghouse. In addition, monitoring of Phragmites will be required as a condition of a wetland permit.
Control and Management
Workshop participants determined that they needed to prioritize the geographic areas to see which areas to control first. In addition, an evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of control techniques needs to be established in order to determine if management is working.
Communication and Information Access
Communication between the states in regard to Phragmites research and management needs to be enhanced. Action items to achieve this goal include the above mentioned web based clearinghouse, the production of a “Best Management Practices” brochure for wetland regulatory agencies, and education for permit applicants.
Strength: This plan provides a good example of how cross-boundary partnerships can be developed and how they are necessary for the success of long-term management goals.
Sandy Neck Management Plan
Sandy Neck is a barrier beach system located in Barnstable, Massachusetts that provides habitat for piping plovers and least terns. The area also includes intact dune, forest and swale systems.
Invasive species, including Phragmites australis and Purple Loosestrife, began to invade the area in the early 1950s and have continued to increase in density. This has resulted in negative impacts to the natural community. The Nature Conservancy developed a management plan to prevent new invasions of these two species, which focused on increasing desired native species as well as eliminating the invasive weeds.
The Ecological Goals of this invasive species management plan include:
1) Prevent any new invasions of invasive plant species in the dune/swale ecosystem 2) Restore the natural structure, composition, and function of the swale community 3) Prevent additional disturbance to swales during restoration activities 4) Document present distribution of Phragmites in the salt marsh and determine if stands are spreading
The Management Strategy followed by The Nature Conservancy is to:
Establish goals for the site Identify species that block the achievement of the goal and assign priorities based on the severity of the species impacts Consider available methods for controlling invasive species or diminishing their impacts Develop weed control plans based on above information Implement plans and monitor results
Evaluate methods for effectiveness and use information to modify or improve control methods and/or priorities.
Strength: This plan provides guidance on how to prioritize control and reduction actions.
Kampoosa Bog
Kampoosa Bog, located in Stockbridge and Lee, Massachusetts, is the state’s largest, most diverse and pristine calcareous fen (Kampoosa Stewardship Committee, 2005). In August of
1995, Kampoosa Bog was designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Following this designation, local stakeholders including residents, property owners, and representatives from local boards, businesses, and state agencies established the Kampoosa Stewardship
Committee in order to restore and preserve the Bog. The mission of the Kampoosa Stewardship
Committee is “Through the union of stakeholders we will educate the public, define baseline
environmental data, coordinate cultural and environmental research, communicate research results and communicate activities, review and comment on proposed development, all in order to restore and preserve the Bog”.
To further their mission, a Science Subcommittee was established in 1996 to identify the areas of greatest concern and propose specific management goals for the Bog. The implementation plan places a large emphasis on the importance of on-going community involvement in and support of the plan. The Committee believes that the most effective tool for advancing their management plan is the continued cooperation and collaboration of the public agencies, non-profits and landowners working in Kampoosa Bog.
Strength: This plan provides guidance on how the inclusion of various stakeholders including, non-profit organizations and local, state, and federal governments is beneficial to the management a shared resource.
SECTION 6: RECOMMENDATIONS
An extensive literature review and personal interviews with individuals knowledgeable about
Phragmites australis as well as the Great Marsh have formed the basis of this report. After analyzing and synthesizing the variety of accounts and knowledge related to the issue of
Phragmites, we have proposed the following recommendations to direct the process of addressing this invasive plant. It is important to point out that this report focuses on a specific geographic location, yet it is reasonable to expect that it may have relevance to other saltwater marsh areas that have similar characteristics to the Great Marsh ecosystem.
Recommendations for Immediate Action: Action to be taken as soon as possible to halt the spread of emergent juvenile Phragmites australis stands.
1. Removal of Emergent Juvenile Shoots It is our recommendation that the small number of juvenile stands that were observed last year be removed immediately to prevent the potential for further growth and establishment. During removal, analysis of the root stock may hold clues about whether these stands originated from rhizome migration, seed germination, or from an offshoot of a larger adjacent stand.
If future monitoring programs are planned, it would be advantageous to leave a few of the juvenile shoots which can then be used as data sources for emerging growth and expansion patterns.
Recommendations for Phragmites Data Collection Actions: Actions to be taken in summer/fall of 2005 to establish baseline data concerning Phragmites existence in the Upper Great Marsh and to develop a systematic plan for control and management.
1. Generate a Map of Existing Phramites Stand Locations Before taking steps to control or eradicate established stands of Phragmites, it is important to record baseline data about the extent and distribution of this invasive species within the defined study area. Creating a map that provides the location as well as the size, height, and density of these stands not only enables a year to year comparison of the existent stands, but it also allows future monitoring efforts to quickly identify any emergent stands.
To construct a spatial representation of the marsh areas that are at high risk for Phragmites invasion, it is important to incorporate the physical attributes of the marsh system itself instead of relying solely on mapping the location and characteristics of the Phragmites stands.
Obtaining a genetic analysis of the existing Phragmites stands would also be an informative step toward developing a control and reduction plan for existing Phragmites stands. The desire to eradicate or control non-native Phragmites, and how to accomplish this, may change if native genotypes are still present in the area.
We enthusiastically support efforts underway by CZM, in conjunction with the LTER, to create a vegetation map of the Plum Island area. This map should provide rough spatial information on the location of Phragmites stands within the Upper Great Marsh (Newbury study site included) to which more detailed information (height, density, underlying vegetation, etc.) could be added through field data collection.
2. Establish a Monitoring Program To evaluate the impact that control or reduction efforts have on Phragmites it is necessary to establish a long-term monitoring. Without consistent monitoring, it is impossible to detect if these efforts are successful. In addition, the creation of realistic goals for Phragmites control and reduction is extremely important for this long-term process (Lombard, personal communication, 2005).
Experts suggest that management efforts must be assessed at least every two years to determine if a reduction in the Phragmites populations is occurring (Lombard, personal communication, 2005). Particular attention is needed when dealing with young shoots, as they generally remain small and insignificant in the first few years and are hard to differentiate from other short marsh grasses (Marks et al., 1993).
There are many factors affecting Phragmites proliferation and therefore monitoring must reflect this. We recommend that a monitoring program focused on Phragmites include the following data collection items: 1. Location (geographic areas) 2. Size (circumference of the stand) 3. Height (aerial extent and averages) 4. Density (shoots per square unit) 5. Native vegetation growing around or within the stand 6. Attributes of the surrounding Marsh (general marsh ecosystem analysis)
Soil salinity
Groundwater changes
Sediment accumulation
Merrimack River (freshwater) influences
Suggested models for monitoring programs include: Coastal Zone Management: A Volunteer’s Handbook for Monitoring New England Salt Marshes – This handbook was developed as a tool to help local volunteer groups collect and record data on salt marsh health in a consistent and scientifically sound manner. Massachusetts Audubon Society’s Salt Marsh Science Project – This program, outlined in Section 4, could be helpful in engaging student volunteers for year-round monitoring in conjunction with their curriculum. Global Programme of Action Coalition (GPAC) for the Gulf of Maine - One of the important parts of this endeavor is setting up protocols for the monitoring of five salt marsh indicators: hydrology, soil/sediments, vegetation, nekton (free-swimming marine life such as fish, whales, turtles,
etc.), and birds. In addition to the guidelines themselves, the GPAC protocols also include two areas that are necessary for devising and securing funding for monitoring projects. First, the report specifies which data collection tasks necessary for each of the five indicators are appropriate for volunteers and which are best handled by trained staff. Second, GPAC gives rough estimates of the cost to perform the suggested monitoring tasks as well as the number of staff and/or volunteers required to complete the specified duties during a given monitoring period.
3. Prioritize a List of Stands for Control and/or Reduction
A. Determine Priority Levels Using data that is generated through the baseline assessment and monitoring process, it is important to identify areas that are a priority for control of Phragmites. Some guidelines that can assist in identifying priority areas are:
High Priority New infestations (Lombard, personal communication); brackish water and high marsh areas (Antenen, personal communication, 2005)
Medium Priority Large stands that are growing (Lombard, personal communication, 2005)
Low Priority Stands that are not expanding (Lombard, personal communication, 2005)
We recommend that priority for projects be determined by the ability to identify underlying causes, the potential for success, the associated costs (for control and/or reduction projects as well as for post-project monitoring), and the presence of vulnerable or rare species and habitats (Antenen, 2005).
B. Location-Specific Analysis of Underlying Causes Once a location has been identified as an area where Phragmites control and/or reduction is of high priority, further investigation must done to assess whether there are significant causes for this expansion that can be addressed through remediation.
Potential impact sources that are important to consider when addressing the underlying causes of Phragmites include:
Hydrology: Is restricted/modified tidal flow changing the hydrology of the marsh system in a way that is inducing Phragmites growth and expansion?
Through a review of studies looking at structural development impacts in the Newbury study site, we determined that physical structures have not dramatically changed the level of tidal flushing. Therefore, structurally induced tidal restrictions are not believed to be a determining factor in the invasion of Phragmites in the Newbury open marsh area. Instead, we believe that other alterations to the natural hydrology of the study site marsh could be influencing the growth of Phragmites, such as tidal cycles, sea level changes, and pre-existing mosquito ditches.
We recommend that further research be conducted on the benefits associated with remediation of existing mosquito ditches utilizing Open Marsh Water Management techniques.
Land Use: Are changes in land use stimulating Phragmites growth (ie, increased amount of non-permeable surfaces are generating greater quantities of high nutrient freshwater runoff, etc.)
We recommend that monitoring and removal of invasive species be incorporated into Newbury’s wetlands development permit review and issuance of conditions. Currently, the town’s bylaw has site-specific design standards that state that,
“Every effort shall be made to minimize the area of disturbed areas on the tract. A disturbed area is any land not left in its natural vegetated state” (S97-47.10) We further recommend that Eight Towns and the Bay work with the local Conservation Commissions and Planning Boards to educate them on: 1) how development in buffer zones can impact that Great Marsh and lead to Phragmites expansion, and, 2) how stormwater pollution impacts Phragmites growth and ways to ensure that stormwater best management practices are implemented
Disturbance: Has the marsh experienced disturbances that would favor the invasion of Phragmites and disfavor the established native species (i.e. elevation changes)?
From data obtained from the 2004 study done by the Army Corps, a core sediment sample showed that the study area had never experienced a large- scale disturbance such as dredging or dumping of dredged materials from elsewhere. Mosquito ditching (even using current methods that thinly disperse the spoils), tidal cycles, and general sea level rise are phenomena that can alter the relative elevations of the marsh.
We recommend further research on whether deposited spoils have induced new Phragmites stands. We also recommend establishing long-term studies on the effects of tidal cycles and sea level rise, a task that may be accomplished through a strategic collaboration with the Woods Hole LTER.
Once these impact sources have been analyzed and the underlying causes, if applicable, are acknowledged, it will be important to incorporate remediation efforts into future projects. This will lead to a more holistic treatment of marsh health and Phragmites abatement.
Recommendations for Control and/or Reduction Actions: Actions to be taken, once baseline information has been evaluated and priorities set, for the control and/or reduction of Phragmites stands.
1. Mechanical Removal or Reduction of Phragmites Stands Despite the importance of addressing the root causes of Phragmites invasion, many times simple remediation of the environmental factors that lead to establishment will not significantly affect stands that already exist. This is primarily due to the unique abilities of this plant to modify the immediate surroundings for its own survival.
In conjunction with methods that treat ecosystem level problems, we recommend that mechanical methods of Phragmites biomass reduction be conducted simultaneously. These include:
Flooding: If tidal restrictions have led to reduced soil and water salinities in a given area, simply restoring tidal flow and flooding the stands may be all that is necessary to initiate a die-back of the Phragmites. Haslam (1971) suggests that repeated salt water flooding can result in less dense stands due to the resulting narrower buds that creates more space between future shoots.
While this method has the benefit of eliminating the need to use herbicides in the marsh ecosystem, it has been observed that complete eradication of the stand may take between 10-15 years. When this technique is used in conjunction with herbicide application, the process can take as little as three years (Capotosto, personal communication, 2005).
Mowing/herbicide application: Stressing the plant through mowing and then selectively applying tested and approved herbicide (e.g. Rodeo) has proven to be an effective way to reduce the biomass of stands of Phragmites. It is important to address the temporal susceptibility of the plant when timing mowing and herbicide application. Mowing is best done at the end of July, during which most
of the food reserves are produced, and herbicide application is best done in late August when nutrients are provided to the rhizome (Marks et al., 1993).
Excavation: Removal of the entire Phragmites plant including the root structure is considered by some to be the most comprehensive method of removal when used in conjunction with tidal restoration. However, utilization of this method creates large-scale soil disturbances and eliminates not only the existing Phragmites, but also the entire vegetative ecosystem in the excavated area. Therefore, adequate consideration should be given to all other options prior to moving forward with this type of action.
Biocontrol: While no tested and approved method of biocontrol currently exist, it is important to keep up to date with the research of Bernd Blossey at Cornell University. Dr. Blossey’s research focuses on the impacts of invasive plants on native flora and fauna, biological control of non-indigenous plant species in natural areas, plant-insect interactions, and invasion and conservation biology. Dr. Blossey is currently researching the potential of rhizome-feeding and stem- boring moths as well as a stem-boring fly to biologically control Phragmites (Tewksbury et al., 2002).
Other methods of mechanical control such as burning or using plastic coverings are not recommended. Burning Phragmites often acts to stimulate growth of the plant rather than reducing it. Covering the cut Phragmites stalks with plastic is extremely labor intensive and the plastic is often removed by animals before it has time to effectively starve the plant of sunlight.
When considering what mechanical method is best for Phragmites control, it is important to look at the particular attributes of the stand being addressed (i.e. size, density, etc.), the local ecosystem, and the underlying causes that may be addressed in conjunction with mechanical removal. Due to the limited information on the location and size of stands within the Newbury study site, it is necessary to begin a preliminary
assessment of the site before a recommendation can be made on what control method is most suitable.
Recommendations for Institutional Actions: Actions to be taken to foster the institutional support that is required for Phragmites control.
1. Organize Institutional Coordination Because remediation of Phragmites involves analysis and project implementation on lands that fall under federal, state, and local regulation, it is important to have strong coordination between governmental agencies and local private organizations and individuals.
There are several excellent examples of coordination on the local and state level. The Great Marsh Initiative teams and the federal, state, and local contributors to the ACEC and Wetlands Restoration Plan programs demonstrate how citizens, governments, and nonprofit organizations can all work together to ensure proper protection of the Great Marsh. We believe that this type of collaboration can – and should - continue to play a pivotal role in the control of Phragmites within this area.
To facilitate the level of cooperation needed to effectively manage Phragmites, we recommend hiring a dedicated part-time Great Marsh Phragmites australis coordinator. Because there are so many entities involved in this area, a concentrated focus on the particular problem of Phragmites is needed. A person to corral and synthesize data from numerous sources and then engage and prod the appropriate players into action is vital for moving forward in the control and management of continued Phragmites expansion.
We feel that Eight Towns and the Bay is best suited for oversight of the proposed coordinator position. Their relationship with the surrounding municipalities, as well as with the Massachusetts Bays Program, might enable them, more than other organizations, to obtain the necessary support from local stakeholders. The inclusiveness of 8T&B’s organizational make-up is also an area of strength, one that could eliminate perceived bias toward a particular group or cause.
