|
|
|
Project Background The National Park Service (NPS) initially funded the development the Ecological Assessment Methods Database to provide park managers the information necessary for identifying and selecting assessment methods. Park managers need replicable, planning-level assessments of the ecological conditions within parks. They must also be able to compare those conditions to the objectives for park watershed resource management. The National Park Service’s need for an Ecological Assessment Methods Database is shared by many government and non-government organizations. Each organization is continuously faced with new directives to conduct broad-scale ecological monitoring and assessment (e.g., NPS Natural Resource Challenge). These directives have generated the development of numerous methods, with pulses of new methods developed since 1970. Most organizations focus on one component, e.g., wetlands. NPS differs in that the DOI Plan directs that Watershed Conditions be tracked for a wide range of components, i.e., upland, wetlands, streams, water quality, and water quantity. Ecological assessment methods first achieved a technical height with the development of HEP (USFWS 1981), a method that documents the quality and quantity of available habitat for selected wildlife species. HEP is still being used today on both wetlands and uplands. Two other key procedures funded by federal agencies include the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) (USEPA 2007a, b, c) and the HGM Approach (Smith et al. 1995; refer to USACE 2007 for listing of publications). IBI was first developed for fish communities (Karr 1981), later expanded to assess streams for water quality monitoring, and recently used on wetlands. These key methods provide a basic framework and guidelines to develop new models for regional application. New models continue to be developed for the HGM Approach, IBI, landscape-scale, and rapid assessments. Also noteworthy are methods developed by other organizations for regional application. Some of these have adopted aspects of the aforementioned methods, but others are substantially different and more rapid. For example, the NH Method (Ammann and Lindley Stone 1991), a method developed to evaluate wetlands in wetland watershed inventory, was modified and used in a several states. While this and other methods may not be nationally known, their approach might be suitable for some applications/regions. Tiner (2003a,b) has developed watershed-based methods for assessing wetland functions and natural habitat integrity. They have been used to produce watershed analyses for government agencies in Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. There have been several efforts to summarize wetland assessment methods (e.g., Lonard et al. 1981, US Environmental Protection Agency 1984, World Wildlife Fund 1992, Bartoldus 1999, Fennessy et al. 2004, Annear et al. 2004, Sommerville 2004). As noted above with national methods, IBI and HEP, some can be used in other habitats/components. The same is true for some regional methods such as the Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) (Prichard et al. 1993,1994) which is designed for both riparian and wetland areas. Other methods are tailored solely to the streams/riparian areas (e.g., Instream Flow Incremental Methodolgy (IFIM)(Bovee et al. 1998). No one method is applicable to all situations. In some cases, existing methods can be tailored to the ecosystem type, geographic region, park study objectives, etc. However, in many cases a suite of methods may be required to provide a comprehensive assessment that addresses all pertinent management questions. Some large scale planning projects may require a combination of several WCA methods, e.g., Elizabeth River wetland/river restoration project used HEP, IBI, and a functional value method developed just for this project (USCOE 2001). References Ammann, A.P. and A. Lindley Stone. 1991. Method for the comparative evaluation of nontidal wetlands in New Hampshire. NHDES-WRD-1991-3. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH. Annear, T., I. Chilsom, and H. Beecher. 2004. Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship, revised edition. Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Bartoldus, C.C. 1999. Comprehensive Review of Wetland Assessment Procedures: A Guide for Wetland Practitioners. Environmental Concern Inc., St. Michaels, MD. 196 pp. Bovee, K.D., B.L. Lamb, J.M. Bartholow, C.B. Stalnaker, J. Taylor, and J. Henriksen. 1998. Stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. U.S. Geological Survey. Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD 1998-0004, viii + 1331 pp. Fennessy, M.S., A.D. Jacobs, and M.E. Kentula. 2004. Review of rapid methods for assessing wetland condition. EPA/620/R-04/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27. Lonard, R.I., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.T. Huffman, J.W. Hardy, C.D. Brown, P.E. Ballard, and J.W. Watts. 1981. Analysis of methodologies used for the assessment of wetland values. Final Report - U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C. Prichard, D., H. Barrett, J. Cagney, R. Clark, J. Fogg, K. Gebhart, P.L. Hansen, B. Mitchell, and D. Tippy. 1993. Riparian area management: Process for assessing proper functioning condition. TR 1737-9 (Revised 1998). Bureau of Land Management, BLM/SC/ST-93/003+1737+REV95+REV98, Service Center, CO. 51 pp. Prichard, D., C. Bridges, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, and W. Hagenbuck. 1994. Riparian area management: Process for assessing proper functioning condition for lentic riparian-wetland areas. TR 1737-11. Bureau of Land Management, BLM/SC/ST-94/008+1737, Service Center, CO. 37 pp. Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-9. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 88 pp. Somerville, D.E. and B.A. Pruitt. 2004. Physical stream assessment: A review of selected protocols for use in the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division (Order No. 3W-0503-NATX). Washington, D.C. 213 pp. Tiner, R.W. 2003a. Dichotomous keys and mapping codes for wetland landscape position, landform, water flow path, and waterbody type descriptors. Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. Tiner, R.W. 2003b. Correlating enhanced National Wetlands Inventory data with wetland functions for watershed assessments: A rationale for Northeastern U.S. wetlands. National Wetlands Inventory Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Interim Final Feasibility Study Appendices A-D, Elizabeth River Basin, VA. USACA, Norfolk District, Norfolk, VA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. HGM approach – Related references and literature. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/hgmlit.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007a. Wetland bioassessment basics. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/bawwg/biobasic.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007b. Developing an indicator of biological integrity. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/wqual/bio_fact/fact5.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007c. Biological Indicators of Watershed Health. Retrieved 03_13_07 from http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/ibi-hist.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Standards for the development of habitat suitability index models (103 ESM). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. |
| This NBII site is maintained and hosted by the Center for Biological Informatics of the U.S. Geological Survey |