• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Site selection
 Field protocol
 Data synthesis
 Evaluation of the CERL approac...
 Literature cited
 Appendix






Title: Florida pilot study for the evaluation of created and restored wetlands: a report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00016669/00001
 Material Information
Title: Florida pilot study for the evaluation of created and restored wetlands: a report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Brown, Mark T.
Tighe, Robert E.
Best, G. R.
Hall, D. W.
Brandt, K. H.
Dollar, K. E.
Raymond, C. A.
Roguski, S. J.
Tennenbaum, S. E.
Publisher: Center for Wetlands, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1989
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00016669
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - AAA9286

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Site selection
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Field protocol
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Data synthesis
        Page 35
    Evaluation of the CERL approach
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
    Literature cited
        Page 50
    Appendix
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
Full Text












A FLORIDA PILOT STUDY FOR THE


EVALUATION OF CREATED AND RESTORED WETLANDS




A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



by



Mark T. Brown and Robert E. Tighe

with


G. R. Best, D. W. Hall, K. H. Brandt,
K. E. Dollar, C. A. Raymond, S. J. Roguski and
S. E. Tennenbaum











Center for Wetlands
Phelps Lab
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611


March 1989

















CONTENTS


INTROD U CTIO N ........................................... ......................... 1

SITE SELECTION .................................................................... 3

General Methodology ................. ................................... ..... 3
Selection of Eco-Regions ............................................. 4
Selection of Created Wetland Sites ........................................ 9
Selection of Reference Wetlands ......................................... 13
Summary ..... ....................................................... 20

FIELD PROTOCOL ......................... ................................... 22

Field Crew Composition ......................................... ................ 23
Transect Establishment ....................... ................................. 24
General Site Information ....................................................... 26
Characterization of Vegetation ............................................ ...... 28
Hydrology ................................................................. 32
Soils ................................................................... 33
W ater Quality .................. ... ......... ................................ 33

DATA SYNTHESIS .................................................................. 35

EVALUATION OF CERL APPROACH ............................................... 36

Qualifications for Field Team Members ......................................... 36
Adequacy of Training ...... .................................................. 36
Data Quality Objectives .................................................. 36
Quality Assurance Procedures ............................................ 37
General Comments Regarding Future Training ............................. 37
Efficiency of the Protocol ....................................................... 37
Assignment of Tasks ................................................... 42
Changes in the Protocol ............................ .................. 43
Changes Required Because of Regional
Characteristics ...................................................... 44
Utility of the Information ....................................................... 44
Vegetation Sampling .............................................. ....... 45
Hydrologic Sampling .................................................. 46
Soil Sampling ........................................................... 48
Water Quality Sampling ................................................ .48

LITERATURE CITED .......................................................... 50

APPENDIX ..... ............................................................... 51















INTRODUCTION


This is a report summarizing the evaluation and recommendations regarding a Wetland
Characterization Methodology developed by the Wetlands Research Program at the Corvallis
Environmental Research Lab (CERL) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
methodology was initially developed and tested using herbaceous freshwater wetlands in the
northwestern United States by a team from CERL. After this initial development and testing, the
methodology was further tested in central Florida using a team of scientists and technicians from the
Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, under a cooperative agreement with CERL-EPA. The
objectives of the Florida tests were to determine the applicability of the methodology to wetlands in
another region of the country, evaluate the field protocol and the various measurements conducted
during field trials, make suggestions regarding the suitability of measured parameters as a means of
evaluating created wetlands, and suggest how the methodology might be applied to forested wetlands.


The Florida tests were conducted during the summer of 1988. A team from CERL conducted a
training session for the Florida team and observed the first several field trials. Thereafter the Florida
team spent a total of 10 field days in 18 herbaceous wetlands, testing and evaluating the methodology.
The field trials were conducted in 2 separate weeks with over 1 month between the first and second
weeks. Between trials, team members discussed at length the methodology and field protocol and
modified them to reflect the conditions and difficulties encountered. After the second week of trails,
the methodology and field protocol were reviewed, leading to additional modification and refinement.


The data collected during the Florida trials from created and reference wetlands are presently
being summarized and evaluated. This report, then, is an evaluation of the methodology and field
protocol and does not include an analysis of data, nor evaluation of quantitative aspects of the
measured parameters. Once data synthesis is complete, a final report will be submitted as an
addendum to this report. A final section in this report, however, does discuss the appropriateness of
measured parameters as success criteria.


As a means of focusing the methodology evaluation, CERL provided a scope of work
organized as a series of posed questions to be answered. This report is organized to follow that
format.








2

An important component of the field methodology was a set of field data sheets developed by
CERL. These data sheets were designed to streamline data collection and to help insure the quality of
data that was collected. As the field protocol was modified, data sheets were modified to reflect the
changes. As a consequence, some sheets were changed several times, others were combined, and still
others were eliminated. An appendix is included in this report, containing all versions of the data
sheets used throughout the study. Reference is made to the appendix when suggested data sheet
changes are enumerated in the report.















SITE SELECTION


General Methodology


As originally proposed, the Florida Pilot Study was to apply the Wetlands Evaluation
Methodology to both created and restored wetlands and an equal number of reference wetlands.
After some reflection, however, the set of restored wetlands was eliminated for the following reasons:
first, the total population of restored wetlands in Florida was very limited; and second, there were
many complex questions related to the degree of restoration and its impact on the community
structure of a restored wetland. It was felt that these questions would add such complexity to the
analysis and interpretation of data obtained, that a much larger sample size (than was practical within
the constraints of this pilot study) would be necessary to give credence to any interpretations made.
As a result of these factors, the project concentrated on created wetlands. In addition to 9 created
wetlands, 9 reference, or comparison wetlands, were chosen for study.


Because of Florida's diverse climatic and geomorphologic character, it became apparent early
in the application of the site selection methodology that the final sites must be located within a
relatively small, homogeneous "eco-region." The small number of created and reference wetlands that
were to be used in these field tests made it imperative that variation due to climatic or geomorphologic
differences be excluded from the data base. Once the region was selected, the population of created
wetlands had to be of sufficient size to insure that there were enough candidate wetlands in the total
population to account for exclusions resulting from environmental conditions, human impacts,
inaccessibility, etc. Thus the selection process, which started at the state level, was aimed at selecting
an eco-region with a sufficient number of created and reference wetlands to enable final selection of 9
suitable wetlands in each category.


The selection process was organized in a hierarchical manner. First, a state data base was
accessed to identify the regions in Florida with the largest numbers of created wetlands. Second,
regional and local government agency files within these regions were consulted, and likely subregions
within each were selected. Third, physiologic differences within these subregions were taken into
account, and a final eco-region having a sufficient number of created wetlands was selected.












Once an eco-region was selected, aerial photographs and maps of the region were used to
select a population of reference wetlands from which the final 9 were to be chosen. To insure that the
population represented a full spectrum of reference wetlands, three categories of Landscape
Development Intensity (LDI) were used: highly developed, moderately developed, and relatively
undeveloped. One-third of the final number of reference wetlands were chosen from each category.


Specific methods for the selection of created and reference wetlands are given in the following
sections.


Selection of Eco-Regions

Criteria for study area selection were as follows:
1. The region had to have sufficient development activity and permitting
activity so as to yield a large concomitant population of created
wetlands, and

2. Each region had to be within one climatic region.



Regions with the largest numbers of created wetlands were selected from a data base provided
by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER). Given in Figure 1 and summarized
in Table 1 are FDER districts and the total number of permits issued for created wetlands less than 5
acres. Sites had to be within a reasonable distance of Gainesville to minimize travel expenses. From
the FDER data base and under the travel constraint, two sub-regions were selected from which final
eco-regions were to be selected. The first sub-region was in central Florida around the growing
Orlando metropolitan area, and the second was on the west coast around Tampa.


Once sub-regions were selected, permit files of FDER district offices were inspected to
further refine the data base and determine the sizes, types, and total numbers of created wetlands
within each district. Initially, the FDER District 3 (Orlando Metropolitan Area) was chosen for study,
primarily because of its proximity to Gainesville. However, the data base for this sub-region was not
complete or organized in a manner that allowed easy access to, and synthesis of, the necessary
information.


Further consultation with FDER personnel led to the selection of the sub-region around
Tampa, Florida. This sub-region, which encompasses Hillsborough County, was selected primarily
because of the extensive data base kept by the county's Environmental Protection Commission (EPC)
on all created wetland projects over the past 6 years. Since accurate records of species planted, year of


























1- Northwest District
2- Northeast District
3- St. Johns River District

4- Southwest District

5- Southeast District

6- Southeast Branch District
7- South Florida District


0 50 100
miles


Figure 1. Map of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Districts showing the
Orlando region (#3) and Tampa region (#4).











Table 1. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Groundwater Management System.
Number of permits issued (general permits excluded) 08/25/77 to 08/25/87 for
wetlands less than 5 acres.


Standard
County Short Form Form



Northwest District

Bay 2 2
Calhoun 0 0
Escambia 1 0
Franklin 0 0
Gadsden 0 0
Gulf 0 0
Holmes 0 0
Jackson 0 0
Jefferson 0 0
Leon 2 1
Liberty 0 0
Okaloosa 2 0
Santa Rosa 0 0
Wakulla 1 0
Walton 0 0
Washington 1 0

TOTALS 9 3




St. Johns River District

Brevard 5 2
Lake 0 0
Marion 1 0
Orange 6 2
Osceola 2 1
Seminole 4 0
Volusia 7 3


25 8


TOTALS











Table 1. continued.


Standard
County Short Form Form


Northeast District


Alachua
Baker
Bradford
Clay
Columbia
Dixie
Duval
Flagler
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Levy
Madison
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Suwannee
Taylor
Union

TOTALS


Southwest District


Citrus
De Soto
Hardee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Manatee
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Sarasota
Sumter


TOTALS











Table 1. continued.


Standard
County Short Form Form



Southeast District

Broward 7 3
Dade 4 3
Palm Beach 7 6

TOTALS 18 12

Southeast Branch District

Indian River 1 0
Martin 6 0
Okeechobee 0 0
St. Lucie 3 1

TOTALS 10 1

South Florida District

Charlotte 7 0
Collier 7 1
Glades 2 0
Hendry 0 0
Highlands 5 0
Lee 36 1
Monroe 12 1

TOTALS 69 3

STATE TOTALS 261 41










planting, site conditions, and follow-up site visits were kept by the Commission, this data base was
found to be far superior to any within the 2 sub-regions.


As the analysis of the Hillsborough County created wetlands data base proceeded, geologic,
topographic, and hydrologic evidence strongly suggested that the county was most appropriately
divided into two eco-regions (Sinclair et al. 1986; Vernon and Puri 1964; U.S.D.A. 1958). A line
paralleling and southeast of the Hillsborough River, which extends diagonally from Hillsborough Bay
to the northeast corner of the county, divides the county into 2 eco-regions (see Figure 2). The eastern
region is underlain by the Hawthorn Formation, composed of marine sands, clays, marls and sandy
limestone, while north of the river the region is underlain by the St. Marks Formation, composed of
sandy, chalky limestone. North and west of the Hillsborough River the topography is flat and the
cover material over the limestone and dolomite deposits is relatively thin, subjecting the limestone to
rainwater percolation and dissolution. The landscape is characterized by shallow depressions, most of
which are dominated by cypress. East of the Hillsborough River the topography is flat, and the land
gradually rises to the east, abutting sand covered ridges. Drainage is better defined and shallow
depressions are less frequent. Unlike the northern region, depressions in the eastern region are
shallower and are dominated by herbaceous cover.


It would seem that the eastern region was most suitable for this study because of the
preponderance of herbaceous wetlands. However, analysis of the created wetland data base showed
that there was not a sufficient number of created wetlands within this eco-region (a result of less
development activity within this portion of the county) to form a large enough population from which
to draw the final 9 study wetlands. Because the northern eco-region had more created wetlands, it was
chosen as the study area.


Selection of Created Wetland Sites

Created wetlands which met the study criteria were identified from the data base of the
Hillsborough County EPC. A total of 64 created wetlands in 31 developments throughout the county
were identified (see Figure 3). By far the largest concentration of created wetlands was in the
northern eco-region because of the outward expansion of the Tampa urban area.


The criteria used to identify candidate created wetlands were:
1. Size (less than 1 hectare),
2. Type (herbaceous vegetation),
3. Age (at least 1 year), and



































---1--


El


St. Marks Formation


Hawthorn


Formation


Other


Map of Hillsborough County showing two geologic formations that are basis for
distinguishing two eco-regions (from Vernon and Puri 1964).


I'


Figure 2.























0 1 2 3 4 5 i
S' 1 i I 8I i km
6 2 4 6 8 km


28


Figure 3. Map of urban area of Hillsborough County showing location of created wetlands.


314
*14











4. Intensity of maintenance performed since creation of the site (the less
maintenance, the more desirable the site).


After eco-region selection was complete, the total number of created wetlands meeting the
above criteria and residing in the selected eco-region was reduced to 20. In the CERL methodology
for selection of created sites, the next step is to number each of the sites and then randomly select the
order in which they are to be considered for inclusion into the study. However, because of the small
number of available sites, and the variety of conditions to be found in each, additional criteria were
developed to further refine the selection process. Final selection of the created wetlands required site
visits where the following criteria were applied:

1. The extent to which the created wetland approximates natural freshwater
marsh systems of the eco-region (i.e., created littoral zones of stormwater
ponds were least desirable; isolated, fully vegetated marshes were most
desirable),

2. Location of sites in an urbanized setting, and

3. Accessibility.


The first of these criteria was most important. Natural, herbaceous wetlands that were to be
used as reference wetlands occur most often as isolated, fully vegetated communities throughout this
eco-region. Seldom does one encounter naturally occurring herbaceous littoral zones, although many
development projects are now planting lake margins with herbaceous vegetation. Therefore, in order
to make relevant comparisons between reference and created wetlands, created littoral zones, for the
most part, were eliminated from consideration.


Another major factor in choosing created sites was the difference in hydrologic function
between the two types of systems. Natural marshes are shallow depressions in the otherwise flat
terrain. The hydrology of these systems is strongly tied to groundwater. Surface drainage is often
indistinct, and basin boundaries are often non-existent or overlapping. Outflow from these isolated
systems is either through downward percolation to groundwater or via evapotranspiration. When the
storage capacity of these systems is exceeded, the surrounding uplands become inundated.


Created marshes are usually designed to handle storm flows from surrounding developments.
As such, they are generally steep-sided and deep and significantly smaller in surface area than a
natural system with a similar storage capacity. While groundwater hydraulics may be similar to that of
natural marshes, the surface hydrology is significantly different. Contributing surface runoff into
these systems is generally well-defined, encompassing a pre-determined area of impermeable cover










(roads, buildings, etc.). Runoff hydrographs are generally quite peaked following a storm event, since
the initial storage of rainfall in soil layers is all but eliminated. Outflow is generally through a culvert
or spillway constructed for some given design-storm volumetric capacity. If such a design is
surpassed, excess water leaves the system untreated.


During site visits, extent of obvious maintenance and exogenous impacts were noted.
Candidates were eliminated if these two factors seemed to dominate. Because the engineering design
of most created wetlands resulted in hydrologic conditions as described above, this factor generally
had to be ignored when choosing the created sites. The final selection process yielded a final list of 9
created wetlands.


Although access to use the created wetlands as study sites was granted for all 9 systems chosen
by the above methodology, there was some reluctance by some of the landowners that necessitated the
inclusion of a clause in permission letters guaranteeing that site names or locations would not be used
in any reports or publications generated as a result of this project. As such, locations and descriptions
of the created sites are not given in this report.


Selection of Reference Wetlands

The problem of selecting a representative sample of reference wetlands was compounded by
two factors related to their purpose: they were to be used as a reference base, against which measured
parameters from created wetlands were to be compared. The first factor was related to the diversity
of herbaceous wetlands characteristic of the Florida landscape; there are numerous community types,
from flag ponds dominated by broad-leafed, rooted herbaceous plants, to deep-water marshes
dominated by floating plants. The second factor was related to urbanization impacts on isolated
wetlands.


As a result of these factors, the methodology for selection of reference wetlands differed from
that used in the CERL methodology. In the original protocol, all wetlands meeting the size and type
criteria are numbered and selected for consideration using random number procedures. More than
50% of the desired number are field checked for existence, and then permission for access is sought in
the order the sites were chosen.


In the modified selection process, wetlands within the eco-region were first identified. Next,
an area from which a subsample population of the entire eco-region could be drawn was determined
along a strip from the urban Tampa area to the rural northern portion of the county. Then, the
subsample population of wetlands was stratified into three categories of landscape development










intensity and randomly ordered in each category for selection. Finally, to develop the final list of
reference wetlands, each wetland was visited and scored based on visible evidence of severe exogenous
impacts. In detail, the process was undertaken as follows:


1. All herbaceous wetlands meeting size criteria within the eco-region were
mapped. To identify the total population of candidate reference wetlands, existing herbaceous
wetlands of a size class close to 1 hectare in the northern eco-region were identified using 1986 true-
color aerial photography (scale 1:12,000).


2. A sub-population of wetlands was determined. The extent of urbanization surrounding a
reference wetland is a very important variable. Observation of the developing landscape throughout
Florida over many years has shown a radius of decreasing negative impacts on wetlands surrounding
and extending away from urbanized areas (Brown 1986). Apparently, the more urbanized the
landscape, the greater the potential for exogenous impacts and the lower the ecological quality of
wetlands found within them. Community structure is greatly influenced by these exogenous impacts,
such as stormwater inflow and the increase of sediment and nutrients associated with it.


In order to measure the variations associated with increasing development intensity, an LDI
index was calculated for each wetland. To minimize the work effort in calculating the LDI, a sub-
region of the Tampa eco-region, in a band radiating away from the heavily populated Tampa area, was
selected instead of the entire eco-region. Using a mosaic of color infra-red photographs of the
northern eco-region, a location was chosen that included a full spectrum of development intensities
and the largest possible population of herbaceous wetlands. Areas east and west of the chosen sub-
region were less desirable because of the paucity of wetlands in the east and minor development
intensity in the west.


The sub-region selected was a 7 km wide by 24 km long transect beginning in the central
Tampa urbanized area and extending north to the relatively natural landscape at the periphery of the
county. This sub-region, and the 32 reference wetlands identified within this region, is shown in
Figure 4.


3. Wetlands within the sub-region were visited and scored. Each of the 32wetlands in
the study sub-region was visited to ascertain its existence and condition. Following this verification, a
methodology for calculating the LDI index was developed to compare the land use intensity affecting
each wetland.



























































Figure 4. Map of northern portion of Hillsborough County showing landscape quadrat (study
area) and location of reference wetlands.










Categories of development intensity were derived by estimating the percentage of land in
urban (U), agricultural (A), and undeveloped (natural-N) uses surrounding each wetland. Estimates
were made by placing a grid containing 36 cells and encompassing an area of 2.6 km2 (1 mi2) over the
1986 aerial photographs. For each wetland, the percentages of each land use within each cell was
visually estimated. Total area within each land use category was summed from the 36 observations.


Two indexes were derived from these data, based on the following equations:


[(%Ux 5) + (%Ax 5) + %N / 100 (1)
and
[(%Ux 10) + (%Ax 5) + %N / 100 (2)


Equation (1) gives equal weight to both urban and agricultural land uses, while equation (2)
gives higher weight to urban uses over agricultural uses. The first index suggests that impacts from
urban and agriculture use of landscape are equivalent, while the second index suggests that urban uses
impact wetlands greater than agricultural uses.


Table 2 gives the calculated values for both landscape development indexes for each of the
wetlands. The higher the number for each index, the higher the development intensity in the
surrounding landscape. After comparing the two indexes, equation (2) was chosen primarily because
experience has suggested that urban land uses impact isolated wetland community structure to a larger
extent (through overdrainage and other exogenous impacts) than does agricultural development.


Figure 5 shows the distribution of reference wetlands listed in Table 2 according to the LDI
index. In the top bar graph, the percentage of surrounding landscape within each land use is given for
each wetland. The bottom graph shows a frequency distribution. Three categories of landscape
development intensity were derived from the frequency distribution:

1. 4.0 5.5 (12 wetlands),
2. 6.0 7.5 (10 wetlands), and
3. 8.5 9.5 (10 wetlands).


Wetlands within each LDI category were randomly numbered. Each wetland within each
category was visited in order and either selected or eliminated. Criteria for suitability were (1)
apparent accessibility and (2) extent of exogenous impacts (where it was evident that the wetland had
been influenced by some recent exogenous impact [e.g., ditching, grazing, off-road vehicle use, etc.],
the wetland was eliminated).










Table 2. Landscape development intensity.


% of Area
Landscape Development Intensity

Marsh Urban Agric. Natural Index 1 Index 2


33.6
26.4
45.3
42.2
18.9

18.9
11.7
33.1
31.1
30.8

46.9
57.2
80.3
50.0
44.7

43.3
31.4
61.9
66.7
62.5

86.7
66.9
76.7
78.9
80.6

80.8
65.0
78.3
58.9
82.8

94.4
92.5


35.3
38.9
9.7
16.4
44.7

44.7
62.5
31.7
33.3
36.1

25.0
10.3
5.0
8.7
7.5

16.9
18.9
13.6
2.2
6.1

2.5
8.3
2.8
6.9
5.0

3.3
6.4
5.6
9.7
4.4

0.0
0.0


31.1
34.4
44.7
41.7
36.4

36.4
25.8
35.3
35.6
33.3

28.1
32.5
14.7
41.3
47.8

39.7
49.7
24.4
31.1
31.4

10.8
24.7
20.6
14.2
14.4

15.8
28.1
16.1
29.4
13.1

5.6
7.5


3.76
3.61
3.20
3.35
3.54

3.54
3.97
3.59
3.58
3.68

3.88
3.70
4.41
3.35
3.09

3.41
3.01
4.02
3.76
3.74

4.57
4.01
4.18
4.43
4.42

4.37
3.85
4.36
3.73
4.49

4.78
4.70


5.44
4.93
5.46
5.46
4.49

4.49
4.55
5.24
5.13
5.22

6.23
6.56
8.43
5.85
5.33

5.58
4.58
7.12
7.09
6.87

8.90
7.36
8.01
8.38
8.45

8.41
7.10
8.27
6.67
8.63

9.50
9.33


Index 1: Calculated using the following formula [(% Urban x 5) + (% Agriculture x 5) + %
Natural]/100.
Index 2: Calculated using the following formula [(% Urban x 10) + (% Agriculture x 5) + %
Natural]/100.









Land Use Distribution


5 6 7 17 2 9 10 8 15 1 4 3 161411 12292019 27 182223282426 13253021 3231
Marsh
1 Urban 1 Agrlc. Natural


4


/

7



.I=~/' ~


4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5


8 8.5 9 9.5 10


Landscape Development Intensity

Graphs of landscape development intensity index for reference wetlands showing (a)
wetlands organized by ascending index number (top), and (b) frequency distribution of
wetlands by index number (bottom).


7

6

5


Figure 5.


-












4. Permission for access was sought. The next step in the selection process was to solicit
permission from landowners to access the study sites. Using ad valorem tax maps of the county, the
landowners of each parcel where a potential reference wetland was located were identified and letters
requesting permission for access to the site were sent via registered mail. It was at this point that the
selection process broke down. Permission to access sites was obtained for only 2 reference wetlands.
Unfortunately, it is a characteristic of developing urban areas, particularly in a fast-growing state like
Florida, that much of the land is under absentee ownership. It therefore proved very difficult to
contact the appropriate landowners and obtain permission to access some of the more desirable study
sites.


In addition, some landowners were very negative, and even hostile, to the study of wetlands on
their properties. The high rate of growth currently experienced in Florida has resulted in substantial
regulatory control over the use and development of wetlands. Particularly when land is purchased for
speculation, land owners may fear a reduction of market value and increase of regulation associated
with the presence of wetlands on their properties. Such fears often translate into a reluctance to
cooperate with scientific research that may be perceived as a bureaucratic intrusion into individual
property rights. Because of these problems, the selection process for reference wetlands was further
modified.


5. Reference wetland selection process modified. The selection methodology was further
refined to select reference wetlands based on availability of access and then to classify them according
to their LDI index. From the initial efforts to select reference wetlands, 2 were selected, and field
measurements were performed during the first field week. To select the remaining 7 reference
wetlands, the region was widened to encompass the entire eco-region in north Hillsborough County,
and wetlands were identified that were on public-owned lands. It was necessary to limit the candidate
wetlands to those on public lands because of the limited amount of time remaining prior to the second
field week and because of the lack of success in obtaining permission from private landowners.


The total population of candidate wetlands were randomly ordered and each was field
checked. From this list, the remaining 7 were selected. Of the final 7 reference wetlands selected for
study, 5 were on 2 parcels of land owned by the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) and 2 were on lands owned by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Permission to study these sites was readily obtained.











Summary

The methodology for selecting created wetlands was straightforward. Once the total
population of created wetlands was known, the only important steps were to insure that they fell
within the same eco-region, that they fit the selection criteria, and that permission to enter the site and
make the necessary field measurements was obtainable. This last point proved to be relatively easy
since the agency that was requiring the mitigation still had some degree of "influence" on the
landowners, had shown a great interest in the pilot study, and agreed to cooperate with the project's
objectives by helping to obtain the necessary permission. In general, most landowners of created
wetland sites were very cooperative and in some instances quite proud of their "mitigated wetlands," so
access was easily obtained. Access to reference wetlands was not as easy to obtain and may, in the
final analysis, be the hardest problem to overcome.


It was our experience that a much larger number of landowners must be contacted to finally
obtain the necessary number of reference wetlands. If our success rate holds, then nearly 12
landowners must be contacted for every one "permission-to-access" received. In regions where there
are a large number of wetlands this may be possible, but the large number of necessary landowner
contacts begins to get unwieldy.


It is now quite apparent that the selection process using the LDI index was flawed simply
because the emphasis was placed upon getting a cross section of landscape conditions instead of on
getting permission for access to the site. In other words, the selection process was driven by achieving
a cross section of LDI's, and instead, should have treated the index as a measured variable for each of
the selected wetlands. It would therefore seem to be more prudent to identify all wetlands meeting
size and type criteria, randomly select and seek access permission, and then (since the process of
determining the LDI index is so time consuming) determine the LDI index for those receiving a
positive response. Wetlands should then be stratified according to the LDI index and final selection
made using a random selection process.


