Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheets


EPA843-F-98-001
July 1998
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (4502-F)
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
&EPA Wetland Bioassessment
Fact Sheets
-TTTT
rmxi^s
TIP
Green Darner
(Anax junius)
n

-------
NOTICE
This document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of use.
Preferred Citation:
Danielson, Thomas J. 1998. Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheets. EPA843-F-98-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands
Division, Washington, DC.

-------
EPA843-F-98-001
July 1998
Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheets
By:
Thomas J. Danielson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Division (4502F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Cover art by Tom Danielson

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
These fact sheets are an outgrowth of the increasing interest among wetland and water quality
professionals to develop sound methods that measure the biological condition of wetlands. I would
particularly like to thank Jim Karr (University of Washington) for providing inspiration and many
helpful suggestions throughout the development of these fact sheets and to Mark Brinson (East
Carolina University) and Dan Smith (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station) for writing and reviewing the HGM column in Fact Sheet ©. I extend my heartfelt gratitude
to my colleagues at the U.S. EPA for their comments and support: Doreen Vetter (Wetlands
Division), Susan Jackson (Office of Science and Technology), Chris Faulkner (Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division), Bill Sipple (Wetlands Division), Matt Witten (Sea Grant Fellow,
Wetlands Division), Brett Melone (Sea Grant Fellow, Wetlands Division), Connie Mullenex
(Wetlands Division), Tom Kelsch (Wetlands Division), and Matt Little (Wetlands Division).
I would also like to thank the members of the Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup
(BAWWG) and others for sharing their knowledge and ideas. These fact sheets benefitted greatly
from discussions and correspondence with Paul Adamus (Oregon State University), Bill Ainslie
(U.S. EPA Region 4), Randy Apfelbeck (MT Department of Environmental Quality), Cici Borth
(Montana State University), Rob Brooks (Penn. State University), Naomi Detenbeck (U.S. EPA
Duluth Lab), Jeanne DiFranco (ME Department of Environmental Protection), Mike Ell (ND
Department of Health), Steve Doherty (University of Florida), Chip Euliss (USGS Northern Prairie
Science Center), Siobhan Fennessy (Ohio EPA), Mark Gernes (MN Pollution Control Agency),
Mike Gray (Ohio EPA), Glenn Guntenspergen (USGS Northern Prairie Science Center), Judy
Helgen (MN Pollution Control Agency), Greg Hellyer (U.S. EPA Region 1), Ryan King (Duke
University Wetlands Center), Peter Lowe (USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center), Ellen
McCarron (FL Department of Environmental Protection), Norman Melvin (NRCS Wetland Science
institute), Steve Pugh (USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center), Klaus Richter (King County
Resource Lands Section, WA), Dave Ruiter (U.S. EPA Region 8), Don Sparling (USGS Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center), Art Spingarn (U.S. EPA Region 3), Jan Stevenson (University of
Louisville), Linda Storm (U.S. EPA Region 10), Rich Sumner (U.S. EPA Environmental Research
Lab, Corvallis, OR), Billy Teels (NRCS Wetland Science Institute), Ray Thompson (U.S. EPA
Region 1), Dennis Whigham (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center), Mike Whited (USGS
Northern Prairie Science Center), and Chris Yoder (Ohio EPA). Please forgive me if I ommitted
any names from the many people who contributed to the project.

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (4502-F)
EPA843-F-S8-00T
July 1998
4%	i—-1 	ment Fact Sheets:
Table of Contents
II Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters
© Applications of Biological Assessments in Wetlands
© Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup
(BAWWG)
© Wetland Bioassessment Projects
© Developing an Index of Biological Integrity
© Wetland Biological Assessments and
HGM Functional Assessment
© Water Quality Standards
© Evaluating Performance of Wetland Restoration
© Involvement of Volunteers in Wetland Monitoring
® Glossary of Bioassessment Terms
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1-800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at http://www.epa.goY/OWOW/wetlands. Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (45Q2-F)
EPA843-F-98-001a
July 1998
&EPA Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet O
Assessing Biological Integrity
of Surface Waters
The objective of the Clean Water Act is to "maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of our Nation's waters." When the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, the discharge of chemicals
was commonly viewed as the primary threat to the health of our Nation's waterbodies. To track progress in
reducing this threat, the Nation focused on developing chemical criteria which set numerical limits for safe levels
of chemicals in waterbodies. During the past 25 years, the Nation has been largely successful in reducing the
number and quantity of chemicals discharged into waterbodies by factories, wastewater treatment plants, and
other point sources. During this same period of time, it has become increasingly clear that aquatic ecosystems
are impacted by more than just chemicals. Aquatic ecosystems are altered by nonpoint source runoflj habitat
alteration and fragmentation, introduced species, changes
in the quantity and flow of water, and land use within a
watershed. Traditional chemical criteria alone are unable
to measure the impacts caused by these stressors. The
EPA is now focusing on developing biological criteria in
addition to chemical criteria to help track progress in
maintaining and restoring the health of our waters. In
most cases, the most direct and effective way to assess the
"health" or biological condition of waterbodies is to:
(1) directly measure the condition of their biological
communities, and (2) support those data when necessary
by measuring the physical and chemical condition of
waterbodies and their watersheds.
Biological integrity is "the ability of an aquatic
ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced,
adaptive community of organisms having a
species composition, diversity, andfunctional
organization comparable to that of
natural habitats within a region."
Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on
water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55-68.
As human activities degrade the condition of a
waterbody, the changes are reflected by the characteristics
of the plant and animal assemblages living in the
waterbody. Biological communities are sensitive to
chemical, physical, and biological stressors and will reflect
any changes to their environment. For example, the
diversity of plant and animal assemblages will typically
decrease when impacted by acidification. The composition
of assemblages will also change as (1) species that are
sensitive to acidic conditions decline in numbers and (2)
species that can tolerate acidic conditions increase in
abundance. For other stressors, such as nutrient
enrichment, taxa richness may initially increase and then
decrease. The challenge feeing water quality agencies is to
develop biological assessment methods to quiekfy and
accurately evaluate the integrity of aquatic ecosystems.
Biological Assessments Can Detect the Effects
of the following Stressors
~ Toxic levels of metals and other chemicals
~ Changes to physical and chemical characteristics of
water (e.g., pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen)
~ Enrichment of nutrients
~ Physical changes to habitat
~ Alteration of the flow and quantity of water
~ Impacts from introduced plants and animals
~ Effects of changes in land use within watershed such
as fragmentation of natural habitats within a
watershed or increased runoff from logging or
impervious surfaces
~ Cumulative impacts of multiple stressors
~ Effects of intermittent stressors
(e.g., stormwater runoff)
t/ Long-term effects of chronic stressors
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1-800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wctIands. Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
CONDUCTING A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
The process of conducting a biological assessment is similar to a doctor performing an annual physical on
a human patient A simplified three step process is described below.
© Collect Supporting Information:
Collect background information and try to identify
potential threats to the waterbody's condition. What type
of wetland is it? Where is it located in its watershed?
Was it ever drained or altered? What are the surrounding
land uses that might influence it?

(D Compare to Reference Conditions:
When a doctor takes a patients pulse or temperature,
she compares the readings to the conditions of healthy
people. The doctor uses the measurements from the
healthy people as reference conditions. Similarly, a
scientist compares the environmental conditions of a
waterbody to minimally-impacted reference sites of the
same type and region of the country. The reference
sites provide a range of biological and environmental
conditions that should be expected in that type of
waterbody and region in the absence of human
disturbances.
After comparing the measurements to the reference
conditions, the scientist may give the waterbody a clean
bill of health or may spot a warning sign. If the
scientist spots a measurement that falls outside of the
normal range, then the the scientist may decide to take
more detailed biological measurements to determine if
there really is a problem. At this point the scientist may
also conduct more complex chemical and physical tests
to help diagnose the source(s) of the impairment. The
background information and supporting chemical and
physical data will help the doctor identify stressors and
potential risks to the wetland.
© Perform Standard Tests and Measurements:
Directly measure biological attributes of the waterbody.
Attributes that are good indicators of biological integrity
are called metrics. The medical profession has already
established a series of indicators, such as body
temperature, to quickly assess the health of human
patients. The challenge facing water qualify agencies is to
identify metrics that they can use to quickly assess the
biological integrity of waterbodies (See Fact Sheet ©).
During this screening process, conduct standard
observations and measurements of the chemical and
physical characteristics (e.g., temp, pH) of the wetland
and its surrounding landscape. These data help a scientist
accurately diagnose what is damaging the wetland and to
prescribe remedies.
Using the Framework of a Patient's Annual Physical to Compare Biological and Chemical Assessments
Hows Patient's Annual Physical Would Proceed Using the Framework of a Biological Assessment
A patient schedules an appointment with a doctor for an annual physical. The doctor starts the physical by collecting
background information by asking a series of questions to identify any risks to the patient's health. The doctor then performs a
series of standard tests (pulse rate, blood pressure, etc.) that are indicators of the patient's health. The doctor compares the
measurements to reference conditions of healthy people. If the doctor spots any warning signs or conflicting signals during this
screening process, the doctor will ask more questions and perform more advanced (and expensive) tests to determine if the problem
•really exists and to help identify what is causing the problem.
How a Patient's Annual Physical Would Proceed Using the Framework of a Chemical Assessment
A doctor visits a patient's house to assess the environmental conditions in the house. The doctor measures the amount of
chemicals in air and on the floor, tables, and other surfaces. If the doctor finds a lot of toxic chemicals in the house, such as
mercury, then the doctor could say that there is a high probability that the patient is not completely healthy, even without directly
examining the patient But if the doctor does not find a lot of chemicals, then the doctor could reach an erroneous conclusion by
relying only on the chemical data. By extrapolating from chemical exposure to the patient's health, the doctor could overlook many
other factors that can influence the patient's health. The patient may be unhealthy even though there are no chemicals in the house.
The patient may be exposed to chemicals outside of the home or chemicals for which the doctor did not conduct tests. The patient
could be affected the combination of many different chemicals. More importantly, the patient could be harmed by a variety of
physical and biological stressors, which are overlooked by standard chemical tests. The only way to know for sure if the patient is
ill, is to directly examine the patient By combining the chemical data with direct measurements of the patient's condition, the
doctor can make a more accurate assessment of the patient's health and can then determine the most appropriate course of action.

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (4502-F)
EPA843-F-98-GQ1 b
July 1998
Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet ©
Applications of Biological
Assessments in Wetlands
In most cases, the most direct and effective way of evaluating the ecological "health" or condition of a wetland is (1) to
directly measure the condition of a wetland's biological community and (2) to observe and measure the chemical and
physical characteristics of a wetland and its surrounding landscape. After developing and testing bioassessment methods,
states, tribes, and federal agencies can use them for the following activities.

O)
C
ffl
oc
1
Q.
FIGURE 1: Wetland Index of Biological Integrity
(WIBI) Scores of Five Minnesota Wetlands
SO
40
30
20
10 -I
0
Kelly Reno Jacobs Winter Woodiak
Wetland Names

^ Chiro

~ Crust

O Bug

~ Snail

¦ ETSD

SLeech

11 DraDam

E3 Amph
Developing methods and programs to assess the
biological integrity of wetlands is a priority for the
EPA because:
•	The objective of the Clean Water Act is to
"restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
including wetlands.
•	As our nation draws closer to meeting the
Ointon Administration Wetlands Plan's short-
term goal of achieving a no overall net loss of
wetlands, we must focus on the long-term goal of
increasing the overall quantity and quality of our
Nation's wetlands.
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1-800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands. Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
© Define management approaches to maintain and restore wetland condition.
The information provided by biological assessments can help states prioritize and target activities to protect and restore
wetlands. For example, by identifying the type of stressors damaging wetlands, states can develop site-specific
management plans to maintain or restore the biological condition of wetlands. States can save time and resources by
tailoring management plans to focus on the stressors which damage the wetlands the most. When conducting biological
assessments, states can also identify and prioritize high quality wetlands for protection or acquisition.
® Evaluate performance of protection and restoration activities.
States can evaluate the success of management activities by including follow-up assessments as a component of
management plans (See Fact Sheet ©). By periodically
conducting bioassessments, states can track the condition of
wetlands and learn which management activities work as
planned and which do not work. With this knowledge, states
can improve future management plans and save time and
money by avoiding marginal activities. Figure 2 provides a
hypothetical example of how a state can track the biological
recovery of a wetland following restoration activities by
tracking the IBI scores and comparing them to the conditions
found in reference wetlands. It is important to compare the
IBI scores from the same year to identify regional trends that
may effect all wetlands in an area. For example, there may
have been a drought in Year 4, which would account for the
dip in the two curves on Figure 2.
© Develop and support water quality standards.
The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to "maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of our Nation's waters," including wetlands (CWA Section 101 (a)). Under CWA Section 303, states and eligible
tribes develop water quality standards to ensure that their waters support beneficial uses such as aquatic life support,
drinking water supply, fish consumption, swimming, and boating (See Fact Sheet ©). States can use bioassessment
methods to establish standards and criteria that are specifically appropriate for conditions found in wetlands. Criteria are
the narrative or numeric descriptions of the conditions found in minimally impacted reference sites. By comparing the
condition of a wetland to appropriate criteria, states can determine if the wetland is supporting its designated uses. In the
absence of wetland-specific standards and criteria, states must rely on standards developed for lakes, streams, or other
waterbodies that have different ecological conditions. In 1990, the EPA published guidance to help states create water
quality standards for wetlands
(Water Quality Standards for Wetlands, EPA/440/S-90-011).
© Certify that permits maintain water quality.
Under CWA Section 401, states have the authority to grant or deny "certification" for federally permitted or licensed
activities that may result in a discharge to wetlands or other waterbodies. The certification decision is based on whether
the proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards. Under this process, a state can use information from
biological assessments to determine if a proposed activity would degrade water quality of a wetland or other waterbodies
in a watershed. If a state grants certification, it is essentially saying that the proposed activity will comply with state water
quality standards. Likewise, a state can deny certification if the project would harm the chemical, physical, or biological
integrity of a wetland as defined by water quality standards. A state's Section 401 certification process is only as good as
its underlying water quality standards. States can use bioassessments to refine narrative and numeric criteria to make them
more suitable for conditions found in wetlands and subsequently improve the Section 401 certification process.
® Track water quality condition in wetlands.
Under CWA Section 305 (b), states submit water quality reports every other year that summarize the quality of waters
within their boundaries. In past years, few states have reported the quality of their wetlands. In the future, states can use
bioassessment methods and wetland-specific standards and criteria to determine if wetlands are meeting their designated
uses. States can then report the results in the Section 305 (b) reports.

FIGURE 2: Hypothetical IBI Scores of Inference
and Restoration Sites
SO

S*40 .

_4_rcference
site

o
£ 4 30 .

o
o £
eft 3
5-20
m-—

restoration

site

o 10
wr

123456789 10
Year

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (4502-F)
EPA843-F-98-001c
July 1998
Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet 0
Biological Assessment of Wetlands
Workgroup (BAWWG)
The Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup (BAWWG, pronounced "bog") was formed in 1997
with the objective of improving methods and programs to assess the biological integrity of wetlands. The
workgroup consists of wetland scientists from federal agencies, states, and universities and is coordinated by
the EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds in partnership with the EPA Office of Science and
Technology. BAWWG provides a forum for wetland scientists and professionals to:
• interact with peers and share expertise in developing wetland biological assessment methods
• form partnerships and collaborative projects
• develop consistency in terminology and sampling methods
• coordinate the development of biological and functional assessment methods (See Fact Sheet ©)
• improve methods of managing and presenting data
&EPA
ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTS
BAWWG holds periodic conference calls in addition
to periodic conferences and technical meetings to
examine topics related to developing wetland biological
assessment methods and programs (Box 1). The
workgroup will prepare guidance and technical papers on
some of these topics to help other states and federal
agencies develop biological assessment capabilities.
BAWWG also intends to develop a peer review process
for reviewing project designs for wetland biological
assessment projects.
\
Box 1: Recurring Workgroup Topics
• Selecting and testing metrics.
• Scoring metrics.
• Combining metrics into a multimetric Index
of Biological Integrity.
• Selecting study design
(e.g., targeted vs. random sampling).
• Classifying wetlands and ecoregions.
• Defining reference conditions.
• Developing and testing sampling methods.
• Analyzing data.
• Communicating results.
• Defining terms.
• Exploring relationship with the
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach to
assessing wetland functions
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1-800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands. Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
BAWWG PARTICIPANTS
As of January 1998, the workgroup includes participants from six states, six federal agencies, and
seven universities. See Fact Sheet ©for a summary of existing wetland biological assessment projects.
STATES
Florida

Maine

Minnesota

Montana

North Dakota

Ohio
FEDERAL
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
UNIVERSITY
Montana State University

North Dakota State University

Oregon State University

Pennsylvania State University

University of Florida

University of Louisville

University of Washington
FOCUS GROUPS
BAWWG has focus groups for five taxanomic assemblages:
® macroinvertebrates
© vascular plants
® amphibians
® algae
© birds
These focus groups are identifying potential metrics and are examining topics, such as when and how to sample
each assemblage. BAWWG has a sixth focus group examining the relationship between assessing wetland
biological integrity and the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach to assessing wetland functions.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
More information about wetland bioassessments and BAWWG is available through the following sources:
• The "Wetlands and Water Quality" section of the Wetland Division's internet site
(http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands)
• The EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) - 1 (800) 832-7828
U.S. EPA Wetlands Division (4502F), 401 M Street, Washington, DC, 20460
Phone: (202) 260-1799 Fax: (202) 260-8000

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (4502-F)
EPA843-F-98-00Td
July 1998
*>EPA Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet o
Wetland Bioassessment Projects
Below is a list of some wetland biological assessment projects conducted by members of the
Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup (BAWWG) (See Fact Sheet ©) in wetlands .
In general, individual BAWWG members are still in the preliminaiy stages of identifying and
testing potential metrics, particularly for birds, amphibians, plants, and algae. Most current
research is being conducted on macroinvertebrates and vascular plants in depressional wetlands
with emergent and submerged vegetation. Further research is needed in other wetland types,
especially in wetlands that have saturated soils but lack standing water for most of the year.
AGENCY
ANALYTICAL
METHODS
SPECIES
ASSEMBLAGES
PROJECT
PURPOSE
WETLAND
TYPE
STRESSORS
AFFECTING
WETLANDS
Minnesota
Index of Biological
Integrity (IBI)
(See Fact Sheet ©)
Vascular Plants
Macroinvertebrates
Amphibians
Water quality
standards
Depressional
semipermanent
with emergent
vegetation
Agriculture
Storm water
runoff
Montana
Attempting to
develop
bioassessment
protocols using..
both multimetric
and multivariate
approaches
Macroinvertebrates
Algae (diatoms)
Vascular Plants
Water quality
standards
Depressional
Riparian/fen
Closed basins
Open lakes
Agriculture
Mining
Others
OMo
*	Floristic Quality
Assessment Index
(FQAI) for
vascular plants
*	IBIs for both
amphibians and
macroinvertebraJes
Vascular Plants
Macroinvertebrates
Amphibians
Water quality
standards
Depressional
Riparian
Agriculture
Development
Others
North Dakota
IBI
Macroinvertebrates
Algae
Vascular Plants
Water quality
standards
Depressional
(prairie
potholes)
Agriculture
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1-800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands. Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
AGENCY
ANALYTICAL
METHODS
SPECIES
ASSEMBLAGES
PROJECT
PURPOSE
WETLAND
TYPE
STRESSORS
AFFECTING
WETLANDS
Patuxent
Wildlife
Research
Center
(OSGS and
NRCS)
Investigating use of
each assemblage
forbioassessments
Macroinvertebrates
Vascular Plants
Birds
Fish
Amphibians
Evaluating
performance of
wetland
restoration
Depressional
(Delmarva
Bays) in
various stages
of succession
Restored
wetlands on
agricultural
land compared
to minimally
disturbed
wetlands
U.S. EPA
Duiuth Lab
mi
Macroinvertebrates
Vascular Plants
Algae
Water quality
standards
Depressional
(prairie
potholes)
Agriculture
U.S. EPA
Corvallis Lab
Analyzing survey
design and
reporting methods
N/A
Evaluating
wetland
program
effectiveness
Various
wetlands
located in
mid-Atlantic
region
Mixed land
use
USGS
Northern
Prairie Science
Center
Has collected some
macroinvertebrale
data in conjunction
with HGM* project
Macroinvertebrates
Supplementing
HGM* project
Depressional
(prairie
potholes)
Agriculture
Others
HGM* = Hydrogeomorphic approach, which is a functional assessment method.

-------
United States Office of Water EPA843-F-S8-0G1e
Environments Protection Office of Wetlands, Oceans July 1998
Agency and Watersheds (4502-F)
oEPA Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet ©
Developing an Index of
Biological Integrity
One method to assess biological integrity of wetlands is to develop an index of biological integrity (IBI) for an assemblage
of wetland plants or animals. An IBI is made by combining several biological indicators, called metrics, into a summary
index. A well-constructed IBI that can allow scientists to: (1) measure condition, (2) diagnose the type of stressors damaging
a wetland's biota, (3) define management approaches to protect and restore biological condition, and (4) evaluate
performance of protection and restoration activities.
FOUR STEPS TO CREATE AN IBI
-------
In contrast, total abundance of macroinvertebrates is often more
dependent on natural environmental variability of wetlands and does not
show a reliable change in response to human disturbance
(Figure 2). As Figure 2 shows, there is no clear response to increasing
human disturbance and this attribute would not be useful as a metric. In
these two examples, total taxa richness of macroinvertebrates could
serve as a metric and total abundance could not.
® Combine Metrics into an IBI
Typically, an IBI Is formed by combining at least 7 metrics from one
biological assemblage. One approach of combining metrics into an IBI
is to assign scores of 1,3, or 5 to the metrics according to how they
respond to human disturbances. For example, the diversity and richness
of macroinvertebrate taxa may consistently decrease with increasing
human disturbance (Figure 3). In this case, we could assign a score 1 to
indicate poor conditions, 3 to indicate moderate conditions, and 5 to
indicate minimally impacted conditions (Figure 3). Another metric, the
relative abundance of tolerant taxa [(number of tolerant individuals in
sample) / (total number of individuals in sample) x 100], may increase
with increasing human disturbance (Figure 4). In this case, a wetland
dominated by tolerant taxa would receive a low score and a wetland
with a small percentage of tolerant taxa would receive a high score.
If 10 metrics were scored in this manner, then the scores could be
added together to form the index of biological integrity (IBI) with
potential scores ranging from 10 (maximally impacted) to 50 (minimally
impacted). The IBI scores should form a relatively straight line when
plotted against the gradient of human disturbance (Figure 5).
Sometimes there will be scores that are far from the line which should be
investigated. More often than not, an outlier is either the result of (1)
misclassifying the wetland or (2) a stressor, such as acid mine drainage,
that is damaging the wetland biota and was not captured by the gradient
of human disturbance.
© Test and Validate IBI
After developing the IBI, the scientists would then test the IBI to see
if it accurately detects the effects of human disturbances on the
biological assemblage. One approach is to (1) randomly split the data
into two halves, (2) develop the IBI on one half of the data, and (3) test
the IBI on the other half of the data. The results should be similar.
Scientists can also test the IBI on more than one gradient of human
disturbance. For example, the scientists may first develop the IBI with a
gradient such as the percent of a watershed that is logged. During
subsequent years, they could test the same IBI across another gradient of
human disturbance, such as percent of watershed with impervious
surfaces or distance of wetlands to nearest road or farm field. Some
metrics will consistently show clear patterns regardless of the type of
human disturbance used on the X axis.
After testing and validating the index, they could directly measure
the health of similar wetlands without having to measure eveiy attribute. They would only have to measure the ten metrics
and some basic chemical and physical characteristics of the wetlands to help diagnose the type of stressors) damaging
wetlands and to develop plans to reduce the impacts. When reporting results of a bioassessment, the IBI score should always
be accompanied by a narrative description of the overall site condition, scores of the individual metrics, and a narrative
descriptions of each metric as compared to conditions found in reference wetlands of the same type and region.
Figure 2: Total Macroinvertebrate
Abundance of 40 Wetlands
I
i
2 '
o
40
20
0
o° ° oo
°° o° J? O
o
°o^ -o
H-
8®
:o o Q00 u oQ
° 6 0 ° °o8°
Low ' High'
Human Disturbance
I
Figure 3: Macroinvertebrate Taxa
Richness of40 Wetlands
50
8 40 -l^o
3 sn .. 8"
|m>
*6
30
20 -t. _
10
0
Q°f
,(7B
3
'1
OcxQ
Low High
Human Disturbance
Figure 4: Percent Macroinvertebrate
Tolerant Taxa of 40 Wetlands
J*
T5
125
a
100

0
I8"*!
Low
J So
-k
High
Human Disturbance
FigureS: Index of Biological
Integrity Scores of40 Wetlands
SO
40
30
5 20
" 10
o
o
u
CO
••I
1
+

Low High
Human Disturbance

<
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (4502-F)
EPA843-F-98-0G1 f
July 1998
v>EPA Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet ©
Wetland Biological Assessments
and HGM Functional Assessment
The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide a comparison of a functional assessment method, the Hydrogeomorphic
(HGM) Approach, and biological assessments based on an index of biological integrity (IBI). Our intention is not to
advocate one particular approach, because each was developed for a different purpose and has many strengths. Rather, our
intention is to identify their similarities and differences and to identify ways that the two approaches can be supportive of
each other. The functional assessment column was written primarily by Mark Brinson (East Carolina University).

Biological Assessment
[Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)]
Functional Assessment
[Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach]
Purpose of
Assessment
To evaluate a wetland's ability to support and maintain a
balanced, adaptive community of organisms having a
species composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable with that of minimally
disturbed wetlands within a region. The condition of the
biota will show if a wetland is degraded by any chemical,
physical, or biological stressors and will help scientists
diagnose the stressors) causing the damage. Biological
assessments (bioassessments) also detect intermittent
stressors or the cumulative effect of multiple stressors.
To evaluate current wetland functions and predict
potential changes to a wetland's functions that may result
from proposed activities. A wetland is compared to
similar wetlands that are relatively unaltered. The
approach is based on combining variables that are
typically structural measures or indicators that are
associated with one or more ecosystem functions.
Functions normally fall into one of three major categories:
(1) hydrologic (e.g., storage of surface water), (2)
biogeochemical (e.g., removal of elements and
compounds), and (3) physical habitat (e.g., topography,
depth of water, number and size of trees).

COMMENTS: Both approaches evaluate the condition of individual wetlands by comparing them to the conditions
found in an established set of reference wetlands. The goal of both approaches is to maintain wetlands in their
minimally disturbed conditions and wetlands are only compared to other wetlands of the same type. The definition
of reference wetlands is discussed on the last page of this fact sheet
Primary
Means of
Estimating
Conditions
Direct, quantitative measurements of certain attributes of
a wetland assemblage (e.g., taxa richness of
macroinvertebrates) that show clear, empirical changes
in value along a gradient of human influence. Typically,
between 8 and 12 of these attributes, called metrics, are
combined into an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for
an assemblage (See Fact Sheet ©). The biological data
are related to corresponding physical and chemical data.
Estimates and some measurements of variables related to
wetland functions in comparison to reference standard
conditions characteristic of relatively unaltered sites of
the same wetland type. Available technical literature,
ongoing research, and best professional judgement are
used in the development of the assessment method and in
its application.

COMMENTS: Biological assessments can be used to: (1) determine if HGM's field indicators and variables
accurately reflect the biotic condition of wetlands, (2) determine the level of spatial and temporal variation in
HGM's biotic field indicators and variables, (3) validate or invalidate how HGM model variables are scaled and
combined as they relate to ecosystem functions, and (4) detect ifselected animal and plant communityfunctions
have changed from HGM reference standard conditions.
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1 -800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at httpy/wvm.epagov/OWOW/wetlands. Printed on Recycled Paper
-------

Biological Assessment
(Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)1
Functional Assessment
(Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach]
Relevant
Sections (§)
of the Clean
Water Act
(CWA)
CWA §303 (water quality standards):
Water quality standards are state or tribal laws or
regulations that, at a minimum, define: (1) the water
quality goals of a water body (designated uses), (2) the
limits or conditions that, if met, will generally protect
¦water quality goals (criteria), and (3) provisions to
protect waterbodies (antidegradation provisions) [See
Fact Sheet ©]. States and tribes can use biological
assessment methods to develop numeric biological
criteria that quantitatively describe the condition of
wetland plant or animal assemblages found in minimally
disturbed wetlands.
CWA §401 (water quality certification):
Under CWA §401, states and tribes have the authority to
certify that federally permitted or licensed activities that
may result in a discharge to a waterbody, such as those
requiring CWA §404 permits, comply with their water
quality standards. If proposed activities will violate their
water quality standards, then states and tribes can deny
or condition the permits.
CWA §404 (dredge and fill permits):
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA
administer a program for permitting the discharge of
dredged or fill material in "waters of the U.S.," which, by
definition, include wetlands. The HGM approach to
functional assessment estimates the change in functioning
induced by alteration of a wetland, either positive or
negative. Negative effects (i.e, reductions in sustainable
levels of functioning) are normally determined in
association with dredge-and-fill permits. The permit
review process could use output from an assessment as
one tool to determine if the project results in significant
degradation. Output from HGM models can be used to
determine the amount of positive effects (i.e., increases in
sustainable levels of functioning) associated with
compensatory mitigation requirements, normally through
restoration of previously altered wetlands of the same
type. Although the HGM approach was designed initially
for use in the CWA §404 program, the output of
assessments is not constrained to any particular statutes,
federal or otherwise.
COMMENTS: HGM has direct applications for CWA §404 decisions and bioassessments have indirect
applications to CWA §404 decisions through CWA §401 water quality certification programs.
Applications
(Also see
Fact Sheets
©,©,©)
• Establishing appropriate narrative and numeric
biological criteria for wetlands as part of state water
quality standards.
• Assessing wetlands to determine if they are meeting
water quality standards.
• Evaluating performance of wetland restoration
activities at improving the ability of wetlands to support
and maintain wetland plant and animal assemblages.
• Administering CWA §401 water quality certification
programs.
• Tracking condition of wetlands as part of CWA
§305(b) water quality reports to Congress.
• Evaluating impacts of projects that degrade wetland
ecosystems, including the comparison of project
alternatives. Projects include those related to CWA §404
dredge-and-fill permits, the Swampbuster provision of the
Food Security Act, or other relevant projects that seek to
detect significant alterations of wetland ecosystems
through an analysis of change in functions.
* Evaluating restoration projects designed to improve
wetland conditions by estimating changes in functioning
over time.
COMMENTS: Although designedfor different purposes, both approaches are flexible and have multiple
applications.
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1 -800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands. Printed on Recycled Paper
-------

Biological Assessment
[Index of Biological Integrity (IB 1)1
Functional Assessment
[Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach]
Key
Steps
in
Developing
Assessment
Method
(1) Classify wetlands into biologically distinct classes.
Can use a variety of classification techniques (e.g.,
ecoregions, HGM classification, Cowardin, etc.) or some
combination.
(2) For each wetland class, select wetlands across a
gradient of human disturbance from minimally impaired
reference wedands to severely degraded wetlands.
(3) Select one or more assemblages (e.g.,
macroinvertebrates, vascular plants) to monitor.
(4) Directly measure attributes of the selected
assemblage (e.g„ taxa richness, community
composition) and corresponding chemical and physical
data in the wetlands.
(5) Identify metrics, which are attributes which show an
empirical and predictable change in value along the
gradient of human disturbance (Fact Sheet @). Combine
metrics into an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI). Test
and validate IBI. If more than one assemblages are
measured, then each should have its own IBI.
A properly constructed IBI will detect damage of a
wetland caused by a variety of chemical, physical, or
biological stressors. An IBI will also help diagnose the
type of stressor(s) that caused the damage. After the IBI
has been tested and validated, scientists can use the IBI
to screen wetlands for signs of degradation without
having to conduct expensive chemical and physical
analyses. If signs of degradation are detected, then the
scientists can conduct more extensive biological
measurements and chemical and physical tests to
determine the stressors impacting the wetland. By
understanding how biological assemblages respond to
increasing human disturbance, wetland managers can
predict how the taxa richness and composition of
assemblages may change following alternative
development approaches, restoration activities, or
conservation measures.
(1) Classify wetland by geomorphic setting for the
purpose of partitioning natural variation, thus allowing
variation by impacts to be more easily detected within a
regional subclass.
(2) Develop a profile for the wetland subclass that
characterizes it according to its geology, hydrology,
biogeochemistry, plant and animal communities, and
typical alterations that have occurred historically. This
profile, in addition to identifying functions characteristic
of the subclass, should be assembled by an
interdisciplinary group of professionals (fields of
hydrology, geomorphology, soil science, plant and animal
community ecology, ecosystem ecology, etc.) familiar
with the region and the technical literature.
(3) Identify reference standard wetlands from a subset of
reference sites that are relatively unaltered or natural, and
characterize these sites by estimating or measuring
indicators and field variables that will be used to develop
models which relate the measurements to functions.
(4) Develop scales for variables that distinguish the
reference standard wetlands from those that are degraded.
(5) Combine variables into HGM models of functions.
Test and validate HGM models. After models have been
tested and validated, users will be able to quickly apply
the models to wetlands that have been proposed for
alteration or restoration.
(6) Properly constructed and tested HGM models of
functions for a specific subclass will quantify differences
and similarities between a wetland that is being sampled
and reference standard wetlands. The models will also be
useful in predicting changes that will result from
proposed alterations to the site.
COMMENTS: Both methods require the development or refinement of regionally appropriate assessment methods.
Wetland ecosystems are the unit of assessment and comparison in both approaches, not individualJunctions.
Under HGM, the score of a variable or function index can never exceed the score of a reference standard wetland.
Presentation
of
Assessment
Results
• summary IBI score.
• narrative description of overall biotic condition in
comparison to reference wetlands of the same region and
wetland type.
• numerical value of each metric.
• narrative description of metric in comparison to
reference wetlands of the same region and wetland type.
COMMENTS: HGM does not use an overall, summary so
impaired wetlands as their measuring sticks. Both approc
same region and type. For example, both approaches wo
England bogs and a minimally impacted bog would receh
• no overall, summary score.
• index value of each function in comparison reference
standard of wetlands in same reference domain and HGM
class or subclass.
• index value of each variable with supporting narrative
describing estimates and measurements.
(See last page for definitions of HGM reference terms)
ore to compare wetlands. Both approaches use minimally
iches only compare wetlands to other wetlands of the
rid compare a New England bog only to other New
>e the highest score.
-------

Biological Assessment
[Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)j
Functional Assessment
[Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach]
Method of
Classifying
Wetlands
Wetlands occur in many landscape positions with a
variety climatic, hydrologic, and soil conditions. As a
result, the community composition and diversity of an
assemblage (e.g., amphibians) will naturally vary
between wetland types. When examining how an
assemblage is affected by a stressor, too much natural
variation in the data can make it difficult or impossible
to detect signs of impairment Thus, in bioassessments,
the purpose of classifying wetlands is to group wetlands
with assemblages of similar diversity and composition,
and separate those wetlands with assemblages that are
not similar. The goal is to avoid comparing apples to
oranges. By minimizing natural variation within classes
and making sure that wetlands within a class respond
similarly to human disturbances, it is much easier to
identify signs of degradation. Current wetland
bioassessment projects use a variety of classification
systems, such as ecoregions and the HGM classification
method (See Fact Sheet ©). Researchers often start with
a method or a combination of methods and then lump or
split as needed based on biological data to end up with
classes of biologically distinct wetlands.
The HGM approach identifies 7 geomorphic settings of
wetlands as guidance for the identification of regional
subclasses that function similarly (i.e, riverine,
depressional, slope, mineral soil flat, organic soil flat,
estuarine fringe, lacustrine fringe). Settings differ by
dominant sources of water and hydrodynamics {e.g., flow
rates and fluctuations of water within the wetland). Local
vernacular is preferred in naming regional subclasses as
long as it is recognized that vegetation cover types may
not vary between some subclasses that are functionally
distinct.
COMMENTS: The HGM classification system can provide a good starting point for biological assessment
programs. For bioassessment projects, one option is to classify first by ecoregion and then by HGM class or
subclass. Then lump or split these classes as needed based on preliminary bioassessment data.
Definition
of
Reference
Terms
In bioloeical assessments, the terminoloev for reference
conditions is based on the protocols that have been
developed for assessing the condition of streams, lakes,
and estuaries. From this heritage, a reference site or
reference wetland is a minimally imnaired wetland that
is representative of the expected ecological conditions of
a wetland of a particular type and region. The reference
sites serve as the measuring stick to determine the
integrity of other wetlands. Each biologically distinct
class of wetlands has its own set of reference sites. For
example, bogs are only compared to other minimally
impaired bogs and prairie potholes are only compared to
other minimally impaired prairie potholes.
When developing an IBI, however, researchers compare
the condition of an assemblage (e.g., birds) in reference
sites and impaired wetlands that represent a gradient of
human disturbance. No term has been developed for
the impaired wetlands or for the larger set of wetlands
(reference and impaired wetlands).
The HGM approach identifies a suite of terms to facilitate
assessments and recognize ambiguities that often develop
in the regulatory environment if terminology is not
defined. Only cryptic definitions are given here for
expediency, and include:
(U reference domain ("the eeoeraohic extent of a wetland
subclass),
(21 reference wetlands (all sites within the reference
domain, regardless of their condition),
G") reference standard sites ta subset of reference wetland
sites that are judged to be least altered),
(4*1 reference standards (conditions exhibited bv reference
standard sites that are reflective of characteristic levels of
functioning),
(5} site potential (the best conditions that can be achieved
on a site within local constrains of land use, etc.),
C6"1 proiect tareet (level of functioning neeotiated for
enhancement, restoration, or creation),
(7) proiect standards foerformance criteria or
specifications to guide activities toward project target).
COMMENTS:
IBI's reference wetland is equivalent to HGM's reference standard sites.
JBI's reference conditions is equivalent to HGM's reference standards.
Shared reference sites will enable better coordination of biological andfunctional assessments and will enhance
both sets of objectives. Biological assessments can help determine if HGM reference domains and subclasses need
to be split or altered by providing information about the geographic variation of biological communities
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of V\feter
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (4502-F)
EPA843-F-98-001g
July 1998
Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet ©
Water Quality Standards
The main objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's water." To help meet these objectives, states must adopt water quality standards (WQS) for all
"waters of the U.S." within their boundaries, including wetlands. Water quality standards, at a minimum consist of three
major components:
-------
States and tribes can adopt numeric criteria to protect both human health and aquatic life support. For example,
numeric human health criteria include maximum levels of pollutants in water that are not expected to pose significant risk
to human health. The risk to human health is based on the toxicity of and level of exposure to a contaminant. States and
tribes can apply numeric human health criteria (such as for drinking water) to all types of water bodies, including wetlands.
Numeric chemical or physical criteria for aquatic life, however, depend on the characteristics within a water body.
Since characteristics of wetlands (such as hydrology, pH, and dissolved oxygen) can be substantially different from other
water bodies, states and tribes may need to develop some physical and chemical criteria specifically for wetlands.
Numeric biological criteria can describe the expected attributes and establish values based on measures of taxa
richness, presence or absence of indicator taxa, and distribution of classes of organisms. Many states have developed
biological assessment methods for streams, lakes, and rivers, but few states and tribes have developed methods for
wetlands. Several states, including Florida, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio are currently
developing biological assessment methods for monitoring the "health" of wetland plant and animal communities. Wetland
biological assessment methods are essential to establish criteria that accurately reflect conditions found in wetlands.
(D Antidegradation Policy
All state standards must contain an antidegradation policy, which declares that the existing uses of a water body must
be maintained and protected. Through an antidegradation policy, states must protect existing uses and prevent water
bodies from deteriorating, even if water quality is better than the minimum level established by the state or tribal water
quality standards. States and tribes can use antidegradation statements to protect waters from impacts that water quality
criteria cannot fully address, such as physical and hydrologic changes.
States and tribes can protect exceptionally significant waters as outstanding national resource waters (ONRW).
ONRWs can include waters, such as some wetlands, with special environmental, recreational, or ecological attributes. No
degradation is allowed in waters designated as ONRW. States can designate waters that need special protection as ONRWs
regardless of how they ecologically compare to other waters. For example, although the water of a swamp may not
support as much aquatic life as a marsh, the swamp is still ecologically important A state or tribe could still designate the
swamp as an ONRW because of its ecological importance.
Applications of WQS
WQS provide the foundation for a broad range of management activities. WQS can serve as the basis to:
• Assess the impacts of nonpoint source discharges on waterbodies under CWA §319,
• Assess the impacts of point source discharges on waterbodies under CWA §402,
* Determine if federally permitted or licensed activities maintain WQS under CWA §401 water quality certification, and
* Track and report if waterbodies are supporting their designated uses under CWA §305(b).
Additional Information
The following EPA publications provide more information about WQS for wetlands and other surface waters:
* "Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National Guidance" (EPA/440/S-90-011)
* "Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters"
(EPA/440/5-90-004)
• "Procedures for Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria" (EPA/822/B-92-002)
• "The Quality of OurNation's Water: 1994" (EPA/84l/S-94-002)
(Some of these are available on http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/wqual.html)
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (4502-F)
EPA843-F-98-001h
July 1998
Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet ©
Evaluating Performance of
Wetland Restoration Activities
Perhaps the most commonly neglected component of wetland restoration projects is a clearly defined
approach to evaluate the success of the restoration activities. How well do current wetland restoration
techniques work? Are they effective at restoring a balanced, adaptive community of plants and animals? How
do the conditions in restoration sites compare to conditions in minimally impaired sites?
One way to tell if a wetland is recovering properly is to periodically assess the condition of one or more
biological assemblages, such as plants, amphibians, or macroinvertebrates. Wetland managers can rapidly
assess the condition of an assemblage using biological assessment methods based on a regionally appropriate
index of biological integrity (IBI). An IBI is constructed by combining at least eight attributes of an
assemblage that each show an empirical and predictable responses across a gradient of anthropogenic
disturbance (See Fact Sheet €>). When applying an existing IBI to a new region or wetland type, make sure to
validate the metrics and calibrate the IBI scores to regional conditions. Below are some helpfiil suggestions to
keep in mind when using an IBI to track the recovery of a wetland.
• Compare restoration site to reference wetlands - Reference wetlands are minimally impaired sites that are
representative of the expected ecological conditions and integrity of other wetlands of the same type and
region. By comparing a biological assemblage {e.g., macroinvertebrates) of a restoration site to a similar
assemblage found reference sites, wetland managers can determine the relative condition of the wetland.
Figure 1 shows a hypothetical example of comparing the
IBI scores of a restoration site to average IBI scores of
reference wetlands over ten years.
It is important to compare the IBI scores of the
restoration site and reference sites from the same year
to identify regional trends that may effect all wetlands
in an area. For example, there may have been a
drought in Year 4, which would account for the dip in
the curves on Figure 1.
Year
Sample during proper time of year - Bioassessment protocols typically require
that sampling be conducted within a certain time of the year, which is often
called an index period. The diversity and composition of an assemblage can vary considerably at different
times of the year. Sampling at the wrong time of year will provide data that can not be used. In addition,
some assemblages can only be sampled at certain times of the year because of their seasonal life cycles.
For example, the best time to sample adult frogs is during the breeding season when many species
congregate in ponds and vernal pools.
&EPA
Figure 1: Hypothetical Bioassessment Scores of a
Restoration Site and Reference Wetlands
40
o»
S
8
S
o
a
30
20
10
+ A * +

~ •

—+—. Reference

— Restoration
1 i i ; 1.
Site

n q in
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1-800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands. Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
CASE STUDY: USGS, Biological Resources Division, Patuxeni Wildlife Research Center
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wetlands Science Institute
The interdisciplinary team of researchers is developing a biological assessment method to evaluate the
success of wetland restoration activities. They are conducting research in Delmarva Bays, which are
depressional, freshwater wetlands that are common on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The wetlands in this
study fall into two groups. The first group includes 24 wetlands which were previously used for agriculture
and been restored during the past 10 years. The second group includes 10 minimally impaired wetlands,
which they are using for reference wetlands. The reference wetlands are at different successional stages to
help understand how the biological communities may change over time. Some of the reference wetlands
have open water and emergent vegetation while others are only seasonally inundated and have trees.
For each of the restoration and reference sites, the team or researchers is taking measurements of the
following components of the wetland ecosystems:
•
Hydrology and Soil
•
Water Chemistry
•
Vascular Plants
•
Maeroinvertebrates
•
Amphibians
•
Birds
•
Mammals
Their goal is to identify reliable indicators of wetland condition. For each component, they are testing a
variety of attributes to identify metrics that show clear, empirical changes in value across a gradient of
disturbance, from the minimally impaired wetlands to the most severely degraded wetlands. They intend to
develop standardized methods for gathering and analyzing these metrics. Eventually, they intend to develop
IBIs for one or more assemblages (See Fact Sheet ©). After developing the IBIs, they will be able to
determine the condition of other restored, depressional wetlands in the region. They will also gain valuable
information about the effectiveness of different wetland restoration methods.
BENEFITS OF EVALUATING PERFORMANCE
In the long run, the cost of periodically conducting biological assessments will probably be small compared
to benefits that come from such assessments. Wetland managers will benefit by:
• Determining the effectiveness of their methods and learning how to improve methods,
• Learning how to avoid common mistakes,
• Improving investment of restoration money and increasing ecological return of investments,
• Avoiding the substantial financial and ecological costs of spending money on ineffective restoration
techniques and having to make second attempts at restoring sites,
• Recording the effects of extraneous events (e.g., drought, beaver activity) that may hinder recovery,
• Incorporating unexpected results into an adaptive management process or simply re-evaluating restoration
objectives,
• Acquiring reliable, quantitative data that can help (1) communicate results to managers and the public, (2)
resolve disputes, and (3) support grant applications to fond future projects.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
aid Watersheds {4502-F)
EPA843-F-98-OOT i
July 1998
&EPA Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet 0
Involvement of Volunteers in
Wetland Monitoring
The involvement of volunteers in ecological monitoring programs is a realistic, cost-effective, and beneficial
way to obtain important information which might otherwise be unavailable due to lack of resources at
government agencies. Initiatives such as Riverwatch, Adopt-a-Stream,
and the Izaak Walton League's Save-Our-Streams program have been
highly successful in maintaining groups of interested volunteers as well
as in yielding data useful to scientists, planners, and concerned citizens.
Although many programs aim to assess the health of streams and lakes,
relatively few volunteer programs have attempted to monitor and
document the biological condition or functional values of wetlands.
The diversity of wetland types can also complicate efforts to monitor
wetlands. It is nevertheless feasible to use volunteers to help collect
valuable data on wetlands, such as water levels, vegetation types, water
quality, and composition of plant and animal assemblages. It is also
feasible for volunteers to monitor specific plants or animals, such as
non-native weeds or amphibians.
Volunteer Monitoring Fosters a Sense of Stewardship
Volunteer monitoring programs empower citizens to become more active stewards of wetlands in their
communities. Volunteer programs provide an opportunity for land owners, children, and other community
members to become more familiar with the functions and values of wetlands in their watershed as well as the
pressures placed on these resources. Informed citizens can play a key role in encouraging land and water
stewardship in all sectors of society, from industry to private homeowners, and from housing developers to
municipal sewage treatment managers.
Volunteer Monitoring Provides Valuable Data
Volunteer monitoring programs can provide data for federal, state, tribal, and local water quality agencies and
private organizations. Although these data are generally not as rigorous as data collected by trained
professionals, organizations can use these data to screen areas that otherwise may not be assessed. If the
volunteers spot warning signs, they can alert professionals to the
problem, and the professionals can follow up with more detailed
assessments.
EPA Volunteer Monitoring Web Site
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/vol.htral
EPA Wetland Volunteer Monitoring Site
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/wquai.html
Facts About Volunteer. Water
Quality Monitoring Programs
• There are more than 500 volunteer
monitoring programs nationwide
evaluating the water quality of
wetlands, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and
other waterbodies.
• More than 340,000 volunteers of all
ages and backgrounds participate.
In 1995, elementary school students in
Minnesota discovered frogs with
malformations. They captured the
Nation's attention and professionals
and other volunteers have subsequently
found malformed amphibians across the
Great Lakes region and northern New
England.
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1-800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetteiKls. Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Volunteers can monitor wetlands for a variety of objectives. The following four case studies illustrate different
objectives for volunteer monitoring.
CASE STUDY: MONITORING MITIGATION SITES
The Maryland Department of the Environment is implementing a
citizen-based program to monitor nontidal mitigation wetlands. The
project has developed a monitoring manual and training seminars.
Volunteers are trained to collect baseline data on vegetation density
and groundwater elevations on state-developed programmatic wetland
mitigation sites. Information gathered from this study provides
resource managers with quantitative, site-specific data for direct
comparison with established performance standards.
[Contact: Denise Clearwater, (410) 631-8094]
CASE STUDY: MONITORING COASTAL WETLANDS
In 1995-1996, Save-the-Bay, in partnership with the EPA Narragansett
Bay Estuary Program, developed a method for characterizing the
health of tidal and formerly tidal coastal marshes. Through Save-the-Bay's Habitat Protection and Restoration
Program, over 100 trained volunteers have participated in the evaluation of marshes in Rhode Island and
Massachusetts. Nearly 1,885 acres (or 60%) of Narragansett Bay's marshes have been evaluated by volunteers
and reviewed by Save-the-Bay's staff. There is a standard QA/QC protocol for all such evaluations. Several of
the monitoring sites are on golf courses, and cooperation with these golf courses has been a carefully
orchestrated part of the marsh monitoring effort. [Contact: Andy Lipsky, (401) 272-3540.]
CASE STUDY: INCORPORATING MONITORING INTO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
Caddo Lake Institute (Project WET Texas) uses Caddo Lake, a large, shallow, cypress-dominated wetland, as a
living laboratory for wetland science training. The institute targets teachers in local colleges, universities, and
public schools with the intention of getting students involved in a long-term commitment to environmental
research. Groups from five different high schools and six colleges associated with the institute currently monitor
23 sites on Caddo Lake. Other sites in the upper watershed, including constructed wetlands, are monitored as
well. [Contact: Sara Kneipp, (903) 938-3545]
CASE STUDY: TRAINING VOLUNTEERS TO CONDUCT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is training volunteers to assess the biological integrity of wetlands in a
pilot project. The volunteers learn sampling methods, quality assurance protocols, and how to identify plants,
insects, and other animals living in the wetlands. Initial results indicate that the volunteer assessments, although
not as rigorous as the professional assessments, provide repeatable results that are consistent with the more
detailed, professional assessments. [Contact: Judy Helgen, (612) 296-7240]
EPA Wetland-Related Volunteer Monitoring Publications*
EPA. The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Qualify Assurance Project Plans, EPA 841-B-96-003
IP A. Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 440/4-91-002
EPA Region 10 (Northwest). Wetland Walk Manual: A Guidebook for Citizen Participation. EPA 9I0/B-95-007
Miller, T., J. Martin, L. Storm, and €. Bertolotto. 1996. Monitoring Wetlands: A Manualfor Training Volunteers
(Collaboration between EPA Region 10 and King County)
[ Source: Adopt-a-Beach, 4649 Sunnyside Ave. N, Rm 305, Seattle, WA 98103. Cost; $15 ]
* Electronic versions of most EPA volunteer monitoring publications are available on either the EPA Volunteer Monitoring or Wetland
Division web sites (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/voI.html or http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/wqual.htm!)
Keys to a Successful Program
• Strong links between volunteers,
government agencies, private
organizations, and technical experts.
• Standardized methods.
• Simple instructions.
• Quality assurance protocols.
• Monitoring plan based on answering
specific questions and objectives.
• Adequate trainer/volunteer ratios.
• Permission to access wetlands.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds (4602-F)
EPAS43-F-S6-00fj
July 1998
&EPA Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheet ©
Glossary of Bioassessment Terms
Ambient Monitoring: Monitoring within natural systems (e.g., lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands) to determine existing
conditions.
Assemblage: An association of interacting populations of organisms in a given waterbody. Examples of assemblages used
for biological assessments include: algae, amphibians, birds, fish, herps (reptiles and amphibians), maeroinvertebrates
(insects, crayfish, clams, snails, etc.), and vascular plants.
Attribute: A measurable component of a biological system. (Karr, J.R., and E.W. Chu. 1997. Biological Monitoring and
Assessment: Using Multimetric Indexes Effectively. EPA 235-R97-001. University of Washington, Seattle)
Biological Assessment (bioassessment): Using biomonitoring data of samples of living organisms to evaluate the condition
or health of a place {e.g., a stream, wetland, or woodlot).
Biological Criteria (biocriteria): Numerical values or narrative expressions that describe the condition of aquatic, biological
assemblages of reference sites of a given aquatic life use designation.
Biological Integrity: "...the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, adaptive community of
organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitats
within a region." (Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental
Management 5:55-68)
Biological Monitoring (biomonitoring): Sampling the biota of a place (e.g., a stream, a woodlot, or a wetland)
Biota: The plants and animals living in a habitat
Composition (structure1): The composition of the taxanomic grouping such as fish, algae, or maeroinvertebrates relating
primarily to the kinds and number of organisms in the group.
Community: All the groups of organisms living together in the same area, usually interacting or depending on each other for
existence.
Criteria (singular = criterion): Statements of the conditions presumed to support or protect the designated use or uses of a
waterbody. Criteria may be narrative or numeric.
Designated Use: Classification designated in water quality standards for each waterbody or segment that defmes the optimal
purpose for that waterbody. Examples - drinking water use and aquatic life use.
Diatom: Microscopic algae with cell walls made of silicon and of two separating halves.
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.
Ecological Assessment: A detailed and comprehensive evaluation of the status of a water resource system designed to detect
degradation and if possible, to identify causes of that degradation.
Ecological Integrity: The condition of an unimpaired ecosystem as measured by combined chemical, physical (including
physical habitat), and biological attributes.
Ecoregion: Regions defined by similarity of climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegetation, hydrology, and other
ecologically relevant variables.
Functions: The roles that wetlands serve, which are of value to society or environment.
For further information, contact the EPA Wetlands Information Hotline (contractor operated) at 1-800-832-7828 or
visit the Wetlands Division home page at htJp^Avww.epa.gov/OWOW/wetiands. Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Functional Groups: A means of dividing organisms 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., borrower, climber, dinger).
Habitat: The sum of the physical, chemical, and biological environment occupied by individuals of a particular species,
population, or community.
Herpetiles: Reptiles and amphibians.
Hydrogeomorphic ("HGM1 Classification: A wetland classification system based on the position of a wetland in the
landscape (geomorphic setting), dominant sources of water, and the flow and fluctuation of water once in the wetland.
Hydrogeomorphic classes include riverine, depressional, slope, mineral soil flats, organic soil flats, estuarine fringe, and
lacustrine fringe.
Hydrogeomorphic fHGMI Approach: A functional assessment method which compares a wetland's condition to similar
wetland types (as defined by HGM classification) that are relatively unaltered. HGM functions normally fall into one of
three major categories: (1) hydrologic (e.g., storage of surface water), (2) biogeochemical (e.g., removal of elements and
compounds), and (3) habitat (e.g., maintenance of plant and animal communities).
Hydrology: The science of dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water both on the surface and under
the earth.
Impact: A change in the chemical, physical (including habitat), or biological quality or condition of a waterbody caused by
external forces.
Impairment: A detrimental effect on the biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an impact that prevents attainment of
the designated use.
Index (plural = indices or indexes): An integrative expression of site condition across multiple metrics. An index of
biological integrity Is often composed of at least 7 metric. (Karr, J.R., and E.W. Chu. 1997. Biological Monitoring and
Assessment: Using Multimetric Indexes Effectively. EPA 235-R97-001. University of Washington, Seattle)
Index of Biological Integrity: An integrative expression of the biological condition that is composed of multiple metrics.
Similar to the Dow Jones Industrial index used for expressing the condition of the economy.
Macroinvertebrates: Animals without backbones that can be seen with the naked eye (caught with a 1 mm2 mesh net).
Includes insects, crayfish, snails, mussels, clams, fairy shrimp, etc.
Metric: An attribute with empirical change in value along a gradient of human influence. (Karr, J.R., and E.W. Chu. 1997.
Biological Monitoring and Assessment: Using Multimetric Indexes Effectively. EPA 235-R97-00I. University of Washington,
Seattle)
Pollution: The Clean Water Act (§502.19) defines pollution as "the [hu]man-made or [hujman-induced alteration of
chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water."
Reference Condition: Set of selected measurements or conditions of minimally impaired waterbodies characteristic of a
waterbody type in a region.
Reference Site: A minimally impaired site that is representative of the expected ecological conditions and integrity of other
sites of the same type and region.
Taxa (singular=taxon): A grouping of organisms given a formal taxonomic name such as species, genus, family, etc.
Taxa Richness: The number of distinct species or taxa that are found in an assemblage, community, or sample.
Water Quality Standard: A legally established state regulation consisting of three parts: (1) designated uses, (2) criteria, and
(3) antidegradation policy (See Fact Sheet ®).
Wetland: 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. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, an similar areas. (Cowardin et al. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife
Service. FWS/OBS-79/31)
-------