wEPA
United States Environmental  Office of Water      EPA 822-R-02-016
Protection Agency      Washington, DC 20460  March 2002
     METHODS FOR EVALUATING WETLAND CONDITION
   #6  Developing Metrics and Indexes
                    of Biological Integrity

-------
wEPA
United States Environmental    Office of Water        EPA 822-R-02-016
Protection Agency         Washington, DC 20460   March 2002
      METHODS FOR EVALUATING WETLAND CONDITION
    #6  Developing  Metrics  and Indexes
                           of Biological Integrity
                       Major Contributors
         Natural Resources Conservation Service,Wetland Science Institute
                          Billy M.Teels

                      Oregon State University
                          Paul Adamus


                       Prepared jointly by:
                The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Health and Ecological Criteria Division (Office of Science and Technology)
                            and
          Wetlands Division (Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds)

-------
NOTICE

The material in this document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
technical review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. The information
contained herein is offered to the reader as a review of the "state of the science" concerning wetland
bioassessment and nutrient enrichment and is not intended to be prescriptive guidance or firm advice.
Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey, and should not be interpreted as
conveying official EPAapproval, endorsement, or recommendation.
APPROPRIATE CITATION

U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing Metrics and Indexes
   of Biological Integrity. Office of Water, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
   EPA-822-R-02-016.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

EPA acknowledges the contributions of the following people in the writing of this module:
Billy M. Teels (Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wetland Science Institute), Paul Adamus
(Oregon State University), Mark Brown (University of Florida), Dave Cowen (Duke Engineering &
Services), Chris Faulkner (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency), Ric Hauer (University of Montana),
and Jan Smith (Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program).

This entire document can be downloaded from the following U.S. EPA websites:

                           http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards

                           http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg

-------
                         CONTENTS


FOREWORD	v

LIST OF " METHODS OF EVALUATING WETLAND
 CONDITION" MODULES	vi

SUMMARY	1

PURPOSE	1

INTRODUCTION	1

IDENTIFY REGIONAL WETLAND FLORA AND FAUNA	3

ASSIGN TAXA INTO BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES	5

CLASSIFY WETLANDS INTO REGIONAL CLASSES	 11

TARGET SELECTION OF SAMPLE SITES	 13

COLLECT LAND-USE AND HABITAT INFORMATION	 14

ESTABLISH GRADIENT OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE	 15

SAMPLE WITHIN THE WETLAND	21

SUMMARIZE SAMPLE DATA BY BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES	23

EVALUATE ATTRIBUTE PERFORMANCE ACROSS A
GRADIENT OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE	24

SELECT METRICS FROM BEST PERFORMING ATTRIBUTES	25

SCORE EACH INDIVIDUAL METRIC	28

CALCULATE TOTAL IBI SCORE FOR ALL SITES	28

INTERPRET IBI AND REPORT DATA	3O

REFERENCES	32

GLOSSARY	36

                              iii

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES

TABLE l:   CURRENT PILOT PROJECTS DEVELOPING WETLAND
          BlOASSESSMENT METHODS AND ASSEMBLAGES	 2

TABLE 2:   ASSUMED EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION ON
          BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES IN STREAMS	7

TABLE 3:   INVERTEBRATE METRICS AND SCORING FOR A WETLANDS
          INVERTEBRATE INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY (IBI)	 12

TABLE 4:   INDIVIDUAL METRIC SCORES FOR
          INVERTEBRATE METRICS	29

TABLE 5:   TOTAL IBI SCORES, INTEGRITY CLASSES, AND THEIR
          ATTRIBUTES FOR STREAMS IN A REGIONAL REFERENCE	31

                         LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE l:   SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES IN DEVELOPING METRICS
          AND IBI	4

FIGURE 2:   MINNESOTA WETLAND DISTURBANCE ANALYSIS	 17

FIGURE 3:   SPECIES/AREA CURVES FOR WETLAND
          INVERTEBRATE SAMPLES	22

FIGURE 4:   EVALUATION OF METRIC PERFORMANCE	26

FIGURE 5:   SCATTER PLOT ILLUSTRATING METRIC (GRASSLIKE TAXA
          RICHNESS) RESPONSE TO A SINGLE VARIABLE (ZINC
          CONCENTRATIONS) REPRESENTING THE GRADIENT OF
          HUMAN DISTURBANCE	26

FIGURE 6:   EVALUATION OF ATTRIBUTE PERFORMANCE OVER
          A COMBINED SET OF DISTURBANCES	27

FIGURE 7:   SCATTER PLOT DEMONSTRATING CLOSE CORRELATION BETWEEN
          A WETLAND MACROINVERTEBRATE IBI AND A DISTURBANCE
          GRADIENT DERIVED FROM A COMBINATION OF
          HUMAN DISTURBANCES	27

FIGURE 8:   EXAMPLE OF WETLAND INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL
          INTEGRITY SCORES	3O
                               IV

-------
                                    FOREWORD

In 1999, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began work on this series of reports entitled
Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition. The purpose of these reports is to help States and
Tribes develop methods to evaluate (1) the overall ecological condition of wetlands using biological
assessments and (2) nutrient enrichment of wetlands, which is one of the primary stressors damaging
wetlands in many parts of the country. This information is intended to serve as a starting point for States
and Tribes to eventually establish biological and nutrient water quality criteria specifically refined for
wetland waterbodies.

This purpose was to be accomplished by providing a series of "state of the science" modules concerning
wetland bioassessment as well as the nutrient enrichment of wetlands. The individual module format
was used instead of one large publication to facilitate the addition of other reports as wetland science
progresses and wetlands are further incorporated into water quality programs. Also, this modular
approach allows EPA to revise reports without having to reprint them all. A list of the inaugural set of
20 modules can be found at the end of this section.

This series of reports is the product of a collaborative effort between EPAs Health and Ecological
Criteria Division of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) and the Wetlands Division of the
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW). The reports were initiated with the support
and oversight of Thomas J. Danielson (OWOW), Amanda K. Parker and Susan K. Jackson (OST),
and seen to completion by Douglas G. Hoskins (OWOW) and Ifeyinwa F. Davis (OST). EPArelied
heavily on the input, recommendations, and energy of three panels of experts, which unfortunately have
too many members to list individually:

•     Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup

•     New England Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup

•     Wetlands Nutrient Criteria Workgroup
More information about biological and nutrient criteria is available at the following EPA website:

                              http ://www. epa. gov/ost/standards


More information about wetland biological assessments is available at the following EPA website:

                          htto ://www.epa. gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg
                                            V

-------
  LIST OF "METHODS FOR EVALUATING WETLAND
                CONDITION" MODULES

MODULE #	MODULE TITLE	
   1 	INTRODUCTION TO WETLAND BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
   2	INTRODUCTION TO WETLAND NUTRIENT ASSESSMENT
   3	THE STATE OF WETLAND SCIENCE
   4	STUDY DESIGN FOR MONITORING WETLANDS
   5	ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A
            WETLAND BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAM
   6	DEVELOPING METRICS AND INDEXES OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
   7	WETLANDS CLASSIFICATION
   8	VOLUNTEERS AND WETLAND BIOMONITORING
   9	DEVELOPING AN INVERTEBRATE INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL
            INTEGRITY FOR WETLANDS
   10	USING VEGETATION TO ASSESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
            IN WETLANDS
   11 	USING ALGAE TO ASSESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN
            WETLANDS
   12	 USING AMPHIBIANS IN BlOASSESSMENTS OF WETLANDS
   13	BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR BIRDS
   14	WETLAND BIOASSESSMENT CASE STUDIES
   15	BIOASSESSMENT METHODS FOR FISH
   16	VEGETATION-BASED INDICATORS OF WETLAND NUTRIENT
            ENRICHMENT
   17	LAND-USE CHARACTERIZATION FOR NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT
            RISK ASSESSMENT
   18	 BlOGEOCHEMICAL INDICATORS
   19	NUTRIENT LOAD ESTIMATION
   2O	SUSTAINABLE NUTRIENT LOADING
                           VI

-------
              SUMMARY

       Mltimetric indexes, such as Indexes of
       (iological Integrity (IBIs) are powerful
tools for informed management decisions related
to wetlands and wetland health. A number of
States are currently developing wetland
bioassessments by adapting bioassessment
frameworks originally developed for streams.
Although many aspects of stream bioassessment
may apply, wetland floral and faunal assemblages
are unique, and specific data from those assem-
blages are required to construct an IBI for
wetlands. The information in this module is
designed to provide a framework for the devel-
opment of IBIs using specific examples from
wetlands. The module describes a step-by-step
process to propose, evaluate, and ultimately
select metrics into the IBI that will best reflect the
biological condition of wetlands.

              PURPOSE

 r I The purpose of this module is to provide a
 J.  framework to help wetland and water quality
professionals develop metrics and IBIs for
wetlands.

          INTRODUCTION

  A s discussed  in Module 1: Introduction  to
-ZiWetland Biological Assessment, biological as-
sessments (bioassessments) are designed to evalu-
ate the health or biological integrity of wetlands.
Many of the States currently developing wetland
bioassessments are adapting bioassessment frame-
works originally developed for streams. This reli-
ance on stream information is in part due to the com-
paratively abundant body of knowledge and litera-
ture that has accompanied the development of
stream IBIs over the past two decades.  However,
the floral and faunal assemblages of wetlands as well
as the ecological processes that occur within them
(Wissinger 1999) are unique. Therefore, although
many aspects of stream bioassessment may apply
to wetland bioassessment, specific information from
wetland biological assemblages is required to con-
struct an IBI for wetlands.

  Of  the  10  States currently  developing
bioassessment methods for wetlands, 9 are attempt-
ing to use IBIs (Table 1). Maine and Montana use
advanced statistical tests (e.g., canonical corre-
spondence analysis) in addition to IBI (multimetric)
analyses to analyze algal data (Danielson 1998,
Apfelbeck 1999).  Multimetric and statistical meth-
ods are both valid, and the framework provided by
this module can benefit the development of both
methods. This module, however, focuses on the
development of IBIs.  Consult Chapter 9 of the
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
Streams  and  Wadeable Rivers:  Periphyton,
Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish (Barbour
et al. 1999)  for  a detailed description of statistical
analysis.

  Multimetric indexes are numbers that integrate
several biological metrics to indicate a site's condi-
tion.  They can be designed to be  sensitive to a
range of factors (physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal) that stress biological systems, and they are rela-
tively easy to measure and interpret (Karr and Chu
1999). Through a multimetric approach, each met-
ric is given a rating according to whether its value
approximates,  deviates somewhat from, or devi-
ates strongly from values measured in least-disturbed
ecosystems of a particular type within a region.
These ratings (e.g., excellent, moderate, fair, and
poor) can be used to make decisions about whether
the wetland condition indicates that aquatic life is
being supported.


  Because wetlands vary so widely geographically,
hydrologically, biologically, and by wetland class, it
is unrealistic to  expect a single "off-the-shelf
multimetric index to be applicable everywhere.
Even though techniques may vary, those that ad-
here to some basic biological, sampling, and statis-
tical principles maintain the strengths of a multimetric
                                             1

-------
            TABLE l: CURRENT PILOT PROJECTS DEVELOPING WETLAND
                   BIOASSESSMENT METHODS AND ASSEMBLAGES
SPONSORING ORGANIZATION
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Ohio EPA
North Dakota Department of Health
Montana Department of Environmental
Quality
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
Vermont DEC
Wisconsin DNR
Duke University
Michigan State University
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center
Volunteer Project - Mass Bays
Volunteer Project - King County, WA
Volunteer Project - MPCA,Minnesota
Audubon, and Dakota County, MN
TYPE(S) OF WETLANDS
Depressional
Starting riparian and would like
to do Vernal Pools next.
Depressional
Riparian
Depressional
Riparian
Depressional
Depressional & Others
Coastal Marshes (salt and fresh)
Casco Bay Watershed
(depressional, fringe, riparian)
Vernal Pools
White Cedar Swamps
Great Lake Fringe Wetlands
Southeast forested swamps and
Everglades
Great Lake Fringe Wetlands
Restored depressional wetlands
on Delmarva Peninsula (MD &
DE)
All types focusing first in
Juniata Watershed and then
expanding to whole state.
Salt marshes
Depressional Wetlands
Depressional Wetlands
ASSEMBLAGE(S)
Macroinverteb rates
Plants
Macroinverteb rates
Plants
Amphibians
Plants
Macroinverteb rates
Macroinverteb rates
Algae
Some plant work
Macroinverteb rates
Plants
Macroinverteb rates
Plants
Birds
Macroinverteb rates
Algae
(some plant work)
Macroinverteb rates
Amphibians
Plants
Macroinverteb rates
Fish
Macroinverteb rates
Fish
Macroinverteb rates
Macroinverteb rates
Plants Birds
Amphibians
Macroinverteb rates
Plants Amphibians
Birds
Plants
Macroinverteb rates
Birds
Amphibians
Plants
Macroinverteb rates
Note: Data compiled from information contained in EPA, Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup
website, www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands^awwg/.
                                        2

-------
assessment approach as well as reflect the reality
of regional variation in biological condition (Miller
et al. 1988). The goal of a multimetric index is not
to measure every biological attribute; indeed, doing
so is impossible. Rather, the goal is, first, to identify
those biological attributes that respond reliably to
human activities, are minimally affected by natural
variability, and are cost-effective to measure and,
second, to formulate them as "metrics" and com-
bine them into a regionally appropriate index (Karr
and Chu 1999).


  Figure 1 provides a framework that describes how
attributes are derived, evaluated, and ultimately in-
corporated into an IBI as metrics. However, the
first and most important step is to define the objec-
tives for developing an IBI, which may influence
several steps in the development process (see Mod-
ule 5: Administrative Framework for Implementa-
tion of a Wetland Bioassessment Program).  Do
not expect all the steps in IBI development to fol-
low this sequence exactly.  Undoubtedly, each
proj ect will deviate from the path and will require
revisiting steps on the basis of individual circum-
stances. However, this framework provides a use-
ful way to organize actions and ensure that all ma-
jor steps in developing an IBI are addressed.  In
Figure 1, the upper left portion shows the steps re-
lated to the establishment of a gradient of human
disturbance (the dose), and the upper right shows
the steps for developing attributes that will, at least
predictably, respond to that gradient (the response).
The column of steps in the lower middle shows the
process by which the dose-response relationship is
analyzed to select and  score the best performing
metrics for the IBI. The remainder of this report
follows the framework provided in Figure 1 and
includes small icons to help track progress through
the sequence of activities.
      IDENTIFY REGIONAL
       WETLAND FLORA
            AND FAUNA

               The success of multimetric in-
               dexes is largely  dependent on
               choosing metrics that reflect di-
               verse responses of biological sys-
               tems to human actions (Karr and
               Chu 1999).  Therefore, the best
               multimetric indexes combine mea-
               sures of condition in individuals,
               populations, communities, eco-
               systems, and landscapes. Work
with stream bioassessments indicates that valuable
multimetric indexes typically use one or more as-
semblages for evaluating stream condition, such as
macroinvertebrates, fish,  and/or periphyton
(Barbouretal. 1999). Professionals implementing
stream bioassessments have found that monitoring
more than one assemblage greatly increases the
power of their assessment methods. Assemblages
sometimes differ in their sensitivity to environmental
stressors, such as sedimentation and eutrophica-
tion. Having more than one assemblage provides
sensitivity to a wider range of stressors and increases
confidence in management decisions. Although
more investigations are needed to confirm the rela-
tionship, preliminary results from wetland IBI de-
velopment indicate that monitoring a combination
of assemblages (e.g., plants  and macro-inverte-
brates) may similarly increase the power  of
bioassessments in wetlands (Gernes and Helgen
1999).

 Current wetland bioassessment projects are ex-
ploring the use of several assemblages, including
algae, amphibians, birds, fish, macroinvertebrates,
and vascular plants (Table 1).  It is not yet clear
which assemblages  will  work best in wetland
bioassessments. It is entirely likely that specific as-

-------
   Llassity Wftllands
  irtlo regional Classes
        retinal
     flnra ari'J fauna
 Selection of fsrqaH s
                                                 Assign taxa it>
  CullttU tai'n] use and
   habitat informatwin
          the
  nt human disturbance
Summarise sampte date bv
   btologtcal altributet.
                                  I
                       tvaluats attriDuie
                         across graven! of
                          56lecl metrics from best
                           Score each Individual
                                    *otai 
-------
semblages may be appropriate in some wetlands
and not in others because of the wide variety of
wetland types (e.g., salt marsh, bog, and forested
swamp). For example, using wetland fish commu-
nities in bioassessments may be effective in only a
small number of wetlands, such as wetlands on the
fringes of large bodies of water.  It is also likely that
some assemblages will work in some parts of the
country and not in others. For example, wetland
amphibian communities are naturally less diverse in
western states, and there simply may be too few
species to develop a typical IBI.  One of the first
steps in developing an IBI, however, is carefully
considering the advantages and disadvantages of
sampling any particular assemblage (See other mod-
ules in this series to assist in the appropriate choice.)
After selecting an assemblage, it is very helpful to
make a list of the taxa (e.g., species, genera, and
families) in that assemblage that are expected to
occur in the study area. Such lists may be based on
pre-project sampling or on previous studies from a
particular regional wetland class (Sparling et al.
1996).  This list will help with identifying organisms
and with the next step of assigning taxa to biologi-
cal attributes. Such lists should accommodate new
species findings, which will result from additional
sampling.


       ASSIGN TAXA  INTO
 BIOLOGICAL  ATTRIBUTES

               Attributes, in  the context  of
               bioassessments, are defined as
               measurable components of a bio-
               logical system  (Karr and  Chu
               1999). They include the ecologi-
               cal processes or characteristics of
               an individual or assemblage of
               species that may or may not pro-
               vide useful information regarding
               response to human disturbances.
               Attributes for most IBIs are com-
monly placed in the following four general catego-
ries:  species richness and composition, tolerance
and intolerance to human disturbances, trophic com-
position, and population characteristics (including
health and condition of individuals). After defining
the list of taxa, list the attributes within these cat-
egories that will change in value along a gradient of
human disturbance from least impaired to severly
damaged wetlands. Also, predict whether each at-
tribute will increase or decrease in value as wet-
lands become more damaged. This list of predic-
tions will be tested later to identify metrics, that is,
attributes empirically shown to change in value along
a gradient of human disturbance. Examples include
a change in species richness or a change in the rela-
tive abundance of tolerant organisms. (For an ex-
ample, see Module 9: Developing an Invertebrate
Index of Biological Integrity for Wetlands.) The list
of useful attributes will differ for any wetland type
depending on the assemblage monitored. Consult
other modules for more detailed discussions of po-
tential  wetland  attributes for algae,  birds,
macroinvertebrates,  amphibians, and  vascular
plants. The ultimate goal in the selection process is
to test the many attributes and from these identify 8
to 12 metrics that show strong relationships across
a gradient of human disturbance. Through the pro-
cess of evaluation, many of the predicted attributes
will display limited value for detecting human dis-
turbance. Expect only about one-third of the initial
predictions to actually be good metrics.


 Each attribute considered for an IBI should be
based on sound ecological theory. Although theory
can be a good guide for selecting metrics, it must
be tested with real-world data before a metric is
used. Even if the underlying theory is sound, many
variables control an attribute's response to human
disturbance, which in turn affects its utility. For ex-
ample, an attribute that works in one type of wet-
land may not work in another type because of dif-
ferences in ecological function and the prevailing
human disturbance. In stream fish IBIs, for example,
the "anomalies metric" (percentage of individuals
with lesions, tumors, or eroded fins) may function
in only extremely degraded conditions. It provides
valuable information to a region if at least some of

-------
the streams are severely degraded but little infor-
mation if all streams are only moderately degraded
or unimpaired. There may even be inherent differ-
ences in how an attribute responds biologically to
human disturbances. In the case of stream fishes,
the number of species typically declines with added
human disturbance; however, in some coldwater
streams, the effect may be reversed because in-
creased nutrients and temperatures may result in
increased species numbers. Thus, it is necessary to
test attributes and their underlying assumptions not
only to validate the existence of an empirical dose-
response relationship, but also to be able to under-
stand and predict the nature of that relationship.  The
primary underlying assumptions that have been used
in stream IBIs are presented in Table 2. Although
not all of those assumptions have been extensively
tested in wetlands, at least some appear to be ap-
plicable to wetlands.


        ATTRIBUTE CATEGORIES

  Because development of multimetric indexes for
wetlands is relatively new, no one group of organ-
isms  has proven superior to another for
bioassessment. In fact, several taxa or taxa groups
show promise. Regardless of the taxonomic groups
sampled, as previously stated, several studies sug-
gest that attributes and metrics can be conveniently
grouped into the following categories:

• Species richness and composition

• Tolerance and  intolerance  to  human
   disturbances

• Trophic composition

• Population characteristics (including health and
   condition of individuals)


  Because most multimetric studies have been con-
ducted in streams, there may be metric categories
that are yet to be considered in wetlands. There-
fore, this categorization is meant as a general guide
to the development of attributes and metrics. A
properly constructed IBI, as defined by Karr and
Chu (1999), will have some metrics from each of
these metric categories.


Species richness and composition
 Attributes in this category are usually the most
common feature of IBIs. In general, these attributes
display a declining response to added human dis-
turbance (Karr 1981). Normally, a population must
be viable at a site for some period of time before
one can consistently detect a species presence
(Karr and Chu 1999). The absence of a species at
a site (especially a species with low dispersal abili-
ties) may suggest that viable populations are not
being maintained. Overtime, species assemblages
have evolved that are capable of withstanding or
rapidly recovering from most natural perturbations.
For example, invertebrates often adapt to tolerate
the frequent drying that is typical in many wetland
habitats (Sharitz and Batzer 1999).  However,
changes in the chemical, physical, and biological en-
vironment caused by humans often cannot be toler-
ated; thus one or more species declines in abun-
dance or becomes extirpated (Karr et al. 1986,
Euliss andMushet 1999, King andBrazner 1999).
This observation is true particularly for the most in-
tolerant taxa of an assemblage. For example, in a
Minnesota study, impairment to wetlands resulted
in a reduction in the number of kinds of dragonflies,
damselflies, mayflies, caddisflies, and chironomids
(midges), with very few intolerant taxa being ob-
served at the most impaired sites (Gemes and Helgen
1999).


 Attributes within this category generally include
overall taxa richness as well as richness for taxa
that are  particularly sensitive to specific kinds of
degradation (e.g., impairments to benthic habitats)
(Kerans and Karr 1994, Fore et al. 1996).  Group-
ings may include taxon (or taxa) (e.g., number of
dragonfly and damselfly genera), specialized habi-
tat (e.g., submerged aquatic plant species),  or a
combination of both. Attributes within the category
have often been refined by restricting the groupings
                                             6

-------
TABLE 2:  ASSUMED EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION ON
                BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES IN STREAMS
      Number of native species, and those in specialized taxa or guilds,
      declines*

      • Number of sensitive species declines

      • Percent of trophic and habitat specialists declines

      • Total number of individuals declines*

      • Percent of large individuals and the number of size classes decrease

      • Percent of alien or nonnative species or individuals increases

      • Percent of tolerant individuals increases

      • Percent of trophic and habitat generalists increases

      • Percent individuals with anomalies increases
      * In some instances, particularly in oligotrophic environments, reverse
      relationships may be observed.
     Source: Modified from Hughes and Oberdorff 1999.
     Note: Effects on wetland biological assemblages may be different.
                                    7

-------
to native species. However, the taxonomy and geo-
graphic origin of many wetland organisms is poorly
known, which may limit the use of certain taxa in
this regard.


Tolerance and intolerance to
human disturbances
  Tolerance, as it relates to IBI development, im-
plies a general tolerance of a species, or group of
species, to several human disturbances, rather than
tolerance to a specific variable. Therefore, in at-
tribute development, a concept can be applied in
several ways to any organism, or group, that dis-
plays these tendencies. Metrics such as percent-
age of exotic species, number of intolerant species,
and percentage of dominant species are ways of
expressing characteristics that sometimes are re-
lated to tolerance. Some taxa are very intolerant
(i.e., are very sensitive) to a variety of perturba-
tions, whereas others are adept at exploiting par-
ticular types of disturbances. For example, in Min-
nesota wetlands, increasing levels of impairment
resulted in fewer intolerant plant species, such as
iris (Iris sp.), slender riccia (Ricciafluitans), and
common bladderwort (Utricularia macrorhiza),
and increased coverage of tolerant species, such as
reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), duck-
weed (Lemna sp.), and cattail (Typha sp.) (Gernes
and Helgen 1999).


  Intolerant species may be among the first to be
decimated after perturbation and the last to recolo-
nize after normal conditions have returned (Karr et
al. 1986). Endangered or threatened species should
not automatically be considered intolerants, because
their low numbers may be due to factors other than
human disturbance.  They might, for example, be
glacial relics (Karr etal. 1986).  Trends (increases
or decreases) in distribution or abundance from his-
torical  data can be examined to help assign taxa to
these attributes. Tolerance rankings may also be
based on factors that indicate the ecological con-
servatism of taxa (those taxa adapted to a specific
narrow range of biotic and abiotic factors) (Wilhelm
andLadd 1988, Andreas andLichvar 1995). How-
ever, because of a lack of information for many
wetland taxa, empirical, rather than theoretical, ap-
proaches may be necessary or preferred to estab-
lish tolerance rankings. For example, taxa that are
represented in the least impaired sites and tend to
disappear in the most impaired  sites would be
empirically defined as intolerant.  Similarly, taxa that
tend to increase in disturbed sites would be defined
as tolerant (Gernes and Helgen 1999).


  The mere presence of intolerant taxa is a strong
indicator of good biological condition. The relative
abundance of these taxa, in contrast, is often diffi-
cult to estimate accurately without extensive and
costly sampling efforts (Karr and  Chu 1999).
Therefore, intolerant taxa should be represented
simply as the number of intolerant species per unit
sample effort. In contrast to intolerant taxa, the pres-
ence alone of tolerant taxa says little about biologi-
cal condition, because tolerant groups inhabit a wide
range of places and conditions. However, note that
many wetland organisms can tolerate the stressful
levels produced by a variety of natural environmental
disturbances (Wissinger 1997, Euliss et al. 1999,
Higgins and Merritt 1999), and care should be taken
to base tolerance designations on human distur-
bances and not natural ones.


  Tolerance attributes should be expressed as the
percentage of tolerant individuals from either a single
species or a grouping of highly tolerant species.
Note that if a high number of tolerant or intolerant
species is included in the composition of attributes,
the usefulness of those attributes will be diminished.
In general, it is recommended that only about 10%
(no fewer than 5% or no more than 15%) of taxa in
a region should be classed as intolerant or tolerant.
The point of these metrics is to highlight the strong
signal coming from the lowest and highest ends of
the biological integrity continuum, without being
swamped by the weak or intermediate signals from
in between (Karr and Chu 1999).
                                              8

-------
Trophic composition
 Because the food base is central to the mainte-
nance of a community, information about trophic
composition may be important to an IBI. All or-
ganisms require a reliable source of energy. The
dominance of trophic generalists occurs as specific
components of the food base become less reliable,
and the opportunistic foraging habits of the gener-
alists make them more successful than trophic spe-
cial! sts(Karretal. 1986). Sometimes entire groups
of specialized organisms have been reduced or ex-
tirpated from ecosystems as a result of human dis-
turbances.  For example, top carnivores such as
ospreys and bald eagles have disappeared from
regions as a result of eggshell thinning and repro-
ductive failure associated with the bioaccumulation
of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides from aquatic
food webs (Carson 1962, Rudd 1964, Thomann
1989). Depending on the type of disturbance, pri-
mary producers and invertebrates of wetlands may
also respond as the ecosystem begins to function
improperly.  Some wetland invertebrates will re-
spond to both bottom-up (e.g., enrichment, exotic
plants) and top-down (e.g., heavy metal
biomagnification, exotic fish) alterations in the food
web (Rader 1999). For example, the benthic com-
munities of contaminated Louisiana bayous sup-
ported a "poor trophic mix" of macrobenthic inver-
tebrates, and fewer predatory invertebrates and
suspension feeders were found at those sites than
elsewhere (Gaston 1999). Thus, the trophic struc-
ture of a community can provide information on
patterns of consuming and producing organisms that
are affected by impairment.

 In general, attributes in this category can be de-
signed to assess trophic balance and structure. For
example, the biota of stream ecosystems in good
condition usually will not be overly dominated by
omnivores or trophic generalists and will normally
contain at least some trophic specialists, including
top carnivores that form the apex of many aquatic
food pyramids (Karr et al. 1986). However, ma-
nipulations of top carnivores have been shown to
have little effect in some ecosystems, such as wet-
lands (Batzer 1998), whereas such manipulations
have had a significant effect in others, such as lakes
(Carpenter etal. 1987). Furthermore, surface wa-
ter levels in most natural wetlands fluctuate widely.
Such variation also affects water and substrate
chemistry, nutrient availability, vegetation, primary
production, detritus processing, and the presence
of vertebrate predators (Wissinger 1999). There-
fore, caution  should be exercised in developing
trophic attributes for wetlands, and particular at-
tention should be paid to those attributes involving
functional feeding groups. Karr and Chu (1999)
observe that despite  widely accepted theory,
metrics pertaining to functional feeding groups
among benthic macroinvertebrates may or may not
be good indicators; their dose-response relation-
ship to human influences must be carefully tested
and established for multiple data sets and circum-
stances before they are used in a multimetric index.

Population attributes
 The attributes in this category assess characteris-
tics of populations such as reproduction, growth,
and condition of individual organisms within the
populations (Fore et al. 1996). Ecosystems can
maintain themselves only if the populations of or-
ganisms that characterize the ecosystems are able
to compensate for loss of members by reproduc-
ing. Human disturbances that negatively affect re-
production are ordinarily indicated by an accom-
panying reduction in the proportion of reproductive
specialists. In addition, conditions must be favor-
able for the young of a population to survive, dis-
perse, and grow to sexual maturity (Pickett and
White 1985, Wissinger and Gallagher 1999). For
example, the  eggs of some species, such as fairy
shrimp, require aerated soil for development; there-
fore, these species rely on the drying up of tempo-
rary ponds for reproduction. Any alterations of the
frequency and duration of ponding in wetlands that
contain these species would greatly influence the
viability of populations. In another example, cer-
tain invertebrates have become extremely special-
                                             9

-------
ized in their dependence on the fluid of pitcher plants
(e.g., Sarreciniapurpured) to reproduce and carry
out their life cycle. At least some of these inquilines
(organisms that live within the abode of another
species) are poor dispersers and may be slow to
colonize isolated wetland habitats that have become
fragmented as  a result of human disturbance
(Giberson and Hardwick 1999). Therefore, at-
tributes that characterize population structure and
patch dynamics can be effective indicators of hu-
man disturbance.
measure and score. Recognizing the tendency for
moderate levels of nutrient and thermal enrichment
to elevate fish abundance, Oberdorff and Hughes
(1992) scored this metric so that very high abun-
dances received lower metric scores than moder-
ate numbers did; only very low abundances received
the lowest score.  This scoring adaptation is an ex-
ample of the need to evaluate metric performance
along disturbance gradients before applying the IBI
in resource assessments (Hughes and Oberdorff
1999).
 Certain structural and functional attributes of wet-
land vegetation and algae are also included in this
category. Many of these attributes have been used
in and out of the context of IBI to assess a wide
variety of human disturbances (e.g., hydrologic
changes, nutrient enrichment, sediment loading, and
accumulation of heavy metals). For example, in-
creased algae biomass is one of the most widely
used indicators of eutrophication in aquatic eco-
systems (see Module 11: Using Algae To Assess
Environmental Conditions in Wetlands). Likewise,
the percent coverage of submerged aquatic veg-
etation has been a useful indicator of nutrient en-
richment in many estuarine environments (see Mod-
ule 16: Vegetation-Based Indicators of Nutrient
Enrichment in Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands).
Minnesota has used increased persistent plant lit-
ter, resulting from human-induced changes in the
composition of the plant community, as an IBI at-
tribute to indicate reduced detrital energy to drive
wetland ecosystems (Gernes and Helgen 1999).


 Individual abundance is a common surrogate for
system productivity, and some types of highly de-
graded sites are expected to support fewer indi-
viduals than are high-quality sites (Karr 1981).
However, Karr and Chu (1999) suggest that abun-
dance may be a poor candidate for a multimetric
index because it varies too much, even when hu-
man disturbance is minimal, and it is also difficult to
  Sites with especially severe degradation often yield
a high number of individuals in poor health (Mills et
al. 1966, Brown etal. 1973,Baumannetal. 1982,
Sanders etal. 1999).  Parasitism has been shown
to reflect both poor environmental condition and
reduction in reproductive capacity (sterility) in fish
(Mahon 1976). Indications of poor health include
individuals with tumors; limb, mouthpart, or other
structural malformations; heavy infestations of para-
sites; and discoloration, excessive mucus, edema,
rash, orhemorrhaging. For example, malformation
in chironomid mouthparts has been used to indicate
impairments to water from sedimentation, eutrophi-
cation, and contamination (Warwick 1980). Re-
cently, increasing numbers of amphibian populations
with unusually high frequencies of morphological
abnormalities (>5%) have been reported through-
out North America; however, the ecological signifi-
cance of these observations remain poorly under-
stood (Ouellet 2000, Helgen et al. 2000). Leonard
and Orth (1986) found increases in the incidence
of disease  and anomalies in stream fish only after
substantial degradation was evident, indicating that
this metric may be sensitive at only the most se-
verely impaired sites. In cases in which only low to
moderate levels of impairment occur, the metric has
been dropped; however, it should be considered
wherever the possibility exists for changes in the
incidence  of diseased  or deformed organisms
(Hughes and Oberdorff 1999).
                                            10

-------
     LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE
     BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
     WETLANDS WORKING GROUP

These lessons should be treated as general rules of
thumb and not absolutes. Nature keeps reminding
us that when dealing with biology and ecology, there
are always exceptions to the rules. The following
lessons on attributes and metrics are based on the
experience of the Biological Assessment of Wet-
lands Working Group (BAWWG) members:

• Explicitly define attributes. To aid in testing at-
   tributes and to improve communication with
   others, it is very important to explicitly define
   attributes. There are many ways to examine an
   attribute. For example, tolerance can be de-
   scribed in the following ways:

   •   Number of tolerant individuals
   •   Percentage of tolerant individuals (number
       of tolerant individuals/total number of indi-
       viduals)
   •   Number of tolerant species or taxa
   •   Percentage of tolerant species,  or taxa
       (number of tolerant taxa/total number of tol-
       erant taxa)

• Be careful in using measures of abundance. Al-
   though Karr and Chu (1999) suggest that abun-
   dance may be a poor candidate for a multimetric
   index, BAWWG members have found some
   exceptions to this rule. For example, the abun-
   dance, or biomass, of algae may be a useful
   attribute, but further testing is needed.

• Avoid combining attributes.  In general, restrict
   ratios to relative abundance or proportions in
   which the total number of individuals or taxa is
   used as the denominator. Avoid using attributes
   such as the number of water boatmen taxa di-
   vided by the number of midge taxa. Also be
   careful about adding attributes together, such
   as the number of sedge taxa plus the number of
   rush taxa plus the number of grass taxa. Ratios
   and sums of attributes can hide valuable sig-
   nals, can be difficult to interpret, and are often
   more variable than the individual attributes (Karr
   and Chu 1999). It may be more effective to
   test each attribute independently. However,
   BAWWG members have found some excep-
   tions to this rule. For example, Minnesota uses
   a metric that combines the number of mayfly
   and caddisfly genera plus the presence of drag-
   onflies and fingernail clams (Table 3).


    CLASSIFY WETLANDS

 INTO REGIONAL CLASSES

                 Successful biological monitor-
                 ing begins with a judicious clas-
                 sification of sites. Classification
                 is an essential step in develop-
                 ing bioassessment methods.
                 Biological assemblages are in-
                 fluenced by natural variations in
                 wetland types (e.g., landscape
                 position, source of water) and
                 by variations in the amount and
type of human disturbances. Classification is a way
to account for the effects of natural environmental
influences on wetlands and helps avoid comparing
wetlands of unlike classes.  Yet, excessive empha-
sis on classification, or inappropriate classification,
can impede development of cost-effective and sen-
sible monitoring programs. Using too few classes
fails to recognize important distinctions among places
and can produce insensitive metrics; using too many
adds unnecessary costs to the development of
biocriteria. The challenge is to create a system with
only as many classes  as needed to represent the
range of relevant biological variation in a region and
the level appropriate for detecting and defining the
biological effects of human activity in that place (Karr
and Chu 1999).


  It is important to remember that for the purpose
of developing bioassessment methods, classifica-
tion is a way to help minimize "noise" and make it
easier to identify signals of human disturbance. Clas-
                                          1  1

-------
TABLE 3: INVERTEBRATE METRICS AND SCORING FOR A WETLANDS INVERTEBRATE
                      INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY (IBI)
METRIC
DESCRIPTION
RANGE
SCORE
REF
AG
SW
Richness metrics
Total taxa
Chironomid
ETSD
Leech taxa
Odonata
Snails
# Genera chironomids, caddis-
flies, mayflies, damselflies,
dragonflies, leeches, snails,
macrocrustaceans, presence
of Chaoborus and clams
# of genera of Chironomidae
larvae
# Genera of Ephemeroptera,
Trichoptera, plus presence of
Sphaeriidae and Dragonflies
# Genera of Hirudinidae found
in BT and DN samples
# Genera of Dragonfly &
Damselfly larvae
# Taxa of snails to
species most cases
28 -46
20-27
12 - 19
13 - >20
6- 12
> 70%
4 or more
2-3
> 70%
4- 5
2-3
0 - 1
4-6
3
0-2
5 - 7
3-4
0 - 2
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
1

3
2

6


4
2

5
1

4
1
1
3
3
2

5
4

3
5
2
5
1

4
4
1
5
2

6
4

6
5

6
5
2
8
1

3
8
1
6
4
Tolerance/Intolerance metrics
Intolerant
Taxa
# Intolerant taxa:
Leucorrhinia,
Libellula, Tanytarsus, Pro-
cladius, Triaenodes, Oecetis
4 or more
2-3
0 - 1
5
3
1
5
1



8


11
Proportion metrics
Corixidae
Erpobdella
3 Dominants
% Corixidae of Hemiptera plus
Coleoptera from BT samples.
% Erpobdella in BT and DN
samples of the total
abundance in DN samples.
% top 3 dominants of total
abundance in DN samples
< 30%
30 - 70%
> 70%
0- 11%
>11 - 22%
> 70%
34 - 55%
> 55 - 80%
> 70%
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
3
1
5
1

6


5

1
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
6
1
1
5
4
6
3
2

9
2
  Abbreviations: BT, bottletrap; DN, dipnet; number of sites scoring in range is given for Reference sites (Ref),
  agricultural (Ag) and stormwater (SW) influenced wetlands (Gernes andHelgen 1999).
                                       12

-------
sification is not the end product, and there is no
perfect classification system. Also, classification is
an iterative process. Try applying an existing clas-
sification system (e.g., Cowardin et al. 1979, USDA
1981,Brinson 1993, Omernik 1995, Omernikand
Bailey 1997) and then lump and split as needed to
produce groups of biologically similar wetlands that
respond in similar ways to anthropogenic influences.
For further discussion of classification issues and
approaches, including some wetland bioassessment
examples, see Module 7: Wetlands Classification.


  TARGET  SELECTION OF
          SAMPLE SITES

               After wetlands are  classified,
               sample sites  should be selected.
               Module 4:  Study Design for
               Monitoring Wetlands describes
               the options for developing sam-
               pling schemes  for a wetlands
               monitoring program, including ran-
               dom sampling, targeted sampling,
               and before/after or control/impact
               designs.  The members of
BAWWG recommend the use of a targeted sam-
pling design when developing bioassessment meth-
ods for wetlands.  They have found that random
sampling often fails to capture enough least impaired
reference wetlands or enough of the severely de-
graded wetlands. Also, random sampling may not
consider important factors such as accessibility to
sites and the selection of relatively permanent ref-
erence sites that will not be subjected to a great
deal of future human disturbance. The process of
testing attributes and selecting metrics depends on
plotting data on  a graph with an attribute value on
the y-axis and a gradient of human disturbance on
the x-axis. It is very important to select enough
reference wetlands and severely damaged wetlands
to anchor both ends of the disturbance  gradient.  It
is also important to select enough wetlands with
varying degrees of human disturbance in order to
reveal a signal in the attribute if there is one. Based
on the experience of the BAWWG members, tar-
geted sampling is probably the best way to ensure
that this is accomplished. The development of hu-
man disturbance gradients is discussed further in
this module in the sections "Collect Land Use and
Habitat Information" and "Establish Gradient of
Human Disturbance."
 One challenge to the characterization of reference
conditions is that there are few, if any, places left
that have not been influenced by human actions. In
many regions, what are described as least impaired
wetlands may in fact be very degraded, because
accessible less-degraded sites cannot be found.
This may complicate the development of an IBI but
does not prohibit it. A common pitfall is the failure
to canvass a wide enough area for sites that may be
less impaired. It may be advantageous to survey
neighboring areas and expand the geographic range
to find similar wetlands in better condition.  An-
other failure is to not include an adequate number
of most impaired sites. Sampling only from the least
impaired end of the gradient creates problems be-
cause it does not represent the full range of site deg-
radation and it prohibits analysis of the relationship
between biological attributes and highly negative
human influences.
 Biological communities in wetlands with a high
proportion of degrading land uses (e.g., commer-
cial, residential, agricultural) in their vicinity or wa-
tersheds can sometimes be assumed, for purposes
of developing an IBI, to be potentially stressed.
However, forested wetlands, and in particular, for-
ested wetlands with dense canopies, should not
automatically be considered the least impaired. This
is because in some regions, some wetlands are nor-
mally dominated by herbaceous vegetation due to
persistently high water table levels and/or other natu-
ral influences.  Some of these herbaceous vegeta-
tion sites may in fact be in better condition than are
forested wetlands. However, if herbaceous wet-
lands historically prevailed in an area, their invasion
by woody vegetation could be a sign of stress, not
an indication of good health.
                                           13

-------
 As mentioned previously, it is important to select
sites that are minimally impaired reference sites and
severely damaged sites as well as some in between
to represent the full gradient of human disturbance.
The number of sites that are needed depends on
the number of wetland types within a given class,
the ecological variability of the wetland types, the
kinds and amount of human disturbances, and the
size of the region.  The number of sites should be
sufficient to show a gradient of human disturbance
for each wetland class in the region. See Module
7: Wetlands Classification for more detail on classi-
fying wetland types. Sampling an adequate num-
ber of sites will provide confidence in the sensitivity
of the metrics showing a response.


 COLLECT LAND-USE AND
   HABITAT INFORMATION

               Before starting the field sampling,
               gather information about the study
               sites through published sources
               and field reconnaissance.  The
               overall goal of this step is to col-
               lect information to help verify that
               wetlands are classified correctly,
               provide data for constructing hu-
               man disturbance gradients, and
               provide insights into why biologi-
               cal communities are damaged dur-
ing the IBI interpretation phase. A wealth of infor-
mation can be collected about sites without even
leaving the office. Information sources include the
following:
•   U. S. Geological Survey quadrangle topographic
    maps. These maps can provide baseline infor-
    mation on slope, elevation, land use, and the
    hydrological network in the vicinity of the study
    wetland.
•   National Resource Conservation Service soil
    surveys. These surveys are an invaluable source
    of information on wetland soils and their char-
    acteristics. Hydric soils are mapped and de-
    scriptions of soil characteristics and how they
    vary by soil horizons are provided.

•   National Wetland Inventory maps. These maps
    are useful for identifying the presence of wet-
    lands and estimating wetland size. They also
    include the Cowardin et al. (1979) classifica-
    tion.

•   U. S. Department of Agriculture aerial photos.
    If available, these photos are very useful for
    gathering information on the landscape surround-
    ing wetlands. They can also be used to recon-
    struct historical changes in land use by analyz-
    ing a series of photos taken over past years.

•   Geographic Information System (GIS) data-
    bases. Many state and local units of govern-
    ment have digital land-use and other informa-
    tion available on GIS databases. Often, this
    information can be linked to other available data
    (e.g., percent impervious surface and point
    source discharges) to locate and display geo-
    graphically referenced sources of impairment.
    Such information is also increasingly available
    from many online websites.  The layering and
    interactive features of GIS databases greatly
    enhance landscape-level assessments (see
    Module 17: Land-Use Characterization for
    Nutrient and Sediment Risk Assessment).
    However, the scale and quality of GIS infor-
    mation should be closely examined in view of
    the intended use. Other information, such as
    low-altitude photographs, may be needed to
    supplement GIS information in order to derive
    a meaningful estimate of the gradient of human
    disturbance.


 In addition to landscape features, onsite wetland
characteristics are important in establishing gradi-
ents of human disturbance. Onsite investigations
should provide general information on landscape
setting, hydrologic features, and vegetative cover
of the wetland.  Such observations can generally be
made from visual assessments from the wetland's
edge. Obvious stressors, such as hydrologic alter-
                                           14

-------
ations (e.g., ditches and dikes), should be identi-
fied. The extent of vegetation cover and the char-
acteristics of buffer areas should be noted. Buffer
areas should also be clearly defined (e.g., the 100
m of land surrounding the wetland boundary at full
pool), and land uses within those buffers should be
described. Examples of other data that should be
recorded at each site include the following:
•  Topography and landscape features that sur-
    round the site.  Many characteristics should be
    recorded, including the shape of the wetland;
    adjacent land use; the general distribution of
    wetland vegetation and open water; the inter-
    spersion of plant communities; the type of buffer;
    hydrological features, including surface water
    inflows and outflows; and human-made water
    control structures. This information should be
    included on a site sketch map.
•  Patterns in the  vegetation community, such as
    the number of community types and their loca-
    tion in relation to each other, the vegetation
    strata present, the dominant species, and pres-
    ence of nonnative or invasive species.
•  Evidence of human disturbance (if any). One
    way to approach this question is to prepare a
    stressor checklist that can be used to survey
    each site (see "Establish Gradient of Human
    Disturbance" below for potential stressors).
•  An estimate of the size of the wetland.
•  Photographs of the site.
                    ESTABLISH
                 GRADIENT OF
                      HUMAN
                 DISTURBANCE
              Once sites have been classified by
              natural factors, it is essential to cat-
              egorize the same sites according to
              degrees  of human disturbance.
              This step is important to ensure that
metrics are sensitive. Human disturbance serves as
the gradient along the x-axis to which biological at-
tribute data along the y-axis are compared. Deter-
mining the human factor and the likely range of the
gradient must be done before sampling begins, not
as an afterthought, because post hoc categorization
may reveal that the full range of human disturbance
was not captured, thus requiring additional sam-
pling to develop a useful IBI.

  To help establish sampling sites that reflect the full
range of human disturbance, it can be useful to first
identify and perhaps prioritize the main types of dis-
turbances in a region, such as hydrologic modifica-
tion, eutrophication, sedimentation, and chemical
contamination.  U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and State reports (305b, 303d) can
be used with other sources, particularly interviews
with local conservation groups and resource agen-
cies, to obtain an initial indication of watersheds
whose wetlands might be candidates for designa-
tion as least or most impaired sites. In rare instances,
detailed descriptions may exist of a wetland's bio-
logical communities before its alteration and devel-
opment of the surrounding watershed. In such in-
stances, the historic condition can be used to define
the least impaired reference condition.

  In some cases, human disturbance may comprise
a single impairment, such as vegetation removal by
grazing. For example, Montana used a simple dis-
crete disturbance gradient based on grazing and
farming for wetlands in a rural landscape (Apfelbeck
1999). Three classes were identified: wetlands that
are currently grazed or farmed, wetlands that were
grazed or farmed but not within the recent past,
and wetlands that have either never been grazed or
never been farmed or at least not within recent his-
tory.  In most circumstances, diverse and often
subtle human activities interact to affect conditions
in watersheds, bodies of water, or wetlands. As a
result, it may be advantageous to develop a gradi-
ent that integrates several human disturbances to
account for multiple stressors.
                                           15

-------
 Where there is adequate information, the devel-
opment and use of an index may greatly enhance
the establishment of the gradient of human distur-
bance. Such an index incorporates values that rep-
resent the various degrees and combinations of pre-
vailing human disturbances for all sites, not just the
least and most impaired, as illustrated in the Minne-
sota Wetland Disturbance Analysis (Figure 2). Al-
though there is no standard protocol for construct-
ing such an index, human disturbance should not be
represented simply by a single score from a single
source of disturbance. Instead, it should be devel-
oped by combining scores from several prevailing
disturbances from both the landscape and the wet-
land. Possible landscape-level disturbances in an
index include the following:

•   Percentage of the watershed within impairing
    land uses  (e.g., cropland, pastureland, and ur-
    ban land)

•   Presence, condition,  and width of wetland
    buffer

•   Proximity of wetland to other natural habitats
    (e.g., wetlands, natural grasslands, and forest)

•   Percentage of other natural habitats in close
    proximity (e.g., a 1-km radius)  of the wetland

•   Impoundment of runoff or flow by dams or
    berms located upstream or upslope

Possible local human disturbance factors in an in-
dex include the following:

•   Impoundment of runoff or flow by excavations
    (pits) within wetlands

•   Redirection of runoff or flow within wetlands

•   Extraction of water from the wetland (e.g., for
    irrigation)

•   Removal  of vegetation (e.g., through logging,
    grazing, mowing, and controlled burning)

•   Flattening of wetland microtopography
•  Steepening of wetland topography (especially
    shorelines)

•  Persistent disturbance of wetland soils  or
    vegetation through compaction, tillage,  or
    trampling

•  Drainage of wetlands through ditching or tiling

•  Water or atmospheric deposition

•  Simplification of shoreline complexity

•  Pollution (e.g., thermal and chemical)


  The type of land cover that surrounds a wetland
is generally one of the most dominant influences on
wetland condition (see Module 17: Land-Use
Characterization for Nutrient and Sediment Risk
Assessment).  GIS information can be useful in
mapping and analyzing land-use patterns and other
spatial relationships that broadly affect wetlands.
For example, several recent GIS studies have found
significant negative correlations between watershed-
wide agricultural or urban land uses and stream ffils
(Lenat and Crawford 1994, Richards et al. 1996,
Roth et al. 1996, Wang et al. 1997). When consid-
ering the influence of particular land uses, it is im-
portant to consider their distance from a wetland,
the intervening slope, and the time period (current
or recent or distant past) at which they occurred.
Land use of the surrounding landscape should be
assessed within a meaningful radius around the wet-
land (e.g., 300 m), with greater weight given to land
use in areas upstream or upslope of a site, that is,
the "contributing watershed." Although GIS infor-
mation can be a powerful tool for defining a distur-
bance gradient, it is not a replacement, or a good
surrogate, for the IB I itself or for biological moni-
toring (Karr and Chu 1999).  To supplement GIS
mapping data, onsite visits are generally required to
improve the assessment of human  disturbances.
Several states (i.e., Ohio, Oregon, Florida, and
Maryland) have prepared data forms to assist in
the assessment of onsite conditions for rapid field
assessment of environmental risks or disturbances
                                             16

-------
          FIGURE 2: MINNESOTA WETLAND DISTURBANCE ANALYSIS
PRELIMINARY DRAFT RATING FORM     (2/08/01)
The forms shown below are presented to show the concepts and framework under development
in Minnesota for rating the degree of human disturbance to wetlands and their immediate land-
scape.  These forms are to be completed while referencing various, current digitized spatial
information, such as land use, wetland border, aerial photos, digital raster graphs, hydrologic data
themes and field notes from site visits.  These forms and the corresponding evaluation method are
likely to be considerably revised and changed as the scores and method are further tested against
additional data sets (Helgen and Gernes in press).
Site:
Study:
Raters:
Date:
  points
          Factor 1. Buffer landscape disturbance
                                     Extent and Intensity




Best— as expected for reference site, no evidence of disturbance
Mod.— predominately undisturbed, some human use disturbance
Fair— significant human disturbance, buffer area nearly filled with human use
Poor— nearly all or all of the buffer human use, intensive land use surrounding wetland
(0)
(6)
(12)
(18)
                             BEST
                                                            MOD.




Mature (>20 yr.) woodlot,
forested
Mature prairie
Other long recovered area
Other wetlands




Old field, CRP or rangeland,
Restored prairie (<10 yr.)
Young (<20 yr.) second growth woodlot
Shrubland
                             FAIR
                                                           POOR






Residential with unmowed areas
Active pasture
Less intensive agriculture
Turf park, Golf course
Newly fallowed fields
High road density in buffer area
or impervious surfaces






Urban development
Industrial development
Intensive residential/ mowed
Intensive agriculture
Mining in or adjacent to wetland
Active construction activity
             Remarks or comments:
                                         17

-------
points
        Factor 2. Landscape (immediate) Disturbance
                                   Extent and Intensity




Best—landscape natural, as expected for reference site, no evidence of disturbance
Mod. --predominately undisturbed, some human use disturbance
Fair— significant human disturbance, landscape area nearly filled with human use
Poor— nearly all or all of the landscape in human use, isolating the wetland
(0)
(6)
(12)
(18)
                            BEST
                            FAIR
                                                             MOD.




Mature (>20 yr.) woodlot,
forested
Mature prairie
Other long recovered area
Other wetlands




Old field, CRP or rangeland,
Restored prairie (<10 yr.)
Young (<20 yr.) second growth woodlot
Shrubland
                                                             POOR






Residential with unmowed areas
Active pasture
Less intensive agriculture
Turf park, Golf course
Newly fallowed fields
High road density or impervious
surfaces in immediate landscape






Urban development
Industrial development
Intensive residential/mowed
Intensive agriculture
Mining in or adjacent to wetland
Active construction activity
 points
Factor 3. Habitat alteration—immediate landscape
(within and beyond buffer)

                       Severity and extent of alteration




Best— as expected for reference, no evidence of disturbance
Mod.— low-intensity alteration or past alteration that is not currently affecting wetland
Fair— highly altered, but some recovery if previously altered
Poor— almost no natural habitat present, highly altered habitat
(0)
(6)
(12)
(18)
                                        18

-------
                                      Vegetation removal disturbances



Mowed, Grazed
Tree plantations
Tree removal



Shrub removal
Course woody debris removal
Removal of emergent vegetation
                                 Substrate/soil disturbances and sedimentation
                                                Other
          Remarks or comments:
           Factor 4.  Hydrologic alteration




points                                Severity and degree of alteration





Grading/bulldozing
Filling
Dredging
Other






Vehicle use
Sediments input (from inflow or
erosional)
Livestock hooves




Fish stocking or rearing



Other





Best— as expected for reference, no evidence of disturbance
Mod.— low-intensity alteration or past alteration that is not currently affecting wetland
Fair— less intense than "poor," but current or active alteration
Poor— currently active and major disturbance to natural hydrology
(0)
(7)
(14)
(21)








Ditch inlet
Tile inlet
Point source input
Installed outlet, weir
Dredged
Graded or fill
Other









Berm or dam
Road bed or RR bed
Levee
Unnaturally connected to other waters
Dewatering in or near wetland
Source water changes
Drainage

          Remarks or comments:
                                                  19

-------
        Factor 5. Chemical pollution
points
                             Severity and degree of pollution




Best— chemical data as expected for reference and no evidence of chemical input
Mod.— selected chemical data in low range, little or no evidence of chemical input
Fair— selected chemical date in mid range, high potential for chemical input
Poor— chemical input is recognized as high, with a high potential for biological harm
(0)
(7)
(14)
(21)
                                    Checklist:






High Cl cone, (water)
High P cone, (water)
High N cone, (water)
High Cu cone, (sediment)
High Zn cone, (sediment)







Known MMCD treatment
Evidence of altered DO regime
Other treatment
High input potential
Other

        Remarks or comments:
        Additional factors and concerns
points   Used in exceptional cases as described below

        Maximum of (4) additional points added to the cumulative disturbance
        total for reasons described below. Apply on factors 4 and 5.
        Factor 1 - Buffer and landscape

        Factor 2 - Landscape (immediate disturbance)

        Factor 3 - Habitat alteration

        Factor 4 - Hydrologic alteration

        Factor 5 - Chemical pollution

        Additional factors
Total final disturbance score

Site:	
                                     20

-------
to wetlands (e.g., the Ohio Rapid Assessment for
Method for Wetlands) (Ohio EPA 2001). Inde-
pendent observers should be able to repeat the as-
sessments of disturbances and obtain the same re-
sults, that is, the assessments should be highly pre-
cise. Nonetheless, a relatively high degree of judg-
ment usually is required to assess, a priori, the rela-
tive level of human disturbance a site is likely to be
enduring. Many impairments are not clearly visible
or assumable (e.g., subsurface drainage tile and
chemical contamination).


     SAMPLE WITHIN THE
             WETLAND

               After wetlands have been prop-
               erly classified and selected, sam-
               pling within a wetland may begin.
               One approach for sampling  is to
               collect data from all habitat zones.
               Another approach is  to find a
               single zonal transition area that
               may be indicative of the entire
               wetland (a wetland equivalent to
               the riffle zone used in streams).
The goal is not to measure every attribute of a wet-
land, but rather to find efficient indicators of health
that are expressed adequately with a minimal amount
of sampling. For example, a Minnesota study col-
lected data from the nearshore shallow emergent
zone and based all comparisons on that area. That
approach led to accurate assessments without the
need for the more time-consuming sampling from
each zone. In addition, human access to some parts
of wetlands may be difficult or impossible, which
would preclude sampling from every zone.

  Although sampling from a single zone may, in cer-
tain instances, provide enough information to accu-
rately assess wetland health, there are instances
when it will not. For example, in streams, it is often
necessary to survey several habitats (e.g., riffles,
pools, runs, and backwater areas) to collect the
variety of taxa needed for IBIs to be sensitive to
the array of possible impairments. If the decision is
made to  sample several zones, the  number of
samples that need to be collected will increase as
the area of the wetland and its heterogeneity in-
crease. At a minimum, samples should be collected
from the following zones if they are present:  per-
manently inundated areas, seasonally inundated ar-
eas, and areas saturated but seldom inundated. For
purposes of IB I development, within these three
zones, samples should be collected in a manner that
will yield unbiased data from the widest variety of
disturbance conditions and serai stages. For quan-
titative metrics (such as relative abundance and per-
cent cover) to be used in multimetric indexes, ran-
dom or systematic (grid- or transect-based) loca-
tion of sampling or observation points within zones
may be justified, and a much larger number of
samples will be necessary.  The sampling strategy
must be clearly described and the number of samples
must be adequate to capture the variablity of the
attribute being measured. For more detail on sam-
pling, see Module 4: Study Design for Monitoring
Wetlands.
 In general, the number of samples or observa-
tions per zone should be roughly proportional to
the area of the zone if the goal is to characterize the
wetland as the assessment unit. (However, a fixed
number of samples should be taken to avoid prob-
lems with increasing species richness with increas-
ing sample numbers.)  One approach to address
sample adequacy is to construct species/area curves
to determine the number of samples required to
produce diminishing returns (an asymptotic curve)
in the cumulative number of species of the target
taxa (De Vos and Mosby 1969) (Figure 3).  An-
other approach is to plot the cumulative coefficient
of variation (in, e.g., the diameters of trees that were
measured) against the number of samples (e.g., the
number of trees measured). Other approaches for
estimating sampling adequacy may be preferred,
depending on assessment objectives (see Elliott
1970).  Also, the boundaries of the unit to which
                                           21

-------
the collected data will be extrapolated need to be
clearly defined and stated. For example, will a few
samples collected on the fringe of a large roadside
wetland be claimed to represent the entire wetland
or only the roadside fringe?


 A basic premise of IBI is that the biota have been
sampled in their true relative abundance without bias
toward taxa or size (Karr et al. 1986).  As this
assumption is relaxed, the reliability of inferences
based on the IBI is reduced. However, with any
single method, there are inherent biases that affect
the tendency to capture or notice particular organ-
isms. Therefore, method limitations should be well
understood. Standard sampling protocols should be
adhered to, and the resulting metrics should be tai-
lored to the known limitations of the methods, pro-
tocols, and sampling equipment. In addition, data
collected by one sampling method should not be
mixed or compared with data collected by another
method.
 Temporal variations may also affect the quality of
the sample or limit its comparison with other data.
This may be true particularly in temporary or sea-
sonal  wetlands that support organisms that are
equally as periodic in nature. Therefore, it is im-
portant to know the best time of the year for the
collection of certain taxa and to specifically relate
that information to the protocols that govern sam-
pling. When sampling assemblages or habitats with
specific sampling periods tied to weather conditions,
such as amphibians in vernal pools, it may be im-
portant to maintain flexibility in sampling periods to
be able to adjust to the time of emergence. Other
sections of this document discuss this in greater detail.
Several methods may be appropriate for sampling
the biota of wetlands, and it is important to be able
to duplicate these methods from site to site and to
be as consistent as possible. Sampling should al-
ways be conducted in a way that maintains both
precision and accuracy (see Module 4: Study De-
sign for Monitoring Wetlands).
                0
       12
15
                             Number of Samples
                  FIGURE 3:  SPECIES/AREA CURVES FOR WETLAND
                               INVERTEBRATE SAMPLES.
    Demonstrates the asymptotic relationship (leveling of the curve) that should be considered for the determining
    the level of sampling effort (preliminary data from Sparling et al.).
                                           22

-------
 In addition to sampling the biota, most projects
involving the development of bioassessment meth-
ods also sample some physical and chemical at-
tributes of the study sites (Sparling et al. 1996;
Fennessy et al. 1998; Gernes and Helgen 1999).
This information is particularly useful for verifying
that wetlands are classified properly and for inves-
tigating how a wetland is damaged. Data or meth-
ods from existing functional assessments may be
useful for helping to characterize the structural char-
acteristics of wetlands.  For example,  the
hydrogeomorphic approach (Brinson 1993) or state
rapid assessments can provide valuable informa-
tion to  support the development of IBIs for wet-
lands. Ohio EPA (2001), for example, uses infor-
mation from its Ohio Rapid Assessment Survey to
gather information on structural characteristics of
wetlands. Ohio EPA also collects additional infor-
mation from water quality tests. Collecting physi-
cal and chemical information for wetlands that can
be useful for developing IBIs should include hydro-
logical indicators and soil characteristics.

 Hydrological indicators include the following:

•   Presence of conducted stormwater or agricul-
    tural drainage

•   Water marks, stained leaves, sediment depos-
    its,  or soil saturation in the top 30 cm (see U. S.
    Army Corps of Engineers 1987)

•   Water chemistry parameters (If the system is
    seasonally flooded and water chemistry data
    are required, this information must be taken into
    account when developing the sampling design.
    It may be necessary to sample water chemistry
    at different times than vegetation sampling. Pa-
    rameters to analyze might include pH, dissolved
    oxygen, conductivity, total phosphorus, nitro-
    gen, total suspended solids, chloride, metals (in
    some instances), and total organic carbon)

•  Percent salinity and conductivity

•   HGM class, for data on site hydrology
•  Temporal and spatial patterns of water area and
   depth

 Soils can be easily characterized using a stan-
dard soil probe. The following soil data should
be recorded in each vegetation community type:

•  Thickness of the organic layer
•  Soil texture
•  Color as determined by a Munsell Color (1975)
   soil chart
•  Presence of mottles and their size and color as
   well as the presence of oxidized root channels

 Depending on the study goals, it may be neces-
sary to collect soil samples for analysis. Standard
analysis includes pH, percent organic matter, nutri-
ents, and perhaps metals. Total phosphorus can be
a good indicator of disturbance and the deposition
of heavy sediment loads.  Also, calcium levels in
the soil may be a good index of stress severity.

     SUMMARIZE SAMPLE
    DATA BY BIOLOGICAL
            ATTRIBUTES

              A spreadsheet or database is use-
              ful at this point to summarize
              sample data.  Many spreadsheet
              applications (e.g., Lotus  1-2-3
              and Microsoft Excel) are easy to
              learn, but they can be cumber-
              some and difficult to use for ex-
              ploratory analysis. Database ap-
              plications are more difficult to
              learn, but they offer more features
and flexibility for conducting exploratory analysis
and constructing lists based on certain parameters.
Some states use a combination of spreadsheets, da-
tabases, and statistical software. Regardless of the
type of computer software used, the data from field
                                          23

-------
data sheets must be entered into a computer and
summarized on the basis of the list of attributes. Field
data sheets often include a list of species or taxa
with a number next to those found at a site. The
number depends on the assemblages monitored
(e.g., the number of individuals or the percent cover
of a species). After the data are entered into the
computer, they must be summarized based on the
attributes.

    EVALUATE ATTRIBUTE
PERFORMANCE ACROSS A
    GRADIENT OF  HUMAN
         DISTURBANCE
              The need to test and validate bio-
              logical responses of attributes and
              metrics across degrees of human
              disturbance is a core assumption
              of the IBI (Karr and Chu 1999).
              Ideally, metrics that are incorpo-
              rated into a  multimetric index
              should be relatively easy to mea-
              sure and interpret. They should
              change in a predictable fashion.
                         The metric should be sensitive to a range of bio-
                         logical disturbances and not narrowly focused on
                         one particular aspect of the community (e.g., spe-
                         cies richness). Most importantly, metrics must be
                         able to discriminate between human disturbances
                         and the background "noise" of natural variability.
                         Human impact should be the focus of biological
                         monitoring (Karr and Chu 1999).


                          The process for selecting metrics for use in a
                         multimetric index involves testing a large set of bio-
                         logical attributes (candidate metrics) and then se-
                         lecting the ones that are most sensitive to various
                         aspects of human disturbance. Although large num-
                         bers of attributes may need to be explored while
                         developing a multimetric index, it is inevitable that
                         there will be spurious relationships when consider-
                         ing large numbers of disturbance-attribute pairings.
                         A good metric will show a strong signal (response)
                         to increased disturbance and does not give mixed
                         signals.  Attributes that show large variation (ex-
                         tremely wide ranges in response when data from a
                         variety of sites are plotted) will have less utility. For
                         example, the following simplified graphs show some
                         acceptable relationship for metrics:
   The simplified graphs below show relationships that have limited acceptability. Exceptions are noted with
   the two middle two panels, which indicate peak attribute responses with intermediate levels of disturbance.
   Attributes with such responses may make appropriate metrics with proper adjustments in metric scoring.
                                   X-Axis = Increasing Human Disturbance
                                   Y-Axis = Attribute Value
                   D
                     D      D
                   D      D D
 D   D
D
                            D
                                  X-Axis = Increasing Human-Disturbance
                                  Y-Axis = Attribute Value
                                          24

-------
  SELECT METRICS FROM

      BEST PERFORMING

            ATTRIBUTES

              For most taxa, at least 5 metrics
              (but preferably 8-12) should be
              defined and selected to construct
              a multimetric index. Each metric
              should reflect the quality of a dif-
              ferent aspect of biota that re-
              sponds in a different manner to
              disturbances  to   wetlands
              (Margalev 1963, Fausch et al.
               1990, Hughes andNoss 1992).
              Therefore, whenever possible,
care should be taken to select metrics from several
different metric categories (e.g., species composi-
tion and richness, tolerance and intolerance, trophic
composition, and population characteristics) to en-
sure that response is derived from a range of influ-
ences and that redundancies are minimized. In gen-
eral, the wider the range of environmental influences
represented by the metrics the better (Table 2). For
example, if long-lived taxa requiring years to ma-
ture are present, one can infer that the spatial and
temporal components they require are also present.
Excessive production of herbivorous species may
be indicative of excessive nutrients. High levels of
toxic substances may be inferred from the frequent
occurrence of individuals with disease or other
anomalies (Karr and Chu 1999).


 The performance of each attribute should be evalu-
ated by assessing how well it does the following:
(1) increases or decreases along a gradient of hu-
man disturbance, (2) separates the least from the
most impaired sites, (3) provides similar values for
similarly impaired sites, and (4) provides a unique
(nonredundant) discriminatory response (Karr et al.
1997).  Several graphical approaches and statisti-
cal tests may be used to evaluate attribute perfor-
mance. Each may be used either individually or in
concert with another to screen out attributes that
do not perform acceptably and retain those that do.
One frequently used approach is to create bar graphs
or box plots showing means or medians and vari-
ances of a particular attribute at sites believed to be
least and most impaired (Mundahl and Simon
1999).  Several commercial software programs can
do this. The degree of separation between the least
and most impaired sites can then form the basis for
retaining or discarding the attribute for subsequent
analyses (Figure 4). The statistical significance of
the separation can be confirmed using standard sta-
tistical tests such as t tests.


 Another frequently used approach is to compare
attribute data not just from the extreme sites, but
from all sites across the spectrum of human distur-
bance.  For that comparison, the disturbance gra-
dient can be based on a single variable representing
one or more human disturbances or several vari-
ables or an index representing multiple human
disturbances (Figures 5 and 6). The relationship
can be expressed either graphically (scatter plot)
or by a comparison of correlation coefficients, such
as Pearson's correlation coefficient (Figure 5).
Based on the degree of correlation, certain attributes
may be retained and others may be eliminated
(Figure 7).


 Attributes that contain many of the same taxa may
be considered redundant, and although some re-
dundancy is acceptable, seek to reduce double
counting or using the same taxa over and over. Re-
dundancy can be tested statistically, for example,
through factor analyses (Hatcher 1994) or by sim-
ply examining similarities in the taxa groupings that
form each attribute.  Simple tables can be con-
structed to compare metric performance over the
various tests.
                                          25

-------
FIGURE 4: EVALUATION OF
  METRIC PERFORMANCE.
Examples of bar graphs illustrating the
degree to which attributes separate
least- from most-disturbed sites
(expressed in mean percentages).
Based on degree of separation two of
the attributes may be retained for
further evaluation  (% Odonates and
% Exotic Plants) while the other may
be eliminated (% Trophic Generalists)
(hypothetical).
                                   % Odonates   % Exotic
                                                 Plants
 % Trophic
Generalists
16

14

$ 12

! 10
2
5 8
I—
a) 6 -
I 4-
O
2

0



+

^
•

n n
+
• A A
CA
D n D+ n AD
^ E> + A
GACA A
• • Al «O A
	 	
I
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Log Zn (sediments)

• Ref
DAg
AUrb

R2 = 0.36







At

A


































2.2 2.4


          FIGURE 5: SCATTER PLOT ILLUSTRATING METRIC (GRASSLIKE TAXA
        RICHNESS) RESPONSE TO A SINGLE VARIABLE (ZINC CONCENTRATIONS)
               REPRESENTING THE GRADIENT OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE.
       R2 = Pearson's correlation coefficient; Ref = reference wetlands; Ag = wetlands with agricultural
       impairments; Urb = wetlands with urban impairments (Helgen and Gernes in press).
                                        26

-------
 FIGURE 6:  EVALUATION
      OF ATTRIBUTE
 PERFORMANCE OVER A
    COMBINED SET OF
     DISTURBANCES.
Ref = reference wetlands; AgLo =
wetlands with low levels  of
agricultural impairment;  SwMo =
wetlands with moderate  levels of
stormwater impairment; AgHi =
wetlands with high levels  of
agricultural impairment; and SwHi
= wetlands with high levels  of
stormwater impairment. Based on
the relationship,  one attribute
(number ofOdonate genera) may be
retained, while the other (number of
leech genera) may be eliminated
(Gernes and Helgen 1999).
Odonata and Influence Categories
7
« 6-
re
§ 5-
•o
24
o
re 3-
0)
C 9 -
 CO -^ (Jl O
* A
* m A
• X XX
• MAM X4K
A X
01 2 3 4 5 £
Disturbance Category

*Ref
•Agio
AsWMo
XAgHi
XSWHi

   FIGURE 7: SCATTER
  PLOT DEMONSTRATING
  CLOSE CORRELATION
  BETWEEN A WETLAND
MACROINVERTEBRATE IBI
   AND A DISTURBANCE
GRADIENT DERIVED FROM
   A COMBINATION OF
  HUMAN DISTURBANCES.
  Ref = reference wetlands; Ag =
wetlands  with   agricultural
impairments; Urb = wetlands with
urban impairments  (Helgen and
Gernes in press).
  50

  45 -

  40 -
00
« 3!

1 30 H
01
w 25
15 -
10
                                          Invertebrate IBI and Disturbance
                        D
                        A
20       40      60
      Disturbance Score
                                  80
                                       100
                                      27

-------
 SCORE EACH  INDIVIDUAL
               METRIC

                 The metric evaluation process
                 should cull attributes, even
                 those that may show some re-
                 lationship to the gradient of hu-
                 man disturbance, to select
                 those few metrics that are
                 highly sensitive to impairments
                 yet not redundant, to form the
                 IBI. The selected metrics then
                 can be scored by assigning val-
                 ues, such as 5, 3, or 1, depend-
ing on whether the data they represent are compa-
rable to, deviate somewhat from, or deviate greatly
from values exhibited by the least impaired wet-
lands (Karr et al. 1986).  Some metrics will de-
crease with added human disturbance (positive
metrics) and others will increase (negative metrics);
each should be scored accordingly. Several tech-
niques have been used to score metrics, each with
the objective of assigning relative values to reflect
the degree to which each metric departs from ex-
pected conditions.  Scoring may be accomplished
by determining the range in values (minimum and
maximum) for each metric and then dividing those
data into equal thirds. Metric values falling in the
higher third of the range are assigned a score of 5,
those in the middle third scored a 3, and those in
the lower third scored a 1; if the data are negatively
correlated, the scoring is reversed (Table 3).

 Another scoring alternative has been used  in
streams, in which a variable, such as size of stream
drainage, is known to influence a metric's response.
In such cases, a trisection technique is used to di-
vide and score scatter plot data (size of stream drain-
age vs. metric value) to account for the influence of
the variable (Lyons 1992). Although yet to be docu-
mented for wetlands, it is possible that similar influ-
ences exist and should be taken into consideration
when individual metrics are scored. Maximum spe-
cies richness lines or lines that represent the upper
limit of scoring for other metrics can be calculated
though regression analysis; species/area curve plot-
ting; or by best-fit lines, using professional judg-
ment. Care should be taken to avoid outliers in
data that may skew the scoring. This process should
be as objective as possible; rules should be de-
signed for the scoring procedure.  Note that scor-
ing should apply only to wetlands in the same class.
For example, take care to avoid having the best
bog receive a score of 25 out of 50 and the best
marsh a 49 out of 50, which would incorrectly im-
ply that bogs are not as healthy as marshes. A pris-
tine bog should receive a 50 compared with other
bogs, and a pristine marsh should receive a 50 com-
pared with other marshes.


   CALCULATE  TOTAL IBI

   SCORE  FOR ALL SITES

                 An IBI is composed of the
                 summed response signatures of
                 the individual metrics that col-
                 lectively provide a relative mea-
                 sure of biological condition and
                 individually point to likely
                 causes of degradation at differ-
                 ent sites  (Karr et al. 1986,
                 Yoder and Rankin 1995). An
                 IBI score can be calculated for
each site by applying the scoring criteria to the data
from each site (Table 4). If the metrics selected are
closely correlated to the gradient of human distur-
bance, then the IBI that is derived from the com-
posite of those metrics will be also (Figure 7). Once
metric scores have been totaled, various interpre-
tations can be made. For example, the same appli-
cation can be used for other wetlands in the region
and before and after studies can be performed to
assess the relative effect of various conservation
practices on wetlands. Biological criteria can be
established to help support water quality obj ectives.
Or, analyses can be performed to determine which
                                          28

-------
    TABLE 4: INDIVIDUAL METRIC SCORES FOR INVERTEBRATE METRICS
SITE
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHIRO
5
5
3
3
5
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
ODON
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
CORIX%
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
1
3
1
5
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
LEECH
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
1
3
5
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
ETSD
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
ERP%
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
1
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
1
1
1
1
TAXTOT
5
3
5
5
3
3
1
5
3
5
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
5
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
INTOL
5
5
5
3
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3DOM%
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
SNAIL.TX
5
5
5
5
1
3
5
1
3
3
5
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
TYPE
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ag
Ag
Ag
Ag
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
Ag
SW
SW
SW
Ag
Ag
SW
SW
Ag
IBI
50
48
44
44
42
38
34
32
28
26
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
22
22
22
20
18
16
16
14
CONDITION
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Chiro, Chironomid genera; Odon, Odonata genera; Corlx%, Corixidae proportion; Leech, leech genera; ETSD, ; Erp%, Erpobdella proportion; TaxTot,
total taxa; Intol, # of intolerant taxa; 3Dom%, proportion of dominant 3 taxa; Snail Tx, snail taxa. Type Ref, reference wetland; Ag, agricultural-
influenced wetland; SW, stormwater-influenced wet and. Exc, excellent; Mod, moderate
Note: Condition classification = 37-50 as excellent, 24-36 as moderate, and 10-23 as poor (Gernes and Helgen
1999).
                                   29

-------
metrics are contributing most heavily to sites with
low scores, thus helping to diagnose causes of im-
pairments for particular sites (Figure 8).

      INTERPRET IBI AND
          REPORT DATA
                Perhaps the greatest benefit of
                an IBI is that it summarizes and
                presents complex biological in-
                formation in a format that is eas-
                ily communicated to managers
                and the public.  Most people
                can understand plant and ani-
                mal IBIs more easily than they
                can understand complex statis-
                tical calculations or abstract
                chemical and physical wetland
functions. To help with the interpretations, integrity
classes can be developed to classify sites, along
with narrative descriptions of relative biological con-
dition (Table 5).  Although an IBI score is helpful
for quickly communicating the overall condition of
a wetland, most of the valuable information lies in
the individual metrics. When bioassessment results
are  reported, the IBI score should be accompa-
nied by (1) a narrative description of overall biotic
condition in comparison to reference wetlands of
the same region and wetland type, (2) numeric val-
ues of each metric, and (3) narrative descriptions
of each metric in comparison to reference condi-
tions of the same region and wetland type. For more
information about how IBIs can be used to improve
wetland management, refer to Module 5: Adminis-
trative Framework for Implementation of Wetland
Bioassessment Program
                                        Range of Possible
                                            Scores
                   Reno       Crow      Orchard

                                Wetlands
       Winter
D# Snail Taxa

• # Odonata Taxa

D# Leech Taxa

• # Intolerant Taxa

D#ETSD

• # Midge Taxa

D% 3 Dominants

D% Erpobdella

• % Water Boatmen

D Total #Taxa
             FIGURE 8: EXAMPLE OF WETLAND INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL
                                 INTEGRITY SCORES.
     From a Minnesota study for wetlands showing the range in scores and contribution of each metric
     (Gernes and Helgen 1999).  Reno and Crow are reference sites, Orchard receives urban stormwater,
     Winter has heavy influences from agriculture.
                                          30

-------
    TABLE 5: TOTAL IBI SCORES, INTEGRITY CLASSES, AND THEIR ATTRIBUTES
                   FOR STREAMS IN A REGIONAL REFERENCE
TOTAL IBI SCORE
(SUM FOR 12
INTEGRITYMETRIC
RATINGS)
50-60
40-49
30-39
20-29
10-20
CLASS
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
ATTRIBUTES
Comparable to the best situations in the regional subclass without human
disturbance; contains all species expected for the region, including the most
intolerant forms; exhibits balanced trophic structure and reproductive success.
Species richness somewhat below expectation, especially due to the loss of themost
intolerant forms; some species are present with less than optimal abundances; trophic
structure and reproduction shows some sign of stress. Presence of some invasive or
non-native species.
Signs of additional deterioration include loss of intolerant forms, fewer species, highly
skewed trophic structure (e.g., increasing frequency of omnivores or tolerant species);
older age classes or top predators may be rare.
Dominated by omnivores, tolerant forms, and habitat generalists; few top carnivores;
reproductive and condition factors commonly depressed; hybrids or diseased
individuals often present. Invasive or non-native species abundant.
Dominated by highly tolerant forms or invasive species; hybrids may be common;
disease, lesions, parasites, and other anomalies may be regular. Complete absence of
less tolerant forms.
Source: Modified from Karretal. 1986.
Note: Narrative description of integrity classes may differ substantially for wetlands.
                                     31

-------
                                      REFERENCES
AndreasBK, LichvarRW. 1995. Floristic Indexfor
 Assessment Standards: A Case Study for Northern
 Ohio. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
 Experiment Station. Wetlands Research Program
 Technical Report WRP-DE-8. Vicksburg, MS.

ApfelbeckRS. 1999. Development of Biocriteria for
 Wetlands in Montana. Montana Department of
 Environmental Quality, Helena, MT.

HarbourMT, Gerritsen J, SnyderBD, Stribling JB. 1999.
 Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
 Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic
 Macroinvertebrates and Fish; 2nd ed. U.S. Environ-
 mental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washing-
 ton, DC. EPA841-B-99-002.

Batze DP. 1998. Trophic interactions among detritus,
 benthic midges, and predatory fish in a freshwater
 marsh. Ecology 79:1688-1698.

BaumannPC, Smith WD, RibickM. 1982. Hepatic Tumor
 Rates and Poly-nuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Levels
 in Two Populations of Brown Bullhead (Ictalurus
 nebulosus). In: Cooke MW, Dennis AJ, Fisher GL
 (eds). Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Sixtieth
 International Symposium of Physical and Biological
 Chemistry. Columbus, OH: Batelle Press, pp. 93-102

Brown RE, Hazdra JJ, Keith L, Greenspan I, Kwapinski
 JBG. 1973. Frequency of fish tumors inapolluted
 watershed as compared to non-polluted Canadian
 waters. Cancer Res 33:189-198.

BrinsonMM. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification
 for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water-
 ways Experiment Station. Wetland Research Program
 Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Vicksburg, MS.

Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF, Hodgson JR, CochranPA,
 Elser JJ, ElserMM, Lodge DM, KretchmerD, He X,
 vonEndeCN. 1987. Regulation of lake primary
 productivity by food web structure. Ecology 68:1863-
 1876.

CarsonR. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton
 Mifflin.

CowardinL, Carter V,GoletF,LaroeE. 1979. Classifica-
 tion of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
 United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
 Service, Washington, DC.
DanielsonTJ. 1998. Indicators for Monitoring and
  Assessing Biological Integrity of Inland, Freshwater
  Wetlands: A Review of the Technical Literature (1989
  1996). EPA43-R-98-002. U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, Washington, DC.

De Vos A, Mosby H. 1969. Habitat Analysis and
  Evaluation. In: Mosby H S, (ed.). Wildlife Management
  Techniques. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society,
  pp. 135-172.

Elliott JM. 1970. Methods forthe statistical analysis of
  samples of benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biologi-
  cal Association Publication, Ableside; 4:1-61.

Euliss NH, MushetDM. 1999. Influence of agriculture
  on aquatic invertebrates communities of temporary
  wetlands in the prairie pothole region of North Dakota,
  USA. Wetlands 19(3):578-583.

Euliss NH, Wrubleski DA, MushetDM. 1999. Wetlands
  of the Prairie Pothole Region: Invertegrate Species
  Composition, Ecology, and Management. In: Batzer
  DP, RaderRB, Wissinger SA. (eds). Invertebrates in
  Freshwater Wetlands of North America: Ecology and
  Management. New York: John Wiley, pp. 471-514.

FauschKD, Lyons J, Karr JR, AngermeierPL. 1990. Fish
  communities as indicators of environmental degrada-
  tion. AmFish Soc Symp 8:123-144.

Fennessy MS, Gray MA, Lopez RD. 1998. An Ecological
  Assessment of Wetland Using Reference Sites Volume
  1: Final report. Ohio EPA final report to U.S. EPA. Ohio
  Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH.

Fore LS, Karr JR, WissemanRW. 1996. Assessing
  invertebrate responses to human activities:  evaluating
  alternative approaches. J North Am Benthol Soc
  15(2):212-231.

Gaston GR.  1999. Bayous of the Northern Gulf of
  Mexico: Distribution and Trophic Ecology of Inverte-
  brates. In: Batzer DP, RaderRB, Wissinger SA (eds).
  Invertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands of North
  America: Ecology and Management. New York: John
  Wiley, pp. 919-947.
                                                32

-------
GernesMC, HelgenJC. 1999. Indexes of Biotic Integrity
  (IBI) for Wetlands. Vegetation and Invertebrate IBF s.
  Final Report to U.S. EPA. Assistance #CD995515-01.
  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental
  Outcomes Division.

GibersonD, HardwickML. 1999. Pitcher Plants (Sarrace-
  niapurpurea) in Eastern Canadian Peatlands: Ecology
  and Conservation of the Invertebrate Inquilines. In:
  BatzerDP, RaderRB, Wissinger SA (eds). Inverte-
  brates in Freshwater Wetlands of North America:
  Ecology and Management. New York: John Wiley, pp.
  401-446.

HatcherL. 1994. A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the
  SAS  System for Factor Analysis and Structural
  Equation Modeling. SAS Institute, Inc., Gary, NC.

Helgen JC, Gernes MC. In press. Monitoring the
  condition of wetlands:  indexes of biotic integrity
  using invertebrates and vegetation.  In: Rader RB,
  Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (eds). Bioassessment and
  Management of North American Freshwater Wetlands.
  New York: John Wiley.

Helgen JC, Gernes MC, Kersten SM, Chirhart JW,
  Canfield JT, Bowers D, Haferman J, McKinnell RQ
  Hoppe DM. 2000. Field investigations of malformed
  frogs in Minnesota 1993 1997. JIowaAcadSci
  107(3):%-! 12.

Higgins MJ, MerrittRW.  1999. Temporary Woodland
  Ponds in Michigan: Invertebrate Seasonal Patterns
  and Trophic Relationships. In: BatzerDP, RaderRB,
  Wissinger S A (eds). Invertebrates in Freshwater
  Wetlands of North America: Ecology and Manage-
  ment. New York: John Wiley, 279-297.

Hughes RM, Noss RF. 1992. Biological diversity and
  biological integrity: current concerns for lakes and
  streams. Fisheries 17(3):11-19.

Hughes RM, Oberdorff T. 1999. Applications of IBI
  Concepts and Metrics to Waters Outside the United
  States and Canada. In: Simon TP  (ed). Assessing the
  Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water
  Resources Using Fish Communities. Boca Raton, FL:
  CRC Press, pp. 79-93.

Karr JR. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish
  communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.

Karr JR, ChuEW. 1999. Restoring Life inRunning
  Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Washington,
  DC: Island Press.
Karr JR, FauschKD, AngermeierPL, YantPR, Schlosser
  IJ. 1986. Assessment of biological integrity in running
  waters. A method and its rationale. Illinois Nat Hist
  SurvSpecPublS.

KarrJR,KimberlingDN,HawkeMA.  1997. Measuring
  Ecological Health, Assessing Ecological Risks: Using
  the Index of Biological Integrity at Hanford.  Ecologi-
  cal Health Task Group, Consortium for Risk Evaluation
  with StatkeholderPartcipation. University of Wash-
  ington, Seattle, WA.

Kerans BL, Karr JR. 1994. A benthic index of biotic
  integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee River
  Valley. Ecol Appl 4:768-785.

KingRS, BraznerJC. 1999. Coastal wetland insect
  communities along a trophic gradient in Green Bay,
  Lake Michigan. Wetlands 19:426-437.

LenatDR, Crawford JK. 1994. Effects of land use on
  water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina
  Piedmont streams. Hydrobiologia 294:185-199.

LeonardPM, OrthDJ. 1986. Application and testing of
  an index of biotic integrity in small, coolwater streams.
  Trans Am Fish Soc 115:401-415.

Lyons J. 1992. Using the Indexes of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
  to Measure Environmental Quality in Warmwater
  Streams of Wisconsin. U.S. Department of Agricul-
  ture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment
  Station, St. Paul, MN. General Technical Report, NC-
  149.

MahonR.  1976. Effect of the cestode Ligula intestinalis
  on spottail shiners, Notropis hudsonius. Can J Zool
  54:2227-2229.

Margalev R. 1963. On certain unifying principles in
  ecology. AmNaturalist 97:357-374.

Miller KL, et al. 1988. Regional applications of an index
  of biotic integrity for use in water resource manage-
  ment. Fisheries 13(5): 12-20.

Mills HB, Starrett WC, Bellrose FC. 1966. Man's effect
  on the fish and wildlife of the Illinois River. Ill Natural
  Hist Surv Biol Notes 57:1-24.
                                                 33

-------
MundahlND, Simon TP. 1999. Development and
  Application of an Index of Biotic Integrity for
  Coldwater Streams of the Upper Midwestern United
  States. In: Simon TP (ed). Assessing the Sustainability
  and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using
  Fish Communities,Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 383-
  415.

Munsell Color. 1975. Munsell Soil Color Charts.
  Kollmorgen Corporation. Baltimore, MD.

Oberdorff T, Hughes RM. 1992. Modification of an index
  of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages to
  characterize rivers of the Seine-Normandie basin,
  France. Hydrobiologia 228:117-130.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Ohio
  Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands: Users
  Manual and Scoring Forms, V 5.0. Ohio Environmental
  Protection Agency, Columbus, OH.

Omernik JM. 1995. Ecoregions: A Spatial Framework for
  Environmental Management. In: Davis WS, Simon TP
  (eds). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for
  Water Resource Planning and Decision Making.  Boca
  Raton, FL: Lewis, pp. 49-62.

Omernik JM, Bailey RG. 1997. Distinguishing between
  watersheds and ecoregions. J Am Wat Res Assoc
  33:935-949.

OuelletM. 2000. Amphibian Deformities:  Current State
  of the Knowledge. In: Sparling DW, Linder G, Bishop
  C (eds). Ecotoxicology of Amphibians and Reptiles.
  Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology
  and Chemistry (SEATAC) Technical Publication, pp.
  617-661.

Pickett STA, White PS. 1985. The Ecology of Natural
  Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Orlando, FL:
  Academic Press.

RaderRB. 1999. The Florida Everglades: Natural
  Variability, Invertebrate Diversity, and Foodweb
  Stability. In: Batzer D P, Rader R B, Wissinger S A
  (eds).  Invertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands of North
  America: Ecology and Management. New York: John
  Wiley, pp. 25-54.

Richards C, Johnson LB, Host GE. 1996. Landscape-
  scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Can J
  FishAquatSci53:295-311.
RothNR, David JD, EricksonDL. 1996. Landscape
  influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at
  multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol 11:141-156.

Rudd RL. 1964. Pesticides in the Living Landscape.
  Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Sanders RE, MiltnerRJ,Yoder CO, RankinET. 1999. The
  Use of External Deformities, Erosion, Lesions, and
  Tumors (DELT anomalies) for Characterizing Aquatic
  Resources: A Case Study of Seven Ohio Streams. In:
  Simon TP (ed). Assessing the Sustainability and
  Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish
  Communities. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 225-
  246.

Sharitz RR, Batzer DP. 1999. An Introduction to Fresh-
  water Wetlands in North America and Their Inverte-
  brates. In: Batzer DP, RaderRB, Wissinger SA (eds).
  Invertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands of North
  America: Ecology and Management. New York:  John
  Wiley, pp. 1-22.

Sparling D, Teels B, Lowe P. 1996. Assessing Recon-
  structed Depressional Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic
  States. Study Plan, May, 1996. USGSPatuxent Wildlife
  Refuge and Research Center and NRCS Wetland
  Science Institute, Laurel, MD.

ThomannRV. 1989. Bioaccumulation model of organic
  chemical distribution in aquatic food chains. Environ
  SciTechnol 23:699-707.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Labora-
  tory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
  Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer
  Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. LandResource
  Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the
  United States. Agriculture Handbook 296. USD A, Soil
  Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Gatti R. 1997. Influences of
  watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic
  integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22(6):6-12.

Warwick WF. 1980. Chironomidae (Diptera) responses to
  2800 years of cultural influence: apaleolimnological
  study with special reference to sedimentation,
  eutrophication and contamination processes. Can
  Entomol 112:1193.
                                                 34

-------
WilhelmG, LaddD. 1988. Natural area assessment in the
 Chicago region. Trans 53rd North American Wildl and
 NatRes Conf, pp. 361-375.

WissingerSA. 1997. Cyclic colonization and predictable
 disturbance.  A template for biological control in
 ephemeral crop systems. Biolog Control 10:4-15.

Wissinger SA. 1999. Ecology of Wetland Invertebrates:
 Synthesis and Applications for Conservation and
 Management. In: BatzerDP, RaderRB, Wissinger SA
 (eds). Invertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands of North
 America: Ecology and Management. New York: John
 Wiley pp. 1043-1086.
Wissinger SA, Gallagher LJ. 1999. Beaver Pond Wet-
 lands in Northwestern Pennsylvania: Modes of
 Colonization and Succession After Drought. In: Batzer
 D P, Rader R B, Wissinger S A (eds). Invertebrates in
 Freshwater Wetlands of North America: Ecology and
 Management. New York: John Wiley, pp. 333-362.

YoderCO, RankinET. 1995. Biological Criteria Develop-
 ment and Implementation in Ohio. In: Davis WS,
 Simon TP (eds). Biological Assessment and Criteria:
 Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision
 MakingPages. BocaRaton,FL: Lewis,pp. 109-144.
                                                35

-------
                                     GLOSSARY
Assemblage An association of interacting popu-
lations of organisms in a wetland or other habitat.
Examples of assemblages used for biological as-
sessments include algae, amphibians, birds, fish,
macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, crayfish, clams,
snails), and vascular plants.

Attribute A measurable component of a biologi-
cal assemblage.  In the context of biological as-
sessments, attributes include the ecological pro-
cesses or characteristics of an individual or assem-
blage of species that are expected, but not empiri-
cally shown, to respond to a gradient of human dis-
turbance.

Benthos  The bottom fauna of bodies of water.

Biological assessment  Using biomonitoring data
of samples of living organisms to evaluate the con-
dition or health of a place (e.g., a stream, wetland,
orwoodlot).

Biological integrity "the ability of an aquatic eco-
system to support and maintain a balanced, adap-
tive community of organisms having a species com-
position, diversity, and functional organization com-
parable to that of natural habitats within a region"
(Karr and Dudley, 1981).

Biological magnification  The increase in con-
centration of some material in organisms compared
with its concentration in the environment.

Biological monitoring Sampling the biota of a
place (e.g., a stream, a woodlot, or a wetland).

Biota The plants and animals living in a habitat.

Community  All the groups of organisms living
together in the same area, usually interacting or de-
pending on each other for existence.

Competition  Utilization by different species of
limited resources of food or nutrients, refugia, space,
ovipositioning sites, or other resources necessary
for reproduction, growth, and survival.
Composition (structure) The composition of the
taxonomic grouping,  such as fish, algae, or
macroinvertebrates, relating primarily to the kinds
and number of organisms in the group.

Continuum A gradient of change.

Disturbance "Any discrete event in time that dis-
rupts ecosystems, communities, or population
structure and changes resources, substrate avail-
ability or the physical environment" (Picket and
White 1985). Examples of natural disturbances are
fire, drought, and floods. Human-caused distur-
bances are referred to as "human influence" and
tend to be more persistent over time, e.g., plowing,
clearcutting of forests, conducting urban stormwater
into wetlands.

Diversity A combination of the number of taxa
(see taxa richness) and the relative abundance of
those taxa. A variety of diversity indexes have been
developed to calculate diversity.

Dominance The relative increase in abundance
of one or more species in relation to the abun-
dance of other species in samples from a habi-
tat.

Ecosystem  The community plus its habitat; the
connotation is of an interacting system.

Ecoregion  A region defined by similarity of cli-
mate, landform, soil, potential natural vegetation,
hydrology, and other ecologically relevant variables.

Functional feeding groups (FFGs) Groupings
of different invertebrates based on the mode of food
acquisition rather than the category of food eaten.
The groupings relate to the morphological struc-
tures, behaviors, and life history attributes that de-
termine the mode of feeding by invertebrates.  Ex-
amples of invertebrate FFGs are shredders, which
chew live plant tissue or plant litter, and scrapers,
which scrape periphyton and associated matter from
substrates (see Merritt and Cummins 1996a,b).
                                            36

-------
Functional groups A means of dividing organ-
isms into groups, often based on their method of
feeding (e.g., shredder, scraper, filterer, predator),
type of food (e.g., fruit, seeds, nectar, insects), or
habits (e.g., burrower, climber, clinger).

Gradient of human influence The relative rank-
ing of sample sites within a regional wetland class
based on the estimation of degree of human distur-
bance (e.g., pollution and physical alteration of
habitats).

Habitat The sum of the physical, chemical, and
biological environment occupied by individuals of a
particular species, population, or community.

Hydrology The science of dealing with the prop-
erties, distribution, and circulation of water both on
the surface and under the earth.

Impact  A change in the chemical, physical (in-
cluding habitat), or biological quality or condition
of a body of water caused by external forces.

Impairment Adverse changes occurring to an eco-
system or habitat. An impaired wetland has some
degree of human influence affecting it.

Index of Biologic Integrity (IBI) An integrative
expression of the biological condition that is com-
posed of multiple metrics. It is similar to economic
indexes used for expressing the condition of the
economy.

Intolerant taxa  Taxa that tend to decrease in
wetlands or other habitats that have higher levels of
human disturbances, such as chemical pollution or
siltation.

Least impaired site  Sample sites within a re-
gional wetland class that exhibit the least degree of
detrimental effect. Such sites help anchor gradients
of human disturbance and are commonly referred
to as reference sites.

Macroinvertebrates  Animals without back-
bones that are caught with a 500-800 micron
mesh net. Macroinvertebrates do not include
zooplankton or ostracods, which are generally
smaller than 200 microns in size.

Metric  An attribute with empirical change in value
along a gradient of human disturbance.

Most impaired  site  Sample sites within a re-
gional wetland class that exhibit the greatest degree
of detrimental effect. Such sites help anchor gradi-
ents of human disturbance and serve as important
references, although they are not typically referred
to as reference sites. Such sites may be referred to
as impaired or disturbed sites.

Munsell color  The color of soil based on its
chroma and hue  as determined by a chart in the
bookMunsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color
1975).

Mottles Spots or blotches of different color or
shades of color interspersed within the dominant
color in a soil layer, usually resulting from the pres-
ence of periodic reducing soil conditions.

Omnivores Organisms that consume both plant
and animal material.

Population A set of organisms belonging to the
same species and occupying a particular area at the
same time.

Predator An animal that feeds on other animals.

Reference site  As used with an Index of Bio-
logical Integrity,  a minimally impaired site that
is representative of the expected ecological condi-
tions and integrity of other sites of the same type
and region.

Taxa  A grouping of organisms given a formal taxo-
nomic name, such as species, genus, and family.
The singular form is taxon.

Taxa richness The number of distinct species or
taxa that are found in an assemblage, community,
or sample.
                                           37

-------
Tolerance The biological ability of different
species or populations to survive successfully
within a certain range of environmental conditions.

Tolerance (range of)  The set of conditions within
which an organism, taxa, or population can survive.

Tolerant taxa  Taxa that tend to increase in wet-
lands or other habitats that have higher levels of
human disturbances, such as chemical pollution or
siltation.

Trophic Feeding; thus, pertaining to energy trans-
fers.

Wetland(s) (1) Those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life
in saturated soil conditions [EPA, 40 C.F.R.§
230.3 (t)/USAGE, 33 C.F.R.  § 328.3 (b)]. (2)
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial
and aquatic systems where the water table is
usually at or near the surface or the land is
covered by shallow water. For the purposes of
this classification, wetlands must have one or
more of the following three attributes: (a) at least
periodically, the land supports predominantly
hydrophytes, (b) the substrate is predominantly
undrained hydric soil, and (c) the substrate is
nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by
shallow water at some time during the growing
season of each year (Cowardinetal. 1979). (3)
The term "wetland" except when such term is part
of the term "converted wetland," means land that
(a) has a predominance of hydric soils, (b) is
inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions, and (c) under normal circumstances
does support a prevalence of such vegetation.
For purposes of this Act and any other Act, this
term shall not include lands in Alaska identified as
having a high potential for agricultural develop-
ment which have a predominance of permafrost
soils [Food Security Act, 16U.S.C. 801(a)(16)].
                                             38

-------