DOCSLIB.ORG

New York State Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New York State Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines NEW YORK STATE SALT MARSH RESTORATION AND MONITORING GUIDELINES George E. Pataki, Governor Alexander P. Treadwell, Secretary of State John P. Cahill, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines prepared by: Nancy L. Niedowski for the New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 - and - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources Bureau of Marine Resources 205 N. Belle Meade Road East Setauket, NY 11733 December 15, 2000 The Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines were prepared under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center Coastal Management Fellowship Program, which places recent graduates in coastal management and related fields with state coastal programs to conduct special two-year projects. The Coastal Management Fellowship Program is administered by NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405. Additional financial assistance was provided through a federal grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The New York State Coastal Management Program is administered by the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources, 41 State Street, Albany, New York 12231. December 2000 PREFACE All salt marsh restoration activities are regulated, and require permits and approvals. Using this guidance document does not relieve the reader of regulatory requirements, nor does it guarantee receipt of a permit. This document does not waive existing regulatory standards. Using this document should not be substituted for communication with permit staff regarding a proposed salt marsh restoration project. Regional permit staff should always be contacted by a project proponent early in the planning process and prior to submission of permit applications. This document is primarily intended to guide voluntary restoration projects, not mitigation projects. Mitigation projects are constrained by specific regulatory standards. This document does not modify or waive any program standards for mitigation. In addition, while voluntary projects are more flexible in goal-setting and design, such projects will nevertheless be subject to regulatory requirements, including permits and approvals from the State and federal government. The Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines are primarily intended for use with projects sponsored by municipalities. Individuals with ideas for restoration projects are strongly encouraged to collaborate with their municipality, and to contact regional Department of Environmental Conservation staff prior to project planning. Activities in identified tidal wetlands, including salt marshes on private property, are regulated by the State of New York, and require permits and approvals. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................v LIST OF TABLES .............................................. vi 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................1 1.a. Purpose of the Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines ...2 1.b. Intended Audience and Format of the Guidelines ................2 1.c. Overall Goal Setting for Habitat Restoration in New York State ....4 1.d. Definitions of Terms .....................................6 1.e. Principal Planning Considerations in Salt Marsh Restoration .......7 2. TEMPERATE SALT MARSH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION ...11 2.a. Salt Marsh Development .................................11 2.b. Salt Marshes in New York State ...........................11 2.c. Salt Marsh Vegetation ...................................12 2.d. Salt Marsh Fish and Wildlife ..............................13 2.e. Salt Marsh Functions ....................................14 2.f. Conceptual Model for Salt Marsh System Restoration ...........16 2.f.1. Introduction to Conceptual Models ...............16 2.f.2. Controlling Factors ...........................16 2.f.3. Attributes of the Controlling Factors ..............17 2.f.4. Structural Elements ...........................18 2.f.5. Attributes of the Structural Elements ..............19 2.f.6. Functions ...................................20 2.f.7. Specific Functional Parameters ..................21 2.g. Generic Activities Affecting Salt Marshes and Adjacent Habitats ..22 3. HUMAN DISTURBANCES ....................................22 3.a. Ditching .............................................23 3.b. Filling ...............................................23 3.c. Restricted Tidal Connection ..............................24 3.d. Diking & Impoundment ..................................25 3.e. Pollution .............................................25 3.f. Shoreline Hardening & Structures ..........................27 i 3.g. Sea Level Rise ........................................28 4. NATURAL DISTURBANCES ..................................29 4.a. Seasonal Disturbances ...................................29 4.b. Natural Disasters .......................................30 5. POST-DISTURBANCE CONDITIONS IN SALT MARSHES ........30 