Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Application of a three-tier framework to assess ecological condition of Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A multi-level coastal wetland assessment strategy was applied to wetlands in the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) to evaluate the feasibility of this approach for a broad national scale wetland condition assessment (US Environmental Protection Agency’s National Wetlands Condition Assessment). Landscape-scale assessment indicators (tier 1) were developed and applied at the sub-watershed (12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC)) level within the GOM coastal wetland sample frame with scores calculated using land-use maps and geographic information system. Rapid assessment protocols (tier 2), using a combination of data analysis and field work, evaluated metrics associated with landscape context, hydrology, physical structure, and biological structure. Intensive site monitoring (tier 3) included measures of soil chemistry and composition, water column and pore-water chemistry, and dominant macrophyte community composition and tissue chemistry. Relationships within and among assessment levels were evaluated using multivariate analyses with few significant correlations found. More detailed measures of hydrology, soils, and macrophyte species composition from sites across a known condition gradient, in conjunction with validation of standardized rapid assessment method, may be necessary to fully characterize coastal wetlands across the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, S. E., Grimshaw, H. M., Parkinson, J. A., & Quarmby, C. (1974). Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • APHA. (1989). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (17th ed.). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM. (2000). Standard test methods for moisture, ash, and organic matter of peat and other organic soils. Method D 2974-00. West Conshohocken: American Society for Testing and Materials.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batjes, N. (1996). Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European Journal of Soil Science, 47, 151–163.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, B. L., Walbridge, M. R., & Aldous, A. (1999). Patterns in nutrient availability and plant diversity of temperate North American wetlands. Ecology, 80, 2151–2169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, G. R., & Hartge, K. H. (1986). Bulk density. In Klute, A & A. Klute (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Soil Science Society of America Monograph 9 (2nd ed., pp. 363–375). Madison: Soil Science Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyoucos, G. J. (1936). Directions for making mechanical analysis of soils by the hydrometer method. Soil Science, 42, 225–230.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. P., Wardrop, D. H., & Bishop, J. A. (2004). Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the Mid-Atlantic region using synoptic land-cover maps. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 94, 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. T. & Reiss, K. C. (2006). Proposed breakpoint of LDI < 2.0 for determining minimally affected reference conditions for water bodies. Center for Environmental Policy, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida. Technical report submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

  • Brown, M. T., & Vivas, M. B. (2005). Landscape development intensity index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 101, 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruland, G. L., & Richardson, C. J. (2005). Spatial variability of soil properties in created, restored, and paired natural wetlands. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 69, 273–284.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carullo, M., Carlisle, B. K., & Smith, J. P. (2007). A New England rapid assessment method for assessing condition of estuarine marshes: a Boston Harbor, Cape Cod and Islands pilot study. Boston: Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, H. D. (1965). Cation-exchange capacity. In C. A. Black (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis—chemical and microbiological properties (Agronomy, Vol. 9, pp. 891–901).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. L., Valiela, I., Kroeger, K. D., Tomasky, G. L., Cebrian, J., Wigand, C., McKinney, R. A., Grady, S. P., & Carvalho de Silva, M. H. (2004). Assessment of a δ15N isotopic method to indicate anthropogenic eutrophication in aquatic ecosystems. Journal Environmental Quality, 33, 124–132.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. N., Stein, E. D., Sutula, M., Clark, R., Fetscher, A.E., Greiner, L., Grosso, C. & Wiskind, A. (2008). California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for wetlands, v. 5.0.2. 157 pp. http://www.cramwetlands.org/documents/. Accessed 13 September 2011.

  • Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., & LaRoe, E. T. (1979). Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • Dahl, T. E. (2006). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. Washington DC: US Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • Dahl, T. E., & Bergeson, M. T. (2009). Technical procedures for conducting status and trends of the Nation’s wetlands. Washington, DC: USDOI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation.

  • Day, P. R. (1965). Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In C. A. Black (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part I. Madison: Soil Science Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11, 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, D. W., & Wade, T. G. (2004). ATtILA user guide, version 2004. EPA/600/R-04/083. Las Vegas: US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elser, J. J., Dobberfuhl, D., MacKay, N. A., & Schampel, J. H. (1996). Organism size, life history, and N: P stoichiometry: towards a unified view of cellular and ecosystem processes. BioScience, 46, 674–684.

  • ESRI. (1999). ArcView 3.2 (computer program). Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy, M.S., Jacobs, A.D. & Kentula, M. E. (2004). Review of rapid methods for assessing wetland condition. EPA/620/R-04/009. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/download_files/publications/rapidmethodreview.pdf. Accessed 15 September 2011.

  • Gulf of Mexico Alliance (2009). Governors’ action plan II for healthy and resilient coasts: 2009–2014. http://www.gulfofmexicoalliance.org/pdfs/ap2_final2.pdf. Accessed 14 September 2011.

  • Jacobs, A. D., Whigham, D. F., Fillis, D., Rehm, E. & Howard, A. (2008). Delaware comprehensive assessment procedure version 5.1. Dover: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 74 pp.

  • Jones, J. B., Jr., Wolf, B., & Mills, H. A. (1991). Plant analysis handbook: a practical sampling, preparation, analysis, and interpretation guide. Athens: Micro–macro. 130 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, G., Oliver, J. L., Thomas, D.A., Wool, T., Yuan, L. L., Butcher, J., Gerritsen, J., Paul, M. J. & Zheng, L. (2010). Technical support document for US EPA’s final rule for numeric criteria for nitrogen/phosphorus pollution in Florida’s inland surface fresh waters. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/florida_index.cfm. Accessed 13 June 2011.

  • Kentula, M. (2007). Foreword: monitoring wetlands at the watershed scale. Wetlands, 27, 412–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, C. R., & Brown, M. T. (2007). Diatoms as indicators of isolated herbaceous wetland condition in Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators, 7(3), 521–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, J. J. (2006). Landscape as a predictor of wetland condition: an evaluation of the Landscape Development Index (LDI) with a large reference wetland dataset from Ohio. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 120, 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, T. (2011). Elemental analysis by Micro-Dumas combustion. Athens: Stable Isotope/Soil Biology Laboratory of the University of Georgia, Odum School of Ecology. http://swpa.uga.edu/index.php?/site/micro-dumas/elemental_analysis_by_micro-dumas_combustion/. Accessed 19 September 2011.

  • Margriter, S. C. & Bruland, G. L. (2010). Assessing condition of Hawaiian coastal wetlands using a multi-scaled approach. Johns Hopkins University Global Water Magazine. http://globalwater.jhu.edu/index.php/magazine/article/assessing_the_condition_of_hawaiian_coastal_wetlands_using_a_multi-scaled_a/. Accessed 18 September 2011.

  • McKee, K. L., Mendelssohn, I. A., & Hester, M. W. (1988). Examination of pore water sulfide concentrations and redox potentials near the aerial roots of Rhizophora mangle and Avicennia germinans. American Journal of Botany, 75(9), 1352–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. E., Jr. & Gunsalus, B. E. (1999). Wetland rapid assessment procedure (WRAP), 2nd edn. South Florida Water Management District technical publication REG-001. 84 pp. http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/wrap99.pdf. Accessed 2 September 2011.

  • Nelson, D. W., & Sommers, L. E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In D. L. Sparks, A. L. Page, P. A. Helmke, R. H. Loeppert, P. N. Soltanpour, M. A. Tabatabai, C. T. Johnson, & M. E. Sumner (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 3—chemical methods (Soil Science Society of America Book, Vol. Series 5, pp. 961–1010). Madison: Soil Science Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestlerode, J. A., Engle, V. D., Bourgeois, P., Heitmuller, P. T., Macauley, J., & Allen, Y. (2009). An integrated approach to assess broad-scale condition of Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 150, 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). (2006). Gulf Coast land cover. Charleston: NOAA Coastal Services Center, Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover Database. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/gulfcoast.html.

  • NRC (National Research Council). (2000). Ecological indicators for the nation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • NWQMC (National Water Quality Monitoring Council). (2006). A national water quality monitoring network for US coastal waters and their tributaries. Final report to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, and the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. http://acwi.gov/monitoring/network/design. Accessed 13 September 2011.

  • Olsen, S. R., & Sommers, L. E. (1982). Phosphorus. In A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, & D. R. Keeney (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis (Agronomy 2nd ed., Vol. Series No. 9, Part 2, pp. 403–430). Madison: Soil Science Society of America, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, A. R., Sedransk, J., Edwards, D., Gotway, C. A., Liggett, W., Rathbun, S., Reckhow, K. H., & Young, L. J. (1999). Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 54, 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, S., Srinivasan, R., Sanabria, J., Haan, P. K., Mukhtar, S., & Neimann, K. (2006). Groupwise modeling study of bacterially impaired watersheds in Texas: clustering analysis. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42, 1017–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reckhow, K. H., Beaulac, M. N., & Simpson, J. T. (1980). Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under uncertainty: a manual and compilation of export coefficients. USEPA 440/5-80-011. Washington, DC: Office of Water Regulations and Standards, US Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, K. C., & Brown, M. T. (2007). An evaluation of Florida depressional wetlands: application of US EPA levels 1, 2, and 3 assessment methods. EcoHealth, 4, 206–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheinhardt, R. D., Brinson, M. M., Christian, R. R., Miller, K. H., & Meyer, G. F. (2007). A reference based framework for evaluating the ecological condition of stream networks in small watersheds. Wetlands, 27, 524–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute, Inc. (2011). SAS/STAT® user’s guide, version 9.3. Cary: SAS Institute.

  • Scozzafava, M. E., Dahl, T., Faulkner, C. & Price, M. (2007). Assessing status, trends, and condition of wetlands in the United States. In: National Wetlands Newsletter, 29(3). 5 pp.

  • Seaber, P. R., Kapinos, F. P. & Knapp, G. L. (1987). Hydrologic unit maps. Water Supply Paper 2294, US Geological Survey, 63 pp.

  • Shafer, D., Herczeg, B., Moulton, D., Sipocz, A., Jaynes, K., Rozas, L., Onuf, C. & Miller, W. (2002). Regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of northwest Gulf of Mexico tidal fringe wetlands. ERDC/EL TR-02-5. Vicksburg: US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel02-5.pdf.

  • Shafer, D.J., Roberts, T. H., Peterson, M. S. & Schmid, K. (2007). A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing the functions of tidal fringe wetlands along the Mississippi and Alabama Gulf Coast. ERDC/EL TR-07-2. Vicksburg: US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel07-2.pdf.

  • Solek, C. W., Stein, E. D. & Sutula, M. (2011). Demonstration of an integrated watershed assessment using a three-tiered assessment framework. Wetlands Ecology and Management (Online First). doi:10.1007/s11273-011-9230-6).

  • Stedman, S., & Dahl, T. E. (2008). Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 32 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein E. D., Sutula, M., Clark, R., Wiskind, A. & Collins, J. N. (2007). Improving monitoring and assessment of wetland and riparian areas in California through implementation of a level 1, 2, 3 framework. Technical report 555. Costa Mesa: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/TechnicalReports/555_SWAMP_Level_1_2_3_whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2009.

  • Stein, E. D., Fetscher, A. E., Clark, R. P., Wiskind, A., Grenier, J. L., Sutula, M., Collins, J. N., & Grosso, C. (2009). Validation of a wetland rapid assessment method: use of EPA’s level 1-2-3 framework for method testing and refinement. Wetlands, 29, 648–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, D. L., Jr., & Olsen, A. R. (2004). Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of American Statistical Association, 99, 262–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steyer, G. D., Sasser, C. E., Visser, J. M., Swenson, E. M., Nyman, J. A., & Raynie, R. C. (2003). A proposed coast-wide reference monitoring system for evaluating wetland restoration trajectories in Louisiana. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 81, 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutula, M., Collins, J. N., Clark, R., Roberts, C., Stein, E., Grosso, C., Wiskind, A., Solek, C., May, M., O’Connor, K., Fetscher, E., Grenier, J.L., Pearce, S., Robinson, A., Clark, C., Rey, K., Morrissette, S., Eicher, A., Pasquinelli, R. & Ritter, K. (2008). California’s Wetland Demonstration Program Pilot. Technical report 572. Costa Mesa: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 126 pp. ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/TechnicalReports/572_WDP.pdf. Accessed 28 August 2009.

  • Sutula, M. A., Stein, E. D., Collins, J. N., Fetscher, A. E., & Clark, R. (2006). A practical guide for the development of a wetland assessment method: the California experience. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42, 157–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. E., Swenson, E. M., & Summers, J. K. (1995). Coastal wetlands indicator study: EMAP-Estuaries Louisianian Province—1991. EPA/620/R-95/005. Gulf Breeze: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2003). Draft report on the environment. EPA-260-R-02-006. Washington, DC: US EPA, Office of Research and Development and Office of Environmental Information.

  • US EPA (2006). Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program for Wetlands. Washington, DC: US EPA. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Wetland_Elements_Final.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2011.

  • US EPA. (2011). National Wetland Condition Assessment: Integrated Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA-843-R-10-003. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • US GAO (United States General Accounting Office). (2000). Water quality: key EPA and state decisions limited by inconsistent and incomplete data. GAO/RCED-00-54. Washington, DC: US GAO.

  • Verhoeven, J. T. A., Koerselman, W., & Meuleman, A. F. M. (1996). Nitrogen- or phosphorus-limited growth in herbaceous, wet vegetation: relations with atmospheric inputs and management regimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 494–497.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. H., Jr. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardrop, D. H., Kentula, M. E., Stevens, D. L., Jensen, S. F., & Brooks, R. P. (2007). Assessment of wetland condition: an example form the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands, 27, 416–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigand, C., McKinney, R. A., Chintala, M. M., Charpentier, M. A., & Groffman, P. M. (2004). Denitrification enzyme activity of fringe salt marshes in New England (USA). Journal of Environmental Quality, 33, 1144–1151.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wigand, C., Carlisle, B., Smith, J., Carullo, M., Fillis, D., Charpentier, M., McKinney, R., Johnson, R., & Heltshe, J. (2011). Development and validation of rapid assessment indices of condition for coastal tidal wetlands in southern New England, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 182, 31–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zar, J. H. (1996). Biostatistical analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 663 p.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank A. Almario, B. Boshart, G. Craven, K. Cretini, D. Dantin, R. Day, A. Diz, B. Gossman, K. Kaack, T. Heitmuller, M. Kaintz, S. Merino, E. Milbrandt, P. O’Donnell, J. Pahl, S. Piazza, A. Piehler, G. Snedden, G. Steyer, and J. Troutman for field and lab support. We sincerely thank Y. Allen and P. Bourgeois for assistance with survey design, landscape analyses, and persistence in obtaining permission to sample study sites. We thank R. Gibble, G. Serenbetz, and several anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier drafts. For site access, map data, and general guidance, thanks go to the private landowners and public land managers throughout the Gulf region where the probabilistic survey points were located. Sincere appreciation is also given to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Coastal Restoration Division, USGS-NWRC Coastal Restoration Field Station (Baton Rouge), Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, J. Collins, M. Sutula, and all the participants in the 2006 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Wetlands Survey Design and Indicator Development Workshop for insight and recommendations to the best approaches and available technology to assess the condition of wetlands within the northern Gulf of Mexico coastal region. The information in this document has been funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to review by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gulf Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 Sabine Island Dr., Gulf Breeze, FL, 32561, USA

    Janet A. Nestlerode, Virginia D. Hansen, Aarin Teague & Matthew C. Harwell

Authors
  1. Janet A. Nestlerode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Virginia D. Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aarin Teague
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew C. Harwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet A. Nestlerode.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 59 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 62 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 108 kb)

ESM 4

(PDF 61 kb)

ESM 5

(PDF 107 kb)

ESM 6

(PDF 74 kb)

ESM 7

(PDF 57 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nestlerode, J.A., Hansen, V.D., Teague, A. et al. Application of a three-tier framework to assess ecological condition of Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands. Environ Monit Assess 186, 3477–3493 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3631-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3631-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation