National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Natural Resource Report NPS/GULN/NRR–2007/015 
ON THE COVER 

Top: (1) Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Padre Island National Seashore. (2) Naval Live Oaks Reservation, Gulf 

Islands National Seashore. (3) Texas tortoise (Gopherus berlandieri), found in San Antonio Missions National 

Historical Park and Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site. (4) Natchez Trace Parkway (NPS photo). 

Middle: (1) Dunes in November, Padre Island National Seashore. (2) Large ranid frog, Jean Lafitte National Historical 

Park and Preserve. (3) Vicksburg National Military Park. 

Bottom: (1) Big Thicket National Preserve (NPS photo). (2) Acequia at San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. 

All photos in this document are courtesy NPS/R. Woodman unless otherwise noted. 
Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Natural Resource Report NPS/GULN/NRR–2007/015 

Version 1.1 

Martha Segura, Network Coordinator 

Robert Woodman, Ecologist 

Joe Meiman, Hydrologist 

Whitney Granger, Science Information Specialist 

Jeff Bracewell, GIS Specialist 

National Park Service 

646 Cajundome Boulevard 

Room 175 

Lafayette, Louisiana 70506 

Revision History Log: 

Prev. 

Version # 

Revision Date Author Changes Made Reason for Change New Version # 

1.0 12/10/2007 Whitney Granger Update Appendix 

M 

Changes made to 

WQ Monitoring 

Protocol SOP 6. 

1.1 

 

September 2007 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado 
 

The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and 

applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management 

of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation 

and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is 

scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is 

designed and published in a professional manner. 

Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current 

natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a 

general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues 

of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series 

include vital signs monitoring plans; monitoring protocols; “how to” resource management 

papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of 

resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; 

fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are solely 

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, National Park Service. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are only 

available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Natural Resource 

Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM) on the 

Internet or by sending a request to the address on the back cover. 

Please cite this publication as: 

Segura, M., R. Woodman, J. Meiman, W. Granger, and J. Bracewell. 2007. Gulf Coast Network 

Vital Signs Monitoring Plan. Natural Resource Report NPS/GULN/NRR–2007/015. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS D-101, September 2007
Contents iii 

Contents 

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

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

List of Appendixes..........................................................................................................................x 

Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................xi 

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

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... xvii 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ...................................................................................1

1.1. Park Stewardship and Natural Resource Monitoring..........................................................2

1.1.1. Servicewide monitoring goals ...................................................................................3

1.2. Legislative Mandates ..........................................................................................................4

1.2.1. GULN monitoring plan and performance management ............................................5

1.2.2. GULN park unit enabling legislation ........................................................................6

1.3. Overview of the Gulf Coast Network .................................................................................7

1.3.1. Regional setting.........................................................................................................7

1.3.2. Climate ......................................................................................................................9

1.3.3. Anthropogenic change in Gulf Coast ecosystems ...................................................11

1.4. Resource Management Issues of Gulf Coast Network Parks............................................12

1.4.1. Natural resource summaries ....................................................................................12

1.4.2. Non-native species in GULN parks.........................................................................24

1.4.3. Water resources in GULN parks .............................................................................25

1.4.4. Air resources in GULN parks..................................................................................26

1.4.5. Geologic resources in GULN parks ........................................................................26

1.5. Existing Monitoring Programs in Gulf Coast Network Parks ..........................................27

1.6. Developing an Integrated Monitoring Program ................................................................29

1.6.1. GULN monitoring objectives..................................................................................29

1.6.2. Process used to identify vital signs..........................................................................31

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models .................................................................................33

2.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................34

2.2. Gulf Coast Network Model-Development Approach .......................................................34

2.3. Gulf Coast Network Ecosystem Conceptual Models........................................................35

2.4. Gulf Coast Network General Ecosystem Model...............................................................40

2.4.1. Agents of change.....................................................................................................40

2.4.2. Stressors...................................................................................................................41

2.4.3. Ecosystem responses ...............................................................................................41

2.5. River-Dominated Wetlands/Riparian Zones Ecosystem Conceptual Model ....................43

2.5.1. General description..................................................................................................43

2.5.2. Agents of change and stressors................................................................................43

2.5.3. Potential measures and indicators ...........................................................................44

2.6. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Conceptual Model.........................................................47

2.6.1. General description..................................................................................................47

2.6.2. Agents of change and stressors................................................................................48

2.6.3. Potential measures and indicators ...........................................................................49

2.7. Upland Ecosystems Conceptual Model ............................................................................51

2.7.1. General description..................................................................................................51

2.7.2. Agents of change and stressors................................................................................52

2.7.3. Potential measures and indicators ...........................................................................52

2.8. Conclusion and Park-Specific Conceptual Diagrams .......................................................55
iv Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Chapter 3: Vital Signs..................................................................................................................57

3.1. Process for Choosing Vital Signs .....................................................................................57

3.2. Vital Signs for the Gulf Coast Network............................................................................61

3.3. Relationships of Vital Signs to Monitoring Objectives and Conceptual Models .............65

Chapter 4: Sampling Design........................................................................................................67

4.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................67

4.2. Concepts and Definitions..................................................................................................69

4.2.1. Ecological monitoring and approaches to monitoring.............................................69

4.2.2. Sampling concepts and terms ..................................................................................70

4.2.3. Sampling panels and revisit schedules (designs).....................................................70

4.2.4. Spatial distribution of sampling sites ......................................................................71

4.2.5. Sample size, power, and error considerations .........................................................73

4.3. Monitoring Coastal Geomorphology and Landforms.......................................................74

4.3.1. LiDAR technology ..................................................................................................75

4.3.2. Sampling intervals, revisit schedules, and panels....................................................76

4.4. Terrestrial Biological Integrity Monitoring ......................................................................77

4.4.1. Terrestrial vegetation and related vital signs...........................................................77

4.4.2. Amphibians .............................................................................................................81

4.4.3. Migratory and resident birds ...................................................................................82

4.5. Gulf Coast Network Approach to Landscape Dynamics ..................................................83

4.6. Freshwater Monitoring Design .........................................................................................83

4.6.1. Synoptic sampling and general sampling schedule .................................................85

4.6.2. Selection of sampling sites ......................................................................................85

4.7. Water Quality Monitoring in Coastal and Estuarine Waters ............................................86

Chapter 5: Sampling Protocols ...................................................................................................89

5.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................89

5.2. Protocol Development Process .........................................................................................89

5.3. Protocol Format and Content ............................................................................................90

5.4. Protocol Development Schedule.......................................................................................91

5.5. Protocol Development Summaries ...................................................................................96

Chapter 6: Data Management.....................................................................................................97

6.1. Data Management Goals...................................................................................................97

6.2. Data Management Roles and Responsibilities..................................................................98

6.3. Project Work Flow............................................................................................................99

6.4. Data Management Infrastructure and Systems Architecture ..........................................102

6.5. Database Design Strategy ...............................................................................................104

6.6. Data Acquisition and Processing ....................................................................................105

6.7. Quality Assurance/Quality Control.................................................................................105

6.8. Data Documentation .......................................................................................................106

6.9. Data Analysis and Reporting ..........................................................................................107

6.10. Data Dissemination.......................................................................................................107

6.11. Data Maintenance, Storage, and Archiving ..................................................................108

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting .................................................................................111

7.1. Information, Audiences, and Strategies ..........................................................................111

7.2. Data Analysis..................................................................................................................112

7.3. Information Reporting ....................................................................................................115
Contents v 

Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation.....................................................................121

8.1. Board of Directors...........................................................................................................121

8.2. Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee......................................................................122

8.3. Staffing Plan ...................................................................................................................123

8.3.1. Coordinator............................................................................................................123

8.3.2. Science information specialist...............................................................................124

8.3.3. GIS specialist.........................................................................................................124

8.3.4. Ecologist................................................................................................................124

8.3.5. Hydrologist............................................................................................................125

8.3.6. Interns....................................................................................................................125

8.4. Program Integration ........................................................................................................125

8.5. Partnerships.....................................................................................................................125

8.6. Program Review Process ................................................................................................126

Chapter 9: Schedule ...................................................................................................................127

9.1. Key Issues for Each Vital Sign .......................................................................................127

9.2. Protocol Development and Implementation Schedule....................................................129

Chapter 10: Budget ....................................................................................................................133

Chapter 11: Literature Cited ....................................................................................................135
vi Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 
Contents vii 

Figures 

Figure 1.1. Map of the Gulf Coast Network parks. ......................................................................... 1

Figure 1.2. Relationships between monitoring, inventories, research, and natural resource 

management activities in national parks. .................................................................................. 3

Figure 1.3. Ecoregions of the Gulf Coast Network. ........................................................................ 9

Figure 1.4. Map showing the tracks of tropical cyclones in the Gulf of Mexico during the last 

20 years, from 1985 to 2005.. ................................................................................................. 11

Figure 2.1. Ecological monitoring as an integrated information system to provide scientifically 

valid information to park managers. ....................................................................................... 33

Figure 2.2. Environmental system drivers that affect the complex linkages of air, water, land, 

and biological resources within park units, together with how economic resources impact 

the structure and function of these natural resources.............................................................. 36

Figure 2.3. Diagram of the GULN conceptual modeling symbology. .......................................... 37

Figure 2.4. The applicability of the three major ecosystem models to GULN parks. ................... 39

Figure 2.5. The GULN general ecosystem model. ........................................................................ 42

Figure 2.6. The GULN River-Dominated Wetlands/Riparian Zones conceptual model............... 46

Figure 2.7. Typical zonation of a barrier island. Source: U.S. Air Force...................................... 47

Figure 2.8. The Gulf Coast Network Coastal and Marine Ecosystems conceptual model............ 50

Figure 2.9. The Gulf Coast Network Upland Ecosystems conceptual model. .............................. 54

Figure 4.1. LiDAR sampling for geomorphic monitoring. Sampling generates a virtual 

systematic grid in the raw data (A). Details (B and C) include a secondary, or a posteriori, 

sampling design using combined-point footprints, tracking of surface features, and 

detection of coastline change. ................................................................................................. 76

Figure 4.2. LiDAR primary virtual systematic grid parkwide sample (A) with super-imposed 

secondary sampling designs, including change-of-grid, combined-point footprints, 

observed vegetation features, and ground-truth sampling within observed vegetation 

features (B, C, and D.) ............................................................................................................ 80

Figure 6.1. Project workflow....................................................................................................... 100

Figure 6.2. Project data life cycle................................................................................................ 101

Figure 6.3 Schematic representing the logical layout and connectivity of computer resources.. 103

Figure 6.4. National server data flow. ......................................................................................... 104

Figure 7.1. Scientific data for determining the status and trend in the condition of selected 

park natural resources will come from multiple sources, and will be managed, analyzed, 

and disseminated to multiple audiences in several different formats in order to make the 

results more available and useful.......................................................................................... 112
viii Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 
Contents ix 

Tables 

Table 1.1. Summary of selected 2007–2011 GPRA goals in Gulf Coast Network parks relevant 

to natural resource monitoring. ................................................................................................. 6

Table 1.2. Summary of the enabling legislation for each Gulf Coast Network park unit. .............. 7

Table 1.3. Mean precipitation and temperature in Gulf Coast Network parks.............................. 10

Table 1.4. Gulf Coast Network park locations, original rationale for establishment, 

approximate area, major natural resources, and major issues of management concern.......... 13

Table 1.5. Summary of existing and prior park-based monitoring efforts conducted in Gulf 

Coast Network parks presented in the framework of the NPS I&M program. ....................... 28

Table 2.1. Descriptions of Gulf Coast Network conceptual-model agents of change, stressors, 

and ecosystem effects (responses). ......................................................................................... 38

Table 2.2. Major agents of change and stressors for river-dominated wetlands/riparian zones.... 43

Table 2.3. Protocols relevant to river-dominated wetlands/riparian zones. .................................. 45

Table 2.4. Major agents of change and stressors for coastal and marine ecosystems. .................. 48

Table 2.5. Protocols relevant to coastal and marine ecosystems................................................... 49

Table 2.6. Fire-adapted upland systems in Gulf Coast Network parks. ........................................ 51

Table 2.7. Major agents of change and stressors for uplands ecosystems..................................... 52

Table 2.8. Protocols relevant to upland ecosystems...................................................................... 53

Table 3.1. Summary of the process used in the Gulf Coast Network to choose and prioritize 

vital signs. ............................................................................................................................... 57

Table 3.2. Prioritized list of vital signs for the Gulf Coast Network............................................. 62

Table 3.3. Relationship of Gulf Coast Network vital signs to monitoring objectives and 

conceptual models................................................................................................................... 65

Table 4.1. Some possible revisit designs....................................................................................... 71

Table 4.2. Proposed aspects and types of sampling for nine Gulf Coast Network protocols........ 73

Table 4.3. Monitoring categories for Gulf Coast Network freshwater parks. ............................... 84

Table 5.1. High-priority vital signs to be addressed under monitoring protocols slated for 

development between 2006 and 2010..................................................................................... 92

Table 6.1. Data management roles and responsibilities. ............................................................... 98

Table 6.2. Repositories for Gulf Coast Network products. ......................................................... 102

Table 7.1. Four general levels of data analysis for Gulf Coast Network vital signs, and the 

lead analyst responsible for each. ......................................................................................... 114

Table 7.2. Summary of the content of reports and other information products of the I&M 

monitoring effort, intended audience, reporting schedule, and responsible entities for 

each. ...................................................................................................................................... 116

Table 7.3. List and proposed schedule for the various formal reports and publications related to 

the I&M program. ................................................................................................................. 119

Table 8.1. Composition of the Gulf Coast Network Board of Directors, July 2007. .................. 121

Table 8.2. Composition of the Gulf Coast Network Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee, 

October 2006......................................................................................................................... 122

Table 8.3. Permanent Gulf Coast Network staff positions and their primary duties................... 124

Table 8.4. Key partnerships for the Gulf Coast Network............................................................ 126

Table 9.1. Tasks to be accomplished on protocols before monitoring will be implemented. ..... 128

Table 9.2. Implementation schedule, by park, for vital signs monitoring in the Gulf Coast 

Network from calendar years 2007–2011............................................................................. 129

Table 10.1. Anticipated budget for the Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Program 

in the first year of implementation after review and approval of the monitoring plan. ........ 133

Table 10.2. Detailed budget for the Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Program in 

the first year of implementation after review and approval of the monitoring plan, 

showing the estimated expenditure on information management......................................... 134
x Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

List of Appendixes 

Appendix A: Legislation and Policies Relevant to Vital Signs Monitoring in the Gulf Coast 

Network Inventory and Monitoring Network 

Appendix B: Natural Resource Summaries of Gulf Coast Network Parks 

Appendix C: Protected Species of the Gulf Coast Network 

Appendix D: Maps of Gulf Coast Network Parks 

Appendix E: Non-native/Invasive Species in Gulf Coast Network Parks 

Appendix F: Water Quality in Gulf Coast Network Parks 

Appendix G: Air Resources of the Gulf Coast Network 

Appendix H: Soils and Geology of the Gulf Coast Network 

Appendix I: Existing Monitoring Programs in Gulf Coast Network Parks 

Appendix J: Conceptual Ecological Models of the Gulf Coast Network 

Appendix K: Conceptual Diagrams of Gulf Coast Network Parks 

Appendix L: Vital Sign Selection Process for the Gulf Coast Network 

Appendix M: Water Quality Monitoring Plan for Freshwater Parks of the Gulf Coast Network 

Appendix N: Protocol Development Summaries for Gulf Coast Network Parks 

Appendix O: Data Management Plan 

Appendix P: Charter of the Gulf Coast Network’s Board of Directors 

Appendix Q: Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts 
Contents xi 

Acronyms 

AARWP Annual Administrative Report and Work Plan 

BITH Big Thicket National Preserve 

BOD Board of Directors 

BP Barataria Preserve 

CBNC Chalmette Battlefield and National Cemetery 

CESU Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

CIR color infrared 

CUPN Cumberland Piedmont Network 

DMP Data Management Plan 

ENSO El Niño/Southern Oscillation 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA-CCA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Coastal Condition Assessment 

FY fiscal year 

GEM general ecosystem model 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GRTS General Random Tessellation Stratified 

GUIS Gulf Islands National Seashore 

GUIS-FL Gulf Islands National Seashore–Florida section 

GUIS-MS Gulf Islands National Seashore–Mississippi section 

GULN Gulf Coast Network 

GULN WQMP Gulf Coast Network Water Quality Monitoring Plan 

HTLN Heartland Network 

I&M Inventory and Monitoring 

IT information technology 

JELA Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve 

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NATR Natchez Trace Parkway 

NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure 

NCBN Northeast Coast and Barrier Network 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association 

NPS National Park Service 

NPS-ARD National Park Service Air Quality Division 

NPS-GRD National Park Service Geologic Resources Division 

NR natural resource 

NWS National Weather Service 

OMB President’s Office of Management and Budget 

PAAL Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site 

PAIS Padre Island National Seashore 

PDS Protocol Development Summary 

PI principal investigator 

POMS portable ozone monitoring station 

QA quality assurance 
xii Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

QC quality control 

SAAN San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

SCA Student Conservation Association 

SECN Southeast Coast Network 

SERO Southeast Regional Office 

SOPs standard operating procedures 

STAC Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee 

T&E threatened and endangered 

TCEQ-CRP Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Clean Rivers Program 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USGS NAWQA U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment 

VCP variable circular plot 

VICK Vicksburg National Military Park 

VSCMP Vegetation Structure and Composition monitoring protocol 

WASO Washington Area Service Office 
Contents xiii 

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 

The Gulf Coast Network (GULN) is one of 32 networks included in the Servicewide Inventory 

and Monitoring program. The GULN includes eight units of the National Park System: Big 

Thicket National Preserve, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park 

and Preserve, Natchez Trace Parkway, Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site, Padre Island 

National Seashore, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, and Vicksburg National 

Military Park. The total area of land managed within the network is more than 440,500 acres. 

Three general properties broadly affect the integrity of ecosystems and natural resources in 

GULN parks: (1) parks are generally surrounded by altered landscapes, and thus present the suite 

of challenges isolated ecosystems face; (2) the Gulf Coast region experiences storm events that 

have the potential to cause impacts to both environments and biota; and (3) the Gulf Coast region 

is increasingly subject to human development, resulting in diverse anthropogenic effects on park 

resources. 

The network is committed to establishing the foundation of a monitoring program that will 

continue in the long term. We expect that the information gained will provide valuable data to aid 

appropriate management decisions in network parks and provide landscape-scale information that 

can also form the foundation of other, targeted, shorter-term, research projects in the parks. Issues 

of management concern are an important component of the monitoring program, but the focus is 

on landscape- and regional-scale issues shared by the network parks. 

The following major objectives of the of the GULN monitoring program are associated with the 

landscape-scale issues that many of our parks have in common: (1) to monitor changes in land 

use outside of park boundaries; (2) to monitor changes in structure and community composition 

of terrestrial vegetation; (3) to monitor changes in water quality; (4) to monitor changes in 

common amphibian species abundance and distribution; (5) to monitor coastal dynamics, or the 

large-scale changes in landscape features in our coastal parks; and (6) to monitor weather and 

climate as a driver of larger ecosystem change across the network. 

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 

The GULN has developed a suite of conceptual models to support and guide the development of 

the monitoring program. The general ecosystem model was constructed to serve as a template for 

specific models that depict the three dominant ecosystem types in GULN parks: the 

uplands/forest-dominated zone, the river-dominated wetlands/riparian zone, and the coastal/nearshore marine zone. Each model depicts a set of agents of change, stressors, ecosystem responses, 

and possible measures or indicators, along with some of the major links between levels. Each 

system model is applicable to multiple network parks, and several parks contain examples of 

multiple ecosystems represented by different system models. 

Chapter 3: Vital Signs 

Vital signs, as defined by the NPS, are a subset of physical, chemical, and biological elements 

and processes of park ecosystems that are selected to represent the overall health or condition of 

park resources, known or hypothesized effects of stressors, or elements that have important 

human values. The elements and processes that are monitored are a subset of the total suite of 

natural resources that park managers are directed to preserve unimpaired for future generations, 
xiv Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

including water, air, geological resources, plants and animals, and the various ecological, 

biological, and physical processes that act on those resources. 

There are 42 identified vital signs for the GULN, presented within the vital signs framework as 

developed by the National Park Service Vital Signs Monitoring Program. Of these vital signs, 19 

are considered to be higher priority for implementation under the scope of the current program. 

One of these vital signs refers to air and climate, one refers to geology and soils, three refer to 

water, two refer to ecosystem pattern and process, and twelve refer to biological integrity. 

Chapter 4: Sampling Design 

An overall sampling design has been proposed for the GULN. The GULN will use a design-based 

approach to monitoring that relies on the use of probability-based samples to extrapolate results to 

non-sampled units. In some cases, monitoring on GULN parks will use “panels” to spatially 

and/or temporally allocate sampling effort as a way to more effectively use limited monitoring 

resources. Monitoring of freshwater resources will rely on synoptic sampling, in which samples 

are taken on fixed calendar dates, regardless of flow and weather conditions. All sites within a 

park will be sampled in rotation. As we are in the early phases of development for most of our 

monitoring protocols, specific sampling designs are still largely conceptual. Once complete, each 

protocol will include a detailed sampling design, together with appropriate definitions and 

rationale, as part of its formal documentation. 

Chapter 5: Sampling Protocols 

Protocol Development Summaries for the four protocols currently being developed are located in 

Appendix N. These include the network-wide protocols for monitoring vegetation structure and 

composition, amphibian communities, adjacent land-use change, and water quality in the five 

predominantly freshwater parks. Because some of these protocols address more than one vital 

sign, we anticipate the development of eight separate protocols for the 19 high-priority vital signs. 

Additional development efforts anticipated to start later in FY2007 include a protocol for 

monitoring coastal and estuarine water quality, an all-parks bird monitoring protocol, a coastal 

geomorphology and landform protocol, and a submerged aquatic vegetation protocol. Each 

summary explains which vital signs are addressed by the protocol and the reasons why the vital 

sign was selected, sets forth specific monitoring objectives, and describes how the network plans 

to monitor the vital sign. Where possible, we are addressing multiple vital signs with one 

protocol. A draft freshwater monitoring protocol is located in Appendix M. 

Chapter 6: Data Management 

The data management plan for the GULN serves as the network’s overarching strategy to ensure 

that data collected by the program are subjected to rigorous quality assurance and control 

procedures and are made available to others for decisionmaking, research, and education. The 

plan also refers to other guidance documents, standard operating procedures, and detailed 

monitoring protocols that convey more specific standards and steps for achieving our data 

management goals for specific vital signs monitoring. The full Data Management Plan is located 

in Appendix O of this report. The plan acts as a foundation to build upon as new protocols are 

developed, advances in technology are adopted, and new concepts in data management 

philosophy are accepted. 
Contents xv 

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting 

The GULN approach to the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of monitoring data is based on 

three factors that contribute to the success of the program: (1) quality and timeliness of 

information; (2) rigorous data analysis; and (3) effective communication to address different 

audiences with diverse information needs. Formal reports and publications to be produced 

include, but are not limited to, annual administrative reports and workplans; annual monitoring 

reports or specific project reports to the parks; analysis and synthesis of long-term data and 

trends, including management recommendations; interpretive highlights of interest to visitors; 

technical and scientific papers and presentations; periodic program reviews; and web-based data 

availability, newsletters, and summaries. The network will host an annual Technical Committee 

meeting that will be an opportunity to present and discuss monitoring data. This will be an 

opportunity for park resource managers to “compare notes,” present monitoring data and 

analyses, and discuss resource issues of concern with other managers in the network. 

Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation of the Monitoring Program 

The network has developed a near-term (three-to-five-year) plan under which monitoring will 

begin and the development of additional protocols will be initiated. This plan includes a staffing 

plan, a plan to integrate network and park operations, key partnerships, and the periodic review 

process for the program. The network is planning to rely on key partnerships with federal and 

state agencies as well as universities for both planning and implementation of the program. 

Chapter 9: Schedule 

A proposed schedule for the development and implementation of each protocol is presented. For 

the protocols under development in the next three to five years, we describe the key events or 

issues that must be addressed for each. Monitoring of water quality for freshwater resources will 

begin in 2007. 

Chapter 10: Budget 

Annual funding from the National Park Service’s Vital Signs Monitoring Program for GULN is 

$929,800, with an additional $89,000 coming from the National Park Service Water Resources 

Division for water quality monitoring. During the first year of implementation (FY2008), we 

expect that 45% of the budget will be spent on personnel and 55% will be spent on operations 

(equipment, cooperative agreements, and travel). Overall, we will expend approximately 33% of 

our budget (calculated in both time spent and direct operational costs) on data management. 
xvi Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 
Contents xvii 

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the hard work of others who were involved during the 

many years of effort that went into developing this monitoring plan: Network Intern Luis 

German, for his diverse contributions to the completion of the draft plan; retired Network 

Coordinator Paul Conzelmann, for his leadership during the early phases of our program 

development; Southeast Coast Network Wildlife Ecologist Mike Byrne, for his initial 

development of park conceptual models and contributions to an earlier draft of the document; 

Writer-Editor Alice Wondrak Biel, for her skillful work in converting our draft materials into a 

polished professional document; and especially the superintendents and staff from the eight 

network parks who made time to develop and debate conceptual models, vital signs, and 

management priorities for the network parks. 
xviii Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1 

Chapter 1 

Introduction and Background 

The Gulf Coast Network (GULN) is one of 32 networks included in the Servicewide Inventory 

and Monitoring (I&M) Program. The network approach facilitates collaboration, information 

sharing, and economies of scale in natural resource monitoring, and will provide parks with a 

foundational infrastructure for initiating natural resource monitoring that can be built upon in the 

future. The GULN is located in portions of six states, spanning from Brownsville, Texas, to 

Pensacola, Florida, and north to Nashville, Tennessee (Figure 1.1). The network includes eight 

National Park Service (NPS) units: Big Thicket National Preserve (BITH), Gulf Islands National 

Seashore (GUIS), Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve (JELA), Natchez Trace 

Parkway (NATR), Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site (PAAL), Padre Island National 

Seashore (PAIS), San Antonio Missions National Historical Park (SAAN), and Vicksburg 

National Military Park (VICK). 

Figure 1.1. Map of the Gulf Coast Network parks. 
2 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

1.1. Park Stewardship and Natural Resource Monitoring 

Knowing the condition of natural resources in national parks is fundamental to the National Park 

Service’s ability to manage park resources “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 

National-park managers across the country are confronted with increasingly complex and 

challenging issues that require a broad-based understanding of the status and trends of park 

resources as a basis for making decisions and working with other agencies and the public. The 

challenge of protecting and managing a park’s natural resources requires a multi-agency, 

ecosystem-based approach because most parks are open systems, with many threats, such as air 

and water pollution or invasive species, originating outside of park boundaries. An ecosystembased approach is further needed because no single spatial or temporal scale is appropriate for all 

system components and processes. The appropriate scale for understanding and effectively 

managing a resource might be at the population, species, community, or landscape level, and in 

some cases may require a regional, national, or international effort. National parks are part of 

larger ecosystems, and must be managed in that context. 

Natural resource monitoring provides site-specific information needed to understand and identify 

changes in complex, variable, and imperfectly understood natural systems, and to determine 

whether observed changes are within natural levels of variability or may be indicators of 

unwanted human influences. Thus, monitoring provides a basis for understanding and identifying 

meaningful change in natural systems characterized by complexity, variability, and surprises. 

Monitoring data help to define the normal limits of natural variation in park resources and 

provide a basis for understanding observed changes; monitoring results may also be used to 

determine what constitutes impairment and to identify the need to initiate or change management 

practices. Understanding the dynamic nature of park ecosystems and the consequences of human 

activities is essential for management decisionmaking aimed to maintain, enhance, or restore the 

ecological integrity of park ecosystems and to avoid, minimize, or mitigate ecological threats to 

these systems (Roman and Barrett 1999). 

Vital signs, as defined by the NPS, are a subset of physical, chemical, and biological elements 

and processes of park ecosystems that are selected to represent the overall health or condition of 

park resources, known or hypothesized effects of stressors, or elements that have important 

human values. The elements and processes that are monitored are a subset of the total suite of 

natural resources that park managers are directed to preserve “unimpaired for future generations,” 

including water, air, geological resources, plants and animals, and the various ecological, 

biological, and physical processes that act on those resources. Because of the need to maximize 

the use and relevance of monitoring results for making management decisions, vital signs selected 

by parks may include elements selected because humans have assigned them important value 

(e.g., harvested or charismatic species) or because of some known or hypothesized threat or 

stressor/response relationship within a particular park resource. The broad-based, scientifically 

sound information obtained through natural resource monitoring will have multiple applications 

for management decisionmaking, research, education, and promoting public understanding of 

park resources. 

Monitoring is a central component of natural resource stewardship in the NPS and, in conjunction 

with natural resource inventories and research, provides the information needed for effective, 

science-based managerial decisionmaking and resource protection (Figure 1.2). Natural resource 

inventories are extensive, point-in-time efforts to determine the location or condition of a 

resource, including the presence, class, distribution, and status of plants, animals, and abiotic 

components such as water, soils, landforms, and climate. Monitoring differs from inventories by 

adding the dimension of time; the general purpose of monitoring is to detect changes or trends in 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 3 

a resource. Elzinga et al. (1998) defined monitoring as, “the collection and analysis of repeated 

observations or measurements to evaluate changes in condition and progress toward meeting a 

management objective.” Detection of a change or trend may trigger a management action, or it 

may generate a new line of inquiry. Research is generally defined as the systematic collection of 

data that produces new knowledge or relationships and usually involves an experimental 

approach, in which a hypothesis concerning the probable cause of an observation is tested in 

situations with and without the specified cause. A research design is usually required to determine 

the cause of changes observed by monitoring. The development of monitoring protocols also 

involves a research component to determine the appropriate spatial and temporal scale for 

monitoring. 

Figure 1.2. Relationships between monitoring, inventories, research, and natural resource 

management activities in national parks. Modified from Jenkins et al. (2002). 

1.1.1. Servicewide monitoring goals 

The overall goal of natural resource monitoring in parks is to develop scientifically sound 

information on the current status and long-term trends in the composition, structure, and function 

of park ecosystems, and to determine how well current management practices are sustaining those 

ecosystems. The GULN monitoring program is designed around the five broad, servicewide 

monitoring goals common to all networks within the Vital Signs Monitoring Program: 

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

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

other agencies and individuals for the benefit of park resources. 

2. Provide early warning of abnormal conditions of selected resources to help develop 

effective mitigation measures and reduce costs of management. 

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

and to provide reference points for comparisons with other, altered environments. 
4 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

4. Provide data to meet certain legal and congressional mandates related to natural resource 

protection and visitor enjoyment. 

5. Provide a means of measuring progress toward performance goals. 

Network-specific monitoring goals and objectives relate to the network-wide and park-specific 

ecosystems and management concerns of the network parks, and are presented in Section 1.6. 

Monitoring objectives were developed based on the process used to develop the conceptual 

models (see Chapter 2) and are presented and discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. 

1.2. Legislative Mandates 

The enabling legislation establishing the National Park Service and its individual park units 

clearly mandates, as its primary objective, the “protection, preservation, and conservation of park 

resources, in perpetuity for the use and enjoyment of future generations” (16 USC 1). National 

Park Service policy and recent legislation (National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998) 

require that park managers know the condition of natural resources under their stewardship and 

monitor long-term trends in those resources in order to fulfill the NPS mission of conserving 

parks unimpaired. The laws and management policies that follow provide the mandate for 

inventorying and monitoring in national parks. 

 

National park managers are directed by federal law and National Park Service policies and 

guidance to know the status and trends in the condition of natural resources under their 

stewardship in order to fulfill the NPS mission to conserve parks unimpaired (Appendix A). The 

mission of the National Park Service (National Park Service Organic Act, 1916) is: 

“. . . to promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national 

parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and 

measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of the said parks, monuments, 

and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and 

historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the 

same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations.” 

Congress strengthened the National Park Service’s protective function, and provided language 

important to recent decisions about resource impairment, when it amended the Organic Act in 

1978 to state that “the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be 

conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not 

be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been 

established. . . .” 

More recently, the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 established the framework 

for fully integrating natural resource monitoring and other science activities into the management 

processes of the national park system. The act charges the secretary of the interior to “continually 

improve the ability of the National Park Service to provide state-of-the-art management, 

protection, and interpretation of and research on the resources of the National Park System,” and 

to “assure the full and proper utilization of the results of scientific studies for park management 

decisions.” Section 5934 of the act requires the secretary of the interior to develop a program of 

“inventory and monitoring of National Park System resources to establish baseline information 

and to provide information on the long-term trends in the condition of National Park System 

resources.” 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 5 

Congress reinforced the message of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 in its 

text of the FY2000 Appropriations bill: 

“The Committee applauds the Service for recognizing that the preservation of the 

diverse natural elements and the great scenic beauty of America’s national parks 

and other units should be as high a priority in the Service as providing visitor 

services. A major part of protecting those resources is knowing what they are, 

where they are, how they interact with their environment and what condition they 

are in. This involves a serious commitment from the leadership of the National 

Park Service to insist that the superintendents carry out a systematic, consistent, 

professional inventory and monitoring program, along with other scientific 

activities, that is regularly updated to ensure that the Service makes sound 

resource decisions based on sound scientific data.” 

The 2001 NPS Management Policies updated previous policy and specifically directed the service 

to inventory and monitor natural systems: 

“Natural systems in the national park system, and the human influences upon 

them, will be monitored to detect change. The Service will use the results of 

monitoring and research to understand the detected change and to develop 

appropriate management actions.” 

Further, “The Service will: 

• Identify, acquire, and interpret needed inventory, monitoring, and research, including 

applicable traditional knowledge, to obtain information and data that will help park 

managers accomplish park management objectives provided for in law and planning 

documents. 

• Define, assemble, and synthesize comprehensive baseline inventory data describing the 

natural resources under its stewardship, and identify the processes that influence those 

resources. 

• Use qualitative and quantitative techniques to monitor key aspects of resources and 

processes at regular intervals. 

• Analyze the resulting information to detect or predict changes, including 

interrelationships with visitor carrying capacities, that may require management 

intervention, and to provide reference points for comparison with other environments and 

time frames. 

• Use the resulting information to maintain-and, where necessary, restore-the integrity of 

natural systems” (2001 NPS Management Policies). 

Additional statutes that provide legal direction for expending funds to determine the condition of 

natural resources in parks and specifically guide the natural resource management of network 

parks are summarized in Appendix A. 

1.2.1. GULN monitoring plan and performance management 

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), passed by Congress in 1993, directs 

federal agencies to ensure that daily action and expenditures of resources are guided by long- and 

short-term goal-setting in pursuit of accomplishing an organization’s primary mission, followed 
6 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

by performance measurement and evaluation. A list of the national GPRA goals relevant to the 

Monitoring Plan for GULN parks is located in Table 1.1; a complete list and descriptions of 

GPRA goals are located in Appendix A. This list of goals includes cultural resource goals, 

because many GULN parks have significant cultural resources. Management of those cultural 

resources needs to be coordinated with natural resource management. Goals concerning visitor 

understanding are also included on the assumption that information gathered through the 

monitoring program will increase the general level of understanding of park resources. Linking 

this knowledge into visitor understanding is an important aspect of a long-term monitoring 

program. In addition to the national strategic goals, each park unit has a five-year plan that 

includes park-specific GPRA goals. Many of these park-specific goals are directly related to 

natural resource monitoring needs. 

Table 1.1. Summary of selected 2007–2011 GPRA goals in Gulf Coast Network parks relevant to 

natural resource monitoring. 

GPRA goal summary Goal Parks with this goal 

Acres disturbed lands restored 1a1A BITH, JELA, NATR, PAIS, VICK 

Invasive plants contained 1a1B BITH, GUIS, JELA, NATR, PAIS, SAAN, 

VICK 

Species of special management concern 1a2B BITH, GUIS, NATR, PAIS, SAAN 

Invasive animals 1a2C BITH, GUIS, JELA, NATR, PAAL, PAIS, 

SAAN, VICK 

Water quality (miles rivers and streams) 1a4A BITH, NATR, SAAN 

Water quality (acres lakes, reservoirs, etc.) 1a4B BITH, GUIS, NATR, PAIS 

Cultural landscapes 1a7 JELA, NATR, PAAL, SAAN, VICK 

Vital signs identified (2004–2008) 1b3A BITH, GUIS, JELA, NATR, PAAL, PAIS, 

SAAN, VICK 

Vital signs monitoring implemented (2004–2008) 1b3B BITH, GUIS, JELA, NATR, PAAL, PAIS, 

SAAN, VICK 

Visitor understanding 2b1 BITH, GUIS, JELA, NATR, PAAL, PAIS, 

SAAN, VICK 

1.2.2. GULN park unit enabling legislation 

The GULN includes two national seashores (GUIS and PAIS), two national preserves (BITH and 

JELA’s Barataria Unit), two national historical parks (JELA and SAAN), one national military 

park (VICK), one national historic site (PAAL), and one parkway (NATR). In 1970, Congress 

elaborated on the 1916 Organic Act, clearly stating that all of these designations have equal legal 

standing in the National Park System. 

The enabling legislation of an individual park provides insight into the natural and cultural 

resource value for which it was created (Table 1.2). Along with national legislation, policy and 

guidance, a park’s enabling legislation provides justification and, in some cases, specific 

guidance for the direction and emphasis of resource management programs. For parks where the 

enabling legislation is based on cultural rather than natural resources, those cultural resources are 

often tied directly to an historic natural resource setting that may be managed to reflect that 

historic condition. 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 7 

Table 1.2. Summary of the enabling legislation for each Gulf Coast Network park unit. 

Park Summary content 

Big Thicket National Preserve PL 93-439—Act established the preserve to ensure the 

preservation of numerous representative areas typical of the Big 

Thicket region and to protect and preserve the natural values 

that make it unique. 

Gulf Islands National Seashore PL 91-660—Act established the Gulf Islands National Seashore, 

in the states of Florida and Mississippi, for the recognition of 

certain historic values at Fort San Carlos, Fort Redoubt, Fort 

Barrancas, and Fort Pickens in Florida, and Fort Massachusetts 

in Mississippi, and for other purposes. 

Jean Lafitte National Historical Park 

and Preserve 

PL 95-625—Act established the preserve for the education, 

inspiration, and benefit of present and future generations 

significant examples of natural and historical resources of the 

Mississippi Delta region and to provide for their interpretation in 

such manner as to portray the development of cultural diversity 

in the region. 

Natchez Trace Parkway 48 Stat. 791—Act established the parkway to preserve the old 

Indian trail known as the “Natchez Trace,” with a view of 

constructing a national road on this route to be known as the 

“Natchez Trace Parkway.” 

Padre Island National Seashore PL 87-712—Act established the Padre Island National Seashore, 

approved September 28, 1962, in order to save and preserve, 

for purposes of public recreation, benefit, and inspiration, a 

portion of the diminishing seashore of the United States that 

remains undeveloped (76 Stat. 650). 

Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic 

Site 

PL 102-304—Act established the national historic park In order 

to preserve for the education, benefit, and inspiration of present 

and future generations the nationally significant site of the first 

battle of the U.S.–Mexican War (1846–1848), and to provide for 

its interpretation in such a manner as to portray the battle and 

the U.S.–Mexican War and its related political, diplomatic, 

military, and social causes and consequences. 

San Antonio Missions National 

Historical Park 

PL 95-629—Act established an 819-acre national historical park. 

The park preserves four 18th-century Spanish Colonial 

missions—Concepción, San José, San Juan, and Espada—and 

one ranch ruins in perpetuity, and makes this valuable part of 

America’s heritage available to approximately 1.2 million visitors 

each year for their experience, enjoyment, understanding, and 

appreciation. 

Vicksburg National Military Park 30 Stat. 841—Act established a national military park to 

commemorate the campaign, siege, and defense of Vicksburg 

during the Civil War, approved February 21, 1899. 

1.3. Overview of the Gulf Coast Network 

1.3.1. Regional setting 

The parks of the Gulf Coast Network are ecologically diverse islands situated in the everchanging landscape and environment of the Gulf Coast region. Three general properties or forces 
8 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

broadly affect, and potentially threaten, the continued function and integrity of ecosystems and 

natural resources in GULN parks: 

1. Parks are generally small patches of resources surrounded by altered landscapes, and thus 

present classic examples of “island biogeography” and the suite of challenges that 

isolated ecosystems, biological communities, and populations face; 

2. The Gulf Coast region experiences frequent extreme storm events that have the potential 

to cause widespread impacts to both environments and biota; and 

3. The Gulf Coast region is increasingly subject to human development, resulting in diverse 

anthropogenic effects on park resources and ecosystems. 

These three factors pose a strong collective challenge to park resource managers and the GULN 

monitoring program. 

The generally flat Gulf Coast landscape formed as a result of changes in sea level over the past 

125 million years. Rising and falling sea levels, along with sediment-carrying water flowing in 

rivers, repeatedly eroded and built up land. The resulting combination of uplands (i.e., alluvial 

plains built from waterborne sediments, shoreline landforms, and the most extensive wetland 

areas in the United States) host a diversity of ecosystems. The eight network parks distribute 

across six ecoregions of the south-central and southeastern U.S.: the East Central Texas Plains 

(SAAN), Western Gulf Coastal Plain (PAAL, PAIS, BITH), Mississippi Alluvial Plain (VICK, 

JELA), Mississippi River Loess Plain (VICK, NATR), Southern Coastal Plain (GUIS), and 

Southeastern Plain to Interior Plateau (NATR) (Figure 1.3). 

These parks represent and host important examples of a broad range of ecosystems. Functionally 

(and as presented in our ecosystem conceptual models), GULN park ecosystems may be 

effectively grouped into three major classes; upland, freshwater-aquatic, and coastal and nearshore ecosystems. Upland ecosystems include temperate hardwoods, pine flatwoods, (or barrens), 

scrub forests, loessal bluffs, dry scrub/grasslands of the Edwards Plateau, and coastal prairies. 

Freshwater wetlands and aquatic ecosystems include bottomland hardwoods and floodplain 

forests, freshwater marshes, lakes and rivers. Coastal and near-shore-marine ecosystems include 

barrier islands, salt marshes, seagrass beds, estuaries, and bays (Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 

2005). The combination of upland, alluvial, and shoreline physical landscapes occurring in 

conjunction with the convergence of temperate and subtropical climates across the region creates 

enormous diversity in ecosystems and makes the region, the GULN, and its parks a center of 

biodiversity of great national value and interest (Twilley et al. 2001). Maintaining this 

biodiversity is a key management challenge for GULN parks through time. 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 9 

Figure 1.3. Ecoregions of the Gulf Coast Network. Adapted from the 2003 U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States (revision of Omernik 

1987). 

1.3.2. Climate 

The Gulf Coast climate results from the interplay of global factors, including the El 

Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and regional factors—specifically, its latitude and the 

influence of nearby oceans. El Niño years are typically characterized by lower temperatures in 

winter and spring and increased winter rainfall in the Gulf Coast. Fall and winter seasons are 

typically warmer in La Niña years, especially in Louisiana, followed by little change in spring 

and higher temperatures in summer. La Niña events are also associated with regional drought 

conditions, such as those that occurred in the central and western Gulf Coast from 1998 to 2000. 

Further, ENSO has a strong influence on the number of Gulf Coast hurricanes. During La Niña 

events, the average number of hurricanes coming ashore in the Gulf of Mexico is typically higher 

than during El Niño or non-ENSO years. 

The interaction of regional climatic features creates notable climate gradients that divide the Gulf 

Coast into three climatic sub-regions, as shown in Figure 1.3. The western sub-region, from 

Texas to Louisiana, is warm–temperate to subtropical, and changes from semi-arid to humid from 

west to east. Precipitation ranges from 18 cm/yr at the Rio Grande River to 119 cm/yr near the 

Mississippi River. The central sub-region includes Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and is 

typically humid and warm. Rainfall in this sub-region ranges from 100 to 178 cm/yr, with little 

seasonal pattern. The eastern sub-region (i.e., the Florida panhandle) is humid; temperatures 

range from warm–temperate to subtropical. This sub-region is also characterized by a distinct 

summer wet season and winter dry season, with annual precipitation ranging from 84 to 230 cm 

(Table 1.3). Precipitation throughout the network typically comes in the form of rain from winter 
10 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

and spring storm fronts, thunderstorms, and tropical storms and hurricanes in the summer and/or 

early fall (Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005). 

Table 1.3. Mean precipitation and temperature in Gulf Coast Network parks. 

Park 

code Park Station location (years of data) 

Mean annual 

precipitation 

(cm) 

Mean annual 

temperature 

(°C) 

SAAN San Antonio Missions 

National Historical Park 

San Antonio, Texas (48) 76.7 20.6 

PAAL Palo Alto Battlefield National 

Historic Site 

Brownsville, Texas (48) 65.8 23.3 

PAIS Padre Island National 

Seashore 

Rockport, Texas (30) 89.4 21.8 

BITH Big Thicket National Preserve Beaumont, Texas (30) 141.5 19.7 

VICK Vicksburg National Military 

Park 

Vicksburg, Mississippi (5) 123.2 18.3 

JELA Jean Lafitte National 

Historical Park and Preserve 

New Orleans, Louisiana (48) 156.7 20.6 

GUIS Gulf Islands National 

Seashore 

Pascagoula, Mississippi (21) 

Pensacola, Florida (39) 

154.4 

158.6 

20.0 

20.0 

NATR Natchez Trace Parkway 

(from north to south) 

Nashville, Tennessee (48) 

Tupelo, Mississippi (13) 

Jackson, Mississippi (32) 

Natchez, Mississippi (30) 

120.9 

132.1 

141.0 

156.7 

15.6 

17.2 

18.3 

19.0 

Order is approximately from west to east across the network. 

Source: http://weatherbase.com, accessed August 1, 2005. 

The Gulf Coast climate is uncharacteristic of its latitude, which typically hosts warm, arid, and 

semi-arid climates. The Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and Atlantic Ocean all have a substantial 

influence on the region’s climate. Winters are generally mild due to Gulf of Mexico waters, 

which moderate winter temperatures. Occasionally, however, these mild winters are punctuated 

by cold air masses reaching far south from the northern Pacific or the Arctic, bringing low 

temperatures and freezing conditions. Summers in the region tend to be hot and humid. The 

adjacent waters of the Gulf and the Atlantic are also major sources of atmospheric moisture, 

resulting in a greater rainfall than is typical for its latitude. Rainfall is brought to the region by a 

variety of processes, including seasonal storm fronts and events. Hurricanes and tropical storms, a 

frequent occurrence in late summer and fall (Figure 1.4), exert major influences on biota, 

geomorphology, and environmental conditions along the northern Gulf of Mexico, where they 

alter the shapes of coastlines and dramatically affect plant diversity and distribution 

(Guntenspergen 1998). Although the impacts of these storms are usually thought of as coastal 

phenomena, the disturbances they cause extend far inland as the systems track to the north. 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 11 

K A T E K A T E

K A T E K E

C H A R L E Y C H A R L E Y W I L M A I

D E N N I S D E N N I S

O P A L

A N D R E W A N D R E W

I V A N I

L I L I L I L I

R I T A I T

K A T R I N A K A T R I N A

E L E N A

CHC

Produced by GULN October 2006

Atlantic H urricanes 1985 - 2005

-

Gulf of Mexico

Mexico Mexico

Category

TS

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

Boundary

Network

NPS Park

Hurricane intensity

ranked from tropical

storm (TS) to category

5 hurricane (H5).

Storm tracks are

based on storm center

locations measured

every 6 hrs.

Data courtesy of

NOAA's National

Hurricane Center

0 150 300 75 Miles

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Gulf Coast Network

Southeast Region

Figure 1.4. Map showing the tracks of tropical cyclones in the Gulf of Mexico during the last 20 

years, from 1985 to 2005. Source: http://hurricane.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/viewer.html. 

1.3.3. Anthropogenic change in Gulf Coast ecosystems 

The Gulf Coast region is extremely impacted and altered by continued development, which exerts 

ever-increasing pressures, causing significant changes to regional and park ecosystems. 

Development includes population growth and associated land-use changes; engineering 

interference with natural water flows and coastal processes; habitat fragmentation; and water and 

air pollution. The population of the five Gulf Coast states increased over the past decade to more 

than 48.5 million in 2000, with the most significant population increases occurring in Florida and 

Texas (Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005). Population growth in coastal areas of the nation has 

been more rapid than elsewhere, with more than half the U.S. population now living within 80 

miles of coastal land. Population growth significantly affects the distribution of surface and 

ground water, both of which are critical for Gulf Coast ecosystems. 

Major physical features of the Gulf Coast have been engineered over the past century to meet 

demands imposed by the ever-growing population. Alterations to water flows through dams and 

impoundments, channelization, dredge and spoil operations, and diking all affect the quantity and 

quality of discharge as well as the sediment input into coastal waters. This affects ecological 
12 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

functions such as estuarine productivity that depend on freshwater discharge from rivers, 

wetlands in the alluvial basins, and sand supplies from barrier islands (Twilley and RiveraMonroy 2005). Irrigation for agriculture is becoming increasingly important throughout the Gulf 

Coast to buffer effects of extreme droughts. Four of the five states in this region are ranked in the 

top 20 U.S. states in terms of irrigated land (Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005). Other significant 

draw on fresh water includes thermoelectric power production, industrial uses, and household 

uses. Removing fresh water for human uses from river and coastal habitats typically results in 

degradation of these aquatic ecosystems. 

Human economic, land, and resource development activities in the region have also greatly 

reduced or fragmented natural habitats. For example, increased coastline development has 

reduced wetland and mangrove habitat. In the upland areas, agriculture and timber plantations 

have replaced natural prairies and forests. 

Humans are also both directly and indirectly responsible for the movement and establishment of 

non-native invasive species that further degrade natural habitats and threaten native plants and 

animal species. Increasing human population, per-capita consumption, trade in the region, and 

human mobility have resulted in unprecedented levels of introduced, non-native species. When 

these introduced species become common, permanent residents, they can produce severe, often 

irreversible impacts on agriculture, recreation, and natural resources and threaten biodiversity, 

habitat quality, and ecosystem functioning. 

In summary, while alterations of the landscape have enabled the human population of the Gulf 

region to grow and thrive, they have also caused widespread degradation of natural habitats, 

species invasions and displacement, and functional and structural shifts in ecosystems. 

Cumulatively, these human pressures on Gulf Coast water resources, ecosystems, biodiversity, 

and habitats are the most important drivers of ecosystem change in the region today (Twilley and 

Rivera-Monroy 2005). As a result, many ecosystems are vulnerable to additional stressors, such 

as those that will arise from a rapidly changing climate (Twilley et al. 2001). 

1.4. Resource Management Issues of Gulf Coast Network Parks 

1.4.1. Natural resource summaries 

The GULN is composed of eight parks that encompass approximately 180,000 hectares (Table 

1.4). As part of the planning for this monitoring program, the GULN produced individual natural 

resource summary reports for each of the network parks. Those reports include summaries of 

available information on biological communities, geology, hydrology, air quality, ecosystem 

studies, and management issues of importance to each park; a listing of local subject-matter 

experts; a database of scientific literature and topical bibliography; and a compilation of available 

digital maps, sources, and metadata. Resources and issues of management concern for each park 

are summarized below. The complete set of summary documents is located in Appendix B. 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 13 

Table 1.4. Gulf Coast Network park locations, original rationale for establishment, approximate 

area, major natural resources, and major issues of management concern. 

Park Established 

primarily for:

Hectares 

(acres) Major natural resources Major management issues 

BITH Natural 

resources 

39,323 

(97,168)

Biological diversity 

Five forest types ranging from 

upland pine forest to river 

floodplain forest 

Globally Important Bird Area 

Habitat fragmentation 

Water quality 

Land use (logging, oil and gas, 

development) 

Invasive species; disruption of 

natural fire regime 

GUIS Natural and 

cultural 

resources 

55,843 

(137,991)

Barrier islands 

Dunes 

Maritime forests 

Seagrasses 

Gulf and estuarine waters 

80% of area is submerged 

land 

Human use 

Beach nourishment 

Storm impacts (erosion and 

deposition) 

Invasive species 

Water quality 

JELA Natural and 

cultural 

resources 

8,096 

(20,005)

Upper freshwater zone of the 

estuary associated with the 

Mississippi River 

Hardwood forest 

Swamp 

“Flotant” freshwater marsh 

Hydrologic alterations 

Bankline erosion 

Water quality 

Salt-water intrusion 

Large river diversion 

Invasive species 

NATR Cultural 

resources 

21,037 

(51,984)

Six major forest types and 

eight watersheds 

470 miles; extends from Gulf 

Coastal Plain to Western 

Highlands 

Invasive species 

Adjacent land use 

Roadway construction 

Water quality 

Air quality 

PAAL Cultural 

resources 

1,379 

(3,407)

Salt prairie 

Brushland 

Wetlands associated with 

resacas (abandoned river 

meanders) 

Invasive species 

Adjacent land use 

Hydrologic alterations 

PAIS Natural 

resources 

52,785 

(130,434)

Gulf waters and hypersaline 

lagoon 

Seagrasses 

Freshwater ponds 

Undeveloped barrier island 

Water quality 

Oil and gas development 

Human use 

Dredge spoil deposition 

Storm impacts (erosion and 

deposition) 

Historic overgrazing 

Marine debris 

SAAN Cultural 

resources 

334 

(826)

Riparian forests 

Acequias (historic irrigation 

ditches) 

Grassland 

Scrubland 

Adjacent land use 

Invasive species 

Altered fire regime 

Water quality 

Historic grazing 

VICK Cultural 

resources 

735 

(1,815)

Mixed mesophytic forest 

Streams and associated 

vegetation 

Loess soils 

Erosion 

Adjacent land use 

Invasive species 

Altered historic vegetation 

patterns 
14 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Although there is a large variation in climate, dominant ecosystems, and habitats, most network 

parks share a common set of management issues that are related to their relatively small size, 

habitat fragmentation, proximity to urban and/or industrial centers, and the shared characteristics 

of the Gulf Coast region in general. Although network-wide, endangered and threatened species 

are not a major focus of management concern, nor a focus of the monitoring program, several 

parks do have populations of either federal or state-protected species (Appendix C). Following is 

a brief description of the significant natural resources in each park and some of the predominant 

management issues each park faces. Individual park maps are located in Appendix D. 

1.4.1.1. Big Thicket National Preserve 

Big Thicket National Preserve was established in 1974, and consists of nine separate land units 

and six water corridors that lie in a region with a high biological diversity due to the convergence 

of three ecosystems: eastern hardwood forest, Gulf coastal plains, and Midwest prairies (Cooper 

et al. 2004a). Teale (1971) described the ecology of the area in and adjacent to BITH as one of 

the most diverse habitats in North America, due to the influence on the biological community of 

habitats from the north, south, east, and west. BITH has been designated an International 

Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization Man 

and the Biosphere Program, and as a Globally Important Bird Area by the American Bird 

Conservancy. The park includes a diverse assemblage of wildlife and vegetative communities, 

geophysical features, and natural processes reflecting the complexity of the park ecosystems. 

Big Thicket National Preserve. 

BITH is composed of five main forest types, with subcategories within: upland pine forest (pine 

sandhill, pine forests, pine savanna wetland), slope forest (upper slope pine oak, mid-slope oak 

pine, lower slope hardwood pine), floodplain forest (stream floodplain forest, river floodplain 

forest, cypress-tupelo swamp), flatland forest (flatland hardwood pine, flatland hardwood), and 

bay galls (bog systems of dense forest canopy, shrub, and herbaceous layers created by local 

mound-and-intermound relief with unique spodosol soils). 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 15 

Because of the park’s proximity to multiple urban centers, including Beaumont and Houston, 

BITH is subject to many environmental problems, including reduced air and water quality, 

disturbed lands, hydrologic disruption, and non-native/invasive species. Current and past 

anthropogenic influences on BITH include logging and oil and gas operations, air and water 

pollution, alterations to flow and quality of rivers, fragmentation of habitat and the continued 

isolation of the individual park units, introduction of non-native/invasive species, and the 

disruption of the natural fire regime. 

1.4.1.2. Gulf Islands National Seashore 

Gulf Islands National Seashore consists of several units in Florida and Mississippi. The 

Mississippi section (GUIS-MS) consists of five islands and a small mainland headquarters area. 

The authorized boundary includes not only the barrier islands themselves, but also portions of the 

Gulf of Mexico and nearby bays. From the west to east, the islands of GUIS-MS are: Cat, West 

Ship, East Ship, Horn, and Petit Bois Islands. East and West Ship are separated by a small pass 

referred to as “Camille Cut” because it was created by Hurricane Camille in 1969, and are 

occasionally referred to singly as Ship Island. Horn Island is the largest and Cat the most recently 

acquired of the GUIS-MS islands. Davis Bayou is the only mainland area in the GUIS-MS park 

section. 

The Florida section (GUIS-FL) consists of portions of two islands (Santa Rosa Island and Perdido 

Key) and two small mainland areas. Three park units are located on Santa Rosa Island: Fort 

Pickens, Santa Rosa Area, and Okaloosa Area. The Naval Live Oaks Reservation is on a 

peninsula forming part of the eastern mouth of Pensacola Bay. Unlike GUIS-MS, all areas of 

GUIS-FL, including the islands, are accessible to vehicles. The water bodies surrounding GUISFL include Santa Rosa Sound, Big Lagoon, Pensacola Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, and the Gulf of 

Mexico (Cooper et al. 2005a). 

Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

There are a number of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in GUIS. including Gulf, bay, dunes, salt 

marsh, maritime forest, barrier islands, seagrass beds, and other marine systems. Hydrology and 
16 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

water-related issues are of central importance because 80% of the park is submerged land 

(Anderson et al. 2005). The mainland portion of GUIS-FL consists of live oak, sandhill, and 

marsh communities; the mainland portion of GUIS-MS consists of pine/palmetto flatwoods, 

mixed pine/hardwood, lowland hardwood, and tidal marsh. 

Many of the park’s management issues concern protecting natural resources and mitigating the 

effects of various types of disturbance, such as human use, beach nourishment, and storm 

impacts. Human use has caused both direct and indirect effects on the park. Direct effects include 

destruction of habitat by pedestrians and off-road vehicles, dredging, and development. Indirect 

effects include introduction of contaminants such as litter, oil, and pesticides; introduction of nonnative/invasive species; and fire suppression. Due to the inaccessibility of the GUIS-MS barrier 

islands, most of the direct anthropogenic disturbance has occurred on GUIS-FL. Although GUISMS is largely uninhabited, increased urbanization near GUIS-FL has impacted water quality. 

GUIS-FL is accessible by various bridges connecting Santa Rosa Island to the mainland, while 

access to GUIS-MS is limited to private boats and one passenger ferry that operates between 

Gulfport, Mississippi, and Ship Island. Florida’s Gulf Breeze peninsula is experiencing rapid 

urbanization. Most of the urban and commercial development is occurring on Santa Rosa Island 

and along U.S. Highway 98, adjacent to the park. 

Hurricanes are one of the biggest concerns for the park, as they can have devastating effects on 

biological communities as well as park structures and facilities, and cause rapid morphological 

shoreline changes through erosion and overwash of the islands. Hydrologic alternations (e.g., 

jetties and navigation channels) alter sediment input and transport, limiting the ability of these 

systems to recover on their own between storms. To combat erosion, the beaches of GUIS have 

been regularly nourished with sand, which generally comes from the dredging of navigation 

channels. Although these nourishment projects are beneficial for the reduction of erosion, there is 

concern regarding the rates of revegetation, adverse effects on macroinvertebrates, and reduction 

of the vegetative seed bank (Cooper et al. 2005a). 

1.4.1.3. Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve 

Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, established in 1978, consists of six separate 

units in the Mississippi Delta region, including the Barataria Preserve (BP) and the Chalmette 

Battlefield and National Cemetery (CBNC), which are the only two units included in the I&M 

program. The 8,000-hectare Barataria Preserve is located in the upper freshwater zone of the 

Barataria Basin, one of the most productive estuarine wetlands in North America. It contains a 

portion of an abandoned delta of the Mississippi River and associated ecological zones. The 

natural communities of the preserve fall into three broad types, reflecting their underlying 

geological structure: hardwood forest, swamp, and marsh. The backbone of the preserve is an 

abandoned distributary channel of the Mississippi River and its flanking natural levees. The 

levees are ribbons of relatively firm alluvial soils—the only ground above sea level—on which 

grows a hardwood forest of ridge and bottomland species. On the back slopes of these natural 

levees, where the soils are inundated much of the year, grows a bald cypress (Taxodium 

distichum) and water tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica) swamp forest. The preserve’s marshes occur 

beyond the swamps where alluvial soils have subsided well below sea level. Above this sunken 

surface, lies a layer of peat, often many feet thick (Muth 1997). The peat supports a unique type 

of floating marsh locally known as “flotant.” 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 17 

Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve. 

The BP consists of six dominant ecosystems: natural levee; live-oak forest; ridge and swale 

bottomland hardwoods; backslope transitional red-maple swamp forest; bald cypress (T. 

distichum) and tupelo (N. sylvatica) swamp; fresh and intermediate marshes, including large 

expanses of floating marsh (flotant) and shrub communities; and bayous, ponds, and estuarine 

lakes. 

The CBNC is a smaller unit that marks the site of the 1815 Battle of New Orleans in the War of 

1812, and is one of the only undeveloped pieces of land on the east side of the Mississippi River 

close to metropolitan New Orleans (Bretting 1975, Cooper et al. 2005b). The habitats described 

there were grouped into six types: ditch, field and pasture, batture (which is flooded during part of 

the year), thicket, levee, and lawn. The vegetation consists primarily of low, grassy fields 

maintained by mowing, subjecting the area to a high rate of invasion by non-native species. 

One critical issue of management concern in the park concerns hydrologic alterations due to the 

virtually complete confinement of the Mississippi River by artificial levees, spillways, and 

training devices. The result has been that the sediment and fresh water that historically flooded 

the wetlands of the preserve have been cut off. Restoration of natural hydrology is not feasible; 

however, BP is in the outfall area of a large, controlled river diversion constructed by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. Monitoring the effects of that diversion on the habitats of the preserve 

will be critical. Other issues include high rates of bankline erosion along lakes and other 

waterways, high local rates of subsidence, extensive human-made canals, and associated spoil 

banks that interrupt sheetflow and allow accelerated rates of salt-water intrusion by amplifying 

tidal effects. Development around the park introduces pollutants through urban run-off, provides 

a source for the introduction of non-native and invasive species, and has resulted in the disruption 

of natural fire regimes and loss of habitat. 
18 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

1.4.1.4. Natchez Trace Parkway 

The Natchez Trace Parkway is a 470-mile roadway that extends from Natchez, Mississippi, 

through the northwest corner of Alabama to Nashville, Tennessee, and crosses through six forest 

types and eight major watersheds. The parkway connects the southern Mississippi River to central 

Tennessee, and commemorates the historic route that was traveled by various American Indian 

tribes throughout early American history. Within Tennessee, most of the parkway lies on the 

Western Highland Rim province of the Interior Low Plateau. The portion within Mississippi and 

Alabama exists mostly on the Southeastern Plains and the northern portion of the Gulf Coastal 

Plain. A small portion of NATR crosses the Black Belt Prairie in northern Mississippi (Cooper 

2004b). Because the shape of this park is long and narrow, much of what is known about its 

natural resources is inferred because of studies conducted on nearby national forests or state 

parks. 

Natchez Trace Parkway. 

The history of land use has shaped the vegetative communities that currently exist along the 

parkway. Due to disturbances caused by American Indians (e.g., use of fire) followed by the 

Europeans (e.g., timber harvesting followed by agriculture, then abandonment of agriculture and 

fire suppression), the landscape along the parkway is generally at least third- or fourth-growth 

forest. 

The park currently contends with four major management issues, which are all related to the fact 

that the park is subject to many outside influences: non-native/invasive species, adjacent land-use 

impacts, nuisance native species, and parkway construction. Because of the parkway’s shape and 

proximity to multiple large cities with increased suburbanization of the landscape, portions of it 

are subject to air and water quality issues, disturbed lands, and hydrologic disruptions. 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 19 

1.4.1.5. Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site 

Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site (PAAL) exists in the Matamoran district of the 

Tamaulipan biotic province. This area is a unique blend of northern, coastal, and tropical, and 

western desert characteristics. PAAL is located 10 miles north of the Rio Grande River in the 

southern tip of Texas, and preserves the 3,400-acre site of the first major battle of the U.S.–

Mexican War (1846–1848). 

Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site. 

Three general habitat types or zones have been described in PAAL: brushland, salt prairie, and 

wetlands (Cooper et al. 2004c). Brushland habitat covers about 23% of the park and exists 

primarily on the area adjacent to meandering resacas, or old river bed/oxbows, created as the 

former channels of the Rio Grande were naturally cut off from the river as it shifted over time. 

These areas, slightly higher in elevation than the neighboring salt prairie, have better drainage, 

allowing soils to have lower salinity. Therefore, they support a different plant community. 

Brushlands are generally found from the southwest corner of the park, along its western side, and 

curving along the northern boundary. They are characterized by dense, woody, and usually thorny 

vegetation. 

Salt-prairie habitat is the largest system on the PAAL, covering 75% of the park’s land area. Salt 

prairies occur in low-lying areas with poorly drained soils. These areas are dominated by Gulf 

cordgrass (Spartina spartinae). Natural depressions within the salt-prairie systems, which once 

were frequently flooded, are typically dry most of the year due to excavation of cattle tanks and 

disruption of the resacas. These areas, also known as Borrichia or salt flats, are characterized 

primarily by sea oxeye (Borrichia frutescens) and succulents among the bare patches of soil. 

Wetlands compose approximately 2% of the park and consist primarily of abandoned channels 

and tributaries of the Rio Grande and human-made waterholes for cattle. Many resacas gradually 

filled with sediment from erosion and now support wetland species. Salinity levels of the 

groundwater in the park have been described as moderately to very saline (Cooper et al. 2004c). 

Lacking streams, much of the surface water (largely from hurricanes or other storm events) 

travels across PAAL in sheets. Surface water in much of the Lower Rio Grande Valley is 

transported through human-made ditches, which are a dominant feature in the landscape there. 
20 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

However, because salt prairie dominated the area and row-crop agriculture was not successful, 

PAAL is generally free of scars caused by major irrigation and drainage ditches. 

The park currently has two major management issues: non-native species and adjacent land-use 

impacts. Although PAAL has largely escaped the dramatic alterations seen in much of the Lower 

Rio Grande Valley due to its high-salinity soils, the area does show effects of previous land use. 

Vegetation has changed across the park due to previous landscape modifications including 

clearing of brushland and attempts to introduce non-native plants for grazing. Erosion resulting 

from agricultural activities within the park has dramatically increased the speed by which the 

resacas filled with sediment, which has resulted in a change in vegetation. Hydrologic alterations 

have reduced flooding to an infrequent occurrence limited to rainwater, so that it no longer 

reflects the historic hydrologic regime. If Brownsville’s rapid growth rate continues, then PAAL 

could become an urban park in the future, with increased management problems due to changes 

in land use outside of the park. 

1.4.1.6. Padre Island National Seashore 

Padre Island National Seashore was established in 1962, and consists of approximately 130,000 

acres of land and water. At 70 miles, it is the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the 

world, and ranges in width from 0.5 to 3 miles (Cooper et al. 2005c). The authorized boundary of 

the seashore includes not only the barrier island itself, but also portions of the Gulf of Mexico and 

the Laguna Madre. The Laguna Madre extends the whole length of the South Texas coast, from 

Corpus Christi Bay to the Mexican border. It is 200 kilometers long and is one of the few 

hypersaline lagoon systems in the world. The Laguna Madre supports 75% of Texas’s seagrass 

meadows (Chapman et al. 1998), which are some of the most productive estuarine systems as 

well as valuable nursery areas for a variety of wildlife. Due to the pressure from growing 

development along coastal Texas, the habitat in the park has become an increasingly important 

resource for many resident and migrating species. 

Padre Island National Seashore. 

There are a number of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems on PAIS. Beginning on the Gulf side 

and going west to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the park includes the nearshore waters, the 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 21 

foreshore (swash zone) and backshore (from high-tide line to dunes) on the beach, foredunes, 

vegetated flats behind the dunes with shallow fresh- or brackish-water ponds and marshes, backisland dunes in some areas, wind-tidal flats, and shallow, hypersaline seagrass beds in the lagoon. 

The interplay of climate, physiography, and geomorphology results in a landscape that is largely 

shaped by wind (Withers et al. 2004). The underlying formation of Padre Island is an ancient 

barrier bar deposited during the Pleistocene period. The sediments deposited on this barrier 

primarily consist of sand and shell. The sediment along Padre Island varies down its length due to 

multiple sources and the way in which deposition occurred. Sand along the southern end is coarse 

and was deposited by the Rio Grande. The finer sand in the north was deposited by rivers such as 

the Nueces and Colorado. 

Very little surface freshwater is available from terrestrial sources adjacent to the Laguna Madre or 

on Padre Island. On Padre Island, freshwater sources are limited and generally confined to ponds 

that form in swales and depressions in the vegetated flats. These ponds are an extremely 

important source of both drinking water and food for many terrestrial vertebrates and birds. 

However, most are ephemeral, and many become brackish or dry up, particularly during dry 

periods. 

Padre Island is relatively undeveloped due to its remote location and lack of permanent roads. 

The major population centers in the vicinity are Corpus Christi, in the northernmost upper Laguna 

Madre; Port Mansfield, along the south-central western shore in lower Laguna Madre; and 

Laguna Vista, Laguna Heights, Port Isabel, and South Padre Island, along the southernmost lower 

Laguna Madre. The lack of development on the mainland adjacent to the Laguna Madre is largely 

a result of large landholdings in Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, and privately owned 

ranches such as the King, Kenedy, and Yturria ranches. Currently, recreation is the primary land 

use of the undeveloped areas of Padre Island, including PAIS. Public use and recreational 

activities have a significant effect on natural resources of barrier islands. The primary attraction 

of barrier islands is their natural settings, abundant wildlife, and frequently remote locations. 

Many of the park’s management issues concern protecting natural resources and mitigating the 

effects of various types of disturbance such as human use, cattle grazing, oil and gas exploration 

and production, fire, and storm impacts. Human use has caused both direct (e.g., destruction of 

habitat by pedestrians and vehicles, dredging, and development) and indirect (e.g., contamination 

from trash, oil spills, and pesticide use) management concerns for the park. Multiple studies have 

found that areas with heavy traffic display a decline in species density and richness (Cooper et al. 

2005c), and cause areas to be less stable during storm events. Hurricanes are one of the biggest 

concerns for the park, as they can have devastating effects on biological communities as well as 

park structures and facilities, and cause morphological shoreline changes. Beach erosion is also a 

prevalent management issue at PAIS, and many efforts have been made to study and manage this 

problem. Grazing had occurred continuously on the island for 150 years until 1971, when cattle 

were removed. Overgrazing and drought previously denuded a once largely vegetated island and 

increased the accumulation of sand in the Laguna Madre. Since grazing has been phased out on 

the island, vegetation has rebounded. 

Due to the number of oil tankers in Corpus Christi Bay, and seeps from the floor of the Gulf of 

Mexico, threats of oil spills remain a concern for the park. Other forms of contamination, such as 

trash and pesticides, have also been monitored in the park to determine the amount, type, and 

possible effects on the park and its inhabitants. There has been a decline in the level of 

organochloride pesticides, such as DDE, detected in park fauna since the 1970s, but chemicals 

such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are now being detected (Cooper et al. 2005c). 
22 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

1.4.1.7. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 

San Antonio Missions National Historical Park is an 826-acre unit that consists of several noncontiguous units along the San Antonio River. The park was created in 1978, and originally 

consisted of the major mission community sites of Concepción, San José, San Juan, and Espada; 

Espada Dam; and aqueduct sites in San Antonio. Rancho de las Cabras, a grazing ranch for 

Mission Espada located approximately 25 miles south of San Antonio in Wilson County, was 

transferred to SAAN from the State of Texas in 1995. The missions exist on the upper edge of the 

Gulf Coastal Plain, just south of the Edwards Plateau. The two physiographic regions are 

separated by the Balcones Escarpment, a series of subparallel faults that allowed the Gulf Coast 

Plain to sink (Cooper et al. 2005d). 

San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. 

 

The general appearance of the missions and surrounding area during the years of their greatest 

use (late 18th century) included lands between the missions that were crossed by the San Antonio 

River. The missionaries had built dams at various points on the river, and from the ponds that 

formed behind these dams, water flowed down the acequia, or irrigation system. At points along 

the acequia line, intermittent tributaries of the river were crossed. 

Three major habitats exist within or in close proximity to the park: forested riparian corridors, old 

agricultural field, and scrubland. The habitat at the missions was formally a major riparian forest 

community composed of vegetation communities from both Blackland Prairie and South Texas 

Plains. Remnants of the old river channel have become riparian oases, creating habitat for many 

wildlife species. Paralleling the river on both sides was a series of wide ditches, or acequias, that 

supplied water to the mission irrigation systems. Prior to European settlement, the landscape of 

South Texas was primarily grassland with small patches of brush (Cooper et al. 2005d). Those 

scrubland and grassland habitats have been the focus of studies that examined the effects of 

overgrazing or abandonment of farms coupled with a lack of historic fire on plant succession 

(Van Auken and Bush 1984, Bush and Van Auken 1987). The combination of fire reduction and 

increased grazing allowed extensive brushlands, or huisache savannas, to replace grasslands and 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 23 

abandoned farms. Overgrazing reduced the fuel for fires and created open patches, which allowed 

brush species to become established. Because cattle do not generally feed on brush, and fire was 

eliminated from the system, brush species were able to outcompete grasses and dominate the 

system. 

Because of the park’s proximity to San Antonio, it currently contends with two major, related 

management issues: exotic species and adjacent land-use impacts. Park managers are currently 

concerned with several species of non-native plants and animals, including stray pets. Unchecked, 

they can become feral populations, which have an unknown impact on native animal populations 

and are a safety concern for visitors. Neighboring businesses or industries have also caused 

several occurrences of environmental hazards, including an underground plume of 

Trichloroethene from a local air-force base, a possible leak of hydrocarbons from a refinery, and 

the demolition of a garage built from automobile casings. Additionally, managing the park for 

both cultural landscapes and biological integrity is a challenge for resource managers in this 

urban setting (Cooper et al. 2005d). 

1.4.1.8. Vicksburg National Military Park 

Vicksburg National Military Park was established to commemorate the 1863 Siege of Vicksburg. 

This 1,815-acre park commemorates one of the most decisive campaigns of the Civil War. The 

vegetation in the park has changed greatly from the 1863 historical open landscape, and now 

consists of a mix of forested and open grassy areas, along with stream and river habitats. Early 

photos show a landscape of open fields largely devoid of trees. However, attempts to protect the 

area from erosion and a lack of maintenance funds over the years have created a very different 

vegetation community than originally existed at the park (Cooper et al. 2004d). The extant forest 

has been described as mixed mesophytic, although the dominant trees in the park consist of 

southern red oak (Quercus falcata) and white oak (Q. alba) instead of the typical beech (Fagus 

grandifolia) and cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata) found in this habitat type (Walker 1997). 

VICK is located on the only major southward extension of this forest type, which stretches down 

through Mississippi to Louisiana and exists in an area known as the Blufflands. The variation in 

species composition has been attributed to the relative infancy of the forest in VICK. Vegetation 

type mapping is currently underway as part of the I&M program. 
24 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Vicksburg National Military Park. 

The surface soils of VICK consist of Pleistocene-age loess. The advancement and recession of the 

Pleistocene glaciers in northern North America created a fine rock powder that was carried down 

the continent in many tributaries, including the Mississippi River. As the fine particles were 

deposited in flood plains and the water from glacier melt receded, these particles were swept up 

by the wind and deposited on the bluffs of the Mississippi and surrounding areas, creating varying 

depths of what is known as loess soil. Loess soil has the unique characteristic of allowing vertical 

cuts in the soil without support. However, because the soil was deposited by wind rather than 

water, it is highly susceptible to erosion when exposed (Cooper et al. 2004d). 

The park currently contends with four major management issues, many of which are 

interconnected: erosion, change in vegetation, exotic species, and adjacent land-use impacts. The 

presence of highly erodible loess soils in the area has created problems for the park due to the loss 

of soil and alterations to vegetation in attempts to reduce this loss. The drastic change in 

vegetation across the park since the Battle of Vicksburg has been partly due to efforts designed to 

reduce erosion. In addition, the close proximity of the city of Vicksburg has influenced the park’s 

natural resources by negatively impacting the air and water quality, destroying viewsheds, 

increasing vandalism, and allowing for the transfer of exotic-plant and feral-animal species. 

Walker (1997) found that 28% of the species in the park were not native to Mississippi. Higher 

water temperatures have been documented in Glass Bayou and Mint Springs Creek, due in part to 

increased sedimentation caused by urban development (Dibble 2003). 

1.4.2. Non-native species in GULN parks 

Non-native and invasive species pose a serious threat to the ecological integrity of all GULN park 

ecosystems. Most of the network parks are located close to urban centers or other developed 

areas, which increases the likelihood of presence and invasion by non-native species. The 

subtropical climate characteristic of the GULN, and subsequent long growing period, increases 

the likelihood of non-native species establishment. Although many non-native plant species exist 

in GULN parks, many are not invasive (e.g., Desmodium triflorum, Murdannia nudiflora), and 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 25 

thus do not necessarily threaten park ecosystems or warrant treatment and control. However, 

those species that do alter ecosystem function often necessitate treatment, control, and 

monitoring. For example, cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) can establish mono-specific stands in 

undisturbed areas, thus reducing species diversity and habitat quality. Other species, such as 

Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum) or kudzu (Pueraria montana), can serve as ladder 

fuels during a fire event, carrying fire into the canopy and increasing fire intensity. 

Non-native animals can adversely impact native species directly through consumption or 

indirectly through competition. For example, interspecific competition from the non-native house 

mouse (Mus musculus) may be associated with decreased abundance of the native Perdido Key 

beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis). Further, feral cats (Felis domesticus) likely 

pressure populations of beach mice, other small mammals, and native birds. Rooting activities 

from feral hogs (Sus scrofa) create large disturbances that cause habitat fragmentation, reduce 

habitat quality, and increase site vulnerability to non-native/invasive species establishment. See 

Appendix E for more detail on non-native/invasive species. 

1.4.3. Water resources in GULN parks 

Many GULN parks have significant and extensive areas where surface waters play a key role in 

the occurrence and distribution of associated natural resources. BITH and the Barataria Preserve 

of JELA contain major forested and emergent wetlands that are directly influenced by the surface 

water found there. GUIS and PAIS are barrier-island complexes with inshore shallow bays that 

support extensive seagrass beds, as well as interior ponds that provide important freshwater 

habitat in an otherwise marine system. BITH, VICK, and NATR contain abundant stream and 

river corridors or stream crossings that support aquatic communities and interact with broad 

floodplains and meanders. SAAN is located along a river within a major urban center. PAAL 

contains salt prairie and remnant meander lakes called resacas. Occurrence of surface water is 

usually associated with rainfall and accompanied by dramatic changes in habitat and species 

composition that are otherwise not apparent. 

The designated uses, impairments, and threats to the network parks are as varied as the parks 

themselves, and the amount of historic water quality data available for each park varies widely, 

which makes comparisons difficult. In preparation for the development of a water quality 

monitoring plan, the network worked with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to prepare a 

scoping report summarizing the water quality issues for each park, identifying all 303(d)-listed 

waters in the parks, and identifying existing monitoring stations and/or programs in and near 

network parks (Swarzenski 2006; Appendix F). In addition, coastal watershed condition 

assessments have been completed for both PAIS (Withers et al. 2004) and GUIS (Anderson et al. 

2005). All GULN parks are located near urban settings and have been negatively impacted by 

residential and industrial anthropogenic activities. All network parks, except PAAL, have one or 

more water bodies listed on their corresponding state’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to 

air deposition of toxics and inputs associated with land-use practices. Listing under the 303(d) 

program is not applicable to PAAL because of the lack of predictable surfacewater source. Based 

on the differing issues highlighted in the scoping report, the network will develop two separate 

plans for monitoring water quality. The five predominantly freshwater parks (BITH, NATR, 

PAAL, SAAN, and VICK) will be combined into one plan (see Chapter 5 and Appendix M for 

details), and the three coastal/marine parks (GUIS, JELA, and PAIS) will be combined into a 

separate plan. Each plan will include basic water quality parameters and use techniques and 

protocols already in use by other agencies. The network will coordinate with existing programs to 

ensure that the data can be interpreted in a broader watershed or regional scales. 
26 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

The NPS Air Resources Division has prepared a review of existing data on persistent organic 

pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals in the network parks (Gallaher et al. 2005; Appendix F). 

These contaminants largely enter the parks’ waterways through atmospheric deposition. 

Therefore, they are most likely to be captured in water quality monitoring, rather than measured 

directly as part of air quality monitoring. This report also compiled any available data into a 

searchable Microsoft Access database. These data were collected by many different agencies, 

universities, and private companies. Many of the data were too old to be useful for an analysis of 

current conditions, or were not collected in a consistent way from site to site. However, because 

of the proximity of industrial sources and oil and gas activity on or near several parks, the authors 

suggest that a more systematic inventory of these pollutants may be warranted. The network will 

continue to coordinate with existing monitoring programs in the various states, but will not 

pursue this issue on a network-wide scale because of the costs involved. 

1.4.4. Air resources in GULN parks 

Several GULN parks are impacted by air pollution. BITH, SAAN, and portions of NATR are 

located in areas designated non-attainment for ozone; their respective states are required to 

develop plans to eventually comply with the standard. Under the Clean Air Act, park managers 

have the responsibility to protect air quality and related values from the adverse effects of air 

pollution. The National Park Service’s Air Quality Division (NPS-ARD) has implemented 

monitoring efforts in many Class 1 areas, areas that are subject to the most stringent standards 

under the Clear Air Act. No GULN parks are designated Class 1 areas. However, as part of the 

Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program, the NPS-ARD has conducted an inventory 

of the location of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality monitoring stations 

within close proximity (50–100 km) to park boundaries. Data from these stations were used to 

obtain a rough assessment of air quality within individual park units. 

Of primary concern to the network is the deposition of air toxics (as discussed above in water 

quality) and some concern for potential of ozone damage. Vegetation in BITH and portions of 

NATR is considered at high risk of injury from high levels of ozone. Vegetation in SAAN, JELA, 

and other portions of NATR are considered at moderate risk (see Appendix G or 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/ARIS/networks/ozonerisk.cjm). Consequently, through 

coordination with the NPS-ARD, the GULN has purchased two portable ozone monitoring 

stations (POMS) that are currently in use in network parks. The stations are located in areas 

where there is some uncertainty about whether existing stations accurately represent in-park 

conditions, and they are relocated to other network parks after sufficient data (usually two 

summer seasons) have been collected. Comparing the data to that from existing stations will 

allow the network to confirm which existing stations can be used for long-term monitoring of 

ozone in the parks. We will use data from those existing stations to track ozone over time, and do 

not expect to implement a separate air quality monitoring protocol in the network. The NPS-ARD 

has made access to the data available at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/studies/portO3.cfm, and 

interpolated estimates of air quality data at 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/index.cfm. At this time, the NPS-ARD does not 

intend to fund additional monitoring at GULN park units. 

1.4.5. Geologic resources in GULN parks 

The soils and geology of the GULN represent a broad spectrum. The soils include highly erosive 

loess (VICK), various muck soils (JELA), clayey soils (PAAL, SAAN), sandy soils (GUIS, 

PAIS), and loam soils (BITH, NATR) (Appendix H). However, the majority of the network 

parks, located in the Gulf Coastal Plain, can be geologically characterized as alluvial. As part of 

the Geologic Resource Inventory, the NPS Geologic Resources Division (NPS-GRD) is 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 27 

producing digital geologic resource maps for all parks included in an I&M network. The first step 

in that process is to conduct geologic resource scoping meetings, including park staff, NPS-GRD 

staff, and other experts in local geologic issues. To date, scoping meetings have been conducted 

at PAIS and GUIS. The products for PAIS are expected to be completed during FY2007, GUIS in 

FY2009. Assessments of coastal vulnerability of these two barrier-island parks (Pendleton et al. 

2004a, b) indicate that large parts of these systems are highly vulnerable to the impacts of sealevel rise. The severe impacts that GUIS and JELA experienced during the hurricane seasons of 

2004 and 2005 confirm that network parks are vulnerable to such impacts as shoreline erosion, 

saltwater intrusion, inundation of wetlands and estuaries, and threats to cultural and historic 

resources and park infrastructure. The dynamic geomorphologic features of GUIS and PAIS are 

directly linked to the other natural resources in those parks, making this the only high-priority 

geological issue in the network. 

Vegetation helps stabilize the dunes on Santa Rosa Island, 

Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

1.5. Existing Monitoring Programs in Gulf Coast Network Parks 

We conducted a survey of current and historical monitoring efforts within the network parks to 

identify opportunities to continue, modify, or expand existing programs. In-park monitoring 

efforts are summarized in Table 1.5, and additional details for historical and current monitoring 

efforts are presented in Appendix I. Table 1.5 includes only those monitoring/research projects 

that were conducted on park property. Regional monitoring programs, such as air or water quality 

monitoring, which will be used to aid in assessing park resources, are not included in this 

summary. We will make full use of existing monitoring programs, particularly air and water, 

outside of the parks, if the data are appropriate. In the case of water quality, the network’s 

monitoring program will be designed to augment existing efforts and place park resources in a 

broader, watershed- or regionwide context. We are planning no in-park, long-term air quality 

monitoring, but will use data from existing programs to track changes that may begin to impact 

park resources. Also not included in the table are park-based inventories, which are designed to 

document presence/absence of species rather than trends in populations over time. The results of 
28 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

those inventories are available in NPSpecies, the NPS database designed to house inventory data. 

Overall, little long-term, comprehensive monitoring has been conducted in GULN parks. Some 

parks, such as JELA, have a long history of research conducted in the park; others have very little 

baseline information or monitoring data. Where work has been done, most is not long-term or 

currently ongoing. 

Table 1.5. Summary of existing and prior park-based monitoring efforts conducted in Gulf 

Coast Network parks presented in the framework of the NPS I&M program. 

Level 2 Category Level 3 Category 

BITH GUIS JELA NATR PAAL PAIS SAAN VICK 

Ozone C C 

Visibility and Particulate Matter C 

Air Quality 

Air Contaminants C 

Weather and Climate Weather and Climate C C C 

Coastal/Oceanographic Features and 

Processes C C H 

Stream/River Channel Characteristics 

Geomorphology 

Hillslope features (erosion) C

Soil Quality Soil Function and Dynamics H 

Hydrology Groundwater Dynamics C 

Surface water dynamics H 

Water Chemistry C,H H C

Nutrient Dynamics C,H 

Water Quality 

Toxics C C H C

Invasive Species Invasive/Exotic Plants C C C,H C C C

Invasive/Exotic Animals C C

Wetland Communities C,H 

Riparian Communities C,H 

Aquatic Vegetation C 

Forest/Woodland Communities C,H 

Marine Invertebrates 

Freshwater invertebrates C

Terrestrial Invertebrates C,H 

Fishes C C C

Amphibians and Reptiles H 

Birds C C,H C? C C

Mammals C 

Focal Species or 

Communities 

 

Terrestrial Communities H

At-risk Biota Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Communities C C C C 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 29 

Level 2 Category Level 3 Category 

BITH GUIS JELA NATR PAAL PAIS SAAN VICK 

Point-source Human 

Effects Point source human effect (oil and gas) C H C 

Non-point-source Human 

Effects 

Non-point source human effect (Marine 

Debris) H 

Visitor and Recreation Use Visitor Usage C C C

Fire and Fuel Dynamics Fire and Fuel Dynamics C C C

Landscape Dynamics Land Cover and Use C,H 

Soundscape Soundscape H C

C = data collected within the last five years (2000–2005). 

H = historical data collected prior to 2000. 

1.6. Developing an Integrated Monitoring Program 

1.6.1. GULN monitoring objectives 

There are several challenges associated with developing a truly integrated monitoring program for 

the Gulf Coast Network: the large range and variation in ecosystems and their associated 

functions, processes, and characteristics; the large geographical distance between parks (the 

greatest distance between park units is more than 1,200 miles from north to south); the division of 

the network across a major NPS administrative boundary (half of the parks are in the Southeast 

Region, half in the Intermountain Region); and the combination of large parks with significant 

natural resources and associated staff and expertise, and smaller cultural parks with locally 

significant natural resources that may not have been the focus of previous management activities. 

Nevertheless, thanks in large part to park staff and its Technical Committee members, the GULN 

has taken to heart the operational model for the development of this program: the network is 

thought of as one park with multiple units. The focus has been to search for the common 

characteristics and needs of the parks, rather than the differences. Consequently, the network has 

created a few common conceptual models, rather than attempting to model each of the many 

types of systems found across the network (see Chapter 2). Vital sign selection was driven by 

issues of common concern, rather than each park-specific issue (see Chapter 3). Protocols with 

network-wide application potential are given highest priority (see Chapter 5). 

The GULN recognizes that the NPS I&M program offers a unique opportunity to monitor trends 

in natural resources that are pervasive across network parks and that individual parks would find 

difficult to accomplish due to high cost or magnitude of scale. Our intention is to analyze 

network-wide changes in the status of selected vital signs, recognizing that the monitoring data 

need to be collected, analyzed, interpreted, and reported in such a way as to be relevant for 

individual park managers. Additionally, our intent is to develop a monitoring program that is 

complementary to those of other I&M networks in the Southeast Region, so that the data can 

ultimately be used to evaluate larger, regional trends. 

The GULN monitoring program will not exclusively focus on the general ecological function of 

network ecosystems, because no network park can be considered to be in a “pristine” condition. 

Most network parks are already highly impacted by a variety of anthropogenic stressors and may 

be less resilient to natural disturbances due to their small size and location in a largely altered 

system outside of park boundaries. Several have a relatively small acreage compared to boundary 

length (i.e., are long and linear), or are made up of many discrete units. Consequently, many of 
30 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

the impacts to park resources are beyond the control of park managers, but have large impacts on 

the ecosystems found there. Given the rapidly changing landscape in which these parks are found, 

new issues will arise that may be difficult to predict today. 

A landscape-scale approach will provide valuable data that will assist parks with these emerging 

issues. The major objectives of the of the GULN monitoring program are associated with the 

landscape-scale issues of management concern that many of our parks have in common: 

1. Monitor changes in land use outside of park boundaries. At the request of park managers, our 

approach is to provide real-time, early warning of permitted development within areas of 

concern identified by park staff. The goal is to allow the parks to plan for impacts to 

resources (e.g., visitor access, watershed issues, viewscape, or introduction of invasive 

species) before those changes occur. 

2. Monitor changes in structure and community composition of terrestrial vegetation. 

Vegetative-community types and habitats, and their associated structural characteristics, are 

closely linked to other species of interest found in an area. Several associated issues of 

concerns may be wholly or partially addressed by this approach: control or expansion of 

invasive species; increase or decrease of natural and anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., 

frequency or intensity of tropical storms, fire suppression); and changes in weather patterns 

and climate (e.g., droughts, global climate change). 

3. Monitor changes in water quality. Surface waters play a key role in the occurrence and 

distribution of the associated natural resources in network parks and are highly important to 

visitor experience. Monitoring of water quality will be coordinated with other state and 

federal efforts in order to place changes identified within the parks in larger regional context. 

4. Monitor changes in common amphibian species abundance and distribution. Amphibians are 

indicators of general ecological health, and are common to all network parks. They are 

subject to regional- and global-scale environmental changes, but are less mobile than other 

species (such as birds), and are therefore better indicators of in-park conditions that may be 

under management control. 

5. Monitor coastal dynamics, or the large-scale changes in landscape features in our coastal 

parks. Geomorphic change along the coast can lead to sudden and dramatic changes, not only 

in natural resources, but also in park infrastructure. Consistent, quantifiable measurements of 

coastal change will inform park managers for such issues as park planning, and participation 

in regionwide efforts of other federal agencies, such at the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Coordination with other coastal monitoring in the northern Gulf of Mexico will put in-park 

changes into a regionwide perspective. 

6. Monitor weather and climate as a driver of larger ecosystem change across the network. 

High-quality, correlative weather data will be important for the interpretation of all other vital 

signs datasets. Particular issues of concern are global climate change and sea-level rise. 

The GULN is committed to establishing the foundation of a monitoring program that will 

continue in the long term. We expect that the information gained will provide valuable data to aid 

appropriate management decisions in network parks and provide landscape-scale information that 

can also form the foundation of other, targeted, shorter-term, research projects in the parks. Issues 

of management concern are an important component of the monitoring program, but the program 

focus is on landscape- and regional-scale issues shared by the network parks. 
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 31 

1.6.2. Process used to identify vital signs 

The process for choosing and prioritizing vital signs has largely followed that recommended by 

the national I&M program, consisting of a series of scoping workshops, compilation of park 

issues and concerns, development of conceptual models, Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee (STAC) meetings, use of prioritization ranking criteria, and park visits to ensure the 

linkage between monitoring data and park management (details are provided in Chapter 3). The 

process for choosing and prioritizing vital signs began 2002, with a combined Board of Directors 

and STAC meeting. The final list of 42 vital signs was prioritized in April 2005, at a STAC 

meeting, where 19 of the vital signs were determined to be of highest priority. At that time, it was 

understood that given budget and time limitations, the network would likely not be able to 

immediately begin monitoring all of those vital signs. As protocol development has progressed, 

we have been working to address as many of the identified vital signs in common protocols as 

possible (see Chapter 5). We consider this monitoring plan to be dynamic and subject to frequent 

review and evaluation. 
32 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 33 

Chapter 2 

Conceptual Ecological Models 

This chapter presents and discusses the conceptual models we developed to guide and support the 

GULN monitoring program. Experience from the NPS prototype program, as well as from many 

other monitoring programs, indicates that successful monitoring programs are based on an 

underlying understanding of how the ecosystem(s) in question work. This programmatic 

understanding forms a mental model that guides and influences program development. For 

effective programmatic use, these models need to be explicit and available for discussion and 

refinement (Maddox et al. 1999). Conceptual models, and the modeling process, contribute to 

development of program monitoring objectives, prioritization of possible vital signs, selection of 

useful specific indicators for effective ecological monitoring, and clarification of meaningful 

monitoring strategies, thus enabling programs to progress from general to more-specific 

monitoring questions (Gross 2003). Conceptual models are part of an integrated information 

system to provide scientifically valid information to park managers, and may be revised as 

monitoring data are interpreted and findings reported (Figure 2.1). 

Understand, 

protect, 

restore park 

resources

Figure 2.1. Ecological monitoring as an integrated information system to provide scientifically 

valid information to park managers. Figure adapted from National Water Quality Monitoring 

Council (2003). 
34 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

2.1. Introduction 

Conceptual models are simplified visual or narrative summaries that present selected important 

components and interactions of complex systems (Starfield 1997). They help synthesize current 

knowledge so that scientists can make defensible decisions about what to monitor with a better 

understanding of how indicators are linked to the larger ecosystem (DeAngelis et al. 2003). They 

also serve as heuristic devices to help program developers communicate and understand 

ecological complexity by organizing available information, simplifying component relationships 

and processes, and illustrating how components may affect one another and other systems. For 

the GULN program, conceptual models are (1) communication devices that support effective 

decisionmaking during continued program development; (2) tools intended to present a simplified 

digest of complex information that allows us to place our monitoring efforts within a context that 

relates indicators to major ecosystem components, processes, and anthropogenic threats of 

interest to network parks; and (3), dynamic, living documents that are expected to change over 

time as we acquire new information and understanding about the ecosystems we monitor. 

The GULN program has developed diverse conceptual models representing a broad array of 

issues, resources, and ecosystems. These models range from process-outline “box-and-arrow” 

depictions of major ecosystems to park-specific diagrams of resources and monitoring interests. 

This chapter includes the following: 

1. A description of the GULN conceptual-modeling process; 

2. A GULN general ecosystem conceptual model that introduces the ecosystem levels and 

symbology used in GULN system models; and 

3. The three specific models created to summarize the major ecosystem types regarded as 

being broadly applicable across GULN parks. 

GULN ecosystem conceptual models follow the general form of “stressor models” as described in 

Gross (2003). They identify major agents of change, stressors, ecosystem responses, possible 

measures and indicators, and some of the major causative links between these entities. Our 

emphasis is on showing the linked relationship between the natural and anthropogenic drivers 

affecting network ecosystems, system structure and function responses, potential vital signs and 

indicators, and monitoring efforts. 

2.2. Gulf Coast Network Model-Development Approach 

Developing conceptual models is an iterative process of creating and revising models as we gain 

understanding of GULN ecosystems, issues, and approaches to monitoring. In cooperation with 

stakeholders and expert scientists, models have been developed to summarize, in a “holistic 

overview,” our conceptual understanding of network ecosystems and park resources. These 

models communicate, in a graphical way, the important physical, chemical, and biological 

components and processes of major network ecosystems, serve as diagrammatic illustrations of 

the conceptual basis for monitoring, and support the identification and selection of ecological 

vital signs. The general and type-specific ecosystem models presented here serve to mark current 

waypoints in our ongoing programmatic development. 

Our general strategy for model development was to gather information on network park 

ecosystems and identify significant examples of and linkages among agents of change, stressors, 

and responses in these systems, followed by drafting of initial models. A workshop was held on 

April 21–22, 2004, to develop the basic background information needed to develop both 

ecosystem and park-specific conceptual models. Participants included specialists in Gulf Coast 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 35 

ecosystems, GULN staff, and park natural resource management specialists. For purposes of 

discussion, the eight network parks were grouped into river-dominated coastal parks, marinedominated coastal parks, and upland parks, based on the general types of major ecosystems 

present in each park. For each group of parks, workshop participants developed and discussed 

lists of likely stressors and ecosystem responses. Details of the stressors and ecosystem responses 

generated for each park group, a list of workshop participants, the resulting final report (Twilley 

and Rivera-Monroy 2005), and a collection of previously published conceptual models 

representing the ecosystems found in the network (Twilley 2005) are presented in Appendix J. 

Following discussion of the assembled ecological and resource information, selected specialists 

and program staff drafted diverse initial ecosystem models and park-specific diagrams to visually 

represent system structures and linkages as well as resources and issues thought to be important 

to individual parks and park management. Initial models were reviewed and discussed by 

specialists, NPS program personnel, and GULN and park staff in several forums, including inhouse staff meetings, consultation with experts, and multiple park-based meetings involving 

program staff and park management teams. Outcomes of reviews and continuing discussion 

include increasing understanding of park ecosystem structure, function, and components; refining 

understanding of park resource issues and of what park managers need in terms of monitoring 

information; and revising the conceptual models to reflect these changes in understanding. 

2.3. Gulf Coast Network Ecosystem Conceptual Models 

The GULN recognizes and responds to the reality that its ecosystems are subject to natural 

environmental processes that occur in conjunction with anthropogenic activities, and that 

anthropogenic forces and activities, natural processes and events, and ecosystem processes and 

components are best viewed as an interwoven supersystem. This holistic perspective emphasizes 

that park ecosystems are broadly subject to, and influenced by, natural and anthropogenic forces 

(Figure 2.2). Effective ecological monitoring can best be developed in a context that takes both 

system function and interactions and external influences and drivers into account. 
36 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Figure 2.2. Environmental system drivers that affect the complex linkages of air, water, land, 

and biological resources within park units, together with how economic resources impact the 

structure and function of these natural resources. Adapted from Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 

(2005). 

In general, natural and anthropogenic processes and activities are viewed as being environmental 

system drivers. These drivers create or result in stressors that lead to linked changes that alter, in 

diverse ways, ecosystem function and structure, resulting in measurable changes in component 

properties and interactions. The GULN has chosen a hierarchical, stressor-response model format 

to represent this conceptual picture of monitoring ecosystem responses to system drivers. Our 

models emphasize two aspects of our programmatic understanding and approach to ecosystems 

and their monitoring: (1) ecosystems have a hierarchical structure, and (2) levels within systems 

are linked, allowing us to link specific measures of ecosystem response to natural and 

anthropogenic drivers. For example, processes, disturbances, events, and actions affect the 

amount and type of light arriving at a plant’s surface. Light drives photosynthesis, and 

photosynthesis supports biosynthesis, resulting in plant growth. Measures of growth and incident 

light correlate back to drivers affecting available light quality and intensity. 

Our ecosystem models share a common structure and symbology, presented in Figure 2.3. Models 

depict four distinct hierarchical levels with text-filled boxes. Major causative links between these 

levels are indicated by directional lines and arrows. 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 37 

Figure 2.3. Diagram of the Gulf Coast Network conceptual modeling symbology. The four box 

types represent levels within the hierarchical ecosystem models. Text within the boxes 

identifies examples or specific cases of that level. Line-arrows represent (largely directional) 

superior-level forces or effect on subordinate levels and events. Vital signs for monitoring are 

mostly drawn from the set of ecosystem responses and indicators, but may be identified at any 

level within an ecosystem. 

The general ecosystem model (GEM; presented in Section 2.4) was constructed to serve as a 

template for specific models that depict the three dominant ecosystem types in GULN parks: the 

uplands/forest-dominated zone, the river-dominated wetlands/riparian zone, and the coastal nearshore marine zone. The GEM depicts different levels and linkages with examples that are 

potentially applicable across all eight GULN parks and of all the major ecosystems found within 

those parks. The specific ecosystem models identify appropriate examples for each level and 

denote the likely linkages considered to be salient within that specific system type. Examples of 

ecosystem-specific agents of change, stressors, and ecosystem responses are presented in Table 

2.1. Each system model is applicable to multiple network parks, and several parks contain 

examples of multiple ecosystems represented by different system models. The park-by-ecosystem 

model alignment is shown in Figure 2.4. The ecosystem models serve to support and guide 

selection and development of program monitoring protocols. 
38 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Table 2.1. Descriptions of Gulf Coast Network conceptual-model agents of change, stressors, 

and ecosystem effects (responses). 

Model component Description 

Agents of Change Disturbance is the overarching theme of the GULN models. GULN ecosystems 

tend to be very dynamic and are subject to both anthropogenic and natural 

disturbances. Disturbance is the key to maintaining diversity in GULN 

ecosystems. 

Geomorphic processes Geomorphic change affects and drives GULN ecosystems in many ways. 

Landform change, subsidence, coastal dynamics, erosion, and deposition all alter 

and restructure the physical base for system environments and habitats, and all 

are variably influenced by many natural and anthropogenic forces and events. 

Weather and climate Ultimately, all ecosystems are closely linked to weather and climate. Natural and 

anthropogenic changes in climate can lead to both biotic (e.g., habitat 

loss/alteration) and abiotic (e.g., increased beach erosion due to eustatic sea level 

rise) changes in ecosystem structure and function. 

Extreme weather 

events 

This category refers to weather that substantially deviates from the average, such 

as extreme drought, floods, hurricanes, extreme cold, tornadoes. Frequency and 

magnitude of these events vary due to natural causes and, potentially, 

anthropogenic climate change. 

Major spills and 

disasters 

GULN parks are subject to major anthropogenic disasters, such as shipwrecks 

and major petroleum spills that cause acute, large-scale impacts to ecosystems 

by altering system processes, affecting environmental quality, and destroying 

biotic components. 

Anthropogenic forces 

and actions 

GULN ecosystems exist in an extensively developed environment, and are subject 

to diverse impacts from changes in adjacent land use, resource extraction and 

consumption, urbanization, diverse recreation activities, and resource 

management actions both in and outside parks. 

Stressors 

Altered chemical inputs 

to air and water 

Contaminants and pollution include diverse materials (metals, hydrocarbons, 

pesticides, nutrients, etc.) discharged into the atmosphere and/or into drainage 

systems and urban run-off that are associated with altered survival, growth, 

reproduction, and/or metabolism. 

Altered sedimentation 

processes 

Transport and deposition of sediments are important processes that are altered by 

both natural and anthropogenic forces. Altered sedimentation processes lead to 

dynamic changes in physical and chemical environments. 

Altered fire regimes Fire is a key natural component in many GULN ecosystems. Control and 

alteration of fire regimes broadly affects both habitat properties and biota in many 

parks. 

Hydrologic manipulation Hydrologic manipulation connotes alteration of natural hydrologic processes, for 

instance, dams, levees, ditching/digging of canals, dredging/navigation, water 

withdrawal for irrigation or drinking, and river diversions. 

Infestation and disease This category includes both native and non-native pests, as well as plant and 

animal diseases. Disturbed or altered ecosystems are less resilient to disease and 

infestation. 

Altered landscape 

dynamics 

This category includes historic and ongoing changes in land use/land cover, both 

inside and outside park boundaries. 

Invasive species Invasive species are alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. With respect to a 

particular ecosystem, an alien species is defined as any species, including its 

seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that 

species, that is not native to that ecosystem (Executive Order No. 13112 1999). 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 39 

Ecosystem Effects 

Change in chemical and 

physical environment, 

as well as habitat 

availability and quality 

Changes in air quality potentially impact plant growth and development, and may 

also impact various faunal components in ecosystems. Changes in water quality 

and hydrology broadly change habitat for aquatic system biota. Changes in fire 

regimes alter vegetation-based physical structure and directly impact system 

functions and biota. Changes in sedimentation processes lead to diverse habitat 

impacts in aquatic and marine systems, and, in severe cases, can lead to direct 

loss of habitat, such as when a portion of a barrier island is destroyed by an 

extreme storm event or altered by major anthropogenic actions, such as dredging 

and spoil deposition. 

Change in biotic 

components and 

interactions 

Introduction of invasive species, removal of organisms, direct and indirect 

chemical toxicity effects, disease and pests, and fire-regime alterations can all 

affect population size, distribution, age/sex structures, reproductive rates, and 

inter- and intraspecific interactions in various biota. Any and all of these changes 

may lead to changes in biotic community structure and composition and system 

trophic structure. 

Change in ecosystem 

process and function 

Functional aspects of ecosystems, including nutrient-cycling pathways and rates, 

energy-flow dynamics, and ecological succession, are all impacted by stressors 

that alter availability of energy and nutrients, and/or modify potential for 

interactions where trophic levels “hand off” matter during these flow and cyclic 

processes. 

Figure 2.4. The applicability of the three major ecosystem models to Gulf Coast Network parks. 

Figure details which parks are addressed by which model. 
40 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

2.4. Gulf Coast Network General Ecosystem Model 

The GULN general ecosystem model is designed to illustrate a linked, hierarchical overview of 

an ecosystem subject to major systemwide drivers acting at the “top end,” and monitored, using 

quantifiable responses (indicators), at the “bottom end.” The emphasis in this general model is on 

showing a top-down stressor-response interaction between levels, ultimately resulting in 

measurable system change, subject to effective qualitative and quantitative assessment and 

monitoring. The GEM scheme places all systemwide drivers in an “agents of change” level that 

includes both anthropogenic activities and natural forces. Conceptually, these agents of change 

create or result in several discrete “stressors” that, in turn, act in specific ways on specific 

ecosystem functions and components represented in the “ecosystem responses” level. Stressor 

effects on the various ecosystem responses result in specific and measurable changes, such as 

altered physical and chemical environmental parameters. These measurable changes are the 

parameters and subjects that comprise the potential “indicators,” or vital signs, targeted by 

program monitoring protocols. The model’s hierarchical levels, with general examples, are 

defined in the following sections. 

2.4.1. Agents of change 

Agents of change are major forces or events (i.e., sources of disturbance) that have diverse and 

often large potential to affect and impact one or more ecosystem functions or structural properties 

by creating ecosystem stressors. The network’s general ecosystem model (Figure 2.5) focuses on 

three broad categories of agents of change: 

• Natural forces and processes. These include biotic processes, geomorphic processes, 

weather, and climate, for example, sea-level rise, ecological competition, pests and 

disease, succession, natural landform changes, and weather and climate cycles. 

• Acute events and disasters. These include hurricanes and other extreme, stochastic 

natural events, as well as human activity-related disasters, such as major oil spills, 

shipwrecks, and dam breaks. 

• Anthropogenic actions and activities. These include development and land-use change, 

urbanization, resource extraction and consumption, visitor and recreation activities, and 

park management actions. 

Natural forces and processes are likely to apply broadly to all ecosystems across network parks, 

as all ecosystems experience ecological competition, weather effects, and relevant geomorphic 

processes—albeit to differing degrees and in sometimes different ways. All GULN parks also 

experience acute events and disasters in the form of hurricanes, which have potential for 

regionwide, severe impacts. Anthropogenic actions and activities are somewhat more parkspecific in their type and scope, as will be noted in the specific ecosystem models and associated 

discussion. 

In addition to these general categories, larger-scale factors, such as watershed condition and 

regional air quality, affect a variety of park resources and ecosystem functions. For example, 

inland watersheds drain into near-shore waters and serve as natural dynamic hydrologic systems 

that create and sustain estuarine and marine ecosystems. Impaired and altered watersheds convey 

pollutants and sediments into waters of coastal parks, impacting park resources and undermining 

critical coastal habitat. Many water quality issues and ecosystem problems derive from watershed 

conditions at scales beyond specific water sources. Although these larger-scale factors are 

generally outside of park regulatory influence and are not detailed on GULN network models, the 

impacts from these higher-level threats are recognized. 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 41 

 

2.4.2. Stressors 

Stressors are direct changes of process or components that result from agents of change. Stressors 

directly affect ecosystem structure and function, processes, and specific system components, and 

result in ecosystem responses. Each type of agent of change may cause one or more stressors. 

Seven general classes or categories of stressors are identified in the GEM: altered hydrologic 

processes and properties, altered fire regimes, invasive species and feral animals, altered sediment 

inputs, altered chemical inputs, changes in land use, and altered landscape/landform dynamics. 

Most of these stressors apply, as categorical types, across most or all GULN parks and 

ecosystems. In each park and ecosystem, there may be specific differences in detail that will be 

noted in the system models and supporting discussion narratives. 

Depending on the type of ecosystem being discussed, the agents of change can lead to and form a 

wide array of links to stressors. For example, increasing human development and urbanization 

leads to changing land-use patterns, which may lead to increased invasive-species impacts, 

changes in hydrologic processes, and altered chemical inputs to local air and water. These 

stressors may, in turn, directly affect biological populations, trophic structure, and chemical and 

physical environments, which will affect population distributions and abundances. When a 

woodland area is converted to a housing development, for example, the woodland ecosystem 

responds as wildlife habitat is destroyed, food resources and supply are altered, invasive species 

are introduced, and soil and groundwater chemistry are altered by pollution. 

2.4.3. Ecosystem responses 

Ecosystem responses are changes in ecosystem processes and structure that result from stressor 

impacts within the system. Three general categories of ecosystem responses are identified in 

GULN system models: 

• Ecosystem function changes, including changes in ecological productivity, nutrient 

cycling, energy flow, and the overall process of succession. 

• Biotic structure changes, including changes in trophic structure, biological populations 

and communities, diversity, and species interactions. 

• Chemical and physical environment changes, including changes in air quality, water 

quality and quantity, sediment properties, soil structure and composition, and topography. 

As all ecosystems typically exist in environments with chemical and physical properties, all 

include some range of biodiversity, and all exhibit functional processes, these ecosystem response 

categories are broadly applicable to all systems and models. While the labels will remain the 

same, it should be noted that system function pathways, processes, environmental conditions, and 

biota are specific to the system of interest. Relevant details appear in system narratives, and are 

reflected in the specifics of selected indicators and monitoring protocols. 

 

The three GULN ecosystem-specific conceptual models use the format, arrangement, and 

symbology found in the GEM. Sections 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 will describe the models and discuss 

examples of agents of change, stressors, ecosystem responses, and measures or indicators being 

considered for the major GULN system types. It should be noted that the models and descriptions 

present some of the many likely examples possible for each level and category depicted. The 

intent here is not to exhaustively list all possible factors and connections; rather, it is to provide a 

useful set of some that are considered salient to effectively selecting and developing monitoring 

directions and protocols. 
42 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Figure 2.5. The Gulf Coast Network general ecosystem model. For ecological processes and 

various stressors, labels represent factors (i.e., ecological competition, altered fire regimes) 

that are widely recognized to be common natural processes and/or anthropogenic events. Vital 

signs for monitoring may be identified at any level in the model. 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 43 

2.5. River-Dominated Wetlands/Riparian Zones Ecosystem Conceptual 

Model 

2.5.1. General description 

The riparian zone of a river, stream, or other body of water is the land adjacent to that body of 

water that is, at least periodically, influenced by flooding. Riparian zones are important features 

at BITH, JELA, NATR, SAAN, and VICK. Bottomland hardwood forests are a major riparian 

ecosystem type in the United States (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). These systems play a crucial 

role in the watershed by providing areas to store floodwater, thereby reducing the risk and 

severity of flooding to downstream communities. Further, these wetlands improve water quality 

by filtering and flushing nutrients, processing organic wastes, and reducing sediment before it 

reaches open water. The Barataria Preserve of JELA provides one of the southernmost examples 

of bottomland hardwood forests in North America (Swanson 1991). Harris (1989) listed 

characteristics of these ecosystems that are beneficial to wildlife: hard mast production and a 

phenology (periodic biological phenomena, such as flowering) that is asynchronous with 

surrounding upland communities, frequent cavity trees, high abundance of invertebrate wildlife, 

and a linear distribution through the landscape that aids local and regional movement of animals. 

The seasonal flooding of these habitats makes them less suitable for agriculture; thus, in 

agricultural landscapes, they are often the only forest refuges available for many mammals, birds, 

and other species. These characteristics increase in importance in the more arid western 

subregion. A collection of published models of riparian and bottomland hardwood forests are 

included in Appendix J and in the GULN Phase II Report (2005). 

2.5.2. Agents of change and stressors 

Major agents of change acting on these ecosystems include both the common suite of natural 

disturbances and drivers and the diverse anthropogenic forces resulting from major human 

development shown in Table 2.2. The anthropogenic agents of change result in several categories 

of stressors that impact park ecosystems in significant ways, altering system function and 

impairing system environments as well as biological structure and integrity (Figure 2.6). 

Table 2.2. Major agents of change and stressors for river-dominated wetlands/riparian zones. 

Category Agent of change/Stressor 

Natural forces and processes • Climate patterns and effects 

• Major natural geomorphic and hydrologic patterns and processes 

Acute events and disasters • Extreme coastal storms and hurricanes that broadly impact the entire 

Gulf Coast region 

Anthropogenic actions and 

activities 

• Extensive urbanization and development in lands adjacent to river–

riparian corridors 

• Drainage and development of wetlands 

• Management activities involving river and other hydrologic alterations 

Bottomland hardwood forests and riparian zones in network parks are influenced by several 

stressors, including altered hydrology (e.g., changes resulting from dredging of canals, dams, 

saltwater influx, river diversions), erosion, contaminants, non-native/invasive species, and 

historical land use (e.g., timber extraction, oil and gas exploration/extraction). Ecosystem 

processes and plant-community composition and structure are driven, in part, by gradients of 

flooding frequency, duration, and timing. The biotic community, in turn, influences the hydrology 

of the wetland. Consequently, these systems are sensitive to landscape dynamics within their 

watershed that alter hydrology and/or water quality. Altered hydrology has increased lakeshore-
44 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

erosion rates at JELA (Michot 1984, Taylor et al. 1988). The influx of saltwater into these 

systems can have dramatic effects on extant vegetation (Harrel 1975, Michot 1984, Taylor et al. 

1988, Mendelssohn and McKee 1989), as freshwater hydrophytic species are not adapted to 

increased salinity levels. Increasing mercury levels in predatory fish are also a concern 

(Swarzenski et al. 2004). Non-native/invasive plants and animals can rapidly spread over large 

areas and are often difficult to treat due to logistic issues, treatment effectiveness, and 

seed/propagule influx (Tipping and Hulslander 2003). Burrowing by nutria (Myocastor coypus) 

damages levees, thus altering hydrology, and feral hogs (Sus scrofa) create large disturbances that 

fragment habitats and make the areas susceptible to non-native/invasive plant establishment 

(Conner and Day 1987, Harcombe and Van Kley 1996). Although no logging presently occurs on 

GULN parks, timber-harvesting activities on adjacent lands may adversely affect park faunal 

communities (Irwin and Dixon 1996). Oil and gas exploration and extraction currently occur in 

both JELA and BITH. Oil and gas extraction is linked to subsidence (Denslow and Battaglia 

2002, Morton et al. 2001), and creating access for extraction activities (e.g., excavation of canals) 

alters hydrology (Taylor et al. 1988). Further, exploration and extraction activities cause localized 

disturbance that may result in increased susceptibility of plants to disease (Fountain and Rayburn 

1987) and non-native/invasive species establishment. Oil spills can also have dramatic long-term 

consequences on aquatic flora and fauna (Harrel 1985). 

2.5.3. Potential measures and indicators 

Potential measures and indicators (vital signs) for river-dominated and wetland-riparian zone 

systems include 

• measures of plant and animal species diversity and population abundance, structure, and 

distribution for selected species; 

• changes in terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal community composition and structure; 

• changes in vegetation-based habitat structure; 

• zonal ecological succession (changes in vegetation community composition and structure, 

aerial coverage and distribution over time); 

• changes in quantity and quality of running and groundwater resources; and 

• changes in adjacent land use. 

Protocols relevant to river-dominated wetlands/riparian zones are shown in Table 2.3. 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 45 

Table 2.3. Protocols relevant to river-dominated wetlands/riparian zones. 

Relevant 

protocols Goal(s) 

Freshwater To provide chemical and physical parameter assessment on all network parks with 

freshwater resources. 

Vegetation 

Structure and 

Composition 

To detect and track a variety of vegetation structural and distributional parameters at 

parkwide and landscape levels, to address a range of park-specific vegetation questions 

in each sampled park, including 

• distribution, health, and coverage of key vegetation communities; 

• changes in park vegetation characteristics; 

• tracking of some invasive species; and 

• assessment of ecological succession seen in spatial changes in plant 

community coverage and composition patterns. 

To assess geomorphic structure in sampled parks. 

Amphibian 

Communities 

To assess and track amphibian assemblages, including measures of community structure 

and diversity, occupancy, reproductive success, and taxon distribution within parks. 

Adjacent Landuse Change To provide ongoing assessment of specific and general types of human development 

occurring in nearby adjacent lands. 

Future protocol development may include: 

• monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates in conjunction with water quality monitoring, 

• potential ozone impact assessment and monitoring, and 

• support for other biotic assessment, such as targeted plant-species monitoring and 

monitoring of park bird communities. 

See Chapter 4 and Protocol Development Summaries in Chapter 5 for monitoring questions, 

objectives, and possible measures being developed for monitoring protocols. 
46 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Figure 2.6. The Gulf Coast Network River-Dominated Wetlands/Riparian Zones conceptual 

model. 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 47 

2.6. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Conceptual Model 

2.6.1. General description 

There are two distinct coastal and marine ecosystems represented in network parks: the riverinedominated (deltaic) coastal wetlands system (JELA) and the barrier-island systems (GUIS and 

PAIS). Although these systems are distinct from each other, they share a common set of agents of 

change, stressors, and ecosystem responses because of their coastal locations. Therefore, they are 

combined into one conceptual model. 

JELA is located in the deltaic plain of the Mississippi River. As such, it is historically a riverdominated system, yet its location in the upper estuary of the Mississippi delta makes it distinct 

from other riparian areas in the network. The variety of wetland habitats and the stressors that 

influence those wetlands gives it characteristics more similar to the marine-dominated, barrierisland systems. Deltaic plant communities and associations are determined by the cyclical nature 

of delta lobe development and degradation (Gagliano and Van Beek 1975); overlapping 

environments develop and decline as the lobe ages. As delta lobes grow and decay, habitat and 

biodiversity peak in the early stages of degradation. Vegetation is closely tied to the unique 

landforms of the delta and proximity of those areas to either continued riverine or marine 

influence. Coastal wetlands are influenced by the natural processes involved in delta degradation 

such as subsidence, shoreline erosion, changes in salinity, and changes in availability of sediment. 

In addition, stressors include altered hydrology, sea-level rise, extreme weather events, recreation, 

oil and gas exploration and extraction, and contaminants. Coastal wetlands provide storm-surge 

abatement, water purification, recreational opportunities, and critical habitat for a variety of 

nesting, wintering, and migrating wildlife species. 

Barrier islands are geologically young features; the vast majority are less than 7,000 years in age, 

and most are probably less than 3,000 years old. Barrier-island formation is dependent upon the 

complex interaction between waves, sea-level change, and the availability of sediment 

(http://www3.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment/html/geo/barrier.htm). They are a vital part of the 

coastal and estuarine habitats found in GULN parks. Barrier islands are composed of three 

general zones: beach, dune, and back dune (Figure 2.7). Each zone provides critical habitat for 

several state- and federally listed species. These systems serve as key stopover areas for 

migratory birds (Weber 1983, Moore et al. 1990, Blacklock et al. 1998, Fuller et al. 1998, Cooper 

et al. 2005c), nesting sites for sea turtles (Nicholas and Jacks 1996, Shaver 2000), year-round 

habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse (Oli et al. 2001), and shorebird nesting (Simersky 1972, 

Mitchell and Custer 1986) and wintering habitat (Nichols 1989, Garza 1997, Gorman and Haig 

2002). 

Figure 2.7. Typical zonation of a barrier island. Source: U.S. Air Force. 

Changes in coastal geomorphology are normal processes; however, human-made structures (e.g., 

jetties) may alter offshore sediment transport and increase shoreline-erosion rates (Williams 
48 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

1999). Extreme weather events are also normal coastal processes, but increased fragmentation 

and/or reduced system integrity prior to any given event will likely adversely affect system 

resilience and subsequent recovery. In response to events that cause substantial beach erosion, 

beach nourishment is often conducted. However, beach nourishment is linked to a decrease in 

species richness and density, shifts in the assemblage structure, and greater instability of these 

indices (Rakocinski et al. 1993, 1994, 1996). Excess foot traffic and off-road vehicle use disrupts 

natural dune processes and has adverse consequences on dune integrity by destabilizing the 

vegetation (Shabica and Shabica 1978; Shabica et al. 1979; McAtee and Drawe 1981; Blum and 

Jones 1985; Cousens 1988). However, a balance in recreation and preservation is necessary to 

fulfill the multiple purposes of designation (Psuty 1988). Oil and gas extraction is linked to 

subsidence (Denslow and Battaglia 2002, Morton et al. 2001), disturbance, and possible 

contamination of the activity site. Although contaminants have been detected in bird eggs and 

tissue, levels do not exceed those known to adversely affect survival and reproduction (Michot et 

al. 1994, Mora 1996). However, contaminants are associated with decreasing macrobenthic 

trophic diversity (Rakocinski et al. 1997, Brown et al. 2000) and could have cumulative effects in 

higher organisms (Carls et al. 1995). In the absence of extreme weather events (i.e., prolonged 

period since large disturbance), fire maintains barrier-island plant structure, specifically in the 

back-dune/maritime forest zone. Reduced fire frequency and fire suppression results in the loss of 

the herbaceous component to a woody overstory of shrubs and trees (Sheaffer 1998). 

2.6.2. Agents of change and stressors 

In addition to the common suite of natural disturbances and drivers and anthropogenic forces 

shown in Table 2.4, storm events, coastal/near-shore shipwrecks, and fuel spills pose threats to 

park ecosystem integrity. Storm surges can substantially scour away biotic components and 

impact park cultural resources and infrastructure. The anthropogenic agents of change include 

extensive dredge-and-spoil operations that alter availability of sediment, coastal armoring and 

modification, water extraction, and coastal drainage modifications. These result in several 

categories of stressors that impact these ecosystems in significant ways, alter system function, 

and impair system environments and biological structure and integrity (Figure 2.8). 

Table 2.4. Major agents of change and stressors for coastal and marine ecosystems. 

Category Agent of change/Stressor 

Natural forces and 

processes 

• Climate patterns and effects 

• Major natural geomorphic and hydrologic patterns and processes 

Acute events and disasters • Extreme coastal storms and hurricanes that broadly impact the entire 

Gulf Coast region 

Anthropogenic actions and 

activities 

• Extensive urbanization and development on coastal barrier islands—

including those that directly comprise GUIS and PAIS—and on lands 

adjacent to coastal wetlands 

• Management activities involving river and other hydrologic alterations 

Stressors such as near-shore land subsidence, non-native invasive species, hydrologic 

manipulation, fire-regime modification, and pollution events result in habitat loss, loss of species 

diversity, and decreased water quality. Barrier islands in network parks are influenced by several 

stressors, including shoreline erosion, extreme weather events, beach nourishment, recreation, oil 

and gas exploration and extraction, contaminants, and fire suppression. 

Restoration of these systems is often costly and controversial. Water diversions, rock revetment, 

and revegetation projects are strategies implemented to protect shorelines and interior marshes 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 49 

from erosion and degradation. Hydrocarbon extraction from oil and gas activities has expedited 

land subsidence and compounds natural geological processes. While fire plays an important role 

in maintaining ecological integrity of marsh systems, the historic fire regime at JELA is not 

known. Depending on the role fire historically played at JELA, the exclusion of fire may be 

fostering the spread of invasive species and disrupting natural plant and animal communities. 

2.6.3. Potential measures and indicators 

Potential measures and indicators (vital signs) for coastal and near-shore marine zone systems 

include 

• measures of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species diversity, population 

abundance, structure, and distribution; 

• quantity and quality of running and groundwater resources; 

• quality of estuarine and near-shore waters; 

• geomorphic dimension and properties; and 

• changes in adjacent land use. 

Protocols relevant to coastal and marine ecosystems are shown in Table 2.5. 

Table 2.5. Protocols relevant to coastal and marine ecosystems. 

Relevant 

protocols Goal(s) 

Freshwater To provide chemical and physical parameter assessment of freshwater resources, along 

with monitoring of near-shore estuarine and marine waters. 

Vegetation 

Structure 

and 

Composition 

To detect and track a variety of vegetation structural and distributional parameters at 

parkwide and landscape levels, to address a range of park-specific vegetation questions in 

each sampled park, including 

• distribution, health, and coverage of key vegetation communities; 

• changes in park vegetation characteristics, community, succession, and invasive 

species. 

To assess of geomorphic structure in sampled parks. 

Amphibian 

Communities 

To assess and track amphibian assemblages, including measures of community structure 

and diversity, occupancy, reproductive success, and taxon distribution within parks. 

Adjacent 

Land-use 

Change 

To provide ongoing assessment of specific and general types of human development 

occurring in nearby adjacent lands. 

Future protocol development may include 

• monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates (in conjunction with freshwater monitoring), 

• support for targeted plant species monitoring and monitoring of park bird communities, 

and 

• future development of SAV monitoring for coastal parks. 

See Chapter 4 and Protocol Development Summaries in Chapter 5 for monitoring questions, 

objectives, and possible measures being developed for monitoring protocols. 
50 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Figure 2.8. The Gulf Coast Network Coastal and Marine Ecosystems conceptual model. 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 51 

2.7. Upland Ecosystems Conceptual Model 

2.7.1. General description 

Upland systems in the GULN are diverse, ranging from slash pine stands at GUIS to more xeric 

brushlands at PAAL and SAAN. Fire is the primary disturbance mechanism in the systems; 

however, the increasing wildland–urban interface makes fire management increasingly difficult 

and often results in fire suppression. Ecosystems respond differently to fire suppression. 

Temperate ecosystems where frequent, low-intensity wildfires had occurred in the past are more 

likely to have been adversely affected by fire suppression (Agee 1993). Because of altered fire 

regimes (i.e., fire return interval), many fire-adapted upland systems in the GULN have shifted 

from herbaceous-dominated to woody-dominated (Table 2.2), thus altering structure and species 

dominance and reducing species diversity and overall site viability. Overgrazing has further 

facilitated an increase of woody components in fire-adapted GULN systems. 

Table 2.6. Fire-adapted upland systems in Gulf Coast Network parks. 

Park System 

Estimated 

fire return 

interval 

Citation(s) 

BITH Longleaf pine (Pinus 

palustris) 

1–6 Frost 1998, Stout and Marion 1993, Ware et al. 1993 

GUIS Slash pine (Pinus elliotii) 3–8 Frost 1998, Wade et al. 2000 

NATR Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) 1–6 Frost 1995 

NATR Shortleaf pine (Pinus 

echinata) 

2–15 Wade et al. 2000 

PAAL Coastal prairie ~10 Paysen et al. 2000 

SAAN Blackland prairie ~10 Paysen et al. 2000 

VICK Oak-hickory/Mixed 

mesophytic 

3–15 Buell et al. 1954, Cutter and Guyette 1994, Van Lear 

and Waldrop 1989 

The greatest effect of fire suppression on biological diversity is not on the diversity within a 

particular habitat (Whittaker 1977), but on the diversity of habitats across a landscape. 

Landscapes with high diversity resulting from fire perpetuate high species diversity by providing 

opportunities for the establishment and maintenance of early successional species and 

communities (Connell 1978, Reice 1994). Fire suppression, on the other hand, increases 

uniformity in habitats as competition eliminates early successional species, leaving only shadetolerant understory plants to reproduce (Stuart 1998). 

Fire suppression has helped change the ecosystem dynamics of communities adapted to frequent, 

low-intensity wildfire. Complex landscapes are made simpler, some early and midsuccessional 

plants and animals are extirpated, shade-tolerant tree populations rapidly expand, and the relative 

importance of fire as a disturbance agent is reduced, while the importance of insects and 

pathogens as agents of disturbance is elevated (Covington et al. 1994). During droughts, for 

example, excessively dense forests become further stressed, enabling pathogens and insects to 

reach high population levels (Johnson et al. 1994). Trees killed by drought, insects, or pathogens 

create abundant fuel that exacerbates fire hazard. When fire occurs in such a system, it is often 

larger and more severe than one expected in areas with a natural fire regime (Stuart 1998). 

Southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) invasions often result in habitat loss and altered 
52 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

forest structure while further increasing fuel loads in fire-suppressed areas, possibly resulting in 

catastrophic fires. 

Previous land use has permanently altered the upland habitats of GULN parks. Water 

withdrawals, agriculture, and forest clearing are examples of the types of land uses that continue 

to impact these systems. Disruptions of native habitats make these areas susceptible to invasion 

by non-native species, further altering the biotic community. 

Erosion is a concern at VICK, where surface soils consist of highly erodible loess soil. 

2.7.2. Agents of change and stressors 

Although upland systems vary across the network, agents of change and stressors are relatively 

consistent across most examples of these systems in network parks. Major agents of change 

acting on these ecosystems include both the common suite of natural disturbances and drivers and 

the diverse anthropogenic forces resulting from major human development shown in Table 2.7. 

Table 2.7. Major agents of change and stressors for uplands ecosystems. 

Category Stressor 

Natural forces and 

processes 

• Climate patterns and effects 

• Major natural geomorphic and hydrologic patterns and processes 

Acute events and disasters • Extreme coastal storms and hurricanes that broadly impact the entire 

Gulf Coast region 

Anthropogenic actions and 

activities 

• Extensive urbanization and development on lands directly adjacent to 

parks 

• Extensive historical and current petroleum extraction activities 

• Management activities involving vegetation, park viewscape, and cultural 

resource management 

Storm events and fuel spills pose additional threats to park ecosystem integrity. The impacts of 

coastal storms extend far inland and have large-scale impacts on forest vegetation, including 

stand condition, tree-fall damage, and increased major-bole fuel loads. Park cultural resources 

and management infrastructure can also be impacted. Agents of change result in several 

categories of stressors on upland systems in the GULN, including fire-regime modification, 

southern pine beetle invasions, previous land-use impacts, erosion, non-native/invasive species, 

urbanization, agricultural development, and oil and gas exploration and extraction—all of which 

impact ecosystems in ways that alter system function and impair system environments and 

biological structure and integrity (Figure 2.9). 

 

2.7.3. Potential measures and indicators 

Potential measures and indicators (vital signs) for upland systems include 

• measures of terrestrial plant and animal species diversity, population abundance, 

structure, and distribution; 

• zonal ecological succession (shifts in aerial coverage, distribution, structure, and 

composition of key plant communities over time); 

• forest-pest outbreaks and forest health or condition indicators; 

• quantity and quality of running and groundwater resources; 

• geomorphic dimension and properties; and 

• changes in adjacent land use. 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 53 

Protocols relevant to upland ecosystems are shown in Table 2.8. 

Table 2.8. Protocols relevant to upland ecosystems. 

Relevant protocols Goal(s) 

Freshwater To provide chemical and physical parameter assessment of freshwater resources in 

upland systems. 

Vegetation Structure 

and Composition 

To detect and track a variety of vegetation structural and distributional parameters at 

parkwide and landscape levels, to address a range of park-specific vegetation 

questions in each sampled park, including 

• distribution, health, and coverage of key vegetation communities; 

• changes in park vegetation characteristics, community and vegetation 

succession, and some invasive species. 

To assess of geomorphic structure in sampled parks. 

Amphibian 

Communities 

To assess and track amphibian assemblages, including measures of community 

structure and diversity, occupancy, reproductive success, and taxon distribution 

within parks. 

Adjacent Land-use 

Change 

To provide ongoing assessment of specific and general types of human development 

occurring in nearby adjacent lands. 

Future protocol development may include 

• monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates (in conjunction with freshwater monitoring), 

• support for targeted plant species monitoring and monitoring of park bird communities, 

and 

• future development of ozone impact assessment. 

See Chapter 4 on Sampling design, and Protocol Development Summaries in Chapter 5 for 

monitoring questions, objectives, and possible measures being developed for monitoring 

protocols. 
54 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Figure 2.9. The Gulf Coast Network Upland Ecosystems conceptual model. 
 Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 55 

2.8. Conclusion and Park-Specific Conceptual Diagrams 

Conceptual models are iterative. Although they should be based on fundamental and enduring 

principles of ecology, they should also be sufficiently flexible to allow refinement as the results 

of monitoring or other empirical or theoretical advances improve our understanding of the 

elements and processes of park ecosystems. In the development of these conceptual models, our 

primary goals were to illustrate some major influences (i.e., disturbances) on park ecosystems, 

identify important ecosystem functional links and processes, facilitate communication between 

the monitoring program and its parks, and identify potential vital signs for monitoring. We 

anticipate modifications to our conceptual models once vital signs monitoring begins and our 

understanding of system dynamics increases. 

In addition to the ecosystem-based models presented in this chapter, we created conceptual 

diagrams for each individual GULN park (Appendix K). The goal of these diagrams is to 

illustrate and communicate our current understanding of the ecological setting and major sources 

of disturbance for each park. These diagrams are being developed for parks to illustrate how park 

resources relate to a variety of challenges from off-park events and activities. They are intended 

to be dynamic and easily changed to help communicate the role of monitoring in park 

management and meet the needs of a variety of audiences. One common theme that emerged 

from the conceptual modeling effort was that GULN parks are highly disturbed systems. 

Although the focus tends to be on the current level of human disturbance, these systems have 

historically been subjected to major disturbances such as fires and severe weather events. These 

diagrams combine the system-specific ecological models with park-specific management goals 

and concerns, with a focus on sources of stress and/or disturbance to the natural system. 
56 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 
Chapter 3: Vital Signs 57 

Chapter 3 

Vital Signs 

Vital signs are “a subset of physical, chemical, and biological elements and processes of park 

ecosystems that are selected to represent the overall health or condition of park resources, known 

or hypothesized effects of stressors, or elements that have important human values” 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor). The elements and processes that are monitored are a 

subset of the total suite of natural resources that park managers are directed to preserve 

“unimpaired for future generations,” including water, air, geological resources, plants, animals, 

and the various ecological, biological, and physical processes that act on those resources. This 

chapter describes the vital signs for the Gulf Coast Network and the process used to select and 

prioritize those vital signs. 

The GULN has identified 42 vital signs that represent a systems approach to our monitoring 

program. The network developed this list through a process of meetings and ranking exercises to 

produce a list of 19 vital signs we plan to implement or develop protocols for in the next three-tofive years. 

3.1. Process for Choosing Vital Signs 

The process for choosing and prioritizing vital signs began with a Board of Directors meeting in 

October 2002, and concluded in April 2005, with an STAC meeting where the final list of 42 vital 

signs was prioritized. The process consisted of a series of scoping workshops, STAC meetings, 

and the use of prioritization ranking criteria. During this process, the list of potential vital signs 

was developed in conjunction with the network conceptual models. Table 3.1 summarizes the 

major steps in the GULN process of selecting vital signs. 

Table 3.1. Summary of the process used in the Gulf Coast Network to choose and prioritize vital 

signs. 

Date Event Vital signs milestone Product 

October 

2002 

GULN combined Board of 

Directors/Scientific/Technical 

Advisory Committee meeting 

Begin compilation of network and 

park-specific issues of management 

concern for the purpose of 

developing background information. 

See Table 1, 

Appendix L 

October 

2002–

February 

2003 

Natural resource (NR) specialists 

for each park fill out table of 

issues of management concern 

First-draft table of issues of concern 

as identified by the NR specialists. 

See Table 2, 

Appendix L 

February–

October 

2003 

Scoping meetings at each GULN 

park 

New issues included in larger table 

of park-specific issues. 

See Table 2, 

Appendix L 
58 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Date Event Vital signs milestone Product 

October 

2003 

Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee meeting 

NR specialists review, as a group, 

the compilation of issues of concern 

for accuracy and across network 

relevancy. 

See Table 3, 

Appendix L 

April 2004 Conceptual modeling workshop Table of NR issues used to frame 

the discussion of stressors and 

ecosystem responses for the 

conceptual ecological models. 

See Chapter 2 of 

this report 

August 

2004 

Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee meeting 

List of potential vital signs created 

based on the results of conceptual 

modeling scoping meeting and table 

of park issues. Initial narrowing to 

final list of vital signs. 

See Table 4, 

Appendix L 

August–

November 

2004 

Parks score vital signs individually 

according to the ranking criteria 

Database of park-specific 

prioritization of potential vital signs 

created. 

See Table 5, 

Appendix L 

November 

2004 

Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee meeting 

Group scoring of the potential vital 

signs, with network, not parkspecific, emphasis. 

See Table 5, 

Appendix L 

April 2005 Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee meeting 

“Park-specific” and “network” 

rankings reconciled to finalize vital 

sign prioritization. 

Current vital sign list 

(Table 3.2) 

Spring 

2006 

Individual park-level visits with NR 

staff and superintendents, when 

available 

Final meeting with parks to confirm 

vital sign list and relevance of 

proposed data to park-level 

management needs. 

Table 3.2 and 

identification of 

specific protocols 

(Chapter 5) 

To initiate the discussion of vital signs, the park natural resource specialists were asked to fill out 

a table with both network-wide and park-specific issues of management concern. This discussion 

began at a combined Board of Directors and STAC meeting. Following this meeting, GULN staff 

traveled to each network park to continue this scoping process. Any issues that had not already 

been identified were then included in the master table of natural resource issues (Appendix L). 

Upon completion of the individual park scoping meetings, the STAC reconvened to review the 

compilation of issues of concern for accuracy and across-network relevancy. 

The next stage of vital signs development was the conceptual modeling workshop, where experts 

in Gulf Coast ecosystems and park staff came together to assist in the development of the GULN 

conceptual models (See Chapter 2). The table of natural resources issues that had been compiled 

earlier was presented to all the workshop participants, and helped to frame the discussion of the 

network conceptual models. Following this meeting, a vital signs workshop was held in August 

2004, at Vicksburg National Military Park, to generate a list of potential vital signs for the 

network. This list was derived from a combination of (1) issues previously identified by the park 

natural resource specialists, (2) issues discussed at the conceptual modeling workshop, and (3) a 

list of vital signs being used by other networks in the NPS I&M program. A database developed 

by the Washington Area Service Office (WASO; National_vs_Summary.mdb) was modified and 

used to develop a list of potential vital signs and to document justifications for selection, along 

with likely measures. After two days of constructive discussion, the STAC agreed on a list of 42 

potential vital signs, as well as justifications and measures for each (Appendix L). 
Chapter 3: Vital Signs 59 

The first step in prioritizing those 42 vital signs was to apply the vital signs ranking criteria 

recommended by WASO. Those criteria are based on a weighted score of “management 

significance,” “ecological significance,” and “legal mandate,” with a suggested weighting of 

40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively (Appendix L). During round one, each park independently 

scored the vital signs according to those ranking criteria. The scores were compiled into a 

database (GULN_VS_Park_Prioritizer.mdb), creating a “combined score” for the network based 

on individual park responses. In November 2004, the STAC convened for round two and decided 

to score each vital sign as a group using the same criteria, creating a group consensus referred to 

as “GULN score.” At this meeting, the STAC visualized all the GULN parks as separate units of 

one larger park. This fostered valuable discussions concerning the importance of the wide range 

of habitats found in the network. In this way, upland and coastal parks, for example, were able to 

acknowledge the mutual importance of their various issues from the perspective of the network 

and in the context of the larger Gulf Coast ecosystems. These discussions, and the good working 

relationship among the network parks, contributed greatly toward the network-wide approach to 

protocol development that the network has taken. 

In April 2005, the STAC met again to review and discuss the results of the two different methods 

of applying the ranking criteria to the vital signs. During this meeting, the results of both rounds 

of prioritization were presented to the group in the form of spreadsheets showing the rankings of 

the vital signs as both “combined score” and “GULN score.” The results were also shown for 

different weighting of the criteria to show more clearly how each vital sign ranked in terms of 

management significance, ecological significance, and legal mandate. The spreadsheets were 

color-coded to show how the vital signs ranked out in quartiles (top 1⁄4, second 1⁄4, third 1⁄4, and 

bottom 1⁄4) using each approach. At the meeting, the group decided to add the ranked scores from 

the combined approach and the GULN approach to give a new ranked score combining the two 

techniques. The resulting spreadsheet is what guided the final discussion and prioritization of the 

vital signs (Appendix L, Table 7). 

Participants discussed the idea of eliminating the legal mandate criterion, focusing instead on 

prioritizing the vital signs based only on ecological and management significance. The 

assumption was that if there were an actual legal mandate to monitor a certain taxon (such as an 

endangered species), that monitoring was probably already underway. However, after reviewing 

the spreadsheets (Appendix L, Table 6), the group consensus was to use the recommended 

40/40/20 weighting of the ranking criteria, because the legal mandate criterion included legal 

issues, such as GPRA goals, whose mandate did not clearly require monitoring. Several of the 

vital signs ranked highly no matter how the criteria were weighted: Coastal Dynamics, Water 

Quality Issues, Non-native Plants and Animals, Marine and Estuarine Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation, Migratory and Resident Birds, Terrestrial Vegetation, and Land Use/Land Cover. 

These high-priority vital signs corresponded directly with the major network-wide issues 

identified in the conceptual modeling workshop. 

Several important considerations allowed the group to move forward with agreement on a 

prioritized list of vital signs: 

• Although the group acknowledged that there would likely not be sufficient funding to 

develop lower-ranked vital signs, these vital signs were kept on the list in recognition of 

their continuing importance for the network. Initial program development over the next 

five years will focus on the 19 higher-ranked vital signs. Other vital signs will be 

addressed as opportunities and resources allow. 
60 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

• Some vital signs will be combined into single protocols for the sake of efficiency. It is 

possible that a lower-ranked vital sign may be monitored if it can be combined into a 

protocol with a higher-ranked vital sign. An example is our approach to monitoring a 

combined suite of major multiple-park vegetation vital signs—including terrestrial, 

riparian, and salt marsh communities and forest health—using a single, network-wide 

Vegetation Structure and Composition monitoring protocol (see Chapter 5 and Protocol 

Development Summaries for further discussion). In addition to addressing these vital 

signs, this protocol may yield data for several other vital signs, including Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics, Coastal Dynamics, Non-native Vegetation, and Visitor Usage. 

• Some highly ranked vital signs may not be monitored if the cost is too high, or if an 

existing monitoring program is already in place. In such cases, the role of the network 

will be to provide data management support. For example, migratory birds are both a 

high-priority vital sign and a focal resource of park and public interest for several 

network parks. Monitoring of birds is, however, cost-prohibitive for effective quantitative 

monitoring as a network vital sign. Consequently, the GULN will provide data 

management support and a suggested common sampling design and methodology to all 

network parks that wish to develop in-park monitoring efforts through local experts and 

volunteers. 

• Individual water quality-related vital signs were removed from the prioritization process 

on the assumption that water quality in general is a high priority for the network. An 

overriding theme in the conceptual modeling workshop was that water is one of the main 

resources that impacts each network park in some way. The GULN has developed a splitplan approach to water resource monitoring, in which freshwater and estuarine/marine 

waters will be monitored using two separate protocols under control of the network’s 

water quality monitoring program. Freshwater monitoring will follow the model 

previously developed for these resource types by other networks, such as the Cumberland 

Piedmont Network (CUPN). Estuarine and marine monitoring will be performed using a 

protocol adopted from the Southeast Coast Network (SECN) and the Northeast Coast and 

Barrier Network (NCBN), which are based on other existing estuarine monitoring 

protocols from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s 

National Estuarine Research Reserves and the EPA. See Chapter 4 for sampling design 

discussion, and Chapter 5 for protocol discussion and Protocol Development Summaries. 

• Weather and Climate came out low in the rankings, largely because it has low 

management significance (parks have no ability to change it) and there is no legal 

mandate to monitor weather and climate. However, the group agreed to move weather 

and climate into the top tier of vital signs because it is important to all ecological 

processes in the parks; should be relatively inexpensive to monitor (due to existing 

stations and a national Memorandum of Understanding between the NPS and the 

National Weather Service); and will provide important ancillary data for all other vital 

signs. 

• Ozone was not determined to be a high-priority issue to the network, based on risk 

assessments conducted by the NPS Air Resources Division. However, the GULN will 

support limited air quality monitoring by utilizing its POMS and acquiring data from 

other monitoring programs. The network’s primary role will be data management. 
Chapter 3: Vital Signs 61 

After much discussion, the group agreed to select any vital sign that was in the top quartile of 

either the combined or the GULN list to be on the list of highest-priority vital signs for the 

network as a whole. Nineteen vital signs were selected for protocol development after the 

individual park visits. These will be the vital signs the network begins to develop, keeping the 

above considerations in mind. The lowest-ranked vital signs were those in the bottom quartile in 

either the combined or the GULN columns. 

3.2. Vital Signs for the Gulf Coast Network 

The prioritized list of vital signs for the GULN is presented in Table 3.2. Vital signs are presented 

within the Ecological Monitoring Framework developed by the national vital signs monitoring 

program. Each vital sign is included in one of three prioritized groups: highest priority, medium 

priority, and lowest priority for the network as a whole. Table 3.2 also indicates which vital signs 

we anticipate developing over the next three-to-five years, shown by funding category. Category 

1 (+) vital signs are those for which the network is expected to develop protocols and implement 

monitoring using funding from the vital signs or water quality monitoring programs, including 

those for which the network will augment existing protocols. Category 2 (•) vital signs are those 

currently being monitored by an individual park using park base funds or some other funding 

source. Category 3 (◊) vital signs are those for which monitoring may be conducted in the future, 

but which can not currently be implemented due to lack of staffing or funding. The GULN’s 19 

high-priority vital signs, not ranked in any way, are: 

1. Weather/Climate 

2. Coastal Dynamics 

3. Water Chemistry 

4. Water Nutrients 

5. Water Toxics 

6. Non-native Vegetation 

7. Non-native Animals 

8. Salt Marsh Plant Communities 

9. Riparian Communities 

10. Marine and Estuarine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

11. Forest Health 

12. Amphibians 

13. Migratory Birds 

14. Resident Birds 

15. Terrestrial Vegetation 

16. Threatened and Endangered/Rare Small mammals 

17. Threatened and Endangered/Rare Plants 

18. Fire and Fuel Dynamics 

19. Land Cover/Land Use 
62 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Table 3.2. Prioritized list of vital signs for the Gulf Coast Network. Blue = highest priority; Green = medium priority; Yellow = lowest priority. Symbols associated with the monitoring categories are des

I&M Ecological Monitoring Framework 

Level 1 Category Level 2 Category Level 3 Category Network vital sign BITH GUIS JELA NATR 

Ozone Ozone • • • • 

Air Quality 

Air and Climate Air Contaminants Air Contaminants • • • • 

Weather and Climate Weather and Climate Weather/Climate • + • • 

Coastal Dynamics 

+

Coastal/Oceanographic Features and Processes Subsidence/Relative Sea Level 

Rise Geomorphology • • 

Stream/River Channel Characteristics 

Stream/River Channel Dynamics and Geomorphology -- Erosion and Deposition -- • Soil Biota -- -- -- -- Soil Chemistry -- -- -- Soil Compaction -- 

Geology and Soils 

Soil Quality Soil Function and Dynamics 

Soil Structure and Stability -- -- -- -- 

Hydrology Groundwater Dynamics Groundwater Hydrology -- -- -- 

Water Chemistry Water Chemistry 

+

+

+

+

Nutrient Dynamics Water Nutrients 

+

+

+

+

Water 

Water Quality 

Toxics Water Toxics 

+

+ • • 
Ch

I&M Ecological Monitoring Framework 

Level 1 Category Level 2 Category Level 3 Category Network vital sign BITH GUIS JELA NATR 

Invasive/Exotic Plants Non-native Vegetation + + + + 

Invasive Species 

Invasive/Exotic Animals Non-native Animals ◊ ◊ • ◊ 

Salt Marsh Plant Communities +

Wetland Communities 

Freshwater Wetland Communities + + + + 

Riparian Communities Riparian Communities + + + Estuarine Communities Marine and Estuarine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation + • Forest/Woodland Communities Forest Health + + + + Marine Invertebrates Marine Invertebrates -- Freshwater invertebrates Freshwater Invertebrates -- • Terrestrial Invertebrates Terrestrial Invertebrates -- -- • • 

Freshwater Fish Communities ◊ ◊ • • 

Fishes 

Marine and Estuarine Fish • • 

Amphibians and Amphibians + + + + Reptiles 

Non T&E Reptiles -- -- -- -- Migratory Birds + + + + 

Birds 

Resident Birds + + + + 

Biological Integrity 

Focal Species or Communities 

Mammals Non T&E Small Mammals -- -- -- -- 
64 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

I&M Ecological Monitoring Framework 

Level 1 Category Level 2 Category Level 3 Category Network vital sign BITH GUIS JELA NATR 

Focal Species or Communities 

Terrestrial Communities Terrestrial Vegetation 

+

+

+

+

T&E/Rare Birds 

◊

◊

◊

◊

T&E/Rare Small mammals • •T&E/Rare Freshwater Fish 

◊

◊

◊

T&E/Rare Plants • ◊

◊

Biological Integrity 

At-risk Biota T&E Species and Communities 

T&E/Rare Reptiles -- • -- 

Human use Visitor and Recreation Use Visitor Usage Visitor Usage -- -- -- -- 

Fire and Fuel Dynamics Fire and Fuel Dynamics Fire and Fuel Dynamics 

+

+

+

+

Landscape Dynamics Land Cover and Use Land Cover/Land Use 

+

+

+

+

Landscapes (Ecosystem Pattern and Processes) 

Soundscape Soundscape Soundscape -- -- -- 

+ Category 1: Vital signs for which the network will develop protocols and implement monitoring using funding from the vital signs or water quality monito• Category 2: Vital signs that are monitored by a network park, another NPS program, or by another federal or state agency using other funding. The netw

these other monitoring efforts. 

◊ Category 3: High-priority vital signs for which monitoring will likely be done in the future, but which cannot currently be implemented because of limited -- Vital sign for which there are no foreseeable plans to conduct monitoring. 

Blank indicates that vital sign does not apply to park.
Chapter 3: Vital Signs 65 

3.3. Relationships of Vital Signs to Monitoring Objectives and Conceptual 

Models 

Disturbance, both natural and anthropogenic, is the overall theme of the GULN conceptual 

models. Consequently, the network selected stressor/response type models as the conceptual 

framework for selecting and prioritizing vital signs. The selected vital signs typically link directly 

either to one of the stressors identified in the models or to the ecosystem effects of those stressors. 

The monitoring objectives also reflect the focus of the network on internal and external stressors 

to the ecosystems in network parks. The monitoring objectives for the 19 highest-priority vital 

signs (indicated in blue in Table 3.2), and their links to the conceptual models, are presented in 

Table 3.3. 

Table 3.3. Relationship of Gulf Coast Network vital signs to monitoring objectives and 

conceptual models. 

Vital sign Monitoring objective Link to conceptual models 

Weather/Climate Understand the natural range and 

variation in weather patterns and climate 

trends across the GULN parks. Establish 

baseline conditions for all other vital 

signs. 

Agent of Change: Weather and climate 

impact all ecosystem effects and 

potential vital signs. 

Coastal Dynamics Establish a current baseline condition and 

document changes in coastal barrierisland morphology, both gradual and 

storm-induced. 

Ecosystem Effect: Measures the impacts 

of coastal geologic processes and 

extreme weather events on barrier-island 

morphology. 

Water Chemistry 

Water Nutrients 

Water Toxics 

Establish a baseline and document longterm changes in core water quality 

parameters and selected specific 

analytes on GULN parks. 

Ecosystem Effect: Changes in water 

quality in GULN parks are linked to 

hydrologic manipulations, industrial 

contaminants from sources outside park 

boundaries, and resource extraction. 

Non-native 

Vegetation 

Document impacts on native vegetative 

communities, especially structural 

changes associated with habitat change. 

Stressor: Non-native species were 

identified as a major stressor in every 

network park. Impacts species diversity, 

structure, and function of vegetative 

communities. 

Non-native Animals Document impacts on native plant and 

animal communities in conjunction with 

other vegetation monitoring. 

Stressor: Non-native species were 

identified as a major stressor in every 

network park. Impacts species diversity 

and community structure and function. 

Salt Marsh Plant 

Communities 

Determine current extent and community 

composition/structure, and monitor 

changes over time. 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 

Riparian 

Communities 

Determine current extent and community 

composition/structure and monitor 

changes over time. 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 

Marine and 

Estuarine 

Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation 

Determine current extent and community 

composition/structure and monitor 

changes over time. 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 
66 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Vital sign Monitoring objective Link to conceptual models 

Forest Health Document trends in aspects of forest 

health as a component in GULN 

vegetation monitoring: pest infestation 

and disease impact on canopy structure. 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 

Amphibians Document trends in species diversity, 

occupancy, reproductive success, and 

relative abundance in GULN parks. 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 

Migratory Birds Document trends in species diversity and 

relative abundance in GULN parks 

(monitored by individual parks with 

network assistance). 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 

Resident Birds Document trends in species diversity and 

relative abundance in GULN parks 

(monitored by individual parks with 

network assistance). 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 

Terrestrial 

Vegetation 

Document trends in extent and 

community composition/structure. 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 

T&E/Rare Small 

Mammals 

Document trends in extent and population 

estimates (no development of monitoring 

is anticipated for this vital sign during the 

first three-year protocol development 

period). 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 

T&E/Rare Plants Document trends in extent and population 

estimates (monitoring efforts will be 

developed by individual parks with 

network assistance). 

Ecosystem Effect: May be impacted by 

multiple model stressors. 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Document trends in plant community 

structure and ground fuel loading in 

conjunction with network vegetation 

monitoring. 

Ecosystem Effect: Linked to hydrologic 

manipulations, non-native species 

invasions, park management, fire-regime 

alterations, and landscape dynamics. 

Land Cover/Land 

Use 

Document changes in development, land 

conversion, and succession both inside 

and outside park boundaries. 

Stressor: This is a primary stressor of 

GULN parks. Due to their small size, 

most are highly impacted by outside 

influences. 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 67 

Chapter 4 

Sampling Design 

This chapter outlines the general sampling designs and approaches we will use for monitoring 

vital signs in GULN parks. The sampling design describes how spatial locations are chosen for 

sampling, and how sampling effort will be rotated among those spatial locations. The purpose of 

a sampling design is to ensure that data collected in a sampling effort are representative of the 

population in question and in sufficient amount to enable defensible conclusions about aspects of 

that population. 

4.1. Introduction 

The primary objective of the GULN monitoring program is to provide high-quality, reliable 

information to park managers. Sound sampling design is fundamental to our success, as it ensures 

data quality and, thereby, the quality of monitoring information we can deliver to GULN parks. 

Sampling design ensures data quality by providing the formal framework for spatially and 

temporally distributing and allocating typically limited sampling resources to accomplish 

effective and statistically robust resource monitoring in an efficient manner. Sound designs 

leading to effective resource monitoring help ensure the scientific merit of our monitoring 

program. 

Several factors will guide and affect our sampling-design development: 

• One size does NOT fit all. No single sampling design will adequately address or support all 

vital signs monitoring. The GULN program will emphasize broadly applicable sampling 

concepts and principles, such as probabilistic sampling to ensure ability for statistical 

inference, in all of its sampling-design development. Development of specific sampling 

designs tailored to a vital sign and its data requirements will be a critical early step in each 

protocol development project the network undertakes. 

• “Do a few things well” describes our network philosophy. The GULN program will focus 

on a relatively small number of high-priority vital signs (see Chapter 3), allowing us to focus 

more effort on each to better ensure that quality information is obtained for park managers. 

• Try to do it right the first time. We stress a priori development of high-quality sampling 

design as a key component of all protocol projects. We subscribe to the concept that putting 

more effort and attention into initial development and evaluation of those designs will result 

in better monitoring protocols and provide higher-quality information over the long term. 

Sampling-design development will involve appropriate subject-matter experts and 

statisticians, and all designs will be carefully reviewed to ensure statistical robustness and 

performance prior to implementation. 

• The GULN is a large network. We recognize that logistics will affect our ability to 

effectively monitor vital signs across eight widespread parks. We emphasize careful logistical 

planning across the scope of the program. Development of effective sampling rotation, revisit 

schedules, and panel designs are key components of our protocol development efforts. 

 
68 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

• Location, location, location. Our overall sampling designs stress the use of geospatial 

location in all monitoring efforts to facilitate articulation and combination of data among 

monitoring projects. Geospatial and temporal components in sampling and analysis will 

support effective multi-parametric, multiple-protocol ecosystem monitoring, facilitate 

articulation of monitoring information with other park data through GIS, and provide the 

basis for development of integrated predictive models for park ecosystems. 

• Strive to get more “bang for the buck.” The GULN program places strong emphasis on 

developing efficiency in monitoring through extensive co-location and co-visitation in 

sampling across multiple protocols and vital signs. Wherever possible, we will combine 

sampling for multiple protocols in each site visit, and sampling for multiple protocols at the 

same locations, even when sampling and subsequent analysis are following different designs. 

We utilize a two-part approach to maximize cost-efficiency: (1) whenever possible, we are 

developing single protocols with common sampling design and methodology across all parks 

to address each vital sign, and (2) we will maximize collection of data for multiple vital signs 

with one protocol. Using common designs among multiple parks and multiple datasets under 

one protocol will save on development, staff training, and implementation costs while 

increasing our program’s scientific merit by ensuring comparable and consistent data at a 

variety of spatial and temporal scales. This approach is exemplified in our development of a 

protocol that will simultaneously collect large, detailed datasets for multiple vital signs in 

terrestrial systems at the parkwide level (see description of LiDAR-based sampling in Section 

4.3.1). 

• Cost matters. We will take cost into consideration in our sampling-design development by 

adjusting and refining sample size, revisit schedules and panel designs, and detection power. 

(See discussion in following section.) 

• Do not reinvent the wheel. Wherever and whenever possible, we will use, and modify if 

needed, existing monitoring protocols and standard operating procedures (SOPs). This 

applies to protocols developed by other NPS I&M networks as well as monitoring programs 

developed by other federal or state agencies, organizations, or academia. Our protocols and 

sampling designs will incorporate, wherever possible, sampling structures and methods 

comparable to those used in other projects and programs. 

The GULN monitoring program is primarily geared toward assessing status and trends of vital 

signs at the park level. Secondarily, the program will support limited effectiveness monitoring of 

park management projects, and will provide flexibility to adaptively address changes in focus and 

scope of monitoring across network parks. While there is no a priori intent to make statistical 

inference across the entire network for most vital signs, our approach is strongly geared toward 

providing consistent and comparable design, methodology, and intensity of sampling effort on 

every park for each vital sign. By so doing, we support effective between-park comparability and 

gain the potential to combine data among parks to support larger-scale analysis and assessment of 

ecosystem trends. 

Technical sampling designs—specific to the questions, populations, and circumstances being 

addressed—support development of sample analysis approaches and models and, thus, ultimately 

affect the reliability and quality of the results and interpretation that will be reported. As we are in 

the early phases of developing most of our monitoring protocols (see Chapter 5), specific 

sampling designs are still largely conceptual and tentative. Once complete, each protocol will 

include a detailed sampling design, together with appropriate definitions and rationale, as part of 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 69 

its formal documentation. Currently proposed design ideas and approaches are available, in part, 

in the Protocol Development Summaries discussed in Chapter 5. 

4.2. Concepts and Definitions 

Discussion of GULN sampling designs involves a few underlying concepts and specific statistical 

terms. This section describes these concepts, provides some brief definitions, and describes some 

rotation, panel, and membership designs we plan to use. 

4.2.1. Ecological monitoring and approaches to monitoring 

Our protocols will be for long-term ecological monitoring, which may be described as “the 

measurement of environmental characteristics over an extended period of time to determine the 

status or trends of some aspect of environmental quality” (Suter 1993). Monitoring may also be 

usefully defined as the collection and analysis of repeated observations over time to document 

status and trends in ecological parameters. In general, monitoring is designed to provide unbiased, 

quantitative, and statistical estimates of status and trends. In contrast to cause-and-effect studies 

(focused research that tests specific, well-defined hypotheses within the context of carefully 

controlled experiments), monitoring focuses on collecting objective, scientifically defensible data 

to address wide-ranging and sometimes vaguely defined hypotheses in less controlled and more 

complex natural systems. Long-term monitoring may document correlation between management 

actions or natural events and system changes and patterns in ecological parameters. Monitoring 

can provide a complex, multi-parametric view of ecosystem changes over time. We should, 

however, not expect monitoring to provide clear statistical cause-and-effect relationships between 

external changes (drivers) and the status and trends of sampled ecological parameters. The 

important utility of ecological monitoring lies in its ability to detect changes in parameter status, 

provide parks with reliable information about status of their resources, and serve as an early 

warning system that can effectively alert parks to changes in resource conditions and support 

effective resource management decisions. 

The GULN program will use design-based approaches in its initial development of monitoring. 

Such approaches emphasize objectivity and do not rely on detailed (but often unstated and not 

well-understood) assumptions about the structure and nature of parameters and responses being 

measured. Rather, design-based approaches rely upon rigorous, probability-based samples in 

developing estimates and extrapolating results to non-sampled units (McDonald 2003). Designbased analyses do not make many detailed assumptions about responses, but instead use 

mechanistic and procedural sampling methodology as the basis for replication and subsequent 

probability statements on estimates (confidence intervals). As only general and limited 

assumptions are made about responses, design-based analyses are extremely difficult to challenge 

(McDonald 2003); a property that makes these approaches well-suited for projects that could 

involve litigation or controversial public decisions. 

It should be noted that design-based approaches are poorly suited for future prediction, and are 

descriptive in nature. Predictions of future system states call for model-based approaches, which 

require detailed functional information about the system and often employ a number of 

simplifying assumptions (see Olsen et al. 1999). The use of design-based analyses will thus be 

most appropriate during earlier phases of the monitoring program, as detailed information about 

system function is often not available. We anticipate that as our program progresses and data 

accumulate, development of model-based approaches will become feasible, and we will be able to 

effectively shift from descriptive to more explanatory and predictive modes. 
70 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

The GULN program will emphasize the use of probability-based sampling wherever possible. 

Probability-based sampling uses some form of randomization, ensuring a reduction in the 

potential bias that occurs from judgment (selection of sample units based on expert knowledge) 

or haphazard (convenience-based selection of sampling units) sampling. Randomization 

increases the validity of extending inference from the sample out to the population of interest. 

Design-based analyses require use of probability-based sampling to provide unbiased estimators 

about population properties. Probability-based sampling will always be required for a monitoring 

plan or design to be defensible and statistically valid (McDonald and Geissler 2004). 

4.2.2. Sampling concepts and terms 

Our monitoring designs will rely on concepts of finite population sampling. In finite population 

sampling, the area or sample space for which inference is desired (e.g., a park) is generally 

viewed as a finite collection of sample units, which are the smallest entities upon which 

measurements are taken within a target population. A population consists of the entire collection 

of units, individuals, or elements for which inference is intended. Many sampling designs may 

divide or partition the total population into multiple subpopulations. A subpopulation is any 

subset of units that may be of particular interest, and may be denoted or bounded by use of strata 

in a sampling design. Strata refer to sample frames of subpopulations that are separated, 

identified, and defined prior to drawing a sample, such as by some geographical or other accepted 

criterion. It is assumed that strata are defined by criteria distinct from both the specific and 

general properties being measured in sampling. For example, a plant population may be 

reasonably stratified by elevation or soils types that form gradients or divisions across the area in 

which the plants are being sampled. Plant properties, such as height or separation distance, would 

not be valid stratification criteria in this case. Stratification is a fixed scheme for allocating effort 

within a sampling design, such as by distributing sampling sites among three areas defined by 

elevation. 

A sample is a drawn subset of the available sample units and their contained elements located 

within the sampled population, subpopulation, or stratum sample frame. The sample frame is 

that area or defined subpopulation actually included within the sampling effort. For example, 

individual fish may be sample units to estimate average body size of fish in a pond. If fish are to 

be collected from anywhere within the pond, the entire pond would be the sample frame. The 

pond could also be a sample unit if, for instance, one were estimating the proportion of pond fish 

that are exotics in all ponds across a park. Elements are individual items that are counted or 

measured, such as individual fish in the pond (regardless of whether the fish or the pond is the 

designated sample unit). Responses are the measured values or quantifications being recorded or 

collected for elements and units during sampling (e.g., body lengths, pH values). 

4.2.3. Sampling panels and revisit schedules (designs) 

Monitoring in GULN parks may involve, in some cases, the use of “panels” to spatially and/or 

temporally allocate sampling effort as a way to more effectively use limited monitoring resources. 

A panel is a set of sampling units that will always be sampled during a single sampling occasion 

or period of time. Panels may consist of subsets of all the used sampling sites within a park, or 

some few parks within a larger group of parks; in either case, panel members would be sampled 

together. Panel membership is defined and fixed by a membership design, which defines or 

sets out how sample units are either included or excluded from being in any given panel (a unit 

may be a member of multiple panels, if so specified in the membership design). Once panels have 

been defined, a revisit plan is created to define how sampling effort will rotate or be distributed 

among the available panels over time (see McDonald 2003). Revisit plans may include both 

“rotating panel” and “split-panel” designs. A rotating design might consist of two 3-site panels 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 71 

in a river, with panels alternating in a sampling sequence over years. A split-panel design could 

consist of a four-site panel scheduled for sampling every year, along with another four-site panel 

scheduled for sampling every third year (thus resulting in different temporal density or intensity 

of sampling). Sampling panels and revisit schedules will be developed for each protocol, with 

careful consideration given to both statistical and data needs as well as the limitations imposed on 

monitoring by logistical concerns such as sampling staff availability, inter-site movement, and 

possible co-visitation opportunities. A schematic representation of several possible revisit designs 

appears in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1. Some possible revisit designs. 

Sample occasion 

Panel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Design [1-0] 

1 X X X X X X X X 

Design [1-n] 

1 X 

2 X 

3 X 

4 X 

5 X 

6 X 

7 X 

8 X 

Design [2-n] 

1 X 

2 X X 

3 X X 

4 X X 

5 X X 

6 X X 

7 X X 

8 X X 

Design [2-3] 

1 X X X X 

2 X X X X 

3 X X X 

4 X X 

5 X X X 

Design [1-0,2-3] 

1 X X X X X X X X 

2 X X X X 

3 X X X X 

4 X X X 

5 X X 

6 X X X 

The design notation ([n-n]) follows that proposed by McDonald (2003) and used 

by many NPS monitoring networks. The first digit represents the number of 

consecutive occasions that a panel will be sampled; the second digit represents 

the number of occasions it is not sampled before repeating the sequence. For 

example, if a single panel is visited on all occasions, its design would [1-0]. 

4.2.4. Spatial distribution of sampling sites 

The GULN program will address a wide range of vital signs and ecological parameters in 

multiple ecosystems at multiple scales. Our protocols may use any of several major sampling 

themes to determine location and distribution of sampling sites and effort. The general sampling 

themes include simple and stratified random sampling, systematic sampling, cluster sampling, 
72 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

and in some cases, total census and targeted approaches. In simple random sampling, n units are 

probabilistically selected from a population of size N using a random process, such that every unit 

has an essentially equal probability of being chosen. A stratified random sample (stratified 

sample) is one in which the sampling frame has been partitioned into mutually exclusive 

subpopulations (strata), with n units being drawn from each stratum. Stratification can be used to 

increase either or both sampling efficiency and precision in information yielded. Both 

stratification and “blocking” in sampling designs are approaches to partitioning a sampled 

population, and are analytically similar. A systematic sample is one in which sampling units are 

collected, counted, or measured in some regular or systematic pattern (spacing), such as on a grid 

or at fixed intervals along a transect. Generally, systematic sampling involves some degree of 

randomization of the initial sampling point, followed by fixing or assigning a regularly spaced 

grid of sampling points relative to that initial point. Systematic grid sampling typically uses a 

temporally and spatially fixed, permanent grid of locations, such as marked points on a map. 

In specific cases, GULN monitoring protocols will involve use of a virtual systematic grid—a 

temporary sampling grid generated by the sampling technology and method being used. This 

virtual grid is spatially implicit and covers the same area with the same sampling intensity and 

spacing, but not exactly the same point location, in each separate sampling event. This sampling 

grid is virtual because it is not fixed and marked on the map of the sampled area prior to 

sampling, but rather is generated during the sampling process and appears only in the collected 

location dataset generated after sampling is complete (see the discussion of LiDAR-based 

sampling for monitoring of vegetation structure and composition and coastal geomorphology and 

landforms in the following sections for description of virtual systematic grids and their 

generation). Cluster sampling is a grouping method in which a localized set of units is sampled 

within a larger sampling frame that may be difficult or impossible to randomly sample in an 

effective manner, such as when travel times are too great. Cluster sampling must be undertaken 

only with careful consideration of how such clustering effectively limits distribution of sampling 

effort and vacates assumptions of randomized sampling across an entire sample frame. Hence, it 

has potential to limit inference about the population. 

Because bird monitoring is explicitly not intended to provide quantitative inference across any 

whole park, the GULN will support subjective-adaptive site location for monitoring of migratory 

and resident birds in network parks. Site selection will be discretionary and based largely on park 

interest, rather than statistical sampling constraints, as bird monitoring in GULN parks will be a 

park-based, park-specific, interest-driven effort for which the network will provide data 

management support and methodology guidance. The GULN will advise its parks on site 

selection with regard to sampling habitats and other aspects (the adaptive component). See 

Section 4.4.3 for further discussion. 

Applications of different approaches for spatially distributing sampling sites will be explicitly 

developed in the standard operating procedures of all protocols. Aspects and types of sampling 

designs, with proposed revisit designs, are provided for nine network protocols in Table 4.2. 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 73 

Table 4.2. Proposed aspects and types of sampling for nine Gulf Coast Network protocols. 

Monitoring protocol Overall sampling 

design approach* Spatial allocation Revisit design 

Weather and Climatea NA NA [3-n]; 

Continuous 

Coastal Geomorphology 

and Landforms 

Terrestrial twodimensional Systematic virtual grid; 

a posteriori stratified 

[1-2]; 

Adaptive by event 

Estuarine and Near-Shore 

Coastal Waters 

Aquatic twodimensional GRTS (General Random 

Tessellation Stratified); 

Subjective-adaptive by park 

[1-0]; 

Continuous 

Freshwater Aquatic onedimensional Various adaptive by park; 

GRTS 

[2-3]; 

TBD by park and 

issue 

Vegetation Structure and 

Composition 

Terrestrial twodimensional Systematic virtual grid; 

a posteriori stratified; 

Various allocation schemes by 

vegetation module: 

Riparian Communities 

Wetlands 

Forest Health 

Fire and Fuel Dynamics 

Non-native Vegetation

[1-0]; 

Adaptive by event; 

TBD by module

Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetationb Aquatic twodimensional 

Systematic grid; 

Stratified random 

TBD 

Amphibian Communities Aquatic twodimensional; 

terrestrial twodimensional 

Stratified random; 

GRTS; 

Various by park and issue

[1-0]; 

TBD

Landbirdsc Terrestrial twodimensional Subjective-adaptive by park; 

Systematic grid 

TBD by park 

Adjacent Land-use 

Change 

Defined buffer; 

Databases 

Total census of databases 

(exhaustive sampling) 

Continuous; 

TBD by park 

*Conceptually, surface sampling-site distributions may be viewed as either strings or chains of sampling points along a 

linear feature, or aerial distributions of points across a surface. These general site distribution designs are labeled as onedimensional and two-dimensional, respectively. 

a

 Follows NPS national guidelines. 

b

 Adapted from NCBN. 

c

 Adapted from HTLN; GULN provides guidance, data management assistance. 

4.2.5. Sample size, power, and error considerations 

Sample size and power are major concerns in monitoring efforts. In general, sample size should 

be large enough to gain probability of detecting changes of management or conservation 

importance, but not unnecessarily large (Fry 1992). Where appropriate, we will perform a priori

power analyses and/or simulations to estimate sample sizes. A priori power analysis is a statistical 

calculation made prior to initiating monitoring using existing data (Thomas and Krebs 1997). 

Because these data provide an estimate of variability within the considered metrics, power 

analyses can be used to estimate sample sizes needed to detect trends in the data. An important 

interplay exists between cost, sample size, and sampling methodology. Different sampling 

methods differ in cost and yield data of varying quality and reliability. Variation within data 
74 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

reflects a combination of system, or true variation, and method error, or noise (e.g., imprecision 

in measurement, counting, data recording). Our program will take all of these into account when 

selecting both sampling methods and designs. 

As with all scientific hypothesis testing, monitoring programs must weigh the relative costs and 

benefits of Type I versus Type II errors, and set alpha (a) and power (1-a) accordingly (see Fields 

et al. 2005). Type I errors involve detecting a trend or difference when, in fact, none exists, 

whereas Type II errors involve failure to detect real differences or trends. Traditionally, scientists 

focus on reducing Type I errors, and accordingly use smaller alpha levels in statistical tests. In 

monitoring with a strong resource-conservation mandate, it may be preferable to support an earlywarning philosophy by increasing alpha and consequently increasing the power to detect 

differences or trends (see Sokal and Rohlf 1995). For example, where the possibility of obtaining 

large, high-quality samples may be limited, we will consider adopting a higher-alpha, higherpower strategy and adjust our sampling design accordingly. 

4.3. Monitoring Coastal Geomorphology and Landforms 

Geomorphology (primarily surface form, topography, and elevation) is a high-priority vital sign 

for two GULN barrier-island parks, GUIS and PAIS. Landform provides the physical foundation 

for all park surface ecosystems and natural resources, and changes dynamically in response to 

normal system processes, acute storm events, and anthropogenic actions. The primary objectives 

of the GULN Geomorphology and Landforms monitoring protocol are to detect and document 

substantial physical changes and displacement in the surface and near sub-surface geography of 

coastal parks, including recording land subsidence and landform changes occurring as a result of 

changes in climate, sea level, storm events, and ongoing anthropogenic activities such as 

dredging, canalization, water withdrawal, and flow modifications. 

The beach and dune system at Padre Island National Seashore. 

Development of this protocol will proceed in collaboration with the USGS, and be modeled after 

the Barrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring program currently being developed for monitoring 

barrier islands in Louisiana. We are interested in developing an approach that is consistent with 

other similar efforts in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Many technical aspects, including sampling 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 75 

design spatial resolution and coverage, are currently tentative and/or under development. 

Complete designs and discussion will be presented in the finalized protocol documentation. 

The GULN approach to monitoring geomorphic change is based, in large part, on the airborne 

pulse LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology that we will use to address multiple vital 

signs across network parks. For geomorphic monitoring, LiDAR will be used to create a threedimensional, bald-earth topographic model of the mineral and water surface of sampled coastal 

landscapes. 

4.3.1. LiDAR technology 

Airborne LiDAR collects elevation data on sample points in a landscape by bouncing red- or 

green-light laser pulses off of the sampled substrate and measuring changes in reflection intensity 

and return time to the sending unit aboard the aircraft. Key elements in the reflection signature 

from each laser pulse indicate the elevations of the first-return, or canopy-top elevation, and the 

underlying, bald-earth, mineral-ground (or, in some cases, water) reference surface relative to sea 

level. Sampling is performed by following a linear flyway at a fixed height (relative to sea level) 

over the landscape and taking readings (sample measurements) in a raster-scan design similar to 

that used to generate the image on a typical television screen. Pulse data are recorded 

simultaneously with GPS coordinates and sampling time that provides sampling location and 

order information. 

LiDAR sampling involves two levels of sampling design. The actual LiDAR surveys generate a 

primary, or technology-generated, sampling design during the physical sampling event. This 

primary design is a dynamic, high-resolution, virtual systematic grid sampling of a flyway belt 

transect across the landscape. The flyway dimensions are set by aircraft altitude, arc of scan 

across the flyway, and length of flyway. For example, a typical flyway may be approximately 240 

meters wide by n meters long (n = some discretionary length). In this primary design, the sample 

frame may be anything from one flyway to a combination of parallel flyways covering an entire 

park. For coastal geomorphic monitoring, the sample frame may include near-shore waters and 

directly-abutting adjacent lands. Sample units may range from one flyway to an entire park. 

Actual sampled area is determined by the cumulative length of parallel flyways flown during one 

sampling occasion. 

The virtual grid is anchored on, or referenced to, fixed-location ground stations that are initially 

subjectively selected (locations permitted according to park management preference). Both 

ground stations and all sampled points in the virtual grid will have GPS coordinates, allowing the 

entire sample and database to be accurately georeferenced on the park map. As ground stations 

are permanent and fixed, the virtual grid can be relocated to cover the same sample frame each 

time (high degree of grid relocation for repeated measures), but individual sample points within 

the grid have a low probability of being re-sampled in any given subsequent sampling occasion. 

Sampling points are distributed roughly evenly within the grid, with a user-defined, mean spacing 

that can be adjusted by changing the overflight altitude and pulse frequency of the laser. Typical 

sample spacing within the grid is about 1.5 × 2.0 meters, yielding large sample sizes (and high 

sampling intensity; approximately 25,000+ points per square kilometer) and consistent, reliable 

data. 

After primary sampling is performed over the entire sample frame or park, the datasets—

composed of all elevation data with geospatial locator and time records—are available for diverse 

secondary, or a posteriori, sampling-design development (Figure 4.1). For example, the total 
76 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

island sample may be stratified to analyze areas of interest (geospatial stratification) and elevation 

zones of interest (vertical stratification). It may also be sub-sampled to focus on select classes of 

features (targeted sampling). Large sample sizes also provide the ability to combine, a posteriori,

adjacent sample points to create new sample-point sizes (footprints) with mean values and 

associated error terms. This allows one dataset to be used in a variety of sampling designs and 

analyses, addressing questions at different scales and resolutions. Such combined-footprint 

sample points are also more likely to be effectively re-sampled over time, as each footprint can 

assume the mean geospatial location of its several points. This feature will allow us to effectively 

track shapes, volumes, and locations of objects, such as small sand dunes, over time. 

Figure 4.1. LiDAR sampling for geomorphic monitoring. Sampling generates a virtual 

systematic grid in the raw data (A). Details (B and C) include a secondary, or a posteriori, 

sampling design using combined-point footprints, tracking of surface features, and detection 

of coastline change. 

4.3.2. Sampling intervals, revisit schedules, and panels 

The GULN program has yet to finalize the sampling interval, frequency, and scheduling of 

geomorphic monitoring. One model currently under consideration would treat GUIS and PAIS as 

one panel to be sampled once every three years. Sampling dates would be approximate windows, 

determined by weather and flight availability, with a revisit design of type [1-2]. We further 

anticipate that one or both parks may receive additional sampling runs (adaptive sampling) 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 77 

following acute storm events if park managers request assessment of storm impacts on island 

geomorphology and resources. 

4.4. Terrestrial Biological Integrity Monitoring 

This section summarizes sampling designs for proposed monitoring of several high-priority 

biological and ecological vital signs associated with terrestrial ecosystems (see Chapter 3). These 

vital signs may be usefully divided into three major groups, each with a general type of sampling 

design: (1) terrestrial vegetation and related vital signs, (2) amphibians, and (3) birds, including 

both migratory and resident species. All three groups are important, to varying degree and detail, 

to all eight network parks. 

4.4.1. Terrestrial vegetation and related vital signs 

Terrestrial vegetation is a key monitoring focus in all GULN parks. In addition to the general 

condition of park vegetation, various parks are strongly interested in several other related vital 

signs, including Forest Health, Riparian Communities, Salt Marsh Communities, Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics, and Non-native Vegetation (see Chapter 3 for parks and vital signs). 

The GULN is developing, in collaboration with the USGS, a technology-based, combined 

monitoring strategy that will simultaneously address all of these vital signs. Our combined vital 

signs approach is based on the recognition that vital signs related to vegetation involve similar 

questions about aerial and spatial dimension, location, condition of plant stands or patches, and 

species composition (Fire and Fuel Dynamics does not involve a species component). These 

general questions may be quantitatively addressed by measuring the structure, dimensions, and 

locations of vegetation patches or units as physical objects, without a priori consideration of 

species. As the questions may be answered, at least in large part, across vital signs and parks with 

like data (measurements), it appears reasonable that these vital signs may be effectively 

monitored using a common methodology and design. Accordingly, we are developing the GULN 

Vegetation Structure and Composition monitoring protocol (VSCMP) as a combined-methods 

approach to address multiple vegetation-related vital signs across most or all parks in the 

network. 

The initial, primary objective of the VSCMP is to provide reliable, consistent quantitative 

information on the physical structural characteristics of park vegetation resources at the largerarea and park/landscape level, together with limited taxonomic and typological biological 

description and conditional assessment of those sampled resources. Initial development will focus 

on sampling terrestrial vegetation; additional resource- and question-specific objectives will be 

developed as linked and derivative monitoring protocols and SOPs are added in the future. After 

this primary protocol is completed, we will develop additional modules (essentially, secondary 

sampling designs and associated analytical components) that will address the other vital signs in 

this group (see Chapter 5 for proposed modules and development dates). 

The primary technological basis for the GULN VSCMP is the use of airborne LiDAR, coupled 

with high-resolution, color infrared (CIR) digital photographic images to collect information 

about vegetation structure and composition. The use of LiDAR in vegetation assessment and 

monitoring is rapidly developing, both in technical refinement and in diversity and scope of 

potential application, as is evidenced by the growing amount of international technical literature 

on the subject (see Nayegandhi et al. [2006] on a posteriori evaluation of sampling footprint 

sizes; Thomas et al. [2006] on photosynthetic rate and leaf area assessment in boreal mixedhardwood forests; Anderson et al. [2005] on canopy structure and biomass estimation in mixed 

forests; and Hinsley et al. [2006] on assessment of woodland habitat for birds). The GULN 
78 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

VSCMP will involve three major components: (1) collection of structural and dimensional 

measurement data using LiDAR; (2) collection of data on qualitative plant health and condition, 

as well as taxonomic identification, using CIR imaging; and (3) field surveys to ground-truth and 

augment taxonomic, conditional, and distributional information derived from the LiDAR and CIR 

data. LiDAR and CIR images are coupled (collected simultaneously in one survey flight), 

ensuring a high degree of sampling co-location and co-visitation with common revisit and panel 

designs and sampling intervals between these two methods. LiDAR and CIR data will share a 

joint, two-level development of sampling design, similar to that used for geomorphic monitoring. 

Ground-truth sampling will be performed separately, on different scales and intervals, and with 

different revisit schedules. 

Naval Live Oaks, Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

The dynamics of change in this and similar systems across GULN parks 

is a primary focus in network plans for vegetation monitoring using LiDAR. 

4.4.1.1. LiDAR sampling 

The LiDAR sampling component will employ the same instrument technology used for 

geomorphic sampling, and generate the same primary sampling design. Sampling is performed in 

linear flyway belt-transects, creating a virtual systematic grid sample with sampling intensity and 

spacing of sampling points controlled by the mechanisms described above. Primary sample 

frames are flyways and composites of flyways up to the parkwide area. Sample grids and points 

are georeferenced to fixed-location ground stations. 

For the VSCMP, LiDAR sampling will collect additional data that provide measures of object 

and layer surface elevation relative to mineral surface (landform, bald-earth). These data will 

include elevations of canopy top and one or more sub-canopy layers. These data are used in the 

analytical design to derive estimates of canopy and sub-canopy layer height and density, as well 

as measures of the patterns and heterogeneity that collectively provide three-dimensional 

quantitative assessment of object (e.g., vegetation, canopy, dead timber) structure and size. These 

data are collected as a column wave-form signature on each sample point in the LiDAR survey; 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 79 

thus, all aerial, distributional, and geospatial-location aspects of the LiDAR sampling design 

apply equally to all layers within these vertical data columns. 

LiDAR datasets collected for the VSCMP can be readily used in secondary sampling-design 

development. Data may be stratified using geospatial and elevation data collected within the 

sample, and/or with reference to prior information (e.g., park maps, research records); may be 

regrouped to address questions at different scales; and be sub-sampled and clustered by any 

randomization or targeted sampling approach (e.g., to examine a selected recognized “patch” or 

vegetation unit on the landscape). 

4.4.1.2. CIR image collection and sampling 

High-resolution CIR images are taken simultaneously with LiDAR data collection as survey 

transects are flown. These images form a mosaic of photographic images that can be joined 

together to create a seamless digital image of the entire LiDAR primary sample frame being 

considered. The CIR images are then geo-rectified, or spatially coordinated, with the co-collected 

LiDAR datasets. CIR images contain pixilated color signatures of what was overflown in the 

flyway. These color-pixel data, combined in co-analysis with LiDAR sample-point structural 

data, create a color-with-structure signature of a LiDAR footprint (combination or grouping of 

adjacent LiDAR data points into a larger averaged unit for analysis), interpretable by machine, 

that will be used to monitor the physical structure, coarse taxonomic composition, and, 

potentially, some plant-health aspects of the sampled vegetation. 

CIR datasets, like LiDAR datasets, can be employed for diverse a posteriori use and analysis. 

When linked with LiDAR data, all sub-sampling, grouping, and stratification applied to a LiDAR 

dataset will automatically correlate with the CIR data, and reciprocally so, when such 

manipulations are applied to the linked CIR data. In addition, CIR data may be independently 

used in a posteriori sampling design with separate analyses to address questions not related to 

structure, such as the possible spread of a plant pest or pathogen that causes a detectable (and 

geospatially explicit) color change within CIR datasets. 

4.4.1.3. Ground-truth sampling 

Both LiDAR and CIR sampling methodologies generate potentially large, consistent, and reliable 

datasets and analytical outcomes information. These are the primary monitoring outputs that will 

be interpreted by GULN program staff and reported to park managers. For effective utilization in 

monitoring, outcomes from both methodologies will need to be calibrated and qualitatively 

verified by ground-truth sampling. 

Ground-truth sampling is currently in early development, with collaborating vegetation experts 

located at Louisiana State University. We anticipate that this sampling will be designed to 

provide some amount of data about species composition, aerial spacing of larger individuals 

within selected sample frames, and, potentially, data reflecting plant health or condition. Possible 

sampling methods will include conventional plant-ecology practices such as transect and plot 

sampling, as well as point-quarter, line-intercept, and nearest-neighbor methods. Plot and transect 

size will be determined by subject-matter experts, who will consider both the questions being 

asked and the scale of the vegetation being sampled. 

Sampling plots will be distributed by referencing a park’s LiDAR virtual grid (a posteriori plotlocation selection) or extant park vegetation maps. Ground-truthing is intended to provide a 

posteriori identification or description of a feature (i.e., a patch with structural and/or color 

characteristics differing from surrounding areas) observed in the LiDAR–CIR combined dataset. 
80 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Thus, ground-truthing efforts will be distributed to target those features within the larger LiDAR 

primary sample frame. For ground-truth sampling, the sample space of inferential interest will be 

within the boundary of a feature selected on the LiDAR dataset or park map. Allocation of 

sample plots within that feature will utilize either grid-based systematic distribution (based on a 

subset of the LiDAR virtual grid, scaled to fit the intended feature) or a simple random 

distribution across the set of grid points (Figure 4.2). The number, shape, and size of plots used 

within the feature’s sample space will be scaled to provide a sample size adequate to estimate the 

properties of interest for that patch. 

Figure 4.2. LiDAR primary virtual systematic grid parkwide sample (A) with super-imposed 

secondary sampling designs, including change-of-grid, combined-point footprints, observed 

vegetation features, and ground-truth sampling within observed vegetation features (B, C, and 

D.) 

4.4.1.4. Sampling intervals, revisit schedules, and panels used in the GULN VSCMP 

The GULN program has yet to finalize the sampling interval, frequency, and scheduling of 

terrestrial vegetation monitoring. One model currently under consideration for LiDAR–CIR 

vegetation sampling would treat GUIS and PAIS as one panel to be sampled in conjunction with 

geomorphic monitoring, while other parks would be distributed among two or more panels to be 

sampled on a “1 on, 3 off” revisit design (type 1-3]. We further anticipate that some parks may 

receive additional sampling runs following acute storm events or if a park requests assessment of 

a possible acute event, such as a pest outbreak. Sampling frequency and revisit schedules for 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 81 

ground-truth sampling will be developed on a per-park and as-needed basis in consultation with 

the parks and with collaborating vegetation experts. 

4.4.2. Amphibians 

Amphibian populations and communities are a high-priority monitoring focus for most GULN 

parks. We have initiated development of a network-wide Amphibian Communities monitoring 

protocol in collaboration with staff at the University of Georgia’s Savannah River Ecology 

Laboratory. The primary objective of this protocol is to provide network parks with quantitative 

assessment and monitoring of common amphibian species as biological indicators of changing 

ecosystem conditions. Likely questions focus on local relative abundance, large-site occupancy, 

and age and sex structure within populations. Both sampling methodologies and sampling designs 

remain to be selected, but we anticipate that this protocol will utilize established methods and 

designs derived from current practices used by the Partners for Amphibian and Reptile 

Conservation and USGS-Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Initiative. 

Bufo valliceps, the Gulf Coast Toad, is 

common to most GULN parks, and 

may serve as a cross-parks comparative 

indicator for amphibian monitoring. 

Hyla squirella, the squirrel tree frog, on 

JELA’s Barataria Preserve. 

This common species may serve in 

conditional monitoring of amphibians on 

several GULN parks.

Typical sampling methodologies include intercepting and trapping mobile individuals (pitfall 

traps, drift fencing, visual surveys), providing acceptable artificial habitat (cover-board 

sampling), conducting net and trap sampling in aquatic habitats, and using audio census methods 

(“frog-loggers,” listening surveys). Each of these methodologies involves different assumptions 

and practices concerning both spatial and temporal sampling distribution and intensity. 

 

We expect that amphibian sampling will be environmentally stratified based on landform, 

elevation gradients, slope and exposure aspects, and substrate composition. Sampling points, 

plots, and transects may be distributed systematically across an entire park (based on a park map 

grid), within defined strata, or in semi-randomized and simple random designs within sample 

spaces. In many cases, sample locations will be specifically keyed to local habitat details. 

Amphibian experts frequently use habitat-targeted sampling due to the strong habitat specificity 

of many species. Sampling may involve multiple sampling visits per site over each season, as 

many species exhibit diel behavior patterns and seasonal activity cycles. We should expect that 

within-year sampling revisit schedules may be specific to a park, based on which species are 
82 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

common at that location. We anticipate that all parks included in this effort will be sampled every 

year, in a network-wide, one-panel revisit design [1-0]. 

All amphibian sampling will be spatially explicit, and sampling sites will be located with GPS 

coordinates. Use of geospatial locators will support a posteriori correlation of amphibian data 

with vegetation structure and geomorphic landform data (habitat structure and dimensionality) 

collected during those monitoring efforts. 

4.4.3. Migratory and resident birds 

Both migratory and resident birds are of monitoring interest to most GULN parks. Several parks 

host high bird diversity because they are located on important migration flyways and, in some 

cases, in important overwintering and/or breeding areas. Most network parks have high levels of 

visitor interest in birds and are host to variably active birding groups. The GULN program has 

elected not to pursue bird-population monitoring as a network task, but will support individual 

park monitoring efforts with a common methodology and sampling-design protocol, technical 

advice, and network-level data management assistance. To this end, we will adopt 

methodological and analytical components of the Heartland Network (HTLN) Landbirds 

monitoring protocol and support its implementation in network parks at the discretion of park 

managers. To a large extent, park staff and park-associated volunteer birders will implement this 

protocol. 

The sampling methodology for all parks and habitats will be based on the fixed-time duration, 

point-based variable circular plot (VCP) sampling described in the HTLN protocol (Peitz et al 

2004). VCP is a distance-sampling methodology generally used to determine relative abundance 

and trends in bird populations. During sampling, an observer records birds seen or heard within a 

set time period (usually between 3 and 10 minutes) from a station located along a transect or on a 

systematic grid. VCP can utilize visual and/or auditory detection of birds. Our use of this 

methodology will, in practice, approximate the point-count approach used for the Breeding Bird 

Survey, except that our application will include estimating the distance-from-observer for each 

bird seen or heard during the sampling event. 

4.4.3.1. General sampling design and distribution of sites 

Site selection will be discretionary or judgmental for all GULN parks that undertake bird 

monitoring under this protocol. Because we do not intend for this effort to provide parkwide 

quantitative estimators, nor statistical inference to bird-population parameters or conditions on a 

parkwide basis, use of guided discretionary distribution of sampling sites is a justifiable approach. 

We expect to continue using extant sites that have been subjectively chosen and used in previous 

years by park monitoring efforts and/or local birding groups active in specific parks, as these sites 

have become established for the park, visitors, and personnel who are likely to be involved in 

performing sampling activities. Where parks are interested in adding new sites, these will be 

selected either by judgment (e.g., placement of added sites in areas considered to be habitats of 

interest by the park and/or local experts), or, if park area is sufficiently large, by placement on a 

systematic grid or along transects through the park. In this latter case, the GULN will assist the 

park in developing a sampling design that fits its needs and available resources for monitoring. 

The grid can be stratified to focus on questions of interest (e.g., place-sampling emphasis on 

coastal dunes and beaches on PAIS, or place emphasis on a particular management unit within a 

larger park, such as BITH). The systematic grid will either be derived from the primary virtual 

grid for terrestrial vegetation sampling (complete with its geospatial markers) or created and 

superimposed on a park map. In either case, geospatial location of sampling points will support a 

posteriori, spatially explicit correlation of bird-count and distance data with vegetation-structure 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 83 

data (habitat characteristics) and geomorphology. The number of sites to be sampled in any park 

will be limited by available sampling effort and park size. 

The populations to be monitored (breeding, year-round resident, seasonal resident, and migrant 

birds) will be identified by specific parks in consultation with their local birding groups and 

experts. Sampling frequency, replication, and revisit design will be developed for each park in 

collaboration with park staff and local birding groups. It is anticipated that most parks will use 

some form of the one-time-per-sampling-occasion revisit design [1-0]. 

4.5. Gulf Coast Network Approach to Landscape Dynamics 

Change in adjacent land use, particularly land conversion and development for urban/residential 

and commercial development, is a high-priority network concern. Most GULN parks are, to some 

extent, interested in how and what is changing in terms of development and land use on 

properties surrounding and adjacent to parks. Our approach to monitoring changes in land use is 

to consider posted and approved building permits and other formal planning and permitting 

instruments as being the best available predictors of near-future land development. The GULN, in 

collaboration with staff at Texas A&M University, is developing a protocol to provide early 

detection of planned and pending development on lands adjacent to network parks (see Chapters 

3 and 5). Fundamentally, this protocol will provide a prediction of what will be developed, and 

where, in the near future, and will augment other information (such as historic and recorded 

changes in land use and landscape-level analyses and trends) that may become available through 

other monitoring efforts.

The general methodology will be to exhaustively sample paper and electronic development and 

building-permit databases for all public jurisdictions (e.g., counties, municipalities, water 

districts, utility districts) involved with permitting watershed alteration, development, and 

construction on lands within a defined buffer adjacent to the boundary of each monitored park. 

Initially, sampling will focus on permits that have been approved and filed. Later development of 

this protocol will potentially extend sampling to include filed permit applications and project 

proposals as additional tools to facilitate predicting near-future development around parks. Data 

and information to be collected and reported will include identification of project type, scope, and 

size; proposed start and completion dates; and locations. 

The general sampling design is a repetitive exhaustive sample (total census) of all available data 

in sampled databases on a short-interval or real-time sampling schedule. The sample frame and 

sample space are the buffer around the park boundary. Buffer size will be selected by the park, 

and may differ for different types of permits (e.g., a buffer for residential and retail building may 

be set to include all lands within 3.0 km of the administrative boundary, while a utility and major 

transportation buffer may extend out 15 or 20 km or more to capture highway and power-plant 

development). Sampling frequency (revisit design) may be anything up to continuous electronic 

survey of available databases, as determined by factors such as access to databases and files 

granted by affected jurisdictions. It is likely that sampling will be adaptive in schedule, as 

different jurisdictions are likely to permit and support differing levels and rates of access to their 

data, and there may be some time lag in approval and posting of permits. 

4.6. Freshwater Monitoring Design 

This section summarizes several aspects of the sampling design and plan for monitoring chemical 

and physical water quality parameters in the five inland parks of the GULN (BITH, NATR, 

PAAL, SAAN, and VICK). Complete details of design rationale, sample site selection, and 

sampling schedule are presented in the Gulf Coast Network Water Quality Monitoring Plan 
84 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

(WQMP) and its associated monitoring protocols in Appendix M. By intent, this is a long-term 

monitoring program designed to form a comparative database of selected water quality 

parameters from within an individual park or stream over time. Its primary design and sampling 

strategy are selected for long-term trends detection, rather than response to catastrophic or 

singular events that might affect water quality, such as a break in an oil pipeline. 

The GULN WQMP will adapt the basic program of proven national and state standards of the 

USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Clean Rivers Program (CRP). Implementation of the GULN 

WQMP will rely upon, and fully articulate with, monitoring efforts already in place in Texas, and 

will, wherever possible, articulate with efforts being performed by other appropriate states and 

agencies. Explicitly, the GULN will make full use of all available non-NPS monitoring efforts 

and programs, including USGS gaging stations, to provide effective monitoring for park waters. 

This strategy will both ensure that data are consistent and comparable among the parks and with 

those obtained by other entities monitoring like resources in the region, and potentially provide 

significant savings through cost-sharing and leveraging with these other entities. 

The five inland GULN parks being addressed in the current WQMP constitute a diverse array of 

monitoring needs and objectives. Park waters are not equally important across all parks, and each 

park has specific concerns about threats, associated biota, and relative resource value of their 

waters. For purposes of developing the GULN WQMP, park waters were classified into three 

categories, which were then used to determine the primary distribution of sampling effort across 

the five inland parks. Those categories are as follows: 

Table 4.3. Monitoring categories for Gulf Coast Network freshwater parks. 

Category Characteristics Park(s) 

1 • Water resources are central to park establishment or mission 

• High amount of recreational use 

• Contains federally or state-listed threatened, endangered, or rare aquatic or 

dependent species 

• Known exceedances of key water quality standards or 303(d)-listed waters 

• High probability of water resource damage with little or no information of 

fundamental elements of hydrogeology or water quality 

BITH 

NATR 

2 • Water resources, although important with respect to general interpretation or 

aesthetics, are not central to park establishment or mission 

• Limited or no contact recreational use 

• Contains no federally or state-listed threatened, endangered, or rare aquatic or 

dependent species 

SAAN 

3 • Water resources are not central or perhaps even mentioned in park 

establishment or mission 

• No contact recreational use 

• Contains no federally or state-listed threatened, endangered, or rare aquatic or 

dependent species 

• In general, water resources are ancillary in nature and management 

PAAL 

VICK 

These categories, along with differences in specific park needs, affect both allocation of 

monitoring effort and the specific parameters sampled. Numbers of sampling sites and specific 

parameters will vary among parks accordingly, as detailed in Appendix M. 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 85 

4.6.1. Synoptic sampling and general sampling schedule 

Our primary approach to monitoring will, like the USGS-NAWQA and TCEQ-CRP programs, 

rely upon synoptic sampling, in which water samples are taken on fixed calendar dates regardless 

of flow and weather conditions. This strategy has proven to yield statistically valid data that can 

be used to track long-term trends in water quality. In synoptic sampling, all sites within a park 

will be sampled in a rotation order on set calendar dates. 

The GULN water quality program is designed to provide an integrated assessment of the spatial 

distribution of general water quality conditions in relation to hydrologic conditions and major 

contaminant sources. The general sampling schedule will be either bi-monthly or quarterly, based 

upon water resources ranking and existing TCEQ-CRP monitoring efforts. This sampling 

schedule is selected as being most feasible to provide comparative statistics for the selected sites 

and parameters under variable flow conditions. 

Where GULN or other NPS staff will perform sampling field work, sampling dates will be set 

depending on GULN logistical and staff considerations. Where sampling will be performed by a 

cooperating state agency (e.g., TCEQ-CRP), sampling dates will articulate with the schedules of 

that agency’s current program. Multiple parks may be scheduled for sampling on the same dates, 

constituting a panel for sampling schedule purposes. The initial annual sampling schedule 

(design) is as follows: 

• PAAL, with no perennial surface water resources, will not be sampled on a regular 

schedule, but may occasionally be sampled following large rain events. 

• BITH, SAAN, and VICK will be sampled quarterly. 

• NATR will be sampled every other month. 

Additional details on within-year sampling schedules for each park are provided in the GULN 

WQMP (Appendix M). 

Initial water quality sampling for the GULN will begin in 2007. Data collected during FY2007 

will use protocols and SOPs (see Appendix M for details), and will serve as a programmatic test. 

At the end of the year, the program will be evaluated and any needed modifications will be made 

under SOP 9, “Revising the Protocol.” 

4.6.2. Selection of sampling sites 

In most cases, selection of sampling sites will follow the general allocation scheme used by 

USGS-NAWQA: Sampling locations are selected as being either integrator sites (locations 

commonly at tributary confluences that are representative of water quality issues within 

individual sub-basins) or indicator sites (locations downstream from either suspected or 

documented water quality threats or with pristine conditions). It is recognized that in order to best 

fit with other GULN monitoring activities, some flexibility in site selection is likely. 

The following criteria were used in choosing sampling sites in GULN parks: 

1. The site’s utility as an integrator site (i.e., located at the downstream end of a stream, 

spring, or tributary and of interest because of presence or absence of significant sources 

of pollutants within their watersheds). 
86 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

2. The presence of significant aquatic resources in a stream segment where water quality 

trend information is needed to corroborate biological trends or to provide park managers 

with early warning of potential problems. 

3. The management interest of a particular site, be it either legislative (i.e., protection status 

mandated by park legislation or management plans) or regulatory placement on nonattainment (303(d)) list. 

4. Integration into existing water quality programs, where sites are selected to fill spatial 

gaps in these extant programs. 

5. The presence of existing water quality data at a given site. While many sites in the GULN 

have not been sampled prior to this program, some have. An existing water quality record 

adds to the utility of establishing long term trends if reoccupied in this program. 

6. The availability of easy, quick access to the site. Because each park will be sampled 

synoptically during a single day, sites must be chosen that allow easy and quick access 

during all flow conditions. 

7. The ability to safely access a sampling site. Because many water samplers will be alone, 

they must be able to access sites safely in all conditions. 

Sites were chosen based upon management needs (recreational use, for example), biological 

reasons (occurrence of listed species), and to co-locate with future sites for aquatic biological 

monitoring. In nearly every case, sites were chosen by the NAWQA rationale to reflect integrator 

locations as defined above. Only the highest-priority sites in any given park that can be sampled 

during one day will be included. Some parks (BITH and SAAN) have active programs 

administered by local river authorities. In these parks, sites were chosen to fill in spatial gaps in 

stream reaches to augment existing water quality sampling locations. 

The GULN WQMP will initially utilize a set of 34 sites distributed across five parks. A complete 

description of each site, and the rationale for its inclusion in this monitoring program, are found 

in the GULN WQMP and associated protocol (Appendix M). 

4.7. Water Quality Monitoring in Coastal and Estuarine Waters 

Coastal, near-shore marine, and estuarine waters are important monitoring foci in three GULN 

parks: GUIS, JELA, and PAIS. Key components of network monitoring for this vital sign will 

include planned adoption of the SECN estuarine monitoring protocol and development of limited 

fixed-station continuous monitoring at GUIS and PAIS (and possibly JELA). Development of 

these approaches is expected to occur in FY2007. Collaborators will include USGS staff, the 

EPA, SECN, and state agencies in Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas. 

The SECN estuarine monitoring protocol is an adaptation of the protocol used by the EPA for the 

Coastal Condition Assessment (CCA). The sampling methodologies and general sampling design 

were developed by the EPA for conditional monitoring of coastal and estuarine waters. The 

SECN protocol and EPA-CCA utilize a version of GRTS (General Random Tessellation 

Stratified) sampling for probabilistically allocating sampling effort within the desired sample 

space. The GULN will directly adopt both the standardized sampling methods and this general 

design, and apply this model for distributing sampling sites within its parks. The adopted model 

includes a proposed revisit design for sampling points within the sample frame. The GULN 

protocol will adopt and follow this schedule. 
 Chapter 4: Sampling Design 87 

The GULN anticipates augmenting the adopted protocol with several fixed-station continuous 

monitoring instruments. Continuous monitoring devices provide detailed, time-related conditional 

sampling to facilitate real-time assessment of water parameters at presumed critical-systemcondition and integrator locations. Protocols for this type of continuous monitoring will be 

adopted from NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserves program and the SECN. The 

sampling locations will be judgmentally selected in consultation with the parks and with experts 

from the NPS Water Resources Division. 
88 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 
 Chapter 5: Sampling Protocols 89 

Chapter 5 

Sampling Protocols 

Monitoring protocols are detailed study plans that explain how data are to be 

collected, managed, analyzed, and reported, and are a key component of quality 

assurance for natural resource monitoring programs. Protocols are necessary to 

ensure that changes detected by monitoring actually are occurring in nature and 

not simply a result of measurements being taken by different people or in slightly 

different ways. . . . A good monitoring protocol will include extensive testing and 

evaluation of the effectiveness of the procedures before they are accepted for 

long-term monitoring. Peer review of protocols and revisions are essential for 

their credibility. The documentation should include reviewers’ comments and 

authors’ response. 

—Oakley et al. 2003, Appendix N 

5.1. Introduction 

Monitoring protocols are the key, on-the-ground, functional elements of the GULN program. 

Formal, peer-reviewed protocols ensure consistent, reliable monitoring and facilitate project and 

program continuity as personnel change. GULN protocols (and the process used to create them) 

emphasize careful development and testing of methods and designs to provide effective sampling 

and monitoring; comprehensive review by NPS and outside experts to ensure methodological and 

design adequacy prior to implementation; and careful documentation to ensure consistent 

implementation over time. Where possible, the network will take advantage of existing 

protocols—particularly those that have already undergone I&M and peer review—and adapt them 

to the particular circumstances of GULN parks. The following sections and tables describe a 

typical monitoring protocol document; summarize the GULN protocol development process; and 

identify, with a proposed development schedule, the suite of protocols to be developed by the 

GULN over the next three-to-five years to address its 19 high-priority vital signs. Protocol 

Development Summaries for protocols currently under development are provided in Appendix N. 

5.2. Protocol Development Process 

Once a vital sign has been selected, the next step is to develop a monitoring plan and formal 

monitoring protocol for that vital sign. Successful development of a monitoring protocol often 

involves a multi-year research and field-testing effort to determine the appropriate spatial and 

temporal scale for sampling and to test sampling procedures before they are implemented for 

long-term monitoring. In many cases, such development requires specialized technical expertise 

and access to equipment or resources that may not be directly available to a monitoring program. 

GULN protocol development will be performed through collaborative projects that both (1) take 

advantage of diverse agency, academic, and other professional expertise and (2) leverage and 

augment network resources. Most technical development and field work will be performed by 

non-NPS personnel working in collaboration with network and park staff, along with associated 

interns and volunteer groups. Current collaborators providing key technical assistance include 

USGS and academic experts affiliated with NPS Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESUs). 

In general, GULN staff will be the primary developers of protocol-associated data management 

and documentation procedures, and will oversee both field testing and future implementation in 

network parks. 
90 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

The general protocol development process is as follows: Staff and collaborators identify the key 

monitoring objectives and questions, and types of data needed to best answer those questions. 

Next, the development team selects (or develops) and field-tests appropriate sampling methods 

and spatial designs. Method and design development takes into account specific properties of the 

sampled resource, such as taxon-specific habitat use and phenology. For example, amphibian 

monitoring must account for the details of when and where certain species may be found in a 

shared habitat. Following field-testing (and possible revision), protocol SOPs are drafted to detail 

all methods, designs, and related information. Finalized protocol documents are then sent through 

an informal internal and formal external (peer and expert) review process. Following reviews and 

revision, the approved protocol will be accepted for full implementation by the program, and 

implementation will commence according to the design and schedule set for that protocol. Given 

the lengthy and involved process of protocol development, the network plans to use and modify 

existing protocols whenever feasible to meet GULN needs. 

5.3. Protocol Format and Content 

Monitoring protocols will follow the document standards described in Oakley et al. 2003. This 

guideline specifies protocol document format and content, and emphasizes a modular structure 

that facilitates information access while supporting a well-documented history of change and 

revision. The following paragraphs summarize the components of a typical GULN program 

monitoring-protocol document. 

Monitoring protocols consist of discrete sections detailing protocol background, sampling 

objectives, sampling design (including location and time of sample collection), field methods, 

data analysis and reporting, staffing requirements, training procedures, and operational 

requirements (Oakley et al. 2003). The first section is a descriptive narrative. This narrative

provides the background and rationale for vital sign selection, including a summary of pertinent 

research background, local research history, and clear statement of park management information 

needs concerning the vital sign being monitored. The narrative discusses specific measurable 

objectives and monitoring questions, and identifies how the data to be collected in the monitoring 

effort will address these questions. Narratives also summarize the design phase of protocol 

development and any decisionmaking that is relevant to the protocol. Documenting the history of 

a protocol during its development phase helps to ensure that future refinement of the protocol 

does not merely repeat previous trials or comparisons (Oakley et al. 2003). Narratives also 

provide a listing and brief summary of all SOPs, which are developed in detail as independent 

sections in the protocol. 

The narrative is followed by the SOPs. Protocol SOPs carefully and thoroughly explain, in a stepby-step manner, how each procedure identified in the protocol narrative will be accomplished. At 

a minimum, separate SOPs address pre-sampling training requirements, data to be collected, 

equipment operations, data-collection techniques and methods, data management, data analysis, 

reporting, and any activities required at the end of a field season (i.e., post-sampling equipment 

maintenance and storage). One SOP identifies when and how revisions to the protocol are 

undertaken. As stand-alone documents, SOPs are easily updated (compared to revising an entire 

monitoring protocol). A revision log for each SOP identifies any changes that are implemented, 

by whom, when, and why—emphasizing, in a practical way, the nature of protocols as living 

documents. The final elements or sections in a typical protocol include Literature Cited and, 

where appropriate, attachments such as appendices, data tables, handbooks, or any other 

supporting information. 
 Chapter 5: Sampling Protocols 91 

Complete monitoring protocols identify supporting materials critical to the development and 

implementation of the protocol (Oakley et al. 2003). Supporting materials are any materials 

developed or acquired during the development phase of a monitoring protocol. Examples of this 

material may include databases, reports, maps, geospatial information, species lists, analysis tools 

tested, and any decisions resulting from these exploratory analyses. Material not easily formatted 

for inclusion in the monitoring protocol can also be included in this section. 

5.4. Protocol Development Schedule 

The GULN monitoring program has identified 42 vital signs for possible monitoring in one or 

more of its parks. Of these, 19 have been identified as being of higher priority (see Chapter 3 and 

Table 5.1), and will be the focus for development and implementation within the next three-tofive years. The remaining 23 vital signs are not currently slated for protocol development and 

monitoring, but will be addressed as opportunity and resources permit. 

The GULN program currently (FY2007) has development work underway on four protocols: 

• Vegetation Structure and Composition, 

• Amphibian Communities, 

• Adjacent Land-use Change, and 

• Freshwater. 

Because some of these protocols address more than one vital sign, we expect to develop eight 

separate protocols for the 19 high-priority vital signs. Later in FY2007, the GULN anticipates 

adopting or beginning development efforts on four protocols: 

• Estuarine and Near-Shore Coastal Waters (patterned after the protocol being developed 

by the SECN), 

• Landbirds (modeled on the HTLN Landbirds protocol), and 

• Coastal Geomorphology and Landforms (derived from the same data as the Vegetation 

Structure and Composition protocol), and 

• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (adopted from the NCBN’s SAV protocol). 

Over the next few years (FY2008–2010), we will begin additional protocol development as 

current projects near substantial completion, potential developers are identified, and development 

resources become available. 
92 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Table 5.1. High-priority vital signs to be addressed under monitoring protocols slated for development between 2006 and Level 1 Category 

Network vital sign Protocol name Parks Justification Primary monitoring obje

Air and Climate 

Weather/Climate Weather and 

Climatea

All Weather patterns and changes in 

climate trends are key drivers in all ecosystems. Monitoring weather trends provides critical reference data for interpretation of detected ecological trends. 

Understand the natural ranvariation in weather patterntrends across the GULN pbaseline conditions that linsigns. 

Geology and Soils 

Coastal Dynamics 

Coastal Geomorphology and Landforms 

GUIS JELA PAIS 

Changes in barrier-island landforms reflect natural process, storm events, and human actions, and drive diverse change in ecosystems. 

Establish a current baselindocument changes in coasisland morphology, includinposition, whole-island topoposition, sand volume, and changes are gradual or sto

Water Water Chemistry 

Water Nutrients Water Toxics 

Estuarine and NearShore Coastal Waters 

GUIS JELA PAIS 

Chemical and physical water quality parameters are key indicators of coastal marine environment condition and change. 

Establish a baseline and dterm changes in core wateparameters and selected sanalytes in GULN parks. 

Water Water Chemistry 

Water Nutrients Water Toxics 

Freshwater All Chemical and physical water quality 

parameters are key indicators of freshwater aquatic environment condition and change. 

Establish a baseline and dterm changes in core wateparameters and selected sanalytes for surface fresh wGULN parks. 

Biological Integrity 

Non-native Vegetation 

Vegetation Structure and Composition–Non-native Vegetation Module, and park-specific monitoring of species of interest 

All All network parks are widely subject to 

invasion and spread of non-native plants that disrupt or displace desired native vegetation, leading to cascade effects across park ecosystems. 

Document impacts on nativcommunities from invasion colonization by non-native monitoring of vegetation coearly detection of new invaspread or existing species
Chapter 5: Sa

Level 1 Category 

Network vital sign Protocol name Parks Justification Primary monitoring obje

Biological Integrity 

Non-native Animals 

Specific monitoring projects by parks. Network can provide technical advice and data management support. 

All All network parks experience nonnative animals, such as feral cats and 

pigs. Non-natives disrupt park ecosystems by disturbing habitat and exerting unusual predation pressure on native species. 

Document in-park occurrenabundance and impacts on and animal communities in with other vegetation moni

Biological Integrity 

Salt Marsh Plant Communities 

Vegetation Structure and Composition 

GUIS JELA PAAL PAIS 

Salt marsh plant communities are important coastal wetland ecosystem components and provide key habitat for diverse park fauna, including birds and amphibians. 

Determine current extent acomposition/structure and changes over time. 

Biological Integrity 

Riparian Communities 

Vegetation Structure and Composition–Riparian Module 

TBD Riparian plant communities are 

important ecosystem components that stabilize river channels and provide key habitat for diverse fauna, including birds and amphibians. 

Determine current extent acomposition/structure and changes over time. 

Biological Integrity 

Marine and Estuarine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetationb

GUIS PAIS 

SAV is a critical coastal and shallowmarine resource that provides key habitat for diverse invertebrate and fish fauna. SAV is also subject to intense impact from human actions. 

Determine current extent acomposition/structure and changes over time. 

Biological Integrity 

Forest Health Vegetation Structure 

and Composition–Forest Health Module 

BITH GUIS JELA NATR SAAN VICK 

Woodlands and forests are important ecosystem components and habitat in several network parks. Monitoring canopy form and growth provides indicators of ecosystem change and impact from pests and disease. 

Document trends in compohealth: pest infestation and impact on canopy structure

Biological Integrity 

Amphibians Amphibian 

Communities 

All Amphibians are a diverse fauna 

across network parks. Amphibians are considered to be robust and useful indicators of wetland and terrestrial ecosystem condition. 

Document trends in specieoccupancy, reproductive srelative abundance in GUL
94 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Level 1 Category 

Network vital sign Protocol name Parks Justification Primary monitoring obje

Biological Integrity 

Migratory Birds Landbirdsc All (by 

park request) 

Network parks serve as key foraging and rest waystops along migration flyways. Birds are an important attraction for visitors, and monitoring birds in parks can contribute to largerscale databases and understanding of bird population trends. 

Document trends in specierelative abundance in GUL(monitored by individual panetwork assistance). 

Biological Integrity 

Resident Birds Landbirdsc All (by 

park request) 

Network parks serve as key reproductive and residence habit for many bird species. Birds are an important attraction for visitors, and monitoring birds in parks can contribute to larger-scale databases and understanding of bird population trends. 

Document trends in specierelative abundance in GUL(monitored by individual panetwork assistance). 

Biological Integrity 

Terrestrial Vegetation 

Vegetation Structure and Composition 

All Vegetation structure and composition 

provide the key biotic foundation for terrestrial ecosystems and the habitat for most terrestrial animal species. Changes in vegetation reflect both natural process and human actions. 

Document trends in distribcoverage, and community composition/structure, and track succession processeconjunction with landform events, and human activity

Biological Integrity 

Threatened & Endangered (T&E)/Rare Small Mammals 

Monitored by park. Network can provide technical advice and data management support. 

All Parks are mandated to monitor 

federally listed T&E animal species. Small mammals are important components of many ecosystems. 

Document trends in extent estimates (monitoring effordeveloped by individual panetwork assistance). 

Biological Integrity 

T&E/Rare Plants Monitored by park. 

Network can provide technical advice and data management support. 

All Parks are mandated to monitor 

federally listed T&E plant species, and may undertake monitoring of statelisted species. Plants are important components of many ecosystems. 

Document trends in extent estimates (monitoring effordeveloped by individual panetwork assistance). 
Chapter 5: Sa

Level 1 Category 

Network vital sign Protocol name Parks Justification Primary monitoring obje

Landscapes Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Vegetation Structure and Composition–Fuel Load Module 

All Park terrestrial ecosystems across the 

network include fire processes as both natural and human-impacted components. Fuel-load assessment is critical to effective park fire management and to ecosystem preservation. 

Document trends in plant cstructure and ground-fuel lconjunction with network vmonitoring. This effort couwith park fire and fuel monand activities. 

Landscapes Land Cover/Land 

Use 

Adjacent Land-use Change 

All Changes in use of park-adjacent 

lands, including urbanization and development, lead to diverse threats to park resources. Early detection of change direction, type, and rate support park management responses. 

Document in-progress and changes in development, lconversion, and successioand outside park boundaribuilding and zoning changchange in human density apatterns adjacent to parks. 

a Data will be largely collected from regional and national databases. b Adopted from the NCBN. c Adopted from the HTLN Land Bird protocol; GULN to provide guidance and data assistance to park efforts. 

The vital signs are listed in order of the Ecological Monitoring Framework developed by the National Park Service Vital Signs Monitoring Program (Level 1 

reference), followed by the anticipated protocol, its justification, monitoring objectives, and proposed development start-up year. Colored bands indicate where one protocol addresses multiple vital signs. Development of additional Vegetation Structure and Composition modules to address Forest Health, Fuel Load Assessment, etc., will occur after the core metrics are completed.
96 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

5.5. Protocol Development Summaries 

Protocol Development Summaries (PDSs) are required for all monitoring protocols planned for 

development and implementation by the GULN. The PDS is a short (one-to-two pages) document 

that identifies the vital sign of interest and describes why the protocol and monitoring is needed, 

specific issues and questions being addressed, specific measurable objectives, proposed 

methodological approach, and other details. The typical PDS includes the following material: 

• Protocol: Title of the protocol. 

• Parks where protocol will be implemented: Names or four-character codes for the 

parks where the protocol is likely to be implemented over the next five years. 

• Justification/issues being addressed: A paragraph or two justifying why this protocol 

needs to be developed. 

• Monitoring questions and objectives: Specific monitoring objectives of the protocol. 

• Basic approach: Description of any existing protocols or methods that will be 

incorporated into the protocol, the basic methodological approach, and sampling design. 

• Principal investigators and NPS lead: The name and contact information for the 

principal investigators (PIs) and the NPS project manager responsible for working with 

the PIs to ensure that the protocol meets network and park needs. 

• Development schedule, budget, and expected interim products: Description of 

expected costs, timelines, and interim products (annual reports, sampling designs, etc.). 

The PDS files for the five GULN protocols currently in development can be found in Appendix 

N. Additional PDSs will be developed as the program identifies new protocol development 

projects (see the proposed protocol development schedule in Table 5.4). The complete GULN 

Freshwater monitoring protocol is located in Appendix M. 
 Chapter 6: Data Management 97 

Chapter 6 

Data Management 

Information is the common currency among the many different activities and people involved in 

the stewardship of NPS natural resources. As part of the agency’s effort to improve park 

management through greater reliance on scientific knowledge, a primary purpose of the I&M 

program is to develop, organize, and make available natural resource data, and to contribute to 

NPS institutional knowledge. The I&M program’s efforts to identify, catalog, organize, structure, 

archive, and disseminate relevant natural resource information will largely determine the 

program’s efficacy and image among critics, peers, and advocates. 

This chapter summarizes the GULN data management strategy, which is more completely 

explained in the GULN Data Management Plan (DMP; Appendix O). The DMP presents the 

overarching strategy for ensuring that program data are documented, secure, accessible, and 

useful for decades into the future. The plan also refers to other guidance documents, standard 

operating procedures, and detailed monitoring protocols that convey more specific standards and 

steps for achieving GULN data management goals for specific vital signs monitoring. The plan is 

a foundation upon which to build as new protocols are developed, advances in technology are 

adopted, and new concepts in data management philosophy are accepted. 

6.1. Data Management Goals 

The goal of the NPS I&M program is to provide scientifically and statistically sound data to 

support management decisions for the protection of park resources. The goal of data management 

is to ensure the quality, interpretability, security, longevity, and availability of our natural 

resource data. The goal of the DMP is to outline the procedures and work practices that support 

effective data management. 

Data Management Plan goals are to ensure that: 

• Data managed by the network are of high quality. This includes designing standardized 

data entry, importation, and handling procedures that effectively screen for inappropriate data 

and minimize transcription and translation errors. 

• Network data can be effectively interpreted. This requires considering the users’ needs to 

be the primary factor driving the design of summary reports and analyses; establishing 

rigorous data documentation standards; integrating common data tables and fields in NPS or 

regional standards; and making summary information available in formats tailored to the 

variety of audiences interested in I&M program results. 

• Data are secure for the long term. This includes instituting standard procedures for 

versioning, data storage, and archiving; natural history archiving; and providing curation and 

records management to NPS curators. 

• Network data are readily available. This is achieved by implementing standard procedures 

for distributing data while protecting sensitive data, and designing a standardized filing 

system for organizing I&M information. 
98 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

6.2. Data Management Roles and Responsibilities 

Everyone within the GULN I&M program uses or manages data and information, and each has 

roles and responsibilities in this process. This crucial emphasis on data management, analysis, 

and the reporting of results will require a large investment of personnel, time, and money. The 

GULN expects to invest at least 30% of available resources in developing and improving its data 

management system (see Chapter 10). 

For the GULN I&M program to work effectively, everyone within the network will have 

stewardship responsibilities in the production, analysis, management, and/or end use of data. 

Table 6.1 lists the roles and primary responsibilities. 

The fundamental role of the data manager will be to coordinate these tasks. This requires 

understanding and determining program and project requirements, creating and maintaining data 

management infrastructure and standards, and communicating and working with all responsible 

individuals. 

The data manager and project manager are primarily responsible for data management. The 

network coordinator assists by ensuring that project managers meet timelines for data entry, 

verification, validation, summarization/analysis, and reporting. 

Table 6.1. Data management roles and responsibilities. 

Role Data stewardship responsibilities 

Project manager Directs project operations. Communicates data management requirements and 

protocols to project staff, network data manager, and resource specialist(s). 

Responsible for final submission and review of all products and deliverables. 

Project crew leader Supervises crew members to ensure adherence to data collection and data 

processing protocols, including data verification and documentation. 

Project crew 

member 

Records and verifies measurements and observations based on project objectives 

and protocols. Documents methods and procedures. 

Computer 

programmer 

Applies knowledge and abilities related to database software and writing special 

application code to streamline data input and flow. 

Park resource 

specialist 

Understands project objectives, data, and management relevance. Makes decisions 

about validity, sensitivity, and availability of data. 

Curator (park or 

region) 

Manages collection, documentation, and preservation of specimens. 

Network data 

manager 

Oversees development, implementation, and maintenance of data infrastructure and 

standards. Facilitates and integrates data and metadata. Oversees long-term data 

storage and maintenance. Designs and develops databases and applications. 

Updates software and hardware and implements secure file server backup scheme. 

Network ecologist Ensures useful data are collected and managed by integrating natural resource 

science into network activities and products, including specifying objectives, sampling 

design, data analysis, synthesis, and reporting. 

Network coordinator Ensures programmatic data and information management requirements are met as 

part of overall network business. 

GIS specialist Provides support for long-term storage of GIS data. Updates and maintains GIS 

software and tools. Provides technical assistance. 
 Chapter 6: Data Management 99 

Role Data stewardship responsibilities 

Information 

technology 

specialist (USGS or 

region) 

Maintains LAN, establishes and maintains system security and firewall. 

I&M data manager 

(national) 

Provides servicewide database design, support, and services. Executes processing to 

convert, store, and archive data in servicewide databases. 

End users 

(managers, 

scientists, 

interpreters, public) 

Provides feedback on scientific information, presentation needs, and interpretation. 

Uses information for management decisions. 

6.3. Project Work Flow 

From the perspective of managing workflow, there are two main types of projects: 

• Short-term projects, which may include individual park research projects, inventories, or 

pilot studies done in preparation for long-term monitoring, and 

• Long-term projects, which will primarily include the implemented monitoring studies 

central to the I&M program, but may also include multi-year research projects and 

monitoring performed by other agencies and cooperators. Long-term projects often 

require a higher level of documentation, review, and infrastructure development. 

From a data management standpoint, a primary difference between short- and long-term projects 

is an increased need to adhere to standards for long-term projects to ensure internal compatibility 

over time. While the need to follow standards is still present for short-term projects, sometimes 

the cost of compliance will outweigh the benefits due to the scope, budget, and level of NPS 

control over the project. Nevertheless, both short-term and long-term projects share many 

workflow characteristics, and both generate data products that must be managed and made 

available. 

A project can be divided into five primary stages, each characterized by a particular set of 

activities carried out by staff involved with the project (Figure 6.1): 

1. Planning and approval. Many preliminary decisions regarding project scope and 

objectives are made; funding sources, permits, and compliance are addressed. Although 

this phase lacks specific data management activities, data managers must be kept 

informed of projects in this phase, particularly as timelines for products are finalized. 

2. Design and testing. Details regarding data acquisition, processing, analysis, reporting, 

and dissemination are worked out. Collaboration between the project leader and the data 

manager is critical during this phase to assure data quality and integrity. A joint effort is 

required to develop and document the project methods, data design, data dictionary, and 

the database itself. 

3. Implementation. Data are acquired, processed, error-checked, and documented; other 

products are developed and delivered. All aspects of this phase are overseen by the 

project manager. Data management staff acts primarily as facilitators to support database 

applications, GIS, GPS, data validation, summarization, and analysis. Products are 

delivered to the appropriate staff, and those that do not meet program requirements are 

returned to the project leader for revision. 
100 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

4. Product integration. Data products and other documents are integrated into national and 

network databases. Metadata records are posted in clearinghouses, and products are made 

available to their intended audiences. Data from working databases are merged into 

master databases. 

5. Evaluation and closure. Project records in the project tracking database are updated to 

reflect completion status. The network coordinator, project leader, and data manager 

should work together to assess how well the project met the stated objectives and what 

steps might be taken to make improvements. 

Figure 6.1. Project workflow. 

During various phases of a project, data take on different forms and are maintained in different 

places as they are acquired, processed, documented, and archived. This data life cycle is 

characterized by a sequence of events, as shown in Figure 6.2. 
 Chapter 6: Data Management 101 

Figure 6.2. Project data life cycle. 

Key points of this data life cycle are as follows: 

• All raw data are archived intact. 

• Working databases are the focal point of all modification, processing, and documentation 

of data collected for a given data collection period. 

• Upon data certification, indicating that the data have passed all documentation and 

quality-assurance requirements, the data are archived and posted or otherwise integrated 

with the appropriate national data applications. 

• Data for long-term monitoring projects are uploaded into a master database that includes 

multiple years of data. 

• Certified datasets are used to develop reports and other data products, which are also 

archived and posted to the appropriate national repositories. 

• All subsequent revisions to certified datasets are documented in an edit log, which is 
102 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

distributed with the data. 

Specific repositories for most GULN products are indicated in Table 6.2. 

Table 6.2. Repositories for Gulf Coast Network products. 

Item Repository 

Reports GULN digital library; posted to NR Data Image 

Server, linked and accessed through the 

catalog record in NatureBib; park collection 

(hard copy) 

Digital datasets (non-sensitive) NR-GIS Data Store, Biodiversity Data Store 

Digital data, metadata, and other products; raw and 

finalized data; protocols; SOPs; completed reports; 

digital photographs; derived products 

GULN data servers and digital library, cooperators 

for selected monitoring projects 

Project materials, voucher specimens, raw-data forms Park archives and collections, or another park 

specified repository (e.g., Louisiana State University) 

Administrative records GULN offices and/or park offices, park 

archives, National Archives 

6.4. Data Management Infrastructure and Systems Architecture 

Our network information system is built upon a modern information-management infrastructure 

(e.g., staffing, hardware, software). Systems architecture refers to the applications, database 

systems, repositories, and software tools that make up the framework of our data management 

enterprise. 

One important element of a data management system is a reliable, secure network of computers 

and servers maintained by national and local IT specialists, assisted by the network data manager. 

These individuals attend to hardware replacement, software installation and support, security 

updates, virus protection, telecommunications networking, and server backups. GULN digital 

infrastructure consists of network data and GIS servers and servers maintained at the national 

level (Figure 6.3). Each of these components hosts different parts of our natural resource 

information system. 
 Chapter 6: Data Management 103 

Figure 6.3 Schematic representing the logical layout and connectivity of computer resources. 

The national servers host and maintain online applications that provide storage and access to 

basic natural resource data and information collected by the I&M program (Figure 6.4). 

• NatureBib is the master database for natural resource-related bibliographic references. 

• NPSpecies is the master database for species that occur in or near each park and the 

physical or written evidence for their occurrence (e.g., vouchers, observations, and 

references). 

• NR-GIS Metadata Database is the master metadata database for natural resource datasets. 

This application is currently under development; in the interim, the desktop version of the 

Dataset Catalog is in use. 

• NR-GIS Data Store is a graphical search interface that links dataset metadata to a 

searchable data server on which natural resource datasets are organized by NPS units, 

offices, and programs. 
104 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Figure 6.4. National server data flow. 

The network data server hosts the following types of data and information: 

• Master project databases. Compiled datasets for monitoring projects and other multiyear efforts that have been certified for data quality. 

• Common lookup tables. Park name, employees, species, etc. 

• Project management application. Used to track project status, contact information, 

product due dates. 

• Digital library. Network repository for read-only pdf versions of project deliverables, 

reference documents pertaining to NPSpecies, and general documents related to the 

network (e.g., reports, methods documentation, data files). 

• Digital photo library. Network repository for digital photos not related to a specific vital 

sign and not considered to be data photos. 

• Local applications. Desktop versions of national applications such as NPSpecies and 

Dataset Catalog. 

• Working project materials. Working databases and draft copies of reports. 

• Archived final datasets for inventory and monitoring projects. 

• Public file sharing directory. 

The network GIS server hosts GIS files (personal GIS projects, park base spatial data and 

imagery, project-specific themes, LIDAR data, and remote-sensing analysis working and final 

data). 

6.5. Database Design Strategy 

Rather than developing a single integrated database system, the GULN uses modular, stand-alone 

project databases that share design standards and links to centralized data tables. Individual 

project databases are developed, maintained, and archived separately. In this way, datasets are 

modular, allowing greater flexibility in accommodating the needs of each project area. Individual 

project databases and protocols can be developed at different rates without a significant cost to 

data integration. In addition, one project database can be modified without affecting the 

functionality of other project databases. Also, by working up from modular datasets, we avoid a 

large initial investment in a centralized database and the concomitant difficulties of integrating 
 Chapter 6: Data Management 105 

among project areas with very different—and often unforeseen—structural requirements. 

Furthermore, the payoff for this initial investment is not always realized down the road by greater 

efficiency for interdisciplinary use. 

Project database standards ensure compatibility among datasets, which is vital given the often 

unpredictable ways in which datasets will be aggregated and summarized. Well-conceived 

standards also help to encourage sound database design and facilitate interpretability of datasets. 

The GULN will follow the standards for database objects used by the Natural Resource Database 

Template (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/apps/template/index.cfm) to the extent possible. 

Databases that are developed for park and network projects will contain the following main 

components: 

• Common lookup tables that contain lists of parks, personnel, and species; 

• Core tables and fields based on network and national templates that contain who, where, 

and when for project data collection; and 

• Project-specific fields and tables containing recorded field data. 

6.6. Data Acquisition and Processing 

The I&M program handles two general data types: 

1. Programmatic data: Any data produced from projects that are initiated (funded) by the 

I&M program or projects that in some way involve the I&M program. 

2. Non-programmatic data: Includes data collected from NPS sources and data produced by 

external non-NPS sources. 

o Non-programmatic NPS data: Any data produced by the NPS that did not involve 

the I&M program, such as park visitor use information. 

o Non-programmatic external data: Any data produced by agencies or institutions 

other than the National Park Service, such as USGS, NOAA, and various state 

agencies. 

Most data acquired by the network will be collected as field data (inventories and monitoring 

studies) or discovered through data-mining initiatives (legacy/existing data). Methods of fielddata collection, such as paper field-data forms, field computers, automated data loggers, and GPS 

units, will be specified in individual monitoring protocols and study plans. Field-crew members 

will closely follow the established SOPs in the project protocol. 

The GULN will conform to NPS standards and mandates, as well as to national I&M program 

standards and procedures, to facilitate program integration and data/information sharing. General 

and protocol-specific SOPs will provide detailed instructions for processing specific types of 

data. 

6.7. Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

The data collected during GULN inventory and monitoring studies will only be valuable, and 

useful in the long term, if we have confidence in the quality of that data. Our efforts to detect 

trends and patterns in ecosystem processes require data of documented quality that minimize 

error and bias. Data of inconsistent or poor quality can result in loss of sensitivity and lead to 

incorrect interpretations and conclusions. High-quality data and information are vital to the 
106 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

credibility and success of the I&M program, and everyone plays a part in ensuring that our 

products conform to these standards. 

NPS Director’s Order #11B: Ensuring Quality of Information Disseminated by the National Park 

Service (http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/11B-final.htm) specifies that information produced 

by the NPS must be of the highest quality and based on reliable data sources that are accurate, 

timely, and representative of the most current information available. Therefore, we will establish 

and document procedures for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) to identify and 

reduce the frequency and significance of errors at all stages in the data life cycle. When these 

procedures are followed, the progression from raw, to verified, to validated data implies 

increasing confidence in the quality of those data. The data manager will establish SOPs to ensure 

compliance with DO #11B. These procedures will document both internal and external review 

processes for data and information disseminated outside the network, as well as guidance for 

handling complaints about data quality. 

Although many QA/QC procedures will depend upon the individual vital signs being monitored, 

some general concepts apply to all network projects. Specific procedures to ensure data quality 

must be included in the protocols for each vital sign. Examples of QA/QC practices include: 

• Standardized field-data collection forms. 

• Use of field computers and automated data loggers. 

• Proper calibration and maintenance of equipment. 

• Field-crew and data-technician training. 

• Use of database features, such as built-in pick lists and range limits, to reduce data-entry 

errors. 

• Automated error-checking routines. 

We appraise data quality by applying verification and validation procedures. Data verification 

determines whether digitized data match source data. Data validation determines whether the data 

make sense. The Data Management Plan describes several methods for verifying and validating 

data, and each monitoring protocol will include specific procedures for assuring data quality. 

A final report on data quality will be incorporated into the documentation for each project. This 

will include a listing of the specific methods used to assess data quality and an assessment of 

overall data quality prepared by the project leader. 

6.8. Data Documentation 

Data documentation is a critical step toward ensuring that all datasets retain their integrity and 

utility well into the future. Complete, thorough, and accurate documentation should be of the 

highest priority for long-term studies, and because long-term datasets are continually changing, 

this documentation must remain up-to-date. Data documentation refers to the development of 

metadata, which at the most basic level can be defined as “data about data” or, more specifically, 

as information about the content, context, structure, quality, and other characteristics of a dataset. 

Additionally, standardized metadata provide a means to catalog datasets within intranet and 

internet systems, thus making these datasets available to a broad range of potential users. 

Without metadata, potential users of a dataset have little or no information regarding the quality, 

completeness, or manipulations performed on a particular copy of a dataset. Such ambiguity 
 Chapter 6: Data Management 107 

results in lost productivity (as the user must invest time in tracking down information) or, in the 

worst case, renders the dataset useless because answers to these and other critical questions 

cannot be found. As such, data documentation must include an up-front investment in planning 

and organization. 

At a minimum, we will require the following elements for documentation of all data managed by 

the network: 

• Data dictionaries and Entity Relationship Diagrams for all tabular databases; 

• Formal metadata compliant with Federal Geographic Data Committee standards, the 

National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) profile (where appropriate), and 

the NPS Metadata Profile for all geospatial and biological datasets; and 

• Project documentation. 

We will create all metadata according to NPS standards and guidelines. Formal metadata will be 

created using Dataset Catalog, an NPS tool for producing abbreviated metadata, or the 

ArcCatalog data management application included with ArcGIS software, supplemented by the 

NPS Metadata Tools Extension developed by the NPS Midwest Region GIS Technical Support 

Center. We will publish all metadata to the online NR-GIS Metadata Database. All 

documentation will also be maintained with its accompanying dataset(s) on network servers. 

6.9. Data Analysis and Reporting 

Creating meaningful information from datasets through summaries and analyses is a critical 

component of the I&M program and characterizes the network’s data management mission to 

provide useful information for park personnel. Close coordination between the project manager, 

ecologist, and data manager is important to identify opportunities and methods to streamline data 

extraction and exports from databases based on project objectives, protocols, and data 

management and analysis SOPs. Where possible, project databases will include automated 

summary and report routines. 

To make datasets available for subsequent analysis by third parties, the network will establish a 

timeline and series of data processing steps, including error-checking, summarizing, analyzing, 

and distributing data. Project managers will be responsible for their project databases, but once a 

year they will review and certify the dataset, write an annual report, and make the data available 

in a common repository for others to use in syntheses and further analyses. Data analysis and 

reporting are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. 

6.10. Data Dissemination 

One of the most important goals of the I&M program is to integrate natural resource inventory 

and monitoring information into NPS planning, management, and decisionmaking. To 

accomplish this goal, the network will use a variety of distribution methods to make data and 

information collected and developed as part of the program available to a wide variety of users, 

including park staff, other researchers and scientists, and the public. We will ensure that: 

• Data are easily discoverable and obtainable; 

• Distributed data are accompanied by complete metadata that clearly identifies the data as 

a product of the NPS I&M program; 
108 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

• Data that have not yet been subjected to full quality control will not be released by the 

network, unless necessary in response to a FOIA request or unless accompanied by a data 

quality disclaimer; 

• Sensitive data are identified and protected from unauthorized access and inappropriate 

use; and 

• A complete record of data distribution/dissemination is maintained. 

Distribution options include the network data and GIS servers, the GULN digital libraries, and 

several online interfaces. The national I&M program has developed several web-based 

applications and repositories to store different types of park natural resource information: 

• NPSpecies: Data on park biodiversity (species information). 

• NatureBib: Park-related scientific citations. 

• Biodiversity Data Store: Raw or manipulated data products that document the 

presence/absence, distribution, and/or abundance of any taxa in NPS units. 

• NR-GIS Metadata and Data Store: Spatial and non-spatial metadata and accompanying 

datasets. 

• Gulf Coast Network Web Site: Reports and metadata for all I&M data produced by the 

network. 

6.11. Data Maintenance, Storage, and Archiving 

Data, documents, and any other products that result from projects and activities that use network 

data are all crucial pieces of information. Directions for managing these materials are provided in 

NPS Director’s Order #19: Records Management (2001; 

http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/DOrder19.html) and the accompanying NPS Records 

Disposition Schedule (NPS-19 Appendix B, revised 5-2003; 

http://home.nps.gov/applications/wapc/records/nps19app-b.pdf). This guidance states that records 

of natural and cultural resources are considered “mission-critical” (i.e., permanent records that are 

to be transferred to the National Archives when 30 years old), and that copies of these materials 

“should not, in any instance, be destroyed.” 

To ensure high-quality, long-term management and maintenance of this information, the GULN 

will implement procedures to protect information over time. These procedures will permit a broad 

range of users to easily obtain, share, and properly interpret both active and archived information, 

and they will ensure that digital and analog data and information are kept up-to-date in content 

and format so they remain easily accessible and usable, and protected from catastrophic events 

(e.g., fire and flood), user error, hardware failure, software failure or corruption, security 

breaches, and vandalism. 

Technological obsolescence is a significant cause of information loss. Data can quickly become 

inaccessible to users if they are stored in out-of-date software programs, on outmoded media, or 

on deteriorating (aging) media. Effective maintenance of digital files depends on the proper 

management of a continuously changing infrastructure of hardware, software, file formats, and 

storage media. Major changes in hardware can be expected every 1–2 years, and in software 

every 1–5 years. As software and hardware evolve, datasets must be consistently migrated to new 

platforms or saved in formats that are independent of specific software or platforms (e.g., ASCII 
 Chapter 6: Data Management 109 

delimited text files). Storage media should be refreshed (i.e., copying datasets to new media) on a 

regular basis, depending upon the life expectancy of the media. 

Regular backups of data and off-site storage of backup datasets are the most important safeguards 

against data loss; therefore, we have established data maintenance and backup schedules for data 

stored on the network data servers. Backups of data stored on personal workstations are done on 

external hard drives and are the responsibility of each staff member. In addition, it is recommend 

that staff members store or regularly copy important files onto the network server. Backup 

routines represent a significant investment in hardware, media, and staff time; however, they are 

just a small percentage of the overall investment that is made in program data. 
110 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 
 Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting 111 

Chapter 7 

Data Analysis and Reporting 

This chapter summarizes our approach to analysis and reporting of monitoring data, 

interpretation, and information for our client parks. Our approach is based upon three factors that 

contribute to monitoring-program success: quality and timeliness of information, rigorous data 

analysis, and effective communication to address multiple audiences with a diverse range of 

information needs. The first section provides an overview of general program strategies to 

address information needs. The following sections provide summaries of data-analysis 

approaches and staff responsibilities, network information reports, targeted audiences, and 

proposed reporting schedules. 

7.1. Information, Audiences, and Strategies 

The success of a monitoring program may best be measured by the quality and timeliness of its 

primary product: information. Information is the common currency among the many different 

activities and people involved in the stewardship of a park’s natural resources. Activities such as 

park planning, inventories, monitoring, research studies, restoration, control of invasive species, 

management of threatened and endangered species, fire management, trail and road maintenance, 

law enforcement, and interpretation all require natural resource information. As part of the NPS’s 

effort to improve park management through greater reliance on scientific knowledge, a primary 

role of the I&M program is to develop, organize, and make available natural resource data. The 

I&M program also contributes to the institutional knowledge of the NPS by facilitating the 

transformation of scientific data into information through analysis, synthesis, and modeling. 

These data may come from many sources, including new field data collected through monitoring 

efforts, other park projects or programs, other agencies, and the broader scientific community 

(Figure 7.1). 

 

Information quality is wholly dependent upon effective, appropriate analysis of high-quality data. 

We will initially ensure data quality through careful design and implementation of sampling 

designs and monitoring protocols that are supported by robust data management, as described in 

Chapters 4, 5, and 6. We will ensure that these monitoring data are effectively converted into 

reliable, accurate information about resource status and trends by emphasizing careful and 

detailed development of data analysis and interpretation as a key component of each monitoring 

protocol (see Section 7.2). The network will collaborate and coordinate with other data-collection 

and analysis efforts, and will promote the integration and synthesis of data across projects, 

programs, and disciplines. Timeliness of information reporting will be ensured by establishing a 

firm data-analysis routine and schedule for each protocol, followed by a reporting system and 

schedule whereby we can effectively and promptly disseminate important resource information to 

a wide range of users. 

 

 
112 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Figure 7.1. Scientific data for determining the status and trend in the condition of selected park 

natural resources will come from multiple sources, and will be managed, analyzed, and 

disseminated to multiple audiences in several different formats in order to make the results 

more available and useful. 

We recognize that information reporting is not effectively met by a uniform approach; we have to 

meet the needs of many audiences. The primary utility for many of our products is at the park 

level, where the key role of the I&M program is to provide park managers and interpreters with 

the information they need to make better-informed decisions and to work more effectively with 

other agencies and individuals for the benefit of park resources. Discussion with staff at all 

network parks has been extremely informative; park staff at various levels, from superintendents 

to resource technicians and interpretive staff, are intensely interested in the outcomes and findings 

of monitoring efforts. Each has different needs and desires relative to what, how, and when 

information is provided to them. In addition, certain data are needed at the regional or national 

level and, as stated by the National Park Advisory Board, the findings “must be communicated to 

the public, for it is the broader public that will decide the fate of these resources.” Other key 

audiences for monitoring results and information include park planners, interpreters, researchers 

and other scientific collaborators, the general public, Congress, and the President’s Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB; Figure 7.1). Our strategy for adequately addressing this diverse 

audience is summarized in Section 7.3. 

 

7.2. Data Analysis 

Appropriate analysis of monitoring data is directly linked to the monitoring objectives, the spatial 

and temporal aspects of the sampling design used, the intended audiences, and the management 

Superintendents, 

managers 

Park planners 

Scientific 

community 

General public 

Websites

Data, 

statistics, 

information, 

knowledge 

DATA SOURCES 

End users 

require results in 

different formats KEY AUDIENCES 

External scientists 

Other NPS 

programs 

Park-funded 

projects 

Park interpreters 

Congress, OMB 

Other govt. 

agencies

I&M program
 Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting 113 

uses of the data. Analysis methods need to be considered when the objectives are identified and 

the sampling design is selected, rather than after data are collected. Each monitoring protocol (see 

Chapter 5) will contain detailed information on analytical tools and approaches for data analysis 

and interpretation, including the rationale for a particular approach, advantages and limitations of 

each procedure, and SOPs for each prescribed analysis. 

Four general levels of data analysis are anticipated during implementation of our monitoring 

protocols and program: (1) descriptive and summary statistical analysis; (2) determination of 

conditional status for a monitored resource; (3) determination of trends in condition over time for 

a monitored resource; and (4) synthesis of status and trend information across multiple resources 

over time to depict larger-scale aspects of ecosystem health and function (Table 7.1). Descriptive 

analysis may be performed at any time following data collection and entry. Status and trends 

analysis will be performed on protocol-specific schedules. Larger-scale synthesis across multiple 

resources and monitoring efforts will occur only after adequate amounts of data have become 

available for all considered resources and variables. In addition, trend analysis and synthesis can 

only occur after appropriate time has passed to adequately capture temporal scales of considered 

phenomena. Long-term trend reports and syntheses will be subject to peer review, as appropriate. 

Data analysis may be performed by many different people, including the network data manager, 

coordinator, ecologist, hydrologist, GIS specialist, and/or associated technicians and interns. 

Generally, analysis will be supervised and coordinated by the key project lead and/or network 

coordinator and ecologist. 
114 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Table 7.1. Four general levels of data analysis for Gulf Coast Network vital signs, and the lead 

analyst responsible for each. 

Level of 

analysis 

Description Lead analyst* 

Data 

summarization/ 

characterization 

Calculation of basic statistics from monitoring data, 

including measures of location and dispersion. 

Summarization encompasses measured and derived 

variables specified in the monitoring protocol, and forms 

the basis of more comprehensive analyses and 

communication of results in both graphical and tabular 

formats. 

The principal investigator (PI) 

for each monitoring protocol, 

working with the data 

management staff, will 

produce data summaries. 

Parameters and procedures 

are specified in the monitoring 

protocols. 

Status 

determination 

Analysis and interpretation of the ecological status (point 

in time) of a vital sign to address the following types of 

questions: 

• How do observed values for a vital sign compare 

with historical levels? 

• Do observed values exceed a regulatory standard, 

known or hypothesized ecological threshold? 

• What is the spatial distribution (within park, network, 

or ecoregion) of observed values for a given point in 

time? 

• Do these patterns suggest directional relationships 

with other ecological factors? 

• Status determination will involve both expert 

interpretation of the basic statistics and statistical 

analysis. Assumptions about the target population 

and the level of confidence in the estimates will be 

ascertained during the analysis. 

The PI for each monitoring 

protocol is the lead analyst for 

status determination, but the 

network coordinator, 

cooperators, partners, interns 

or other network staff may 

conduct analyses and assist 

with interpreting results. 

Consultation with regulatory 

and subject matter experts will 

support status determination. 

Trends 

evaluation 

Evaluations of trends in vital signs will address: 

• Whether there is directional change in a vital sign 

over the period of measurement and 

• What the rate of change is, and how this pattern 

compares with trends over broader spatial scales 

and known ecological relationships. 

Analysis of trends will employ parametric, nonparametric, 

or mixed models based on assumptions made about the 

target population. Where appropriate, exogenous 

variables (natural, random phenomena that may 

influence the response variable) will be accounted for in 

the analysis. 

The PI for each monitoring 

protocol is the lead analyst for 

trend determination, but the 

network coordinator, 

cooperators, partners, interns 

or other network staff may 

conduct analyses and assist 

with interpreting results. 

Comparison with relevant 

long-term experimental results 

will aid interpretation. 
 Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting 115 

Level of 

analysis 

Description Lead analyst* 

Synthesis and 

modeling 

Examination of patterns across vital signs and ecological 

factors to gain broad insights on ecosystem processes 

and integrity. Analyses may include: 

• Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of vital 

signs with known or hypothesized relationships; 

• Data exploration and confirmation (e.g., correlation, 

ordination, classification, multiple regression, 

structural equation modeling); and 

• Development of predictive models. Synthetic 

analysis has great potential to explore ecological 

relationships in the context of vital signs monitoring 

and will require close interaction with academic and 

agency researchers. 

The network coordinator, 

ecologist, and hydrologist are 

the lead analysts for data 

synthesis and modeling, but 

the PIs for various protocols 

and cooperators, partners, 

interns, or other network staff 

may conduct analyses and 

assist with interpreting results. 

Integration with researchers 

and experimental results is 

critical. 

*The lead analyst will ensure that data are analyzed and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocol and program, and 

ensure that trend reports and syntheses are subject to peer review. Actual analysis may be performed by a variety of 

personnel. 

7.3. Information Reporting 

The GULN reporting strategy focuses on meeting the needs of parks first, followed by higher 

NPS levels, other government agencies, and the public. We will implement this strategy by 

developing a comprehensive array of report formats and schedules that ensure we can deliver the 

right types of content, including data, technical analyses, conclusions, interpretations, and—

where appropriate—recommendations for possible actions, to a wide range of users in a timely 

fashion (Tables 7.2 and 7.3). The range of users will include network park staff, scientists, 

cooperators, adjacent land managers, and other potential collaborators. Information from network 

data-mining and inventory projects is being entered into the NPS master web-based databases, 

and monitoring data will be added as that part of the program gets underway (i.e., to NPSpecies, 

NatureBib, and the Natural Resource Database Template). The network has developed a website 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/guln/), as an additional route to disseminate information and 

updates to parks and the public. Network staff and cooperators will present posters and papers at 

professional meetings, write papers for publication in technical journals and other publications, 

and write popular articles for park brochures and newspapers. We are also exploring the 

possibility of sharing information from network projects with the Central Southwest/Gulf Coast 

Information Node of the NBII, a collaborative effort that links information, biological databases, 

and analytical tools with information consumers such as government agencies, academic 

institutions, non-government organizations, and private industry. 
116 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Table 7.2. Summary of the content of reports and other information products of the I&M monitoring effort, intended audischedule, and responsible entities for each. Monitoring protocol Information content Target audience and format Responsible person ScWeather and Climatea

Data will be collected for all parks from regional and national databases where those data are determined to accurately reflect in-park conditions. Data include precipitation amounts and patterns, temperature, relative humidity, wind speeds and direction, storm events with measures, air quality measures (ozone, particulate counts). 

Park management staff, other federal and state agencies, scientific community. 

Network coordinator, data manager*, GIS specialist provide database management for parks. National Weather Service and NPS-WASO/Air Resources Division lead on data analysis and interpretation. 

Anre

Coastal Geomorphology and Landforms 

LiDAR datasets with elevation (z), GPS coordinates (x, y), shoreline position, and time for each sample point. Data for parkwide survey. 

Park management and interpretive staff, other federal and state agencies (FL, MS, TX), scientific community, public interest. 

Network coordinator, data manager, GIS specialist, ecologist*. USGS, NASA collaboration in sampling, data analysis, and interpretation. 

Anrerepa

Estuarine and Near-Shore Coastal Waters 

Summary of baseline, trends in pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, major ions, turbidity, selected chemical analytes, primary productivity, sediment characteristics, depth by site, sample date/time. May include aquatic macroinvertebrate species diversity and numbers. 

Park management and interpretive staff, other federal and state agencies (FL, MS, TX), scientific community, public interest. 

Network hydrologist*, coordinator, data manager, GIS specialist, ecologist. State and contract collaboration in sampling, data analysis, and interpretation. 

Ansepaas 

Freshwater Summary of baseline, trends in pH, temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, major ions, selected other chemical analytes, flow regime data by site, site locations, date/time of samples (sites 

may include standing and running waters, ground water). Future development may include aquatic macro-invertebrate species diversity and numbers. 

Park management and interpretive staff, other federal and state agencies, scientific community, public interest. 

Network hydrologist*, coordinator, data manager, GIS specialist, ecologist. State and contract collaboration in sampling, data analysis, and interpretation. 

Ansepaterreq
Chapter 7: Data Anal

Monitoring protocol Information content Target audience and format Responsible person ScVegetation Structure and Composition 

LiDAR data, including ground, canopy, and midcanopy elevation, density, and frequency data; GPS coordinates and date/time for each sample point in a parkwide dataset. Matrix of color infrared (CIR) images with taxon and condition indicators, GPS location, and time for each image. Ground-truth taxonomic and frequency data on plants in sampled areas. 

Park management and interpretive staff, other federal and state agencies, scientific community, public interest. 

Network coordinator, data manager, GIS specialist, ecologist*. USGS, NASA collaboration in sampling, data analysis, and interpretation. 

Ansepamaissre(5-

Submerged Aquatic Vegetationb

Aerial extent and locations of seagrass beds, measures of bed health and condition (e.g., density, plant biomass, epiphyte loads). Links to estuarine water quality monitoring. 

Park management and interpretive staff, other federal and state agencies, scientific community, public interest. 

Network coordinator*, data manager, GIS specialist, ecologist. Contract collaboration in sampling, data analysis and interpretation 

Anrerepa

Amphibian Communities 

Counts, body lengths and weights, sex, collection locations and times/date by species for adult amphibians (Anura and Caudata spp.). Egg-mass 

counts, mass size estimates, species ID, sample location data, time/date. Digital record images for species and locations. Audio records of calls (Anura). Weather conditions, air temperature, and relative humidity at sample sites. Water pH, temperature for all aquatic sites. 

Park management and interpretive staff, other federal and state agencies, scientific community, public interest. 

Network coordinator, data manager, GIS specialist, ecologist*. Contract collaboration in sampling, data analysis, and interpretation. 

Ansepamgterreq

Landbirdsc Bird-count data by location or site by date/time. 

Data may include species, sex, distance from sampler, guild sum counts, with sample date/time; weather data (precipitation, temperature, wind speed and direction, cloud-cover) during sampling period. 

Park management and interpretive staff, scientific community, public interest. 

Network coordinator, data manager, GIS specialist, and ecologist. GULN provides advice and data management support to user parks. Parks* implement and report on monitoring. Contract collaboration in sampling, data analysis and interpretation. 

ReTBlevsu
118 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Monitoring protocol Information content Target audience and format Responsible person ScAdjacent Landuse Change Data will include planned construction period, dimensional and construction-type information, and 

locations of new and planned land development in defined buffer around parks. Data collected from filed building permits on a periodic basis by park. 

Park management and interpretive staff. 

Network coordinator*, data manager, GIS specialist. Contract NGO collaboration in sampling, data analysis, and interpretation. 

RemoroanAn

*indicates lead a Follows NPS national protocols and guidelines. b Adopted from NCBN. c Adopted from HTLN Landbirds protocol; GULN to provide guidance and data assistance to park efforts. 
 Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting 119 

Table 7.3. List and proposed schedule for the various formal reports and publications related to 

the I&M program. 

Report or Venue Schedule Who does it? 

Annual Administrative Report and Work 

Plan 

Annually: October 30 Network coordinator 

Annual monitoring reports or specific 

project reports to parks, STAC (formal 

analysis and management 

recommendations) 

Annually: variable, usually 

December/January. STAC meets in 

selected park semi-annually. 

Network coordinator, 

network staff 

Analysis and synthesis of data, trends; 

reports to parks, STAC (formal analysis 

and management recommendations) 

Annual analysis: variable, usually 

December/January. Trends vary by 

monitoring topic; many will not be 

discernible over short time periods. 

STAC meets on selected park semiannually. 

Network coordinator, 

network staff 

Synthesis reports Every 3–5 years. Integrates findings 

from all 19 vital signs, identifies linkages 

among the vital signs, infers cause and 

effect, and serves to identify research 

needs. 

Network coordinator, 

network staff 

Resource monitoring interpretive 

highlights of interest to park visitors 

Variably as outcomes of interest 

become available. 

Network staff 

Technical and scientific papers, 

presentations, book chapters, journals, 

workshops, meetings 

Variably as material becomes available. Network staff, 

collaborators, and 

cooperators 

National report: Condition of Natural 

Resources in National Parks 

Annually: date variable. NPS WASO, with input 

from parks, I&M 

networks, other 

divisions 

Periodic program reviews Every five years. WASO I&M staff 

Park and resource issue-focused 

workshops and meetings in parks 

Variably as material becomes available. Network and park staff, 

collaborators and 

cooperators, outside 

experts 

Website-based data, newsletters, report 

summaries 

Posted as materials become available. Network staff 

Note: All public news releases will be coordinated through the parks’ resource managers and superintendents prior to 

release. 
120 Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting
 Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation 121 

Chapter 8 

Administration and Implementation 

This chapter describes the GULN plan for administering the monitoring program. The network 

has developed a near-term (three- to five-year) plan under which monitoring will begin and the 

development of additional protocols will be initiated. In this chapter, we describe the makeup of 

the Board of Directors and Technical Committee; the network decisionmaking process; the 

staffing plan; how network operations are integrated with other park operations; key partnerships; 

how field work will be carried out; and the periodic review process for the program. 

8.1. Board of Directors 

The Gulf Coast Network Board of Directors (BOD) includes the superintendent from each 

network park, the Southeast Region inventory and monitoring coordinator, and the network 

coordinator (Table 8.1). One of the superintendents serves as the board chairperson and one 

serves as vice chairperson. Because the parks are evenly split between the Southeast Region and 

the Intermountain Region, the vice chair is selected from a park in the opposite region as the 

chairperson. A new vice chair is selected bi-annually, when the sitting vice chair becomes 

chairperson. The result is that the chairmanship of the board alternates between the two regions. 

The superintendents are the voting members of the board, and the other members serve as 

advisors to the superintendents. A charter for the BOD, approved in November 2004, guides the 

function and operation of the board. The BOD is committed to operate in and foster an 

atmosphere of fairness, trust, selflessness, and respect. A key feature of the charter is that all 

decisions are made by consensus. 

Table 8.1. Composition of the Gulf Coast Network Board of Directors, July 2007. 

Title Name Voting 

member 

Advisor to 

board 

Superintendent, BITH Todd Brindle, Vice Chairperson X 

Superintendent, GUIS Jerry Eubanks X 

Superintendent, JELA David Luchsinger X 

Superintendent, NATR Vacant X 

Superintendent, PAAL Vacant X 

Superintendent, PAIS Vacant X 

Superintendent, SAAN Steve Whitesell X 

Superintendent, VICK Monika Mayr, Chairperson X 

Southeast Region I&M 

Coordinator 

Larry West X 

GULN Coordinator Martha Segura X 

As described in the network charter, the major responsibilities of the BOD are to: 
122 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

• Promote accountability and effectiveness for the I&M program through timely 

review of progress, quality control, and GULN expenditures. 

• Provide guidance to the GULN coordinator, Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee, and natural resource staffs of GULN parks in the design and 

implementation of vital signs monitoring and other management activities related to 

the Natural Resource Challenge. 

• Review and approve recommendations from the GULN coordinator and the 

Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee. 

• Determine strategies and procedures for leveraging GULN funds and personnel to 

best accomplish the network’s goals. 

• Consult on the hiring of new network personnel. 

8.2. Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee 

The Board of Directors and the Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee work together to 

develop and implement the monitoring program. The BOD is the final decisionmaking body and 

is accountable for the entire network. The STAC provides technical assistance and advice to the 

board. The permanent members of the STAC consist of at least one representative of the resource 

management staff of each of the network parks (usually the chief), delegated by the 

superintendent (Table 8.2). The network coordinator serves as the chairperson for the STAC. 

Remaining members of the committee include the network data manager, the network ecologist, 

and the network hydrologist. The STAC also includes key cooperators and members of the 

academic community and USGS involved in development of the conceptual models, monitoring 

protocols, and water quality monitoring plan. These ad hoc advisors to the STAC are not 

considered permanent members, but play an important role in providing technical expertise to the 

STAC and BOD. Ultimately, the decisions made concerning the monitoring program are made by 

the BOD, and are based on the management needs of the parks. 

Table 8.2. Composition of the Gulf Coast Network Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee, 

June 2007. 

Title Name Park 

GULN Coordinator Martha Segura GULN 

GULN Science Information Specialist (Data Manager) Whitney Granger GULN 

GULN Ecologist Robert Woodman GULN 

GULN Hydrologist Joe Meiman GULN 

GULN GIS Specialist Jeff Bracewell GULN 

Supervisory Biologist Curtis Hoagland BITH 

Natural Resource Management Specialist Riley Hoggard GUIS 

Resource Management Specialist Nancy Walters JELA 

Natural Resource Management Specialist Kurt Foote NATR 

Chief of Science and Resources Management Darrell Echols PAIS 

Supervisory Ranger Greg Smith SAAN 

Biologist Greg Mitchell SAAN 

Natural Resource Program Manager Virginia DuBowy VICK 
 Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation 123 

8.3. Staffing Plan 

In accordance with national I&M goals, network activities revolve around five program 

functions: 

• Conducting baseline inventories of natural resources in network parks (including those 

currently underway: vascular plant and vertebrate surveys, vegetation mapping, soils 

mapping) and fulfilling other critical inventory needs of network parks; 

• Developing an integrated, scientifically credible, long-term ecological monitoring 

program to efficiently and effectively monitor status and trends of selected vital signs; 

• Developing data management and decision support systems, including GIS and other 

tools, to aid park managers in identifying, implementing, and evaluating management 

options; 

• Integrating inventory and monitoring programs with park planning, maintenance, 

interpretation, and visitor-protection activities to help the parks in their efforts to make 

natural resource protection even more of an integral part of overall park management; 

and 

• Cooperating with other agencies and organizations to share resources, achieve 

common goals, and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and expense. 

The network staffing plan is designed to support these functions and provide park managers with 

the professional expertise needed to implement a successful inventory and monitoring program. 

The staffing plan is designed with the goal of keeping fixed costs, such as permanent staff, 

vehicles, and office space, at less than 50% of the network budget (see Chapter 10) to allow 

flexibility in partnerships and data acquisition. We do not expect that most data collected in 

support of the network will be done by network staff. Shorter-term technical and field-data 

collection positions will be filled by cooperative agreements with other state and federal agencies 

and universities, students, interns, and volunteers from the Student Conservation Association. The 

core permanent network staff consist of a coordinator, a quantitative ecologist, a hydrologist 

shared 50:50 with the CUPN, a science information specialist (data manager), and a GIS 

specialist (Table 8.3). Short descriptions of these and other positions follow. 

8.3.1. Coordinator 

The coordinator provides overall direction for the GULN I&M program. The coordinator works 

with network parks, the STAC, BOD, and the Southeast Region I&M coordinator to develop 

inventory and monitoring strategies and recommend implementation schedules for funding and 

staffing consideration. This position coordinates project-specific data analysis and reporting, and 

ensures that information is provided to park managers in useful formats. The coordinator 

supervises the GULN professional-level positions and provides general oversight and 

accountability for the network program. 
124 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Table 8.3. Permanent Gulf Coast Network staff positions and their primary duties. 

Position 

GSlevel Duty 

station Primary duties 

Network 

Coordinator 

12 Lafayette, 

LA 

Provides direction and manages overall planning and implementation 

of the network I&M program; provides program oversight and 

supervision; serves as advisor to the Board of Directors in making 

programmatic decisions and maintaining accountability of the 

program. 

Science 

Information 

Specialist 

11 Lafayette, 

LA 

Primary person responsible for all aspects of data management for 

the network; conducts data archiving and dissemination, database 

development, and overall QA/QC for the network; coordinates all IT 

activities. 

GIS 

Specialist 

9/11 Lafayette, 

LA 

Coordinates and maintains all GIS and spatial data for the network; 

ensures data and metadata standards and quality; assists network 

parks with GIS needs; conducts analyses of spatial data. 

Quantitative 

Ecologist 

12 Lafayette, 

LA 

Serves as the principal advisor in ecology for the network; 

coordinates the development of monitoring protocols; coordinates 

with partners and academia on protocol development and 

implementation; conducts project-specific data analysis, summary 

and reporting, data validation, and verification. 

Hydrologist 12 

(share 

with 

CUPN)

Mammoth 

Cave, KY 

(CUPN) 

Coordinates, develops, and implements the network’s water quality 

monitoring program; trains technicians; conducts project-specific data 

analysis, summary and reporting, data validation and verification; 

coordinates partnerships for the purpose of water quality monitoring. 

8.3.2. Science information specialist 

The data manager has a central role in ensuring that project data conform to program standards, 

designing project databases, disseminating data, and ensuring long-term data integrity, security, 

and availability. In order to maintain high data-quality standards and promote ready use of project 

data, the data manager collaborates with the ecologists and/or project managers to develop dataentry forms, QA/QC procedures, and automated reports. The data manager also coordinates all 

information technology (IT) activities, purchases computers, and collaborates with university and 

USGS computer support personnel. 

8.3.3. GIS specialist 

The GULN GIS specialist maintains spatial data themes associated with network parks and 

inventory and monitoring projects; incorporates spatial data into the network GIS and maintains 

standards for these data and the associated metadata; develops procedures for sharing and 

disseminating GIS data to network parks and partners; conducts analyses of spatial data; assists 

network parks on park-based projects; trains network staff, interns, and technicians on the use of 

GPS and GIS technology; and serves as the primary contact with Southeast Regional Office 

(SERO) GIS support staff. 

8.3.4. Ecologist 

The ecologist coordinates the development of monitoring protocols, including protocol design 

and pilot testing; data collection (field collection and collection of existing data from other 

sources); data quality during all phases of a project (including the QA/QC process and the 

creation of project documentation and metadata); and the preparation and dissemination of project 

analyses and reports. The ecologist also provides oversight and supervision for biological 
 Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation 125 

technicians working on GULN projects. In addition, this position serves as the primary technical 

contact for potential partners working on monitoring issues. 

8.3.5. Hydrologist 

The hydrologist serves as the primary subject-matter expert for aquatic resource issues. The 

hydrologist coordinates all aspects of water quality monitoring projects on the five predominantly 

freshwater parks, including protocol design and pilot testing; data collection (field collection and 

collection of existing data from other sources); data quality during all phases of a project 

(including the QA/QC process and the creation of project documentation and metadata); and the 

preparation and dissemination of project analyses and reports. The hydrologist also provides 

oversight and supervision for biological technicians working on GULN and CUPN projects. In 

addition, this position serves as the primary technical contact for partners working on aquatic 

resource issues in all eight network parks. 

8.3.6. Interns 

In addition to the permanent staff listed in Table 8.3, the network currently has two student 

interns from the University of Louisiana–Lafayette. The GULN maintains an agreement with the 

University of Louisiana–Lafayette for office space and both undergraduate and graduate student 

interns. Interns have assisted the network with data management activities, web site template 

migration, and administrative tasks. 

8.4. Program Integration 

Integration with park operations will be an important component of this program. Data, 

summaries, and reports will be made available to all park operations, including resource 

management, interpretation, law enforcement, and maintenance. Most network parks already 

integrate cultural and natural resource management activities. We have selected vital signs and 

monitoring approaches with the express purpose of providing data that can be used by the parks; 

network data have already been used in planning for cultural landscape management. Where 

possible, parks have indicated their ability to provide housing for field crews, transportation to 

monitoring sites, and other assistance to the network. Overall, the network parks are unable to 

have park personnel conduct monitoring of network vital signs. The network has developed 

individual conceptual diagrams for each of the parks (Appendix K) that are designed to be 

modified as needed to graphically show what the network is monitoring and why. 

 

The GULN I&M program office in Lafayette is centrally located in the network, but is not 

located within a park. In-park visits by network staff and regularly scheduled meetings will be 

important for developing greater integration into park operations. As field work begins and data 

are collected, more integration with park staffs will be possible. Opportunities to help all 

divisions in the parks will be actively sought. Participation by park personnel on the network’s 

Board of Directors and STAC further helps to integrate the network’s planning with the parks’ 

concerns and activities. 

8.5. Partnerships 

Partnerships and cooperative agreements will be important to the implementation of the GULN 

monitoring program. Some of the key partners for implementation of the monitoring program are 

listed in Table 8.4. Additional agreements will be put in place for vital signs that will be 

developed in later years. (Cooperative agreements that were used solely for the purpose of the 

inventories are not included in this list). 
126 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Table 8.4. Key partnerships for the Gulf Coast Network. 

Agency/ 

Organization 

Division/ 

Department Personnel Duties 

USGS Florida Integrated 

Science Center 

Dr. John Brock and 

Amar Nayegandhi 

(ETI Professional, 

Inc.) 

Collection and interpretation of LiDAR data, 

development of the coastal geomorphology 

protocol and the vegetation structure 

protocol 

Louisiana State 

University 

Herbarium Drs. Kyle Harms and 

Lowell Urbatsch 

Ground truth in support of the vegetation 

structure protocol 

USGS Louisiana Water 

Science Center 

Drs. Chris Swarzenski 

and Dennis Demchek 

Phase 1 planning and development of the 

estuarine water quality monitoring plan 

Texas A&M 

University 

Landscape 

Architecture and 

Urban Planning 

Drs. Chris Ellis and 

Sam Brody 

Development of the land use change early 

detection protocol 

University of 

Georgia 

Savannah River 

Ecology Laboratory 

Drs. Kurt Buhlmann 

and Whit Gibbons 

Development of the network-wide 

Amphibian Communities monitoring 

protocol 

Lower Neches 

Valley River 

Authority 

 Water quality monitoring at Big Thicket 

National Preserve 

San Antonio 

River Authority 

 Water quality monitoring at SAAN 

San Antonio 

Audubon Society 

 Landbird monitoring at SAAN 

8.6. Program Review Process 

Periodic reviews of the network’s monitoring program and protocols are critical to ensure that the 

program is on the right course and that if course corrections are needed, they are accomplished 

quickly to save unnecessary expenditures of resources and time. Review of the program will 

occur at several different levels and timescales. 

1. On an annual basis, the Annual Administrative Report and Work Plan (AARWP) 

provides the STAC and BOD with an opportunity to review what has taken place during 

the past year and what is planned for the upcoming year, and thus, an annual opportunity 

to review and evaluate the program. The AARWP is also presented at the annual BOD 

meeting, allowing the board to discuss progress and ideally resulting in a real evaluation 

and not a routine approval of the plan. 

2. The network is planning an annual STAC meeting that will be an opportunity to present 

and discuss the technical aspects of the monitoring data, allow park resource managers to 

convene, present monitoring data and analyses, and discuss resource issues of concern 

with other managers in the network. 

3. The program will be formally reviewed by WASO at least once every five years. A 

formal report is generated from this periodic review, making specific suggestions for 

changes and revisions in the monitoring program.
Chapter 9: Schedule 127 

Chapter 9 

Schedule 

This chapter describes the proposed schedule for implementing the GULN vital signs monitoring 

program. For the protocols under development in the next three-to-five years, we describe the key 

tasks or issues that must be addressed for each (Table 9.1). We also show the schedule for 

development and implementation of monitoring for each vital sign for the next five years, or 

through 2011 (Table 9.2). Detailed sampling schedules for individual protocols are not included 

here; those details will be included in the protocols themselves. 

9.1. Key Issues for Each Vital Sign 

Table 9.1 describes key events and issues that must occur and be addressed in establishing 

protocols for the 19 higher-priority vital signs (see Chapter 5). For some vital signs, this may 

simply entail some coordination with an entity already collecting applicable data (e.g., state water 

quality programs). For others, this will require a more detailed scoping of the vital sign, pilot data 

collection efforts, and/or determining analysis methods for the data. Several protocols are 

designed to address more than one vital sign (see Chapters 4 and 5). In assigning a target calendar 

year for protocol completion, we have attempted to account for such differences to project the 

most feasible completion date possible. 
128 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Table 9.1. Tasks to be accomplished on protocols before monitoring will be implemented. 

Protocol 

(target year for 

protocol completion) 

Vital sign Key events and issues to be addressed before monitoring 

will be implemented 

Weather and Climate 

(2007) 

Weather/Climate Network-wide inventory of existing weather stations was 

started in FY06 under the larger WASO project. This project 

will result in recommendations for additional weather stations, 

if needed. The network will adopt all nationally set standards 

for weather data. Work will focus on data collection, database 

development, and reporting strategy. 

Estuarine and NearShore Coastal Waters 

(2007) 

Water Chemistry 

Water Nutrients 

Water Toxics

Techniques for monitoring estuarine water quality are well 

known. The network will implement a combination of 

probabilistic and continuous stations following established 

protocols and in collaboration with SECN. Work focuses on 

database development, establishing partnerships, completing 

park-specific sampling designs, and writing the protocol to 

NPS specifications. 

Freshwater 

(2007) 

Water Chemistry 

Water Nutrients 

Water Toxics 

Protocols are currently being completed for the five freshwater 

parks. Work focuses on writing the protocol to NPS 

specifications, establishing partnerships, database 

development, and field-testing protocols. 

Vegetation Structure 

and Composition (Nonnative Vegetation, Salt 

Marsh Plant 

Communities,

Terrestrial Vegetation, 

and Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics modules) 

(2007) 

Non-native 

Vegetation 

Salt Marsh Plant 

Communities 

Terrestrial 

Vegetation 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Work will focus on ground-truthing in selected vegetation units 

and sites the standard suite of vegetation metrics that have 

been derived from the LiDAR data, database development, 

and writing the protocol to NPS specifications. 

Amphibian 

Communities 

(2007) 

Amphibians Techniques for monitoring amphibians are well established. 

Work will focus on development of specific sampling designs 

for each park, database development, and writing the protocol 

to NPS specifications. 

Landbirds 

(2007) 

Migratory Birds 

Resident Birds 

NPS-approved protocol and a database exist for monitoring 

landbirds. Work focuses on developing park-specific 

implementation plans (SAAN as pilot), with focus on this effort 

being coordinated by each interested park. 

Adjacent Land-use 

Change 

(2007) 

Land Cover/Land 

Use 

Determine success of the “proof of concept” GIS-system 

currently under development through a cooperative agreement 

for SAAN. Work will focus on writing the protocol to NPS 

specifications and expanding the applicability to more network 

parks. 

Coastal 

Geomorphology and 

Landforms 

(2008) 

Coastal 

Dynamics 

Techniques for monitoring changes in barrier island 

morphology/topography are well established. Work will focus 

on determining frequency of sampling, developing a data 

management strategy, and writing the protocol to NPS 

specifications. 

Vegetation Structure 

and Composition 

(Riparian Communities 

module)

(2008) 

Riparian 

Communities 

Work will focus on deriving system-specific metrics and 

development of a “Riparian Communities Assessment” module 

(SOP) in the vegetation structure protocol. 
Chapter 9: Schedule 129 

Protocol 

(target year for 

protocol completion) 

Vital sign Key events and issues to be addressed before monitoring 

will be implemented 

Vegetation Structure 

and Composition 

(Forest Health module)

(2008) 

Forest Health Work will focus on deriving system-specific metrics and 

development of a “Forest Health Assessment” module (SOP) 

in the GULN vegetation structure protocol. 

Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation 

(2008) 

Marine and 

Estuarine 

Submerged 

Aquatic 

Vegetation 

Techniques for monitoring will be adapted from the protocol 

developed by NCBN. Work will focus on modifying the existing 

protocol for GULN parks and identifying cooperators to 

implement the monitoring. 

Specific to parks 

(2009) 

Non-native 

Animals 

Work will focus on database management for existing parkbased monitoring and developing a “Non-native Animal Impact 

Assessment” module (SOP) in the vegetation structure 

protocol to detect vegetative impacts of invasive animals 

(hogs, nutria, nilgai, etc.). 

Specific to parks 

(2009) 

T&E/Rare Small 

Mammals 

Work will focus on database management for existing parkbased monitoring and providing the parks with existing 

protocols where possible. 

Specific to parks 

(2009) 

T&E/Rare Plants Work will focus on database management for existing parkbased monitoring and developing habitat links with plant 

communities identified in the vegetation structure protocol with 

T&E species. 

9.2. Protocol Development and Implementation Schedule 

Table 9.2 shows the anticipated schedule for protocol completion and implementation at each of 

the network parks. Not every protocol will be implemented at every park on the same schedule. 

Especially when new protocols are being developed, and when existing protocols need to be 

modified for implementation in GULN parks, implementation will occur in phases. 

Table 9.2. Implementation schedule, by park, for vital signs monitoring in the Gulf Coast 

Network from calendar years 2007–2011. 

Protocol Vital sign Park 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Weather and 

Climate 

Weather/Climate BITH 

GUIS 

JELA 

NATR 

PAAL 

PAIS 

SAAN 

VICK 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Estuarine and NearShore Coastal 

Waters 

Water Chemistry 

Water Nutrients 

Water Toxics

GUIS 

JELA 

PAIS 

#, X 

#, X 

#, X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
130 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Protocol Vital sign Park 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Freshwater Water Chemistry 

Water Nutrients 

Water Toxics

BITH 

GUIS 

JELA 

NATR 

PAAL 

PAIS 

SAAN 

VICK 

X 

#* 

#* 

X 

X 

#* 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Vegetation 

Structure and 

Composition 

(Non-native 

Vegetation, Salt 

Marsh Plant 

Communities, 

Terrestrial 

Vegetation, and 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics modules) 

Non-native 

Vegetation 

Salt Marsh Plant 

Communities 

Terrestrial 

Vegetation 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

BITH 

GUIS 

JELA 

NATR 

PAAL 

PAIS 

SAAN 

VICK 

- 

#, X 

#, X 

- 

- 

#, X 

- 

- 

# 

X 

X 

# 

# 

X 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Amphibian 

Communities 

Amphibians BITH 

GUIS 

JELA 

NATR 

PAAL 

PAIS 

SAAN 

VICK 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Landbirds Migratory and 

Resident Birds 

SAAN 

OTHERS 

#, X 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Adjacent Land-use 

Change 

Land Cover/Land 

Use 

BITH 

GUIS 

JELA 

NATR 

PAAL 

PAIS 

SAAN 

VICK 

# 

- 

# 

- 

# 

- 

#, X 

# 

X 

# 

X 

# 

X 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Coastal 

Geomorphology 

and Landforms 

Coastal Dynamics GUIS 

PAIS 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Vegetation 

Structure and 

Composition 

(Riparian 

Communities 

module)

(2008) 

Riparian 

Communities 

BITH 

JELA 

NATR 

PAAL 

SAAN 

- 

# 

- 

- 

- 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
Chapter 9: Schedule 131 

Protocol Vital sign Park 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Vegetation 

Structure and 

Composition 

(Forest Health 

module)

(2008) 

Forest Health BITH 

GUIS 

JELA 

NATR 

PAAL 

PAIS 

SAAN 

VICK 

- 

# 

# 

- 

- 

# 

- 

- 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation 

Marine and 

Estuarine 

Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation 

GUIS 

PAIS 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Specific to parks Non-native Animals BITH 

GUIS 

JELA 

NATR 

PAAL 

PAIS 

SAAN 

VICK 

- 

# 

# 

- 

- 

# 

- 

- 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Specific to parks T&E/Rare Small 

Mammals 

GUIS 

PAAL 

# 

# 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Specific to parks T&E/Rare Plants BITH 

GUIS 

NATR 

PAIS 

SAAN 

VICK 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

*Although largely marine, these parks each have freshwater resources (ponds) for which a separate monitoring strategy 

will be developed, and linked to amphibian monitoring. 

# = develop protocol 

X = conduct monitoring 

- = no activity. 
132 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 
 Chapter 11: Literature Cited 133 

Chapter 10 

Budget 

In this chapter, we present the budget of the GULN monitoring program during the first year of 

operation after review and approval of our plan (anticipated to be FY2008). We first show the 

network budget by the same expense categories networks use in preparing the AAWRPs that are 

submitted to Congress (Table 10.1). In Table 10.2, we show the same budget, but with more 

detail, including our projections for network resources devoted to information management. 

The GULN annually receives $929,800 from the NPS Servicewide Inventory and Monitoring 

Vital Signs Program, and $89,000 from the NPS Water Resources Division. We expect to spend 

approximately 45% of the budget on personnel, including permanent staff and seasonal 

technicians and/or interns. The staffing strategy has been to have a core of professional, 

permanent staff to oversee and coordinate the program. Technician-level assistance will be 

accomplished through CESU agreements for student interns and assistance from the Student 

Conservation Association (SCA) (see Chapter 8). We will enter into cooperative and interagency 

agreements for the bulk of the data collection support for the program. Because of the distances 

involved in traveling to the network parks from the network offices, we will avoid creating a 

centralized technical staff and the associated budgetary and logistical difficulties. Agreements 

with regional universities and other federal and state agencies will give us access to local 

technical assistance, while network staff will oversee the implementation across the network. 

Table 10.1. Anticipated budget for the Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Program in 

the first year of implementation after review and approval of the monitoring plan. 

Budget 2008 

Income 

Vital Signs Monitoring $929,800 

Water Resources Division $89,000 

 Total $1,018,800 

Expenditures % by Category 

Personnel (includes interns/techs) $460,541 45% 

Cooperative Agreements $402,259 40% 

Operations/Equipment $80,000 8% 

Travel $75,000 7% 

Other $1,000 0% 

 Total $1,018,800 

Guidelines for developing a monitoring program suggest that approximately 30% of the budget 

should be allocated to information/data management so that information is not lost, results are 

communicated, and adequate reporting takes place. In Table 10.2, we provide the percent of time 

that each network position devotes to information/data management. We also include anticipated 

costs for hardware and software to manage and make information available. (Note that many 

protocols are still under development and several will be completed in FY2007. Staff and 
134 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

strategies for implementing those protocols are difficult to finalize prior to completion of the 

protocol. We provide the best estimates currently possible.) 

Table 10.2. Detailed budget for the Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Program in the 

first year of implementation after review and approval of the monitoring plan, showing the 

estimated expenditure on information management. 

Budget 2008 

Income 

Vital Signs Monitoring $929,800 

Water Resources Division $89,000 

 Total $1,018,800 

Expenditures 

Personnel GS Level % Info. Mgmt. $ Info. Mgmt.

Administrative Assistant (SERO) $8,176 0% $0

Network Coordinator 12 $94,962 20% $18,992

Ecologist 12 $109,667 30% $32,900

Science Information Specialist 11 $81,000 100% $81,000

GIS Specialist 9/11 $54,284 60% $40,713

Hydrologist (50%) 12 $52,453 30% $15,736

Interns/SCAs $60,000 30% $18,000

Cooperative Agreements 

Interagency Agreements $230,000 30% $69,000

CESU agreements $172,259 35% $68,904

Other 

Operations/Equipment $80,000 10% $8,000

Network Staff Travel $50,000 

STAC/BOD Travel to Meetings $25,000 

Other $1,000 

 Total $1,018,800 33% $336,489
 Chapter 11: Literature Cited 135 

Chapter 11 

Literature Cited 

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Anderson, S. M., A. Feldmen, A. James, C. Katin, and W. R. Wise. 2005. Assessment of coastal 

water resources and watershed conditions at Gulf Islands National Seashore (Florida and 

Mississippi). Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2005/330. 

Blacklock, G. W., A. H. Chaney, and S. A. Smith. 1998. Habitat use and species diversity of 

Neotropical bird species during the 1998 spring migration on the Padre Island National 

Seashore. Ecoservices, Corpus Christi, Tx. 

Blum, M., and J. R. Jones. 1985. Variation in vegetation density and foredune complexity at 

North Padre Island, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 37:63–73. 

Bretting, P. K. 1975. A floral analysis of Chalmette National Historical Park, Arabi, Louisiana. 

BS Honors Thesis, Tulane University, New Orleans, La. 

Brown, S. S., G. R. Gaston, C. F. Rakocinski, and R. W. Heard. 2000. Effects of sediment 

contaminants and environmental gradients on macrobenthic community trophic structure 

in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 23:411–424. 

Buell, M. F., H. F. Buell, and J. A. Small. 1954. Fire in the history of Mettler’s Woods. Bulletin 

of the Torrey Botanical Club 81: 253–255. 

Bush, J. K., and O. W. Van Auken. 1987. Some demographic and allometric characteristics of 

Acacia smallii (Mimosaceae) in successional communities. Madrono 34:250–259. 

Carls, E. G., D. B. Fenn, and S. A. Chaffey. 1995. Soil contamination by oil and gas drilling and 

production operations in Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, USA. Journal of 

Environmental Management 45:273–286. 

Chapman, D. C., D. M. Papoulias, and C. P. Onuf. 1998. Environmental change in south Texas. 

In M. J. Mac, ed., Status and trends of the nation’s biological resources. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

http://biology.usgs.gov/s%2Bt/SNT/index.htm. 

Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in tropical forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1309. 

Conner, W. H., and J. W. Day. 1987. The ecology of the Barataria Basin, Louisiana: An estuarine 

profile. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Research 

Center. 

Cooper, R. J., S. B. Cederbaum, and J. J. Gannon. 2004a. Natural resource summary for Big 

Thicket National Preserve (BITH). Final report to National Park Service Gulf Coast 

Network. 

——. 2004b. Natural resource summary for Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR). Final report to 

National Park Service Gulf Coast Network. 

——. 2004c. Natural resource summary for Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site (PAAL). 

Final report to National Park Service Gulf Coast Network. 
136 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

——. 2004d. Natural resource summary for Vicksburg National Military Park (VICK). Final 

report to National Park Service Gulf Coast Network. 

——. 2005b. Natural resource summary for Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve 

(JELA). Final report to National Park Service Gulf Coast Network. 

——. 2005c. Natural resource summary for Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS). Final report 

to National Park Service Gulf Coast Network. 

——. 2005d. Natural resource summary for San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 

(SAAN). Final report to National Park Service Gulf Coast Network. 

Cooper, R. J., G. Sundin, S. B. Cederbaum, and J. J. Gannon. 2005a. Natural resource summary 

for Gulf Islands National Seashore (GUIS). Final report to National Park Service Gulf 

Coast Network. 

Cousens, M. I. 1988. Phytosociology and hurricane-initiated revegetation on Perdido Key, Gulf 

Islands National Seashore. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional Office. 

Covington, W. W., R. L. Everett, R. Steele, L. L. Irwin, T. A. Daer, and A. N. D. Auclair. 1994. 

Historical and anticipated changes in forest ecosystems of the inland west of the United 

States. Pages 13–63 in R. N. Sampson and D. L. Adams, eds., Assessing forest ecosystem 

health in the inland west. Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth Press. 

Cutter, B. E., and R. P. Guyette. 1994. Fire frequency on an oak-hickory ridgetop in the Missouri 

Ozarks. American Midland Naturalist. 132(2):393–398. 

DeAngelis, D. L., L. J. Gross, E. J. Comiskey, W. M. Mooij, and M. P. Nott. 2003. The use of 

models for a multi-scaled ecological monitoring system. In D. E. Busch and J. C. Trexler, 

eds., Interdisciplinary approaches to ecological monitoring of ecosystem initiatives. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Denslow, J. S., and L. Battaglia. 2002. Stand composition and structure across a changing 

hydrologic gradient: Jean Lafitte National Park, Louisiana, USA. Wetlands 22:738–752. 

Dibble, E. D. 2003. A long-term (1995–2003) biological assessment and inventory of the streams 

in Vicksburg National Military Park. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, 

Miss. 

Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and monitoring plant 

populations. BLM Tech. Reference 1730-1. BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730. 

Executive Order No. 13112 (Invasive Species) February 3, 1999, 64 FR 6183, as amended by Ex. 

Ord. No. 13286, February 28, 2003, 68 FR 10619 [42 USC 4321]. 

Fields, S. A., A. J. Tyre, K. H. Thorn, P. J. O’Connor, and H. P. Possingham. 2005. Improving 

the efficiency of wildlife monitoring by estimating detectability: A case study of foxes 

(Vulpes vulpes) on the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia. Wildlife Research 32(3) 253–

258. 

Fountain, M. S., and R. L. Rayburn. 1987. Impact of oil/gas development on vegetation and soils 

of Big Thicket National Preserve. Technical Report 5, Texas A&M University, 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College Station, Tx. 

Frost, C. C. 1995. Presettlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. 

Pages 39–60 in S. I. Cerulean and R. T. Engstrom, eds., Fire in wetlands: A management 

perspective. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers fire ecology conference, No. 19. 

Tallahassee, Fla.: Tall Timbers Research Station. 
 Chapter 11: Literature Cited 137 

Frost, C. C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: First approximation. 

Pages 70–81 in T. L. Pruden and L.A. Brennan, eds., Fire in ecosystem management: 

Shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Proceedings of the 20th Tall 

Timbers fire ecology conference, May 7–10, 1996. Tallahassee, Fla.: Tall Timbers 

Research Station. 

Fry, J. D. 1992. The mixed-model analysis of variance applied to quantitative genetics: Biological 

meaning of the parameters. Evolution 46:540–550. 

Fuller, M. R., W. S. Seegar, and L. S. Schueck. 1998. Routes and travel rates of migrating 

peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) and Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the 

Western Hemisphere. Journal of Avian Biology 29:433–440. 

Gagliano, S. M., and J. L. Van Beek. 1975. An approach to multiuse management in the 

Mississippi delta system. Pages 223–238 in M.L. Broussard, ed., Deltas: models for 

exploration. Houston, Tx.: Houston Geological Society. 

Gallaher, A. A., E. R. Hall, J. C. Bonzongo, and J. J. Delfino. 2005. Compilation and synthesis of 

existing persistent organ pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals data from Gulf Coast 

Network national parks. Final report to the National Park Service under Cooperative 

Agreement Number H5000-00-0478. 

Garza, H. 1997. Habitat use and activities of the piping plover, Charadrius melodus, wintering on 

South Padre Island. Thesis. University of Texas–Pan American, Edinburg. 

Gorman, L. R., and S. M. Haig. 2002. Distribution and abundance of snowy plovers in eastern 

North America, the Caribbean, and the Bahamas. Journal of Field Ornithology 73:38–52. 

Gross, J. G. 2003. Developing conceptual models for monitoring programs. Unpublished report 

on file, Inventory and Monitoring Program Office, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/docs/Conceptual_Modelling.pdf 

Gulf Coast Network. 2005. Vital signs monitoring plan: Phase II report. Lafayette, La.: Gulf 

Coast Network. 

Guntenspergen, G. 1998. The impact of Hurricane Andrew on Louisiana’s coastal landscape. In

M. J. Mac, ed., Status and trends of the nation’s biological resources. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

http://biology.usgs.gov/s%2Bt/SNT/index.htm. 

Harcombe, P. A., and J. Van Kley. 1996. Vegetation of the West Gulf Coastal Plain: An 

overview. Big Thicket Science Conference, Biodiversity and Ecology of the West Gulf 

Coastal Plain Landscape. Beaumont, Texas. 

Harrel, R. C. 1975. Water quality and salt water intrusion in the lower Neches River. Texas 

Journal of Science 26:107–117. 

——. 1985. Effects of a crude oil spill on water quality and macrobenthos of a southeast Texas 

stream. Hydrobiologia 124:223–228. 

Harris, L. D. 1989. The faunal significance of fragmentation of southeastern bottomland forests. 

Pages 126–134 in D. D. Hook and R. Lea, eds., Proceedings of the symposium: The 

forested wetlands of the southern United States. U.S. Forest Service General Technical 

Report SE-50. U.S. Forest Service. 

Hinsley, S. A., R. A. Hill, P. E. Bellamy, and H. Baltzer. The application of LiDAR in woodland 

bird ecology: Climate, canopy structure, and habitat quality. Photogrammetric 

Engineering and Remote Sensing. December: 1399–1406. 
138 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Irwin, K. J., and J. R. Dixon. 1996. Preliminary observations on timber harvest effects on a 

bottomland hardwood forest herpetofaunal community. Big Thicket Science Conference, 

Biodiversity and Ecology of the West Gulf Coastal Plain Landscape. Beaumont, Texas. 

Jenkins, K., A. Woodward, and E. Schreiner. 2002. A framework for long-term ecological 

monitoring in Olympic National Park: Prototype for the coniferous forest biome. Port 

Angeles, Wash.: U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science 

Center, Olympic Field Station. 

Johnson, C. G., R. R. Clausnitzer, P. J. Mehringer, and C. D. Oliver. 1994. Biotic and abiotic 

processes of eastside ecosystems: The effects of management on plant and community 

ecology, and on stand and landscape vegetation dynamics. U.S. Forest Service General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-322. 66 pp. 

Maddox, D., K Poiani, and R. Unnasch. 1999. Evaluating management success: Using ecological 

models to ask the right monitoring questions. Pages 563–584 in W. T. Sexton, J. J. Malk, 

R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, eds., Ecological Stewardship: A common reference of 

ecosystem management. Volume III. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier Science, Ltd. 

McAtee, J. W., and D. L. Drawe. 1981. Human impact on beach and foredune microclimate on 

North Padre Island, Texas. Environmental Management 5:121–134. 

McDonald, T. L. 2003. Environmental trend detection: A review. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment 85:277–292. 

McDonald, T. L., and P. H. Geissler. 2004. Systematic and stratified sampling designs in longterm ecological monitoring studies. 

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:HopWVC1IDWQJ:science.nature.nps.gov/im/mon

itor/docs/SampleDesigns.doc+Systematic+and+stratified+sampling+designs+in+longterm+ecological+monitoring+studies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us. 

Mendelssohn, I. A., and K. L. McKee. 1989. Response of a freshwater marsh plant community to 

increased salinity and increased water level. Aquatic Botany 34:301–316. 

Michot, T. C. 1984. A marsh vegetation study of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, Lafayette, 

La.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Ecological Services. 

Michot, T. C., T. W. Custer, A. J. Nault, and C. A. Mitchell. 1994. Environmental contaminants 

in redheads wintering in coastal Louisiana and Texas. Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 26:425–434. 

Mitchell, C. A., and C. M. Custer. 1986. Hatching success of Caspian terns nesting in the lower 

Laguna Madre, Texas, USA. Journal of the Colonial Waterbird Society 9:86–89. 

Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second ed. New York: Van Nostrand 

Reinhold. 

Moore, F. R., P. Kerlinger, and T. R. Simons. 1990. Stopover on a Gulf Coast barrier island by 

spring trans-gulf migrants. Wilson Bulletin 102:487–500. 

Mora, M. A. 1996. Organochlorines and trace elements in four colonial waterbird species nesting 

in the lower Laguna Madre, Texas. Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology 31:533–537. 

Morton, R. A., N. A. Purcell, and R. L. Peterson. 2001. Shallow stratigraphic evidence of 

subsidence and faulting induced by hydrocarbon production in coastal southeast Texas. 

Open File Report: 01-274. U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, Florida.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-274/index.html. 
 Chapter 11: Literature Cited 139 

Muth, D. 1997. Jean Lafitte National Historicical Park and Preserve resource management plan. 

National Park Service, December. 

National Park Service. 2000. 2001 Management Policies. National Park Service. 

Nayegandhi, A., J. C. Brock, C. W. Wright, and M. J. O’Connell. 2006. Evaluating a smallfootprint, waveform-resolving LiDAR over coastal vegetation communities. 

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. December: 1405–1415. 

Nicholas, M., and A. R. Jacks. 1996. Sea turtle nesting report: Gulf Islands National Seashore, 

Florida District (1994–1996). Gulf Breeze, Fla.: Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

Nicholls, J. L. 1989. Distribution and other ecological aspects of piping plovers (Charadrius 

melodus) wintering along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Thesis. Auburn University, 

Auburn, Alabama. 

Oakley, K. L., L. P. Thomas and S. G. Fancy. 2003. Guidelines for long-term monitoring 

protocols. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:1000–1002. 

Oli, M. K., N. R. Holler, and M. C. Wooten. 2001. Viability analysis of endangered Gulf Coast 

beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus) populations. Biological Conservation 97:107–118. 

Olsen, A. R., J. Sedransk, D. Edwards, C. A. Gotway, W. Liggett, S. Rathbun, K. H. Reckhow, 

and L. J. Wong. 1999. Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in 

the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54:1–45. 

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). 

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118–125. 

Paysen, T. E., R. J. Ansley, J. K. Brown, G. J. Gottfried, S. M. Haase, M. G. Harrisngton, M. G. 

Narog, S.S. Sackett, and R.C. Wilson. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and 

grassland ecosystems. Pages 121–159 in J. K. Brown and J. K. Smith, eds., Wildland fire 

in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42. Volume 2. 

Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 

Pendleton, E. A., E. R. Thieler, S. J. Williams, and R L. Beavers. 2004a. Coastal vulnerability 

assessment of Gulf Islands National Seashore (GUIS) to sea-level rise. U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2004-1080. Electronic book. 

Pendleton, E. A., E. S. Hammar-Klose, E. R. Thieler, and S. J. Williams. 2004b. Coastal 

vulnerability assessment of Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS) to sea-level rise. U.S. 

Giological Survey Open-File Report 03-108. Electronic book 

Peitz, D. G., S. G. Fancy, L. P. Thomas, G. A. Rowell, and M. D. DeBacker. 2004. Bird 

monitoring protocol for Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, Nebraska, and Tallgrass 

Prairie National Preserve, Kansas. Prepared for the Prairie Cluster Prototype Monitoring 

Program, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Psuty, N. P. 1988. Balancing recreation and environmental system in a “natural area,” Perdido 

Key, USA. Ocean and Shoreline Management 11:395–408. 

Rakocinski, C., S. E. LeCroy, J. A. McLelland, and R. W. Heard. 1993. Responses by 

macroinvertebrate communities to beach renourishment at Perdido Key, Florida: 

Monitoring phase II. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs, Miss. 

——. 1994. Responses by macroinvertebrate communities to beach restoration at Perdido Key, 

Florida: Benthic recovery. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs, Miss. 
140 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Rakocinski, C. F., R. W. Heard, S. E. LeCroy, J. A. McLelland, and T. Simons. 1996. Responses 

by macrobenthic assemblages to extensive beach restoration at Perdido Key, Florida, 

USA. Journal of Coastal Research 12:326–353. 

Rakocinski, C. F., S. S. Brown, G. R. Gaston, R. W. Heard, W. W. Walker, and J. K. Summers. 

1997. Macrobenthic responses to natural and contaminant-related gradients in northern 

Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Ecological Applications 7:1278–1298. 

Reice, S. R. 1994. Nonequilibrium determinants of biological community structure. American 

Scientist 82:424–435. 

Roman, C. T., and N. E. Barrett. 1999. Conceptual framework for the development of long-term 

monitoring protocols at Cape Cod National Seashore. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center, Cooperative National Park Studies Unit, University of Rhode Island. 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/networks/caco.pdf. 

Shabica, S. V., and C. W. Shabica. 1978. Management strategies applicable to off-road vehicle 

use of Perdido Key, Florida. Pages 67–88 in Coping with the coast. Proceedings of the 

Fourth Conference of the Coastal Society, Burlington, Ontario, September 26–28. 

Arlington, Va.: The Coastal Society. 

Shabica, S. V., R. Burge, A. Blyth, W. Valentine, and M. Farley. 1979. Recovery of off-road 

vehicle disturbed ecosystems: Beaches and grasslands in Abstracts, Second Conference 

on Scientific Research in the National Parks. San Francisco, California, November 26–

30. 321 pages. 

Shaver, D. J. 2000. Distribution, residency, and seasonal movements of the green sea turtle, 

Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758), in Texas. Dissertation. Texas A&M University, 

College Station. 

Sheaffer, C. 1998. Environmental assessment of the fire management plan for Gulf Islands 

National Seashore, Florida and Mississippi. Estes Park, Colo.: Rocky Mountain National 

Park. 

Simersky, B. 1972. Competition and nesting success of four species of herons on Spoil Island in 

Laguna Madre, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 23:599. 

Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological 

research. Third edition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co. 

Starfield, A. M. 1997. A pragmatic approach to modeling for wildlife management. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 61:261–270. 

Stout, I. J., and W. R. Marion. 1993. Pine flatwoods and xeric pine forests of the southern (lower) 

coastal plain. Pages 373–446 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, eds., 

Biodiversity of the southeastern United States. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Stuart, J. D. 1998. Effects of fire suppression on ecosystems and diversity. In M. J. Mac, ed., 

Status and trends of the nation’s biological resources. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. http://biology.usgs.gov/s%2Bt/SNT/index.htm. 

Suter, G. W. II. 1993. Ecological risk assessment. Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers.

Swanson, B. 1991. Terre Haute de Barataria: An historic upland on an old river distributary 

overtaken by forest in the Barataria unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and 

Preserve. New Orleans, La.: Jefferson Parish Historical Commission. 
 Chapter 11: Literature Cited 141 

Swarzenski, C. M. 2006. Water quality scoping report for national parks of the Gulf Coast 

Network (GULN). Administrative report from the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Swarzenski, C. M., S. Mize, B. A. Thompson, and G. W. Peterson. 2004. Fish and aquatic 

invertebrate communities in waterways, and selected contaminant concentrations in fish, 

at the Barataria Preserve, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Louisiana, 

1999–2000. Baton Rouge, La.: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Taylor, N. C., J. W. Day, and G. E. Neusaenger. 1989. Ecological characterization of Jean Lafitte 

National Historic Park, Louisiana: Basis for a management plan. Pages 247–277 in W. G. 

Duffy and D. Clark, eds., Marsh management in coastal Louisiana: Effects and issues 

(proceedings of a symposium). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 

89(22):151–163. 

Teale, E. W. 1971. Big Thicket: Crossroads of Nature. Audubon 73:12–13, 25–32. 

Thomas, L. and C. J. Krebs. 1997. A review of power analysis software. Bulletin of the 

Ecological Society of America 78:126–139. 

Thomas, V., D. A. Finch, J. H. McCaughy, T. Noland, L. Rich, and P. Treitz. 2006. Spatial 

modelling of the fraction of photosynthetically active radiation absorbed by a boreal 

mixedwood forest using a LiDAR-hyper-spectral approach. Agricultural and Forest 

Meteorology 140(1–4):287–307. 

Tipping, P., and B. Hulslander. 2003. Establish a biological control program of exotic Salvinia at 

the Barataria Preserve. New Orleans, La. 

Twilley, R. R. 2005. Presentation to the Gulf Coast Network Scientific Technical Advisory 

Committee. April 5, Lafayette, Louisiana. 

Twilley, R. R. and V. Rivera-Monroy. 2005. Conceptual ecological model development for the 

National Park Service Units of the Gulf Coast Network. Unpublished report prepared for 

the USDI National Park Service Gulf Coast Network. 

Twilley, R. R., E. J. Barron, H. L. Gholz, M. A. Harwell, R. L. Miller, D. J. Reed, J. B. Rose, E. 

H. Siemann, R. G. Wetzel, and R. J. Zimmerman. 2001. Confronting climate change in 

the Gulf Coast region: Prospects for sustaining our ecological heritage. Union of 

Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Ecological Society of America, 

Washington, D.C. 

Van Auken, O. W., and J. K. Bush. 1984. Woody-species composition of the Upper San Antonio 

River gallery forest. Texas Journal of Science 36:139–148. 

Van Lear, D. H., and T. A. Waldrop. 1989. History, uses, and effects of fire in the Appalachians. 

USDA Forest Service General Tech. Rep. SE-54. Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station, Clemson, S.C. 20 pp. 

Wade, D. D., B. L. Brock, P. H. Brose, J. B. Grace, G. A. Hoch, and W. A. Patterson III, 2000. 

Fire in eastern ecosystems. In J. K. Brown and J. K. Smith, eds.). Wildland fire in 

ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42. Volume 2. Ogden, 

Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 

Walker, S. A. 1997. The vascular flora of Vicksburg National Military Park, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. The Nature Conservancy. 
142 Gulf Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Ware, S. W., C. Frost, and P. D. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: The former 

longleaf pine forest. Pages 447–494 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, 

eds., Biodiversity of the southeastern United States. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Weber, W. C. 1983. A comparison of mainland and island pine-forest bird communities in 

Coastal Mississippi. Mississippi State University. 

Whittaker, R. H. 1977. Evolution of species diversity in land communities. Pages 1–67 in M. K. 

Hecht, W. C. Steele, and B. Wallace, eds., Evolutionary biology. Volume 10. New York: 

Plenum Press. 

Withers, K., E. H. Smith, O. Gomez, and J. Wood. 2004. Assessment of coastal water resources 

and watershed conditions at Padre Island National Seashore, Texas. Technical report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2004/323. 

Williams, H. F. L. 1999. Sand-spit erosion following interruption of longshore sediment 

transport: Shamrock Island, Texas. Environmental Geology 37:153–161. 
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 D-101, September 2007
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Natural Resource Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICATM