Vegetation Monitoring

  • Invasive Exotic Plants
  • Missouri Bladderpod
  • Plant Communities
  • W. Prairie Fringed Orchid
  • Wetlands
Invasive Exotic Plants

invasive plantInvasive exotic plants (IEPs) are often of concern given their abilities to reproduce prolifically, to rapidly colonize new areas, to displace native species, to alter ecosystem processes across multiple scales, and to detract from the interpretive value of park resources. An overview of park species lists and planning documents highlights three points: 1) network parks support vegetation resources of tremendous cultural and natural resource significance, 2) these parks contain some of the most recalcitrant IEPs found in forests (garlic mustard, kudzu, Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, privet), grasslands (sericea lespedeza, smooth brome, leafy spurge, sweet clover), and wetlands (reed canary grass, common reed, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed), and 3) the vegetation in these parks is susceptible to numerous plant invasions. The ability of IEPs to spread rapidly, displace native plants, and in some cases, interrupt ecological processes is amply documented. The need to detect new invasions and track existing invasions necessitated the development of the IEP monitoring protocol for the Heartland I&M Network. IEP monitoring on network parks will involve two approaches: 1) identification of existing plant invasions and 2) early detection of invasive plant establishment.

Monitoring Questions and Approach
  1. Which invasive, non-native plant species require monitoring given their establishment on network parks or the probability that they will become established on network parks?
    • Several tools will be used to prioritize invasive exotic plant monitoring including: 1) the USDA Plants database, 2) state, regional, and national invasive plant lists, and 3) input from park managers.  The prioritization must take in to account the potential impact of an invasive exotic plant on park resources.
  2. Are invasive non-native plant species that have not become well established on the park colonizing available habitat?
    • Because of their generally small extent, new invasions of invasive exotic plants are difficult to detect.  Early detection allows park managers to rapidly respond to control invasive exotic plants.
  3. How are the distribution and abundance of invasive, non-native plants changing on network parks?
    • For plants that are established on network parks, managers need this information to determine when a threshold has been reached that: 1) requires the initiation of management, 2) confirms management success, or 3) indicates the need for a change in management strategy.  Monitoring is intended to detect a change in the cover or frequency at the park-scale over a four-year period.
Reports

Arkansas Post National Memorial

Cuyahoga Valley National Park

Effigy Mounds National Monument

George Washington Carver National Monument

Herbert Hoover National Historic Site Homestead National Monument of America

Hopewell Culture National Historical Park

Hot Springs National Park

Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial

Ozark National Scenic Riverways Riverways

Pea Ridge National Military Park

Pipestone National Monument Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Wilson's Creek National Battlefield

References
  • Hiebert, R.D. and J. Stubbendieck. 1993. Handbook for ranking exotic plants for management and control. NPS, Midwest Regional Office, Omaha, NE. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08 (Report).
  • National Park Service. 2006. 2006 National Park Service Management Policies, Chapter 4 Natural Resource Management (PDF).
Contact

Craig Young
Botanist (417-732-6438 ext. 281)

Missouri Bladderpod

missouri bladderpod The Missouri bladderpod is restricted to the Springfield Plateau of southwestern Missouri and northwestern Arkansas (NatureServe 2005). When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the plant as endangered in 1987, only nine Missouri bladderpod sites were known from Dade, Greene, and Christian Counties in Missouri (USFWS 1986). A recovery plan was developed following this listing. The federal status was downlisted to threatened in 2003 following the discovery of 52 additional populations in Missouri and two populations in Izard and Washington Counties in Arkansas (USFWS 2003). NatureServe ranks Missouri bladderpod as a G2 species, indicating global rarity. In Missouri, the Missouri bladderpod is ranked as an S3 species (rare to uncommon in state), while the Arkansas S-rank is an S1 species (extremely rare in state). The Missouri bladderpod is protected in the Wildlife Code of Missouri.