The addition of the LDI index adds a feature of comparability between wetlands based on
human influence on the structure and function of ecosystems. Although the number of wetlands in the
current study was small and, in the end, did not represent the full spectrum of landscape development
intensity, subsequent application of this technique will add to the data base and increase the utility of
the data obtained through application of the index.


As the Wetland Evaluation Technique is more widely used, a large data base of reference
wetlands will be needed in each region and sub-region where wetlands are being created. We believe









21

strongly that in the initial periods of application of the methodology, a ratio of 2 or 3 reference
wetlands to every created wetland should be evaluated. This is necessary to build an adequate data
base for comparison. Since the landscape conditions that affect wetland community structure vary not
only from eco-region to eco-region, but apparently from degree of development as well, it will be
extremely important that the data base include reference wetlands from a continuum of LDI's.
Therefore, it is necessary to include the LDI or similar index as a reference wetland selection criteria,
but not as the driving criteria.















FIELD PROTOCOL


Field protocols for a 6-member field crew broken into 3 field teams of 2 persons each were
provided by CERL. Included were specific assignments for each team member, specific variables for
which data were to be collected, and specific methods for data collection. Prior to the field exercise,
each team member became familiar with his or her individual responsibility and, generally, with other
team member's tasks. During the training session conducted by CERL staff, several changes to the
field protocol were proposed based on previous experience with techniques that have been used by
Center for Wetlands personnel over the past several years. Additional changes were made during the
2 separate field exercises conducted during the summer of 1988 and after additional assessment
following the field tests.


Of primary concern during the field trials was the potential for trampling of vegetation in both
created and reference wetlands as a result of the number of crew members and the number of times
that they were required to enter the wetland. Every step of the evaluation protocol was examined in
light of this very important consideration, and whenever possible the number of trips and number of
individuals entering the wetland were minimized. For the most part, many suggested changes to the
field protocol resulted in decreasing the potential for trampling. Since this was an overriding concern,
we mention it here as a preface to all suggested changes that follow because it often contributed an
added incentive for altering the protocol.


This section of the report is divided into 7 parts, covering the following areas:
Field Crew Composition,
Transect Establishment,
General Site Information,
Characterization of Vegetation,
Hydrology,
Soils, and
Water Quality.


Under each heading, a discussion of the approach, changes adopted during the field trials, and
further changes arrived at after field trials were completed are given. In each case a rationale is given











for the recommended changes. A summary of the recommended changes is given for quick reference
in the final section of this report.



Field Crew Composition


Field crew increased. Based on review of CERL documentation and training with CERL
personnel, which included a field trial, several changes were made to the composition of the field crew
prior to the field tests. The original field protocol called for 3 teams: 2 vegetation teams and a survey
team, each composed of 2 members. The initial change was to expand the field crew from 6 to 9
members. Two of the additional members were "alternates," who were included in case the
composition of the field crew was inadequate to complete the project in the time allotted and as a "fail-
safe" mechanism in case of sickness or other unforseen circumstance that would require a member of
the crew to return to Gainesville. The alternates were trained to assume positions as either recorders
for the vegetation teams or any position on the survey team. The ninth member was the project
manager, whose primary task was observation of the field team in action for later evaluation of
methodology, protocol, and timing of tasks.


Rationale: The addition of 2 alternates was proposed only as insurance that the
fieldwork be completed within the time allotted. Budget constraints and travel
distance to the wetland sites required that the fieldwork be completed in 2, 1-week
periods. Since the sites were 3 hours from Gainesville, the field team stayed in
Hillsborough County for each entire field sampling period. In addition, the fieldwork
had to be completed within a relatively short seasonal window to insure that seasonal
changes in species composition did not bias the data.

The rationale for the ninth member was simply to insure that the project manager
had ample time to observe the field crew in action without having to concentrate on
other duties.


Survey team expanded. On the first day of the field trials, it was found that adding 1 permanent
member to the survey crew expedited the completion of the tasks undertaken by that crew (see section
on General Site Information, below).


Rationale: As a result of changes to the survey team protocol, a third team member
was needed to minimize delays and increase the efficiency of the survey team. The
third team member collected all general site information while the other 2 members
surveyed basin morphology.











Creation of a water quality team. The "team" consisted of the remaining alternate, who
collected water samples from several sites to be surveyed on a given day during the required sampling
time.


Rationale: Since 2 to 3 sites were sampled during any given field day, and water
samples were to be collected during a relatively short period at mid-day, the additional
person was necessary to adhere to the quality assurance plan for water samples. The
need for 1 individual to collect water samples would probably not be a necessary
addition to the crew once the Wetland Evaluation Technique becomes operational.
Ordinarily, just 1 site might be done in a day, so the water sample could be collected by
the appropriate survey team member at the appropriate time. Should a situation arise
where more than 1 site was to be evaluated in the same day, a project member could
collect the water samples a day in advance of, or following, the sampling day.



Transect Establishment


Both vegetation and morphology transects combined. After considerable debate during
and following the first field trial, transect establishment was more or less standardized so that both
vegetation and morphology data were collected using the same transect. Not only does this increase
the efficiency of the field crew, but probably better reflects vegetation zonation, facilitating
comparison of community structure as well as species richness between created and reference
wetlands.


Rationale: Zonation of vegetation and open water habitats within wetlands is closely
tied to topography and to the hydrologic regimes that result from their configurations.
Morphology and vegetation transects should therefore be closely related.

Interpretation of the CERL Wetland Evaluation Methodology in the field on the
first field test-where the created wetland had a zone of vegetation around the
periphery and open water in its center-called for vegetation transects ringing the
wetland so as to "capture" the vegetation and morphology transects across the wetland
to best reflect the basin morphology. While this interpretation gave adequate
information about both vegetation and basin morphology, and the maps showed that
spatially there was an open water zone, inspection of the vegetation data alone would
not allow any "system level" or community level information to be generated.

Generally, the field teams' interpretation of the CERL Wetland Evaluation
Methodology resulted in the establishment of vegetation transects so as to capture the
maximum information concerning species composition within each wetland studied.
While the methodology called for establishing transects along gradients when possible,
it also called for locating all plots within some vegetation. For example, in the
scenario described above, with a vegetation ring around an area of open water, the
interpretation of the protocol established transects either perpendicular to the
elevation gradient (Figure 6a), or with the gradient but ending at the water's edge
(Figure 6b).

















a) CERL Scenario B, with CERL Methodology


1. ~.'~ Emergent vegetation


-'i.-^ Open water '*'
1 ~446-


c) CERL Scenario B, with Florida Study Methodology


b) CERL Scenario C, with CERL Methodology


d) CERL Scenario C, with Florida Study Methodology


vegetation


Figure 6. Comparison of 2 wetland scenarios for transect establishment using CERL protocol (a and b)
and CFW-modified protocol (c and d).











Since one of the purposes of the methodology was to determine if created wetlands
share characteristics of reference wetlands, it was felt that the methodology must
generate a data set from which comparisons at the community level can be made. In
other words, if transects are laid out to measure only vegetated portions of each
system, one gathers data only about species composition, while missing the larger
considerations of zonation and patchiness of vegetation. Thus, transects should be
placed not only to measure the most vegetation (as in Figure 6a and 6b), but also to
capture the community level organization of the wetland. This may best be
accomplished by establishing vegetation transects that follow basin morphology,
downgradient through the deepest portions of the habitat, and back up to the opposite
edge of the system (Figure 6c and 6d). Where the open water zone is large compared
to the vegetated zone, it may be difficult to achieve the required number of plots (40)
having vegetation. Under these circumstances, it may be necessary to establish several
vegetation transects that cross the wetland in parallel rows.

Natural, isolated wetlands in the Florida landscape are generally regular in shape,
and are usually circular, or very nearly so. Our experience indicates that created
wetlands are also generally regular in shape, although several shapes are common,
ranging from circular to square or rectangular. Both systems tend to have relatively
regular morphology. From these considerations, and the above discussion, it was
concluded that most small, isolated wetland systems in Florida-both natural and man-
made-can be adequately described using only 2 transects, these being measured for
both morphology and vegetation. Special or unusual circumstances may require more,
although several of the sites studied in this project that had more than 2 transects
could probably have been successfully measured with only 2.



General Site Information


Survey team. Based on changes to the survey team protocol, the survey crew was expanded to 3
members. One of the crew members drew the map, recorded general site information, and took
photographs, while the other 2 members collected morphological data. Soil samples were taken
following completion of these tasks, by any combination of the 3 survey team members, while the third
member checked and finalized data sheets.


Rationale: The primary changes in the survey procedure were predicated on the use
of the survey level for establishing perimeter points, thus eliminating the need for
"pacing off" distances and using a compass for finding angles between those points.
The level used by the survey crew (a David White/Path S-302-C6 Auto Level)
contained 3 cross hairs in the eyepiece. The middle cross hair reads elevation, while
the upper and lower cross hairs are used to measure distance. Distance from the
tripod to the stadia rod (in units of the rod) is determined by finding the difference
between the upper and lower readings and multiplying by 100. Since the middle cross
hair is equidistant between the upper and lower lines, distance can also be obtained by
finding the difference between the middle and either upper or lower cross hair and
multiplying by 200. The accuracy of the latter method is probably slightly less than the
former, but serves well when vegetation or some other obstruction prevents viewing
one of the outer cross hairs. Use of the upper and lower readings can also serve as a
check on the elevation reading.












Once the tripod location was established, the built-in angle compass in the level
was calibrated to magnetic North. Perimeter readings were then made at points
selected to accurately define the shape of the wetland, as well as note other important
characteristics, such as inflow and outflow points, landmarks, etc. Use of the distance
and angle readings allowed for the accurate delineation of each wetland shape, when
the data were analyzed in the office.

Following perimeter measurements, transect elevations were measured as per
CERL methodology. The distances and angles from the tripod to the transect
endpoints were also noted at this time in order to accurately place transect locations
on the maps.


Form changes. The forms involved in the tasks undertaken by the survey crew were (see appendix):
G-Sketch Map; H-Map Data; I-General Site Information; K-Environmental Photo Record;
M-Substrate/Hydrology Data; N-Photo I.D. Sheet; R-Basin Morphology Data; and S-Basin
Morphology Descriptions. Forms G, I, K and N were filled out by the individual drawing the map and
taking photos. These 4 forms were used as presented by CERL.


Form H was filled out by the level operator during measurement of the perimeter points.
During and/or immediately following the drawing of the map, the level operator and map-drawer
consulted to approximate the points as enumerated on form H onto form G. Because of the use of the
level to measure distances, changes were made in Form H. Column 4-labelled "Strides"-was
eliminated and was replaced by 2 columns-labelled "Stadia Readings" and "Distance." Each row
under "Stadia Readings" was subdivided into 3 rows, labelled "u," "m," and "1," for upper, middle, and
lower, respectively. These labels refer to the cross hair readings, as described above.


Generally, only 2 cross hairs were read and entered, due to the need for only 2 readings for a
distance measurement and the small space allotted for these data. When possible, the upper and lower
readings were made. Distance could then be computed, as described above, either following a reading
or at the completion of the task. Immediate computation was preferred in order to note gross errors
in readings; there was usually time to accomplish this task while the rod man was moving to the next
perimeter point. In order to avoid possible confusion in entry and subsequent computation of the data
for this task, it is recommended that the horizontal lines between the perimeter point rows be made
thicker than those between the cross hair rows, and that the recorder strike a line through the label
and space not used in the level readings.


In addition to the above changes, the notation for stride length was eliminated; the form was
shortened from 21 to 16 rows; and the benchmark/turning data columns were moved from Form R to











Form H. The latter two changes were made in order to combine Forms R and S into 1 form, the new
Form R.


Form S was found to be unnecessary and often a hindrance for the rod man to carry. By
combining a shortened version of the Form S columns onto the bottom of Form R, it was then possible
for the level operator to note any features that were described by the rod man, who was usually close
enough to voice these features with little difficulty. An additional piece of equipment which would aid
in this task, and would also help with elevation readings, is a pair of voice-activated head phones.


On the new Form R, the paragraph beginning readingsns shall be taken ..." was deleted. The
column for water depth was moved from the Form S area (the bottom of the new Form R), to the
elevation (upper) portion of the new Form R. In instances where there were long stretches of standing
water along a transect, water line readings on the stadia rod were substituted for elevation readings.
This speeded up the elevation reading process and is just as accurate as taking level readings. To
insure accuracy, at least 2 points were measured both ways, usually the first and last reading taken in a
stretch of standing water.



Characterization of Vegetation


The composition of the vegetation team remained the same in the Florida study as
recommended by CERL: two teams with a botanist and a recorder on each team. Some changes were
made in field methodology, however.


Transect establishment. Changes to the protocol for establishing transects were described
above. Two major changes to the protocol, related to marking of endpoints and sampling locations,
were made to increase efficiency and minimize trampling of vegetation.


Rationale: Transect ends were staked with a meter-long piece of 1/2" reinforcement
bar (rebar), which is easily pushed into the ground in most soil types found in Florida.
A 10-foot length of 3/4" PVC pipe was then slid over the rebar and marked with the
appropriate color and number of pieces of survey flagging. The height and white color
of the PVC pipe allowed for greater visibility, and thus aided in several aspects of the
study.

Rather than staking each vegetation plot and running twine in place of the
measuring tape, the tape was simply left in place following the establishment of each
transect. This eliminated extra work and trampling of vegetation, made it easier to
stay on a transect line, and also helped the survey crew in measuring elevations and











taking soil samples along the transects. It also helped avoid confusion as to which plot
the vegetation crews were working on.


Vegetation sampling basically consisted of 3 parts: identification and collection of species, use
of the Pielou Technique, and estimation of cover. Methodology and forms for all of these tasks were
modified throughout the Florida study, as described in the following sections.


Establishment of transect endpoints. The endpoints of combined morphology and vegetation
transects should be established as an even multiple of the plot spacing to minimize confusion when
marking plots for vegetation, soils, and elevation readings.


Rationale: To adequately describe basin morphology, it is necessary to establish
transect endpoints at some distance upland from the edge of the wetland. Often, the
distance is determined by morphology; then, when vegetation plots are begun at the
wetland edge their spacing is not easily read from the meter tape marking the transect.
It became apparent early in the Florida study (but was not always adhered to for a
variety of reasons), that transect endpoints should be established as an even multiple
of the vegetation plot spacing. During the second week of field sampling the problems
were discussed and the convention established, but was not adequately communicated.
Thus, most transects do not reflect this convention.


Identification and collection of species. In the original CERL methodology, species found
in each plot were first entered onto data sheets (Form C) during the use of the Pielou Technique.
Additional species found were subsequently entered onto the cover estimate forms (Form D).
Following the vegetation sampling, the botanists were then to survey the site for any additional species
not found in any of the vegetation plots and enter these on Form A, number VII. During the Florida
trials, the protocol was changed to first survey and identify all species likely to be found, then begin
vegetation sampling.


Rationale: On the first day of sampling, largely due to the field techniques of Dr.
David Hall, we quickly adapted the methodology to make all species identifications
prior to the vegetation sampling. In this way all 4 members of the vegetation team
became familiar with the species that were likely to be encountered, and the botanists
reached agreement on any uncertain species.

Upon arrival at a new site, the botanists surveyed the landscape and began
identifying species, starting with those which were most readily observed. The
recorders entered these on the herbaceous vegetation data form (D1). All species
likely to be encountered were thus already entered on the forms, while any new species
in the plots were added as they were found. In general, species were listed on the data
forms in their order of identification. This meant that the most common species were
listed first, and less common were found toward the end of the forms. The recording
of Pielou and cover estimates was greatly facilitated by this informal ordering process.











With this alteration of the field protocol, much time was saved in identification of
questionable species and during vegetation sampling, since species lists were already
constructed. Of minor concern was the fact that some species might be listed on
vegetation data forms without actually appearing in any plot. This was handled by
placing an "x" on the data forms next to species identified on the site, but not appearing
in any plots.


The Pielou Technique. The original CERL methodology for vegetation sampling called for the
Pielou Technique to be based on "k" number of species, "k" being determined before fieldwork began
and being constant for all study sites. This value would be based on a pre-sampling study in wetlands
similar to those to be sampled in the actual study. The protocol was changed by eliminating the use of
"k" number of species in favor of determining commonness based on specified time intervals.


Rationale: Herbaceous wetlands in Florida vary from those dominated by only 1 or 2
species, to some with dozens of different species. It was thus felt that commonness
was not related to a pre-determined number of species, but rather to the number of
species that could be readily observed within a specified time frame.

Four time periods were established for the observation of herbaceous species:
those found within 15 seconds, those found between 15 and 30 seconds, those found
between 30 seconds and 1 minute, and those found after 1 minute. Pielou observation
stopped at 1 minute, but any other species found during the cover estimate (see below)
were counted in the latter category.

In the first use of the revised Pielou Technique in the Florida study (May 16-20,
1988), species were numbered on Form D1 in the order they were observed, and
symbols were drawn around the number in the box of the species observed last in each
time period. That is, after 15 seconds, a square was drawn around the last number
written at that time, a triangle after 30 seconds, and a circle after 1 minute. During
cover estimation, the process of numbering species in the order observed was
continued.

Following this first sampling week, it was determined that sequential numbering of
species was unnecessary and occasionally interfered with the sampling. First of all, in
each of the time periods of observation all species found should be considered equal,
since those recorded first are those that happen to catch the eye of the observer. In
fact, in the first observation, more than 1 species are frequently noticed
simultaneously, and it is just the observer's choice as to which to call out to the
recorder first.

Upon review of the data sheets from the first sampling, it was also found that, while
both botanists generally found the same species in each of the time periods in their QA
plots, the order of recording was frequently different. This reinforced the point made
in the last paragraph. One last reasoning for eliminating sequential numbering was
that should a recorder erroneously number a particular species, one change could
require several numbers to be changed on the data sheets.

In order to standardize the use of the Pielou Technique, the methodology was
further refined for the second field sampling session (July 11-15, 1988). The time
periods were numbered sequentially, in decreasing value from most common to least
common. Thus, those species observed in the first 15 seconds were assigned the value











3, those observed from 15 to 30 seconds were assigned the value 2, and those found
between 30 seconds and 1 minute were noted by the value 1. Species not observed
during Pielou sampling, but found during cover estimation, were assigned the value 0.


Cover estimates. Estimation of the percent cover of a plot by each species remained the same as
prescribed by the CERL methodology. After further discussions of the cover estimate technique, we
have some suggestions that may increase the utility of the information gathered.


It has come to our attention that a Florida state agency concerned with the collection and
interpretation of vegetation data for regulation purposes will not accept data that shows greater than
100% cover for any single plot. At first glance this seems reasonable; however, the protocol used in
this study generates cover estimates greater than 100% for many fully vegetated plots, especially those
that have a higher diversity of species. The reason for this is that vegetation having different growth
architecture may occupy the same plot. For instance, low growing "ground cover" type vegetation may
cover a large portion of a plot as an understory below a higher canopy of herbaceous vegetation. Since
cover is determined a species at a time, it is quite possible (and quite common) that the total for all
species within a plot may exceed 100%.


We suggest that estimation of percent cover be done for differing vegetation strata, starting
with ground cover. Strata might be as follows: 0 to 5 cm above ground, 6 cm to 50 cm, and greater
than 51 cm. In this way some additional information is carried with the data set, and one avoids the
problem of having greater than 100% cover on any single plot. During these field trials we did not
alter the protocol to deal with percent cover in this manner; therefore, vegetation forms have not been
changed.


Form changes. In order to facilitate the recording of data, the Pielou Technique and cover estimate
for herbaceous species were combined onto 1 form: Form D1. Form C was eliminated. Woody
vegetation was measured only for cover estimate and recorded on Form D2. Since Form D1 was the
form most used by the vegetation team, it was mimeographed onto colored paper (pink), both to
differentiate it from the other forms and to minimize sun-glare for the recorders.


Following completion of herbaceous vegetation cover estimates in the second sampling period,
all species not found in any of the plots were marked through by an "X" in order to avoid confusion for
data processors. These were species noted during the initial ID procedure that would have been
entered on Form A in the original CERL methodology.











Hydrology


Procedure for determination of surface water depths changed. The CERL methodology
calls for measurement of standing water, or depth below ground to water table. This is undertaken
during transect morphology measurement for standing water and during soil sampling for depth to
groundwater table. The procedure for determination of both standing water and depth to
groundwater was changed. Standing water along the transect was determined using the stadia rod and
recorded on a revised Form R. Measurement of depth to groundwater during soil sampling was
altered somewhat to eliminate time between the digging of soil pit and reading of depth to
groundwater.


Rationale: Rather than measure standing water depth and ground surface elevations
at every location along the basin morphology transect, and since surface water
elevations are constant (assuming no irregularities that might impound water at
different elevations within the same wetland), a single elevation measurement was
made using the transit at the edge of standing water. The stadia rod was then used to
measure water depth along the entire submerged portion of the transect. A second
measurement of surface water elevation was made at the end of the standing water
portion as a means of checking water level elevation. The water line readings were
substituted for elevation readings where there were long stretches of standing water.

The determination of depth to groundwater table was performed during soil
sampling. The procedure was altered from the original CERL methodology.
Following the digging of the soil pit, the original CERL methodology called for the
initial measurement of depth to groundwater (if any), followed by a remeasurement at
least a half hour later to allow water levels to stabilize. Saturated wetland soils in
Florida, particularly in the upper layers, generally respond immediately to an extruded
soil core. A measurement of water depth after 1/2 hour, which in reality may be
somewhat different from one taken immediately, in all likelihood would be beyond the
detection limits of the instrument used for measurement. The additional time and the
required return visit to the soil pit was not warranted by the additional information
that may be obtained.


Form changes. To accommodate the changes made to the procedure for determination of
groundwater depths, the rows on Form M for "Time Soil Pit Dug," "Initial Depth ...," and "Final Depth
..." were eliminated and replaced by a single row entitled "Depth to Water." Depth to water below the
soil surface was recorded as a negative number, while standing water was recorded as a positive
number. There was much confusion related to convention when recording depth to water. Several
times when the water table was below ground surface, the depth was recorded as a positive number,
and on other occasions, it was recorded as a negative number. The convention should be standardized
and form M should be changed to reflect these conventions.











Soils


Soil samples are collected and measured, in the field for color and odor, and in the laboratory
for percent organic matter. Saturation of soil layers and/or the presence of groundwater or standing
water are also noted. In the Florida study, several changes were made in sample collection, and these
changes are reflected in alterations made to the data sheet, Form M: Substrate and Hydrology Data.
The changes included: collection of samples using a 3-1/4", open-sided bucket, soil auger, collection
of samples from 5-cm and 30-cm depths, retrieval of samples in a plastic "zip-lock" sandwich bag, and
determination of Munsell color at the vehicle instead of in the field.


Rationale: the soil auger is a superior tool for soil sampling, works well in both dry
and saturated soils, and allows for the easy removal of samples from both the top 5-cm
and bottom 30-cm layers of the extracted core.

The original CERL methodology allowed for either a comprehensive or limited
collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis. The comprehensive analysis
included samples from each of the six 5-cm layers in the soil core, while the limited
analysis included only the 0-5 and 25-30-cm layers. Due to both the expense of the
extra analyses and the limited usefulness expected from such analyses, only the limited
collection was performed in the Florida study. This is reflected by the elimination of
the four rows pertaining to the middle 4 soil layers from Form M.

Samples were immediately placed into numbered, sandwich-sized, zip-top plastic
bags upon removal from the auger. These were then carried until all samples were
collected and then brought back to the vehicles for Munsell color identification. Color
was easily observed through the bags, and this procedure protected the Munsell book
from continuous use by wet, dirty hands and made the process much easier. The
plastic bags also stored easier than the standard paper soil sample bags, especially
when placed in a cooler with slowly melting ice.



Water Quality


Sample collection for measurement of water quality was generally undertaken as prescribed by
CERL methodology. Two minor changes were instituted, however, resulting from previous
experience. First, sample bottles were prefixed at the laboratory that was to do water quality analysis,
and second, samples were collected from several sites by an alternate field crew member during the
required time period.


Rationale: Previous experience had shown that the complexity and danger of
transporting the necessary acids for fixing water samples in the field could be
eliminated by prefixing bottles and labeling them in the lab prior to commencement of
fieldwork.









34

Some difficulty was encountered in collection of samples during the required time
period when more than one site was sampled in a single day. We altered the protocol
in these instances to collect all samples from sites to be sampled that day by
dispatching one of the alternate field crew to these other locations during the
appropriate time interval. During actual field conditions this may not be possible
since field teams may not have the luxury of an additional crew member who may be
dispatched to different locations. Under these circumstances samples might be
collected on the day preceding or following the field sampling.














DATA SYNTHESIS



AN ADDENDUM WILL BE COMPLETED AFTER DATA ANALYSIS















EVALUATION OF THE CERL APPROACH


Qualifications for Field Team Members


The qualifications for each of the project team members is adequately addressed by the CERL
approach. The expertise required seems suitable to the tasks undertaken, although, as noted below,
the only way to improve the protocol would be to have several of the members with even more
interdisciplinary training than might seem realistic to expect.



Adequacy of Training


The training exercise conducted by the CERL team was a most important part of the overall
program. Through the training exercise our team members were familiarized with the approach and
were able to make several refinements prior to actual field tests of the methodology. Having the
CERL team present during these refinements enabled our team to suggest changes, get immediate
feedback, and adjust the protocol with ease. Had we begun field tests without the training sessions,
the learning curve would have been much delayed, compromising team efficiency and our ability to
have meaningful input into the adaptations of the protocol.


We believe that the following areas could be strengthened during the training exercises: Data
Quality Objectives and Quality Assurance Procedures.


Data Quality Objectives

During the training exercise, it is important that data quality objectives be stressed. It was our
experience that the field crew did not fully understand the objectives and therefore did not fully
appreciate the importance of procedures to insure quality of data. A general overview of the
methodology and its potential applications and therefore the implications on data quality should be
included in the training session. How this is done without "turning off" the field crew is a complex











issue. The trainers need to stress the utility of the data and the necessity of collecting high quality,
dependable data.


Quality Assurance Procedures

The vegetation teams found it useful to have periodic checks of their methodology of
estimating cover and the refined Pielou sampling. These checks might be called informal data quality
checks since they were done more often than required Quality Assurance measurements. Their
purpose was feedback between botanists related to their individual methods of estimating percent
cover.


The need for informal QA's is important, especially during the early phases of the work when
all team members are learning. The need for these informal checks might be reduced if the field
training portions of the training exercises were lengthened and allowance for comparative analysis of
cover estimates and Pielou sampling was built in. During training, at least 2 vegetation plots might be
measured by both botanists to insure they understand the QA procedure and as a means of checking
their procedures of estimating cover and Pielou measurements.


General Comments Regarding Future Training

The issue of "overexplaining" is a delicate one, yet one that has great implications on the
performance of the field crew and ultimately on the quality of the data obtained from the field
experience. It seems advisable that training sessions should be geared to the experience level of the
trainees. This may require two different, prepared training sessions or, at the very least, adaptable
trainers. When trainees have had little or no field experience, detailed sessions that provide abundant
explanation may be needed to adequately prepare individuals for what they might encounter in the
field. On the other hand, when trainees have had adequate field experience, little explanation of field
protocol may be needed, but the importance of QA/QC should be stressed (we have found that the
more seasoned the field person, the greater their lack of appreciation for QA/QC). Training of the
seasoned field persons) should take place in the field, with a minimum of classroom lecture.



Efficiency of the Protocol


The obvious desire for efficient sampling is to get the most information with the least amount
of time and effort. In addition, the efficient use of available personnel should result in all crew
members completing work at approximately the same time.











Timing of the various tasks depends on the conditions at each site. Diversity and density of
species affects vegetation sampling. Size, terrain ruggedness, and thickness of vegetation affect
morphological measurements. Substrate type and level of inundation affect soil sampling. Each task
may be affected differently at different sites, such that precise coordination of task completion may
not always be possible.


In conditions when morphologic sampling takes longer than vegetation sampling, the botanists
and recorders are able to assist in soil sampling, holding the stadia rod, etc. The reverse,
unfortunately, is not true, since only the 2 botanists are qualified to perform the vegetation analyses.


The various tasks were timed at several of the sites, with the results shown in Tables 3 and 4.
The timing for each of the individual tasks is shown in Table 3, with the overall time for each site given
in the last column. In some instances several tasks were combined; for example, the mapping and
taking of site photographs were timed individually at sites 102, 108, 201 and 202, but were timed
together at site 203. Similarly, the elevation readings of the transects were timed separately at sites
108, 109 and 201-203, but were combined at sites 205-208.


The times of each team, for all tasks of each team, are given in Table 4. Survey I, which
included drawing the map, taking photos, and collecting soil samples, ranged from 1:15 to 2:20, with an
average of 1:40. Survey II-morphological measurements-ranged from 0:45 to 1:45, with an average
of just under 1:15. Vegetation sampling, including initial plant ID, ranged from 0:45 to 2:00, with one
extremely diverse system taking 5 hours. Without the 1 extreme situation, the average time for
vegetation sampling was approximately 1:25, and when it was included the average becomes about
1:45.


Not included in these times were the post-sampling tasks, which primarily consisted of
completing and checking data forms. Overall, each site visit took approximately 2 hours, including set-
up and closure. A flow chart showing the approximate division of tasks among all team members and
times for completion is shown in Figure 7.


The division of tasks among the personnel is thus fairly evenly divided. It would seem that the
only way to have all personnel finish simultaneously would require that more of the team members be
qualified for different positions, thus allowing for any team finishing early to assist an unfinished
team. Primarily, this would require at least 1 trained botanist on the survey team.











Table 3. Timing of individual tasks, by site.



Perim. Transect Plant Vegetation Site
Site Map Photos Soils Survey Elevation Total* ID T1 T2 Total* Total


101 5:10
102 0:20 0:25 1:00 2:40
103 1:35 0:55
104
105
106
107
108 0:50 0:30 1:00 0:50 0:55 1:45 1:15 1:30 1:50 3:20 3:05
109 0:50 0:45 1:35 0:45 1:40 2:25 4:05 3:25
110
201 0:40 0:20 0:50 0:50 0:55 1:45 1:30 2:00 3:30 3:00
202 0:25 0:20 0:40 0:45 0:25 1:10 0:20 1:30 1:25 2:55 2:20
203 0:35 0:25 0:30 0:55 0:15 0:45 0:45 1:30 1:25
204 1:10 0:20 0:50 1:10 0:55 5:00 6:30
205 0:30 0:50 1:05 2:15
206 0:35 1:20 0:05 1:10 2:50
207 0:25 0:50 1:25 1:55
208 1:00 0:30 0:45 0:25 1:35 2:30


*The timing of tasks were combined at some sites.










Table 4. Timing of team tasks, by site.


Survey 1 Survey 2 Site
Site Map Morph. Vegetation Total


101 5:10
102 2:40
103
104
105
106
107
108 2:20 1:45 1:40 3:05
109 1:35 2:00 3:25
110
201 1:50 1:45 1:45 3:00
202 1:25 1:10 1:30 2:20
203 1:15 0:55 0:45 1:25
204 5:00 6:30
205 0:50 1:05 2:15
206 1:20 1:10 2:50
207 0:50 1:25 1:55
208 1:30 0:45 1:35 2:30












SProject Crew Arrives At Site.

--_ -- J -
Survey Team Vegetation Team

i ,-. -7 __.

bles 82 Collects S3 Distributes B1,82 Conduct Site R1,R2 Assemble
quip. Water Sample, Form Packets Reconnaissance, Eqipment
Y I -
Establish Transects


Conduct i S3 Takes Site Photos
er Survey \ ___

Plant LD: 1,2 Determine Species Present,
S3 Prepares Site Map I R1.R2 Fill Out Forms D1 and D2
Measure and Flls Out Site .
Elevations Decription Form
LJ
T-


S1 Completes S
Forms H and R S
i


2,83 Collect
oil Samples
_- ---


Vegetation Teams Conduct
Pelou and % Cover Procedures
~~sr~c~un


All Teams Disassemble Equipment and Check Fonm


1 Site Recon.
EstabMih Plant LD.
82 Transects
R1 Aseemble Record
R2 Equipment Spece

81 AsSem
81 Suvey Basin Perimeter
82 ple _
83 PI Fors hoto

000 0:15 0:30 0:45
Start


Figure 7.


Conduct Vegetation Transects



Check Forms
Survey Transect Elevations ---
Soil Samples
Draw Map
F F I


Flow chart (a) and block diagram (b) showing distribution and approximate timing of
tasks during field study.


_--
81 Asset
Survey E



81,S2
Perimet



81,82
Transect


I --











Assignment of Tasks

The original task assignments were based on 3 teams of 2 members each. As we have
discussed, the field survey team was expanded to 3 members, resulting primarily from alterations to
the survey protocol. Task assignments were thus changed somewhat and are reflected in Figure 7.


Task assignments for the 2 vegetation teams seem appropriate. The protocol for vegetation
teams was altered somewhat, mainly during initial site reconnaissance. These minor changes are
shown in Figure 7.


Qualifications for both teams seem reasonable. The more experience that each of the
botanists has, the smoother the operation of the vegetation teams. However, since both botanists
survey the site and identify most plants together, lack of knowledge on the part of 1 botanist is
compensated for through their collective interaction prior to beginning the vegetation survey.
Recorders should have some knowledge of common wetland taxa and species, and the more knowledge
of survey and mapping techniques they possess the more easily they may exchange positions or help
with survey tasks. There were only a few occasions during the Florida study when the vegetation
teams finished early enough that a vegetation team member could help with survey team
responsibilities. The reverse was generally the rule; that is, the survey team finished on numerous
occasions ahead of the vegetation teams (especially on the most floristically complex sites) and could
have been of assistance, had they had the qualifications.


The survey team seems to require the greatest diversity of training. Team members need to
know surveying techniques, soils, map making, and general field ecology. However, we found that
team members became comfortable with certain tasks and did not exchange positions, except when
required to do so during QA checks. This generally eliminated the need to have all team members
equally qualified in all tasks.


We did not observe any loss of quality of samples when done by different individuals. The
major difficulties were associated with data entry on forms on the few occasions when different
individuals took over a task they were not accustomed to (the different interpretations of depth to
water during soil sampling is the most striking example). Adequate training and review of data forms
to insure that they are explicit would seem to remedy most problems with data entry when switching
jobs.













Changes in the Protocol


The following outline summarizes the major changes to the protocol generated as a result of

the Florida field trials. These changes are discussed in detail in the preceding section, Field

Protocol.


SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROTOCOL


I. SITE SELECTION


A. GENERAL METHODOLOGY
1. ELIMINATED RESTORED WETLANDS AS A STUDY SET


B. SELECTION OF CREATED WETLAND SITES
1. SITES CHOSEN BY CONFORMANCE TO SELECTION CRITERIA, RATHER THAN AT RANDOM


C. SELECTION OF REFERENCE WETLAND SITES
1. DETERMINATION OF ECO-REGION TRANSECT
2. CATEGORIZATION OF SITES IN ECO-REGION BY LDI INDEX


II. FIELD PROTOCOL


A. FIELD CREW COMPOSITION
1. EXPANSION TO 7-MEMBER CREW


B. TRANSECT ESTABLISHMENT
1. MORPHOLOGY AND VEGETATION TRANSECTS COMBINED


C. SURVEY TEAM
1. EXPANDED TO 3 MEMBERS
2. USE OF SURVEY LEVEL TO MEASURE ANGLES AND DISTANCES, ELIMINATING PACING AND THE BRUNTON
COMPASS


D. CHARACTERIZATION OF VEGETATION
1. TRANSECT ENDS MARKED WITH REBAR AND PVC
2. TAPE MEASURE LEFT IN PLACE FOR DURATION OF VEGETATION AND SURVEY MEASUREMENTS
3. PLANT ID MADE PRIOR TO TRANSECT MEASUREMENTS
4. ELIMINATION OF "K" FOR PIELOU SAMPLING; REPLACED BY FOUR TIME CATEGORIES
5. DEVELOPED SEPARATE DATA SHEET FOR WOODY VEGETATION


E. HYDROLOGY
1. STANDING WATER ALONG TRANSECTS USED FOR DETERMINATION OF ELEVATIONS
2. GROUNDWATER IN SOIL PITS MEASURED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO RETURN MEASUREMENT


F. SOILS
1. SOIL PITS DUG WITH 3-1/4" BUCKET SOIL AUGER
2. SAMPLES COLLECTED ONLY AT 0-5 AND 25-30--CM LEVELS
3. SOILS COLLECTED IN PLASTIC BAGS
4. COLOR DETERMINED AFTER ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED


G. WATER QUALITY
1. SAMPLE BOTTLES PREFIXED AT LAB, PRIOR TO FIELD TRIP










Changes Required Because of Regional Characteristics

Changes to the CERL protocol resulted from the field crew's experience in sampling Florida
wetlands. Documentation of which changes resulted from regional characteristics and which resulted
from other factors is difficult to assess. Changes suggested were probably more a function of field
experience in wetland characterization than a function of differing regional characteristics.



Utility of the Information


The Wetland Characterization Method is designed to acquire information about vegetation,
soils, hydrology, and water quality from created and naturally occurring wetlands. The information
will then be used to characterize wetlands and for comparison of characteristics between created and
naturally occurring wetlands. It is important to draw the distinction between characterization and
comparison. Characterization is more easily accomplished (accepted) with a set of synoptic
measurements of parameters, while comparison between a created wetland and reference wetland
may require many more measurements over a period of time to be valid.


The evaluation of a created wetland, by sampling various parameters and comparing these to
reference wetlands, is subject to two drawbacks. First, the sampling of a created wetland "catches" the
system at one point in time, after a relatively short time interval since creation, and compares it to
wetlands that have existed over a much greater period of time. Second, the timing of the "snap shot,"
both in relation to the season and in the time since creation, has a significant impact on the quality of
data collected in relation to its utility as an indicator of successful creation.


To overcome seasonal variation, sampling should be conducted during the mid-to-late growing
season. To overcome variation resulting from time since creation, the evaluation of created wetlands
may need to be postponed until several growing seasons have passed, reducing the likelihood of
significant changes in species composition or zonation. Our experience with created wetlands in the
phosphate district of central Florida suggests that a period of 3 years (extremely variable, depending
on site treatment and existing conditions) is sufficient to eliminate early successional variation in
species composition and zonation.


Obviously, the need for an early evaluation of success may make a 3-year postponement
difficult to adhere to. Some balance between the need for early evaluation and waiting for the system
to develop some sort of floristic equilibrium needs to be achieved.











With increased use of the evaluation methodology, and greater experience with created
wetlands, the appropriate time interval between creation and evaluation may be more accurately
determined. It may be necessary (and productive) to sample at differing time intervals for differing
parameters. For instance, hydrology might be sampled in the first year after creation to determine
early if the created wetland has appropriate hydrologic characteristics.


The problem with comparing snap shots in time of created wetlands and reference wetlands is
not easily overcome. However, to reduce some of the objections related to reference wetlands, it
seems appropriate to establish a network of reference wetlands that are monitored continuously for
several years instead of selecting individual wetlands and sampling only once. A data base of wetland
characteristics (ecological, hydrological, and physical) organized temporally could be developed as a
means of establishing the range of conditions that are characteristic of particular wetland types. In
this way, one can avoid the problem of having collected data from a reference wetland during only one
site visit. In addition, the need to sample reference wetlands in conjunction with created wetlands
would be eliminated. The major shortcoming of developing such a data base is the number of
networks needed to satisfactorily cover the diversity of wetlands and eco-regions encountered.


As the number and variety of reference wetlands that are sampled increases with use of the
evaluation procedure, a data base of wetland characteristics will begin to develop. The need for a data
network of wetlands will then be of less importance. Nonetheless, it seems that early in the process,
either many reference wetlands need to be sampled or a data network needs to be established.


Expanded discussions of each of the parameters sampled and their utility follows:


Vegetation Sampling

The CERL approach required a minimum of 40 vegetation quadrats on 2 transects at each site.
At each quadrat, percent cover and an abbreviated survey method to determine commonness (known
as the Pielou method) were estimated for herbaceous vegetation. In addition percent cover of woody
vegetation was also estimated.


In natural ecological communities, a one-time sampling of vegetation composition may be a
practical device for characterizing the structure of the system studied. Although communities change
over time, the change is generally slow in stabilized systems.


Floristic structure of a created marsh may be simple or complex, with the amount of
introduced substrate and vegetation variable. In addition, a newly created marsh may experience
drastic change in its first few years of existence, with colonizing vegetation filling available habitat and










inappropriate species dying out. Thus, a single measurement catches a system only at one point in a
more dynamic situation than may be experienced in natural systems and may unduly credit success to
an intensively managed system or unfairly cite failure in a system which is slowly succeeding toward
equilibrium.


In order to truly characterize the success or failure of created systems, it may therefore be
necessary to expand the sampling period and gather information over several years. Rather than being
removed after the initial sampling, transects could be established so that they may be revisited from
time to time (perhaps annually or bi-annually) and measured again. The same plots should be
resampled, or new ones chosen randomly (or quasi-randomly-on other chosen points along the
transect). An alternate approach would be to more accurately delineate the zonation of vegetation
and relative spatial extent of open water each visit to characterize overall community structure.


An analysis of this kind would require either a more intense mapping survey, or the use of low-
level, large-scale aerial photography flown on a regular basis for several years. In the former, borders
of vegetation zones should be delineated by the survey crew during each sampling and measured in a
manner similar to that used for mapping the perimeters of each system. In the latter, using aerial
photo interpretation in conjunction with ground-truthing, changes in zonation may be determined.
This method has the advantage of eliminating repeated trampling of the sites, although costs may be
prohibitive.


The delay of sampling for a specified period of time to allow for some sort of equilibrium to
develop may be the easiest way to overcome the need for repeated sampling. A period of 3 growing
seasons may be sufficient for most herbaceous communities to become well established.


Hydrologic Sampling

Characteristics of wetland hydrology were documented during the sampling. Where there was
standing water, water depth was determined for each vegetation plot. Where soil pits revealed
groundwater levels, the depth to groundwater was measured and recorded.


The problem associated with measurements of surface and groundwater levels at a site during
the sampling visit is that the measurements do not reflect temporal hydrology. Seasonal and even
daily variability in water levels within wetlands, especially small wetlands and wetlands receiving
significant surface water inflows, suggest that a synoptic measurement may have little utility in
determining characteristics of the system's hydrology.











Depths and periods of inundation are probably the most critical factors in determining
wetland creation success. The documentation of hydrology in sufficient detail to determine water
depths and periods of inundation would seem to be central to evaluation of successful wetlands
creation. However, for hydrologic data to be of use in determination of hydroperiods, it must be
measured over long periods of time. A minimum of one year is necessary, and preferably
measurements over a drought-flood cycle should be obtained.


The establishment of hydroperiod records for a wetland may be used to correlate water levels
with the types and distribution of vegetation in the system. To accomplish this, semi-permanent water
table wells should be installed along a vegetation transect and monitored at monthly intervals. Ideally,
a continuous water level recorder should also be installed on at least one well to record major
fluctuations associated with rainfall events.


Monitoring of hydroperiod may also serve to compare the differences in surface runoff from
surrounding areas between reference and created wetlands. Since created wetlands, for the most part,
are constructed in urbanized locations, hydrologic inputs (especially surface runoff) may differ
markedly. Continuous monitoring may serve to quantify and document these differences.


Permission for monitoring of reference wetlands is generally easiest to obtain for lands owned
by government agencies. Such entities have no concerns about possibly negative results and, in fact,
often welcome the potential for additional information regarding the lands of which they are stewards.
Continuous hydrologic monitoring of created wetlands may be more difficult to accomplish, although
continuous hydrologic monitoring could be made a condition or requirement of permits for creation.
Recently, in some parts of Florida there has been a move toward requiring creation of mitigation sites
prior to destruction of the original wetlands. Under these circumstances, it seems quite appropriate to
require continuous hydrologic monitoring to determine if proper hydroperiods have been established.


The "snap shot" of water levels obtained on sampling day, when combined with basin
morphology, begins to give some approximations of potential water depths. While it cannot be used
effectively to predict long-term hydrology, the one-time measurement does serve to characterize the
physical environment of the wetland community on the sampling day. It is relatively easy to acquire
water level measurements during the sampling effort and, based on the importance of adequately
characterizing the site, water levels should be measured.











Soil Sampling

The CERL procedure required a soil pit to be dug at 25% of the quadrat sites. Odor, color at 5
cm and 30 cm, and depth to water table were to be determined at each location. Samples taken from
each location at 5 cm and at 30 cm were to be analyzed for percent organic matter content by ignition.


The structure and composition of wetland soils are the result of many years of hydrologic
fluctuation and vegetative decay. Created wetlands, on the other hand, cannot be expected to contain
much organic matter, unless quantities of organic matter were added during construction. "Mulching"
with soils obtained from a donor wetland has become a relatively common means of reducing
permeability and of providing substrate and seed bank for plant species establishment and
propagation. Comparison between the soils of reference and created sites may not yield significant
conclusions, since increases in organic matter resulting from deposition of wetland vegetation is not
expected for many years.


The determination of soil organic matter in a variety of created wetlands over a wide range of
conditions is a valuable data set for comparative purposes. As the data set on created wetlands builds,
comparisons can be made between newly sampled wetlands and the data set of all created wetlands.
Thus, the value of soil organic matter may lie more with the ability to compare between created
wetlands rather than between created and reference wetlands.


Determination of color and measurements of groundwater levels are data that help to
characterize the site. With these things in mind, and considering the potential comparisons with other
created wetlands, continued soil sampling is warranted.


Water Quality Sampling

Water samples were taken for determination of nutrient content, total suspended solids, total
organic carbon, and heavy metals (lead, cadmium, and aluminum). Sampling was confined to surface
waters and, where there was flowing water, the inflow and outflow were sampled.


Water quality sampling may be the least valuable of the measurements obtained during field
sampling. This is probably more related to the costs associated with analysis than with the information
that is generated. Characterization of water quality is just as important as soil organic matter or water
levels, related to developing an adequate "picture" of the site on sampling day, yet the costs may be
prohibitive.


The collection of a grab sample does not allow for much inference related to long-term water
chemistry, but may give some indication of gross abnormality. Comparison of water quality between a









49

created wetland and other wetlands (both created and reference) that indicates serious departure
from "normal" ranges may be important information that would suggest closer monitoring, resampling,
or reevaluation at a later date. However, the costs for analysis of water quality samples, and the
possibility of other variables that might give the same information, suggests that water quality
sampling may in the long run cost too much for the level of information obtained.















LITERATURE CITED




Brown, M. T. 1986. "Cumulative Impacts in Landscapes Dominated by Humanity." Pages 33-50 in E.
D. Estevez, J. Miller, J. Morris, and R. Hamman (eds.), Managing Cumulative Effects in
Florida Wetlands: Conference Proceedings. Sarasota, Florida: New College
Environmental Studies Program, Publication No. 37.

Sinclair, W. C., S. W. Stewart, R. L. Knutilla, A. E. Gilboy, and R. L. Miller. 1986. Types, Features,
and Occurrence of Sinkholes in the Karst of West-Central Florida. Tallahassee,
Florida: Water Resources Investigation Report 85-4126, USGS.

U.S.D.A. 1958. Soil Survey, Hillsborough County, Florida. Washington, D.C.: U.S.E.P.A., Soil
Conservation Service.

Vernon, R. 0., and H. S. Puri. 1964. Geologic Map of Florida, Map Series No. 18. Tallahassee,
Florida: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology.










FORM A: VEGETATION CHECKLIST


SITE NAME/CODE


STATE COUNTY


PERSONNEL NAME & CODE



Refer to expanded checklist and sampling protocol for greater
detail. Initial completed tasks. Specific task assignments are
indicated by personnel codes Team B consists of the Botanists
and Team R is comprised of the Recorders. Write "NA" in blanks
not applicable.


(Bl)


Crew leader determines transect locations,
notes weather conditions, and writes rationale for
the selection of transect locations on FORM B.


II. Species reconnaissance.
(Team B)
Pseudonym standardization.


(Team R)


(Team R)


Assemble equipment and data forms.


Transect establishment. Number of Transects:


Vegetation Sampling.
(Teams B & R)


Pielou Comparison FORM C.
Cover Estimates FORM D.
QA Re-Sample
Vegetation Photography FORM E.
Pseudonym standardization finalized.


B.
C.
D.
E.


Plant specimens collected.
(B2)
A. Unknown plants accounted for?


(B2)


List species observed but not sampled:


III.


IV.


V.


VI.



VII.


Date











FORM B: WEATHER CONDITIONS & TRANSECT RATIONALE Date

SITE NAME/CODE STATE COUNTY

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE (BI Crew leader)


WEATHER CONDITIONS:




VEGETATION TRANSECT PLACEMENT:

Vegetation gradient represented?

Elevation gradient represented?

No gradient random or systematic placement of transects?

Number of transects Total transect length for site m

RATIONALE:










BASIN MORPHOLOGY TRANSECT PLACEMENT:

Vegetation transects sufficient to determine basin shape?
If NO:
Vegetation transects extended to determine basin shape?

Total length of transect extensions: meters
If NO:
Additional transects placed to determine basin shape?

Number of additional transects:

Total length of additional transects: meters

RATIONALE:








FORM C: PIELOU COMPARISON

SITE NAE/CODE

PERSEINEL NAMES & CODES

QA Sheet? Y / N

Transect #_ Lengt


Date


SCME OUx


Page of


h- m


Sampling Interval m


Plot Numbers

Species Name Corrections
(Use during species I.D.) Species Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 17 8 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20


I I I I I


_ i I~..--~--L--~-~---iL--L









FCBM D: VEWE ITICN / PLOT CXOER
SITE NAME/CODE
PERSONNEL ~MES & CODES
QA Sheet? Y / N
Transect # Length


SIATE


m


COUNTY


Sampling Interval m


Quadrat Size m2
Plot Numbers


Species Name Corrections
(Use during species I.D.) Species Name 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 19 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Check to collect Unveqetated (%)
(B = Bare Ground
Check when collected W =Water)
''/ '~~~~~ ~~/Z

____Z________ _____
____Z____ ___ __ ___/

/ ~ ~ ~ Z IZ Z Z Z '

___z____ _ __/
__z __ __ ___ __/
____/ __________
___7____ _ __/_


Date


Page of


~










FORM DI: HERBACEOUS VEGETATION / PIFLOU & PLOT COVER

SITE NAME / CODE

TRANSECT L LENGTH m SAMPLING INTERVAL m

PERSONNEL NAMES CODES

OA SHEET? Y N : (oM A. minn. 0 min.


heck


PAGE of

DATE


COVER PRECISION
0-5% + 1%
-5-30% 5%
>30-o00o + 10%










FORM D2: WOODY VEGETATION / PLOT COVER

SITE NAME / CODE

TRANSECT # LENGTH m SAMPI

PERSONNEL NAMES / CODES

QA SHEET? Y / N


LING INTERVAL


PAGE of

DATE

COVER PRECISION

0-5% t 1%
>5-30% + 5%
>30-100% + 10%


QUADRAT SIZE = 5m2


_


I~ ,





FORM E: VEGETATION PHOTO RECORD
SITE NAME/CODE
PERSONNEL NAME & CODE


STATE


Date
COUNTY
(B2)


Page of
Include photographs of: vegetation patterns; interesting, unidentified, or
difficult to key taxa; plant species habit or habitat; and other wetland
features of importance. Use only one roll of film per record sheet.
PHOTOGRAPH DESCRIPTION FILM ID #
FRAME # SLIDE #


-----


:i










FORM F: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Date

SITE NAME/CODE STATE COUNTY

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE


Refer to expanded checklist and sampling protocol for greater detail.
Initial completed tasks. Specific task assignments are indicated by
personnel codes. Team S is comprised of the Surveyors.

I. (SI & S2) Assemble equipment and data forms.

II. _(S & S2) Qualitative Site Information completed.

A. (Sl) Sketch Map FORM G.
1. Indicate North.
2. Indicate transect locations, directions
and origins.
3. Indicate inlet & outlet, or pond
boundaries.
4. Indicate where water sampled.
5. Indicate access.
6. Indicate Vegetation Zones & Patches

B. (Sl) Map Data Sheets FORM H.

C. (SI & S2) Finished Map FORM G-1.

III. (S2) Descriptive Site Information FORM I.

IV. (S2) Water Quality Information FORM Jl.

(S2) Water Sample Information FORM J2.

V. (S2) Environmental Photographs FORM K.

VI. (SI & S2) Vegetation Transect Morphology Data FORM L.

Data for 40 Plots? Y / N (Circle One)

If No: Why Not?

Total number of vegetation plots:

VII. (S2) Vegetation Transect Surface Water FORM Ll.

VIII. (SI & S2) Substrate Data FORM M.

IX. (SI & S2) Soil Custody Log FORM O. Three copies: one
to be kept with the site data, one sent with
the soil samples, and one sent with the water
samples to their respective labs.
Continued on next page.










FORM F: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Date

SITE NAME/CODE Page 2



X. (SI & S2) Soil Sample Log FORM P.

XI. _(Sl) Basin Morphology Data FORM R.

Total number of basin morphology sample points:

XII. (S2) Basin Morphology Descriptions FORM S.

XIII. (S2) Site Record Photographs FORM T.










FORM F: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

SITE NAME/CODE

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE


Date

STATE


COUNTY


Refer to expanded checklist and sampling protocol for greater detail.
Initial completed tasks. Specific task assignments are indicated by
personnel codes. Team S is comprised of the Surveyors.

I. (SI & S2) Assemble equipment and data forms.

II. (SI & S2) Qualitative Site Information completed.

A. (Sl) Sketch Map FORM G.
1. Indicate North.
2. Indicate transect locations, directions
and origins.
3. Indicate inlet & outlet, or pond
boundaries.
4. Indicate where water sampled.
5. Indicate access.
6. Indicate Vegetation Zones & Patches

B. (SI) Map Data Sheets FORM H.

C. (Sl & S2) Finished Map.

III. (S2) Descriptive Site Information FORM I.

IV. (S2) Environmental Photographs FORM K.

V. (SI & S2) Transect Morphology Data FORMS R & S.

Elevation Data for 40 Vegetation Plots? Y / N (Circle
One)

If No: Why Not?

Total number of vegetation plots:

VII. (S2) Vegetation Transect Surface Water FORM S.

VIII. (SI & S2) Substrate Data FORM M.

IX. (Si & S2) Soil Sample Log & Lab Worksheet FORM P. Two
copies: one to be kept with the site data and
one sent with the soil samples to the lab.
Continued on next page.










FORM F: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Date

SITE NAME/CODE Page 2




X. (Sl) Basin Morphology Data FORM R.

Total number of basin morphology sample points:

Elevation Sample Interval:

XI. (S2) Basin Morphology Descriptions FORM S.











FORM G: SKETCH MAP

SITE NAME/CODE

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE


Date


STATE


COUNTY










FORM H: MAP DATA SHEET

SITE NAME/CODE

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE

Stride Length


STATE


m


Date

COUNTY


Page of


Station From Station To Bearing Strides Comments











Fbrm H: MAP DATA SHEET

Site Name/Code


Date

State County


Personnel Name & Code


Page__ of


NO TMN: Bencamark Readings
Initial Reading
rinal Reading
Error


TRN: New Bencinark?

N3:
1. 2nd Reading
Initial B.M.
2. Relocate Tripod
3. 3rd Reading
Initial B.M.

4. Final B.M.
Reading
5. Adjust-ent
(Diff of 3 & 4)


Plot #


Plot
(sam-e as 1)


Plot #


YES:
1. 2nd Reading
Initial B.M. Plot#
2. Establish new Benchmark
3. 1st Reading
Ne~w BeIrchark Plott
4. Difference between new and
initial benc-mark:-.
5. Relocate Tripod.
6. 2rd Reading
New Benchark Plot#
7. Differerre betwee-i 1st and 2r
Readings New Berc:mark
8. Final Reading
New Ber.cark_ Plot'
9. Adjustner.t


Station From Station To Bearing Ratiag Distance COzrments
u
111
7r
M
u

tm
i
,U.
________ T---



u
11
m



U






m
_U
m
I
u


11







11
1
m
1
m"







11
rn *



1.
u -





11

1
u -


li. __


-- --










FORM I: GENERAL SITE INFORMATION Date

SITE NAME/CODE STATE COUNTY

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE (S2)


I. % open water

II. % wetland disturbed

III. Indicate % dominant vegetation types & % non-vegetated area
(excluding open water) within the wetland.

A. % trees
B. % shrubs
C. % emergent herbs
D. % submergent herbs
E. % non-vegetated area (natural)
F. % non-vegetated area (disturbance related)

IV. Indicate % relative cover of surrounding areas within 100
meters of the wetland boundaries (should add up to 100%):

A. % forest
B. % meadow/field
C. % shrubs
D. % water body specify type:
E. % human disturbance
1. % cultivation
2. % industrial, specify type:
3. % housing
4. % highway
5. % grazing
6. % commercial
*** 1-6 should total the percentage value in E.


V. Comments:










FORM Jl: WATER QUALITY INFORMATION


STATE


SITE NAME/CODE

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE


Date


COUNTY


(S2)


I. Water present at site?


Yes / No


(Circle one)


Indicate:


Pond / Inlet / Outlet


(S2)


Water samples

OA samples


III.Time water sampled:


(Check
appropriate
boxes.)


a.m.


IV. Water Quality: Appearance:
Describe:


Scent:
Describe:


Clear / Turbid / Colored


Odor / Odorless


V. Water Flow:


I .


channel / uverlanu / NoU -uw

Stagnant__

Slow Flow

Rapid Flow


(Circle)

(Check
approp.
boxes.)


VI. Signs of Stress: algal bloom / deterioration of vegetation/ dead
animals / erosion / scouring / water fluctuation
disturbance / flow obstructions / other.
Describe:


(Circle)


,___ __, __,











FORM J2: WATER SAMPLE INFORMATION


SITE NAME/CODE


STATE


COUNTY


PERSONNEL NAMES & CODES



Water samples are to be assigned code numbers that relate them to their
origins. The procedure is as follows: The first three digits
designate the Site Code, the fourth digit designates Nutrients (N) or
Metals (M), the fifth digit designates Pond (P), Inlet (I), or Outlet
(0), and the sixth digit designates Sample Type: (QA = 1, Non-QA = 2,
Container blank = 3, and Field blank = 4).


(Site Code)


(N/M) (P/I/O) (1/2/3/4)


I. Number of Water Samples Collected:


II. Water Sample Code Numbers:






III.Fixative used (metals):


IV. Fixative used


(nutrients):


V. Comments:


Date










FORM J2: WATER SAMPLE INFORMATION


SITE NAME/CODE


STATE


Date


COUNTY


PERSONNEL NAMES & CODES



Water samples are to be assigned code numbers that relate them to their
origins. The procedure is as follows: The first three digits
designate the Site Code, the fourth digit designates Nutrients (N) or
Metals (M), the fifth digit designates Pond (P), Inlet (I), or Outlet
(0), and the sixth digit designates Sample Type: (QA = 1, Non-QA = 2,
Container blank = 3, and Field blank = 4).


(Site Code)


(N/M) (P/I/O) (1/2/3/4)


I. Number of Water Samples Collected:


II. "Standard" Sample lab code (if QA site):




III. Comments:


Sample Numbers


Received at lab by:


Date:


IV.


~











FORM K: ENVIRONMENTAL PHOTO RECORD

SITE NAME/CODE

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE


STATE


Date

COUNTY

(S2)


Page


Include photographs of: surroundings, wetland overview, representative
vegetation, animal activity, disturbance or obstructions, buffers,
evidence of stress (see Form I), the view down the length of each
transect (label by number), and other wetland features of interest and
importance. Use only one roll of film per record sheet.


PHOTOGRAPH DESCRIPTION


FILM ID #


FRAME #


SLIDE #







FIRM L: VEBUIETTICN ITRNSECT MACFHOLGY


SITE NWE/(CQDE


SETTE


COUNTY


PERSONNEL NAME & CODE

OA Sheet? Y / N

Transect #


Length m


Sampling Interval m


NO TURN: Benchmark Readings
Initial Reading Plot #1
Final Reading Plot #
Error


TURN: New Benchmark?

NO:
1. 2nd Reading
Initial B.M.
2. Relocate Tripod
3. 3rd Reading
Initial B.M.

4. Final B.M.
Reading
5. Adjustment
(Diff of 3 & 4)


Plot #


Plot #
(same as 1)

Plot #


YES:
1.


2nd Reading
Initial B.M. Plot#
Establish new Benchmark


3. 1st Reading
New Benchmark
4. Difference between
initial benchmarks
5. Relocate Tripod
6. 2nd Reading
New Benchmark
7. Difference between


Plot#
new and


Plot#
Ist and 2nd


Readings New Benchmark
8. Final Reading
New Benchmark Plot#
9. Adjustment
(Diff of 6 & 8)


Page


Date










FUCM LI: VEGEITATI 1 N TNSELCT SURFACE WATER


SITE NAME/CODE

PERSNIEL NAME & CODE


QA Sheet?


Y/N


This information shall be collected by the Surveyors concurrent with reading vegetation transect morphology data.


Transect #


Length m


Sampling Interval m


PLOT NUMBERS
VARIABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Water Depth (cm)
NW = No Water,
T = Trace
Flow: N = None,
S = Stagnant,
F = Flowing


Transect # Length m Sampling Interval m

PLOT NUMBERS
VARIABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Water Depth (cm)
NW = No Water,
T = Trace
Flow: N = None,
S = Stagnant,
F = Flowing


NOTES:


STATE


Page of










FORM M: SUBSTRATE & HYIDEOOGY DIIA

SITE NAME/CODE

PERSONNEL NAMES & CODES

QA Sheet? Y / N Transect #


Date


STATE


Length m


Page of


VARIABLE Plot # Plot # Plot # Plot # Plot #

Shovel or Auqer used?

Time Soil Pit Duq:
Initial Depth to
Water / Time: / / /_ / /
Final Depth to
Water / Time: / _/ / / /

Rotten Eqq Odor? Y / N Y / NY /N Y / N Y / N

Saturated? Y /N Y /N Y / N Y N Y / N
Depth Saturated To:
S (Surface), NA, cm cm cm cm cm cm
Distance from surface
to Visible Flow: cm cm cm cm cm
SOIL SAMPLES
COLTED Depth Mottles Deth Mottles Depth Mottes Depth Mottles Depth Mottles

0 5cm N Y / Y/N Y/N Y/ N

5 10 cmY / N Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N

10 15 cm Y /N YY / Y / N Y / N

15 20 cm Y /N Y / YY N Y/ Y /N

20 25 cm _Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N/ N

25 30 cm Y N Y N Y /N Y /N Y /L

Munsell Soil Color / / / // /










FRCM M: SUBSIB=IE & HYIRCBIOGY IYIA

SITE NAME/CODE

PERSC NAEL NMES & C(QES

QA Sheet? Y / N Transect #


Date


SEMTE


Length m


Page of


VARIAB.E Plot # Plot # Plot #4t Plot # Plot #

Shovel or Aucer used?

Rotten Ecq Odor? Y / N Y / N Y Y / N Y / N

Saturated? Y / N Y / Y Y /N Y / NY /N
Depth Saturated To:
S (Surface). NA., an Cm cm cm cm cm
Distance from surface
to Visible Flow: am cm cm cmn cm

Depth to Water: c___m cm c-- __m cm cm
SOIL SAMPLES
CO: Code MEttles Code Mottles Code # Mottles Code # Mottles ode Mottles



25 5 cm Y/N /Y Y N Y /
25 So,30 c._ Y /N Y .N.. / N .Y /N__ ,,Y /-N Y /N

Munsell Soil Color / / / / / / / / / /

Assign Soil Sample Codes using the following Format:


(Site Code) (Transect) (Plot Number) (Depth) (QA=1, Non QA=2)




PFoRM NA: PHOTo Tb Sm6EST


-A.


D,. a ..
2D
o '.4a


Code:


ite:


'-C












".' 4L:
/c47
W-.~




.'/~
/Wgi

ly I'.


Roll



"1


Code:


S~C&
~~;Sir~G

i,
$1~3~ '
~3~J
,P~tl~


Site


Photographer:


Film


- 4...
4 6


.-N


~ri"~


.,\
4^
I iB
"^QI

\^uJ~
^iS

c^~i
'^x".?=
1r f&ir
\1^'~
s'?1'.


. Z .
'.Z-N
*7^


CC~QI~I
~i t


,-^


ii
~C~-~










FORM O: SAMPLE CUSTODY LOG

SITE NAME/CODE

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE


STATE


Date

COUNTY


A copy of this form must accompany the soil and water samples to the lab
(Corvallis Environmental Research Lab ERL-C). The originals will be
included in the packets for each site. Numbers I III below are
completed by field personnel. Number IV is completed by CERL personnel.


I. Number of Water Samples collected:

Delivered to Lab Personnel: (Initials of field
personnel responsible.)

II. Number of Soil Samples collected:

Delivered to Lab Personnel: (Initials of field
personnel responsible.)

III. Method of Shipment to Lab: Carrier:

Refrigeration?

IV. Samples received at Corvallis Environmental Research Lab (CERL):

Date Received: Personnel receiving: (Initial)

Sample Condition: Good / Poor (Circle One)

Broken Sample Jars? Open Sample Jars?

Leaking Sample Jars? Other:

List Damaged Sample Numbers:


V. Comments:


[


I







FORM P: SOIL SAMPLE LOG


SITE NAME/CODE


PERSONNEL NAMES & CODES


Page of


The Surveyors (Team 3) are responsible for completing this form during soil sampling. Each soil sample
container is to be labled (using a permanent marker) with a unique code number that designates it's
origin. This code number is to be recorded on this form along with pertinent information regarding
transect number, plot number, etc. The procedure for assigning sample code numbers follows:


Soil Samples:


(Site Code)


(Transect) (Plot Number) (Depth) (QA=1, Non QA=2)


Sample Code #


Transect


Plot #


Depth


QA/Non-QA


QA Sample?


Comments


STATE


Date


COUNTY








FORM P: SOIL SAMPLE LOG LAB WORKSHEET


Field Information: Lab Information:

Site Code/Name Received by Date

Personnel Code/Name Processed by Date

Sample Coe Crucible cruc. + sample 'rue. + Sampl Sample Wt. Sample Wt. Co
Sample Code # @ 103 c os0 c @ 103 OC @ 550 OC commentss
























--- -4 -___ ____ _____ __ __ __ ___ __ ___ __ __


Page of


Date :










FORM Q: EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST


SITE NAME/CODE


STATE


COUNTY


PERSONNEL NAME & CODE



GENERAL SUPPLIES:


Clipboards (1 per crew member)
String
Data Sheets
Form Folders or File Folders
Water Jug for washing
First Aid Kit including
Bee/Insect bite and sting
medication.
Large rubber bands to go
around clip boards.


Waterproof Pens
Permanent Markers
Soap
Cups
Water Jug for drinking
Paper Towels
Cooler for food
Large plastic bags
Baskets to contain
equipment & supplies.


BOTANISTS EQUIPMENT


1-m2 Rectangular Quadrat
Plant Presses with blotters
and ventilators
6" Rule with centimeters


0.1-m2 Rectangular Quadrat
Trowel
Hand Lenses
Regional Flora


BOTANISTS SUPPLIES


Newspapers for plant pressing
Vegetation Forms


TRANSECT ESTABLISHMENT EQUIPMENT

100-m all weather measur-
ing tape (Ben Meadows
#122608 or equivalent)


SOne gallon Ziplock Bags
Pens


50 24"-Wooden Stakes
Two 5-lb. Hammers
Nylon Straps to bind
wooden stakes for carrying


TRANSECT ESTABLISHMENT SUPPLIES


Nylon cord or rope
Heavy twine


Red, Yellow and Blue
flagging


(Continued)


Date











WATER QUALITY SAMPLING EQUIPMENT

Two 200-microliter adjustable
Pipetmen (Rainin P-200 or
equivalent)
250-microliter clear Poly-
propylene Disposable Pipette
Tips (Rainin RT-96 or equiv-
alent)


WATER QUALITY SAMPLING SUPPLIES


1 Gallon Plastic Ziplock
Bags
Baking Soda
Container to hold Chemical
Bottles
Pens


Six 125-mi high density
widemouth polyethylene
bottles (x 2 for QA days)
_Mercuric Chloride Reagent
grade, 40 mg/l
Nitric Acid, 100-ml, ULTREX


Plastic Gloves

Plastic Aprons
Paper Towels
Goggles
Permanent Marking Pens


SURVEYORS EQUIPMENT


Two Brunton Pocket Transits
(3600 azimuth)
Florescent Flagging Tape


Dumpy Level & Tripod
(or equivalent transit)
Stadia Rod


SURVEYORS SUPPLIES


Graph Paper
3600 Protractor
Pens

SOIL SAMPLING EQUIPMENT


Sharp Shooter Soil Shovels
Heavy Duty Spatulas
Trowels
60 8-oz Soil Collection Jars
with Lids (90 for QA days)
Two 30-cm Rulers
Munsell Color Charts
(Ben Meadows #221900 & 221934)
Soil Corers (optional -
we found these rarely
effective when in water-
saturated soils)


Blank Paper
Metric Ruler


Large Spoon
2 Kitchen Knives (12 inch
blades)
10 Ice Chests
4 Large Buckets with
Handles
Spray Bottle with water
Wrist Watches
Carpenter's Aprons


SOIL SAMPLING SUPPLIES


Large Plastic Bags


Paper Towels










FORM Q: EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST


SITE NAME/CODE STATE

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE



GENERAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES LIST


COUNTY


Clipboards (1 per crew member)
Large rubber bands to go
around clip boards.
Form Folders or File Folders
Data Forms
First Aid Kit including
Bee/Insect bite and sting
medication.
Heavy String or Twine
Large plastic bags


Waterproof Pens
Permanent Markers
Cups
Cooler for food
Water Jug for
drinking
Paper Towels
Soap
Water Jug for
washing
Baskets to contain
equipment & supplies.


TRANSECT ESTABLISHMENT


At least four 100-m all
weather measuring tapes
(Ben Meadows #122608
or equivalent)
Red, Yellow and Blue
flagging
Several 24" Wooden Stakes
Two 5-lb. Hammers


Nylon Straps to bind
wooden stakes for carrying
At least four 1.5-m lengths
of Rebar (1/2 to 5/8 inch
in diameter)
At least four 3-m lengths
of PVC pipe (1/2 inch in
diameter)


VEGETATION SAMPLING


0.1-m2 Rectangular Quadrat
(dimensions: 0 .5 m X 0.2 m)
1-m2 Rectangular Quadrat
(1.5 to 2 m on the long side)
Plant Presses with blotters
and ventilators
Newspapers for plant pressing
Heavy Twine


Vegetation Forms
Regional Flora
Pens
6-centimeter ruler
Trowel
Hand Lenses
"Lunch sack" size
brown paper bags.


Date










SOIL SAMPLING


2 Bucket Augers
Trowels
8-oz Ziplock Bags
(extra for QA days)
Munsell Color Charts
(Ben Meadows #221900 & 221934)
Carpenter's Aprons


Ice Chests with ice
Two 30-cm Rulers
Spray Bottle with
water
Water for hand washing
Paper Towels
Permanent Marking Pen


WATER SAMPLING


Pre-fixed sample bottles
(provided by lab)
Baking Soda
Paper Towels
Pens
3 Liter Plastic Pitcher
Large Plastic Bags


Plastic Aprons
Plastic Gloves
Goggles
Permanent Marking Pens
Ice Chests with Ice
Ladle or Small Pitcher


ELEVATION


Transit or Builder's Level
& Tripod
Stadia Rod


Metric Ruler
Pens
Florescent Flagging
Tape


SUPPORTING DATA


Transit or Builder's Level
& Tripod
Stadia Rod
Florescent Flagging
100-m Measuring Tape
35-mm Camera with 50-mm
or shorter lens
35-mm color slide film,
ASA 100 or less
Pens


3600 Azimuth Compass
Graph Paper
3600 Protractor
Blank Paper
Metric Ruler with
divisions in
centimeters
Pencils
Erasers





FIMM R: BASIN MMPUHOEOGY


STE E _/a__ ____

PERS1WEL NAME & CQCE


Date


SIAE


Y/N


TRANSECT #_


LENH __m


SAMPLING INERVAL: 4m*


*Readings shall be taken every 4 meters along the transects except where microtopography is
aniaalous, ie. where humnocks, depressions, channels, etc. exist. In these instances,
readings will be taken every 1 meter. However, record the linear distance from the origin
at which each reading is taken.


Sample Distance
1Pint- (Wt-arc I


Stadia Vertical Relative
'warlim ru F m-Fc=#- Wl Mar


Sample Distance Stadia Vertical
pogyg- (g-ters) Readin Offset


Relative
Wil K-1--f in


1 0 _21__
2 22
3 23
4 24
5 25
6 26
7 27
8 ___28
9 _29
10 30
-11 ___31
12 ___32
13 33 _
14 _34
15 35
16 36_

17 __37
18 38
19 39
20 40


ND TUBM: Bencrmark Readings
Initial Reading
Final Reading
Error


TIEN: New Benchmark?

NO:
1. 2nd Reading
Initial B.M.
2. Relocate Tripod
3. 3rd Reading
Initial B.M.

4. Final B.M.
Reading
5. Adjustment
(Diff of 3 & 4)


Plot #


Plot #
(same as 1)

Plot __


1. 2nd Reading
Initial B.M. Plot#
2. Establish new Benchmark
3. 1st Reading
New Benchmark Plot#
4. Difference between new and
initial benchmarks
5. Relocate Tripod
6. 2nd Reading
New Benchmark Plot#
7. Difference between 1st and 2nd
Readings New Benchmark
8. Final Reading
New Bencmark Plot
9. Adjustment


QA Sheet?


Page of


YES:







Form R: Basin Morphology


State


County


Site Name/Code


Personnel Name/Code
QA Sheet? Y/N


Page of


Transect #_ Length m


Sampling Interval


Sample Distance Stadia Water Vert. Relative Sample Distance Stadia Water Vert. Relative
Point (meters) Read. Depth Off. Elevation Point (meters Pead. Depth Off, Elevation
1 __ 21

3 23__

4 24


6 26
7 27









14 34


16 36
17 -37
18 38



20 L 40

Sample Distance Topography PSampnle Distance Topography
Point (meters) Point (meters)
_1 _____ _____p2- ---- -- ----









FHCM S: BASIN E4HODIOGY ODESCRIZIPlC( S

SITE NAME/COIE __

PERSONNEL NAME & COUE


A Sheet? Y / N

TRANSECT #:


Page of


LEH __m


SAMPIlNG INTERVAL: 4m*


*Readings shall be taken every 4 meters along the transects except where microtopography is
anomalous, ie. where humnocks, depressions, channels, etc. exist. In these instances,
readings will be taken every 1 meter. However, record the linear distance from the origin
at which each reading is taken. This form is to be completed by the individual carrying the
stadia rod. Descriptions are needed of anomalous topography only (ie. note where hummocks,
depressions, channels, etc. occur along the transect).


Sanple Distance
nf; -+- Iit,--,-,- \


Topography Sample
tJ -1 'I -r h- VlI-


Distance
M~nttw \


Topography
I Ui w-'lr hrh l


1 0 21
2 22
3 23
4 24
5 25
6 26
7 27
8 28
9 29
10 30
11 31
12 32
13 33
14 34
15 35
16 36
17 37
18 38
19 39
20 40


NOlES:


Date


STMTE


COUNTY










FUMI S: BASIN MRPHIUJ)GY DESCRIPTIONS


SITE NWAE/COXE


STME


Date


COUNTY


PERSONAL NAME & CODE


IA Sheet? Y / N

TRANSECIT #_


Page of


LENIMM m


SAMPLIf3 INTERVAL:


Readings shall be taken at intervals decided by the crew leader along the transects except
where microtopography is anomalous, ie. where hummocks, depressions, channels, etc. exist.
In these instances, readings will be taken every 1 meter. However, record the linear
distance from the origin at which each reading is taken. This form is to be completed by
the individual carrying the stadia rod. Descriptions are needed of naomalous topography
only (ie. note where hunmocks, depressions, channels, etc. occur along the transect).


Sample Distance


Topography
/rh l-- -rrv


Sample Distance
at-r \ ivrt4- fMe-rC


Topography
tiwmmrwnr rch;annwl


"OitlU. I,_rL-o c_.LkI IDLIU i I-. I,,AnLne e cL.. .
1 0 221
2 2 22
3 __23
4 ___24
5 25
6 ___ 26
7 27
8 28
9 29
10 30
11 31
12 32
13 __________________33
14 34
15 35
16 36
17 37
18 38
19 39
20 __40










FORM T: SITE RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS

SITE NAME/CODE

PERSONNEL NAME & CODE


STATE


Date

COUNTY

(S2)


Page of

These photographs provide a permanent record of the wetland from a
specific vantage point. Researchers may return to this point in
subsequent years to photograph and document changes that have occurred
over time. Detailed descriptions of the point from which the
photographs are taken and their subjects are essential.

I. Indicate location of vantage point on Sketch Map of Site:

II. Describe vantage point (include pertinent landmarks):


III. Film ID #

IV. Photograph description


Frame # Slide #


Compass
direction


V. Comments:


~










FORM U: PERSONNEL


Name:


Date:


Primary Team Position (Circle): Bl B2 Rl R2 Sl S2


Additional Training (Circle):


B1 B2 R1 R2 Sl S2


Permanent Address:


Phone: ( )


OR (


Qualifications For Field Work:






















~~-----------------------------------------------








This form is completed by the Project Manager. Send all Form U's
to ERL-C within one week after field training.


May 2, 1988










APPENDIX

List of forms used, changed, or eliminated in the Florida Study


1st Week (*) 2nd Week (*)

Form CERL Orig. Mod. New Elim. Orig. Mod. New Elim.

A Vegetation Checklist x x x
B Weather Conditions ... x x x
C Pielou Comparison x x x
D Vegetation Plot Cover x x x
D1 Herbaceous Vegetation ... x x
D2 Woody Vegetation ... x x
E Vegetation Photo Record x x x
F Environmental Checklist x x x
G Sketch Map x x x
H Map Data x x x
I General Site Information x x x
Jl Water Quality Information x x x
J2 Water Sample Information x x x
K Environmental Photo Record x x x
L Vegetation Transect Morphology x x x
L1 Vegetation Transect Surface Water x x x
M Substrate/Hydrology Data x x x
N Photo ID Sheet x x x
O Sample Custody Log x x x
P Soil Sample Log x x x
Q Equipment Checklist x x x
R Basin Morphology Data x x x
S Basin Morphology Descriptions x x x
T Site Record Photos x x x
U Personnel x x x

(*) Orig.: Used in original CERL format
Mod.: Used, but modified from CERL format
New: New form, based on CFW modifications
Elim.: CERL form eliminated from use




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs