National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Protocol for Monitoring Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation 

and Vegetation Communities in Southeast Coast 

Network Parks

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2015/985
ON THE COVER

Salt Marsh at Canaveral National Seashore

Photograph by Jennifer Asper (NPS)
Protocol for Monitoring Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation 

and Vegetation Communities in Southeast Coast 

Network Parks

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2015/985

Joseph C. DeVivo1, Jennifer Asper1, Scott Eastman2, Nicole M. Rankin3, Anthony C. Curtis1, 

Christina J. Wright1, Emma Thompson1, and Michael W. Byrne1

1National Park Service

Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network

135 Phoenix Rd,

Athens, GA 30605

2Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

505 Guana River Road

Ponte Vedra, FL 32082

3United States Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge System

Inventory and Monitoring Network

5801 Highway 17 North

Awendaw, SC 29429

June 2015

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of 

interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural 

resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the 

public.

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis 

about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. 

The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of 

the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy 

results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.

This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in 

the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par 

technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily 

reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of 

trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the U.S. Government.

This report is available from the Southeast Coast Network 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/SECN/) and the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized 

for screen readers, please email irma@nps.gov.

Please cite this publication as:

DeVivo, J. C., J. Asper, S. Eastman, N. M. Rankin, A. C. Curtis, C. J. Wright, E. Thompson, and M. 

W. Byrne. 2015. Protocol for monitoring coastal salt marsh elevation and vegetation communities in 

Southeast Coast Network parks. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2015/985. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 910/128957, June 2015
iii

Contents

Page

Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii

Tables............................................................................................................................................. ix

Appendices..................................................................................................................................... xi

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... xiii

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... xv

Additional Notes on Attributions........................................................................................... xv

List of Commonly Used Acronyms............................................................................................ xvii

1. Background and Objectives........................................................................................................ 1

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

South Atlantic Salt Marsh Systems ......................................................................................... 2

Study Area: Marsh Wetlands in Southeast Coast Network Parks........................................... 4

Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge...................... 7

Cape Lookout National Seashore........................................................................................ 9

Fort Pulaski National Monument...................................................................................... 11

Fort Frederica National Monument .................................................................................. 13

Cumberland Island National Seashore.............................................................................. 15

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve..................................................................... 16

Fort Matanzas National Monument and Guana Tolomato Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve.............................................................................................. 18

Canaveral National Seashore ............................................................................................ 21

Factors Affecting Coastal Wetlands in Southeast Coast Network Parks .............................. 23

Landscape Change ............................................................................................................ 24

Relative Sea Level Rise and Tidal Variability.................................................................. 24

Extreme Weather Events................................................................................................... 26
iv

Contents (continued)

Altered Hydrology ............................................................................................................ 27

Vegetation Change............................................................................................................ 27

Human or Non-Natural Disturbances ............................................................................... 27

2. Measurable Objectives.............................................................................................................. 31

Monitoring Objectives........................................................................................................... 31

Enhanced Climate Change Monitoring Objectives ............................................................... 31

Research Objectives............................................................................................................... 32

Objectives Addressed in Other Monitoring Protocols........................................................... 32

3. Sampling Design....................................................................................................................... 33

Sample Frame ........................................................................................................................ 33

Sample Locations................................................................................................................... 34

Sample Location Selection ............................................................................................... 34

Response Designs.................................................................................................................. 36

Surface Elevation Measurements...................................................................................... 39

Accretion Measurements from Marker Horizons............................................................. 44

Benchmark Elevation........................................................................................................ 44

Soil Porewater................................................................................................................... 44

Vegetation and Surface Characteristic Sampling ............................................................. 45

Sampling Over Time.............................................................................................................. 46

4. Field Procedures: Installation and Data Collection Methods ................................................... 47

Installation of Monitoring Station and Sampling Infrastructure............................................ 47

Rod-Surface Elevation Table (RSET) Measurements........................................................... 48

Accretion Measurements Using Marker Horizons................................................................ 50

Soil Porewater Salinity .......................................................................................................... 50
v

Contents (continued)

Vegetation Community Composition and Non-Vegetation Surface 

Characteristics........................................................................................................................ 51

5. Data Handling Procedures ........................................................................................................ 55

Data Entry.............................................................................................................................. 55

Quality Control of Data ......................................................................................................... 55

Data Verification ................................................................................................................... 56

Data Certification................................................................................................................... 56

Overview of Database Design ............................................................................................... 56

Metadata ................................................................................................................................ 58

Data Archiving....................................................................................................................... 58

6. Reporting and Analysis............................................................................................................. 59

Annual Data Reports.............................................................................................................. 59

RSET Data Analysis......................................................................................................... 59

Analysis of Other Data...................................................................................................... 62

Synthesis Reports................................................................................................................... 63

Analysis of Trends............................................................................................................ 63

Evaluating Changes in Marsh Condition .......................................................................... 63

Protocol Review and Revision.......................................................................................... 64

Scientific Journal Articles and Conference Presentations..................................................... 64

Data Integration and Publication ........................................................................................... 64

Publication Standards ............................................................................................................ 65

7. Personnel Requirements and Training ...................................................................................... 67

Personnel and Qualifications................................................................................................. 67

Protocol Lead: SECN Coastal Ecologist........................................................................... 67

Coastal Technician............................................................................................................ 68
vi

Contents (continued)

SECN Data Manager......................................................................................................... 68

Training.................................................................................................................................. 68

Key Partnerships.................................................................................................................... 69

US Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Inventory & Monitoring Network .................... 69

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve................................... 69

Southeast Climate Science Center .................................................................................... 69

8. Operational Requirements ........................................................................................................ 71

Annual Workload................................................................................................................... 71

Permitting Requirements....................................................................................................... 71

Facilities and Equipment ....................................................................................................... 72

Operation Costs ..................................................................................................................... 72

Other Costs ............................................................................................................................ 73

Safety ..................................................................................................................................... 73

9. Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 77
vii

Figures

Page

Figure 1. Overview map showing locations of National Park Service units within the 

Southeast Coast Network with significant salt marsh systems....................................................... 4

Figure 2. Coastal salt marsh elevation and vegetation community monitoring stations 

at Cape Hatteras National Seashore................................................................................................ 8

Figure 3. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Cape Lookout National 

Seashore ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 4. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Fort Pulaski National 

Monument..................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 5. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Fort Frederica National 

Monument..................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 6. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Cumberland Island 

National Seashore ......................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 7. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Timucuan Ecological 

and Historic Preserve .................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 8. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Fort Matanzas National 

Monument and Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve ..................... 20

Figure 9. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Canaveral National 

Seashore ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 10. A conceptual diagram illustrating how environmental drivers influence 

vertical wetland development ....................................................................................................... 26

Figure 11. Total number of recreational visitors per year at Southeast Coast Network 

parks where coastal salt marsh elevation and vegetation communities are to be 

monitored, 1976–2012. ................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 12. Schematic for monitoring platform, accretion plots, soil porewater 

monitoring locations, and vegetation plots................................................................................... 37

Figure 13. Schematic of combined Rod-Surface Elevation Table (RSET) and tidal 

gaging stations .............................................................................................................................. 39

Figure 14. Schematic of permanent monitoring platform............................................................ 43

Figure 15. Aerial imagery of vegetation monitoring transects .................................................... 46

Figure 16. Detailed construction drawing of a typical RSET...................................................... 49
viii

Figures (continued)

Figure 17. Frame-mounted digital camera being used for vegetation and surface 

substrate classification. ................................................................................................................. 51

Figure 18. Example of a SamplePoint classification screen with options for pixel 

classification. ................................................................................................................................ 52

Figure 19. General staffing matrix for the Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and 

Vegetation Community Monitoring protocol ............................................................................... 71

Figure E-1. Map of sites assessed at Cape Hatteras National Seashore .................................... 121

Figure E-2. Map of suitable sites at Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..................................... 124

Figure E-3. Map of sites assessed at Fort Pulaski National Monument. ................................... 127

Figure E-4. Map of suitable sites at Fort Pulaski National Monument. .................................... 128

Figure E-5. Map of sites assessed (top) and suitable sites (bottom) at Fort Frederica 

National Monument. ................................................................................................................... 130

Figure E-6. Map of sites assessed in Cumberland Island National Seashore. ........................... 132

Figure E-7. Map of suitable sites at Cumberland Island National Seashore ............................. 133

Figure E-8. Map of sites in Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve to which 

assessment visits were attempted................................................................................................ 135

Figure E-9. Map of sites deemed viable in Timucuan Ecological and Historical 

Preserve....................................................................................................................................... 137

Figure E-10. Map of potential sites in the north and south sections of GTMNERR................. 140

Figure E-11. Map of suitable sites in the north and south sections of GTMNERR. ................. 142

Figure E-12. Map of possible sites at Canaveral National Seashore ......................................... 145

Figure F-1. Power analysis curves for comparing means of changes in surface 

elevation...................................................................................................................................... 148

Figure F-2. Power analysis curves for comparing means of accretion rates ............................. 150

Figure F-3. Power analysis curves for comparing means of soil porewater salinity................. 152

Figure F-4. Power analysis curves for comparing means of vegetation cover.......................... 154
ix

Tables

Page

Table 1. Acreage of regularly and irregularly flooded marsh and open water at coastal 

parks in the Southeast Coast Network ............................................................................................ 6

Table 2. Factors affecting coastal marsh wetlands in Southeast Coast Network Parks 

and potential measures for Vital Signs Monitoring ...................................................................... 23

Table 3. Tidal characteristics and mean sea level trends at stations near Southeast 

Coast Network parks..................................................................................................................... 25

Table 4. Coverages used for salt marsh boundary delineation..................................................... 33

Table 5. Relationship between monitoring objectives, sampling methods, and 

variables measured........................................................................................................................ 38

Table 6. Number of replicate samples for each field measure ..................................................... 38

Table 7. Four general scenarios for distribution of sampling locations within a sample 

space.............................................................................................................................................. 41

Table 8. Vegetation and non-vegetation classes for use in salt marsh cover analysis 

using SamplePoint software.......................................................................................................... 53

Table 9. Estimated annual operating cost for implementation..................................................... 73

Table B-1. Numbering system and categories for Standard Operating Procedures..................... 91

Table B-2. Standard Operating Procedures required to implement SECN Coastal Salt 

Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol............................................. 92

Table C-1. Tasks and mitigations to reduce threats and hazards................................................. 96

Table C-2. Activity elements and descriptions of major tasks .................................................... 98

Table C-3. GAR Evaluation Scale for color coding the level of risk. ......................................... 99

Table C-4. Assigned risk codes of for each of the eight elements of the SECN 

Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol......................... 99

Table C-5. Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) for safe implementation of the SECN Coastal 

Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol, including 

potential hazards and recommended abatement actions. ............................................................ 100
x

Tables (continued)

Table C-6. Training and proficiencies required or recommended for the safe 

implementation of the SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation 

Community Monitoring Protocol................................................................................................ 110

Table E-1. Site suitability assessments conducted at each park to select permanent 

sampling locations ...................................................................................................................... 119

Table E-2. Coordinates for sites selected for sampling at Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore. ..................................................................................................................................... 125

Table E-3. Coordinates for additional sites found suitable in the first trip to Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore. ........................................................................................................ 125

Table E-4. Coordinates for additional sites found on the third trip to Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore. ...................................................................................................................... 125

Table E-5. Coordinates of suitable sites at Fort Frederica National Monument........................ 131

Table E-6. Coordinates of suitable sites at Cumberland Island National Seashore................... 134

Table E-7. Coordinates of suitable sites at Timucuan Ecological and Historic 

Preserve....................................................................................................................................... 138

Table E-8. Coordinates for suitable sites at Fort Matanzas National 

Monument/GTMNERR. ............................................................................................................. 143

Table E-9. Coordinates for suitable sites at Canaveral National Seashore................................ 146

Table F-1. Test results for elevation. ......................................................................................... 147

Table F-2. Test results for accretion. ......................................................................................... 149

Table F-3. Test results for soil porewater. ................................................................................. 151

Table F-4. Test results for vegetation cover. ............................................................................. 153
xi

Appendices

Page

Appendix A. Field Monitoring Cheat Sheet ................................................................................. 89

Appendix B. Standard Operating Procedures............................................................................... 91

Appendix C. Job Hazards and Risk Assessment .......................................................................... 95

Appendix D. Notes on Site and Boat Access to Sampling Locations ........................................ 113

Appendix E. Site Suitability Assessment Reports...................................................................... 117

Appendix F. Power Analyses...................................................................................................... 147

Appendix G. Permits................................................................................................................... 157

xiii

Executive Summary

The National Park Service (NPS) Inventory & Monitoring Program has initiated coastal salt marsh 

wetland elevation and vegetation community monitoring in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore (CAHA), Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO), Canaveral National Seashore 

(CANA), Cumberland Island National Seashore (CUIS), Fort Matanzas National Monument 

(FOMA), Fort Pulaski National Monument (FOPU), Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve 

(TIMU), and Fort Frederica National Monument (FOFR). This monitoring was initiated 

programmatically by the Natural Resource Challenge and implemented in the beginning of 2010 to 

focus specifically on supporting science-based management of natural resources and improving the 

agency’s ability to respond to effects of climate change. This protocol relies on widely-used data 

collection methods and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) used by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NPS and several states with the intent of ensuring 

NPS data are comparable with existing, contemporary, and future data sets collected under these and 

other monitoring programs.

The Southeast Coast Network’s (SECN) salt marsh elevation and vegetation monitoring effort 

collects sediment elevation, accretion, soil salinity, and vegetation community data at permanent 

monitoring stations deployed in park salt marsh wetlands to provide data to park resource managers 

on the status of, and trends in, salt marsh conditions within and near parks. Salt marsh elevation and 

vegetation monitoring is currently conducted at eight SECN parks in partnership with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Inventory and Monitoring Initiative, and the Guana Tolomato Matanzas (GTM) 

National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) System-Wide Monitoring Program. Monitoring at 

SECN parks is conducted annually (at a minimum), but efforts conducted by the NERR program are 

intended to investigate intra-annual variability.

The overarching purposes of this protocol are to provide a monitoring framework for collecting 

scientifically sound data and to supply information to help evaluate the current status and trends in 

salt marsh conditions that may affect the composition, structure, and function of park ecosystems and 

visitor experiences. These data can then be evaluated to help determine if current management

practices are sustaining those functions and uses. Data collected under this protocol are also intended 

to support and be analyzed in the context of broader scale investigations, including syntheses of data 

collected under other SECN Vital Signs, climate change response planning, and landscape-scale 

conservation planning and design.

Data collected under this protocol are stored locally in SECN managed databases and are uploaded 

annually to bureau databases (the NPS Integrated Resource Management Applications portal;

http://irma.nps.gov) as well as the DOI Southeast Climate Science Center. In addition to utilizing 

customized data handling and reporting procedures, this protocol and its accompanying SOPs set 

guidelines for data to be made available internally to park resources managers and employees as well 

as for publication to larger audiences via annual data reports and briefing statements.

xv

Acknowledgments 

Several individuals from Southeast Coast Network and parks have assisted with various aspects of 

protocol development and implementation. Shauna Allen and Michael Rikard assisted with the 

acquisition of necessary permits for the installation of monitoring stations. Sara Strickland, Laura 

Pickens, Damien Hardgrove, Darren Bouldin, Michael Rikard, Paula Messing, Kurt Foote, John 

Stiner, Cameron Welch, Kate Hargrove, Phil Amoroso, Rachel McManamay, and Marylou Moore 

participated in site condition assessments during the site-selection phase of protocol development. 

Aaron Rinehart, Sara Strickland, Richard Bryant, Julie Dingle, Erin Voigt, Mickey Campbell, 

Andrew Flanagan, Brian Gregory, Pete Mockus, and Jason Gardner assisted with the installation of 

monitoring platforms and monitoring stations. 

The authors would like to thank Matt Kimball, formerly of Guana Tolomato Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve (GTMNERR) for being a sounding board and directly supporting the 

effort, as well as Katie Petrinec, Wendy Eash-Louke, Jamie Pawelek, and Matt Welsh who assisted 

with site selection and installation at the GTMNERR study area. 

Additionally, the authors would like to thank Laurel Barnhill and Steve Holzman USFWS for 

assistance with integration of methodology among agencies as well as several staff from refuges who 

have assisted in refining the SOPs included with this protocol. 

Additional Notes on Attributions 

Because this protocol is largely based on monitoring efforts that have been in use and development 

for more than two decades, we have borrowed heavily (sometimes verbatim) from several published 

and forthcoming reports. Although we have tried to indicate clearly in the document where we have 

pulled such information, the following is a brief overview of some of the major efforts that we have 

relied on in the development of this protocol: 

 Much of the discussion on sampling design and data analysis has been borrowed (heavily) from

years of work by Don Cahoon, Phillipe Hensel, Jim Lynch, and several others that have

developed and refined the Rod-Surface Elevation Table (RSET) methods used to measure

elevation changes in salt marshes. This document is intended to serve as a set of standards to

facilitate data compatibility among programs moving forward so we felt it important to base our

sampling designs and methods on these standards to the greatest extent possible. Additionally,

the authors’ feedback and technical support while developing this protocol—as well as their

guidance document—were also invaluable.

 The Standard Operating Procedures developed by Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

were used heavily in development of the SOPs that accompany this protocol as they are designed

for monitoring soft-bottomed marsh systems typical of those found in the Southeast Coast

Network (Folse and West 2004, Folse et al. 2008).

 Several of the reports and documents by Charlie Roman and others were used to develop the

vegetation monitoring component of the protocol, including the protocol developed by Roman et
xvi

al. (2001) for monitoring salt marsh vegetation at Cape Cod National Seashore. We have 

augmented this with Moore’s (2009) protocol for monitoring emergent wetlands in coastal 

marshes being used by the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

 Wiegert and Freeman’s (1990) report on general ecology of tidal salt marshes along the southeast 

Atlantic coast was used as the primary source for discussion on the ecology of salt marsh 

ecosystems in SECN parks.

 Sections related to factors affecting coastal wetlands were taken from the SE Climate Science 

Center Operations plan (Jones and Dalton 2012). 
xvii

List of Commonly Used Acronyms

Acronyms for National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Estuarine 

Research Reserve Management Units

Acronym Management Unit

CAHA Cape Hatteras National Seashore

CALO Cape Lookout National Seashore

CANA Canaveral National Seashore

CUIS Cumberland Island National Seashore

GTMNERR Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

FOCA Fort Caroline National Monument

FOFR Fort Frederica National Monument

FOMA Fort Matanzas National Monument

FOPU Fort Pulaski National Monument

PLD Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

SAIM South Atlantic Refuges Inventory & Monitoring Network

SECN Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network

TIMU Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve

Other commonly used acronyms used in this report

Acronym Definition

CO-OPS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

HUCs Hydrologic Unit Codes

ICW Intracoastal waterway

I&M Inventory & Monitoring

IPCC Intergovernmental panel on climate change

IRMA Integrated Resource Management Applications portal (http://irma.nps.gov) 

MSL Mean Sea Level

NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control

RSET Rod-Surface Elevation Table

RSL Relative Sea Level

SALCC South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative

SBRS Spatially-Balanced Random Sample

SET Surface Elevation Table

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SWMP System-Wide Monitoring Program
xviii

Acronym Definition

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1

1. Background and Objectives

Introduction

In 1999, the National Park Service’s (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring Program initiated a long-term 

ecological monitoring program known as Vital Signs Monitoring. It was designed to provide the 

infrastructure to allow more than 270 national park system units to identify and monitor conditions of 

their highest priority resources (Fancy et al. 2009). Established programmatically under the Natural 

Resource Challenge, the Southeast Coast Network (SECN) is one of 32 networks formed to 

implement this integrated monitoring program which is tailored to the specific needs of parks located 

in similar environmental settings. The overarching purpose of natural resource monitoring conducted 

under this program is to collect data and produce scientifically sound information on the current 

status of—and long-term trends in—the composition, structure, and function of park ecosystems as 

well as determine how current management practices are sustaining those systems. Efforts 

implemented under the Vital Signs Monitoring Program seek to address the following five major 

goals for all parks with significant natural resources:

 Determine the status and trends in selected indicators of the condition of park ecosystems to 

allow managers to make better-informed decisions and work more effectively with other 

agencies and individuals for the benefit of park resources.

 Provide early warning of abnormal conditions of selected resources to help develop effective 

mitigation measures and reduce costs of management.

 Provide data to better understand the dynamic nature and condition of park ecosystems and to 

provide reference points for comparisons with other, altered environments.

 Provide data to meet certain legal and Congressional mandates related to natural resource 

protection and visitor enjoyment.

 Provide a means of measuring progress toward performance goals.

The main objectives of this document are three-fold; first, it provides a scientifically rigorous 

strategy to monitor coastal wetland elevation, vegetation, and condition in eight SECN parks with 

significant coastal wetland resources. Second, it provides a specific set of instructions in the form of 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that are sufficiently detailed to ensure consistent and 

comparable data collection into the future. Third, it provides a blueprint for consistent 

implementation of these methods by partners managing lands in other coastal areas along the South 

Atlantic coast in order to address regional resource management and conservation challenges related 

to climate change.

This report also broadly summarizes important characteristics of coastal marsh resources along the 

southeastern U.S., highlighting similarities and differences as they relate to monitoring objectives, 

and makes a strong case for the relevancy of this effort by highlighting many known issues in certain 
2

parks that may help provide early warnings of changing conditions or help elucidate problematic 

conditions that may be an issue of concern in the future.

Beginning in 2009, the federal government engaged in a renewed effort to consider the interwoven 

effects of energy production and consumption and the effects of global climate change in the 

stewardship of its resources. As a part of EO 13514 (2009), the President directed all federal agencies 

to participate in the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force and develop strategies in support of the 

national adaptation strategy.

The subsequent Secretarial Order 3289 charged the DOI Bureaus to take the lead in protecting our 

country’s water, land, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources from the dramatic effects of 

climate change by establishing a “...Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to 

increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on 

tribes and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources that the 

Department manages.”

This included a directive to each bureau to “consider and analyze potential climate change impacts 

when undertaking long-range planning exercises, setting priorities for scientific research and 

investigations, developing multi-year management plans, and making major decisions regarding 

potential use of resources under the Department’s purview,” with a further expectation that data 

collected under this directive “will support the integration of our nation’s scientific database, 

improving availability and dissemination of climate change impact and vulnerability information, 

and access and decision-support to scientists, resource managers, decision makers, and the general 

public through www.data.gov and other appropriate mechanisms.”

As a portion of the NPS’s effort to implement these new programs, the SECN received planning 

funds in FY2010 to identify ways to augment its existing Vital Signs Monitoring Program to (a) 

improve parks’ ability to incorporate climate science into planning, while (b) collaborating with and 

contributing to other DOI climate science programs within the South Atlantic LCC (SALCC) and 

Southeastern Climate Science Center (SECSC) to meet the other Departmental goals.

An additional purpose of this protocol, therefore, is to serve as an operational guide to collect Vital 

Signs Monitoring data that can be used by NPS and other strategic partners to better plan for—and 

respond to—impacts caused by global climate change (DeVivo et al. 2011).

South Atlantic Salt Marsh Systems

Tidal salt marshes along the southeastern Atlantic coast are located from the Chesapeake in Virginia, 

south to north-central Florida. Tidal conditions are relatively low in the north, increasing southward, 

peaking in Georgia, and then decreasing until the salt marshes transition to mangroves in centralsouth Florida. Although the marshes within this range are in some respects quite distinctive, within a 

given salinity range and community type, they share similar flora and combined comprise 82% of the 

existing marshes on the east coast of the U.S. (Reimold 1977). Georgia, with the least shoreline of 

the other states, has 33% of the total area of east coast salt marsh, followed by South Carolina with 

30%, North Carolina with 11% and Florida, with less than 8%.
3

The successional development of salt marshes is a process of interaction among vegetation, sediment 

and water. This development requires protection from the full blunt of the high-energy coast. As a 

result, salt marshes of the southeastern U.S. are almost without exception found in the shallow 

sedimentary lagoons behind barrier islands, or in protected estuaries. Perhaps the need for protection 

comes primarily in the seedling stage. After establishment, mature Spartina-dominated marshes 

modify the physical regime to a considerable degree and resist erosion. Apparently, after the marsh 

has developed in a protected environment, subsequent shifts in barrier sandbars and exposure to the 

open sea need not result in the immediate destruction of the marsh. It may persist for decades if not 

centuries, becoming an example of a relic community that was not formed through a change in 

climate (Wiegert et al. 1981).

Because coastal salt marshes develop in such low-lying sedimented depressions, a primary influence 

on their development and function is tidal regime. Along the southeastern U.S. coast, coastal marshes

are subjected to frequent (twice daily or diurnal) tidal flooding with water of moderate to high 

salinity. This predictable inundation is both characteristic of—and one of the most important 

influences on—successional development, species composition, stability and productivity of marine 

and brackish water ecosystems (Wiegert and Freeman 1990).

In the transitional zone in northern Florida, driven primarily by relatively low tides, the vegetation 

mosaic can be very complex compared to the marshes to the north. The transition between salt marsh 

and mangrove associations occurs at about 30°N in north-central Florida (Odum et al. 1982). From 

this point north, the most common vegetation association on low-energy coasts and sheltered 

intertidal areas is the salt marsh, dominated primary by cordgrasses (Spartina spp.).

Numerous fish, invertebrate, bird, and reptile species routinely use these diverse estuarine habitats 

for a multitude of critical functions such as refuge from predators, foraging, and reproduction (Odum 

et al. 1982, Kneib 1997, Sheaves 2005). Among these habitats, emergent intertidal habitats are of 

particular importance to estuarine organisms as they link marsh surface and subtidal habitats during 

periods of tidal inundation (McIvor and Odum 1988, Rozas 1988). Because emergent intertidal 

habitats form such an extensive and direct land-water interface, they may be impacted the greatest by 

the effects of climate change and sea level rise in estuarine ecosystems (Najjar et al. 2000, Scavia et 

al. 2002, Craft et al. 2009).

Ecosystem functions of salt marshes include the following:

• High primary productivity,

• High detrital production that is important for fish nurseries and linked estuarine systems,

Additionally, detrital decomposition is the major pathway for energy flow within salt marshes, and 

salt marshes can be either a source or a sink for nutrients.

Wetlands within SECN parks vary widely from intermittent interdunal pools to riparian floodplains 

to vast salt marshes. These systems are particularly sensitive to changes in water quantity. Within 

Network parks, these areas are affected by visitor uses, commercial and recreational fishing and 

ecosystem drivers from inland and upstream areas. The long-term stability of salt marsh ecosystems 
4

will likely be increasingly affected by inland and upstream processes such as water use, changes in 

landscape dynamics, and their cumulative effects on incoming water quality and quantity (DeVivo et 

al. 2008).

Study Area: Marsh Wetlands in Southeast Coast Network Parks

The coastal portion of SECN is located along the southeastern U.S. coast, stretching from Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina to Canaveral National Seashore in central Florida 

(Figure 1). Although the National I&M Network design sought to group parks with similar 

environmental settings and ecologies, the background conditions that influence coastal park waters 

are varied among these parks primarily due to differences in their geomorphic origins, proximity to 

large rivers and urban areas, and tidal ranges. The common linkage among the larger parks along the 

southeastern coast is the suite of global climate and geophysical processes that resulted in their 

formation and their dynamic coexistence at the interface between flowing freshwater systems and 

tidally-influenced marine system.

Figure 1. Overview map showing locations of National Park Service units within the Southeast Coast 

Network with significant salt marsh systems.
5

Estuarine systems in the SECN were formed due to the creation of a semi-protected aquatic zone 

where freshwater from rivers slowly mixes with salt water from the ocean. Estuarine and barrier 

island systems are not unique to the southeastern coast of the U.S., but form anywhere along a 

coastline where a gentle sloping coastal plain intersects a wave-energy dominated coastline that has 

an adequate sediment supply and a tidal range less than three meters (Bascom 1980). The system of 

barrier islands, estuaries and lagoons that we see today formed recently—in some cases less than 

5,000 years ago. These landforms began to form about 15,000 years ago after the cooler global 

temperatures that had caused sea levels to drop by as much as 300 feet began to warm. As the 

temperatures warmed, the rising Atlantic Ocean pushed landward, flooding the relatively young

coastal river and inlet systems that had developed along the late Pleistocene coastline. The slowly 

rising water, along with prevailing winds, slowly pushed ridges of sand inland until the ridges either 

pushed against the existing coastline or stopped moving due to stabilization of the sea levels. The

complex land and water forms observed in different areas of the coast resulted as migrating ridges of 

sand met existing or remnant coastal landforms including older relic dunes or protruding ridges of 

sedimentary rock. For example, in North Carolina, Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras (as well as the 

surrounding sound areas) formed as the inland-migrating primary barrier/dune system intercepted the 

still standing secondary dune system; inundation of a large area of low-lying land between the barrier 

islands and the mainland formed the Pamlico Sound and Back Sound areas.

The barrier island-marsh systems located along the South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida 

coasts were formed when the migrating primary barrier systems met the relic Pleistocene sand dune 

and ridges and were pushed against them. The extensive marshes around Fort Pulaski, Fort Frederica, 

Cumberland Island and Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve are due to a combination of the 

barrier island system along the South Atlantic coastline, and tidal fluctuations associated with the 

Georgia Embayment. The odd shape of Cumberland Island and Sound are due to the interaction of 

both the large tidal amplitude and the strong tidal current moving through rather large river inlets.

The low areas behind these barrier islands were well protected from wave energy of the open ocean 

which allowed fine silt and clay sediment to accumulate in large muddy flat areas that were later 

colonized by salt-tolerant cord grasses, particularly those that could also tolerate the high tidal ranges

of this section of the coastline.

Similarly, the barrier islands of north-central Florida formed as the inland-migrating sand ridges were 

pushed against an exposed ridge of coquina. As barrier islands developed in these areas they were fed 

by sand transported to the ocean by the larger rivers of Georgia and South Carolina that were moved 

southward by the long-shore current. The semi-enclosed Cape Canaveral-Mosquito Lagoon area is 

unique in that it is believed to have formed as the long-shore current forced a southward migrating 

cape to progressively form parallel dune ridges along the coast. The outermost ridge in this system 

was later joined to the landward migrating sand ridge that was being pushed inland by rising sea 

levels. Mosquito Lagoon, managed as part of Cape Canaveral National Seashore, formed when the 

low-lying areas behind the barrier islands flooded between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago, forming an 

almost entirely enclosed body of water. The Lagoon currently has no direct connection with the 

Atlantic Ocean although at least five major inlets have been documented over this period with the 

most recent closing more than 1,500 years ago (Mehta and Brooks 1973).
6

The first European forts built along the coast were originally sited in the coastal landscape due to 

strategic positions on islands overlooking important inlets, harbors, or rivers as early as 1565. Today, 

this 800-mile stretch of coastline has had some of its natural areas protected although much has been 

extensively developed, especially along the I-95 corridor. Cities of moderate size are located in the 

vicinity of, or in some cases adjacent to, many of the National Park protected areas. Cities such as

Titusville, Nags Head, and Beaufort are home to important centers of recreational and commercial 

fishing, and tourism, whereas Jacksonville and Savannah are larger urban areas where shipping and 

other human activities have caused documented degradation in water resources. Dredging activity to 

support shipping, recreational boating, and military installations is ongoing adjacent to several parks 

including TIMU, CUIS, FOPU, CALO and CAHA. This degradation could cause unacceptable 

impacts in the future by further changing park lands through increased wave action, erosion, and 

degradation of water quality conditions as well as other scenic values that the National Park Service

has been charged to manage and protect.

Salt marsh communities within Southeast Coast Network coastal parks include a significant portion 

of the entire park landscape (Table 1). The percentage of salt marsh to total acreage ranges from a 

low of 21.44% in Cape Hatteras National Seashore to over 77% in Fort Pulaski National Monument.

Of the estimated total 248,058 acres of SECN parks, more than 64,836 acres are salt marsh 

communities and more than 31,358 acres include open estuary waters. Timucuan Ecological and 

Historic Preserve and the combined Fort Matanzas National Monument / Guana Tolomato Matanzas 

National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTMNERR) include the largest blocks of salt marsh.

Table 1. Acreage of regularly and irregularly flooded marsh and open water at coastal parks in the 

Southeast Coast Network. Data from NPS Vegetation Inventory Project (unpublished) and Saint Johns 

River Water Management District GIS data.

PARK

Total Marsh

Area

Open Water

Area

Percent Marsh

Area

Cape Hatteras National Seashore (and Pea Island NWR) 6,662.147 3,282.833 21.44%

Cape Lookout National Seashore 3,541.448 1,039.565 28.74%

Fort Pulaski National Monument 4,187.721 584.770 77.37%

Fort Frederica National Monument 163.903 0.000 58.08%

Cumberland Island National Seashore 9,485.331 9,452.967 26.06%

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve 23,173.598 10,084.003 50.75%

Fort Matanzas National Monument (and GTMNERR) 11,121.985 6,914.075 28.90%

Canaveral National Seashore (mangroves included) 6,500.486 31,332.476111.22%

1

Includes non-estuarine open-waters.
7

Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge

Cape Hatteras National Seashore is the northern most park unit in the Network (Figure 2). Located 

along the northern section of the Outer Banks, Cape Hatteras contains 35,400 acres of land and 74 

miles (119 km) of beaches. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (PLD; administered by USFWS) is 

embedded within Cape Hatteras and contains an additional 5,834 acres of land, 25,700 acres of 

Proclamation Boundary Waters, and 13 miles of beaches within the Seashore boundary.

The Seashore and Refuge barrier islands are separated from the mainland by a series of marshes and 

sounds which range from very narrow to 25 miles in width. Seashore and Refuge marshes contribute 

heavily to primary estuarine productivity and provide habitat for numerous wildlife and aquatic 

species. The unique and varied habitats, such as mature broad-leafed evergreen forest and shrub, 

freshwater and brackish marsh and ponds, ocean beach, barrier dunes, tidal creeks, and bog support 

an unusual assemblage of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. The Seashore and Refuge have been 

designated as Globally Important Bird Areas by the American Bird Conservancy because of the 

importance of the habitats to avian breeding, migration, and wintering.

The ecological zonation of Cape Hatteras National Seashore is due in part to artificial alterations 

dating from the turn of the twentieth century. The most important perturbations were due to early 

efforts at mosquito control and waterfowl management which involved excavation of drainage 

ditches, construction of water control structures, and vegetative stabilization of primary dunes along 

the length of the Seashore. Later changes were wrought when road construction included excavation 

of borrow ponds for road bed material. For the most part, these actions ended by the 1970s, except

for localized projects designed to protect specific and discrete portions of infrastructure.

Nags Head, as well as nine other smaller towns, borders the Seashore, causing some developmental 

pressure from outside the park. Visitor and recreational uses represent the major categories of threat 

to the integrity of natural resources in Cape Hatteras and Peas Island. Because of the need to protect 

route NC12 along the barrier island, sand moved westward by high-energy weather events such as 

northeasters and hurricanes is seldom allowed to migrate over to the sound side of the barrier island 

to build or sustain saltmarshes. Thus, the lack of natural sediment redistribution hinders the island’s 

natural migration, and salt marsh systems are at increased risk of being lost.
8

Figure 2. Coastal salt marsh elevation and vegetation community monitoring stations at Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore in North Carolina. Indicated are areas of salt marsh (USFWS 2013) and CO-OPS tidal 

monitoring stations (NOAA 2013).
9

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Cape Lookout National Seashore, located along the southern end of the Outer Banks, is largely

undeveloped and accessible only by boat. Cape Lookout National Seashore is made up of three 

barrier islands covering 56 miles (90 km) of the central coast of North Carolina (Figure 3). Most of 

the Seashore consists of North and South Core Banks, a 44-mile (71 km) long barrier system oriented 

in a southwest to northeast direction and separated by Ophelia Inlet. The National Seashore extends 

into the Atlantic Ocean from its southern end. The other barrier system within the Seashore, 

Shackleford Banks, extends westward from Cape Lookout. The salt marsh community in Cape 

Lookout includes over 3,541 acres, 28.74% of total managed area (Table 1).

Core Banks is a long, narrow expanse of low dunes, maritime grasslands, and extensive salt marshes.

Shrub thickets border the grassland in many places, and a low maritime forest occupies small areas of 

higher ground. The islands are generally about 3 to 6 feet (0.9 to 1.8 m) above sea level and 0.6 to

1.2 miles (1 to 2 km) wide. For the most part, these areas are open and treeless.

Instead of exhibiting the typical zonation of a wide berm, low dunes, grasslands and shrub thickets, 

and salt marsh, the northern end of Portsmouth Island is characterized by vast tidal sand flats 

(averaging 0.6 miles or 1 km in width) located between the berm and the dunes of a series of marshfringed islands. At the triangular shaped Cape Lookout, continuous dunes characterize its southwest 

side, with several small freshwater marshes present in depressions between the dunes. A long spit 

extends from the western tip of Cape Lookout, where a jetty built in the early 1900s has encouraged 

accretion in this direction.

Areas of frequent washover are dominated by annuals, plants that withstand frequent burial such as

dune grasses, or salt-tolerant species (Hosier 1973). Fresh sediment input to the marsh was the 

dominant factor in determining the height and yield of saltmarsh cordgrass, and the marsh acts as a 

buffer for the entire estuarine system, providing a sink for excess nutrients which resulted from 

municipal wastes and land runoff (Broome 1975).
10

Figure 3. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Cape Lookout National Seashore in North 

Carolina. Indicated are areas of salt marsh (National Wetlands Inventory 2011), CO-OPS tidal monitoring 

stations (NOAA 2013).
11

Fort Pulaski National Monument

Fort Pulaski National Monument (Figure 4) is located in Chatham County, Georgia along the 

Savannah River only a few miles from its junction with the Atlantic Ocean. The site consists of two 

islands that were, before human intervention, primarily salt marsh. Judging from the composition of 

existing vegetation, Cockspur Island probably supported some coastal hammock forest or woodland.

It was selected for fortification as early as the 1700s. In the 1800s, as part of the development of the 

site for defense, the island was modified by the installation of drainage canals and a dike system. In 

later years, the site was also impacted by the deposition of spoil material. The addition of dredge 

material from the Savannah River to Cockspur Island has continued until recently. During the civil 

war period, the vegetation was removed to enhance visibility and kept in early successional stages. 

Since the abandonment of the fort in the late 1800s, a large portion of central Cockspur Island has 

reverted to maritime forest. Currently, the upland portions of Cockspur (approximately 260 acres) 

support a mosaic of maritime forest, maritime shrub communities, maintained grasslands and 

successional spoil deposit areas. It also includes more than 340 acres of tidal shrubland and tidal 

herbaceous marsh.

McQueens Island makes up the largest portion of land holdings for the National Monument (about 

4,900 acres) and the majority of this consists of salt marsh. A railroad was constructed along the 

northern edge of the island in 1887 to connect the city of Savannah with Tybee Island and operated 

until 1933. In 1923, US Highway 80 was constructed, occupying a location across the central portion 

of the island and adjacent the old railroad grade along the eastern section. In 1994 Chatham County 

converted the abandoned railroad right-of-way to a multipurpose hiking trail. Both the highway and 

the converted rails-to-trails areas support ruderal habitat for a number of coastal plain herbaceous 

species. Other upland habitat on McQueens Island occurs in association with a public fishing and 

boat ramp on the eastern end of the island and an abandoned section of US 80 leading to the Bull 

River.

Today, the majority of vegetation within the Fort Pulaski boundary (4,188 of 5,412 acres) is salt 

marsh (Table 1). Specifically, 4,188 of the 5,412 acres consist of marsh.
12

Figure 4. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia. 

Indicated are areas of salt marsh (National Wetlands Inventory 2011), CO-OPS tidal monitoring stations 

(NOAA 2013).
13

Fort Frederica National Monument

Established on St. Simons Island in 1736 to protect South Carolina and Georgia from the Spanish, 

the town of Frederica was the southernmost post of the British colonies in North America. Today, 

old-growth oaks, exceptionally large grapevines (Vitis spp.), and Spanish moss (Tillandsia 

usneoides) lend an air of antiquity unequaled on the coast. Salt marsh areas at Fort Frederica (Figure 

5) are bisected by the Frederica River, one of the primary tidal rivers in the Brunswick area. Marsh 

lands along the Frederica River total 158 acres, comprising approximately 58% of the total park area. 

The Bloody Marsh site consists of an additional 8 acres of tidal marsh habitat.

External stressors from recreational boating and fisheries activities are presumed to have a minimal 

impact on park conditions. However, wave action from watercraft presents a possible threat to the 

wetlands and cultural landscape of the park through increased rates of erosion. Also, the Bloody 

Marsh unit is used by the local community for acquiring bait (i.e., fiddler crabs [Uca spp.]); the 

detrimental effects of bait harvesting (if any) are unknown.
14

Figure 5. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Fort Frederica National Monument in 

Georgia. Indicated are areas of salt marsh (National Wetlands Inventory 2011), CO-OPS tidal monitoring 

stations (NOAA 2013).
15

Cumberland Island National Seashore

Cumberland Island National Seashore (CUIS) is off the coast of Georgia between St. Andrews Sound 

and the mouth of the St. Marys River. At 17.5 miles (28.2 km) long, Cumberland is one of the largest 

and most diverse islands on the Atlantic coast (Figure 6). Slightly more than a quarter of its 36,415 

total acres are Spartina-dominated salt marsh habitat (Table 1). These areas include oyster mud flats, 

and six tidal creeks which provide the habitat for a diverse marine-based fauna. The island is known 

for nesting loggerhead sea turtles, abundant shore birds, undeveloped dune fields, maritime forest 

ecosystems, and historic structures. Cumberland Island provides habitat for 18 federally listed 

threatened or endangered species (Alber et al. 2005) although most are terrestrial or bird species, four

species of sea turtles are commonly observed along the beaches and West Indian Manatees are 

known to be in the estuarine areas.

Cumberland Island National Seashore was established in 1972 to preserve the scenic, scientific, and 

historical values of the island as well as to provide public outdoor recreational uses to its visitors. 

Specified areas of Cumberland Island are also part of the South Atlantic-Carolinian Biosphere 

Reserve and will be permanently protected in a primitive state. The northern half of the island has 

also been designated a wilderness area. This unspoiled environment, once prevalent on all the barrier 

islands, provides a unique opportunity to experience the flora and fauna of a natural coastal 

ecosystem.

Cumberland Sound and the Cumberland River are influenced by freshwater inflows mainly from the 

St. Marys River to the south and the Satilla River on its northern boundary. Marsh areas at 

Cumberland are adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway, which are a routine passageway for Naval 

vessels associated with the King’s Bay Naval Base and Atlantic Trident submarine fleet (in addition 

to commercial vessels and the seasonal transit of recreational watercraft). Wave action from the 

wakes of these vessels has potentially high erosive energy on the sound side of the island.

Additionally, the Georgia coast has been going through an era of fast growth in new, residential 

communities, many of which have sought to incorporate marinas. The nearby town of St. Marys, 

Georgia—although a relatively small coastal community—was poised to dramatically increase 

residential development in its adjacent marshlands just prior to 2008 until economic slowdown at 

least temporarily eased some of this development pressure. Recreational pressure could increase on 

the island, and the threat to resources and critical habitats may also intensify. Erosion on the western 

side of the island is currently being investigated by Cumberland Island National Seashore staff (John 

Fry, personal communication).
16

Figure 6. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Cumberland Island National Seashore in 

Georgia. Indicated are areas of salt marsh (National Wetlands Inventory 2011), CO-OPS tidal monitoring 

stations (NOAA 2013).

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (TIMU) is situated entirely within Duval County and the 

city limits of Jacksonville, Florida (Figure 7). Timucuan is operated as a partnership park and 

encompasses approximately 46,000 acres of mostly salt marshes, open water, and river (including a 

reach of the Intracoastal Waterway) between the St. Johns and Nassau Rivers (Table 1). The southern 

one-third of the preserve lies at the mouth of the extensive St. Johns River watershed, which drains

parts of the urbanized portions of the City of Jacksonville. The northern two-thirds of the preserve lie 

within the Nassau River drainage basin, a smaller watershed that drains parts of Duval and Nassau 

counties. The area surrounding the preserve to the west and north is predominantly marsh and low 

uplands utilized for timbering, residential and agricultural uses.
17

Figure 7. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve

in Florida. Indicated are areas of salt marsh (National Wetlands Inventory 2011), CO-OPS tidal monitoring 

stations (NOAA 2013).
18

Fort Matanzas National Monument and Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine 

Research Reserve

Fort Matanzas National Monument is located 22 km (14 mi) south of St. Augustine on the northeast 

Atlantic coast of Florida, embedded within the boundaries of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National 

Estuarine Reserve (GTMNERR; Figure 8). It encompasses of a total of 298 acres divided between 

the southern tip of Anastasia Island (108 acres) and the northern end of Rattlesnake Island (190 

acres). Both are barrier islands separated from the Florida mainland by the Matanzas River and the 

Intracoastal Waterway.

The Anastasia Island portion of Fort Matanzas consists of stabilized beach dunes rising as much as 

7.6 m (25 ft) above sea level. Predominant habitats in this portion of the park include beaches along 

both the Matanzas River and the Atlantic shore, stabilized sand dunes supporting maritime forest, 

secondary dunes further inland, and salt marsh.

Most of Rattlesnake Island is less than 1.5 m (5 ft) above sea level, though it rises to 4.52 m (15 ft) at 

one point on its northern end. Much of northern portion of Rattlesnake Island consists of sandy fill 

pumped in from dredging operations that maintain the boat channels in the Intracoastal Waterway. In 

addition to the habitats found on Anastasia Island, Rattlesnake Island supports slash pine and red bay 

woodlands, oyster shell beaches, and developing hardwood forests typified by wax myrtle (Myrica 

cerifera), cedar (Juniperus silicicola), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto).

The GTMNERR is comprised of approximately 30,000 ha (74,000 acres) of relatively undeveloped 

coastal and estuarine habitat along the northeast coast of Florida. The reserve, which is split into two 

main components north and south of the city of St. Augustine, forms a narrow (east-west) barbounded estuarine ecosystem that spans approximately 56 km (35 mi) north to south (Figure 8). 

Similar to other southeastern US Atlantic coast estuaries, the GTMNERR consists of a mosaic of 

multiple interconnected estuarine habitats that includes the vegetated marsh edge and surface, marsh 

pools, tidal creeks, and open water habitats (Minello et al. 2003, Rountree and Able 2007).

Salt marsh vegetation comprises more than 11,122 of the total 36,402 acres in the study area (Table 

1). The study area is biogeographically positioned at the ecotone of two different emergent 

vegetation habitats, salt marsh (dominated by smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora) and 

mangroves (dominated by black mangroves, Avicennia germinans; Zomlefer et al. 2006, Frazel 

2009). In addition, the northernmost record of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) was recorded 

within the GTMNERR (Zomlefer et al. 2006). The primary factor limiting the northern distribution 

of mangroves is temperature (Odum et al. 1982) and historical mangrove distribution within the 

reserve has fluctuated in recent decades due to episodes of severe winter freezing. In south Florida,

mangrove forests thrive and replace salt marsh vegetation primarily as a result of shading (Lugo and 

Snedaker 1974). Within the southern extent of the GTMNERR, black mangroves dominate large 

portions of the emergent intertidal vegetation, while emergent intertidal habitats in the northern 

portion of the reserve are dominated by smooth cordgrass (Leitholf 2008). The overlapping 

distribution of these two species within the GTMNERR provides a unique opportunity to examine 

the potential effects of climate change and sea level rise on the distribution and diversity of emergent 

intertidal vegetation in this transitional zone. Further, since one of the most important factors 
19

determining the ecological function of marsh habitats is the dominant vegetation (Weinstein et al. 

1997), changes in the habitat ranges for these emergent intertidal marsh vegetation species may

potentially impact numerous organisms throughout the estuary.
20

Figure 8. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Fort Matanzas National Monument and 

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve in Florida. Indicated are areas of salt 

marsh (National Wetlands Inventory 2011), CO-OPS tidal monitoring stations (NOAA 2013).
21

Canaveral National Seashore

Canaveral National Seashore’s (CANA) natural resources include a diverse assemblage of 

wildlife, plant communities, geophysical features and natural processes reflecting the complexity of 

the land/lagoon/sea interface of east central Florida (Figure 9). Unlike many barrier islands, 

Canaveral has only a single dune ridge, averaging approximately 12 ft (3.7 m) in height. For the vast 

majority of its length the dune is quite stable, backed by a dense growth of saw palmetto (Serenoa 

repens) and several other species of hardy shrubs and grasses.

Mosquito Lagoon, extending along the backside of Canaveral’s barrier island, is the northernmost 

part of the Indian River System, an area which contains one of the most diverse assemblages of 

aquatic species on the entire Eastern Seaboard. This 155-mile (250 km) long lagoon has been 

designated as an Estuary of National Significance by the Environmental Protection Agency and an 

Outstanding Florida Water by the State of Florida. It contains one of the last significant oyster 

harvesting areas on the Atlantic coast that has not been depleted by over harvesting or pollution. 

Commercial shell fishing is important to the local economy and recreational fishing and shrimping in 

the lagoon support a multimillion-dollar tourist industry. The estuary also serves as an important 

nursery area for a number of commercially important ocean-going species such as flounder, mullet, 

black drum and shrimp.

The park is located along the “frost line”, resulting in a unique combination of temperate and 

subtropical plants. Several temperate species extend no farther south than Canaveral, while a number 

of subtropical species occur no farther north. Signs of this unusual mixture include Canaveral’s 

hammocks, which contain an overstory dominated by temperate species and an understory comprised 

of subtropical plants. Another sign is the significant shift in vegetation along the edge of the lagoon 

from salt marsh cordgrass, which predominates in areas north of Canaveral, to mangrove species that 

predominate to the south. Roughly 4,191 acres at the Seashore are salt marsh, with an additional 

2,309 acres of mangroves (Table 1). Canaveral has the largest percentage of open water of all parks,

much of which includes large seagrass beds.
22

Figure 9. Coastal wetland and tidal monitoring stations near Canaveral National Seashore in Florida. 

Indicated are areas of salt marsh (National Wetlands Inventory 2011), urbanization (US Census Bureau 

2001), and CO-OPS tidal monitoring stations (NOAA 2013).
23

Factors Affecting Coastal Wetlands in Southeast Coast Network Parks

SECN park ecosystems are influenced by a variety of factors at the local and landscape scales.

Changes in salt marsh extent, diversity, and quality are presumed to be related to a combination of 

sea level rise (relative to changes in salt marsh elevation), tidal variability, and other local/regional 

issues such as changes in surrounding land and water use that can affect subsidence rates (Table 2).

Additionally within several parks, recreational use by visitors or impacts from non-native or 

naturalized animal populations can further affect various components of marsh wetland ecosystems 

through trampling, grazing or nutrient enrichment (Turner 1988). Understanding the effects of 

multiple concurrent stressors affecting parks, and mitigating the impacts of those stressors at multiple

spatial and temporal scales is an ongoing challenge for SECN park managers.

Table 2. Factors affecting coastal marsh wetlands in Southeast Coast Network Parks and potential 

measures for Vital Signs Monitoring. Measures in bold have been selected for inclusion in Southeast 

Coast Network monitoring efforts; measures in bold and italic are collected through other monitoring 

initiatives by NPS or partners.

Category Issue Potential Measures

Landscape Change Changes in the distribution and types of land 

uses relative to parks influence sediment and 

nutrient loads and consequently productivity of 

estuarine and salt marsh ecosystems.

% Change in spatial extent of salt 

marsh land cover, Rate of conversion 

of marsh cover classes to/from open 

water.

Relative Sea Level Rise During the 21st century, the IPCC projects that 

sea level rise will likely accelerate 2- to 5-fold 

compared to the global rate during the 1900s, 

very likely affecting natural ecosystems in the 

low-lying South Atlantic coastal zone (Burkett

et al. 2001).

Ground surface elevation, Subsidence

rate, Mean sea level, Sediment 

accretion

Tidal Variability Frequency, magnitude, and duration of storm 

events as well as local variations tidal ranges 

influence vulnerability to wetland loss.

Mean sea level, tidal range

Extreme Weather events Climate change is projected to increase the 

frequency and magnitude of landfalling storm 

events, which in turn is projected to increase 

vulnerability to coastal wetland inundation or 

loss.

Storm frequency & intensity, flood 

frequency & duration

Altered Hydrology Freshwater input and availability and 

consequent effects on marsh ecosystems can 

be altered through alterations in drainage, tidal 

flushing patterns, groundwater dynamics or 

subsidence.

Soil porewater salinity, Depth to 

shallow groundwater, Sediment 

accretion, flow pattern analysis

Vegetation Change Changes in hydrology, elevation, tidal 

patterns, and disturbance regime may alter the 

structure, function, and composition of plant 

communities.

% Cover of plant species, Diversity,

Range expansion

Human / Non-natural 

disturbance

Trampling, grazing, and litter pressure 

resulting from uncontrolled/ unsupervised 

visitor use or non-native or naturalized animal 

populations such as feral hogs and horses.

% Cover of bare ground, 

Presence/absence/intensity of 

disturbance sign 
24

Landscape Change

The southeastern United States is among the fastest growing regions in the country, and planning for 

and responding to climate impacts must be done in the context of land use change (Jones and Dalton 

2012). The pattern and extent of land cover change has important implications for conservation of 

species and ecosystems; changes in land use can affect terrestrial and aquatic habitat, may lead to 

habitat fragmentation, and affect water quality.

The Southeast has undergone tremendous changes in land cover since European settlement. Prior to 

settlement, longleaf pine woodlands were the dominant vegetation type in the coastal uplands 

(Christensen 1999, Frost 1993). Extensive river corridors bisected the upland matrix and 

concentrations of non-riverine wetlands covered vast acreages (Richardson 2000). In their 

conservation assessment of the U.S. and Canada, the World Wildlife Fund identified every ecoregion 

in the Southeast as vulnerable, endangered, or critical (Ricketts et al. 1999).

The direct and indirect impacts of rapid urbanization and climate change on vegetation, ecosystems,

and habitats are major challenges to park management. The scale and extent of the potential impacts 

of these new threats require that managers consider strategies across ownership boundaries, multiple 

species, cultural resources, and at multiple temporal and spatial scales.

The low-lying southeastern coastal zone was characterized as a hot spot of ecological vulnerability in 

the first two National Assessments (Karl et al. 2009) and numerous other assessment reports and 

independent investigations (Boesch et al. 2000, Scavia et al. 2002, Burkett et al. 2005, Savonis et al. 

2008). The South Atlantic coast is characterized by low topographic relief and is subject to both

hurricanes and strong frontal passages, during which coastal shorelines may retreat by several meters 

and wetlands may be permanently lost to open water. Like most U.S. coasts, the direct impacts of 

human activities on the coastal zone were more significant over the past century than impacts that 

can be directly attributed to observed climate change (Scavia et al. 2002). Between 1980 and 2003, 

coastal counties of the South Atlantic region showed the largest rate of population increase (58%) of 

any coastal region in the conterminous United States (Laporte et al. 2011). The major direct impacts 

of human development in the South Atlantic coastal zone include drainage of coastal wetlands, 

changes in hydrology that alter sediment and fresh water delivery to the coast, land clearing and 

deforestation, the discharge of sewage and contaminants into coastal waters, and the construction of 

seawalls and other structures that “harden” the coast.

The Southeast has historically experienced the highest rates of coastal wetland losses in the United 

States (Dahl 2005, Stedman and Dahl 2008). As barrier islands recede and passes enlarge, the 

dominance of marine forces (tides, salinity, waves) will tend to increase and accelerate change in 

coastal marshes and estuaries. Wetlands that cannot accrete sediments at rates that keep pace with sea

level rise will either drown in place or, possibly, migrate inland if their landward transgression is not 

prevented by human developments such as roads, levees, and other impediments.

Relative Sea Level Rise and Tidal Variability

Mean and diurnal tidal ranges at parks within the SECN span from roughly 0.2 to 2.3 m, with annual 

mean sea level increasing at rates of 2–3 mm per year (Table 3). Given that ecosystem drivers at both 

of these scales are expected to continue for the indefinite future, it is important for park managers to 
25

be able to understand and predict the effects of these agents of change on sensitive and declining 

resources. In transgressive coastal areas sea level rise is the driving force responsible for the 

transformation of upland soils into tidal wetlands (Gardner et al. 1992).

Table 3. Tidal characteristics and mean sea level trends at stations near Southeast Coast Network parks. 

Data from NOAA (2013). [–; Data Not Available]

Park Station ID

Mean Tide 

Range

(m)

Diurnal Tide 

Range

(m)

Mean Sea Level 

Trend (mm/yr)

CAHA Oregon Inlet Marina, NC 8652587 0.28 0.36 2.82 ± 1.76

CAHA / CALO USCG Station, Hatteras, NC 8654467 0.13 0.18 –

CALO Beaufort, NC 8656483 0.95 1.07 2.57 ± 0.44

FOPU Fort Pulaski, GA 8670870 2.11 2.29 2.98 ± 0.33

FOFR St. Simons, GA 8677344 2.02 1.83 –

FOFR / CUIS Fernandina Beach, FL 8720030 1.84 2.00 2.02 ± 0.20

TIMU Mayport (Bar Pilots Dock), FL 1.38 1.40 2.40 ± 0.31

FOMA State Road A1a Bridge, FL 8720692 1.11 1.26 –

Crescent Beach, Matanzas River, FL 8720651 1.24 1.39 –

I-295 Bridge, St. Johns River, FL 8720357 0.28 0.36 –

CANA Trident Pier, FL 8721604 1.03 1.19 –

Many coastal regions are experiencing an apparent increase in sea level rise due to local land 

subsidence. Subsidence is a natural product of coastal sedimentation, as terrigenous sediments are 

deposited in deltas and along shorelines (NOAA 2009). Over time, these recent deposits compact, 

eventually forming sedimentary rock. It is this compaction that leads to a loss in elevation. As 

sedimentation continues, the elevation lost through compaction may be replaced by new deposition. 

However, if sediments are deposited inland (such as behind dams), coastal sedimentation is curtailed. 

Subsidence can also be exacerbated by anthropogenic fluid withdrawal, such as occurs with oil 

drilling and tapping aquifers for human water supply (NOAA 2009). Regardless of the cause of local 

subsidence it has the net result of increasing the rate of relative sea level rise. Examples of regions 

experiencing high rates of subsidence are southern Louisiana and Houston/Galveston Bay.

Some coastal regions are experiencing increases in elevation due to anthropogenic pressures from the 

watershed such as urban and agricultural development practices in areas characterized by steep 

slopes, highly erosive soils, and episodic high-energy rain events. When wetlands receive the impact 

from rapid impulses of sediment, the impacts are exacerbated by changes in the tidal prism and the 

decreased inability of the tides to flush the system of sediments. This makes the balancing act 

between sea level rise and elevation change more precarious and requires that resource managers

have good information on both trends in local sea level and elevation to address resource 

management issues.

Marsh surface change is influenced by both subsurface processes occurring in the soil profile and 

above-surface processes that drive sediment accretion (Figure 10). When changes in both surface 
26

elevation and accretion are measured, they can provide information on below-ground processes that 

influence surface change. Differences between the rates of vertical accretion and surface change can 

be attributed to processes occurring in the shallow soil layer. The RSETs will be surveyed, allowing 

the elevation data to not only be compared and analyzed within the site, but between sites.

Additionally, the elevations will be able to be tied into the regional or local tidal datums, which can 

be used to provide measures of relative sea level change.

Figure 10. A conceptual diagram illustrating how environmental drivers influence vertical wetland 

development. White boxes indicate drivers and grey boxes show accretionary processes. From (Cahoon

et al. 2009).

Extreme Weather Events

Natural forces can also have significant influences on these vegetation systems (Moore 2009).

Storms can be powerful forcing functions modifying these areas over both the short and long term 

(Davis and Andronaco 1987, Short and Wyllie-Echeverria 1996, Roman 1997). Sea level rise or 

other changes in water level, as well as global climate change can have a wide range of effects on 

both submersed and emergent coastal plant communities including submergence and drowning, 

changes in salinity, temperature, runoff and water quality, as well as increasing UV radiation 

(Warren and Niering 1993, Watson et al. 1996, Short and Neckles 1999). Additionally, non-
27

indigenous or invasive plant species can have significant impacts on the structure and function of 

these habitats (Sandlund et al. 1999). Further, the process of natural recovery of systems impacted by 

extreme events such a hurricanes can be of significant interest. Evaluating the success of restoration 

efforts, as well as assessing the recovery of impacted communities requires detailed, statistically 

rigorous protocols that can be equally applied to both reference areas and impacted sites. Periodic, 

consistent, long-term monitoring of reference sites can also provide measures of natural variability 

that are very useful in evaluating restoration efforts or recovery from perturbation.

Altered Hydrology

Alteration to the hydrological regime is a common disturbance in a variety of southeastern 

ecosystems including coastal wetlands. Hydrological change has altered flood depth, duration, 

frequency, and seasonal timing in many of these systems, leading to a raising and lowering of the 

water table in specific cases. These changes are further affected by alterations in freshwater water 

inputs from storms, withdrawal from consumptive uses, or changes in sedimentation patterns, flow 

barriers, or channelization (Adams and Hackney 1992).

Vegetation Change

Emergent wetland vegetation is an important component of estuarine ecosystems (Roman et al. 2001, 

Moore 2009). They form a buffer between upland systems and the sea, and provide complex habitats 

with irreplaceable value to both coastal systems and their adjacent watersheds. Despite their value, 

the distribution, abundance and diversity of these communities have been lost as a direct result of 

human impact. For example, nearly 50% of the coastal wetlands have been lost in the United States 

through dredging and filling activities (Dahl 1990). Changes in hydrological regimes through 

alterations in drainage (Niering and Warren 1980) or tidal flushing patterns (Roman et al. 1984) as 

well as local subsidence (Davis and Andronaco 1987) have severely impacted many others. In the 

Chesapeake Bay region, beds of submersed aquatic vegetation are currently at their lowest levels of 

abundance in recorded history (Orth and Moore 1983); these declines can be directly related to 

watershed inputs of sediments and nutrients accelerated by human activities (Kemp et al. 1983, 

Brush 2001).

Human or Non-Natural Disturbances

Visitor uses of natural resources, though appropriate within the Natural Park System, can cause a 

number of direct and indirect changes within the ecosystem. Use of natural areas has increased 

steadily since 1965, with total recreational visitation in SECN coastal parks averaging between 6 and 

7 million visitors per year in 2012 (Figure 11; Cole 1996, NPS 2013) and will likely continue as 

protected lands become increasingly rare in the rapidly developing landscape within the Southeast. 

Most visitor use impacts are assumed to increase as visitation rates increase. Additional visitor use 

impacts include litter, trampling, poaching, species introductions, and social trail creation (by foot or 

by watercraft).
28

Year

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Number of recreational visitors per year, in millions

3

4

5

6

7

Figure 11. Total number of recreational visitors per year at Southeast Coast Network parks where coastal 

salt marsh elevation and vegetation communities are to be monitored, 1976–2012. 

The dotted line represents when Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve was created in 1992. 

Red line does not include Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve and the yellow line includes 

the visitor data from Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve. Data from NPS (2013).

Overgrazing by exotic animals is also a problem on barrier island systems because of the large 

numbers of feral animals introduced to the islands, including horses, cattle, goats, pigs, and sheep 

(Stalter and Odum 1993). Two parks within the Network (CUIS and CALO) manage feral horse 

populations that are significant drivers of physical, biological, and chemical components of barrier 

island and marsh wetland processes (Turner 1988).

Development and Purpose of the Protocol

In 2001, the SECN began planning and implementing its long-term Vital Signs Monitoring Program 

which included salt marsh elevation and vegetation communities in the vicinity of forts, national 

seashores, and preserves along the Southeast coast. In 2004, SECN staff provided parks with 

resource prioritization questionnaires which asked natural resource staff to rank the importance of 

water resources to their parks as well as potential concerns that a monitoring program might address.
29

Findings from this survey indicated that salt marsh and estuary communities were a high priority for 

the Vital Signs Program to address (DeVivo et al. 2008).

In 2010, the SECN hosted a scoping meeting with representatives from the NPS, NOAA, USFWS, 

and USGS, whose interest in salt marsh and estuarine resources helped focus and shape the 

fundamental aspects of a salt marsh community monitoring program that could serve the needs of 

SECN coastal parks and its partners. This meeting further acknowledged the importance of this type 

of data and information in helping to better understand characteristics of the effects of relative sea 

level rise on intertidal marsh communities in parks, refuges, reserves and preserves as well as 

contributing to a better understanding park ecological processes and physical systems. The result of 

this meeting was the development of a set of minimum data collection standards to be utilized along 

the Atlantic coast (DeVivo et al. 2011).

This protocol is largely based on methods and procedures widely in use by other programs and 

agencies (Roman et al. 2001, Cahoon et al 2002a,b, Folse and West 2004, Folse et al. 2008, Moore 

2009, Lynch et al. 2012). The use of existing protocols and published methods to the greatest extent 

possible is intended to provide information that can be evaluated in a regional and national context

and can be easily combined with other data sets to gain additional insight on salt marsh trends in the 

vicinity of parks.

Two extra-park regions were identified in which sampling designs, protocol development, and 

implementation would be coordinated among partners to improve cross-agency utility of data and

operational efficiency:

 In northeast Florida, the area encompassing Fort Matanzas National Monument and the 

GTMNERR were treated as a single study area and monitoring efforts are being coordinated 

jointly between NPS and NERR staff. In 1999, the GTMNERR was designated in St. Johns 

and Flagler counties, Florida as a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) system because of its 

outstanding representation of the east Florida sub-region of the Carolinian bioregion and its 

unique combination of natural and cultural resources.

 Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge was included in the sampling designs for Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore to ensure that findings applied to all DOI holdings within the CAHA 

legislative boundary. Executive Order 7864 established Pea Island NWR on April 8, 1938, as 

a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. Presidential 

Proclamation 2284 closed a 25,700-acre area encompassing the refuge and a portion of the 

Pamlico Sound west of and adjacent to the refuge to migratory bird hunting (USFWS 2006). 

Three impoundments covering 790 acres are managed for food production, to provide forage 

for waterfowl and shorebirds on the refuge.

31

2. Measurable Objectives

Monitoring Objectives

To characterize the effects of relative sea level rise on salt marsh communities, required data include 

accurately monitoring water level, site elevation, soil salinity and the vegetative community. Each 

component is integral to the group as a whole to provide a complete picture of surface elevation 

dynamics and vegetation response. The following six objectives will be monitored at sampling 

locations in all study areas (CAHA, CALO, TIMU, CANA, CUIS, FOMA-GTMNERR, FOFR, and 

FOPU):

1. Determine the magnitude, rate, and within-site variability of change in ground surface 

elevation in SECN salt marshes.

2. Determine the status, trends, and within-site variability in surface sediment accretion or 

erosion.

3. Determine the status and trends in the surveyed elevation of station benchmarks relative to 

the national elevation network.

4. Determine the status and trends in soil salinity.

5. Determine the status and trends in salt marsh vegetation species composition, cover, and 

height.

6. Determine the status and trends in percent area coverage of non-vegetative salt marsh surface 

characteristics such as oyster colonization, crab sign, wrack, and soil desiccation.

Enhanced Climate Change Monitoring Objectives

Two study areas (TIMU and FOMA-GTMNERR) have been selected for implementation of 

enhanced climate change monitoring, where more intensive efforts will be undertaken to assist parks 

with climate change response planning (NPS 2010, 2012).

7. Determine the within-park spatial variability in the ground surface elevation in SECN 

marshes.

8. Determine the within-park spatial variability in surface sediment accretion or erosion.

The DOI Southeast Climate Science Center (as well as several other programs in the Southeast) is

developing models of direct relevance to SECN coastal ecosystems relating to coastal wetland loss 

(Plant et al. 2010, Jones and Dalton 2012). To estimate effects of climate change on shoreline erosion 

vulnerability and coastal wetland loss models, the USGS is factoring in parameters to represent local 

processes that affect land-surface elevation and other types of ecosystem changes (Pendleton et al. 

2010, Plant et al. 2010). The team is using Bayesian network modeling approaches to design new 

tools for decision makers to visualize and assess change in coastal regions where a combination of 

inundation, land loss, and habitat change is occurring and expected to continue. Local variability in 
32

relative sea level rise and accretion are key measures in these developing models (Thieler et al. 2010, 

Gutierrez et al. 2011).

Research Objectives

Within the FOMA-GTMNERR study area, an additional suite of research objectives will be 

addressed related to assessing seasonal variability and emergent intertidal vegetation (Kimball and 

Eastman 2012). Methods described herein are designed to be consistent with the NERRs Biological 

Monitoring protocols (Moore 2009) to ensure data compatibility in salt marsh communities 

throughout the coastal southeast Atlantic. Primary research questions addressed by data collection at 

FOMA-GTMNERR include:

 What are the characteristics of these plant communities including community structure 

(height), species abundance, species recruitment (including invasive species), or species loss?

 What are the patterns of inter-annual variability and spatial distribution of emergent intertidal 

vegetation and what are the patterns of both short- and long-term habitat change?

 How does this variability differ between cordgrass and mangrove-dominated marshes?

 How are any changes in habitat distribution, abundance, and composition related to abiotic 

and biotic factors and at what scale?

 What is the ecological response of the emergent intertidal vegetation community to local 

(e.g., watershed) and global (e.g., ocean) environmental impacts?

Objectives Addressed in Other Monitoring Protocols

Changes in the spatial extent and condition of salt marshes are also of importance to SECN park 

managers; both of which will be addressed through other monitoring efforts at the network, regional, 

or national scale. It is anticipated that changes in marsh extent will be addressed at the landscape 

scale either by the South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative or the Southeast Climate 

Science center (Jones and Dalton 2012, SALCC 2012 ), or at the national scale through the NPScape 

program (Monahan et al. 2012). Changes in sea level and tidal patterns as well as overall marsh 

condition will be addressed through SECN coastal shoreline and vegetation community monitoring 

efforts, the protocols for which is still in development (planned for publication in FY 2014).
33

3. Sampling Design

There are several issues to consider when designing a field program for monitoring salt marsh 

elevation and accretion dynamics, including the specific monitoring objectives being addressed, and 

the resultant implications for site selection, sampling frequency, the variables being measured, the 

sampling unit, and sample sizes. This section provides justification and supporting documentation for 

various aspects of the protocol related to sampling design. The overall design strategy upon which 

this protocol is based has three components:

 A clearly defined sampling frame based on imagery analysis. For each park the sample frame 

is the salt marsh system. Although the site locations are based on the initial extent of the 

sample frame based on landcover data in 2007, changes in the spatial extent of the vegetation 

class will be studied over time as a part of this protocol.

 A suite of sampling locations selected within each study area’s sampling frame, the number 

of which varies by park depending on the monitoring objectives to be addressed. To preserve 

the marsh communities from human impact and maintaining the public’s viewshed within the 

park, permanent monitoring stations have been established at locations limited to areas 

outside of public view, and to those that are regularly flooded or inundated at the surface 

twice daily by semidiurnal tides.

 Evaluation of surface elevation and vegetation dynamics at selected locations within the 

sampling frame using several response designs based on established methods.

Sample Frame

The sample frame for each park is the salt marsh system. Prior to site selection, salt marsh boundaries 

were delineated by SECN staff with ArcGIS 9.x using available aerial and land use / land cover data

(Table 4). Open water areas less than 20 m across were included in the sample frame.

Table 4. Coverages used for salt marsh boundary delineation for the salt marsh elevation and vegetation 

community monitoring in Southeast Coast Network parks. Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads (DOQQ), 

National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), and Saint Johns River Water Management District Land 

Use / Land Cover (SJLULC) are shown.

Park DOQQ NAIP SJLULC

CAHA 1998

CALO 1999

FOPU 1999

FOFR 2005

CUIS 1999 2005

TIMU 2004 2005

FOMA-GTMNERR 2007

CANA 2004 2000
34

Sample Locations

The monitoring objectives and the environmental setting influence the selection of appropriate 

sample locations. Salt marshes consist of multiple variables including elevation, hydrologic and 

salinity gradients, inundation periodicity, soil composition and geomorphology, and current 

velocities—all of which affect the salt marsh in differing ways.

The number of sampling locations for each park was determined after consideration of park size and 

hydrologic characteristics, safety concerns, the logistical issues regarding travel time and conducting 

monitoring activities, and whether monitoring objectives related to climate change are of interest at 

each park.

At each of the eight parks where the protocol is to be implemented, a minimum of one and a 

maximum of six sampling locations have been selected to address the monitoring objectives. At all 

parks, at least one sampling location was selected with three replicate stations where sediment 

elevation, accretion, vegetation, porewater chemistry, and other characteristics are measured. To 

provide data relevant to park- and region-wide climate change impact forecasting, sampling designs 

at two parks (TIMU and FOMA) have been expanded to include multiple sampling locations with a 

minimum of one placed in each of the parks’ 12-digit hydrologic code watershed.

Sample Location Selection

The sampling frame for each park was divided into a systematic 0.5-ha grid; the area of the grid cell 

served as the potential sampling location (Byrne 2012). The 0.5-ha grid-cell size was chosen to 

provide an adequate number of sampling locations given the size and shape of SECN parks and 

because 0.5-ha is the minimum mapping unit of the SECN vegetation mapping inventory. A 

spatially-balanced random sample was drawn from this grid using the Reversed Randomized 

Quadrant-Recursive Raster (RRQRR) algorithm (Theobald and Norman 2006, Byrne 2012). The 

RRQRR algorithm provides a discrete sample (Theobald et al. 2007), thus inferences will be 

expressed relative to the number of grid-cell center points within the sampling frame. The sample 

draw included primary sampling locations and an “over-sample” to provide alternate sampling 

locations. Refer to SOP 1.1.7 and 1.1.1 for data preparation and generating sampling locations using 

the RRQRR using ArcGIS 9.1 and 9.3.1. These two SOPs were used to generate sites prior to 2014. 

Due to changes in software, future sites will be chosen using SOP 1.2.1 (Asper 2013), which utilizes

ArcGIS10 and the corresponding ArcGIS tool that uses a RRQRR algorithm to generate sampling 

locations.

To maintain the integrity of the spatially-balanced properties of the RRQRR draw, the initial draw 

consisted a minimum of 1.5n, where n is the desired number of sampling locations. Alternate

sampling locations were used when selection criteria (Characteristics Evaluated in GIS, see below) 

were not met; approximately eight to ten alternate sampling locations are provided for each parkspecific sampling design.

Selection criteria are applied to all sampling locations in lieu of a priori categorization of some grid 

cells as “exclusion zones” (Theobald et al. 2007), or unsampled areas as previously referred. Creating 

GIS-based exclusion zones can bias the design because of imprecision, spatially or temporally, in the 
35

geospatial data used as the foundation of the sample draw process or our lack of location-specific 

knowledge that could influence sampling location inclusion (Theobald et al. 2007). Therefore, two 

levels of selection criteria are applied to all sampling locations: (1) those applied using GIS where 

relevant data layers were available, accurate, and reliable, and (2) those applied in the field. As 

previously mentioned, field evaluation is necessary because the resolution in available GIS data is 

too coarse for a determination of whether a site should be included in the sample design. Sampling 

locations are evaluated in the sampling order in which they were generated following the procedures 

outlined in SOP 1.3.1 (Asper 2012).

Characteristics Evaluated in a GIS

Sampling locations are excluded from the sampling draw if:

 The site is greater than 20,000 yards (10 nautical miles) from a boat launching facility; 

however, this distance may be reduced or increased based on boat used, normal water 

conditions and accessibility.

 The site is not accessible by open water.

 The sampling location occurs on private in-holdings where access is not permitted.

 The characteristics of the sampling location do not allow for a 70 meter buffer from the 

sampling location that facilitates access or the location does not allow for the installation of 

three monitoring sites, including platforms 30 feet in length.

Characteristics Evaluated in the Field

Sampling locations are also excluded if upon inspection in the field:

 Verification that the GIS evaluation was imprecise, inappropriate resolution, or incorrect, 

thus precluding the location from being selected.

 Sites are not regularly inundated by tidal water, defined as at least one inundation event 

during any 24-hour period.

 Sites are visible from normal public view within park lands.

 Sites are not vegetated with typical salt marsh species (e.g., Juncus roemerianus, Spartina 

alterniflora).

 Sites are not accessible by boat at low tide. The boat should be able to bow into shore, and 

contact all three 30-foot platform established as part of site preparation. Low tide is defined 

as two hours either side of mean low water.

 The sampling location is potentially unsafe.

 Signs of recent impacts or stressors such as by prescribed fire or wildlife disturbance or 

trampling are present.
36

 The sampling location is located within 25 m of human alterations such as levees, roads, 

spoils, etc.

In the event a sampling location is omitted, the first alternate sampling location is selected, the 

aforementioned criteria are applied, the sampling location is accepted or rejected, and if rejected the 

next consecutive alternate sampling location is evaluated with the same process.

Response Designs

Implementation of the SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring 

Protocol requires the use of several response designs implemented at various plots around a 

permanently-installed monitoring platform (Figure 12, Table 5, Table 6). Each sampling location 

consists of three permanent monitoring platforms, each of which has a permanent Rod-Surface 

Elevation Table (RSET) monitoring benchmark, and a series of accretion plots, soil porewater 

monitoring plots, and vegetation photoplots at which various components of this protocol are 

implemented (see Figure 12 for schematic). The RSET benchmark consists of a vertical rod installed 

to refusal (so that the elevation of the top of the rod is stable) with a receiver to which the surface 

elevation table can be attached (Figure 13).
37

Figure 12. Schematic for monitoring platform, accretion plots, soil porewater monitoring locations, and 

vegetation plots. Modified from (Folse and West 2004).
38

Table 5. Relationship between monitoring objectives, sampling methods, and variables measured at 

SECN parks as a part of the Protocol for Monitoring Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Communities.

Objective Sampling Method Locations

Variables

Measured Parks

Core Site Monitoring

1 Surface Elevation 

Change

RSETs RSET stations Pin height to

ground surface

CAHA, CALO, TIMU, 

CANA, CUIS, 

FOMA-GTMNERR, 

FOFR, FOPU

2 Accretion / Erosion 

Rates

Sediment coring RSET stations Depth to marker 

horizon

CAHA, CALO, TIMU, 

CANA, CUIS, 

FOMA-GTMNERR, 

FOFR, FOPU

3 Deep Subsurface 

Subsidence

Surveys of NGS 

benchmarks

RSET stations Absolute Elevation TIMU, FOMAGTMNERR

4 Vegetation Changes Photoplots Vegetation 

Photoplots

count/area; % 

Species Cover

CAHA, CALO, TIMU, 

CANA, CUIS, 

FOMA-GTMNERR, 

FOFR, FOPU

5 Non-vegetation 

characteristics

Photoplots Vegetation 

Photoplots

count/area;

% cover

CAHA, CALO, TIMU, 

CANA, CUIS, 

FOMA-GTMNERR, 

FOFR, FOPU

6 Soil Salinity Soil Porewater 

Salinity Measure

Porewater

Plots

Porewater salinity CAHA, CALO, TIMU, 

CANA, CUIS, 

FOMA-GTMNERR, 

FOFR, FOPU

Enhanced 

Climate 

Change

7 Within-park surface 

variability

RSETs RSET stations stdev of site 

location elevations

TIMU FOMAGTMNERR

8 Within-park accretion 

variability

Sediment coring RSET stations stdev of site 

location accretion 

TIMU, FOMAGTMNERR

Table 6. Number of replicate samples for each field measure as a part of the SECN Coastal Salt Marsh 

Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol.

Park Surface Accretion Benchmark Elevation1Photoplots

CAHA 3 9 3 15

CALO 3 9 3 15

FOPU 3 9 3 15

FOFR 3 9 3 15

CUIS 3 9 3 15

TIMU 18 18 24 90

FOMA-GTMNERR 18 18 24 90

CANA 3 9 3 15

1Number of benchmarks is based on one benchmark per platform, subject to change based on the 

surveying plan to be developed in the first two years of protocol implementation.
39

Figure 13. Schematic of combined Rod-Surface Elevation Table (RSET) and tidal gaging stations to 

allow for measurement of both salt marsh accretion and subsidence and sea level rise in a manner that 

provides measurement of relative sea level rise (NGS, P. Hensel, personal communication).

Surface Elevation Measurements

Station Instrumentation and Plot Layout

Sampling designs for evaluating changes in wetland elevation can be divided into two major types: 

sampling for monitoring and sampling for hypothesis testing (Lynch et al. 2012). Sampling to 

address monitoring objectives will generally involve sample stations that are dispersed throughout 

the area of interest (sample space), to ensure that a representative sample is obtained, or in critical 

areas, to provide an early warning of change. Hypothesis testing involves the investigation of specific 

factors that affect the variables being measured (e.g., elevation change). Examples include comparing 

elevation trajectories between a restored marsh and a reference marsh, or between burned plots and 

non-burned plots. Sampling designs for such studies are aimed at focusing on these factors and 

excluding (or explaining) other, non-targeted factors. This often leads to clustering sample stations 

within a marsh or within specific marsh habitats to reduce unwanted variability. Although the 

primary question(s) in a study may steer toward a specific study design for monitoring or hypothesis 

testing, it is important to note that these two approaches are never mutually exclusive. A hypothesis 

testing design can also inform long-term monitoring, even if its design is not ideally suited for it. 

Similarly, a long-term monitoring effort can also test certain hypotheses (e.g., comparing the 

elevation change rate to rates of surface accretion or local sea level rise).
40

The response design to be employed by the SECN includes a balance of both approaches. To

statistically evaluate the elevation change rate for a given sample area, at least three RSETs are

required (the mean and variance being used in the evaluation). This is an absolute minimum: larger 

sample sizes greatly increase the power of an analysis.

This discussion of minimum sample size is the backdrop for RSET sampling designs because in most 

cases, RSET-based investigations are constrained by small sample sizes. This constraint arises 

because of:

 Installation: the high cost of establishing RSET stations,

 Sampling: logistic constraints involved with getting to each station and performing all the

necessary measurements within a reasonable time period.

Additionally, RSET sample plots in this protocol are coupled with marker horizon plots to measure

accretion rates (Cahoon and Turner 1989); additional costs and logistic constraints (including

materials and time) arise with the addition of accretion sampling (e.g., cryogenic coring) further 

restricting sample sizes that can be realized in the field. Although these constraints are common

among field-based investigations, the degree to which they affect sample design in a RSET-based 

study is substantial. All of these issues reinforce the outcome that sample sizes tend to be small, 

placing important demands on the sampling design to achieve desired data outcomes.

The specific design to be implemented at each park will vary based on the size and logistic 

challenges unique to each park coupled with the specific monitoring objectives to be addressed. In 

general the designs will be a hybrid of the three options presented in Table 7 (modified from Lynch 

et al. 2012). As described above, one to six sampling locations are selected per park, with three 

replicate stations being installed at each sampling location. This will provide all parks with some 

estimate of spatial variance, while concentrating intensive sampling efforts to address questions 

related to within-park variability to those sites where climate change effects are to be studied within a 

modeling/ hypothesis testing framework.
41

Table 7. Four general scenarios for distribution of sampling locations within a sample space. Modified 

from Lynch et al. (2012).

Sample 

Design Application Cost Difficulty

Prior 

Knowledge 

of Site 

Necessary 

Spatial 

Coverage / 

Inference Use of Data

Single 

RSET at a 

sample 

location w/o 

Replication.

Sentinel 

monitoring

Low Low High Low / Minimal Single point trend;

Low site-specific knowledge

No variance estimate for 

space.

No variance estimate for 

sites.

Multiple 

randomlydistributed

RSET 

stations 

throughout 

sample 

space.

Inference 

Monitoring

Moderate High Low High / High High spatial coverage.

Low site-specific knowledge

Good variance estimate for 

sample space.

No site variance.

Cluster of 

RSET 

stations at 

one 

sampling 

location.

Hypothesis 

testing

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate / 

Moderate

Moderate spatial coverage.

High site-specific 

knowledge.

Some estimate of variance 

among sites.

Clusters of 

RSET 

stations 

distributed 

throughout 

sample 

space.

Hypothesis 

testing / 

Modeling

High High Moderate High / High High spatial coverage.

High site-specific 

knowledge.

Good estimate of variance 

among sites.

Mirroring the approach of other agencies (NPS, NOAA, Louisiana DNR, USFWS, and USGS), 

SECN monitoring stations serve as permanent sites after they have been selected and installed 

regardless of the number of stations installed at a park or sampling location. The RSET sample 

station (RSET reference mark) is considered the experimental unit (the basic unit within a sample). 

This means that most statistical models (e.g., analysis of variance) should have the RSET identified 

as the replicate making up the sample. Marker horizons grouped around a RSET would also be 

expected to show some correlation, so the RSET would likewise be identified as the experimental 

unit in a statistical model. Where cluster-based sampling designs are employed, each sampling 

location will typically include three replicate stations where data are collected as described below.

Surface Elevation Measurements

Nine surface elevation measurements are taken in each of four cardinal directions from the top of the 

rod for a total of 36 measurements. Because the measurements in each direction are not independent, 

these can be considered subsamples of an approximate 2-m

2

area surrounding the RSET rod Figure 

14. A sample size of three (used when comparing sampling locations over time) is expected to 

achieve 80% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 2.0 mm with an estimated standard 
42

deviation of differences of 0.6 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided paired 

t-test (see Appendix F for power analyses). However, at any given station, the method is expected to 

achieve 80% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 1.3 mm (using four averages of 

measurements taken in the cardinal directions as replicates) or 0.3 mm (if 36 individual pin 

measurements are used as replicate measures) with an estimated standard deviation of differences of 

0.6 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided paired t-test.
43

Figure 14. Schematic of permanent monitoring platform showing plot layout and potential directions for 

the Rod-Surface Elevation Table (RSET). (Modified from USGS Taking your SET readings page: 

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/)
44

Accretion Measurements from Marker Horizons

Marsh surface change measured by the RSET is influenced by both surface and subsurface processes 

occurring in the soil profile whereas depth to the feldspar marker horizon measures only surface 

processes (Cahoon et al. 1996). When these two techniques are used in conjunction, they can provide 

information on below-ground processes that influence surface change. Accretion will be measured by 

the establishment of three 0.5 m × 0.5 m marker horizon plots systematically placed around a 

platform (Figure 12). The marker horizon is white feldspar clay that is evenly sprinkled on the 

surface of the wetland upon which sediments are allowed to naturally settle and accrete. Depth to the 

marker horizon is then measured at the three replicate plots annually using a cryogenic method 

developed by Cahoon et al. (1996).

A sample size of three (used when comparing rates at individual stations between two sampling 

events) achieves 80% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 19.6 mm with an estimated 

standard deviation of differences of 6.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a twosided paired t-test (see Appendix F for power analyses). A sample size of nine (used when comparing 

rates at sampling locations between two sampling events) achieves 80% power to detect a mean of 

paired differences of 6.4 mm with an estimated standard deviation of differences of 6.0 and with a 

significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided paired t-test.

Benchmark Elevation

Accurate elevations need to be obtained for each RSET reference mark so that the wetland surface

that the RSET is measuring can be expressed with respect to the same vertical datum as local waterlevel records and tidal datums. Accurate elevations will convert the RSET from a relative elevation 

change instrument to one that can measure absolute elevation.

During the first two years of protocol implementation, an evaluation of the existing geodetic 

infrastructure will be completed and a survey plan developed for each park to determine accurate 

elevations for RSET benchmarks. This will include an evaluation of existing geodetic infrastructure 

including benchmarks, Continuously Operating GPS Reference Stations (CORS), and tide or waterlevel stations, and a determination of requisite additional geodetic infrastructure or surveying 

required to establish elevations of monitoring stations installed as a part of this protocol. The 

Network will follow recent guidelines that provide information required to adequately construct local 

geodetic control networks and establish geodetic connections among observing systems within the 

Network (Hensel et al. 2012). Selected stations will be surveyed at a minimum of once every 10 

years.

Soil Porewater

Soil porewater salinity is measured at two depths at three subsample locations within the designated 

soil porewater plot within the monitoring array (Figure 12). A sample size of three (used when 

comparing rates at individual stations between two sampling events) achieves 80% power to detect a 

mean of paired differences of 9.8 ppt with an estimated standard deviation of differences of 3.0 and 

with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided paired t-test (see Appendix F for power 

analyses). A sample size of nine (used when comparing rates at sampling locations between two 

sampling events) achieves 80% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 3.2 ppt with an 
45

estimated standard deviation of differences of 6.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using 

a two-sided paired t-test.

Vegetation and Surface Characteristic Sampling

The percent cover will be estimated for vegetation species as well as key surface characteristics such 

as bare ground, detritus, or crab burrows. Species composition and abundance of each species within 

each sampled quadrat must be determined. Cover is a common measure of species abundance in 

vegetation studies. This will be performed using point-intercept counts of digital imagery (100 points 

per 1-m

2

images). In brief, for the point-intercept method the observer records each species/surface 

characteristic that is intercepted by each point at 100 points within each quadrat. Photoplots are 

conducted at five quadrats at designated points around the platforms at each of the monitoring

stations, providing a minimum of 15 replicate samples of percent cover during every sampling event.

A sample size of 15 is expected to achieve 80% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 20% 

in percent cover with an estimated standard deviation of differences of 0.2 and with a significance 

level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided paired t-test (see Appendix F for power analyses). This is 

consistent with James-Pirri et al. (2007) who found that sample sizes of 15–20 1-m

2

plots are 

adequate to detect actual differences between vegetation communities among marshes (although their 

analyses were based on non-parametric methods).

At two GTMNERR sampling locations, transects have also been established to address several of the 

research objectives listed above. Given their position within the watershed and the orientation and 

proximity to terrestrial land mass, emergent vegetation transects were extended from the stations at 

Moses Creek and Pellicer Creek from the subtidal to the terrestrial transition zones (Figure 15). 

Transects were established perpendicular to the water edge and extended to the edge of the marsh 

vegetation community. At each of three replicate transects at each site, ten permanent 1-m

2

vegetation plots were established where both photoplot and additional structural data are collected 

(canopy height, stem density, and visual estimation of percent cover) as per NERR methods in Moore 

(2009).
46

Figure 15. Aerial imagery of vegetation monitoring transects. Figure shows the position of three replicate 

370-m intensive vegetation monitoring transects (red lines) at Pellicer Creek (left) and 140-m transects at 

Moses Creek (right) sites within the FOMA-GTMNERR study area.

Sampling Over Time

The strength of the RSET device is that the same patches of wetland surface are re-measured over 

time. This means that RSET data are always a time series. Elevation and accretion measurements will 

be collected annually during the late spring / early summer months (May–June) to reduce the 

likelihood of introducing seasonal variability into the data. This period was chosen so that sampling 

events will occur during peak vegetation growing periods and coincide with vegetation monitoring 

efforts being conducted by the SECN in terrestrial ecosystems.
47

4. Field Procedures: Installation and Data Collection Methods

For more than a decade, coastal researchers have been investigating and monitoring millimeter-scale 

changes in wetland and shallow bottom surface elevation using RSET technology. Such highprecision measurements are required to understand fundamental processes leading to elevation 

change over time. Sediment surface accretion, erosion, shallow subsidence and organic soil 

formation generally occur on the scale of millimeters per year. Eustatic sea level rise also occurs at 

this scale (currently estimated at about 2 mm yr-1). In addition, RSET technology allows one to 

estimate rates of these processes with good statistical confidence. High-precision measurements of 

surface elevation change are especially important in the coastal zone because by the time larger, 

more noticeable changes have occurred, the coastal habitats may have already changed beyond the 

point of natural recovery.

High accuracy elevation change data have also proven useful to measure and understand seasonal 

fluctuations in elevation due to processes such as groundwater storage and seasonal sea- level 

changes. The RSET technique integrates all processes acting on surface elevation change over the 

depth of the benchmark (generally between 7 and 25 meters). In this regard, the technique differs 

from other high accuracy measurements of surface elevation change, because it includes belowground processes as well. No other technique has proven itself reliable and consistent in providing 

millimeter-level precision for wetland elevation change.

The SECN is using several methods to assess the health of the salt marsh. These include the RSET, 

feldspar marker horizons, soil porewater, and vegetation change-over-time monitoring. These 

elements are designed for both measuring overall marsh health and local effects of relative sea level 

rise. Refer to Pre-Field Check List and Sampling Brief (Appendix A) for a brief outline of data 

collection procedure and notes for sampling RSET, Accretion Plots, and porewater.

Installation of Monitoring Station and Sampling Infrastructure

Long-term monitoring of marsh surface elevation change and vertical accretion requires repeated 

sampling of the marsh surface. A small permanent platform is constructed to minimize disruption of 

the marsh surface during sampling from which all elevation and accretion measurements are taken. 

One RSET benchmark is established in the center of the platform and a minimum of three artificial 

soil marker horizons are established around the outer perimeter of the platform to provide a minimum 

of two degrees of freedom for statistical analyses (Figure 12).

Establishment of monitoring sites is accomplished following SOPs for site platform installation (SOP 

1.3.2; Asper and Curtis 2013a), and RSET Benchmark Installation (SOP 1.3.19; Asper and Curtis 

2012b). The SECN is using the cluster of RSETs, where three platforms, each containing 1 RSET,

are installed at a sampling location. The three platform locations were placed within the 70 m buffer

around the randomly-selected point, as outlined in SOP 1.3.1 (Asper and Curtis 2012a). Accessibility 

to the platform location and site variability within the 70 m buffered area were used to determine the 

three platform locations at each sampling location. The platforms are constructed so that RSET and 

accretion data collection can be performed without disturbing the surface of the marsh. The platform 

also allows monitoring of vegetation and soil porewater with exceedingly minimal site disturbance. It 
48

is very important to maintain the integrity of the study; consequently, any surface alteration that 

occurs during the construction or monitoring phase will result in an unacceptable site and may 

require relocation.

Rod-Surface Elevation Table (RSET) Measurements

The SECN has implemented the use of the RSET technique that has been developed by Cahoon et al. 

(2002a) and Cahoon et al. (2002b). The RSET is the preferred version of the SET that will be 

established at specified locations in attached, herbaceous marsh and mangrove scrub/shrub 

ecosystems. The RSET method provides a non-destructive process that precisely measures the 

sediment elevation over a long period of time relative to a fixed subsurface datum. Briefly, a series of 

4-ft stainless steel rods are driven through the root zone, the organic matter, and any soft underlying 

materials until refusal is encountered from a driving force on the rod. Near the surface, a receiver is 

attached to the rod that is stabilized by a six-inch diameter PVC pipe that is cemented at the surface. 

A stainless steel receiver provides a constant horizontal reference plane as well as long-term 

repeatability as the table remains fixed for each sampling period. Detailed RSET installation 

procedures are provided in SOP 1.3.19 (Asper and Curtis 2012b).

Data collection occurs by attaching a custom made RSET arm (Figure 16) to the collar and nine 

fiberglass pins are pushed through the table from above to the marsh surface. The height (measured 

in millimeters) that each pin extends above the table is used to calculate vertical changes of the marsh 

surface over time. Using data that was collected previously, the rate of change can be calculated to 

provide status and trends with respect to changes occurring between the surface and the bottom of the 

stainless steel rod.
49

Figure 16. Detailed construction drawing of a typical RSET. Insert: collar detail From Callaway et al. 

(2014).
50

The RSET arm is repositioned to measure the marsh surface in the four cardinal points from the 

benchmark rod for a total of 36 measurements. Detailed instructions for collecting surface elevation 

measurements using the RSET device are found in SOP 1.3.6 (Asper and Curtis 2013c).

Accretion Measurements Using Marker Horizons

Differences between the rates of vertical accretion and surface change can be attributed to processes 

occurring below the feldspar layer and above the bottom of the RSET benchmark rod. Consequently, 

it is imperative that the first RSET measurements occur on the same day as the establishment of the 

accretion plots. The information derived from these two methods does not account for any process 

that occurs beneath the rod.

Accretion stations are to be established on the same day that the initial RSET readings are recorded. 

This gives the best known baseline for both the accretion and RSET data sets to be interpreted when 

analysis occurs.

Three stations will be established along the boardwalk (SOP 1.3.2; Asper and Curtis 2013b) as

shown in Figure 12 in a manner that will be sampled at a later date from the platform.

Soil Porewater Salinity

Because saltwater intrusion is an important concern in coastal marshes, field personnel will measure 

soil porewater salinity at specific stations at 10- and 30-cm depths on an annual basis. Soil porewater 

constituents are relatively uniform above 20–25 cm (Feijtel et al. 1988) and these depths represent 

the approximate mean and maximum depth of the root zone (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). The 

procedures for soil porewater installation and sampling are adapted from Louisiana DNR Coastal 

Resource Division procedures (Folse and West 2004, Folse et al. 2008).

Soil porewater stations are to be established on the same day that the initial RSET readings are 

recorded. One station will be established along the boardwalk in a manner that can be sampled at a 

later date from the platform. The 0.5-m

2

station will be placed parallel to the platform; the nearest 

corner will be established mid-way between the two third section (from water) platform teeth, outside 

the RSET sampling area, and approximately 125 cm from the fourth tooth assembly, and 15 cm from 

the platform edge (Figure 12).

Field measurements are collected using a soil porewater “sipper” to extract water from the marsh 

substrate, and then analyzed in the field using an YSI Model 30 handheld conductivity, salinity, and 

temperature instrument. Sample collection and analysis procedures are outlined in SOP 1.3.8 (Curtis 

and DeVivo 2013), with samples being taken at depths of 10 and 30 cm. Three replicates are 

collected at each depth being taken successively 5 cm to the right of the previous sample.
51

Vegetation Community Composition and Non-Vegetation Surface Characteristics

The vegetation plots are positioned external to both the long and short platforms at each station. A 

total of five plots are established as illustrated in Figure 12. The area within the 1-m

2

plots is sampled 

using a frame-mounted digital camera (Figure 17) and images are analyzed in the office following 

the methods of Booth et al. (2004) as described in SOP 1.3.9 (Figure 18; Curtis et al. 2013). Images 

are analyzed in SamplePoint software (Figure 18), in which a minimum of 100 pixels are randomly 

selected and manually classified into one of several pre-determined classes (Table 8).

Figure 17. Frame-mounted digital camera being used for vegetation and surface substrate classification.
52

Figure 18. Example of a SamplePoint classification screen with options for pixel classification.
53

Table 8. Vegetation and non-vegetation classes for use in salt marsh cover analysis using SamplePoint 

software.

Button Label Button Description

Spartina a. Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass)

Juncus Juncus roemerianus (black needle rush)

Distichlis Distichlis spicata (saltgrass)

Salicornia b. Salicornia biglovii (dwarf saltwort)

Salicornia d. Salicornia depressa (Virginia glasswort)

Sarcocornia Sarcocornia perennis (chickenclaws)

Avicennia Avicennia germinans (black mangrove)

Batis Batis maritima (saltwort or turtleweed)

Zizania Zizania aquatica (annual wild rice)

Borrichia Borrichia frutescens (bushy seaside oxeye)

Phragmites Phragmites australis (common reed)

Rhizophora Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove)

Laguncularia Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove)

Spartina c. Spartina cynosuroides (big cordgrass)

Bare Bare soil

Water Water

Detritus Detritus or leaf litter

Debris Debris, litter or other non-natural substance, such as paper.

Unknown Unknown or unidentifiable.

Dead Standing dead vegetation.

Additionally, species present in each plot are recorded, and the maximum canopy height of each 

dominant species is recorded. Maximum canopy height is determined by measuring with a flexible 

meter stick and averaging the tallest five individuals of each dominant species (Moore 2009, Curtis et 

al. 2013).

Additional Site-specific Vegetation Survey Methods

For sites located in higher (non-soft-bottomed) marshes (typical of those found in marshes where the 

USFWS SAIM monitoring will occur; see below), or where additional objectives are to be met, other 

methods of determining vegetation composition and structure might be more appropriate (such as 

Peet et al. 1998, Lee et al. 2008, Moore 2009). For example, within SAIM locations monitoring 

methods are similar to those used in other vegetation communities using nested plot designs. In such 

cases the standard sampling unit is a 10 × 10 m module or plot, and using this method, there are five 

different types of plot records. Level 5 plots (with nested subplots) are used to assess the number of 

species across multiple spatial scales (0.01 m

2

to 100 m2).

55

5. Data Handling Procedures

As part of developing a long-term monitoring program, the SECN conducted an information needs 

assessment that achieved the following goals within the context of previously developed monitoring 

priorities: (1) identified critical information needs of Network parks, the SECN Inventory and 

Monitoring Program, and for key partners; (2) developed a conceptual object model that, in 

combination with SECN monitoring protocols, will serve as the foundation for SECN database and 

application development; and (3) identified a suite of information products necessary to support park, 

programmatic and partner needs within the context of SECN long-term monitoring objectives.

The general data model for coastal wetland monitoring consists of metadata, field data, calibration 

data, and maintenance data. The data model used to support the SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation 

and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol data is part of an SECN program-wide object model 

in use to guide the development of data management applications for all Network Vital Signs 

Monitoring efforts (Wright et al. 2008). Proper linking of multiple Vital Signs Monitoring data sets is 

critical for effective long-term monitoring and analysis of water quality, and will provide researchers 

and policy makers with information necessary for making decisions regarding the use and 

conservation of the park natural resources. Extensive documentation in the form of detailed user 

manuals (SOP 2.3.6; Wright and Thompson 2013) and database technical documentation (SOP 2.3.7; 

Wright and Thompson 2012) have been published for the Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and 

Vegetation Community monitoring protocol.

Data Entry

Where manual data entry is required, data are entered by the SECN Coastal Ecologist or other 

designated personnel. Paper field forms are scanned and saved to SECN file server. Paper field forms 

are then archived by the Coastal Ecologist after data entry has been completed. After data have been 

entered, data verification and certification are completed by the Protocol Lead.

Quality Control of Data

After data are checked for correct entry, they have to be evaluated for the information they represent 

within the existing time series. This step relies on comparisons to prior data as well as attention to 

any additional notes taken in the field. If something occurred to damage or alter a position of the 

RSET or a specific marker horizon, this should have been noted. Some impacts may not be seen in 

the field, but only noticed after the data have been entered in the spreadsheet and compared. One has 

to be very careful in rejecting any data, as data not fitting the prior trend can actually represent a very 

important component of vertical dynamics at the particular plot (Callaway et al. 2014).

Incremental data are very useful in this process: it might be hard to evaluate a given pin height 

(RSET) or marker horizon depth, even in a series over time. Incremental data, however, make any 

big jump (or fall) in the data stand out. Incremental data is straightforward for RSET data, as 

individual pin heights are compared to their previous readings over time. For marker horizons, the 

data have to be averaged to the plot and then to the station. Because the same core was not sampled 

repeatedly over time, there will be additional variability due to different parts of the marked sediment 

surface being measured. Suspect data, including sediment disturbance by biota or other surface 
56

features not corresponding to the representative sediment surface (e.g., a branch lying on the 

sediment surface) are generally flagged and excluded from subsequent analysis. After quality control, 

the original data (pin heights and marker depths) can be exported into a more traditional data frame 

for analyses (Callaway et al. 2014).

Data Verification

Data are verified during data entry in a process which involves checking the accuracy of 

computerized records against the original source, mainly paper field records. Data entry personnel 

(typically the Coastal Ecologist or Coastal Technician) will check 100% of the records with the 

original field forms. The primary goal of data entry verification is to determine where errors are 

being introduced. To the greatest extent possible, data entry errors are minimized through the use of 

automated methods within the InfoPath forms (e.g., range limits, pick lists, calendars etc.). After the 

computerized data are verified to accurately reflect the original field data, the paper forms are 

archived and the electronic version is used for all subsequent data activities.

Data Certification

Prior to data publication the Protocol Lead must certify that all data have been validated and meet 

quality standards. Manual data certification is also performed during the verification process

described above. The Protocol Lead will certify the data after verification is complete. Certification

procedures seek to identify generic errors (e.g., missing, mismatched, or duplicate records and 

comparison of QA/QC data with corresponding sample data).

Overview of Database Design

The conceptual object model, developed during the information needs assessment process, combined 

with SECN monitoring protocols, provide the starting point for database and application 

development. The conceptual object model has been expanded upon and refined and long-term 

monitoring protocols have been fully implemented over time (DataLOGIC Inc 2006).

Because one of the goals of the I&M Program is to provide scientific knowledge on which to base 

management decisions, it is incumbent upon the SECN to develop tools that allow managers to make 

decisions on the most recent data available from as many relevant sources as possible. This 

necessitates the development of a single, integrated data management system that (a) efficiently and 

cost-effectively allows for concurrent analysis of data from multiple Vital Signs (such as water 

quality and weather data), and (b) accommodates rapid retrieval of subsets of the Network’s data to 

support hypothesis testing, modeling, reporting, and decision-making by managers and policymakers.

All work on the SECN data management system has been within the following programmatic 

guidelines:

 Database and application development are compatible with NPS standards/requirements, and

built upon the SECN conceptual object model. To the greatest degree possible, the SECN 

conceptual object model has followed the NPS Inventory and Monitoring database standard -

the Natural Resource Database Template (NRDT: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/datamgmt/applications/template/index.cfm). Even though 
57

the NRDT standard was developed for MS Access, the majority of the standard can be—and 

has been—applied to the SECN database in SQL Server.

 Database and applications must support both spatial (e.g., GIS data) and non-spatial (tabular) 

data. Currently all spatial components of the data management system are housed in the 

database using the geographic data type and/or linked to web-based mapping in NPMap 

(http://insidemaps.nps.gov/secnviewer/secn) or analyzed using ESRI ArcGIS software.

 SQL server serves as the primary database repository. The current SECN development tools 

are Microsoft Office InfoPath 2007, Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 and Microsoft SQL Server 

2008.

 User-friendly, front end applications are available for users on the SECN SharePoint portal 

(NPS-only for approved users at http://inpserosecn2/DataReports/default.aspx).

As each network protocol is implemented, it is added to the SECN data management system—

beginning with data entry components and then analysis and reporting functions (which typically 

grow over time). There are three primary data management documents developed to assist current 

and future users: the database user manual, the database technical documentation and the protocol 

reporting manual. The database user manual provides SECN and park staff instructions on the use of 

data entry applications (getting data into the database) while data analysis and reporting are covered 

in the reporting SOP. The database technical documentation provides the data dictionary and entity 

relationship diagram for the module pertaining to the protocol in question. The protocol reporting 

manual describes, in detail, how annual data summary reports are produced. The following SOPs are 

available for the SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring 

Protocol:

1. Salt Marsh Database User Manual (SOP 2.3.6; in development).

2. Salt Marsh Data Management and Database Technical Documentation in development).

3. Digital Photo Management (SOP 2.1.7; SECN 2013b).

4. Geospatial data archival and publication (SOP 2.1.8; SECN 2013a).

5. Data summary reporting guidelines (SOP 2.1.2; SECN 2012).

In addition to the standard reports available to NPS staff through the SECN data management system 

(http://inpserosecn2/DataReports/default.aspx), users may also utilize the SECN data exploration tool 

which allows users to build simple or complex queries of the SECN data from multiple Vital Signs 

for analysis or visualization in other software, or to create custom user-defined reports. Another tool 

available to users is the SECN metadata editor, which uses information gleaned directly from the 

SECN data management system to facilitate the rapid development of FGDC-compliant metadata to 

accompany data sets posted to the National Park Service’s Integrated Resource Management 

Application (IRMA; https://irma.nps.gov/App/)—for both internal and external (non-NPS) use, as 

appropriate.
58

Metadata

A description of a particular data set, in a standardized format, ensures the proper use and utility of 

the data set. Although metadata development may be complex and time-consuming, the benefits for 

future data users are substantial. All data sets are accompanied by metadata documentation that 

includes the following components: data set identification information, data quality information, 

entity and attribute information, spatial reference information (if applicable), distribution 

information, and contact information. Complete metadata facilitate data longevity, help publicize the 

existence of all data sets produced, and facilitate access and use of data by others in the future.

Metadata attributes are incorporated into the database design, and are a required component of data 

entry and/or data uploading into the SECN information management system. By including metadata 

tools in the database design, there should be minimal additional effort required of project personnel 

to adequately and properly document data sets being collected and analyzed as part of the protocol 

for Monitoring Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Communities.

Data Archiving

Static, milestone products are electronically archived by one or more of these methods: SECN 

website or other online archives, offline archives (e.g., archival quality CDs and DVDs) or in the 

SECN bibliographic database (reports) or photo database (images). Static products may include items 

such as annual data summary reports. Ongoing data sets will go through the protocol-specific QA/QC 

procedures and then be migrated into the SECN master (SQL server) database —including the 

standard archiving and backup procedures of the SECN data server. The SECN master database is 

write-protected so that users may access and copy records but cannot make inadvertent changes. Raw 

data will be archived on a local server at the Network’s Athens headquarters.

All paper (hard copy) field forms will be stored in collections of field forms, immediately following 

data entry. Data entry of all field forms will produce an electronic copy of the field form which will 

also be archived (digitally) within the database—thus allowing future comparisons with the hard 

copy field form originals. Additionally, scanned color copies of the paper field data forms will be 

stored on a local server at the Network’s Athens headquarters.
59

6. Reporting and Analysis

Annual Data Reports

Data reports will be published as short, concise reports that highlight the most recent data collection 

efforts as well as highlight any issues or areas of potential concern. Reports will summarize known 

conditions and/or major issues present in or near the park that may have influenced results, and will 

provide a brief outline of methods used to collect samples and process data. Citations for detailed 

methods documents will be provided as well as updated links to sources of digital data. All data 

reports will contain a bulleted list of significant findings as part of the executive summary section 

and will be published in conjunction with a two-page resource brief containing an abbreviated subset 

of significant findings along with some limited project information including broader programmatic 

overview of the sampling effort.

At a minimum, annual data reports will:

 Provide a summary history of the samples taken during each year of the study, tabulating 

numbers of samples for each sampling frame and showing these locations on maps of the 

parks.

 Provide summary status statistics of the results relative to management goals.

 Provide a summary table for use in park reporting and resource stewardship strategies.

 Evaluate data quality and identify any data quality concerns and/or deviations from the 

protocol that affect data quality and interpretation.

RSET Data Analysis

The data analysis selected for a RSET or marker horizon dataset is determined by the purpose and 

specific question(s) of the study. Analyses can be separated into two main groups:

1) The estimation of cumulative trends over the entire time series, or

2) The comparison of incremental change rates as a function of a time-dependent factor.

The first scenario is clearly applicable to a monitoring program, but it is also routinely used to 

support hypothesis testing. The second scenario is generally limited to hypotheses testing timedependent factors such as seasonality, before/after impact, etc. Analyses for RSET and marker 

horizon data will first be presented separately, but they will also be brought together in a combined 

RSET-marker horizon analysis to test for the significance of shallow subsidence, which is the 

difference between surface accretion and elevation change over the depth of the RSET reference 

mark (Cahoon et al. 1995).

Individual pin data can be tracked over time: this is one of the main strengths of the RSET. Small 

scale vertical heterogeneity exists both within a RSET (among the positions) and within any 

particular position (among the pins). If one were to average the pin heights within a position—or 

worse, within a RSET—this variability could create enough “noise” to drown out the signal of 
60

millimeter-scale trends occurring at any given pin. Therefore, at the heart of any RSET data analysis 

is the careful tracking of vertical change for each pin over time. Although marker horizon 

measurements come from the same marker surfaces through time, the likelihood that any particular 

sediment plug/core is measured twice over the time course of a study is quite low.

Therefore, there is no way to follow vertical change at the level at which the data are recorded. 

Furthermore, multiple readings are taken from each plug, and these are arbitrary (subject to the 

reader’s ability to identify a “clean” marker trace). Marker horizon data are therefore expressed at the 

plot level, and it is the plot (marker horizon layer) which is followed through time.

Cumulative Trends

Cumulative RSET analysis. The best way to maximize the information content of RSET data is to 

conduct trend analysis at the individual pin level. The recommended technique is simple linear 

regression, as the desired output is a linear trend estimate (e.g., X mm/yr). Although regression 

theory assumes that a sample of independent observations is taken at teach time period, it is 

practically impossible with RSET data, as correlation is expected among the nine pins within a 

position, or among the positions within a RSET. Furthermore, regressing over multiple pins loses the 

ability to follow the trajectory of each pin over time. The benefit of regressing over each pin is that 

the serial correlation induced by repeatedly re-measuring the same wetland surface is modeled by the 

regression: it is therefore explained, and not confounded within a larger analysis. In addition, this 

technique keeps the data in its original form; there is no need to introduce an additional step of 

computing incremental or cumulative change (although incremental change is computed in the

quality control step).

Therefore, the procedures call for running simple linear regressions on raw pin measurements. The 

dataset required to run such an analysis in typical statistical software packages has the following

format:

 Each pin observation on its own row.

 Separate columns identifying pin:

o Sample site

o Sample station (RSET reference mark)

o RSET position

o RSET pin

 Separate columns identifying sampling date and the decimal years since the first observation.

 Separate columns identifying any treatment factors and covariates.
61

If pin data are expressed in centimeters, an additional column may be used to convert to millimeters, 

so the regression slope will be in mm/yr. A sample R code can be used to compute the slope (linear 

trend) for each pin. The code also averages the slope across the nine pins within each position, and 

then across the four positions that are typically used around the RSET. The average linear trend for 

each RSET can then be averaged across a sample space designed for long-term monitoring, or can be 

used as the input data for subsequent analysis of variance models used to test specific hypotheses.

Cumulative accretion data. Accretion data as recorded from marker horizons comes in the form of 

cumulative thickness of deposits (e.g., millimeters)—so the data are already expressing cumulative 

change. For linear trend analysis, the main considerations are the level at which regressions are run. 

Because each marker horizon plot is itself repeatedly sampled, the regression has to be run at the 

marker horizon plot level (running a regression on the different marker plots would be confounding

serial correlation). Therefore, prior to the analysis, the marker horizon data are averaged among the 

various replicate measurements per sediment core. If multiple cores have been taken at any

measurement interval, these can serve as replicates within the regression. If a note has been made 

that the marker horizon layer is still visible at the sediment surface, then this can be treated as an 

observation, similar to a sediment core. Unfortunately, there is no way to account for missing marker 

horizon layers in the regression analysis. The end result of the analysis will be a set of slope 

estimates for the different marker horizon plots located within a sampling station (often there are 

three). These can be averaged to yield an estimated accretion trend for the sample station: this trend 

can then be averaged over the sample space in the case of a monitoring design, or can serve as the 

input data for an analysis of variance model testing a hypothesis.

Combining RSET and marker horizon data. A combined RSET-MH data analysis tests whether 

the two trends are equal. Due to the different levels at which serial correlation may exist in the

different data sets (pins and marker horizon plots), it is not recommended to run regressions 

combining the two together. Instead, average elevation and accretion trends are computed 

separately—RSET trends are averaged to the RSET level, and accretion trends are expressed at the 

marker horizon plot level. Average values then serve as input into an analysis of variance model 

comparing the two data types.
62

Incremental Change Analysis. Incremental analyses are required when testing the effect of a timedependent factor, specific years (e.g. El Niño vs. non-El Niño), pre- and post-impact, etc. A main 

concern with incremental data is the length of time over which each factor level occurs, and the 

consistency of these intervals over the course of the study. For example, if considering growing vs. 

dormant seasons, and the growing season is nine months long (dormant season only three months 

long), then the analysis will be heavily biased toward the growing season dynamics. A remedy for 

unequal time intervals is to compute linear rates of change for each time interval. If multiple 

observations are taken within each time period of interest (e.g., pre- and post-impact), then 

cumulative trend analysis is conducted for each time period. If only one observation is taken within 

each time period, then a simple rate of change is computed.

Incremental RSET data. Incremental RSET analysis is based on computing elevation change rates 

at the pin level. RSET data can be kept in its raw form (pin heights): if only one observation is taken 

within a time period of interest, a simple rate of change (expressed in mm/yr) is computed for each 

pin. If multiple observations are taken within the time period, then simple linear regression is used. 

The main difference is that rates are computed on different subsets of the entire time series. Change 

rates are averaged across the nine pins per position, and then across the different positions around the 

RSET reference mark. These rate estimates are then used as input data into an analysis of variance 

model testing for the time-dependent effect.

Incremental accretion data. Incremental accretion data is expressed as rates of change computed at 

the marker plot level. In other words, accretion data are averaged over the replicate observations 

taken on an individual sediment plug (core) taken within a given marker horizon plot. If multiple 

plugs are taken per sampling event, or multiple sampling events occur within a time period of 

interest, then simple linear regression can be used to estimate the accretion rate over the interval 

(similar to cumulative trends). If only one plug is taken, and only one sample event occurs within a 

time period of interest, then a simple rate calculation is made for each marker plot. These accretion

rates, expressed at the marker plot level, are the input data in an analysis of variance model testing 

for the time-dependent effect.

Combining RSET and marker horizon data. Testing the different responses of accretion and 

elevation change to a time-dependent factor involves the same procedures as outlined above for 

determining incremental rates for accretion and elevation change. The input data set for the analysis 

of variance model contains the rate estimates for both RSETs and marker horizons (with separate rate 

estimates on each line), with an additional variable (a new column in the data sheet) identifying the 

source of the data (RSET vs. marker; Callaway et al. 2014).

Analysis of Other Data

To reduce the importance of dominant species or cover classes, the percent cover data can be coded 

according to the Braun-Blanquet cover scale (0, 1: <1–5%, 2: 6–25%, 3: 26–50%, 4: 51–75%, 5: 76–

100%) (Kent and Coker 1992, Elzinga et al. 2001, Roman et al. 2001). Conversion to cover ranks is 

strongly suggested for similarity testing and ordination procedures.
63

Non-parametric permutation testing procedures can be effectively used to evaluate dissimilarity or 

similarity in vegetation communities between marshes or between sample years. ANOSIM, part of 

the PRIMER statistical package is just one example of a non-parametric test, similar to multivariate 

analysis of variance (MANOVA) but without the generally unattainable assumptions (Clark and 

Warwick 1994, Carr 1997). Non-parametric permutation similarity procedures use a similarity metric 

and we suggest using Euclidean Distance following the recommendations of Roman et al. (2001).

If additional data are collected, these data can be analyzed by analysis of variance to determine if 

there are differences in height between marshes (among HUCs within a park) or between years; 

salinity data, and sediment accretion data are best analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to

detect differences among marshes, seasons, and years.

Synthesis Reports

In-depth synthesis reports may be completed through external contracts with universities or other 

agencies or by a collaborative effort of staff among key partners within the region. The SECN

Program Manager will initiate discussion of the first regional synthesis report, and Program 

Managers from other programs will collaborate to secure funding, establish partnerships as needed 

with other agency staff, to produce the report, and provide programmatic oversight.

Analysis of Trends

To determine the extent to which conditions or measures are changing coastal salt marsh, synthesis

reports will use specific and appropriate tests for trends at each site including the Mann-Kendall 

method, which is appropriate for a step-wise trend comparison of data collected on an annual or 

seasonal basis. The Mann-Kendall test computes Kendall’s tau non-parametric correlation coefficient 

and its test of significance (Helsel and Hirsch 2002) for any pair of X,Y data. Various other methods 

may be used to detect trends and or progressive changes of conditions in the coastal marsh wetlands

of SECN parks including methods that are optimized for parametric and non-parametric data sets.

Evaluating Changes in Marsh Condition

Where appropriate, data will be interpreted in the context of existing resource condition criteria as 

defined by appropriate regulatory agencies at the national, regional, and state level. In time and in 

cooperation with partners (other networks, agencies, and academic institutions), and with a robust 

dataset in place, an explicit assessment component of this protocol based upon reference conditions 

in coastal marsh wetlands will be developed. The Network will use findings to define park-based 

reference conditions (Stoddard et al. 2006) for biotic and abiotic response variables using data 

collected under this protocol, data collected from other Vital Signs Monitoring efforts, and related 

research. In small SECN parks, reference conditions might, in some cases, be derived from data 

collected across the adjacent landscape including those data collected at other SECN parks, or by 

cooperating agencies also implementing this protocol. After reference conditions are established, the 

Network can assess coastal wetland system integrity based on comparison of park estimates to 

reference conditions.

Most parks are currently developing one or more Natural Resource Condition Assessments, Resource 

Stewardship Strategies, or State of the Park reports. These various NPS planning and assessment 
64

reports are science-based efforts and are specifically designed to help park staff maintain and 

improve the condition of fundamental resources as spelled out in General Management Plans or 

supporting Resource Management Plans, and in most cases include indicators of resource condition.

In cases where these reports have been completed, measures from Vital Signs Monitoring are 

typically used as a subset of the indicators of resource condition, facilitating the use of Vital Signs 

Monitoring data when reporting on a park’s progress toward attaining management goals. Summary 

condition assessment tables will be included in the periodic data summary reports, synthesis reports, 

or other reports as appropriate.

Landscape-Scale Integration and Analysis

A landscape-scale synthesis report will be produced in partnership with other agencies within the 

South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative five years after all plots have been installed and 

will summarize data at the regional scale, including changes in marsh extent at both the management 

unit (Park, Refuge, NERR) and regional scale. It will provide greater analytical and interpretive 

detail than the annual reports and will evaluate the relevance of findings to long-term management 

and restoration goals.

Protocol Review and Revision

Additional synthesis reports will evaluate operational aspects of the monitoring program, such as 

whether sample frame boundaries need to be changed or whether the sampling period remains 

appropriate (the optimal sampling season could conceivably change over time in response to climate 

change). The protocol review will also evaluate the design aspects of the monitoring protocol. For 

instance, does allocation of samples among parks appear to be adequate for all parks? Are there new 

management concerns that might dictate some reallocation of effort or additions to the indicator 

metrics that are routinely examined annually? Is the sampling time still appropriate?

Scientific Journal Articles and Conference Presentations

Other types of reports may be published by the SECN and will depend on resource management or 

monitoring issues and the nature of the target audience interested in the Network’s monitoring effort. 

Publication of findings in scientific journals will allow the Network to reach a broader scientific 

community and promote investigation by members of the scientific community, either independently 

or in cooperation with the Network. Ultimately, publication in peer-reviewed publications and the 

collaboration that ensues will foster a greater understanding of coastal wetland conditions and

processes in Network parks. Similarly, the presentation of findings or subsets of data at conferences

will allow the Network to reach the broader scientific community even at smaller regional venues. 

Attendance and presentation of data at these conferences often fosters partnership efforts. All journal 

article and conference presentations developed by the SECN will be made available to parks whose 

data are included with the report or presentation.

Data Integration and Publication

As a part of the SECN’s Climate Science Strategy, the Network is committed to facilitating the 

standardization of monitoring methods and data management among partners within the South 

Atlantic LCC and Atlantic coast geographies so that data can be rapidly found, merged, explored, 

and analyzed for the purposes of adaptation planning and conservation design. To that end, the SECN 
65

data management system has been expanded for storage management of data from USFWS South 

Atlantic NWR units in addition to park units, and the Network is working with the Southeast Climate 

Science Center to make data available to USGS and LCC partners to incorporate SECN and SANRS 

data in climate change forecasting models.

Publication Standards

Annual reports will use the NPS Natural Resource Publications Natural Resource Data Series 

template, a pre-formatted Microsoft Word template document based on current NPS formatting 

standards. Periodic comprehensive reports and regional synthesis reports will use the Natural 

Resources Report template. Template guidelines and documentation of the NPS publication 

standards are available at the following address: http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM/.

Current versions of the protocol, resource briefs, annual reports, comprehensive reports, and regional 

synthesis reports will be made available on the SECN website. The protocol and technical reports 

will also be available from the national IRMA portal (https://irma.nps.gov). All NPS protocols are 

available at (https://irma.nps.gov/App/ProtocolTracking).

67

7. Personnel Requirements and Training

Personnel and Qualifications

The staffing strategy currently in place by the SECN Coastal Ecology for salt marsh community 

monitoring relies primarily on Network staff to install, maintain, and collect data from the field, with 

the exception of the FOMA-GTMNERR study area where GTMNERR staff will conduct monitoring 

and data management tasks. Local partnerships may require customized arrangements and/or 

agreements that may vary from park to park and will require additional involvement by Network 

staff. Network staff will be fully responsible for all work elements related to salt marsh community 

monitoring, but will take advantage of opportunities in parks they may have an interest in becoming 

more involved.

Site installation and data collection can be labor intensive operations. Primary staff responsible for 

the implementation includes the Protocol Lead, which is responsible for supervising all protocol 

activities and ensuring that data, analyses, and reports meet guidelines and expectations as described 

in the protocol, and a Coastal Ecologist, who is responsible for all operational aspects of the 

implementation of the protocol. These personnel are supported by several field and data management 

personnel whose responsibilities span various portions of the workflow.

Protocol Lead: SECN Coastal Ecologist

The SECN Protocol Lead is responsible for technical and supervisory oversight of the

implementation of the protocol, including the certification and analysis of data, revisions to SOPs as 

needed, and assisting Network, park and partner staff with the interpretation of findings and 

incorporation of results into park management. The incumbent must have the knowledge, skill, and 

ability to apply known theories, principles and concepts of coastal ecology sufficient to design and 

implement scientific studies; as well as the ability to statistically analyze data, synthesize 

information, write reports, and publish papers related to monitoring results. The incumbent is also 

responsible for ensuring the collection of high-quality data and interpretation of findings within the 

context of established assessment criteria, regulatory requirements, and management targets. The 

Protocol Lead will routinely be required to perform statistical tests and analysis, use geographic 

information systems and modeling procedures to analyze and synthesize data, and communicate and 

interact effectively with a wide variety of audiences, in both technical and non-technical language, 

for the presentation and preparation of complex letters, memoranda, reports, management plans, 

environmental assessments, briefings, and peer-reviewed scientific papers. The SECN Coastal 

Ecologist serves as the lead for all field operations including the collection of data and the 

management and maintenance of existing network of permanent coastal wetland monitoring stations 

to ensure consistent collection of scientifically credible data that meet programmatic standards as 

outlined in SOPs. The incumbent must have the knowledge and ability to use, maintain, and 

troubleshoot equipment in use by the Network, including all boats, vehicles, and monitoring 

equipment required for implementation of the protocol. The SECN Coastal Ecologist is responsible 

for providing technical support to NPS and external agency partners who are collaborating on 

protocol implementation, is the lead on analyzing photoplot imagery, is responsible for ensuring that 

data are entered checked for accuracy and completeness, and determining reasons for flagging or 
68

excluding data from analyses based on experience with protocol implementation or based on field 

conditions while collecting data. The SECN Coastal Ecologist will be required to conduct analysis 

and synthesis of data, and communicate findings in presentations, reports, management plans, 

environmental assessments, briefings, and peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Coastal Technician

The principal duties of the Coastal Technician are to assist with annual station maintenance and data 

collection, processing and coding of vegetation photoplot imagery, perform routine data entry of 

elevation, soil chemistry, and vegetation data into SECN databases, perform basic quality reviews of 

data to ensure they are complete and within expected ranges, retrieve standardized analyses from the 

NPS data system and draft standardized data reports for senior staff. The incumbent should have 

some background working with the identification of plants sufficient to learn to identify species 

found in South Atlantic coast marsh ecosystems, as well as experience with data entry using 

databases. The Coastal Technician will also be responsible for routine maintenance of vehicles and 

boats required to implement the protocol.

SECN Data Manager

The SECN Data Manager is responsible for ensuring that the SECN data management meets NPS 

and federal information management standards, including but not limited to: security, data quality, 

data documentation, database structure, reporting and linkages to other NPS information

management systems. The incumbent applies knowledge of programming, data management, 

database applications, GIS, Network priorities, and national I&M guidelines and directives, to plan, 

develop, and support application programs and systems to meet Network I&M needs. The incumbent 

synthesizes a wide range of data types including biological, physical, and bibliographical in both 

tabular and spatial formats to assure that metadata for these data sets is complete, current, and in 

compliance with FGDC standards. The incumbent also provides coordination and oversight for the 

population and maintenance of national information management systems (e.g., IRMA). Finally, the 

incumbent develops documentation for current and future users of the Network’s information 

management system, in the form of user manuals and overall technical documentation (e.g., roles and 

responsibilities, work flows, data dictionaries and entity relationship diagrams).

Training

Every March, all personnel responsible for protocol implementation should review the entire protocol 

and associated SOPs. Refreshing plant identification skills is particularly important. The following 

list includes key points to consider in preparing for the upcoming field season. SOP 1.3.10 (Curtis 

2013) outlines information to prepare for each field season, including a detailed list of field 

equipment needed, as well as the preferred training procedures for all vegetation monitoring crew 

members. Pre-season and during-season procedures are described that promote (a) the accurate 

identification of commonly-encountered plant species in both vegetative and flowering forms, and 

(b) consistent estimates of foliar cover. Details on standardizing plant identification for problematic 

plants and foliar cover estimates are also provided.

In addition to training to maintain technical competencies, the Coastal Ecologist and Coastal

Technician are required to maintain their training certification for motorboat operation. This requires 
69

completion of the DOI Motorboat Operator Certification Course and recertification every five years.

This training is further defined in the SOP for safe boat operations (SOP 3.1.2; Asper and Curtis 

2013d). Field staff should also receive safety training in accordance with NPS safety guidelines that 

includes obtaining active American Red Cross or equivalent first aid and CPR certification.

Additional annual training is further spelled out in the Seasonal Preparation and Training SOP (SOP 

1.3.10; Curtis 2013).

Key Partnerships

US Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Inventory & Monitoring Network

The Southeast Region Inventory & Monitoring Network is part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS) Inventory & Monitoring Initiative. The Network works closely with refuges and 

partners to address critical information needs and to help plan and evaluate the effectiveness of 

conservation strategies implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and conservation partners 

in the face of accelerating climate change and threats from other environmental stressors. Within the 

Southeast region, there are 129 National Wildlife Refuges, totaling roughly 4 million acres, spread 

across ten states. The SECN and SAIM (Curtis 2013) will be jointly housing and managing salt 

marsh elevation data collected under this protocol to allow for rapid integration and synthesis of 

trends at the landscape scale.

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

The hallmark of the NERR system is that each reserve’s management efforts are in direct response 

to, and designed for unique local and regional issues. The purpose of this plan is to incorporate, 

evaluate, and prioritize all relevant information about the GTM Research Reserve into management 

strategies, allowing for compatible public access to the managed areas while sustaining the long-term 

quality of its ecosystems and cultural resources. Joint implementation of this protocol at locations 

within the GTMNERR and FOMA study area allows for coordination of monitoring efforts as well as 

integration of each program’s monitoring and research missions.

Southeast Climate Science Center

The Southeast Climate Science Center is developing a metadata-level database to support the efforts 

of multiple federal, state, and other organizations in the development of a comprehensive and 

integrated assessment of monitoring programs associated with atmospheric, stream, and terrestrial 

ecosystems. Components of this effort will include compiling and mapping current sources of 

existing ecosystem quality and quantity data—including salt marsh elevation data—and assessing the 

available information from these sources. Results from this proposed work will provide the region’s 

scientists and decision makers with accurate and comprehensive information about monitoring 

programs that can be used to assess the potential effects of climate change in the southeastern United 

States. The Southeast Coast Network is committed to making data collected under this protocol 

available to the SECSC in support of this and other projects.

71

8. Operational Requirements

Annual Workload

Field work for this protocol is conducted primarily in late spring and early summer to maximize 

vegetation sampling during peak leaf-out season, requiring close coordination among staff within the 

Network due to periods where tasks (and equipment use requirements) overlap (Figure 19). Major 

tasks include a period in March to perform station maintenance visits and collect surface elevation 

measurements, a May–June period when vegetation, accretion, and soil porewater monitoring will 

occur, and a period from July through November during which data are analyzed, checked for 

QA/QC, and reported.

The workload for the Coastal Ecologist will consist of tasks and subtasks related to collecting data, 

performing QA/QC of data, procuring equipment, and performing basic maintenance on monitoring 

platforms. Data entry tasks will be split between the Coastal Ecologist and the Coastal Technician.

Figure 19. General staffing matrix for the Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community 

Monitoring protocol with approximate time periods required to complete major tasked associated with 

sampling events. Time periods for specific tasks associated with key personnel are outlined in color.

Permitting Requirements

Georgia: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and GA Department of Natural Resources / 

Georgia Marshland Protection permits were required prior to installation of monitoring platforms and 

RSET benchmarks. A combined GA-DNR/USACE Permit was submitted for installation of stations 

at CUIS, FOFR, and FOPU on October 17, 2011, with approval being granted on February 10, 2012.

North Carolina: In addition to a USACE permit, North Carolina requires a unified Nationwide 

Permit Number 05 (NWP05), Scientific Measurement Devices and Coastal Area Management Act 

(CAMA) Minor Development Permit. Approval was granted to the NPS on May 1, 2013 for 

installation of platforms at CALO and CAHA.

Florida: Upon consultation with Florida Department of Environmental Protection, they determined 

that the planned installations were exempted from state permitting requirements; a NWP05 permit 

was issued by USACE for installations in FL parks on June 7, 2011 (See Appendix G).

January February March April May June July August September October November December Coastal Technician Data Manager

Coastal Ecologist Protocol Lead Aquatic Ecologist

1/1/2012 - 1/14/2012 Station Maintenance 3/14/2012 - 5/11/2012 Reporting 1/16/2012 - 3/14/2012 Data Analysis and Entry 5/13/2012 - 7/10/2012 Data QA/QC & Mgmt 3/25/2012 - 5/22/2012 Field Prep 5/2/2012 - 8/16/2012 Data Collection

5/1/2012 - 7/31/2012 10/13/2012 - 11/10/2012 4/13/2012 - 4/18/2012 5/1/2012 - 7/31/2012 12/15/2012 - 12/31/2012 11/15/2012 - 12/8/2012 3/4/2012 - 4/8/2012 1/1/2012 - 1/16/2012 3/4/2012 - 4/8/2012 7/31/2012 - 8/31/2012 11/10/2012 - 12/8/2012 7/31/2012 - 10/13/2012
72

National Park Service: No NPS permits are required for installation of stations as the action is 

covered under the Agency’s programmatic categorical exclusion for installation of monitoring 

equipment. The Network will apply for annual park science permits as per park policies.

Facilities and Equipment

During installation and maintenance phases of work, field crews will need a boat capable of 

transporting lumber, tools, and personnel necessary to build monitoring platforms. During routine 

monitoring visits, lighter-duty watercraft may be used to transport personnel and monitoring 

equipment to and from the field site. Boats must be equipped with all requisite safety gear as well as 

GPS navigational tools to allow for rapid navigation to sampling locations. The SECN maintains two 

boats for use with salt marsh monitoring:

 One 18-foot aluminum-hull, flat-bottom boat with Honda 150 hp motor with a jet drive used 

for installation and data collection for marsh monitoring, and for collection of water and 

sediment water quality samples as a part of the Network’s coastal assessment protocol.

 One 16-foot aluminum SeaArk Jon boat with Honda 50 hp motor with a jet drive used for 

collection of salt marsh elevation/vegetation data as well as stream habitat monitoring.

Transportation to and from parks requires a vehicle with towing capacity sufficient to carry the boat 

to be used as well as all field gear and building materials to be used. The SECN maintains several 

such vehicles in its fleet that are available for use during scheduled monitoring events.

Several pieces of equipment are required to conduct routine monitoring.

 RSET measurement apparatus (see SOP 1.3.6; Asper and Curtis 2013c).

 Cryogenic coring device for measurement of sediment accretion rates (see SOP 1.3.7; Asper 

and Curtis 2013b).

 Soil porewater measurement apparatus (see SOP 1.3.8; Curtis and DeVivo 2013).

 Camera frame and photographic equipment required for conducting photoplot monitoring

(see SOP 1.3.9; Curtis et al. 2013).

Operation Costs

Operational costs include roughly one FTE split among four federal positions and a part-time intern 

with the SECN Coastal Technician being 50% dedicated to day-to-day protocol activities (Table 9). 

An additional $7,750 in non-personnel costs related to equipment maintenance, station maintenance, 

and travel to and from monitoring locations is required.
73

Table 9. Estimated annual operating cost for implementation of the SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation 

and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol (based on FY2015 dollars). Budget does not include 

support provided by parks or partners.

Category Costs (FY 2015) Notes

Personnel

SECN Coastal Ecologist 37,626 0.40 FTE GS-11

SECN Coastal Technician 27,270 0.40 FTE GS-5 

SECN Aquatic Technician 6,114 0.10 FTE GS-7

SECN Data Manager 1 9,102 0.10 FTE GS-12

Total Personnel Costs $80,112

Salt Marsh Community Monitoring

Platform Repairs 3,000 Replacement of three platforms per year

Equipment Maintenance 2,500 Replacement or procurement of additional salinity 

probes, photographic equipment, or RSET devices; 

routine filling of N2 tank

Boat Maintenance 1,500 Boat maintenance costs shared with other programs

Travel: FOFR and FOPU 1,715 FOMA-GTMNERR monitored by GTMNERR Staff

Travel: CANA and south TIMU 2,430 Park lodging provided at TIMU & CANA

Travel: CUIS, north TIMU 2,400 No GOV lodging available at FOFR and FOPU

Travel: CALO and CAHA 1,610 No GOV lodging on site during data collection

Total Non-personnel Costs $15,155

Total Protocol Implementation Cost $95,267

1A portion of all personnel’s time is devoted to data management activities including data entry, analysis, and QA/QC as 

indicated in Figure 19. This is in accordance with NPS I&M policies recommending that at least 30% of monitoring resources 

be allocated to data management. 

Other Costs

It is anticipated that other costs will be required to fully meet all monitoring objectives over time, 

including implementation of a survey plan and potentially the installation of additional RSET 

monitoring stations at one or more parks. Costs associated with surveying will be determined as a 

part of the surveying plan; installation costs (assuming the work is performed via a third-party 

contractor) are estimated to be roughly $7,500 per sampling location.

Safety

Implementation of this protocol has multiple complex risks. Staff will continuously evaluate all risks 

at the programmatic, personnel, and site level. Programmatic-level safety information is presented 

here and procedures to mitigate risks associated with specific activities related to protocol 

implementation (such as safe operations of watercraft, vehicle use and operation, injury reporting and 

accident reporting) are presented in Appendix C.

Job Hazard Analyses (JHA) were completed for all personnel who implement portions of the 

protocol in which risks and risk abatement strategies (including training needs) were identified. Risks 

and abatement strategies for all staff were synthesized to develop a protocol-level JHA. The protocol 

JHA was then used to perform a programmatic-level Green-Amber-Red (GAR) risk analysis to 
74

assess whether implementation of this protocol could be accomplished within an acceptable level of 

risk (See Appendix C for details).

Specific safety concerns include:

 Crew members will spend many hours (and miles) driving to, between, and from sampling 

locations to conduct the requisite sampling.

 Crew members will be regularly working in park areas outside of communications range 

(either by park radio or by cell phone).

 During installation and maintenance phases of protocol implementation crews will be using 

power equipment such as jackhammers in remote areas in challenging environments (from 

platforms).

 During annual maintenance and data collection visits personnel are required to perform tasks 

that utilize repeated awkward body positioning, climbing, and precarious body position.

Injury or loss of life while in transit to and from field sites—as well as while in transit to or to 

perform data collection activities from watercraft—are the most significant risks encountered when 

conducting this activity.

Based on the JHA and associated risk abatement measures it was determined that this protocol can be 

safely implemented provided that SECN and partner staff implement it in accordance with the 

referenced SOPs and recommended risk abatement strategies (Asper and Curtis 2013d, Appendix C; 

Corbett and Smrekar 2013, Corbett et al. 2013, DeVivo and Corbett 2013, SECN 2013c). In addition 

to SOPs that have been developed to safely implement this protocol, specific training needs for all 

staff have been identified including certification in basic first aid and motor boat operation training. 

To increase the overall level of safety and awareness, obtaining additional levels of training beyond 

basic certifications will be encouraged.

Safety procedures will be routinely reviewed with Network staff and partners before field operations 

as prescribed in SOPs. Personnel-level JHAs for staff will be reviewed and revised annually as a part 

of the performance review cycle. Safety SOPs are reviewed at least annually and updated as 

necessary to ensure that they adequately mitigate risks to personnel, property, and the public.

In addition to protocol-specific safety procedures and guidelines, SECN staff will follow the general 

guidelines set forth in the NPS Occupational Safety and Health Program (Directors Order #50B, 

September 2008). These procedures are generally outlined below.

1. Adhere to established occupational safety and health procedures, including those contained 

within Reference Manual 50B.

2. Work collaboratively with supervisors to develop and use JHAs or equivalent for all routine 

tasks, and help develop and use site-specific safety plans for non-routine, complex, multiphase jobs.
75

3. Properly use and maintain required clothing and/or personal protective equipment.

4. Maintain a level of personal wellness and fitness as needed for assigned work tasks.

5. Identify and, where appropriate, correct unsafe conditions and work practices.

6. Report unsafe/unhealthful conditions and/or operations to his or her immediate supervisor or 

the appropriate chain of command.

7. Report mishaps, including minor accidents and "near-hits," to a supervisor as soon as 

possible, but in no case later than the end of the work shift.

8. Participate in establishing a safe working culture, and practice safe work procedures, even

when working alone.

77

9. Literature Cited

Adams, S. M., and C. T. Hackney. 1992. Ecological processes in southeastern United States aquatic 

ecosystems. Pages 3–17 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. 

Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: aquatic communities. John Wiley and Sons, New 

York, New York.

Alber, M., J. Flory, and K. Payne. 2005. Assessment of coastal water resources and watershed 

conditions at Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/WRD/NRTR—2005/332. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Asper, J. R. 2013. Generating spatially-balanced sampling locations for coastal assessments using 

ArcGIS 10. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.2.1. 

National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Asper, J. R., and A. C. Curtis. 2012a. Salt marsh community monitoring: conducting site suitability 

assessments. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.1. National Park Service, 

Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Asper, J. R., and A. C. Curtis. 2012b. Salt marsh community rod-surface elevation table (RSET) 

installation. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.19. National Park Service, 

Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Asper, J. R., and A. C. Curtis. 2013a. Salt marsh elevation and vegetation community monitoring site 

platform installation. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.2. National Park 

Service, Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Asper, J. R., and A. C. Curtis. 2013b. Accretion and erosion measurement with a feldspar marker 

horizon. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.7. National Park Service, Southeast 

Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Asper, J. R., and A. C. Curtis. 2013c. Procedures for measuring salt marsh elevation using rodsurface elevation tables. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.6. National Park 

Service, Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Asper, J. R., and A. C. Curtis. 2013d. Safe operation of Southeast Coast Network watercraft. 

Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-3.1.2. National Park Service, Southeast Coast 

Network, Athens, Georgia.

Bascom, W. 1980. Waves and Beaches: The Dynamics of the Ocean Surface (No. 34). Anchor 

Books, Garden City, New York.
78

Boesch, D. F., J. C. Field, and D. Scavia, editors. 2000. The Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change on Coastal Areas and Marine Resources: Report of the Coastal Areas and 

Marine Resources Sector Team, U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of 

Climate Variability and Change, U.S. Global Change Research Program. NOAA Coastal Ocean 

Program Decision Analysis Series, number 21. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, 

Maryland.

Booth, D. T., S. E. Cox, M. Louchaichi, and D. E. Johnson. 2004. Technical note: lightweight camera 

stand for close-to-earth remote Sensing. Journal of Range Management 57:675–678.

Broome, S. W., W. W. Woodhouse, Jr., and E. D. Seneca. 1975. The relationship of mineral nutrients 

to growth of Spartina alterniflora in North Carolina, 2: The effects of N, P, and Fe fertilizers. 

Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of America 39:301–307.

Brush, G. S. 2001. Natural anthropogenic changes in Chesapeake Bay during the last 1000 years. 

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 7:1283–1296.

Burkett, V. R., R. Ritschard, S. McNulty, J. J. O'Brien, R. Abt, J. Jones, U. Hatch, B. Murray, S. 

Jagtap, and J. Cruise. 2001. Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the 

southeastern United States. Pages 137–164 in National Assessment Team, editors. Climate 

change impacts in the United States: potential consequences of climate variability and change. 

Report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom.

Burkett, V. R., D. A. Wilcox, R. Stottlemyer, W. Barrow, D. Fagre, J. Baron, J. Price, J. L. Nielsen, 

C. D. Allen, D. L. Peterson, G. Ruggerone, and T. Doyle. 2005. Nonlinear dynamics in 

ecosystem response to climatic change: case studies and policy implications. Ecological 

Complexity 2:357–394.

Byrne, M. W. 2012. Generating a spatially-balanced random sample with the RRQRR tool in ArcGIS 

9.1 and ArcGIS 9.3.1. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.1.1. National Park 

Service, Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Byrne, M. W., and B. A. Blankley. 2013. Sampling-grid creation, grid-cell surface analysis, and twoclass image classification for Southeast Coast Network parks. Standard Operating Procedure 

NPS/SECN/SOP-1.1.7. National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Cahoon, D. R., and R. E. Turner. 1989. Accretion and canal impacts in a rapidly subsiding wetland: 

II, Feldspar marker horizon technique. Estuaries 12:260–268.

Cahoon, D. R., D. Reed, J., and J. W. Day, Jr. 1995. Letter section: Estimating shallow subsidence in 

microtidal salt marshes of the southeastern United States: Kaye and Barghoorn revisited. Marine 

Geology 128:1–9.
79

Cahoon, D. R., J. C. Lynch, and R. M. Knaus. 1996. Improved cryogenic coring device for sampling 

wetland soils. Journal of Sedimentary Research 66:1025–1027.

Cahoon, D. R., J. C. Lynch, P. Hensel, R. Boumans, B. C. Perez, B. Segura, and J. W. Day, Jr. 

2002a. High-precision measurements of wetland sediment elevation: I. Recent improvements to 

the sedimentation-erosion table. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72:730–733.

Cahoon, D. R., J. C. Lynch, B. C. Perez, B. Segura, R. D. Holland, C. Stelly, G. Stephenson, and P. 

Hensel. 2002b. High-precision measurements of wetland sediment elevation: II. The rod surface 

elevation table. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72:734–739.

Cahoon, D. R., D. J. Reed, A. S. Kolker, M. M. Brinson, J. C. Stevenson, S. Riggs, R. Christian, E. 

Reyes, C. Voss, and D. Kunz. 2009. Coastal wetland sustainability. Pages 57–72 in J. G. Titus, 

coordinating lead author. Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: a focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. 

A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Callaway, J. C., Cahoon, D. R., and Lynch, J. C. 2014. The surface elevation table-marker horizon 

method for measuring wetland accretion and elevation dynamics. Pages 901–917 in R. D. 

DeLaune, K. R. Reddy, C. J. Richardson, and J. P. Megonigal, editors. Methods in 

biogeochemistry of wetlands. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

Carr, M. R. 1997. Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research (PRIMER) user's manual. 

Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Christensen, N. L. 1999. Vegetation of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Pages 397–448 in M. G. 

Barbour and W. D. Billings, editors. North American terrestrial vegetation, 2nd edition. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Clark, K. R., and R. M. Warwick. 1994. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical 

analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Cole, D. N. 1996. Wilderness recreation use trends, 1965 through 1994. Research Paper INT-RP488. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Corbett, S. L., and B. Smrekar. 2013. Motor vehicle accident reporting procedures. NPS/SECN/SOP3.1.4. National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Corbett, S. L., B. Smrekar, M. Moore, and J. Pressnell. 2013. Identification, treatment, and reporting 

of on-duty injury and illness. NPS/SECN/SOP-3.1.1. National Park Service, Southeast Coast 

Network, Athens, Georgia.

Craft, C., J. Clough, J. Ehman, S. Joye, R. Park, S. Pennings, H. Guo, and M. Machmuller. 2009. 

Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment 7:73–78.
80

Curtis, A. C. 2013. Requirements for SECN salt marsh elevation and vegetation community 

monitoring field season preparation, equipment, and training. Standard Operating Procedure 

NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.10. National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Curtis, A. C., and J. C. DeVivo. 2013. Soil Porewater Data Collection. Standard Operating Procedure 

NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.8. National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Curtis, A. C., J. R. Asper, and S. Eastman. 2013. Photoplot-based monitoring of salt marsh 

vegetation. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.9. National Park Service, 

Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Dahl, T. E. 2005. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

DataLOGIC, Inc. 2006. Information needs assessments for the definition of inventory and monitoring 

data projects and conceptual object model. Final project report. Avondale Estates, Georgia.

Davis, R. A., and M. Andronaco. 1987. Impact of hurricanes on Pinellas County, Florida, 1985. Sea 

Grant Extension Program, University of Florida Sea Grant Extension Program, University of 

Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

DeVivo, J. C., and S. L. Corbett. 2013. Communicating field operations with SECN parks. 

NPS/SECN/SOP-3.1.7. National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

DeVivo, J. C., M. B. Gregory, T. Curtis, M. W. Byrne, and C. Wright. 2011. Southeast Coast 

Network climate science strategy. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2011/436. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

DeVivo, J. C., C. J. Wright, M. W. Byrne, E. M. DiDonato, and A. C. Curtis. 2008. Vital signs 

monitoring in the Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/SECN/NRR-2008/061. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, J. W. Willoughby, and J. P. Gibbs. 2001. Monitoring plant and animal 

populations. Blackwell Scientific, Malden, Massachusetts.

Fancy, S. G., J. E. Gross, and S. L. Carter. 2009. Monitoring the condition of natural resources in 

U.S. national parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 151:161–174.

Feijtel, T. C., R. D. DeLaune, and W. H. Patrick, Jr. 1988. Seasonal pore water dynamics in marshes 

of Barataria Basin, Louisiana. Soil Science Society of America Journal 52:59–67.
81

Folse, T. M., and J. L. West. 2004. A standard operating procedures manual for the Louisiana

Department of Natural Resources’ Coastal Restoration Division: methods for data collection, 

quality assurance/quality control, storage, and products. Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Folse, T. M., J. L. West, M. K. Hymel, J. P. Troutman, L. A. Sharp, D. Weifenbach, T. McGinnis, L. 

B. Rodrigue, W. M. Boshart, D. C. Richardi, C. M. Miller, and W. B. Wood. 2008. A standard 

operating procedures manual for the coast-wide reference monitoring system-wetlands: methods 

for site establishment, data collection, and quality assurance/quality control. Louisiana Coastal 

Protection and Restoration Authority, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Frazel, D. 2009. Site profile of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve. 

Ponte Vedra, Florida.

Frost, C. C. 1993. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem. 

Pages 17–43 in S. Hermann, editor. Proceedings of Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, 

number 18. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.

Gardner, L. R., B. R. Smith, and W. K. Michener. 1992. Soil evolution along a forest-salt marsh 

transect under a regime of slowly rising sea level, southeastern United States. Geoderma 55:141–

158.

Gutierrez, B. T., N. G. Plant, and E. R. Thieler. 2011. A Bayesian network to predict vulnerability to 

sea-level rise: data report. Data Series 2011-601. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Helsel, D. R., and R. M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical methods in water resources techniques of water 

resources investigations, Book 4, chapter A3. U.S. Geological Survey.

Hensel, P., C. Gallagher, A. Johnson, and S. Lerberg. 2012. Accurate elevations for sea-level change 

sentinel sites. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS-63, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Hosier, P. E. 1973. The effects of oceanic overwash on the vegetation of Core and Shackleford 

Banks, North Carolina. Dissertation. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

James-Pirri, M.-J., C. T. Roman, and J. F. Heltshe. 2007. Power analysis to determine sample size for 

monitoring vegetation change in salt marsh habitats. Wetlands Ecology and Management 

15:335–345.

Jones, S. A. and M. S. Dalton. 2012. U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science 

Center Science and Operational Plan. Open-File Report 2012–1034. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Reston, Virginia.

Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, editors. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the 

United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
82

Kemp, W. M., J. C. Means, J. C. Stevenson, W. R. Boynton, and R. R. Twilley. 1983. The decline of 

submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: summary of results concerning possible 

causes. Marine Technology Society Journal 17:78–89.

Kent, M., and P. Coker. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach. John 

Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.

Kimball, M., and S. Eastman. 2012. Guana Tolomato Matanzas (GTM) NERR Vegetation 

Monitoring Metadata, January 2011–November 2012. Guana Tolomato Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

Kneib, R. T. 1997. The role of tidal marshes in the ecology of estuarine nekton. Oceanography and 

Marine Biology: An Annual Review 35:163–220.

Laporte, C., M. Alber, D. Briyant, M. R. DeVoe, K. Havens, C. Hopkinson, S. Rebach, D. Sanger, 

M. Spranger, and M. Voiland. 2011. South Atlantic regional research plan (revised). Georgia 

Coastal Research Council, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Lee, M. T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP protocol for recording 

vegetation data, all levels of plot sampling. Carolina Vegetation Survey, Version 4.2.

Leitholf, S. 2008. Assessing and modeling mangrove forest dynamics along the temperatesubtropical ecotone in eastern Florida. Thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.

Lugo, A. E., and S. C. Snedaker. 1974. The ecology of mangroves. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 5:39–64.

Lynch, J. C., D. R. Cahoon, and P. Hensel. 2012. Development of Sampling Protocols for the Surface 

Elevation Table. Wetlands in a Complex World, International Wetland Conference, Orlando, 

Florida.

McIvor, C. C., and W. E. Odum. 1988. Food, Predation Risk, and Microhabitat Selection in a Marsh 

Fish Assemblage. Ecology 69:1341–1351.

Mehta, A. J., and H. K. Brooks. 1973. Mosquito Lagoon barrier beach study. Shore and Beach 

41:27–34.

Minello, T. J., K. W. Able, M. P. Weinstein, and C. G. Hays. 2003. Salt marshes as nurseries for 

nekton: testing hypotheses on density, growth and survival through meta-analysis. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 246:39–59.

Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
83

Monahan, W. B., J. E. Gross, L. K. Svancara, and T. Phillippi. 2012. A guide to interpreting 

NPScape data and analyses. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRSS/NRTR—2012/578. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Moore, K. 2009. NERRS SWMP bio-monitoring protocol: long-term monitoring of estuarine 

submersed and emergent vegetation communities. Technical Report. National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System.

Najjar, R. G., H. A. Walker, P. J. Anderson, E. J. Barron, R. J. Bord, J. R. Gibson, V. S. Kennedy, C. 

G. Knight, J. P. Megonigal, and R. E. O'Connor. 2000. The potential impacts of climate change 

on the Mid-Atlantic coastal region. Climate Research 14:219–233.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. SWMP Phase III: Land use, land 

cover, and habitat change plan for the National Estuarine Research Reserve system. Report for 

the Estuarine Reserves Division. NOAA/NOS/OCRM—2009. Silver Spring, Maryland.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013. Center for operational 

oceanographic products and services website. Available at: 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/programs/coops/ (accessed June 2015).

National Park Service (NPS). 2010. National Park Service climate change response strategy. National 

Park Service Climate Change Response Program, Fort Collins, Colorado.

National Park Service (NPS). 2012. Climate Change Action Plan: 2012–2014. National Park Service 

Climate Change Response Program, Fort Collins, Colorado.

National Park Service (NPS). 2013. National Park Service visitor use statistics website. 

https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/ (accessed June 2015).

Niering, W. A., and R. S. Warren. 1980. Vegetation patterns and processes in New England salt 

marshes. Bioscience 30:301–307.

Odum, W. E., C. C. McIvor, and T. J. Smith, III. 1982. The ecology of mangroves of south Florida: a 

community profile. FWS/OBS-81/24. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological 

Services, Washington, D.C.

Orth, R. J., and K. A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay; an unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic 

vegetation. Science 222:51–53.

Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, and P. S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording 

vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262–274.

Pendleton, E. A., E. R. Thieler, and S. J. Williams. 2010. Importance of coastal change variables in 

determining vulnerability to sea- and lake-level change. Journal of Coastal Research 26:176–183.
84

Plant, N. G., G. R. Guntenspergen, K. Van Wilson, S. Wilson, C. Thatcher, A. McKerro, and A. 

Terando. 2010. Integrated Coastal Assessment. Pages 11–17 in M. S. Dalton and S. A. Jones, 

editors. Southeast Regional Assessment Project for the National Climate Change and Wildlife 

Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2010–1213. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Reimold, R. J. 1977. Mangals and salt marshes of eastern United States. Pages 157–164 in V. J. 

Chapman, editor. Wet coastal ecosystems of the world. Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, 

New York.

Richardson, C. J. 2000. Freshwater wetlands. Pages 449–499 in W. D. Billings, editor. North 

American terrestrial vegetation, 2

nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom.

Ricketts, T. H., E. Dinerstein, D. M. Olson, C. J. Loucks, W. Eichbaum, K. Kavanagh, P. Hedao, P. 

T. Hurley, K. M. Carney, R. Abell, and S. Walters. 1999. Review of Terrestrial Ecoregions of 

North America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Roman, C. T. 1997. Accretion of a New England (U.S.A.) salt marsh in response to inlet migration, 

storms, and sea-level rise. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 45:717–727.

Roman, C. T., M.-J. James-Pirri, and J. F. Heltshe. 2001. Monitoring salt marsh vegetation: a 

protocol for the long-term coastal ecosystem monitoring program at Cape Cod National 

Seashore. Cape Cod National Seashore, Wellfleet, Massachusetts.

Roman, C. T., R. S. Warren, and W. A. Niering. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to 

tidal restriction. Environmental Management 8:141–149.

Rountree, R. A., and K. W. Able. 2007. Spatial and temporal habitat use patterns for salt marsh 

nekton: implications for ecological functions. Aquatic Ecology 41:25–45.

Rozas, L. P. 1988. Intertidal rivulets and creekbanks: corridors between tidal creeks and marshes. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 47:303–307.

Sandlund, O. T., P. J. Schei, and Å. Viken. 1999. Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management.

Springer Publishing, Netherlands.

Savonis, M., V. R. Burkett, and J. R. Potter. 2008. Impacts of climate change and variability on 

transportation systems and infrastructure: Gulf Coast study. Phase I report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program, Washington, D.C.

Scavia, D., J. C. Field, D. F. Boesch, R. W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D. R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M. A. 

Harwell, R. W. Howarth, and C. Mason. 2002. Climate change impacts on U.S. coastal and 

marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25:149–164.
85

Sheaves, M. 2005. Nature and consequences of biological connectivity in mangrove systems. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 302:293–305.

Short, F. T., and H. A. Neckles. 1999. The effects of global climate change on seagrasses. Aquatic

Botany 63:169–196.

Short, F. T., and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 1996. Natural and human-induced disturbance of seagrasses. 

Environmental Conservation 23:17–27.

South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (SALCC). 2012. Conservation Planning Atlas 

website. Available at: http://salcc.databasin.org/ (accessed June 2015).

Southeast Coast Network (SECN). 2012. Southeast Coast Network reporting guidelines. Standard 

Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-2.1.2. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

Southeast Coast Network (SECN). 2013a. Dataset and metadata publication. Standard Operating 

Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-2.1.8. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

Southeast Coast Network (SECN). 2013b. Digital photo management: acquisition to archiving. 

Version 2. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-2.1.7. National Park Service, Athens, 

Georgia.

Southeast Coast Network (SECN). 2013c. Vehicle use and operation. NPS/SECN/SOP-3.1.3. 

Southeast Coast Network, Athens, Georgia.

Stalter, R., and W. E. Odum. 1993. Maritime communities. Pages 117–163 in W. H. Martin, S. G. 

Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: lowland 

terrestrial communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.

Stedman, S., and T. E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the 

eastern United States 1998 to 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Stoddard, J. L., D. P. Larsen, C. P. Hawkins, R. K. Johnson, and R. H. Norris. 2006. Setting 

Expectations for the Ecological Condition of Streams: The Concept of Reference Condition. 

Ecological Applications 16:1267–1276.

Theobald, D. M., and J. B. Norman. 2006. Spatially-balanced sampling using the Reversed 

Randomized Quadrant-Recursive Raster algorithm: a user's guide for the RRQRR ArcGIS 

version 9.1 tool. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Theobald, D. M., D. L. Stevens, D. White, N. S. Urquhart, A. R. Olsen, and J. B. Norman. 2007. 

Using GIS to generate spatially balanced random survey designs for natural resource 

applications. Environmental Management 40:134–146.
86

Thieler, E. R., N. G. Plant, and P. Howd. 2010. Geologic assessment of open-coast sea-level rise 

vulnerability for Mississippi and Alabama using a Bayesian network approach. SERAP Working 

Group Meeting, Athens, Georgia.

Turner, M. G. 1988. Simulation and management implications of feral horse grazing on Cumberland 

Island, Georgia. Journal of Range Management 41:441–447.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive conservation plan. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/Pea%20Island%20Final/Pea%20Island%

20SigsBlocked.pdf (accessed June 2015)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department 

of Interior, Washington, D.C.

Warren, R. S., and W. A. Niering. 1993. Vegetation change on a northeast tidal marsh: interaction of 

sea-level rise and marsh accretion. Ecology 74:96–103.

Watson, R. T., M. C. Zinyowera, and R. H. Moss. 1996. Climate change 1995 - Impacts, adaptations, 

and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analysis. Contribution of working group II 

to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge 

University Press, New York, New York.

Weinstein, M. P., J. H. Balletto, J. M. Teal, and D. F. Ludwig. 1997. Success criteria and adaptive 

management for a large-scale wetland restoration project. Wetlands Ecology and Management 

4:111–127.

Wiegert, R. G., and B. J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the southeast Atlantic coast: a 

community profile. Biological Report 85(7.29). U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C.

Wiegert, R. G., L. R. Pomeroy, and W. J. Wiebe. 1981. Ecology of salt marshes: an introduction. 

Pages 2–19 in L. R. Pomeroy and R. G. Wiegert, editors. Ecology of a salt marsh. SpringerVerlag, New York, New York.

Wright, C. J., J. C. DeVivo, and K. Funk. 2008. Information management and archiving plan, 

Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network. NPS/SECN/NRR-2008/062. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Wright, C. J., and E. Thompson. 2012. Salt marsh elevation and vegetation community monitoring: 

data management and technical documentation. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP2.3.7. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.
87

Wright, C. J., and E. Thompson. 2013. Southeast Coast Network salt marsh elevation monitoring 

database user manual. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-2.3.6. National Park 

Service, Athens, Georgia.

Zomlefer, W. B., W. S. Judd, and D. E. Giannasi. 2006. Northernmost limit of Rhizophora mangle

(red mangrove; Rhizophoraceae) in St. Johns County, Florida. Castanea 71:239–244.

89

Appendix A. Field Monitoring Cheat Sheet

Pre-Field Check List

 Print out the site sheet to take into the field

 Print field forms on rite in the rain paper

 Print the protocol and take into the field

 Check to makes sure everything is in the RSET unit, RSET kit, and YSI pelican cases

RSET Sampling

 Determine the compass declination (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag-web/#declination) and 

set the compass before going into the field.

 The same person will perform the RSET sampling – every time.

 All RSET work is performed from the platform. Do not walk within the RSET benchmark site.

 In the field, count the visible threads and hand tighten all bolts on the RSET arm.

 Insert and remove the fiberglass pins through the bottom of the RSET arm.

 Use the site sheet and compass to determine platform placement.

 Determine the compass bearing from the center of the RSET and out along the arm. Look for red 

arrows on the compass to ensure you are in fact facing the compass correctly.

 Remember—check the level, check the level, and check the level.

 It is best to take readings and record data starting from pin 1 and working to pin 9.

 When recording data, make sure to record the measurement in the correct column.

 Make notes about what the fiberglass pins is resting upon. This will help with data analysis as 

well as data interpretation.

Accretion Plot Sampling

 Use the site sheet to determine accretion plot locations.

 Take necessary PPE: gloves and eye protection.

 When taking sediment cores, make sure to capture the top layer of the surface - so leave at 

least 1⁄2 inch of the top of the flange/blade above the sediment surface.

 Zeroes mean the feldspar layer is visible on the surface with no measurable sediment on top 

of the feldspar layer NOT that you cannot see the feldspar layer within the sediment core.

 The same person will perform the accretion plot sampling—every time.

Porewater Sampling

 Calibrate the YSI unit and fill out the calibration sheet.

 Inspect the sipper tube holes for blockage and unclog as necessary.

 Make sure to rinse, with sample porewater or distilled water, the sipper tube and YSI probe 

before each measurement is taken.
90

 Record the temperature (°C), salinity (ppt), and specific conductance (SPC-uS/cm) onto the 

field form.

 Record surface water temperature, specific conductance, and salinity, if there is surface water 

on the marsh surface.
91

Appendix B. Standard Operating Procedures

To ensure consistent procedures Network-wide as Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are 

revised, updated, and re-published, the Southeast Coast Network maintains a single library of SOPs 

that are shared across all Network protocols and operations. All approved SOPs are published in the 

NPS Natural Resource Report series and the latest approved versions of operational SOPs are always 

available for download at the NPS Integrated Resource Management Applications portal at 

http://irma.nps.gov.

All SECN SOPs conform to a standard three-part numbering system to aid in the identification of the 

portion(s) of the program to which the procedures apply (Table B-1). Because SOPs are regularly 

updated, the SECN maintains the complete collection of the most recent and working versions of all 

SOPs in the SECN Operations Manual, housed on the SECN SharePoint at: 

http://inpserosecn2/staff/Lists/Network%20Operations%20Manual/Tree.aspx.

Table B-1. Numbering system and categories for Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) used by the 

Southeast Coast Network. Within each category, SOPs are numbered sequentially as they are produced.

Level 1 Level 2 Topic

1 1.1.x General field methods shared by multiple branches of the SECN. Typically those 

related to GIS, GPS location, photopoints, or use of shared instrumentation.

1.2.x Field methods for water resource monitoring.

1.3.x Field methods for coastal resource monitoring.

1.4.x Field methods for terrestrial resource monitoring (plants and animals).

2 2.1.x Data management procedures shared by multiple branches of the SECN, such as those 

pertaining to reporting, file management. 

2.2.x Data management procedures related to water resource monitoring.

2.3.x Data management procedures related to coastal resource monitoring.

2.4.x Data management procedures related to terrestrial resource monitoring (plants and 

animals).

3 3.1.x Field Safety.

3.2.x Equipment use and maintenance.

4 4.1.x Network administration.

5 5.1.x User Manuals.

The following subset of the SECN’s SOPs is included/ referenced in the implementation of the 

SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol (Table B-2). 

All SOPs are subject to modification in accordance with standard procedures documented in SECNSOP 2.1.2 (SECN 2012).
92

Table B-2. Standard Operating Procedures required to implement SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation 

and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol. Table lists SOPs by task category, SOP number, title 

and Integrated Resources Management Applications (IRMA) Record Numbers.

Subject SOP# Citation

IRMA Record 

Number

Monitoring 1.1.1 Byrne, M. W. 2013. Generating a spatially-balanced random sample with the 

RRQRR tool in ArcGIS 9.1 and ArcGIS 9.3.1 and applying selection criteria 

to select sampling locations, Version 2. Southeast Coast Network Standard 

Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.1.1. National Park Service, Athens, 

Georgia.

2215882

1.1.7 Byrne, M. W. and B. A. Blankley. 2012. Sampling-grid creation, grid-cell 

surface analysis, and two-class image classification for Southeast Coast 

Network parks. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure 

NPS/SECN/SOP-1.1.7. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2188654

1.2.1 Asper, J. R. 2013. Generating Spatially-Balanced Sampling Locations for 

Coastal Assessments Using ArcGIS 10. Southeast Coast Network Standard 

Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.2.1. National Park Service, Athens, 

Georgia.

2192645

1.3.1 Asper, J. R. and A. C. Curtis. 2012. Salt Marsh Community Monitoring: 

Conducting Field Site Suitability Assessments. Southeast Coast Network 

Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.1. National Park 

Service, Athens, Georgia.

2184392

1.3.2 Asper, J. and T. Curtis. 2013. Salt marsh elevation and vegetation 

community monitoring site platform construction and installation. Southeast 

Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.2. 

National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2215884

1.3.6 Asper, J. R. and A. C. Curtis. 2013. Salt Marsh Elevation Monitoring. 

Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP1.3.6. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2215885

1.3.7 Asper, J. R. and A. C. Curtis. 2013. Accretion and erosion measurement 

with a feldspar marker horizon. Southeast Coast Network Standard 

Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.7. National Park Service, Athens, 

Georgia.

2184804

1.3.8 Curtis, A. C, and J. C. DeVivo. 2013. Soil Porewater Equipment Construction 

and data collection. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating 

Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.8. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2215886

1.3.9 Curtis, A. C., J. R. Asper, and S. Eastman. 2013. Photoplot-based 

monitoring of salt marsh vegetation. Southeast Coast Network Standard 

Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.9. National Park Service, Athens, 

Georgia.

2215899

1.3.10 Curtis, A. C. 2013. Requirements for SECN salt marsh elevation and 

vegetation community monitoring: field season preparation, equipment, and 

training. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure 

NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.10. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2215900

1.3.19 Asper, J. R. and A. C. Curtis. 2012. Salt Marsh Community Rod-Surface 

Elevation Table (RSET) Installation. Southeast Coast Network Standard 

Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-1.3.19. National Park Service, 

Athens, Georgia.

2215901

Data 

Management 

2.1.1 Southeast Coast Network (SECN). 2013. Revision of Southeast Coast 

Network protocols and Standard Operating Procedures. Southeast Coast 

Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-2.1.1. National 

Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2192669
93

Subject SOP# Citation

IRMA Record 

Number

2.1.2 Southeast Coast Network (SECN). 2013. Southeast Coast Network 

Reporting Guidelines. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating 

Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-2.1.2. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2192670

Data 

Management, 

continued

2.1.7 Southeast Coast Network (SECN). 2013. Digital photo management: 

acquisition to archiving. Version 2. Southeast Coast Network Standard 

Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-2.1.7. National Park Service, Athens, 

Georgia.

2208805

2.1.8 Southeast Coast Network (SECN). 2013. Dataset and metadata publication. 

Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP2.1.8. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2197066

2.3.6 Wright, C. J. and E. Thompson. 2013. Southeast Coast Network salt marsh 

elevation monitoring database user manual. Southeast Coast Network 

Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-2.3.6. National Park 

Service, Athens, Georgia.

2215902

2.3.7 Wright, C. J. and E. Thompson. 2012. Salt marsh elevation and vegetation 

community monitoring: data management and technical documentation. 

Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP2.3.7. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2184275

Safety 3.1.1 Corbett, S. L., B. D. Smrekar, M. Moore, and J. Pressnell. 2013. 

Identification, treatment, and reporting of on-duty injury and illness. 

Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP3.1.1. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2192734

3.1.2 Asper, J. R., and A. C. Curtis. 2013. Safe operation of Southeast Coast 

Network Watercraft. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating 

Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-3.1.2. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2192642

3.1.3 Southeast Coast Network (SECN). 2013. Vehicle use and operation. 

Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP3.1.3. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2192735

3.1.4 Corbett, S. L. and B. Smrekar. 2013. Motor vehicle accident reporting 

procedures. Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP-3.1.4. National 

Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2192736

3.1.7 DeVivo, J. C., and S. L. Corbett. 2013. Communicating field operations with 

SECN Parks. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure 

NPS/SECN/SOP-3.1.7. National Park Service, Athens, Georgia.

2192737

95

Appendix C. Job Hazards and Risk Assessment

This appendix describes application of the Green-Amber-Red (GAR) Risk Assessment Model as 

outlined in the NPS Operational Leadership Student Manual (Version 2; July 2011). This GAR was 

written by the SECN Program Manager (Joe DeVivo) on 21 May 2013 and approved by the NPS 

Southeast Region I&M program manager (Lisa Garrett) in 2014.

The GAR model allows for a general assessment of a task or operation and generates communication 

concerning the risks of an activity (in this case, conducting the field-based activities of this coastal 

salt marsh monitoring protocol. The most important part of the process is the team discussions prior 

to potentially hazardous activities or tasks that will lead to a better understanding of the risks and 

how they will be managed.

The GAR is a seven step process. Each step is defined and explained in the context of the sampling 

that will occur as part of this protocol.

Step 1: Define the Mission or Task

The SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol includes 

several field-based monitoring activities: construction, installation, and maintenance of monitoring 

platforms in coastal salt marshes, collection of data using a variety of equipment, and operation of 

motorized watercraft to sampling locations (and collection of samples from those locations).

Sampling at individual locations typically takes less than a day to complete, but transit times between 

study sites (located at different parks) can take as much as ten hours by vehicle. For shore-based 

monitoring, activities typically occur “solo,” whereas all boat-based sampling occurs in crews of two 

to three individuals. The activity is conducted regularly in eight coastal parks, with maintenance and 

monitoring efforts occurring seasonally to annually. Potential safety hazards (along with mitigation 

measures) have been identified in a protocol Job Hazard Analysis.

Of specific concern is that:

 Crew members will spend many hours (and miles) driving to, between, and from sampling 

locations to carry out the requisite sampling design.

 Crew members will be regularly working by boat in park areas outside of communications 

range (either by park radio or by cell phone).

 During installation and maintenance phases of protocol implementation crews will be using 

power equipment such as jackhammers in remote areas in challenging environments (from 

platforms).

Injury or loss of life while in transit by vehicle to and from field sites, as well as while in transit to or 

performance of data collection activities from watercraft are the most significant risks encountered 

when conducting this activity.
96

Step 2: Define the Threats

General field work threats and hazards as well as those that are specific for implementing this 

protocol are described within this JHA (Table C-1). Because of differences in the types, locations, 

and risks associated with different portions of the protocol, risks for the fixed-station and park-wide 

5-year sampling events are assessed separately.

Table C-1. Tasks and mitigations to reduce threats and hazards associated with implementing the SECN 

Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol.

Category Mitigation Factors

Supervision (Score 3).The SECN protocol for Monitoring SECN Salt Marsh Elevation and 

Vegetation Communities clearly identifies personnel, roles and responsibilities, and a 

chain of command. In cases where multiple people are present, the field crew lead has 

many tasks to accomplish in the implementation of the protocol, so is not always 

focusing solely on supervision. 

During implementation of this portion of the protocol, a qualified supervisor aware of all 

portions of the protocol is always present on site. While working on a boat, all personnel 

are under direct supervision of a trained boat operator.

In some cases personnel are accompanied by staff member(s) from the park at which 

sampling occurs, or with other SECN staff, depending on the actions being 

implemented on site (sampling and/or maintenance). During field operations, the SECN 

Coastal Ecologist is the designated field crew lead responsible for all tasks related to 

protocol implementation including communications with park staff, logistics getting to 

and from the site, and implementation of data collection procedures.

A portion of this work is performed by partner staff from parks or other agencies without 

the direct oversight and supervision of SECN staff. In such cases the SECN Coastal 

Ecologist is available for remote support, and partner staff are trained in the operation 

of equipment required to implement the protocol.

Planning (Score 3–4). The SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community 

Monitoring Protocol includes numerous SOPs that explain hiring, training, personal 

safety, emergency communication (equipment and contacts), and appropriate field 

activities (See Appendix B). Crew members are required to review these materials 

during training, and crew members are required to have first aid and CPR training. Due 

to this advanced planning, written documentation and training procedures lower scores 

were assigned.

Although much time goes into planning for this type of work, the complexity of 

operations requires some last-minute changes and adjustments to schedules.

Communication (Score 5).Routine and emergency communication equipment and procedures are 

explained in the relevant SOPs. This includes coordination with park natural resource 

managers, rangers, and dispatch as preferred by each park. It also includes procedures 

for daily crew check-out/check-in with the SECN Program Manager and Water Branch 

lead to ensure that a responsible party knows if someone has not returned from the 

field activity in a timely manner.

Communication can be an issue especially at larger parks where larger distances may 

have to be covered between sites or boat ramps. Cell phone coverage is highly variable 

among parks where sampling occurs (and areas therein) and in some cases might not 

work or be reliable.

Contingency Resources (Score 4–5). Contingency resources include communication equipment and procedures 

that explicitly involve park rangers, park dispatch, and 9-1-1. Crew members always 

have at least one mode of communication as outlined in SOP 3.1.7 (park 
Table C-1. Continued.

97

Category Mitigation Factors

communications), though at some parks radios are not monitored and cell phone 

coverage is often unreliable. Notification of emergency services should happen within 

minutes of an incident, but there may be delays depending on where incidents occur.

The scores for this protocol are higher than what is given to SECN terrestrial-based 

protocols because much of the work to be done for the coastal assessments is 

conducted on or near open water.

Delays can be substantial in some areas at some parks especially if cell phone service 

is not available.

Team Selection (Score 3–5).The monitoring protocol clearly identifies the essential skills and abilities 

required to execute this protocol in a competent manner. Prior experience is required 

for most team members. All team members should have basic first aid and CPR skills 

as well as an ability to swim. Although some of these skills can be worked on during 

crew training, there is no substitute for experience.

The availability of park or SECN staff with local knowledge of water bodies is variable 

from park to park (and among sampling events); presence of a dedicated boat captain 

with local expertise greatly reduces risks related to boating.

Team Fitness (Score 2–4) Team selection should ensure an overall high level of initial team fitness. 

Crew members are in the field for approximately eight hours per day (not including 

transit times to and from sites). Sampling always occurs during daylight hours. A score 

of 2–4 was assigned because the work is not overly strenuous, but can be variable 

depending on the tasks being conducted on site. Crew members must be diligent about 

adequate rest and nourishment to ensure that fatigue does not become a safety factor.

Environment (Score 6–8).Protocol implementation includes inherent environmental dangers 

associated with field work and transit to field sites. Activities occur during spring and 

summer months, which exposes crews to a variety of weather conditions, including 

extreme heat and strong localized storm cells, including exposure to lightning strikes. 

Additionally, transit times to, from, and between sites can be up to an hour, which (in 

addition to data collection) can result in work days exceeding 10 hours and return trips 

by vehicle at the end of long days in the field.

A portion of this work is conducted in open water by boat, where limited cover is 

available if crews are not aware of dynamic weather conditions. Working on open water 

is an inherently riskier environment.

Event Complexity (Score 5). Daily field conditions change due to unpredictable weather. Individual crew 

members must use judgment and experience to respond appropriately. Work requires 

operation of multiple vehicles, trailers, and boats including towing, backing, launching, 

and docking, as well as specialized equipment including RSET measurement devices 

and a liquid nitrogen soil accretion sampling device.
98

Step 3: Assess Risk and Assign a Numerical Value

Initial risk-level scores were assigned to all protocol elements following the process as described in 

the NPS Operational Leadership Student Manual (Table C-1, C-2). Scores were initially assigned by 

Joe DeVivo, the SECN Program Manager with input from SECN and park staff. Final numbers are 

presented below with concurrence from Brian Gregory, Protocol Lead (Table C-3). It should be 

noted that at the time final numerical values were assigned (May 22, 2013) the protocol had been in 

development for several years and considerable time and effort had already gone into evaluating and 

mitigating risks. Additionally, because of the variability in sites among parks, many element scores 

are presented as ranges. To compute the total level of risk for the activity, assign a risk code of 0 (For 

No Risk) through 10 (For Maximum Risk) to each of the eight elements below and then total the risk 

codes. This is the Total Risk Score and is your personal estimate of the risk. Total Risk Score (Green, 

Amber, or Red) is based on the GAR Evaluation Scale (Table C-4).

Table C-2. Activity elements and descriptions of major tasks associated with the implementation of SECN 

Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol.

Activity Element Element Description

Supervision Supervisory Control considers if supervision is present, how qualified the supervisor is, and 

whether effective supervision is taking place. Even if a person is qualified to perform a 

task, supervision acts as a control to minimize risk. This may simply be someone checking 

what is being done to ensure it is being done correctly. The higher the risk, the more the 

supervisor needs to be focused on observing and checking. A supervisor who is actively 

involved in a task (doing something) is easily distracted and should not be considered an 

effective safety observer in moderate to high-risk conditions.

Planning Planning and preparation should consider how much information you have, how clear it is, 

and how much time you have to plan the evolution or evaluate the situation, and the 

presence of Standard Operating Procedures or pre-plans.

Communication Communication should include physical (dispatch present, effective repeaters) 

communication and an assessment of personal communication among team members 

(assertiveness, climate that values input, high degree of accountability) and the presence 

of briefs and debriefs.

Contingency Resources Contingency resources refer to readily available trained assets, and whether there is an 

established agreement and SOP with the cooperating agency (i.e., local law enforcement 

agencies, fire departments, ambulance, military units, etc.).

Team Selection Team selection should consider the qualifications and experience level of the individuals 

used for the specific event/evolution/incident. Individuals may need to be replaced during 

the incident. The same concerns apply to the reliefs.

Team Fitness Team fitness should consider the physical and mental state of the team. This is a function 

of the amount and quality of rest a team member has had. Quality of rest should consider 

potential sleep length and any interruptions. Fatigue normally becomes a factor after 18 

hours without rest; however, lack of quality sleep builds a deficit and worsens the effects of 

fatigue.

Environment Environment should consider factors affecting personnel performance and factors affecting 

equipment. This includes, but is not limited to, time of day, temperature, humidity, 

precipitation, wind, terrain, and elevation.

Event or Evolution 

Complexity

Event/Evolution complexity should consider both the required time and the situation. 

Generally, the longer one is exposed to a hazard, the greater are the risks. However, each 

circumstance is unique. For example, more iterations of an evolution can increase the 

opportunity for a loss to occur, but may have the positive effect of improving the proficiency 

of the team, thus possibly decreasing the chance of error. This would depend upon the 

experience level of the team. The situation includes considering how long the 

environmental conditions will remain stable and the complexity of the work. 
99

Table C-3. Assigned risk codes of for each of the eight elements of the SECN Coastal Salt Marsh 

Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol. Zero indicates no known risk and 10 indicates 

maximum level of risk, or a highly dangerous task.

Category Risk Code Score

Supervision 3

Planning 3–4

Communication 5

Contingency Resources 4–5

Team Selection 3–5

Team Fitness 2–4

Environment 6–8

Event/Evolution Complexity 5

Total Risk Score 31–39

Table C-4. GAR Evaluation Scale for color coding the level of risk. The activity risk can be visualized 

using the colors of a traffic light. If the total risk value falls in the GREEN ZONE (1–35), risk is rated as 

low. If the total risk value falls in the AMBER ZONE (36–60), risk is moderate and you should consider 

adopting procedures to minimize the risk. If the total value falls in the RED ZONE (61–80), you should 

implement measures to reduce the risk prior to starting the event or evolution.

1–35 36–60 61–80

GREEN

(Low Risk)

AMBER

(Caution)

RED

(High Risk)

Step 4: Identify Risk Control Options

A protocol JHA was performed by the SECN Collateral Duty Safety Officer (Sarah Corbett) and 

abatement actions and requisite training needs were identified to mitigate hazards associated with 

implementation of this protocol (Tables C-4, C-5).
100

Table C-5. Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) for safe implementation of the SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation 

and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol, including potential hazards and recommended 

abatement actions.

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

FIELD WORK General Field Safety/ 

Training.

 Complete an annual (American Red Cross) or biannual 

(American Heart Association) First Aid and CPR training 

course.

 Always carry standard PPE, which includes a first aid kit, 

compass, safety whistle, hydration bladder/water bottles.

Tick Bites (Lyme Disease, 

Rocky Mountain Spotted 

Fever)

 Spray clothing with insect repellant such as Permethrin, as 

a barrier.

 Wear light colored clothing that fits tightly at the wrists, 

ankles, and waist.

 Each outer garment should overlap the one above it.

 Cover trouser legs with high socks, boots, or nylon gaiters 

OR duct tape pant legs to shoes.

 Tuck in shirt tails.

 Search the body on a regular basis, especially hair and 

clothing; ticks generally do not attach for a couple of 

hours. Run your fingers across your skull feeling for any 

atypical bumps.

 If a tick becomes attached, use tweezers to grasp the tick 

as close as possible to the point of attachment and pull 

straight out with gentle pressure. If tweezers are not 

available, use fingernails or pliers. Wash skin with soap 

and water then cleanse with rubbing alcohol. Place the tick 

in an empty container for later identification, if the victim 

should have a reaction. Record dates of exposure and 

removal.

 Do not try to remove the tick by burning with a match or 

covering it with chemical agents.

 If you cannot remove the tick, or the head detaches, seek 

prompt medical help.

 If you are bitten by a tick, first document it on a calendar or 

injury log, then watch for warning signs of illness: a large 

red spot on the bite area; fever, chills, headache, joint and 

muscle ache, significant fatigue, and facial paralysis are 

reactions that may appear within two weeks of the bite. 

Symptoms specific to Lyme disease include: confusion, 

short-term memory loss, and disorientation.

 Review the CDC documents relating to tick-borne 

diseases at http://www.cdc.gov/ticks/diseases.

Tetanus  Insure tetanus booster is up-to-date.

 Wear all-leather-upper protective footwear.

Allergic reactions, insect 

stings

 If a bite/sting victim develops hives, asthmatic breathing, 

tissue swelling, or a drop in blood pressure, seek medical 

help immediately.

 Be alert to insect hives in brush or in hollow logs. Watch 

for insects traveling in and out of one location.

 If you or anyone you are working with is known to have 

allergic reactions to bee, wasp, hornet, yellow jacket, or 

other insect stings, tell the rest of the crew and your 

supervisor. Make sure you carry emergency medication 

(Epipen, etc.) with you at all times, AND know how to 

administer that medication.
Table C-5. Continued.

101

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

FIELD WORK (cont.)  Wear long sleeve shirts and trousers; tuck in shirt. Bright 

colors and metal objects may attract bees.

 If you are stung, cold compresses may bring relief. Also, it 

is advisable to take Benadryl immediately if multiple stings 

are received.

 If a stinger is left behind, scrape it off the skin. Do not use 

tweezers as this squeezes the venom sack, worsening the 

injury.

 Minimize exposure to plants that cause contact dermatitis

(poison ivy, Brazilian peppertree, poison sumac, etc.), 

EVEN if you do not typically react to them (immunity 

breaks down with continued exposure). If you are known 

to have severe reactions, wear ivy block before exposure, 

and use neutralizing soaps (Technu, etc.) if exposure 

occurs. Wear long sleeves, long pants, and gloves if 

working in dense areas with dermatitis-inducing plant 

species.

Mosquito Bites - Skin 

irritation, encephalitis.

 Wear long sleeves and trousers.

 Avoid heavy scents, such as strong soap, lotion, or 

perfume.

 Use insect repellents. If using Permethrin, do not apply 

directly to skin, apply to clothing only.

 Carry after-bite medication to reduce skin irritation.

Dehydration  Drink at least 1/2 qt. of water every hour.

 Limit caffeine intake, as caffeine dehydrates you.

 Carry sufficient amounts of water.

 Avoid long exposure to sun.

 Wear hat with wide brim for shade.

 Use electrolyte supplements or drink sports drinks (e.g., 

Gatorade).

Uneven terrain

Tripping over rocks

 Wear all leather-upper, lace up, 6" minimum high boots 

with nonskid rubber soles.

 Test and use secure footing. Walk, never run, down 

slopes.

 Maintain a safe walking distance between people.

 In heavy undergrowth, lift knees high to clear obstacles.

Know how to fall. Try to land in the least obstructed spot.

Protect your head and back. Roll with the fall. Do not stick 

out your arms to break a fall.

 Use the entire sole of your boots to increase traction and 

also reduce the fatigue associated with walking on the 

toes.

Solar Ultraviolet Radiation.  Keep exposed skin covered by wearing a hat, a 

bandanna, and a long sleeved shirt.

 Use protective sunscreen lotion. 

Venomous Snakes  Wear high top boots and snake gaiters or chaps. When 

going through thick underbrush, be alert. Walk slowly and 

give snakes ample time to move out of the way. Walk on 

clear paths as much as possible. Be careful where placing 

feet and hands at all times.
Table C-5. Continued.

102

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

FIELD WORK (cont.) Working in Isolated Areas  Use the buddy system and carry a cellular phone or NPS 

park radio. Always be alert. Never work alone or leave 

partner alone. Exceptions may apply to the coastal 

ecology program when an individual may be required to 

work alone, but will always have access to 

communications (VHF radio, park radio, etc.) However, 

when possible, it is strongly advised to work in pairs.

Hunting Season  Wear bright colored clothing, hat or orange vests during 

hunting season. Observe the area for possible hunters.

Heat Stress  Take appropriate breaks.

 Maintain proper hydration and electrolyte consumption.

 Slow pace or reduce field hours if heat index is high (over 

95 degrees Fahrenheit).

Cold Stress/Hypothermia  Wear layered clothing, gloves, hard hat with winter liner, 

etc.

 During cold weather - layer clothing and wear wind 

impervious outerwear; during warm months – wear a long 

sleeve cotton shirt.

Fatigue  Know the limits of your own body (e.g., tolerance to heat, 

cold, allergies, strength, endurance, etc.), pursue physical 

conditioning prior to the field season if necessary, and do 

not over-exert yourself.

 Use proper mechanics when bending over of lifting objects 

(i.e., lift with your knees, bend knees when bending over).

Tighten stomach muscles when standing for long periods 

of time to support the lower back.

 When hiking up / down hills, avoid walking on your toes as 

this cause muscle fatigue rapidly. Using the entire sole of 

your foot uses the large muscles of your legs thus 

avoiding leg-muscle fatigue.

Weather  Know the weather forecast prior to going into the field.

 Enable weather alerts on GPS units or portable radio.

 If a tornado approaches and you are caught in the field, 

take shelter in low area, lie flat on belly and cover head.

 There is no safe place outdoors in a lightning storm, but if 

lightning approaches and you are caught in the field, 

avoid: standing water if possible, isolated trees, picnic 

tables, pavilions, flagpoles, metal objects, and fences.

Seek shelter under a large grove of trees (preferably 

shorter than those around it), squat close to ground, keep 

feet together, tuck head down, close eyes and cover ears, 

stay 50 feet apart from other people, and remove metal 

objects from your person.

 When conducting boat operations, refer also to the SECN 

Boat Operation SOP.

Flash Floods  DO NOT TRY TO WALK, DRIVE, OR OTHERWISE 

CROSS FLOODWATERS. Keep in mind that floodwaters 

are swift moving, even if they do not appear to be on the 

surface. It is possible to drown in just a few inches of 

water if swept away by floodwaters.

 Especially important when working in stream and river 

areas, workers should be aware of the possibility of flash 

floods. When working in stream and river environments, at 

least one team member should watch nightly weather 

reports, or monitor weather band radio, to assess if 
Table C-5. Continued.

103

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

FIELD WORK (cont.) weather conditions for flash floods may exist.

 If caught in a flash flood while in a boat, point the boat 

downstream and continue with the flow until it is safe to 

pull to the bank.

 If caught in a flash flood while in an automobile, abandon 

the vehicle immediately and move to higher ground. If the 

vehicle is submerged, do not panic, allow the vehicle to fill 

with water, and open the doors when the vehicle is full 

(doors will not open until the water pressure is equal 

outside and in). Opening windows will expedite the 

process. Hold your breath, and swim for the surface and 

toward the bank if possible.

 If caught in a flash flood while on foot, immediately move 

to higher ground.

Overwater work sites 

(docks).

 Use elevated caution level when working on docks.

 Keep workspace neat/organized to reduce possible trip 

hazards.

 Wear a personal floatation device when task requires 

leaning over or reaching over guardrail.

Usage of Liquid Nitrogen 

for Salt Marsh Monitoring

 Liquid Nitrogen is -320oF; so, it can easily freeze skin 

causing severe damage. This means that care should be 

taken to not allow contact with the skin. Eye protection, 

gloves, and long sleeves and pants should be worn when 

handling the substance.

 Liquid Nitrogen expands by a factor of 700 when it warms 

and becomes gas. As such, all storage containers must be 

vented properly.

 Never block or plug the release valves. This will cause a 

buildup of pressure in the container, which can cause 

explosions.

 When transporting containers, they should be stored 

upright and only in containers designed to hold liquid 

Nitrogen.

Usage of Powered 

Equipment for Salt Marsh 

Monitoring (Jackhammer, 

Generator, Power tools, 

etc.)

 Care will be taken when using power tools in the marsh.

Use of power tools must be in accordance with all safety 

recommendations of the manufacturer. When appropriate, 

the safety guidelines for tool usage from the user manual 

will be reviewed prior to tool use.