5.a. Changes in Tidal Regime ................................30 5.b. Subsidence ...........................................31 5.c. Flooding .............................................32 5.d. Changes in Salinity .....................................32 5.e. Changes in Salt Marsh Vegetation ..........................33 6. OVERVIEW OF RESTORATION METHODS ....................34 6.a. Manipulating Tidal Regime ...............................34 6.a.1. General Considerations ........................34 6.a.2. Measuring Tidal Elevations .....................34 6.a.3. Duration of Inundation ........................35 6.a.4. Sizing of Culverts ............................35 6.a.5. Open Marsh Water Management .................36 6.a.6. Low-lying Structures ..........................38 6.b. Manipulating Elevation, Slope, and Substrate .................38 6.b.1. General Considerations ........................38 6.b.2. Slope ......................................39 6.b.3. Substrate Properties ...........................39 6.b.4. Tidal Channels ..............................40 6.b.5. Heavy Equipment ............................40 6.c. Manipulating Vegetation .................................40 6.c.1. Planting vs. Natural Colonization .................40 6.c.2. Spartina alterniflora—Seeding ..................41 6.c.3. Spartina alterniflora—Stems, Plugs, and Potted Seedlings ..........................................41 6.c.4. Spartina alterniflora—Planting Methods ...........41 6.c.5. Spartina alterniflora—Fertilization ...............42 6.c.6. Spartina alterniflora—Spacing of Plants ...........42 6.c.7. Other Plant Species ...........................43 6.c.8. Estimated Costs for Plants ......................43 ii 6.d. Invasive Species Control: Common Reed ....................44 6.d.1. General Considerations ........................44 6.d.2. Common Reed Habitat ........................45 6.d.3. Disturbances Favoring Common Reed .............45 6.d.4. Natural History of Common Reed ................46 6.d.5. Impacts caused by Common Reed ................46 6.d.6. Ecological Value of Common Reed ...............46 6.d.7. Determining the Need for Control ................47 6.d.8. Control Methods for Common Reed ..............47 6.d.9. Tidal Inundation .............................48 6.d.10. Cutting and Mowing ..............................48 6.d.11. Cutting and Mowing Combined with Other Techniques ...49 6.d.12. Controlled Burning ...............................49 6.d.13. Controlled Burning Combined with Other Techniques ....50 6.d.14. Chemical Control ................................50 7. SALT MARSH RESTORATION—RECOMMENDED MONITORING PROTOCOL ..............................................53 8. COMMON REED CONTROL—RECOMMENDED MONITORING PROTOCOL ..............................................67 9. SALT MARSH BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................77 10. COMMON REED CONTROL BIBLIOGRAPHY .................95 APPENDIX A FIELD AND REPORTING FORMS FOR RECOMMENDED SALT MARSH RESTORATION MONITORING PROTOCOL .......99 APPENDIX B WORLD WIDE WEB RESOURCES RELEVANT FOR SALT MARSH RESTORATION ..............................107 APPENDIX C RESTORATION PROJECT TIMELINE ........................113 iii APPENDIX D FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO WETLAND RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT .117 APPENDIX E KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS ............................125 APPENDIX F ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................135 iv LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Process and Considerations for Restoration Projects .............8 Figure 2. Recreational Shellfishing ..................................9 Figure 3. Salt Marsh Development Over Time ........................11 Figure 4. Low Marsh Zone .......................................13 Figure 5. Grid Ditching in Long Island Wetlands ......................23 Figure 6. Wetland Filling ........................................24 Figure 7. Tidal Restriction .......................................24 Figure 8. Petroleum Pollution .....................................26 Figure 9. Bulkheading ..........................................27 Figure 10. Walkway Over a Marsh ..................................28 Figure 11. OMWM Ditch Plug .....................................37
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Stable States of Tidal Marsh Vegetation Patterns and Channel Complexity
    ECOHYDROLOGY Ecohydrol. (2016) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/eco.1755 Alternative stable states of tidal marsh vegetation patterns and channel complexity K. B. Moffett1* and S. M. Gorelick2 1 School of the Environment, Washington State University Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, USA 2 Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA ABSTRACT Intertidal marshes develop between uplands and mudflats, and develop vegetation zonation, via biogeomorphic feedbacks. Is the spatial configuration of vegetation and channels also biogeomorphically organized at the intermediate, marsh-scale? We used high-resolution aerial photographs and a decision-tree procedure to categorize marsh vegetation patterns and channel geometries for 113 tidal marshes in San Francisco Bay estuary and assessed these patterns’ relations to site characteristics. Interpretation was further informed by generalized linear mixed models using pattern-quantifying metrics from object-based image analysis to predict vegetation and channel pattern complexity. Vegetation pattern complexity was significantly related to marsh salinity but independent of marsh age and elevation. Channel complexity was significantly related to marsh age but independent of salinity and elevation. Vegetation pattern complexity and channel complexity were significantly related, forming two prevalent biogeomorphic states: complex versus simple vegetation-and-channel configurations. That this correspondence held across marsh ages (decades to millennia)
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Tidal Freshwater and Brackish Marsh Macrophytes to Pulses of Saline Water Simulating Sea Level Rise and Reduced Discharge
    Wetlands (2018) 38:885–891 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1037-2 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Responses of Tidal Freshwater and Brackish Marsh Macrophytes to Pulses of Saline Water Simulating Sea Level Rise and Reduced Discharge Fan Li1 & Steven C. Pennings1 Received: 7 June 2017 /Accepted: 16 April 2018 /Published online: 25 April 2018 # Society of Wetland Scientists 2018 Abstract Coastal low-salinity marshes are increasingly experiencing periodic to extended periods of elevated salinities due to the com- bined effects of sea level rise and altered hydrological and climatic conditions. However, we lack the ability to predict detailed vegetation responses, especially for saline pulses that are more realistic in nature than permanent saline presses. In this study, we exposed common freshwater and brackish plants to different durations (1–31 days per month for 3 months) of saline water (salinity of 5). We found that Zizaniopsis miliacea was more tolerant to salinity than the other two freshwater species, Polygonum hydropiperoides and Pontederia cordata. We also found that Zizaniopsis miliacea belowground and total biomass appeared to increase with salinity pulses up to 16 days in length, although this relationship was quite variable. Brackish plants, Spartina cynosuroides, Schoenoplectus americanus and Juncus roemerianus, were unaffected by the experimental treatments. Our ex- periment did not evaluate how competitive interactions would further affect responses to salinity but our results suggest the hypothesis that short pulses of saline water will increase the cover of Zizaniopsis miliacea and decrease the cover of Polygonum hydropiperoides and Pontederia cordata in tidal freshwater marshes, thereby reducing diversity without necessarily affecting total plant biomass.
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Marsh Monitoring by The
    SaltSalt MarshMarsh MonitoringMonitoring byby thethe U.S.U.S. FishFish && WildlifeWildlife ServiceService’’ss NortheastNortheast RegionRegion Ralph Tiner Regional Wetland Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Northeast Region February 2010 TypesTypes ofof MonitoringMonitoring RemotelyRemotely sensedsensed MonitoringMonitoring Area and type changes (e.g., trends analysis) Can cover large or small areas OnOn--thethe--groundground MonitoringMonitoring Addressing processes (accretion, erosion, subsidence, salt balance, etc.) Analyzing vegetation and soil changes Plot analysis Reference wetlands Evaluating wildlife habitat RemotelyRemotely SensedSensed MonitoringMonitoring NWINWI usesuses aerialaerial imageryimagery toto tracktrack wetlandwetland changeschanges inin wetlandwetland typetype WetlandWetland StatusStatus && TrendsTrends StudiesStudies == aa typetype ofof monitoringmonitoring For large geographic areas Statistical Sampling – analyze changes in 4-square mile plots; generate estimates For small areas Area-based Analysis –analyze complete area for changes over time RegionRegion vsvs LocalLocal ReportsReports CanfieldCanfield Cove,Cove, CTCT 19741974 20042004 Canfield Island Cove 60 50 40 s e 30 Acr 20 10 0 1974 1981 1986 1990 1995 2000 2004 Low Marsh High Marsh Flat ConsiderationsConsiderations forfor SiteSite--specificspecific MonitoringMonitoring SpecialSpecial aerialaerial imageryimagery LowLow tidetide PeakPeak ofof growinggrowing seasonseason NormalNormal issuesissues re:re: qualityquality (e.g.,(e.g.,
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Balance in Salt Marsh and Mangrove Ecosystems: a Global Synthesis
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Review Carbon Balance in Salt Marsh and Mangrove Ecosystems: A Global Synthesis Daniel M. Alongi Tropical Coastal & Mangrove Consultants, 52 Shearwater Drive, Pakenham, VIC 3810, Australia; [email protected]; Tel.: +61-4744-8687 Received: 5 September 2020; Accepted: 27 September 2020; Published: 30 September 2020 Abstract: Mangroves and salt marshes are among the most productive ecosystems in the global coastal 1 1 ocean. Mangroves store more carbon (739 Mg CORG ha− ) than salt marshes (334 Mg CORG ha− ), but the latter sequester proportionally more (24%) net primary production (NPP) than mangroves (12%). Mangroves exhibit greater rates of gross primary production (GPP), aboveground net primary production (AGNPP) and plant respiration (RC), with higher PGPP/RC ratios, but salt marshes exhibit greater rates of below-ground NPP (BGNPP). Mangroves have greater rates of subsurface DIC production and, unlike salt marshes, exhibit active microbial decomposition to a soil depth of 1 m. Salt marshes release more CH4 from soil and creek waters and export more dissolved CH4, but mangroves release more CO2 from tidal waters and export greater amounts of particulate organic carbon (POC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), to adjacent waters. Both ecosystems contribute only a small proportion of GPP, RE (ecosystem respiration) and NEP (net ecosystem production) to the global coastal ocean due to their small global area, but contribute 72% of air–sea CO2 exchange of the world’s wetlands and estuaries and contribute 34% of DIC export and 17% of DOC + POC export to the world’s coastal ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Restoration and Creation: Development of a Handbook Covering Six Coastal Wetland Types
    t REPORT NO. 289 WETLAND RESTORATION AND CREATION: DEVELOPMENT OF A HANDBOOK COVERING SIX COASTAL WETLAND TYPES by Robert E. Holman and Wesley S. Childres Water Resources Research Institute of The University of North Carolina January 1995 WETLAND RESTORATION AND CREATION: Development Of A Handbook Covering Six Coastal Wetland Types Robert E. Holman and Wesley S. Childres Water Resources Research Institute of The University of North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina January 1995 Mention of company names is for informational purposes only, and should not be taken as an endorement or censure by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. Also, in Section IV of the handbook, the Profile, Overview, and Reference sites sub-sections for each wetland type were modified from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and their document entitled "Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation". WRRl Project No. 50186 One hundred and fifty copies of this report were printed at a cost of $1,290.54 or $8.60 per copy. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Dr. Tom Hoban for providing guidance in refining our questionnaire. Appreciation is also expressed to Drs. Stephen Broome, Ernest Seneca, Donald Hammer, Edger Garbisch, Russ Lea, Douglas Fredrick, and Curtis ' Richardson for reviewing, providing material, and commenting on sections covering the different wetland types. Thanks are in order for Dr. Jim Wuenscher, Ron Ferrell and their staffs for input during the development of this document. A portion of this document is being printed by the Division of Coastal Management as "Wetland Restoration and Creation: A Techniques Handbook of Six Coastal Wetland Types," while the entire document titled "Wetland Restoration and Creation: Development of a Handbook on Six Coastal Wetland Types" is being printed by the Water Resources Research Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Wetlunds of the Noytherrn Gua of Califurnia
    AQUATIC CONSERVATION:MARINE AND FRESHWATERECOSYSTEMS Aquatic Conseru:Mar. Freshv. Ecosyst. l6: 5 28 (2006) Publishedonline in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/aqc.68l Coastal wetlundsof the noytherrnGuA of Califurnia: inventory flnd conservutionstatus EDWARD P. GLENNO'*, PAMELA L. NAGLERU, RICHARD C. BRUSCAb and OSVEL HINOJOSA-HUERTA' " EnvironntentalResearch Laborator!-,2601 East Airport Drive, Tucson,AZ 85706, USA bAritora Sonora Desert Museum,2021 North Kinney RoacJ,Tucson, AZ 85743,USA 'Pronatura lVoroeste,Ave. Jalisco 903, Colonia Sonora, San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora 83440. Meric'o ABSTRACT 1. Above 28"N, the coastlineof the northern Gulf of California is indented at frequent intervals by negative or inverseestuaries that are saltier at their backs than at their mouths due to the lack of freshwater inflow. These 'esteros'total over l32,ogo ha in area and encompassmangrove marshes below 29"N and saltgrass(Drsrichlis palmeri) marshes north of 29"N. An additional 6000 ha of freshwaterand brackish wetlandsare found in the Colorado River delta where fresh water entersthe intertidal zone. 2. The mangrove marshesin the Gulf of California have been afforded some degreeof protected statusin Mexico, but the northern saltgrassesteros do not have priority conservationstatus and are increasinglybecoming developmenttargets for resorts,vacation homes and aquaculture sites. 3. We conducted an inventory of the marshesusing aerial photography and satelliteimages, and evaluatedthe extent and type of developmenton eachmarsh. We reviewedthe availableliterature on the marshesto document their vegetationtypes and ecologicalfunctions in the adjacentmarine and terrestrial ecosystems. 4. Over 95"h of the mangrove marshes have been developed for shrimp farming. However, the larms are built adjacent to, rather than in, the marshes, and the mangrove stands are still mostly intact.
    [Show full text]
  • California Wetlands
    VOL. 46, NO.2 FREMONTIA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY California Wetlands 1 California Native Plant Society CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5130 Phone: (916) 447-2677 • Fax: (916) 447-2727 FREMONTIA www.cnps.org • [email protected] VOL. 46, NO. 2, November 2018 Memberships Copyright © 2018 Members receive many benefits, including a subscription toFremontia California Native Plant Society and the CNPS Bulletin. Look for more on inside back cover. ISSN 0092-1793 (print) Mariposa Lily.............................$1,500 Family..............................................$75 ISSN 2572-6870 (online) Benefactor....................................$600 International or library...................$75 Patron............................................$300 Individual................................$45 Gordon Leppig, Editor Plant lover.....................................$100 Student/retired..........................$25 Michael Kauffmann, Editor & Designer Corporate/Organizational 10+ Employees.........................$2,500 4-6 Employees..............................$500 7-10 Employees.........................$1,000 1-3 Employees............................$150 Staff & Contractors Dan Gluesenkamp: Executive Director Elizabeth Kubey: Outreach Coordinator Our mission is to conserve California’s Alfredo Arredondo: Legislative Analyst Sydney Magner: Asst. Vegetation Ecologist native plants and their natural habitats, Christopher Brown: Membership & Sales David Magney: Rare Plant Program Manager and increase understanding,
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Change in Marsh Types of Coastal Louisiana, 1978–2001
    Analysis of Change in Marsh Types of Coastal Louisiana, 1978–2001 Open-File Report 2010–1282 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Analysis of Change in Marsh Types of Coastal Louisiana, 1978–2001 By Robert G. Linscombe and Stephen B. Hartley Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Open-File Report 2010–1282 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/ U.S. Geological Survey Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 To learn about the USGS and its information products visit http://www.usgs.gov/ 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Linscombe, R.G., and Hartley, S.B., 2011, Analysis of Change in Marsh Types of Coastal Louisiana, 1978–2001: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1282, 52 p. iii Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank those who have assisted with this document. From the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries (LDWF), Marine Fisheries Division, we thank Jan Bowman, Keith Ibos, Clarence Luquet, Randy Pausina, Vince Guillory, Steve Hein, Paul Cook, and Michael Harbison for assistance in locating, selecting, and compiling salinity data across the coast.
    [Show full text]
  • NC Division of Coastal Management Wetland Type Descriptions for DCM GIS Wetland Type Data
    NC Division of Coastal Management Wetland Type Descriptions for DCM GIS Wetland Type Data Wetland Types and codes Salt/Brackish Marsh (w-type 1) Any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses), as long as this flooding does not include hurricane or tropical storm waters. Plant species include: smooth cordgrass; black needlerush; glasswort; salt grass; sea lavender; salt marsh bullrush; saw grass; cattail; salt meadow cordgrass; and big cordgrass. Marshes in this category are also called Coastal Marshes. Estuarine Shrub Scrub (w-type 3) Any shrub/scrub dominated community subject to occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses). Typical species include wax myrtle and eastern red cedar. Estuarine Forested (w-type 15) A forested wetland community subject to occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the these areas through natural or artificial watercourses). Examples include pine-dominated communities with rushes in the understory or fringe swamp communities such as those that occur along the Albemarle and Pamlico sounds. Maritime Swamp Forest (w-type 16) A forested community characterized by its stunted growth due to the stresses imposed by its proximity to salt spray from the ocean. Typical vegetation includes live oak, red maple and swamp tupelo. Freshwater Marsh (w-type 2) Herbaceous areas that are flooded for extended periods during the growing season. Included are marshes within lacustrine systems, managed impoundments, some Carolina Bays, and other non-tidal marshes (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Brackish Marsh Zones As a Waterfowl Habitat Resource in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Beds in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
    Brackish Marsh Zones as a Waterfowl Habitat Resource in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Beds in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Kristin E. DeMarco, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Eva R. Hillmann, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Michael G. Brasher, Ducks Unlimited, Gulf Coast Joint Venture, National Wetlands Research Center, 700 Cajundome Blvd, Lafayette, LA 70506 Megan La Peyre, U.S. Geological Survey, Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Abstract: Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds are shallow coastal habitats that are increasingly exposed to the effects of sea-level rise (SLR). In the northern Gulf of Mexico (nGoM), an area especially vulnerable to SLR, the abundance and distribution of SAV food resources (seeds, rhizomes, and tissue) can influence the carrying capacity of coastal marshes to support wintering waterfowl. Despite the known importance of SAV little is known about their distribution across coastal landscapes and salinity zones or how they may be impacted by SLR. We estimated SAV cover and seed biomass in coastal marshes from Texas to Alabama from 1 June – 15 September 2013 to assess variation in SAV and seed resource distribution and abundance across the salinity gradient. Percent cover of SAV was similar among salinity zones (10%–20%) although patterns of distribution differed. Specifically, SAV occurred less frequently in saline zones, but when present the percent coverage was greater than in fresh, intermediate and brackish. Mean seed biomass varied greatly and did not differ significantly among salinity zones.
    [Show full text]
  • And Belowground Primary Production in Coastal Wetlands: Implications for Climate Change-Induced Community Shifts
    Estuaries and Coasts DOI 10.1007/s12237-016-0177-y A Landscape-Scale Assessment of Above- and Belowground Primary Production in Coastal Wetlands: Implications for Climate Change-Induced Community Shifts Camille L. Stagg1 & Donald R. Schoolmaster Jr.1 & Sarai C. Piazza1 & Gregg Snedden1 & Gregory D. Steyer2 & Craig J. Fischenich3 & Robert W. McComas3 Received: 20 April 2016 /Revised: 23 September 2016 /Accepted: 29 September 2016 # Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (outside the USA) 2016 Abstract Above- and belowground production in coastal production, and its influence was dependent upon wetland wetlands are important contributors to carbon accumulation type. We concluded that (1) salinity had a negative effect on and ecosystem sustainability. As sea level rises, we can expect production within wetland type, and this relationship was shifts to more salt-tolerant communities, which may alter strongest in the fresh marsh (0–2 PSU) and (2) along the these ecosystem functions and services. Although the direct overall landscape gradient, production was maintained by influence of salinity on species-level primary production has mechanisms at the scale of wetland type, which were likely been documented, we lack an understanding of the landscape- related to plant energetics. Regardless of wetland type, we level response of coastal wetlands to increasing salinity. What found that belowground production was significantly greater are the indirect effects of sea-level rise, i.e., how does primary than aboveground production. Additionally, inter-annual var- production vary across a landscape gradient of increasing sa- iation, associated with severe drought conditions, was ob- linity that incorporates changes in wetland type? This is the served exclusively for belowground production, which may first study to measure both above- and belowground produc- be a more sensitive indicator of ecosystem health than above- tion in four wetland types that span an entire coastal gradient ground production.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina's Wetlands: Status and Trends, 1982-1989
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service South Carolina’s Wetlands Status and Trends, 1982 – 1989 South Carolina’s Wetlands Status and Trends, 1982 – 1989 T. E. Dahl U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Habitat Conservation Habitat Assessment Branch Acknowledgments This study was funded in part by the Dr. Kenneth Burnham of Colorado State Environmental Protection Agency University, Fort Collins, CO wrote the (EPA), Office of Wetlands, Oceans and statistical analysis programs. Watersheds under interagency agree- Publication design and layout was done ment number DW149356-01-0. Special by the U.S. Geological Survey, appreciation is due to Doreen Vetter and Madison, WI. Chris Williams of the EPA, Wetlands Division, Washington, D.C. This report should be cited as follows: Dahl, T.E. 1999. South Carolina’s wet- The author would like to recognize the lands — status and trends extraordinary efforts of two people of 1982 – 1989. U.S. Department of the the Wetlands Status and Trends Unit Interior, Fish and Wildlife of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Service, Washington, D.C. 58 pp. Mr. Richard Young was responsible for the integrity and geographic information system analysis of the data. Ms. Martha Caldwell assisted in the field work and Front cover photo: Estuarine emergents, conducted the statistical analysis of the Edisto River, South Carolina data sets. T. Dahl Many other people on the staff at the Back cover photo: White water-lily National Wetlands Inventory Center of (Nymphaea odorata) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in St. USFWS Petersburg, FL contributed to this effort. Their help is greatly appreciated.
    [Show full text]