Given the natural rarity of the Missouri bladderpod, proper stewardship of existing habitat is critical for the conservation of the species. Possible threats to the Missouri bladderpod may include encroachment of woody vegetation in glade habitat due to fire suppression, competition from invasive non-native plants (especially grasses), conversion of rocky sites to pasture, herbicide application, right-of-way maintenance, haying, trampling from humans (Thomas and Willson 1992) or livestock, and habitat destruction from development (USFWS 2003). Moderate disturbance from mowing or grazing may benefit Missouri bladderpod populations. To date, no instances of local extinction due to non-native plant invasion have been documented (USFWS 2003). Based on the best available evidence, a combination of mechanical clearing and prescribed burning appears to be the preferred management tool for stimulating reproduction in Missouri bladderpod populations (USFWS 2003). However, managers must manipulate habitats judiciously given that microsite characteristics promoting plant survival and flowering shift from year to year (Thomas 1996).

Monitoring Questions and Approach
  1. How does plant abundance fluctuate over time?
    • Annual censuses to track the abundance of the species through time. Population size has been observed to fluctuate widely from year to year - with the number of plants surviving to maturity ranging over several orders of magnitude. In some years, few individuals may survive to reproduce. Local population persistence depends on a persistent seed bank.
  2. How does plant distribution and abundance vary with habitat characteristics?
    • Habitat data are collected along with annual abundance data so that local abundance patterns can be correlated with habitat characteristics.
  3. How is the limestone glade habitat changing over time?
    • Glade vegetation is being monitored in two ways: 1) three vegetation transects placed in the largest Missouri bladderpod population are sampled periodically; and 2) the basal area of Eastern red cedar is measured across certain glades.
Reports

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield

 

Resource Brief | C. C. Young. 2012. Annual status report: Missouri bladderpod monitoring for Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, 1988-2012. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2012/316. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. (NPS Only)

 

C. C. Young and A. D. Dunkle. 2011. Annual status report: Missouri bladderpod monitoring for
Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, 1988-2011. Natural Resource Data Series
NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/191. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
(NPS Only)

 

Young, C.C. 2009. Annual Status Report: Missouri Bladderpod Monitoring for Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, 1988-2009.  Heartland Network Annual Status Report—November 2009 (NPS Only)

 

Resource Brief | Young, C.C. 2008. Missouri Bladderpod Status Report for Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield: 2008.  Heartland Network Monitoring Report Update—July, 2008 (NPS Only)

 

Young, C.C. and J.L. Haack. 2007 Missouri Bladderpod Status Report for Six Populations at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/031. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. (NPS Only)

 

Cribbs, J.T., L.W. Morrison and C.C. Young. 2007. Missouri Bladderpod Habitat Relationships on Bloody Hill Glade at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield.  Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/ HTLN/NRTR—2007/062. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. (NPS Only)

 

Resource Brief | Young, C.C., L.W. Morrison, and H.J. Etheridge. 2006. Missouri Bladderpod Population Size and Initial Habitat Assessment for the Bloody Hill Glade Population at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2006/017. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. (NPS Only)

 
2005 Status Report (NPS Only)
References
  • Missouri Department of Conservation. 2005. Endangered species guidesheet: Missouri bladderpod. Available http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/nathis/endangered/endanger/bladder/. (Accessed: February 1, 2005).
  • NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.  Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: February 1, 2005).
  • Thomas, L.P. 1996. Population ecology of a winter annual (Lesquerella filiformis Rollins) in a patchy environment. Natural Areas Journal 16:216-226.
  • Thomas, L. P. and J. R. Jackson. 1990. Population ecology and management recommendations for Lesquerella filiformis at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Republic, Missouri.  Unpublished report, National Park Service.
  • Thomas, L. P. and G. D. Willson. 1992. Effect of experimental trampling on the federally endangered species, Lesquerella filiformis Rollins, at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri.  Natural Areas Journal 12: 101-105.
  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposal to determine Lesquerella filiformis (Missouri bladderpod) to be an endangered plant.  Federal Register 51(66):11874-11877.
  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Missouri bladderpod (Lesquerella filformis Rollins) recovery plan.  Region 3, Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota.
  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; reclassification of Lesquerella filiformis (Missouri bladderpod) from endangered to threatened.  Federal Register 68(199):59337-59345.
  • Young, C.C., L.W. Morrison, and J.L. Haack. 2009. Habitat relationships and management implications for Lesquerella filiformis Rollins (Missouri bladderpod) on a xeric limestone prairie. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 136(2):233-241. .pdf link (1.20 MB)
Contact

Craig Young
Botanist (417-732-6438 ext. 281)

Plant Communities

Photo of scientists sampling prairie plantsNative and restored plant communities are part of the foundation of park ecosystems and provide a natural backdrop to cultural events in parks throughout the HTLN. Even for cultural parks that contain natural communities, conserving those communities is important as land conversion and habitat fragmentation increases across the landscape around parks in the Heartland Network. As large tracks of natural vegetation communities are lost, the communities within parks become representative of once widespread or locally unique community types that warrant special attention through long-term monitoring and coordinated management.

Long-term ecological monitoring, while contributing to our empirical understanding of plant communities, is integral to the proper management and protection of the lands entrusted to the National Park Service. Our monitoring strategy attempts to balance the immediate needs of managers for current information and the need for insight into the changes occurring in vegetation communities over time. Vegetation communities across the Heartland Network are primarily of three types: tallgrass prairie, deciduous savanna-woodland and deciduous forest. Each of these three types of communities has been impacted over much of the prior two centuries. Land conversion, habitat fragmentation, invasion of non-native species and disruption or elimination of the natural disturbance regime has resulted in limiting or altering their extent and quality.

Vegetation monitoring occurs at nine HTLN parks: EFMO, GWCA, HEHO, HOME, HOSP, PERI, PIPE, TAPR and WICR.

Monitoring Questions and Approach

Vegetation community monitoring in the HTLN parks is designed to detect and describe changes in prairie, savanna-woodland and forested communities. There are three primary monitoring objectives:

dandelion
  1. Describe the species composition, structure and diversity of prairie, savanna-woodland and forested communities
  2. Determine temporal changes in the species composition, structure and diversity of prairie, savanna-woodland and forested communities
  3. Determine the relationship between temporal and spatial changes and environmental variables including specific management practices
Reports
Agate Fossil Beds/Scott's Bluff
James, K. M. 2010. Vegetation community monitoring at Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, Nebraska: 1999-2009. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2010/351. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado
 
James, K. M. 2010. Vegetation community monitoring at Scotts Bluff National Monument, Nebraska: 1997-2009. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2010/364. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado
 
2005 Report
 
2005 Scott's Bluff USGS Grazing Research Report
 
Effigy Mounds National Monument
James, K. M. and M. M. Guck. 2010. Logic-based approach to evaluating plant communities at Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2010/181. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
2004 Report
 
George Washington Carver National Monument      Resource Brief
James, K.M. and G.A. Rowell. 2009. Plant Community Monitoring Baseline Report, George Washington Carver National Monument. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/190. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
2005 Report
 
Herbert Hoover National Historic Site      Resource Brief
James, K. M.. 2011. Vegetation community monitoring at Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, Iowa: 2004-2009. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/143. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Resource Brief | Williams, M.H., S.A. Leis, and P. Christiansen. 2007. Evaluation of fire effects and restoration progress through 21 years of prairie vegetation monitoring at Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, 1982-2005. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/052. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
2004 Report
 
Homestead National Monument of America
 
Haack, J. L. 2012. Thicket Monitoring at Homestead National Monument of America of 2000 - 2010. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2012/270. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Resource Brief | James, K. M.. 2011. Vegetation community monitoring at Homestead National Monument of America, Nebraska: 1998-2009. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/144. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Resource Brief | James, K., and DeBacker, M. 2007. Plant Community Monitoring Trend Report, Homestead National Monument of America. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/028. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
2003 Woodland Vascular Plant Inventory
 
Hot Springs National Park      Resource Brief
James, K. 2008. Forest Community Monitoring Baseline Report, Hot Springs National Park. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2008/081. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial      Resource Brief
James, K. M. 2011. Vegetation community monitoring at Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, Indiana. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/194. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Pea Ridge National Military Park      Resource Brief
James, K. 2008. Forest Community Monitoring Baseline Report, Pea Ridge National Military Park. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2008/082. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Pipestone National Monument     Resource Brief
James, K. M.. 2011. Vegetation community monitoring at Pipestone National Monument, Minnesota: 1997-2009. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/145. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Resource Brief | James, K., and DeBacker, M. 2007. Plant Community Monitoring Trend Report, Pipestone National Monument. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/029. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve      Resource Brief
James, K. M.. 2011. Vegetation community monitoring at Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve: 2002-2010. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/146. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Resource Brief | James, K., and DeBacker, M. 2007. Plant Community Monitoring Trend Report, Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/030. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Sasseen, A., and DeBacker, M. 2006. Baseline Plant Community Monitoring Report, Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2006/019. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield
Resource Brief | Mlekush, K. E. and K. M. James. 2012. Vegetation community monitoring at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri: 2008-2011. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—
2012/234. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 

Mlekush, K. E. 2011. Chinquapin oaks on Bloody Hill, Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/155. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

 
Resource Brief | Leis, S.A., and K. James. 2008. Effects of multiple intense disturbances at Manley Woods, Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR- 2008/123. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
 
2003 Report on Tornado Damage
References
  • Collins, S.L. 1987. Interaction of disturbances in tallgrass prairie: a field experiment. Ecology 68: 1243 – 1250. Collins, S.L. 2000. Disturbance frequency and community stability in native tallgrass prairie. The American Naturalist 155 (3): 311 – 325.
  • Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C., 148pp. Johnson, P.S., S.R. Shifley and R. Rogers. 2002. The ecology and silviculture of oaks. CABI, New York, 503pp.
  • Knapp, A.K. and T.R. Seastedt. 1998. Introduction: grasslands, Konza Prairie and long-term ecological research. In A.K. Knapp, J.M. Briggs, D.C. Harnett and S.L. Collins, editors. Grassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • McShea, W.J. and W.M. Healy. 2002. Oak Forest Ecosystems: Ecology and Management for Wildlife. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 432pp.
  • Nelson, P.W. 2005. The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri, revised edition. Missouri Natural Areas Committee, 550pp. Oliver, C.D. and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics, updated edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 520pp.
Contact

Kevin James
Plant Ecologist (417-732-6438 ext. 270)

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid

orchidThe western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) is a perennial orchid native to tallgrass prairies from south-central Canada through the western central lowlands and eastern Great Plains of the United States (USFWS 1996). In 1989, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The orchid is classified as imperiled or critically imperiled in eight states (61 counties) and one Canadian province (NatureServe 2005). Approximately 90% of all extant plants in the U.S. occur in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Manitoba, Canada (USFWS 1996; Sheviak and Bowles 1986). Population size in these locales ranges from tens to thousands of plants. Most remaining populations are much smaller, however, consisting of fewer than 50 individuals (USFWS 1996). The orchid's decline is linked with prairie conversion and alteration of hydrological regimes associated with agricultural modification in the mid-continent (USFWS 1996).

Monitoring Questions and Approach
  1. How does the abundance and distribution of flowering individuals change over time and in relation to precipitation and fire?
    • Annual census and mapping of flowering individuals.
  2. What percentage of the flowers on individual plants form fruits?
    • From a sample of the flowering plants, count flowers and revisit the plants to count fruits and categorize their condition.
References
  • Bowles, M. L. 1983. The tallgrass prairie orchids Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt) Lindl. and Cypripedium candidum Muhl. ex Willd.: some aspects of their status, biology, and ecology, and implications toward management. Natural Areas Journal 3: 14-37.
  • NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: February 1, 2005).
  • Sheviak, C.J. and M.L. Bowles. 1986. The prairie fringed orchids: a pollinator-isolated pair. Rhodora 88: 267-290.
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Platanthera praeclara (western prairie fringed orchid) recovery plan. USFWS, Ft. Snelling, MN. vi+101 pp. (PDF)
  • Wilson, G.D., M.J. Page, F.A. Akyüz. 2006. Precipitation and fire effects on flowering of a rare prairie orchid. Great Plains Research 16:37-44.
Contact

Jennifer Haack
GIS Specialist (417-836-5313)

Wetlands

wetlandWetlands provide numerous ecological services. Wetlands are important sites of biodiversity, providing habitat for nearly half of all endangered species. As natural floodwater storage sites, wetlands store and assimilate nutrients and reduce stream erosion and storm water-caused flooding. Unfortunately, over half of the wetlands in the United States have been destroyed over the past two centuries. Roughly 90% of wetlands in Ohio have been eliminated. 

Human disturbances and invasive plants can alter natural wetland functions. Hydrological changes, such as increased storm water from upstream development or dewatering by drainage ditches and tiles, affect wetland water quality and quantity and often increase pollutant levels. Wetland size, hydrology, and biological composition may change as a result. Disturbances near or within wetlands create susceptibility to the colonization of invasive plant species, which often dominate plant communities. The National Park Service has documented over 1,500 wetlands at Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Non-native invasive plant species and pollution are identified as the major management issues for the park. The monitoring protocol in development will combine well-established Ohio EPA protocols (Mack 2004) with hydrological and chemical monitoring to document the condition of a subset of wetlands and to track changes in their quality over time. The protocol also includes a watershed-level analysis to evaluate how landuse affects wetland condition in specific watersheds. The monitoring data are designed to support park wetland management decisions and restoration efforts.

Monitoring Questions and Approach
  1. Document the status, trends, and natural variability of plant community composition parameters (i.e. richness, abundance, tolerance) in selected wetland types.
    • Wetlands intensively surveyed using the Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (Mack 2004) on a 5-year rotating panel.  Panel includes randomly select wetlands, wetlands of management concern and reference wetlands.   
  2. Document the status, trends and natural variability of local and watershed-level environmental variables potentially influencing wetland condition such as water depth, temperature, chemistry and land use.
    • Chemistry, habitat, and hydrological data will be collected to evaluate relationships with plant composition. Reference sites sampled annually to track natural trends from year to year.
  3. Document the status and trends in the relative abundance of invasive species in wetland communities.
    • General locations and size of invasive plant populations will be documented in plots and tracked over time.
Protocol
Currently in development
Reports
Cuyahoga Valley National Park
Wetland Vital Signs Report (NPS Only)
References
  • Brinson, Mark M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. USACE Technical Report WRP-DE-4.
  • Conly, M.F., G. Van der Kamp. 2001. Monitoring the hydrology of Canadian prairie wetlands to detect the effects of climate change and land use changes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 67(1/2):195-215.
  • Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetland and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., USA. FWS/OBS-79/31.
  • Faber-Langendoen, D., editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context. Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pp. + appendix (705 pp.).
  • Faulkner, S. 2002. Urbanization impacts on the structure and function of forested wetlands. Urban Ecosystems. 7(2):115-133.
  • Keddy, P.A. 2000. Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation. Cambridge University Press.
  • Mack, John J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment method for Wetlands v. 5.0, User’s Manual and Scoring Forms. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2001-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 401/Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, Ohio.
  • Mack, John J. 2004. Integrated Wetland Assessment Program. Part 9: Field Manual for the Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity for Wetlands v. 1.3. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2004-9. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetland Ecology Group, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio.
  • Peet et al. 1998. A Flexible, Multipurpose Method fro Recording Vegetation Composition and Structure. Castanea 63(3): 262-274
  • Reinelt, L., R. Horner, A. Azous. 1998.Impacts of urbanization on palustrine wetlands: Research and Management in the Puget Sound region. Urban Ecosystems. 2:219-236.
  • Tiner, R.W. 1999. Wetland indicators: A guide to wetland identification, delineation, classification, and mapping. Lewis Publishers
Contact
  • Sonia Bingham
    Wetland Biologist, Cuyahoga Valley National Park (330-650-4414 x3)
  • Craig Young
    HTLN Botanist (417 732-6438 x281)
update on 01/28/2010  |   http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/htln/    |   Webmaster
Please download the latest version of Adobe Reader :: Free Download
This site is best viewed in Internet Explorer 8.0