Advertisement

Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 745–753 | Cite as

Adding to the toolbox for tidal-inundation mapping in estuarine areas

  • Rebecca Flitcroft
  • Patrick Clinton
  • Kelly Christiansen
Article

Abstract

In estuaries, land-surface and tidal elevation conspire to influence the amount of salt-water inundation in a specific location, ultimately affecting the distribution of estuary vegetation. Plants vary in their tolerances to salinity and inundation. Understanding even small changes in land-surface elevation at a site scale provides relevant information to managers seeking to design effective long-term restoration projects. Restoration of estuary habitats has been identified as a tool to mediate some anticipated effects of climate change, including flooding from sea-level rise, precipitation regimes, and storminess. Further, habitat restoration that is effective in the face of climate uncertainty is critical to the sustainable production of seafood and maintenance of ecosystem functions. We offer a simple method that links tidal elevations to upslope topography, allowing managers to determine where tidal inundation of upslope areas may occur. This method does not require complex modeling, rather we combine existing high-accuracy tide-gage information with LiDAR imagery. However, we found that if LiDAR is not flown at low tide, or at consistent tidal heights, it poses significant challenges in the interpretation of tidal elevations. Where LiDAR is consistently collected at low tide, this method of linking the tidal datum to upslope topography is not data-intensive, and does not require long-term data collection. Along with locally specific information, the types of map products that can be developed using this method should identify places that may be potentially vulnerable to salt-water inundation, along with places that may be effective migration corridors for marshes and other habitats.

Keywords

Climate change Sea-level rise Tidal inundation Restoration LiDAR GIS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to partner organizations and others working to develop restoration strategies for Oregon Estuaries. We would also like to thank Justin Saarinen for his thorough and thoughtful review of the manuscript prior to submission. Salary support for this research was provided by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific, Northwest Research Station and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

References

  1. Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke C, Carpenter SR, Rockström J (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309:1036–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battin J, Wiley MW, Ruckelshaus MH, Palmer RN, Korb E, Bartz KK, Imaki H (2007) Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the, vol 104. National Academy of Sciences, USA, pp 6720–6725Google Scholar
  3. Bisson PA, Dunham JB, Reeves GH (2009) Freshwater ecosystems and resilience of Pacific salmon: habitat management based on natural variability. Ecol Soc 14:45 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art45/. Accessed 5 April 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bottom DL, Jones KK, Simenstad SA, Smith CL (2009) Reconnecting social and ecological resilience in salmon ecosystems. Ecol Soc 14(1):5 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art5/. Accessed 5 April 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway JC, Parker VT, Vasey MC, Schile LM (2007) Emerging issues for the restoration of tidal marsh ecosystems in the context of predicted climate change. Madrono 54:234–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortright R, Weber J, Bailey R (1987) The Oregon estuary plan book. Department of Land Conservation and Development, SalemGoogle Scholar
  7. Craft C, Clough J, Ehman J, Joye S, Park R, Pennings S, Guo H, Machmuller M (2009) Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 7:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crooks S, Herr D, Tamelander J, Laffoley D, Vandever J (2011) Mitigating climate change through restoration and management of coastal wetlands and near-shore marine ecosystems: Challenges and opportunities. Environment Department Paper 121, World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahl TE, Stedman SM (2013) Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the conterminous United States 2004–2009. US fish and wildlife service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Arlington, VA. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Status-and-Trends-of-Wetlands-In-the-Coastal-Watersheds-of-the-Conterminous-US-2004-to-2009.pdf. Accessed 5 April 2017
  10. Dugan JE, Airoldi L, Chapman MG, Walker SJ, Schlacker T (2011) Chapter 8.02—estuarine and coastal structures: environmental effects, a focus on shore and nearshore structures. In: Wolanski E, McLusky D (eds) Treatise on estuarine and coastal science. Elsevier, Italy, pp 17–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebersole JL, Liss WJ, Frissell CA (1997) Restoration of stream habitats in the western United States: restoration as reexpression of habitat capacity. Environ Manag 21:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewald MJ (2013) Where’s the ground surface? Elevation bias in LIDAR-derived digital elevation models due to dense vegetation in Oregon tidal marshes. Oregon State University, USA, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  13. Falke JA, Flitcroft RL, Dunham JB, McNyset KM, Hessburg PF, Reeves GH (2015) Climate change and vulnerability of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in a fire-prone landscape. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 72:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandez-Nunez M, Burningham H, Ojeda Zujar J (2017) Improving accuracy of LiDAR-derived digital terrain models for saltmarsh management. J Coast Conserv 21:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flitcroft R, Giannico G (2013) Keeping pace with future environmental conditions in coastal Oregon, USA. Water Resources IMPACT 15(6):6–9Google Scholar
  16. Flitcroft R, Burnett K, Christiansen K (2013) A simple model that identifies potential effects of sea-level rise on estuarine and estuary-ecotone habitat locations for salmonids in Oregon, USA. Environ Manag 52:196–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flitcroft RL, Bottom DL, Haberman KL, Bierly KF, Jones KK, Simenstad CA, Gray A, Ellingson KS, Baumgartner E, Cornwell TJ, Campbell LA (2016) Expect the unexpected: place-based protections can lead to unforeseen benefits. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 26(Suppl.1):39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS (2004) Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:557–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraile-Jurado P, Ojeda-Zújar J (2013) The importance of the vertical accuracy of digital elevation models in gauging inundation by sea level rise along the Valdelagrana beach and marshes (bay of Cádiz, SW Spain). Geo-Mar Lett 33:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gao J (2009) Bathymetric mapping by means of remote sensing: methods, accuracy and limitations. Prog Phys Geogr 33(1):103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill SK, Schultz JR (eds) (2001) Tidal Datums and their applications. Silver Spring: NOAA Special Publication NOS CO-OPS 1Google Scholar
  22. Glick P, Clough J, Nunley B (2007) Sea-level rise and coastal habitats in the Pacific northwest: an analysis for Puget sound, southwestern Washington, and northwestern Oregon. National Wildlife Federation. https://www.nwf.org/pdf/Water/200707_PacificNWSeaLevelRise_Report.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2016
  23. Good JW (2000) Summary and current status of Oregon’s estuarine ecosystems. In Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000. Salem: Oregon Progress Board.Google Scholar
  24. Janousek CN, Folger CL (2014) Variation in tidal wetland plant diversity and composition within and among coastal estuaries: assessing the relative importance of environmental gradients. J Veg Sci 25:534–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Janousek CH, Buffington KJ, Thorne KM, Guntenspergen GR, Takekawa JY, Dugger BD (2016) Potential effects of sea-level rise on plant productivity: species-specific responses in northeast Pacific tidal marshes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 548:111–125.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG, Kay MC, Kidwell SM, Kirby MX, Peterson CH, Jackson JBC (2006) Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312:1806–1809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mann KH (1982) Studies in Ecology Volume 8 Ecology of Coastal Waters a Systems Approach. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Miller K, Charles A, Barange M, Bander K, Gallucci VF, Gasalla MA, Khan A, Munro G, Murtugudde R, Ommer RE, Perry RI (2010) Climate change, uncertainty, and resilient fisheries: institutional responses through integrative science. Prog Oceanogr 87:338–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Montefalcone M, Parravicini V, Bianchi CN (2011) Chapter 10.03—quantification of coastal ecosystem resilience. In Treatise on estuarine and coastal science, eds. Wolanski E, McLusky D 49–70. Italy: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  30. Naiman RJ, Décamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neskowin Coastal Erosion Adaptation Plan (2013) Tillamook County, Department of Community Development, Tillamook, OR. http://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/ComDev/. Accessed 5 April 2017.
  32. NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA OCM) (2017) Detailed method for mapping sea level rise marsh migration. https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/slr-marsh-migration-methods.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2017
  33. NRC Committee on SLR (2012) Sea-level rise for the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: past, present, and Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Núñez MF (2016) Fusion of airborne LiDAR, multispectral imagery and spatial modelling for understanding saltmarsh response to sea-level rise. Dissertation, University College London, UKGoogle Scholar
  35. Pennings SC, Callaway RM (1992) Salt marsh plant zonation: the relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology 73:681–690.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poff NL, Brinson MM, Day Jr JW (2002) Aquatic ecosystems and global climate change: potential impacts on inland freshwater coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States. Washington DC: Pew Center on Global Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  37. Valiela I, Teal JM, Volkmann S, Shafer D, Carpenter EJ (1978) Nutrient and particulate fluxes in a salt marsh ecosystem: tidal exchanges and inputs by precipitation and groundwater. Limnol Oceanogr 23:798–812.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1978.23.4.0798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waples RS, Beechie T, Pess GR (2009) Evolutionary history, habitat disturbance regimes, and anthropogenic changes: what do these mean for resilience of Pacific salmon populations? Ecol Soc 14:3 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art3/. Accessed 5 April 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zilkoski DB, Richards JH, Young GM (1992) Results of the general adjustment of the north American vertical datum of 1988. Surveying and Land Information Systems 52:133–149Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNewportUSA

Personalised recommendations