Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Structured Decision Making to Identify Monitoring Variables and Management Priorities for Salt Marsh Ecosystems

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most salt marshes in the USA have been degraded by human activities, and coastal managers are faced with complex choices among possible actions to restore or enhance ecosystem integrity. We applied structured decision making (SDM) to guide selection of monitoring variables and management priorities for salt marshes within the National Wildlife Refuge System in the northeastern USA. In general, SDM is a systematic process for decomposing a decision into its essential elements. We first engaged stakeholders in clarifying regional salt marsh decision problems, defining objectives and attributes to evaluate whether objectives are achieved, and developing a pool of alternative management actions for achieving objectives. Through this process, we identified salt marsh attributes that were applicable to monitoring National Wildlife Refuges on a regional scale and that targeted management needs. We then analyzed management decisions within three salt marsh units at Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, coastal Delaware, as a case example of prioritizing management alternatives. Values for salt marsh attributes were estimated from 2 years of baseline monitoring data and expert opinion. We used linear value modeling to aggregate multiple attributes into a single performance score for each alternative, constrained optimization to identify alternatives that maximized total management benefits subject to refuge-wide cost constraints, and used graphical analysis to identify the optimal set of alternatives for the refuge. SDM offers an efficient, transparent approach for integrating monitoring into management practice and improving the quality of management decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barbier, E.B., S.D. Hacker, C. Kennedy, E.W. Koch, A.C. Stier, and B.R. Silliman. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs 81: 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, S.B., J.G. Ferreira, and T. Simas. 2003. An integrated methodology for assessment of estuarine trophic status. Ecological Modeling 169: 39–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bromberg Gedan, K., B.R. Silliman, and M.D. Bertness. 2009. Centuries of human-driven change in salt marsh ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science 1: 117–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgman, M.A. 2005. Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christian, R.R. 2005. Beyond the Mediterranean to global observations of coastal lagoons. Hydrobiologia 550: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R.T. 1996. Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis, 2nd ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, M.J., and J.T. Peterson. 2013. Decision making in natural resource management: A structured, adaptive approach. West Sussex: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, M.J., M.C. Runge, J.D. Nichols, K.W. Stodola, and R.J. Cooper. 2011. Conservation in the face of climate change: The roles of alternative models, monitoring, and adaptation in confronting and reducing uncertainty. Biological Conservation 144: 1204–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, C. J. 2008. Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocols. Tucson: U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Wildlife Research Report #2008-01.

  • Dale, V.H., and S.C. Beyeler. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1: 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, L.A., J.E. Hughes, and R.A. Rountree. 2000. Salt marsh ecosystem support of marine transient species. In Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology, ed. M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger, 333–365. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dionne, M., F.T. Short, and D.M. Burdick. 1999. Fish utilization of restored, created, and reference salt-marsh habitat in the Gulf of Maine. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22: 384–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, R., J.E. Maldonado, S. Droege, and M.V. McDonald. 2006. Tidal marshes: A global perspective on the evolution and conservation of their terrestrial vertebrates. BioScience 56: 675–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R.S., and V. Keeney. 2002. Making smarter environmental management decisions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38: 1601–1612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R., and K. Wellman. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics 39: 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R., D. Ohlson, and J. Arvai. 2006. Deconstructing adaptive management: Criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecological Applications 16: 2411–2425.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels, and D. Ohlson. 2012. Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices. West Sussex: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, J.A. 1998. Connecting ecological monitoring and ecological indicators: A review of the literature. Journal of Environmental Systems 26: 325–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, J.S., R.L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa. 1999. Smart choices: A practical guide to making better life decisions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harwell, M.A., V. Myers, T. Young, A. Bartuska, N. Gassman, J.H. Gentile, C.C. Harwell, S. Appelbaum, J. Barko, B. Causey, C. Johnson, A. McLean, R. Smola, P. Templet, and S. Tosini. 1999. A framework for an ecosystem integrity report card. BioScience 49: 543–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havens, K.J., L.M. Varnell, and J.G. Bradshaw. 1995. An assessment of ecological conditions in a constructed tidal marsh and two natural reference tidal marshes in coastal Virginia. Ecological Engineering 4: 117–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. 1982. Decision analysis: An overview. Operations Research 30: 803–838.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L., and R.S. Gregory. 2005. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Operations Research 53: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L., and H. Raiffa. 1993. Decisions with multiple objectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kennish, M.J. 2001. Coastal salt marsh systems in the US: A review of anthropogenic impacts. Journal of Coastal Research 17: 731–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, C.W. 1997. Strategic decision making: Multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets. Belmont: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhnert, P.M., T.G. Martin, and S.P. Griffiths. 2010. A guide to eliciting and using expert knowledge in Bayesian ecological models. Ecology Letters 13: 900–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, J.C., L.E. Jackson, and W.S. Fisher. 2001. Strategies for evaluating indicators based on guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development. Ecological Indicators 1: 49–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, G.M., D.A. Burns, C.T. Driscoll, J.C. Jenkins, M.J. Mitchell, L. Rustad, J.B. Shanley, G.E. Likens, and R. Haeuber. 2007. Who needs environmental monitoring? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J.E., M.C. Runge, H.P. Laskowski, and W.L. Kendall. 2008. Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 1683–1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, R.A., M.A. Charpentier, and C. Wigand. 2009. Assessing the wildlife habitat value of New England salt marshes: I. Model and application. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 154: 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcleod, E., G.L. Chmura, S. Bouillon, R. Salm, M. Björk, C.M. Duarte, C.E. Lovelock, W.H. Schlesinger, and B.R. Silliman. 2011. A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 552–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends. Coastal systems. Washington: Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick, J.R.W., G.S. Parnell, J. Barnett, and M. Garcia. 2005. A multiple-objective decision analysis of stakeholder values to identify watershed improvement needs. Decision Analysis 2: 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minello, T.J., K.W. Able, M.P. Weinstein, and C.G. Hays. 2003. Salt marshes as nurseries for nekton: Testing hypotheses on density, growth and survival through meta-analysis. Marine Ecology: Progress Series 246: 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C.T., E.V. Lonsdorf, M.G. Knutson, H.P. Laskowski, and S.K. Lor. 2011. Adaptive management in the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System: Science-management partnerships for conservation delivery. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1395–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neckles, H.A., M. Dionne, D.M. Burdick, C.T. Roman, R. Buchsbaum, and E. Hutchins. 2002. A monitoring protocol to assess tidal restoration of salt marshes on local and regional scales. Restoration Ecology 10: 556–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neckles, H.A., G.R. Guntenspergen, W.G. Shriver, N.P. Danz, W.A. Wiest, J.L. Nagel, and J.H. Olker. 2013. Identification of metrics to monitor salt marsh integrity on National Wildlife Refuges in relation to conservation and management objectives. Laurel: USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, J.D., and B.K. Williams. 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 668–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolson, C.R., A.M. Starfield, G.P. Kofinas, and J.A. Kruse. 2002. Ten heuristics for interdisciplinary modeling projects. Ecosystems 5: 376–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Managing troubled waters: The role of marine environmental monitoring. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlson, D.W., G.A. McKinnon, and K.G. Hirsch. 2005. A structured decision-making approach to climate change adaptation in the forest sector. The Forestry Chronicle 81: 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J.T., and J.W. Evans. 2003. Quantitative decision analysis for sport fisheries management. Fisheries 28: 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, L.M. 2001. The epidemiology of monitoring. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37: 815–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochlin, I., M.-J. James-Pirri, S.C. Adamowicz, M.E. Dempsey, T. Iwanejko, and D.V. Ninivaggi. 2012. The effects of integrated marsh management (IMM) on salt marsh vegetation, nekton, and birds. Estuaries and Coasts 35: 727–742.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Runge, M.C., S.J. Converse, and J.E. Lyons. 2011. Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program. Biological Conservation 144: 1214–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, F.T., D.M. Burdick, C.A. Short, R.C. Davis, and P.A. Morgan. 2000. Developing success criteria for restored eelgrass, salt marsh and mud flat habitats. Ecological Engineering 15: 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shriver, W.G., and R. Greenberg. 2012. Avian community responses to tidal restoration. In Tidal marsh restoration: A synthesis of science and management, ed. C.T. Roman and D.M. Burdick, 119–143. Washington: Island.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simenstad, C.A., and R.M. Thom. 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te estuarine wetland. Ecological Applications 6: 38–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, J.C., and M.S. Kearney. 2009. Impacts of global climate change and sea-level rise on tidal wetlands. In Human impacts on salt marshes—A global perspective, ed. G.R. Silliman, E.D. Grosholz, and M.D. Bertness, 171–206. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stralberg, D., D.L. Applegate, S.J. Phillips, M.P. Herzog, N. Nur, and N. Warnock. 2009. Optimizing wetland restoration and management for avian communities using a mixed integer programming approach. Biological Conservation 142: 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teal, J.M., and L. Weishar. 2005. Ecological engineering, adaptive management, and restoration management in Delaware Bay salt marsh restoration. Ecological Engineering 25: 304–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, G.W. (ed.). 1992. Restoring the nation’s marine environment. College Park: Maryland Sea Grant College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titus, J.G., and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: Modeled elevations along the US Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Climate Research 18: 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Hadley: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/Prime%20Hook/finalccp.html. Accessed 10 June 2013.

  • Watzin, M. C., R. L. Smyth, E. A. Cassell, W. C. Hession, R. E. Manning, and D. W. Runenstein. 2005. Ecosystem indicators and an environmental score card for the Lake Champlain Basin Program. Lake Champlain Basin Program Technical Report No. 46.

  • Wigand, C., R. McKinney, M. Chintala, S. Lussier, and J. Heltshe. 2010. Development of a reference coastal wetland set in Southern New England (USA). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 161: 583–598.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wigand, C., B. Carlisle, J. Smith, M. Carullo, D. Fillis, M. Charpentier, R. McKinney, R. Johnson, and J. Heltshe. 2011. Development and validation of rapid assessment indices of condition for coastal tidal wetlands in southern New England, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 182: 31–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B.K. 2011a. Adaptive management of natural resources—Framework and issues. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1346–1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B.K. 2011b. Passive and active adaptive management: Approaches and an example. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1371–1378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of the Interior technical guide. Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J.B. 1996. Coastal mitigation in Southern California: The need for a regional restoration strategy. Ecological Applications 6: 84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Sarah Converse and Michael Runge for organizing and inviting our participation in the April 2008 SDM workshop that set the stage for this project; their leadership in applying SDM to natural resource management was instrumental in establishing project direction. We also thank Harold Laskowski and Janith Taylor for identifying the need to incorporate salt marsh assessments in NWRS management decisions and for actively participating in our SDM process to frame refuge salt marsh issues. We are grateful also to the other participants in the 2008 and 2012 workshops for their valuable time and expertise: Paul Castelli, Kelly Chadbourne, Bill Crouch, Susan Guiteras, Jeff Horan, Curt Kessler, Annabella Larsen, Roy Lowe, Ronald Thom, Bill Thompson, and Patrick Walther. The maps in Figs. 1 and 2 were expertly prepared by Toni Mikula and Susan Guiteras, respectively. This manuscript was greatly improved by the comments of Melinda Knutson and two anonymous reviewers. Funding was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Refuge Cooperative Research Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Use of trade, product, or firm names does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 196 Whitten Road, Augusta, ME, 04330, USA

    Hilary A. Neckles

  2. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD, 20708, USA

    James E. Lyons

  3. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12100 Beech Forest Rd., Laurel, MD, 20708, USA

    Glenn R. Guntenspergen

  4. Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware, 531S. College Avenue, Newark, DE, 19717, USA

    W. Gregory Shriver

  5. Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 321 Port Rd., Wells, ME, 04090, USA

    Susan C. Adamowicz

Authors
  1. Hilary A. Neckles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James E. Lyons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Glenn R. Guntenspergen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. Gregory Shriver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susan C. Adamowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilary A. Neckles.

Additional information

Communicated by Iris C. Anderson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neckles, H.A., Lyons, J.E., Guntenspergen, G.R. et al. Use of Structured Decision Making to Identify Monitoring Variables and Management Priorities for Salt Marsh Ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 38, 1215–1232 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-014-9822-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-014-9822-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation