Salt Marsh Integrity Assessment Program
in USFWS Region 5
SusanC. Adamowicz; Neckles, Hilary;
Guntenspergen, Glenn; Shriver, Greg; Taylor, Jan
Background
• USFWS Region 5 National
Wildlife Refuges
• Refuge purposes…..
– Threatened &
Endangered Species
– Migratory Birds
– Wilderness
– Shorebirds & Wading Birds
– Encourage Natural
Diversity
– Conservation of Wetlands
Background cont.
• US FWS has series of unrelated research
projects but no common baseline assessment
Fundulus heteroclitus Length (mm)
Before
After 1 yr
Konisky et al. 2004
After 2+ yr
Background cont.
• Desire for more
informed
management
decision making
at local and
regional level
Regional
Director
Scott Kahan
Regional
Refuge
Chief
Refuge
Manager
Refuge
Biologist
Wendi Weber
Regional Natural
Resources Chief
Jan Taylor
Structured
Decision
Making
PrOACT
Problem Definition
Objectives
Action alternatives
Consequences (Predictive model)
Trade-offs/Optimization (Solution algorithm)
Monitoring
Reference: Smart Choices by Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa
PrOACT
Problem Definition:
• Identify indicators of salt marsh integrity that are
effective across large geographic regions, responsive to
a wide range of threats, and feasible to implement
within funding and staffing constraints of the NWRS
• Management/restoration decisions made for a given
refuge at 3- to 5-year time scales,
• The ecological and geographic focus of this exercise
was historically brackish and saline marshes dominated
by halophytic vegetation in FWS Region 5 (Northeast)
PrOACT
• Objectives:
Biological Diversity
and Integrity
Obligate Salt
Nonbreeding
Marsh Breeding
Wetland Birds
Birds
Native
Nekton
Community
Native Veg
Community
Environmental
Health
Tidal Regime
and Hydrology
Herbicide
Applied During
Mgt.
Maintain
Marsh Area
Trophic
Structure
Salt Marsh Integrity Objectives Hierarchy
Biological Diversity and Integrity (0.5)
Obligate Salt
Marsh Breeding
Birds (0.10)
Birds/point
Nonbreeding
Wetland Birds
(0.10)
Ave ABDU winter
abundance
Native Nekton
Community
(0.09)
Nekton Density
(#/m2) (0.045)
Environmental Health (0.5)
Native Veg
Community
(0.12)
% cover native
spp.
Trophic Structure
(0.09)
Marsh spiders
per m2
Tidal Regime and
Hydrology (0.22)
Flood
Duration (0.11)
Nekton Species
Richness (0.045)
Objective
Measureable Attribute
Salinity (0.11)
Maintain Marsh
Area (0.22)
Relative change
marsh surface
elevation
Herbicide Applied
During Mgt.
(0.06)
Pints
Desire for “Rapid” Assessement
Method
Intensive
“Rapid”
• Obligate Marsh Bird Nesting
Success
• Vegetation Quadrats
• Bird Point Counts/Callback
• Nekton Throw Traps& Ditch
Nets
• Groundwater Wells
• GIS
•
•
•
•
•
Vegetation Transects
Veg: Visual Community ID
Minnow Traps
Water Level Loggers
GIS
Rapid Method “Final” List
Historical condition and geomorphic setting
Landscape_position
• Landscape position: 1 (marine), 2 (middleestuary), 3 (upper-estuary)
•
Shape: 1 (expansive meadow), 2 (narrow
fringing marsh)
•
Fill/fragmentation: 1 (no), 2 (low), 3 (mod),
4 (severe)
•
Tidal flushing: 1 (well flushed),
2 (moderately flushed), 3 (poorly flushed)
•
Aquatic edge: 1 (low), 2 (mod), 3 (high)
•
Ditch Density: 1 (no), 2 (low), 3 (mod),
4 (severe)
Rapid Method “Final” List cont.
Surrounding land-use
• % agricultural land in 150 m buffer *
(area of buffer/area of MSU)
•
% natural land in 150 m buffer * (area
of buffer/area of MSU)
•
% natural land in 1 km buffer * (area
of buffer/area of MSU)
•
Ratio of open water area :
vegetation area
Rapid Method “Final” List cont.
Marsh surface elevation
• Elevation to NAVD88
Tidal range/groundwater level
• % of Time Marsh Surface Flooded
• Mean Flood Depth (cm)
Salinity
• Surface water salinity (@ nekton sites)
Rapid Method “Final” List cont.
Vegetation community
• Species richness using rapid point
intercept method on transects
• % Cover Visual Estimations of
– Brackish Terrestrial Border
Community
– Open Water
– Pannes, Pools, & Creeks
– High Marsh Community
– Low Marsh Community
– Salt Marsh Terrestrial Border
community
– Upland Community
– Invasive Plant Species
Rapid Method “Final” List cont.
Nekton community
(throw trap, ditch nets)
• Nekton Density
• Nekton Species Richness
• Fundulus heteroclitus length (mm)
Breeding bird community
Point Count Surveys
• Willet Abundance
• Tidal Marsh Obligate Abundance
• Call-broadcast surveys: Clapper Rail,
Willet, Saltmarsh Sparrow, Seaside
Sparrow
Tidal Regime Influence Diagram
Planting
Vegetation
Marsh
Elevation
Spray
Phrag
Dredge
Spoil
Deposition
Freshwater
Input
Sediment
Traps
Tidal
Exchange
with Bay /
Ocean
Divert
freshwater
Increase
culvert size
Action
Flood Depth
(above marsh
surface)
Salinity
Ditch Density
Effect
Sea Level
Rise
Tidal
Regime &
Hydrology
Goal
Tidal Creek
Density
Excavate
Channels
Marsh
Mgmt for
Mosquitoes
Flood Duration
(% Time
Flooded )
Measured
Attributes
Alternatives and Consequence Table:
Raw Scores (sij)
Objectives
Unit
Management Action
1
2
3
…
8
9
10
I
Current Status
15
200
50
…
0
1
0
I
(A) Excavate old ditch, install new
culvert under road
19
500
70
…
0
1
0
I
(B) Treat Phragmites in WUI zone
17
550
65
…
0
1
10
…
…
…
II
(A) DE Bay dredge spoil deposition
…
…
II
(B) Excavate Old Slaughter Creek
…
…
…
…
…
III
(C) + (D) + (F)
…
…
0
Slide Courtesy of Jim Lyons
Multi-attribute Utility Theory
Example: Tidal marsh obligate birds
Example: Nekton density
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.60
utility
utility
0.70
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
5
10
Score for tidal marsh obligate birds
15
0.00
0.0000
0.0020
0.0040
0.0060
0.0080
Score for Nekton density
Management Benefit (U Actioni ) = ∑ j =1 w j u ij
10
Utility functions for illustration purposes only. See spreadsheet for actual utility functions.
Slide Courtesy of Jim Lyons
Multi-attribute Utility Theory
Example: Tidal marsh obligate birds
Example: Nekton density
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.60
utility
utility
0.70
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
5
10
Score for tidal marsh obligate birds (birds / point)
15
0.00
0.0000
0.0020
0.0040
0.0060
0.0080
Score for Nekton density (# / m^2)
Management Benefit (U Actioni ) = ∑ j =1 w j u ij
10
Utility functions for illustration purposes only. See spreadsheet for actual utility functions.
Slide Courtesy of Jim Lyons
Consequence Table: Utility (uij)
Objectives
Unit
Management Action
1
2
3
…
8
I
Current Status
u1,1
u1,2
u1,3
…
u1,8
u1,9 u1,10
I
(A) Excavate old ditch, install new culvert
under road
u2,1
u2,2
u2,3
…
u2,8
u2,9 u2,10
I
(B) Treat Phragmites in WUI zone
…
II
(A) DE Bay dredge spoil deposition
II
(B) Excavate Old Slaughter Creek
…
III
(C) + (D) + (F)
9
10
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
ui,j
Slide Courtesy of Jim Lyons
Conservation Benefit
Pareto Efficiency Frontier
8
35
7
22
17
16
6
18 23
13
25
20
34
19
15
14
12
11
10
8
5
24 29
9
7
6
1
4
Current
Status
2
3
4
2
0
100
200
300
400
500
Cost over 15 years
$1000)of Jim Lyons
Slide(x
Courtesy
Examples of Data Gathered:
2009 pilot study
Salinity
Rapid_Salinity
Vegetation community
Spp Richness
RA_Brack_Terr_Border
RA_Open_Water
RA_Pannes_Pools_Creeks
RA_High_Marsh
RA_Low_Marsh
RA_Salt_Marsh_Terr_Border
RA_Upland
Invasive species
RA_Invasives
Nekton community
Spp Richness
Density
Fundulus_Length
Breeding bird community
Willet_Abundance
TMO_Abundance
Grape
Mean
39
Nelson
OMWM
SD Mean SD Mean
SD
14 1
17 nd .
3
np
np
23
75
31
np
np
4
.
.
np
.
10
14
38
5
8
69
30
6
16
np
8
5
16
40
3
4
1
17
4
3
6
4
7
13
19
9
nd
nd
nd
15
9
.
15
81
15
13
3
.
np
np
5
13
17
np
np
3
1
25
36
11
17
15
12
35
16
10
Data from Neckles et al. 2011, draft
6
2012 Implementation Sites
Moosehorn NWR
Maine Coastal Island NWR
Rachel Carson NWR
Parker River NWR
RI Complex NWR
Stewart B. McKinney NWR
Long Island Complex NWR
Forsythe NWR
Bombay Hook NWR
Prime Hook NWR
Chincoteague NWR
2012 Data Analysis
• Summary of number of points, samples etc.
– 11 National Wildlife Refuges from Maine to Virginia
– A minimum of
•
•
•
•
•
34 salt marsh units
680 nekton stations
102 bird stations
102 vegetation transects and community plots
34 water level loggers deployed for at least 1 complete
tidal cycle (spring and neap tide sequence)
Acknowledgements
Field Crews from 12
National Wildlife Refuges
in 2008, 2009, 2012
Project Developers: USFWS,
USGS, Univ DE
Questions?