National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Vital Signs Monitoring in the Southeast Coast 

Inventory & Monitoring Network

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2008/061 
ON THE COVER 

Sandhill Cranes migrating from Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. 

Photograph by: Joe DeVivo 
Vital Signs Monitoring in the Southeast Coast 

Inventory & Monitoring Network

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2008/061 

Joe DeVivo, Christina Wright, Mike Byrne, Eva DiDonato, and Tony Curtis 

Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network 

Division of Science and Natural Resources 

100 Alabama St., SW 

Atlanta, GA 30030 

September 2008 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii 

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, NPS. 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: 

DeVivo, J. C., C. J. Wright, M. W. Byrne, E. DiDonato, and T. Curtis. 2008. Vital signs 

monitoring in the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/SECN/NRR—2008/061. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS D-103, September, 2008 

 
iii 

Contents 

Page 

Figures............................................................................................................................................ vi

Tables ........................................................................................................................................... viii

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... xi

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

Program Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................... 1

Environmental Setting of the Southeast Coast Network..................................................... 7

Analysis of SECN Natural Resource Issues ..................................................................... 29

Summary of Existing Monitoring Programs ..................................................................... 33

Chapter 2. Conceptual Ecological Models .................................................................................... 35

Introduction & Approach .................................................................................................. 35

The Southeast Coast Network General Ecosystem Model ............................................... 36

System-Specific Models within the Southeast Coast Network......................................... 43

Common Elements ............................................................................................................ 63

Chapter 3. Vital Signs ................................................................................................................... 69

Scoping and Vital Signs Selection Process ....................................................................... 69

Vital Signs Selected for Implementation .......................................................................... 73

Relationship of Vital Signs to Conceptual Models and Justifications .............................. 73

Chapter 4. Sampling Design ......................................................................................................... 79

Monitoring Across Space .................................................................................................. 80

Monitoring Across Time ................................................................................................... 81

Measurement Approaches ................................................................................................. 83

Integration ......................................................................................................................... 83

Chapter 5. Sampling Protocols ..................................................................................................... 87
iv 

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 87

Coastal Shoreline Change ................................................................................................. 90

Stream Habitat Assessment ............................................................................................... 91

Salt Marsh Elevation ......................................................................................................... 92

Marine Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 92

Fixed-Station Water Quality ............................................................................................. 93

Amphibians ....................................................................................................................... 94

Breeding Forest Birds ....................................................................................................... 95

Plant Communities ............................................................................................................ 96

Migratory & Wintering Shorebirds ................................................................................... 97

Landscape Change Detection ............................................................................................ 98

Chapter 6. Data Management and Archiving ............................................................................. 101

Information Management Goals ..................................................................................... 102

Information Management Strategy ................................................................................. 104

Data Stewardship Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................. 105

Information Technology Infrastructure and System Architecture .................................. 107

Data Acquisition and Lifecycle ...................................................................................... 108

Quality Assurance and Quality Control .......................................................................... 110

Data Documentation ....................................................................................................... 111

Data Summary and Analysis ........................................................................................... 111

Data Dissemination ......................................................................................................... 112

Data Maintenance, Storage and Archiving ..................................................................... 114

Natural History Archiving, Curation and Records Management .................................... 114

Implementation ............................................................................................................... 115

Database Development and Implementation Schedule ................................................... 115
v 

Chapter 7. Data Analysis and Reporting ..................................................................................... 119

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 119

Data Reporting ................................................................................................................ 122

Data Dissemination ......................................................................................................... 123

Chapter 8. Administration / Implementation of the Monitoring Program .................................. 127

Coordination among Network Parks ............................................................................... 127

Core Job Functions for Network Staff ............................................................................ 130

Integration with Park Operations .................................................................................... 131

Partnerships ..................................................................................................................... 132

Programmatic Reviews ................................................................................................... 132

Chapter 9. Schedule .................................................................................................................... 135

Protocol Implementation Schedule ................................................................................. 135

Annual Sampling Schedule ............................................................................................. 137

Chapter 10. Budget ..................................................................................................................... 139

Fixed Costs...................................................................................................................... 141

Data Management ........................................................................................................... 141

Operations ....................................................................................................................... 142

Chapter 11. Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... 143

Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 161
vi 

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1-1. Location of parks within the Southeast Coast Network. ............................................ 9 

Figure 1-2. 303(d) water bodies (displayed in red) upstream or adjacent to SECN parks (2002 

data). ............................................................................................................................................. 28 

Figure 2-1. General Ecosystem Model of the Southeast Coast Network. .................................... 36 

Figure 2-2. The six primary ecosystems within Southeast Coast Network Parks. ....................... 44 

Figure 2-3. Relationship among plant community types as a function of historic fire regime 

within longleaf pine ecosystems. ................................................................................................. 48 

Figure 2-4. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in upland forests of Southeast Coast 

Network Parks ............................................................................................................................... 48 

Figure 2-5. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in bottomland hardwood forests of 

Southeast Coast Network Parks. .................................................................................................. 50 

Figure 2-6. General ecosystem model for river and stream systems within the Southeast Coast 

Network. ....................................................................................................................................... 51 

Figure 2-7. Location of the six river parks within the Southeast Coast Network along an 

elevation gradient. ........................................................................................................................ 52 

Figure 2-8. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in rivers and streams of Southeast 

Coast Network Parks. ................................................................................................................... 53 

Figure 2-9. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in salt marshes and coastal wetlands of 

Southeast Coast Network Parks. .................................................................................................. 55 

Figure 2-10. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in estuaries and nearshore marine 

systems of Southeast Coast Network Parks. ................................................................................ 57 

Figure 2-11. Successional relationships of plant communities on barrier islands. .................... 59 

Figure 2-12. Relationship of the natural plant communities and historical land use practices 

on barrier islands. ........................................................................................................................ 60 

Figure 2-13. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in barrier islands of Southeast Coast 

Network Parks. ............................................................................................................................ 61 

Figure 3-1. Implementation process used by the Southeast Coast Network for developing 

options for a Vital Signs Monitoring Program. ............................................................................ 71 
vii 

Figure 3-2. General Ecosystem Conceptual Model for the Southeast Coast Network with 

associated Vital Signs. ................................................................................................................ 78 

Figure 4-1. Sampling tours for probabilistic estuarine- and freshwater-quality monitoring 

protocols. ..................................................................................................................................... 82 

Figure 4-2. Sampling tours for wildlife and plant community monitoring protocols based on 

a 3-year (left) and 5-year (right) revisit schedule. ...................................................................... 82 

Figure 6-1. The object model is the strategic foundation for future information management 

efforts. ......................................................................................................................................... 105 

Figure 6-2. Core project data stewardship responsibilities of project leaders and data 

managers. .................................................................................................................................... 107 

Figure 6-3. Information technology connectivity diagram. ....................................................... 108 

Figure 8-1. Organization and staffing plan for the Southeast Coast Network as of 

09 September 2008. .................................................................................................................... 128 

Figure 8-2. Operational organizational Chart for the Southeast Coast Network. ...................... 129 

Figure 9-1. Annual protocol implementation schedule for Southeast Coast Network 

Vital Signs monitoring protocols that require field work. .......................................................... 136 
viii 

Tables 

Page 

Table 1-1. Performance management goals for which monitoring data will be relevant within 

the Southeast Coast Network (based on NPS strategic planning guidance for 2007-2011). . ........ 5 

Table 1-2. Preliminary SECN monitoring objectives, organized in the Inventory and 

Monitoring Program Ecological Monitoring Framework. .. ........................................................... 7 

Table 1-3. Parks of the Southeast Coast Network. ........................................................................ 8 

Table 1-4. Summary of air quality issues in Southeast Coast Network Parks. ........................... 29 

Table 1-5. Matrix of key natural resource issues and ecosystem types of concern within 

Southeast Coast Network Parks. .................................................................................................. 30 

Table 1-6. Existing and historical monitoring programs relevant to Southeast Coast Network 

parks. ............................................................................................................................................ 34 

Table 2-1. Ecosystems present in each of the SECN parks. ........................................................ 45 

Table 3-1. Criteria for prioritizing monitoring objectives based on the relative importance for 

meeting each monitoring objective. .............................................................................................. 72 

Table 3-2. Vital Signs to be monitored by the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring 

Network. ....................................................................................................................................... 74 

Table 3-3. Vital Signs to be monitored by the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring 

Network and the ecosystems in which they are relevant. ............................................................. 76 

Table 4-1. Site-selection methods used by the Southeast Coast Network. .................................. 81 

Table 4-2. Site selection strategy, measurement approaches, and re-visitation schedules for 

Vital Signs monitoring in Southeast Coast Network. .................................................................. 84 

Table 5-1. Monitoring protocols and associated Vital Signs to be implemented by the 

Southeast Coast Network, with the parties responsible for data collection indicated. ................ 88 

Table 5-2. Vital Signs to be implemented through the use of data collected by partnering 

parks, agencies, or other organizations. ........................................................................................ 89 

Table 6-1. Data that are provided on national Inventory & Monitoring Program web sites. .... 103 

Table 6-2. SECN roles and responsibilities for data stewardship. ............................................. 106 

Table 6-3. Database development schedule for all field protocols and data acquisition SOPs 

to be implemented by the SECN. ............................................................................................... 117 
ix 

Table 7-1. Categories of analyses for SECN Vital Signs. ......................................................... 120 

Table 7-2. Summary of proposed analyses for SECN Vital Signs. .......................................... 123 

Table 9-1. Deployment schedule of monitoring protocols to be implemented by the 

Southeast Coast Network. .......................................................................................................... 135 

Table 10-1. Anticipated budget for the Southeast Coast Network Vital Signs monitoring 

program in the first year of implementation after review and approval of the monitoring 

plan. ............................................................................................................................................ 139 

Table 10-2. Detailed budget for the Southeast 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. ..................................... 140 

xi 

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background. The Southeast Coast Network (SECN) is one of 

32 National Park Service (NPS) Networks established to implement an integrated monitoring 

program under the Natural Resource Challenge. The SECN contains twenty parks, seventeen of 

which contain significant and diverse natural resources. In total, SECN parks encompass more 

than 184,000 acres of federally-managed land across North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 

Alabama, and Florida. The parks span a wide diversity of cultural missions, including four 

National Seashores, two National Historic Sites, two National Memorials, seven National 

Monuments, two National Military Parks, a National Recreation Area, National Battlefield, and 

Ecological and Historic Preserve. The parks range in size from slightly more than 20 to nearly 

60,000 acres, and when considered with non-federal lands jointly managed with SECN parks the 

Network encompasses more than 253,000 acres. 

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

SECN parks: (a) parks are generally surrounded by altered landscapes; (b) the ecosystems of the 

Southeast Coast Network are driven to a large extent by natural disturbance process such as 

hurricanes, flooding, and fire; and (c) the Southeast Coast region is increasingly subject to 

human development, resulting in diverse anthropogenic effects on park resources. 

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

landscape-scale issues that many of our parks have in common: 

• Determine the 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, 

• Provide early warning of abnormal conditions of selected resources to help develop 

effective mitigation measures and reduce costs of management, 

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

and to provide reference points for comparisons with other, altered environments, 

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

protection and visitor enjoyment, and 

• Provide a means of measuring progress towards performance goals. 

Chapter 2 – Conceptual Ecological Models. The SECN 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 six 

dominant ecosystem types in SECN parks: Upland Forests, Bottomland Hardwoods, Rivers & 

Streams, Salt Marshes & Coastal Wetlands, Estuaries & Nearshore Marine Systems, and Barrier 

Islands. Each model depicts a set of system drivers, local drivers, and park resources. Each 

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

multiple ecosystems represented by different system models. Detailed conceptual models are 

available in Appendix 7. 
xii 

Chapter 3 – Vital Signs. The SECN identified 25 Vital Signs to be monitored as a part of the 

Inventory & Monitoring Program. Vital Signs span all categories of the Ecological Monitoring 

Framework (Air & Climate, Geology & Soils, Water, Biological Integrity, Human Use, and 

Ecosystem Pattern & Processes). 

Chapter 4. – Sampling Framework and Design. An overall sampling framework has been 

proposed for the SECN. The SECN will use a design-based approach to monitoring that relies on 

a combination of probabilistic sampling, sentinel station sampling, censuses, and opportunistic 

sampling to assess natural resource conditions across parks. Measurement approaches range 

from direct measures of ecological parameters to conducting multimetric assessments of resource 

conditions based on suites of parameters. 

The overall sampling framework is designed to allow for rapid utility of data to assess resource 

condition while preserving the flexibility to integrate monitoring data in efforts to model both 

long term trends and relationships among Vital Signs. 

Chapter 5 – Sampling Protocols. The Southeast Coast Network will be developing and 

implementing 10 monitoring protocols. Additionally, the SECN is developing 10 data 

acquisition SOPs to obtain Vital Sign data from external sources. In most cases, the SECN is 

implementing sampling methods from published protocols with minimal changes. Protocol 

Development Summaries for all SECN protocols are located in Appendix 13. Each summary 

explains which Vital Signs are addressed by the protocol, the reasons why the Vital Sign was 

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

monitor the Vital Sign. 

Chapter 6. Information Management and Archiving. The Information Management and 

Archiving Plan for the SECN serves as the overarching strategy to ensure that monitoring data 

meet rigorous quality assurance and control standards and that these data are available to others 

for decision making, 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 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. 
xiii 

Table E-1. 

Vital Signs to be monitored by the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network. [­ - Vital Signs for 

which the Network will develop protocols and implement monitoring using funding from the Vital Signs or 

Water Quality Monitoring programs; z - Vital Signs that are monitored by a network park, another NPS 

program, or by another federal or state agency using other funding;  - Monitoring deferred]. 

Ecological Monitoring Framework Network Vital Sign Measures 

KEMO 

CHAT 

HOBE 

OCMU 

CONG 

MOCR 

CAHA 

CALO 

FOSU FOPU 

FOFR 

CUIS 

TIMU / FOCA 

CASA / FOMA 

CANA 

Air and Climate 

Air Quality Ozone Ozone Atmospheric ozone 

concentration, damage to 

sensitive vegetation. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Wet and Dry 

Deposition 

Wet and Dry 

Deposition 

Wet and dry sulfate and 

nitrate deposition. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Visibility and 

Particulate Matter 

Visibility and 

Particulate Matter 

IMPROVE suite for 

visibility and fine 

particulates, particle size 

analyses: pm 10, pm 2.5, 

haze index. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Air Contaminants Air Contaminants Concentration of mercury, 

semi-volatile organic 

compounds, acidic 

components of 

contaminants. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Weather and 

Climate 

Weather and Climate Weather and Climate Air temperature, 

precipitation, relative 

humidity, tides, location 

and magnitude of extreme 

weather events. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Geology and Soils 

Geomorphology Coastal / 

Oceanographic 

Features and 

Processes 

Coastal Shoreline 

Change 

Shoreline position. ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

 Salt Marsh Elevation Sediment elevation, 

salinity. ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

 Stream / River 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Stream / River 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Percent cover of coarse 

woody debris, detritus, 

distribution and extent of 

geomorphic features 

(runs, riffles, pools); grain 

size distribution; 

distribution, extent, and 

rate of change of erosion 

features. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 

Water 

Hydrology Groundwater 

Dynamics 

Groundwater 

Dynamics 

Water Table levels for 

freshwater and saltwater. z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Surface Water 

Dynamics 

Surface Water 

Dynamics 

Discharge, magnitude and 

duration of flooding 

events. 

z z z z z z z

Water Quality Water Chemistry Marine Water Quality pH, temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, 

turbidity, salinity, 

concentrations of 

chlorophyll a, TDN, TIN, 

TDP, TIP, metals, and 

volatile organic 

compounds. 

­ ­  ­  ­ ­  ­

Riverine Water Quality pH, temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, specific 

conductance, turbidity, 

trace ions, nutrient 

concentrations. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Biological Integrity 

Invasive Species Invasive / Exotic 

Plants 

Invasive / Exotic Plants Occurrence of invasive 

plant species. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Focal Species or 

Communities 

Marine Invertebrates Marine Invertebrates Occurrence of selected 

marine invertebrate 

species. 

         

Fishes Fish Communities Fish community diversity, 

relative abundance, Index 

of Biotic Integrity, 

percentage of non-native 

species, number of 

crevice spawner species. 

              

 
xiv 

Ecological Monitoring Framework Network Vital Sign Measures 

KEMO 

CHAT 

HOBE 

OCMU 

CONG 

MOCR 

CAHA 

CALO 

FOSU FOPU 

FOFR 

CUIS 

TIMU / FOCA 

CASA / FOMA 

CANA 

Amphibians and 

Reptiles 

Amphibians Species occurrence, 

diversity, percent area 

occupied, disease 

incidence. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Birds Breeding Forest Birds Species occurrence, 

diversity, relative 

abundance. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Mammals Small Mammals Species occurrence, 

diversity, percent area 

occupied, relative 

abundance. 

              

Vegetation Complex Plant Communities Plant species occurrence, 

diversity; percent cover by 

herbaceous, shrub and 

overstory; rooting by feral 

hogs and armadillos; 

occurrence of disease, 

occurrence of insect 

outbreaks, occurrence of 

non-native species; NVCS 

class. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

At-risk Biota T&E Species and 

communities 

Shorebirds Number and location of 

piping plover, red knot, 

Wilson’s plover, American 

oystercatcher. 

 z        

T&E Species and 

communities 

T&E Species Abundance, distribution, 

and recruitment of rare 

species such as sea 

beach amaranth, beach 

mouse, sea turtles, redcockaded woodpeckers. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Human Use 

Consumptive Use Consumptive Use Fisheries Take Species occurrence, 

weight, size based on 

compilation of existing 

data from State and other 

sources. 

z z z z z z z z z

Visitor and 

Recreation Use 

Visitor Usage Visitor Use Monthly and annual visitor 

attendance compiled from 

existing Park and other 

sources. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Landscapes Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Burn area and extent, 

down woody debris, duff 

depth. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Landscape 

Dynamics 

Landscape Dynamics Land Cover and Use Extent and distribution of 

land cover and use types, 

fragmentation, extent and 

distribution of 

management actions 

(compiled from park 

records). 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Chapter 7 – Data Analysis and Reporting. The SECN approach to the analysis, interpretation, 

and reporting of monitoring data is based upon three factors that contribute to the success of the 

program: 1) quality and timeliness of information, 2) careful data analysis, and 3) effective 

communication to address different audiences with diverse information needs. Formal reports 

and publications that will be produced include, but are not limited to, annual administrative 

reports and work plans; 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 to present and discuss monitoring 

data. This will be an opportunity for the park resource managers to “compare notes,” present 

monitoring data and analyses, and discuss resource issues of concern with other managers in the 

network. 
xv 

Chapter 8 – Administration and Implementation. The network has developed a near-term 

(three to five year) plan under which monitoring will begin, and the development of all protocols 

will be initiated. This plan includes a staffing plan, key partnerships, relationship between the 

Network staff and member parks, and the periodic review process for the program. The network 

is planning to rely on key partnerships with federal and state agencies, and 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. All protocols will be implemented by 2011. 

Chapter 10 – Budget. Annual funding from the National Park Service’s Vital Signs Monitoring 

Program for SECN is $1,272,300 with an additional $116,300 coming from the National Park 

Service Water Resources Division for water quality monitoring. During the first year of 

implementation (FY2009), we expect that 62% of the budget will be spent on personnel. Data 

management expenditures (including salary costs) exceed the recommended 30%.

1 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Program Purpose and Scope 

In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences (1992) reviewed the natural resource management 

program of the National Park Service (NPS) and concluded, “If this agency is to meet the 

scientific and resource management challenges of the twenty-first century, a fundamental 

metamorphosis must occur.” Indeed, that metamorphosis materialized when the National Park 

Service implemented a strategy to standardize inventories and monitoring of natural resources on 

a programmatic basis throughout the agency. The effort was undertaken to ensure that the 

approximately 270 park units with significant natural resources possessed the resource 

information needed for effective, science-based, managerial decision-making and resource 

protection. The national strategy consists of a framework having three major components: 

1. Completion of basic natural resource inventories in support of future monitoring efforts, 

2. Creation of experimental Prototype Monitoring Programs to evaluate alternative 

monitoring designs and strategies, and 

3. Implementation of operational Vital Signs monitoring in all natural resource parks. 

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 for working with other agencies and the public for 

the benefit of park resources. 

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

change 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. Monitoring data help to define the normal limits of 

natural variation in park resources and provide a basis for understanding observed changes; 

monitoring results can also be used to determine what constitutes impairment and to identify the 

need for change in management practices. Understanding the dynamic nature of park ecosystems 

and the consequences of human activities is essential for management decision-making aimed to 

maintain, enhance, or restore the ecological integrity of park ecosystems and to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate threats to these systems (Roman and Barrett 1999). 

In this plan, we define integrated monitoring as “systematic, consistent, and simultaneous 

measurements of physical, chemical, biological, and human-effects variables through time and at 

specified locations in a manner that is designed to effectively inform adaptive management 

decisions.” In theory, by monitoring a wide range of variables at long-term sites, it is possible to 

gain an understanding of how ecosystems function and respond to change (Bricker and Ruggiero 

1998). Coupling monitoring with research and modeling might make it possible to predict what 
2 

will happen in the future and, if necessary, devise appropriate response strategies. Ecological 

monitoring is vital to park management for a variety of reasons: 

• Ecological monitoring provides understanding and insight into long-term ecological 

phenomena and the function of complex ecosystems across park and network boundaries. 

• Ecological monitoring provides the basis for evaluating whether NPS is achieving 

mandates and policies of protecting park natural resources. One of the major 

shortcomings of most of natural resource management and conservation plans has been 

the absence of a comprehensive ecological monitoring program (Kremen et al. 1993). 

• Ecological monitoring allows for detection of long-term adverse effects of human 

activities on park ecosystems. Because of the delay between a human disturbance and a 

subsequent response, long-term ecological monitoring provides significant data. 

• Ecological monitoring provides information to inform stakeholders, park visitors, and the 

public about the status and threats to park ecosystems, organisms, and ecological 

processes. 

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. 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. Vital Signs might occur at any level of organization 

including landscape, community, population, or genetic level, and might be compositional 

(referring to the variety of elements in the system), structural (referring to the organization or 

pattern of the system), or functional (referring to ecological processes). 

Because of the need to maximize the use and relevance of monitoring results for making 

management decisions, Vital Signs selected by parks might include those that have important 

human values (e.g., harvested or charismatic species) or those with a 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 decision-making, 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, management, and research, provides the 

information needed for effective, science-based managerial decision-making and resource 

protection. 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 a resource. Elzinga et al. (1998) defined monitoring 
3 

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 

might trigger a management action or 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. 

Legislative Mandates Linking Monitoring to Natural Resources Management 

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

clearly mandates as the 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 (see Appendix 2: 

Legislation Relevant to SECN Vital Signs Monitoring). 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 
4 

“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.” 

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

text of the FY 2000 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 2006 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 evaluate possible causes and effects of 

changes that might cause impacts on park resources and values. 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 NPS 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; 
5 

analyze the resulting information to detect or predict changes (including 

interrelationships with visitor carrying capacities) that may require management 

intervention and provide reference points for comparison with other environments and 

time frames; and 

use the resulting information to maintain—and where necessary restore—the integrity of 

natural systems" (2006 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 2. 

The Vital Signs monitoring program will allow the SECN and its parks to report on several goals 

related to the NPS strategic plan (Table 1-1). It is expected that performance of the Vital Signs 

monitoring program will eventually be measured by its ability to contribute to the measurement 

of park performance in attaining these goals. 

Table 1-1. 

Performance management goals for which monitoring data will be relevant within the Southeast Coast 

Network (based on NPS strategic planning guidance for 2007-2011). Not all goals are relevant for all Network 

parks. 

GPRA 

Goal 

Goal Description Desired National Trend 

Ia1A Number of disturbed parkland acres restored. Increase 

Ia1B Number of acres infested with invasive plant species controlled. Increase 

Ia1D Number of NPS managed riparian (stream / shoreline) miles in desired condition. Increase 

Ia1J Riparian (stream / shoreline) miles being restored. Increase 

Ia1H Number of NPS acres in desired condition. Increase 

Ia2A Number of federally-listed species making progress toward recovery. Increase 

Ia2B Number of populations of species of management concern managed to desired condition. Increase 

Ia2C Number of known invasive animal species populations controlled. Increase 

Ia4A Number of surface water streams /shoreline miles that meet State water quality standards. Increase 

Ia4B Number of surface water acres that meet State water quality standards. Increase 

1a4C Complete work products and management outcomes that protect or restore water quantity 

conditions in NPS managed or influenced surface and ground-water systems. 

All 

1a4D Protect and/or restore surface and ground waters directly managed or influenced by DOI, as 

specified in management plans and consistent with applicable Federal and State law, by 

working with State and local resource managers, as appropriate, to meet human and 

ecological needs. 

Increase 

1a6A Percentage of collections in NPS inventory in good condition. Increase 

1a10 Number of wilderness acres that meet wilderness character objectives. Increase 

Goals of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program 

The overarching purpose 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 
6 

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

sustaining those ecosystems. The monitoring program of the Southeast Coast Network will be 

designed around the five broad, service-wide goals common to all networks within the Vital 

Signs Monitoring Program: 

 Determine the 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, 

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

effective mitigation measures and reduce costs of management, 

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

and to provide reference points for comparisons with other, altered environments, 

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

protection and visitor enjoyment, and 

 Provide a means of measuring progress towards performance goals. 

In addition to the national goals presented above, each Vital Sign (and its associated protocol) 

has its own set of specific monitoring objectives (Table 1-2, and presented in greater detail in 

Chapter 5). 

Because the majority of parks within the SECN network have limited (or no) natural resource 

management staff, it will be incumbent upon the Network to work closely with park mangers to 

integrate Network and Park operations. To this end, the SECN monitoring program is designed 

to (a) serve as the scientific basis for adaptive management of park resources, (b) provide clear 

insights on causes (and therefore possible solutions) to identified issues, and (c) assess park 

resources in the context of patterns across the region or larger landscape. Ultimately, Vital Signs 

data are intended to be useful for deciding where and how to manage resources as well as 

measuring success toward meeting each park’s management goals. 
7 

Table 1-2. 

Preliminary SECN monitoring objectives, organized in the Inventory and Monitoring Program Ecological 

Monitoring Framework. 

Level 1 Level 2 Monitoring Objective 

Air and Climate Air Quality Determine spatial and temporal patterns and trends in atmospheric particulates, gases and 

deposition. 

Weather and Climate Determine the status and trends in the amount and frequency of precipitation in SECN 

parks. 

Geology and Soils Geomorphology Determine the location and movement of shorelines in SECN coastal parks. 

Determine the status and trends of sediment elevation in SECN salt marshes. 

Determine the status and trends of the condition of habitats in SECN streams and rivers. 

Water Hydrology Determine the status and trends in the amount of water flowing into and through SECN river 

systems and the magnitude, frequency and duration of flooding events. 

Determine the status and trends of freshwater and saltwater table levels inside and around 

SECN parks. 

Water Quality Determine the spatial and temporal patterns and variation in water quality in freshwater and 

marine systems. 

Biological Integrity Invasive Species Use monitoring data to inform managers of areas for treatment based on field observations

and predictive modeling. 

Focal Species or 

Communities 

Determine status and trends of population and community structure, function and 

composition within SECN parks. 

At-risk Biota Determine status and trends of population measures and requisite habitats for target 

species. 

Human Use Consumptive Use Determine magnitude and trends in harvest of biological resources such as finfish and 

shellfish. 

Visitor and Recreation Use Determine spatial and temporal patterns of visitor use of park resources. 

Landscapes Fire and Fuel Dynamics Determine the status and trends of measures of fire effects and risk. 

Landscape Dynamics Determine spatial and temporal patterns in land use and land cover inside and surrounding 

SECN parks. 

Environmental Setting of the Southeast Coast Network 

Overview of the Southeast Coast Network 

The Southeast Coast Network contains twenty parks, seventeen of which contain significant and 

diverse natural resources (Figure 1-1, Table 1-3). In total, SECN parks encompass more than 

184,000 acres of federally-managed land across North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 

Alabama, and Florida. The parks span a wide diversity of cultural missions also, including four 

national seashores, two national historic Sites, two national memorials, seven national 

monuments, two national military parks, as well as a national recreation area, national battlefield, 

and an ecological and historic preserve. The parks range in size from slightly more than 20 to 

nearly 60,000 acres, and when considered with non-federal lands jointly managed with SECN 

parks the Network encompasses more than 253,000 acres. Park descriptions are presented in two 

groups – inland riverine parks and coastal parks. 
8 

Table 1-3. 

Parks of the Southeast Coast Network [Park codes in italics are administered by the nearest non-italicized 

entry above]. 

Park Code Park Significant Natural 

Resources? 

Federal Acres Non-Federal 

Acres 

Total Acres 

Riverine Parks 

 

KEMO Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park Yes 2,880 5 2,884 

CHAT Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Yes 5,462 5,438 10,900 

HOBE Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Yes 2,040 -- 2,040 

OCMU Ocmulgee National Monument Yes 702 -- 702 

CONG Congaree National Park Yes 21,769 4,663 26,432 

MOCR Moores Creek National Battlefield Yes 88 -- 88 

Coastal Parks 

 

CAHA Cape Hatteras National Seashore Yes 34,500 -- 34,500 

 FORA Fort Raleigh National Historic Site No 355 -- 355 

 WRBR Wright Brothers National Memorial No 421 -- 421 

CALO Cape Lookout National Seashore Yes 25,174 3,070 28,243 

FOSU Fort Sumter National Monument Yes 194 <1 195 

 CHPI Charles Pinckney National Historic Site No 28 -- 28 

FOPU Fort Pulaski National Monument Yes 5,365 258 5,623 

FOFR Fort Frederica National Monument Yes 239 2 241 

CUIS Cumberland Island National Seashore Yes 18,849 17,567 36,416 

TIMU Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve Yes 8,417 37,583 46,000 

 FOCA Fort Caroline National Memorial Yes 133 5 138 

CASA Castillo de San Marcos National Monument Yes 20 <1 21 

 FOMA Fort Matanzas National Monument Yes 298 -- 298 

CANA Canaveral National Seashore Yes 57,648 14 57,662 

 Total 184,581 68,605 253,187 
9 

[

[

[

[ [

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

Ocmulgee NM

Congaree NP

Canaveral NS

Moores Creek NB

Fort Pulaski NM

Cape Lookout NS

Fort Raleigh NHS

Fort Matanzas NM

Cape Hatteras NS

Horseshoe 

Bend NMP

Fort Caroline NMEM

Charles Pinckney NHS

Cumberland Island NS

Kennesaw 

Mountain NBP

Wright Brothers NMEM

Chatahoochee 

River NRA

Castillo de San Marcos NM

Fort Sumter NM

Timucaun EHP

Fort Frederica NM

Figure 1-1. Location of parks within the Southeast Coast Network. 

Riverine Parks 

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park (KEMO), a 2,884-acre 

park in the metropolitan Atlanta area, includes the 1,808-foot peak of 

Kennesaw Mountain, Little Kennesaw Mountain and hundreds of acres 

of mixed hardwood/pine forests intermixed with a number of grassy 

fields. Included are more than 16 miles of designated hiking trails that 

attract hundreds of recreational visitors daily. The Park’s location in the 

metropolitan Atlanta area makes it the second-most visited battlefield in 

the National Park System and has earned it a position on the Secretary of 

Interior’s list of twenty-five most threatened parks. 

Largely because of its proximity to Atlanta, major natural resource 

threats exist at KEMO. The development of Cobb County and greater 

metro Atlanta makes the lands within Kennesaw Mountain relatively 

valuable for natural habitats of localized plant and animal communities. 

Cobb County has plans to expand roads and highways that traverse the 

park and pose a potential threat to both cultural and natural resources. 

Kennesaw

Mountain

Little Kennesaw

Mountain

0 3 1.5

Kilometers

Kennesaw Mountain

National Battlefield Park
10 

Air pollution poses a major threat to the Park, which is located in a designated ozone 

nonattainment area. Vegetation in KEMO is considered at high risk of injury from ozone. 

Also, there are minor threats from encroachment of adjacent landowners, exotic plant species, 

and industrial air and water pollution. Since 1993, pine beetle infestations have killed off 

thousands of pine trees throughout the park and the resulting increase in fuels laying on the forest 

floor pose an increased fire risk. Natural succession to hardwood forest is expected. There 

appears to be an increase in the beaver population. As beavers create dams, distribution and 

water quality is altered. The mitigation of encroachments and the removal of exotic plants are 

ongoing programs. A formal water quality monitoring program is ongoing and data indicate an 

extremely high fecal coliform level. 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CHAT) extends for 

48 miles along the Chattahoochee River within the Piedmont Plateau, 

between the city of Atlanta and the Appalachian Mountains further to 

the north. The park contains mesic hardwood and pine uplands, 

scattered cliffs, floodplains, and riparian, aquatic and shoal habitats. 

The park also contains significant cultural resources, for the river 

corridor has attracted humans for thousands of years and the remaining 

features have recorded their passage and story. These natural habitats 

and cultural resources adjacent to, and partly surrounded by, the 

growing greater Atlanta metropolitan area, provide a unique opportunity 

for environmental education and resource-based outreach programs. 

The park’s entire 48-mile length runs along the Brevard Fault Zone, 

which forms the Chattahoochee River channel, one of the oldest river 

channels in the United States. The Brevard Fault is a major 320+ mile 

long geological feature that, in part, forms the dividing line between two 

physiographic provinces, the Appalachian Mountains, and the Piedmont 

Plateau. The steep and rocky Palisades section of the park is generally considered to be the best 

location along the entire Brevard Fault Zone to view and study this major geologic feature. 

The combination of mixed habitat types and the old and stable Chattahoochee River channel 

forms a biological link/ corridor with the Appalachian Mountains, which has resulted in a high 

biodiversity within Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. These diverse habitats 

support numerous rare and protected aquatic and terrestrial species. 

The park constitutes an important outdoor recreation resource to more than 3.7 million people 

located in a major southeastern metropolitan area. The park’s green space and the river 

significantly improve the quality of life by serving as a sanctuary as well as providing a variety 

of outdoor recreation opportunities such as hiking, nature viewing, paddling, boating and fishing. 

The Chattahoochee River is inhabited by 22 species of game fish, including the largest stocked 

trout fishery in Georgia. 

At the upstream terminus of the park is Buford Dam, which is operated by the Corps of 

Engineers. Buford Dam generates electricity and the impoundment, Lake Lanier, provides water 

Atlanta

Lake Sydney

Lanier

C h a t t a h o o c h e e R i v e r

Cherokee Co.

Dekalb Co.

Gwinnett Co.

Forsyth Co.

Fulton Co.

Cobb 

Co.

0 20 10

Kilometers

Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area
11 

to the greater Atlanta metropolitan region. The operation of the dam dramatically alters river 

flows and water temperatures within the park. 

CHAT consists of 15 separate units, however the park is currently acquiring additional land 

which will eventually link many of these units. The lands surrounding the park units, especially 

closer to Atlanta, are experiencing rapid development and urban sprawl. This urbanization of 

adjacent lands has resulted in significant impacts to the river and viewshed, and has taxed the 

region’s sewer utility capacity. As a consequence, heavy rains and associated storm water runoff 

routinely cause sewer spills which flow directly into the Chattahoochee River. Additionally, 

siltation is a consistent problem. Currently there are five permitted commercial sand and gravel 

mining operations within the park. All utilize suction dredging barges along with an upland 

dewatering plant. 

Although there is a high diversity of native plant species, impacts from exotic species are 

extensive and pervasive. 

CHAT runs through or near several counties (including Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Dekalb, and 

Cobb) that are designated nonattainment for the national standard for ozone, a pollutant that 

affects both human health and vegetation. Vegetation in CHAT is considered at high risk for 

injury from ozone. 

Existing baseline data on park resources and impacts are minimal at best. Historically, 

management has focused primarily upon the park’s recreational opportunities. It is only lately 

that the park has begun to address its long overdue natural and cultural resource stewardship 

responsibilities. The park has recently begun the development of a long-term water quality 

monitoring program and is increasing resource staff to address many of the challenges facing 

Chattahoochee River NRA. Because the park contains a rich assemblage of natural and cultural 

resources, and is located so close to a large metropolitan region and institutions of higher 

education, Chattahoochee River NRA provides a great opportunity for resource-based 

environmental educational outdoor lab “facility.” 

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (HOBE) is comprised of 

2,040 acres. The park is situated near the southern end of the Piedmont 

Plateau. It contains low rolling hills, which reach elevations from 600 

feet to 711 feet above sea level. The park not only contains many 

species of plants endemic to the Piedmont region, but also species 

associated with the Southeastern and Southern Coastal Plains. River 

bottomland borders each side of the Tallapoosa River. This land, which 

was extensively cultivated from 1832 until the establishment of the park 

in 1959, is in various stages of ecological succession. 

The land has undergone some minor changes in the intervening 175 

years since the battle. In many places pines have displaced the climax 

hardwoods that existed in 1814. The vegetation has been altered by 

human settlement, logging, and by the introduction of exotic species. 

The timbered lands that once gave way to agricultural crops have now 

given way to natural reforestation or open fields. “Forest type is mesic 

Ta llapo osa R iv er

0 2 1

Kilometers

Horseshoe Bend 

National Military Park
12 

beech-oak-hickory with some loblolly pine. Drier areas and ridge tops are dominated by loblolly 

pine. The understory is relatively open and dominated by sapling elms, blueberries, silver bells, 

muscadines and ferns.” The condition of wildlife species was basically unknown upon 

acquisition of the park. It was found that all wildlife species had been indiscriminately hunted 

and preyed upon by feral dogs and cats until many species barely continued to exist. 

Enforcement of resource laws concerning flora and fauna has allowed a diversity of wildlife 

species to be re-established upon the varied habitats of the park. 

The hydrologic regime of the Tallapoosa River, three and one-half (3 1⁄2) miles of which are 

within the park boundary, is dam-controlled upstream of the Park by Alabama Power Company. 

The release schedule is determined by hydroelectric needs and bears no relationship to natural 

flows, more resembling a “trickle or torrent” that impacts both natural resources and the cultural 

landscape. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently seeking to accelerate reauthorization 

of the dam in order to negotiate a flow regime less detrimental to river ecology. 

Pine forests at HOBE have been impacted heavily in recent years. Southern Pine Beetle 

infestations are growing and rapidly spreading in many areas of the park. In some cases 

infestations are moving toward park boundaries and endangering private lands. A heavy 

accumulation of slash and downed trees due to beetle kills and the aftermath of Hurricane Opal 

have resulted in potentially dangerous fire situations. Ladder fuels, heavy pine needle litter, and 

duff accumulation could substantially increase the difficulty of controlling wildfires. Ladder 

fuels, such as honeysuckle and other vines would assist a hot ground fire into a crowning fire. 

Exotic species have impacted some areas within the park. Invading exotic plants such as 

ailanthus (Altissima), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Japanese 

honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and sandburs (Cenchrus longispinas) 

continue to expand and invade new areas. 

The park is currently going through the General Management Plan (GMP) planning process. In 

this document, the stated purpose of Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area is to “lead 

the preservation and protection of the 48 mile Chattahoochee River corridor from Buford Dam to 

Peachtree Creek, and its associated natural and cultural resources, for the 

benefit and enjoyment of the people.” 

Ocmulgee National Monument (OCMU) sits on the “Fall Line,” the 

transition between the rolling Piedmont and the flat Atlantic Coastal 

Plain. A portion of the monument is within the city limits of Macon, 

GA (shaded region of map). The Ocmulgee River comprises the 

boundary on one side of the monument. 

The natural resources of the park have been heavily impacted by human 

activities, including I-16 and its associated berm, which has essentially 

cut off the river from its floodplain and disrupted the natural flow of the 

area. Despite this, and its proximity to Macon, OCMU has a surprising 

amount of wildlife present. This is probably a result of a corridor, or 

what is known locally as the “Greenway,” connecting the monument to 

other natural areas south of the monument. Numerous bird species are 

M

I-16 acon

Oc mu lg ee Ri v er

Walnut Cr.

Lamar 

Unit

Main Park Unit

Southern RR

0 1 0.5

Kilometers

Ocmulgee National Monument
13 

present in the monument, either feeding or nesting or both. Migratory birds utilize the area as a 

stopover during spring and fall migrations. The endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

feeds here during summer months. Numerous other wildlife live here, including deer, beaver, 

bobcat, alligators, and various reptiles and amphibians. Recreational fishing is allowed, with 

largemouth bass and bream being two common catches. Within the last eight years, coyotes 

have entered the monument. What effect this will have is unknown. Exotic species include 

nutria, fire ants, feral pigs, as well as domestic dogs and cats. Vegetative exotics include privet, 

Japanese honeysuckle, and kudzu. 

The overall lack of knowledge of the natural resources in the monument has become both a 

problem and a frustration. Major changes have occurred, such as a 500-year flood associated 

with Tropical Storm Alberto in 1994, pressure from exotic species, particularly feral pig damage, 

as well as more subtle changes over time. Because there is no baseline data for the monument, 

there has been no way to track these changes or impacts over time. 

Threats affecting the native plants and animals in the monument result mainly from human 

activities, and include exotic species, water quality, air quality, development, and the general 

proximity to the city of Macon. Exotic species are a disruptive influence in the monument. 

Disruptive and invasive species include privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and feral hogs. Feral pigs 

are responsible for a tremendous amount of resource damage in both the main unit and the 

detached Lamar unit. Fire ants are spreading through the park. 

Human development has severely impacted the park. A railroad and I-16 bisect the park; a 

sewage lift station and its associated underground pipes are in the park. A once small stream 

now drains a large part of east Macon, bringing large amounts of trash, pollution, and 

occasionally raw sewage into the park. This has raised questions regarding water quality, 

groundwater quality, and where the pollution goes. The city of Macon and surrounding Bibb 

County, and part of adjacent Monroe County, have been designated nonattainment for the 

national ozone standard. In addition, vegetation in OCMU is considered at high risk of injury 

from ozone. 

Congaree National Park (CONG) is situated immediately adjacent to 

the Congaree and Wateree Rivers in southeast Richland County, South 

Carolina, approximately 20 miles southeast of the capital city of 

Columbia. The park protects towering old-growth trees and diverse plant 

and animal life within the largest contiguous bottomland hardwood 

forest remaining in the United States. Periodic flood waters from the 

adjacent rivers sweep through the bottomland forest in winter and 

spring, carrying the nutrients and sediments that nourish and rejuvenate 

this unique floodplain ecosystem. Nearly 90 species of trees grow 

within the park, with many that are recognized as national and state 

champions for their size. Forested wetlands, oxbow lakes, and slow 

moving creeks and sloughs provide superb habitat for fish, birds, 

reptiles, mammals and other aquatic life. The diversity of flora and 

fauna, tall tree canopy and giant trees, and intact floodplain ecosystem 

earned the park the designation of an International Biosphere Reserve, 

Calhoun Co.

Richland Co.

C o n g a r e e R i v e r

W a t e r e e R i v e r

0 10 5

Kilometers

Congaree National Park
14 

National Natural Landmark, Globally Important Bird Area, and congressionally designated 

Wilderness Area. 

Congaree National Park encompasses a 26,800-acre bottomland hardwood forest in central South 

Carolina. Located 20 miles southeast of Columbia, it borders the northeast side of the Congaree 

River and the west side of the Wateree River. Densely forested, most of the Park is located 

within the river floodplain. A wide variety of forest communities are represented, with dominant 

tree species ranging from upland pines to wetland cypress (Taxodium spp.) and tupelo (Nyssa

spp.). The Congaree River forest environment is characterized by silty clay soils, oxbow lakes, 

swales and sloughs, and meandering creeks. The Congaree and Wateree Rivers are the major 

source of floodwaters, sediment, and nutrients delivered to the Park, although several tributary 

creeks also flow through it. The significance of CONG lies in its: (a) unique old-growth 

bottomland hardwood forest community associated with the swamp-like floodplain, (b) 

remarkably large trees, including loblolly pine, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), tupelo, sweet 

gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American sycamore, cottonwood (Populus spp.), oak (Quercus

spp.), and holly (Ilex spp.) trees; (c) the intact floodplain ecosystem, and (d) high biodiversity. 

Congaree National Park’s mission calls for accomplishing the long-term goal of “preserving, 

protecting, and perpetuating the bottomland hardwood ecosystem in a manner that promotes the 

natural function of the Congaree River floodplain by (a) managing and restoring designated 

wilderness areas and all-inclusive wetlands, so as to minimize disturbances to natural landforms, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat, and (b) conserving the rich and abundant biodiversity within the 

Congaree and Wateree River alluvial floodplains by controlling, where necessary, the adverse 

effects caused by human activities. 

Threats to the health and viability of the surface and ground water in the park include chemical 

runoff from agricultural fields, an Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Site located five 

miles from the park northwest boundary, aquaculture operations on the north boundary 

perimeter, highway treatment residues, and discharges and corporate expansion of two 

neighboring companies: a nuclear fuel production plant and a pulp and paper manufacturer. Also 

upstream from the park is the Teepak Company, a manufacturer of synthetic skins for meat 

products, and the Carolina Eastman Company, a manufacturer of synthetic filament products. 

The Congaree River receives effluent from many smaller manufacturing plants and from sewagetreatment facilities in Columbia and adjacent counties. All of these plants are monitored by the 

State Department of Health and Environmental Control and the State Water Resources 

Commission. Little is known about their operation or impacts, if any, on park resources. Air 

pollution from vehicles, industries, and powerplants also affects CONG. A portion of Richland 

County is designated nonattainment for the national standard for ozone. 

Exotic species and past land use practices also pose threats to park resources. Although efforts 

are underway to control populations within the park, feral hog rooting and herbivory causes 

potentially severe impacts to forest community structure. The historical suppression of fire has 

altered successional processes in parts of the park, while forestry practices have led to the 

creation of species-poor pine plantations in some areas. 

Moores Creek National Battlefield (MOCR) is an 88-acre park located in an area of second 

growth forest interspersed with small farms. Local woodlands are harvested for the pulp 
15 

industry. At present, no significant industrial, commercial, or 

residential developments exist near the park. The topography of the 

region is relatively flat. A short distance within the park, the higher 

land characteristic of the inland Carolina coastal plain descends abruptly 

to the lowlands that comprise the greater portion of the park land, 

reaching to Moores Creek. This freshwater stream, averaging 30 feet in 

width, forms the western boundary of the park. Bordering the park are 

screens of dense second-growth vegetation, while the landscape at the 

center of the development consists of grass-covered meadows and 

slopes with scattered trees and brush. Habitats include: alluvial woods, 

old fields, ditches, sandy xeric woods, lawns, a pond, pinewoods, mixed 

wooded slopes, creek banks, roadside ditches and meadows. 

Several potential threats to MOCR resources have been noted. 

Although the park is fairly isolated, residential development on adjacent 

lands has been increasing in recent years. Past landscape practices at 

the Battlefield have likely impacted several locally rare or state-listed 

plant species. Efforts to restore habitat for these species is currently underway, although longterm monitoring is necessary to fine-tune efforts and ensure their eventual success. Finally, the 

predominant tree species, loblolly pine, is greatly affected by pine bark beetle. Long-term efforts 

are underway to restore the beetle-resistant, native Longleaf pine across much of the Battlefield. 

Coastal Parks 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA), Fort Raleigh National 

Historic Site (FORA), and Wright Brothers National Memorial 

(WRBR) are located within the east coast barrier island system. The 

Seashore contains 35,400 acres of land and 74 miles of virtually 

unspoiled beach. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers Pea 

Island National Wildlife Refuge within the boundary of the seashore. 

The intensely developed town of Nags Head borders the northern end of 

the Seashore and nine other villages border the seashore. Seashore 

marshes contribute heavily to primary estuarine productivity and provide 

habitat for numerous wildlife and aquatic species. Buxton Woods is 

located on the widest portion of the Seashore and is one of the largest 

maritime forests on the east coast. Approximately one-third of the forest, 

about 1,000 acres, lies within Park Service boundaries. Of the rest, about 

800 acres are under state protection. The unique and varied habitats, 

mature broad-leafed evergreen forest and shrub, freshwater marsh, and 

bog support an unusual assemblage of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian 

species. Buxton Woods also overlies, protects, and provides for 

recharge of an important freshwater aquifer. The seashore has recently been designated a 

Globally Important Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy because of the importance of 

the seashore habitats to avian breeding, migration, and wintering. 

The ecological zonation of Cape Hatteras National Seashore is resultant in part on artificial 

alterations dating from the turn of the twentieth century. The most important perturbations were 

(a) early efforts at mosquito control and waterfowl management which involved excavation of 

WRBR

FORA

CAHA

Pamlico Sound

Albemarle Sound

0 50 25

Kilometers

Cape Hatteras Group

M o o r e s C r e e k

To Currie

0 1 0.5

Kilometers

Moores Creek

National Battlefield
16 

drainage ditches and construction of water control structures, and, (b) construction and 

vegetative stabilization of primary dunes along the length of the Seashore. Later changes were 

wrought when road construction included excavation of borrow ponds for road bed material. For 

the most part, these actions ended by the 1970’s, save for localized projects designed to protect 

specific and discrete portions of infrastructure. 

Fort Raleigh NHS is located on the north end of a forested island between the barrier islands and 

the mainland of coastal North Carolina. The site’s 355 acres vary in elevation from sea level to 

20 feet. Over half of Fort Raleigh is heavily forested with the remainder of the area supporting a 

visitor center, administrative and maintenance buildings, residences, the Waterside Theatre 

complex, and maintained open grassed areas. The maturing mixed deciduous and pine forest 

occurs on land that was previously disturbed, having been used for farming, grazing, 

transportation routes, and early settlement activities. Habitats include upland forests dominated 

by pines or a mixture of pine and hardwoods, brackish marsh, and swamp forests dominated by 

hardwoods. Species within the forest canopy include live oak, laurel oak, blackjack oak, 

American holly, dogwood, persimmon, and loblolly pine. 

Wright Brothers NM covers over 421 acres in Kill Devil Hills, NC. The area's wind-blown sand 

flats and hills were the Wright brother's chosen practice field, and in 1903, the site of the first 

human flight. WRBR is situated on a barrier island within a rapidly developing residential and 

commercial community. The site has been transformed from its original relatively barren, 

dynamic state to a stabilized, dune and grass flat region. Grassed areas are vegetated with native 

and introduced grasses. Loblolly pine dominates the forested areas with laurel and live oak being 

the more predominant broad-leafed trees. Evergreen broad-leafed shrubs are interspersed within 

the forested area and between the forested and grassed areas. Much of the site is occupied by a 

visitor center, reconstructed buildings of the period, the monument itself, maintenance and 

residential structures, a paved airstrip, roads, walkways, and parking lots. Only limited 

vegetation and faunal inventories have been conducted at the site. 

Developmental pressures outside the Park and visitor and recreational uses represent the major 

categories of threat to the integrity of natural resources on the CAHA 

Group parks. Adjacent property development has resulted in direct loss 

and fragmentation of habitat upon which numerous park wildlife species 

were partially dependent. Replacement of natural areas with impervious 

surfaces increases storm water runoff with its associated contaminants. 

Two potentially profound adverse impacts associated with adjacent 

development are contamination of ground and surface water by septic 

leachate and drawdown of the aquifer associated with excessive 

groundwater withdrawals. Other threats to natural resources include the 

introduction of exotic plants and animals, off-road vehicle use, and 

dredging of channels adjacent to the park. 

Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO), largely undeveloped and 

accessible only by boat, is made up of three barrier islands covering 56 

miles of the central coast of North Carolina. Most of the seashore 

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

system oriented in a southwest to northeast direction and separated by 

Pamlico Sound

Core Banks

Shackleford Banks

0 50 25

Kilometers

Cape Lookout National Seashore
17 

the infrequently maintained New Drum Inlet. CALO extends into the Atlantic Ocean from its 

southern end, and abandoned Portsmouth Village is located at its northern end. The other barrier 

system within the Seashore, Shackelford Banks, extends westward from Cape Lookout and, 

while smaller (13 km long), is considered ecologically more diverse than Core Banks. 

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

marshes. Shrub thickets border the grassland in many places, and a low maritime forest occupies 

small areas of higher ground, such as Guthries Hammock. The islands are generally about 1 to 2 

meters in elevation and 1 to 2 kilometers in width. For the most part, they are open and treeless. 

Windblown salt spray is carried across the entire barrier. 

The wide berm and low, scattered dunes of Core Banks are characteristic of overwash-influenced 

barrier systems that have not been altered by man-made structures. When storms occur, the 

dunes here offer little resistance to flooding. Another process that has shaped these islands is the 

opening and closing of inlets. Dramatic changes in the position of inlets may take place in the 

period of a few years or even months. Many of the creeks in the marshes along Core Banks have 

probably been inlets in the past. 

Although the physiography of Core Banks is more or less uniform along its length, the areas of 

Portsmouth Village and Cape Lookout are unique. Instead of exhibiting the typical zonation of a 

wide berm, low dunes, grasslands and shrub thickets, and salt marsh, the northern end of 

Portsmouth Island is characterized by vast tidal sand flats (averaging 1 km in width) located 

between the berm and the dunes of a series of marsh-fringed islands. At triangular Cape 

Lookout, continuous dunes similar to those on Shackleford Banks can be found on the southwest 

side, with several small freshwater marshes present in depressions between the dunes. With high 

dunes significantly reducing overwash, thickets have further stabilized the flats of the Cape’s 

interior. A long spit extends from the western tip of Cape Lookout, where a jetty built in the 

early 1900s has encouraged accretion in this direction. 

The dunes at the western end of Shackleford Banks are 10 to 13 meters (34 to 44 ft) above sea 

level and contain the highest elevations on Shackleford. The presence of high dunes on the 

western section may be due to the island’s east-west orientation. Because the island faces the 

prevailing southwest winds rather than being parallel to them, sand is continually blown from the 

accreting beach into the dunes, where it is trapped and stabilized by the dune grass, Uniola. In 

the lee of this wall of rolling dune ridges, there is an impressive maritime forest, as well as 

several fresh and brackish marshes. On the side of the island that faces Back Sound, the beach is 

narrow and, in some places, the scarped bank is eroding away. Unlike most of the Outer Banks, 

the inner shore here is not fringed with salt marsh. 

The western end of Shackleford is an accreting sand spit. Young dunes with Spartina patens and 

Fimbristylis castanea are forming along the edge of the curving berm, while areas of salt marsh 

are developing on the sound side of the spit. The eastern two-thirds of Shackleford Banks 

consists of low dunes, grassland, and salt marsh. In contrast to the western third, it is influenced 

by overwash. This part of the Island is characterized by dunes of less than 3 meters (10 ft) in 

height, open grassland (on overwash terraces), mesic meadows, and salt marsh. Shrub thickets 

occur in a few areas. 
18 

Specific issues of concern to CALO include off-road vehicle use and associated impacts to 

dunes, threatened and endangered species, commercial fishing, military overflights, and nonnative species. 

Fort Sumter National Monument (FOSU) consists of 200 acres of 

land located at the mouth of Charleston harbor and on nearby Sullivan’s 

Island, South Carolina. The park’s two major units are Fort Sumter, site 

of the Civil War’s first engagement, and the somewhat older Fort 

Moultrie. Historic Fort Sumter is influenced dramatically by the 

surrounding natural elements. Of the 198 acres that comprise the park, 

122 acres surrounding the Fort are submerged under the waters of 

Charleston Harbor. The remaining acreage is located on Sullivan’s 

Island and in Charleston. Adjacent to the park, but outside its 

boundaries, are shoals, islands, and marshes important to the Fort 

Sumter scene. Two endangered species, the manatee and the loggerhead 

turtle, migrate through the waters adjacent to the park, but do not live or 

nest within the park itself. 

The 28-acre Charles Pinckney National Historic Site (CHPI) was 

established under Public Law 100-421 and is a relatively new addition to 

the National Park Service. It is a rural vernacular landscape in use from 

1695 until the 1980’s, and was actually a working farm until the 1960’s when nearly 700 acres 

were sold for development. The grounds include three acres of wetlands, eight acres in mixed 

hardwoods and pines, and ten acres of open pasture. The site, which fronts Long Point Road, a 

scenic highway, is surrounded by suburban housing developments. 

A Servicewide issue potentially threatening Fort Sumter is sea level rise. At present, sea level 

rise is approximately 1.3 millimeters per year, but many experts believe this rate may accelerate 

in coming decades. An annual increase in sea level, no matter how small, over a long period of 

time would upset coastal dynamics in the Charleston area and could eventually pose a direct 

threat to Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie. 

Harbor dredging is another major concern. Dredging is necessary in order to maintain 

Charleston as a viable seaport; however, it negatively impacts Fort Sumter’s marine ecosystems 

as well as disturbing the historic viewshed by creating spoil banks on nearby barrier islands. The 

park staff continues to monitor dredging activities within the harbor, working with the Army 

Corps of Engineers and local authorities to mitigate the impact of dredging on the historic scene 

whenever possible. 

Insect infestations present a natural resource management concern. Fire ants, termites, and other 

insects are unsightly to the visitor and can be harmful. As in the case of fire ants, they may bite 

visitors creating painful welts. The park’s approved Integrated Pest Management Plan requires 

revision to incorporate the new facilities of Charles Pinckney NHS, Moores Creek NB and the 

Curatorial Storage Facility. 

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

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

Charles Pinckney 

NHS

Fort Moultrie

Fort Sumter

Charleston

Harbor

Sullivans Is.

0 3 1.5

Kilometers

Fort Sumter National Monument
19 

two islands that were, before human intervention, primarily salt marsh. 

Judging from the composition of existing vegetation, Cockspur Island 

probably supported some coastal hammock forest or woodland. It was 

selected for fortification as early as the seventeen hundreds. In the 

eighteen hundreds, as part of the development of the site for defense, the 

island was modified by the installation of drainage canals and a dike 

system. In latter years, the site was also impacted by the deposition of 

spoil material. The addition of dredge material from the Savannah River 

to Cockspur Island continued until recent times. During the civil war 

period, the vegetation was removed to enhance visibility and kept in 

early successional stages. Since the abandonment of the fort in the late 

eighteen hundreds, a large portion of central Cockspur Island has 

reverted to maritime forest. Currently the upland portions of Cockspur 

(approximately 260 acres) support a mosaic of maritime forest, maritime 

shrub communities, maintained grasslands and successional spoil deposit 

areas. It also includes over 340 acres of tidal shrubland and tidal 

herbaceous marsh. 

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

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

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

and operated until 1933. In 1923, US Highway 80 was constructed, occupying a location across 

the central portion of the island and adjacent the old railroad grade along the eastern section. In 

1994 Chatham County converted the abandoned railroad right-of-way to a multipurpose hiking 

trail. Both the highway and the converted rails-to-trails areas support ruderal habitat for a 

number of coastal plain herbaceous species. Other upland habitat on McQueens Island occurs in 

association with a public fishing and boat ramp on the eastern end of the island and an 

abandoned section of US 80 leading to the Bull River. 

The natural resources at FOPU face a number of threats, primarily related to its proximity to the 

city of Savannah. Heavy industrial development on the Savannah River, as far upstream as the 

Savannah River Site near Aiken, SC, have been known to impact the water quality and 

ecological health in and around the park. Pollutant levels in water, sediment, and invertebrate 

tissue will be analyzed as part of an upcoming study. Shipping traffic and associated dredging 

are contributing to increased shoreline erosion along the north shore of Cockspur Island. Finally, 

Highway 80 between Savannah and Tybee Island is slated for widening in the near future, 

impacting park wetlands adjacent to the existing roadway. The Monument is currently working 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Highways Administration, and the Georgia 

Department of Transportation to develop a mitigation plan that complies with NPS Wetlands 

Policies. 

Fort Frederica National Monument (FOFR) features stately oaks, exceptionally large 

grapevines, and Spanish moss that lend an air of antiquity unequaled on the coast. The 

monument is divided by the Frederica River, one of the primary salt marsh rivers in the 

Brunswick area, with 99 acres of marsh lands at the Frederica site on the west side of the river 

and approximately 137 acres of uplands adjoining the east side of the river. The Bloody Marsh 

Cockspur

Island

McQueens Island

S a v a nna h Ri ve r

B u l l R .

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Fort Pulaski National Monument
20 

site consists of 8 acres of which approximately 5 acres are tidal marsh. 

Approximately 50% of park-owned lands are classified as wetlands. 

Outside of the park, the vegetation is composed primarily of pinehardwood and gum-bay assemblages. Dominant plants include loblolly 

pines, live oaks, water oaks, saw palmetto, cabbage palms, gums, bays, 

magnolias and myrtles. A large variety of under brush including several 

species of ferns and vines is also present. Inside FOFR, clearing and 

possibly selective cultivation has led to a different variety of plants, 

especially trees. These include large live oaks, loblolly pines, pecan, 

magnolia, cedars, sweet gum, and cabbage palm. Large muscadine 

vines, saw palmetto, and small bamboo are also common. Although the 

largest part of the marsh is dominated by smooth cord grass, a number 

of other species are common along the upland boundary. These include 

black rush, giant cord grass, sea ox-eye, marsh elder, salt myrtle, and 

Distichlis. 

Sedimentary deposits composed primarily of sandstone, limestone and clay underlie Frederica. 

Surface deposits of sand are common to the upland area, while the marsh substrata are composed 

of unconsolidated clays containing high organic matter content and sand. In most areas the soils 

are well drained; however, poorly drained soils occur in the northeastern portion of the park. 

The climate of the island area and coastal mainland is hot and humid in the summer and cool and 

wet in the winter with occasional very cold spells. Sub-freezing temperatures are relatively 

common at night from late November into early February. Spring and fall are marked by heavy 

concentration of pest insects. The summer months are characterized by frequent, locally severe, 

thunderstorms with high winds often interrupting commercial electricity. 

Specific threats to the resource include: 

• Water Quality. Deterioration is a concern from industrial contaminants as well as the 

impact of the intensive recreational use of the Frederica River by boaters and fishermen. 

The wave action from watercraft presents possible damage to park wetlands and the 

cultural landscape through erosion by wave action. Several of the nearby industrial plants 

have buried or discharged, legally and otherwise, toxic wastes in the Brunswick, Georgia, 

community. 

• Pest Management. Insect and animal pests at the park present human safety hazards and 

some natural resource concerns in the form of pine beetle and gypsy moth infestations. 

• Coastal Dynamics. Any long-term change in coastal dynamics caused by global climate 

change and associated sea level rise would present a clear threat to the Monument’s natural 

and cultural resources. Frederica’s elevation is three feet above high tide. 

Bloody Marsh

Unit

Main Park Unit

Fr e deric a R i v e r

0 2 1

Kilometers

Fort Frederica National Monument
21 

Cumberland Island National Seashore (CUIS), a 17.5 1⁄2 mile long 

sandy barrier island, is one of the larger and more diverse islands on 

the Atlantic Coast. It totals 36,415 acres, of which 16,850 are estuarine. 

A Spartina grass dominated salt-marsh, oyster mud flats, and six tidal 

creeks provide the habitat for a diverse marine-based fauna. The 

remaining acreage is terrestrial. A live oak-palmetto dominated forest 

backs an extensive dune system. As the elevation of the island rises on 

the northwest, a mixed pine-deciduous forest can be encountered. The 

island is known for nesting loggerhead sea turtles, abundant shore 

birds, undeveloped dune fields, maritime forest ecosystems, and the 

historic structures in five historic districts on the National Register of 

Historic Places. Cumberland Island and its surrounding waters provide 

habitat for at least thirteen federally listed threatened or endangered 

species. 

The National Seashore was established in 1972, to preserve the scenic, 

scientific, and historical values of the largest and most southerly island 

off the coast of Georgia. Cumberland Island is also part of the South Atlantic-Carolinian 

Biosphere Reserve and will be permanently protected in a primitive state. The northern half of 

the island has also been designated a wilderness area. This unspoiled environment, once 

prevalent on all the barrier islands, provides a unique opportunity to experience the flora and 

fauna of a natural coastal ecosystem. 

Many of the resource issues at CUIS stem from either external development or past human uses 

of the island. The southeast Georgia coast is going through profound growth in new, residential 

communities, many of which incorporate marinas. Recreational pressure will in turn increase on 

the island, much of it uncontrolled, and the threat to resources and critical habitat will intensify. 

The dredging and maintenance of the adjacent Intracoastal Waterway and St. Marys Inlet 

complicate the natural processes of sand budgets and tidal flow, which are key components in the 

island’s stability and ecology. Boat wakes might be contributing to erosion on the back-barrier 

(west) side of the island. The nearby urban centers of St. Marys, Fernandina Beach, Brunswick, 

and Jacksonville might contribute to a range of island issues, from air and water quality to light 

pollution. Regional industries, such as commercial fishing and paper mills, also have an impact 

on Cumberland Island’s resources. Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base is located immediately 

across the Cumberland Sound from the park. 

Past development and human use of the island has significantly changed landscapes and 

introduced destructive non-native species. Streams and wetlands were altered historically to 

accommodate agriculture uses. More recently, roads and causeways were constructed which 

now effect the island’s hydrology where they cut across tidal streams, high salt marsh, freshwater 

sloughs, and wetlands. Non-native species were introduced for ornamental and agricultural 

purposes but, introductions have been both intentional and accidental. Their presence is 

significantly degrading the native flora and fauna on the island. Feral hogs present problems in 

virtually every type of Cumberland Island habitat and, although a management program is in 

place and the population decreasing, monitoring and actions must be long term. Feral horses 

also have a serious impact across the island, however; their management has been and will 

continue to be highly complex due to their public popularity. Multiple species of non-native 

Sa t il l a R i ve r

Croo ke d R ive r

St. Mary s R.

St. Marys

C u m berl a n d R ive r C u m be rlan d So u nd

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Cumberland Island National Seashore
22 

plants have established themselves on the island, with several of the most invasive in dense or 

expanding populations. 

Global issues such as sea level rise from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are also 

important resource issues. Changes in the shoreline and biota from flooding of lower elevations 

and changes in coastal dynamics may threaten nesting of threatened species and create 

ecosystem level perturbations. 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (TIMU) and Fort 

Caroline National Memorial (FOCA), situated entirely within Duval 

County and the city limits of Jacksonville, FL, encompasses 

approximately 46,000 acres between the St. Johns and Nassau rivers. 

The southern third of the preserve lies at the mouth of the extensive St. 

Johns River watershed, which includes parts of Duval and several other 

counties for approximately 300 miles to the south. The St. Johns River 

is heavily impacted by agricultural, industrial and urban pollution; 

however, marine tidal waters near its mouth serve to ameliorate 

pollution through dilution and flushing. Water quality is considered 

relatively good in the preserve due to this flushing action. The northern 

two thirds of the preserve lie within the Nassau River drainage basin, a 

small watershed that covers parts of Duval and Nassau counties. The 

Nassau River watershed has not yet experienced the concentrated urban 

and industrial growth found along the St. Johns River; still, portions of 

the watershed exhibit poor water quality. The area surrounding the 

preserve to the west and north is predominantly marsh and low uplands 

utilized for timbering, residential and agricultural uses. 

Several rare, threatened or endangered species are known to use the preserve, including the West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), colonial wood stork (Mycteria americana), least tern 

(Sterna antillarum), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), arctic peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus), and loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Other rare, threatened or endangered 

species are suspected to occur within the preserve, such as the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon 

corais couperi) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus). 

Timucuan and Fort Caroline National Memorial are administered as one park. Fort Caroline NM 

includes approximately 138 acres located along the St. Johns River within the city of 

Jacksonville and Duval County, Florida. Located primarily on a bluff overlooking the river that 

rises to a height of nearly 90 feet, the park consists of mixed species forest with fresh water 

wetlands, preserving an enclave of representative species native to the North Florida-South 

Georgia community. 

Duval is one of the fastest growing counties in Florida. The preserve is located in an area that 

has historically experienced limited development and growth due to lack of easy and quick 

access. Development and recreational use pressures have increased, however, with the opening 

of a six-lane bridge in 1989 and ongoing construction of a major highway linking the bridge to 

the interstate highway system. 

Na s s au R.

St . Joh ns R .

Jacksonville

City of

FOCA

0 10 5

Kilometers

Timucuan Ecological &

Historic Preserve
23 

Throughout both watersheds, many residential homes operate private well and septic systems, 

the failure of which is a presently unquantified source of water pollution. An unknown amount 

of pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizers is transported by stormwater runoff to the marshes of the 

preserve. Contaminated sediments are known to occur in some areas of the preserve, but the 

extent of contamination and the effects of sediments resuspension are not known. This is of 

particular concern as several major dredging projects are proposed in the near future. 

Exotic plants and animals are known to occur within the preserve, but information on species, 

locations and potential threats is lacking. The preserve presently has little information on 

vegetative and aquatic habitats, ecological processes, and current ecological conditions. Related 

to the issue of exotic species is the recent development of a prescriptive fire program, which is 

expected to be instrumental in returning native species to the numerous pine plantations within 

the preserve. 

Castillo de San Marcos (CASA) and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments (FOMA) are located 14 miles south of St. Augustine on 

the northeast Atlantic coast of Florida. Fort Matanzas encompasses of 

a total of 298 acres divided between the southern tip of Anastasia Island 

(108 acres) and the northern end of Rattlesnake Island (190 acres). Both 

are barrier islands separated from the Florida mainland by the Matanzas 

River and the Intracoastal Waterway. 

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument was established to preserve 

the Spanish fortification (Castillo de San Marcos) and associated 

modifications. The masonry fort itself is significant for its military 

architecture. Being made primarily of coquina, it is potentially sensitive 

to changes in regional air quality (such as increased acid rain). 

The Anastasia Island portion of FOMA consists of stabilized beach 

dunes rising as much as 7.6 meters above sea level. Predominant 

habitats in this portion of the park include beaches along both the 

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

secondary dunes further inland, and salt marsh. 

Most of Rattlesnake Island is less than 5 ft above sea level, though it rises to 15 ft at one point on 

its northern end. Much of northern portion of Rattlesnake Island consists of sandy fill pumped in 

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

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

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

cedar, and cabbage palm. 

FOMA has actually increased in size by an estimated 13 acres over the past three decades. This 

continuing growth is evident in the expanding shoal banks inside and outside the Matanzas River 

inlet. Shoals inside currently allow fishermen on Rattlesnake Island to wade into the middle of 

the Matanzas River west of the inlet bridge, while shallow bars outside break Atlantic waves 

before they can roll into the mouth of the Matanzas River. 

CASA

FOMA

Anastasia Is.

Mat anzas

River

Rattlesnake Is.

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Castillo de San Marcos &

Fort Matanzas National Monuments
24 

Moderate threats to sea turtle nests are due to the high level of vehicular traffic on the beach (it is 

legally a state highway), and the threat of human poaching of new nests. Beach mouse habitat, a 

small area (less than 5 acres) is located just behind the first barrier dunes on the beach and is also 

threatened by overwash from extreme weather conditions accelerated by the vehicular traffic. 

The park, in cooperation with the Florida DOT, will be installing two new parking lots and a 

dune crossover trail all just north of the bridge and improvement of the parking area at the beach 

access. This project will help reduce the number of vehicles on the beach and provide a hardened 

interpretive trail that will help keep visitors out of the delicate dune ecosystem. Unfortunately, a 

separate threat also exists from occasional illegal “dune busting” by four-wheel drive vehicles. 

Minor threats include disturbance of a least tern rookery area by vehicles. Also, natural plant 

succession is decreasing the attractiveness of the area as a rookery for the least tern. Foot traffic 

into the dunes is a constant occurrence, creating blow-outs in the dunes, which reduce their 

ability to maintain plant life. The dunes directly protect the fort by reducing erosion of the 

barrier island that shields Fort Matanzas from damaging storms. 

Introduced plants pose another minor threat, competing with native species in several disturbed 

areas of the park. They are beginning to threaten the survival of some species and habitat. 

Exotic animals such as house cats, both feral and free roaming pets, are a direct threat to the 

Anastasia Island beach mouse. House mice and European rats are considered a potential threat 

to the Beach mouse and other indigenous mammals. 

Canaveral National Seashore. Canaveral National Seashore’s 

(CANA) natural resources include a diverse assemblage of wildlife, 

plant communities, geophysical features and natural processes reflecting 

the complexity of the land/lagoon/sea interface of east central Florida. 

Throughout the park, the relationship of land and water is paramount. 

From ephemeral wetlands to Atlantic beaches, the natural processes 

shaping the coastal environment are present in full diversity where 

change is the only constant. 

Unlike many barrier islands, CANA has only a single dune ridge, 

averaging 12 ft in height. For the vast majority of its length the dune is 

quite stable, backed by a dense growth of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) 

and several other species of hardy shrubs and grasses. 

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

island, is the northernmost part of the Indian River Lagoon. Containing 

the most diverse assemblage of aquatic species on the entire Eastern 

Seaboard, this 155-mile long lagoon has been designated as an Estuary of National Significance 

by the Environmental Protection Agency and an Outstanding Florida Water by the State of 

Florida. It contains one of the last significant populations of oysters on the entire Atlantic Coast 

that has not been depleted by over harvesting or pollution. Commercial shell fishing is 

extremely important to the local economy; recreational fishing and shrimping in the lagoon 

support a multimillion-dollar tourist industry. The estuary also acts as an important nursery area 

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

drum and shrimp. 

Mosquito Lagoon

Indian 

River

0 10 20 5

Kilometers

Canaveral National Seashore
25 

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

subtropical plants found nowhere else in the Western Hemisphere. Several temperate species 

extend no farther south than Canaveral, while a number of subtropical species occur no farther 

north. Signs of this unusual mixture include Canaveral’s hammocks, which contain an overstory 

dominated by temperate species and an understory comprised of subtropical plants. Another sign 

is the significant shift in vegetation along the edge of the lagoon from salt marsh cordgrass 

(Spartina alterniflora), which predominates in areas north of Canaveral, to mangrove species 

that predominate to the south. 

Wildlife resources are considerable, ranging from myriad terrestrial and aquatic species 

inhabiting estuarine systems to small endemic populations of mammals living in the dunes. 

Canaveral is second only to Everglades National Park in number of federally protected species 

with 14. These include such species as the highly endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus 

manatus), right whale (Balaena glacialis) and little known Atlantic salt marsh snake (Nerodia 

fasciata taeniata), who’s entire known range consists of a single county in Florida. Canaveral’s 

24 miles of beach provides a critical nesting area for sea turtles, harboring 3,000 to 4,000 nests 

each year. The majority are loggerhead (Caretta caretta), with a smaller number of green 

(Chelonia mydas) and an occasional leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). Mosquito Lagoon 

provides an important nursery area for juvenile sea turtles. 

Boaters are coming into Canaveral National Seashore in increasing numbers due to the growing 

popularity of fly-fishing for redfish. This increases the destruction of seagrass beds, impacts to 

fisheries are unknown and manatees are highly affected. One of the very controversial and 

volatile issues among boaters in Florida is the establishment of slow speed zones to protect the 

West Indian manatee. Canaveral has supplied sighting data and engaged in several discussions 

with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on the proper placement of slow 

speed zones in the vicinity of the park. The park also assisted FDEP with a boating survey to 

determine boating use patterns and areas that warrant speed restrictions. 

Additionally, the park has long been concerned about the impact of commercial harvesting on 

hard clams (Mercenaria spp.) and eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica). As shellfish have 

been depleted along other portions of the Atlantic coast, harvesting pressure has increased 

significantly in Mosquito Lagoon. Currently, the park requires all fishermen commercially 

harvesting shellfish to submit monthly catch logs. The accuracy of these logs is questionable and 

compliance has been poor. 

Canaveral faces a number of complex issues regarding water quality in Mosquito Lagoon. These 

include septic tank, agricultural and industrial effluents, mosquito control activities, dredging of 

the Intracoastal Waterway, impacts of aquaculture, and increased boating activity. While water 

quality in Mosquito Lagoon is quite good overall, septic tank effluent and stormwater runoff 

from adjacent communities are threatening to degrade the lagoon. Currently park waters are 

closed to shellfishing when rainfall exceeds 1.5 inches in a 72-hour period, due to high fecal 

coliform levels. Another of the delicate issues with which Canaveral NS must grapple is 

mosquito control. In the designation of lands for NPS management, both NASA and the State of 

Florida stipulated that Canaveral NS must cooperate with the local mosquito control districts to 

control salt marsh mosquitoes. Canaveral and East Volusia Mosquito Control District have 
26 

tested several measures, including Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) techniques, to 

reduce the use of chemicals and to restore lost salt marsh. 

Canaveral’s most extensive resource management program involves sea turtle nest protection. 

The park documents 3,000 to 4,000 sea turtle nests each year. In the early 1980’s, more than 95 

percent were destroyed by raccoons. In 1984, the park began a nest screening program and has 

reduced depredation to 20-30 percent. In the last three years, depradation has been reduced to as 

low as 5.6, 6.6, and 4.7% respectively. 

Canaveral NS is located in one of the most active lightning strike areas in the country. This, 

combined with the volatile fuels (particularly saw palmetto) and the extremely high fuel loads 

that have been allowed to accumulate, makes wildfire or human-ignited fire a serious threat. In 

addition, a number of vegetative communities and the animals that they support are dependent on 

periodic light to moderate fires. 

Like a number of other parks in the southeast, Canaveral faces a serious threat from the invasion 

of exotic plants, including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Australian pine 

(Casuarina equisetifolia) and century plant (Agave sp.). Brazilian pepper has spread throughout 

virtually all of the disturbed areas of Canaveral. A small number of Melaleuca quinquenervia, a 

species that has severely impacted the Everglades, have been found in MINWR, less than 5 miles 

from the park boundary. 

Exotic animals are also a threat to park resources. The feral hog (Sus scrofa) has become 

established in the southern half of Canaveral NS, particularly in the joint management area, and 

is seriously disrupting native vegetation. A voracious snake eater, it may also be affecting native 

snakes, including the protected eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). Another 

exotic animal that might be impacting the park is the feral cat (Felis catus). During a two-year 

survey to determine the distribution of the southeastern beach mouse within Canaveral NS, no 

mice were captured in the northernmost section of the park (Stiner 1991; Stiner 1992). In 

addition, a number of potentially harmful amphibian and reptile species are expanding their 

ranges into Florida from tropical areas throughout the world. The park is attempting to detect 

these invaders through the long-term herpetofaunal monitoring program established by 

Southeastern Louisiana University in 1992. 

Water Resources of the Southeast Coast Network 

Water Bodies. Eight percent (23/274) of water resources within or adjacent to SECN Parks are 

303(d)-listed waters, with 39% (9/23) of those occurring at CHAT (Figure 1-2; See Appendix 8 

for more details). 303(d)-designated waters (waters designated by States as failing to meet water 

quality standards as defined by Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act) are considered to 

be relevant to park managers if (a) they pass through, enter or are contained within Park 

boundaries as EPA-designated 303(d) waters or (b) they are designated 303(d) waters within the 

same 12- or 14-digit HUC boundaries as each respective Park. Twelve-digit HUC coverages 

were available for AL (i.e., in draft form), FL and GA; 14-digit HUC coverages were available 

for NC and SC. All 303(d) designations are based on (2002) EPA and state listings of impaired 

waters and GIS coverages (http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/downloads.html). 
27 

Various GIS coverages (e.g., National Hydrography Dataset, EPA 303(d) listed waters and 

existing Park narratives were reviewed for all available information regarding documented 

SECN Park water bodies. Special designations of Park waters were also noted (Tables A8-1- 

A8-9). CHPI, FOCA and WRBR have no documented water resources within Park boundaries. 

Water Quality. Despite the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, subsequent 

amendments in 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 

1977 and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977, the chemical, biological and physical integrity of 

the nation’s waters remains threatened (Hermann et al. 1998). Compromised water quality is 

largely the result of management of chemical, biological, and physical discharge/ waste from 

urbanization/ population growth, agricultural, and industrial activities. Adverse effects of 

impeded water quality on biota include altered floral- and faunal- species composition, reduced 

fecundity, low fitness, and bioaccumulation. The Southeastern U.S. is one of the fastest growing 

areas in the nation; consequently, marine and freshwater water quality throughout Southeast 

Region Parks has been impacted (White et al. 1998). Despite the abundance of 303(d)-listed 

waters in the Southeast Region, only eight percent of SECN water resources are 303(d) listed. 

However, most of the SECN parks are downstream from multiple 303(d) listed waters outside 

NPS jurisdiction (Figure 1-2). 

Water quality data in most SECN Parks, and adjacent lands, have been collected by a variety of 

governmental and private entities. Existing data were compiled and summarized by the 

Inventory and Monitoring Program and Water Resources Division of the DOI National Park 

Service (NPS) and Horizon Systems Corporation (HSC) into documents referred to as the 

Horizon Reports (National Park Service 1994a, National Park Service 1994b, National Park 

Service 1994c, National Park Service 1994d, National Park Service 1994e, National Park Service 

1994f, National Park Service 1997, National Park Service 1998a, National Park Service 1998b, 

National Park Service 2001a, National Park Service 2002a, National Park Service 2002b). 

Although the Horizon Reports provide a very thorough summary of baseline water quality data 

in SECN Parks, the data compiled and summarized for this endeavor included data only as 

recently as 1990 and 1992 for FOFR and CAHA, respectively, or 1998 for FOMA, FOPU, and 

FOSU (Table A8-10). As a result, recent trends in water quality are unknown. 

Thoroughness of water quality data varies from park to park, however data are adequate to 

establish trends in waterbodies adjacent to parks, and infer status in parks if data within park 

boundaries are limited, if not the parks themselves. However, gaps in the datasets, in terms of 

evaluations of all significant water resources in each park, do exist (e.g., no water-quality 

sampling has occurred on two freshwater ponds at FOPU that account for 67% of freshwater 

resources at the park) and attempts to rectify these issues will be incorporated into future waterquality sampling designs. Because many agencies, organizations, and individuals have 

contributed to existing long-term water-quality data (in regard to data collection and laboratory 

analyses), estimates of data accuracy, precision, and subsequent reliability are currently 

unknown. 

Results from the Horizon reports were qualitatively summarized in order to determine potential 

“red flags,” or parameters that consistently exceed established water quality criteria, in SECN 

park water resources and assist in determining focal points (i.e., water-quality parameters) for 

future water-quality sampling design (Appendix 8, Table A8-11). Total coliform measurements 
28 

commonly exceeded EPA standards in SECN parks, although fecal coliform, several forms of 

which are naturally occurring, was not consistently differentiated from total coliform. Although 

no other “red flags” are evident in existing Network-wide data, chloride and copper levels 

exceeded EPA standards in several parks, which can cause gastrointestinal irritation and kidney 

and liver damage, respectively, in humans. Current EPA guidelines for select water quality 

parameters are also presented (Tables A8-12 through A8-14). 

[

[

[

[ [

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

Ocmulgee NM

Congaree NP

Canaveral NS

Moores Creek NB

Fort Pulaski NM

Cape Lookout NS

Fort Raleigh NHS

Fort Matanzas NM

Cape Hatteras NS

Horseshoe 

Bend NMP

Fort Caroline NMEM

Charles Pinckney NHS

Cumberland Island NS

Kennesaw 

Mountain NBP

Wright Brothers NMEM

Chatahoochee 

River NRA

Castillo de San Marcos NM

Fort Sumter NM

Timucaun EHP

Fort Frederica NM

Figure 1-2. 303(d) water bodies (displayed in red) upstream or adjacent to SECN parks (2002 data). River 

systems within the region that do not pass through SECN Parks are not displayed. 

Air Resources of the Southeast Coast Network 

None of the Southeast Coast Network parks are within Class I airsheds. However, air quality is 

of concern at several parks within the network due to ozone exposure and atmospheric deposition 

of metals and nutrients (Table 1-4). Three parks within the network (CHAT, KEMO, and 

OCMU) are in areas where vegetation is at a high risk of damage due to ozone exposure 

(National Park Service 2004b). Four parks in the network (CHAT, CONG, KEMO, OCMU) are 

in counties designated nonattainment for the national ozone standard. Park water quality data 

were reviewed for fifteen Southeast Coast Network parks; surface waters at CONG and MOCR 
29 

are extremely sensitive to acidification from atmospheric deposition. Elevated concentrations of 

metals in surface waters indicate that atmospheric deposition of metals might be an issue for half 

of he Southeast Coast Network parks (T. Maniero, Air Resources Division, NPS, written 

communication, 2003). 

Table 1-4. 

Summary of air quality issues in Southeast Coast Network Parks [“Ç”, Increasing; “È”, Decreasing; “NT”, 

No Trend; “Y”, Yes; “N”, No; “●”, Frequently or consistently surpasses air quality thresholds; “○”, surpasses 

or infrequently surpasses air quality thresholds; “-“, either does not surpass air quality thresholds or no data 

are available; “L”, Low; “M”, Medium; “H”, High]. From (National Park Service 2004a) and T. Maniero, written 

communication, 2003). 

 

KEMO 

CHAT 

HOBE 

OCMU 

CONG 

MOCR 

CAHA 

CALO 

FOSU / CHPI 

FOPU 

FOFR 

CUIS 

TIMU / FOCA 

CASA / FOMA 

CANA 

Wet Deposition 

Ammonium Deposition NT NT Ç Ç NT NT Ç

 Concentration Ç NT Ç Ç NT NT Ç

Nitrate Deposition Ç NT NT NT NT Ç

 Concentration Ç NT NT NT NT Ç

Sulfate Deposition È Ç È È È NT 

 Concentration È Ç È È È NT 

Dry Deposition 

Nitrogen Overall dry deposition NT Ç NT NT 

 Percentage of total N that is dry 36 42 37 32 

Sulfur Overall dry deposition È È NT NT 

 Percentage of total S that is dry 41 42 34 36 

Surface Water Chemistry 

Acidification Concern for Park N N N Y Y N N N N N N N N 

Metals Potential aerial deposition Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Nutrients Potential aerial deposition N N N N N N N N N N N N N 

Ozone 

Sum06 Frequency standard surpassed ● ● ● ● ○ ● ● ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ○

W126 Frequency standard surpassed ● ● ● ● ○ ○ ○ ○ - - - - - - - 

Foliar Injury Risk based on conditions H H M H L M M M L L L L L M/L L 

Analysis of SECN Natural Resource Issues 

Monitoring program-related issues of highest importance to parks in the Southeast Coast 

Network fall into seven broad categories: exotic plant management & control, water quality, 

geology & geomorphology, water quantity, fire management, habitat management, and species 

management (Table 1-5). Detailed descriptions of park natural resource issues and relative 

monitoring priorities for each park can be found in Appendix 5 and Appendix 9. 
30 

Table 1-5. 

Matrix of key natural resource issues and ecosystem types of concern within Southeast Coast Network 

Parks. 

Natural Resource Issue 

KEMO 

CHAT 

HOBE 

OCMU 

CONG 

MOCR 

CAHA 

CALO 

FOSU / CHPI 

FOPU 

FOFR 

CUIS 

TIMU / FOCA 

CASA / FOMA 

CANA 

Exotic Plant Management & Control ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Water Quality 

 Lagoonal ●

 Coastal / Estuarine ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

 Riverine ● ● ● ● ● ● 

Geology & Geomorphology 

 Coastal Geomorphology ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

 Stream Bank Erosion & Habitat ● ● ● ● ● ● 

Water Quantity 

 Surface Water ● ● ● ● ● ● 

 Groundwater ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

 Effects of hydrologic modification ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Fire Management ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

High Priority Ecosystems & Habitats 

 Rivers ● ● ● ● ● ● 

 Coastal Dunes ● ● ● ● ●

 Wetlands ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

 Intertidal Zones ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Threatened and Endangered species & 

Species of Management Concern 

 

 Feral Hogs ● ● ● 

 Shorebirds ● ● ● ● ● ●

 Marine Turtles ● ● ● ● ● ●

 Feral Horses ● ● 

Exotic Plant Management and Control. Monitoring objectives related to exotic plant 

management were consistently of high priority across all parks within the Southeast Coast 

Network. Currently only parks within Florida are included in an operation exotic plant 

management program: CANA, TIMU, FOCA, CASA, and FOMA. 

Water Quality. In general, objectives relating to water quality were high across all parks also, 

but the water bodies among the park vary substantially across the Network. 

• Estuarine / Lagoonal. Nine parks within the network contain significant estuarine or 

marine waters: CAHA, CALO, FOSU, FOPU, FOFR, CUIS, TIMU, FOMA, and CANA. 

Mosquito Lagoon at CANA is another significant brackish water body. Water quality in 

these systems is almost entirely driven by upstream or up-shore factors outside National 
31 

Park Service boundaries or jurisdiction, and water quality monitoring is in general 

conducted by the various coastal states. 

• Coastal. Six parks (CAHA, CALO, CUIS, TIMU, FOMA, and CANA) contain significant 

areas with access to marine / ocean waters. In all cases except CANA, NPS jurisdiction 

extends only to mean high tide; CANA’s jurisdiction extends 0.5 mile east of the shore 

line. Threats to coastal water quality include non-point source chemical contaminants 

from up-shore as well as marine debris. 

• Riverine. Six parks within the network contain or are bordered by significant river systems 

ranging from upland to coastal plain drainages: CHAT, KEMO, HOBE, OCMU, CONG, 

and MOCR. With the exception of the rivers contained within CONG, all other parks 

contain limited portions of the watersheds that the rivers drain. Adjacent land use and 

upstream development pressures are consistent threats to water quality among the river 

parks, but the types of land use and development pressures range widely from agriculture / 

animal husbandry operations, to extremely dense urban and suburban landscapes. 

Geology and Geomorphology. Parks within the network are all in highly dynamic coastal or 

riverine ecosystems. Although changes in the landscape are a natural part of the evolution of the 

landscape, the degree to which observed processes can be considered “normal” are largely 

unknown. Coastal barrier islands and river systems are the two predominant systems with high 

rates of geomorphic change. 

• Coastal Geomorphology. All coastal parks are experiencing geomorphic changes either 

through accretion or erosion. Though these processes are natural in barrier island 

ecosystems, the current rates and locations of accretional and erosional zones are likely 

outside natural norms. Non-natural factors that are suspected to influence erosion and 

deposition rates include dredging operations, jetty and pier construction / placement, and 

hardening of shorelines. 

• Stream Bank Erosion. Stream bank erosion and stability is a major concern at CHAT, 

HOBE, KEMO, and OCMU where hydrologic modification resulting from upstream 

watershed development and hydropower facility management has resulted in altered 

riverine flow regimes. 

Water Quantity. Water quantity issues in general are currently of concern, but will likely 

become larger during the next 10-20 years as water demands in the Southeast increase. 

• Surface Water. River systems provide the majority of drinking water for the southeast. 

Major water supply reservoirs are located upstream of HOBE, CHAT, OCMU, and 

CONG, that serve the areas of Montgomery, AL, Atlanta, GA, Macon, GA, and Columbia, 

SC respectively. The amount of fresh water that reaches estuarine systems is likely one of 

the major drivers that influences estuarine and salt marsh ecosystem condition. 

• Groundwater. The Floridan aquifer is the main water supply source for agricultural and 

industrial needs along the southeast coast. The degree to which withdrawals affect park 
32 

resources is not known, but as demand increases, the potential for impacts on park 

ecosystems could increase. 

• Effects of hydrologic modification. In addition to the average amount of water available 

within parks, the timing and distribution of flooding events is also changing due to 

upstream or watershed land use activities. In general flooding frequency of major floods 

has decreased during the last twenty years, and hydropower “peaking” operations have 

introduced a flow regime in riverine ecosystems that is outside expectations in natural 

systems. Multiple other water diversion structures occur in or near parks for agricultural, 

pest control, or transportation purposes. 

Fire Management (effects, risks, and planning). Twelve of the network parks currently have 

or are in the process of developing fire management programs. The activities that will be 

conducted at each park will vary widely from suppression to routine prescribed burning. In all 

cases, climatic data relating to fire risk will be useful for fire management planning and risk 

assessment. Programs implementing prescribed burning would benefit from fire effects 

monitoring. 

High Priority Habitats. The Southeast Coast Network contains multiple habitat types. The 

following four habitats had the most commonality among Network parks, and (in part) are the 

basis for the network’s conceptual ecosystem models presented in Chapter 2. 

• Rivers. In addition to the six parks that contain large rivers, CAHA and CUIS contain 

smaller freshwater systems. 

• Coastal Dunes. Coastal dunes are major habitat features at CAHA, CALO, CUIS, and 

CANA. Future land acquisitions at TIMU might result in the addition of dune habitats 

there as well. Coastal dunes are particularly important due to the fact that (a) they support 

a wide variety of sensitive or protected species, (b) they are fragile, (c) they are particularly 

threatened by visitor uses, and (d) they play a significant role in the overall stability of the 

island. 

• Wetlands. Wetlands within SECN parks vary widely from intermittent interdunal pools to 

riparian floodplains to vast salt marshes. These systems are particularly sensitive to 

changes in water quantity. 

• Intertidal zones. Intertidal zones, provide critical foraging and nesting habitats for many 

sensitive and protected species such as shorebirds and sea turtles. These areas are 

threatened by visitor uses, and predation from both native and non-native species. 

Threatened, Endangered, and other Species of Management Concern. More than twenty 

species were identified for potential monitoring across the Network, though with very few 

exceptions, though the need for network-wide monitoring was small due limited species’ ranges. 

In nearly all cases, floral and faunal differences among parks were large enough that few species’ 

ranges span more than three parks. Exceptions include shorebirds, marine turtles, and multiple 

exotic plant and animal species. The following include species whose distribution occurs across 

six or more parks or whose impacts are large: 
33 

• Feral hogs. Eight parks in the network have current, historic, or potential infestations of 

feral hogs: CAHA, CANA, CASA, CONG, CUIS, FOFR, OCMU, TIMU. Active 

eradication programs are occurring at OCMU, and CUIS. 

• Shorebirds. Plovers, oyster catchers, least terns, and wood storks are of large concern at 

all coastal beach parks. Active monitoring at various intensitieoccurs at CANA, CUIS, 

CAHA, CASA, and CALO, although these efforts are not currently coordinated among the 

parks. 

• Marine turtles. Marine turtles are monitored and protected at seven Network parks 

(CAHA, CALO, CANA, CASA, CUIS, FOPU, and FOSU). These monitoring programs 

are currently coordinated with other state and federal agencies though not with one 

another. In addition to turtle monitoring, other related monitoring needs include predator, 

beach habitat, and light pollution monitoring. 

• Feral horses. Feral horses are present at CUIS, CALO, and CAHA. In addition to the 

need to monitor aspects of horse populations (i.e., demography, disease incidence rates), 

the effects of the horses on other park resources. 

Summary of Existing Monitoring Programs 

At least 140 historical or ongoing monitoring programs are being conducted by various agencies 

within the Network (Table 1-6; Appendix 3). Only 34 of those are being conducted by the NPS. 

However, more than 100 historical and on-going monitoring programs are being conducted in or 

adjacent to Network parks by other State, Federal, or County agencies or one of many NGOs. 

The majority of NPS programs have centered on threatened and endangered species monitoring, 

primarily with reptiles and birds. Non-NPS monitoring programs span a wide variety of 

categories, but nearly a quarter of those programs deal with water resources monitoring. 

Although the breadth of resources being monitored throughout the region is large, most of these 

efforts are not conducted within SECN parks. However, data being collected by other programs 

are close enough in proximity to SECN parks to still be relevant (such as air quality, stream flow, 

and weather data). 

As a general rule, the SECN has attempted to adopt or model its Vital Signs monitoring 

protocols after those in use by other agencies within the region to improve the Network’s ability 

to leverage its efforts. Specific programs with which the SECN is coordinating are discussed in 

Chapter 5 and Appendix 13 (sampling protocols). 
34 

Table 1-6. 

Existing and historical monitoring programs relevant to Southeast Coast Network parks. For a detailed 

description of programs, objectives, and the types of monitoring data being collected, see Appendix 3. 

Category NPS programs Non-NPS programs Total 

Water Resources 1 24 25 

Air Resources 3 5 8 

Climate & Weather 0 5 5 

Ecosystem Processes 1 2 3 

Pest Species 0 3 3 

Exotics – Invertebrates 1 3 4 

Exotics – Vertebrates 1 1 2 

Exotics – Plants 1 4 5 

Forestry 0 4 4 

Geology 1 5 6 

Marine / Estuarine Systems 1 12 13 

Recreational Use 0 2 2 

Threatened & Endangered Species 01

 10 10 

Vegetation 5 7 12 

Vertebrate Disease 0 3 3 

Waste Management 0 1 1 

Wetlands 0 1 1 

Wildlife – Birds 8 8 16 

Wildlife – Fish 0 3 3 

Wildlife – Mammals 4 1 5 

Wildlife – Reptiles & Amphibians 7 2 9 

Total 34 106 140 

1

Several NPS T&E species monitoring programs are included in the “wildlife” categories below
35 

Chapter 2. Conceptual Ecological Models 

Introduction & Approach

Lessons learned from the development of monitoring programs in other programs or agencies 

have demonstrated that every monitoring effort is based on some underlying understanding of 

how the ecosystem in question works. This underlying understanding forms a mental model, 

often not written for others to read and discuss. To ensure a successful monitoring effort, these 

underlying models need to be explicit and available for discussion, evaluation, and refinement 

(Maddox et al. 1999). 

Models are purposeful representations of reality (Starfield et al. 1994). Conceptual models 

provide a mental picture of how something works, with the purpose of communicating that 

explanation to others. Models (of all types) work best when they include only the minimum 

amount of information needed to meet the model’s purpose (Starfield 1997). 

Conceptual models play several useful roles in monitoring program design, including: 

• Formalizing current understanding of the context and scope of the ecological processes 

important in the area of interest. 

• Expanding our consideration across traditional discipline boundaries, fostering integration 

of biotic and abiotic information. 

• Facilitating communication among scientists from different disciplines, between scientists 

and managers, and between managers and the public. 

The key point about conceptual models is their role in communication among people with 

different points of view (Abel et al. 1998). Conceptual models can take a variety of forms—from 

narrative descriptions to schematic diagrams or flowcharts with boxes and arrows. Regardless of 

form, the success of a model depends on its ability to share viewpoints and develop a common 

understanding based on multiple viewpoints. 

Within the National Park Service Inventory & Monitoring program, the development of 

conceptual models has the specific purpose of guiding the process of identifying those Vital 

Signs that will be selected for long-term monitoring. With this purpose, a critical role of the 

conceptual models discussed below is to identify (a) key resources and functions, (b) natural and 

anthropogenic agents of change, and (c) expected ecosystem responses within Southeast Coast 

Network ecosystems. With the drivers of change identified, the types of ecological changes most 

important for park managers to detect can be evaluated. 

Conceptual ecosystem models for the Southeast Coast Network are presented in two sections, 

with increasing levels of detail. In the first section, general models of SECN ecosystems are 

presented that provide the framework for more-detailed system-specific conceptual models. In 

the second section, a set of detailed conceptual models is introduced to describe relationships 

among system drivers, agents of change (both natural and anthropogenic), and park resources. 

Appendix 7 includes further details on key components of each of the ecosystems presented here. 
36 

The Southeast Coast Network General Ecosystem Model 

The Network’s general model (see Figure 2-1) focuses on four broad categories of natural 

System Drivers, five broad categories of Agents of Change, and the resources and management 

that occurs within SECN parks. System Drivers are major external forces that have large-scale 

influences on natural systems. System Drivers can be either natural or anthropogenic and 

include things such as climate, tidal processes, freshwater inputs, and current & historical land 

use that make up the mosaic of conditions in which SECN parks exist. Local Drivers include 

those processes or disturbances inside or adjacent to SECN park units that potentially alter the 

condition of resources within park boundaries. Within each Park’s management sphere of 

influence are both the trust resources, and the management actions undertaken to manage those 

resources. Descriptions of model components that appear in all ecosystems follow below. 

Park Management

Current and 

Historical Land Use

Physical 

Environment

Chemical 

Environment

Biological 

Environment

Erosion and 

Sedimentation Recreation

Climate

Invasive Species Resource 

Management

Freshwater Inputs

Tides, Currents, 

and Wave Action

System Drivers Park Resources and Management Sphere of Influence

Natural 

Disturbance Events

Contaminant Inputs

Hydrologic 

Modification

Dredging and 

Coastal Zone 

Management

Landscape Change

Local Drivers

Figure 2-1. General Ecosystem Model of the Southeast Coast Network. Rectangles indicate predominant 

agents of change; circles represent major components of the ecosystem (detailed in supporting text). Large 

green arrows link agents of change to the entire ecosystem, including biotic, chemical, and physical 

components. The dark blue area includes those agents of change or resources that are currently / actively 

managed by NPS. 

System Drivers 

Climate. Southeastern climates are humid and warm-temperate to subtropical. Major variation 

in climate occurs with change in latitude and elevation. Longitude has a more subtle influence on 

climate than latitude, as a result of maritime influence to the south and east and continental 

influences to the north and west. 

Latitudinal gradients in temperature are steeper in winter than in summer, producing a strong 

geographic pattern in freeze-free periods and cold temperatures. The gradient in average 
37 

minimum January temperature spans 22°C, whereas the gradient in average maximum July 

temperature spans only 4°C (Ruffner 1985, Martin and Boyce 1993). The freeze-free period 

decreases northward, from 365 days in the Florida Keys, which experienced freezing 

temperatures in fewer than half of the years on record, to 180 days in Arkansas and 150 days in 

northern Virginia. The freeze-free period also decreases with elevation, to 110 days at the highest 

elevations in the southern Appalachians. Canadian air masses bring the coldest winter 

temperatures, penetrating the Southeast from the continental interior and generally producing 

decreasing minimum temperatures westward at a given latitude. Annual snowfall shows the same 

steep gradients as cold winter temperatures, increasing from zero in south Florida to over 100 

centimeters northward and to over 200 centimeters in the high mountains. 

Precipitation occurs throughout the year but is generally lowest in fall and highest in summer, 

when convective thunderstorms develop. Thunderstorms in Florida occur an average of 80-130 

days annually; the number of thunderstorms decreases northward, occurring an average of 40-60 

days a year in Kentucky, Virginia, and interior regions. 

Tides, Currents, and Wave Action. Several fundamental processes drive processes in coastal 

ecosystems, including the hydrographic conditions, sediment supply, and a suite of natural 

disturbance factors operating at local, regional, and global scales. Hydrographic conditions 

encompass a combination of physical and hydrologic features, such as the near shore system of 

bars, ridges, and shoals, and the continuous movement of water in the form of currents, waves, 

and tides. Collectively, these features and forces direct and control the movement of sediment 

and water through the near shore system. 

Ultimately, the presence of Beach/Dune habitat depends upon the availability of appropriately 

sized sediments within near shore coastal environments. Finite in supply, especially along the 

mid-Atlantic coast, sediment availability serves as a limiting factor in the landform’s response to 

the forces of wind and waves. Sediment supply is susceptible to human disturbance and 

interruptions. When subject to prolonged changes in sediment supply, landforms may disrupt the 

physical environment and associated biota. 

Freshwater Inputs. Nearly all SECN parks border on or are at the end of major river systems in 

the Southeast. These systems not only drive the ecosystems within parks, but serve as the 

primary drinking water supply for the human population of the Southeast. The amount of water 

entering streams is therefore a factor of both extraction for human use and inputs from 

precipitation. 

From 1950 to 1990, both the population and domestic water use in the United States increased 

steadily. Withdrawals of fresh and salt waters increased to a peak of 1.7 billion cubic meters per 

day in 1980, and by 1990 daily freshwater withdrawals were 1.5 billion cubic meters. Rural use 

of water for households and livestock increased from 1960 to 1990. Irrigation increased from 

1950 to 1980, to a maximum of 570 million cubic meters per day, while per capita water use in 

the United States decreased from 6.8 million cubic meters per day in 1970 to 5.9 million cubic 

meters per day in 1990. Commercial and industrial uses of water, including self-supplied 

industrial use and withdrawals of water for mining, increased to a plateau in 1975-1980 before 

declining by 14%. The estimated use of fresh groundwater—fresh water drawn from below the 

ground—was 130 million cubic meters per day in 1950. Use of groundwater increased to 310 
38 

million cubic meters per day by 1975, decreased during the 1980's to 280 million cubic meters 

per day, and then increased again to 300 million cubic meters per day in 1990. The use of fresh 

surface water peaked in 1980 at 1.1 billion cubic meters per day and declined to 980 million 

cubic meters per day by 1990. Consumptive use—water that is withdrawn from a water source 

and does not eventually return to the water source—of fresh water followed the same patterns as 

withdrawals. The reduction of withdrawals during 1980-1985 reflected conservation but could 

also relate to climate or the economic slowdown (Solley and Pierce 1988, van der Leeden et al. 

van der Leeden et al. 1990, Solley et al. 1993). 

Fresh water is now a limited ecological (physical and biological) and economical resource. The 

trend in the present use of water reflects its limited availability. Krusé (1969) estimated that by 

1965, withdrawals of 1.3 billion cubic meters per day were exceeding the available dependable 

water supply by 13%. The deficit reflected the need for reusing water, the increased use of salt 

water, and the lack of new water development opportunities. 

Current and Historical Land Use. Destructive logging and soil erosion in the Southeast were 

major stimuli to the conservation movement in the early twentieth century; this movement led to 

the creation of national forests, national parks, state parks, research stations, and other protected 

areas. In contrast to the western United States, the Southeast had little public land--less than 

10%--and these areas had to be created by purchase of private lands. Today, public land is 

mostly in the mountains, with less public land in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain (Boyce and 

Martin 1993). 

Data from 1987 show that although 55% of the land was forested then, the trend was downward, 

with a decline of 5% since 1960 (U.S. Forest Service 1988a, Martin and Boyce 1993). The rest 

of the land was used for crop and pasture (31%) and miscellaneous purposes (roads, towns, 

cities, airports; 14%). Urban areas are growing at the fastest rate, but the rate of growth varies by 

region. For example, in North Carolina, urbanization occurred three times faster in the Piedmont 

than in either the mountains or Coastal Plain (see review in Boyce and Martin 1993). Although 

the high total of forested land indicates potential for the survival of biological diversity, these 

forests are largely privately owned; less than 10% of the forested land is in federal ownership 

(U.S. Forest Service 1988b) and the remainder are not managed for biological diversity per se. 

Further, because these lands have almost all been disturbed by logging and agriculture, they have 

already lost communities and species. 

Forestland has been predicted to decline by 15% over the next 50 years (with additional 

forestland converted from natural to plantation forests), agricultural land to decline slightly (with 

a continued shift from small to large farming operations), and urban areas to increase in area (see 

discussion in Boyce and Martin 1993), suggesting that further habitat loss and fragmentation will 

occur near human population centers. We know too little about the survival of biological 

diversity in human-dominated landscapes, but we do know that the biodiversity of these areas 

will generally decrease with habitat fragmentation (Harris 1984). Some human-dominated 

landscapes, however, have the potential to support the diversity of some groups. For example, 

some crop systems support bird diversity (Allen 1995) by cultivating marginal lands, including 

some wetlands. 
39 

Local Drivers 

Natural Disturbance Events. Natural Disturbance events include localized, though potentially 

large, effects on communities through processes including storms, fire, insect outbreaks, and 

desease. The Southeast's frequent thunderstorms provide an ignition source for natural fires. In 

the past, Native Americans and European settlers also burned natural vegetation regularly. 

Regardless of ignition source, fire frequency and intensity have been dominant forces throughout 

the Southeast on all but the wettest and coldest (high mountain) sites. The mid- to late 1900's 

represent a period of reduced fire frequency, size, and intensity, a shift that is a major source of 

change in the region's ecosystems, leading to increases in mesic species (that is, species adapted 

to moister conditions), increased understory stem density, increased woody cover in formerly 

open habitats, and decreases in fire-dependent species and ecosystems. 

Tropical storms are also a major recurrent disturbance, with much of the area experiencing about 

two damaging storms per decade. Between 1871 and 1981, 138 tropical storms affected south 

Florida (Davis and Ogden 1994). Although storm incidence declines from coastlines to the 

interior, tornadoes are more frequent in interior areas, where nearly 10 violent tornadoes per year 

have occurred over the last 100 years (Grazulis 1984, Martin and Boyce 1993). 

The heavy rainfall that accompanies these and less violent storms is an important natural 

disturbance, especially in the Appalachian Mountains, where debris avalanches create open 

habitats in the forested matrix and flash floods scour stream banks and affect stream biota. 

Throughout the Southeast, the natural flooding and erosional dynamics of rivers were and are an 

important natural process for biological diversity; impoundments, changes in the quality and 

quantity of water, draining of bottomlands, and channelization of rivers are major causes of loss 

in the biological diversity dependent on dynamic stream and river systems. 

The dynamics of flooding and meandering rivers are a major natural process in southeastern 

ecosystems. Many plant and animal species are dependent on the natural dynamics of water flow. 

The overall tendency is for human influence to make a dynamic environmental factor less 

variable. Succession favors the species best adapted to the more uniform conditions, and 

diversity decreases. In natural systems, however, extreme hydrological events are an important 

agent in the maintenance of species diversity. 

Fire was and is important to many southeastern ecosystems, including many Coastal Plain and 

south Florida ecosystems, pine-dominated forests of the Coastal Plain and Appalachian 

Highlands, oak and oak-hickory forests, oak savannas, glades, barrens, and prairies. Because 

most natural communities in the Southeast are dependent on fire, more than 50% of the rarest 

plants in the region also possess this dependence. Fire may also explain the occurrence of 

canebrakes, dense stands of the Southeast's only native bamboo, which were frequently 

described by earlier travelers but which have vanished from the landscape except for small 

remnant patches (Noss et al. 1995). Although natural fires were quite important, Native 

Americans and European settlers also set fires frequently. When fire suppression became 

effective in the 1940's, dramatic changes in ecosystem composition and structure began. 

Outbreaks of the native southern pine beetle can not only hasten the succession from pine to 

hardwoods but can also result in high fuel loads. On dry topographic sites and in drought years, 
40 

high-intensity fires can occur because of these fuel loads. Such hot summer fires are critical to 

pine regeneration. 

Disease has long been recognized as one of the potentially limiting factors on wildlife 

populations. Now, the rapid spread of established diseases; the emergence of new diseases in 

humans, domestic animals, and wildlife; and the threats of bioterrorist attacks have attracted 

considerable public attention, as well as generated a call for action. In addition, convincing 

evidence has been presented advocating the usefulness of wildlife as sentinels for public and 

domestic animal health threats. Emerging zoonotic diseases (transmissible between animals and 

humans) have been identified as significant public health threats. 

Hydrologic Modification. Alteration to the hydrological regime is a common disturbance in a 

variety of southeastern ecosystems: bottomland and floodplain forests, mountain bogs, rocky 

stream gorges, longleaf pine savanna, Carolina bays, pocosins, Atlantic white-cedar swamps, 

barrier-island communities, mangrove forests, rivers, streams, caves, lakes, and the Everglades 

mosaic of communities. Hydrological change has altered flood depth, duration, frequency, and 

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

specific cases. 

Hydrological change is caused by sedimentation, construction of dams and other barriers, and 

channelization (Adams and Hackney 1992). Portions of almost all major southeastern rivers have 

been impounded during the last 75 years. For example, a 1974 stream survey in Maryland 

showed that all 14 drainages in 17 tidewater counties had dams (258) or other blockages (89; Lee 

et al. 1984). Other barriers include farm or mill pond dams, weirs, and raised culverts. Dams 

result in changes to water temperature and unpredictable releases of water. Channelization, 

which includes straightening the streambed, smoothing bottom contours, and removing logs, 

obstructions, and plants, alters the rate and timing of water flow (the local water table is lowered, 

resulting in increased flooding downstream), aquatic productivity, microhabitats within the 

channel, and food webs. Sedimentation, blockages, and channelization often occur within one 

river system, leading to decreases in native fishes and other aquatic species, a loss of species 

intolerant of such changes, and increases in tolerant species and nonindigenous species (Crumby 

et al. 1990). 

Dredging and Coastal Zone Management. In coastal systems, anthropogenic activities also 

have the potential to substantively alter sedimentation and erosion processes. Most significant 

are shoreline stabilization activities (e.g. groins; jetties; bulkheads), beach “nourishment” (to 

artificially increase local sediment supply), and dredging activities. Each of these practices has 

the potential to alter existing hydrographic conditions and sediment supply, and influence natural 

patterns of erosion/deposition, overwash, inlet formation, and migration. 

Contaminant Inputs. Pollution is impairing visibility in some of the nation’s parks and other 

protected areas. In 1999, average visibility for the worst days in the East was approximately 15 

miles. In the West, average visibility for the worst days was approximately 50 miles in 1999 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002a). Particulate matter is the major contributor to 

reduced visibility, which can obscure natural vistas. Without the effects of pollution, the natural 

visibility in the U.S. is approximately 47 to 93 miles in the East and 124 to 186 miles in the 

West. The higher relative humidity levels in the East result in lower natural visibility. 
41 

Two of the key pollutants that contribute to the formation of particulate matter—SO2 and NOx—

react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and oxidants to form acid droplets. Rain, snow, fog, 

and other forms of precipitation containing the mixture of sulfuric and nitric acids fall to the 

earth as acid rain (wet deposition). The particles also may be deposited without precipitation, 

known as “dry deposition.” Wet sulfate deposition has decreased substantially—20 to 30 

percent—throughout the Midwest and Northeast, where acid rain has had its greatest impact, 

between the periods 1989-1991 and 1999-2001. During the same period, wet nitrogen deposition 

decreased slightly in some areas of the eastern U.S. but increased in other areas, including those 

with significant agricultural activity (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002b). 

In addition to the six criteria pollutants, the Clean Air Act identifies 188 toxic air pollutants to be 

regulated. Among those pollutants are benzene, found in gasoline; perchloroethylene, emitted 

from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, used as a solvent by a number of 

industries. Often referred to as “air toxics,” these are pollutants that may cause cancer or other 

serious health effects—reproductive effects or birth defects, for example—and may also cause 

adverse ecological effects. 

In recent years, the Clean Water Act has done much to reduce point sources of pollution by 

requiring water treatment. Nonpoint-source pollution and sedimentation are harder to control, 

though. Sedimentation is a serious problem for most aquatic organisms, particularly primary 

producers as well as benthic (bottom-dwelling) macroinvertebrates and fishes that require gravel 

or rock substrates. Medium-sized rivers are particularly vulnerable to alteration of substrate 

composition and texture (Etnier and Starnes 1991). 

Other factors responsible for depletion of aquatic faunas are pollution (including chemical and 

thermal pollution) and introduction of non-indigenous fishes and aquatic plants. Invasive nonindigenous plants that are capable of altering function (for example, hydrology, amount of 

photosynthesis, and food webs) in aquatic systems in the Southeast include parrot feather 

watermilfoil (Myriophyllum aquaticum), Eurasian watermilfoil (M. spicatum), waterthyme 

(Hydrilla verticulata), curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), water hyacinth (Eichhornia 

crassipes), and water chestnut (Trapa natans) (Hotchkiss 1967, Lachner et al. 1970). 

Landscape Change. The Southeast has one of the country's most rapidly growing human 

populations. Population growth was 20% from 1970 to 1980, 13.4% from 1980 to 1990, and an 

estimated 10%-19% for the 1990's (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1994). The continued growth of 

the human population and changes in the way humans interact with the natural landscape present 

a challenge to conservationists concerned with the survival of diversity in this biologically rich 

region. Most SECN parks located in or adjacent to major cities (such as Atlanta, GA, Columbia, 

SC, Jacksonville, FL) or areas undergoing rapid coastal development (such as Saint Mary’s, GA 

and the Outer Banks, NC). 

As the coastal population grows and barriers become urbanized, valuable habitats are being 

destroyed, and associated negative impacts such as waste disposal, pollution, and changes in 

freshwater and fine-grained sediment dispersal are altering entire coastal marine and maritime 

ecosystems (Williams and Johnston 1995). Protecting all remaining undeveloped coastal barriers 

should be a national priority. Some protection occurs through the Coastal Barrier Resources 
42 

System, as well as other local, state, and federal programs, including acquisition, restoration, 

protection, and management programs. 

Park Management Sphere of Influence 

Invasive Species. Invasion by nonindigenous species is one of the most important issues in 

natural resource management and conservation biology today. The ability of nonindigenous 

species to alter population, community, and ecosystem structure and function is well documented 

(Elton 1958, Mooney and Drake 1986, Vitousek et al. 1987, Drake et al. Drake et al. 1989). 

Ecosystem-level changes that alter water, nutrient, and energy cycles; productivity; and biomass 

directly affect human society. Ecosystem-level consequences of invasive nonindigenous species 

have major ecological and economic implications and directly affect human health. Complex 

technology has addressed the cleanup of chemical pollutants and contaminants and has reversed 

some of the damage from physical alteration of the environment. However, little attention has 

been paid—and almost no progress has been made—in addressing the problem of nonindigenous 

species. In the SECN, invasive species of concern include feral hogs, feral cats, and many 

invasive plant speices. 

Erosion & Sedimentation. Within parks, erosion and sedimentation affect natural habitats and 

cultural resources. Erosion within parks is caused by natural processes (cutbanks in rivers or 

storm overwashes on barrier islands) and by anthropogenic means (social trail creation for river 

access). Control or rehabilitation of erosion points within parks is often driven by the need to 

protect cultural resources, regardless of whether the rates of erosion are at or above historical 

norms. 

Nonpoint-source sedimentation is hard to control, though it can be a serious problem for most 

aquatic organisms, particularly primary producers as well as benthic (bottom-dwelling) 

macroinvertebrates and fishes that require gravel or rock substrates. Medium-sized rivers are 

particularly vulnerable to alteration of substrate composition and texture (Etnier and Starnes 

1991). 

Recreation & Visitor Use. Visitor uses of natural resources, though appropriate within the 

Natural Park System, can cause a number of direct and indirect changes within the ecosystem. 

Use of natural areas has increased steadily since 1965 (Cole 1996) and will likely continue as 

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

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

Of great concern within the SECN are the effects of off-road and recreational vehicles. Several 

parks allow access vehicular access (such as Cape Hatteras NS), and are potentially affected by 

increased mortality of sensitive species (sea turtles, ground-nesting shore birds). Also, vehicles 

can potentially cause changes in vegetation stability, and increased soil erodibility (Grantham et 

al. 2001). These impacts are potentially of highest concern in areas with loosely-consolidated 

soils such as coastal dunes. Additional visitor use impacts include degraded air quality 

(associated with vehicle and off-road vehicle use), litter, trampling, poaching, species 

introductions, and social trail creation. Also, visitor use impacts can cause changes in animal 

ranges, particularly large mammals through avoidance behaviors (Papouchis et al. 2001). 

Human-animal interactions might be of high importance in wilderness areas during breeding 
43 

times. Also, trails have been shown to be a vector for dispersion of exotic plant species (Patel 

and Rapport 2000). 

Park Resources 

Park resources within the Southeast Coast Network are very diverse and highly variable from 

park to park and ecosystem to ecosystem. For the purposes of these models, we have split these 

out into Physical, Chemical, and Biological components, but realize that these categories are not 

mutually exclusive. Details on the resources of interest in each of the six primary SECN 

ecosystems are included in the system-specific models that follow. 

System-Specific Models within the Southeast Coast Network 

Six dominant ecosystem types have been identified in the Southeast Coast Network: upland 

forests, riparian / bottomland hardwood forests, rivers & streams, salt marshes & coastal 

wetlands, barrier islands, and estuaries / nearshore marine systems (Figure 2-2). Each park in the 

SECN contains at least two of the described ecosystems (Table 2-1). 

Each ecosystem below includes one or more “layers” of models to explain the key resources, 

stressors, and responses: 

1. Ecosystem-specific generalized models that include the primary biotic and abiotic 

resources, and the relationships of those resources to one another, 

2. Expanded models that include processes (natural and anthropogenic) that drive 

successional shifts among dominant community types, and 

3. Environmental gradients known or suspected to explain trends among the parks within 

the network (or the region). 

Each system is also discussed in both a regional and a network or park-specific context. For 

further explanatory information on components of each model, a literature review on the local 

drivers, system drivers, and park resources included within the models are contained Appendix 7. 
44 

Figure 2-2. The six primary ecosystems within Southeast Coast Network Parks. Arrows indicate how 

processes and resources in each ecosystem relate to other ecosystems within the Network (i.e., processes 

or changes within rivers and streams can potentially drive processes or changes within salt marshes or 

estuarine systems). 
45 

Table 2-1. 

Ecosystems present in each of the SECN parks. 

Upland Forests 

The pinelands of the Coastal Plain once extended from the James River in southeastern Virginia 

to the Trinity River in eastern Texas and covered 24 to 35 million hectares (Frost et al. 1986, 

Stout and Marion 1993). Longleaf pine savanna was the most common community—the trees, 

which were thinly distributed, flat-topped, and had limbless lower trunks, occurred in a sea of 

grasses and diverse wildflowers and carnivorous plants. The historical distribution of pineland 

communities was determined by moisture supply and fire (Frost et al. 1986). Pines were 

dominant in habitats ranging from pine flatwoods and mesic savannas to the longleaf pine-turkey 

oak association in the dry Carolina Sandhills. Longleaf pine was the leading species, with slash 

pine increasing southward. Both species are now outnumbered by loblolly pine because of fire 

suppression, conversion to farmland, and commercial timber production (Ware et al. 1993). 

The most widespread of the pineland communities, the longleaf pine savanna, occurred widely 

on the moisture gradient from wet areas and mesic savannas to the dry sandhills and turkey oak 

associations. The vast, parklike longleaf pine savanna had an herbaceous layer dominated by 

wiregrass in the southeastern states and by bluestems in Louisiana and eastern Texas. At small 

scales (1-100 square meters), this herb layer is one of the most diverse in the world; 40 to 75 

species of vascular plants have been reported for a single 1-square-meter quadrat and 130 for a 

0.1-hectare plot (Clewell 1989). Today, only 14% of the expansive longleaf pine forest remains, 

with just 3% surviving as old-growth habitat, a loss comparable with or exceeding that of many 

of the other unique communities in North America (Noss 1989). The dry longleaf pine-turkey 

oak stands of the sandhills are the most poorly protected areas of this endangered ecosystem 

(Stout and Marion 1993). 

 Upland Forests Bottomland 

Hardwoods 

Rivers 

and 

Streams 

Salt Marshes

and 

Coastal Wetlands

Estuaries and 

Nearshore 

Marine 

Barrier Islands 

KEMO X X X 

CHAT X X X 

HOBE X X X 

OCMU X X X 

CONG X X X 

MOCR X X X 

CAHA X X X 

CALO X X X 

FOSU X X 

FOPU X X X 

FOFR X X 

CUIS X X X X 

TIMU/FOCA X X X 

CASA/FOMA X X X X 

CANA X X X X 
46 

Species that inhabit longleaf pinelands exhibit a high incidence of rarity and endemism. The 

longleaf pine-wire-grass community includes 191 species of rare plants. Pine communities on the 

Atlantic Coastal Plain are more diverse and contain a greater number of rare plants. The 

southeastern pineland community harbors large numbers of federally listed species: 18 plants, 4 

reptiles, 4 birds, and 1 mammal, as well as 100 candidates for federal listing (Noss et al. 1995). 

In addition, the pinelands serve as a major corridor for a large number of migratory birds that 

winter in the West Indies and South America (Stout and Marion 1993), and they support 170 

species of reptiles and amphibians (Dodd, Jr. 1995b). High percentages of these reptile and 

amphibian species are imperiled (endangered, threatened, or declining): 22% of the salamanders, 

15% of the frogs, 34% of the turtles, 31% of the lizards, and 19% of the snakes fall in this 

category (Dodd, Jr. 1995a). 

Lightning fires, occurring at about 1- to 3-year intervals throughout the area, were carried over 

large areas by wire-grass and pine duff and were stopped only by excessive moisture or abrupt 

changes in topography. Historically, 10%-30% of the southeastern pinelands burned each year 

(Ferry et al. 1995); these frequent fires reduced litter accumulation and invasion by competing 

woody species. Pine seedlings and many of the grasses and forbs present in longleaf pine 

communities are shade-intolerant, and many require bare mineral soil and reduced competition 

for germination and early growth. Longleaf pine has several adaptations to minimize fire injury 

and a large annual needle cast that provides good fuel for future fires (Stout and Marion 1993). 

The reduction of litter accumulation is essential for the survival of small, rare herbaceous species 

such as the unique Venus flytrap. 

By the time European explorers and settlers arrived in this region, Native Americans had already 

been augmenting the natural lightning-caused fire regime with annual burning. Set in fall and 

winter, these fires were used to drive game and improve browse. Early settlers also used fire in 

winter to improve forage for their livestock, which roamed freely in the forested land. 

The longleaf pine forest remained largely intact until the mid-seventeenth century, when the 

Naval stores industry (that is, products such as turpentine or pitch, originally used to caulk the 

seams of wooden ships) started to develop in Virginia and then reached its full development in 

North Carolina in the mid-eighteenth century. Demand then turned to timberland, and despite 

warnings from late nineteenth-century foresters concerned with regeneration, much of the oldgrowth forest was cut by the 1920's (Ware et al. 1993). 

With much of the timberland being converted to agriculture and much of the wiregrass 

understory disturbed and fragmented by logging roads and fields, the era of unrestricted ground 

fires ended. In the absence of fire, other species of pines and woody plants invaded, shading out 

the regenerating longleaf pine and the sun-loving herbaceous layer. The introduction of livestock 

also contributed to the end of regeneration by longleaf pine; the nonresinous, carbohydrate-rich 

meristems of longleaf pine seedlings became favorite livestock forage. In the mesic regions 

along the coast, extensive areas of longleaf pine were cut, drained, and converted to commercial 

pine plantations. Finally, the initiation of government-sponsored fire suppression in the 1920's 

completed the demise of fire-maintained longleaf pinelands in all but a few locations. By 1946 

the range of longleaf pinelands had decreased to one-sixth of their former extent, and today only 

14% of the original total remains (Frost et al. 1986). 
47 

Much of the remaining 2 million hectares of longleaf pine are fragmented and located near 

developed areas. Winter burning can actually promote woody invasion of the wiregrass 

understories, but summer burning (the natural fire regime) is considered hazardous near human 

property. Prescribed burning relies on firebreaks and roads, which further fragment the 

herbaceous understory and alter local hydrology (Noss 1989). Even though some rare native 

species respond to other types of disturbance, fire is the most universally important disturbance 

(Hardin and White 1989). 

Of the animals dependent on longleaf pinelands, the best known is the red-cockaded 

woodpecker, a federally listed species unique for its use of live old-growth or mature secondgrowth pine trees for cavity excavation (Costa and Walker 1995). The red-cockaded woodpecker 

is the prime cavity builder in an environment largely free of snags and natural cavities. This 

species has declined with the loss of longleaf pine habitat; however, intensive management has 

stabilized several populations (Costa and Walker 1995). Bachman's sparrow, federally listed as 

threatened, nests in the wire-grass tussocks. The fox squirrel is dependent on the longleaf pine 

for forage in late summer (Ware et al. 1993). The gopher tortoise, a species whose populations 

have declined by 80% in the past 100 years (Auffenberg and Franz 1982), is a keystone species 

in longleaf pine savannahs--more than 300 species of invertebrates and 65 species of vertebrates 

use burrows dug by gopher tortoises, the only species that creates this microhabitat (Dodd, Jr. 

1995a). Recent regional trends are not available for this species. A study in Florida showed that 

gopher tortoise populations had increased on one study site, decreased on another, and remained 

stable on three others (data from 1987 to 1988 compared with 1978 to 1979; Mccoy and 

Mushinsky 1992). 

Pineland and Upland Forests in the SECN. In the SECN, nearly all parks have upland forest 

communities, though those community types vary widely across the Network. Natural systems 

within the network are marked by high levels of plant diversity, and more often than not 

historical dependence on fire as significant landscape-level drivers of ecosystem function. The 

elimination of natural burning processes, combined with a long history of agriculture and 

silviculture has resulted in forests (regionally) that are highly modified in nature (Figure 2-3). 

The current status of upland forested ecosystems is largely driven by climatic drivers, and 

external processes linked to often rapidly changing landscape dynamics. Successful 

management of these lands and interpretation of monitoring data collected from them must be 

performed in the context not only of current, but historical land use practices (grazing, burning, 

etc.). The cumulative effects of these off-site drivers results in large influxes of invasive species 

(plant and animal) that interact with native communities (Figure 2-4). 
48 

SP SPHW

LLSP

LL

LLHW

SPLL HWLL

LONGLEAF 

PINE

SAND PINE HARDWOOD

Fire 

Excitation

Fire 

Inhibition

HW

Figure 2-3. Relationship among plant community types as a function of historic fire regime within longleaf 

pine ecosystems. [SP – Sand Pine; LL – Longleaf Pine; HW - Hardwood]. From Peterson et al. 1998. 

Park Management

Current and 

Historical Land Use

Physical 

Environment

Chemical 

Environment

Biological 

Environment

Erosion and 

Sedimentation

Recreation

Trampling

Social Trail Creation

Climate

Invasive Species

Resource 

Management

Exotic Species Control

Fire Management

Freshwater Inputs

System Drivers Park Resources and Management Sphere of Influence

Natural 

Disturbance Events Wildfire

Extreme Weather

Disease & Insect Outbreaks

Contaminant Inputs

Atmospheric Deposition

Hydrologic 

Modification Groundwater Extraction

Landscape Change Urbanization

Suburbamization

Local Drivers

Figure 2-4. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in upland forests of Southeast Coast Network Parks. 

Rectangles indicate predominant system drivers and agents of change; circles represent major components 

of the ecosystem (detailed in supporting text). Large green arrows link agents of change to the entire 

ecosystem, including biotic, chemical, and physical components. The dark blue area includes those agents 

of change or resources that are currently / actively managed by NPS. 
49 

Bottomland Hardwoods 

The Southeast contains 36% of all wetlands and 65% of the forested wetlands of the 

conterminous United States, even though it makes up only 16% of this area (Keeland et al. 

1995). Noss et al. (1995) estimated that 78% of southeastern wetlands were lost between 

settlement and 1980. 

The forested wetlands of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont and the continental interior include 

bottomland hardwood forests and deepwater alluvial swamps (Sharitz and Mitsch 1993); twelve 

major forest types have been recognized. The vegetation of these forests varies in composition 

and structure according to flooding duration (Larson et al. 1981). 

Harris (1989) listed characteristics of these ecosystems that are beneficial to wildlife: hard mast 

production and a phenology (that is, periodic biological phenomena, such as flowering and 

breeding, in relation to climate) that is not synchronous with surrounding upland communities, 

frequent cavity trees, high abundance and biomass of invertebrate wildlife, and a linear 

distribution throughout 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. Bottomland forests were and are very important to many birds in the Southeast, and the 

extinction of one species, the Carolina parakeet, and the extirpation of another, the ivory-billed 

woodpecker, are partially the result of fragmentation of this habitat. 

Southern floodplain forests may have the largest remaining area of any riparian habitat in the 

United States (Klopatek et al. 1979, Keeland et al. 1995). Estimates of extent vary widely, 

however, from 6,600,000 hectares (Klopatek et al. 1979) to 13,000,000 hectares (Abernathy and 

Turner 1987). This areal extent is decreasing (0.51% per year from 1954 to 1974; Harris and 

Gosselink 1990), with a total loss of about 63% (Klopatek et al. 1979) to 78% (Noss et al. 1995). 

These forests have been converted to farmland, industrial parks, and urban areas. Surviving 

stands are influenced by levee construction, channelization, agricultural runoff, cattle grazing, 

timber extraction, and invasions of nonindigenous species. Restoration has been attempted, with 

65,000 hectares of bottomland forest replanted since 1985, but it is too early to tell if these 

efforts will be successful (Keeland et al. 1995). 

Species and population losses accompany these trends in habitat loss. For example, in Louisiana, 

Burdick et al. (1989) showed that the number of forest bird species was 15% lower and the 

number of individual birds 33% lower on transects with 26% forest cover compared with those 

areas that had 46% forest cover. 

Bottomland Hardwoods in the SECN. Bottomland hardwood forests are one of the dominant 

riparian ecosystem types in the United States (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993); Congaree National 

Park contains the largest contiguous tract of old-growth bottomland floodplain forest in the 

nation. These wetlands represent a transition zone between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 

Ecosystem processes and distributions of both plant and animals are driven at least in part by 

gradients of flooding frequency, duration and timing (Figure 2-5). Like upland forest 

communities, bottomland hardwood and riparian forests within network parks are influenced by 

exotic invasive species, historical land use, and (to a lesser extent) visitor uses. However, SECN 
50 

bottomland hardwood forests and riparian zones within the network are much more sensitive to 

landscape dynamics within their watersheds that alter hydrology or water quality. 

Park Management

Current and 

Historical Land Use

Physical 

Environment

Chemical 

Environment

Biological 

Environment

Erosion and 

Sedimentation

Cutbank Erosion

Recreation

Climate

Precipitation

Invasive Species Plant Species

Feral Hogs

Resource 

Management

Fire Management

Invasive Species Control

Freshwater Inputs Streams & Rivers

System Drivers Park Resources and Management Sphere of Influence

Natural 

Disturbance Events Floods

Contaminant Inputs

Atmospheric Deposition

Hydrologic 

Modification

Hydroelectric Facilities

Groundwater Withdrawl

Landscape Change

Local Drivers

Figure 2-5. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in bottomland hardwood forests of Southeast Coast 

Network Parks. Rectangles indicate predominant agents of change; circles represent major components of 

the ecosystem (detailed in supporting text). Large green arrows link agents of change to the entire 

ecosystem, including biotic, chemical, and physical components. The dark blue area includes those agents 

of change or resources that are currently / actively managed by NPS. 

Rivers and Streams 

Isphording and Fitzpatrick (1992) described the Southeast's rivers and streams as an evolutionary 

laboratory. Thirty major river systems drain to the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean. Long 

isolation of these waters has produced high species richness and local endemism. Continental 

high points in diversity occur in fishes, salamanders, aquatic insects, crayfishes, mollusks, and 

freshwater snails (Wallace et al. 1992, Isphording and Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1992, Bogan et al. 1995). 

Taxonomic revision is ongoing in these groups, and new species are still being discovered. 

Systematic and genetic relatedness among the species has been used to describe biogeographic 

provinces and evolutionary histories (for example, Sheldon 1988). Six broad geographical 

provinces were based on several animal groups (fishes, mollusks, and crayfishes): the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain, the eastern Gulf Coastal Plain, the southern Appalachians, peninsular Florida, the 

Great River (Ohio-Mississippi) systems, and the trans-Mississippi region (Isphording and 

Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1992). The faunas of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the eastern Gulf Coastal 

Plain had their origins in different parts of the southern highlands. The southern Appalachians 

have a high degree of endemism in isolated headwater streams. SECN parks contain systems 

within four physiographic provinces. 

Only 20% of the nation's freshwater communities are protected by federal laws, and of these, 

only 10% are east of the Mississippi (Benke 1990). Despite having the highest diversity of fish 
51 

species in the United States (McAllister et al. 1986), the rivers and streams of the Southeast are 

little understood and only minimally protected. Lotic species (those that live in moving water), 

especially those of higher elevations, are most seriously affected, as their specialization to clear, 

fast-moving streams renders them unable to adapt to conditions caused by dredging or 

impoundment (Hackney and Adams 1992). 

River systems in the Southeast generally follow trends as described in Vannote et al.’s (1980) 

River Continuum Concept. This model describes linkages between streams, floodplains, and the 

watersheds that they drain along a longitudinal gradient from the headwaters to the sea (Figure 

2-6). The River Continuum Concept maintains that biological, physical, and chemical properties 

and functions of river systems and their associated floodplains follow a general pattern from their 

headwaters to their mouths due to changes along gradients such as elevation, geomorphology, 

amount of water, and the amount of light. 

Figure 2-6. General ecosystem model for river and stream systems within the Southeast Coast Network. 

Modified from Vannote et al. (1980). 
52 

Rivers and Streams in the Southeast Coast Network. Southeast Coast Network parks contain 

significant riverine resources within three distinct zones along the river continuum—CHAT and 

KEMO are located in the Piedmont province, HOBE and OCMU are on the fall line, and MOCR 

and COSW are located within the coastal plain (Figure 2-7). Coastal parks within the network 

also contain smaller isolated systems. Elevation, in meters

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

KEMO

CHAT

HOBE

OCMU

CONG

MOCR

Piedmont

Coastal Plain

Inland Near Shore

Fall Line (Atlantic & Gulf)

Figure 2-7. Location of the six river parks within the Southeast Coast Network along an elevation gradient. 

River systems within the network span two physiographic provinces (Piedmont and Coastal Plain) within the 

region as well as the transition zone between those provinces. 

SECN stream systems have been altered by human activities, including impoundment, 

channelization, lowering of water tables, increased runoff, acid mine drainage, air and water 

pollution, sedimentation, recreation, and introduced species (including mussels, fishes, and 

aquatic plants) (Figure 2-8). Many examples of effects on stream biota can be cited (Hackney 

and Adams 1992)—nearly all major stream systems have been channelized or dammed (Adams 

and Hackney 1992). In the Southeast, 144 major reservoirs have been built (Soballe et al. 1992), 

and one-third of all Florida rivers have impoundments. The closing of the Norris Dam on the 

Clinch River in Tennessee in 1936 caused a loss of 45 mussel species below the dam within 4 

months (Soballe et al. 1992). The creation of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Canal is allowing 

mixing of formerly isolated native biota; Sheldon (1988) predicted this mixing will result in 

species loss through competition and interspecific hybridization. Between 1930 and 1971, 2,017 

square kilometers were surface-mined in the Appalachian Highlands, leading to acidification of 

nearby streams and reductions in aquatic species diversity and biomass (Mulholland and Lenat 

1992). Water hyacinth, a nonindigenous plant first introduced to New Orleans in 1884, had 

become a problem locally by 1890 and covered 80,000 hectares in Florida by 1975 (Crisman 

1992). Major hydropower facilities are located upstream of three of the six river parks in the 

network (CONG, HOBE, CHAT). 

Southeast Coast Network streams and rivers are in a modified to highly modified state due to a 

combination of river regulation and rapid changes in land use that have resulted in extreme 

changes in water quality, habitat quality (through sedimentation) and aquatic community 

structure (Figure 2-8). Southeastern streams that were once dominated by coarse woody debris 

and gravel-bottom substrates have seen those substrates either cleared or buried, and many 
53 

sensitive species (such as mussels) have been extirpated as a result. Although natural 

disturbances cause local or system-wide modifications to one or more of these components, these 

variations are considered to be a part of the natural state. Key processes that drive the natural 

system to one or more of the modified states include flow restriction and redirection, water 

withdrawal, species introductions, erosion (Figure 2-8). 

Park Management

Current and 

Historical Land Use

Physical 

Environment

Chemical 

Environment

Biological 

Environment

Erosion and 

Sedimentation Recreation

Climate

Precipitation

Invasive Species

Freshwater Inputs

System Drivers Park Resources and Management Sphere of Influence

Natural 

Disturbance Events Flooding

Contaminant Inputs

Incoming Water Quality

Hydrologic 

Modification

Hydroelectric Facility 

Operations

Water Consumption

Landscape Change Dredging

Local Drivers

Figure 2-8. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in rivers and streams of Southeast Coast Network 

Parks. Rectangles indicate predominant agents of change; circles represent major components of the 

ecosystem (detailed in supporting text). Large green arrows link agents of change to the entire ecosystem, 

including biotic, chemical, and physical components. The dark blue area includes those agents of change or 

resources that are currently / actively managed by NPS. 

Salt Marshes and Coastal Wetlands 

The Southeast region is characterized by vast expanses of coastal marshland, large beds of 

seagrasses, and some of the most highly productive fisheries in the country. On a global scale, a 

positive relationship has long been recognized between the extent of coastal wetlands and fishery 

landings (Turner 1977). On a smaller scale, investigations of animal distributions within 

estuaries have documented high densities of juvenile fishes, shrimps, and crabs in seagrass and 

marsh habitats compared with sites lacking bottom vegetation (Zimmerman and Minello 1984, 

Hoss and Thayer 1993, Peterson and Turner 1994). These patterns indicate that wetlands provide 

important nursery functions. Indeed, other research has shown that wetland habitats provide 

young fishery species with both an abundant source of food to support rapid growth and also 

protective cover to reduce mortality from predators (Boesch and Turner 1984, Kenworthy et al. 

1988, Minello et al. 1989, Minello and Zimmerman 1991). 

The linkages between wetlands and fishery productivity, however, can be complex. For example, 

the importance of marsh availability has only been fully recognized within the last decade. 

Availability of coastal marshes to fishery organisms is determined by tidal flooding patterns, the 
54 

amount of marsh-water edge, and the extent of connections between interior marsh and the sea. 

Within the Southeast, low-elevation marshes in the northern Gulf of Mexico are flooded almost 

continually during some seasons and are extensively fragmented, providing maximum access for 

young fishery organisms. In contrast, marshes along the South Atlantic coast have relatively little 

marsh-water edge and appear to be infrequently flooded. The density of fishery species using the 

marsh surface also varies between these areas; densities in the Gulf of Mexico marshes are 

generally an order of magnitude greater than those on the Atlantic coast (Rozas 1993). 

Researchers now believe that these differences in wetland availability and use are at least 

partially responsible for the higher landings of estuarine-dependent species in the Gulf of Mexico 

compared with the South Atlantic. 

One major function of wetlands is to provide food for fishery species, and there is evidence that 

this function also varies regionally. Historically, salt marshes were thought to contribute mainly 

to detrital food webs by outwelling plant debris into downstream estuaries (Nixon 1980). Such 

an indirect use of marsh plant production is consistent with the high elevations and large tidal 

regimes characteristic of Atlantic coast marshes. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, however, direct 

use of the marsh surface appears more common and is fostered by low marsh elevations and 

extensive flooding with small tidal regimes. If organisms have access to the marsh surface, 

primary producers such as benthic and epiphytic algae, along with abundant small consumers, 

provide plenty of the high-quality food necessary for young fishery species. Thus, the relative 

importance of different trophic pathways is probably controlled by wetland availability (McIvor 

and Rozas 1996). 

Overlying and perhaps overshadowing these concepts of relative wetland value are the extensive 

rates of coastal marsh loss occurring in the Southeast, mainly in the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

Because of the linkages between wetlands and fishery production, we might expect dramatic 

declines in estuarine-dependent fisheries as marsh habitats are lost. However, over the last 20 to 

30 years, productivity and landings of three dominant fishery species (brown shrimp, white 

shrimp, and menhaden) in the northern Gulf of Mexico have increased (Klima et al. 1990, Smith 

1991). In contrast, production of these species did not increase on the Atlantic coast where 

wetland loss was low compared with the Gulf of Mexico. We are left with a paradox—increased 

production of fishery species appears correlated with the degradation of their habitat. The 

explanation may lie in understanding the process of wetland degradation. Wetland loss in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico is mainly caused by coastal submergence, canal dredging, levee 

construction, and erosion (Rozas and Reed 1993, Turner 1997). Concurrently, marsh flooding 

increases, fragmentation and habitat edge increase, zones of saline and brackish wetland expand, 

and connections with the sea are shortened. These processes increase the availability and value 

of the remaining marsh and may be supporting short-term increases in fishery production 

(Zimmerman et al. 1991, Rozas 1995). If this hypothesis is true, enhanced levels of fishery 

productivity in the Gulf of Mexico are temporary. Continued wetland loss will overcome any 

benefits of habitat degradation and result in future declines in fishery production dependent on 

these coastal wetlands. 

The salt marsh ecosystem is extremely diverse, including plant, animal, and microbe 

communities of the marsh and plankton, invertebrates and fish in the tidal creeks, and estuaries 

(discussed below). In general, plant communities follow a predictable zonation, which is largely 

driven by salinity and latitude. Ecosystem functions of salt marshes include the following: 
55 

• Primary productivity is generally high, 

• Detrital production is both high and important for fish nurseries and linked estuarine 

systems, 

• Detrital decomposition is the major pathway for energy flow within salt marshes 

• Salt marshes can be either a source or a sink for nutrients. 

Salt Marshes and Coastal Wetlands in the SECN. Wetlands within SECN parks vary widely 

from intermittent interdunal pools to riparian floodplains to vast salt marshes. These systems are 

particularly sensitive to changes in water quantity. TIMU is the “type” location for Spartina salt 

marshes in the Southeast. Within network parks, these areas are threatened by visitor uses, 

commercial and recreational fishing and ecosystem drivers from inland and upstream areas 

(Figure 2-9). The long-term stability of salt marsh ecosystems will likely be increasingly driven 

by those inland and upstream processes such as water use, landscape dynamics, and their 

cumulative effects on incoming water quality and quantity (Figure 2-9).

Park Management

Current and 

Historical Land Use

Physical 

Environment

Chemical 

Environment

Biological 

Environment

Erosion and 

Sedimentation

Recreation Fisheries

Climate

Precipitation

Invasive Species Resource 

Management

Freshwater Inputs

Incoming Stream Flow

Groundwater Withdrawal

Tides, Currents, 

and Wave Action

System Drivers Park Resources and Management Sphere of Influence

Natural 

Disturbance Events Storms

Contaminant Inputs

Atmospheric Deposition

Incoming Water Quality

Dredging and 

Coastal Zone 

Management Dredging

Landscape Change

Local Drivers

Figure 2-9. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in salt marshes and coastal wetlands of Southeast 

Coast Network Parks. Rectangles indicate predominant agents of change; circles represent major 

components of the ecosystem (detailed in supporting text). Large green arrows link agents of change to the 

entire ecosystem, including biotic, chemical, and physical components. The dark blue area includes those 

agents of change or resources that are currently / actively managed by NPS. 

Estuaries and Nearshore Marine Systems 

Most fishery species within the Southeast shelf ecosystem spend part of their life cycle in 

estuaries, where there appears to be an important linkage between coastal wetlands and fishery 

productivity. Existing data show that the overall condition of the U.S. coastal waters as fair to 

poor, varying from region to region and that 44% of estuarine areas in the U.S. are impaired for 
56 

human use or aquatic life use (Environmental Protection Agency 2004a). To determine the 

overall condition of the Nation's estuaries, EPA measured seven coastal condition indicators, 

including water clarity, dissolved oxygen, sediments, benthos, fish contamination, coastal 

wetlands loss, and eutrophication. These indicators were rated in estuaries in each region of the 

country (northeastern, southeastern, Gulf of Mexico, west coast, and Great Lakes regions). The 

condition of each resource was rated as good, fair, or poor. The indicators were combined to 

describe the overall coastal condition for each of the regions (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 2001). 

The northeastern estuaries, Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes are in fair to poor ecological 

condition, while southeastern and west coast estuaries are in fair ecological condition. Water 

clarity is good in west coast and northeastern estuaries, but fair in the Gulf of Mexico, 

southeastern estuaries, and the Great Lakes. Dissolved oxygen conditions are generally good and 

sediment contaminant conditions are generally poor throughout the estuaries and Great Lakes of 

the United States. Eutrophication in coastal waters is increasing throughout much of the United 

States and results in poor eutrophic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico, west coast and northeastern 

estuaries and in fair to good conditions in the remaining estuaries of the continental United 

States. 

Living resources are in fair condition in estuaries throughout the United States, although small 

changes in water quality could cause this condition to worsen and result in a poor rating. Living 

resources in the Great Lakes, northeastern estuaries, Gulf of Mexico and the west coast are 

currently in poor condition. Contaminant concentrations in fish tissues are low throughout the 

estuarine waters of the United States with exceptions in selected northeastern estuaries, Gulf of 

Mexico estuaries and the Great Lakes. Fish consumption advisories exist throughout the Gulf of 

Mexico and northeastern coastal areas, although these advisories largely pertain to offshore 

species (e.g., king mackerel). 

State assessments of water quality presented in the EPA's National Water Quality Inventory

Report largely agree with the water quality and ecological assessment of the Nation's estuaries in 

the National Coastal Condition Report (Environmental Protection Agency 2004b). States 

determine water quality conditions by comparing available water quality data to their state water 

quality standards. If a body of water does not fully support its designated use, such as recreation 

and swimming, drinking water source, or aquatic life habitat, then it is considered impaired. In 

1998, states reported that 44% of estuaries and 12% of coastal shoreline in the United States 

(excluding Alaska) were impaired by some form of pollution or habitat degradation. 

Estuarine and nearshore marine systems represent a biological continuum from riverine and salt 

marsh systems out to the sea (Livingston 1990). Most parks within the network (even within the 

coastal parks) do not have jurisdiction within estuarine or marine systems. However, many 

resources within park boundaries rely on estuarine or nearshore marine systems for part of their 

life cycle. 

Estuarine and Nearshore Marine Systems in the SECN. The Southeast Coast Network 

contains seven parks with significant portions of estuarine and nearshore marine systems either 

within or adjacent to their boundaries (CAHA, CALO, FOSU, FOPU, CUIS, TIMU, and 

CANA). Estuarine systems are sensitive to changes in hydrology; particularly those that can 
57 

affect salinity levels. The major anthropogenic agents of ecosystem change in estuarine and 

nearshore marine systems include coastal zone management (dredging, beach renourishment, and 

shoreline stabilization projects), fisheries, changing landscape dynamics, and hydrological 

modifications resulting from both upstream river regulation and groundwater extraction (Figure 

2-10). Potential changes to the ecosystem include modified hydrology (flushing), modified 

disturbance regimes (flooding frequency), modified habitats (a combination of changes in sand / 

sediment budgets and water quality), and resultant shifts in community structures or 

distributions. 

Park Management

Current and 

Historical Land Use

Physical 

Environment

Chemical 

Environment

Biological 

Environment

Erosion and 

Sedimentation

Recreation Fisheries (Commercial Also)

Climate

Precipitation

Invasive Species Resource 

Management

Freshwater Inputs

Tides, Currents, 

and Wave Action

System Drivers Park Resources and Management Sphere of Influence

Natural 

Disturbance Events Storms

Contaminant Inputs Watershed Runoff

Atmospheric Deposition

Dredging and 

Coastal Zone 

Management

Landscape Change

Local Drivers

Figure 2-10. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in estuaries and nearshore marine systems of 

Southeast Coast Network Parks. Rectangles indicate predominant agents of change; circles represent major 

components of the ecosystem (detailed in supporting text). Large green arrows link agents of change to the 

entire ecosystem, including biotic, chemical, and physical components. The dark blue area includes those 

agents of change or resources that are currently or actively managed by NPS. 

Barrier Islands 

The Southeast supports over 200 individual barrier islands with a total area of over 610,000 

hectares (Bellis and Keough 1995). The ecosystems of these islands are diverse and dynamic, a 

product of regional climate, geomorphology, local sediment deposition, and the forces of ocean 

currents, tides, wind, salt spray, erosion, and violent ocean storms (Bellis 1992, Stalter and 

Odum 1993, Bellis and Keough 1995). The islands are grouped into five geographical categories: 

the mid-Atlantic region, extending from New Jersey to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; the Sea 

Islands, bordering the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia; the Florida Atlantic; the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico coast; and the Louisiana-Texas Gulf of Mexico coast (Stalter and Odum 1993). 

Human activities have only had a major effect on the barrier islands in the past 50 years. 

Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century settlements were small, scattered, and difficult to reach. Most 
58 

activities were confined to forestry, livestock grazing, and subsistence agriculture, except in the 

Georgia and South Carolina Sea Islands, where cotton and rice plantations were widespread. The 

construction of bridges and causeways and the improvement of transportation in the early part of 

the 20th century brought new opportunities for recreation, tourism, and second-home 

development. Development has meant the construction of jetties and sea walls, filling and 

draining of marshes, and extensive dune stabilization and beach nourishment programs, all of 

which obstruct the natural fluctuations of the barrier island communities. Despite limited fresh 

water and the constant threat of storm damage, development continues at an accelerating pace 

(Stalter and Odum 1993). Barrier island development in the Southeast has increased more than 

300% in the past 50 years, and coastal Florida's development proceeds at a rate nearly twice that 

of the entire Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts combined (Johnson and Barbour 1990). 

Although there are stretches of protected barrier island beaches and dunes and intact salt- and 

freshwater marshes, close to half of the area of these communities is estimated to have already 

been lost (Noss et al. 1995). 

Experience with severe storm damage on coastal structures has modified development activities 

to some extent. Today, setback requirements in effect in many areas prohibit the destruction of 

the foredunes and reduce effects on beach areas. Existing structures, however, still require 

protection from beach migration, as well as regular, costly, beach nourishment projects (Johnson 

and Barbour 1990). About one-third of the barrier islands lining the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

coasts have been protected by being set aside as parks, wildlife management areas, and national 

seashores (Stalter and Odum 1993). Areas that are open for development, however, are largely at 

risk for continued severe habitat degradation and other environmental losses. Most of the 

Atlantic coast of Florida is unprotected and very little natural coastline remains. 

Maritime communities have decreased in aerial extent since settlement, but the magnitude is 

known only for local areas. For example, coastal wetlands around Tampa Bay have decreased by 

44% (Johnston et al. 1995). From 1950 to the present, the area of coastal wetlands along the Gulf 

of Mexico decreased by 20%-35% (Johnston et al. 1995); the largest losses were in Louisiana, 

where coastal impoundments flooded wetlands. In general, freshwater wetlands have decreased 

to a much greater extent than estuarine wetlands. In 1982 the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

restricted the use of federal funds for development of barrier islands. An extensive monitoring 

system has shown that the area of undeveloped barrier islands has been stable since that law was 

passed (Williams and Johnston 1995). Within SECN parks, changes in plant community types 

have been driven by a history of ditching and draining, conversion of lands for silviculture, and 

extensive grazing (Figures 2-11 through 2-13). 

Development, of course, has many effects. Beach traffic disturbs nesting birds and sea turtles, 

compacts the soil, and disrupts dune-building activities. Jetties, sea walls, inlet stabilization, and 

artificial dunes disrupt normal overwash activities, altering normal dune development and 

increasing erosion in some areas and sand deposition in others. Development within the foredune 

zone and forest clearing destroy natural protective barriers to salt spray and wind damage. 

Pollution of marshes, estuaries, and creeks is a common result of inputs of treated and untreated 

sewage, fertilizer runoff from developments such as golf courses, and numerous contaminants 

from marinas, fish-processing plants, highways, and small industries (Stalter and Odum 1993). 

Finally, fragmentation of vegetation interferes with natural migration patterns. 
59 

Figure 2-11. Successional relationships of plant communities on barrier islands. Modified from Hillestad et 

al. (1975). 
60 

Figure 2-12. Relationship of the natural plant communities and historical land use practices on barrier 

islands. From Hillestad et al. (1975). 
61 

Park Management

Current and 

Historical Land Use

Physical 

Environment

Chemical 

Environment

Biological 

Environment

Erosion and 

Sedimentation

Grazing & Tramping

Rooting

Recreation

Climate

Precipitation

Invasive Species Horses

Cats

Dogs

Hogs

Resource 

Management

Fire Management

Shoreline Management

Exotic Species Control

Freshwater Inputs Precipitation

Tides, Currents, 

and Wave Action

System Drivers Park Resources and Management Sphere of Influence

Natural 

Disturbance Events Storms

Contaminant Inputs

Atmospheric Deposition

Dredging and 

Coastal Zone 

Management

Landscape Change

Local Drivers

Figure 2-13. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics in barrier islands of Southeast Coast Network Parks. 

Rectangles indicate predominant agents of change; circles represent major components of the ecosystem 

(detailed in supporting text). Large green arrows link agents of change to the entire ecosystem, including 

biotic, chemical, and physical components. The dark blue area includes those agents of change or 

resources that are currently / actively managed by NPS. 

Bellis and Keough (1995) estimated that 39,000 hectares of maritime forest occurred in North 

Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, the three states with the best inventories. This represents an 

unknown fraction of the original extent of these forests. About half of the remaining forests are 

unprotected and likely to be developed within the next decade (Bellis and Keough 1995). The 

degree of human disturbance and changes within the small forest fragments that remain (for 

example, edge effect and the fact that fragments may not be large enough to support a population 

big enough to convey long-term persistence) produce declines in the numbers and species of 

many animals (Gaddy and Kohlsaat 1987, Bellis and Keough 1995). 

Several investigators noted the inadequacy of existing data for detection of trends. Bellis and 

Keough (1995) suggested the need for a complete survey and assessment of maritime forests. 

Besides effects of development and nonindigenous species, maritime communities will probably 

be influenced by sea-level rise and drawdown of freshwater supplies (Bellis and Keough 1995). 

Daniels et al. (1993) modeled the influence of sea-level rise on endangered species in South 

Carolina and showed that 52% of the regionally endangered species were found within 3 meters 

of current mean sea level and that several scenarios of sea-level rise would drastically reduce the 

habitat for these species. 

Large numbers of migratory and nesting bird species are found on barrier islands (Stalter and 

Odum 1993); for example, 350 species have been recorded on barrier islands in North Carolina 

alone (Parnell et al. 1992). Coastal marshes are critical to overwintering populations of many 
62 

waterbirds. In addition, migration routes of many raptor species include southeastern barrier 

islands. Neotropical migrants use the islands as a point of departure and arrival in their travels to 

and from their winter habitats in the tropics (Stalter and Odum 1993). 

Many birds have been negatively affected by development and human encroachment. Species 

that nest in bare sand can be disturbed by pedestrian and off-road vehicle traffic and by the 

construction of artificial dunes. Harrington (1995) reported that for 27 species of eastern 

shorebirds, 12 had stable populations, 1 was increasing, and 14 were decreasing. Surveys 

initiated off the North Carolina coast in the early 1970's tracked the fluctuations in nesting bird 

populations (Parnell et al. 1992). Eight species were increasing strongly (brown pelican, cattle 

egret, white ibis, glossy ibis, laughing gull, herring gull, royal tern, and Sandwich tern), three 

were increasing (yellow-crowned night-heron, great black-backed gull, and caspian tern), four 

were declining (gull-billed tern, common tern, least tern, and black skimmer), and seven were 

presumed stable. Some of the species have even shifted locations; Parnell et al. (1992) suggested 

that cutting of coastal swamps during the last 50 years resulted in movement to the estuaries. 

Further, creation of new habitat from dredged material may have caused populations to shift 

from one estuary to another. 

Stalter and Odum (1993) listed nine endangered species of birds that are wholly or partially 

dependent on habitat on southeastern barrier islands: whooping crane, Eskimo curlew, bald 

eagle, Arctic peregrine falcon, eastern brown pelican, Cape Sable seaside sparrow, Bachman's 

warbler, Kirtland's warbler, and red-cockaded woodpecker. These species use the barrier islands 

in a variety of ways: nesting (five species), migration (four species), wintering (five species), 

feeding (seven species), and resting-roosting (seven species). Stalter and Odum (1993) attributed 

population losses in these species to development (direct loss of nesting, resting, and foraging 

habitat), dredging and filling of marshlands (loss of community structure and composition used 

by the birds), pollution, and direct disturbance on recreational beaches. 

Five species of sea turtles are found in the open ocean and coastal waters of the Southeast, and 

all nest on open beaches: the green sea turtle (status: endangered/threatened; U.S. Department of 

Commerce 1994a), the hawksbill (endangered), Kemp's ridley (endangered), the leatherback 

(endangered), and the loggerhead (threatened). Sea turtles are difficult to census in open waters 

and, because of the concentration of female turtles nesting on the beach strand and the apparent 

faithfulness of their return to specific beaches, the number of nesting females is considered the 

single best indicator of population trends (Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation 1990a). The 

Kemp's ridley nests annually, but the other species nest less regularly. Long-term data sets (that 

is, over a decade of observations) are essential to detecting trends (Committee on Sea Turtle 

Conservation 1990b). The dependence of sea turtle species on the narrow beach strand also 

makes them vulnerable to a host of human-caused problems, including beach development and 

recreation, artificial lighting (which disorients hatchlings), and increases in nest predators such as 

raccoons. Recently, federal law has mandated that shrimp trawlers use turtle exclusion devices, 

which should decrease mortality in a critical life stage for reproduction (Committee on Sea 

Turtle Conservation 1990c). 

Population estimates are available for only two of the five species of sea turtles (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 1994b): 20,000-28,000 loggerheads and 400-500 green sea turtles nest 

in the United States. Although the number of nesting loggerheads has declined by 3% annually at 
63 

a site in Georgia and by 26% during the 1980's at a site in South Carolina, it has increased at 

several sites in Florida (Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation 1990d, Dodd, Jr. 1995a). 

Summed across the Southeast, loggerheads increased from 1982 to 1990 and decreased from 

1990 to 1993 (Dodd, Jr. 1995a), although the recent decline has been relatively mild, leaving the 

species at higher levels than in the early 1980's. A recent review concluded that the overall status 

of loggerhead population size was stable (U.S. Department of Commerce 1994c). This study also 

concluded that there was inadequate data to report an overall trend in green sea turtle 

populations, but numbers at one Florida site had increased from 1971 to 1989, and the species is 

presumed to be recovering. The green sea turtle was drastically reduced by fishing (it was served 

in turtle soup) during the early 1900's. 

At one study site in Mexico, Kemp's ridley is presumed to have declined sharply from 1947 to 

1990, to 1% of original levels (Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation 1990e). Data collected at 

that site from 1977 to 1990 suggested a continued but much less drastic downward trend. Very 

few hawksbills and leatherbacks nest in the United States, and data are inadequate for precise 

statements of trends of these species, although expert opinion holds that the hawksbill is 

declining (U.S. Department of Commerce 1994d). 

SECN Barrier Islands. Coastal dunes and barrier island ecosystems are major features at 

CAHA, CALO, CUIS, and CANA. Future land acquisitions at TIMU might result in the 

addition of dune habitats there as well. Coastal dunes are particularly important due to the fact 

that (a) they support a wide variety of sensitive or protected species, (b) they are fragile, (c) they 

are particularly threatened by visitor uses, and (d) they play a significant role in the overall 

stability of the island. 

Within Network parks, the primary drivers of ecosystem change include invasive species (plant 

and animal), visitor uses, shoreline erosion (Figure 2-13). Many of these drivers are influenced 

by one or more factors outside of park boundaries linked to on-shore or upland landscape 

dynamics, regional climatic drivers and current and historical fire / forest management practices. 

Overgrazing by exotic animals is also a problem on barrier islands, not only because of a large 

white-tailed deer population but also because of the large numbers of feral animals introduced to 

the islands, including horses, cattle, goats, pigs, and sheep (Stalter and Odum 1993). Eradication 

of some of the larger feral species has been successful on some islands, but other introduced 

animals, especially feral dogs and cats, negatively affect small mammal populations. Other 

introduced species include European rats and nutria (Stalter and Odum 1993). Two parks within 

the network (CUIS and CALO) have managed feral horse populations that are significant drivers 

physical, biological, and chemical components of barrier island processes. 

Common Elements 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Several resources of interest are common to multiple ecosystems within the network. Although 

discussed in greater detail in Appendix 7, the following are of importance to the network because 

of their selection of Vital Signs (next chapter). 
64 

Reptiles and amphibians are present in virtually all natural habitats in the Southeast. All the turtle 

species nest on land, some aquatic turtles and snakes hibernate on land, and dozens of species of 

southeastern frogs and salamanders are terrestrial as adults but require wetlands for breeding and 

development of young. Also, terrestrial corridors among aquatic habitats are essential for reptile 

and amphibian dispersal during unfavorable periods such as drought. 

The Southeast has the highest regional total (130 species) of amphibians in the United States 

(Echternacht and Harris 1993), including 38 species of frogs and toads (12 of these are endemic 

to the Southeast) and 92 species of salamanders (45 of which are endemic to the Southeast). The 

southern Appalachians are a world center of diversity for salamanders and have 68 species of a 

unique group of lungless salamanders that evolved in this region of well-oxygenated streams and 

high rainfall. The Southeast has six species of large, fully aquatic salamanders and the Coastal 

Plain has 32 species of frogs and toads, of which 11 are endemic. 

There are 52 species of snakes in the Southeast, of which 11 are endemic (Conant and Collins 

1991, Echternacht and Harris 1993). Of the 91 species of lizards native to the United States, 21 

occur in the Southeast, and 6 of these are endemic. The Southeast has 36 species of turtles, 13 of 

which are endemic; the Coastal Plain possesses North America's highest diversity in this group. 

One of the two greatest concentrations of freshwater turtle species in the world (the other is in 

Asia) is in the Mobile River basin (Iverson 1992, Lydeard and Mayden 1995). 

The greatest threat to reptiles and amphibians comes from habitat loss and changes in water 

quality. Numerous examples can be given of population declines in individual wetlands as a 

consequence of human activities. Drainage and destruction of temporary ponds have resulted in 

the reduction of striped newts in Georgia (Dodd, Jr. 1995a), the extirpation of the flatwoods 

salamander from a portion of its range, and apparent declines of gopher frogs in Alabama and 

Mississippi (Dodd, Jr. 1995a). 

Species that are adapted to terrestrial habitats have also suffered. Of the 242 native reptiles and 

amphibians in the Southeast, 170 (74 amphibians, 96 reptiles) are native to longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystems (Dodd, Jr. 1995a). The near loss of this natural community, through timbering, 

development, and fire suppression, has had a significant, though largely unquantified, effect on 

reptiles and amphibians. 

Highway deaths also deplete the numbers of many species of reptiles and amphibians that travel 

overland. A two-meter long indigo snake, for example, does not move fast enough to safely get 

across today's highways. 

Some ecologists have reported declines in amphibian populations and related these to specific 

threats, such as acid rain, destruction of the ozone layer, global warming, or other forms of 

nonpoint pollution (Blaustein 1994). It is unclear if any of these factors are responsible for 

amphibian declines in some regions (Pechmann et al. 1991, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994), but 

habitat destruction is the primary threat to most species of reptiles and amphibians in this country 

and probably in most countries in the world today. Timber harvest, for example, dramatically 

reduces amphibian populations in the southern Appalachians (Petranka et al. 1993). Habitat 

destruction may take more subtle forms, though, and what may appear to be protected and 

pristine habitat may actually be experiencing degradation because of changes in hydrology, 
65 

pollution, herbicide and pesticide runoff, the introduction of competitive nonindigenous species, 

the introduction of disease organisms, or the loss of important breeding sites such as temporary 

ponds (Blaustein 1994, Dodd, Jr. 1995b). 

Insufficient knowledge of the distribution and ecology of native reptiles and amphibians is a 

major shortcoming in any national effort to detect change and avoid loss in this group. An 

example of the difficulty that ecologists face in confirming the presence of herpetofauna is 

apparent from studies by investigators at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and from 

studies by other investigators on the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. This site is the 

largest tract of land (750 square kilometers) in North America with high herpetofaunal species 

diversity and a long-term record of intensive ecological research and survey. Since the 1950's, 

herpetologists have collected data on more than a million individual reptile and amphibian 

specimens representing more than 100 species (Gibbons and Semlitsch 1991). Nonetheless, 

despite intensive surveys, the presence of new species has been verified on the Savannah River 

Site at a rate of more than five species per decade. 

Birds 

The Southeast originally had 237 native species of birds, none of which were strictly endemic to 

the region (Echternacht and Harris 1993). Three species are nearly restricted to the Southeast: 

Bachman's warbler (which may be the rarest vertebrate in the region), Swainson's warbler, and 

the brown-headed nuthatch. Twenty-six percent of the total (61 species) is associated with water. 

Of these, 19 are large wading bird species, a group for which the Southeast has the continent's 

highest total. The greatest species richness of birds occurs in the coastal wetlands. Thirty-one 

species (13.4%) are restricted to the high mountains. Echternacht and Harris (1993) estimated 

that there are 17 established nonindigenous bird species in the Southeast, but they warned that 

the number may be an underestimate, considering that other species have been released in the 

area. 

Land clearing and hunting were responsible for the extinction of two bird species in the 

Southeast: the passenger pigeon (last reported in the wild in 1899) and the Carolina parakeet (last 

reported in the wild in 1913). Passenger pigeons were hunted for their market value whereas 

Carolina parakeets, birds of old wetland forests, were hunted to protect fruit crops. 

Three species have been extirpated from the Southeast: ivory-billed woodpecker (last seen in the 

1950's and thought to persist in Cuba), which was dependent on large-cavity trees in extensive 

and old riparian forests; and the Zenaida dove and the Key West quail-dove, which were rare 

Caribbean species restricted to Florida-- the reason for their extirpation is not known 

(Echternacht and Harris 1993). An additional subspecies, the dusky seaside sparrow, became 

extinct because of poor fire management of its marsh habitat in coastal northern Florida. 

Fourteen species and subspecies of birds are federally listed, of which 12 are Coastal Plain 

species: crested caracara, Mississippi sandhill crane, Florida scrub-jay, brown pelican, piping 

plover, Cape Sable seaside sparrow, dusky seaside sparrow (now extinct), wood stork, least tern, 

Bachman's warbler, ivory-billed woodpecker, and red-cockaded woodpecker. The fate of these 

species is largely tied to habitat loss, including reductions in longleaf pine savannah, Florida 

scrub, wetlands, and beach communities. Two other federally listed species, the bald eagle and 
66 

the peregrine falcon, were formerly wide-ranging species sensitive to pesticides; these species 

are now recovering. 

The Southeast is important not only for summer breeding populations but also for birds that 

winter in the Southeast and for birds that migrate farther distances (for example, to the Caribbean 

and Central and South America) after passing through the South in spring and fall. Coastal 

habitats, maritime forests, and longleaf pine savannah are all important to migrating species. 

Threats to bird species include land-use changes, forest fragmentation (which often results in 

increased nest predation and cowbird parasitism), tropical deforestation (for Neotropical 

migrants), elimination of wetlands, and coastal development. 

Critical information for the conservation of bird species includes understanding the relationship 

between reproductive success and habitat size and quality. Hunter (draft report) stated that to 

create populations that will endure and that will generate excess individuals to colonize new 

sites, some bird species (for example, the ivory-billed woodpecker) require 2,000 to 40,000 

hectares of unbroken habitat. Further, we have to understand the relation between reproductive 

success and such microhabitat variables as forest-age structure. Hunter also reported that species 

that require large areas can act as umbrella species for species with smaller area requirements. If 

we understand the habitat area each bird species needs, it will help us determine optimum block 

sizes and rotations for harvested forests. The need for large habitat areas is another argument for 

reforestation of marginal farmlands and the retention of wetlands. Because the southeastern 

landscape is so heavily in private ownership, land used for agriculture and forestry must play a 

large role in the survival of bird species diversity. Erwin (1995) suggested that recent increases 

in great blue heron populations resulted from this bird's practice of feeding in aquaculture ponds. 

Finally, regional monitoring of bird populations is essential because of geographic movements of 

species. For example, white ibis and wood stork populations have declined in south Florida but 

are stable in the Southeast as a whole because of population shifts northward to northern Florida, 

Georgia, and the Carolinas (Erwin 1995). 

Fishes 

The Southeast has about 485 known species of native freshwater fishes, representing 27 families. 

Most of the diversity of the southeastern fish fauna is in five families: the darters and perches 

(family Percidae; 31.3%); the minnows (family Cyprinidae; 29.7%); the madtoms and bullhead 

catfishes (family Ictaluridae; 6.8%); the suckers (family Catostomidae; 6.6%); and the sunfishes 

and basses (family Centrarchidae; 5.8%). The greatest diversity is in the Appalachian Mountains 

and Interior Plateau, but other regions of the Southeast also harbor many more species than do 

similar-sized geographic areas elsewhere in the United States. 

In the Southeast, fish declines are the result of the same factors that cause global deterioration of 

aquatic resources, primarily habitat loss and degraded environmental conditions. The principal 

causes of freshwater fish imperilment in the Southeast and other areas of the United States are 

dams and channelization of large rivers, urbanization, agriculture, deforestation, erosion, 

pollution, introduced species, and the cumulative effects of all these factors (Moyle and Leidy 

1992, Warren, Jr. and Burr 1994). The most insidious threat to southeastern fishes is 

sedimentation and siltation resulting from poor land-use patterns that eliminate suitable habitat 

required by many bottom-dwelling species. Cumulative effects of physical habitat modifications 
67 

have caused widespread fragmentation of many fish populations in the Southeast, presenting 

difficult challenges for those trying to reverse and restore diminished fish stocks. 

Aquatic resources are often resilient and capable of recovery, given favorable conditions. 

Conservation of southeastern fishes will require significant changes in land management and 

socioeconomic factors (Moyle and Leidy 1992, Warren, Jr. and Burr 1994), but such changes are 

necessary to stem future losses of biodiversity. The first step required is to improve public 

education on the value and status of native aquatic organisms. For resource managers and policy 

makers, increased efforts must be made to assume proactive management of entire watersheds 

and ecosystems; establish networks of aquatic preserves; restore degraded habitats; establish 

long-term research, inventory, and monitoring programs on fishes; and adopt improved 

environmental ethics concerning aquatic ecosystems (Warren, Jr. and Burr 1994). The 

southeastern fish fauna is a national treasure of biodiversity that is imminently threatened. If this 

precious heritage is to be passed on, its stewardship must be improved through cooperative 

actions of all public and private sectors within the region. 

Mammals – modified from White et al. (1998) 

Terrestrial and freshwater habitats in the Southeast are home to 101 mammal species 

(Echternacht and Harris 1993). Of these, five are extirpated, all of them ecologically important 

large carnivores or grazers: jaguar, ocelot, gray wolf, elk, and bison (Echternacht and Harris 

1993). Two other large carnivores are on the verge of extinction: the Florida panther, the only 

remaining subspecies of mountain lion in the eastern United States, and the red wolf. 

Endemic species represent a relatively small percentage of the mammals. According to 

Echternacht and Harris (1993), eight small mammal species are endemic to the Coastal Plain 

province of the Southeast: southeastern pocket gopher, colonial pocket gopher, Sherman's pocket 

gopher, Cumberland Island pocket gopher, oldfield mouse, Florida mouse, Perdido Key beach 

mouse, and round-tailed muskrat. The region also has eight species of introduced mammals, four 

of which have many adverse effects on native communities: coyote, pig (feral domesticated pigs 

and wild boar) in the mountains and Coastal Plain, and nutria and horse in the Coastal Plain. 

Beavers were extirpated in the Southeast but have become reestablished in the last 20 years. 

Although beavers were historically important in the maintenance of habitat diversity, beavers of 

today inhabit landscapes with reduced predation and where the remnant habitats may themselves 

be vulnerable to loss from flooding. 

There are 22 federally listed mammals in the Southeast: eastern mountain lion and the Florida 

panther, Key deer, gray wolf, red wolf, Louisiana black bear, four species of bats, nine small 

mammal species restricted to the Coastal Plain in Florida or Alabama, a shrew restricted to 

Virginia and North Carolina, and two species of flying squirrels restricted to the mountains (Lee 

et al. 1982, Humphrey 1992). The eastern mountain lion and the gray wolf are already extirpated 

in the Southeast. In the following sections we discuss these and other species representative of 

trends in southeastern mammals. 

Small mammal species that are most at risk in the Southeast have narrow distributions. Most of 

the threats to these species come from development and subsequent loss of habitat. In isolated 

communities, such as beach habitats, feral cats represent a significant threat. Shrews and other 

insectivorous mammals suffer from the concentrated effects of residual pesticides. Fleming and 
68 

Holler (1989) described ongoing efforts to reintroduce the endangered Perdido Key beach mouse 

to a site in Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

The future of the fox squirrel is linked to that of its habitat, the longleaf pine savannah. A longlived species with low reproductive rates, the fox squirrel has not been well studied or 

understood, but timbering, fire suppression, and development are all limiting its range and 

reducing its population sizes. 
69 

Chapter 3. Vital Signs 

The term Vital Sign is defined in this program as “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. Vital Signs might 

occur at any level of organization including landscape, community, population, or genetic level, 

and might be compositional (referring to the variety of elements in the system), structural 

(referring to the organization or pattern of the system), or functional (referring to ecological 

processes).” In this chapter, we describe the process used to select and prioritize the Vital Signs 

for the Southeast Coast Network, followed by a discussion of the Vital Signs selected for 

implementation. 

The Southeast Coast Network has identified 25 Vital Signs that represent a systems approach to 

our monitoring program. Five Vital Signs relate to air and climate, three relate to geology and 

soils, four relate to water, two relate to human use, two relate to ecosystem pattern and processes, 

and nine relate to biological integrity. The network developed this list through a process of 

meetings and ranking exercises to determine the optimal suite of Vital Signs that could be 

monitored to best inform management decisions at SECN parks. Protocols for all Vital Signs 

will be developed or implemented in the next three to five years. 

Scoping and Vital Signs Selection Process 

During the last twenty years many indicator-based monitoring programs have been developed to 

assess many ecosystems around the world (Busch and Trexler eds. 2003). Many recent 

syntheses have focused on topics such as qualities of “good” vs. “bad” indicators, statistical 

sampling design, and methods to integrate monitoring programs with adaptive management 

programs—all in an effort to ensure that new programs meet desired objectives (Busch and 

Trexler eds. 2003). 

To ensure that monitoring objectives were met for all SECN parks, the network built upon these 

syntheses and developed a resource-allocation model to govern the scoping and Vital Sign 

selection processes. In essence, the model sought to maximize the number of high-priority 

programmatic objectives that could be met for the greatest number of parks while keeping within 

set budgetary and staffing limitations (for a complete description of the model, please see 

Appendix 4). This model essentially helped the network select an ideal suite of “good” 

indicators that would meet our managers’ programmatic needs. 

To do this, the SECN used a muti-step process for scoping and selection of its Vital Signs 

(Figure 3-1). First, through a combination of scoping meetings and literature reviews, the 

network identified monitoring objectives related to park natural resources (including key 

resources, threats, and agents of change). This was done in conjunction with the literature 

reviews and scoping meetings that resulted in the network’s conceptual models presented in 

Chapter 2. Second, each park prioritized the importance of meeting each of the monitoring 
70 

objectives. Third, existing monitoring protocols were identified that could be implemented (as 

published or with potential modifications) to meet those monitoring objectives. Fourth, each 

protocol was evaluated to determine which Vital Signs they contained based on the NPS 

Ecological Monitoring Framework. Last, the SECN selected the optimal suite of protocols and 

data-acquisition SOPs that could be implemented within known budgetary, staffing, and 

logistical constraints. The SECN Vital Signs presented in this chapter represent this optimal 

suite of “good indicators” that the SECN will monitor. 

Monitoring objectives were identified by conducting a review of those objectives identified by 

the first 12 funded I&M networks where monitoring objectives were clearly identified (Welch 

2003, Weber 2003, Milstead and Stevens 2003, Leibfreid 2003, Hubbard et al. 2003, Emmott et 

al. 2003). Where appropriate, monitoring objectives were also included from EPA’s Draft 

Report on the Environment 2003 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2003), and 

were augmented further with objectives identified during park scoping meetings. In total, 

roughly 400 monitoring objectives were identified that were of potential importance to SECN 

parks. 

Monitoring objectives were reviewed by all fifteen management units in the network and 

categorized into standardized priority rankings (Table 3-1). In each case, the goal of the scoping 

meetings was to determine the degree of importance for meeting any given objective from 

ecological conservation, park management, and park mission standpoints. Initial rankings were 

established during scoping meetings between Network and Park staff between February and July 

2004. Follow-up phone interviews were conducted with park staff during July 2004 to complete 

the data set. For each objective the overall average score was calculated, as well as an adjusted 

average score based only on scores at which a monitoring question would be considered relevant 

(i.e., scores for marine or coastal issues were only averaged among coastal parks). Individual 

park scores, justifications, average scores, and adjusted average scores are presented in Appendix 

9. 
71 

Ecosystem 

Conceptual 

Modeling

Identify Monitoring 

Objectives

Identify Measurable 

Attributes (Vital Signs) 

and Monitoring 

Protocols and Link to 

Monitoring Objectives

Protocol Cost 

Analysis

Monitoring 

Efficiency 

Assessment & 

Maximization

Information Utility 

Assessment & 

Maximization

Alternative 

Comparison

Adapt & Refine

For each protocol, an estimate of the 

implementation cost is conducted based on 

budgetary and staffing resources needed for 

implementation. 

All possible combinations of protocols that 

can be implemented are identified that (a) 

meet minimum programmatic goals, (b) 

expend 1-1.5 times the anticipated program 

budget based on cost estimates for protocol 

implementation, and (c) can be 

accomplished with allotted FTEs. 

Remaining alternatives are assessed based on a 

combination of ecological, programmatic, social, 

political or other criteria as desired. 

Alternatives are further limited by reducing any 

combination of protocols that includes a non-utile 

Vital Signs. A Vital Sign lacks utility if it can be 

removed from an alternative without altering the 

number of objectives met at any of the parks 

within the network.

Conducted annually to determine research and 

protocol development needs, and during five-year 

programmatic reviews.

Phase II

Phase I

Select Vital Signs

Data Mining Scoping Meetings

Assess Park 

Preferences: Rank 

Monitoring 

Objectives

Inventories

Research / 

Protocol Development

One of the alternatives is selected by the 

Network based on peer and public review. The 

selected suite of protocols includes all Vital Signs 

to be implemented by the Network.

Figure 3-1. Implementation process used by the Southeast Coast Network for developing options for a Vital 

Signs Monitoring Program. 
72 

Table 3-1. 

Criteria for prioritizing monitoring objectives based on the relative importance for meeting each monitoring 

objective. 

Rank Park Question Examples Examples (For T&E Species) 

5 Mandated (for the Park). The park is 

required to meet specific monitoring 

objective as per legal or contractual 

obligations. 

Anything directly or explicitly 

mentioned in Park legislation or current 

/ future management plans. Examples 

might include the size and impacts of 

horse populations at CALO, water 

quality trends at CHAT, etc. 

Monitoring red cockaded woodpeckers. 

If breeding pairs are present on the 

park, required under the recovery plan 

to conduct 100% census of population 

on an annual basis. 

4 Mission Critical. The Park should meet 

this objective to effectively manage its 

resources. Meeting this objective will 

provide information relevant to multiple 

resource issues. 

Success of NR Management, such as 

fire effects monitoring. 

T&E Species that are known to breed 

on NPS-managed lands, populations 

are in decline or critical, and Park has 

responsibility for managing those 

populations. 

3 Mission Support. Meeting the 

monitoring objective would provide 

information that would help the Park to 

better manage its resources, but is not 

necessary. Provides information that 

will influence one or more 

management decisions. Meeting this 

objective will provide information 

relevant to multiple resource issues. 

Trends in external / adjacent land use 

Trends and impacts of Air Quality (for 

some parks) 

Habitat fragmentation 

Distributions of key species 

T&E Species that are known to exist 

within park boundaries. 

Documentation of changes to 

populations (or lack thereof) would 

influence management or policy 

decisions. 

2 Answering this question is of interest to 

the Park, but is not necessary for 

natural resource management. 

Effectively answering this question 

through a monitoring program might or 

might not shed light on multiple 

resource issues. 

Research 

Biological inventories 

Protocol development 

Park is in range of species, but 

occurrence in Park is unknown or 

undocumented. 

Species known to migrate over, but not 

necessarily in park lands. 

1 Not the responsibility of the Park. Marine Fisheries at CAHA (perhaps). N/A 

0 Not applicable to the Park. Estuarine processes at HOBE Species range and park boundaries do 

not overlap. 

Concurrently, SECN staff conducted literature reviews on appropriate monitoring techniques that 

could be employed to meet the identified monitoring objectives (Figure 3-1). These monitoring 

techniques primarily included published protocols that could be implemented with little-to-no 

modification. Further, ongoing monitoring activities conducted by other agencies were 

evaluated for data utility in addressing the Network’s needs with minimal effort to accommodate 

Network-specific needs. 

A selection model was developed based on park scoring, identified methods, and relevance to 

each park within the network (see Appendix 4 for details on the model). The selection methods 

were designed to allow for the comparison of potential programs by explicitly identifying which 

monitoring objectives would be met at network parks given any combination of Vital Signs. The 

model generated prioritized lists of Vital Signs based on (a) the number of high-priority 

monitoring objectives they would help meet, and (b) their degree of similarity to other Vital 

Signs that might be implemented concurrently. Suites of Vital Signs were then identified that 

that as a group met the greatest number of monitoring objectives of the highest priority, for the 

greatest number of SECN parks. Only the final list of Vital Signs that was selected is presented 

in this chapter; for a complete discussion of program alternatives see Appendix 12. 
73 

Park-assigned priorities, appropriate methodologies, and overall monitoring objectives were 

evaluated during a series of subject-matter scoping sessions held in 2005. The Vital Signs 

discussed below (and the protocols discussed in Chapter 5) represent those identified as the 

optimal suite of Vital Signs for the SECN. 

Vital Signs Selected for Implementation 

Using the selection methods described in Appendix 4, the Southeast Coast Network has selected 

25 Vital Signs for implementation (Table 3-2). The Vital Signs were selected to take maximum 

advantage of ongoing monitoring efforts being conducted by parks within the network and 

partnering agencies throughout the region, while meeting high-ranking monitoring objectives at 

all parks. Eleven of the selected Vital Signs will be monitored using data collected by park staff 

or other partnering agencies, and eleven will be monitored by SECN staff. Monitoring of three 

Vital Signs will be deferred until additional funding or partnership opportunities can be 

identified. 

Relationship of Vital Signs to Conceptual Models and Justifications 

Each Vital Sign is linked to our general ecosystem model, which encompasses the system 

drivers, local drivers, and key resources within each the six SECN ecosystems (Figure 3-2, Table 

3-3). Monitoring data from the outermost Vital Signs (Local and System Drivers) will be 

important for interpreting the status and trends of monitoring collected from Vital Signs toward 

the center of the model. 
74 

Table 3-2. 

Vital Signs to be monitored by the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network. [­ - Vital Signs for 

which the Network will develop protocols and implement monitoring using funding from the Vital Signs or 

Water Quality Monitoring programs; z - Vital Signs that are monitored by a network park, another NPS 

program, or by another federal or state agency using other funding;  - Monitoring deferred]. 

Ecological Monitoring Framework Network Vital Sign Measures 

KEMO 

CHAT 

HOBE 

OCMU 

CONG 

MOCR 

CAHA 

CALO 

FOSU FOPU 

FOFR 

CUIS 

TIMU / FOCA 

CASA / FOMA 

CANA 

Air and Climate 

Air Quality Ozone Ozone Atmospheric ozone 

concentration, damage to 

sensitive vegetation. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Wet and Dry 

Deposition 

Wet and Dry 

Deposition 

Wet and dry sulfate and 

nitrate deposition. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Visibility and 

Particulate Matter 

Visibility and 

Particulate Matter 

IMPROVE suite for 

visibility and fine 

particulates, particle size 

analyses: pm 10, pm 2.5, 

haze index. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Air Contaminants Air Contaminants Concentration of mercury, 

semi-volatile organic 

compounds, acidic 

components of 

contaminants. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Weather and 

Climate 

Weather and Climate Weather and Climate Air temperature, 

precipitation, relative 

humidity, tides, location 

and magnitude of extreme 

weather events. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Geology and Soils 

Geomorphology Coastal / 

Oceanographic 

Features and 

Processes 

Coastal Shoreline 

Change 

Shoreline position. ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

 Salt Marsh Elevation Sediment elevation, 

salinity. ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

 Stream / River 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Stream / River 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Percent cover of coarse 

woody debris, detritus, 

distribution and extent of 

geomorphic features 

(runs, riffles, pools); grain 

size distribution; 

distribution, extent, and 

rate of change of erosion 

features. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 

Water 

Hydrology Groundwater 

Dynamics 

Groundwater 

Dynamics 

Water table levels for 

freshwater and saltwater. z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Surface Water 

Dynamics 

Surface Water 

Dynamics 

Discharge, magnitude and 

duration of flooding 

events. 

z z z z z z z

Water Quality Water Chemistry Marine Water Quality pH, temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, 

turbidity, salinity, 

concentrations of 

chlorophyll a, TDN, TIN, 

TDP, TIP, metals, and 

volatile organic 

compounds. 

­ ­  ­  ­ ­  ­

Riverine Water Quality pH, temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, specific 

conductance, turbidity, 

trace ions, nutrient 

concentrations. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Biological Integrity 

Invasive Species Invasive/ Exotic Plants Invasive / Exotic Plants Occurrence of invasive 

plant species. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Focal Species or 

Communities 

Marine Invertebrates Marine Invertebrates Occurrence of selected 

marine invertebrate 

species. 

         

Fishes Fish Communities Fish community diversity, 

relative abundance, Index 

of Biotic Integrity, 

percentage of non-native 

species, number of 

crevice spawner species. 

              
75 

Ecological Monitoring Framework Network Vital Sign Measures 

KEMO 

CHAT 

HOBE 

OCMU 

CONG 

MOCR 

CAHA 

CALO 

FOSU FOPU 

FOFR 

CUIS 

TIMU / FOCA 

CASA / FOMA 

CANA 

Amphibians and 

Reptiles 

Amphibians Species occurrence, 

diversity, percent area 

occupied, disease 

incidence. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Birds Breeding Forest Birds Species occurrence, 

diversity, relative 

abundance. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Mammals Small Mammals Species occurrence, 

diversity, percent area 

occupied, relative 

abundance. 

              

Vegetation Complex Plant Communities Plant species occurrence, 

diversity; percent cover by 

herbaceous, shrub and 

overstory; rooting by feral 

hogs and armadillos; 

occurrence of disease, 

occurrence of insect 

outbreaks, occurrence of 

non-native species; NVCS 

class. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

At-risk Biota T&E Species and 

communities 

Shorebirds Number and location of 

piping plover, red knot, 

Wilson’s plover, American 

oystercatcher. 

 z        

T&E Species and 

communities 

T&E Species Abundance, distribution, 

and recruitment of rare 

species such as sea 

beach amaranth, beach 

mouse, sea turtles, redcockaded woodpeckers. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Human Use 

Consumptive Use Consumptive Use Fisheries Take Species occurrence, 

weight, size based on 

compilation of existing 

data from State and other 

sources. 

z z z z z z z z z

Visitor and 

Recreation Use 

Visitor Usage Visitor Use Monthly and annual visitor 

attendance compiled from 

existing Park and other 

sources. 

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Landscapes Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Burn area and extent, 

down woody debris, duff 

depth. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Landscape 

Dynamics 

Landscape Dynamics Land Cover and Use Extent and distribution of 

land cover and use types, 

fragmentation, extent and 

distribution of 

management actions 

(compiled from park 

records). 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
76 

Table 3-3. 

Vital Signs to be monitored by the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network and the ecosystems in 

which they are relevant. [­ - Vital Signs for which the Network will develop protocols and implement 

monitoring using funding from the Vital Signs or Water Quality Monitoring programs; z - Vital Signs that are 

monitored by a network park, another NPS program, or by another federal or state agency using other 

funding;  - Monitoring deferred]. 

Ecological Monitoring Framework Network Vital Sign Measures 

Upland 

Forests 

Bottomland 

Hardwoods

Rivers and 

Streams 

Salt 

Marshes 

and Coastal 

Wetlands 

Estuaries 

and 

Nearshore 

Marine 

Barrier 

Islands 

Air and Climate 

Air Quality Ozone Air Quality Atmospheric ozone 

concentration, damage to 

sensitive vegetation. 

z z z z z z

Wet and Dry 

Deposition 

Wet and Dry 

Deposition 

Wet and dry sulfate and 

nitrate deposition. 

z z z z z z

Visibility and 

Particulate Matter 

Visibility and 

Particulate Matter 

IMPROVE suite for 

visibility and fine 

particulates, particle size 

analyses: pm 10, pm 2.5, 

haze index. 

z z z z z z

Air Contaminants Air Contaminants Concentration of mercury, 

semi-volatile organic 

compounds, acidic 

components of 

contaminants. 

z z z z z z

Weather and 

Climate 

Weather and Climate Weather and Climate Air temperature, 

precipitation, relative 

humidity, tides, location 

and magnitude of extreme 

weather events. 

z z z z z z

Geology and Soils 

Geomorphology Coastal / 

Oceanographic 

Features and 

Processes 

Coastal Shoreline 

Change 

Shoreline position. ­

 Salt Marsh Elevation Sediment elevation, 

salinity. ­ 

 Stream / River 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Stream / River 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Percent cover of coarse 

woody debris, detritus, 

distribution and extent of 

geomorphic features 

(runs, riffles, pools); grain 

size distribution; 

distribution, extent, and 

rate of change of erosion 

features. 

­ ­ 

Water 

Hydrology Groundwater 

Dynamics 

Groundwater 

Dynamics 

Water table levels for 

freshwater and saltwater. z z z z z

Surface Water 

Dynamics 

Surface Water 

Dynamics 

Discharge, magnitude and 

duration of flooding 

events. 

z z z

Water Quality Water Chemistry Marine Water Quality pH, temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, 

turbidity, salinity, 

concentrations of 

chlorophyll a, TDN, TIN, 

TDP, TIP, metals, and 

volatile organic 

compounds. 

­ ­

Riverine Water Quality pH, temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, specific 

conductance, turbidity, 

trace ions, nutrient 

concentrations. 

­

Biological Integrity 

Invasive Species Invasive/ Exotic Plants Invasive / Exotic Plants Occurrence of invasive 

plant species. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Focal Species or 

Communities 

Marine Invertebrates Marine Invertebrates Occurrence of selected 

marine invertebrate 

species. 

  

Fishes Fish Communities Fish community diversity, 

relative abundance, Index 

of Biotic Integrity, 

percentage of non-native 

species, number of 

crevice spawner species. 

     
77 

Ecological Monitoring Framework Network Vital Sign Measures 

Upland 

Forests 

Bottomland 

Hardwoods

Rivers and 

Streams 

Salt 

Marshes 

and Coastal 

Wetlands 

Estuaries 

and 

Nearshore 

Marine 

Barrier 

Islands 

Amphibians and 

Reptiles 

Amphibians Species occurrence, 

diversity, percent area 

occupied, disease 

incidence. 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

Birds Breeding Forest Birds Species occurrence, 

diversity, relative 

abundance. 

­ ­ ­

Mammals Small Mammals Species occurrence, 

diversity, percent area 

occupied, relative 

abundance. 

  

Vegetation Complex Plant Communities Plant species occurrence, 

diversity; percent cover by 

herbaceous, shrub and 

overstory; rooting by feral 

hogs and armadillos; 

occurrence of disease, 

occurrence of insect 

outbreaks, occurrence of 

non-native species; NVCS 

class. 

­ ­ ­ ­

At-risk Biota T&E Species and 

communities 

Shorebirds Number and location of 

piping plover, red knot, 

Wilson’s plover, American 

oystercatcher. 

 z

T&E Species and 

communities 

T&E Species Abundance, distribution, 

and recruitment of rare 

species such as sea 

beach amaranth, beach 

mouse, sea turtles, redcockaded woodpeckers. 

z z z z z z

Human Use 

Consumptive Use Consumptive Use Fisheries Take Species occurrence, 

weight, size based on 

compilation of existing 

data from State and other 

sources. 

z z

Visitor and 

Recreation Use 

Visitor Usage Visitor Use Monthly and annual visitor 

attendance compiled from 

existing Park and other 

sources 

z z z z z z

Landscapes Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Burn area and extent, 

down woody debris, duff 

depth. 

­ ­ ­

Landscape 

Dynamics 

Landscape Dynamics Land Cover and Use Extent and distribution of 

land cover and use types, 

fragmentation, extent and 

distribution of 

management actions 

(compiled from park 

records). 

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
78 

Park Management

Land Cover and 

Land Use Land Cover and Use

Physical 

Environment

Stream/ River Channel 

Characteristics

Plant Communities

Chemical 

Environment

Stream Water Quality

Marine Water Quality

Ozone

Wet and Dry Deposition

Visibility and Particulate 

Matter

Biological 

Environment

Breeding Forest Birds

Amphibians, Shorebirds

Plant Communities

Fish, Small Mammals, 

Marine Invertebrates, 

T&E Species

Erosion and 

Sedimentation

Stream Habitat

Salt Marsh Elevation

Coastal Shoreline Change

Recreation

Visitor Use

Fisheries Take

Climate Weather and Climate

Invasive Species

Invasive/ Exotic Plants

Resource 

Management

Land Cover and Use

Fisheries Take

Freshwater Inputs

Groundwater Dynamics

Surface Water Dynamics

Tides, Currents, 

and Wave Action

Weather & Climate

System Drivers Park Resources & Management Sphere of Influence

Natural 

Disturbance Events Weather and Climate

Contaminant Inputs Ozone

Wet and Dry Deposition

Visibility and Particulate 

Matter

Marine Water Quality

Stream Water Quality

Hydrologic 

Modification Surface Water Dynamics

Dredging and 

Coastal Zone 

Management Coastal Shoreline Change

Landscape Change Land Cover and Use

Coastal Shoreline Change

Local Drivers

Figure 3-2. General Ecosystem Conceptual Model for the Southeast Coast Network with associated Vital 

Signs. Rectangles indicate predominant agents of change; circles represent major components of the 

ecosystem (detailed in supporting text). Large green arrows link agents of change to the entire ecosystem, 

including biotic, chemical, and physical components. The dark blue area includes those agents of change or 

resources that are currently/ actively managed by NPS. 
79 

Chapter 4. Sampling Design 

Providing valid, unbiased, and relevant information on the status and trend of selected Vital 

Signs is one of the overarching goals of Southeast Coast Network long-term monitoring (see 

Chapter 1). Ensuring that monitoring data are representative of the resources of interest across 

space and time requires careful attention to sampling design; a proper design is one of the major 

means by which the SECN ensures utility of the data and scientific reliability and defensibility of 

the monitoring program. 

Sampling designs, in general, outline the spatial and temporal strategy implemented to sample 

specifc attribute responses. Sampling designs must be explicitly connected to (a) monitoring 

goals and objectives (e.g., Knopman and Voss 1989; Gilbert 1987; see Chapter 1) and (b) 

analyses of monitoring data (see Chapter 7). This chapter identifies the major themes and 

concepts behind Southeast Coast Network sampling designs and discusses how sampling design 

facilitates integration among SECN protocols and with other monitoring efforts. Details of 

specific sampling designs will be documented in their associated monitoring protocols. 

As part of the overall design of the SECN monitoring program, our goal is to develop a program 

where Vital Signs monitoring data collected under multiple protocols are integrated and analyzed 

holistically to improve science-based management of Park resources. The sampling framework 

to be employed by the SECN is consequently designed to allow Park and Network staff to assess 

environmental conditions across space and time, while developing an information base that will 

eventually allow us to explore relationships among multiple Vital Signs and forecast current or 

future ecosystem conditions. 

It is not the intent of this chapter to discuss the sampling design for each of the SECN protocols. 

Each SECN Vital Sign or protocol has an evaluation and refinement period (see Appendix 13) 

that builds upon the sampling-design framework identified this chapter and is applied 

specifically to each protocol. In most cases, sampling designs are implemented following those 

in use by other agencies (e.g., those developed in partnership with cooperating agencies). In 

other cases, sampling designs are developed following a period of 1–3 protocol-evaluation years 

during which year, site, and other variance components are estimated in the context of a longterm monitoring effort. In all cases, a degree of flexibility is built into the designs so that 

adjustments can be made as network staff evaluates variability. This will ensure that all protocols 

utilize the most efficient sampling designs possible to meet SECN goals and objectives. 

This chapter describes the overall sampling framework that will be used to guide the 

development and implementation of SECN protocols. Included in the discussion are the 

following: 

1. Strategies for monitoring Vital Signs across space, 

2. Strategies for monitoring Vital Signs across time, 

3. Measurement approaches to be used by the SECN, and 

4. Strategies for integrating sampling designs within and outside of the network’s program. 
80 

Monitoring Across Space 

To varying degrees, the SECN will employ census, probability, and non-probability designs. 

Probability-based designs are primarily Spatially Balanced Random Sampling (SBRS) while 

non-probabilistic designs include judgement, census, and opportunistic sampling. Table 4-1 

briefly describes these design types, shows the major advantages and disadvantages of each type, 

and identifies the degree to which each type will be used. 

Spatially Balanced Random Sampling (SBRS). Almost all protocols to be implemented by SECN 

staff will use a SBRS design (Tables 4-1 and 4-2). Spatially-balanced samples will be generated 

by the Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) algorithm (Stevens 1997, Stevens 

and Olsen 2003, Stevens and Olsen 2004) or the Reversed Randomized Quadrant-Recursive 

Raster (RRQRR) algorithm (Theobald et al. 2005). In general, the sampling design for most 

terrestrial -monitoring protocols is based on a systematic 0.5 ha grid in which all points, a 

systematic subset, or some random subset of the total, might be sampled. 

Sentinel Site Monitoring. Sentinel sites will be used to (a) address site-specific management 

questions, (b) serve as a means to collect pilot data for future sampling design and protocol 

development/ implementation, and (c) estimate temporal variance in Vital Signs measurements. 

These sites may be randomly or non-randomly selected and might be used in conjunction with 

SBRS designs to balance the large spatial representation of samples with samples collected at 

permanent sites over time. Within the Southeast Coast Network, for example, monitoring at 

Sentinel Sites will be one of the primary methods for monitoring stream water quality and 

quantity where the parks do not have enough ecologically-relevant (or logistically feasible) 

sampling locations to warrant a probabilistic design. Generally, monitoring at Sentinel Sites is 

composed of core monitoring parameters that are included in all related modules such as the core 

water quality monitoring parameters. 

Census. Census approaches will be used when it is desirable to monitor the entire population 

within the sampling frame. For the SECN this applies primarily to monitoring at-risk biota 

where the number of sampleable units is small and detectability is high, and to landscape-scale 

monitoring protocols where data collection and analyses are conducted through remote sensing 

or modeling techniques. When used, complete-census sampling designs will be used to 

maximize the number of samples collected for sampling design refinement; likely used only 

during pilot implementation, and to address site-specific management questions (e.g., monitoring 

of wintering Piping Plovers at Cape Hatteras National Seashore). 

Opportunistic Sampling. Opportunistic sampling designs are those that have limited or no strict 

spatial or temporal guidelines. Opportunistic sampling will not be a primary design for any 

SECN protocols, but may be used in some cases to involve the public and volunteers in the 

monitoring program, provide early detection for potential stressors/ agents of change, or record 

and document infrequent occurrences of species. 
81 

Table 4-1. 

Site-selection methods used by the Southeast Coast Network. 

Design Type Description Advantages Disadvantages SECN Use 

Spatially Balanced Random 

Sampling (SBRS). 

As a probabilistic sample, each 

unit or element in the resource of 

interest has a known, non-zero 

probability of being included in the 

sample; some form of 

randomization is always included 

in the selection of sample 

locations (Stevens 1994, 1997). 

Uses a hierarchical randomization 

process to achieve spatial balance 

across regions and resources 

(Jean et al. 2005). 

Generalized Random Tesselation 

Stratified Design (GRTS; a form of 

probability design) 

Reversed Randomized QuadrantRecursive Raster (RRQRR) 

algorithm (Theobald et al. 2005).

Produces a spatially balanced 

sample. 

Has a robust, unbiased variance 

estimator. 

Allows sites to be replaced in a 

logical way that maintains the 

validity of any sample (Stevens 

1997; Stevens and Olsen 2003, 

2004; Theobald et al. 2005. 

Samples are more representative 

than those produced by other 

probability designs. 

Can be used in virtually any 

monitoring design scenario. 

Applicable to aquatic or terrestrial 

resources. 

Can incorporate subsets of 

indicator suites by nesting subsamples within a larger design. 

Can be fully specified to occur 

across time and to contain a 

complex array of site revisits. 

Can include primary and alternate 

(or oversample) sites. 

Can integrate resource 

classification or spatial structure in 

the resource of interest into the 

design. 

Can account for variability in 

response across boundaries. 

Subpopulations can be defined a 

priori or created after sampling 

based on observed patterns of 

variability on the responses.

The underlying sampling process is 

less intuitive to understand than 

alternative sampling schemes (Jean 

et al. 2005).

SECN default survey design.

Sentinel Employs expert knowledge to 

varying degrees in the selection of 

sampling locations (Gilbert 1987). 

Convenient. 

Efficient. 

Unknown selection bias is common 

(Stehman and Overton 1994; 

Stoddard et al. 1998; Olsen et al. 

1999). 

Often mismatched to monitoring 

goals. Population-scale inference is 

only possible with a (usually 

complex) model (Burke and 

Lauenroth 1993; Gilliom et al. 

1995). 

No statistical inferential ability. 

Limited to fixed-station water 

quality monitoring protocols. 

Data will be used as sentinels of 

conditions within the systems in 

which they are deployed with 

recognition that elements will be 

incorporated into more robust 

design types as appropriate. 

Census Examines every unit in the 

population of interest.

Random-sampling variation is 

eliminated. 

Error is limited to observer bias 

and monitoring technique 

(measurement error).

Expensive. 

Rarely possible.

Will be used only where 

relatively inexpensive techniques 

allow efficient collection of 

monitoring data across entire 

parks and it is clear that the 

census is valid (applies to most 

monitoring that is remotely 

sensed).

Opportunistic Opportunistic sampling designs 

are those that have limited o no 

strict spatial or temporal 

guidelines. Includes incidental 

observations of species 

occurrences. 

Allows for rapid collection of large 

quantities of data by interested 

parties. 

Provides opportunities for citizen 

science outreach and 

involvement. 

Lack of standardized sampling 

design renders data of limited use 

for comparison with other data sets. 

Data reliability difficult to control. 

Data quality likely only high for 

species that are easily-identifiable, 

high profile, and well established in 

the area. 

Opportunistic sampling will not 

be a primary design for any 

SECN protocols, but may be 

used in some cases to involve 

the public and volunteers in the 

monitoring program, provide 

early detection for potential 

stressors/ agents of change, or 

record and document infrequent 

occurrences of species. 

Will only be implemented in 

addition to other sampling 

designs. 

Monitoring Across Time 

Re-visitation schedules for SECN Vital Signs vary from continuous monitoring to once every 

five years. The frequency of monitoring Vital Signs is based on a combination of known or 
82 

expected rates of change, expert opinion, and the logistical constraints of implementing protocols 

at 17 parks. 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( WRBR

FORA

CHPI

TIMU

OCMU

MOCR

KEMO

HOBE FOSU

FOPU

FOMA

FOFR

FOCA

CUIS

CONG CHAT

CASA

CANA

CALO

CAHA

Figure 4-1. Sampling tours for probabilistic estuarine- and freshwater-quality monitoring protocols. Water 

bodies contained within each tour are sampled in the same sampling seasons and are revisited once every 

five years. See Chapter 9 for details for protocol implementation schedule. 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( WRBR

FORA

CHPI

TIMU

OCMU

MOCR

KEMO

HOBE FOSU

FOPU

FOMA

FOFR

FOCA

CUIS

CONG

CHAT

CASA

CANA

CALO

CAHA

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( WRBR

FORA

CHPI

TIMU

OCMU

MOCR

KEMO

HOBE FOSU

FOPU

FOMA

FOFR

FOCA

CUIS

CONG CHAT

CASA

CANA

CALO

CAHA

Figure 4-2. Sampling tours for wildlife and plant community monitoring protocols based on a 3-year (left) and 

5-year (right) revisit schedule. See Chapter 9 for details on protocol implementation schedule. 
83 

The Network has been subdivided into multiple “tours,” in which all parks within a tour are 

sampled the same year (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The Network’s estuarine systems are divided into 

four tours in which water quality is sampled once every five years (Figure 4-1). During the off 

year, freshwater quality will be monitored at CONG, which due to its increase size (and number 

of tributaries to be monitored) will require a larger sampling effort than the other parks with 

riverine resources. Tours have been similarly designed for parks to govern terrestrial sampling 

based on a three-year and five-year return interval (Figure 4-2). Initially all terrestrial 

monitoring is planned to be implemented once every three years, but the frequency might 

decrease depending on initial data. 

Measurement Approaches 

Three measurement approaches will be used when developing SECN protocols: direct measures, 

the use of metric-based assessments, and modeled responses. 

• Direct Measures. Measures are those specific feature(s) used to quantify an attribute or 

indicator, as specified in a sampling protocol. For example, pH, temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, and specific conductivity are all measures of water chemistry. Measures can 

provide information about ecological attributes (measuring water chemistry provides 

information about water quality) or about ecological indicators (measures of water 

quality provide information about the overall “health” of the watershed). 

• Metric-Based Assessments. Metrics are those measures that respond predictably to 

environmental stressors or gradients within an ecosystem and to which scoring criteria 

are applied. Scores for individual metrics are generally based on either (a) difference 

from reference conditions, (b) trends, threshold responses, or patterns along one or more 

environmental gradients, or (c) expert opinion/ judgment. Metric-Based Assessments are 

then the methods by which scores from two or more metrics are systematically combined 

provide a semi-qualitative summary about the condition of monitored resources, such as 

“Good,” “Fair,” or “Poor” (modified from Karr and Chu, 1997). 

• Modeled Responses. Data from one or more sampling locations are used to infer the 

status of conditions in an area of interest. A modeling approach to Vital Signs 

Monitoring will only be used in limited situations where existing methods and data sets 

allow for inference of park conditions based on data collected in or around parks by NPS 

and partnering agencies (such as air quality and climate data). 

Although the SECN will use all three measurement approaches, the network will initially rely 

most heavily on direct measures (Table 4-2). As protocols are implemented, the network will 

evaluate data from all measures for their suitability as metrics to be included in multimetric 

indexes. Monitoring protocols will describe the methods and rationale for selecting metrics, 

determining individual metric scores, and their systematic use in metric-based assessments. 

Integration 

In a successful comprehensive monitoring program, individual components must be integrated so 

that the interpretation of the whole program yields information more useful than that of its 
84 

individual parts. Integration among Vital Signs is needed for the SECN to (a) understand the 

dynamic responses to changes in drivers or stressors within parks, (b) understand the interaction 

effects among Vital Signs, and (c) reduce the confounding effects of other Vital Signs in the 

interpretation of a given Vital Sign. Much of this depends upon compatible sampling designs and 

analytical strategies. The remainder of this chapter deals with how SECN monitoring is 

integrated both within and outside of the NPS I&M program, and how sample designs factor into 

this. 

Table 4-2. 

Site selection strategy, measurement approaches, and re-visitation schedules for Vital Signs monitoring in 

Southeast Coast Network. See Chapter 5 for a description of the protocols. Multiple revisit schedules 

indicated for Vital Signs monitored using multiple protocols. 

Network Vital Sign 

Site Selection Measurement Approach Revisit Schedule 

Spatially 

Balanced Sentinel Census Opportunistic Direct Metric-Based Assessments1 Modeling 

Ozone z z z Continuous 

Wet and Dry Deposition z z z Continuous 

Visibility and Particulate Matter z z z Continuous 

Air Contaminants z z z Continuous 

Weather and Climate z z z Continuous 

Coastal Shoreline Change z z 6 month 

Salt Marsh Elevation z z z 1 year 

Stream/ River Channel 

Characteristics z z z 5 years 

Groundwater Dynamics z z z Continuous 

Surface Water Dynamics z z Continuous 

Marine Water Quality z z z z Continuous 

Monthly 

5 years 

Riverine Water Quality z z z Continuous 

5 years 

Invasive/ Exotic Plants z z z z 3 years 

Amphibians z z z z 3 years 

Breeding Forest Birds z z z z 3 years 

Plant Communities z z z z 3 years 

Shorebirds z z z 3 Per Month 

T&E Species z z z z TBD 

Fisheries Take z z 1 year 

Visitor Use z z 1 year 

Fire and Fuel Dynamics z z 1 year 

Land Cover and Use z z 3 years 

1

Metric-Based Assessments will largely not be implemented until data from initial sampling are analyzed, appropriate metrics are identified, and scoring criteria are determined. 
85 

Integration Among I&M Networks 

One goal of the NPS I&M program is to provide the information needed by park managers for 

understanding and managing network parks; however, it also is intended that some subset of the 

selected Vital Signs will provide information at scales broader than network parks. Thus, an 

additional sampling design consideration is whether or not there is a need, value, or expectation 

for implementing designs that can be scaled up to levels beyond the SECN. Several SECN 

protocols are based on or adopted from other networks (especially the SFCN, NCBN, and 

PACN). Because many of these Vital Signs are using SBRS-based designs, integration at the 

design level with SECN protocols will be more efficient. Measurements and field methods also 

are standardized as much as possible with other NPS networks to facilitate comparative analyses. 

Integration Among Agencies 

Although the I&M program is an NPS endeavor, many Vital Signs cross jurisdictional 

boundaries, and interest and concerns about these Vital Signs are often shared by other agencies. 

Cooperative efforts among agencies also can increase efficiency and broaden application. Thus, 

the SECN coordinates and collaborates with other agencies and organizations that share a 

common interest in certain Vital Signs. Several SECN protocols, and subsequent sampling 

designs, are adopted directly from monitoring occurring at the state or regional scale (e.g., the 

EPA EMAP, NOAA NERR, and USGS NAWQA programs) and because some of these 

programs are using SBRS-based designs and analyses similar to those of the SECN, integration 

at the design level with SECN protocols will be facilitated. Measurements and field methods are 

also standardized as much as possible for comparability of data with state and federal programs. 

Integration Within and Among SECN Protocols 

Vital Signs are not environmentally and ecologically independent entities. Rather, they are often 

the products of complex interactions among other Vital Signs and/or other ecosystem 

components or attributes. Without some consideration of how Vital Signs interact, the SECN 

monitoring program would have no added value apart from the sum of its parts. As such, many 

SECN sample designs use SBRS designs and similar sample frames. This will allow for 

analytical as well as operational integration of the Vital Signs within these protocols. 

Co-location and Co-visitation 

The SECN’s sample designs emphasize both co-location (monitoring multiple Vital Signs at the 

same physical locations) and co-visitation (recording observations on multiple Vital Signs during 

a sampling occasion), both of which are greatly facilitated by common or similar sample designs. 

One obvious benefit to co-location and co-visitation is operational efficiency; time and costs for 

plot establishment and sampling are reduced when multiple Vital Signs are measured at the same 

place and time. Co-location of samples also can facilitate assessment of the response of the 

system to drivers or stressors (e.g., vegetation responses to climate) as well as interactions 

among Vital Signs (e.g., effects of upland erosion on water turbidity). Under some 

circumstances, co-location can aid in the identification and interpretation of confounding effects 

and increase sampling efficiency. 

Co-location of samples within and across protocols, however, is not a panacea for ecological 

insights, and the costs and benefits should be considered. To decide whether samples warrant co-
86 

location, the SECN considers (a) the specific objectives of the Vital Sign(s) being sampled, (b) 

the feasibility of co-locating samples, (c) the probability of expected increased insights, and (d) 

the compatibility and overlap in the target populations and the Vital Signs spatiotemporal scale. 

Ecological, Spatial, and Temporal Integration 

Ecological, spatial, and temporal integration will largely not be possible for many years, until a 

sufficient body of data exist to explore relationships, and trends among the various measures. To 

facilitate this, SECN protocols and their sampling designs are intended to monitor scaledependent processes and to accommodate future integration within and among scales. For 

example, estimates of climatic parameters derived from regional monitoring networks provide a 

backdrop for evaluating large-scale changes in abiotic drivers of change. Remotely sensed 

information on landscape structure, condition, and land use in and adjacent to park lands, and at 

multiple scales, provides key measures of spatial pattern and human disturbance, while the status 

and trends of fine-scale attributes are monitored with ground-based field plots. The spatial 

hierarchy of monitored attributes permits understanding of cross-scale interactions, for instance, 

the effects of regional climatic conditions on patterns and trends in landscape condition, or the 

effects of large-scale climatic conditions and proximate landscape structure on plot-based trends. 

Additionally, fine-scale data will be used to inform analyses of data collected at coarser scales 

(e.g., imagery classification and interpretation of land condition), and potentially as the basis for 

interpolating fine-scale measures to the landscape (Ohmann and Gregory 2002). 

Ecological integration involves considering the ecological linkages among system drivers and 

the components, structures, and functions of ecosystems when selecting Vital Signs. An effective 

ecosystem monitoring strategy will employ a suite of individual measurements that collectively 

monitor the integrity of the entire ecosystem. By defining the analysis at a scale that 

encompasses multiple Vital Signs, data from different protocols can be analyzed as covariates, 

drivers, or responses to changes in each other. Defining the relevant scale of analysis and 

integrating data across Vital Signs is a critical component of analysis and interpretation. One 

approach for effective ecological integration is to develop measures at various hierarchical levels 

of ecological organization (e.g., landscape, community, population, genus). 

Spatial integration involves establishing linkages of measurements made at different spatial 

scales within a park or network of parks, or between individual park programs and broader 

regional programs. It requires an understanding of scalar ecological processes, the co-location of 

measurements of comparably scaled monitoring indicators, and the design of statistical sampling 

frameworks that permit the extrapolation and interpolation of scalar data. 

Temporal integration involves establishing linkages between measurements made at various 

temporal scales. It requires determining a meaningful timeline for sampling different attributes 

while considering characteristics of temporal variation in those attributes. For example, sampling 

changes in the structure of a stream channel (e.g., channel sinuosity) may require much less 

frequent sampling than is required to detect changes in the composition or density of aquatic 

invertebrates. Temporal integration requires nesting the more frequent and, often, more intensive 

sampling within the context of less frequent sampling. 
87 

Chapter 5. Sampling Protocols 

Overview 

To implement the SECN Vital Signs Monitoring Program, the Network will implement ten 

protocols to monitor eleven of the Network’s Vital Signs (Table 5-1). An additional eleven Vital 

Signs will be monitored using data collected by partnering agencies, parks, or other organization 

(Table 5-2). 

The SECN 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 taken by 

different people or in slightly different ways (Oakley et al. 2003). Protocols are essential for 

monitoring Vital Signs consistently through time. 

Monitoring protocols include a narrative providing the rationale for Vital Sign selection, an 

overview of the monitoring protocol components, and a history of the development of the 

protocol. The narrative details protocol sampling objectives, sampling design, field methods, 

data analysis and reporting, staffing requirements, training procedures, and operational 

requirements (Oakley et al. 2003). Narratives also summarize the design phase of a protocol 

development and any decision-making that is relevant to the protocol. Documenting the history 

of a protocol during its development phase will also ensure future refinement of the protocol 

continues to improve the protocol and is not a mere repetition of previous trials or comparisons 

(Oakley et al. 2003). Narratives also provide a listing and brief summary of all standard 

operating procedures (SOPs), which are developed in detail as independent sections in the 

protocol. 

The SOPs included with all protocols thoroughly explain in a step-by-step manner how each 

procedure identified in the protocol narrative will be accomplished. At a minimum, SOPs 

address pre-sampling training requirements, data to be collected, equipment operations, data 

collection techniques, data management, data analysis, reporting, and any activities required at 

the end of a field season (i.e., equipment storage). An additional 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. 

Finally, monitoring protocols identify supporting materials critical to the development and 

implementation of the protocol (Oakley et al. 2003). Examples of this material may include 

databases, reports, maps, geospatial information, species list, species guilds, analysis tools tested, 

and any decisions resulting from these exploratory analyses. Material not easily formatted for 

inclusion in the monitoring protocol also can be included in this section. 
88 

Table 5-1. 

Monitoring protocols and associated Vital Signs to be implemented by the Southeast Coast Network, with the 

parties responsible for data collection indicated. Development schedule and status of each protocol are 

provided in Appendix 13. 

Protocol Name 

(Vital Sign, Where Different) Monitoring Objectives Parks 

Park 

Partner 

SECN 

Coastal Shoreline Change Measure the position of ocean-side shorelines annually to 

semi-annually. 

Measure the position of sound-side shorelines every three 

years. 

Identify coastal erosion hotspots in ocean- and sound-side 

shorelines within network parks. 

CAHA, CALO, FOPU, 

FOFR, CUIS, TIMU, 

FOMA, CANA, FOSU 

X 

Stream Habitat Assessment Determine trends in the quantity and distribution of 

macrohabitat features such as channel dimensions 

(longitudinal profile and cross-sections), percent cover of 

habitat units (runs, riffles, and pools), and channel hydraulic 

relationships. 

Determine trends in the quantity and distribution of 

microhabitat features such as detritus, coarse woody debris, 

and bed sediments. 

HOBE, KEMO, CHAT, 

OCMU, CONG, MOCR 

 X 

Salt Marsh Elevation Determine the rate of salt marsh accretion or subsidence. 

Determine trends in soil salinity. 

CAHA, CALO, FOPU, 

FOFR, CUIS, TIMU, 

FOMA, CANA 

X 

Marine Water Quality Determine the status, trends, and spatial variability of 

salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients, chlorophyll, 

temperature, and sediment chemistry in park estuaries. 

CAHA, CALO, CUIS, 

CANA, TIMU, FOPU 

 X X 

Fixed-Station Water Quality 

(Stream and Marine Water Quality) 

Determine the trends as well as diel, monthly, and annual 

variability of salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature 

at select sites in park estuaries. 

Determine the trends as well as monthly and annual 

variability of total dissolved nitrogen, total dissolved 

phosphorus, secchi depth, and chlorophyll a at select sites 

in park estuaries. 

CAHA, CALO, CUIS, 

TIMU, FOPU, CONG 

X X X 

Amphibians 

(Amphibians and Fire & Fuel 

Dynamics) 

Determine trends in amphibian species distribution, 

diversity, and detection/non-detection within SECN parks. 

Determine trends in soil moisture, down woody debris 

(DWD) and duff depth within SECN parks. 

Determine trends in frequency of occurrence of 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in amphibians in SECN 

Parks. 

All X 

Breeding Forest Birds Determine trends in breeding forest-bird species 

distribution, diversity, and detection/non-detection in SECN 

Parks. 

All X 

Plant Communities 

(Plant Communities, and Invasive / 

Exotic Plants) 

Determine trends in percent cover and diversity of plant 

species (both native and non-native) in the herbaceous, 

shrub, and overstory strata. 

Determine trends in warm season species richness and 

diversity within SECN parks. 

All X 

Wintering & Migratory Shorebirds Identify areas of consistent use by migratory and/or 

wintering focal shorebirds at CAHA and if these areas 

remain consistent over time. 

Determine habitats in which wintering/focal shorebirds are 

most frequently observed at CAHA. 

Determine spatial and temporal variability in beached birds 

at CAHA. 

CAHA X 

Landscape Change Detection Determine the physiognomic class and change class of 0.5-

ha grid cells for all areas of SECN parks. 

Determine trends in the type, location, and variability of land 

cover and land use within and around SECN parks as 

determined by analysis of existing and emergent GIS data 

layers. 

All X 
89 

Table 5-2. 

Vital Signs to be implemented through the use of data collected by partnering parks, agencies, or other 

organizations. Development schedule and status of each SOP that outlines for the acquisition, management 

and interpretation of data for these Vital Signs are provided in Appendix 13. 

Vital Sign(s) Monitoring Objectives Parks Data 

Source(s) 

Ozone Determine the weekly, seasonal, and annual status and 

trends in ozone concentration. 

All NPS-ARD 

Wet and Dry Deposition 

Air Contaminants 

Determine the weekly, seasonal, and annual status and 

trends in dry deposition chemistry. 

Determine the weekly, seasonal, and annual status and 

trends in concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, nitrate, nitric acid, 

sulfur dioxide, ammonium, and other selected cations from 

wet deposition. 

All NADP/NTN 

CASTNET 

Visibility and Particulate Matter Determine the weekly, seasonal, and annual status and 

trends in concentrations of visibility-reducing pollutants. 

All IMPROVE 

Weather & Climate Determine status, trends, and variability of precipitation and 

temperature over time inside and around SECN park units. 

Determine the status, trends, and variability of derived 

weather data (i.e., drought indices) inside and around SECN 

park units. 

Track the location, magnitude, and frequency of extreme 

weather events that affect SECN park resources. 

Determine the time, and magnitude of lunar and stormdriven tidal events for marine and estuarine water bodies 

within SECN parks. 

All NOAA 

NWS 

States 

NPS 

Groundwater Dynamics Determine status and trends of freshwater and saltwater 

Table levels in existing groundwater wells. 

All USGS 

States 

Stream Flow Discharge Determine the status and trends of stream flow discharge in 

streams that flow into park boundaries. 

Determine the frequency, duration, and magnitude of stream 

discharge during peak flow events in streams that flow into 

park boundaries. 

HOBE, KEMO, CHAT, 

OCMU, CONG, MOCR, 

FOPU, TIMU, FOMA 

USGS 

Stream Water Quality Determine status and trends of water temperature, pH, 

conductivity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, major ions 

(sulfate, chloride, nitrate, magnesium, calcium, potassium, 

sodium), and trace metals (including aluminum, copper, 

iron, manganese, lead, zinc), and/or fecal coliform bacteria 

in streams that flow into park boundaries. 

HOBE, KEMO, CHAT, 

OCMU, CONG, MOCR 

USGS 

States 

Fisheries Take Compile data from existing data sources related to 

commercial and recreational fisheries take (finfish and 

shellfish) in waters inside and adjacent to park boundaries. 

Determine the status and trends of commercial and 

recreational fisheries take in waters inside and adjacent to 

park boundaries. 

CAHA, CALO, CUIS, 

CANA, TIMU, FOMA, 

FOFR, FOSU, FOPU 

States 

Visitor Use Compile and summarize existing NPS visitor use data to 

determine monthly, seasonal, and annual visitor use rates 

for all SECN parks (as data permit). 

All NPS 

Land Management & Disturbance Determine the frequency, and spatial extent of natural and 

anthropogenic and natural changes to the landscape 

caused by park management or natural disturbance events. 

All NPS 

A summary of each of the monitoring protocols to be implemented during the program’s first 

five years is provided below. The descriptions include the Vital Signs to be monitored, 

monitoring objectives to be addressed, and a description of monitoring approach to be 

implemented. Justifications for the selection of Vital Signs are included in Chapter 3. Brief 

descriptions are presented below for all protocols to be developed by the SECN. More detailed 

descriptions of the protocols including justification, monitoring objectives, and development and 

implementation schedules can be found in Appendix 13. Methods for acquiring, analyzing, and 

managing data collected by partners will be included as appendices in the SECN Information 

Management Plan (Wright et al., 2007) as they are developed. 
90 

Coastal Shoreline Change 

Parks 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Fort Frederica National Monument 

Cumberland Island National Seashore 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve 

Fort Matanzas National Monument 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Fort Sumter National Monument 

Objectives 

• Measure the position of ocean-side shorelines annually to semi-annually. 

• Measure the position of sound-side shorelines every three years. 

• Identify coastal erosion hotspots in ocean- and sound-side shorelines within network 

parks. 

Monitoring Approach 

Coastal Shoreline Change will be measured in one of two ways: through GPS positional and 

attitude measurements of shorelines on the foreshore, and through change detection of remotely 

sensed data on the sound-side shore. Mapping will occur annually to semi-annually and 

following storm events. 

GPS Measurements. To determine park-wide trends in shoreline movement, a sampling design 

that includes all ocean shorelines and selected sandy beach bay/estuary areas will be used 

following protocols developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (List et al. 

Unpublished). SECN will monitor the horizontal position of mean high water (MHW) contour 

using the measurement system SWASH (Surveying Wide Area Shorelines). SWASH consists of 

GPS positioning and a GPS-based attitude sensor mounted on an amphibious all-terrain vehicle 

(ATV), which is driven along the beach foreshore at low tide. Vehicle attitude and position in 

three dimensions are used to calculate the horizontal location of the MHW contour through linear 

extrapolation from the position of the vehicle track. Contour positioning errors are estimated by 

two approaches: a standard method whereby bulk statistics are used to estimate a 95% 

confidence interval, and a local method for estimating error that depends on the local beach slope 

and the deviation between the ATV track height and the target MHW elevation. The standard 

method gives an estimate of shoreline positioning error on the order of +/-1.6 meters. The local 

method provides error increases as the vehicle track deviates significantly from MHW. The 

SWASH system can survey up to 70 km of coast within the 3-4 hours bracketing low tide, and is 

ideal for rapid-response measurements of storm impacts as well as for repetitive shoreline survey 

programs over longer periods. Data collected by SWASH is compatible with LIDAR (Light 

Detection and Ranging) based shoreline studies. 
91 

Remote Sensing. Change detection methods and GPS ground surveys will be used to estimate 

sound-side shoreline change over time using remotely sensed data from a variety of sources. The 

SECN is currently working with the University of Georgia Natural Resource Spatial Analysis 

Lab on change detection methods based on existing methodologies and technologies (Phillipson 

1997, Richards and Jia 2005). The frequency at which remotely-sensed data will be collected 

will vary from park to park, but will occur at a minimum of once every three years. 

Stream Habitat Assessment 

Applicable Parks 

Horseshoe Bend National Military Park 

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 

Ocmulgee National Monument 

Congaree National Park 

Moores Creek National Battlefield 

Objectives 

• Determine trends in the quantity and distribution of macrohabitat features such as channel 

dimensions (longitudinal profile and cross-sections), percent cover of habitat units (runs, 

riffles, and pools), and channel hydraulic relationships.

• Determine trends in the quantity and distribution of microhabitat features such as detritus, 

coarse woody debris, and bed sediments. 

Monitoring Approach 

Stream Habitat Assessments will be conducted using a combination of protocols available from 

federal and State agencies. A combination of transect- and reach-based approaches will be used 

to monitor stream habitat once every five years (such as Gorman and Karr 1978, Platts et al. 

1983, Simonson et al. 1993, Simonson et al. 1994, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1994, Fitzpatrick et al. 1998). A hybrid of several protocols will be implemented to ensure data 

comparability among SECN parks, and the various State and federal agencies with whom the 

SECN will partner. 

In general, the spatial unit to be evaluated will be a reach composed of three sequential rifflepool units with an overall length of approximately four riffles from crest to crest. Selection of 

reaches within parks will follow a generalized random tessellation stratified (GRTS) design 

which randomly selects sites with guaranteed spatial balance, ensuring park-wide inferences can 

be made (McDonald and St.Clair 2004). 

SOPs will be developed for SECN streams as well as for three reach scales: (a) small wadeable 

streams that are <10 meters wide), (b) large wadeable streams that are10-50 meters wide), and 

(c) nonwadeable streams (width measures are approximate). For example, methods for 

monitoring sediment grain size distribution may vary depending on the depth of the river. 
92 

Salt Marsh Elevation 

Parks 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Fort Frederica National Monument 

Cumberland Island National Seashore 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve 

Fort Matanzas National Monument 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Objectives 

• Determine the rate of salt marsh accretion or subsidence. 

• Determine trends in soil salinity. 

Monitoring Approach 

Monitoring Salt Marsh Elevation following methods described in Cahoon et al. (2006) will 

provide data to assess the potential threats to salt marsh resources at SECN parks as well as 

contribute to a worldwide effort to monitor sea level rise. 

Cahoon and others have demonstrated that subsurface processes can exert significant influence 

over sediment elevation in many wetland systems (Cahoon et al. 1995, Cahoon et al. 1999, 

Cahoon et al. 2000). The question arises as to whether sediment elevation in a given wetland is 

controlled by a biological, hydrological, or geological process. One approach to determining 

which process is driving sediment elevation is to quantify elevation change over different 

portions of the sediment profile (e.g., the root zone versus the entire profile between the sediment 

surface and base of the bench mark). The Southeast Coast Network will be deploying Rod 

Surface Elevation Table (RSET) monitoring stations at parks with significant saltmarsh wetland 

resources to measure the relative effects of surface and subsurface processes on salt marsh 

elevation change using or modifying protocols in development by the CACO prototype 

monitoring program (in development). The RSET works on the same principle as the Surface 

Elevation Table (Cahoon et al. 2002) but permits the determination of elevation change 

occurring over different portions of the sediment profile because it can be attached to bench 

marks that are driven to both deeper and shallower depths than the SET. A minimum of three 

RSET index stations will be deployed in each park following the methods of Cahoon et al. 

(2006). Elevation measurements will be conducted annually at each station. 

In addition, soil salinity will be measured at all points where Vegetation Community monitoring 

occurs within network salt marshes. 

Marine Water Quality 

Parks 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 
93 

Cumberland Island National Seashore 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Timucuan Ecological & Historic Preserve / Fort Caroline National Monument 

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Objectives 

• Determine the status, trends, and spatial variability of salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, 

nutrients, chlorophyll, temperature, and sediment chemistry in park estuaries. 

Monitoring Approach 

When developing designs to meet specific objectives for the Marine Water Quality protocol, the 

SECN will use designs used by EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

(EMAP) (i.e., probabilistic site selection using simple random, stratified, or nested designs). An 

integrated design for assessing water quality incorporates multiple tools in a tiered approach to 

address management decisions at multiple scales. These tools include probabilistic designs, 

landscape and water quality modeling, and targeted site-specific monitoring. This tiered 

approach will allow NPS to make statistically valid inferences of the extent that waters meet 

water quality standards, to predict which waters are most likely degraded or at risk for 

degradation, and to target site-specific monitoring needed to address local water quality concerns 

and short-term variability. 

To accomplish this, the SECN will augment existing annual sampling efforts (i.e., those 

conducted by state and federal agencies) to ensure adequate sampling coverage in or adjacent to 

park resources. Parks will be sampled once every five years for water quality and once every ten 

years for sediment toxics. This monitoring will follow the probability-based sampling conducted 

by the National Estuarine Program (NEP). Field work will be conducted following methods in 

Strobel and Heitmuller (2001). 

Fixed-Station Water Quality 

Parks 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Cumberland Island National Seashore 

Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Congaree National Park 

Objectives 

• Determine the trends as well as diel, monthly, and annual variability of salinity, dissolved 

oxygen, pH, and temperature at select sites in park estuaries. 

• Determine the trends as well as monthly and annual variability of total dissolved 

nitrogen, total dissolved phosphorus, secchi depth, and chlorophyll a at select sites in 

park estuaries. 
94 

Monitoring Approach 

This protocol is modeled after the water quality monitoring program established by the National 

Estuarine Research Reserve Program (NERR) (Wenner and Geist 2001). It is based on fixed 

monitoring sites that use automatic dataloggers to collect semi-continuous data on pH, dissolved 

oxygen, temperature, salinity/conductivity, depth, and turbidity. Guidance from local, regional 

and national experts at our water quality monitoring scoping meeting (DiDonato 2005) for 

estuarine and nearshore marine waters suggests additional samples be taken monthly 

(standardized at low tide) at each fixed site. Parameters to include in this sampling are Total 

Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN), Total Dissolved Phosphorus (TDP), Chlorophyll a (Chl a) and 

Secchi depth. Quarterly, dissolved nutrients should be broken down by species. Sampling these 

additional parameters will help us to address management concerns regarding development, 

discharges, land use practices and recreational use. Placement of sites are made in conjunction 

with park staff based on accessibility, their suitability as reference stations, or to measure current 

or potential problems within the park. 

At each site, a datalogger (e.g., YSI 6600) will be deployed and installed using methods 

developed by the NERR program (Wenner and Geist 2001). Instruments will be attached to a 

fixed piling and, where possible, be deployed at a standard 1m from bottom. Dataloggers will be 

programmed to take a reading every 30 minutes. Parameters to be measured include: Depth, 

Temperature, pH, DO, Salinity, and Turbidity. Although a Chlorophyll probe is available for 

these instruments, experience of subject matter experts has shown that these data are neither 

accurate nor reliable. Every 2-4 weeks (depending on time of year) each datalogger will be 

retrieved and replaced with another calibrated datalogger. At that time it will be useful to also 

record site data such as the presence/absence of fish kills, algal blooms, marine mammal 

strandings, and marine debris will also be collected. Data from each retrieved datalogger will be 

downloaded, and the instrument cleaned. In addition to datalogger data, monthly at these sites 

samples will be collected using protocols developed by the NERR program. 

Amphibians 

Parks 

All SECN Parks 

Objectives 

• Determine trends in amphibian species distribution, diversity, and detection/ nondetection in SECN parks. 

• Determine trends in soil moisture, down woody debris and duff depth within SECN 

Parks. 

• Determine trends in frequency of occurrence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in 

amphibians in SECN Parks. 

Monitoring Approach 

Three methods will be used to monitor amphibians: (a) automated recording devices (ARD), (b) 

intermediate intensity visual encounter surveys (VES), and (c) sampling of select amphibians for 

presence of B. dendrobatidis. The ARDs will be deployed prior to implementing the VES 
95 

technique to minimize any possible confounding effects the VES might have on vocal-anuran 

presence. Amphibian monitoring will be conducted at each park once every three years. 

Automated Recording Devices. Auditory surveys are appropriate for monitoring breeding 

populations of many frog and toad species that advertise their breeding activities with distinctive 

calls. The ARD consists of a timer, digital recording device, and a microphone housed in a 

waterproof case. The device does not record environmental variables. Each ARD is positioned 

at the center point of the macroplot. The ARDs will be initially programmed to record one 

minute intervals every 10 minutes for fourteen hours (84 intervals / night) for nine days. ARDs 

will be deployed at a maximum of 30 sites per park depending on samplable area. Data are 

downloaded at the end of the deployment period and recordings are analyzed using call 

recognition software (Song Scope Bioacoustics Monitoring Software, Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.). 

Species accumulation curves will be generated during pilot implementation to determine the 

minimum amount of recording time necessary in order to maximize species diversity. 

Visual Encounter Surveys. The VES technique is an effective method for determining species 

richness of amphibians in a given area (Crump and Scott 1994). All habitats and potential cover 

objects (e.g., leaf litter, under logs/rocks, other potential cover items) are searched and all species 

detected are identified and recorded. Animals are captured, if necessary, to facilitate accurate 

identification. If streams or wetlands are encountered within the macroplot, dip-nets and handcapture is used, as necessary, to detect aquatic amphibians. All cover objects are returned to 

their original position to reduce habitat impacts. This method is time-constrained; however the 

duration of the survey within each macroplot will be determined through pilot implementation 

(ca 60 min.). Each 0.5-ha macroplot is systematically sampled with ten transects spaced 15m 

apart; five oriented north / south and five oriented east / west. 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Surveys. Sampling for presence of B. dendrobatidis entails 

collecting skin swabs from captured individuals and conducting a polymerase chain reaction 

amplification of each sample using an established assay to determine the presence of the fungus. 

The level to which we will implement this component has yet to be determined. 

This protocol is implemented at randomly-selected locations determined by the spatiallybalanced random sampling design utilized by this protocol and several other terrestrial Vital 

Signs (e.g., plant communities, breeding forest birds) (see Chapter 4). Habitat data are collected 

in conjunction with Plant Community Monitoring and will be conducted within one month of 

amphibian data collection. Measures collected by this protocol include: (a) species 

detection/non-detection, (b) detection location, (c) detection counts, and (d) frequency of 

occurrence of B. dendrobatidis. 

Breeding Forest Birds 

Parks 

All SECN Parks 

Objectives 

• Determine trends in breeding forest-bird species distribution, diversity, and detection/ 

non-detection in SECN parks. 
96 

Monitoring Approach 

Breeding Forest Bird surveys are limited to the breeding season (April through mid-June) in an 

attempt to sample species that have the highest likelihood of reproducing within a park. Point 

counts of birds will be conducted with the variable circular plot (VCP) methodology (Reynolds 

et al. 1980, Scott et al. 1986, Buckland et al. 1993, Ralph et al. 1993, Fancy 1997, Nelson and 

Fancy 1999, 2001). Surveys will occur from 0530 – 1100. Station locations are determined by 

the spatially-balanced random sampling design utilized by this protocol and several other 

terrestrial Vital Signs (e.g., plant communities, amphibians) (see Chapter 4). At each station, 

counts are separated into three time segments, 0-3 minutes (to allow comparisons with Breeding 

Bird Survey data), 3-5 minutes, and 5-10 minutes. Each station is sampled three times over the 

course of a two-week period to capture different environmental conditions and facilitate 

generation of the percent area occupied (PAO) metric (MacKenzie and Nichols 2004, 

MacKenzie and Royle 2005, MacKenzie et al. 2006) for all detected species. All birds, 

regardless of distance detected from the observer are counted and recorded. An important 

benefit of using the variable circular plot method is the ability to accommodate a wide range of 

bird species, each of which possesses a different singing style and each of which may occur in a 

variety of acoustically-different habitats. VCP counts operate by essentially allowing the habitat 

to determine the size of the area being surveyed. 

Habitat data are collected under the co-located SECN Plant Community Monitoring Protocol 

within one month of VCP-data collection. Measures collected by this protocol include: (a) 

species detection/non-detection, (b) detection location, and (c) detection counts. Breeding Forest 

Bird monitoring will be conducted at each park once every three years. 

Plant Communities 

Parks 

All Parks 

Objectives 

• Determine trends in percent cover and diversity of plant species (both native and nonnative) in the herbaceous, shrub, and overstory strata. 

• Determine trends in warm season species richness and diversity within SECN parks. 

Monitoring Approach 

Plant communities will be sampled following an adaptation of methods developed by Canfield 

(1941), Shimda (1984), Stohlgren et al. (1995), Stohlgren et al. (1997a), Stohlgren et al. (1997b), 

Yorks and Dabydeen (1998), and Barnett and Stohlgren (2003). The sampling technique will 

utilize nested subplots of various dimensions within the 0.5-ha macroplot, where different 

subplot dimensions will be used to measure different strata, including the overstory, shrub, and 

herbaceous components, and fuel loads (e.g., downed woody debris, duff depth). All plants will 

be identified to species, or the finest resolution available given available characteristics 

necessary for identification. Data will be summarized in a multimetric context using methods 

developed by the SECN (e.g., Floristic Quality Indices, other bioassessment techniques) and 

adaptations of those developed by others (Taft et al. 2006, Diffendorfer et al. 2007, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2008). 
97 

Plant Community sampling will be conducted from March to September, with various 

components implemented by the SECN Botanist, technicians, and interns. Sampling locations 

are determined by the spatially-balanced random sampling design utilized by this protocol and 

several other terrestrial Vital Signs (e.g., forest breed birds, amphibians) (see Chapter 4). Plant 

communities will be monitored at each park once every three years at sites co-located with 

wildlife community monitoring. Additionally, a subset of locations will be treated as index sites 

(permanent plots) where data will be used to train automated imagery analyses developed for the 

Landscape Change Detection protocol. 

Migratory & Wintering Shorebirds 

Parks 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore (though applicable at other SECN coastal parks) 

Measurable Objectives 

• Identify areas of consistent use by migratory or wintering focal shorebirds at CAHA and 

if these areas remain consistent over time. 

• Determine habitats in which wintering/focal shorebirds are most frequently observed at 

CAHA. 

• Determine spatial and temporal variability in beached birds at CAHA. 

Monitoring Approach 

Migratory & Wintering Shorebird monitoring will be conducted using an adaptation of protocols 

developed to monitor shorebird populations at Cape Cod National Seashore (Erwin et al. 2003). 

This protocol consists of two components: 1) the migratory & wintering component and 2) the 

beached / dead bird component; both of which are modified specifically for implementation at 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA). The migratory & wintering shorebird protocol is 

designed with specific emphasis on Piping Plover, Wilson Plover, Red Knot, and American 

Oystercatcher. 

The survey technique is an adaptation of a line-transect survey (Anderson 1979, Buckland et. al 

1993). The observer walks a straight line, as indicated from a compass bearing, along the beach 

along a trajectory that parallels the surf zone and maximizes observability across the entire 

beach. Random transect placement within the sampling unit is not possible as there is typically 

only one possible position for transect placement due to the narrow characteristics of the CAHA 

beach; however randomization is maintained in the order in which sampling units are sampled. 

The number of shorebirds, habitat-type where the observation occurs, and possible sources of 

disturbance (e.g., cars, people, and unleashed dogs) are recorded during each sampling event. 

Distance sampling will be conducted for the wintering population (i.e., a closed population) to 

generate density estimates if an adequate number of distance measurements necessary to 

calculate a detection function (ca. 80-100) are collected (Buckland et al. 1993). During each 

sampling event, the number of beached birds is also recorded and any associated information 

possibly related to morbidity (e.g., oil, ORV-induced, predated). Measures collected by this 

protocol include: (a) shorebird observation numbers, (b) distance estimates to observations, (c) 

habitat type where observation occurs, and (d) frequency of beached birds. 
98 

Although developed for CAHA, this protocol can be easily adapted for implementation at other 

coastal parks or to monitor additional species. 

Landscape Change Detection 

Parks 

All SECN Parks 

Measurable Objectives 

• Determine the physiognomic class and change class of 0.5-ha grid cells for all areas of 

SECN parks 

• Determine trends in the type, location, and variability of land cover and land use within 

and around SECN parks as determined by analysis of existing and emergent GIS data 

layers. 

Monitoring Approach 

Landscape change will be measured in two ways: through analysis of imagery to assess changes 

in physiognomic class, and through analysis of existing GIS data to assess changes in land use 

and land cover. 

Physiognomic Class: Park-wide analyses of SPOT imagery will be conducted to classify 0.5 ha 

grid cells into one of nine physiognomic classes and one of 15 change classes. SPOT imagery 

has been selected because of cost, a wide range of resolutions (20m to 2.5 m), the expected 

longevity of the technology, and the ability to acquire imagery on request. Mapping of 

physiognomic classes and change detection analysis will be conducted on a three- to five-year 

rotating schedule, with analysis to be completed on imagery acquired no more than one year 

prior to sampling plant and wildlife communities. 

Land Use and Cover: Once every three years, geospatial data will be collected from SECN 

parks and surrounding local governments. Analyses will be conducted to determine the status 

and trends of type, location, and variability of land cover, land use, and other anthropogenic 

features that might affect within-park resources or explain trends seen in other Vital Signs. Data 

to be analyzed will include: 

• Changes in the types and distribution of various land cover classes over time as well as 

derivative analyses such as fragmentation, 

• Changes in census data, dock permits, and other measures of human population growth. 

• Changes in the status and reported condition of state-listed waterbodies upstream of park 

units 

• Changes in the location and extent of protected lands 

• Changes in NPDES discharge points, river regulation facilities, fish advisories, superfund 

sites, and other hazardous releases. 
99 

Analyses will be conducted at the watershed level as defined in each park’s watershed condition 

assessment (where completed) or subsequent natural resource condition assessments to provide 

trend data useful for multiple programs.

101 

Chapter 6. Data Management and Archiving 

As part of the National Park Service’s effort to “improve park management through greater 

reliance on scientific knowledge,” a primary role of the Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) 

Program is to collect, organize, and make available natural resource data and to contribute to the 

Service’s institutional knowledge by facilitating the transformation of data into information 

through analysis, synthesis, and modeling. To meet these objectives, each I&M Network needs a 

decision support system that effectively stores, maintains, analyzes, and distributes the data, 

information and products of scientific work conducted at each of the network parks. Thus, a 

foundation of the I&M program is the strong emphasis placed on data and information 

management for which networks are expected to devote at least 30 percent of available 

resources. 

This chapter summarizes the SECN information management strategy, which is presented in 

greater detail in the SECN Information Management Plan (Wright et al. 2006). The information 

management plan documents the SECN strategy for ensuring that programmatic (and relevant, 

non-programmatic) data are documented, meet quality assurance objectives, and remain secure, 

accessible and useful throughout the lifecycle of the data. Additional details related to 

information management and products may be found in individual Vital Signs monitoring 

protocols and associated standard operating procedures (SOPs). 

Numerous individuals and organizations are actively collecting natural resource data, either 

within the park boundary or on adjacent lands. In addition, similar data collection efforts have 

occurred throughout the past. Three primary sources of natural resources data are of interest to 

the SECN Vital Signs monitoring program: 

• Vital Signs Monitoring Data. Data collected during implementation of the long-term 

monitoring program following peer-reviewed protocols and standard operating 

procedures. Data collection is conducted on either an ongoing (continuous), cyclic (once 

every few years), or synoptic (one point in time) schedule. 

• Project Data. Data that are collected following standardized methods during a distinct 

time period with no expectation of recurrence following those same methods. Examples 

include baseline inventories, data collected during protocol development, and data 

collected during research by network, park, or cooperator personnel. Legacy datasets are 

also considered project data. 

• Incidental Observation Data. Data collected following no standardized protocol (e.g. 

opportunistic species observations). 

Together, these studies contribute to the body of knowledge or baseline information that the 

I&M Program utilizes to build its long-term monitoring program. 

Due to the many potential sources of relevant natural resource data and information, it is 

important to prioritize data management efforts to receive the greatest benefit from effort 

expended. Of highest priority are data collected and managed from within the I&M program. As 

time and resources permit, SECN data management staff will assist with data management for 
102 

current projects, legacy data and data originating outside the I&M program. Finally, SECN data 

management staff will help ensure good data management practices for park-based natural 

resource projects that are being developed and implemented. 

By providing guidance and facilitating good data management practices at all levels, SECN 

information management goals will be met in a more efficient and timely manner. The 

information management strategy described below is focused only on data collected during the 

implementation of Vital Signs monitoring protocols. Management of data, specimens, or 

archives outside of this scope is addressed in existing NPS or Park-specific SOPs. Where such 

SOPs do not exist the Network will develop procedures (or protocols) to appropriately and 

consistently manage those data. 

Information Management Goals 

The overarching goal of the SECN information management strategy is to ensure the quality, 

efficiency, interpretability, security, longevity, and availability of ecological data and 

information resulting from previous and ongoing natural resource relevant scientific 

investigations. 

• Quality. Due to the complexity of most ecological studies, the term “quality” affects 

several different aspects of protocol implementation. Within an information management 

context, our primary objective is to ensure that appropriate quality assurance measures 

are taken during all phases of implementation: data acquisition, data handling, summary 

and analysis, reporting and archiving. Avoiding inconsistent or poor-quality data is 

critical for data analysis and interpretation, as well as the long-term success of the I&M 

Program. To ensure that the SECN produces and maintains data of the highest possible 

quality, procedures are established to identify and minimize errors at each stage of the 

data lifecycle. 

• Efficiency. The concept: “don’t collect data if you don’t know what you’re going to do 

with it” is essential for maximizing resources (including time, money, and personnel) 

within a long-term monitoring program. To avoid this pitfall, the SECN held meetings 

with subject matter experts that combined the planning needs for both information 

management and long-term monitoring protocol development. By examining protocol 

needs from data collection through reporting, we sought to ensure that data will be 

understood and interpreted within the context of their original scope and intent. 

• Interpretability. SECN conducted an information needs assessment focusing on the enduse of data and information originating from the I&M program at the Park, Network and 

Regional level. Details of this process are presented in Chapter 2. Overall, an important 

outcome of the information needs assessment was the SECN conceptual object model 

which is a roadmap for information management system design and development that 

supports end-user needs and expectations. Combined with rigorous data documentation, 

all users should have an informed appreciation of the applicability and limitations of all 

SECN data sets. 
103 

• Security. Digital and hard-copy data must be maintained in environments that protect 

against loss from a wide variety of factors including: improper storage conditions, 

hardware failure, software obsolescence, storage media deterioration, and natural 

disasters (e.g., hurricanes). Digital data of the SECN are stored in multiple formats on a 

secure server and are part of an integrated backup routine that includes rotation to off-site 

storage locations. In addition, the SECN and Park curatorial staff are responsible for 

ensuring that programmatic materials such as field notes, data forms, specimens, 

photographs, and reports are properly cataloged, stored and managed in archival 

conditions. 

• Longevity. Countless data sets have been lost over time simply because they were not 

sufficiently documented, organized, and maintained following their creation. Closely tied 

to security, data longevity can be enhanced through proper documentation (e.g. metadata) 

and by maintaining the data in current, accessible and interpretable formats. The SECN 

information management plan addresses proper storage conditions, backups, data 

migration, and data set documentation requirements to ensure data utility into the future. 

• Availability. One of the most important responsibilities of the I&M Program is to ensure 

that data collected, developed or assembled by SECN staff or cooperators are made 

available in a timely manner for decision-making, research, and education – to a widerange of end-users. To support these objectives, the SECN must ensure that: data are 

easily located and obtained, data have gone through rigorous quality assurance screening 

prior to release, data are accompanied by complete metadata (documentation), and that 

sensitive data are identified and protected from unauthorized access or distribution. 

One mechanism for distributing SECN data will be the internet, which allows data and 

information to reach a broad range of end-users. To standardize and facilitate accessibility, the 

national I&M Program has developed several web-based applications or repositories to store and 

distribute park natural resource information (Table 6-1) that the SECN will use to the greatest 

extent possible. 

Table 6-1. 

Data that are provided on national Inventory & Monitoring Program web sites. 

Web Application / Repository Data Available at Site 

NPSpecies Database of species documented on NPS park units – focusing on vertebrates and vascular 

plants but includes all taxonomic groups. 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/apps/npspp/index.htm) 

NatureBib Bibliographic database of park-related natural resource information. 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/nrbib/index.htm) 

NPSFocus Portal to a variety of NPS information sources. (http://npsfocus.nps.gov/) 

Biodiversity Data Store A digital repository of documents, GIS maps, and data sets that contribute to the knowledge of 

biodiversity in National Park units. (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/biology/) 

NR-GIS Metadata and Data Store Database that manages and shares natural resource and GIS metadata and data generated 

by the Natural Resource and Servicewide GIS Programs of the National Park Service. 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/nrdata/index.cfm) 
104 

Information Management Strategy 

The Vital Signs prioritization process used by the SECN is described in detail in Appendix 4 of 

the SECN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan. Vital signs were selected to take maximum advantage of 

ongoing monitoring efforts being conducted by parks within the network and partnering agencies 

throughout the region – while meeting high ranking monitoring objectives at all parks. This 

approach of developing an integrated monitoring program has been stressed in NPS policies, 

particularly NPS-75 (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1992) and was 

identified as a core requirement of the Network’s information management strategy based on the 

SECN information needs assessment (DataLOGIC, Inc., 2005). The SECN has identified four 

levels of integration through its planning process: 

• Integration among Vital Signs. NPS-75 provides examples and suggestions for ways 

I&M program managers can view data from multiple Vital Signs to assess, model, 

predict, or interpret patterns in data across space and time. 

• Integration among Parks. Integration of data from multiple parks into unified data sets 

allow for Network-wide roll-ups and within network comparisons. 

• Integration with Partnering Agencies. NPS-75 encourages integration with other agencies 

in two manners: through leveraging efforts with other agencies that monitor similar 

resources and by sharing data in standardized multi-agency formats (e.g. STORET). 

• Programmatic Integration. Monitoring data can be analyzed and reported in many ways 

depending on the target audience and intended use of the data. Only by linking findings 

and predicted outcomes to proscribed actions can the Network’s activities become fully 

integrated with other aspects of park management (e.g. planning, law enforcement, 

interpretation, and performance management). 

The SECN conducted an exhaustive information needs assessment (INA) that facilitated the 

integration of SECN Vital Signs monitoring planning and its information management planning 

efforts (DataLOGIC, Inc. 2005a). The SECN INA scoping meetings brought together subject 

matter experts and NPS end-users to begin protocol development in order to define monitoring 

objectives of interest and make recommendations on data collection needs and techniques, 

analysis methodology, and reporting requirements for a wide range of user groups. As a 

collection, these protocol documents begin to define the data and information requirements of the 

SECN I&M program – which are depicted graphically in the SECN conceptual object model. 

The conceptual object model is a theoretical representation of the programmatic requirements 

that potential users of the decision support system need and interact with on an ongoing basis. 

Thus, the information gained during the INA and conceptual object model development will 

serve as the foundation for future SECN information management planning and decision support 

system development activities (Figure 6-1). 
105 

Figure 6-1. The object model is the strategic foundation for future information management efforts. 

Collecting natural resource data is the first step towards understanding the ecosystems within 

national park units. These ecosystems are evolving, as is our knowledge of them and how they 

function. Raw data are used to analyze, synthesize, and model aspects of ecosystems. In turn we 

use results and interpretations to make decisions about network park’s critical natural resources. 

Thus, data collected and maintained by the SECN will become information through analysis, 

synthesis and adaptive modeling. 

Because one of the goals of the I&M program is to base management decisions on scientific 

knowledge in a rapidly changing environment, it is incumbent on the SECN to develop tools that 

allow managers to make decisions on the most recent data available from as many related 

sources as possible. It is therefore the interpretation of the Southeast Coast Network that this 

necessitates the development of a single decision support system that efficiently and costeffectively allows for concurrent analysis of data from multiple Vital Signs and predictive 

modeling (See Chapter 4). This integration will allow the network to institutionalize quality 

information management practices across network parks and to build partnerships with external 

agencies. 

However, initial database development work began in Microsoft Access to support the collection 

of protocol pilot testing data and to reduce the effects of network bandwidth issues among the 

SECN network offices. Even though the original database development began in MS Access as 

individual, stand-alone databases, this development process has proceeded within the framework 

of the network’s conceptual object model – making the transition to a long-term, client-server 

solution much smoother. In other words, this incremental development process will allow 

databases to be implemented and added to the decision support system over a period of years 

without encountering many common problems that result from a lack of data management 

planning. 

Data Stewardship Roles and Responsibilities 

The collection of natural resource information is often a costly and complex process, involving 

many people. As more people become involved in a project, the likelihood of miscommunication 
106 

or misunderstanding between project members increases. Thus, the need for well-defined roles 

and responsibilities becomes crucial to the success of long-term monitoring protocol 

implementation and the quality of data and information produced (Table 6-2). 

Table 6-2. 

SECN roles and responsibilities for data stewardship. 

Role Data Stewardship Responsibility 

Network Roles 

Field Crew Member Collect, record, and verify monitoring data. 

Field Crew Leader Supervise crew and organize data. 

GIS Specialist or Data Technician Acquire data sets from external sources. Process and manage data. 

Remote Sensing Specialist Acquire data sets from external sources. Process and manage data. 

Integrate spatial data and develop network sampling framework with program 

ecologists. 

Program Ecologists Oversee and direct data collection operations following standard operating procedures 

and protocols, including data management. 

Identify, justify and document “outlier” data. 

Apply standard statistical methods to develop sampling designs and analyze data. 

Oversee all aspects of specimen acquisition, documentation and preservation. 

Interpret and report findings. 

Science Information Specialist 

(Data Manager) 

Ensure inventory and monitoring data are organized, useful, compliant, secure, and 

available. 

Oversee archival of related field documents and resultant reports as appropriate. 

Database Programmer Develop network databases within the NRDT and SECN conceptual object model 

framework. 

Develop “front-end” applications to facilitate the rapid entry and quality control of 

monitoring data. 

Work with network Ecologists and Science Information Specialist to facilitate data 

querying and reporting for different end-user groups. 

Park Roles 

Field Crew Member Collect, record, and verify monitoring data. 

Learning Center GIS coordinator Support park management objectives with GIS needs . 

End Users (e.g. managers, 

scientists, interpreters, public) 

Interpret information and use Information products to inform management decisions. 

Identify new information product needs and inform the scope and direction of science 

information product development . 

Park Curator or Museum Specialist Coordinate curation and archival processes with network Ecologists and Science 

Information Specialist. 

Maintain specimens and archives as appropriate. 

Information Technology Specialist Provide IT support for hardware, software and networking. 

Regional Office Roles 

Regional GIS Coordinator Update regional GIS catalog with published SECN data sets. 

Provide central repository data for relevant park, regional, and national GIS data sets 

and accompanying metadata documentation. 

Information Technology Specialist Provide IT support for hardware, software and networking. 

National Roles 

I&M Data Manager (National) Provide service-wide database availability and support. 

Successful data stewardship requires that all people involved in SECN programs learn and 

understand the expectations for ongoing data management activities and be accountable to 

perform the duties required to meet these expectations. This requirement is equally important for 

network and park staff, as well as contractors or cooperators. All personnel involved in protocol 
107 

implementation receive training, briefings, materials and regular communication about data 

stewardship from supervisors, program ecologists and data management personnel. However, the 

chief personnel involved with data management include the SECN Ecologists responsible for 

designing and implementing monitoring protocols, and the Science Information Specialist and 

Database Programmer for developing the databases and facilitating the long term access to 

quality data. The Network Coordinator interacts with network staff to ensure that timelines for 

data entry, validation, verification, summarization/analysis and reporting are met. Figure 6-2 

illustrates the core data management duties of the project leader (typically a network Ecologist) 

and where they overlap. 

Figure 6-2. Core project data stewardship responsibilities of project leaders and data managers. 

Information Technology Infrastructure and System Architecture 

Information technology (IT) infrastructure refers to the network of computers and servers that 

SECN information systems are built upon. SECN relies heavily upon national, regional, and park 

IT personnel and resources to maintain its computer infrastructure (Figure 6-3). This includes, 

but is not limited to: computers, servers, other related hardware, software installation and 

support, email administration, security updates, virus-protection, telecommunications, computer 

networking, and server backup services. 

SECN staff offices are located at the Southeast Regional Office (Atlanta, GA), Cumberland 

Island National Seashore (St. Marys, GA) and Fort Sumter National Monument (Charleston, 

SC). The Southeast Regional Office (SERO) location is considered the primary location (from an 

IT perspective) because it is co-located with the network Science Information Specialist, 

Network Coordinator and regional IT staff. Therefore, the SECN master database will be located 
108 

and administered out of SERO. Additionally, the placement of the master database server at 

SERO allows for protection from likely catastrophic events (e.g. hurricanes). 

The SECN Information Management and Archiving Plan specifies the standards by which data 

and information will be handled (Wright et al. 2006). In addition, network data and information 

resources are compiled, organized, processed, and archived using a structured file system on the 

primary network server that is backed up onto tape as part of the Southeast Region IT backup 

schedule. Network staff will incorporate and follow NPS IT policies, standards, procedures and 

guidelines available from the Office of the Chief Information Officer or Regional IT division.

Figure 6-3. Information technology connectivity diagram. 

Data Acquisition and Lifecycle 

The key to a successful data management program is the involvement of all project staff in data 

management from the outset, combined with the establishment of data management standards, 

guidance and operating procedures that precede the implementation stage of all natural resource 

projects. In other words, data management will not succeed when implemented as an 

afterthought. Although a specific project may have individual data management requirements, 

the SECN Information Management and Archiving Plan provides guidance and standard 

operating procedures for all common project elements (Wright et al. 2006). 

In general, data used by the SECN fall into three main categories: (a) Vital Signs monitoring 

data, (b) project data collection, including historical or legacy data, and (c) incidental observation 
109 

data. In all cases data might originate by NPS staff or external sources depending on the 

protocol. Most data acquired by the network will be collected as field data (inventory or 

monitoring protocols). Methods of field data collection such as paper field data forms, field 

computers, automated data loggers, and GPS units will be addressed in individual monitoring 

protocols and study plans. Field crew members will closely follow the established standard 

operating procedures in the project protocol. Data handling procedures for all data acquired by 

non-program sources, such as data downloaded from other agencies (e.g. air quality and weather 

data) will also be specified in individual monitoring protocols. 

Project data, particularly legacy data exist in a variety of formats and may or may not be 

accompanied by documentation. Legacy data will therefore be dealt with on a case by case basis 

through the process of data mining activities at each park within the network. Project data that 

are adequately documented may be highly relevant to current/ongoing monitoring, serving as a 

baseline of information for future studies. As data are collected for each of the network’s Vital 

Signs, data may take different forms and be maintained in different places as they are acquired, 

processed, documented and archived. Specific details of each protocol’s data lifecycle may vary, 

depending on protocol implementation and project personnel. However, several standard 

practices will be implemented for all SECN protocols: 

• Data are classified in one of three categories – Raw, Provisional, and Certified. All data 

migrate from Raw to Certified data following procedures set forth in network SOPs and 

Protocols. Category descriptions are as follows: 

o Raw. Data that have not been subjected to either quality control or 

documentation procedures. 

o Provisional. Data that have been initially screened for quality to meet 

minimum standards for generation of provisional information products. 

o Certified. Data that have undergone thorough quality assurance and screening 

as well as complete documentation. 

• All raw data are archived, intact in their original format. 

• Working databases are the focal point for all modification, processing, and 

documentation of data. 

• Upon data certification all data will be archived and posted (as appropriate) or otherwise 

integrated with national information management applications. 

• Certified data will also be uploaded into the SECN master database that will be writeprotected to ensure data integrity over time. 

• Information products (e.g. maps, charts, graphs, etc.) developed by the SECN will be 

based only on certified data. These products are also archived and made available to users 

through appropriate data servers or national repositories. 
110 

• Provisional information products may be developed using uncertified data in special 

cases, but will not be released to the public through national systems until such time as 

the underlying data have become certified. 

• Any subsequent changes to certified data sets must be documented in an edit log which is 

distributed along with the data. 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Director’s Order 11b “Ensuring Quality of Information Disseminated by the National Park 

Service” states that “all information disseminated by the NPS must comply with basic standards 

of quality to ensure and maximize the objectivity, utility, and integrity of information 

disseminated to the public” (National Park Service 2002c). Although not every data element 

collected will ultimately be made public, this policy establishes the standard for quality data that 

are reliable, accurate, timely, and compliant with existing laws or policies. To achieve these 

objectives, the SECN has incorporated data and information quality assurance procedures into all 

applicable phases of project development including (but not limited to): data acquisition, data 

handling, summary and analysis, reporting and archiving. 

Specific procedures to ensure data quality are included in long-term monitoring protocols or 

SOPs for each Vital Sign. Although many quality assurance or quality control procedures depend 

upon the individual protocol being implemented, some general concepts apply to all work being 

conducted by the network. 

• Project team member and field crew training. 

• Equipment maintenance and calibration. 

• Standardized field data sheets with descriptive data dictionaries. 

• Use of handheld computers and data loggers when appropriate. 

• Standard operating procedures for collecting data in the field. 

• Database features to minimize transcription or other errors including pick lists and range 

limits. 

• Automated and user-assisted data verification and validation routines. 

• Metadata or project documentation requirements. 

• Access controls to project data. 

Quality assurance methods will be established and in place at the inception of any protocol and 

continue through all implementation stages until the final archiving of data has occurred. It is 

critical that each member of the monitoring team work to ensure data quality. Finally, all SECN 

data will be accompanied by documentation and/or metadata as appropriate upon distribution. 
111 

Data Documentation 

The definition of metadata is data documentation or data about data – making it a key aspect of 

data collection and analysis. Metadata documents the who, what, why, where, when, and how of 

a project and when linked to the project data enables users to properly evaluate and utilize data 

sets throughout the lifecycle of the data. In other words, the creation of metadata serves to 

facilitate data longevity, helps publicize data and facilitates access to and the use of data by 

others into the future. 

At a minimum, all data managed by the network require the following: 

• Feature-level metadata about each record in a database (e.g. data dictionaries and entityrelationship diagrams). Data records collected using network protocols will include the 

name, date and version of the appropriate protocol. 

• Data set metadata must meet NPS or Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) 

standards, as appropriate. 

• Archives of field notes, laboratory reports and/or analysis procedures. 

Project protocols and SOPs will provide complete background information, objectives, and 

methodology that directly relates to the metadata and vice versa. To achieve the required content 

and detail for metadata, the SECN uses a number of techniques, including: 

• Specific metadata requirements included in all contracts and cooperative agreements for 

work being conducted through cooperators. 

• Training in NPS and FGDC metadata content standards for geospatial, biological, and 

tabular data. 

• Training and access to online resources and software tools for metadata generation. 

• Incorporating feature level metadata requirements into data collection procedures. 

For all monitoring protocols, extensive standard operating procedures provide detailed guidance 

on data quality objectives. These SOPs are specific to each protocol, yet fall within the 

guidelines established by the NPS and FGDC. Upon completion, metadata documentation will 

accompany all SECN data sets that are certified and available for distribution. The SECN 

Science Information Specialist is responsible for ensuring that metadata are complete for all 

network data sets. 

Data Summary and Analysis 

Providing meaningful results from data summary and analysis is a cornerstone of the I&M 

program and characterizes the network’s information management mission to provide useful 

information for managers, scientists and other end-users. Each monitoring protocol establishes 

requirements for on-demand and scheduled data analyses and report or product generation. 

Based on these requirements, the associated information management system will include 
112 

functions to summarize and report directly from the data as well as output formats for import into 

other analysis software programs. In addition to tabular and charted summaries, the network 

provides maps of natural resource data and GIS analysis products to communicate spatial 

locations, relationships and geospatial modeling results. Please refer to Chapter 7 of the SECN 

Vital Signs monitoring plan for a more detail description of the SECN analysis and reporting 

schedule and procedures. 

Data Dissemination 

The SECN data dissemination strategy aims to ensure that: 

• Data are easily discoverable and obtainable. 

• Only certified data (data subject to complete quality assurance procedures) are released 

unless necessary to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. 

• Distributed data are accompanied by appropriate documentation. 

• Sensitive data are identified and protected from unauthorized access and inappropriate 

use. 

The Network’s website and server (through a combination of SQL Server, Reporting Services, 

and Microsoft Office SharePoint Services) provide an information portal that assembles and 

links existing and planned services that provide for most of the Network’s data and information 

distribution requirements. In the following list, access to virtually all network data and 

information is permitted according to the access permissions (security level) of the user. All data 

are available to network staff and network parks; most data are available service-wide and nonprotected data are available to all external users. 

• Inventory and monitoring planning and project reports are online at the SECN website 

and SharePoint. 

• Park and network monitoring protocols and database designs are online at the NPS 

Protocol Clearinghouse. 

• Searchable metadata are online at the NPS NR-GIS Metadata and Data Store. 

• Original and processed data sets from the parks and network are online at the NPS 

Biodiversity Data Store and/or the NPS NR-GIS Metadata and Data Store. 

• Annually updated water quality data are online at the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

STORET website. 

• Biodiversity data and information are available online at the NPSpecies website. 

• Scientific citations are online at the NatureBib website. 
113 

The network also serves data requests using file transfer protocol (FTP), attaching reports and 

other products with small file sizes to email and shipping digital media such as DVD, CD-ROM, 

diskette and magnetic tape cartridge. 

SECN data and information products are considered property of the NPS; however, the Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) establishes access by any person to federal agency records that are 

not protected from disclosure by any exemption or by special law enforcement record exclusions. 

The SECN will comply with all FOIA provisions regarding sensitive data. If the NPS determines 

that disclosure of information would be harmful, information may be withheld concerning the 

nature and specific location of: 

• Endangered, threatened, rare or commercially valuable National Park System Resources 

(species and habitats). 

• Mineral or paleontological objects. 

• Objects of cultural patrimony. 

• Significant caves. 

Each Vital Signs Monitoring Protocol leader, as the primary data steward, will determine data 

sensitivity in light of federal law, and will stipulate the conditions for release of the data in the 

project protocol and metadata. Network staff will classify sensitive data on a case by case basis – 

working closely with network parks, cooperators, and contractors to ensure that potentially 

sensitive park resources are identified, and that information about these resources is tracked 

throughout the duration of any SECN-funded activities. The investigators, whether network 

staff, park staff or partners, will develop procedures to flag all potentially sensitive resources in 

any products that come from the project, including documents, maps, databases, and metadata. 

When submitting any products or results, investigators should specifically identify all records 

and other references to potentially sensitive resources. Partners should not release any 

information in a public forum before consulting with NPS staff to ensure that the information is 

not classified as sensitive or protected. 

Director’s Order #66 (the final guidance will be contained in the Reference Manual 66) provides 

guidance for determining whether information should be protected (National Park Service 

2003a). Natural Resource information that is deemed sensitive or protected requires the 

following security steps: 

• Identification of potentially sensitive resources. 

• Compilation of all records relating to those resources. 

• Determination of what data must not be released to the public. 

• Management and archival of those records to avoid their unintentional release. 
114 

Data Maintenance, Storage and Archiving 

SECN data maintenance, storage and archiving procedures ensure that data and related 

documents (digital and analog) are: 

• Kept up to date with regards to content and format such that data are easily accessed and 

their lineage and quality easily learned. 

• Physically secure against environmental hazards, catastrophe and security threats. 

Technological obsolescence is a significant cause of information loss, and data can quickly 

become inaccessible to users if they are stored in out-of-date software programs or on outmoded 

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, data sets must be consistently migrated to new platforms, or they 

must be saved in formats that are independent of specific platforms or software (e.g., ASCII 

delimited files). 

Data will be migrated so that data are maintained in software versions no older than one version 

behind the current version. Thus it is likely that data will be migrated once every three to five 

years – more frequently if there are major software changes that occur that render older versions 

obsolete and incompatible. 

• Primary data maintenance will be performed on the SECN data servers. The data and 

information content of files stored on this server will be kept current. Accompanying 

metadata files will reflect any data updates as well. 

• A catalogue of the data and information on these servers will be maintained on the SECN 

website and reflect changes and updates to data holdings. Additionally, program archives 

will also be updated to mirror content on the data servers. 

• Latest versions of primary data will be available in conventional formats reflecting 

common data usages in the resource management community. 

Natural History Archiving, Curation and Records Management 

In most instances, administrative documents, natural history specimens, photographs, audio tapes 

and other materials are essential companions to digital data and information. Direction for 

managing many of these materials (as well as digital materials) is provided in NPS Director’s 

Order 19 (National Park Service 2001b) and its appendix NPS Records Disposition 

Schedule(National Park Service 2003b). NPS-19 states that all records of natural and cultural 

resources and their management are considered mission-critical records – necessary for the 

fulfillment of the NPS mission and must be permanently archived. 

The SECN Information Management and Archiving Plan includes a project close-out checklist 

(SOP X) to guide project leaders in complying with archival directives (Dahl-Kearney and 

Wright 2006). Natural resource archives may contain any or all of the following: field notes, 
115 

daily journals, maps, drawings, photos and negatives, digital photos, slides, videotapes, raw data 

sheets, remote sensing data, copies of contracts, correspondence, repository agreements, 

specialists' reports and analyses, reports and manuscripts, collection inventories, field catalogs, 

analytical study data, sound recordings, computer documentation and data, tabulations and lists, 

specimen preparation records, conservation treatment records, and reports on all scientific 

samples lost through destructive analysis. Standards for materials used in project involving 

natural resource specimens and archives are also presented in SOP X of the SECN Information 

Management and Archiving Plan (Russell Wright and Dahl-Kearney 2006). 

A separate standard operating procedure entitled “Natural History Collections Laws and 

Policies” provides users with an overview of NPS rules and regulations pertaining to the 

collection of voucher specimens and other natural history collections (Harrison 2001). 

Implementation 

The purpose of this Information Management and Archiving Plan is to develop guidance for 

current and future staff of the SECN and network parks. In addition, the Plan strives to ensure 

that sounds data management practices are followed in all new projects while legacy data are 

brought up to standard and made useable. To that end, the SECN will keep the Information 

Management and Archiving Plan simple, flexible, and evolving. Continued involvement of endusers in the decision-making process is crucial to the successful adoption of the guidance and 

recommendations provided in this Plan. 

The SECN will update the Plan to ensure that it reflects accurately the Network’s current 

standards and practices. Recommendations for changes can be forwarded to the SECN Science 

Information Specialist by any interested party or user of network data and/or information 

products. These recommendations will be discussed by network and park staff as needed to 

decide what actions to implement. Simple changes can be made immediately while substantive 

changes will be made during scheduled updates to the plan (minimally every 5 years). Plan 

updates will be distributed to members of the network Technical Steering Committee prior to 

implementation and be housed on the SECN website 

(http://www1.nature.nps.gov/im/units/secn/). 

Database Development and Implementation Schedule 

As described previously, the results of the INA (Chapter 6.2) strongly supported the 

development of a single, integrated decision support system design rather than individual, standalone databases that address particular monitoring objectives. The conceptual object model 

combined with SECN long-term monitoring protocols and supporting SOP’s serve as the 

foundation for database and application development that will ultimately form the SECN 

decision support system. However, database development began in MS Access in order to 

address the following issues: 

• SECN monitoring protocols are in the development or pilot testing phase. In these early 

stages, changes to data collection procedures and parameters are possible (if not 

guaranteed) and the deployment of supporting stand-alone databases will be much faster. 
116 

• Current bandwidth issues between network offices, make the use of a client-server 

(enterprise) database solution less feasible in the short-term. Thus local, working copies 

of protocol databases in MS Access will better meet network needs. 

Even though the original database development took place in MS Access as individual, standalone databases, this development process proceeded within the framework of the network’s 

conceptual object model – making the transition to a long-term, client-server solution much 

smoother. Initial development of the SECN decision support system has already begun with the 

implementation of SQL Server 2005, Microsoft Office SharePoint Server and Reporting services 

and will meet the following requirements: 

• Database and application development will be compatible with NPS 

standards/requirements, and build upon the SECN conceptual object model. 

• Database and applications will support both spatial (e.g. vector and raster GIS data) and 

non-spatial (tabular) data. The Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) 

geodatabase model versus the geographic data type in SQL Server 2008 will be evaluated 

for use in this decision support system. 

• SQL server will serve as the primary database repository 

The current SECN production environment includes the following: 

• Windows Server 2003 

• SQL Server 2005, enterprise version (potentially migrating to SQL Server 2008 – 

enterprise version upon release) 

• SQL Server Reporting Services 

• Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) 2007 – enterprise version 

• Internet Information Services (IIS) 6.0 

• .NET framework 2.0 and 3.0 

• Dundas Data Visualization for Reporting Services 

The current SECN development tools are Microsoft Office InfoPath 2007, Microsoft Visual 

Studio 2005, and Microsoft SQL Server 2005. 

The tentative database development schedule is presented below (Table 6-3), indicating 

development in MS Access (if applicable) and migration to SQL server or direct implementation 

in SQL server. Migration to the SECN decision support system began in fiscal year 2008. As we 

progress through FY 2009 and beyond the network will reevaluate the implementation schedule 

based on a protocol by protocol basis, staffing and work plan requirements. 
117 

Table 6-3. 

Database development schedule for all field protocols and data acquisition SOPs to be implemented by the 

SECN. Development schedule and status of each SOP that outlines for the acquisition, management and 

interpretation of data for these Vital Signs are provided in Appendix 13. 

Vital Sign(s) MS Access Database SQL Server Database Automated Reporting 

Field Protocols 

Coastal Shoreline Change Not Planned FY09 FY10 

Stream Habitat Assessment Not Planned FY10 FY11 

Salt Marsh Elevation Not Planned FY09 FY10 

Marine Water Quality Completed FY08 FY09 

Fixed-Station Water Quality Completed FY08 FY09 

Amphibians Not Planned FY09 FY09 

Breeding Forest Birds Not Planned FY09 FY09 

Plant Communities Not Planned FY10 FY11 

Wintering & Migratory Shorebirds Completed FY08 FY09 

Landscape Change Detection Not Planned FY10 FY11 

Data Acquisition & Analysis SOPs 

Ozone Not Planned FY10 FY10 

Wet and Dry Deposition 

Air Contaminants 

Not Planned FY10 FY10 

Visibility and Particulate Matter Not Planned FY10 FY10 

Weather & Climate Not Planned FY09 FY10 

Groundwater Dynamics Not Planned FY09 FY09 

Stream Flow Discharge Not Planned FY10 FY10 

Stream Water Quality Not Planned FY10 FY11 

Fisheries Take Not Planned FY11 FY12 

Visitor Use Not Planned FY11 FY12 

Land Management & Disturbance Not Planned FY11 FY11 

119 

Chapter 7. Data Analysis and Reporting 

The information obtained through the SECN monitoring program has a wealth of applications 

including management decision-making, research, education, and promotion of public 

understanding of SECN park resources. Park managers are the primary audience for the results 

of Vital Signs monitoring. Our goal is to provide superintendents and resource managers with the 

data they need to make and defend management decisions and to work with others for the benefit 

of park resources. Other key audiences for monitoring results include park planners, interpreters, 

researchers and other scientific collaborators, and the general public. To be effective, monitoring 

data must be analyzed, interpreted, and provided at regular intervals to each of these audiences in 

a format they can use. It is important to analyze SECN monitoring data at several different 

scales, and the same information needs to be distributed in different formats to resonate with 

different audiences. 

This chapter presents an overview of how the SECN proposes to analyze, synthesize, and 

disseminate monitoring results to a wide variety of audiences in a timely manner. 

Data Analysis 

To conduct an appropriate analysis of monitoring data, one must consider the monitoring 

objectives, the spatial and temporal aspects of the sampling design used, the intended audiences, 

and management uses of the data. Selection of specific analytical methods should occur 

following determination of monitoring objectives and sampling design and before conducting 

field sampling. Each monitoring protocol will contain detailed information on analytical tools to 

be used, approaches for data analysis and interpretation, rationale for a particular approach 

including the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure, and standard operating 

procedures (SOPs) for each prescribed analysis. Four levels of analysis will be conducted by the 

SECN: data summarization and characterization, status determination, trends evaluation, and 

integrated analysis (Table 7-1). 

In general, the lead ecologist for a particular protocol will determine the suite of analytic 

approaches for status and trends analyses and will also conduct and report the analyses. 

Integrated analyses that examine patterns across Vital Signs will require a team approach, 

necessitating collaboration among multiple lead ecologists. 

To provide a context for data analysis, a brief conceptual overview of some of the analyitical 

tools that will be used by the SECN is presented below. More specific details of the proposed 

analyses for the SECN Vital Signs are presented in Table 7-2. 

Parameter Estimation 

The most common type of analysis for SECN Vital Signs will be parameter estimation. This can 

involve either the estimation of the state or condition of a given resource (status) or the change in 

that resource state over time (trend). This analysis focuses on measuring and describing the 

attributes of a population in terms of its distribution and structural features. Using this method 

requires an understanding of the distribution from which the samples are drawn such as the bias 

in the estimate of central tendency and the precision or variability in the data. If the expected 

value of the estimate (e.g., the mean from repeated samples) is equal to the true value of the 
120 

parameter, then the estimator is considered unbiased. If the parameter estimate differs 

systematically from the true value (e.g., repeated samples are always greater than the true value), 

then the estimator is biased. Precision reflects variation in the data; the greater the precision (or 

tendency of the samples to be close to the true value), the less variation in the data. 

Table 7-1. 

Categories of analyses for SECN Vital Signs. 

Level of Analysis Description 

Data Summarization and 

Characterization 

Calculation of basic statistics of interest including measures of location and dispersion. 

Summarization encompasses measured and derived variables specified in the monitoring protocol. 

Data Summarization and characterization forms the bases of more comprehensive analyses and for 

communicating results in both graphical and tabular formats. 

Status Determination Analysis and interpretation of 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 historic levels? 

• Do observed values exceed a regulatory standard, a known or hypothesized ecological 

threshold, or a management-driven target? What is the level of confidence that the observed 

values exceeded the standard, target, or threshold? 

• What is the spatial distribution (within the park, network, watershed, ecoregion) of observed 

values for a given point in time? Do these patterns suggest directional relationships with other 

ecological factors? 

Status determination involves comparison to established assessment criteria, expert interpretation of 

the basic statistics, and statistical analysis to address these monitoring questions. Assumptions about 

the target population and the level of confidence in the estimates will be ascertained during the 

analysis. 

Trends Evaluation Evaluations of trends in Vital Signs will address: 

• Is there a directional change in a Vital Sign over the period of measurement? 

• What is the rate of change (sudden vs. gradual), and how does this pattern compare with trends 

over broader spatial scales and known ecological relationships? 

• What is the level of confidence that an actual change (or lack thereof) has occurred? 

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. 

Integrated Analysis Examination of patterns across Vital Signs in a geospatial context 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). 

• Development of predictive models. 

Synthetic analysis has great potential to explain ecological relationships in the non-experimental 

context of Vital Signs monitoring and will require close interaction with academic and agency 

researchers. 

Evaluation of trend estimates (and determining if change has occurred over time) is a primary 

focus of our long-term monitoring program. SECN will employ several common statistical and 

graphical techniques to evaluate trends. One easily interpreted method of representing trends of 

the estimated parameters is to use graphs. This simple technique plots values of the parameter 

through time, and can easily show if the parameter is increasing, decreasing, fluctuating, or not 

changing significantly. A common statistical tool for evaluating the relationship of one or more 

independent variables to a single, continuous dependent variable is regression analysis. We will 

use regression analysis to calculate the trend slope of parameter estimates over time. In this case, 

determining if change has occurred is a form of hypothesis testing where the null hypothesis is 
121 

that the slope is 0. Analysis of variance-based (ANOVA) trend analysis will be employed when 

populations are categorized into domains of interest (e.g., vegetation types). 

Hypothesis Testing 

Related to detecting change in parameter estimates over time, we will also use hypothesis testing 

for other selected purposes. In scientific settings, hypothesis testing is a keystone approach in 

experimental research to determine effects of treatments. For our purposes, this method will be 

used when the status of a given resource is tested against reference values, such as legal 

thresholds (e.g., water quality standards) or desired conditions. We will use this method to test 

whether or not conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between the parameter estimate 

and the reference to which it is being compared. 

Model Selection 

A third analytical approach we will use is model selection to help better understand the dynamic 

relationships among park resources, ecosystem drivers, and stressors. One goal of developing 

models is to provide decision makers with an early warning of abnormal conditions or resource 

impairments. This approach considers multiple lines of evidence within the monitoring data to 

support development of a suite of models that represent multiple hypotheses concerning the 

desired relationships. The model selection approach will be used in developing the SECN 

integrated analysis reports (see below). 

Model selection will be based on the principle of parsimony, where the appropriate model should 

contain only enough (significant) parameters to account for the variation in the data. One 

objective is to compare models with varying numbers of parameters and then select an “optimal” 

model that is neither too simple nor too complex and is biologically meaningful. A companion 

objective is to use information-theoretic approaches (Burnham and Anderson 2002) to compare 

the relative strength of competing models. Models can be evaluated and ranked using criteria 

such as how well data fit the model and the number of parameters. 

Bayesian Approaches 

We will consider use of a fourth analytical approach, Bayesian statistical methods, as an 

alternative to traditional, frequentist statistics. In general, Bayesian approaches allow for the 

incorporation of previous evidence (data) along with new information to estimate the probability 

of a particular outcome. This technique may be useful during model selection. These statistical 

methods are based on Bayes’s theorem (Bayes 1763). More specifically, Bayesian methods use 

the observed data to calculate the probability of the value of a parameter. With additional data, 

Bayesian techniques draw on this prior (a priori) distribution to derive a new (posterior) 

distribution that incorporates the likelihood of the data given the prior distribution. This approach 

is appealing because it takes into account all of the information accumulated and enables an 

assessment about the probability of a given hypothesis being true, rather than rejection or 

acceptance based on a specified threshold (i.e., the α-level or p-value of traditional statistics). A 

Bayesian approach may be well suited in selecting models to relate the dynamic nature of park 

resources over the long-term because of its ability to continually incorporate updates to 

parameter estimates as data accumulate (e.g., Johnson 2005). 
122 

Data Reporting 

We will use a variety of approaches to disseminate the results of the SECN monitoring program 

to park managers, scientists, and the general public. The network will regularly prepare two 

types of data reports for each monitoring project: data summary reports and long-term (3- to 10-

year) trend reports. These reports will form the basis for a variety of secondary information 

products. Over a longer time interval, synthetic reports that integrate trend data from linked 

monitoring projects will be prepared to describe the overall condition or integrity of a park 

resource or ecosystem. In addition to these regular reporting formats, network staff will work 

individually with SECN parks to meet special park information requests. Parks engaged in the 

preparation of planning documents (e.g., General Management Plans, or Resource Stewardship 

Strategies) or management assessments might require specific data summaries to meet a 

particular need. Three types of reports are described below, as well as our other approaches to 

data dissemination. 

Data Summary Reports for Individual Protocols 

The primary purposes of data summary reports are to: 

• Summarize data and document monitoring activities for the year 

• Describe conditions of the resources sampled, and 

• Provide data back to park managers in a timely way to increase data utility and improve 

communication within and among SECN parks. 

Several of our monitoring protocols involve data collection each year (e.g., climate, water 

quality) and the protocols for these Vital Signs include producing annual reports. For monitoring 

projects involving less frequent data collection (e.g., breeding forest birds, plant communities, 

and landscape change detections), summary reports will be prepared in those years when 

sampling occurs. Where possible, annual reports will be based on automated data summarization 

routines built into the database for each protocol. The automation of data summaries and annual 

reports will facilitate the network’s ability to manage multiple projects and to produce reports 

with consistent content from year to year at timely intervals. For more complex analyses, data 

will be analyzed using statistical software packages. Reporting for some Vital Signs (e.g., water 

quality) will include an evaluation of current status against historical levels, reference conditions, 

or regulatory standards. Data summary reports will be reviewed by network staff with 

responsibility for implementing relevant protocols to assure data quality. 

Trend Reports for Individual Protocols 

The primary purpose of trend reports is to report on the following: 

• Patterns and trends in condition of resources being monitored, 

• New characteristics of resources and correlations among related Vital Signs, 

• Degree of change that can be detected by the current level of sampling, and 
123 

• Interpretation of monitoring data in a park, multi-park, and regional context. 

Examples of trend reports for SECN include: 

• Water quality trends at fixed water quality monitoring stations, 

• Changes in the position of coastal shorelines over time, 

• Changes in the elevation of salt marshes in SECN coastal parks, and 

• Trends in the number of observed piping plovers at CAHA 

Trend reports will be prepared every 3 to 5 years for Vital Signs that are sampled annually and at 

a 10-year interval for Vital Signs that are monitored less frequently. Trend reports will be peerreviewed by an external three-member panel. 

Integrated Analysis Reports 

The primary purpose of integrated analysis reports is to examine patterns among Vital Signs and 

other data sets to gain broad insights into ecosystem processes and trends in ecosystem integrity. 

This may be accomplished through: 

• Comparisons of monitoring trends with known or hypothesized relationships, 

• Data exploration and confirmation of hypothesized relationships (e.g., ordination, 

classification, multiple regression, structural equation modeling), or 

• Development of predictive models. 

Examples of integrated analysis reports for SECN include: 

• Trends in water quality, surface water dynamics, and stream habitat as a function of 

changes in watershed land use and land cover, 

• Trends in the number of bird observations at CAHA as a function of visitor use and park 

management (closures), and 

• Trends in marine water quality at SECN parks compared to that of the entire south 

Atlantic. 

These analyses will contribute to our understanding of ecological relationships and provide a 

weight-of evidence approach to describing changes in ecosystem condition. Integrated analysis 

reports will be prepared at 10-year (or longer) intervals and will be peer reviewed by an external 

three-member panel. 

Data Dissemination 

The SECN will provide monitoring data through a variety of means including workshops, 

presentations, publications, newsletters, and websites. 
124 

Network Workshops 

Network staff, park scientists, and collaborators involved in monitoring SECN Vital Signs will 

routinely meet with park managers to provide a briefing on the condition of park natural 

resources and discuss possible implications for management. These workshops may be organized 

by ecosystems or by broad monitoring topics. The workshops will serve to increase the 

availability and utility of monitoring results for park managers and promote communication 

among the contributing scientists and park managers. 

Scientific Publications, Presentations, and Outreach 

Publishing in scientific journal articles and book chapters is a key method for communicating 

advances in knowledge and improving the scientific rigor of the monitoring program. Network 

staff, park scientists, and collaborators will also periodically present their findings at professional 

symposia, conferences, and workshops to communicate the latest findings and identify emerging 

issues relevant to natural resource monitoring and management. Along with providing scientific 

reports, each scientist involved with network monitoring will be asked to contribute materials 

(e.g., story ideas, photographs) for use in newsletters, interpretive talks and exhibits, and other 

media in order to inform and entertain the general public. 

Internet and Intranet Websites 

Internet and NPS intranet websites are contemporary tools useful for promoting communication, 

coordination, and collaboration among the many people, programs, and agencies involved in the 

SECN monitoring program. All written products of the monitoring effort, unless they contain 

sensitive or commercially valuable information that needs to be restricted, will be posted to the 

SECN internet website: http://www1.nature.nps.gov/im/units/secn/index.htm. 

Documents available on this network website will include this monitoring plan; all protocols; 

annual, trend, and integrated analysis reports; and other materials of interest to NPS staff and our 

collaborators. 

Additionally, to promote communication and coordination within the network, we will maintain 

a password-protected intranet website where draft products, works in progress, and other 

materials that require restricted access can be shared within the program. 
125 

Table 7-2. 

Summary of proposed analyses for SECN Vital Signs. Deferred Vital Signs are not included. 

Vital Signs 

(grouped by protocol / SOP) 

Proposed Analyses 

Air Quality Vital Signs (ozone, 

wet and dry deposition, visibility 

and particulate matter, and air 

contaminants) 

Status: Monthly and annual means of air quality parameters for each sentinel station identified 

inside or near SECN parks. 

Trend: Analyses of major ions, particulates, and number of days with exceedences for ozone; 

qualitative comparison of regional trends. 

Weather and Climate Status: Monthly and annual means of climate measures for each sentinel station identified inside 

or near a park; number of days above 95th percentile and below 5th percentile for both air 

temperature and precipitation. 

Trend: Descriptive comparisons of current year climate measures to historical trends on a yearly 

and monthly basis; qualitative and quantitative comparisons of annual climate conditions and 

trends, and climatic extremes among SECN park units and with regional trends. 

Coastal Shoreline Change Status: Annual to semi-annual position of shorelines; 

Trends: Spatial pattern analyses to determine areas of high variance in shoreline position. 

Salt Marsh Elevation Status: Mean and variance of elevation of sentinel stations by park. 

Trend: Regression-based analyses of elevation data; correlative analyses among measured 

attributes and Weather and Climate and Groundwater Dynamics measures. 

Stream/ River Channel 

Characteristics 

Status: Mean and variance of measured attributes; reach-level inferences of monitored attributes. 

Trend: Regression-based analyses; correlative analyses with data from other related Vital Signs 

(Land Use and Cover, and Stream Water Quality); qualitative and quantitative comparisons of 

status and trends of measured attributes among SECN park units. 

Groundwater Dynamics Status: Mean and variance of freshwater and saltwater Table levels. 

Trend: Regression-based analyses of measured data; correlative analyses with data from other 

related Vital Signs (Land Use and Cover, and Surface Water Dynamics). 

Surface Water Dynamics Status: Mean and variance of freshwater and saltwater Table levels. 

Trend: Regression-based analyses of measured data; correlative analyses with data from other 

related Vital Signs (Land Use and Cover, and Groundwater Dynamics). 

Marine Water Quality Status: Mean and variance of measured attributes; park-level inferences of monitored attributes. 

Site and park-wide assessment of water quality based on EPA’s National Coastal Assessment 

standards. Monthly quality assurance and control for data collected at fixed stations. Summarize 

site data by season and tabulate values exceeding and approaching exceedence of standards 

(70% or less below the applicable standard); summary Table, histograms, and central tendency 

plots to show frequency distribution, median and interquartile ranges (for non-normally distributed 

data), mean and standard deviation (for normally distributed data) and 95% confidence intervals 

for means and medians of parameters at each site. 

Trend: Site-level trend analysis adjusted for season and flow for individual constituents. 

Statistical tests include Seasonal Kendall tests for monotonic trends and Seasonal Rank Sum 

tests for step trends. 

Riverine Water Quality Status: Mean and variance of measured attributes; park-level inferences of monitored attributes. 

Monthly quality assurance and control for data collected at fixed stations. Summarize site data by 

season and tabulate values exceeding and approaching exceedence of standards (70% or less 

below the applicable standard); summary Tables, histograms, and box and whisker plots to show 

frequency distribution, median and interquartile ranges (for non-normally distributed data), mean 

and standard deviation (for normally distributed data) and 95% confidence intervals for means and 

medians of parameters at each site. 

Trend: Site-level trend analysis adjusted for season and flow for individual constituents. 

Statistical tests include Seasonal Kendall tests for monotonic trends and Seasonal Rank Sum 

tests for step trends. 

Plant Communities, Invasive/ 

Exotic Plant Species 

Status: Mean and variance of measured attributes; park-level inferences of monitored attributes. 

Trend: Regression-based analyses of breeding bird density and comparison of trends among 

park units, Land Use and Cover, Amphibian, Breeding Forest Bird, and Weather and Climate 

measures. 
126 

Vital Signs 

(grouped by protocol / SOP) 

Proposed Analyses 

Amphibians, Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 

Status: Mean and variance of species presence, absence and abundance, soil moisture, downed 

woody debris, duff depth, and incidence/prevalence rates of chytrid fungus by species and park.

Trend: Regression-based analyses of breeding bird density and comparison of trends among 

park units, Plant Community measures, Land Use and Cover measures, and Weather and Climate 

measures. 

Breeding Forest Birds Status: Number of observations and density by species, and by park. 

Trend: Regression-based analyses of breeding bird density and comparison of trends among 

park units, Plant Community measures, Land Use and Cover measures, and Weather and Climate 

measures. 

Shorebirds Status: Monthly, seasonal and annual mean and variance of observations of shorebirds and 

beached birds by species, park mile, habitat, spit, island, or park. Location of observations of 

shorebirds and beached birds within the last day, week, or month. 

Trend: Analyses (regression-based, ANOVA) of observation records and measures of visitor use, 

habitat, season, tide, and location. Correlative analyses between Land Cover and Use

(particularly areas of closures) and observations. 

Fisheries Take Status: Monthly mean and variance of quantity and size of catch by species for counties or states 

around SECN coastal parks (scale determined by availability of data). 

Trend: Regression-based analyses of monthly data. 

Visitor Use Status: Monthly mean and variance of numbers of visitors as determined by park visitor use 

surveys or other park-based visitor use measures. 

Trend: Regression-based analyses of monthly data. 

Land Cover and Use Status: Description and measures (including abundance, spatial distribution, and connectivity) of 

land use and cover and vegetation types within and adjacent to SECN parks from classified 

remotely-sensed imagery and from use of landscape metrics software programs. 

Trend: Change detection of land cover and vegetation types and patterns using spectral 

comparison methods; regression-based analyses of changes along and within park boundaries; 

correlative analyses of broad-scale climate changes with changes in landscape vegetation 

pattern; qualitative and quantitative comparisons of status and trends of land cover and vegetation 

patterns among SECN park units. 
127 

Chapter 8. Administration / Implementation of the Monitoring 

Program 

Coordination among Network Parks 

Network member parks are committed to cooperate and foster an atmosphere of fairness, trust, 

and respect throughout the Network. The parks within the Network are pursuing an inclusive 

approach in defining Network management issues and resources of concern, and in identifying 

the best locations to monitor these resources, as well as implementing the I&M program using 

scientifically credible standards. Operations of the partnership among the SECN parks are 

governed by the Network Charter, signed by all park Superintendents (Appendix 1), which 

explicitly spells out the roles and membership of three core groups of individuals: the Board of 

Directors, the Technical Steering Committee, and Network Staff (Figure 8-1). 

Board of Directors 

The SECN Board of Directors is comprised of five Network park Superintendents and the 

Southeast Region I&M Coordinator, with one superintendent elected to serve as the chairperson 

(Figure 8-1). Board member Superintendents serve for three years, while the Chair serves for 

two years. The Chair leaves the Board after serving as Chair. Terms are renewable other than the 

Chair, which rotates off at least one year after serving as chair. At a minimum, one new board 

member is added from the remaining parks every two years at the time a new chairperson is 

selected. Vacancies will be filled by the Chairperson with the concurrence of the remaining 

Board. The SER I&M Coordinator is a permanent member of the Board. The SECN Coordinator 

and Chairperson will facilitate meetings and communications of members and with all network 

parks. The SECN Coordinator will serve as advisor to the Board of Directors. 

The Board promotes accountability and effectiveness by reviewing progress toward goals, 

quality controls, and Network expenditures. The Board collaborates with the Network 

Coordinator, Technical Steering Committee, and Network parks’ natural resource staffs in the 

overall design and implementation of Vital Signs monitoring and in other management activities 

related to the Natural Resource Challenge. 

Technical Steering Committee 

The Technical Steering Committee is comprised of resource managers (elected by the Network 

Park Resource representatives with the concurrence of their Park Superintendent), and nonvoting, volunteer scientists as needed. The Committee includes the Network Coordinator, Data 

Manager, CESU coordinator, park natural resource managers, and other scientists with 

knowledge of sampling procedures, monitoring techniques, and statistical methods that serve as 

reviewers to evaluate conceptual designs, monitoring strategies, and ecological relevance of 

monitoring proposals. 

The Technical Steering Committee advises the Board and Network parks on the development 

and findings of the Network Monitoring Plan by: 

• Compiling and summarizing existing information about park resources and the findings 

and recommendations of scoping workshops. 
128 

• Assisting in the development of a network monitoring strategy. 

• Assisting in the selection of Vital Signs. 

• Evaluating initial sampling designs, methods, and protocols to ensure that they are 

scientifically credible. 

• Participating in the development of the Annual Work Plan and Annual Reports. 

• Reviewing annual data reports, I&M deliverables, and otherwise acting as a peer science 

review group. 

• Developing materials for and facilitating the Five Year Program Review. 

Figure 8-1. Organization and staffing plan for the Southeast Coast Network as of 09 September 2008. 

Staffing plan for the Network will change as the program moves from a planning to an operational phase. 

Products and recommendations of the Technical Steering Committee are presented to the Board 

of Directors for discussion, modification, and approval. When necessary, the Network 

Coordinator may recommend to the Board of Directors the formation of groups of scientists or 
129 

specialists from within or outside the Technical Steering Committee to accomplish specific 

studies/tasks. 

Network Staff 

Staffing for the Southeast Coast Network is expected to change as the program moves from a 

planning to an operational phase. The staffing plan for implementation includes three “tiers” of 

position: (a) core professional-level staff with primary responsibility for stewardship of one or 

more of the SECN monitoring protocols, (b) support staff, to assist with program administration 

and field work related to long-term monitoring efforts, and (c) field staff to assist with (or lead) 

synoptic monitoring projects that augment baseline long-term monitoring efforts. 

At full implementation, the network will require twelve full-time staff members and one parttime (shared) administrative support staff member (Figure 8-2). Because the network has a 

limited number of FTEs (eight), four of the technician-level positions will be filled through 

contractors or through partnerships with agencies, universities, or NGOs within the region. It is 

anticipated that the core staff will be divided among two offices – one located at Fort Sumter 

National Monument in Charleston, SC, and one located at Cumberland Island National Seashore, 

in Saint Mary’s, GA. Both office locations were selected to minimize operational costs (rent, 

travel) while maximizing the Network’s ability to partner with other agencies with expertise and 

interests in monitoring SECN Vital Signs. 

Network Coordinator 

(Permanent)

Science Info. 

Specialist

(Permanent)

GIS / Bio Tech

(Term)

Data / Bio Tech

(Contract)

Remote Sensing 

Specialist

(Permanent)

Water Quality 

Specialist

(Permanent)

Wildlife Ecologist 

(Permanent)

Plant Ecologist

(Permanent)

GIS / Bio Tech

(Term) 

Bio Tech

(Contract)

Administrative 

Assistant (Shared)

Biological 

Technician

(Contract)

Biological 

Technician

(Contract)

FOSU Satellite Office

Figure 8-2. Operational organizational Chart for the Southeast Coast Network. Only core staffing positions 

and long-term support staff (administrative and field) are included. Additional field support staff might be 

added based on needs identified in annual work plans. Main office will be located at Cumberland Island 

National Seashore. 
130 

Core Job Functions for Network Staff 

The following includes generalized descriptions of core job duties for those positions identified 

in the SECN organizational chart. Positions linked to Vital Signs that might be implemented in 

future years (i.e., Fish Communities, Marine Invertebrates, and Aquatic Vegetation) are not 

included at this time but will be developed when or if those Vital Signs are implemented. 

Network Coordinator (GS 13 Permanent). Chief scientist for the network responsible for 

oversight and implementation of the Vital Signs Monitoring plan, developing annual budgets and 

workplans in consultation with the Technical Steering Committee, and reporting on program 

findings to the Steering Committee, the Board of Directors, and park Superintendents. 

Responsible for development and maintenance of partnerships to carry out or enhance Vital 

Signs monitoring within network parks. Responsible for the supervision of core and seasonal 

staff. Works with Park, Regional, National, and Network staff to develop and implement a 

communications strategy to guide reporting of Network findings to key audiences and to 

integrate those findings with existing and developing NPS programs (such as interpretation, 

maintenance, and law enforcement). 

Science Information Specialist / Data Manager (GS 12 Permanent). Responsible for design, 

implementation, and maintenance of the data management system that supports the storage, 

analysis, and reporting of data for all SECN Vital Signs. Responsible for QA/QC, metadata 

generation, and coordination of information management among the Network, its parks, partners, 

and the national program. Holds primary responsibility for implementation of SOPs for Vital 

Signs that rely on external sources for data acquisition (see Table 5-2). At full performance, the 

incumbent will have supervisory responsibilities over other personnel involved with data 

management, including technicians and the remote sensing specialist. 

Remote Sensing Specialist (GS 11 Permanent). Primary responsibilities are with the 

implementation of the Coastal Shoreline Change and Landscape Change Detection protocols, 

and the support of other Vital Signs where landscape-scale data are required for data analysis or 

interpretation. At full performance the incumbent would develop spatial models to identify 

relations among Vital Signs and where appropriate develop models to predict the distribution of 

communities, habitats, or species of concern based on those models. 

Wildlife Ecologist (GS 12 Permanent). Primary responsibilities are with the implementation of 

wildlife-related Vital Signs, including Amphibians, Fire and Fuel Dynamics, Breeding Forest 

Birds, and Wintering & Migratory Shorebirds. Works with all network staff to analyze longterm monitoring data and to report findings to a variety of audiences. At full performance, the 

incumbent will be responsible for developing sampling designs for synoptic studies and 

authoring scientific publications on Network findings. 

Aquatic Ecologist (GS 12 Permanent). Primary responsibilities are with the implementation of 

Vital Signs related to water quality and water quantity. Will be responsible for contract 

management and development of annual study designs in coordination with partners to 

implement water quality and quantity monitoring in tidal/ estuarine and freshwater ecosystems. 

At full performance, the incumbent will have supervisory responsibilities over the coastal field 
131 

office and will be responsible for analyzing data, reporting findings to a variety of audiences, and 

authoring scientific publications on Network findings. 

Plant Ecologist (GS 12 Permanent). Primary responsibilities are with the implementation of 

wildlife-related Vital Signs, including Plant Communities, Salt Marsh Elevation and Invasive/ 

Exotic Plants. Because the majority of the incumbent’s field work will be spent in coastal parks, 

the position will be duty-stationed in the coastal office. Works with all network staff to analyze 

long-term monitoring data and to report findings to a variety of audiences. At full performance, 

the incumbent will be responsible for developing sampling designs for synoptic studies and 

authoring scientific publications on Network findings. 

Technicians (5/6/7 Term or Contract Positions). Four to six technician-level staff members 

are expected to be needed to implement the protocols or to assist with data management and 

analysis. It is anticipated that two of these positions will be government positions to enhance 

continuity in the implementation of monitoring protocols. Additional technician-level positions 

will be filled using a combination of options including contractors and agreements with NGOs, 

universities, and neighboring agencies. 

Administrative Assistant. The SECN will share an administrative assistant with other I&M 

networks and the Exotic Plant Management program in the Southeast Region. The incumbent 

will primarily be responsible for budget tracking and procurement. The FTE for the position will 

be provided from outside the eight allotted to the SECN. 

Integration with Park Operations 

It is a goal of the SECN to serve as a catalyst in linking together individual park natural resource 

programs in a successful integrated inventory and monitoring program. Presently, most parks 

manage their natural resource programs independently and prepare proposals to develop their 

programs on an annual basis. The same or similar resource inventory, monitoring and 

management work is regularly proposed across network parks, in competing proposals. 

Evaluation of existing and future needs at a network level presents a significant opportunity for 

parks to begin working together while spreading limited resources for greater effect. Already 

SECN has demonstrated the benefit of leveraging network and park funding to obtain additional 

financial support for large projects (e.g., vegetation mapping, watershed condition assessments, 

and exotic plant management). 

The SECN is interested in fostering internal NPS cross-program coordination. Significant 

opportunity exists to link efforts with interpretation programs in the parks. The SECN is 

committed to making all park staff knowledgeable about the natural resource inventory and 

monitoring program. 

Some examples of how SECN will integrate with other programs in network parks include: 

• Providing park staff with information on natural resource status, trends (and 

significance thereof) for inclusion in new interpretive materials, 
132 

• Coordinating GIS and data management capacity with the Old-Growth Bottomland 

Foreest Research and Education Center at Congaree National Park, 

• Developing data management and delivery systems that provide real-time monitoring 

information to park managers to institutionalize the use of I&M data for routine 

operations, 

• Coordinating collections management and archiving needs of the Network with park 

procedures, and 

• Providing information to park managers for the purposes of tracking progress and 

reporting on natural resource management performance measures. 

Partnerships 

Much of the monitoring work planned by the SECN cannot be accomplished without close 

coordination with partners from academic, State, NGO and other Federal agencies / 

organizations. The following are existing (formal and informal) partnerships that are critical to 

the implementation of the Network’s monitoring plan: 

• University of Georgia Marine Extension Service. Conducts probabilistic water quality 

monitoring protocols in marine / estuarine systems using protocols developed by EPA. 

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection / Office of Coastal and Aquatic 

Managed Areas. Maintains three fixed water quality monitoring stations at TIMU, 

conducts QA on data and assists with data interpretation. 

• City of Jacksonville, Environmental Resource Department. Collects monthly nutrient, 

bacteria, and Chlorophyll samples at 12 sites within TIMU. 

• North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve. Maintains 1-2 fixed water quality 

monitoring stations at CALO; SECN provides all equipment and supplies. 

• NOAA – Hollings Marine Laboratory. Assists with analysis and interpretation of coastal 

and estuarine water quality data. 

• Indian River Lagoon National Estuarine Program. Collaborates on sampling designs to 

leverage water quality monitoring efforts. 

Other partnerships will be developed to assist as needed or as opportunities arise to assist with 

field sampling, data management, and reporting. 

Programmatic Reviews 

The SECN I&M Coordinator, in consultation with the Technical Steering Committee and other 

designated subgroups, prepares and presents a draft Annual Report to the Board of Directors for 

consideration and approval on or before October 30th each year. Annual Reports detail specific 

accomplishments, products, lessons learned, coordination with others, and a budget summary. A 
133 

detailed accounting of all SECN I&M program funds allocated to each park and office will be 

appended to and made part of the Annual Report. 

The SECN will undergo a “Start-up Review” within three years after the monitoring plan is 

accepted and implemented. The review will focus on the operational and administrative aspects 

of the network's monitoring program, and will address whether the network is set up to succeed. 

The review will allow network and park staff to step back and evaluate initial progress against 

the objectives and schedule set forth in this monitoring plan, develop a “road map” for 

completing and implementing the first set of protocols, and to make adjustments if needed. 

At the end of the fifth fiscal year of Vital Signs monitoring, and every five years thereafter, the 

network will undertake a comprehensive program review. The review shall be conducted by 

National Park Service specialists at the national and regional levels, and may involve qualified 

independent specialists from other agencies and organizations. The purpose of these reviews is to 

evaluate accomplishments, products, and protocols used for gathering data, data management, 

fiscal management, and staffing. Program reviews provide the basis for any significant changes 

in program direction or reassignment of resources to any park or office with the approval of the 

SECN Board of Directors. 

135 

Chapter 9. Schedule 

This chapter describes the plan for implementing the SECN Vital Signs Monitoring program. For 

the ten protocols under development in the next three to five years, we present both the 

development and implementation schedule (Table 9-1) and the annual field sampling schedule 

(Figure 9-1). The SECN plans to fully implement thirteen protocols by the end of FY 2010, with 

all protocols to be phased in by the five-year review. 

Table 9-1. 

Deployment schedule of monitoring protocols to be implemented by the Southeast Coast Network. 

[Protocol Development & Field Trials, Site Selection & Establishment, Full Implementation]. 

Protocol Name Network Vital Signs (where different) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Coastal Shoreline Change 

Stream Habitat Assessment 

Salt Marsh Elevation 

Marine Water Quality 

Fixed-Station Water Quality Marine Water Quality and Stream Water Quality 

Amphibians Amphibians and Fire & Fuel Dynamics 

Breeding Forest Birds 

Plant Communities Plant Communities and Invasive/ Exotic Plants 

Wintering & Migratory Shorebirds 

Landscape Change Detection 

As we progress through FY 2009 and beyond the network will reevaluate the implementation 

schedule. This evaluation will take place on a protocol by protocol basis, but we will also 

evaluate how implementation as a whole is going and use that evaluation to help us adjust annual 

work plans as necessary. 

Protocol Implementation Schedule 

Similar to the phased process each network takes to develop a monitoring plan, the SECN is 

taking a phased approach to the implementation of Vital Signs monitoring (Figure 9-1). The ten 

protocols will be phased in between FY2007 and FY2011, primarily to ensure that the Network’s 

data management capacity can keep pace with data collection (Figure 9-1). Also, several 

protocols require the deployment and installation of permanent equipment, modifications to 

existing structures (docks, piers), or post-deployment calibration periods. In such cases 

deployment of stations and equipment will likewise be phased in due to spread out deployment 

expenses. 

By taking this approach we will be able to use experience learned from initial deployments to 

improve those conducted in later years. 
136 

FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011

CAHA

WRBR FORA

CALO

FOSU

CHPI

FOPU

FOFR

CUIS

TIMU

FOCA

CASA

FOMA

CANA

MOCR

FY 2012FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015

CONG

OCMU

CHAT

KEMO

HOBE

Plants & Wildlife Probabilistic Water Quality Fixed Station Water Quality Salt Marsh Elevation

Figure 9-1. Annual protocol implementation schedule for Southeast Coast Network Vital Signs monitoring 

protocols that require field work. 
137 

Annual Sampling Schedule 

In any given year, 1/3 of the parks will be selected for intensive sampling (Figure 9-1); those 

parks will undergo an assessment of landscape dynamics to ensure that landscape-scale Vital 

Signs are collected concurrently with field sampling. During any given fiscal year, at least one 

and as many as three types of monitoring protocols will be implemented at any given park 

(Figure 9-1): 

• Continuous / Fixed Station Monitoring. Continuous monitoring stations are central to 

many of the SECN protocols, particularly for those relating to air quality, weather, water 

quality, and water quantity. Although data are collected in regular intervals (ranging 

from minutes to days), acquisition and integration of those data sets will likely occur 

much less frequently (monthly to annually). Although data collection is not automated, 

sediment elevation readings in coastal wetlands will be conducted at a minimum of 

annually. 

• Probabilistic Water Quality Monitoring. Due to the number of sites and the associated 

costs of laboratory analyses, park-wide assessments of water quality will only be 

conducted once every five years. Water quality monitoring will included chemical, 

biological, and physical measurements as appropriate to the ecosystem (mainstem rivers, 

tributaries, or marine / estuarine systems) being monitored. To the extent possible, 

protocols currently adopted by State agencies will be used to allow for integration of 

ancillary data collected during interim sampling periods. 

• Probabilistic Terrestrial Monitoring. Due to higher travel costs associated with field 

sampling, plant and animal communities will be sampled on a once per three-year 

schedule. Groups of parks are selected to minimize travel costs, and plant and animal 

communities will be sampled at the same parks during any given year to allow for 

collocation of sample sites. 

Each year, monitoring data are synthesized for all Vital Signs. Park-wide assessments are 

conducted following intensive terrestrial monitoring.

139 

Chapter 10. Budget 

In this chapter, we present the budget of the SECN monitoring program during the first year of 

operation after review and approval of our plan (anticipated to be FY2009). 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 SECN annually receives $1,272,300 from the NPS Servicewide Inventory and Monitoring 

Vital Signs Program, and $116,300 from the NPS Water Resources Division. We expect to spend 

approximately 62% 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 a portion of the data collection support for the program and for data management, 

assessment, and reporting. 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 Southeast Coast Network Vital Signs monitoring program in the first year of 

implementation after review and approval of the monitoring plan. Cost estimates are based on FY 2009 

Salary projections with no Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) increase above FY2008 levels. 

Category FY 2009 % By Category 

Income 

 Vital Signs Monitoring 1,272,300

 Water Quality Monitoring 116,300

 Assessments -18,600

Subtotal 1,370,000

Expenditures 

 Salary (includes contractors) 852,300 62.2 

 Agreements and Contracts 289,500 21.1 

 Operations and Equipment 147,500 10.8 

 Travel 60,000 4.4 

 Other 20,700 1.5 

Subtotal 1,370,000

 

For the monitoring program to be successful, adequate travel funds and the ability to acquire and 

maintain a fleet is essential to ensure that monitoring data are collected. Furthermore, to 

maintain close communication between SECN and Park staff, annual Network meetings that 

include the Board of Directors and the Technical Steering Committee are planned. 
140 

Table 10-2. 

Detailed budget for the Southeast 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. 

Category Total % Data Management $ Data Management 

Income 

 Vital Signs Monitoring 1,272,300 

 Water Quality Monitoring 116,300 

 Assessments -18,600 

Total Income 1,370,000

Expenditures 

 Salary (includes contractors) 

 Network Coordinator 121,883 20 24,377

 Data Manager 102,494 100 102,494

 Aquatic Ecologist 100,197 30 30,059

 Wildlife Ecologist 94,236 30 28,271

 Plant Ecologist 100,197 30 30,059

 Remote Sensing Specialist 98,805 50 49,403

 Biological Technicians (2) 109,548 30 32,846

 Administrative Assistant 

(SERO) 8,500

0 -

 Interns, Contractors, and 

Temps 116,400

66 76,850

 Agreements and Contracts 

 Database Programming 100,000 100 100,000

 Technical Support Services 25,000 100 25,000

 Marine Water Quality 80,500 20 16,100

 Other Agreements 84,500 0 -

 Operations and Equipment 147,500 10 14,750

 Travel 60,000 0 -

 Other 20,700 0 -

 

Total Expenditures 1,370,000 39 

During any given year, a portion of the budget is allocated toward conducting “synoptic” studies. 

These monitoring projects are designed to be short-term investigations into the status and trends 

of park resources that are closely integrated with the long-term monitoring component of the 

program, ideally through the expansion of Vital Signs protocols or through modeling. Projects 

will be selected and developed by the Technical Steering Committee on an annual basis and 

incorporated into annual work plans based on findings from ongoing Vital Signs Monitoring, or 
141 

emerging issues. Results from synoptic studies will be included during five-year programmatic 

review to assess sampling power and to assess sampling efficiency. 

Fixed Costs 

Salary

Permanent salary costs are programmed at 45% of base operating funds in FY2009 to allow 

room for growth due to regular salary increases, and COLAs. By 2011 this should reach 63% of 

total base funding assuming the program receives no COLA to absorb those regular increases 

(Table 10-1). The two Biological Technician positions are designated term positions as a longterm salary management tool, but the positions will be needed on a permanent basis. 

A minimum of four field technician positions are also contracted each year for a total annual cost 

of roughly $116,000. These positions are necessary to carry out the field work required of the 

protocols to be implemented. It is the intent to continue to fund these positions at least one year 

in advance to ensure that the labor force required to implement the SECN monitoring protocols 

is in place at the beginning of each field season. 

Rent and Utilities 

Non-salary fixed costs for the SECN are minimal. Office locations at Cumberland Island 

National Seashore (CUIS) and Fort Sumter National Monument (FOSU) were selected in part 

because space was available for use by SECN staff at no cost. Likewise, staff duty stationed on a 

temporary basis in the Southeastern Regional Office have been provided office space at no cost 

to the Network. 

Utilities costs for the network include phone and DSL service for staff located at CUIS and 

FOSU. These costs are temporary until host parks have sufficient bandwidth and connection 

speeds to allow network staff effective access to central servers. 

The network maintains four cell phones for use while conducting field work and travel. The 

network is currently exploring the need, feasibility, and costs associated with acquiring 

narrowband radios compatible with NPS systems for use while conducting filed work (cell phone 

service is largely unavailable). 

Data Management 

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 percentage of 

time that each network position devotes to information/data management. During initial 

implementation of the program we have allocated closer to 40% of the budget to data 

management to ensure that the data management system is developed and deployed as rapidly as 

possible. 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 FY2009. Staff and strategies for implementing those protocols are difficult to 

finalize prior to completion of the protocol. We provide the best estimates currently possible.) 
142 

Operations 

Travel 

The SECN I&M program was designed to provide a centralized (shared) staff to conduct Vital 

Signs monitoring at all 17 parks with significant natural resources. Inherent with this design is a 

requirement for network scientists and field staff to travel to the parks to implement monitoring 

protocols. 

Office locations were selected, in part, to minimize travel distances required when implementing 

monitoring protocols so as to reduce travel costs. 

Fleet Costs 

The SECN maintains four GSA-purchased vehicles. These vehicles were obtained by the 

network to reduce travel costs, eliminating the need to use personal or rented vehicles when 

conducting SECN business. The Network also maintains two kayaks for access to salt marsh 

ecosystems, an ATV for implementing the Coastal Shoreline Change protocol, and a johnboat 

for access to the aquatic systems in the network.
143 

Chapter 11. Literature Cited 

Abel, N., H. Ross, and P. Walker. 1998. Mental models in rangeland research, communication 

and management. Rangeland Journal 20:77-91. 

Abernathy, Y. and R. Turner. 1987. U.S. forested wetlands: 1940-1980. Bioscience 37:721-727. 

Adams, S. M. and C. T. Hackney. 1992. Ecological processes in southeastern United States 

aquatic ecosystems. Pages 3-17 in C. T. Hackney, S. M. Adams, and W. H. Martin, editors. 

Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: aquatic communities. John Wiley & Sons, 

New York. 

Allen, A. W. 1995. Agricultural ecosystems. Pages 423-426 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. 

Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to the nation on 

the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 

Auffenberg, W. and R. Franz. 1982. The status and distribution of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus

polyphemus). Pages 95-126 in R. B. Bury, editor. North American tortoises: conservation 

and ecology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Research Report 12. 

Barnett, D. T. and T. J. Stohlgren. 2003. A nested-integrity design for surveying plant diversity. 

Biodiversity and Conservation 12:255-278. 

Bayes, T. 1763. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society of London 53:370-418. 

Bellis, V. J. 1992. Floristic continuity among the maritime forests of the Atlantic coast of the 

United States. Pages 21-29 in C. A. Cole and K. Turner, editors. Barrier island ecology of 

the mid-Atlantic Coast: a symposium. Technical Report NPS/SERCA-HA/NRTR-93/04. 

National Park Service, Atlanta. 

Bellis, V. J. and J. R. Keough. 1995. Ecology of maritime forests of the southern Atlantic coast: 

a community profile. Biological Report 30. National Biological Service. 

Benke, A. 1990. A perspective on America's vanishing streams. Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society 9:77-88. 

Blaustein, A. 1994. Chicken Little or Nero's fiddle? A perspective on declining amphibian 

populations. Herpetologica 50:85-97. 

Boesch, D. and R. Turner. 1984. Dependence of fishery species on salt marshes: the role of 

food and refuge. Estuaries 7:460-468. 
144 

Bogan, A. E., J. M. Pierson, and P. Hartfield. 1995. Decline in the freshwater gastropod fauna 

in the Mobile Bay basin. Pages 249-252 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. 

Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to the nation on the 

distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 

Boumans, R. and R. J. Day. 1993. High precision measurements of sediment elevation in 

shallow coastal areas using a sediment-erosion table. Estuaries 16:375-380. 

Boyce, S. and W. Martin. 1993. The future of the terrestrial communities of the southeastern 

United States. Pages 339-366 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. 

Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: upland terrestrial communities. John Wiley & 

Sons, New York. 

Bricker, O. and M. Ruggiero. 1998. Toward a national program for monitoring environmental 

resources. Ecological Applications 8:326-329. 

Burdick, D. M., D. Cushman, R. Hamilton, and J. G. Gosselink. 1989. Faunal changes and 

bottomland hardwood forest loss in the Tensas watershed, Lousiana (USA). Conservation 

Biology 3:282-292. 

Burke, I., and W. Lauenroth. 1993. What do LTER results mean? Extrapolating from site to 

region and decade to century. Ecological Modeling 67:19–35. 

Burnham, K.P. and D.R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical 

information-theoretic approach. Springer. New York, New York. 

Busch, D. E. and J. C. Trexler, editors. 2003. Monitoring ecosystems: Interdisciplinary 

approaches for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Cahoon, D. R., J. W. Day, Jr., and D. J. Reed. 1999. The influence of surface and shallow 

subsurface soil processes on wetland elevation: a synthesis. Pages 72-88 in Current topics in 

wetland biogeochemistry, Volume 3. Wetland Biogeochemistry Institute, Louisiana State 

University, Baton Rouge. 

Cahoon, D. R., J. French, T. Spencer, D. J. Reed, and I. Moller. 2000. Vertical accretion versus 

elevational adjustments in UK saltmarshes: an evaluation of alternative methodologies. 

Pages 223-238 in K. Pye and J. R. L. Allen, editors. Coastal and estuarine environments: 

sedimentology, geomorphology, and geoarchaeology. Special Publications 175. Geological 

Society, London. 
145 

Cahoon, D. R., J. C. Lynch, and P. F. Hensel. 2006. Monitoring salt marsh elevation: a protocol 

for the long-term coastal ecosystem monitoring program at Cape Cod National Seashore. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Beltsville, MD. 

Cahoon, D., J. Lynch, and R. Knaus. 1993. Improved cryogenic coring device for sampling 

wetland soils. Journal of Sedimentary Research 66:1025-1027. 

Cahoon, D., J. Lynch, B. Perez, B. Segura, R. Holland, C. Stelly, G. Stephenson, and P. Hensel. 

2002. A device for high precision measurement of wetland sediment elevation: II. The rod 

surface elevation table. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72:734-739. 

Cahoon, D., D. Reed, J. J. Day, G. Steyer, and R. Boumans. 1995. The influence of Hurricane 

Andrew on sediment distribution in Louisiana coastal marshes. Journal of Coastal Research 

Special Issue No. 21:280-294. 

Canfield, R. 1941. Application of the line intercept method in sampling range vegetation. 

Journal of Forestry 39:388-394. 

Clewell, A. 1989. Natural history of wiregrass (Astrida stricta Michx., Gramineae). Natural 

Areas Journal 9:153-176. 

Cole, D. 1996. Wilderness recreation use trends, 1965 through 1994. USDA Forest Service 

Intermountain Research Station Research Paper (488). 

Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation. 1990a. Decline of sea turtles: causes and prevention. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation. 1990b. Decline of sea turtles: causes and prevention. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation. 1990c. Decline of sea turtles: causes and prevention. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation. 1990d. Decline of sea turtles: causes and prevention. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation. 1990e. Decline of sea turtles: causes and prevention. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Conant, R. and J. Collins. 1991. Reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. 

Peterson Field Guide 12. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 
146 

Costa, R. and J. L. Walker. 1995. Red cockaded woodpeckers. Pages 86-89 in E. T. LaRoe, G. 

S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to 

the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 

Crisman, T. L. 1992. Natural lakes of the southeastern United States: origin, structure, and 

function. Pages 475-538 in C. T. Hackney, S. M. Adams, and W. H. Martin, editors. 

Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: aquatic communities. John Wiley & Sons, 

New York. 

Crumby, W., M. Webb, F. Bulow, and H. Cathey. 1990. Changes in biotic integrity of a river in 

north-central Tennessee (USA). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:885-

893. 

Dahl-Kearney, K. and C. Wright. 2006. Project closeout checklist. Southeast Coast Network, 

National Park Service, Atlanta. 

Daniels, R., T. White, and K. Chapman. 1993. Sea-level rise: destruction of threatened and 

endangered species habitat in South Carolina. Environmental Management 17:373-385. 

DataLOGIC, Inc. 2005a. Information Needs Assessments for the Definition of Inventory and 

Monitoring Data Products and Conceptual Object Model. DataLOGIC, Inc., Avondale 

Estates, GA. 

Davis, S. and J. Ogden. 1994. Introduction. Pages 3-7 in S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden, editors. 

Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach. 

DiDonato, E. 2005. A scoping meeting for water quality monitoring in estuarine and nearshore 

marine waters in the National Park Service, Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring 

Network: recommendations and preliminary timeline for implementation. National Park 

Service, Southeast Coast Network, Charleston, South Carolina. 

Diffendorfer, J., G. M. Fleming, J. M. Duggan, R. E. Chapman, M. E. Rahy, M. J. Mitrovich, 

and R. N. Fisher. 2007. Developing terrestrial, multi-taxon indices of biological integrity: 

an example from coastal sage scrub. Biological Conservation 140:130-141. 

Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1995a. Marine turtles in the Southeast. Pages 121-123 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. 

Farris, C. E. Puckett, and P. D. Doran, editors. Our living resources: a report to the nation on 

the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 

Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1995b. Reptiles and amphibians in the endangered longleaf pine ecosystem. 

Pages 129-131 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, and P. D. Doran, editors. Our 
147 

living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. 

plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological 

Service, Washington, DC. 

Drake, J. A., H. A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. 

Williamson, editors. 1989. Biological invasions: a global perspective. John Wiley & Sons, 

New York. 

Echternacht, A. C. and L. D. Harris. 1993. The fauna and wildlife of the southeastern United 

States. Pages 81-116 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. 

Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley 

& Sons, New York. 

Elton, C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by plants and animals. John Wiley & Sons, New 

York. 

Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring & monitoring plant 

populations. Bureau of Land Management National Business Center, Denver, Colorado. 

Emmott, R., N. Murdock, and J. Ranney. 2003. Appalachian Highlands Network Phase II Vital 

Signs Monitoring Plan (working draft). National Park Service. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development / Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

Erwin, R. M. 1995. Colonial waterbirds. Pages 53-57 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. 

Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to the nation on 

the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 

Erwin, R. M., C. J. Conway, S. W. Hadden, J. S. Hatfield, and S. M. Melvin. 2003. Waterbird 

monitoring protocol for Cape Cod National Seashore and other coastal parks, a protocol for 

the long-term coastal ecosystem monitoring program at Cape Cod National Seashore. Longterm Coastal Ecosystem Monitoring Program, Cape Cod National Seashore, Wellfleet, 

Massachussetts. 

Etnier, D. and W. Starnes. 1991. An analysis of Tennessee's jeopardized fish taxa. Journal of 

the Tennessee Academy of Sciences 66:129-134. 

Ferry, G. W., R. G. Clark, R. E. Montgomery, R. W. Mutch, W. P. Leenhouts, and G. T. 

Zimmerman. 1995. Altered fire regimes within fire-adapted ecosystems. Pages 222-224 in

E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living 

resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, 
148 

animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, 

Washington, DC. 

Fitzpatrick, F., I. Waite, P. D'Arconte, M. Meador, M. Maupin, and M. Gurtz. 1998. Revised 

methods for characterizing stream habitat in the National Water-Quality Assessment 

Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Fleming, K. and N. Holler. 1989. Endangered beach mice repopulate Florida beaches. 

Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 14:9. 

Frost, C. C., J. Walker, and R. K. Peet. 1986. Fire-dependent savannas and prairies of the 

southeast: original extent, preservation status, and management problems. Pages 348-357 in

D. L. Kulhavy and R. N. Connor, editors. Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern United 

States: a management challenge. Center for Applied Studies, School of Forestry, Stephen F 

Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. 

Gaddy, L. and T. Kohlsaat. 1987. Recreational impact on the natural vegetation, avifauna, and 

herpetofauna of four South Carolina barrier islands. Natural Areas Journal 7:55-64. 

Gibbons, W. and R. Semlitsch. 1991. Guide to the reptiles and amphibians of the Savannah 

River Site. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 

Gilbert, R. O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution. New York: Van Nostrand 

Reinhold. 

Gilliom, R. J., W. M. Alley, and M. E. Gurtz. 1995. Design of the national water-quality 

assessment program: occurrence and distribution of water quality conditions. U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1112. 

Gorman, O. and J. Karr. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology 59:507-

515. 

Grantham, W., E. Redente, C. Bagley, and M. Paschke. 2001. Tracked vehicle impacts to 

vegetation structure and soil erodibility. Journal of Range Management 54:711-716. 

Grazulis, T. 1984. Violent tornado climatology, 1880-1992. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, NUREG/CR-3670, PNL-5006RB. 

Hackney, C. T. and S. M. Adams. 1992. Aquatic communities of the southeastern United 

States: past, present, and future. Pages 747-760 in C. T. Hackney, S. M. Adams, and W. H. 

Martin, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: aquatic communities. John 

Wiley & Sons, New York. 
149 

Hardin, E. and D. White. 1989. Rare vascular plant taxa associated with wiregrass (Astrida

stricta) in the southeastern United States. Natural Areas Journal 9:234-245. 

Harrington, B. A. 1995. Shorebirds: east of the 105th meridian. Pages 57-60 in E. T. LaRoe, G. 

S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to 

the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 

Harris, L. and J. Gosselink. 1990. Cumulative impacts of bottomland hardwood conversion on 

hydrology, water quality and terrestrial wildlife. Pages 259-322 in J. G. Gosselink, L. C. 

Lee, and T. A. Muir, editors. Ecological processes and cumulative impacts: illustrated by 

bottomland hardwood wetland ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea. 

Harris, L. D. 1984. The fragmented forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Harris, L. D. 1989. The faunal significance of fragmentation of southeastern bottomland forests. 

Pages 126-134 in D. D. Hook and R. Lea, editors. Proceedings of the symposium: the 

forested wetlands of the southern United States. US. Forest Service General Technical 

Report SE-50. U.S. Forest Service. 

Harrison, S. 2001. Natural history collections laws and policies. Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore, National Park Service. 

Hermann, R., R. Stottlemyer, and R. E. Schiller. 1998. Water use. Pages 63-88 in M. J. Mac, P. 

A. Opler, C. E. Pucket Haecker, and P. D. Doran, editors. Status and trends of the Nation's 

Biological Resources, Volume 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Washington, DC. 

Hillestad, H., J. Bozeman, A. Johnson, C. Berisford, and J. Richardson. 1975. The ecology of 

the Cumberland Island National Seashore Camden County, Georgia. Georgia Marine Science 

Center, Tybee Island, Georgia. 

Hoss, D. and G. Thayer. 1993. The importance of habitat to the early life history of estuarine 

dependent fishes. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 7:460-468. 

Hotchkiss, N. 1967. Underwater and floating-leaved plants of the United States and Canada. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 44. 

Hubbard, J. A., T. M. Mau-Crimmins, B. F. Powell, E. W. Albrecht, N. Chambers, and L. 

Carder. 2003. National Park Service Sonoran Desert Network Monitoring Plan: Phase II. 

National Park Service Sonoran Desert Network, Tucson, AZ. 
150 

Humphrey, S. R. 1992. Rare and endangered biota of Florida., Volume 1. Mammals. 

University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Methods for evaluating stream habitat quality. 

Northbrook, Illinois. 

Isphording, W. C. and J. F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1992. Geologic and evolutionary history of drainage 

systems. Pages 19-56 in C. T. Hackney, S. M. Adams, and W. H. Martin, editors. 

Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: aquatic communities. John Wiley & Sons, 

New York. 

Iverson, J. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Earlham 

College, Richmond, Indiana. 

Jean, C., A. M. Schrag, R. E. Bennetts, R. Daley, E. A. Crowe, and S. O’Ney. 2005. Vital signs 

monitoring plan for the Greater Yellowstone Network. Bozeman, Mont.: National Park 

Service, Greater Yellowstone Network. 

Johnson, A. F. and M. G. Barbour. 1990. Dunes and maritime forests. Pages 429-480 in R. L. 

Myers and J. J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, 

Orlando. 

Johnson, D.S. 2005. Bayesian inference for geostatistical regression models. Technical report, 

Department of Statistics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Johnston, J. B., M. C. Watzin, J. A. Barras, and L. R. Handley. 1995. Gulf of Mexico coastal 

wetlands: case studies of loss trends. Pages 269-272 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. 

Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to the nation on 

the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 

Keeland, B. D., J. A. Allen, and V. V. Burkett. 1995. Southern forested wetlands. Pages 216-

218 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our 

living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. 

plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological 

Service, Washington, DC. 

Kenworthy, W. J., G. W. Thayer, and M. S. Fonseca. 1988. The utilization of seagrass 

meadows by fishery organisms. Pages 548-560 in D. D. Hook, editor. Ecology of Wetlands. 

Timber Press, Oregon. 

Klima, E., J. Nance, E. Martinez, and T. Leary. 1990. Workshop on definition of shrimp 

recruitment overfishing. NOAA Technical Memorandum SEFC-NMFS-264. 
151 

Klopatek, J., R. Olson, C. Emerson, and J. Jones. 1979. Land use conflicts with natural 

vegetation in the United States. Environmental Conservation 6:191-200. 

Kremen, C., R. K. Cowlwell, T. L. Erwin, D. D. Murphy, R. F. Noss, and M. A. Sanjayan. 1993. 

Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conservation Biology 

7:796-808. 

Krusé, C. W. 1969. Our nation's water: its pollution control and management. Pages 41-71 in J. 

N. Pitts, Jr. and R. L. Metcalf, editors. Advances in environmental sciences, Volume 1. John 

Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Lachner, E., C. Robins, and W. J. Courtenay. 1970. Exotic fishes and other aquatic organisms 

introduced into North America. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 59:1-29. 

Larson, J. S., M. S. Bedinger, C. F. Bryan, S. Brown, R. T. Huffman, E. L. Miller, D. G. Rhodes, 

and B. A. Touchet. 1981. Transition from wetlands to uplands in southeastern bottomland 

forest. Pages 225-273 in J. R. Clark and J. Benforado, editors. Wetlands of bottomland 

hardwood forests. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 

Lee, D. S., J. B. Funderburg, Jr., and M. K. Clark. 1982. A distributional survey of North 

Carolina mammals. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North 

Carolina. 

Lee, D. S., S. P. Platania, A. W. Norden, C. R. Gilbert, and R. Franz. 1984. Endangered, 

threatened, and extirpated fishes of Maryland. Pages 287-328 in A. W. Norden, D. C. 

Forester, and G. Fenwick, editors. Threatened and endangered plants and animals of 

Maryland. Maryland Natural Heritage Program Special Publicahtion 84-1. Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

Leibfreid, T. 2003. Phase II Vital Signs Monitoring Plan for the Cumberland Piedmont 

Network (CUPN): Working Draft. National Park Service Cumberland Piedmont Network. 

Li, H., and J. F. Reynolds. 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in 

categorical maps. Ecology 75:2446-2455. 

Li, H., and J. F. Reynolds. 1995. On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 

73:280-284. 

List, J. H., A. S. Farris, B. Irwin, K. Weber, M. E. Hansen, and T. E. Reiss. Unpublished. 

SWASH: a vehicle-based method for quantifying shoreline position on tidal coasts as the 

horizontal position of the mean high water contour. U.S. Geological Survey. 
152 

Livingston, R. J. 1990. Inshore Marine Habitats. Pages 549-573 in R. L. Myers and J. J. Ewel, 

editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. 

Lydeard, C. and R. Mayden. 1995. A diverse and endangered aquatic ecosystem of the 

southeast United States. Conservation Biology 9:800-805. 

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, A. 

J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, editors. Ecological stewardship: a common 

reference for ecosystem management, Volume III. Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford, 

UK. 

Martin, W. H. and S. G. Boyce. 1993. Introduction: the southeastern setting. Pages 1-46 in W. 

H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern 

United States: lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

McAllister, D. E., S. P. Plantania, F. W. Shueler, M. E. Baldwin, and D. S. Lee. 1986. 

Ichthyofaunal patterns on a geographic grid. Pages 17-51 in C. H. Hocutt and E. O. Wiley, 

editors. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley & Sons, New 

York. 

Mccoy, E. D. and H. R. Mushinsky. 1992. Studying a species in decline - gopher tortoises and 

the dilemma of correction factors. Herpetologica 48:402-407. 

McDonald, W. and C. St. Clair. 2004. Elements that promote highway crossing structure use by 

small mammals in Banff National Park. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:82-93. 

McIvor, C. C. and L. P. Rozas. 1996. Direct use of intertidal saltmarsh habitat and linkage with 

adjacent habitats: a review from the southeastern United States. Pages 311-334 in K. F. 

Nordstrom and C. T. Roman, editors. Estuarine shores: evolution, environments and human 

alterations. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Milstead, B. and S. Stevens. 2003. National Park Service Northeast Coastal and Barrier 

Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan (NCBN): Phase II. National Park Service Northeast 

Coastal and Barrier Network, Kingston, Rhode Island. 

Minello, T. J. and R. J. Zimmerman. 1991. The role of esturaine habitats in regulating growth 

and survival of juvenile penaeid shrimp. Pages 1-16 in P. DeLoach, W. J. Dougherty, and M. 

A. Davidson, editors. Frontiers in shrimp research. Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam. 

Minello, T., R. Zimmerman, and E. Martinez. 1989. Mortality of young brown shrimp Penaeus

aztecus in estuarine nurseries. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 

118:693-708. 
153 

Mitsch, W. and J. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Mooney, H A and J A Drake, editors. 1986. Ecology of biological invasions of North America 

and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Moyle, P. B. and R. A. Leidy. 1992. Loss of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems: evidence from 

fish faunas. Pages 127-169 in P. L. Fiedler and S. K. Jain, editors. Conservation biology: the 

theory and practice of nature conservation. Chapman and Hall, New York. 

Mulholland, P. J. and D. R. Lenat. 1992. Streams of the southeastern Piedmont, Atlantic 

drainage. Pages 193-231 in C. T. Hackney, S. M. Adams, and W. H. Martin, editors. 

Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: aquatic communities. John Wiley & Sons, 

New York. 

National Academy of Sciences. 1992. Science and the National Parks. Pages 9-13 in

Committee on Improving the Science and Technology Programs of the National Park 

Service. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 1992. Natural resources inventory and monitoring guideline. US 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, NPS-75, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 1994a. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. Water Resources Division, Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-95/63, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 1994b. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Cumberland 

Island National Seashore. Water Resources Division, Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-97/104, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 1994c. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Fort 

Matanzas National Monument. Water Resources Division, Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-98/171, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 1994d. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Canaveral 

National Seashore. Water Resources Division, Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR96/85, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 1994e. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore. Water Resources Division, Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR94/27, Washington, DC. 
154 

National Park Service. 1994f. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Castillo de 

San Marcos National Monument. Water Resources Division, Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-98/168, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 1997. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis Cumberland 

Island National Seashore. National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Technical 

Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-97/104, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

National Park Service. 1998a. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Congaree 

Swamp National Monument. Water Resources Division, Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-98/148, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 1998b. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Fort 

Frederica National Monument. Water Resources Division, Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-98/155, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 2000. Southeast coastal inventory and monitoring network draft study 

plan. National Park Service, Atlanta, GA. 

National Park Service. 2001a. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Fort Pulaski 

National Monument. Water Resources Division, Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR99/250, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 2001b. Records Management. National Park Service. (July 2006b). 

National Park Service. 2002a. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Ocmulgee 

National Monument. Water Resources Division, Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR2001/288, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 2002b. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: Timucuan 

Ecological and Historic Preserve. Water Resources Division, Technical Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2000/278, Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 2002c. Director's Order #11b: Ensuring quality of information 

disseminated by the National Park Service. Available from 

http://www.nps.gov/DOrders/11B-final.htm. 

National Park Service. 2003a. Director's Order #66b: Protected Information about Park 

Resources (draft). National Park Service. 

National Park Service. 2003b. NPS records disposition schedule, Appendix B - Revised 05/03. 

National Park Service. 
155 

National Park Service. 2004. 2003 ozone risk assessment - Southeast coast network. National 

Park Service, Air Resources Division. 

Nixon, S. W. 1980. Between coastal marshes and coastal waters – a review of twenty years of 

speculation and research on the role of salt marshes in estuarine productivity and water 

chemistry. Pages 437-524 in P. Hamilton and K. B. Macdonald, editors. Estuarine and 

wetland processes with emphasis on modeling. Plenum Press, New York. 

Noss, R. F. 1989. Longleaf pine and wiregrass: keystone components of an endangered 

ecosystem. Natural Areas Journal 9:211-213. 

Noss, R. F., E. T. Laroe, III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United 

States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. National Biological Service, 

Biological Report 28. 

Oakley, K., L. Thomas, and S. Fancy. 2003. Guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:1000-1003. 

Papouchis, C., F. Singer, and W. Sloan. 2001. Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased 

human recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:573-582. 

Parnell, J. F., W. W. Golder, and S. Cooper. 1992. Nesting colonial waterbird trends. Pages 

119-131 in C. A. Cole and K. Turner, editors. Barrier island ecology of the mid-Atlantic 

Coast: a symposium. U.S. National Park Service Technical Report NPS/SERCA-HA/NRTR93/04. U.S. National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Patel, A. and D. Rapport. 2000. Assessing the impacts of deer browsing, prescribed burns, 

visitor use, and trails on an oak-pine forest: Pinery Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. Natural 

Areas Journal 20:250-260. 

Pechmann, J., D. Scott, R. Semlitsch, J. Caldwell, L. Vitt, and J. Gibbons. 1991. Declining 

amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. 

Science 253:892. 

Pechmann, J. and H. Wilbur. 1994. Putting declining amphibian populations in perspective: 

natural fluctuations and human impacts. Herpetologica 50:65-84. 

Peterson, G. and R. Turner. 1994. The value of salt marsh edge vs. interior as a habitat for fish 

and decapod crustaceans in a Louisiana tidal marsh. Estuaries 17:235-262. 

Petranka, J., M. Eldridge, and K. Haley. 1993. Effects of timber harvesting on southern 

Appalachian salamanders. Conservation Biology 7:363-370. 
156 

Phillipson, W. 1997. The manual of photographic interpretation, 2nd Edition. American 

Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda. 

Platts, W., W. Megahan, and G. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian, and 

biotic conditions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 

Richards, J. and X. Jia. 2005. Remote sensing digital image analysis: an introduction, Fourth 

Edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. 

Ritters, K. H., R. V. O’Neill, C. T. Hunsaker, J. D. Wickham, D. H. Yankee, S. P. Timmins, K. 

B. Jones, and B. L. Jackson. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure 

metrics. Landscape Ecology 10:23-39. 

Roman, C. and N. Barrett. 1999. Conceptual framework for the development of long-term 

monitoring protocols at Cape Cod National Seashore. Narragansett, Rhode Island. 

Rozas, L. P. 1993. Nekton use of salt marshes of the Southeast region of the United States. 

Pages 528-536 in O. Magoon, W. S. Wilson, H. Converse, and L. T. Tobin, editors. Coastal 

Zone '93, Volume 2. Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. 

American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 

Rozas, L. 1995. Hydroperiod and its influence on nekton use of the salt marsh: a pulsing 

ecosystem. Estuaries 18:579-590. 

Rozas, L. and B. Reed. 1993. Nekton use of marsh-surface habitats in Louisiana (USA) deltaic 

salt marshes undergoing submergence. Marine Ecology Progress Series 96: 147-157. 

Ruffner, A. 1985. Climates of the United States, 3rd edition. Gale Research Company, Detroit. 

Russell, N., Wright, C. J. and K. Dahl-Kearney, editors. 2006. SECN curatorial responsibilities 

guidance document. South Florida Collections Management Center, Everglades National 

Park. 

Sharitz, R. R. and W. J. Mitsch. 1993. Southern floodplain forests. Pages 311-372 in W. H. 

Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United 

States: lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Sheldon, A. L. 1988. Conservation of stream fishes: patterns of diversity, rarity, and risk. 

Conservation Biology 2:149-156. 

Shimda, A. 1984. Whittaker's plant-diversity sampling method. Israel Journal of Botany 33:41-

46. 
157 

Simonson, T., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 1993. Guidelines for evaluating fish habitat in 

Wisconsin streams. St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Simonson, T., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 1994. Quantifying fish habitat in streams: transect 

spacing, sample size, and a proposed framework. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 14:607-615. 

Smith, J. 1991. The Atlantic and Gulf menhaden purse seine fisheries: origins, harvesting 

technologies, biostatistical monitoring, recent trends in fisheries statistics, and forecasting. 

Marine Fisheries Review 53:28-41. 

Soballe, D., B. Kimmel, R. Kennedy, and R. Gaugush. 1992. Reservoirs. Pages 421-474 in C. 

T. Hackney, S. M. Adams, and W. H. Martin, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern 

United States: aquatic communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Solley, W. B. and R. R. Pierce. 1988. Trends in water use in the United States, 1950-1985. 

Pages 31-49 in M. Waterstone and R. J. Burt, editors. Proceedings of the symposium on 

water-use data for water resources management. American Water Resources Association, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

Solley, W., R. Pierce, and H. Perlman. 1993. Estimated use of water in the United States in 

1990. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1081. 

Stalter, R. and W. E. Odum. 1993. Maritime communities. Pages 117-163 in W. H. Martin, S. 

G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: 

lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Starfield, A. M., K. A. Smith, and A. L. Bleloch. 1994. How to model it: Problem-solving in the 

computer age. Burgess, Int., Edina. 

Starfield, A. 1997. A pragmatic approach to modeling for wildlife management. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 61:261-270. 

Stevens, Jr., D. L. 1994. Implementation of a national monitoring program. Journal of 

Environmental Management 42:1–29. 

Stevens, Jr., D. L. 1997. Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial 

populations. Environmetrics 8:164-195. 

Stevens, D. and A. Olsen. 2003. Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of 

environmental resources. Environmetrics 14:593-610. 
158 

Stevens, D. and A. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of 

the American Statistical Association 99:262-278. 

Stohlgren, T. J., G. W. Chong, M. A. Kalkhan, and L. D. Schell. 1997a. Rapid assessment of 

plant diversity patterns: a methodology for landscapes. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment 48:25-43. 

Stohlgren, T. J., G. W. Chong, M. A. Kalkhan, and L. D. Schell. 1997b. Multiscale sampling of 

plant diversity: effects of minimum mapping unit size. Ecological Applications 7:1064-

1074. 

Stohlgren, T. J., M. B. Falkner, and L. D. Schell. 1995. A modified-Whittaker nested vegetation 

sampling method. Vegetation 117:113-121. 

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, 

editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: lowland terrestrial communities. 

John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Strobel, C. J. and T. Heitmuller. 2001. National coastal assessment field operations manual. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA/620/R01/003, Washington, DC. 

Taft, J. B., C. Hauser, and K. R. Robertson. 2006. Estimating floristic integrity in tallgrass 

prairie. Biological Conservation 131:42-51. 

Theobald, D., D. Stevens, D. White, N. Urquhart, A. Olsen, and J. Norman. 2005. Using GIS to 

generate spatially-balanced random survey designs for natural resource applications (in 

submission). Environmental Management. 

Turner, R. 1977. Intertidal vegetation and commercial yields of penaeid shrimp. Transactions 

of the American Entomological Society 106:411-416. 

Turner, R. 1997. Wetland loss in the northern Gulf of Mexico: multiple working hypotheses. 

Estuaries 20:1-13. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994. Statistical abstract of the United States. 114th edition. 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994. Status of recovery programs, January 1992 - June 1994. 

Washington, DC. 
159 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report Fact Sheet. 

EPA842-F-02-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: 

developing metrics and indexes of biological integrity. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA-822-R-02-016, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. EPA acid rain program: 2001 progress report. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430-R-02-009, 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. Latest findings on national air quality: 2001 

status and trends. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, EPA 454-K-02-001, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA's Draft Report on the Environment 2003. 

Office of Environmental Information and the Office of Research and Development, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-260-R-02-006, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Forest Service. 1988. The South's fourth forest: alternatives for the future. Forest 

Resource Report 24, Washington, DC. 

van der Leeden, F., F. L. Troise, and D. K. Todd, editors. 1990. The water encyclopedia, 2nd 

edition. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. 

Vannote, R., G. Minshall, K. Cummins, J. Sedell, and C. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum 

concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137. 

Vitousek, P., L. Loope, and C. Stone. 1987. Introduced species in Hawaii: biological effects and 

opportunities for ecological research. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2:224-227. 

Wallace, J. B., J. R. Webster, and R. L. Lowe. 1992. High-gradient streams of the 

Appalachians. Pages 133-191 in C. T. Hackney, S. M. Adams, and W. H. Martin, editors. 

Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: aquatic communities. John Wiley & Sons, 

New York. 

Ware, S., C. Frost, and P. D. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: the former longleaf 

pine forest. Pages 447-493 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. 

Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley 

& Sons, New York. 

Warren, M. L., Jr. and B. M. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes of the United States: 

overview of an imperiled fauna. Fisheries 19:6-18. 
160 

Weber, S. 2003. National Park Service North Coast and Cascades Network Monitoring Plan: 

Phase II. National Park Service North Coast and Cascades Network, Ashford, Washington. 

Welch, B. 2003. San Francisco Bay Area Network Phase II Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

(working draft). National Park Service, San Francisco Bay Area Network. 

Wenner, E. L. and M. Geist. 2001. The National Estuarine Research Reserves Program to 

monitor and preserve estuarine waters. Coastal Management 29:1-17. 

White, P., S. Wilds, and G. Thunhorst. 1998. Regional trends of biological resources – 

Southeast. Pages 255-314 in M. J. Mac, P. A. Opler, C. E. Pucket Haecker, and P. D. Doran, 

editors. Status and trends of the nation's biological resources, Volume 1. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 

Williams, S. J. and J. B. Johnston. 1995. Coastal barrier erosion: loss of valuable coastal 

ecosystems. Pages 277-279 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. 

J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, 

and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Biological Service, Washington, DC. 

Wright, C. J., K. Dahl-Kearney, and J. C. DeVivo. 2006. Southeast Coast Network information 

management and archiving plan. Atlanta, GA. 

Yorks, T. E. and S. Dabydeen. 1998. Modification of the Whittaker sampling technique to assess 

plant diversity in forested natural areas. Natural Areas Journal 18: 185-189. 

Zimmerman, R. J., T. J. Minello, E. F. Klima, and J. M. Nance. 1991. Effects of accelerated 

sea-level rise on coastal secondary production. Pages 110-124 in H. S. Bolton, editor. 

Coastal wetlands. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 

Zimmerman, R. and T. Minello. 1984. Densities of Penaeus aztecus, P. setiferus and other 

natant macrofauna in a Texas salt marsh. Estuaries 7:421-433.
161 

Glossary 

Adaptive management: A systematic process for continually improving management policies 

and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. Its most effective form-

"active" adaptive management-employs management programs that are designed to 

experimentally compare selected policies or practices, by implementing management actions 

explicitly designed to generate information useful for evaluating alternative hypotheses about the 

system being managed. 

Adaptive monitoring design: An iterative process that refines the specifications for monitoring 

over time as a result of experience in implementing a monitoring program, assessing results, and 

interacting with. 

Area Frame: A sampling frame that is designated by geographical boundaries within which the 

sampling unites are defined as subareas. 

Attributes: Any living or nonliving feature or process of the environment that can be measured 

or estimated and that provide insights into the state of the ecosystem. The term Indicator is 

reserved for a subset of attributes that is particularly information-rich in the sense that their 

values are somehow indicative of the quality, health, or integrity of the larger ecological system 

to which they belong. 

Biological Significance: An important finding from a biological point of view that may or may 

not pass a test of statistical significance. 

Co-location: Sampling of the same physical units in multiple monitoring protocols 

Conceptual Models: purposeful representations of reality that provide a mental picture of how 

something works to communicate that explanation to others. 

Degradation: An anthropogenic reduction in the capacity of a particular ecosystem or ecosystem 

component to perform desired ecosystem functions (e.g., degraded capacity for conserving soil 

and water resources). Human actions may degrade desired ecosystem functions directly, or they 

may do so indirectly by damaging the capacity of ecosystem functions to resist or recover from 

natural disturbances and/or anthropogenic stressors. 

Disturbance: “...any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or 

population structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment.” 

In relation to monitoring, disturbances are considered to be ecological factors that are within the 

evolutionary history of the ecosystem (e.g., drought). These are differentiated from 

anthropogenic factors (stressors, below) that are outside the range of disturbances naturally 

experienced by the ecosystem. 

Disturbance Stimuli: Non-lethal, human-caused events that change an animal’s behavior from 

patterns occurring without human influence; analogous to predation risk. 

Driver: The major external driving forces that have large-scale influences on natural systems. 

Drivers can be natural forces or anthropogenic. 
162 

Dynamic soil Properties: Soil properties that vary in relation to management activities, climatic 

fluctuations, or natural disturbances (e.g., bulk density, infiltration capacity, soil-surface 

roughness, organic-matter content, soil aggregate stability, biological soil crust cover and 

composition). 

Ecological Indicator: See Indicator. 

Ecological Integrity: A concept that expresses the degree to which the physical, chemical, and 

biological components (including composition, structure, and process) of an ecosystem and their 

relationships are present, functioning, and capable of self-renewal. Ecological integrity implies 

the presence of appropriate species, populations and communities and the occurrence of 

ecological processes at appropriate rates and scales as well as the environmental conditions that 

support these taxa and processes. 

Ecological Site: A kind of land with specific physical characteristics which differs from other 

kinds of land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its 

response to management. 

Ecological Sustainability: The tendency of a system or process to be maintained or preserved 

over time without loss or decline. 

Ecosystem: Defined as, "a spatially explicit unit of the Earth that includes all of the organisms, 

along with all components of the abiotic environment within its boundaries" (Likens 1992). 

Ecosystem Functioning: The flow of energy and materials through the arrangement of biotic 

and abiotic components of an ecosystem. Includes many ecosystem processes such as primary 

production, trophic transfer from plants to animals, nutrient cycling, water dynamics and heat 

transfer. In a broad sense, ecosystem functioning includes two components: ecosystem resource 

dynamics and ecosystem stability. 

Ecosystem Health: A metaphor pertaining to the assessment and monitoring of ecosystem 

structure, function, and resilience in relation to the notion of ecosystem “sustainability.” A 

healthy ecosystem is sustainable (see Sustainable Ecosystem, below). 

Ecosystem Integrity: See Ecological Integrity. 

Ecosystem Management: The process of land-use decision making and land-management 

practice that takes into account the full suite of organisms and processes that characterize and 

comprise the ecosystem. It is based on the best understanding currently available as to how the 

ecosystem works. Ecosystem management includes a primary goal to sustain ecosystem structure 

and function, a recognition that ecosystems are spatially and temporally dynamic, and acceptance 

of the dictum that ecosystem function depends on ecosystem structure and diversity. The wholesystem focus of ecosystem management implies coordinated land-use decisions. 

Ecosystem Sustainability: See sustainable ecosystem. 

Endpoints: Ecosystem attributes of ecological and/or societal importance. Endpoints may or 

may not be indicators of overall ecosystem condition (also referred to as assessment endpoints). 
163 

Focal Ecosystems: Ecosystems that play significant functional roles in landscapes by their 

disproportionate contribution to the transfer of matter and energy, or by their disproportionate 

contribution to landscape-level biodiversity. 

Focal Resources: Park resources that, by virtue of their special protection, public appeal, or 

other management significance, have paramount importance for monitoring regardless of current 

threats or whether they would be monitored as an indication of ecosystem integrity. Focal 

resources might include ecological processes such as deposition rates of nitrates and sulfates in 

certain parks, or they may be a species that is harvested, endemic, alien, or has protected status. 

Functional Groups: Groups of species that have similar effects on ecosystem processes – 

frequently applied interchangeably with functional types. 

Functional Types: Sets of organisms sharing similar responses to environmental factors such as 

temperature, resource availability, and disturbance (= functional response types) and/or similar 

effects on ecosystem functions such as productivity, nutrient cycling, flammability, and 

resistance / resilience (= functional effect types). 

Hydrologic Function (upland systems): Capacity of a site to capture, store, and safely release 

water from rainfall, run-on, and snowmelt, to resist a reduction in this capacity, and to recover 

this capacity following degradation.

Hydrologic function (lotic and lentic systems): Capacity of an area to: 

• dissipate energies associated with (1) high stream flow (lotic); or (2) wind action, wave 

action, and overland flow (lentic); thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; 

• filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; 

• improve flood-water retention and groundwater recharge; 

• develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; 

• develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water 

depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and 

other uses; 

• support greater biodiversity 

Indicators: A subset of monitoring attributes that are particularly information-rich in the sense 

that their values are somehow indicative of the quality, health, or integrity of the larger 

ecological system to which they belong (Noon 2003). Indicators are a selected subset of the 

physical, chemical, and biological elements and processes of natural systems that are selected to 

represent the overall health or condition of the system. 

Inventory: An extensive point-in-time survey to determine the presence/absence, location or 

condition of a biotic or abiotic resource. 
164 

Landscape: A spatially structured mosaic of different types of ecosystems interconnected by 

flows of materials (e.g., water, sediments), energy, and organisms. 

Landscape Diversity: The number of ecosystem types and their spatial distribution.

Measures: Specific feature(s) used to quantify an indicator, as specified in a sampling protocol. 

For example, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductivity are all measures of 

water chemistry. 

Metadata: Data about data. Metadata describes the content, quality, condition, and other 

characteristics of data. It's purpose it to help organize and maintain a organization's internal 

investment in spatial data, provide information about an organization's data holdings to data 

catalogues, clearinghouses, and brokerages, and provide information to process and interpret data 

received through a transfer from an external source. 

Metric: Metrics are those Measures that respond consistently to environmental stressors or 

gradients within an ecosystem and to which scoring criteria are applied. Typically, Measures are 

quantified with different units and have different absolute numerical values (e.g., numbers of 

taxa might range from 0 to 100 and relative species abundances would be reported as 

percentages). Additionally, some metrics might increase with response to disturbance while 

others might decrease. To resolve such differences, metrics are assigned scores based on 

expectations for that metric at minimally disturbed sites in similar systems, representing a degree 

of deviation from those reference conditions. Metrics are the building blocks of Multimetric 

Indexes (modified from Karr and Chu, 1997). 

Monitoring: The collection and analysis of repeated observations or measurements to evaluate 

changes in condition and progress toward meeting a management objective (Elzinga et al. 1998). 

Detection of a change or trend may trigger a management action, or it may generate a new line of 

inquiry. Monitoring is often done by sampling the same sites over time, and these sites may be a 

subset of the sites sampled for the initial inventory. 

Multimetric Index: An assessment tool that systematically combines scores from two or more 

Metrics to provide a qualitative summary value judgment about the condition of a monitored 

resource (i.e., “Good,” “Fair,” or “Poor”). 

Protocols: As used by this program, 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 (Oakley et al. 2003). 

Resilience: The capacity of a particular ecological attribute or process to recover to its former 

reference state or dynamic after exposure to a temporary disturbance and/or stressor. Resilience 

is a dynamic property that varies in relation to environmental conditions. 

Resistance: The capacity of a particular ecological attribute or process to remain essentially 

unchanged from its reference state or dynamic despite exposure to a disturbance and/or stressor. 

Resistance is a dynamic property that varies in relation to environmental conditions. 
165 

Soil Quality: The capacity of a specific kind of soil to function, within natural or managed 

ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and 

air quality, and support human health and habitation. From an NPS perspective, soil quality is 

defined by a soil’s capacity to perform three ecological functions: 1) regulate hydrologic 

processes, 2) capture, retain, and cycle mineral nutrients, and 3) support characteristic native 

communities of plants and animals. Soil quality can be regarded as having an inherent 

component defined by the soil’s inherent soil properties as determined by the five factors of soil 

formation, and a dynamic component defined by the change in soil function that is influenced by 

human use and management of the soil. 

Soil/ Site Stability: The capacity of a site to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources 

(including nutrients and organic matter) by wind and water. 

State: As applied to state-and-transition models, a state is defined as “a recognizable, resistant 

and resilient complex of two components, the soil [or geomorphic] base and the vegetation 

structure.” These two ecosystem components interactively determine the functional status of the 

primary ecosystem processes of energy flow, nutrient cycling, and hydrology. States are dynamic 

and “... are distinguished from other states by relatively large differences in plant functional 

groups and ecosystem processes [including disturbance and hydrologic regimes] and, 

consequently, in vegetation structure, biodiversity, and management requirements” (Also see 

threshold and transition). 

Stressors: Physical, chemical, or biological perturbations to a system that are either (a) foreign 

to that system or (b) natural to the system but applied at an excessive [or deficient] level (Barrett 

et al. 1976:192). Stressors cause significant changes in the ecological components, patterns and 

processes in natural systems. Examples include water withdrawal, pesticide use, timber 

harvesting, traffic emissions, stream acidification, trampling, poaching, land-use change, and air 

pollution. 

Sustainable Ecosystem: An ecosystem “...that, over the normal cycle of disturbance events, 

maintains its characteristic diversity of major functional groups, productivity, and rates of 

biogeochemical cycling.” 

Threshold: As applied to state-and-transition models, a threshold is a point “...in space and time 

at which one or more of the primary ecological processes responsible for maintaining the 

sustained [dynamic] equilibrium of the state degrades beyond the point of self-repair. These 

processes must be actively restored before the return to the previous state is possible. In the 

absence of active restoration, a new state ... is formed” (Stringham et al. 2003:109). Thresholds 

are defined in terms of the functional status of key ecosystem processes and are crossed when 

capacities for resistance and resilience are exceeded. (Also see state and transition.) 

Transition: As applied to state-and-transition models, a transition is a trajectory of change that 

is precipitated by natural events and/or management actions which degrade the integrity of one 

or more of the primary ecological processes responsible for maintaining the dynamic equilibrium 

of the state. Transitions are vectors of system change that will lead to a new state without 

abatement of the stressor(s) and/or disturbance(s) prior to exceeding the system’s capacities for 

resistance and resilience. (Also see state and threshold.) 
166 

Trend: As used by this program, refers to directional change measured in resources by 

monitoring their condition over time. Trends can be measured by examining individual change 

(change experienced by individual sample units) or by examining net change (change in mean 

response of all sample units). 

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. 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. Vital signs may occur at any level of organization 

including landscape, community, population, or genetic level, and may be compositional 

(referring to the variety of elements in the system), structural (referring to the organization or 

pattern of the system), or functional (referring to ecological processes).
 

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-XXX, Month Year
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA T