October 2022 Wetland Science & Practice

Wetland&Science Practice

Ralph Tiner WSP Editor

As summer is coming to a close, I’m looking forward to cooler weather, fall colors, and football. I don’t know how the foliage colors will be, given that we’ve had an extreme drought this summer in Massachusetts. Nonetheless the fall is always my favorite time of year. I’m also looking forward to my fall courses as I’ll be teaching field-based wetland delineation short courses in Illinois and New Jersey. This will be mixed with travel to the Southwest (Grand Circle area) and to Hilton Head (South Carolina). I’ll be trying out a new telephoto lens on these trips so I should have some material for a future “Notes from the Field”.

In this issue we have a few articles dealing with topics such as the conservation of the Everglades, an evaluation of vegetation indices for identifying wetlands in British Columbia, and about preparing podcasts on wetlands for a general audience. The first article (by Arnold van der Valk) describes efforts to protect the Everglades through the creation of a National Park. The second article (by Jace Standish and Julia Alards-Tomalin) examines the effectiveness of a few vegetation indicators for identifying disturbed wetlands in the Lower Mainland Fraser Valley region of British Columbia, Canada. The last article (by Eduardo Cejudo and Priscilla SánchezSantillán) describes their challenges in preparing podcasts about Mexican wetlands. In addition, Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães has prepared a notice for “SWS News” on her work with Marinus Otte on a documentary and a book about water and wetland management in rural Mexico. Tatiana also has prepared a "Call to Join Us" as the International Chapter seeks to expand its participants for the Latin America and Caribbean Region. In “Notes from the Field” you’ll see a time series of images documenting the recovery of vegetation in a portion of a freshwater marsh

that had been covered with swamp mats for a few years. Special thanks to all for their contributions. While we continue to seek contributions from members and others on projects they are working on, we’d really like to see contributions for “Notes from the Field” that can give readers a glimpse of what vegetation and wildlife you are finding in the wetlands you work in or visit. The material for this can be easily collected during a simple nature walk at a local refuge or wildlife preserve. I’m happy to continue my contributions to that section but would like to see images from other wetlands around the globe, so give it a go.

Meanwhile, Happy Swamping!

Highland wetlands “Páramos" in Colombia.

(Photo by Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães)

CONTENTS

Vol. 40, No. 4 October 2022 ISSN: 1943-6254

286 / From The Editor's Desk 288 / President's Address 289 / SWS Webinar Series 289 / SWS News 291 / International Chapter 292 / Save The Date 293 / Articles 310 / Notes From the Field 314 / Wetlands in the News 315 / Wetland Bookshelf 316 / WSP Submission Guidelines 317 / WSP 2022 Advertising Prospectus

ARTICLES

291/ From Wasteland to Tourist Attraction: The Creation of Everglades National Park Arnold van der Valk

300/ Importance of Vegetation for Identifying Wetlands in the Lower Mainland Fraser Valley region of British Columbia, Canada using Prevalence Index, Hydrophytic Cover Index, and Dominance Ratio Jace Standish and Julia Alards-Tomalin

307/ The Long Slog Through the Virtual Swamp: Making a Wetland Podcast in Spanish Eduardo Cejudo and Priscilla Sánchez-Santillán

COVER PHOTO:

A male Anhinga (Anhinga anhinga; sometimes called "snake bird" for its long neck or "water turkey" for its fanlike tail) drying off after a swim along the Anhinga Trail in Everglades National Park, Florida. The blue ring around its eyes means that it is the breeding season. (Photo by Ralph Tiner)

SOCIETY OF WETLAND SCIENTISTS 7918 JONES BRANCH DR., STE 300, MCLEAN, VA 22102 (608) 310-7855 WWW.SWS.ORG

Note to Readers: All State-of-the-Science reports are peer reviewed, with anonymity to reviewers.

Wetland&Science Practice

PRESIDENT / William Kleindl, Ph.D.

PRESIDENT-ELECT / Susan Galatowitsch, Ph.D.

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT / Gregory Noe, Ph.D. SECRETARY GENERAL / Leandra Cleveland, PWS

TREASURER / Lori Sutter, Ph.D.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR / Erin Berggren, CAE DIGITAL MARKETING SPECIALIST / Moriah Meeks WETLAND SCIENCE & PRACTICE EDITOR / Ralph Tiner, PWS Emeritus

CHAPTERS

ASIA / Wei-Ta Fang, Ph.D.

CANADA / Susan Glasauer, Ph.D. CENTRAL / Tim Fobes, PWS CHINA / Xianguo Lyu

EUROPE / Matthew Simpson, PWS

INTERNATIONAL / Alanna Rebelo, Ph.D. and Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães, Ph.D., PWS

MID-ATLANTIC / Jason Traband, PWS

NEW ENGLAND / Dwight Dunk, PWS

NORTH CENTRAL / Casey Judge, WPIT

OCEANIA / Phil Papas

PACIFIC NORTHWEST / Josh Wozniak, PWS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN / Rebecca Pierce

SOUTH ATLANTIC / Brian Benscoter, Ph.D.

SOUTH CENTRAL / Jodie Murray Burns, PWS, MEd, MS WESTERN / Richard Beck, PWS, CPESC, CEP

SECTIONS

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY / Beth Lawrence, Ph.D. EDUCATION / Darold Batzer, Ph.D.

GLOBAL CHANGE ECOLOGY / Melinda Martinez, Ph.D. PEATLANDS / Bin Xu, Ph.D.

PUBLIC POLICY AND REGULATION / John Lowenthal, PWS RAMSAR / Nicholas Davidson, Ph.D.

STUDENT / Steffanie Munguia

WETLAND RESTORATION / Kurt Kowalski, Ph.D. WILDLIFE / Andy Nyman, Ph.D.

WOMEN IN WETLANDS / Havalend Steinmuller, Ph.D.

COMMITTEES

AWARDS / Amanda Nahlik, Ph.D.

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH / Jeffrey Matthews, Ph.D.

HUMAN DIVERSITY / Kwanza Johnson and Jacoby Carter, Ph.D. MEETINGS / Yvonne Vallette, PWS

MEMBERSHIP / Leandra Cleveland, PWS

PUBLICATIONS / Keith Edwards

WAYS & MEANS / Lori Sutter, Ph.D.

WETLANDS OF DISTINCTION / Roy Messaros, Ph.D., Steffanie Munguia and Jason Smith, PWS

REPRESENTATIVES

PCP / Christine VanZomeren

WETLANDS / Marinus Otte, Ph.D.

WETLAND SCIENCE & PRACTICE / Ralph Tiner, PWS Emeritus ASWM / Jill Aspinwall

AIBS / Dennis Whigham, Ph.D.

Kleindl, Ph.D. Montana State University SWS President

Fellow SWS Members, SWS members have been working hard to get our 2023 meeting ready. We will meet at the Davenport Grand hotel in Spokane, WA, in the late spring (June 27-30, 2023). I am looking forward to meeting with you all again. Also, the leadership from the SWS board, staff, chapter, section, and committees are meeting this fall to discuss our continued work on our 2020-2025 strategic plan. We celebrate our successes, prioritize the work we need to do in the next two years, and discuss what we want in the 2025-2030 strategic plan. You can find a copy of the strategic plan on our website. Go to the About tab, to Governance, then to the bottom of the page (https://www. sws.org/governance/).

Global Reach is the third goal in our current strategic plan. Of course, we all have our specialties and backyard wetlands that fill our days and work. But one of the joys of our international society is learning about the great wetlands worldwide and the hard work of our global colleagues. I had the privilege of visiting Egypt this summer and was fascinated by how the Nile River has continued to support the fertile valley for multiple

millennia. Ancient Egypt is concentrated along the Nile’s length and its valley’s width. But really, it is the river, its wetlands, and the floodplain that shaped the culture. Below are images of Hapi, the ancient Egyptian god of Nile flooding. Some titles for Hapi are the “Lord of Fish and Birds of the Marshes” or the “Lord of the River Bringing Vegetation.” The image to the left is found at Luxor Temple (personal photo); however, historically, these carvings were painted as the image to the right (creative commons, Wikipedia). The blue colors represent the river, and the green colors represent the vegetation Hapi brings with the flood. On the right side of this image Hapi is tying together the Kingdom of Lower Egypt (the Nile delta) represented by the papyrus ( Cyperus papyrus ) with the Kingdom of Upper Egypt represented by the lotus plant ( Nymphaea lotus ) on the left. The tying of these wetland plants represents the union of the two kingdoms in 3,000 BCE. Ancient Egypt was a kingdom of wetlands!!

The modern Nile Valley necessitates complex management of sediment captured by several dams, diversions of waters to irrigation projects in the Sahara, and urbanization. Not too dissimilar to many wetland and water management challenges around the globe. SWS provides a wonderful platform to share our experiences and collaborate to find solutions.

William

ENGLISH:

October 20 | 1:00 PM ET

An Overview of the History of Wetland Management Practices

Dr. Andy Nyman

November 17 | 1:00 PM ET

Student Section Juried Student Presentation

December 15 | 1:00 PM ET

Retrospective of Research

Lifetime Achievement Recipient

SPANISH: December 12 | 1:00 PM ET

The Central American Waterbird Count: the first ten years / El Censo Centroamericano de Aves Acuáticas: los primeros diez años

Dr. John van Dort and Arne Lesterhuis

THANK YOU TO OUR 2022 WEBINAR SERIES SPONSORS

Book and Documentary of the “Water and Wetlands” Project in the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve, Mexico

Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Through the Fulbright Specialist Project ‘Water management in a karstic rural impoverished environment, FSP-P006854’, Dr. Marinus L. Otte (Editor-in-Chief of Wetlands) and Dr. Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães (Co-Chair of the SWS Internacional Chapter) worked in the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve (State of Querétaro, Mexico) with a multidisciplinary and multi-partner team in collaboration with representatives of the government, rural

communities, civil societies, and non-government organizations. The team also included students, professionals, and scientists from two academic institutions: North Dakota State University (NDSU), Fargo, North Dakota, USA and the Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro (UAQ), Querétaro, Mexico.

The team conducted an 8-day expedition across the Reserve in September 2021 to visit rural communities, springs, wetlands, lakes, dams, natural and artificial ponds (Figure 1), and wastewater treatment systems. This expedition engaged 300 direct participants in wetland educational activities such as courses, lectures, and workshops. The journey led to the creation of several outcomes (i.e., a book, a documentary, a series of short films, and a museum exhibition), which rely on establishing a ‘water dialogue’ among people in the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve.

SWS NEWS

The book entitled Insights into Sustainable Management of Water and Wetlands in the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve, Mexico will be available in three versions: English eBook, Spanish eBook, and printed Spanish version. The findings presented in this book demonstrate how conservation, sustainable management, creation, and restoration of wetlands are central to achieving a more prosperous, sustainable future for people and their natural environment. This publication emphasizes how wetland systems can support sustainable water management and identifies potential practices for implementation in the Sierra Gorda. It includes a comprehensive description of the methodologies used in the project. Knowing how and where to restore and create wetlands is essential to enhance sustainable water management and secure ecological services and functions, such as suitable habitats for wildlife, human well-being, and sustainable socio-economic development. The methodology used in the project could be replicated in other regions with similar characteristics and water-related issues.

The documentary and short film series entitled Water Talks were based on the expedition in September 2021. These audiovisual materials show perceptions about water from people who live on the reserve — from the bigger towns like Jalpan de Sierra to small communities in the upper mountains. It seeks to involve the audience in a discussion of water scarcity to promote a moment of reflection. Many of the issues (and solutions) that people from Sierra Gorda are facing (or proposing) could be expected in other regions worldwide. The project exhibition will be released in January 2023 at the Ximhai Sciences Museum, UAQ, and will include a wetland workshop for children.

Finally, this project was not a once-off exercise but is intended as the starting point for continued collaboration in wetland research, teaching, and outreach by scientists of both institutions UAQ and NDSU. Details of the project, documentary, short films, and book can be found at https:// uaqfulbrightspecialist.weebly.com

Figure 1. Artificial pond (locally known as “bordo”) constructed in the mountains (Cuatro Palos community in Querétaro State). It was intended to provide water for cattle, but the water, as you can see, has a high concentration of sediments during the rainy season. Adequate water management or the incorporation of wetland zones is crucial to improving this situation.

(Photo by José Emiliano Plata Ramos)

International Chapter - Latin America and the Caribbean Region: A Call to JOIN US!

Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro

The International Chapter was founded in 1986 and harbored foreign countries not included in other chapters (Ewel 2020). Since the 10th INTECOL International Wetland Conference in Changshu, China, in 2016, there have been two co-chairs, one for Africa and the other for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Currently, the chapter has 238 members, two co-chairs, and a 3-year term for leadership (International Chapter Bylaws and Standing Rules 2022). With around 70 members from Latin America and the Caribbean region, the Chapter's focus on LAC has grown in recent years. Most of the members are from Mexico (27 members), followed by Peru (15), Colombia (11), Chile (4), Argentina (3), Brazil, Puerto Rico, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Paraguay (1-2 each). However, many LAC members are spread worldwide, as in Canada, the United States, and European countries. Three of the members are certified as Professional Wetland Scientists by SWSPCP (Sylvina Casco from Argentina, Héctor Aponte from Peru, and Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães from Brazil/ México). On social media, SWS-LAC has more than 2K followers and counting.

Many of our efforts focus on promoting more opportunities for wetland scientists and practitioners from LAC and a more robust integration into the SWS community, which could lead to a new LAC Chapter. Since 2019 the chapter has hosted an uninterruptedly quarterly Spanish Webinar Series (in collaboration with the Webinars Committee) and, in 2020, started a new mentorship program, the HumMentor (in partnership with the Education Section). Additionally, in 2019, the chapter founded the Wetland Interviews Initiative along with members from the Webinars Committee and New Media Initiative (Kimberly Ponzio, Anna Puchkoff, Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães, and others) and has interviewed scientists from LAC. In February 2022, the Chapter hosted the first-ever meeting focused on the LAC region, with more than 70 participants and eight speakers (Patsy Milena Muñoz Barra, Marinus L. Otte, Gary Ervin, Gillian Davies, Kimberli Ponzio, Matthew Simpson, Rob McInnes, and Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães). This meeting offered a free-cost training course on “Scientific Publication on Wetlands” certified by SWSPCP. Also, we are very proud of had published the first-ever Wetland Science and Practice issue focused on a specific geographical region in October 2020. We thank the editor Ralph Tiner for supporting this idea and for all efforts to make it happen twice with the second WSP issue focused on the Latin America region published in January 2022.

A path for the future is to create a new chapter for the LAC Region. We seek active engagement from LAC members and more integrative collaboration with members from other parts of the world. We welcome your support on this effort. If you are interested in becoming a member of our wetland science community in Latin America and the Caribbean despite not being from LAC or living outside the region, please contact me at tatilobato@gmail.com. Please find below a list of our current Chapter activities for Latin American and the Caribbean Region (with links):

• Social media https://www.facebook.com/SWSLAC

• Wetland Interviews https://www.sws.org/wetland-interviews/ https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8NOIq5cy6-cKa5fld2EjMrXWdz9usTxA

• Webinars: Spanish Series https://www.sws.org/webinars/ https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8NOIq5cy6-eTmN4xoXvEU93x6D1OWGjM

• First-ever meeting of the SWS-LAC https://youtu.be/gibnEhIEjJQ

• HumMentor, mentorship program https://www.sws.org/hummentor/

• Wetland Science and Practice focused on LAC (see Oct 2020 and Jan 2022 issues) https://members.sws.org/wetland-science-and-practice

• Aquatic Botany Group (in construction)

• More about the Internacional Chapter https://members.sws.org/international-chapter https://societyofwetlandscientists.growthzoneapp.com/ ap/CloudFile/Download/p07GZvWr

CURRENT LEADERSHIP:

Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães, 2019-2022, 2022-2025 (re-elected) Latin America and the Caribbean region cochair

Alanna Rebelo, 2022-2025 African region co-chair

PAST LEADERSHIP:

Luisa Ricaurte, 2016-2019 (LAC region)

Ian Bredin, 2018-2022 (Africa region)

Fred Ellery, 2016-2018 (Africa region)

Elijah Ohimain 2007-2015

Marinus L. Otte, 2002-2006

Eric Gilman, 2000-2002

Armando de la Cruz and Francis Helioti, 1986

REFERENCES

Ewel, K.C. 2020. Society of Wetland Scientists: the first forty years. Wetland Science and Practice 37(3): 129-149.

International Chapter Bylaws and Standing Rules (created in 2018 and updated in 2022)

SAVE THE DATE!

SWS Annual Meeting 2023

Spokane, WA June 27-30, 2023

Mark your calendars! The next SWS Annual Meeting will be in Spokane, WA at the Davenport Grand Hotel, June 27-30, 2023.

Volunteer Interest Form

The SWS Business Office has created a new volunteer interest form. Complete this form if you're interested in volunteering your time and skills with SWS. We'll contact you when an opportunity arises that you would be a good match for. If you have any questions about this form or the opportunities to get involved, email us at info@sws.org.

Complete the Form Here

From Wasteland to Tourist Attraction: The Creation of Everglades National Park

Arnold van der Valk, Professor Emeritus Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology

Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011

Email: valk@iastate.edu

ABSTRACT

It took more than 50 years to change public perception of the Everglades from a wasteland that needed to be drained to a valuable natural resource that needed to be preserved as a National Park. The first attempts to stop the ongoing drainage of the Everglades started in the first two decades of the twentieth century. These early anti-drainage campaigns were led by progressive activist and journalist Frank Stoneman, Seminole activist Minnie Moore-Willson, and botanist John Kunkel Small. Their efforts failed. It was not until Ernest F. Coe moved to Miami in 1925 and established the Everglades National Park Association in 1928 that the movement to turn the Everglades into a national park made considerable progress. Coe first worked with fledgling U.S. National Park Service officials to get federal legislation passed in 1934 to establish an Everglades National Park. In parallel, he worked with Florida politicians, especially Governor and later U.S. Senator Spessard Holland, to get State support. While the National Park Service recognized the ecological significance of the Everglades, the State of Florida supported the Park’s creation primarily as a tourist attraction. To establish the Park, Florida eventually agreed to donate hundreds of thousands of acres of state land in the Everglades to the Federal government plus two million dollars to buy additional private land. Despite numerous setbacks, Everglades National Park was dedicated by President Harry S. Truman in December 1947. It was America’s first ecological park and the first to preserve a wetland.

Keywords: Ernest Coe, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, Spessard Holland, Minnie Moore-Willson, John Kunkel Small, Frank Stoneman

INTRODUCTION

"Its [Everglades National Park's] creation heralded changes within the national park system and broader changes relating to how Americans perceived and interacted with

the natural world. Its creation challenged ideas about the identity of national parks and, more broadly, the identity of nature in America. The Everglades is a subtropical wetland, not a temperate forest or mountain landscape. There are no dramatic geological features or culturally significant monuments in the Everglades. … Most importantly, this park was the first ecological park. It was not created [to] preserve geology, but to preserve an ecosystem and the biota of that ecosystem." (Wilhelm 2010).

Before I began to do research in the Everglades in the mid-1990s, I knew little about this wetland and Everglades National Park. Although I had not read the book, I knew of Marjory Stoneman Douglas’ 1947 classic, The Everglades: River of Grass. I also knew that this book had increased the visibility of this unique subtropical wetland and had raised awareness among the public and political leaders about threats to its endangered flora and fauna. In response to the publication of The Everglades: River of Grass, I believed a grassroots movement had developed to preserve this wonderful wetland, leading to the creation of Everglades National Park. Douglas’ book had made the Everglades arguably the best known and loved American wetland, i.e., the Great American Wetland (see Meindl 2000).

I was not the only one who believed this myth: “… Marjory Stoneman Douglas started the movement to save the Florida Everglades from development with her bestselling The Everglades: River of Grass, published in 1947.” (See entry on Marjory Stoneman Douglas on the American Environmental Leaders Website). This account of how Everglades National Park became established makes no sense. This is clear from two facts: (1) Everglades National Park was formally dedicated in 1947, only months after the publication of Douglas’ book, and (2) the federal legislation that authorized its creation was passed in 1934. This is not to suggest that Marjory Stoneman Douglas had nothing to do with the movement to establish Everglades National Park, but her reputation as a defender of the Everglades arose after the establishment of the Park (McCally 2004; Davis 2009). The actual story of how the Park came to be is more complicated and interesting than the Douglas myth.

Within the context of the history of wetland science, the creation of this Park is an important milestone. It marked a momentous change in how the public and politicians viewed wetlands in the United States. As illustrated in the long struggle to establish Everglades National Park, wetlands gradually went from wastelands that should be drained and converted to cropland or housing developments to a valued part of America’s natural landscapes. However, it was not the unique flora and fauna of the Everglades that convinced politicians, especially in Florida, that establishing Everglades National Park was desirable. It would

require demonstrating that creating a National Park in the Everglades would be more economically and politically beneficial than continuing its drainage.

The Everglades is one of the best-studied wetlands in the world, and numerous books describe its geologic origin, climate, flora, and fauna, ecology, hydrology, drainage, etc. including Davis and Ogden (1994), McCally (1999), Levin (2003), Carter (2004), Grunwald (2005), Lodge (2005), and Ogden (2008). Historians have also written extensively about the creation of Everglades National Park and its ecological, economic, and political significance, especially C. F. Meindl (1998, 2000) and Chris Wilhelm (2010, 2012, 2016). What follows, except when noted otherwise, is based on the work of Chris Wilhelm.

THE EVERGLADES

The Everglades is a wetland complex in southern Florida that historically covered most southern and southwestern parts of the Florida Peninsula. It is part of a large watershed (Figure 1) that begins south of Orlando with the Kissimmee chain of lakes that are connected to the Kissimmee River. The Kissimmee River flows south into Lake Okeechobee, a large but shallow lake. During the wet season (summer), water flows out of Lake Okeechobee along its southern shore. This water slowly flows southward through the Everglades, a wetland 60 miles (97 km) wide and over 100 miles (160 km) long, and eventually discharges through mangrove and coastal prairie into Florida Bay or the Gulf of Mexico. Its vegetation is a mosaic of sawgrass marshes intermingled with sloughs, cypress swamps, and tree islands in freshwater areas. The latter are found at the highest elevations. Brackish and saltwater plant communities are found along its southern and western boundaries.

Even before the Civil War, settlers in south Florida who wanted to develop plantations made proposals to drain the Everglades. No serious drainage, however, was attempted until 1882. Expanded dredging between 1905 and 1910 transformed large areas of the Everglades from wetland to farmland. Drainage canals continued to be dug throughout the first half of the 20th century. In 1947 in response to disastrous flooding, Congress created the Central and Southern Florida Project, which resulted in the construction of 1,400 miles (2,300 km) of canals and levees plus associated water control structures. By the 1970s, about 50 percent of the original Everglades south of Lake Okeechobee had been drained and converted into farmland or urban areas. Drainage and road construction, especially of the Tamiami Trail in the 1920s, significantly altered flow patterns in the Everglades, with water shunted to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico from Lake Okeechobee and to the Atlantic Ocean through a series of canals south of Lake Okeechobee (Figure 2).

Figure

ANTI-DRAINAGE CAMPAIGNERS

Opposition to drainage of the Everglades developed for three reasons (Wilhelm 2012): 1) the failure and expense to taxpayers of drainage projects (Frank Stoneman), 2) the need to obtain undrained land for the Seminoles to preserve their culture (Minnie Moore-Willson), and 3) the destruction of natural areas and resulting threats to plant and animal species (John Kunkel Small).

Progressives like Frank Stoneman and Minnie MooreWillson led the initial opposition to drainage. Progressives sought political and social reforms that addressed problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration,

Figure 1. Overflow and swamp lands in South Florida. (Source: Will Wallace Harney. 1884. Drainage of the Everglades. Harper's New Monthly Magazine, p. 599).

2. Original (historic) and post-drainage (current) water flow patterns in the Everglades watershed (courtesy of Everglades National Park/NPS).

and political corruption. Most progressives came from the middle class (lawyers, journalists, teachers, ministers, etc.). Progressives believed that the old ways of doing things were inefficient, unfair, and frequently corrupt; they favored prohibition, women’s suffrage, unionization, and efficiency. Above all, the progressives valued professionalism and scientific expertise. Old ways of doing business were identified that needed modernizing by applying appropriate scientific, medical, or engineering solutions. The progressive era lasted about 20 years, from the mid-1890s to the start of World War I.

cost-effective, would result in drained land being owned by large companies, and the consequences of drainage had not been adequately studied. For years, he railed in his editorials in the Miami Herald against drainage projects supported by Florida Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward (18571910; governor 1905-1909) and other politicians (Meindl 1998, Wilhelm 2012).

MINNIE MOORE-WILLSON (1859-1937)

FRANK STONEMAN (1857-1941)

Frank Stoneman (Figure 3), Marjory Stoneman Douglas' father, migrated to Florida in the 1890s, eventually ending up in Miami. After moving to Miami, he helped establish a newspaper that became the Miami Herald. As its editor (1910-1941), he began criticizing attempts to drain the Everglades because they did not measure up to his progressive ideals. For him, publicly funded drainage projects

Minnie Moore-Willson (Figure 4) was a Seminole rights activist who fought against the drainage of the Everglades because she believed it would further destroy the Seminole’s traditional culture. She first came to Kissimmee, Florida, during the winter in the late 19th Century. There she met members of a local Seminole group and became interested in their plight, especially their lack of any kind of homeland or reservation.

Florida’s Seminoles are mostly descendent of the Creek people who had lived in southern Georgia and Alabama. Creeks who refused to be relocated in the early 19th Century to Indian Territory west of Mississippi, moved south into Florida to avoid deportation. Over the years, the Seminoles assimilated enslaved people and other native peoples. White settlers forced them further south in Florida and eventually into the Everglades because of the Seminole Wars (1817–18, 1835–42, and 1855–58).

Moore-Willson believed that the culture of the Seminoles was the product of their relationships with the Everglades and feared that further white settlement would lead to the destruction of the Seminoles. She saw the Everglades as an unchanging landscape that only Seminoles could understand and occupy in harmony with its plants and animals. In other words, for her, the Seminoles were noble savages who were a part of nature (Wilhelm 2012; Joshi 2014). Moore-Willson (1910) authored an influential book, The Seminoles of Florida, first published in 1896. In her numerous writings and talks, Moore-Willson overlooked many of the realities of Seminole history, including how long they had lived in the Everglades and their role in the plume trade (Joshi 2014). Although much of the information in her book was unreliable, it did help to promote the Seminole cause for a reservation in the Everglades.

should be: 1) carefully planned by experts, 2) efficiently carried out, 3) cost-effectively managed, and 4) fiscally transparent. Like most progressives, Stoneman viewed the Everglades as a resource, as did most of his fellow Floridians in the early 20th Century. The Everglades was viewed as a wasteland, and progressive reformers like Stoneman advocated its drainage to convert it to productive farmland. However Stoneman differed from his fellow progressives because he viewed the Everglades as too large to drain efficiently. He also believed drainage projects were not

Moore-Willson also worked with the Florida Audubon Society to protect the Everglades' wading and other birds. She argued that the Seminoles and the birds would live harmoniously in an Everglades reservation. Another important organization to which she belonged was the Florida Federation of Women’s Clubs (FFWC). During the progressive era, the FFWC began to flex its political muscle by becoming involved in many political, social, conservation, and economic issues, including Seminole rights and conservation of natural areas. In 1916, the Royal Palm State Park was created because of a campaign by the FFWC (Vance

Figure 3. Frank Stoneman (courtesy of Florida Memory).

1976; Davis 2009). It was the first protected area in the Everglades and later would become part of Everglades National Park. Moore-Willson’s efforts through the Audubon Society, FFWC, and other organizations to apply pressure on Florida politicians to stop drainage of the Everglades and to create a reservation for the Seminoles resulted in legislation by the State of Florida in 1917 to establish a Seminole reservation in the southwestern part of the Everglades. Moore-Willson advocated for this reservation to be an undrained section of the Everglades. Other supporters of this reservation, including FFWC leaders, wanted it to be drained land suitable for farming.

JOHN KUNKEL SMALL (1869-1938)

By the early 20th Century, naturalists and biologists working in south Florida had begun to worry about the Everglades' destruction and other natural areas because of the decline of many plant and animal species. The botanist Charles Torrey Simpson (1846-1932) in his 1920 book, In Lower Florida Wilds, lamented the decline of wild areas in south Florida due to the destruction of forests and drainage of wetlands. Harold H. Bailey (1878-1962), an ornithologist, in his 1925 book, The Birds of Florida, mentions that the drainage of the Everglades was harming some bird species. However, outside of scientific circles, the concerns of these and other scientists were not widely known. These scientists argued that the Everglades' fauna and flora had intrinsic scientific value and, consequently, that the Everglades needed to be protected from drainage. However, they made no effort to raise public awareness of the negative impacts of drainage on the unique flora and fauna of the Everglades (Wilhelm 2012). This situation changed in 1929.

John Kunkel Small (1869 -1938) (Figure 5) was a botanist who worked, starting in 1898, for his entire professional career at the New York Botanical Garden. He did his undergraduate work in botany at Franklin and Marshall College, from which he graduated in 1892. He did his postgraduate work at Columbia University. In 1903, his doctoral dissertation was published as the Flora of the Southeastern United States. Small was an early botanical explorer of Florida, which he first visited in 1901 and many more times in the next three decades. He published several technical manuals on Florida’s flora. His 1929 book, From Eden to Sahara: Florida's Tragedy, based on his extensive travels around the state, was his most influential contribution to efforts to conserve wild South Florida. It has numerous photographs documenting the decline and destruction of south Florida's diverse landscapes by the rapidly expanding human population. As he put it: “The pecuniary greed of the native-born and the immigrant is so great that few appear to be able or willing to see the handwriting on the— map (with apologies to the Prophet Daniel). Not only are Fauna and Flora threatened with extermination, but in many places the very soil which is necessary to their production

and maintenance is being drained and burned and re-burned until nothing but inert mineral matter is left." (Small 1929, p. 7)

Small’s short book ends with the following somber assessment of Florida’s future: “Here is a unique El Dorado, …. As much as possible of this natural history museum should be preserved, not only for its beauty, but also for its educational value, for it is within easy reach of the majority of the population of the United States. Many localities whose natural features, now destroyed, are not duplicated elsewhere, could easily have been made state or federal reservations, if the public officials had had the proper interest and foresight in such matters. In Florida, aside from Royal

Figure 4. Minnie Moore-Willson (courtesy of University of Miami Libraries).

Figure 5. John Kunkel Small (standing on left) and the “weed mobile” in South Florida (courtesy of Florida Memory).

Palm State Park and Turtle Mound, there are no reservations for the preservation of the natural features, except those maintained by a few interested individuals, and a partly developed national forest. Steps for protection of selected areas should be taken at once by the state and federal governments. It is not yet too late to act.” (Small 1929, p. 114). Although it did not focus solely on the Everglades, Small’s book did much to further efforts to try to preserve it. However, although he was in favor of creating a national park to preserve the Everglades, like his fellow scientists, he did not actively campaign to save the Everglades or establish a park.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

It was not the drainage failures that had infuriated Frank Stoneman, the need to protect the Seminoles from white encroachment as argued by Moore-Willson, or the scientific importance of its biota as emphasized by Small and other biologists that finally persuaded Florida politicians to support the establishment of Everglades National Park. An innovative approach was required, and another newcomer to Florida, Ernest F. Coe (1866- 1951), developed it.

Ernest F. Coe (Figure 6) was born in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1866 and attended Yale University from 1885 to 1887 to become a landscape architect. He moved to Miami in 1925 when he was 60 years old. Like most northerners, Coe went to south Florida to make money from an ongoing land boom. Unfortunately for him, the 1920s boom ended a year after he arrived. However, Coe was an avid outdoorsman who quickly began to explore the Everglades. He was appalled by the continued slaughter of wading birds and the uncontrolled collection of native orchids. As a result, he quickly became convinced that the Everglades could only be saved if it was made into a national park. Coe single-mindedly and almost singlehandedly set out to make this happen.

In 1928, Coe and other local conservation activists founded the Tropical Everglades National Park Association (soon simplified to the Everglades National Park Association). The world-renowned plant explorer, Dr. David Fairchild, the former head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Plant Exploration, was the Association's first president and Coe its executive secretary. The Association had many locally notable members, including Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Nevertheless, the Association was a one-man show.

Coe realized that the Association would need to work with the federal government, especially the National Park Service, which would own and run the new park, and Florida's congressional delegation as well as the government of Florida, which owned most of the remaining undrained Everglades.

In 1928 Ernest Coe wrote on behalf of the Association to Stephen T. Mather, the first director of the National Park Service, a proposal for a national park in the lower Everglades. Mather was already in favor of the establishment of such a park. After a follow-up meeting, legislation to create Everglades National Park was introduced by Florida Senator Duncan B. Fletcher in December 1928, and in 1929, the U.S. Congress authorized a study into the feasibility of a national park in South Florida. A committee sent to investigate reported back favorably to Congress. However, congressional legislation to establish the Park was not passed until 1934. The Act stipulated that the land for the new park be acquired through public or private donations. The Act also stipulated that Everglades National Park was to be "... wilderness, [where] no development ... or plan for the entertainment of visitors shall be undertaken which will interfere with the preservation intact of the unique flora and fauna of the essential primitive natural conditions now prevailing in this area." (As quoted in Wilhelm 2010). Coe had won half the battle.Coe knew that to convince Florida politicians that an Everglades Park would be advantageous for the state, he had to overturn negative perceptions of the Everglades, which was seen as an unproductive wasteland full of poisonous snakes and mosquitoes. Coe used the ecological arguments about the Everglades' unique and diverse biota developed by Bailey, Simpson, Small, and others. He emphasized the tropical character of much of its biota. While these arguments were effective with the National Park Service, they were not with most Floridians who remained unconvinced that South Florida needed a national

Figure 6. Ernest F. Coe (right) at the dedication of Everglades National Park (courtesy of Florida Memory).

park. However, when speaking to audiences of politicians, businessmen, and landowners, Coe emphasized the economic benefits to Florida of creating a national park. The prospect of attracting tourists to South Florida sold the park to Florida's politicians and business community. In short, Coe’s clinching argument was that a park would generate more revenue for the state government and South Florida’s business community than draining more of the Everglades.

In 1929, the Florida legislature authorized the Tropical Everglades National Park Commission to take over the responsibilities of Coe’s Everglades National Park Association. The Commission had the power to acquire land by purchase, gift, bequest, or condemnation. Ernest Coe was the Commission's executive chair. However, it took until 1947 to acquire the land and settle on the initial boundaries of the new park. One of the principal reasons for this delay was the discovery of oil in the Everglades (see next section). In 1946, the Florida Legislature appropriated $2 million to purchase private lands in the Everglades. These land acquisitions, along with the donation by the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs of Royal Palm State Park, finally allowed the Park to become a reality, and on December 6, 1947 President Harry S. Truman dedicated Everglades National Park (Wilhelm 2012). At this dedication ceremony, Ernest Coe was recognized as the “Daddy” of the Everglades.

SPESSARD HOLLAND (1892 – 1971)

Spessard Holland (Figure 7) was the Governor of Florida from 1941 to 1945 and a U.S. senator from 1946 to 1971. For a brief overview of his life and political career, see Stone (2002). He was the key political figure in the fight to establish Everglades National Park. Holland was a Floridaborn conservative who was pro-segregation, supported states' rights, and favored limiting the federal government's power. Nevertheless, he supported the creation of an enormous national park in Florida. Holland supported the park's establishment for three reasons (Wilhelm 2016). First, there would be economic benefits from creating an Everglades park from increased tourism. He believed that the creation of Everglades National Park would begin to reorient the state's overall economy toward tourism. Second, he understood that environmental issues, including an appreciation of the Everglades’ diverse and exotic flora and fauna, were becoming increasingly important to voters. Third, establishing a national park would help transform Florida's identity. The establishment of Everglades National Park would demonstrate that Florida was no longer a backwater state.

Ernest Coe influenced Holland. Although Coe had made substantive progress toward the creation of Everglades National Park, by 1937, he had alienated many of his allies and angered Florida Governor Frederick P. Cone (governor 1937-1941), who opposed the Park. To be sure

that Florida’s next governor understood the benefits of establishing the Park, Coe increased his propaganda efforts during the 1940 gubernatorial election campaign. Coe focused his publicity campaign on the Park's economic benefits. He noted that the federal government would spend millions of dollars on developing the Park and claimed it would attract more than 500,000 tourists annually. In addition, he pointed out that tourists would have to travel the entire length of the state to reach the park, and gasoline taxes alone would raise $1 million a year for the state. As a candidate, Holland announced his support for the park (Wilhelm 2016).

One unforeseen reason for landowners in the Everglades to oppose the establishment of the Park was the discovery of oil in 1943. Local landowners naturally wanted to profit from oil drilling in the Everglades, and they began to argue that oil, not tourism, would bring future economic growth to South Florida. They also insisted that the federal government was violating their property rights. To prevent the park's establishment, landowners created organizations to pressure Florida politicians to oppose the land purchase in the Everglades. As governor, Holland had worked to establish the Everglades National Park, but he did not want to ban oil exploration. He believed that no commercial oil fields would be found, and he continued to believe that the economic benefits of a national park would exceed any benefits from oil. However, he also needed to respect the rights of property owners and the oil companies. To deal with the oil issue, Hollands reluctantly supported the estab-

Figure 7. Governor Spessard Holland (courtesy of Florida Memory).

lishment of an Everglades National Wildlife Refuge. This interim refuge would protect the biota while permitting oil exploration to continue. In 1944, Congress authorized the establishment of a national wildlife refuge in the Everglades. The refuge's establishment came with a deadline for exploratory drilling to demonstrate that oil was present. Despite the excitement raised by initial exploratory drilling, no further oil discoveries had been made by 1947. The last obstacle to the establishment of Everglades National Park was gone (Figure 8).

MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS (1890-1998)

“For many Americans, Marjory Stoneman Douglas and her 1947 book, The Everglades: River of Grass, defined the environment of inland southern Florida and marked her as the environmentalist who dedicated her career to its preservation. Although the impact of her book … has indeed been profound, its author did not fully immerse herself in the environmental problems of the Everglades until she reached the advanced age of seventy-nine, following stints as a newspaperwoman, a short story writer, and a book author” (McCally 2004).

Marjory Stoneman Douglass (Figure 9) was born in Minneapolis in 1890. When she was three, her father, Frank Stoneman, moved the family to Providence, RI. In 1895, Marjory and her mother left Providence to live in Massachusetts. She graduated from Wellesley College in 1912. After her mother’s death, she married Kenneth Douglas, who was thirty years older. It was an unhappy marriage. In 1915, she left Douglas and moved to Miami to be with her father, the Miami Herald's editor. He hired her as the editor of the Herald’s social page. Like her father, Douglas was a progressive activist and soon became involved in many progressive causes, including women’s suffrage, child welfare, and public health (Sierra 2006; Davis 2009). She put aside her newspaper career during World War I to help with the war effort. She returned to the Miami Herald as an assistant editor, literary critic, and columnist in 1920 (Davis 2009).

Douglas became increasingly interested in the concept of regionalism developed by the southern sociologist Howard Odum, the father of the ecologists Eugene Odum and Howard T. Odum. Regionalism stressed, “the need of each place to retain its distinct character by making the best of local cultural patterns and natural surroundings while mitigating the "utilitarian drabness" that often characterized the urban environment” (Davis 2001). Douglas saw South Florida as a unique region in America because of its tropical climate, wetland-dominated landscapes, and indigenous flora and wildlife. Regionalism informed her early views about how South Florida should develop. For example, she envisioned the development of large-scale tropical agriculture based on the black muck of the Everglades. Because it would help to consolidate the region, she supported the

construction of the Tamiami Trail during the 1920s that cut across the southern Everglades to connect Miami to Fort Myers and Tampa. Regionalism did not mean preserving the Everglades (or other natural areas) but exploiting its tropical nature for the betterment and profit of South Floridians. In short, she held the same progressive views as her father and, like him, was not a preservationist (David 2001, 2009).

Douglas left the Miami Herald in 1923 to become a professional writer. She published nearly fifty short stories between 1924 and 1943 (Davis 2001). Very few of her stories are set in the Everglades. Besides collections of her short stories, she published several books, including the novel Road to the Sun (Douglas 1957) and a short biography of David Fairchild Adventures in a Green World (Douglas 1973). Rinehart Publishers commissioned Douglas to write a book on South Florida for its successful Rivers of America series. The resulting book, The Everglades: River of Grass, would become her best-known book, making her a public figure. River of Grass describes the Everglades' human, geological, and ecological history. She stresses that the Everglades were not a stagnant swamp but a slow-flowing river unlike any other in the world.

In contrast to her newspaper columns, she now warned about agricultural expansion through expanded drainage,

Figure 9. Marjory Stoneman Douglas (courtesy of Florida Memory).

wildlife destruction, and even saltwater intrusion due to the disruption of the hydrology of South Florida. Douglas finally had become a preservationist. Douglas readily admitted in later years that, because she had authored the book about the Everglades, she was unexpectantly thrust into the fore of environmental struggles in Florida (Davis 2001, 2009). In 1970 she became the first president of Friends of the Everglades and devoted the rest of her life to the protection of South Florida's natural resources.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas’ autobiography, Voice of the River (Douglas with Rothchild), published in 1987, is a fascinating account of her life. For a definitive account of her life and work, see Davis (2009).

POSTSCRIPT

In 1947, when Everglades National Park (Figure 8) was officially dedicated, the early activists who had opposed the drainage of the Everglades were all dead: Frank Stoneman died in 1941, Minnie Moore-Willson in 1937, and John Kunkel Small in 1938. However, Ernest Coe was still alive and attended the dedication, as did U.S. Senator Spessard Holland. Also present was the 57-year-old Marjory Stoneman Douglas. The Everglades National Park Commission (1947) published a detailed account of the dedication ceremony that included all the speeches.

Coe was the first distinguished guest introduced to the audience: “First I want you to meet a gentleman who has worked on this Park for many years. … He has been called by some the "Daddy of the Everglades Park." Certainly, Mr. Coe has been identified with the Park for decades, and through his personal efforts and through his Association, he has brought it to the attention of many. And we are glad at this time to present to you "the grand old man of the Everglades National Park"—the Honorable Ernest F. Coe.” Marjory Stoneman Douglas was the last of a lengthy list of distinguished guests to be introduced after Theodore Pratt, who had written a magazine article about Ernest Coe and the Park. She was identified as the author of the recent book, The Everglades: River of Grass.

Millard F. Caldwell, who succeeded Spessard Holland as governor of Florida, made two major points in his speech. First, “The State of Florida has contributed more toward the creation of this national park than any other State of the Nation has contributed toward the establishment of any other national park. We have given hundreds of thousands of acres of state-owned land and $2,000,000 in cash to the Federal Government to assist in the park's creation.” Second, “We are confident that the marvelous attractions of the area, together with the operating plans of the Park Service, will result in the bringing of a multitude of visitors to Florida and redound to the mutual benefit of the Nation and of the State.” In other words, the State

of Florida had invested in a major tourist attraction and it hoped that its investment would pay off.

Figure 8. Everglades National Park (courtesy of Florida Memory). The solid dark line was the boundary at the time of the Park’s establishment in 1947. The dashed line was the 1944 boundary of the interim national wildlife refuge.

Spessard Holland’s talk emphasized the key role of two organizations in the long struggle to establish the Park, the Florida Federation of Women’s Clubs for their work to preserve Royal Palm Hammock, and the Audubon Society for its efforts to protect the birds of the Everglades. Oddly, he does not mention Ernest Coe or the Everglades National Park Association.

President Truman noted, "Each national park possesses qualities distinctive enough to make its preservation a matter of concern to the nation. Certainly, this Everglades area has more than its share of features unique to these United States. Here are no lofty peaks seeking the sky, no mighty glaciers or rushing streams wearing away the uplifted land. Here is land, tranquil in its quiet beauty, serving not as the source of water but as the last receiver of it. To its natural abundance we owe the spectacular plant and animal life that distinguishes this place from all others in our country." An appreciation of the uniqueness and importance of the Everglades’ biota that was first recognized by John Kunkel Small and other early Florida naturalists had finally been recognized as an adequate justification for establishing a whole new kind of national park to preserve the ecology of an area.

That a wetland became the first ecological park is astonishing, and it marks a historic change in the attitude of the American public toward wetlands. In 1947, a United States president, two U.S. Senators, and a state governor had come to praise a wetland that until recently had been considered wasteland.

REFERENCES

Bailey, Harold H. 1925. The Birds of Florida. Williams & Watkins Company, Baltimore, MD.

Branch, M. P. 1998. Marjory Stoneman Douglas 1890-1998. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 5:123-127.

Carter, W. H. 2004. Stolen Water: Saving the Everglades from its Friends, Foes, and Florida. ATRIA Books, New York, NY.

Davis, J. E. 2001. Green Awakening: Social Activism and the Evolution of Marjory Stoneman Douglas's Environmental Consciousness. Florida Historical Quarterly 80:43-77.

Davis, J. E. 2009. An Everglades Providence: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and the American Environmental Century. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.

Davis, S. M. and J. C. Ogden (eds.) 1994. Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

Douglas, Marjory Stoneman. 1947. The Everglades: River of Grass. Rinehart, New York, NY. Reprinted in 1997 by Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.

Douglas, Marjory Stoneman. 1952. Road to the Sun. Rinehart and Company, New York, NY.

Douglas, Marjory Stoneman. 1973. Adventures in a Green World: The story of David Fairchild and Barbour Lathrop. Field Research Projects, Miami, FL.

Douglas, M. S (with J. Rothchild) 1987. Voice of the River. Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.

Everglades National Park Commission. 1947. Everglades National Park was dedicated by President Harry S. Truman. Everglades National Park Commission, Miami, FL.

Grunwald, M. 2005. The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. Simon and Shuster, New York, NY.

Joshi, Sarika. 2014. Minnie and Ivy: Minnie Moore-Willson, Ivy Stranahan, and Seminole Reform in Early Twentieth-Century Florida. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 4739. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/4739

Levin, Ted. 2003. Liquid land: A Journey through the Florida Everglades. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.

Lodge, T. E. 2005. Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem. Second Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

McCally, D. 1999. The Everglades: An Environmental History. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

McCally, D. 2004. Marjory Stoneman Douglas: One Woman, the Everglades and the Rest Is History. The Public Historian 26:133-136. McPherson, B. F. and R. B. Halley. 1966. The South Florida Environment: A Region Under Stress. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1134. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Meindl, C. F. 1998. Frank Stoneman and the Florida Everglades during the early 20th Century. Florida Geographer 29:44-54.

Meindl, C. F. 2000. The great American wetland. Florida Geographer 31:44-60.

Moore-Willson, Minnie. 1910. The Seminoles of Florida. Moffatt, Yard and Company, New York, NY.

Ogden. Laura. 2008. The Everglades ecosystem and the politics of nature. American Anthropologist 110:21–32.

Sierra, H. 2006. Marjory Stoneman Douglas’s River of progress: Modernism, Feminism, regionalism, and environmentalism in her early writings. Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Simpson, C. T. 1920. In Lower Florida Wilds; a Naturalist's Observations on the Life, Physical Geography, and Geology of the More Tropical Part of the State. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, NY.

Importance of Vegetation for Identifying Wetlands in the

Lower Mainland Fraser Valley region of British Columbia, Canada

using Prevalence Index, Hydrophytic Cover Index, and Dominance Ratio

Jace Standish1, McTavish Resource & Management Consultants and Julia Alards-Tomalin, British Columbia Institute of Technology

INTRODUCTION

The Lower Mainland Fraser Valley (LMFV) in British Columbia (BC), Canada is a complex and high stakes environment for wetland identification (Figure 1). High precipitation, subdued topography, and complex site history combine to present formidable challenges to wetland identification and management. Over the last 100+ years, the LMFV has undergone intense and rapid changes. Originally the land was a natural assortment of bogs, swamps and upland forests, which was then cleared for agriculture, and now is undergoing accelerating urban development. Land use competition is intense. Stakes are high: identification of wetlands can make or break development deals. Wetlands are protected in BC by the Water Sustainability Act, and administration is usually through municipal governments and bylaws. Jurisdictional wetlands are identified and mapped as part of a development permitting process.

characters” (MacKenzie and Moran 2004, p. 6). We assess wetlands in our region with methods similar to those described by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1987) where wetland identification is based on vegetation, soils, and wetland hydrology. Ideally, all three aspects should be considered fully when determining wetland or upland status. Unfortunately, for many sites in the LMFV it is difficult to get sufficiently detailed information on wetland hydrology and soils. Long term, detailed records of hydrology are typically unavailable for operational wetland assessments, and extensive drainage disturbance has altered the natural hydrology significantly throughout the LMFV. Soil mapping covers many areas, but mainly at a scale of 1:50,000. It often lacks the detail needed for wetland identification. Disturbance and drainage have also drastically altered soil profiles (Figure 2). Redoximorphic soil features are often relicts that are no longer diagnostic for hydric soils (Bedard-Haughn 2001; Lavkulich, pers. com. 2019).

Figure 1. Outlined in yellow, the Lower Mainland Fraser Valley (LMFV) in British Columbia, Canada is a highly urbanized area extending from Vancouver (West), to Hope (East), and to the USA border (South) (Google Maps 2021). The LMFV is unceded land and includes traditional territories of the Musqueam, Tsleil'waututh, Squamish, Kwikwetlem, Stó:lō, Chehalis, Katzie, Kwantlen, Tsawwassen, and Semiahmoo nations (MetroVancouver 2021).

Wetlands are defined as “areas where soils are watersaturated for a sufficient length of time such that excess water and resulting low soil oxygen levels are principal determinants of vegetation and soil development. Wetlands will have a relative abundance of hydrophytes in the vegetation community and/or soils featuring ‘hydric’ 1 For correspondence, contact Jace Standish at Jace@mctavishconsultants.ca or Julia Alards-Tomalin at jalardstoma-lin@bcit.ca

Many LMFV plant communities are dominated by a small number of aggressive, seral species (Figure 3), which has led some wetland managers to conclude that vegetation is unreliable as a wetland indicator in the LMFV. They suggest that emphasis should be on soils. Given the above-mentioned problems with wetland hydrology and soil information, that would leave us with many sites that have no sufficient criteria for wetland identification. Furthermore, several studies covering a range of vegetation, soil, and climate conditions in the United States (e.g., see

Figure 2. Soils within the Lower Mainland Fraser Valley are often highly disturbed, as shown in this soil profile. Multiple changes to site use, including clearing and drainage for agricultural use, development as a golf course, and commercial development have occurred in this location. This has resulted in new anthropogenic soil horizons (such as the buried sand and buried organic layers) and has altered soil development processes.

Lichvar and Gillrich 2014; Segelquist et al. 1990; Scott et al. 1989; Wentworth et al. 1988) have shown strong correlations between hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the effectiveness of vegetation, expressed as Hydrophytic Cover Index (HCI), Prevalence Index (PI), and the Dominance Ratio (DR) for identifying wetland sites. Our focus is on individual sample quadrats rather than on wetland or upland map units. We also compare HCI, PI and DR, including PI at two hydrophyte thresholds and comment on some important plant species for further consideration in the LMFV.

Soil pits were located within each vegetation quadrat. Soil data collected included parent material, Munsell colors, texture, % coarse fragments, redoximorphic features, root depth and abundance, presence of a water table or seepage, and thickness for each soil layer in the upper 60 to 100 cm (ca. 24 – 40 in.). Depth to significant mottling (redox masses and pore linings) or gleying (redox depletion), depth to water table, presence, thickness and degree of decomposition of surface organic layers, and actual soil moisture regime (ASMR) were recorded. Definition of ASMR is from Klinka et al. (1989). Soil classification was determined at the subgroup level in the Canadian System of Soil Classification (SCWG 1998). Equivalents in the USDA Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 1975) were approximated. Hydric soils were originally defined based on MacKenzie and Moran (2004), and modified by adding detailed criteria for gleying, mottling, and degree of organic matter decomposition (see Standish and Alards-Tomalin 2022). However, for the purposes of this paper, hydric soils are defined by hydric soil criteria in USDA (2018).

Wetland hydrology was assessed from wetland hydrology indicators (USACE 2010) and focused on estimated frequency and duration of inundation or soil upper soil profile saturation, connectivity, and observable features listed in USACE (2010). No hydrologic data, for example from monitoring wells, was available.

METHODS

Thirty-four quadrats were randomly selected from 17 wetland assessment project sites in the LMFV. Sample quadrats were from jurisdictional wetland assessments. Field work was carried out at various times between March to early September from 2019 through 2021. Several sites were revisited during June through August or during November through January to gather supplemental information. Plant species and their percentage cover were recorded from 0.01 ha (0.025 acre) plots. Plant names are from the standard list for British Columbia (Meidinger et al. 2009). Vascular plant hydrophyte classes are mainly those from the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland plant list (2020). A few species not listed were classified based on various sources such as Fletcher et al. (2019) and Klinka et al. (1989). Classes for mosses and lichens are based on information provided in MacKenzie and Moran (2004) and Klinka et al. (1989). Plant hydrophyte classes and their corresponding weights for PI calculations are shown in Table 1. Calculations for HCI, PI and DR were carried out following the methods in Lichvar and Gillrich (2014) and USACE (2010, 1987).

Hydrophyte class Symbol Frequency of occurance in the wetlands Weight (for PI)

Obligate OBL Almost always occurs in wetlands 1

Faculative Wetand FACW Usually occurs in wetlands but may occur in noonwetlands

2

Faculative FAC Occur in wetlands & nonwetlands 3

Faculative Upland FACU Usually in non-wetlands but may occur inwetlands 4

Upland UPL Almost never occurs in wetlands 5

Table 1. Hydrophyte classes, symbols and weights used for Prevalence Index (PI) calculation. (USACE 2010).

True wetland status for each quadrat was determined based on soils, wetland hydrology, and site history. Sites that were unclear with respect to their soil features or wetland hydrology were revisited on more than one occasion (different seasons and, in some cases, different years). Site history was investigated through local knowledge and analysis of historical remote sensing imagery.

Figure 3. It can be challenging to identify wetlands in the Lower Mainland Fraser Valley as the plant communities, soil, and hydrology are highly disturbed. Since 1949 this site has gone through multiple major changes as described in Figure 2. The current plant community is highly disturbed and contains an abundance of weedy and aggressive species.

Data was summarized and edited using MS Excel and PCORD v.7.2 (Peck 2016). Some univariate statistics were computed with “Omni” (Szczepanek et al. 2022).

Accuracy of vegetation indices for recognizing true wetland status is expressed as the percentage of true positive or true negative wetland determinations. HCI, PI at two thresholds (PI = 3.0 or PI3.0 and PI = 3.5 or PI3.5), and DR using the 50/20 rule were compared. Inspection of LMFV data along with literature survey and data from Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification site series for the region (Green and Klinka 1994) suggested a PI of < 3.5 as an alternative PI threshold. Differences in accuracy and hydrophyte community determination were analyzed using McNemar’s test for paired proportions (Zar 2010). PI at the two thresholds and DR were also compared based on the percentage of quadrats with hydrophytic plant communities, referred to as the percentage of “hydrophyte determination” by Lichvar and Gillrich (2014).

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

OVERVIEW OF VEGETATION AND SOILS

A total of 102 plant species were recorded from the quadrats. Species richness ranged from 2 to 27, averaging 9 per quadrat. Heterogeneity of plant communities is shown by its high Whittaker’s β-diversity (βw = 11). The most common species, in decreasing order of abundance and frequency, are reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), salal (Gaultheria shallon), Labrador tea (Rhododendron groenlandicum), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), red alder (Alnus rubra) highbush huckleberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and step moss (Hylocomium splendens). About 15% of species are trees, 20% shrubs, 55% herbs (including forbs, graminoids, and ferns), and 10% bryophytes, mainly mosses. FAC and FACU make up 76% of the species. Presence of individual hydrophyte classes is OBL 18%, FACW 21%, FAC 20%, FACU 40%, and UPL 1%. One-third of the sample quadrats are in the intermediate PI range described by Wentworth et al. (1988) of 2.5 to 3.5. The 95% confidence interval for mean PI is 2.5-3.1 and for HCI is 50-72.

Based on hydric soils and wetland hydrology indicators, twenty-two quadrats (65%) were identified as true wetlands and 12 (35%) as true uplands. Wetland vs. upland plant community composition was compared using Multi Response Permutation Procedure (MRPP). MRPP is a nonparametric, multivariate test for differences among groups (McCune and Grace 2002; Mielke 1991; Peck 2016). It showed no significant difference (p = 0.29) in community composition.

About 65% of soils are mineral soils in the Gleysolic and Podzolic orders in the Canadian System of Soil

Classification (SCWG 1998). Equivalents in the USA system (Soil Survey Staff 1975) include Aqualfs, Aquents, Aquepts, Haplorthods and Fluvents. Organic soils (Histosols) comprise about 35%. Actual Soil Moisture Regime (ASMR sensu Klinka et al. 1989) ranged from slightly dry to very wet; more than 40% were wet. Soil drainage classes ranged from moderately well drained to very poorly drained. All soils have had superficial to severe disturbance to their profiles. Some of them have also been altered by onsite or offsite drainage. USDA (2018) hydric soils included Histosol (A6), Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2), Redox Dark Surface (F6), Sandy Redox (S5), Histic Epipedon (A2) and Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1).

COMPARISON OF HCI, PI, AND DR

All hydrophyte indices underestimated the number of true wetlands. Accuracy for determination of wetlands and uplands for HCI, PI3.0, PI3.5, and DR is shown in Table 2. HCI has the greatest accuracy for identifying wetlands followed by DR, PI3.5 and PI3.0. HCI is significantly different (@ αcrit = 0.05) from PI at both thresholds and from DR. PI at both thresholds and DR are not significantly different from each other.

/////////// Wetland Accuracy % Upland Accuracy %

p – values (McNemar's Test) Hydrophyte Index

HCI PI3.0 PI3.5 DR

HCI 91 50 ////////// 0.043 0.043 0.024 PI3.0 73 75 ////////// ////////// 0.17 0.11 PI3.5 82 75 ////////// ////////// ////////// 0.061 DR 86 67 /////////// /////////// ////////// //////////

Table 2. Accuracy and p-values comparing HCI, PI3.0, PI3.5 and DR.

As shown in Table 2, HCI, PI and DR are closely comparable. Accuracy for PI3.5 is somewhat lower than for HCI but similar to findings from Scott et al. (1989). DR and PI3.5 results are more similar to HCI than PI3.0. HCI performs relatively poorly for predicting uplands which is not surprising as it was designed as part of a 3-factor test for identifying wetlands and not for identifying wetlands solely based on vegetation . That, as well as the lack of statistical significance between PI thresholds, could be due to lack of statistical power resulting from our small and variable sample, especially regarding upland sites. DR performed relatively well, with accuracy intermediate between PI and HCI.

The above results compare wetland status determined from vegetation to that determined from soils and wetland hydrology. They are not necessarily comparable to results reported in Lichvar and Gillrich (2014), who used vegetation alone to rank HCI, PI3.0 and DR. Our ranking from greatest to least hydrophytic vegetation determinations agreed with Lichvar and Gillrich (2014):

HCI, PI3.5 , DR, and PI3.0. HCI was significantly different from other hydrophyte indices (p ≤ 0.05) but differences among DR and PI at both thresholds were not significant. Comparing the agreement of positive hydrophytic determinations, quadrat by quadrat, to HCI PI3.5 had the greatest degree of agreement followed by DR and then PI3.0. Differences among HCI, DR and PI were significant (@ p ≤ 0.01). Differences between the two PI thresholds were not significant (p =0.23).

IMPORTANCE OF FACULTATIVE UPLAND (FACU) SPECIES

Since many of our quadrats are dominated by FACU and FAC species, they pose a relatively great challenge to wetland identification using vegetation. The PI vs. HCI graph (Figure 4) shows five quadrats in red triangles with PI > 3.0 (indicating uplands) and HCI ≥ 50 (indicating wetlands). All of them have 90% or more combined FAC and FACU % cover. FAC species, such as black cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry, and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) have a percent cover of 35 to 80%. All are from young, seral, deciduous forests with a history of moderate to severe soil and hydrological disturbance. Four of the five quadrats represent true wetlands. Several other quadrats that are within ± 5% of PI = 3.0 or HCI = 50 have about 50% FAC species cover. Three quadrats from disturbed bog forests have 40% or more salal (a FACU species) cover. As mentioned above, 40% of all our species are FACU species. The remaining species are distributed roughly equally among OBL, FACW and FAC. Because of its weighting process, PI is relatively sensitive to a high percentage of FAC and FACU species. That likely explains the tendency of PI toward misidentifying those wetlands as uplands, especially for PI3.0.

NOTEWORTHY SPECIES TO CONSIDER

With few exceptions, we found the USACE plant list for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (2020) complete and accurate for use in the LMFV. The list covers many more taxa (about 1750) than the British Columbia list (about 350) in MacKenzie and Moran (2004).

Most species used in wetland identification are vascular plants but mosses are potentially useful. For example, Lichvar et al. (2009) used mosses to delineate wetlands in Alaska where diagnostic vascular species were rare or absent. There are several LMFV species that are relatively easy to identify and have potential hydrophyte diagnostic value for some communities. Feather mosses such as Oregon beaked moss (Eurhynchium oreganum) and lanky moss (Rhytidiadelphus loreus) are associated with upland forests. Step moss is a common upland forest floor moss but it also occurs on elevated microsites in bogs. It occurred equally in about 25% of upland and wetland sample quadrats. Several Sphagnum species, such as poor-fen peat-moss (S. angustifolium), common red peat-moss (S. capillifolium), and common brown peat moss (S. fuscum), are associated with wetlands. Common green peat-moss (Sphagnum girgensohnii) is often associated with small, wet, micro depressions in upland forests.

Figure 4. PI vs. HCI for 34 vegetation quadrats. 5 quadrats (red triangles) have PI > 3.0 (indicating uplands) and HCI > 50 (indicating wetlands). HCI and PI agree for those 5 quadrats if PI3.5 is used as a threshold instead of PI3.0.

Figure 5. Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) is an herbaceous hydrophyte that can be missed or its percent cover underestimated during wetland surveys in winter. During the summer, skunk cabbage is very obvious, but swamp ecosystems in the LMFV can be misidentified as upland if visited during late fall or winter months. Pressure of land development deals often results in site visits and assessments during the fall or winter when this important hydrophyte isn’t easily visible.

Figure 6: Many wetland sites across the LMFV have highly disturbed plant communities and are dominated (60-85% cover) by reed canary grass (RCG). RCG grows on a wide range of sites, including wetlands, borderline wetlands and non-wetlands.

Three vascular species that are often abundant in plant communities in the LMFV deserve special attention: skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus), reed canary grass and salal. Skunk cabbage is an important obligate hydrophyte indicator in many swamp ecosystems. If wetland assessments are conducted during the fall or winter, skunk cabbage may be undetected or its abundance significantly underestimated (Figure 5). Underrepresentation of this important hydrophyte can potentially lead to misidentification of wetland sites.

Reed canary grass (RCG) is a widespread and invasive FACW species, occurring mainly on disturbed sites in the LMFV. It was the most constant and abundant species in our sample. RCG dominates with a percent cover often in the 60% - 85% range on many sites, including wetlands, borderline wetlands, and non-wetlands (Figure 6). It reproduces rapidly both vegetatively and from seed and often forms a thick surface sod that inhibits establishment of other species (Tu 2004). Once established, it tends to dominate. Human disturbance creates ideal conditions for RCG to disperse and establish. Moving water is an important seed dispersal mechanism, so wetland sites in riparian or flooded areas can be easily colonized and taken over. Disturbed sites with damaged plant communities are particularly susceptible to being colonized, whether they are wetlands or not. Seven of the 34 quadrats in our sample have a cover of 55% or more of RCG. Four quadrats are wetlands and three are uplands that were misidentified from HCI, DR and PI as wetlands. Reed canary grass was slightly more abundant on our true upland quadrats (median = 82% cover) rather than on true wetlands (median = 58%

Figure 7. Salal dominates the understory at this site in Burns Bog, Delta, BC, Canada. Using the standard hydrophyte classification for salal (FACU) hydrophyte indices often end up identifying the site to be non-hydrophytic when it is clearly a wetland from its hydrological and soil features.

cover). All of those quadrats are in sites affected by a high degree of onsite and adjacent offsite disturbance. To ensure accurate wetland status determination for these sites, careful attention to soil and site history is needed, further supporting the need to consider three factors in wetland identification in disturbed areas.

Salal is a species of wide ecological amplitude. In the LMFV it is often most abundant at the extremes of soil moisture – the wettest sites and the driest sites. Salal is considered a FACU species in the Western Mountains Valleys and Coast region (USACE 2020). It occurs in 9 of 34 quadrats (26%) in our sample and ranges in abundance from 2% to 90% cover. Its greatest abundance is in bogs, along with shore pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta) and Labrador tea. In bogs that have experienced surface disturbance or adjacent drainage alteration, salal often dominates the understory (Figure 7), limiting the presence of FACW and OBL species such as Labrador tea, western bog laurel (Kalmia microphylla), bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), and bog cranberry (Oxycoccus oxycoccus). Even when such hydrophytic species are present, they are often hidden beneath a canopy of salal. Under those circumstances, hydrophyte indices may indicate uplands even though the site is a wetland.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The aim of our study was to determine if vegetation is an accurate indicator for identifying wetlands in the LMFV. We also wanted to compare the accuracy of HCI,

PI at two thresholds, and DR. We found the accuracy of three different vegetation indices (HCI and PI and DR) for identifying wetlands was more or less similar to that reported by others, such as Lichvar and Gillrich (2014) and Scott et al. (1989). Accuracy for identifying wetlands using PI3.0, (the most commonly used PI threshold) was relatively low (76%). HCI (91%), DR (86%), and PI3.5 (82%) were more accurate in identifying true wetlands. PI3.5 accuracy for uplands was less than for wetlands, but the difference (82% - 75% = 7%) is relatively small. HCI accuracy for uplands is relatively poor (50%). Based on our results, along with other larger and more general studies (for example, Lichvar and Gillrich 2014; Scott et al. 1989) we conclude:

• Vegetation using HCI, PI or DR can identify LMFV wetlands with an accuracy of about 80 to 90%.

• Accuracy of using vegetation alone for identifying uplands is relatively poor, 75% for PI at both thresholds, 67% for DR and 50% for HCI. However, differences in upland accuracy may reflect our small sample size for uplands.

• PI with a threshold of 3.0 gives poorer results for wetland identification than HCI or DR.

• PI performance is improved if a higher wetlandupland threshold is used. A PI threshold of 3.5 worked relatively well for our sample; in some cases, it worked as well as HCI.

• Considering accuracy for both wetlands and uplands, PI3.5 and DR performed somewhat better than HCI.

• HCI was the most accurate hydrophyte index for identifying wetlands. We agree with De Steven (2015) and Lichvar and Gillrich (2014) that HCI has some advantages over other hydrophyte indices. Its strengths include accuracy for identifying wetlands and relative simplicity of calculations. Unlike PI, it does not require hydrophyte class weights, which are somewhat arbitrary.

• HCI’s disadvantage, at least for our data, is that it misidentifies uplands as wetlands more often than other indices.

• LMFV plant communities are often dominated by FAC and FACU species, resulting in a relatively high potential for misclassifications and borderline determinations. PI, because of its weighting procedure, is potentially sensitive to the predominance of FAC and FACU species.

• Species-poor sites dominated by species such as reed canary grass or salal demand special attention to site and soil conditions.

• Wetland assessments should be scheduled for times when important herbaceous hydrophyte indicator species (such as skunk cabbage) are observable.

Reservations about using vegetation to determine wetland status in the LMFV seem to be ungrounded. Vegetation has been shown to accurately identify wetlands here and elsewhere, especially when used in a 3-factor approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and signs of wetland hydrology). Based on our observations, the link between hydric conditions and hydrophytic vegetation is strong, even in plant communities that are frequently dominated by a small number of aggressive, seral species. All of the hydrophyte indices we used performed more or less equally well when identifying wetlands, although PI at the commonly used threshold of 3.0 performed relatively poorly. We suspect that choice among HCI, PI and DR may be less crucial for wetland identification and delineation in the Lower Mainland Fraser Valley than other issues, such as correct plant species identification, and sampling design and layout. Nonetheless, disturbed sites will continue to be a challenge for wetland delineators and the 3-factor test appears to be useful for verification while the vegetation tests provide a good initial read on the likelihood for a given site to be wetland or non-wetland.

REFERENCES

Bedard-Haughn, A. 2011. Gleysolic soils of Canada: genesis, distribution, and classification. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 91: 763-779.

De Steven, D. 2015. Metrics for determining hydrophytic vegetation in wetland delineation: a clarification of the prevalence index. Wetland Science & Practice 32 (1): 24-26.

Fletcher, N.F., D.B. Trio, L.J. Nordin, M. Porter and D. Morgan. 2019. Field Supplement to the Wetland Health Management Routine Effectiveness Evaluation. Forest and Range Evaluation Program, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. Victoria, B.C. 57 pp.

Google Maps. (2021). [Google Maps view of Lower Mainland Fraser Valley]. Retrieved December 16, 2021, from https://www.google.com/ maps/@49.2460408,-122.8807849,79316m/data=!3m1!1e3

Green, R.N., Klinka, K. 1994. A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Vancouver Forest Region. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Burnaby BC. 295 pp.

Klinka, K., V.J. Krajina, A. Ceska, and A.M. Scagel. 1989. Indicator Plants of Coastal British Columbia. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 288 pp.

Lavkulich, L.M. 2019. Professor Emeritus, Department of Soil Science, University of British Columbia. Personal communication. October 24, 2019.

Lichvar, R. and J. Gillrich. 2014. Evaluating methods for analyzing vegetation and determining hydrophytic vegetation for wetland delineation. Wetland Science & Practice 31 (2): 9-10.

Lichvar, R. W., G. A. Laursen, R. D. Seppelt, and W. R. Ochs. 2009. Selecting and testing cryptogam species for use in wetland delineation in Alaska. Arctic 62(2): 201– 211.

MacKenzie, W.H. and J.R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: a Guide to Identification. Research Branch, BC. Ministry of Forests. Victoria, B.C. Land Management Handbook No. 52.

McCune, B. and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities.

MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR. 300 pp.

Meidinger, D., Lee, T., Douglas, G.W., Britton, G., MacKenzie, W., Qian, H. 2009. British Columbia plant species codes and selected attributes. Version 6 Database. Research Branch. B.C. Ministry of Forests.

MetroVancouver. 2021. First Nations in and outside the region. http:// www.metrovancouver.org/services/first-nation-relations/first-nations/ Pages/default.aspx

Mielke, P.W. 1991. The application of multivariate permutation methods based on distance functions in the earth sciences. Earth Science Reviews 31: 55 – 71.

Peck, J.E. 2016. Multivariate Analysis for Ecologists: Step by Step. 2nd ed. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach OR. 192 pp.

Scott, M.L., W.L. Slauson, C.A. Segelquist, and G.T. Auble. 1989. Correspondence between vegetation and soils in wetlands and nearby uplands. Wetlands 9 (10: 41-60.

SCWG 1998. (Soil Classification Working Group) The Canadian System of Soil Classification. 3rd ed. Research Branch, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Publication 1646. NRC Research Press, Ottawa. 187 pp.

Segelquist, C.A., W.L. Slauson, M.L. Scott and G.T. Auble. 1990. Synthesis of Soil-plant Correspondence Data from Twelve Wetland Studies throughout the United States. Biological Report 90 (19), December 1990. 24 pp.

Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Agricultural Handbook No. 436.

Standish, J.T. and J. Alards-Tomalin. 2022. Wetland identification in ecologically challenging high stakes interface environments. January 21, 2022. Society of Wetland Scientists Webinar. https://youtu.be/ YZFCOq5Gdls

Szczepanek, A., W. Sas and J. Bowater. 2022. McNemar’s test calculator. Omni Calculator. Last updated Feb. 15, 2022. https://www.

omnicalculator.com/statistics/mcnemars-test#what-is-mcnemars-test-forpaired-proportions

Tu, M. 2004. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.): Control & Management in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy’s Wildlife Invasive Species Team, The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Field Office, Portland, OR. Edited by: J. Soll & B. Lipinski. 06/07/04. 12 pp. http://www.invasive.org/gist/moredocs/phaaru01.pdf

USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2020. Regional Plant List for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. https:// wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/data/DOC/lists_2020/ Regions/pdf/reg_WMVC_2020v1.pdf

USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (version 2). Final Report. Prepared for: Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. 152 p.

USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Experiment Station. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition), Environmental Laboratory Vicksburg, MS. 92 pp. + appendices.

USDA. 2018. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.

Wentworth, T.R., G.P. Johnson and R.L. Kologiski. 1988. Designation of wetlands by weighted averages of vegetation data: a preliminary evaluation. Water Resources Bulletin 24: 389-396.

Zar, J.H. 2010. Biostatistical analysis. 5th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ. 944 pp.

The Long Slog Through the Virtual Swamp: Making a Wetland Podcast in Spanish

Eduardo Cejudo- Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán A.C. eduardo.cejudo@cicy.mx

Priscilla Sánchez-Santillán- Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. priscuaa@ciencias.unam.mx

Everybody can make a podcast, right? Just think about what you want to tell the world, clear your mind and record your voice. Voilà, votre podcast est prêt! Simple enough, right?

But what do you want to say? Is it important? Do you always think before you speak? Do you really want to speak to the whole world? Will anyone out there listen?

Not so simple, is it? You are reaching out to people you might never meet. You are trying to engage them, say something meaningful, open their eyes and encourage them to do good, to make the world a better place. You want your message to be strong. You want to put it in the right way, sound organized, articulated and clear. And what about your intonation, your word selection and the pace of your voice? Don’t just grab your cellphone and press record— there will be plenty of environmental noise. You want it to sound like you are a pro!

This is the ordeal that we undertook when we made the podcast “Humedales SOS” this past year. (Yes, you can search for it!) We were involved in a HumMentor project, a SWS mentoring program focused on wetland science for small groups of students in Latin American and the Caribbean. Humedal means wetland in Spanish. HumMentor is open to students who want to conduct research or science communication in association with a wetland scientist, in English, Spanish, French or Portuguese.

We chose to focus on wetlands and produce podcastsa non-traditional form of science communication, aiming to reach people with high school level education or with a basic knowledge of natural sciences. Wetlands are still poorly known and appreciated in Mexico, as in many parts of the world, and we wanted to bring attention to them. Our initial ideas circled around themes such as the sustainability of wetlands of Mexico, types of wetlands in different regions, their importance, what we can do to conserve them, along with sustainability needs, strategies and specific conservation programs for Mexican wetlands. We also thought about covering case studies of emblematic wetlands at risk or of a poorly documented wetland in Mexico and what it means to local communities.

Our time line for the next year was tight but organized: 1) three months to design the podcast (name, image, themes, training in recording software), 2) the next three

months to generate content, scripts and interviews with guests, and 3) in the remaining six months, to record, edit and broadcast eight episodes (1 to 1.5 hours per chapter), so one every three weeks. Guess what we achieved? Go on and search the podcast (yeah, in the globally known audio platform with the green icon). Are you surprised to only see two chapters? So are we. Well, the reason is obvious: it is not easy to make a podcast!

We found our name and logo relatively fast (with help from a computer-aided-design-savvy friend). Then, we chose the topics for most of our proposed episodes: what is a wetland, what are the types of wetlands (e.g., mangroves in Mexico; the iconic Xochimilco wetland), engineered wetlands for water treatment, poorly known karst wetlands in the Yucatan peninsula, and a recap of our journey with the episode “Wetlands in Mexico: where are we and where are we going?”

At this point, we stopped and thought: what do we know and what we need to research more? We knew that together we had a fair grasp of wetlands sciences or access to other experts to help us. What we did not know is how to translate and transfer some of this knowledge to the public in a podcast. We felt comfortable creating content for the first few episodes. So that was it, we had topics and the main ideas to elaborate the first scripts. Way to go! So, why all the fuss?

Well, the most difficult bridge to build is the one going from words to acts. We did not keep up with the pace of the proposed timeline for several reasons, the first and most important is that creating a product of quality requires time for preparation, research and inspiration for writing a good script. Remember, a podcast is not just a random person recording a voice: it should be a conversation with your audience, grabbing their attention, providing meaningful and trustworthy information which, hopefully, will improve their quality of life by expanding their knowledge. It is a large responsibility to create something that aims to increase people’s awareness and understanding of their environment. It is one of our main responsibilities as wetland scientists, and it is a duty as citizens of the world.

Besides time for preparation, research and inspiration on each topic, we also needed training in recording and editing the sound files…many, many files. We sometimes had to create several files just for a few minutes of each episode. The first thing we needed was a quiet room, away from the neighbor’s dog or traffic, and in our case, we needed two rooms and a strong internet connection because we were in two cities! We found decent microphones for our podcast sessions. We recorded our voice in a virtual meeting using the platform Bluejeans, and then, the sound files were edited with the free software Anchor that allowed us to edit and stich together the podcast. This was Priscilla’s task, since she was more familiar with the software, and what she did not know, she learned online. Only one

person can edit a podcast, but it is time consuming. To have a nice end product, two was already a crowd!

Lastly (an this is not an excuse but an explanation), we did all this in our free time, or stealing hours from work at school, just to take a small step in the right direction. We do have two more episodes in queue, hopefully finished soon enough for you to listen to it before this edition of Wetland Science and Practice.

Our path has been bumpy and perhaps we were not quite ready for this task. However, it was gratifying and stimulating listening to our episodes. We learned a lot, and sure we could have improved them, but we are more than satisfied with the result. The way we prefer to think about this experience is that it is a start.

Perhaps students and mentors out there can continue this type of project for your own country. You can rethink the initial idea and take the steering wheel. You may already have a topic in mind about wetlands that you want to broadcast, or you may know the right person to pick up the slack and continue our efforts on a podcast about wetlands. Go on and spread the word. Wetland science does not travel by itself.

We need courageous, innovative persons to teach and stimulate the public and promote wetland science education. We need to grow the network of wetland scientists and practitioners and supporters to share what we love, live and like the most: the wonderful wetlands!

NOTES FROM THE FIELD

By Ralph Tiner

In late 2018, swamp mats were placed in a freshwater marsh to provide access along a powerline for replacement of utility poles in Leverett, Massachusetts. They remained there until May 2022. Given that I drive by the site frequently I thought I’d monitor vegetation reestablishment by taking a time series of photographs from the same location (see below). You can see that within one growing season vegetation has returned to cover the site. Skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides) and smartweeds (Polygonum sp.) have colonized the site producing a low diversity community. The vegetation in the undisturbed marsh is more diverse. While sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) appear to be the dominant species in mid-summer, the undisturbed marsh is actually quite diverse with numerous other herbaceous species observed including, cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), marsh fern (Dryopteris palustris), rough bedstraw (Galium asprellum), fringed loosestrife (Lysimachia ciliata), skunk cabbage, marsh bellflower (Campanula aparinoides), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), tall meadow-rue (Thalictrum pubescens), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), and arrow-leaved tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum). The undisturbed marsh also contains a few scattered shrubs of buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), maleberry (Lyonia ligustrina), meadowsweet (Spiraea alba), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), European buckthorn (Frangula alnus), and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix). I expect that in time, the disturbed marsh will become more diverse as species from the undisturbed section recolonize the disturbed site.

Freshwater marsh along the powerline on Depot Road, Leverett, Massachusetts on May 10, 2014, four years before installation of swamp mats (Google Earth image).

Marsh corridor on July 27, 2021.

View of undisturbed marsh along swamp mat corridor on July 27, 2021; sensitive fern (Onoclea sensiblis) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) are visually dominant during this season, while skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) likely dominates in spring.

Site on May 1, 2022, about a week or so after removal of the swamp mats; a few plants of skunk cabbage can be seen in the open water of the corridor.

The marsh corridor on May 14, 2022, showing the emergence of more skunk cabbage leaves, along with some cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea).

Swamp mats were removed in late April 2022.

Marsh corridor on August 27, 2022; corridor is completely filled with vegetation, mainly rice cutgrass and smartweeds (Polygonum sp.).

Marsh corridor on September 28, 2022. Lots of beggars-ticks (Bidens sp.) observed.

Listed below are some links to some random news articles that may be of interest. Links from past issues can beaccessed on the SWS website news page. This section includes links to mostly newspaper articles that may be of interest. Members are encouraged to send links to articles about wetlands in their local area. Please send the links to WSP Editor at ralphtiner83@gmail.com and reference “Wetlands in the News” in the subject box. Thanks for your cooperation.

For another source on the latest news about wetlands and related topics, readers are referred to the National Association of Wetland Managers website (formerly the Association of State Wetland Managers). Their “Wetland News Digest” includes links to government agency public notices and newspaper articles that should be of interest, especially dealing with wetland regulations, court cases, management, and threats: https://www.nawm.org/publications/wetland-news-digest.

Montana Conservation Easement at Risk Development and mangrove conservation can go hand in hand. A new Gujarat study offers proof

Recovering biodiversity in Brazil's pioneering Atlantic Forest through conservation and ecological restoration

The planetary role of seagrass conservation

Burntwood-Langenkamp Wetland Conservation project

Plans for Somerset wetlands to mitigate phosphate levels

Hundreds of endangered northern leopard frogs to be released in Grant County wildlife refuge

Georgia just broke its state record for the number of sea turtle nests 99% of sea turtles are now born female due to extreme heatwaves

In effort to improve water quality, state to revamp wetlands at Woodlawn Beach

California Fire and Floods Turn a River to 'Sludge,' Killing Thousands of Fish Tribe: Flash flood during McKinney Fire kills thousands of Klamath River fish Earth’s Lakes Emit Less Methane Than Previously Thought The Shapes of Shrimp Farms Affect Their Groundwater Pollution

Poseidon failed to start wetlands restoration on time, says Coastal Commission

Every Baby Sea Turtle in Florida Seems to Be Female. We Warned You, Scientists Say Feathered jewels on a spinning chandelier: White pelicans have made an astonishing recovery in Wisconsin Where are the pelicans, and will they return to the Mississippi Coast this summer?

Iraq's Garden of Eden now 'like a desert' Why scientists have pumped a potent greenhouse gas into streams on public lands Sea creatures pollinate marine plants and algae, surprising scientists

'Bay City deserves it': Restoration project paves way for Wisconsin village to regain access to Lake Pepin

Evidence of Unprecedented Modern Sea-Level Rise Found in Ancient Caves

Everglades: The Devil's Garden Dam removal aimed at restoring stream flow, improving water quality

A 33-acre wetland project at FDR Park will break ground soon

Century-old Tomales Bay oyster farm sanctioned by coastal commission

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeks to protect southeastern N.C. species, efforts aimed at Brunswick, New Hanover counties

What’s the Best Mosquito Repellent? We Tested Sprays, Nets, and Tech to Find Out

Walking RI: Discover a hidden gem of forest, ponds and wetlands in Little Compton

On Chile rivers, Native spirituality and development clash Flooding Wetlands Could Be the Next Big Carbon Capture Hack

Drone photos show ‘incredible’ impact of beavers during drought

Ballston Beaver Pond might become Ballston Wetland Park since there are no more beavers

Work begins on new Herefordshire wetland habitat Dugongs functionally extinct in Chinese waters, study finds WION Climate Tracker | Sea level rise threatens land & livelihood in Spain's Ebro Delta

Tiny oysters play big role in stabilizing eroding shorelines Birds losing habitat in the Netherlands due to rising sea levels

Swinomish Tribe builds modern clam garden, reviving practice

CNN Exclusive: Scientists make major breakthrough in race to save Caribbean coral

Drifting Toward Disaster: the (Second) Rio Grande EPA’s authority over wetlands is at stake as justices wade back into regulatory morass Northland peat bogs are carbon hogs, if they are intact

Listed below are some wetland books that have come to our attention over the years. Please help us add new books and major reports to this listing. If your agency, organization, or institution has published new publications on wetlands, please send the information to Editor of Wetland Science & Practice at ralphtiner83@gmail.com. Your cooperation is appreciated.

BOOKS

• History of Wetland Science: A Perspective from Wetland Leaders

• An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America (5th Edition)

• Wading Right In: Discovering the Nature of Wetlands

• Sedges of Maine

• Sedges and Rushes of Minnesota

• Wetland & Stream Rapid Assessments: Development,Validation, and Application

• Eager: The Surprising Secret Life of Beavers and Why They Matter

• Wetland Indicators – A Guide to Wetland Formation, Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping

• Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification

• Creating and Restoring Wetlands: From Theory to Practice

• Salt Marsh Secrets. Who uncovered them and how?

• Remote Sensing of Wetlands: Applications and Advances.

• Wetlands (5th Edition).

• Black Swan Lake – Life of a Wetland

• Coastal Wetlands of the World: Geology, Ecology, Distributionand Applications

• Florida’s Wetlands

• Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Science, Management,Policy, and Practice

• The Atchafalaya River Basin: History and Ecology of an American Wetland

• Tidal Wetlands Primer: An Introduction to their Ecology, Natural History, Status and Conservation

• Wetland Landscape Characterization: Practical Tools, Methods, and Approaches for Landscape Ecology

• Wetland Techniques (3 volumes)

• Wildflowers and Other Plants of Iowa Wetlands

• Wetland Restoration: A Handbook for New Zealand Freshwater Systems

• Wetland Ecosystems

• Constructed Wetlands and Sustainable Development

• Tussock Sedge: A Wetland Superplant

• Waubesa Wetlands: New Look at an Old Gem

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS WSP SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

About Wetland Science & Practice (WSP)

Wetland Science and Practice (WSP) is the SWS quarterly publication aimed at providing information on select SWS activities (technical committee summaries, chapter workshop overview/abstracts, and SWS-funded student activities), articles on ongoing or recently completed wetland research, restoration, or management projects, freelance articles on the general ecology and natural history of wetlands, and highlights of current events. The July issue is typically dedicated to publishing the proceedings of our annual conference. WSP also serves as an outlet for commentaries, perspectives and opinions on important developments in wetland science, theory, management and policy. Both invited and unsolicited manuscripts are reviewed by the WSP editor for suitability for publication. When deemed necessary or upon request, some articles are subject to scientific peer review. Student papers are welcomed. Please see publication guidelines herein. Electronic access to Wetland Science and Practice is included in your SWS membership. All issues published, except the current issue, are available via the internet to the general public. The current issue is only available to SWS members; it will be available to the public four months after its publication when the next issue is released (e.g., the January 2022 issue will be an open access issue in April 2022). WSP is an excellent choice to convey the results of your projects or interest in wetlands to others. Also note that as of January 2021, WSP will publish advertisements, contact info@sws. org for details.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

If you read something you like in WSP, or that you think someone else would find interesting, be sure to share. Share links to your Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn accounts.

Make sure that all your SWS colleagues are checking out our recent issues, and help spread the word about SWS to non-members!

Questions? Contact editor Ralph Tiner, PWS Emeritus (ralphtiner83@gmail.com).

WSP Manuscript – General Guidelines

LENGTH:

Approximately 5,000 words; can be longer if necessary.

STYLE:

See existing articles from 2014 to more recent years available online at: https://members.sws.org/wetland-science-and-practice

TEXT:

Word document, 12 font, Times New Roman, singlespaced; keep tables and figures separate, although captions can be included in text. For reference citations in text use this format: (Smith 2016; Jones and Whithead 2014; Peterson et al. 2010).

FIGURES:

Please include full-color images of subject wetland(s). Image size should be a minimum of 1MB for this e-publication. High resolution images at 150 DPI are preferred. Figures should be original (not published elsewhere) or in the public domain. If published elsewhere, permission must be granted (author’s responsibility) from that publisher.

Reference Citation Examples

• Claus, S., S. Imgraben, K. Brennan, A. Carthey, B. Daly, R. Blakey, E. Turak, and N. Saintilan. 2011. Assessing the ex-tent and condition of wetlands in NSW: Supporting report A – Conceptual framework, Monitoring, evaluation and re-porting program, Technical report series, Office of Environ-ment and Heritage, Sydney, Australia. OEH 2011/0727.

• Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Wash-ington. Washington D.C. Publication 242.

• Colburn, E.A. 2004. Vernal Pools: Natural History and Conservation. McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA.

• Cole, C.A. and R.P. Brooks. 2000. Patterns of wetland hydrology in the Ridge and Valley Province, Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 20: 438-447.

Although not included in the above examples, please be sure to add the doi code to citations where possible.

2022 Advertising Prospectus

Monthly Newsletter

The SWS monthly newsletter is sent to approximately 3,000 members around the world, and enjoys an open rate between 40-50%, which is well above industry average. Place your organization in front of leading environmental scientists monthly with an ad that links to your website. 1x 3x 6x 12x $100 $90 ($270 total) $80 ($480 total) $70 ($840 total)

Price (per ad)

• Ad Format: .jpeg or .png

• Ad Due Date: Artwork and link URL due on the first of the month in which the ad is to run.

Website

• Size Specifications: 300 pixels wide x 250 pixels tall, 72 dpi

• Distribution Date: On or around the 15th of each month

The SWS website launched its new design last year, and this far more user-friendly, engaging, and SEO-optimized format has increased the site’s visibility and exposure. Highlight your company on the SWS.org homepage with a display ad that links to your website.

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

Ad Due Date January 3 March 28 June 27 Sept 26 Ad Begins January 10 April 4 July 1 October 3

• Pricing: $300 quarterly; $1,000 yearly

• Ad Format: .jpeg or .png

• Size Specification: .300 pixels wide x 250 pixels tall, 72 dpi

Wetland Science & Practice (WSP)

• Ad Due Date: Artwork and link URL due one week prior to beginning run date

• Ad Begin Date: Ad uploaded the first day of the first month of the quarter

WSP is the SWS quarterly publication aimed at providing information on select SWS activities (technical committee summaries, chapter and section workshop overview/abstracts, and SWS-funded student activities); brief summary articles on current or recently completed wetland research, restoration, or management projects; information on the general ecology and natural history of wetlands; and highlights of current events. It is distributed digitally, with over 1,000 impressions and more than 250 reads in the first six months after release.

• Ad Format: Press quality .pdf with images rendered at 300 or higher dpi • Ad Due Date: Artwork is due on the 15th of the month prior to the month of publication • Distribution Date: WSP is published on or around the middle of the month of publication

Photo Credit: Jason Smith -Penobscot Mountain Perched Bog, Bar Harbor, ME