NOAA REFERENCE SITES: MEASURING SALT MARSH PLANT, SOIL AND HYDROLOGIC RESPONSE TO RESTORATION USING PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS FROM LOCAL REFERENCE SITES

SOUTH SLOUGH NERR SITE REPORT

Craig Cornu, Coordinator of Monitoring Programs Heidi Harris, ECOS Lab Research Assistant Alicia Helms, Estuarine Monitoring Coordinator

South Slough NERR August 2011

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW ...... 4

RATIONALE ...... 4

STUDY DESIGN ...... 4

STUDY SITES ...... 5

Kunz-Danger Point restoration-reference site pair ...... 5

Yaquina Y27 and Y28 restoration-reference site pair ...... 11

METHODS ...... 17

TRANSECT AND VEGETATION PLOT LAYOUT ...... 17

VEGETATION ...... 17

PORE WATER ...... 18

HYDROLOGY ...... 18

SOILS ...... 19

ELEVATION ...... 19

DATA ANALYSES ...... 19

RESULTS...... 21

Kunz-Danger Point restoration-reference site pair ...... 21

Emergent Vegetation ...... 21

Pore Water Salinity and Soils ...... 26

Groundwater: Percent INUNDATION Time ...... 28

Elevation ...... 29

Restoration Performance Index (RPI) ...... 29

Y27-Y28 RESTORATION-REFERENCE SITE PAIR ...... 30

2

Emergent Vegetation ...... 30

Pore water Salinity and Soils ...... 33

Groundwater: Percent Inundation Time ...... 35

Elevation ...... 36

Restoration Performance Index (RPI) ...... 37

DISCUSSION ...... 38

Kunz and Danger Point Marshes ...... 38

Restoration Performance Index ...... 44

Y27 and Y28 Marshes ...... 44

Restoration Performance Index ...... 45

Conclusion ...... 45

References ...... 48

Appendix A ...... 49

Appendix B ...... 51

Appendix C ...... 58

3

OVERVIEW

RATIONALE

NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System and the NOAA Restoration Center entered a three-year partnership in 2008 to evaluate the status of eighteen restoration projects funded with Estuary Restoration Act funds between FY00-FY06 located on the continental U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The project involved five participating NERRS sites (Wells ME NERR, Narragansett RI NERR, Chesapeake Bay VA NERR, North Carolina NERR, and South Slough OR NERR) conducting effectiveness monitoring at Restoration Center-funded restoration and associated reference sites. The South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve (South Slough NERR) participated in this partnership (the only west coast site) by evaluating the following paired restoration and reference sites:

 Kunz Marsh estuarine wetland restoration project within the South Slough NERR, Charleston, OR  Danger Point reference estuarine wetland within the South Slough NERR, Charleston, OR

 “Y27” estuarine wetland restoration project site in the Yaquina estuary, Toledo, OR  “Y28” reference estuarine wetland in the Yaquina estuary, Toledo, OR

STUDY DESIGN

We designed this study to evaluate the status of specific marsh attributes in both restoration and “least-disturbed” mature reference marshes. Attributes included in our evaluation were: vegetation percent cover, stem length and density, marsh elevation, groundwater and pore water salinity, marsh inundation period, soil bulk density and soil percent organic matter. Vegetation data were collected all three years; groundwater data were collected in simultaneous two week deployments at both restoration and reference sites for the final two years of the study; soil, pore water salinity, and stem length and density data were collected in final year of the study in 2010. Data from each Reserve were compiled in a standardized database coordinated by the Wells NERR. Data were then analyzed within and across participating reserves which is being compiled into a final project synthesis.

4

STUDY SITES

KUNZ-DANGER POINT RESTORATION-REFERENCE SITE PAIR KUNZ MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT SITE Kunz Marsh is a narrow five hectare fringing marsh bordering Winchester Creek within the South Slough NERR about five miles upstream from the mouth of the Coos River on the Oregon coast at Charleston (Figure 1). Originally the site was a mature high marsh (part of the same fringing marsh with Danger Point marsh- Figure 2) but, in the early 1900s, the site was converted to cropland and pasture. A dike was built to exclude tidal flooding. Meandering tidal channels were replaced by linear ditches that efficiently drained the site into Winchester Creek using a tide-gated culvert installed through the dike. Over many years, the Kunz Marsh surface subsided to a level as much as 0.80 m lower than the adjacent reference marsh, Danger Point. Marsh surface subsidence occurs in many historically diked and agriculturally converted estuarine wetlands, including Kunz Marsh before restoration. There are several factors involved in marsh surface subsidence. Because dikes exclude the natural process of tidal flooding, they prevent the influx of sediment that normally maintains salt marsh surface elevation. In addition, when diked marshes dry out during summer months, their peat soils oxidize, decompose, and consolidate. Furthermore, wetland vegetation that previously added organic material each year to marsh soils is replaced by pasture vegetation that is continuously removed by grazing and haying activity. Finally, heavy livestock and farm machinery further compact soils and lower overall marsh elevation. In the case of Kunz Marsh, subsidence lowered marsh surfaces below the elevation needed to support the colonization of emergent vegetation. Removing or breaching dikes would restore tidal flooding to subsided marshes and ultimately revive the process of natural, though very gradual, vertical accretion and the associated development of marsh plant communities. However, vertical accretion for tidal marshes in the Pacific Northwest has been calculated to be only 2.4 to 4.8 mm per year. Therefore, if passive restoration methods like dike breaching had been used, Kunz Marsh surface elevation may not have reached a level to support emergent vegetation for about 40 years. In addition to marsh surface subsidence, Kunz Marsh also lost its natural tidal channels. Tidal channels provide habitat for a variety of fish species, including juvenile salmonids, and are important pathways for the exchange of organic and inorganic material to and from estuarine wetlands. With the help of the Winchester Tidelands Restoration Advisory Group, South Slough Reserve staff designed an experiment to determine the most effective approach to accelerate development of both emergent plant communities and tidal channels by natural processes. Reserve staff and contractors used Kunz Marsh dike material to establish high, middle, and low intertidal marsh elevations in four 0.7-hectare research “cells” at the Kunz Marsh site (Figures 4 and 5). Two nearby, relatively undisturbed, mature high marshes at Tom’s Creek and Danger Point were used to identify specific marsh surface elevations to be used in the Kunz surface

5 elevation restoration. After establishing research cells with most of the dike material, tidal flooding was re-introduced in 1996 to the site by removing the remaining portion of the Kunz Marsh dike. For further project details see Cornu (2005) and Cornu and Sadro (2002). LOCATION

Figure 1. Map showing the locations of both Danger Reference and Kunz Restoration marshes relative to each other, the South Slough NERR, and the Oregon coast.

RESTORATION CHRONOLOGY 1995 - The failing tide gate at Kunz Marsh is repaired to permit soils behind the dike to dry sufficiently to support earth-moving equipment. Summer 1996 – Topsoil and dike material are removed and stockpiled (Figure 3). Marsh elevations are restored to Low, Mid, and High surface elevations using dike material. Topsoil is placed on top of dike material. Tidal flow is restored to Kunz Marsh in August. 1998 – Healthy and diverse fish communities are observed in Kunz Marsh channels.

6

1999 – Monitoring reveals surface levels dropped as anticipated due to consolidation for fill material. Vegetation is becoming established with varying success across all Kunz Marsh cells (e.g., Figure 4). The beginnings of tidal channels are found in all Kunz Marsh cells. 2004 – Monitoring reveals that, as anticipated, marsh surface elevations increased in step with vertical accretion rates. Subsoil compression is no longer an active process. Vegetation communities across all Kunz Marsh cells are shown to have become more similar than stratified. In addition to the tidal channels discovered in 1999, sixteen more are observed across all Kunz Marsh cells. 2008-2011 – The Reference Sites project supports the collection of vegetation, groundwater level, porewater salinity, soils, and marsh surface elevation data to quantify differences in these select site attributes between Kunz Marsh and the relatively undisturbed Danger Point reference marsh.

Figure 2. Kunz Marsh before restoration in 1996. Note the dike running along the channel edge as well as the man-made ditches in the middle of the marsh. Danger Point reference marsh can be seen in the foreground.

7

Figure 3. Topsoil and dikes were removed to restore Kunz Marsh. Remnant dike shown prior to final removal.

Figure 4. Infrared image of Kunz Marsh seven years after restoration showing distinct research cells and notable vegetation recruitment.

8

Figure 5. Map showing the locations of transects and vegetation monitoring plots in the three Kunz Marsh research cells -- KMHigh (TV1a, TV1, TV1b), KMMid (TV2a, TV2, TV2b), KMLow (TV3a, TV3, TV3b).

Figure 6. Map showing the marsh zonation of vegetation monitoring plots in Danger and Kunz Marsh.

9

DANGER POINT REFERENCE SITE Danger Point marsh is a 1.2 hectare, relatively undisturbed, mature high salt marsh located adjacent to the Kunz restoration marsh (Figure 1). It is bounded on the west by woodland, and on the east by Winchester Creek, the primary tidal channel in South Slough’s upper estuary. The vast majority of our vegetation monitoring plots in Danger Point fall within the high marsh zone, but three distinct plots along the western edge qualify as upland transition (Figure 6). Dominant emergent vegetation species in Danger Point’s upland transition include Agrostis stolonifera, Carex lyngbyei, Triglochin maritima, and Argentina egedii. The four dominant species in the high marsh plant zonation are C. lyngbyei, A. stolonifera, T. maritima, and Deschampsia cespitosa (Figure 7). Danger Point marsh is located within 250 m of the Winchester Creek System-wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) water quality/level station managed by the South Slough NERR. Using the local water level data tied to North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88), we’ve determined that Danger Point marsh regularly experiences a neap high tide range between 1.57 m and 3.31 m (range of 1.74 m). Spring high tides regularly range between 1.19 m and 3.51 m (range of 2.32 m). Danger Point generally falls within the mesohaline salinity range (5-18) at the brackish end of South Slough’s estuarine gradient.

Figure 7. Danger Point marsh is a mature high marsh located in the upper South Slough estuary.

10

YAQUINA Y27 AND Y28 RESTORATION-REFERENCE SITE PAIR YAQUINA RESTORATION PROJECT SITE (“Y27”) The Y27 restoration marsh is a narrow, mile-long fringing marsh bordering a tidal stretch of the Yaquina River about 10 miles upstream of Yaquina Bay on the Oregon coast at Newport (Figures 8 and 9). Along the west side of the marsh is a single railroad track on a substantial rock embankment that runs along the base of the hill slope at the edge of the marsh. The embankment is separated from the marsh by a deep ditch. This site is influenced by several small freshwater creeks originating in small ravines on the hill slope near the site and entering the site through the railroad embankment via small culverts. Most streams are intermittent, drying up in the summer. Some fresh water also enters the site by seeping through the railroad embankment and into the ditch which can sometimes overflow. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Y27 marsh was diked and tide-gated for agricultural use. Prior to restoration, some of the dikes and culverts at the Y27 marsh were in poor condition, allowing limited tidal flow to enter the site (Figure 10). The volume of tidal exchange was restricted, however, because the culverts were undersized. As a result, tidal action eroded the dike at the culverts, causing culvert “blow-outs” which breached the dike in two locations four years prior to restoration. In 1999, a study was conducted prioritizing wetlands along the Yaquina and Alsea Estuaries for potential tidal wetland restoration (Brophy 1999). In the results of this study, the site currently called Yaquina-27 (Y27) ranked in Group 2 (i.e. the 2nd highest potentiality and priority) based on its high biological value, single landowner, and type of restoration actions needed. The availability of a nearby reference site (Y28) also increased the scientific value of the Y27 marsh as a restoration site. July and August 2002 restoration actions were undertaken at the Y27 site which included limited dike removal, filling the hill slope ditch in six locations, filling five constructed marsh ditches, and constructing five meandering pilot tidal channels. It’s worth noting that, unlike Kunz Marsh, the Y27 dike was not completely removed, but breached in five locations; four new breaches and one enhancement of an existing breach. Due to cost and logistical considerations, pilot channels were established by compressing the soil along the length of each channel rather than full excavation (Figure 11). Excavation was specified only for the first eighty feet of each channel near the river, and the last eighty feet where the channel joined the ditch at the base of the hill slope (to facilitate drainage from those portions of the hill slope ditch not filled). All restoration work was limited to the northeast portion of the marsh because of the presence of a City of Toledo water supply line on the southwest portion of the marsh. In addition, the final restoration design specified seeding upland and riparian areas of the site with locally adapted native grass seed. Wetland areas were expected to revegetate naturally from the existing soil seed bank and plant propagules imported with the tide from surrounding marshes. Large woody debris was added to the site, distributed randomly across the marsh surface. For additional project details see Brophy (2004). 11

LOCATION

Figure 8. Map showing the location of Y-28 Reference and Y-27 Restoration marshes in relation to each other, the Yaquina estuary, and the Oregon coast.

Figure 9. The Y27 marsh is a recently restored tidal marsh skirting a deep bend upstream from the city of Toledo, Oregon.

12

RESTORATION CHRONOLOGY 1999 – Brophy et al. complete Restoration Rankings Report for Yaquina and Alsea estuaries. 2000-2001 – Contractors complete baseline monitoring of vegetation, channel formations, and macro invertebrates. 2002 – Contractors complete all restoration work. Baseline sampling for juvenile salmonid populations were conducted in the summer of 2002 by ODFW. 2008-2011 – The Reference Sites project supports the collection of vegetation, groundwater level, porewater salinity, soils, and marsh surface elevation data to quantify differences in these select site attributes between the Y27 restoration site and the relatively undisturbed Y28 reference marsh.

Figure 10. Prior to restoration, a handful of tidal channels were already established from dike and culvert failures.

13

Figure 11. Tidal channels were established at the site by digging pilot channels prior to dike breaching.

Figure 12. Transects and vegetation monitoring plots in the Y27 Restoration Marsh.

14

Figure 13. Map showing the location of upland transition and high marsh zone plots in Y27 and Y28 marshes.

YAQUINA REFERENCE SITE (“Y28”) The Y28 reference marsh is a narrow, half mile-long fringing marsh bordering a tidal stretch of the Yaquina River about 11 miles upstream of Yaquina Bay on the Oregon coast at Newport (Figures 8 and 9). Along the east side of the marsh is road that runs along the base of a hill slope at the edge of the marsh. The Y28 tidal freshwater marsh is approximately 5.3 hectares in area and includes both spruce swamp and scrub-shrub habitat classes. The marsh is located in the slightly brackish zone (oligohaline, 0.5-5) of the Yaquina estuary, still tidally influenced but river dominated (Figure 8). Spruce tidal swamps were once common on the Oregon coast, but most were historically converted to agriculture uses by diking, ditching, draining and filling activities. The Y28 marsh includes numerous spruce trees along channels, and was probably originally more heavily forested. A 1939 aerial photograph shows evidence of recent tree removal. The site was only altered by a single cross-ditch that defines the south boundary of the site. A freshwater creek bisects the marsh from a west-facing upland hill slope, running underneath a road through a culvert, and westward across the marsh surface to the main channel. “Islands” of woody vegetation are scattered throughout the marsh, particularly near freshwater seeps and the freshwater creek (Figure 14). The highly sinuous tidal channels typical of spruce swamps remain intact. 15

Due to its low soil salinity levels, the Y28 plant community is dominated by minimally salt- tolerant freshwater wetland species such as Carex obnupta, Oenanthe sarmentosa, Phalaris arundinacea, an invasive exotic reed grass, and more salt tolerant species including Juncus balticus, A. stolonifera, and A. egedii. The islands of woody species are dominated by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), and Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca).

Figure 14 Y28 is a rare spruce tidal swamp and features “islands” of woody vegetation.

16

METHODS

TRANSECT AND VEGETATION PLOT LAYOUT

We followed the Roman et al. (2001) USGS salt marsh vegetation monitoring protocol, by agreement among project partners, to guide our vegetation transect and plot layout. [This protocol, developed for east coast marshes, includes problematic limitations for adequate sampling of west coast emergent marsh vegetation communities that will be articulated in the final report synthesis, with suggested protocol alterations for west coast sites.] At the Kunz and Danger Point marsh sites, transects were already established from previous projects. All are consistent with the USGS protocol. In Kunz Marsh, there are three transects in each of three research cells established at high, mid and low marsh elevations (Figure 5). Danger Point contains three transects total. All transects in both marshes are approximately 20-30 m from each other and extend from the land-water interface to the forest-marsh edge. We established 10 permanent 1 m2 plots along each transect in Kunz Marsh, though we used nine plots for the project in transect TV1. In total, we collected data in 89 plots between 2008 and 2010 in Kunz Marsh. Permanent plots (also 1 m2) were already established at the Danger Point marsh site from the Reserve’s biomonitoring pilot project in 2004 (28 total plots along three transects). Each plot was marked with two wooden stakes at opposite corners of the plots. The Y27 and Y28 marshes contain three transects each, approximately 50 m from each other, extending from the land-water interface to the forest-marsh edge (Figure 12). Each transect contains ten permanent 1m2 plots. In Kunz and both Yaquina sites, plots were placed one meter from the transect, alternating on both sides. Danger Point already had plots established in a single row, without alternating sides. This single-side configuration was kept in the interest of long-term monitoring consistency. To determine the number of plots to sample along each transect that would allow accurate and adequate change detection for emergent vegetation, we used methods described in Quinn and Keough (2002) to conduct a power analysis. We used data collected at both Yaquina and South Slough sites in 2008 and 2009. The minimum detectable difference was set at 25%, desired power at 90%, and used a false change error rate of 0.10. The average number of plots for South Slough was 9.75 and the average for Yaquina Bay was 10.83. We therefore settled on 10 plots per transect for the study design.

VEGETATION

As per agreement among project partners, we again followed the Roman et al. (2001) USGS salt marsh vegetation monitoring protocols to guide our vegetation data collection methods.

17

For percent cover we used the point-intercept method for herbaceous plant communities. For woody cover(used at the Y28 site only) we augmented the vegetation sampling protocol to include stem counts of woody stems above knee height along a 1 meter wide by 4 m swath starting at edge of the vegetation plot closest to the transect tape . Herbaceous species cover were visually estimated using the Braun-Blanquet cover classes. Stem counts and shoot lengths heights were quantified at each plot for up to 3 “species of interest” (e.g., invasive exotics or dominant and sub-dominant native species) in 25cm x 25cm sub-plots. Sub-plots were chosen subjectively to ensure we collected data on the target species.

PORE WATER

Pore water salinity sampling was conducted in the summer 2010 at all vegetation plots in all four marshes. Three readings were taken at each vegetation plot and averaged. This value is recorded as “Steel_PPT” in the PoreShortWell data template under the recommendation of data analyst, Chris Peter. At each vegetation plot, small soil cores, approximated 304 cm in diameter, were cut approximately 10-15 cm into the soil. A small section of marsh soil was removed from the bottom of each soil core and drops of pore water were extracted from the soil sample using the garlic press/coffee filter method. We used a hand refractometer to take salinity readings.

HYDROLOGY

In June 2008, three groundwater wells were established at each study site. Wells were placed along a single transect at each site, usually the middle transect. The wells were placed in the upper, middle and lower thirds of the selected transect. Groundwater wells were already established at Danger Point marsh as part of the Reserve’s biomonitoring pilot project in 2004. Because of the high tidal ranges on the Pacific coast, the risers for all our wells were constructed much longer than the groundwater well risers seen at the training at the Chesapeake VA NERR. In the Kunz low marsh, well tops are approximately 1.8 m above the marsh surface. In the high marshes the wells are about 1.4 m above the marsh surface. The Danger point marsh wells that were established previously were not installed with risers so we added them to each well to match the other high marsh risers. The well risers’ long length in the Kunz low marsh were problematic during periods of high wind which caused the risers to move back and forth, breaking the bentonite clay seal at the marsh surface. The bentonite seals were therefore reinforced with additional clay at all wells during each water level logger deployment. We acquired five Onset HOBO U20, and two In-Situ AquaTROLL 200 water level data loggers to deploy over two week periods simultaneously in restoration and reference site pairs. We began testing (to confirm proper methods and logger function) and deploying the loggers in

18

2008. Usable groundwater well data were taken in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Logger data were formatted to fit the data template provided from Wells NERR. We deployed the loggers during both the summer/dry and winter/wet seasons. We present only summer season data in this report.

SOILS

Soil samples were taken in the spring and late summer of 2010 within two feet of each groundwater well. We used clam-digging spades to a depth of up 30 cm to acquire a cohesive soil “wedge” from each sampling area which we placed in gallon-sized plastic bags and mailed to the Central Analytical Laboratory at Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. The lab tested the soils for bulk density and organic content using methods found in Blake and Hartge (1986), and Nelson and Sommer (1982).

ELEVATION

We used the NERRS RTK GPS survey instruments to establish vertical control in remote locations and to collect elevations at all vegetation plots and marsh surface at ground water well locations at all project sites. Elevations were tied to NAVD88. We also used a Topcon Auto Level and stadia rod in conjunction with a Trimble ProXR sub-meter GPS unit to acquire x,y,z data at vegetation plots where the RTK GPS instruments could not fix elevation points when hillsides or trees prevented the receiver from communicating with the requisite number of satellites. LiDAR bare-earth data acquired in 2006 as part of a joint South Slough NERR/Coos Watershed Association mapping project were also used to determine elevations for some tasks associated with the South Slough NERR sites.

DATA ANALYSES All data collected for this project were entered into standardized data templates created by Chris Peter at Wells NERR for the participating Reserves. Chris conducted statistical restoration-reference site comparisons as follows: 1) two-way ANOVA for site by year with post-hoc comparisons for plot means focused on emergent vegetation species richness (defined as the number of species per plot), species percent cover, stem density and shoot height for key species, percent time of tidal inundation and porewater salinity; and 2) one-way ANOVA by site with post-hoc comparisons for soil bulk density and percent organic content.

In addition, Chris used these data to calculate a restoration performance index (RPI) for both Kunz-Danger and Y27-Y28 restoration-reference site pairs. The RPI was calculated using this

19 formula: RPI = (Tpresent – T0) / (Tref –T0) where Tpresent is the present value of the parameters at restoration site, T0 is the pre-restoration value of the parameters at the restoration site, and Tref is the present value of the parameters at reference site. Chris reports RPI data weighting as follows: Weighting occurs at 3 different levels for Hydrology and 4 levels for Vegetation. For Hydrology, the RPI weights by (1) marsh zone (low, high, upland transition); (2) parameter (salinity, inundation marsh surface, groundwater level, max high tide level); and (3) core group (hydrology, vegetation) in this order. For Vegetation the RPI weights by (1) species; (2) marsh zone (low, high, upland transition); (3) parameter (plant cover, species richness); and (4) core group (hydrology, vegetation) in this order. He notes that each level is weighted only by items present. For example, if salinity was selected for the low and high marsh, but not the upland transition, it would be weighted by 2 marsh zones. Additionally, if only 1 core group was selected for the RPI instead of 2, it would be weighted by 1 parameter leading to a maximum score of 1 instead of 0.5. Species richness is not weighted by zone nor plant species. We also imported data from our restoration-reference site pairs into MS Access to archive the data and to facilitate data manipulation since we ran some of the analyses ourselves (using the same methods described above) to make sure nothing was lost in translation in characterizing the status of our project sites. For our analyses, we used IBM SPSS Statistics software to run the one and two-way ANOVA’s. If significance was found, we use the Tukey HSD test for post- hoc comparisons to determine which groups were different. For percent cover, the assumptions of equal variance and normality were violated in most cases (except two cases for all marshes combined). For species richness & pore water/soils, the assumption of equal variance was only violated in one case. Natural log transformation of the data did not greatly improve the violations for variance or normality; however, given the robustness of ANOVA for non-normality and the equal sample sizes for plot comparisons, we chose to run an ANOVA rather than the non-parametric equivalent. It should be noted that marsh zones for the Kunz- Danger (restoration/reference) site pair are limited to High Marsh (H) and Upland Transition (UT) because there is no Low Marsh zone represented in the Danger marsh reference site. Marsh zones for the Y27-Y28 (restoration/reference) site pair are limited to High Marsh (H) only because there is no Low Marsh zone represented in the reference site and because there is no Upland Transition Marsh zone in the Y28 site.

20

RESULTS

KUNZ-DANGER POINT RESTORATION-REFERENCE SITE PAIR

EMERGENT VEGETATION

Of the 90 vegetation plots at Kunz and Danger Point marsh sites used in this study, comprising both H and UT marsh zones, the UT marsh zone is represented by only 6 total plots (Figure 6). The small sample size of the UT marsh zone in the Kunz/Danger Point site pair influenced our ability to statistically compare UT and H marsh zones. In some cases we focused our data interpretation on “pooled” data representing both marsh zones to allow a more accurate characterization of the project sites.

Of the 36 emergent marsh vegetation species encountered in the Kunz and Danger Point brackish marsh sites in both H and UT marsh zones over all three years, a single species dominated the Kunz Marsh site (dominance defined here as >20% cover) while five species shared dominance at the Danger Point site. Carex lyngbyei was by far the single most dominant species in the Kunz Marsh (Table 1). Species dominance at the Danger Point marsh site comprised C. Lyngbyei, A. stolonifera, Deschampsia caespitosa, Distichlis spicata and Triglochin maritima.

In the UT marsh zone, species dominance shifted to include Argentina egedii, a common high marsh forb, and excludes D. spicata, a mid to low marsh grass (Figure 15). Phalaris arundinacea, an invasive exotic pasture grass was well represented in one UT plot in Kunz Marsh but was not found in Danger Point marsh.

Except for P. arundinacea, Holcus lanatus, both hydrophytic pasture grasses, and A. stolonifera, an introduced high marsh halophyte, all emergent marsh vegetation species encountered in Kunz and Danger Point marshes are native to Pacific Northwest salt marshes. It’s worth noting that A. stolonifera is common in Pacific Northwest estuaries and is thought to have hybridized

21

Kunz % Danger % Cover Standard Cover Standard Species Mean Error Mean Error CARLYN 79.11 2.83 57.28 2.95 AGRSTO 17.37 1.82 56.16 4.22 TRIMAR 6.08 1.04 50.14 2.60 DESCAE 9.01 1.25 41.86 3.68 DISSPI 0.66 0.23 22.34 3.29 ARGEGE 0.71 0.28 14.60 2.99 JAUCAR 0.66 0.43 8.19 2.37 JUNBAL 0.15 0.08 7.39 1.73 GRIINT 1.59 0.39 7.02 1.86 SALVIR 5.38 1.06 6.90 1.73 JUNGER 0.00 0.00 5.78 1.91 GLAMAR 0.00 0.00 5.42 1.15 CAROBN 1.71 0.98 2.63 1.32 TRIWOR 0.15 0.09 1.71 0.91 LILOCC 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.44 CUSSAL 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.53 ASTSUB 0.07 0.05 0.51 0.46 ACHMIL 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.17 HORBRA 0.32 0.29 0.19 0.11 ELEPAL 0.74 0.47 0.17 0.13 ATRPAT 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.08 COTCOR 0.21 0.13 0.07 0.05 ANGSP 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.03 ELEPAR 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 Salt Pan 11.79 2.32 0.00 0.00 PHAARU 1.56 0.91 0.00 0.00 VICNIG 0.94 0.57 0.00 0.00 JUNEFF 0.56 0.25 0.00 0.00 JUNBUF 0.51 0.35 0.00 0.00 SCICER 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 SCIMIC 0.29 0.21 0.00 0.00 FESSP 0.23 0.15 0.00 0.00 TRICON 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.00 HOLLAN 0.14 0.10 0.00 0.00 RUMCON 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 RUMSP 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 HERLAN 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Bare Ground 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Table 1 Emergent vegetation species; both UT and H zones and all years combined. See Appendix A for species names and associated six-letter codes. 22 with the brackish marsh native, Agrostis alba. Neither P. arundinacea nor H. lanatus are salt tolerant so their threat is relegated to freshwater marshes and some transitional zones.

A non-biotic feature captured in this study is the presence of unvegetated salt pannes in the Kunz high marsh which averaged almost 12% coverage overall. Although the mean coverage dropped from 15.36% to 8.14% from 2008 to 2010, the change was not significant (p=0.423). No salt pannes are present in the Danger Point reference site in any marsh zone (Figure 16).

Kunz Marsh Upland Transition Zone *

*

* * *

* Danger Point Marsh Upland Transition Zone

* *

*

*

Figure 15 Percent cover means in the Kunz and Danger Point UT marsh zone for each year for each of the dominant emergent marsh species or species or element of interest at both sites. Asterisk denotes significant difference between sites for individual species. There were no significant differences between years. See Appendix A for species names and associated six- letter codes.

Species percent cover means were mostly significantly different between sites for all years but not significantly different between years at sites, except in two cases (Figures 14 and Figure 15

23 and Appendix B). In the UT marsh zone, despite its abundant presence in only one of the three Kunz Marsh UT plots, C. lyngbyei was the only dominant species not significantly different between sites. In the H marsh zone, all species were significantly different between sites. Percent cover means for two species in the Danger Point marsh H marsh zone were significantly different between years: T. maritima between 2008 and 2010 (P = 0.001) and A. egedii between 2009 and 2010 (p = 0.043). Mean cover for T. maritima increased from 36% to 60% in two years; mean cover for A. egedii decreased from 14% to 4% in one year.

* Kunz Marsh High Marsh Zone

* * * * *

Salt Panne

Danger Point Marsh High Marsh Zone

* * *

*

* *

Figure 16 Percent cover means in the Kunz and Danger Point H marsh zone for each of the dominant emergent marsh species or species or element of interest at both sites. Asterisk denotes significant difference between sites for individual species. There were no significant differences between years except for TRIMAR between 2008 and 2010. See Appendix A for species names and associated six-letter codes.

Mean species richness for all marsh zones and all years combined was greater at the Danger Point reference marsh (7.01, SE=0.26) than at Kunz Marsh restoration site (3.00, SE=0.13).

24

Mean species richness was significantly different for all years between both Kunz Marsh and Danger Point UT marsh zones (p=0.003) and H marsh zones (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between years within sites. The Danger UT marsh zone had the greatest mean species richness in 2008 and 2010 (10.33, 9.33) and Danger Point H marsh zone had the greatest mean species richness in 2009 (7.08). Mean species richness in Kunz Marsh ranged from 4.67 in the UT marsh zone (2008, 2009) to 2.63 in the H marsh zone (2009). Mean species richness was also significantly different between UT and H marsh zones in Kunz Marsh (p=0.015) and Danger Point marsh (p=0.023) for all years (Figure 17).

b

d

a

c

Figure 17 Species richness means in the Kunz and Danger Point UT and H marsh zones for all three years. Letters indicate significant differences in means between sites and marsh zones for all years. There were no significant differences between years within sites.

Stem density and shoot length data (or tuft count and tuft width for tufted species) were collected in 2010 only (Table 2). In Kunz, and Danger Point marshes, data were collected for three of the dominant species: C. lyngbyei, T. maritima (tufted), D. caespitosa (tufted). Both shoot length and stem density for C. lyngbyei were significantly greater in both Kunz Marsh zones than both Danger marsh zones. Tuft counts and shoot length for TRIMAR in Kunz and Danger Point H marsh zones were also significantly different. Neither TRIMAR tuft width nor DESCAE tuft count, nor DESCAE tuft width were significantly different between Kunz and Danger Point H marsh zones. There were not enough data to statistically compare means between Kunz and Danger Point UT marsh zones for TRIMAR and DESCAE.

25

CARLYN TRIMAR DESCAE Stem Shoot Tuft Shoot Tuft Tuft Tuft Site Zone Count SE Length SE Count SE Length SE Wdth SE Count SE Wdth SE a c KUNZ UpTrans 23.5 4.50 156.5 12.17 - - - - - b d e f High 43.4 3.02 97.84 3.79 1.4 0.12 65.1 3.41 12.3 1.03 1.3 0.19 16.8 2.05 a c DANGER UpTrans 5.3 0.33 54.72 8.44 2.0 0.00 50.0 0.00 9.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 12.0 0.00 b d e f High 8.5 1.36 59.9 3.25 2.4 0.32 54.4 2.00 12.1 1.03 1.3 0.14 17.9 1.64

Table 2 Stem density and shoot length (in cm) and tuft count and tuft diameter (in cm)(for tufted species) for key dominant emergent vegetation species in Kunz and Danger Point marsh zones. Significantly different means between sites: a (p=0.013); b (p<0.001); c (p=0.006); d (p<0.001); e (p=0.007); f (p=0.009). See Afor species names and associated six-letter codes.

PORE WATER SALINITY AND SOILS

Pore water salinity data were collected in 2010 at all vegetation plots at Kunz and Danger Point marshes (Figure 18). In Kunz Marsh approximately 19% of the plots (11 of 59) were too dry to sample. None of the Danger Point marsh plots were too dry (n = 28). In general, the salinity values in the UT marsh zones at both sites were lower than those in the H marsh zones. The mean salinity value in the Kunz UT marsh zone was significantly higher than the mean value in Danger Point UT marsh zone (p < 0.001), while the H marsh zones were not significantly different between the sites. Total site salinity, represented by the pooled values, was significantly different between sites (p < 0.001) and closest to those in the H marsh zones at their respective sites.

Mean Pore Water Salinity a a

b b c

c

Figure 18 Pore water salinity means for a single year (2010) in the Kunz and Danger Point UT and H marsh zones as well as combined (pooled). Letters indicate significant differences between means. 26

Soil samples were collected in 2009 at all groundwater well locations. Percent organic matter was significantly greater in the Danger Point H marsh zone compared with Kunz H marsh zone (p<0.001) (Figure 19). Total site percent organic matter, represented by the pooled values, was significantly different between sites (p < 0.001). There were not enough data to statistically analyze UT zones.

Percent Organic Content x b

b

a a x

Figure 19 Percent organic content means for a single year (2009) in the Kunz and Danger Point UT and H marsh zones as well as combined (pooled). Letters indicate significant differences between means. X indicates not enough data to statistically compare means.

Soil bulk density was significantly lower in the Danger Point H marsh zone compared with Kunz H marsh zone (p<0.001). Total site bulk density, represented by the pooled values, was significantly different between sites (p < 0.001) (Figure 20). There were not enough data to statistically analyze UT zones.

x Bulk Density a a

b b x

Figure 20 Bulk density means for a single year (2009) in the Kunz and Danger Point UT and H marsh zones as well as combined (pooled). Letters indicate 27 significant differences between means. X indicates not enough data to statistically compare means. GROUNDWATER: PERCENT INUNDATION TIME

We calculated and plotted percent inundation time for simultaneous two week periods in the Kunz restoration and Danger Point reference sites based on data from summer 2009 and summer 2011 (there was an error in the 2010 data) (Figure 21). We also calculated the tidal range experienced during each year’s deployment. The 2009 tidal range was 3.55 m; 2011 was 2.94 m. Despite the smaller tidal range during the 2011 deployment period, all the wells experienced greater percent inundation times in 2011 than in 2009. Average site percent inundation time was greater in both years at the Kunz Marsh (2009: Kunz=26.2%; Danger=3.5%; 2011: Kunz=31.7%; Danger 15.2%) Also contrary to what we would expect of inundation regime relative to marsh elevation, in Kunz Marsh we see that longer inundation periods are not necessary occurring at lower marsh surface elevations and shorter inundation periods are not necessarily occurring at higher marsh surface elevations. For example, in both years, the Figure 21 Percent time of inundation of groundwater wells during two lowest percent inundation week monitoring periods as well as the elevations of each groundwater times in the Kunz Wells were well relative to NAVD. recorded at the well at the lowest elevation and the highest percent inundation times were recorded at the well at an elevation between the other two wells. The wells at Danger Point seemed to demonstrate a more intuitive relationship between inundation time and well elevation. Inundation patterns appear to be similar between years at the same sites.

28

ELEVATION

We used both LiDAR and RTK GPS elevation data to plot cross-section profiles of the two Kunz Marsh restoration cells used in this project (Kunz “high” and “mid”) and the middle transect at the Danger Point reference marsh (Figure 22). All elevations are tied to the North American Vertical Datum 1988 geodetic datum. Profiles describe the middle transect at each site with groundwater well elevations. In general the two Kunz Marsh transects are slightly higher in elevation than the Danger Point marsh transect (mean values (and SE): Kunz High- 2.37 m (0.032); Kunz Mid- 2.12 (0.018); Danger- 2.06 (0.025)).

Figure 22 Marsh surface elevation along groundwater well transects at Kunz and Danger Point marshes.

RESTORATION PERFORMANCE INDEX (RPI)

Project monitoring data were used by Chris Peter (Wells NERR) to calculate restoration performance index scores for the Kunz Marsh restoration site. Originally the project’s first year of data (2008) was used as the “Pre-restoration” data set because it was assumed that we do not have the data that the RPI requires to quantify a true pre-restoration condition. Since full tidal flooding was re-established at the Kunz Marsh site after being re-graded to bare soil, Chris ran the Kunz Marsh RPI using 1996 pre-restoration values at 0.0 for both the vegetation and hydrology elements of the index (Figure 23). Chris calculated RPI scores for the Kunz Marsh site of 0.39 for 2008, 0.30 for 2009, and 0.46 for 2010, where 1.0 is considered an equivalent score with a fully functioning “least-disturbed” reference site. The mean score for the Kunz Marsh site for all three years is 0.38.

29

Figure 23 Restoration Performance Index for the Kunz Marsh restoration site.

Y27-Y28 RESTORATION-REFERENCE SITE PAIR

EMERGENT VEGETATION

The Y27 restoration site includes both UT and H marsh zones; Y28 includes only H marsh zone (Figure 13). We focused our emergent vegetation analyses on the H marsh zone only for the Y27-Y28 restoration-reference site pair.

Of the 38 emergent herbaceous and woody vegetation species encountered in the Y27 and Y28 brackish/fresh marsh sites over all three years, five species dominated the Y28 reference site while three species dominated the Y27 restoration site (Table 3). At the Y28 site, species dominance was shared by P. arundinacea, Juncus balticus, Argentina egedii, Oeneanthe sarmentosa and A. stolonifera. At the Y27 site, dominance was shared by A. stolonifera, C. Lyngbyei and Eleocharis palustris. Except for P. arundinacea and A. stolonifera, both mentioned above, all dominant emergent marsh vegetation species encountered in Y27 and Y28 marshes are native to Pacific Northwest brackish or tidal fresh water marshes.

30

Several woody species Y27 Y28- Herbaceous Cover Y28 Woody Cover % Cover Standard % Cover Standard Mean Standard Total were present at the Y28 Species Mean Error Species Mean Error Stem Ct Error Stem Ct reference site including AGRSTO 56.19 4.35 PHAARU 35.61 4.91 LONNIV 10.26 2.66 277 MALFUS 3.55 0.37 39 one overstory tree species, CARLYN 44.73 4.74 JUNBAL 33.54 4.78 ELEPAL 31.87 4.53 ARGEGE 27.06 3.19 PICSIT 1.33 0.17 12 VACOVA 1.00 0.00 1 Picea sitchensis, and four CALNUT 6.98 1.89 OENSAR 23.33 3.50 SALSP 1.00 0.00 1 understory shrub species DESCAE 3.76 0.99 AGRSTO 21.22 3.57 JUNEFF 3.71 1.30 CAROBN 11.55 2.28 including Lonicera GALAPA 3.56 0.84 CALNUT 8.78 2.61 involucrata, Malus fusca, PHAARU 2.82 1.28 LONINV 8.02 1.63 Salix spp., and Vaccinium HOLLAN 2.27 1.20 VICNIG 6.09 1.31 SCICER 2.16 1.30 ACHMIL 3.84 1.24 ovatum. All woody CALHET 2.11 1.25 GALAPA 3.77 0.77 species are native to the LOTCOR 1.64 1.02 ASTSUB 3.10 1.55 VICNIG 1.51 0.89 RUBURS 2.55 0.71 Pacific Northwest and ATRPAT 1.47 0.54 HOLLAN 1.91 0.71 commonly found in tidal ARGEGE 1.36 0.55 CIRVUL 0.97 0.40 fresh water forested and SCIAME 0.73 0.73 ATRPAT 0.85 0.33 ELEPAR 0.49 0.49 PTEAQU 0.82 0.42 scrub-shrub marshes (or JUNBAL 0.38 0.38 FESRUB 0.67 0.37 what’s left of those LIMAQU 0.38 0.36 LYSAME 0.34 0.20 RANSCL 0.38 0.26 ATHFIL 0.32 0.32 habitats). L. involucrata RUMCRI 0.36 0.17 ANGSP 0.25 0.20 was by far the most COTCOR 0.36 0.30 EREMIN 0.25 0.16 abundant of the woody TYPLAT 0.31 0.15 MAIDIL 0.23 0.17 TYPANG 0.27 0.19 PICSIT 0.23 0.21 species present at the site. Wrack 0.20 0.20 RUMCRI 0.18 0.12 SCIMAR 0.18 0.10 LATSP 0.18 0.13 Species percent cover SPECAN 0.18 0.11 TYPLAT 0.11 0.11 LILOCC 0.13 0.13 RIBDIV 0.11 0.09 means were mostly CAROBN 0.04 0.04 STECAL 0.11 0.11 significantly different FESRUB 0.02 0.02 DESCAE 0.05 0.05 between sites for all years TRIMAR 0.02 0.02 RUMCON 0.05 0.05 CALSTA 0.02 0.02 RUMSP 0.05 0.05 but not significantly OENSAR 0.00 0.00 CARLYN 0.02 0.02 different between years at LONINV 0.00 0.00 HERLAN 0.02 0.02 sites (Figure 24 and Table 3 Emergent vegetation species; herbaceous and woody for both UT and Appendix B). H zones and all years combined. See Appendix A for species names and associated six-letter codes. Note that LONINV (Lonicera involucrata) appears Calamagrostis as both herbaceous and woody species because young shoots are herbaceous nootkaensis, a sub- and older shrubs are woody. There was no woody species cover in the Y27 dominant native reed restoration site. grass, was the only species with percent cover means not significantly different between sites.

Mean species richness for all years combined was greater at the Y28 reference marsh (5.43, SE=0.28) than at the Y27 restoration site (3.58, SE=0.22). Mean species richness was significantly different for all years between Y27 and Y28 H marsh zones (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between years within sites (Figure 25).

31

Stem density and shoot length data (or tuft count and tuft width for tufted species) were collected in 2010 only (Table 4). In the Y27 restoration site data were collected for three key species: C. lyngbyei, D. caespitosa (tufted) and Eleocharis palustris. In the Y28 reference site data were collected for three other key species: J. balticus, A. egedii and .C nookaensis.

* Y27 High Marsh Zone *

*

* * * * *

Y28 High Marsh Zone

* * * * * *

* *

Figure 24 Percent cover means in the Y27 and Y28 H marsh zone for each year for each of the dominant emergent marsh species or species or element of interest at both sites. Asterisk denotes significant difference between sites for individual species. There were no significant differences between years. See Appendix A for species names and associated six-letter codes.

32

b

a

Figure 25 Species richness means in the Y27 restoration and Y28 reference marsh sites in the H marsh zone for all three years. Letters indicate significant differences in means between sites for all years. There were no significant differences between years within sites.

CARLYN DESCAE ELEPAL

Stem Shoot Tuft Tuft Stem Shoot Site Zone Count SE Length SE Count SE Wdth SE Count SE Length SE Y27 High 15.4 2.37 126.2 6.48 1.0 0.00 15.8 6.05 109.9 17.85 90.6 5.67

JUNBAL ARGEGE CALNUT Stem Shoot Stem Shoot Tuft Tuft Site Zone Count SE Length SE Count SE Length SE Count SE Wdth SE Y28 High 71.5 14.19 116.0 6.62 9.3 1.96 59.4 2.92 1.0 0.00 39.5 8.50

Table 4. Stem density and shoot length (in cm) and tuft count and tuft diameter (in cm)(for tufted species) for key dominant emergent vegetation species in Y27 restoration and Y28 reference site High marsh zone. See Appendix A for species names and associated six-letter codes.

PORE WATER SALINITY AND SOILS

Pore water salinity data were collected in 2010 at all vegetation plots at Y27 and Y28 marshes (Figure 26). In the Y28 marsh approximately 7% of the plots (2 of 30) were too dry to sample. None of the Y27 marsh plots were too dry (n = 30). Pore water salinity values were significantly different between the Y27 and Y28 H marsh zone (p<0.001). Other comparisons were not made

33

due to lack of data for statistical comparisons and because there is no UT marsh zone in the Y28 Mean Pore Water Salinity site.

Mean Pore Water Salinity

a x x b

Figure 26 Pore water salinity means for a single year (2010) in the Y27 restoration and Y28 reference UT and H marsh zones as well as combined (pooled). Letters indicate significant differences between means. X indicates not enough data to statistically compare means.

Soil samples were collected in 2009 at all groundwater well locations at the Y27 and Y28 sites (Figure 27). Total site percent organic matter, represented by the pooled values, was not significantly different between the Y27 and Y28 sites. Other comparisons were not made due to lack of data for statistical comparisons and because there is no UT marsh zone in the Y28 site.

Percent Organic Content

x x x

Figure 27 Percent organic content means for a single year (2009) in the Y27 and Y28 UT and H marsh zones as well as combined (pooled). Absence of letters indicates no significant differences between means. X indicates not enough data to statistically compare means.

34

Soil bulk density was not significantly different between Y27 and Y28 pooled soils data (Figure 28). Other comparisons were not made due to lack of data for statistical comparisons and because there is no UT marsh zone in the Y28 site.

x Bulk Density

x x

Figure 28 Bulk density means for a single year (2009) in the Y27 and Y28 UT and H marsh zones as well as combined (pooled). The absence of letters indicates no significant differences between means. X indicates not enough data to statistically compare means.

GROUNDWATER: PERCENT INUNDATION TIME

We calculated and plotted percent inundation time for simultaneous two week periods in the Y27 restoration and Y28 reference sites based on data from summer 2009 and summer 2010 (Figure 29). Inundation patterns appear to be similar between years at the same sites. With the exception of one site, Y28 33.3 m (number indicates where the groundwater well is along the transect), percent inundation time was consistent with what we would expect of inundation regime relative to marsh elevation: longer inundation periods at lower marsh surface elevations and shorter inundation periods at higher marsh surface elevations. During the two week deployment period in 2009 when the tidal range was 3.34 m, the Y28 3.33 m well location experienced almost an order magnitude more percent inundation time compared with the average of the other two well locations (7.63% vs. 0.87%). During the two week deployment period in 2010 when the tidal range was 3.13 m, the Y28 3.33 m well location experienced about the same percent inundation time compared with the average of the other two well locations (0.11% vs. 0.20%). The average percent inundation time was greater both years at the Y27 restoration site compared with the Y28 reference site (2009: Y27 = 31.3%; Y28 = 3.1%; 2010: Y27 = 17.0%; Y28 = 0.2%).

35

^ ^ ^

Figure 29 Percent time of tidal inundation in 2009 and 2010 for approximately two week periods in the Y27 and Y28 marshes. Marsh surface elevations at each well relative to m NAVD are indicated as red triangles. Maximum tidal range for each sampling period is indicated in the graph title. Numbers in X axis labels are distance (in meters) along the transect from main stem channel to upland edge. The symbol “^” indicates values too small to appear on graph. Actual values are provided on the graph above each symbol.

ELEVATION

We used RTK GPS elevation data from our vegetation plots to create cross-section profiles of the Y27 restoration and Y28 reference marshes (Figure 30). We do not currently have access to LiDAR elevation data for the Y27 and Y28 sites. All elevations are tied to the North American Vertical Datum 1988 geodetic datum. Profiles describe the transects at each site with

36 groundwater wells. In general, the Y28 transect is higher than the Y27 transect (mean values (and SE): Y28- 2.68 (0.034); Y27- 2.04 m (0.031)).

Figure 30 Vegetation plot and marsh surface elevation at groundwater wells in meters NAVD88.

RESTORATION PERFORMANCE INDEX (RPI)

Project monitoring data were used by Chris Peter (Wells NERR) to calculate restoration performance index scores for the Kunz Marsh restoration site. The project’s first year of data (2008) was used as the “Pre-restoration” data set because we do not have the data that the RPI requires to quantify a true pre-restoration condition. Chris calculated RPI scores for the Y27 restoration marsh site of 0.11 for 2009, and 0.64 for 2010, where 1.0 is considered an equivalent score with a fully functioning “least-disturbed” reference site (Figure 31) The mean score for the Y27 site for both years is 0.38.

37

Figure 31- Restoration Performance Index for the Y27 marsh restoration site.

DISCUSSION

KUNZ AND DANGER POINT MARSHES

After fifteen years the Kunz Marsh site is clearly functioning as a tidal wetland but it still has major structural differences with the Danger Point reference site. One of the major differences between the sites is the dominance of a single species in the Kunz Marsh versus multiple co- dominant species in the Danger Point Reference marsh, as reflected in both the species richness and percent cover means for all years (Table 1; Figure 17). This structural feature- reference site plant community being more diverse than the restoration site- is readily apparent when one visits the sites.

We know from data collected in years past that the monotypic plant community at Kunz Marsh developed relatively quickly. Emergent vegetation percent frequency data collected in Kunz Marsh from 1996 through 2004 show an initially diverse group of plant species colonizing the site, mainly remnant pasture grasses and competitively subordinate early colonizers, giving way ultimately to C. Lyngbyei dominance (Figure 32). In contrast, the Danger Point reference site has remained relatively stable and diverse during that same period (Figure 33). Similarly, the percent cover data collected and analyzed for this three year project shows the dominance of C. Lyngbyei persisting at Kunz and the relative stability and diversity of the dominant plant species at the Danger Point site (Figures 16 and 33).

38

Anecdotal evidence supports the idea that many mid- to high marsh tidal wetland restoration projects in the brackish zone in Oregon develop plant communities overwhelmingly dominated by C. lyngbyei that persist for as long as 30 years (and counting). This may be cause for concern but it helps to know that naturally-occurring marsh habitats can also be dominated by this sedge (all developed in the past 300 years since the last great subsidence event); also by knowing that 30 years is insignificant compared with the time tidal marshes may need to develop diverse and complex biological and physical attributes. It may be that disturbance events at varying scales over the long term will push Kunz Marsh vegetation cover inevitably towards a more diverse plant community. But since one of the most often cited justifications for habitat restoration is the re-establishment of physical and biological complexity, we wonder if the “Carex-dominance” issue in the Pacific Northwest should be investigated to determine whether tidal wetland restoration practices for projects that would normally rely on natural recruitment should include measures to accelerate the development of more diverse plant communities.

Significant differences in stem counts and shoot length of C. lyngbyei between Kunz and Danger Point sites quantified the relative robustness of the dominant Kunz Marsh species. Mean stem counts and shoot lengths were almost 10 and 5 time greater, respectively, in Kunz Marsh compared with the Danger Point site. It should be noted that our selection of the species from which to gather stem count and shoot length data was influenced by our interest in establishing a baseline for examining the finer-scale dynamics of the interactions between the one dominant (C. lyngbyei) and two sub-dominant species in Kunz Marsh (D. caespitosa, T. maritima). Of the subdominants in Kunz Marsh, the aggressive seeding and colonization potential of D. caespitosa makes it the most likely plant species to compete successfully with C. lyngbyei. T. maritima is a robust early colonizer that may play a facilitation role to help D. caespitosa or other species gain ground in the marsh after disturbance opens space on the marsh surface (e.g., large wood import-export by storm tides). Knowing more about how these species interact over time will help us understand whether restoration practices that accelerate the development of plant community diversity would be useful.

39

C. lyngbyei

C. lyngbyei

C. lyngbyei

C. lyngbyei

Figure 32- Percent frequency of the most abundant emergent vegetation speciesin the Kunz Marsh research cells 1997 to 2004 (from Cornu 2005). Lynbyei’s sedge = C. lyngbyei; Bentgrass = A. solonifera. See Appendix A for a list of species codes and common names. 40

Figure 33 Percent frequency of the most abundant vegetation species at the Danger Point marsh reference site, 1997 to 2004 (from Cornu 2005). See Appendix A for a list of species codes and common names.

Our analyses for this project also suggest some species may not be as stable at the Danger Point reference site as they appeared in the 1996-2004 percent frequency data. Both T. maritima and A. egedii cover changed significantly during 2008-2010- T. maritime gaining in cover and A. egedii decreasing in cover. Additional data collection in subsequent years (supported by SWMP biomonitoring, as funding allows) will help us determine whether these changes are attributable to natural variability or if they’re part of a trend.

We included cover data for the Kunz Marsh salt pannes because they are a major structural feature of the high elevation cell and are distinctly not present at the Danger Point reference site (Table 1; Figure 16). The pannes formed because of infrequent tidal flooding and limited marsh surface drainage in the Kunz high marsh cell. These conditions are mainly the result of methods used to construct that part of the marsh. We expect the salt pannes to diminish over time though our data do not show any significant difference in salt panne cover between years.

Other differences between the Kunz and Danger Point sites are evident looking at the soils and pore water salinity data. Percent organic content was much higher in the Danger reference site than in the Kunz restoration site. This result was expected since the Kunz marsh surface was filled with dike material to “correct’ the effects of marsh surface subsidence. The source of the dike material was the adjacent Winchester creek channel (dredge spoils) which contained very little organic material. We would expect significant time to pass before the Kunz high cell soils (top root-zone horizon) to approach similar levels of organic content found in the Danger Point soils. The top 1.2 meters of that cell is all dike material fill. The mid marsh and the low marsh cells will have a higher likelihood of achieving Danger Point soil organic content levels. This lends additional support to one of the conclusions we’ve drawn from the Kunz project:

41 adjusting subsided marshes to low or mid marsh elevations is preferable to adjusting to mature marsh elevations (Cornu 2005, Cornu and Sadro 2002).

Following closely on the differences in organic content are the differences in soil bulk density, a measure of soil texture and porosity. Organic content and bulk density are closely related since highly mineral soils with little organic content have very high bulk density and are therefore not loosely textured or porous as soils with high organic content are. It follows that the lower elevation Kunz Marsh soils likely have a ways to go to develop bulk density values as low as those at Danger Point marsh, while the higher elevation soils are never likely to develop lower bulk density values.

The significant difference in pore water salinity values between Kunz Marsh and Danger Point sites initially surprised us (the sites are adjacent to one another) until we looked at the elevation data (Figure 22) and considered each site’s relative size and position in the landscape. Mean Kunz Marsh elevations are higher than those for Danger Point marsh which would suggest less frequent daytime tidal flooding in the summer months (when the data were collected) at the Kunz site and therefore higher pore water salinity values. Also, as suggested by the same figure, the Danger Point marsh is narrower (by about half) than Kunz Marsh and so its marsh surface experiences longer periods in the shade, slowing evaporation of tide water from the marsh surface, than Kunz Marsh (marshes are bordered by relatively steep hillsides covered by continuous stands of mid seral-stage conifers). The UT marsh zone salinity values were lower than the lower elevation H marsh zone salinity values. This may be explained by the combination of shade from the adjacent upland hillsides and the influence of persistent fresh water springs in the vicinity of the upper ends of the UT marsh zone plots.

Marsh surface elevation also plays a key role in the differences we see between Kunz and Danger Point in percent inundation time, but our results raise some interesting questions. For example, why are inundation times higher at both sites during logger deployment with a smaller tidal range? And what is it about the lower elevation Kunz Marsh well that would cause percent inundation time to be lower than the other wells? Having ruled out logger malfunction, we speculate that the answer has to do with marsh surface topography, relative rates of drainage during ebb tide in different areas of the marsh and proximity of the lower well to a tidal channel.

Both our LiDAR and RTK GPS elevation survey data indicate that the mean marsh surface elevation at the Kunz site (the mid and high marsh cells included in this study) is between 0.17 and 0.19 m higher than the mean Danger Point marsh surface elevation. This condition was not entirely unexpected since the Kunz Marsh high and mid-marsh cells were established approximately 0.15 m higher than project design elevations to accommodate fill consolidation and subsoil compaction when constructed. Post restoration SET, feldspar horizon and subsoil

42 settlement monument data from those sites show that fill consolidation and subsoil compression did take place, but it appears that vertical accretion has maintained marsh surface elevation over time (Figure 34). Since elevation determines the site’s tidal inundation period (percent time of inundation), a key ecosystem driver for tidal systems, we expect that many of the differences we are reporting here stem from this fundamental difference between the sites.

Figure 34- Vertical accretion, marsh surface elevation change and subsloil compression in the Kunz Marsh high and mid marsh research cells (updated from Cornu 2005).

43

RESTORATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Restoration Performance Index (RPI) values for the Kunz and Danger project sites were calculated by Chris Peter based on four years of data (1996=T0). Intuitively, the RPI results for Kunz Marsh make sense to us; over two years Kunz Marsh averages 38% along the trajectory towards equivalency with the Danger Point reference site. The main differences in vegetation, soils, pore water salinity, and tidal inundation period would all explain the project’s valuation. We would not expect the Kunz Marsh ever to achieve full structural and functional equivalency with the Danger Point site as determined by the RPI process due to the imperfect match between the sites, as described above .

Y27 AND Y28 MARSHES

Nine years after restoration implementation, the Y27 marsh site is clearly functioning as a tidal wetland but structurally has very little resemblance to the Y28 reference site. The biggest single difference between the sites is their mean marsh surface elevation which underlies the conditions that explain the dissimilar plant communities that characterize each site.

The Y28 reference site is 0.63 m higher than the Y27 restoration site. The elevation difference drives the differences in mean percent inundation time between the sites (Y27 averaged 55% greater percent inundation time for the two years we have data) which determines which plant communities are able to persist at the reference site and which can develop at the restoration site.

Like the Danger Point reference site, the plant community at the Y28 reference site is more diverse than the Y27 restoration site plant community. At the Y28 marsh, six brackish/fresh marsh species co-dominate the plant community there, making for a plant community of relatively high diversity. The Y28 site includes woody species (the plant community at the Y27 sites does not). Because of its relative abundance at the site, we’re tempted to include one of the woody shrubs, L. involucrata, as a seventh co-dominant but we do not yet know how to combine stem count data with cover data.

In contrast the Y27 plant community is not nearly as diverse, though unlike the Kunz Marsh restoration site, there is not a single emergent vegetation species that dominates the site. The Y27 restoration is dominated by three brackish/fresh marsh species. Only one of these species is a co-dominant in both marshes- the common brackish (introduced) marsh grass, A. stolonifera.

44

Of primary concern at the Y28 reference site is the significant presence of P. arundinacea, an invasive exotic reed grass that was probably introduced by accident during the infrequent uses of the site for pasture in the distant past. This certainly makes the site less than ideal for restoration reference site purposes, but it was the closest, least disturbed site possible to choose for the project. One of our side objectives for this project is to quantify P. arundinacea cover as a baseline for future site monitoring and to inform possible management actions. Over this project’s three years, P arundinacea cover did not change significantly between years.

In contrast to the differences in elevation, percent inundation time and plant communities, the pore water salinity and soils data were all very similar between sites. There were no statistically measurable differences between those variables.

RESTORATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Restoration Performance Index (RPI) values for the Y27 site was calculated by Chris Peter based on three years of data (2008=T0). Between the two years presented, it appears that the Y27 marsh is averaging about 38% along the trajectory towards structural and functional equivalency with the Y28 reference site (same as Kunz Marsh RPI value). Like the Kunz site, we wonder how far towards functional equivalency the Y27 site can get with the Y28 reference site. Again, the imperfect quality of the reference values for elevation (is it possible for vertical accretion to make up the 0.64 m difference between the sites before the next subsidence event?) and presence of a significantly invasive exotic grass) may make it difficult to quantify in the future where the Y27 site is on its trajectory towards structural and functional equivalency with the Y28 site.

CONCLUSION

Overall we feel the Kunz Marsh and Y27 restoration sites, despite the differences between restoration and reference variables, should be deemed qualified restoration successes because we can confirm that the natural processes restored to the sites are driving the recovery of estuarine wetland structure and function, several attributes of which we have quantified with this project. Whether the restoration sites will come close to achieving numerical RPI equivalency with “least-disturbed” reference sites, we’re not sure because the unique qualities inherent to any project site will likely confound making “apple to apple” comparisons. We do know, however, that when used with the full complement of data (defensible figures for Tpresent,

45

T0 and Tref) the RPI will likely be a useful tool to help evaluate restoration sites used within the context of a monitoring program targeted towards addressing specific project goals.

We feel the most important data to collect are those that quantify site controlling factors that drive restoration recovery such as those collected in this project with the addition of a fine- scale marsh surface elevation change/vertical accretion component. Our ability to interpret our data would have been enhanced by having information acquired from a modest network of rod-surface elevation tables (RSETs) and feldspar soil horizon markers established at the site pairs.

We learned the incredible utility of tracking water level using groundwater wells. In the future we will collect data during much longer deployments so we can quantify percent inundation time either seasonally (wet/dry season in the Pacific Northwest) or for a full year. With longer deployments and incorporating tide level and precipitation data we have quantified both spring-summer and fall-winter transition times that tell us a great deal about a site’s hydrologic function, showing us both tidal inundation and groundwater level regimes (Figure 35). Having these longer more informative datasets at both restoration and reference sites would be very useful.

We were asked to prioritize site indicator variables based on their ability to track restoration response. For tidal marsh restoration projects whose goals are focused on re-establishing a fully functioning emergent marsh ecosystem, we believe there’s a good reason emergent vegetation monitoring is used so frequently for evaluating those projects. Vegetation species cover, richness and other variables tell restoration practitioners a great deal about a site’s response to restoration actions. Combining those data with information quantifying controlling factors such as elevation, water fluctuations (tidal, riverine and groundwater), salinity regime, tidal inundation regime and vertical accretion dynamics gives practitioners information with which to interpret the results of response variable monitoring. But since not all projects are alike, we feel that the prioritization of monitoring variables should be responsive to the project goals and objectives.

Finally, we suggest prioritizing funds to support not only immediate post-restoration monitoring, but to facilitate longer-term project effectiveness monitoring that can begin to quantify the “moving target” nature of reference site natural variability- especially in light of influences brought on by the local effects of climate change.

46

Figure 35- Water level at South Slough NERR’s Hidden Creek marsh showing both wet season to dry season and dry season to wet season transition periods (from Brophy et al. 2011).

We provided the reference condition means and standard error (95% CI) for the variables used in our project in Appendix C.

47

REFERENCES

Blake, G.R., and K.H. Hartge, 1986. Bulk Density in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed., A. Klute (editor), American Society of Agronomy, Inc., and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wis., pp. 363-376.

Brophy, L.S., C.E. Cornu, P.R. Adamus, J.A. Christy, A. Gray, L. Huang, M.A. MacClellan, J.A. Doumbia, and R.L. Tully. 2011. New Tools for Tidal Wetland Restoration: Development of a Reference Conditions Database and a Temperature Sensor Method for Detecting Tidal Inundation in Least-disturbed Tidal Wetlands of Oregon, USA. Prepared for the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET).155pp

Brophy, L.S. 1999. Final Report: Yaquina and Alsea River Basins Estuarine Wetland Site Prioritization Project. Prepared for the MidCoast Watersheds Council, Newport, OR. 50 pp.

Brophy, L.S. 2004. Yaquina Estuarine Restoration Project: Final Report. Prepared for the MidCoast Watersheds Council, Newport, OR. 50 pp.

Cornu, C.E. 2005. Restoring Kunz Marsh. South Slough NERR Coastal Resource Management Series. CRMS-2005-1. Coos Bay, Oregon.

Cornu, C. E., and S. Sadro. 2002. Physical and Functional Responses to Experimental Marsh Surface Elevation Manipulation in Coos Bay's South Slough. Restoration Ecology 10: 474-486.

Nelson, D.W., and L.E. Sommer. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. p.539- 579. In A.L. Page (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. 2nd Ed. ASA Monogr. 9(2). Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, WI.

Quinn, Gerry P. and Keough, Michael J. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press. 537 pp.

Roman, Charles T., Mary-Jane James-Pirri, and James F. Heltshe. 2001. Monitoring salt marsh vegetation. Cape Cod National Seashore, National Park Service, Wellfeet, MA 02667.

48

APPENDIX A

PLANT LIST Code Scientific Name Common Name ACHMIL Achillea millefoleum Yarrow AGRSTO Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bentgrass (exotic) ANGSP Angelica Sp. Angelica ARGEGE Argentina egedii Pacific silverweek ASTSUB Aster subspicatus Douglas aster ATHFIL Athyrium filix-femina Ladyfern ATRPAT Atriplex patula Fat hen CALNUT Calamagrostis nutkaensis Pacific reed grass CALHET Callitriche heterophylla Water starwort CALSTA Callitriche stagnalis Common water starwort CARLYN Carex lyngbyei Lyngby's sedge CAROBN Carex obnuta Slough sedge CIRVUL Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle COTCOR Cotula coronopifolia Brass buttons CUSSAL Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder DESCAE Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted hairgrass DISSPI Distichlis spicata Salt grass ELEPAL Eleocharis palustris Creeping spikerush ELEPAR Eleocharis parvula Dwarf spikerush EREMIN Erechtites minima Australian burnweed FESSP Fescue Sp. Fescue grass FESRUB Festuca rubra Red fescue GALAPA Galium aparine Goose-grass GLAMAR Glaux maritima Milkwort GRIINT Grindelia integrifolia Gumweed HERLAN Heracleum lanatum Cow-parsnip HOLLAN Holcus lanatus Common velvet-grass HORBRA Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley JAUCAR Jaumea carnosa Fleshy jaumea JUNBAL Juncus balticus Baltic rush JUNBUF Juncus bufonious Toad rush JUNEFF Juncus effusus Common rush JUNGER Juncus gerardii Mud rush LATSP Lathyrus sp. Peavine LIMAQU Limosella aquatica Mudwort LONINV Lonicera involucre Twinberry

49

LOTCOR Lotus corniculatus Bird's-foot trefoil LYSAME Lysichiton americanum Skunk cabbage MAIDIL Maianthemum dilatatum Beadruby OENSAR Oeanthe sarmentosa Water parsley PHAARU Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass PICSIT Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce PTEAQU Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern RANSCL Ranunculus sceleratus Cursed buttercut RIBDIV Ribes divaricatum Black gooseberry RUBURS Rubus ursinus Pacific blackberry RUMCON Rumex conglomeratus Dock RUMCRI Rumex crispus Curly dock RUSP Rumex sp. Dock SALVIR Salicornia virginica American glasswort SCIAME Scirpus americanus American bullrush SCICER Scirpus cernuus Low clubrush SCIMAR Scirpus maritimus Salt marsh bullrush SCIMIC Scirpus microcarpus Small-fruited bullrush SPECAN Spergularia canadensis Sandspurry STECAL Stellaria calycantha Northern starwort TRICON Triglochin concinnum Dward arrowgrass TRIMAR Triglochin maritimum Seaside arrowgrass TRIWOR Trifolium wormskjoldii Springback clover TYPANG Typha angustifolia Narrowleaf cattail TYPLAT Typha latifolia Cattail VICNIG Vicia nigricans Black vetch ZOSJAP Zostera japonica Japanese eelgrass

50

APPENDIX B

ANOVA for percent cover of marsh plant species Kunz Danger Upland transition marsh sites

Source df MS F p AGRSTO Site (K, DP) 1 15022.22 35.03 <0.001 Year 2 203.556 0.475 0.633 S x Y 2 198.222 0.462 0.641 Residual 12 428.889 Did not violate Levene's test p=0.422

CARLYN Site (K, DP) 1 288 0.16 0.696 Year 2 1664.889 0.925 0.423 S x Y 2 242.667 0.135 0.875 Residual 12 1799.778 Violated Levene's test p=0.014

DESCAE Site (K, DP) 1 672.222 27.25 <0.001 Year 2 94.889 3.847 0.051 S x Y 2 94.889 3.847 0.051 Residual 12 24.667 Violated Levene's test p=0.007

DISSPI Site (K, DP) 1 0 Year 2 0 S x Y 2 0 Residual 12 0

TRIMAR Site (K, DP) 1 12376.89 51.1 <0.001 Year 2 427.556 1.765 0.213 S x Y 2 320.889 1.325 0.302 Residual 12 242.222 Violated Levene's test p=0.016

51

PHAARU Site (K, DP) 1 4110.22 2.95 0.112 Year 2 34.89 0.025 0.975 S x Y 2 34.89 0.025 0.975 Residual 12 1393.33 Violated Levene's test p=0.001

ARGEGE Site (K, DP) 1 2544.22 4.68 0.051 Year 2 297.56 0.548 0.592 S x Y 2 821.17 0.337 0.721 Residual 12 543.33 Did not violate Levene's test p=0.041

ANOVA for percent cover of marsh plant species Kunz Danger high marsh zone

Source df MS F p AGRSTO Site (K, DP) 1 67359.52 75.93 <0.001 Year 2 645.996 0.728 0.484 S x Y 2 256.025 0.289 0.75 Residual 233 887.172 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

CARLYN Site (K, DP) 1 22860.64 20.63 <0.001 Year 2 76.673 0.069 0.933 S x Y 2 649.042 0.586 0.558 Residual 233 1108.312 Did not violate Levene's p=0.238

DESCAE Site (K, DP) 1 66233.1 120.8 <0.001 Year 2 389.793 0.711 0.492 S x Y 2 136.212 0.248 0.78 Residual 233 548.447 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

DISSPI Site (K, DP) 1 30478.56 103.5 <0.001 Year 2 553.9 1.88 0.155 S x Y 2 533.03 1.81 0.166

52

Residual 233 294.47 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

TRIMAR Site (K, DP) 1 95501.92 341.1 <0.001 Year 2 3068.118 10.96 <0.001 S x Y 2 2529.711 9.036 <0.001 Residual 233 279.947 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

ARGEGE Site (K, DP) 1 2828.032 31.06 <0.001 Year 2 711.808 7.818 0.001 S x Y 2 821.17 9.019 <0.001 Residual 233 Did not violate Levene's p=0.000

ANOVA for plant species richness at reference and restoration sites with Kunz-Danger pair having elevation (tested separately) as sites upland transition and high marsh. Variances were homogenous at p>0.081.

Source df MS F p SP RICHNESS Site (K-D High) 1 751.746 200.985 <0.001 Year 2 2.382 0.637 0.53 S x Y 2 4.16 1.112 0.331 Residual 237 3.74 did not violate Levene's p=0.240

SP RICHNESS Site (K-D Upland Transition) 1 117.556 18.561 0.001 Year 2 0.722 0.114 0.893 S x Y 2 0.389 0.061 0.941 Residual 12 6.333 did not violate Levene's p=0.496

SP RICHNESS Site (Y27-28) 1 154.3 25.82 <0.001 Year 2 2.85 0.48 0.622 S x Y 2 0.46 0.077 0.926

53

Residual 165 5.98 did not violate Levene's p=0.120

ANOVA for percent cover of marsh plant species at Yaquina 27 & 28 paired marsh restoraion and reference Site (Y27, Y28)s

Source df MS F p AGRSTO Site (Y27, Y28) 1 43813.63 31.36 p<0.001 Year 2 722.04 0.517 0.597 S x Y 2 26.05 0.019 0.982 Residual 164 1397.034 Violated Levene's p=0.001

CARLYN Site (Y27, Y28) 1 1104656 110.25 p<0.001 Year 2 1022.84 1.078 0.343 S x Y 2 1022.92 1.078 0.343 Residual 164 949.26 violates Levene's p<0.001

DESCAE Site (Y27, Y28) 1 269.67 17.13 p<0.001 Year 2 14.88 0.945 0.391 S x Y 2 16.8 1.07 0.346 Residual 164 15.74 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

TRIMAR Site (Y27, Y28) 1 0.026 1.101 0.296 Year 2 0.026 1.104 0.334 S x Y 2 0.026 1.104 0.334 Residual 164 0.023 Violated Levene's test p=0.001

PHAARU Site (Y27, Y28) 1 44233.4 37.178 p<0.001 Year 2 59.166 0.05 0.952 S x Y 2 88.928 0.075 0.928

54

Residual 162 1189.774

ARGEGE Site (Y27, Y28) 1 26402.53 54.29 p<0.001 Year 2 71.71 0.147 0.863 S x Y 2 30.8 0.063 0.939 Residual 164 486.31 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

CALNUT Site (Y27, Y28) 1 921.912 2.36 0.126 Year 2 278.25 0.713 0.492 S x Y 2 90.58 0.232 0.793 Residual 164 390.49 Violated Levene's test p=0.004

CAROBN Site (Y27, Y28) 1 5610.15 22.63 p<0.001 Year 2 49.22 0.199 0.820 S x Y 2 48.65 0.196 0.822 Residual 164 247.89 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

ELEPAL Site (Y27, Y28) 1 51130.94 53.52 p<0.001 Year 2 82.116 0.086 0.918 S x Y 2 82.116 0.086 0.918 Residual 162 955.428 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

JUNEFF Site (Y27, Y28) 1 368.25 5.16 0.024 Year 2 31.61 0.443 0.643 S x Y 2 71.4 0.443 0.643 Residual 162 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

OENSAR Site (Y27, Y28) 1 22837.5 40.59 p<0.001

55

Year 2 72.11 0.128 0.88 S x Y 2 72.11 0.128 0.88 Residual 162 562.63 Violated Levene's test p<0.001

ANOVA for Pore Water Salinity, Soil Bulk Density & Soil Percent Organics

Pore Water Salinity Source df MS F p Kunz-Danger Upland Site 1 18.939 0.294 0.616 Residual 4 64.359

Kunz elevation Elevation 1 1067.53 9.94 0.003 Residual 46 107.43 Did not violate Levene's p=0.670

Danger -Kunz High Marsh 1 2591.798 35.831 <0.001 Site 68 72.335 Violate Levene's p=0.023

Danger 1 286.196 31.751 <0.001 elevation 26 9.014

Danger -Kunz pooled Site 1 2802.63 31.761 <0.001 Residual 74 88.24 Did not violate Levene's p=0.070

Y27 elevation Elevation 1 0.681 0.364 0.551 Residual 28 1.872 Did not violate Levene's p=0.336

Y27 -- Y28 Site 1 114.87 64.3 <0.001 Residual 53 1.79

56

Did not violate Levene's p=0.955

Soil Bulk Density Source df MS F p Danger-Kunz Elevation 2 0.315 106.974 p<0.001 Residual 6 0.003

Danger -Kunz pooled Site 1 0.358 60.79 <0.001 Residual 7 0.006 Did not violate Levene's p=0.070

Y27 Y28 Pooled Site 1 0.031 1.606 0.295 Residual 3 0.019 Did not violate Levene's p=0.140

Soil % Organic Source df MS F p Danger-Kunz High Site 2 454.101 324.232 <0.001 Residual 6 1.401 Did not violate Levene's p=0.304

Danger -Kunz Pooled Site 1 1626.78 33.96 0.001 Residual 7 47.904 Did not violate Levene's p=0.304

Y27 & Y28 Pooled Site 1 3.89 0.114 0.758 Residual 3 34.126

57

APPENDIX C

6.39

SE

0.06

0.02

SE

0.98

34.38

0.233

DISSPI

Density

Soil Bulk

5.63

SE

6.17

SE

4.08

7.32

SE

49.47

20.95

20.42

Soil %

GRIINT

35.857

OENSAR

Organic

7.79

9.41

SE

4.63

4.19

4.55

SE

0.52

0.44

0.30

0.94

1.51

1.17

SE

2.52

2.91

2.27

15.8

64.93

42.59

52.38

50.87

45.71

19.15

13.14

PHAARU

TRIMAR

Salinity

(% cover > 20%)cover > (%

Pore Water

8.50

8.14

SE

6.21

6.20

6.40

SE

0.04

0.04

0.04

SE

33.8

35.1

35.1

35.1

Max

57.23

49.75

36.23

37.81

JUNBAL

DESCAE

Salinity

Channel

Dominant Vegetation

5.72

5.60

SE

5.02

4.44

5.63

SE

0.03

0.22

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.09

SE

49.8

32.53

36.33

65.38

55.62

0.578

0.706

0.483

Mean

-0.222

-0.228

-0.260

ARGEGE

CARLYN

(m MHHW) (m

Elevation

6.68

SE

7.34

6.65

6.71

SE

0.03

0.22

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.09

SE

43.87

42.28

63.87

66.29

2.790

2.918

2.695

1.990

1.984

1.952

Mean

AGRSTO

AGRSTO

Elevation

(m NAVD88) (m

Scrub/ShrubWetland

IntertidalHaline

Scrub/ShrubWetland

IntertidalHaline

Scrub/ShrubWetland

IntertidalHaline

EmergentWetland

IntertidalHaline

EmergentWetland

IntertidalHaline

EmergentWetland

IntertidalHaline

NERR ClassNERR

Scrub/ShrubWetland

IntertidalHaline

Scrub/ShrubWetland

IntertidalHaline

Scrub/ShrubWetland

IntertidalHaline

EmergentWetland

IntertidalHaline

EmergentWetland

IntertidalHaline

EmergentWetland

IntertidalHaline

NERR ClassNERR

South

Middle

North

South

Middle

North

Transect

South

Middle

North

South

Middle

North

Transect

Reference Condition Means and Standard Error for(95% CI) the Variables inUsed our Project

Yaquina

Yaquina

Yaquina

Coos

Coos

Coos

Estuary

Yaquina

Yaquina

Yaquina

Coos

Coos

Coos

Estuary

SE = Standard = ErrorSE

Y-28

Y-28

Y-28

Danger Point

Danger Point

Danger Point

Site

SE = Standard = ErrorSE

Y-28

Y-28

Y-28

Danger Point

Danger Point Danger Point Site

58