The financial challenge of funding a new staff member focused solely on Phragmites is a real concern, but one that should not be allowed to undermine this goal. Phragmites expansion will continue to threaten the marsh without concerted effort and dedicated action. Funding a staff person now should prove to be cheaper than attempts at remediation of Phragmites-induced problems in the future, especially considering the uncertain success and high costs of salt marsh restoration projects. Funding sources to be explored more in depth would include federal and state grants as well as options for local contributions. Possible resources for the coordinator position include the AmeriCorps program and the Student Conservation Association. (see Appendix B & C for more funding and staffing suggestions)
2. Establish Volunteer Programs Given sufficient training and an easy-to-follow protocol, volunteers can be an invaluable resource for Phragmites assessment and control programs. Although a few volunteer programs already exist in the Great Marsh, notably the efforts mentioned in Section 4 of the Massachusetts Audubon Society and the Parker River Clean Water Association, there is still a need for Phragmites-specific monitoring.
The Audubon and Parker River programs are excellent examples of collective participation between scientists, citizens, students, and government agencies and a Phragmites program would do well to model itself after them. Establishing a program focused solely on Phragmites would be a great opportunity to incorporate local participation into the process of Phragmites assessment and control.
One of the obvious benefits of utilizing volunteers is the fact that they are a free resource. Aside from the costs associated with the monitoring itself, the student or citizen groups could be employed with minimal financial burden on a regular basis. Coordination of the volunteer group would fall under the staffed person recommended in Part 1 above, thereby eliminating the burden on existing organizational staff members.
3. Promote Land Owner and Resident Participation While organized volunteer groups can be extremely useful, local citizens not involved in these organized programs can also be enlisted to help reduce the spread of Phragmites.
We recommend that the following are appropriate ways to enlist local landowner support:
Educate them about the ecological benefits that vegetative buffers can play in protecting the marsh from pollution and stemming the spread of Phragmites. The Parker River Clean Water Association offers helpful tips to landowners on creating effective buffers in their waterfront gardens publication, A Homeowner’s Guide: Planting a Riparian Buffer Garden, including the types of native vegetation to use for different location types.
Educate them about the proper ways to identify and remove Phragmites in areas where it is becoming problematic.
APPENDIX A: IRB DOCUMENTATION & MOU
IRB APPROVAL
IRB QUESTIONS
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
IRB APPROVAL
TO: Jay Astle, Lauren Baumann, Gina Filosa, Jenna Ringelheim This letter is your official notification that your research project is exempt for IRB review for the following reasons: Upper Great March Phragmites Evaluation and Management Plan 2. Research involving the use of educational tests, survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior UNLESS the information is recorded in a manner in which the subject can be identified AND disclosure would place the subject at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to financial standing, employability, or reputation. This does not apply where the subjects are children except where it involves passive observation of public behavior.
3. Research involving the use of educational tests, survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior where subjects are elected or appointed officials or candidates for public office. Please be sure to print a copy of this notification for your files.
Helen A. Page February 18, 2005 IRB Administrator Date of Email Notification Helen A. Page, Ed.D. Associate Director of Research Administration Office of the Vice Provost for Research Tufts University 20 Professors Row Medford, MA 02155 Phone: 617-627-5187 FAX 617-627-3673 Email: [email protected] URL: http://tufts.edu/central/research
IRB QUESTIONS
The following questions will be used as a starting point for our interviews with various experts. We expect other questions to arise during the interviewing process.
• What has been your organizations’/your involvement with the Great Marsh area? • Why did your organization/you choose to get involved with the Great Marsh area? • What are your and/or your organization’s conservation goals for the Great Marsh? • What do you believe to be the current status of the ecological health of the Great Marsh, and what factors do you believe impact the ecosystem’s health? • Do you have any data/studies to support these claims? • What is the status of your current studies in this area? Is there an end date or goal for the studies? • How has your organization been involved with research/management of Phragmites stands in the area, or other areas? • What do you believe to be the ideal method for restoring the health of the Great Marsh?
APPENDIX B: FUNDING SOURCES
The following is a list of possible funding opportunities to assist in establishing and implementing a Phragmites australis management plan. They include both government and private foundation grants.
Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/) The Environmental Protection Agency’s searchable database of financial assistance sources (grants, loans, cost-sharing) available to fund a variety of watershed protection projects. Search on keyword "invasive species."
US Department of Agriculture Grant and Partnership Programs that can Address Invasive Species Research, Technical Assistance, Prevention and Control (http://www.invasivespecies.gov/docs/usdagrants2005.pdf) This workbook contains basic information on programs in USDA that could be used to fund invasive species related projects. This list should be a helpful place to start a search for resources for invasive species activities but by no means represents the complete universe of potential invasive species funding opportunities.
Cooperative Weed Management Area Support Grants – 2005 (http://www.weedcenter.org/weed_mgmt_areas/2005_cwma-rfp.htm) Center for Invasive Plant Management The Center for Invasive Plant Management announces the availability of grants to support restoration/reclamation/revegetation efforts in cooperative weed management areas (CWMAs). The goal of this program is to promote cooperative efforts to convert invasive-plant-dominated lands into plant communities that are more appropriate for the land use. Grants of up to $5,000 may be used for salaries and benefits, communications, meetings, and supplies. Overhead is limited to 10% of the total grant.
Conservation Partnership Initiative (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cpi/pdf_files/CPI05RFPwebversion12_17_04.pdf) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service The Conservation Partnership Initiative (CPI) is a voluntary program established to foster conservation partnerships that focus technical and financial resources on conservation priorities in watersheds of special significance and other geographic areas of environmental sensitivity. Applications must address one of these priorities: 1. Terrestrial and freshwater aquatic wildlife habitat 2. Invasive species 3. Livestock nutrient management 4. Minor/specialty crop pest management
National Research Initiative: Biology of Weedy and Invasive Plants (http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/fundview.cfm?fonum=1123) Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service The goal of this program is to support: (1) research on general processes and principles that contribute to plant competitiveness or invasiveness; or (2) development of novel methods to alter plant species competitiveness, invasiveness, or abundance. It is expected that the knowledge gained from these studies will ultimately be applied to agricultural settings or closely related systems involving weedy or invasive plants. This program also invites applications for projects that integrate research, extension, and/or education to address novel and environmentally sound forms of controlling weedy or invasive plants.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife (http://partners.fws.gov/) The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners for habitat restoration on their lands. A variety of habitats can be restored to benefit Federal trust species (for example, migratory birds and fish and threatened and endangered species.) Normally the cost share is 50 percent (the Service and the landowner each pay half of the project costs), but the percentage is flexible. Services or labor can qualify for cost-sharing. There is no formal application process. If you are interested in exploring the possibility of pursuing a cooperative agreement for restoration, or simply receiving technical advice, the first step is to contact your State coordinator. A listing of all Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program coordinators is available at the above website.
Bring Back the Natives (http://www.nfwf.org/programs/bbn.htm) Funds on-the-ground efforts to restore native aquatic species to their historic range.
Five-Star Restoration Matching Grants Program (http:///www.nfwf.org/programs/5star-rfp.htm) Provides modest financial assistance on a competitive basis to support community-based wetland, riparian, and coastal habitat restoration projects that build diverse partnerships and foster local natural resource stewardship through education, outreach and training activities.
Native Plant Conservation Initiative (http://www.nfwf.org/programs/npci.htm) Supports on-the-ground conservation projects that protect, enhance, and/or restore native plant communities on public and private lands. Projects typically fall into one of three categories and may contain elements of each: protection and restoration, information and education, and inventory and assessment.
J. C. Downing Foundation (http://www.jcdowning.org/funding/grantmaking.htm) The Foundation awards grants to qualified nonprofit organizations with explicit, identifiable needs, often funding the early stages of a project's development. Typical awards are between $5,000 and $50,000.
Laura Jane Musser Fund Environmental Stewardship Program (http://www.musserfund.org/environmental.htm) Funds programs that work to manage resources with the participation of community members and stakeholders in both planning and implementation of the program. For applications and guidelines see the above website.
APPENDIX C: STAFFING OPTIONS TO PERFORM PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS MANAGEMENT
1. The Student Conservation Association, Inc For 47 years, resource managers across the U.S. have relied upon the Student Conservation Association, Inc (SCA) to provide them with dedicated conservation interns and volunteers. These motivated stewards have skillfully augmented the efforts of both public agencies and private organizations in preserving some of our most popular natural and cultural treasures.
The SCA offers several options for supplementing an organization’s staffing needs. These include either Conservation Interns or a Conservation Crew.
1. Conservation Interns a. Resource Assistant (RA): usually a college student or recent graduate who serves a standard 12-week term b. Conservation Associate (CA): usually 21 years or older who serve on projects of six to 12 months. The CA’s have both the educational background and experience that make them well-suited for supervisory roles with other volunteers 2. Conservation Crews Comprised of high school students in groups of six or eight participants and two adult leaders. The crew participates in substantial, labor intensive outdoor projects that run for three to five weeks.
Funding for both the conservation interns and the conservation crews is through a cost-share between the SCA and the participating organization. The specific cost-share fees are determined by a variety of factors including intern travel costs, length of service and housing. Current staffing fees for the 2004 were as follows:
Conservation Interns: • One 12 week RA: $2,975 + housing • One 6-month CA: $10,595 + housing • One 9-month CA: $14,545 + housing • One 12-month CA: $18,495 + housing
Conservation Crew • 6 member crew o 21 days: $14,565 o 30 days: $18,990 o 35 days: $19,885 • 8 member crew o 21 days: $17,140 o 30 days: $22,330 o 35 days: $23,385
For further information regarding the Student Conservation Association please contact: Ray T. Auger - Program Development Director 603-543-1700 ext. 144 email: [email protected] ; www.thesca.org
2. Corporation for National & Community Service: AmeriCorps (http://www.nationalservice.org)
The Corporation for National and Community Service provides opportunities for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to serve their communities and country through three programs: Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America. Members and volunteers serve with national and community nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, schools, and local agencies to help meet community needs in education, the environment, public safety, homeland security, and other critical areas. The Corporation is part of USA Freedom Corps, a White House initiative to foster a culture of citizenship, service, and responsibility, and help all Americans answer the President's Call to Service.
AmeriCorps*State To engage AmeriCorps members in providing direct service to address unmet community needs. Local programs design service activities for a team of members serving full-time/part-time for one year or during the summer.
The Corporation requires a 15% cash match for AmeriCorps member support cost and 33% cash or in-kind match of the overall operating program costs. State commissions may add additional match requirements.
Massachusetts Service Alliance Kristin McSwain Executive Director 100 North Washington Street, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02114 phone: 617-542-2544 x228 fax: 617-542-0240 email: [email protected] website: www.msalliance.org
APPENDIX D: INVASIVE STRAIN GENETIC TESTING FORM
CORNELL UNIVERSITY PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS DIAGSNOTIC SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS
CHECKLIST: Before you go into the field, please make sure to take the following: 1. GPS unit or topographic map 2. Clippers to cut Phragmites stems 3. Zip-lock or plastic bags to store samples 4. Paper to record site information 5. Pencil or pen (no ink please) 6. Camera
HOW TO FILL OUT THE FORM (Note: the Form can be filled out and submitted online at http://www.invasiveplants.net/diag/pform.htm)
Fields 1-9: These fields are self-explanatory
Field 10: Name of collection site. Please be specific, we have allowed sufficient space for you to enter this information. For example if your collection site is a National Wildlife refuge, enter more than the NWR name. For example: West side of brown pond along feeder ditch. You may want to give a short name and then a more elaborate description. All submitted samples will automatically receive a unique identification number. This number will appear on the confirmation screen you will see once you submit the information. All samples will be tracked and referenced by this number.
Field 11: Please enter the day the samples were collected. The morphological characters change throughout the growing season and over the winter. It is important to keep track of the actual collection date. Please submit samples that contain green stems ASAP after collections.
Fields 12-14: Longitude/Latitude. We will create a North American distribution map of native and introduced Phragmites using your samples. This requires accurate location information. If you are unable to provide GPS location information, use UTM coordinates and transform into Lat/Long. If neither is available to you use a topographic map to interpolate GPS coordinates. Please check the appropriate box in Field 14 so we know how the information was derived. If you are unable to provide this information, please submit a photocopy of a road atlas with the location clearly indicated. Please use a separate map for each sample you are submitting or clearly label sampling sites.
Field 15. Habitat. Please check one of the provided categories. If none of the provided ones fit, please provide a new category and a description of the site.
Field 16. Growing conditions. There is some indication that native Phragmites may not be able to tolerate continuous flooding while introduced Phragmites thrives under these circumstances. You information about the growing conditions will be extremely useful. We recognize that this can be only a “snapshot” but we consider it worthwhile.
Field 17. Size of population. Please estimate the extent of your Phragmites patch. Chose one of our broad categories.
Field 18. Appearance of stand. Native Phragmites appears often less dense but not always. Mostly because old stems appear to decompose faster. We need additional information to assess whether this is a general patterns across NA.
Field 19. Digital photo. We would like to create a photo library of growing locations across North America. We have already begun this collection and your photos would be a great addition. We will give appropriate credit for all photos we opt to use. If you have only prints or slides, we welcome these as well and will create digital images if you send us copies. When submitting images, please clearly label them with the unique identification number you will receive when submitting information for each sample. In those cases where the person submitting the information is not the photographer, please provide this info as well so we can give credit accordingly.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FIELD COLLECTION 1. Use the checklist to assemble the necessary tools and materials. 2. Once you arrive at the sampling location please take a picture of the stand (or several) 3. Fill out all pertinent information on the form sheet. Use data form provided on the web 4. Record GPS (Lat/Long) coordinates. 5. Walk to the stand and cut 5 stems from last years growing season. Cut stems at base of shoot as far down as possible. Fold each stem individually and place into plastic bag. During the growing season when green stems from the current year are available, please also cut 5 green stems. Follow procedures as outlined above for older stems. Please place green stems into a separate plastic bag. If you continue to another sampling location, please make sure your samples are clearly marked with site name, GPS location etc. Ideally a piece of paper with this information should be kept in each plastic bag secured to the stems. 6. Once you return from the field, please enter all information via our website. Each sampling location will receive a unique reference number assigned by our website. You will receive this reference number once you submit and approve the information you entered. Please make a printout of this information for your own records and place a copy into the plastic bag with the old stems and another copy into the bag with the green stems. We will receive many samples and this system allows us to keep track of the samples and reduce mix-ups. 7. During the growing season when green stems are shipped, please send material ASAP after field collection. Please avoid sending samples that are wet since they will get moldy quickly. Otherwise, samples will last in plastic bags for a few days. Ideally they should arrive in Ithaca within 2-3 days after collection. This is less urgent for samples collected during the dormant season but avoid moist samples as well. 8. Place clearly labeled samples into shipment box or envelope and mail to:
Bernd Blossey - Department of Natural Resources Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
APPENDIX E: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ailstock, M. S. (December 1998). Summary of common questions concerning Phragmites control. Arnold, MD: Anne Arundel Community College.
This summary introduces Phragmites australis, the issues surrounding this invasive plant, and outlines methods that can be employed to control and manage this species. Antenen, S. Director of Science and Stewardship, The Nature Conservancy - Long Island Chapter Office. Personal interview on March 25, 2005 Antenen, S., Patterson, C., Hines, K., Skully, P. J., & Lynch, J. (March 2005). Overview of Phragmites australis in the Peconic Estuary, NY - DRAFT. Long Island, NY: The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited.
The purpose of this report is to gather background information and undertake a preliminary assessment on the degree of threat posed by Phragmites australis to salt marsh health, function and biodiversity in the Peconic Estuary, to determine the current and historical extent of Phragmites within select Peconic watersheds, and to recommend management measures for protecting and enhancing salt marsh integrity within the Estuary. This report focuses on Phragmites within tidal wetlands. Baker, J., Carlisle, B., & Carullo, M. Status and trends in nonpoint source pollution in the Parker Watershed: A watershed scale land use and water quality assessment. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. Multimedia presentation. Baker, J. MA Coastal Zone Management's Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan author; member of Eight Towns and the Bay Committee. Personal interview on March 8, 2005 Bastian, O., & Bernhardt, A. (1993). Anthropogenic landscape changes in Central Europe and the role of bioindication. Landscape Ecology, 8(2) 139-151.
Bastian and Bernhardt discuss human activity and its relationship to accelerated ecological change in Central Europe, an important consideration given the observed decline in Europe’s Phragmites australis.
They stress that bioindication is an important tool in documenting past and present landscape changes, as well as providing clues to future consequences. The basis of Bastian and Berhardt’s contention is that sensitive flora and fauna respond almost instantly to landscape variations. Furthermore, the sheer speed at which this change is occurring makes it difficult for the ecological system to stabilize itself. Bastian and Bernhardt conclude that human thinking and action must be compatible with the environment, primarily through ecologically-sensitive landscape planning. Bertness, M. D., Ewanchuk, P. J., & Silliman, B. R. (February 5, 2002). Anthropogenic modification of New England salt marsh landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(3) 1395-1398.
Salt marshes play a critical role in the ecology and geology of wave-protected shorelines in the Western Atlantic, but as many as 80% of the marshes that once occurred in New England have already been lost to human development. Here we present data that suggest that the remaining salt marshes in southern New England are being rapidly degraded by shoreline development and eutrophication. On the seaward border of these marshes, nitrogen eutrophication stimulated by local shoreline development is shifting the competitive balance among marsh plants by releasing plants from nutrient competition. This shift is leading to the displacement of natural high marsh plants by low marsh cordgrass. On the terrestrial border of these same marshes, shoreline development is also precipitating the invasion of the common reed, Phragmites, by means of nitrogen eutrophication caused by the removal of the woody vegetation buffer between terrestrial and salt marsh communities. As a consequence of these human impacts, traditional salt marsh plant communities and the plants and animals that are dependent on these habitats are being displaced by monocultures of weedy species. Blumeris, B. Study Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers - New England District. Personal interview on March 1, 2005 Boumans, R. M. J., Burdick, D. M., & Dionne, M. (September 2002). Modeling habitat change in salt marshes after tidal restoration. Restoration Ecology, 10(3) 543-555.
Salt marshes continue to degrade in the United States due to indirect human impacts arising from tidal restrictions. Roads or berms with inadequate provision for tidal flow hinder ecosystem functions and interfere with self-maintenance of habitat, because interactions among vegetation, soil, and hydrology within tidally restricted marshes prevent them from responding to sea level rise. Prediction of the tidal range that is expected after restoration relative to the current geomorphology is crucial for the successful restoration of salt marsh habitat. Both insufficient (due to restriction) and excessive (due to subsidence and sea level rise) tidal flooding can lead to loss of salt marshes. We developed and applied the Marsh Response to Hydrological Modifications model as a predictive tool to forecast the success of management scenarios for restoring full tides to previously restricted areas. We present an overview of a computer simulation tool that evaluates potential culvert installations with output of expected tidal ranges, water discharges, and flood potentials. For three New England tidal marshes we show species distributions of plants for tidally restricted and nonrestricted areas. Elevation ranges of species are used for short-term (<5 years) predictions of changes to salt marsh habitat after tidal restoration. Buchsbaum, R. Staff Scientist, Massachusetts Audubon Society. Personal interview on March 11, 2005 Buchsbaum, R., Purinton, T., & Magnuson, B. (1998). The marine resources of the Parker River - Plum Island Sound Estuary: An update after 30 years. Chapter 8 148-158.
Authors discuss numerous issues surrounding the Parker River – Plum Island Sound Estuary now compared to the last report on the area 30 years ago. Water quality, primarily due to tributaries emptying into the sound, is currently poor, but has not had a significant effect on
the Sound itself yet. Nutrient loading is a concern as more and more development occurs in the contributing areas. Tidal restrictions are also discussed, in particular their relationship to native and non-native vegetation.
Invasive species, especially Phragmites australis, in area are described as threats to both flora and fauna in the area due to its establishment as a monoculture and its inadequate utilization as a resource for wildlife. Control and elimination techniques are outlined for Phragmites, though the authors clearly favor control as the most favorable means of management. Burdick, D. M., Buchsbaum, R., & Holt, E. (2001). Variation in soil salinity associated with expansion of Phragmites australis in salt marshes. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 46 247-261.
Burdick, from the University of New Hampshire’s Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, and Buchsbaum, a scientist for the Massachusetts Audubon Society, present the results of a two- year field study to determine soil salinity levels in a typical New England salt marsh and its relationship to Phragmites australis stand strength and rates of expansion. Six test sites were established, two of which near restricted tidal flooding areas. At each site, five stations were set up to collect plant and salinity data. Their research found that the stand that had the greatest expansion was the one that occurred at a tidally restricted site with a high freshwater soil content. As a result, Burdick and Buchsbaum point out that Phragmites is positively affected in marsh areas influenced by fresh ground water. They conclude that human alteration of salt marshes can assist Phragmites expansion through tidal restrictions that reduce freshwater drainage or that reduce saltwater flooding. Capotosto, P. Wetlands Restoration Biologist, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection - Wildlife Division. Phone interview on April 4, 2005 Card, J. A. Operations Manager, Northeast Massachusetts Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. Personal interview on March 3, 2005 Carlisle, B. Project Coordinator, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. Phone interview on March 25, 2005 Center for Watershed Protection. (2005). Impacts of impervious cover on aquatic systems. Watershed protection research monograph no. 1. Retrieved 3/24, 2005 from www.cwp.org Chesapeake Bay Phragmites australis Working Group. (October 2003). Common reed (Phragmites australis) in the Chesapeake Bay: A draft bay-wide management plan. Annapolis, MD: United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Invasive Species Workgroup developed a management plan for species deemed problematic to the restoration and integrity of the Bay’s ecosystem. Phragmites australis was identified as a top priority, and as a result the working group developed a management plan. The goal of the Phragmites management plan is to have a permitting process in development in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania by 2005 that includes control of Phragmites as a wetland permit condition to achieve the goal of no net
gain of Phragmites acreage within the Chesapeake Bay. The plan identifies four key areas of action: 1) Leadership, coordination and regulatory authority; 2) Prevention; 3) Control and management; and 4) Communication and information access. The plan identifies specific actions for the 4 areas, the time frame for completing the actions, and the agency responsible for leading the action. Durey, H. Wetland Restoration Specialist, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. Personal interview on March 8, 2005 Estuarine Resource Management Plan for the Town of Newbury – DRAFT (March 2005). Newbury, MA: Town of Newbury.
This goal of the resource management plan is to maintain, and where necessary, improve the health of the estuarine resources in the Newbury portion of the Parker River/Essex Bay ACEC. The plan is to be used to guide the town’s Master Plan process. The management plan seeks to: 1) evaluate the physical conditions and trends in the estuary; 2) evaluate the biological resource conditions and trends in the estuary: 3) evaluate human uses and trends in the estuary; 4) identify the major resource management issues in the estuary; 5) create a set of recommendations to address the major resource management issues; and 6) create a plan for the organizational structure and actions needed to implement the recommendations. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. (2005). Community Preservation Initiative (Buildout Analysis 2001). Retrieved 3/25, 2005 from commpres.env.state.ma.us Global Programme of Action Coalition for the Gulf of Maine. (June 2-3, 1999). In Neckles H. A., Dionne M.(Eds.), Regional standards to identify and evaluate tidal wetland restoration in the Gulf of Maine; A GPAC workshop. Wells, ME: Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve.
This joint program of United States and Canadian governments attempts to standardize the protocols for monitoring tidal wetland restoration efforts in the Gulf of Maine. One of the important parts of this endeavor is evaluation of five salt marsh indicators: hydrology, soil/sediments, vegetation, nekton (free-swimming marine life such as fish, whales, turtles, etc.), and birds. In addition to the guidelines themselves, the GPAC protocols also include two areas that are necessary for devising and securing funding for monitoring projects. First, the report specifies which data collection tasks necessary for each of the five indicators are appropriate for volunteers and which are best done by a trained staff person. Second, GPAC gives some estimates of the not only the cost to perform the suggested monitoring tasks, but also the number of staff and/or volunteers required to complete the specified duties during a given monitoring period. Haslam, S. M. (July 1972). Phragmites communis trin. The Journal of Ecology, 60(2) 585-610.
Haslam, of the University of Cambridge (UK) Botany School, is one of the earliest botanical scientists to do extensive research on Phragmites. Topics covered in this article include habitat, human interference, and general biological characteristics.
Haslam, S. M. (1971). Community regulation in Phragmites communis trin.: I. monodominant stands. The Journal of Ecology, 59(1) 65-73.
Haslam, of the University of Cambridge (UK) Botany School, discusses monodominant P stands in the framework his own research and studies of the plant. He attributes much of the determination of stand distribution to nutrient levels and its resistance Kampoosa Stewardship Committee. (1999). A resource management plan for the Kampoosa Bog Drainage Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Sheffield, MA: The Nature Conservancy.
The Kampoosa Stewardship Committee, a voluntary group, has organized itself to "preserve and restore the Bog by fostering community stewardship of the Kampoosa Bog Drainage Basin ACEC". A central step in realizing this vision is the production of this resource management plan for the Bog. It establishes goals to guide future decisions and actions in the Kampoosa Bog Drainage Basin ACEC and identifies issues of resource protection, restoration, management and use. This management plan is intended to guide, organize and focus the work of the Committee and help protect the Bog against degradation of its natural resources. The plan describes current conditions in the Bog, and indicates and prioritizes actions that can be taken so that the Bog may be preserved and restored. Keeling, C. D., & Whorf, T. P. (August 1997). Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94 8321-8328.
The authors, hailing from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, contend the existence of six- and nine-year tidal cycles are having an effect on global warming. They have observed tidal variations that are one-third and one-half of the lunar nodal cycle of 18.6 years dating back to 1855. Keeling, C. D., & Whorf, T. P. (April 2001). The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(8) 3814–3819.
The authors, both scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, discuss evidence of changes in the earth's climate that can be tracked in 1,800-year tidal cycles. These strong oceanic tides are believed to be a force in the current warming conditions. The current phase we are in may suggest that a natural warming trend began a hundred years ago and gained ground in the 1970s, and should continue over the next five centuries. Keller, Barbara E. M. (2000). Plant diversity in Lythrum, Phragmites, and Typhus marshes, Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 8 391-401. Lesser, J., & Chirrup, H. (1997). Effects of salinity on the growth of Phragmites australis. Aquatic Botany, 55(4) 247-260.
The two authors investigated the field salinity tolerance of Phragmites australis was evaluated by investigating along the eastern and western coasts of Jutland, Denmark. They found that excessive soil salinity, rather than surface water salinity, is one of the few limiting conditions to growth and expansion of Phragmites. Lesser and Chirrup concluded that it is ground water flow that is responsible for the existence of Phragmites stands where surface water salinity is too concentrated. Lombard, K. (March 2002). Site weed management plan for Sandy Neck (2002-2006). Boston, MA: The Nature Conservancy.
Sandy Neck, a barrier beach system located in Barnstable, Massachusetts, provides habitat for piping plovers and least terns. The area also includes intact dune, forest and swale systems. Phragmites australis began to invade the area in the early 1950s and has continued to increase in density, resulting in negative impacts to the natural community. The Nature Conservancy developed a management plan to prevent new invasions of invasive species including purple loosestrife and Phragmites, as well as restoring the natural community through reducing the number of invaded swales. The plan is focused on increasing desired species and communities in place of weed species, as well as eliminating the invasive weeds. Priority is given to the removal of invasive species that are the fastest growing, most disruptive and which affect the most highly valued areas. The ecological goals of this invasive species management plan are to: 1) Prevent any new invasions of invasive plant species in the dune/swale ecosystem and prevent purple loosestrife from becoming established in any additional swales; 2) Restore the natural structure, composition, and function of the swale community; 3) Prevent additional disturbance to swales during restoration activities; and 4) Document present distribution of Phragmites in the salt marsh and determine if stands are spreading. Lombard, K. Assistant Director of Conservation Sciences, The Nature Conservancy. Personal interview on March 8, 2005 Marks, M. (1993). In Lapin B., Randall J.(Eds.), Element stewardship abstract for Phragmites australis (Revised ed.). Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.
Marianne Marks puts together a comprehensive plan for managing Phragmites. The natural history of the plant is considered as well as current threat conditions in the preparation of proposed management actions. Continuous and proactive monitoring is stressed, but the assortment of techniques available to managers are all reviewed. Marks also provides detailed information on various states programs across the country that have instituted monitoring for Phragmites and its environmental indicators. This stewardship plan is part of The Nature Conservancy’s efforts to educate its own staff as well as other land managers on important species and control mechanisms. Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Working Group. (December 2002). In Baker J. (Ed.), Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management.
The mission of the Massachusetts Aquatic Invasive Working Group, a subset of the Massachusetts Council on Invasive Species, is to implement a coordinated approach to minimize the ecological and socio-economic impacts of aquatic invasive species in the marine and freshwater environments of Massachusetts. To this end, in 2001 the working group developed the Aquatic Invasive Species management plan, the first comprehensive effort to assess the impacts and threats of aquatic invasive species in Massachusetts. The plan identifies 99 specific action items and tasks for the following eight areas: coordination, prevention, monitoring, early detection/eradication, control, education, research and legislation. Massachusetts Audubon Society - North Shore Conservation Advocacy. (June 1996). The Plum Island Sound/Rivers ecosystem: Current status and future management. Wenham, MA: Massachusetts Audubon Society.
This article is the final project report of the Plum Island Sound Minibay Project of the Massachusetts Bays Program. The project was a study of the region's water quality utilizing flushing models. Included were stormwater and land use effects on water quality as observed in fish and plant communities (particularly Phragmites encroachment into the salt marsh area). Massachusetts Audubon Society: North Shore Conservation Advocacy. (May 1999). Conserving the Plum Island Sound/River ecosystems: A research report and management plan. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Bays Program.
Plum Island Sound estuary is one of the most undisturbed and valuable estuarine habitats in the Northeast. The area lies within the Parker River/Essex Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern in recognition of its environmental, economic and recreational significance. In 1991, the Massachusetts Audubon, in collaboration with the towns of Ipswich, Rowley and Newbury, began the Plum Island Sound minibay project to reduce both nonpoint and point source pollution in the sound and its tributary rivers, to evaluate the status of living resources in the Sound and to plan for the future conservation of the region. The water quality issue of most interest to the local communities was fecal coliform contamination and identifying sources of such pollution. The project also analyzed land use assessment and trends and how they are related to water quality. The results of the Minibay project were used to guide conservation efforts in the region. The report identifies local management actions that can be taken by the towns, including the development of master and open space plans, implementing water management and conservation, buffer zone and wetlands planning, growth management initiatives and community involvement. Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Revised 2003). Massachusetts Bays Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan: An evolving plan for action. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Bays Program.
The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) was developed to identify necessary actions for improving and maintaining the ecological integrity of the
Massachusetts Bays. The Massachusetts Bays Program worked with approximately 300 individuals representing numerous agencies, organizations, and municipalities to identify necessary environmental actions and responsible parties for these actions. The most recent revision of this document includes an action plan focused on preventing marine invasive species. Massachusetts Initiative of Social and Economic Research (MISER). (2005). Population statistics. Retrieved 3/24, 2005 from www.umass.edu/miser Murray, J. Ecological Restoration Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy. Personal interview on March 28, 2005 Nature Conservancy, T. (2004). Great marsh - parker river conservation area plan. Boston, MA: The Nature Conservancy.
Because of its obvious conservation value the Great Marsh-Parker River project area emerged as a conservation priority for The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in both terrestrial and aquatic regional planning efforts. The goal in this site planning process was to assess TNC's future action at the site as well as prioritize new and existing strategies that they hope will restore the condition and abate the major threats at the site. Utilizing information obtained over the course of this study, TNC determined that although their presence at the site could add conservation benefit, there are other highly threatened areas in Massachusetts that it would be more important for them to focus on. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Watershed Management Bureau - Coastal Restoration Program. Coastal restoration - salt marsh ecology and monitoring. Retrieved 2/24, 2005 from www.des.state.nh.us/Coastal/Restoration/humandisturbances.htm
An overview of the threats that face coastal salt marsh ecology. Threats identified include human-induced change to natural hydrology via tidal restrictions (road and rail) and reduced flow (inadequate culvert size), environmental pollution, coastal development and upland habitat "buffer zone" loss, fill/improper marsh elevations, and non-native/invasive species.
Ostendorp, W., Dienst, M., & Schmieder, K. (2003). Disturbance and rehabilitation of lakeside Phragmites reeds following extreme flood in Lake Constance (Germany). Hydrobiologia, 506-509(1-3) 687-695.
Wolfgang Ostendorp discusses the “die-back” of Phragmites prevalent in Europe for the past fifty years. He attributes this to a series of factors, including direct destruction by humans, shoreline land fills, introduction of grazing wildlife, and groundwater and lake level manipulation. Ostendorp focuses his attention on Lake Constance’s periodic water level changes and its effects on young Phragmites shoot development. Ostendorp’s study concludes that if extreme flooding occurs during the Phragmites’ important growing months (April – June), the young shoots respond by ceasing to grow, or at least, thinning in density. Ostendorp is a lecturer at the Limnology Institute in Konstanz, Germany, as well as a Coordinator of the German Society for Limnology.
Parker River Clean Water Association. (April 1999). A Homeowner’s Guide: Planting a riparian buffer garden.
This publication of the Parker River Clean Water Association offers helpful tips to landowners on creating effective buffers in their waterfront gardens. The report includes an extensive list of native vegetation to use for different location types based on sunlight and soil conditions. Purinton, T. North Shore Community Outreach Coordinator, Massachusetts Audubon Society. Personal interview on March 11, 2005 Rickards, B., Lund, K., & Cooper, A. (Winter 2002). An assessment of resource management strategies in the Parker River/Essex Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. The assessment provides an overview of the natural resources issues, case studies, and ideas for improved regulatory and non-regulatory management strategies for the Parker River/Essex Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The report describes the local perspective and identifies approaches for regional ACEC management. CZM's goal for this assessment was to use local knowledge to identify case studies, gaps, and options for resource protection. CZM selected this approach in recognition that each community is unique, has different priorities, has different levels of staffing and expertise, and must allocate scarce resources among competing demands. Results are intended to serve as an information link among the five ACEC towns. Case studies include resource overlay districts, wetland bylaws and regulations, stormwater standards, open space acquisition, and growth management techniques, among others. Roman, C. T., Niering, W. A., & Warren, R. S. (1984). Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction. Environmental Management, 8(2) 141-150.
Vegetation changes in response to restriction of the normal tidal prism of six Connecticut salt marshes is documented. Tidal flow at the study sites was restricted with tide gates and associated causeways and dikes for purposes of flood protection, mosquito control, and/or salt hay farming. One study site has been under a regime of reduced tidal flow since colonial times, while the duration of restriction at the other sites ranges from less than ten years to several decades. The data indicate that with tidal restriction there is a substantial reduction in soil water salinity, lowering of the water table level, as well as a relative drop in the marsh surface elevation. These factors are considered to favor the establishment and spread of Phragmites australis (common reed grass) and other less salt-tolerant species, with an attendant loss of Spartina-dominated marsh. Based on detailed vegetation mapping of the study sites, a generalized scheme is presented to describe the sequence of vegetation change from the typical Spartina- to Phragmites -dominated marshes. The restoration of these Phragmites systems is feasible following the reintroduction of tidal flow. At several sites dominated by Phragmites, tidal flow was introduced after two decades of continuous restriction, resulting in a marked reduction in Phragmites height and the reestablishment of typical salt marsh vegetation along creek banks. It is suggested that large-scale restoration
efforts be initiated in order that these degraded systems once again assume their roles within the salt marsh-estuarine ecosystem. Rozsa, R. (1995). Human impacts on tidal wetlands: History and regulations. Tidal Marshes of Long Island Sound: Ecology, History and Restoration, 34 42-50.
This selection chronicles the causes and effects of human impact on Long Island Sound marshes in Connecticut and the actions that have been taken to remediate them. This piece contains a detailed discussion of the history, process, and impacts of mosquito ditching and recommends Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) as a useful technique for controlling mosquitoes and restoring wetlands. Saltonstall, K. (2002). Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(4) 2445-2449.
Kristin Saltonstall, a researcher at the University of Maryland’s Horn Point Laboratory, hypothesizes the existence of non-native Phragmites australis genotypes in North America. Her study focuses on identification and comparison of two chloraplast DNA markers in 283 modern North American Phragmites samples and 62 historical, pre-1910 samples obtained from herbariums. Saltonstall’s research identifies one haplotype, the non-native type M, as the most abundant in North America today. She also suggests that that this non-native genotype has outcompeted and eradicated all native Phragmites stands in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Schmidt, M. H., Lefebvre, G., Poulin, B., & Tscharntke, T. (2005). Reed cutting affects arthropod communities, potentially reducing food for passerine birds. Biological Conservation, 121 157-166.
Schmidt et al studied the impact of reed cutting on arthropods by studying four locations that are key food sources for passerine birds. They found the populations of arthropods differed greatly between the cut and non-cut Phragmites stands, due in part to the reduced litter mat. This, in turn, negatively affected the food sources for avians. The authors suggest that landscape managers consider leaving portions of stands intact while cutting back others so as not to overly impact the area. Silliman, B., Bertness, & M.D. (2004). Shoreline development drives the invasion of Phragmites australis and the loss of New England salt marsh plant diversity. Conservation Biology, 18(5) 1424-1434.
The paper discusses the result of a survey of 22 salt marshes in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. The survey quantified shoreline development, Phragmites cover, soil salinity, and nitrogen availability. Shoreline development, operationally defined as removal of the woody vegetation bordering marshes, explained >90% of intermarsh variation in Phragmites cover. Shoreline development was also significantly correlated with reduced soil salinities and increased nitrogen availability, suggesting that removing woody vegetation bordering
marshes increases nitrogen availability and decreases soil salinities, thus facilitating Phragmites invasion. The findings illustrate the importance of maintaining integrity of habitat borders in conserving natural communities and provide an example of the critical role that local conservation can play in preserving these systems. In addition, the findings provide ecologists and natural resource managers with a mechanistic understanding of how human habitat alteration in one vegetation community can interact with species introductions in adjacent communities (i.e., flow-on or adjacency effects) to hasten ecosystem degradation. Tewsbury, L., Casagrande, R., Blossey, B., Hafliger, P., & Schwarzlander, M. (2002). Potential for biological control of Phragmites australis in North America. Biological Control, 23(2) 191-212.
Phragmites australis is a cosmopolitan plant that is undergoing a population explosion in freshwater and tidal wetlands on the East Coast of North America. Literature and field surveys reveal that of the 26 herbivores currently known to feed on P. australis in North America (many accidentally introduced during the last decade), only 5 are native. In Europe, over 170 herbivore species have been reported feeding on P. australis, some causing significant damage. Of these herbivores, rhizome-feeding species with considerable negative impact on P. australis performance include the lepidopterans Rhizedra lutosa (already present in North America), Phragmataecia castaneae, Chilo phragmitella, and Schoenobius gigantella. Stem-boring moths in the genera Archanara and Arenostola and the chloropid fly Platycephala planifrons can have large detrimental impacts on P. australis in Europe and should be evaluated for their potential as biological control agents. Tibbetts, J. H. (2001). Phragmites: The kudzu of the wetlands? Coastal Heritage, 16(3) 7. The brief article outlines the detrimental effects that Phragmites has on an ecosystem. It also points out the few positive impacts is has, such as erosion control and wildlife habitat. Tiner, R. W., Swords, J. Q., Bergquist, H. C., & DeAlessio, G. P. (February 2002). The Parker River Watershed: An assessment of recent trends in salt marshes, their buffers, and river- stream buffer zones (1985-1999). Hadley, MA: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Northeast Region.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory has been analyzing wetland trends and evaluating changes in wetland buffers and characterizing the condition of stream buffers for selected watersheds. As part of the national inventory the Parker River watershed, a small watershed that encompasses an 80 square mile area in Northeastern, Massachusetts, was studied. The study involved determining the changes in the following features between 1985 and 1999: 1) salt marsh habitats; 2) 100m salt marsh buffers; and 3) 100m freshwater stream buffers. The study also evaluated the extent of impervious surfaces and applied natural habitat integrity indices to assess the overall condition of the watershed. The methods used were comparisons of conventional photo-interpretation and geographic information systems for salt marsh habitat and buffer zone, as well as river-stream buffer zone areas. The results of the study showed that changes in the Parker River salt marshes were negligible between 1985 and 1999, and that overall the watershed is in good shape with natural vegetation covering 69 percent of the watershed. However, development has
increased in the area and a substantial conversion of forest and fields to development recently took place in the river-stream buffer zone. The zones are critical areas for local wildlife mobility and also provide vital filters for stream water quality from impacts associated with upland development. The results of the study should be used by natural resource managers and planners to weigh the importance of conserving these valuable buffer zone areas. Tiner, R. (April 1995). Phragmites: Controlling the all-too-common common reed. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Wetland Restoration and Banking Program.
This piece generally introduces Phragmites australis. It discusses the problems associated with this species and makes suggestions for control and remediation of this invasive plant. Tuttle, M. Study Manager, US Army Corp of Engineers - New England District. Personal interview on March 1, 2005 United States Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board - Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. (January 1998). An SAB report: Ecological impacts and evaluation criteria for the use of structures in marsh management. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
The Marsh Management Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's Ecological Process and Effects Committee reviewed the state of the science for structural marsh management (SMM). The Agency requested this review in support of their plans to develop and intern Agency position on SMM, with a long-term goal of developing a national marsh management policy. The Subcommittee used the term "structural marsh management" to distinguish this fairly narrow set of management approaches from the broader set of practices that are commonly associated with the term marsh management. The Agency's definition for marsh management is "the use of structures (such as canal plugs, weirs, gates, culverts, levees and spoil banks) to manipulate local hydrology in coastal marshes." The Agency specified in the Charge for the Subcommittee to include in its review wetlands influenced by the tide, and lands and waters associated with the Great Lakes. The Subcommittee found that the collective experience on SMM around the country has shown that unintended, unanticipated, and sometimes undesirable effects have often resulted from structural management of marsh hydrology. The Subcommittee found it difficult to generalize about the ecological impacts of SMM because of differences in the physical environment, status of wetland resources, or management objectives in different wetland areas. The Subcommittee recommends that the application of a marsh management policy should be done at least at the region-specific, ecosystem-specific, or basin-specific level. The Subcommittee urges caution in the adoption or approval of SMM projects in order to avoid counterproductive results on the long-term sustainability of imperiled tidal and Great Lakes wetlands. The Subcommittee also recommends that Agency decisions regarding proposed SMM projects take into account the potential impacts of the project from an ecosystem, rather than single-species or single-resource, perspective. In addition to providing a summary of the state of the science on the ecological consequences of SMM from a national Perspective, the report recommends a number of priority monitoring and
research issues, and discusses SMM issues that are relevant in various regions of the country. US Army Corp of Engineers- New England District. (1998). Plum Island Turnpike Bridge investigation. No. Br. No. N-10-011)
The Corps of Engineers, New England District, was requested by the Massachusetts Highway Department and the Department of Environmental Management to conduct an investigation to quantify the impacts of construction of the present Plum Island Turnpike Bridge on flooding and navigation issues related to the Plum Island River. The study also includes investigations for the restoration of Plumbush Creek. Issues investigated include velocities through the bridge, shoaling upstream and downstream of the bridge, and flooding at Plumbush Downs and along Sunset Drive and Old Point Road on Plum Island. Monitoring data and computer modeling results show that narrowing of the bridge opening has no significant impact on maximum water surface elevations in the area. US Army Corps of Engineers - New England District. (October 2004). Plumbush Creek Newbury - Newburyport, Massachusetts. Concord, MA: US Army Corps of Engineers.
The original intent of this study was to obtain and assess the existing condition of Plumbush Creek and perform a hydraulic modeling to confirm that the reopening of Plumbush Creek would benefit the northern marsh restoration efforts. Due to the complexity of Plumbush Creek and the surrounding marshes this hydraulic modeling would have been very expensive and outside of the fiscal and technical capabilities of the Corps. Instead, this report details the findings of a topographical survey conducted at the project location, a vegetative survey, and a sediment core sample. As a result of these findings the Corp recommends that there is complete removal of Phragmites in the northern marsh site and that the elevation of this part of the marsh is lowered to adjacent high marsh elevation through grading. Wakefield, K., & Faulds, A. (May 2003). Recent research on Phragmites australis in North America: Implications for management. Aquatic Invaders of the Delaware Estuary Symposium, Pennsylvania State - Great Valley Campus, Malvern, PA.
This symposium focused on invasive species, with a significant portion devoted to Phragmites australis. The report chronicles a presentation by noted Phragmites specialist Kristin Saltonstall, who presents her theory on the aggressive type M genotype that has eradicated the native stands in Connecticut and Massachusetts. In addition to painting an historical picture of the plant in North America, Saltonstall also sheds light on the impacts of Phragmites – both positive and negative. Weis, J. S., & Weis, P. (2003). Is the invasion of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into tidal marshes of the eastern US an ecological disaster? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46 816- 820.
The authors, from Rutgers University and the New Jersey Medical School, reject the idea
that Phragmites australis is “bad” for an ecosystem. They point to the habitat value that Phragmites provides for larvae and juvenile estuarine and marine species. In their own studies, they found that organisms do not appear to be negatively affected by the presence of Phragmites. Weis and Weis also stress that the food value of the plant is underappreciated and even ignored. They identified studies that indicate the nutrients derived from Phragmites do make it into the food web of the marsh areas. Wolfe, R. J. (October 1995). Enhancement of tidal wetlands habitat using open marsh water management on PRNB Hook National Wildlife Refuge. Dover, DE: Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife.
This selection outlines the success of efforts by the Delaware Mosquito Control Section and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete a six-year marsh management plan to control saltmarsh mosquitos and reduce chemical insecticide usage at Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge near Milton, Delaware. It outlines that, by Using Open Marsh Water Management, this group has successfully attained mosquito reduction and marsh restoration. Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory. (October 2001). Plum Island Ecosystem Long Term Ecological Research Site - Summary of research findings. Rowley, MA: Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory.
This report summarizes four years worth of research and data in the Plum Island Sound area. Ongoing collection includes information on climate (temperature, precipitation, etc.), nutrient loading (nitrogen, phosphorous, etc.), marsh characteristics (sedimentation, vegetation, etc.), and sea level (tidal heights, sea level rise, etc.).