Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 186, Issue 6, pp 3477–3493 | Cite as

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

  • Janet A. NestlerodeEmail author
  • Virginia D. Hansen
  • Aarin Teague
  • Matthew C. Harwell


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.


Condition assessment Gulf of Mexico Multi-level assessment Wetland 



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.

Supplementary material

10661_2014_3631_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (60 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 59 kb)
10661_2014_3631_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (62 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 62 kb)
10661_2014_3631_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (109 kb)
ESM 3 (PDF 108 kb)
10661_2014_3631_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (61 kb)
ESM 4 (PDF 61 kb)
10661_2014_3631_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (108 kb)
ESM 5 (PDF 107 kb)
10661_2014_3631_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (74 kb)
ESM 6 (PDF 74 kb)
10661_2014_3631_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (57 kb)
ESM 7 (PDF 57 kb)


  1. Allen, S. E., Grimshaw, H. M., Parkinson, J. A., & Quarmby, C. (1974). Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
  2. APHA. (1989). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (17th ed.). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Batjes, N. (1996). Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European Journal of Soil Science, 47, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bouyoucos, G. J. (1936). Directions for making mechanical analysis of soils by the hydrometer method. Soil Science, 42, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, M. T., & Vivas, M. B. (2005). Landscape development intensity index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 101, 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. Accessed 13 September 2011.
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. ESRI. (1999). ArcView 3.2 (computer program). Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Google Scholar
  25. 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. Accessed 15 September 2011.
  26. Gulf of Mexico Alliance (2009). Governors’ action plan II for healthy and resilient coasts: 2009–2014. Accessed 14 September 2011.
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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. Accessed 13 June 2011.
  30. Kentula, M. (2007). Foreword: monitoring wetlands at the watershed scale. Wetlands, 27, 412–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lane, C. R., & Brown, M. T. (2007). Diatoms as indicators of isolated herbaceous wetland condition in Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators, 7(3), 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maddox, T. (2011). Elemental analysis by Micro-Dumas combustion. Athens: Stable Isotope/Soil Biology Laboratory of the University of Georgia, Odum School of Ecology. Accessed 19 September 2011.
  34. Margriter, S. C. & Bruland, G. L. (2010). Assessing condition of Hawaiian coastal wetlands using a multi-scaled approach. Johns Hopkins University Global Water Magazine. Accessed 18 September 2011.
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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. Accessed 2 September 2011.
  37. 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
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. NRC (National Research Council). (2000). Ecological indicators for the nation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy.Google Scholar
  41. 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. Accessed 13 September 2011.
  42. 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
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. SAS Institute, Inc. (2011). SAS/STAT® user’s guide, version 9.3. Cary: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. Seaber, P. R., Kapinos, F. P. & Knapp, G. L. (1987). Hydrologic unit maps. Water Supply Paper 2294, US Geological Survey, 63 pp.Google Scholar
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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).
  54. 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
  55. 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. Accessed 28 Aug 2009.
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stevens, D. L., Jr., & Olsen, A. R. (2004). Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of American Statistical Association, 99, 262–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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. Accessed 28 August 2009.
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. US EPA (2006). Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program for Wetlands. Washington, DC: US EPA. Accessed 1 September 2011.
  64. 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
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ward, J. H., Jr. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zar, J. H. (1996). Biostatistical analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 663 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet A. Nestlerode
    • 1
    Email author
  • Virginia D. Hansen
    • 1
  • Aarin Teague
    • 1
  • Matthew C. Harwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Gulf Ecology DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGulf BreezeUSA

Personalised recommendations