 Gloves, safety glasses, and over the ear hearing 

protection shall be used at all times.

 When operating heavy equipment, such as the 

jackhammer, at least two people must be present.

 Before operating a tool on the platforms, ensure that each 

operator has a secure, stable footing, and has the ability to 

lift 60 pounds over their head.

 Fueling of the generator shall occur in a well ventilated 

area, and not such that overflow will flow into water or 

wetlands.

 Electricity and water are a dangerous combination. Use 

extreme caution when operating power equipment around 

water.
Table C-5. Continued.

104

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

SHOP/WAREHOUSE 

ACTIVITIES

Power Tool Usage  Care will be taken when using power tools in the 

shop/warehouse area. Use of power tools must be in 

accordance with all safety recommendations of the 

manufacturer. When appropriate, the safety guidelines for 

tool usage from the user manual will be reviewed prior to 

tool use.

 Appropriate protective equipment will be worn at all times, 

including safety glasses or goggles, air filtration masks 

(when dealing with materials that produce sawdust or fine 

particulate matter), ear protection (when dealing with loud 

tools), work gloves, and closed-toe shoes.

 Long sleeves and long pants will be worn if any tool emits 

flames or sparks.

Hand Tool Use  Always take care to use hand tools for the purpose for 

which they are intended (use the “right tool for the job”).

 Wear protective eyewear and clothing while using hand 

tools if there is any chance of flying debris.

VEHICLE OPERATION Type of Vehicle, Training  Select appropriate vehicle for work needs and location.

 Familiarize yourself with the vehicle and know where the 

controls are located.

 Make the "circle of safety" check of vehicle condition.

 Review maps and plan route prior to beginning your trip.

 Report any accident (gov, leased or pov), regardless of 

extent. Complete forms SF-91 and SF-94 immediately if 

involved in an accident. Copies of these forms should 

ALWAYS be present in the vehicle. If you are using a POV 

for government travel, obtain copies of the forms before 

departure.

 Obey speed limit, drive defensively.

 Obtain general safety training from a qualified operator 

before hauling trailers behind any vehicle.

 Be conscientious of other drivers (e.g., the left lane is the 

passing lane and not a cruising lane, pass then get over; 

do not park too closely to other vehicles).

 Always keep your eyes on the road, do not eat and drive, 

and do not talk on phone and drive.

 When possible, take a defensive driving course.

Vehicle Fires  All vehicles must be equipped with a working fire 

extinguisher (the extinguisher should be appropriate for 

the use, class type, in date and fully charged.).

 Never park a warm engine vehicle in tall grass. Avoid 

engine fuel spills.

 Be alert of fire conditions. Do not enter uncontrolled 

burning areas with a vehicle. Minimize flammables in and 

near vehicle and work area.

 If a vehicle is on fire and the fire cannot be suppressed

with an extinguisher, MOVE AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE.

Under no circumstances should you re-enter the vehicle to 

remove belongings or equipment when a vehicle is 

burning.

Vehicle Security/Visibility  Always lock vehicle, do not leave valuables in vehicle, and 

cover or otherwise keep from view any equipment left in 

vehicle.

 Conduct a full walk-around of vehicle and place orange 
Table C-5. Continued.

105

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

VEHICLE OPERATION

(cont.)

marker cones behind and/or in front of the vehicle to 

increase visibility if leaving the vehicle in a generally 

unsecure area (on a roadside or narrow road shoulder, in 

a road median, or in an otherwise high-traffic area).

Vehicle Maintenance  Check oil and all fluids during every refueling. Document.

 Perform vehicle inspection for obvious items such as tire 

inflation, windshield wipers, and sufficient fuel to get to 

destination.

 Observe federal guidelines for use of a federal vehicle: 

make certain procedures regarding accidents, injuries, 

vehicular break downs or roadside emergencies are 

available in vehicle (Forms SF-91 and SF-94).

 Replace windshield wipers annually, and replace tires 

when they exceed wear.

Weather Conditions  Changes in climatic conditions require adjusting to 

different weather situations.

 When using windshield wipers during rain, turn on 

headlights.

 Do not drive in adverse weather conditions if the trip can 

be delayed.

 Avoid being rushed; you will need more time to prepare 

the vehicle and get to your destination.

 Remove all frost and snow prior to starting your trip. Make 

sure vents are clear of snow to provide adequate airflow 

for defrosting.

Off Highway 

Driving/Driving in Mud and 

Soft Sand

 Check with local unit as necessary prior to driving on back 

roads, for items such as construction, washouts, 

blowdowns and closures.

 Obey all posted travel signs.

 Proceed slowly around corners and drive on the right side.

 Use four wheel drive in appropriate situations.

 Always put vehicle in 4WD long before you think you might 

need it; if you begin to get stuck it is too late for the 4WD 

to engage.

 Do not cause extensive damage to unpaved roads by 

driving on them when too saturated.

 Avoid driving in ruts because the vehicle is susceptible to 

bottoming out.

 Get out of the vehicle to investigate all puddles to 

determine depth and if the bottom of the puddle is hard

enough to support a vehicle. Walk through the puddle if 

necessary.

 Drive SLOWLY through puddles, as driving fast can flood 

the engine, and/or cause the vehicle to slide laterally. It

may also cause more erosion and damage in the road.

 Turn around in areas only where enough space on solid 

ground is available, have passengers get out to help 

direct, take your time.

Towing  Do not exceed recommended towing weight of tow or tow 

vehicle.

 Be aware that states may have speed limits when towing 

that are not published on speed limit signage.

 Insure tow vehicle has proper mirrors installed to view 
Table C-5. Continued.

106

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

VEHICLE OPERATION

(cont.)

trailer appropriately.

 Load trailer per manufacturer’s guidance.

 Use a hitch lock or safety pin at all times when towing.

 Organize load logically so trailer can be hitched and 

unhitched easily (i.e., not too much weight in the front of 

the trailer).

 Insure all trailer lights and brakes are operational before 

driving.

 Insure safety chains are installed correctly, crossed under

the trailer and connected to the tow vehicle.

 Check tire pressure, spare tire, and jack.

 Maintain bearing grease, checking regularly.

 Practice driving vehicle with trailer attached in a safe area 

until a comfort level is obtained.

 Be careful when towing in strong cross winds.

 All SECN Employees who will tow a boat or cargo trailer 

must read and understand the brochure “Towing a Trailer:

Being Equipped for Safety” available from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation website at:

www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/equipment/towing/index.ht

m

WATERCRAFT 

OPERATION

Watercraft Safety and 

Training

 All SECN employees operating or riding in a watercraft 

MUST read and understand the SECN Boat Operation 

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). This document 

provides more comprehensive guidance than that 

provided here.

 All SECN employees who operate a motorized vessel 

must complete the USDI Motorboat Operators Certification 

Course. Complete an 8 hour refresher course every 5 

years.

 All DOI employees must wear approved life vests while 

underway.

 Carry cell phone and vhf radio.

 File a float plan and work in pairs when possible.

 Do not exceed the rated capacity of the vessel (includes 

personnel and cargo).

 It is advisable that all personnel know how to swim OR 

know what to do if thrown overboard. Life vests MUST be 

worn.

 All new employees will complete a safety orientation with 

the boat operator or the SECN safety officer prior to 

getting underway.

Vessel Maintenance  Perform vessel inspection for obvious items such 

seaworthiness of craft, assure oil levels are good, and 

assure motor is in working order. Maintain vessel and 

proper safety equipment. Look for any damage to the hull.

 For non-motorized vessels, ensure craft is in good 

condition. Before the start of the field season, fill the craft 

with water while on land and watch for leaks. Repair leaks 

immediately.

Onboard Safety 

Equipment

 All motorized vessels shall carry U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) and state required safety equipment, including

USCG approved life jackets, throwable device, fire 

extinguisher, working marine radio, sufficient chain/rope 

and proper anchor, oar/paddle, flares and signaling 

device, approved navigation lights, and tool kit.
Table C-5. Continued.

107

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

WATERCRAFT 

OPERATION (cont.) Weather Conditions  Changes in climatic conditions require adjusting to 

different weather situations.

 Do not operate vessels in adverse weather conditions if 

the trip can be delayed.

 Avoid traveling in high winds or rough water.

 Avoid being rushed; you will need more time to prepare 

the vehicle and get to your destination. 

Overturned/Capsized 

Vessels

 To avoid the likelihood of capsizing, keep a lookout facing 

the direction of movement of the vessel (motorized 

vessels), and take extreme care when navigating in areas 

with shallowly submerged objects or sandbars by moving 

slowly and avoiding sudden port or starboard movements 

(motorized and non-motorized vessels).

 In the event that a motorized or non-motorized vessel 

overturns or capsized, first account for the location of all 

passengers and ensure that they are wearing life vests. If 

not wearing a vest, get one to them as soon as possible.

 If a vessel does capsize, assess whether or not you can 

safely upright it. If so, upright the craft and bail all water 

out of it before reentering the craft.

 If a vessel is unable to be righted, for non-motorized 

vessels including rowboats, canoes, and kayaks, drag the 

vessel to the shore if you can and upright it there. This is 

not advisable with motorized craft, generally due to their 

size and weight and the additional danger and effort of 

recovering a beached craft. For motorized vessels, it is 

advised to remain with the vessel and signal for help 

(flare, whistle, cell phone, radio if operable). 

OFFICE WORK Computer Use Fatigue  Take appropriate breaks.

 Perform other job duties.

 Trade appropriate and assigned duties with coworker.

 Apply work/rest ratio guidelines.

Computer Use Eye Strain  Take appropriate breaks.

 Perform other job duties for a time.

 Use a non-glare screen or an anti-glare device on 

screens.

 Trade appropriate and assigned duties with coworker.

 Individuals requiring prescription eye wear should ensure 

proper focal distance is achieved without having to tilt the 

head.

 Adjust screen refresh rate as needed to eliminate screen 

flicker.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome  Take appropriate breaks.

 Use wrist exercises.

 Stretch hands.

 Ensure proper keyboard position.

 Adjust chair height so that forearms are parallel to the 

work surface.

Physical Stress  Take appropriate breaks.

 Ensure proper keyboard, chair, and computer monitor 

positions. 
Table C-5. Continued.

108

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

OFFICE WORK

(cont.)

Electrical Cords and

Electrical Hazards

 Do not overload outlets.

 Use surge protection for computer equipment.

 Keep cords organized and out of walkways.

 Never use personal space heaters in government 

buildings unless approved by facility maintenance 

supervisor.

Indoor Supplies and

Activities

 Keep area clean and organized.

 Use step ladder for out-of-reach supplies. NEVER use a 

chair as a step ladder.

 Use proper containers and storage for supplies.

 Follow MSDS rules and recommendations if applicable. If 

using volatile chemicals (including paints), supply 

appropriate ventilation or conduct activities outdoors. For 

all stored chemicals, keep a Materials Data Safety Sheet 

nearby (includes volatile glues, insect repellants, and 

cleaners).

 Walk in the office, do not run.

 Watch out for tripping hazards. Follow good housekeeping 

practices, including closing drawers, properly disposing of 

waste, and properly storage of materials and equipment 

not in use.

 Report maintenance issues that pose a fall/trip hazard to 

maintenance staff immediately (ex. Wet floor from leaky 

toilet, torn carpet, etc.).

Inadequate Lighting and 

Poor Air Circulation

 Take appropriate breaks.

 Alternate indoor and outdoor activities.

 Adjust thermostat and open windows as needed.

 Turn lights on or off.

Lacerations and Punctures  Do not use paper cutters if the guard is removed or blade 

is dull.

 Keep fingers and hands away from point of operation.



Qualified Personnel Untrained/Unqualified 

Personnel

 Personnel will have the correct qualifications for the job 

assigned.

 Trainees will work under the supervision of an 

appropriately qualified individual.

 Trainees will be trained locally or attend appropriate safety 

courses.

 Non-DOI or other government agency personnel (interns 

and contractors working for SECN or a park are 

considered government agency personnel) will never 

accompany SECN staff during work operations UNLESS 

specifically approved by the SECN Coordinator or a Park 

Superintendent.

Contact with visitors, 

adjacent landowners, and 

concessioners

Aggressive or 

Inappropriate Behavior

 Act professionally (do not yell or antagonize) but ALWAYS 

protect yourself.

 Do not confront an angry landowner/visitor when alone.

 Leave quickly if the situation is unsafe.

 Call 911 if situation is or becomes dangerous.

 If the opportunity exists, listen to grievances, use a calm 

voice.

 Immediately report incident to supervisor.

General Worker Safety and Emergency and Hazard  Know where fire or emergency alarm pull stations are 
Table C-5. Continued.

109

TASK/PROCEDURES HAZARDS ABATEMENT ACTION

Reporting Reporting located in the building. Know the emergency evacuation 

routes for the building and the rally point once outside.

Perform periodic work place assessments for potential 

hazards.

 Know your building Maintenance Supervisor and report 

hazards to them for correction.

 Know procedures for reporting work related injuries. All 

SECN employees are required to read and understand the 

document “On-Duty Injury and Illnesses Standard 

Operating Procedure.”

 Keep a copy of the SECN Emergency Status Reporting 

Card with you at all times. Follow instructions on back of 

card in the event of natural or other disaster situations.
110

Table C-6. Training and proficiencies required or recommended for the safe implementation of the SECN 

Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation Community Monitoring Protocol.

Required Training and Proficiencies

First Aid and CPR training for field workers (terrestrial ecology, coastal ecology, and water quality positions; renewed 

annually [American Red Cross training] or biannually [American Heart Association training]).

USDI Motorboat Operators Safety Training for positions that require operation of a motorized vessel.

Read and understand the “SECN Boat Operation SOP” for positions that require operation or riding in a motorized 

vessel and complete a short written exam.

All employees riding or operating a motorized or non-motorized vessel will undergo a safety briefing by a certified 

operator or the SECN Safety Officer.

Read and understand the document “Towing a Trailer: Being Equipped for Safety” for all positions requiring towing of 

a trailer and complete a short written exam.

All field staff must read and understand the document “On-Duty Injury and Illnesses SOP” and complete a short 

written exam.

All SECN staff who will be implementing coastal water quality Vital Signs Monitoring protocols must complete a 

defensive driving course.

All employees required to operate a government vehicle must read and understand the document “Government Motor 

Vehicle Accident SOP” and complete a short written exam.

Optional / Recommended Training and Proficiencies (DOI LEARN Online Courses) 

Cool Ideas on a Hot Topic 

Authorities, Roles, and Responsibilities 

Blood borne Pathogens 

Fall Protection 

Fire Protection 

Office Safety 

Flammable and Combustible Liquids 

Hand and Portable Powered Tools 

Walking and Working Surfaces 

Resources, References, and Standards 

Personal Safety Through Awareness 

Laboratory Safety 

Hazard Communication 

First Responder Awareness Level 

NSC Defensive Driving II 

Personal Protective Equipment 

Stress Management
111

Step 5: Evaluate Risk vs. Gain

The SECN Program Manager has determined that the activity has an acceptable level of risk, if 

carried out in accordance with all SOPs and risk abatement measures as outlined in Step 4.

Step 6: Execute Decision

The decision made by the SECN Program Manager is to conduct the activity in accordance with the 

SOPs and risk abatement measures for the SECN Coastal Salt Marsh Elevation and Vegetation 

Community Monitoring Protocol as outlined in Step 4.

Step 7: Supervise – Watch for Change

The SECN Program Manager and Protocol Lead will continually solicit feedback from the NPS and 

cooperator staff on safe execution of this protocol including risk control options not considered thus 

far.

113

Appendix D. Notes on Site and Boat Access to Sampling 

Locations

Cape Hatteras National Seashore

Oregon Inlet Marina

Sites 11, 7, 8. The ramp is located at the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center off Hwy 12 behind the fishing 

center. Parking is available for approximately 75 vehicles and trailers. The ramp is free.

Avon Boat Ramp

Site 29. From Hwy 12 heading south, turn right on Harbor Road in Avon, NC. The ramp goes 

through shallow water, so it is important to know the waters or be careful. The ramp may have a 

launch fee.

Teach’s Lair

Sites 63, 1, 3, 10, 19. These sites can be reached by ferry or by driving via Hwy 12. Hatteras Village 

is 56 miles south of the mainland (1 1/2 hours) on Hwy 12 from Nags Head, NC. The ramp has a 

launch fee. Some of these sites are easier reached from the Ocracoke Boat ramp, but that would 

require taking a ferry across Hatteras Inlet with the boat on a trailer and launching in Ocracoke.

Cape Lookout National Seashore

This park has one site that will be reached from the mainland. To get to the sampling location take 

the ferry from 1000 Morris Marina Rd., Atlantic, NC 28511 to Long Point. From Long point, drive 

north approximately 12.4 kilometers. There will be a small dirt road that takes you closer to the 

coordinates (Lat: 34.9794, Lon: -76.1631)

Fort Pulaski National Monument

Lazaretto Creek Boat Ramp

Site 2 and 3. Take Exit 99 east on I-16 for 7.8 miles to Exit 35(165). Take 37th St. Connector Exit for 

0.6 miles to 37th Street. Turn left (west) on GA HWY 204 for 0.8 miles to Abercorn Street. Turn

right and continue west HWY 204 for 0.3 miles to U.S. HWY 80. Turn left (east) 13.6 miles to the 

Lazaretto Creek Boat Ramp. (One double-lane ramp). This ramp is free.

Fort Frederica National Memorial

Mackay River Boat Ramp

Site 16. Take Exit 38 south on Spur 25 (North Golden Isles Expressway) 4.3 miles to U.S. HWY 17. 

Turn right 1.7 miles to the Torras Causeway leading to St. Simons Island. Turn left (east) 3.7 miles 

and drive across the MacKay River Bridge. Boat ramp entrance located approximately 0.3 miles past 

the MacKay River Bridge on right side of Causeway. Turn right (U-turn) onto side road and drive 

back toward bridge. (One double-lane ramp). Ramp is free.
114

Cumberland Island National Seashore

Saint Marys Boat Ramp

Sites 4, 49. Take Exit 3 east on GA HWY 40 for 9.3 miles to St. Marys Street. Turn right 0.1 miles to 

boat ramp located on left. (Two single-lane ramps). Ramp is free.

Crooked River Park Ramp

Sites 25, 27, 9. Take Exit 3 east on GA HWY 40 for 3.6 miles to King's Bay Road. Turn left 2.1 

miles to GA Spur 40. Turn left 4.2 miles to boat ramp located at end of GA Spur 40. (One two-lane 

ramp w/service dock). Ramp is free.

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve

Sisters Creek Park

Site 78. ICW at 8203 Heckscher Dr. (Bridge); recently improved double-wide ramp; adequate 

parking and new floating concrete docks; restrooms, paved parking lot, cannot be used much of July 

because of use of site by Greater Jacksonville Kingfish Tournament. Ramp is free.

Joe Carlucci Boat Ramp

Alternate Ramp for Sites 78. ICW, McKenna Dr. off Heckscher Dr. on north bank of St. Johns River 

at juncture with ICW; new, double-wide, rippled-surface ramp; picnic area, restrooms. Also 

unavailable for much of July due to the Greater Jacksonville Kingfish Tournament. Ramp is free.

Palms Fish Camp Public Boat Ramp

Sites 27, 02. 6359 Heckscher Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32226 (at Clapboard Creek). Boat ramp, decent 

amount of parking, easy St Johns River access via Clapboard Creek, Port-O-Let. Ramp is free.

Goffinsville-Nassau River State Park

Site 54. 95001 Goffinsville Road, Fernandina Beach, FL 32034. 30 parking spots for vehicles with 

trailers. The park includes now includes the boat ramp, a hand launch area for small boats, a fishing 

pier, another 118' dock, a nice playground, 6 covered picnic pavilions, each with one table, 3 of the 

small pavilions have grills also, and a handicap accessible trail (about 3/4 of a mile long). Currents at 

this ramp can get extreme at certain tide changes, care should be taken when launching during these 

times. Ramp is free.

Wilson Neck Ramp

Sites 20, 65. 85006 Faye Rd., Yulee, FL 32097 Wilson Neck / Whiskey Creek offers a boat ramp, 

loading and unloading dock, shoreline fishing, and 15 boat trailer parking spots. There are no 

restrooms at this location. Ramp is free.

Fort Matanzas National Monument/Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERR

Palm Valley Boat Ramp

Site 40. 383 S Roscoe Blvd., St. Augustine, FL 32082. Roscoe Road under the Palm Valley Bridge. 

Boat Ramp Single Access, Dock with Floating Dock, Portable Restrooms, Parking Lot
115

Usina Boat Ramp

Site. 00. 603 Euclid Ave., St. Augustine, FL 32084 (Vilano/North Beach). Boat Ramp Double 

Access, Dock with Floating Dock, Fishing Pier, Observation Platform, Restrooms, Parking Lot.

Frank Butler West Boat Ramp

Sites 06, 22. 400 Riverside Blvd, St. Augustine, FL 32080. 1 Boat Ramp, Double Access, Dock with 

Floating Dock, Picnic Shelters, Tables, Parking Lot, Barbeque Pit, Barbeque Grills, Clam Bake Pit, 

Trail network, Observation Area, Restrooms. At extreme low tides, the ramp is too shallow to use for 

most boats. The ramp is free.

Pellicer Creek at Faver-Dykes

Site 46. Faver-Dykes State Park is located off U.S. 1 near the St. Johns and Flagler county line. The 

boat ramp gives boaters and kayakers access to the creek and the tidal marshes that extend east to the 

Matanzas River. You will also find camping and picnic areas here. Access is limited to Faver-Dykes 

Park hours; the park is gated. The ramp has restroom facilities and is free.

Bings Landing Boat Ramp

Site 01. 5862 N. Oceanshore Blvd. Palm Coast, FL. The eight-acre park is located on A1A. The park

houses a state-of-the-art boat launch on the Intracoastal Waterway, fishing pier, picnic and

playground facilities, and an archaeological dig of the Mala Compra Plantation. The ramp is free.

Canaveral National Seashore

Canaveral National Seashore Boat Ramp

Site 2. New Smyrna, FL on Atlantic Avenue. Once you go through the northern gates the boat ramp is 

less than 2/10ths of a mile down on the right.There are two docks with a paved ramp. Small to medium 

length boats work best. Restroom Facilities available. Parks hours are from 6 AM to 8 PM, but the ramp 

is outside the gate that is locked after hours.

117

Appendix E. Site Suitability Assessment Reports

Southeast Coast Network staff, in consultation with NPS, NOAA, and USFWS staff evaluated 

potential salt marsh community sites within each park study area (Table E-1). Sites were evaluated 

for their ability to support a salt marsh community monitoring site as well as whether they met siteselection criteria as per the sampling design.

An initial draw of 70 spatially-balanced randomly-selected sampling locations were chosen for each 

site following site-selection methods described in SOP 1.1.7 (Byrne and Blankley 2013). Two levels 

of selection criteria were applied to all sampling locations: 1) those applied in a GIS where relevant 

data layers were available, accurate, and reliable, and 2) those applied in the field. Field evaluation is 

necessary because the resolution in available GIS data is too imprecise for a determination of the 

sample-ability or applicability of any given sampling location.

Characteristics Evaluated in a GIS

Sampling locations are excluded from the sampling draw if:

 The site is greater than 20,000 yards (10 nautical miles) from a boat launching facility; 

however, this distance may be reduced or increased based on boat used, normal water 

conditions and accessibility.

 The site is not accessible by open water.

 The sampling location occurs on private in-holdings where access is not permitted.

Characteristics Evaluated in the Field

Sampling locations are also excluded in the field if upon inspection:

 Sites are not regularly inundated by tidal water, defined as at least one inundation event 

during any 24-hour period.

 Sites are visible from normal public view within park lands.

 Sites are not vegetated with typical salt marsh species (e.g., Juncus roemerianus, Spartina 

alterniflora).

 Sites are not accessible by boat at low tide. The boat should be able to bow into shore, and 

contact a 30-foot platform established as part of site preparation. Low tide is defined as two 

hours either side of mean low water.

 The sampling location is potentially unsafe.

 The GIS used as part of the initial evaluation were of inappropriate resolution or incorrect.
118

Field crews visited designated sites by boat and, at the accessible sites, did a baseline survey. This 

included taking a vegetation vertical photo point, a panorama photo, and collecting GPS data with a 

Trimble GeoXH (better than 1m accuracy). Crews installed labeled PVC pipes at the suitable sites. 

All sites deemed inappropriate (i.e., do not meet the aforementioned criteria) were recorded as such 

and this information, and the corresponding location, will be maintained for inclusion as existing 

points into potential future iterations of the spatially-balanced sample generation process if additional 

sampling locations are necessary.

Appendix E summarizes the findings from site suitability assessment trips conducted in 2010 and 

2011 prior to installation of permanent sampling locations. Full trip reports with photodocumentation 

are on file with the Southeast Coast Network.
119

Table E-1. Site suitability assessments conducted at each park to select permanent sampling locations

for SECN Coastal Wetland Elevation and Condition monitoring.

Park SECN Staff

Park / 

Partner 

Staff Dates

# Sites 

Evaluated # Suitable sites

Installed by 

9/30/2013

Planned 

FY 2014

CAHA Jennifer Asper Sara 

Strickland 

Laura 

Pickens 

Damien 

Hardgrove

March–April 

2011

470 17 1 0

CALO Jennifer Asper Michael 

Rikard

March–April 

2011

FOPU Jennifer Asper March 2011 70 2 1 0

FOFR Jennifer Asper Paula 

Messing

January 

2011

70 2 1 0

CUIS Jennifer Asper Multiple October–

November 

2010

70 10 1

TIMU Jennifer Asper November 

2010 –

January 

2011

170 11 6 0

FOMA Jennifer Asper

Tony Curtis

NPS

Kurt Foote,

GTMNERR

Matt Kimball

Katie 

Petrinec, 

Scott 

Eastmann

Jamie 

Pawele

Matt Welsh

Wendy Eash

March–April 

2011

70 8 6 0

CANA Jennifer Asper NPS

John Stiner,

Cameron 

Welch, Kate 

Hargrove

USFWS

Phil 

Amoroso

September 

2011

70 29* 1 0

*water levels at the time of the assessment were exceptionally high, and may have allowed access to 

sites that are not normally reachable.
120

Cape Hatteras National Seashore

The tide gauges used for trip planning were Oregon Inlet Marina, Rodanthe, Cape Hatteras, and 

Ocracoke. The sites were visited between two hours before and two hours after low tide. The 

locations of the all the sites can be seen in Figure E-1. All sites are within 10NM as the crow flies of 

a boat ramp, but further via waterways.
121

Figure E-1. Map of sites assessed at Cape Hatteras National Seashore considered on the April 

assessment trip (August points not pictured due to density in their watershed)
122

On 10 April 2011 Sara Strickland and Jenny Asper launched from Oregon Inlet Marina. On the way 

out the channel, they turned too soon and found themselves in the middle of a large sand bar unable 

to move. After eventually freeing themselves, they tried to visit sites CAHA45, CAHA 54, CAHA37, 

CAHA56, and CAHA64. All of these sites, however, were too shallow to access.

On 13 April 2011, Jenny Asper and Laura Pickens set out from the Oregon Inlet Marina and after a 

few frustrating wrong turns, found their way to CAHA24. This site was a suitable salt marsh 

community site, though it was impossible to drive the PVC into the marsh. The site was located just 

south of Oregon Inlet. They also tried to visit CAHA31, CAHA55, CAHA38, and CAHA60, but all 

of them were too shallow to access. Wind started picking up by the end of the day, but despite the 

building seas, the pair arrived safely back at the marina.

On 14 April 2011, Jenny Asper and Sara Strickland launched at Teach’s Lair Marina in Hatteras, NC.

The first site they visited was CAHA63. The site was accessible and suitable for a salt marsh 

community site, but the wind that day was about 15 mph from the north, which meant that water was 

being pushed into the area more than normal and water levels might be lower with different winds. 

This site also did not allow for the installation of PVC. Next they went to site CAHA28, but the site 

was only a sand beach, no salt marsh. CAHA32 was next and was a suitable salt marsh community 

site. The site had Spartina alterniflora, which indicates regular flooding, but it had other species that 

were less tolerant of flooding. The PVC at this site was not driven in as deeply as desired and was 

exposed for 2.06 meters above the ground. The last site for the day was site CAHA 27, which was 

suitable with Spartina alterniflora and other less flood tolerant species such as Borrichia frutescens. 

The PVC at this site sticks out 2.42 meters above the surface.

On 15 April 2011, Sara Strickland and Jenny Asper again launched at Teach’s Lair Marina in 

Hatteras. They first went to Site CAHA53, which was inside the pony enclosure and also inaccessible 

due to shallow water. Next they visited site CALO25, which was also too shallow to access. Site 

CAHA44 was accessible and suitable for a salt marsh community site. The site had very little 

Spartina alterniflora and even had Distichlis spicata, which indicates that the majority of the area 

was not regularly flooded. The site was not able to accommodate a PVC marker. The last site of the 

day was CAHA20, which was also a suitable salt marsh community site. It did not have any Spartina 

alterniflora, which may indicate that it is not regularly flooded, but the soil seemed to regularly 

flood. The site had no PVC installed due to the density of the ground.

On the 17th of April 2011, Sara Strickland and Jenny Asper launched at Oregon Inlet Marina. The 

first sites they endeavored to visit were CAHA23 and CAHA21. The sites, however, were too 

shallow to access. CAHA57 was the next site of the day. The site was regularly flooded, but had 

plants that do not tolerate flooding well, such as Borrichia frutescens. They were not able to drive the 

PVC to depth, so it remained 2.23 meters above the surface. Last, they went to CAHA29, which was 

a suitable site that is regularly flooded. They were not able to install PVC and the pictures were not 

perfect due to a building wind that made even holding the boat against the shore difficult. They ruled 

out CAHA43 after looking at the imagery and seeing no viable shoreline within the buffer.
123

On 18 April 2011, Jenny Asper and Damien Hardgrove launched from Teach’s Lair Marina in 

Hatteras. They traveled a good distance southwest to the area around Ocracoke. First they went to 

site CAHA62, which was inaccessible due to shallow water. Next were sites CAHA 40, CAHA18, 

and CAHA 66, which were also too shallow to access.

In August, Jenny Asper returned to Cape Hatteras to find suitable sites in the remaining watershed 

and to revisit the sites that were assessed by Tony and Jenny the year before in a smaller boat. It was 

decided, however, in the interest of time, only a site assessment would be conducted and not a 

baseline survey.

On August 21, 2011 Jenny Asper and Sara Strickland launched at Oregon Inlet. They traveled north 

to CAHA 11, which was previously assessed by Tony Curtis and Jenny. They then traveled north to 

CAHA 36 and CAHA 10, both already assessed. The sites were all accessible and suitable.

On August 22 Jenny and Sara launched again at Oregon Inlet. They visited sites CAHAT07, 

CAHA13, and CAHA08. All of the sites had been previously assessed by Jenny and Tony. This 

visited confirmed that they were accessible and suitable. On the way back, the engine had cooling 

problems and could not run for more than 30 seconds at a time without the overheat buzzer warning.

The two decided to be safe rather than crossing the dangerous Oregon Inlet without a reliable motor.

The coast guard towed them back to the Oregon Inlet Marina and the next day was spent on boat 

repairs. The problem was with the thermostats getting clogged with sea grass. When cleaned out 

periodically, the motor operated properly after this incident.

August 24 was the last day that Jenny could go out due to the approach of Hurricane Irene. She and 

Darren Bouldin went only to the lowest numbered site in the remaining watersheds and were 

fortunate enough to find them suitable. CAHA2_19 (the “2” is necessary because this was a separate 

site selection), CAHA2_01, and CAHA2_10 were all suitable and were the only sites visited by the 

pair. Jenny evacuated the Outer Banks the next day.

The protocol calls for sites in each of the HUC12 zones in Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The 

sites that were chosen took into account their location in relation to the HUC zones. Each of the 

suitable sites will be described in the following section in numerical order. The lowest numbered 

sites in each of the areas of interest were chosen as the final sites. The sites that proved suitable for 

use are shown in Figure E-2.
124

Figure E-2. Map of suitable sites at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The sites indicated by a pink dot 

were evaluated on the first trip in a different boat and were re-evaluated before use as a final site on the 

third trip, which has new points indicated by yellow dots. The purple dots were from the second trip.
125

The protocol states that the chosen site must be the lowest numbered site. Based on this criterion, the 

HUC12 zones around Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the sites that should be used are sites 29 and 

63 from the first trip, sites 03, 07, 08, and 11 from the second trip and sites 1, 10, and 19 from the 

third trip. The coordinates for all of the chosen sites from the assessments, can be seen in Table E-2.

The sites assessed on a previous trip can be seen in Table E-3. The sites from the third trip are seen in 

Table E-4.

Table E-2. Coordinates for sites selected for sampling at Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

Site Northing Easting

29 3922042.647 455589.987

63 3897989.525 440314.107

Table E-3. Coordinates for additional sites found suitable in the first trip to Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore.

Site Northing Easting

03 3893661.269 428176.088

07 3957159.458 452641.983

08 3952421.842 453985.486

11 3962462.759 450167.109

Table E-4. Coordinates for additional sites found on the third trip to Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

Site Northing Easting

1 3895520 433800

10 3886390 412304

19 3883140 409405

Cape Lookout National Seashore

On 26 April 2011 Jenny Asper and Michael Rikard launched at the Fish and Wildlife boat ramp on 

Lola Road. They tried to visit CALO66, CALO50, CALO68, CALO53, CALO46, and CALO69, but 

all of the sites were significantly too shallow to access. They were not able to get the boat closer than 

an estimated quarter mile. Before the tide period was over, the weather deteriorated into a dangerous 

lightning storm right as the pair made it back to the dock. Based on experience and aerial imagery 

CALO37 and CALO32 were ruled out that evening.

On 29 April 2011 Jenny Asper and Michael Rikard launched from the Salters Creek boat ramp on 

NC Route 70. They attempted to access CALO45, CALO28, CALO64, and CALO31, and got closer 

to the sites, but still not close enough. The sites were all too shallow to access. They were en route to 

assess other sites when they began to have motor problems and had to start back toward the ramp.

Eventually they requested assistance from another NPS boat and were towed back in.
126

The trip was cut short so that boat repairs could be completed. The water pump impeller on the 

motor’s lower unit had been chewed up by sand intake. Jenny Asper brought it back to Athens to 

have this repaired and have Beavertail float pods installed to assist with floatation and hopefully 

allow shallower water access.

Fort Pulaski National Monument

The tide gauge used for trip planning was Savannah River entrance, Georgia. The sites were visited 

within a time period between two hours before and two hours after low tide. The locations of the all 

the sites can be seen in Figure E-3. All of the sites are within 10 NM as the crow flies of a boat ramp, 

though they are further via waterways.

On March 2, 2011, Jenny Asper and Rachel McManamay launched from the boat ramp located on 

Route 80 on Lazaretto Creek. They started with the site 3, located on the Intracoastal Waterway.

Other than the fact that it is visible to all of the boats that traverse the Intracoastal Waterway, the site 

was a suitable site. They then went east and made their way to site 2. This site was also accessible 

and suitable for a site. The next two sites, 4 and 0, were inaccessible due to the shallowness of the 

creeks leading up to them. Site 6 was inaccessible due to a shallow sloping mud flat. Site 10 was also 

inaccessible because of the shallowness of creeks.
127

Figure E-3. Map of sites assessed at Fort Pulaski National Monument.

The protocol states that the chosen sites must be the lowest numbered suitable sites. The sites were 

chosen based on this criterion and based on the two HUC12 zones around the park. Since only two 

sites were accessible, both were in different HUC12 zones, both sites will be utilized. Therefore, the 

final sites for FOPU are sites 02 and 03, which can be seen on the map in Figure E-4.
128

Figure E-4. Map of suitable sites at Fort Pulaski National Monument.
129

Fort Frederica National Monument

The tide gauge used for trip planning was Dillard Creek, Turtle River, GA. The sites were visited 

within a time period between two hours before and two hours after low tide. The locations of the all 

the sites can be seen in Figure E-5. All sites are within 10 NM as the crow flies, though they are 

further as the boat drives.

On January 4, 2011, Jenny Asper and CUIS SCA intern Paula Messing launched from Lanier Island, 

GA ramp on the Frederica River. They went north and started with site 16, the site farthest north.

This site was suitable for an installation, as was Site FOFR01, the next site they visited. While 

remaining in the Frederica River, the team visited and ruled out sites 10, 19, 5, and 13. All were 

inaccessible due to mud flats. On a nearby tributary of Jove Creek, the team attempted to visit sites 

17, 9, 18, and 8, but the channels were too narrow or too shallow to go through. Interestingly, the 

channels were very deep, even though they were quite narrow. Also, two raccoons and countless 

raccoon tracks were observed, indicating the presence of high marsh nearby.
130

Figure E-5. Map of sites assessed (top) and suitable sites (bottom) at Fort Frederica National Monument.
131

Sites were chosen based on this criterion and the fact that there is only one HUC12 zone around the 

park. Because only two sites were accessible and one was within view of the park, site16 will be used 

for the salt marsh community site installation. The coordinates for all of the suitable sites, including 

the chosen sites, can be seen in Table E-5.

Table E-5. Coordinates of suitable sites at Fort Frederica National Monument.

Site Northing Easting

16 3454781.55059 461941.66444

1 3454461.58438 461961.40003

Cumberland Island National Seashore

The tide gauge used for trip planning was Saint Marys River Entrance. The sites were visited within 

a time period between two hours before and two hours after low tide. The locations of the all the sites 

can be seen in Figure E-6. All sites are within 10 NM as the crow flies, though they are further via 

waterways.

On October 14, Jenny Asper and Marylou Moore (Wildlife SCA Intern) launched at the Saint Marys 

Ramp and visited the sites at the south end of the island. Sites 12 and 65 were in Beach Creek. Both 

sites were deemed inaccessible due to mud flats or to marsh mud elevation being significantly higher 

than the boat. Site 4, also in Beach Creek, was accessible and met all of the requirements, but it 

might be difficult to fit three platforms within the buffer. Site 49, located on a channel off of the 

Cumberland River, was accessible and would make a good site and could adequately support three 

platforms. Site 61 was a usable site on Old House Creek, however, a dock was located within view of 

the site. Jenny later discovered that the dock belongs to the National Park Service and therefore 

would cause no problems. The last site of the day was site 10, which could not be viewed because of 

the shallowness of the channels to the site.

On October 18, Jenny and Marylou launched at Crooked River. Site 47, located on a tributary of 

Brickhill River, was too shallow to access; so much so that shrimp were jumping into the boat. Site 

20, also off of Brickhill River, was also too shallow to access. Site 25 and 52 were both off of 

Brickhill River, but were accessible and usable as salt marsh community sites, though, site 52 might 

prove challenging at extreme low tides.

October 20, yielded only one feasible site. SCA Wildlife intern Casey Harris and Jenny launched 

from Crooked River and found that sites 54 and 2 on Brickhill River and sites 6 and 35 on Mumford 

Creek and its tributary were all inaccessible due to mud flats, sandbars, and oyster beds. Site 64, 

however, was accessible, though it may be a bit more difficult at extreme lows. The site was also 

capable of supporting three platforms.
132

Figure E-6. Map of sites assessed in Cumberland Island National Seashore.
133

Figure E-7. Map of suitable sites at Cumberland Island National Seashore. HUC12 boundaries indicate 

areas taken into consideration when choosing the final sites.
134

October 21 had two suitable sites. Casey and Jenny launched again at Crooked River and visited sites 

in Mud Creek. Sites 57, 7, 8, and 39 were all in areas that were too shallow to access. Site 42 was 

along Mud Creek, which is a larger creek in CUIS and might be a bit public, but it was accessible 

and able to support the three platforms. Site 27 was accessible and able to support the platforms.

Both sides of the stream were within the buffer, giving plenty of options for platform locations.

November 1 was the last day of site assessments for CUIS. Marylou and Jenny went to Brickhill 

River and its tributaries. Sites 18 and 37, off Malkintooh Creek were both too shallow to access. Site 

22 off Brickhill Creek and site 24 on Hawkins Creek were in areas which were too shallow. Site 28, 

right at the entrance to Hawkins Creek was right on the edge of a large mud flat and was high marsh.

Site 50 was inaccessible on one side of the creek due to shallow water and mud flats and high marsh 

on the other side. Since the waters were calm, Marylou and Jenny attempted entrance into Christmas 

Creek. The conditions that day allowed for safe access to the Creek, but safety would be a concern in 

any worse conditions. Site 9, however, was evaluated and was determined to be a suitable site, 

capable of supporting the three platforms. The site was located just off Brockington Creek, one of the 

tributaries of Christmas Creek.

The protocol states that the chosen site must be the lowest numbered site. Based on this criterion, the 

HUC12 zones around Cumberland Island, the rivers affecting the island, and the Kings Bay Navy 

Base, the sites that should be used are sites 4, 49, 25, 27, and, if possible 9 (Figure E-7). If a method 

for access cannot be found for site 9, another site must be found for that HUC12 zone, as no other 

sites in this round of site assessments were usable that were not also in Christmas Creek. The 

coordinates for all of the suitable sites, including the chosen sites, can be seen in Table E-6.

Table E-6. Coordinates of suitable sites at Cumberland Island National Seashore.

Site Northing Easting

27 3417641.53023 454035.49949

42 3418437.28194 455171.70762

9 3421669.64373 459584.43262

64 3415467.27534 453216.25767

25 3414754.81954 453941.93306

52 3414624.94151 454555.35795

4 3400940.08794 455145.11871

4 3400939.77831 455145.90871

49 3405997.39786 454848.14359

61 3407315.94130 454926.39582

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve

Tide gauges used for trip planning included Nassau River entrance, Clapboard Creek, and Edward 

Creek. The sites were visited within a time period between two hours before and two hours after low 

tide. The locations of the all the sites can be seen in Figure E-8. All sites are within 10NM as the 

crow flies of a boat ramp, though they may be a bit further via waterways.
135

Jenny Asper and Wildlife SCA Intern Casey Harris set out from Wilson Neck Ramp on November 2, 

2010. They visited sites in the far northwest section of the park. All three sites that they visited, sites 

20, 52, and 65 were suitable for installation. The sites met all the salt marsh community site 

requirements and a vegetation plot was installed. Sites 20 and 52 were both located right on the 

Nassau River, while site 65 was located in Seaton Creek.

On November 3, 2010, Jenny and Cumberland Island SCA Intern Victoria Jumper visited sites in the 

northern section of the park. They launched from Holly Point Park, though it was later discovered 

that Goffinsville-Nassau River Park is a better ramp. They visited site 61, on Pumpkin Hill Creek, 

but it was too shallow to access, even at 2 hours before low. Next they installed a vegetation plot at 

site 66, which initially appeared to meet all of the criteria and was also on the edge of Pumpkin Hill 

Creek. The GPS was mistakenly set to collect line data rather than point data, so it was necessary to 

revisit the site later. Upon revisit, the site proved to be too shallow and, therefore, inaccessible at 

absolute low. Site 54 was the last site visited, on a tributary of Pumpkin Hill Creek. This site met all 

of the requirements for a salt marsh community site and a vegetation plot was installed.

Figure E-8. Map of sites in Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve to which assessment visits were 

attempted.
136

November 15 brought Jenny and Wildlife SCA Intern Marylou Moore to the southwest portion of the 

park, where they launched at Clapboard Creek Ramp. Sites 29 and 48 both proved too shallow and 

had too many oyster beds for accessibility. Site 68 is on Clapboard Creek and was suitable for a 

vegetation plot, though it got a bit shallow at extreme low. Site 27 was also a suitable site on 

Clapboard Creek, which met all of the criteria, and a vegetation plot was installed.

The only site that met the criteria for salt marsh community sites on November 29, 2010 was site 35.

Jenny and Marylou launched from Wilson Neck Ramp to visit sites in the north of the park. The 

buffer, in this case, extended to both sides of Deese Creek, which is off of the Nassau River in the 

northwest section of the park. Sites 12, 53, and 63 were all too shallow to access.

On November 30, Jenny and Casey launched from Big Talbot Island State Park ramp. Sites 39, 25, 

and 10 were too shallow to access. Site 40 was located on a wide tributary off the Intracoastal 

Waterway. It was suitable for a site installation, though the wind that day made it necessary to use 

notable throttle to stay perpendicular to the shore.

December 2 yielded no suitable sites for salt marsh community sites or vegetation plots. Jenny and 

Marylou Moore launched from the Sister’s Creek Ramp and traveled up the Intracoastal Waterway 

and adjacent tributaries. Sites that were attempted included 69, 7, 51, 55, 30, 34 and 41. All six sites 

were too shallow. Many were never even viewed from a distance.

December 16th was no more successful than the 2nd. Jenny and Rachel McManamay, the Remote 

Sensing Specialist for SECN, launched from Sisters Creek and visited sites off of the St. Johns River.

Sites 62 and 13 were not accessible because a pier extended entirely across the stream that was 

thought to be the access point. Site 24 was very public with multiple houses in clear view of the site.

The site was also predominately high marsh species such as Borrichia frutescens and 

Salicornia/Sarcocornia spp. Site 57 was located near the Navy Base and was predominately upland 

species such as Quercus virginiana and Sabal palmetto. Site 23 was just too shallow to access.

January 18, 2011 was the first day of the second set of points for HUC 030702050304. Jenny Asper 

and Casey Harris set out from Big Talbot Island Boat Ramp and first visited sites 146 and 45. Site 

146 was not accessible due to mud flats extending out from the shore, even at 2 hours before low 

tide. Site 45 had mud flats which made it unreachable, but also was located in a very public location 

on the Intracoastal Waterway with houses in sight. Heading south, the pair attempted to access site 

90, but met with shallow waters and oyster beds. Site 130 not only got the two stuck for a little while, 

but also would not allow them to install a PVC pipe. The PVC would go in about 4 feet and then hit a 

rock-solid layer of what was presumed to be oysters. As the water rose, they floated off the mud and 

the pair went to site 78, which was suitable; so, they installed a vegetation plot. Site 142 was too 

shallow to access at an hour and a half past low. Site 160 was accessible, but very public. The crew 

had difficulty driving the PVC due to soil density.
137

Figure E-9. Map of sites deemed viable in Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve. HUC12 

boundaries indicate areas taken into consideration when choosing the final sites.
138

Based on the selection process, each of the above sites must be considered in numeric order based on 

sound reasoning before advancing to the next site. Based on this criterion, and the HUC12 zones, the 

preferred sites are sites 65, 20, 54, 2 (already installed), 27, and 78 (Figure E-9). The coordinates for 

all of the suitable sites, including the chosen sites, can be seen in Table E-7.

Table E-7. Coordinates of suitable sites at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve.

Site Northing Easting

40 3367102.93993 454404.34417

35 3378927.72358 443315.99851

66 3374625.83872 452863.80991

68 3366134.88893 452939.86942

27 3366930.74404 451915.63300

54 3378149.63391 450784.00451

65 3379714.43637 436983.62014

52 3381943.44100 437001.61848

20 3383777.19514 441941.61360

2 3365216.15011 453888.00563

78 3367094.40073 456937.93106

Fort Matanzas National Monument and Guana Tolomato Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve

The tide gauges used for trip planning were St. Augustine City Dock, Bings Landing, Vilano BeachICWW, and Palm Valley-ICWW. The sites were visited within a time period between two hours 

before and two hours after low tide. The locations of the all the sites can be seen in Figure E-10. All 

sites are within 10 NM as the crow flies of a boat ramp, though they are further via waterways.

On 11 March 28, Jenny Asper, Coastal Technician, and Tony Curtis, Coastal Ecologist for the 

Southeast Coast Network launched at the Frank Butler West boat ramp and headed north. The first 

site was site FOMA22, which was accessible low marsh. There were a few individual Avicennia 

germinans plants in the buffer, which means the site can be used for a transitional mangrove site. It 

met all of the requirements of a salt marsh community site. The next site visited was site FOMA06, 

which was difficult to navigate to, given the shallow areas leading to the Moses Creek entrance.

Once into the creek, however, the site met the criteria. There was also a dock located on the Moses 

Creek, owned by the St. John River Water Management District, which could be used for staging 

materials during platform installation. The next site visited was site FOMA62, also located on Moses 

Creek. The site was near Murat Point public use area, also owned by Saint Johns River Water 

Management District. The site was high marsh, which both made driving PVC difficult and also 

made the site not ideal for a salt marsh community site. The last site visited that day was completely 

unsuitable for a salt marsh community site, because it was located in between two private docks and 

on the Intracoastal Waterway.

On 29 March 2011, after meeting with staff of the GTMNERR to discuss the project, two boats were 

launched at Bings Landing. In the two boats were Jenny Asper and Tony Curtis, from the Southeast 

Coast Network, and Mat Kimball, Katie Petrinec, and Scott Eastman from GTMNERR. Due to winds 
139

that day, the tides were significantly different than predicted, which may affect accessibility on future 

dates. . The first site visited was site FOMA65 with Matt Kimball and Jenny Asper in the boat. The 

site was vegetated by mangroves surrounded by high marsh. It was, however, located on a deep 

stream off the Intracoastal Waterway, which makes it easily accessible. Next, Katie Petrinec 

switched spots with Matt Kimball and accompanied Jenny Asper to site FOMA01. The site was high 

marsh and had mangroves located nearby, but not within the buffer. The site also, however, had 

Spartina alterniflora, which indicates regular flooding. Site 42 was the next site visited by Katie and 

Jenny, but the shoreline was lined with shallow oyster beds, which prevented access to the site. After 

that, Scott Eastman replaced Katie Petrinec in the boat and he and Jenny proceeded to site FOMA 63.

The site was similar to FOMA01 in that it seemed like high marsh, but still had Spartina alterniflora, 

which indicates regular flooding. The site is nicely hidden away from the Intracoastal Waterway, but 

caution must be taken on access to avoid numerous oyster beds. Scott and Jenny then continued to 

FOMA50, which was an interesting mix of high and low marsh vegetation, and had Avicennia 

germinans within the buffer. The site was otherwise completely acceptable for a salt marsh 

community site. Sites FOMA20 and FOMA56 were not accessed, but were determined to be in areas 

too shallow to access using experience and knowledge of the NERR staff.
140

Figure E-10. Map of potential sites in the north and south sections of GTMNERR.
141

On 30 March 2011, Jenny Asper and Tony Curtis from the Southeast Coast Network, Kurt Foote 

from Fort Matanzas National Monument, and Matt Welsh and Jamie Pawelek from GTMNERR 

launched two boats from Faver-Dykes State Park boat ramp, located on Pellicer Creek. With the 

threat of severe thunderstorms in the afternoon, the crew kept a close eye on the weather as they 

proceeded to FOMA46. Both boats were able to access this site two hours before low, but it showed 

evidence of getting much shallower once water levels dropped. The site was suitable for a salt marsh 

community site. Next, after getting both boats temporarily stuck, sites FOMA66, FOMA40, 

FOMA53, FOMA00, FOMA13, and FOMA52 were determined to be too shallow to access. The 

mouth of the Pellicer Creek expands into a mud flat that, according to local knowledge, is exposed 

mud at certain tides.

The first of April 2011 brought the site assessments to the north section of GTMNERR. Jenny Asper 

and Tony Curtis, along with Jamie Pawelek and Matt Welsh from GTMNERR, launched from the 

Palm Valley boat ramp. The first site, FOMA62, was attempted by Jamie and Jenny , but was too 

shallow to access. Next was FOMA40, which was a suitable site vegetated primarily by Spartina 

alterniflora and located on a small creek off of the Intracoastal Waterway. Aerial imagery should be 

consulted to see the best route for access. Jamie and Jenny then determined that FOMA23 was also 

not accessible. Further south, they went to site FOMA00, which was both accessible and suitable for 

a salt marsh community site. They were at the site over two hours after low tide, which might mean 

that the site will be more difficult to access at a lower tide. After that, Jenny and Matt Welsh visited 

site FOMA69, which was a suitable site, easily accessible at almost 3 hours after low tide. The site 

met all of the criteria for a salt marsh community site. One mangrove was located nearby outside the 

buffer, which is one of the furthest north observed of Avicennia germinans. The last site to be visited 

was FOMA28, which was along the Guana River. It could be suitable for a site to observe the 

transition from upland to water, since it was a very narrow strip of marsh between the river and the 

upland area of GTMNERR. The site, however, was not suitable for normal salt marsh community 

sites because of oyster beds lining the bank and the inability to support 30 foot long platforms. Site 

FOMA48, FOMA36, and FOMA09 were not visited because they were determined to be too shallow 

by experience and knowledge of the NERR staff.

A few sites were eliminated before going out in the field. These were ruled out because of NERR 

staff knowledge and experience with the waterways. The sites that were ruled out are FOMA10, 

FOMA60, FOMA37, and FOMA 28.
142

Figure E-11. Map of suitable sites in the north and south sections of GTMNERR.
143

The protocol states that the chosen site must be the lowest numbered site. Based on this criterion, the 

HUC12 zones around Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERR, the sites that should be used are sites

FOMA00, and FOMA40, in the north section. In the south section, sites FOMA 06, FOMA46, and 

FOMA01 represent each of the watersheds, while FOMA22 represents a mangrove site (Figure E11). The coordinates for all of the suitable sites, including the chosen sites, can be seen in Table E-8.

Table E-8. Coordinates for suitable sites at Fort Matanzas National Monument/GTMNERR.

Canaveral National Seashore

The tide range in the Mosquito Lagoon is negligible, especially in comparison to the seasonal waterlevel changes, so tides were not taken into consideration in the site assessments. The sites were 

visited in September, however, which is the high water-level season, which means in other times of 

year access will be more difficult. The locations of the all the sites can be seen in Figure E-12. All 

sites are within 10NM as the crow flies of a boat ramp, but further via waterways.

After a series of warnings about the difficulties of navigation in the Lagoon, Jenny Asper took 

advantage of the park law enforcement’s offer to show her the way around the lagoon on September 

20, 2011. This especially proved helpful for learning the deeper running channels and the location of 

the incorrectly marked gate into the Pole and Troll Zone.

This park is unique in that it is jointly managed by the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Because of this, Jenny spent the second day meeting with Fish and Wildlife and National 

Park Service resource management people about the project and how the different organizations can 

work together smoothly.

On September 21, 2011 Jenny Asper and John Stiner, Resource Manager for CANA, launched from 

the NPS ramp and visited sites starting with site 6 and 21 right across from the park boat house then 

started with the most northern sites and worked south. They visited sites 32, 50, 61, 29, 46, 40, and 

13. All of the sites are vegetated with high marsh and mangrove species. The only site that was 

highly visible to park land was site 6, which was on a main channel across from the NPS boat house 

and Turtle Mound.

On September 22, Phil Amoroso, law enforcement for Fish and Wildlife Service, showed Jenny the 

best way to access the Pole and Troll Zone. They launched at the Beacon 42 boat ramp and visited 

Site Northing Easting

46 3281190 476275

65 3281660 478801

01 3277710 478864

63 3276270 479654

50 3276870 479322

22 3299040 472097

06 3293490 472166

62 3293240 473207
144

sites 48, 58, 53, 05 and 08. The sites were all accessible and vegetated with primarily Batis maritime

and Avicennia germinans.

On September 24, Cameron Welch, SCA intern for Cape Canaveral, and Jenny Asper launched from 

the National Park Service ramp and finished all of the sites in the north. They visited sites 12, 60, 19, 

14, 55, 34, 52, 43, 02, 67, 10, 65, 39, and 25. All of the sites were accessible and met the salt marsh 

community site criteria.

The last launch was on September 25 from the Beacon 42 boat ramp. Kate Hargrove met up with 

Jenny Asper that morning. They went to sites 44, 09, 03, and 35. None of these sites were suitable.

Sites 44 and 09 were predominantly upland and 03 and 35 were inside impoundments and were not 

accessible.
145

Figure E-12. Map of possible sites at Canaveral National Seashore considered on the assessment trip.
146

The protocol calls for sites in each of the HUC12 zones in Cape Canaveral National Seashore. Since 

there is only one HUC zone in the Mosquito Lagoon, the three districts (i.e. North, Central, and 

South) were considered. The lowest numbered sites in each of the areas of interest were chosen as the 

final sites. The coordinates for all of the suitable sites are in Table E-9.

The protocol requires that the chosen site must be the lowest numbered site. The three zones in 

Canaveral are also important to take into consideration. In this case, however, the southern district 

has no suitable, accessible salt marsh; sampling locations will have to be limited to the Central and 

Northern areas of the park. The Fish and Wildlife Service, however, has RSETs installed in the 

Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge, which surrounds and includes the southern area of the park.

Cooperation with FWS can potentially provide RSET data for that area of the park.

Table E-9. Coordinates for suitable sites at Canaveral National Seashore.

Site Northing Easting

02 3196020 516245

05 3185690 523881

06 3199760 516740

08 3188030 522396

10 3193540 518225

12 3198420 517376

13 3199690 515043

14 3197920 516103

19 3197570 516386

21 3200050 516315

22 3197920 514760

25 3197080 517376

29 3199060 514760

32 3200610 514618

34 3197500 515467

39 3196300 517447

40 3199760 515608

43 3196230 515608

46 3199410 514477

48 3186960 523669

50 3200260 514618

52 3197010 516103

53 3185830 525083

55 3198490 514901

58 3186610 524589

60 3197500 516881

61 3199900 513982

65 3193890 518225

67 3195240 517588
147

Appendix F. Power Analyses

All power analyses were conducted using PASS software with the following notes on the types of 

tests performed and parameters included in the analyses.

Report Definitions

 Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis.

 N is the number of pairs drawn from the population.

 Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis.

 Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis.

 Mean of paired differences is the mean difference at which the power and sample size are 

determined.

 S is the standard deviation of the paired differences for the population. It is assumed to be 

unknown.

 Effect Size, |Mean of paired differences|/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under 

the alternative.

Elevation Measurements from RSET Devices

Power to detect differences between two sampling events is assessed using paired t-tests of means.

For all analyses, we assume a normal distribution in the differences for matched pairs. Standard 

deviation is estimated at 0.6 for all analyses (calculated as the range/5 where the range is estimated at 

3 mm/year).

Numeric Results for Paired t-test

Null Hypothesis: Mean of Paired Differences = 0, Alternative Hypothesis: Mean of Paired 

Differences ≠ 0; Unknown standard deviation.

Table F-1. Test results for elevation.

Power N Alpha Beta

Mean of paired

differences S Effect size

0.95 4 0.05 0.05 1.7 0.6 2.827

0.95 36 0.05 0.05 0.4 0.6 0.618

0.90 3 0.05 0.10 2.4 0.6 3.923

0.90 4 0.05 0.10 1.5 0.6 2.507

0.90 36 0.05 0.10 0.3 0.6 0.556

0.80 3 0.05 0.20 2.0 0.6 3.264

0.80 4 0.05 0.20 1.3 0.6 2.128

0.80 36 0.05 0.20 0.3 0.6 0.480
148

Summary Statements

A sample size of 3 (used when comparing sampling locations over time) is expected to achieve 80% 

power to detect a mean of paired differences of 2.0 mm with an estimated standard deviation of 

differences of 0.6 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided paired t-test.

At any given station, the method is expected to achieve 80% power to detect a mean of paired 

differences of 1.3 mm (using four averages of measurements taken in the cardinal directions as 

replicates) or 0.3 mm (if 36 individual pin measurements are used as replicate measures) with an 

estimated standard deviation of differences of 0.6 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using 

a two-sided paired t-test (Figure F-1).

Figure F-1. Power analysis curves for comparing means of changes in surface elevation between 

sampling events.
149

Accretion Measurements

Power to detect differences between two sampling events is assessed using paired t-tests of means.

For all analyses, we assume a normal distribution in the differences for matched pairs. Standard 

deviation is estimated at 6 mm for all analyses (calculated as the range/5 where the range is estimated 

at 3 cm/year).

Numeric Results for Paired t-test

Null Hypothesis: Mean of Paired Differences = 0, Alternative Hypothesis: Mean of Paired 

Differences ≠ 0; Unknown standard deviation.

Table F-2. Test results for accretion.

Power N Alpha Beta

Mean of paired 

differences S Effect size

0.95 3 0.05 0.05 26.9 6.0 4.487

0.95 9 0.05 0.05 8.3 6.0 1.379

0.90 3 0.05 0.10 23.5 6.0 3.923

0.90 9 0.05 0.10 7.4 6.0 1.237

0.80 3 0.05 0.20 19.6 6.0 3.264

0.80 9 0.05 0.20 6.4 6.0 1.067

Summary Statements

A sample size of 3 (used when comparing rates at individual stations between two sampling events) 

achieves 80% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 19.6 mm with an estimated standard 

deviation of differences of 6.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided paired 

t-test. A sample size of 9 (used when comparing rates at sampling locations between two sampling 

events) achieves 80% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 6.4 mm with an estimated 

standard deviation of differences of 6.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a twosided paired t-test (Figure F-2).
150

Figure F-2. Power analysis curves for comparing means of accretion rates between sampling events.

Soil Porewater Measurements

Power to detect differences between two sampling events is assessed using paired t-tests of means.

For all analyses, we assume a normal distribution in the differences for matched pairs. Standard 

deviation is estimated at 3 for all analyses (calculated as the range/5 where the range is estimated at 

15 ppt).
151

Numeric Results for Paired t-test

Null Hypothesis: Mean of Paired Differences = 0, Alternative Hypothesis: Mean of Paired 

Differences ≠ 0; Unknown standard deviation.

Table F-3. Test results for soil porewater.

Power N Alpha Beta

Mean of paired 

differences S

Effect 

size

0.95 3 0.05 0.05 13.5 3.0 4.487

0.95 9 0.05 0.05 4.1 3.0 1.379

0.90 3 0.05 0.10 11.8 3.0 3.923

0.90 9 0.05 0.10 3.7 3.0 1.237

0.80 3 0.05 0.20 9.8 3.0 3.264

0.80 9 0.05 0.20 3.2 3.0 1.067

Summary Statements

A sample size of 3 (used when comparing rates at individual stations between two sampling events) 

achieves 80% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 9.8 ppt with an estimated standard 

deviation of differences of 3.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided paired 

t-test. A sample size of 9 (used when comparing rates at sampling locations between two sampling 

events) achieves 80% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 3.2 ppt with an estimated 

standard deviation of differences of 6.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a twosided paired t-test (Figure F-3).
152

Figure F-3. Power analysis curves for comparing means of soil porewater salinity between sampling 

events.
153

SamplePoint Analyses of Vegetation and Non-vegetation Cover Types

Power to detect differences between two sampling events is assessed using a paired t-test of means.

For all analyses, we assume a normal distribution in the differences for matched pairs. Standard 

deviation is estimated at 0.2 for all analyses (calculated as the range/5 where the range = 1).

Numeric Results for Paired t-test

Null Hypothesis: Mean of Paired Differences = 0, Alternative Hypothesis: Mean of Paired 

Differences ≠ 0, unknown standard deviation.

Table F-4. Test results for vegetation cover.

Power N Alpha Beta

Mean of paired 

differences S Effect size

0.95 5 0.05 0.05 0.4 0.2 2.204

0.95 10 0.05 0.05 0.3 0.2 1.286

0.95 15 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.2 1.002

0.95 20 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.850

0.90 5 0.05 0.10 0.4 0.2 1.966

0.90 10 0.05 0.10 0.2 0.2 1.155

0.90 15 0.05 0.10 0.2 0.2 0.901

0.90 20 0.05 0.10 0.2 0.2 0.764

0.80 5 0.05 0.20 0.3 0.2 1.682

0.80 10 0.05 0.20 0.2 0.2 0.996

0.80 15 0.05 0.20 0.2 0.2 0.778

0.80 20 0.05 0.20 0.1 0.2 0.660

Summary Statements

A sample size of five achieves 95% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 0.4 with an 

estimated standard deviation of differences of 0.2 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 

using a two-sided paired t-test (Figure F-4).
154

Figure F-4. Power analysis curves for comparing means of vegetation cover between sampling events.
155

References for power analysis

Machin, D., M. Campbell, P. Fayers, and A. Pinol. 1997. Sample size tables for clinical studies, 2nd

Edition. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts.

Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

157

Appendix G. Permits
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific 

and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 910/128957, June 2015
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM