&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4502F)
EPA 843-S-97-001
July 1997
Wetlands: Biological
Assessment Methods And
Criteria Development Workshop
Proceedings
September 18 - 20,1996
Boulder Colorado
-------
mwmmvm « :
; it m I ; f; ' ill « BWP 3 i $ ii I s *
!l-:«! i iti ; in , (lliiil, it-li !:! mil ill! i ! ' i: I i:i ii! , If !)!, i in i ! ! i i !!:i !: I"
'i " i . i ' i
:;i{ " i;r!,: '".'. '« ''"I"'.1; "~f :i
[j vf; 'i ;;"!r : ;"! > ,"' l!l i!llili~i!!!iTTST: 5""t"'!: ;w I;nl inn'11 ipi"";;;1'|! t "i ;IT'"T!!, !""" ; n; "'"j1"
! i :: ilii i ! ii! : 2 ! II = S 1= I ! S : g 1 : && 1
.
Si I ! :i '=' ' ii!!i "= "="" "!! " : '! j=j f==!p ,!! i f "=' f* fj;I i!| t * fd
iiiiiiii ! ' I "111,!.'! X ""'- " -""'I.!! j £C "IIIIi!!1!1! !»!!I!!!!!!"!!;!! !!T IliE"!!'"! 1!! :!:I":!!'!!"I! I! Ill I!"I, I!:111,!!!! "'""I" I; III'III!!!!!!' Ill I! 1II11, i" IS,!!'!'!!!! i !!!!!, j|!i!I!l" !!i i 5i ;!',!' !i T1!! li"!IT I I
ii %= i r < ';i! - * I I f I ; !!'if * T* f 1 F" !li!l!|!! ! '' ! i ; j i i*W t11 :?li =! '
.^i^X,;,
r : ' ;; i ;:; n ; i1 llr ;; i; ! . :; i »i :, . ;. '. ; i - n ;:., .,.,,,.., K Tll , ,,,, , ,; ;; ; in ., ;.| : .p.: iyT ;T : ; i,. ; ' r r .. s »' ;.; ; «.; : ;i
|Sfc CflJ^^^BRjS %p$^naq^ tt^^^^JV^J^^jS^tt'SSlS'.^
j-Sii '.;»j" ;, i": ''"'"-'i I1' ''"' I' i'1!1" "'f i; '"ill! i' j '". ,:1""' ''ifi;'"''' ^. >*::,;;??; "' - ' $ \: '$''$:',' i jj I ^4 - 'ft.,' jf'1 ;;i;";||»"Ji:":,' f; j!'.;'';'" |(' |' $ i ^j^l^iS;- |;| ' if;1'1' * "'^i, ji;"' Jii;''" f ;'f: :ii' i1"' /ifc;; V;' -;!: li; ijS
'"^l^^
|:i';i'L*iSj'i'1 'lif'-'fi''-^'.'!." v''";''.'!".!''.''!.''''''i' ''*&"""
i'";"". 'ii 'lit jJlSffj"!!"!"' iilt'fc; "'iT,;.'"!"" ^!ft'^*; *! ^ '.;;
;.
! i; ! i:!, 'its I::::- , S '. : S, ii±i :,!
:- . .
..... ^:^i^
ife-: r-ii ...!f1T;- ',.; - J i,,1:,,i,i. i,,
>
' .
sfiiiSiifffiSSiffliii
,
f MI; .>$;iV .:".( (;
^ ? 7il
! ibii^^^^^^
-*! ' '' "l"' : J i!.';');' ''.,. ./.^;t;fi^" .««!!; |.; '' ^ " '" f i.'- i»i']'i'j,f| fs'''', !' ''j)^ *.;-,' t '|> ^l^V^^'.^'^l'/jj^to;'^ "ii'lj.pi . -.' '^ .;!;;;; t jf . ^' i^j,' T, I ii';'''i ..I I if
;i I iij! , i Is: it ii; .; ,lu 4,. , ; ii. m^
fill ii l iiiiijiii i iii ii iii : ii ii Hi ii iii iliiia^ ii ii n
iiii i^ iii:: i i ijsm iii i; i !si ^
JSPRP! "i":;": I i"'' tf il" 'if5 ^ 'TlW'1*^^:
:i^ ids .
- i inii i , . ;U
te ' to iii!i|i ! i ii'; P & f1
M1!!'1 « IB i-i '; I I l««ni"- ! .""',.' ''I'
i* w; _»[ -i; IT j..,,i-i. j. Jjjfrjr*.''11^' i [ ["
I1: i liiiii i ; ' iii : i. ifli i iii i .{i - i i; L ii:
I ! ; ""ii !|| il l-i" i -i i I-. "i* -I j !..!ii.
I' 'ij':'1."';; ;,' :i' 4\ iii" '"I K;V r ;, '. , ii:; *1,
"i| Hi*11;11 'h'jj'v '"fji'Mi'j .|i\- ;i !"."' '! \ !* :'<.<: j,v '; T',:.'": ':;';, -' "i|: ''!, * f: ";' : >'',:| .'-S '.i | '='".-'' «; ' :,;'!' -;.;".. *
1 63 ! S if i: :ll ii I iriii iiiiii , i I, 'i: '!' I M l! S Iii && HS i Ii M
I:!'. ',; ; ;i ,;.,;i;.. ;;; i i. - ;; V:' ;.: : ii1
!-.'I'.;.!"-;'i1';'.1.;,..! i!,.'..I.,1*.1 "' ,'i'i :"r ...*f",...' ' .
.i","!...;,;'!!",',!!. l"l;i .:,!,;.;. i^,:'-.; ' ' ^
,;,:|l"!!i1''t 'i "tiitiiSt .'Ii',;..;",: jit-i.1'!'.i>.;";,";; "i1,"'
i*W? i'ffl i I': "f"! i"*1!' I";!" **rCTn- WWfll "'!"
i ^ i l! ]^.>i:w^ lK:^fft
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20,1996. Boulder, Colorado.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION & WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION ... iii
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS .1
An overview of EPA's National Wetlands Program. John Meagher .................. 2
Wetlands monitoring and assessment: New directions in wetlands protection.
Doreen Robb Vetter 3
Biological criteria for wetlands. Susan Jackson 4
Federal efforts in indicator development. Elizabeth Fellows .....' 5
SESSION 1 - HGM: INTRODUCTION, PRINCIPLES, AND PROCEDURES , 6
Introduction to HGM. E.J. Clairain, Jr. ,. 7
Comparisons and contrasts between functional assessment and other bioassessment
approaches. M.M. Brinson 8
HGM classification. M.M. Brinson 9
Development and use of reference wetland systems. L.C, Lee 10
Model development, calibration, and testing. D. Smith 11
LUNCHEON SPEAKER - Seeking suitable endpoints: Biological monitoring in streams and
wetlands. Dr. James R. Karr .. 12
SESSION 2 - HGM: APPLICATION TO STATE & FEDERAL PROGRAMS 15
Applying hydrogeomorphic (HGM) concepts to ecological indicator development.
R.P. Brooks -.- 16
The Mid-Atlantic HGM Riverine Initiative: Where we are and where we hope to go.
S.D. Eckles 17
Report to the City of Pacifica on the 75% design for restoring lower Calera Creek and
adjacent wetlands. L.C. Lee 18
SESSION 3 - REFERENCE-BASED WETLAND MONITORING PROJECTS 19
An overview of the hierarchical approach being used by the U.S. EPA's Wetlands Research
Program. M.E. Kentula .. 20
Can we apply concepts from the development of biological criteria in Ohio streams and
rivers to wetlands? C.O. Yoder and S. Fennessy 21
Structural approach for developing wetland biological criteria. M.C. Gernes 23
Wetland monitoring and development of wet meadow biocriteria for the Plarte River hi
central Nebraska. P. Currier 24
Developing bioassessment protocols for Montana wetlands. R. Apfelbeck 25
Table of Contents
Page i
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
SESSION 4 - MULTIMETRIC INDEX DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 26
Birds as bioindicators of wetland condition: Indices, reference sites, and monitoring.
P.R. Adamus 27
Consideration of spatial and temporal scales in development of multi-metric indicators for
wetlands: Examples from the Prairie Pothole Region. N. Detenbeck 28
Wetlands index of biotic integrity: Development of invertebrate and vegetation-based
indices in degraded and reference wetlands. J. Helgen and M.C. Gernes ..... 29
Assessing reconstructed depressional wetlands in the mid-Atlantic states. B.M. Teels and
D. Sparling 30
Development of environmental performance measures for Florida's lower east coast water
supply plan. D.R. Swift 32
Measuring habitat for wildlife potential, and using aquatic invertebrate biomonitoring to
evaluate biological integrity in freshwater wetlands. A.L. Hicks 33
SESSION 5 - GENERAL DISCUSSION 34
Technical Issues Related to Bioassessment of Wetlands 35
Integrating Assessment Programs (TBI, HGMA) 39
APPENDBC-PARTICIPANT LIST A-l
Table of Contents
Page ii
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
INTRODUCTION & WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION
The Clinton Administration's Wetlands Plan calls for the interim goal of no overall net loss
of the Nation's wetlands, and the long-term goal of increasing the quantity and quality of the
Nation's wetlands resource base. In addition to the Administration's Plan, the main objective of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters" including wetlands. To track our progress towards achieving
these goals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Wetlands Division is working
cooperatively with federal, state, and tribal agencies to improve wetlands biological assessment
and monitoring techniques.
Biological assessment techniques are necessary to monitor the biological integrity of
wetlands and track the quality of the Nation's wetlands. Based on the CWA, each state
establishes water quality standards that consist of (1) designated uses (including aquatic life use),
(2) narrative and numeric criteria for supporting each designated use, and (3) an antidegradation
statement. By developing biological assessment techniques, states will be able to establish
narrative and numeric biological criteria. Based on these criteria, states can determine if waters
are meeting their designated uses (e.g., aquatic life use support) and report in CWA §305(b)
Water Quality Inventory reports to Congress. With biological assessment methods and
biological criteria in place, states can more effectively apply CWA §401 certification to address
potential cumulative impacts to watersheds. Biological assessment techniques will also provide
data necessary to more effectively target wetland protection and restoration efforts. States and
tribes can use biological assessments to identify wetlands impacted by human activities. Based
on periodic assessments, states and tribes can evaluate the success of pollution abatement and
habitat protection programs at maintaining and improving wetland conditions. States and tribes
can also use biological assessment methods to establish performance standards for wetland
restoration and mitigation. Wetland biological assessments will also provide data necessary to
include wetlands in watershed protection approaches.
In an effort to address the need for the development of wetland biological assessment and
monitoring techniques, U.S. EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds and Office of
Science and Technology sponsored this workshop to discuss (1) new ideas and strategies related
to wetland biological assessment techniques and criteria development, (2) the potential
incorporation of current functional assessment methodologies, including the Hydrogeomorphic
Approach (HGM), into EPA policies and state and tribal programs, and (3) whether we are ready
to take the next steps of developing biological assessment protocols and biocriteria guidance.
The workshop was designed to bring together interested individuals in federal, state, tribal, and
academic programs, who are currently involved in, or are planning to be involved in, developing
biological assessment methods or criteria for wetlands. Wetland managers and scientists must
develop the appropriate methods and techniques necessary to measure the integrity of wetland
resources if the goals of the Administration's Wetlands Plan and the CWA are to be successfully
achieved.
Introduction and Workshop Description
Page Hi
-------
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop'
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder,_ Colorado.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Introductory Remarks
Pagel
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
An overview of EPA's National Wetlands Program
John Meagher, Director, Wetlands Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S.
EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460; Phone (202) 260-1917; Fax (202) 260-2356;
meagher.john@epamail.epa.gov
SUMMARY:
Fiscal year 1997 is a landmark year for Clean Water legislation. Great strides have been
made over the last 25 years in wetlands protection but challenges remain. In August 1993,
President Clinton issued the Administration's Wetlands Plan. It incorporated broad input from
divergent interests resulting in the development of a comprehensive 40-point plan to enhance
wetlands protection while making wetlands regulations more fair, flexible, and effective. The
goal of the Plan is to achieve no overall net loss of the Nation's remaining wetland base, to
restore wetlands and, where feasible, to increase the quality and quantity of the Nation's wetlands
resource base. The Plan streamlines permitting, reduces federal overlap and redundancy,
enhances state, local, and tribal participation in wetlands programs, and works cooperatively with
landowners. Some accomplishments of the Plan include empowering state, tribal and local
government capacity and increasing funding for states and tribes to $15 million in FY95. The
next steps include improving techniques to assess wetlands of differing values; increasing
authority to state, tribal and local governments through watershed protection; and improving
mteragency coordination.
EPA is currently working on a wetlands strategic plan to focus our activities over the next
five to seven years. We hope to increase the emphasis on integrating wetlands protection with
watershed management efforts; invest hi capacity building for state and tribal governments; and
invest in technical assistance for partnerships in wetlands ecosystem protection.
Progress is being made to improve wetlands protection. From the mid-1970s through the
mid-1980s, wetlands were lost at an average rate of 290,000 acres per year. According to recent
estimates, from 1982 to 1992, approximately 70,000-90,000 acres of wetlands were lost on non-
federal lands each year. By 2005, we hope to begin to increase our wetland inventory. The
quality of our remaining wetlands is important. We plan to assess the health and integrity of our
wetlands using water quality standards as well as other existing tools. However, there remain
many assessment questions. We expect to hear more questions than answers during the course of
this workshop. This meeting is a first step toward understanding the status of the science and
where we need to go from here.
Introductory Remarks
Page 2
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado. __^_
Wetlands monitoring and assessment: New directions in wetlands protection
Doreen Robb Vetter, Wetlands Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S.
EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460; Phone (202) 260-1906; Fax (202)260-8000;
vetter.doreen@epamail.epa.gov
SUMMARY:
This workshop is the culmination of work that has been going on for several years. We
hope that it will provide an opportunity for the exchange of ideas and for discussion. This
workshop is a forum to discuss where we are hi the ongoing process of developing wetlands
biological criteria and assessment techniques, whether or not we are on the right path, and how
EPA can help to move the development process along. This meeting is designed as a working
meeting. We need to identify scientific and technical gaps in our knowledge and ultimately
create a roadmap for the future.
Our long term goals are to increase the quality of our wetlands and to protect wetland
integrity or condition using existing tools. EPA's perspective is that the federal government
should participate hi achieving these goals by providing a framework, promoting consistency
among states and tribes, disseminating information, and providing financial and technical
support. Tools currently available for protecting wetland quality include biocriteria,
antidegradation, water quality certification (§401), NPDES permitting (§402), and the
monitoring program (§305(b)).
Biological assessment, monitoring, and criteria exist hi a variety of forms. The first
generation of wetland assessment techniques developed from a need for rapid wetland functional
assessment that was applicable to §404. The next generation of techniques, including HGM,
HEP, and other techniques involve more comprehensive monitoring and incorporate reference
conditions. How can we build on these techniques? Each existing approach has a niche to fill.
Many states are currently monitoring wetlands to assess their wetlands, evaluate the natural range
of biological parameters, identify impairment, identify sources of impairment, set restoration
goals, and know when restoration has been successful.
The future steps hi assessment protocol and biological criteria development include
forming a network of wetland monitoring programs. We need to know what to measure and how
to measure it, cost effective approaches to monitoring, and we need to know how to set
appropriate goals. Data needs to be collected to determine a range of wetland conditions.
Reference sites need to be identified and monitoring protocols established. We still need to
identify indicators of function and condition. A large body of work has already been conducted.
Grants have been issued for indicator development and monitoring development (e.g., OH, MN,
MT, TX, MA, NE). Research has been conducted on vegetation, macroinvertebrates and
amphibians. We must look at the work that has already been done on certain types of wetlands
and on other systems, and put that work into a context that will work nationally for wetlands.
The charge to workshop participants is to build bridges, and determine how EPA can best
support your efforts to create a roadmap for biological assessment and criteria development.
Introductory Remarks
Page 3
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Biological criteria for wetlands
Susan Jackson, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC
20460; Phone (202)260-1800; Fax (202) 260-1036; jackson.susank@epamail.epa.gov
SUMMARY:
EPA has published technical guidance on the development of biological criteria for streams
and wadeable rivers and is working to complete technical guidance on lakes and reservoirs,
estuaries and near coastal waters, and coral reefs. In 1997 EPA will support work to develop
guidance on large rivers and on wetlands. Development of technical guidance and
implementation approaches for wetlands biological criteria will be both technically and
programmatically challenging. Technically because wetlands represent a broad range of
hydrologic conditions, especially ephemeral wetlands. Programmatically because wetlands
programs have traditionally been housed in different offices, sometimes agencies, than water
quality monitoring and standards programs.
Biological criteria can be used as a benchmark to measure progress hi attaining State water
quality goals, specifically a State's progress in achieving the long term CWA goal of biological
integrity. Based on the early work done by Dr. Jim Karr who will be addressing this audience
later today, biological integrity can be described as "a system that has balance, integrity, and an
adaptive community of organisms having a specific composition, division, and functional
organization comparable to that of the natural habitat of the region." EPA defines biological
criteria as "numerical values or narrative expressions that describe the reference biological
condition of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life use;
benchmarks for water resource evaluation and management decision-making" (EPA 822-B-96-
001). Establishing reference conditions is one of the cornerstones of biological criteria
development. Reference conditions provide the basis for evaluating and making judgments on
whether a site is impaired or not. Narrative standards must be statements that can be interpreted
into numbers.
Biocriteria development is a priority for OST. We are committed to a long-term, stepwise
approach to developing and adopting biological criteria into water quality standards.
Implementation guidance and case studies illustrating application of the criteria are being
developed. Biological criteria will provide a direct measure of wetland quality. They can
measure responses to an array of stressors and exposures and can show the impacts of many
currently unmeasured chemical stressors. Types of measures include community structure (taxa
richness, relative abundance, and dominance), taxa composition (identification, sensitivity, and
rare and endangered species), individual condition, and biological processes. Biocriteria are
representative of the community condition, they do not rely on a single species measure, they are
information rich, and they are predictive. EPA (OST, OWOW, and ORD) and other agencies are
involved in a stepwise process of guidance development including technical core workgroup
formation (including federal, state, and academic representation), review, feedback, peer review
(Science Advisory Board), federal register notice, and document production.
Introductory Remarks
Page 4
-------
Proceedings- 'Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Federal effort! in indicator development
Elizabeth Fellows, Chief, Monitoring Branch, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC
20460; Phone (202) 260-7062; Fax (202) 260-7024; feUows.elizabeth@epamail.epa.gov
SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency's Monitoring Branch has been collecting water
quality data (e.g. STORET, 305(b)) for a number of years but until now has not had a program to
evaluate national water quality. The objective of the indicator program is to determine how clean
our water is, whether our programs are working, and whether we are making progress toward our
goals. The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring (ITFM), which first met hi January
1992, determined that the following steps are necessary to meet the objectives of the indicator
program:
1. identify goals
2. identify indicators
3. identify methods
4. identify assessment techniques
5. report information
The EPA now has four means of providing water quality information: (1) the 305(b) monitoring
reports which will now be completed every five years, (2) the environmental indicators report,
(3) the Surf Your Watershed internet tool, and (4), the Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI)
(renamed from the National Watershed Assessment Program (NWAP)). The primary means of
assessing water quality is the 305(b) report to congress which includes voluntary, state, and tribal
reprots of water quality. The last 305(b) report concluded that approximately 60% of assessed
national waters are in good condition. However, only nine states reported water quality
information for wetlands in that report.
The first Environmental Indicators Report, which is the environmental equivalent of an
economic indicators report, came out this year. The water quality objectives that will help us
meet our goals are: to reduce and prevent pollution loadings, to conserve and improve ambient
conditions, to support designated uses, and to conserve and enhance public and ecosystem health.
Of the eighteen indicators hi the report, ten are state-developed indicators, six are from federal
agencies, and two are from private organizations. The wetland indicator in the report is historical
wetland loss by state (based on FWS and USDA data).
Other programs that the Monitoring Branch uses to evaluate the national water quality
include Surf Your Watershed and the IWI. Surf Your Watershed is a tool that is available on the
internet and, although it is not yet complete, it is continually being updated. The first IWI report,
expected early next year, will describe the water quality of 2,149 watersheds in the U.S.
Introductory Remarks
Page 5
-------
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
' September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
SESSION 1
HGM: INTRODUCTION, PRINCIPLES, AND PROCEDURES
HGM: Introduction, Principles, and Procedures
Page 6
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Introduction to HGM. M.M. Brinson, EJ. Clairain, Jr., L.C. Lee, and D. Smith
Ellis J. "Buddy" Clairain, Jr., Leader, Wetlands Research Team, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199;
Phone (601) 634-3774; Fax (601) 634-4016; clairae@exl.wes.army.mil
SUMMARY:
The session on the hydrogeomorphic classification and approach (HGM) will provide a
broad introduction to HGM and to the differences between HGM and other techniques. HGM
was developed in 1990 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station in
response to the need for an assessment technique that would satisfy Corps regulations. An
interagency coordination committee was formed in conjunction with interdisciplinary working
groups. HGM was designed to be a compromise between utilizing comprehensive data and
relying on the expertise of scientists. The objectives of HGM were to ensure that it is applicable
to §404 and that it focuses on functions, not values. Previous assessment methods either required
long-term monitoring, which was time and resource intensive, or relied on the subjectivity of
experts.
HGM is a two-phased approach. The object of the initial Development Phase is to classify
the wetland and to identify reference wetlands. To do so, an interdisciplinary assessment team
(A-team) is utilized. This phase begins with the classification of wetlands into regional wetland
subclasses based on hydrogeomorphic factors and the development of a functional profile of the
subclass. The profile describes the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the
subclass, identifies which functions are most likely to be performed, and identifies attributes that
influence each function. The HGM approach is based on reference wetlands and the expertise of
the A-team. The Development Phase also includes the development and calibration of
assessment models.
Phase two, the Application Phase, utilizes protocols that were created by the A-team to
collect and analyze data. This phase is conducted by field staff such as regulators, managers,
and/or consultants and includes a characterization of the wetland ecosystem, application of
assessment models, calculation of functional indices, and analysis.
HGM: Introduction, Principles, and Procedures
Page 7
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Comparisons and contrasts between functional assessment and other bioassessment
approaches. M.M. Brinson, EJ. Clairain, Jr., L.C. Lee, and D. Smith
Dr. Mark Brinson, Professor, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353; Phone
(919) 328-6307; brinsonm@mail.ecu.edu
SUMMARY:
The hydrogeomorphic approach (HGM) is an ecosystem assessment approach which (1)
classifies wetlands by geomorphic setting, water sources, and hydrodynamics for the purpose of
controlling for natural variation, (2) clearly defines functions relevant for the class, including the
logic for the relationship between structure and function, and (3) develops reference standards for
each class from least altered, relatively natural wetland sites. HGM differs from bioassessment
approaches in several ways, in part due to its initial design to support §404 of the Clean Water
Act through project-by-project application within a particular wetland assessment area. By using
functions as the "currency" for assessment of condition, the HGM approach provides a platform
upon which to apply recent research findings hi the form of hydrologic, biogeochemical, plant
community, and animal habitat studies. The functions also can be translated effectively into
goods and services (flood protection, water quality, etc.) that society considers valuable. HGM
detects ecosystem change (i.e., before and after an impact or restoration) and provides standards
toward which restoration projects can be designed and by which they can be evaluated.
Bioassessment approaches focus on the composition of biological communities as a
measure of biotic integrity. Its application to wetlands has shifted from strictly aquatic
organisms (e.g., macroinvertebrates and diatoms) associated with surface water to woody and
herbaceous plant community components that often receive only seasonal inundation, the
situation in many wetlands. Bioassessments rely little on the physical characteristics of the
ecosystem (water flows, soil conditions, nutrient status), but rather more on the response of the
biotic community to changes in these characteristics.
HGM and bioassessment approaches both assume that relatively unaltered ecosystems are
functioning optimally over a suite of functions characteristic for the subclass. Relatively
unaltered conditions should yield the highest scores using either assessment method. Both
approaches also require consensus on the least altered condition and both are reference-based.
HGM: Introduction, Principles, and Procedures
PageS
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
HGM classification. M.M. Brinson, E.J. Clairain, Jr., L.C. Lee, and D. Smith
Dr. Mark Brinson, Professor, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353; Phone
(919) 328-6307; brinsonm@mail.ecu.edu
SUMMARY:
The purpose of the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system is to classify wetlands
based on hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics that are responsible for maintaining many of
the functional aspects of wetland ecosystems. It relies almost exclusively on geomorphic,
physical, and hydrologic descriptors. This system controls for some of the natural variation in
wetlands and helps assessors distinguish between natural and anthropogenic variation. This
classification method addresses the need to view wetlands as components of landscapes. There
are seven proposed HGM classes for wetlands: riverine, depressional, slope, organic soil flats,
mineral soil flats, estuarine fringe, and lacustrine fringe. This broad classification is designed to
focus attention on how wetlands differ in their functions based on the driving forces of
geomorphic setting, water source, and hydrodynamics. When dealing with regional subclasses,
the nationwide classification is applicable hi principle but not necessarily in detail.
HGM classification does not replace other classification schemes (e.g., NWI, ecoregions,
Natural Heritage programs). HGM classification can utilize existing regional classifications and
nomenclature, especially those that place an emphasis on hydrogeomorphic descriptors. Once
the HGM classification is developed for a region, the biotic components become critical hi the
assessment of ecosystem condition.
HGM: Introduction, Principles, and Procedures
Page 9
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
-- September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Development and use of reference wetland systems. M.M. Brinson, EJ. Clairain, Jr., L.C.
Lee, and D. Smith
Dr. Lyndon C. Lee, Wetlands Ecologist, L.C. Lee & Associates, Inc., National Wetland Science
Training Cooperative, 221 1st Avenue West, Suite 415, Seattle, WA 98119; Phone (206)
283-0673; Fax (206) 283-0627
SUMMARY:
Reference, in the context of hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessments, is used as a
basis for comparing two or more wetlands of the same subclass. Reference puts functional
assessments on a local or regional basis. Reference allows use of a relative scale providing better
resolution and reflecting the "art of the possible." Reference establishes the range of variability
within the regional HGM subclass and establishes a regional standard of comparison.
A "reference domain" includes all wetlands within a defined geographic region that belong
to a single HGM subclass. The reference domain is developed by (1) defining the HGM subclass
based on project requirements and (2) defining the geographic region. The reference domain will
range from disturbed to relatively undisturbed wetlands. Domain can be defined by ecoregion,
extent of continental glaciation, political boundaries, or watershed boundaries.
"Reference wetlands" are wetland sites within the reference domain that encompass the
known variation of the subclass and are used to establish the range of functions within the
subclass. Reference wetlands are selected by: determining the HGM class and subclass,
defining the geographic limits of the wetland, consulting local experts and local maps, locating
sites representing different successional stages, sampling enough wetlands for diversity
(minimum of 20), visiting a suite of potential sites, and completing a profile of the wetlands.
"Reference standard sites" are sites within a reference wetland data set from which
reference standards are developed. These sites are those judged by an interdisciplinary team to
have the highest level of functioning.
"Reference standards" are conditions exhibited by a group of reference wetlands that
correspond to the highest level of functioning across the suite of functions of the subclass. "Site
potential" is the highest level of functioning possible given the local constraints. "Project target"
is the level of function identified for a restoration or creation project and is based on reference
standards or site potential and is consistent with project goals. "Project standards" are
performance criteria and/or specifications used to guide the restoration or creation activities
towards the project target.
HGM: Introduction, Principles, and Procedures
Page 10
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Model development, calibration, and testing. M.M. Brinson, EJ. Clairain, Jr., L.C. Lee, and
D. Smith
Dan Smith, Ecologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909
Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199; Phone (601) 634-2718; Fax (601) 634-4016;
smithrl@exl.wes.army.mil
SUMMARY:
The hydrogeomorphic approach (HGMA) includes hydrogeomorphic classification. The
objective of an HGMA model is to assess the ability of a wetland to perform a specific function
relative to similar wetlands in a region. In order to meet that objective, an HGMA model must
be: sensitive to a range of anthropogenic stressors commonly placed on wetland systems,
insensitive to the natural variation of wetland systems, capable of determining a loss or gain of
function, and capable of identifying the cause of the loss or gain of function. HGMA models are
developed by a team of experts and are applied by field staff. The components of an HGMA
model include: the variables or physical, chemical, or biological attributes of a wetland, the
variable index or number or category that defines the condition of a variable relative to reference
standards, and the functional capacity index which quantifies the capacity of a wetland to
perform a function relative to other wetlands from a regional wetland subclass in a reference
domain.
Developing an HGMA model includes defining functions, identifying and documenting the
variables, and verifying and validating the model. Functions must be defined so that they are
testable during the validation process. Calibration of the variable index involves sampling a
range of reference wetlands, deterrnining a range of variables with reference standard sites, and
setting the variable index of the maximum in the range of 0 to 1.0. Model verification is an
iterative process that includes determining whether the output is reasonable. Model validation is
necessary at both the variable index and at the functional capacity index levels.
HGM: Introduction, Principles, and Procedures
Page 11
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
^_ September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
LUNtHEON SPEAKER
Dr. James R. Karr
Seeking suitable endpoints: Biological monitoring in streams and wetlands; J.R. Karr
Dr. James R. Karr, Professor of Fisheries, Zoology, Environmental Health and Public Affairs,
Box 352200, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; Phone (206) 685-4748; Fax (206)
543-2025; jrkarr@u. washington.edu
ABSTRACT:
The development of multimetric biological indexes has advanced both the theory and
practice of biological monitoring. For streams, such indexes shifted a historical imbalance,
where monitoring chemical parameters was relied on to protect the "physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters." Properly used, multimetric biological indexes can (1)
detect degradation of living systems, (2) diagnose the likely causes of degradation, (3) identify
management actions that can halt or reverse degradation, and (4) track living systems to find out
if management efforts to restore degraded sites have succeeded. Biological monitoring is cost
effective and improves our ability to protect waterways and their associated resources.
The longer history of wetland protection has its analogies with stream protection. Partly to
convince the skeptical, wetland scientists have claimed that wetlands can be "delineated" and
stressed the importance of their "functions" to society. Yet replacement or "mitigation" of
specific functions did not retain the integrated values or complex roles played by natural
wetlands. Attention to hydrological or soil criteria did not detect biological degradation. The
developing HGM methodology is an important advance that will formalize and broaden the
functional approach. But is it broad enough? Does it give enough attention to measured
biological endpoints? Just as chemical criteria alone have not protected streams, functional
criteria may not be adequate to protect wetland landscapes. The goal for wetland protection
programs, like that for stream programs, should be to evaluate the impact of human activity on
wetland condition. Chemical and functional endpoints do not tell managers what they need to
know about the condition of living systems; direct measurements of biological attributes
elements as well as processes are essential.
Wetland delineation and classification, the major activity of past wetland protection
programs, should be balanced (replaced), by efforts to measure the effects of human actions on
wetland condition. To successfully use biological criteria in wetland management, one must (1)
select measurable biological attributes that furnish relevant and reliable signal about the effects
of human activities, (2) develop sampling designs and protocols for accurately measuring those
attributes (3) define analytical procedures to extract and interpret relevant patterns in the sample
data, and (4) communicate those results to policy makers and citizens so that all stakeholder
communities can contribute to public policy.
Luncheon Speaker
Page 12
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
NOTES:
Living systems provide a signature of disturbances that is understandable and convincing to
the public. The biological perspective needs to be at the core of communication with the public
about environmental policy. We need to remember that the political economy must be balanced
with political ecology.
In wetland assessment, there may be an overemphasis on classification currently.
Classification should guide monitoring and assessment, not define them. All of the differences
in wetlands and wetland types may not be relevant to our management goals. Additionally, there
has been a shift in classification recently towards abiotic characteristics (e.g., HGM) which may
not be the only important characteristics for classification.
Limitations of HGM:
defining functions is limiting; we do not understand the attributes of wetlands well enough
to define every function that will be known or valued in the future
HGM does not define/assess biological endpoints well
HGM needs to be tested for its effectiveness
the HGM approach should be a hypothesis and should not be a federal policy
HGM does not use any empirical values to describe human influences
Biological systems are complex. We need metrics which shift in relation to an ecological
gradient (the ecological "dose-response" curve). Reference sites that run from pristine to
severely impacted are necessary in order to develop ecological dose-response curves where
human impact is the "dose" and the ecological response is the "response."
Factors affecting biotic integrity:
water quality
habitat structure
energy source
flow regime
biotic interactions
Biological monitoring began with biotic indices to classify stream organisms. At the tune,
the main impact of concern was sedimentation. When chemicals became the contaminants of
concern, toxicology and dose response curves became useful. These approaches did not account
for the synergistic effect of contaminants but indicator species proved to be useful to show the
impacts of combinations of stressors. Changes in abundances of species turned out to be less
helpful than expected because of the natural variability in abundance and the difficulty in
separating natural variations from human-influenced abundance changes. We now know that
diversity indices are more useful. Multivariate statistics ignore important signals such as rare
species.
Luncheon Speaker
Page 13
-------
Proceedings- "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
. September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Indices of biotic integrity combine elements and processes of biological systems including
species composition, community structure, and individual health. The ten metric Benthic Index
of Biotic Integrity (BIBI), for example, includes metrics such as taxa richness, EPT
(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) richness, and percent impervious surface.
Strengths of the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) Metrics:
use measurable attributes that have been tested and respond to a range of human influences
provide data from which a relevant pattern can be extracted
results are accurate and easily communicated to the public
Problems to avoid in biological criteria development:
assuming habitat is independent of human activities
expecting simple chemical-biological water quality correlations
examining the entire gradient of human influence
utilizing an ecoregion or subregion focus
probability-based sampling
collecting more data than necessary
always measuring all seasons
Be careful when using the term "community" because it is used in two different ways. A
community can either refer to an assemblage of organisms or can be used to describe a
hierarchical level in ecology (e.g., individual, population, community). For IBIs, use the word
"assemblage" instead of community.
Future directions:
Plants and invertebrates are good indicators; amphibians are also appealing; however, birds
are problematic
Use terms such as taxa richness, trophic structure, and species composition instead of
abundance, biomass, density, number, and productivity
QUESTIONS:
How can you determine the difference between natural disturbances and anthropogenic
disturbances?
The magnitude and nature of change from human activities is significantly larger than that
resulting from natural disturbances.
Can IBI be used to predict the results of an impact to a wetland?
Yes. IBIs can be used to make such predictions but only at the 75-80% confidence level.
Luncheon Speaker
Page 14
-------
-------
Proceedings- "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
SESSION 2
HGM: APPLICATION TO STATE & FEDERAL PROGRAMS
HGM: Application to State & Federal Programs
Page 15
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20,1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Applying hydrogeomorphic (HGM) concepts to ecological indicator development. R.P.
Brooks, D.H. Wardrop, L. Bishel-Machung, T.J. O'Connell, M.T. Gaudette, D.J. Prosser, and
C.A. Cole
Robert P. Brooks, Pern State Cooperative Wetlands Center, Forest Resources Laboratory,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; Phone (814) 863-1596; Fax (814)
863-7193; rpb2@psu.edu
ABSTRACT:
Collectively, human activities have produced a range of stressors, such as sedimentation,
hydrological modification, and habitat fragmentation causing wetlands to become disturbed.
These stressors are associated with specific ecological indicators. For example, birds respond to
changes in landscape patterns that occur on a regional scale, such as habitat fragmentation.
Amphibians respond to habitat disturbance, but at a more local scale. They are impacted by
acidification due to atmospheric deposition and coal mine drainage. Similarly, wetland plant
communities respond predictably to hydrological modifications and changes in sedimentation
rates.
We have used a suite of ecological indicators to assess the condition of a set of reference
wetlands in Pennsylvania. The reference wetlands were classified into eight subclasses, using a
regional HGM key. The classes (and subclasses) are: depression (isolated, riparian), riverine
(headwater floodplain, mainstem floodplain), slope, impoundment (beaver, human), and fringe.
These HGM subclasses differ hi their respective soil characteristics, plant communities,
hydrologic and water quality signatures, sedimentation rates, and wildlife habitat potential. They
also span a disturbance gradient from relatively pristine, to moderate, to severely degraded. The
recommended assessment process is to: (1) establish a landscape context and condition for the
wetland in question using an HGM key and rapid field assessment techniques; (2) compare the
results to the expected range of characteristics and measures of stressor-specific indicators for
reference wetlands; and (3) use these findings to improve decisions for assessing condition and
impacts.
HGM: Application to State & Federal Programs
Page 16
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
- September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado. __
The Mid-Atlantic HGM Riverine Initiative: Where we are and where we hope to go.
SJD.Eckles
S. Diane Eckles, Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive,
Annapolis, MD 21401; Phone (410) 573-4553; Fax (410) 224-2781
ABSTRACT:
The Mid-Atlantic HGM Riverine Wetlands Initiative is a regional effort involving
developing models for one or more subclasses of riverine wetlands located on the Inner Coastal
Plain of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The mid-Atlantic Initiative is a cooperative venture
between researchers associated with a university and a Federal research institution, a consulting
firm, and Federal and State agency representatives that work in regulatory and non-regulatory
programs. An Assessment Team (A-Team), consisting of state and federal agency
representatives, was formally assembled within the last seven months. The A-Team is using a
draft guidebook for riverine wetlands along small stream bottoms (orders 1 through 3) located on
the mid-Atlantic Inner Coastal Plain as a template to conduct tasks leading to finalization of a
regional guidebook. The final regional guidebook may include models for one or more
subclasses of riverine wetlands on the mid-Atlantic Inner Coastal Plain.
There are a variety of challenges involved hi this effort that can be classified into
science-based, geopolitical, and spatial-temporal. However, the establishment of reference
wetlands and development of models for one or more subclasses of wetlands can have
application to programs other than Federal and State wetland regulatory efforts. While HGM is
not developed to quantify or assess cumulative impacts, combining the current regional HGM
effort with a study to address cumulative impacts within a portion of the mid-Atlantic region will
eventually provide robust data sets for the conservation of wetland ecosystems.
HGM: Application to State & Federal Programs
Page 17
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Report to the City of Pacifica on the 75% design for restoring lower Calera Creek and
adjacent wetlands. L.C. Lee
Dr. Lyndon C. Lee, Wetlands Ecologist, National Wetland Science Training Cooperative, 221
1st Avenue West, Suite 415, Seattle, WA 98119; Phone (206) 283-0673; Fax (206) 283-0627
*ABSTRACT:
In conjunction with the construction of a wastewater treatment plant, the City of Pacifica
California proposed to relocate lower Calera Creek, presently a ditched stream on a former
quarry site, and restore a riparian zone and associated riverine and depressional wetlands. The
primary goal of the wetland restoration was to improve riverine ecosystem functions including
hydrology, water quality, plant community maintenance, and habitat/fauna! support. A
secondary goal of the restoration project was to create habitat for the endangered San Francisco
Garter Snake and provide optimal conditions for colonization by prey species.
Hydrogeomorphic assessment (HGMA) was used as the basis for assessing the impact of
the proposed project and designing Calera Creek wetland restoration. Data from a "reference
set" of 56 wetlands, in the same class as those at Calera Creek, focused on hydrology,
biogeochemistry, plant community maintenance, and habitat/faunal community maintenance.
Profiles of wetland functions were developed to be used as templates for restoring the wetlands.
In the restoration design, the stream channel will be changed from ditched flow to a
naturally configured channel placed in a relatively wide floodplain. The riparian corridor will be
vegetated with a mosaic of native plant species found at the reference wetlands. Habitat will be
constructed for the endangered San Francisco Garter Snake and its prey species hi the form of
two ponds and will be vegetated with grasses, shrubs, and trees.
There will be no net loss of wetland area or function as a result of the Calera Creek Project.
Using HGM, the projected level of function provided by the proposed restored wetlands, 5 years
after restoration, was assessed. Fifteen wetland functions were measured and compared with
conditions currently existing at the Calera site. "Attainable reference" wetlands served as a
template against which wetland functions at Calera Creek were measured both before and after
restoration. The level of function for all 15 functions increased, with two exceptions. The
function to "maintain spatial habitat structure" remained the same because five years is not
enough time for ecosystem level spatial structure of the habitat to increase. The nutrient cycling
function also remained at the same level because not enough time would have elapsed for
ecosystem level nutrient cycling processes to increase. A "functional capacity unit" (FCU) was
used (Smith et al., 1995) which represents the level of wetland function multiplied by the acreage
on which the function is performed. FCUs were tabulated for (a) existing conditions at Calera
Creek, (b) conditions five years after the restoration, and (c) the change in FCU as a result of the
restoration. After the wetland restoration, the level for all functions except two would be "lifted"
and those two will show an increase with the passage of more than five years tune. The area
over which these functions are performed will also increase by 13%. Hence, the restoration of
wetlands at Calera Creek would result in a net increase in both wetland area and function.
* abstract has been shortened for the purposes of these proceedings
HGM: Application to State & Federal Programs
Page 18
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado. '^
SESSION 3
REFERENCE-BASED WETLAND MONITORING PROJECTS
Reference-based Wetland Monitoring Projects
Page 19
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado. __
An overview of the hierarchical approach being used by the U.S. EPA's Wetlands Research
Program. M.E. Kentula
Mary E. Kentula, Program Leader, U.S. EPA - NHEERL, 200 S.W. 35th Street, Corvallis, OR
97333; Phone (541) 754-4478; Fax (541) 754-4716; kentula.mary@epamail.epa.gov
ABSTRACT:
An overview of the hierarchical approach being used by the U.S. EPA's Wetlands
Research Program to sample populations of wetlands will be presented. The approach provides
information on individual wetlands, subgroups within the population, and the entire population.
Information on the entire population can be used to describe the status of the population in the
landscape. Examples of results from studies in Oregon will be given.
NOTES:
Comprehensive reference-based, multi-metric wetland research involves (1) setting
priorities and objectives, (2) designing a monitoring and restoration program, and (3) reporting
results. Though this is a regional example, other labs have used similar approaches and have
achieved similar results. The objectives of the hierarchical approach were to:
characterize and monitor natural and mitigated wetlands to provide information for
management decisions
document direct and indirect wetland losses
determine the effects of land use changes on wetlands
Sampling was hierarchical in design both spatially and temporally. The majority of the wetlands
were characterized on a five-year rotational basis, though some were characterized continuously.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps were used initially to select suitable sites and were
later used to divide the sites into classes. Ninety-seven sites were studied in four land-use classes
(agriculture, city, residential, undeveloped). Continuous hydrological data was used and each
area was defined by ecoregion, Cowardin class, and political unit.
The majority of the mitigated sites are permanent open-water wetlands. Changes in plant
species richness hi mitigated and natural sites were recorded. Most of the species lost from both
natural and mitigated sites were native taxa. There was a greater loss of native species in
mitigated wetlands. Fifty percent of all plant species found in the 97 study sites were non-native
species. Forty percent of the wetlands were lost, mostly due to urbanization.
Reference-based Wetland Monitoring Projects
Page 20
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Can we apply concepts from the development of biological criteria in Ohio streams and
rivers to wetlands? C.O. Yoder and S. Fennessy
Chris Yoder, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 1685
Westbelt Drive, Columbus, OH 43228; Phone (614) 728-3382; Fax (614) 728-3380
Siobhan Fennessy, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 1800
WaterMark Drive, Columbus, OH 43216-1049; Phone (614) 644-2152; Fax (614) 644-2329;
sfenness@central.epa.ohio.gov
ABSTRACT:
Ohio EPA incorporated biological criteria ("biocriteria") into the Ohio Water Quality
Standards (WQS) regulations in February 1990 for inland rivers and streams. Biocriteria are
based on measurable characteristics offish and macroinvertebrate assemblages and are used to
assess the biological integrity of surface waters. This represents a significant progression in
Ohio's Water Quality Standards, which had previously relied on a chemical approach in
assessing surface water quality. While traditional chemical and toxicity test techniques remain
essential elements of the program, the addition of biocriteria has significantly broadened the
scope of surface water assessment and protection in Ohio. Biocriteria for rivers and streams
were derived by utilizing the results of sampling conducted at least impacted regional reference
sites. This design is based on an operational definition of biological integrity, represented by the
biological performance of the natural habitats of a region. Further organization was
accomplished using Omernik's ecoregions of which Ohio contains five. Fish and
macroinvertebrate data were obtained using standardized methods from more than 350 reference
sites. These results were used to establish attainable, baseline expectations within the
framework of a stream classification system (tiered aquatic life use designations) as defined in
the Ohio WQS. Biocriteria provide the impetus and opportunity to recognize and account for
natural, ecological variability in the environment. One important result is being able to account
for differences between ecoregions, river and stream sizes, and aquatic life use designations.
Biocriteria function primarily as an ambient assessment tool and are the principal arbiter of
aquatic life use attainment or non-attainment for Ohio's rivers and streams. They have profound
influence on how regulatory requirements are derived and applied.
The fundamental approach used to develop stream biocriteria is being applied to wetlands
in Ohio. Potentially ecologically meaningful indicators are being tested to determine if they
possess the sensitivity necessary to discriminate between least-impacted and impaired wetlands.
Methodologies to assess vegetation, macroinvertebrate and amphibian communities are under
development and will be standardized to ensure they are relatively rapid, repeatable and
transferable to others conducting biological monitoring. Sampling will be organized primarily at
the community and ecosystem (i.e., process) scale. Indicators being tested include a vegetative
biocriteria, the floristic quality assessment index (FQAI) which is comparable to a Hilsenhoff
biotic index, using species richness and tolerance values for flora. As with streams, biological
integrity for wetlands will be operationally defined, based on least-impacted reference sites.
Reference sites have been selected based on hydrogeomorphic setting, degree of impact, and
Reference-based Wetland Monitoring Projects
Page 21
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
proximity to active Ohio EPA stream reference sites. The methodologies employed and any
derived biological criteria may vary as a function of HGM class. A regional framework may also
be employed to discriminate expectations for wetland attainable condition. The implementation
of a regional framework is a long term process that requires a relatively high number of reference
sites.
Biocriteria will be used to define the attainable condition for a class of wetlands in a given
region and, as in the streams program, will be used to develop a wetland classification system hi
which the highest attaining class will be protected to the fullest extent while restoration or
enhancement goals are set for more unpaired systems. Biocriteria are essential to define the level
of protection and restoration goals necessary to meet swimmable and fishable goals for aquatic
systems.
Reference-based Wetland Monitoring Projects
Page 22
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Structural approach for developing wetland biological criteria. M.C. Gerties and J. Helgen
Mark C. Gernes, Monitoring and Water Quality Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
520 Lafayette Road N., St. Paul, MN 55155; Phone (612) 297-3363; Fax (612) 297-8683;
mgernes@wq.pca.state.mn.us
Dr. Judy Helgen, Monitoring and Water Quality Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
520 Lafayette Road N., St. Paul, MN 55155; Phone (612) 297-7240; Fax (612) 297-8683;
judy.helgen@pca.state.mn.us
ABSTRACT:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recognizes the need to develop biological criteria
to support its long term water quality monitoring strategy and the refinement and implementation
of wetland water quality standards. An approach to establishing multi-metric biological indices
based on reference condition is the basis of this presentation. This multi-metric approach is
conceptually similar to biological criteria for rivers and streams based on the fish and
invertebrate communities. Two field projects aimed at developing biological criteria for
depressional wetlands have been completed. First, in the reference wetland project, the
biological community was sampled in 32 minimally impaired wetlands to establish the reference
condition. Several invertebrate metrics and an amphibian metric were proposed from this
reference work. In the second project, the sensitivity of the proposed metrics was tested in 20
wetlands known to be influenced by storm water discharge hi urban areas and by agricultural
practices in rural areas.
Six reference wetlands were also sampled for comparison with the impaired wetlands, to
allow for modifications hi the invertebrate metrics and to develop initial vegetation metrics based
on the emergent fringe community. Standardized sampling methods using activity traps and
dipnetting for invertebrates and relevant techniques for the vegetation community have been
established and will be presented. Proposed metrics and resulting biological indices based on the
invertebrate and vegetative communities will be presented in a separate talk. The next step hi
this development process is to test a simplified biological sampling approach that may be
suitable for nontechnical persons.
Reference-based Wetland Monitoring Projects
Page 23
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Wetland monitoring and development of wet meadow biocriteria for the Platte River in
central Nebraska. P. Currier
Paul Currier, Executive Director, Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust, Inc.,
2550 Diers Ave., Suite H, Grand Island, NE 68803; Phone (308) 384-4633; Fax (308) 383-4634
ABSTRACT:
Riverine wetlands and sedge meadows are some of the most important habitats in the Platte
River landscape in central Nebraska. Protection of their biological values and ecosystem
function is especially important for cranes, waterfowl, and other avian species that use the river
as a spring migration stop and staging area. During the past few years, an attempt has been made
to develop a risk assessment for the middle Platte River basin to address the ecological values of
the river and its adjacent habitats, and potential risks to its integrity. A conceptual floodplain
model was developed to integrate the effects of river and land management on river channel, wet
meadow, backwater, and riparian habitats, as well as on key species, including cranes, wetland
vegetation, amphibians, and nesting grassland and woodland birds. In order to evaluate the
ecological links described in the model, the Platte River Trust and other researchers have
developed preliminary biocriteria that include hydrologic monitoring, avian habitat use, wetland
plant indicators, and the distribution and abundance of aquatic organisms. Preliminary results
are presented, including the use of the IHA "Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration" methodology
(Richter et al., 1996), studies concerning the distribution and characterization of wetland
meadows, and studies dealing with the distribution and habitat selection of summer-nesting avian
grassland species. Future data needs and applications to other watersheds are also discussed.
Reference-based Wetland Monitoring Projects
Page 24
-------
Proceedings - " Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Developing bioassessment protocols for Montana wetlands. R. Apfelbeck, L. Bahls, M.
Shapley, J. Gerritsen, M.Barbour, J. Stribling, D. Charles, and F. Acker
Randy Apfelbeck, Water Quality Specialist, Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
Monitoring and Data Management Bureau, 2209 Phoenix Ave., P.O. Box 220901, Helena, MX
59620-0901; Phone (406) 444-2709; Fax (406) 444-5275; rapfelbeck@mt.gov
ABSTRACT:
Eighty wetlands were sampled throughout Montana from April through September of 1993
and 1994 to develop wetland bioassessment protocols. Wetlands were sampled for water column
and sediment chemistry, macroinvertebrates, and diatoms. Hydrologic, geologic, and climatic
data were collected from maps and existing databases. In order to partition the variability, a
wetland classification system is being developed to group reference wetlands by ecoregion and
hydrogeomorphology. Water column chemistry and the biological components are being used to
refine the wetland classification.
A multi-metric approach is being used to develop a macroinvertebrate index to assess
wetland water quality. Number of taxa and percent dominance metrics were the most responsive
to stressors. Preliminary results indicate detection of impairments caused by metals, nutrients,
salinity, sediment and fluctuating water levels. The ability to detect water quality impairment
using the macroinvertebrate index decreased for wetlands that were ephemeral, located at high
elevations, or where the water column was alkaline or saline.
Diatom assemblage data was analyzed using TWINSPAN for two-way indicator analysis.
Seven TWINSPAN groups of wetland sites were identified subjectively based on similarity hi
diatom flora. The multivariate technique used for understanding relationships among diatom
assemblages and environmental characteristics was Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA).
The environmental factors that correlated most closely with diatom assemblage composition
using CCA were conductivity, pH, and total phosphorus. Inference models were developed to
quantitatively infer pH, conductivity, and total phosphorus from diatom assemblages.
TWINSPAN and CCA were being used to refine the wetland classification and to detect water
quality impairments.
Future objectives include developing bioassessment protocols using vegetation and to
assimilate vegetation into the wetland classification. The inference values generated from
diatom assemblages may be useful for developing bioassessment indices and to apply to
sediment core assemblages to reconstruct historical changes in water quality to determine if
changes have occurred.
Reference-based Wetland Monitoring Projects
Page 25
-------
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
SESSION 4
MULTIMETRIC INDEX DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Multimetric Index Development Projects
Page 26
-------
Proceedings- "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Birds as bioindicators of wetland condition: Indices, reference sites, and monitoring.
P.R. Adamus
Paul R. Adamus, Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc., 6028 N.W. Burgundy Drive, Corvallis,
OR 97330; Phone (541) 754-7092; Fax (541) 753-4507; adamusp@ucs.orst.edu
ABSTRACT:
Birds can complement plants, aquatic invertebrates, and other organisms as bioindicators of
wetland quality, particularly at the landscape scale. Wetlands selected as reference sites for
mitigation and permitting activities could, under some conditions, be used in the development
and application of biocriteria and HGM reference standards that reflect avian habitat needs. I
describe and illustrate specific decisions associated with using birds and avian reference sites in
regional monitoring of wetland quality. These include choice of appropriate scale, application of
meaningful avian indices, definition of an appropriate number of HGM subclasses, selection of
relevant reference sites and variables for HGM models, and implementation of sufficient
monitoring effort.
NOTES:
Birds are useful indicators because they are relatively easy to sample, spatially and
temporally integrative, valued by the public, and some reference databases for birds currently
exist. Problems with using birds as indicators are that (1) their presence alone is not conclusive,
(2) it is difficult to link birds to stressors, (3) they require repeated site visits, and (4) 'there are
species differences in detectability. Using birds as bioindicators requires repeated visits by
skilled observers to all microhabitats, with point counts of three or more minutes each, and the
use of taped vocalizations for cryptic birds (e.g., rails and bitterns).
Multfmetric Index Development Projects
Page 27
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado. -_
Consideration of spatial and temporal scales in development of multi-metric indicators for
wetlands: Examples from the Prairie Pothole Region. N. Detenbeck
Naomi Detenbeck, Research Ecologist, U.S. EPA, 6201 Congdon Blvd., Duluth, MN 55806;
Phone (218) 720-5617; Fax (218) 720-5539; detenbeck.naomi@epamail.epa.gov
ABSTRACT:
Standardization of indicator measurements for streams has focused on maximizing the
signalrnoise ratio. Strategies applied include (1) choosing a sampling window to minimize
temporal variability, (2) integrating collection of samples across multiple habitats or sampling
only within the most productive habitat (e.g., riffles), (3) stratifying or standardizing collections
by pool/riffle units, (4) constructing metrics based on the relative proportion of functional guilds
rather than individual species, and (5) creating additive indices comprised of individual
indicators that are consistently sensitive to different combinations of stressors. However, spatial
and temporal variation are integral characteristics of wetland ecotones, and biota have evolved
life cycles and responses to specific scales of variability. Stratification, window selection, and
smoothing techniques for wetland indicator measurements must be chosen so as to maximize
ecological information obtained (e.g., choosing sampling periods corresponding to life cycle
bottlenecks) as well as to minimize background noise. In some cases, measurement of variance
(min/max, heterogeneity) may be more ecologically significant than measurement of system
averages.
Multimetric Index Development Projects
Page 28
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Wetlands index of biotic integrity: Development of invertebrate and vegetation-based
indices in degraded and reference wetlands. J. Helgen and M.C. Gernes
Dr. Judy Helgen, Monitoring and Water Quality Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
520 Lafayette Road N., St. Paul, MN 55155; Phone (612) 296-7240; Fax (612) 297-8683;
judy.helgen@pca.state.mn.us
ABSTRACT:
Biological metrics for multi-metric indices of wetlands water quality have been developed
based on two field-based projects. The Reference Wetlands Project funded by MN LCMR and
US EPA showed that invertebrate richness was sensitive to water quality parameters. Out of this
work, several invertebrate metrics were developed for the WIBI, or Wetlands Index of
Biotic Integrity. A metric representing evidence of successful amphibian reproduction was
included. In 1995, the Wetlands Assessment Project, funded by US EPA, tested whether the
invertebrate metrics could detect impairment in sets of stormwater and agriculture-influenced
wetlands in relation to reference sites, and began the development of vegetation metrics. An
earlier talk will give the framework of these projects. The present talk will focus on the metrics
and indices that have come out of this work. The invertebrate metrics for the WIBI have been
modified and will be presented.
Eight metrics for vegetation are proposed for a vegetation WIBI. Reference sites were well
separated from unpaired sites by the invertebrate and vegetation WIBI scores, while combining
both WIBI scores provided the sharpest separation of reference and impaired sites. Having two
separate WIBI multimetric approaches available, one based on vegetation and one on
invertebrates, will allow a wider seasonal index period for wetland assessment.
Multimetric Index Development Projects
Page 29
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Assessing reconstructed depressional wetlands in the mid-Atlantic states. B.M. Teels and D.
Sparling
Billy M. Teels, NRCS, Wetland Science Institute, Patuxent Research Center, Snowden Hall,
11400 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708-4014; Phone (301) 497-5938; Fax (301)
497-591 l;bilry_teels@nbs.gov
Don Sparling, National Biological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Snowden Hall,
11400 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708-4014; Phone (301) 497-5723; Fax (301) 497-
5744; don_sparling@nbs.gov
ABSTRACT:
Wetlands are complex living ecosystems, broadly held to be valuable because of the many
functions they perform. In recognizing those values, Congress has authorized a number of
Federal and State initiatives to protect and restore wetlands. Although hundreds of thousands of
acres of wetlands have been restored or reconstructed, there has been little monitoring conducted
on these wetlands to assess their progress towards healthy, fully functioning ecosystems. The
few individual monitoring studies that have been conducted indicate that the quality of most
completed projects is inconsistent and that improvement of restoration techniques is needed.
Furthermore, not only is there insufficient understanding about the factors that affect the rate and
success of wetland development following reconstruction, there is a lack of standardized
methods for monitoring this development.
The understanding of health in other ecosystems has advanced beyond that of wetlands.
For instance, several theoretical frameworks and methodologies have been created in stream
ecology to assess the health of streams. One of the more commonly used tools for stream
ecosystems is the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI). This index measures various biological
aspects (metrics) of an ecosystem such as species richness, the proportion of various guilds (e.g.,
trophic, tolerance, and breeding), the presence of certain indicator organisms, or specific
components of morphology, physiology or behavior to assess the health of the ecosystem.
The underlying premise of the index is that the organisms inhabiting the ecosystem are reliable
and measurable indicators of that ecosystem's health. Several studies have shown promising
results using fish and macroinvertebrate data to calculate IBI scores indicative of the health in
streams. Wetlands and streams, although sharing some species in common, are sufficiently
different to prevent a direct transfer of IBI, however; the same principles of biological integrity
should apply and there is no reason to believe that an index similar to IBI cannot be developed
for wetlands.
Before an IBI-like index can be used to assess health in mid-Atlantic reconstructed
wetlands, it first must be developed. The objectives of this study are to:
Inventory a series of reconstructed depressional wetlands that were created or rebuilt under
partnership restoration projects located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
Multimetric Index Development Projects
Page 30
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Using this inventory as a baseline, develop a series of metrics similar to those developed
for IBI. It is intended that the IBI and inventory baseline will become a reference for future
wetland inventories hi the mid-Atlantic region.
Validate and compare these metrics by relating them to each other and to physical and
chemical factors that are traditionally accepted as measures of wetland health. The goal of
this objective is to determine how metrics based on different components of the wetland
relate and identify those metrics which most reliably reflect wetland health and can be
measured within budgetary and tune constraints typical of most monitoring efforts.
Develop a set of sampling protocols that will help standardize methods used in the data
garnering and analysis of these metrics.
The overall study is a cooperative effort between the NRCS, Wetland Science Institute and
the NBS, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center with scientific support and funding coming from
each agency. Efforts are focused on 24 recently reconstructed wetlands located in agricultural
settings within the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Delaware. Each of the cooperating scientists
have developed initial protocols for sampling specific components of the wetland ecosystems,
including: hydrology, soils, water chemistry, vascular plants, macroinvertebrates, amphibians,
birds, and mammals. The coinvestigators have trained teams of technicians, graduate students,
and volunteers on the use of the protocols to survey the selected wetlands. Auxiliary studies
have been designed to determine the adequacy of sampling. After evaluation of the first year's
survey data, the scientists will propose metrics that appear to discriminate differences in the
quality of the reconstructed wetlands and be indicative of wetland health. Additional studies will
be conducted to determine relationships among the proposed metrics and identifying physical
and chemical factors that may influence the biological integrity of the reconstructed wetlands.
To account for annual and seasonal variation in climate and progressional development of these
recently developed wetlands, the study is designed for at least three years.
Multimetric Index Development Projects
Page 31
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Development of environmental performance measures for Florida's lower east coast water
supply plan. D.R. Swift, CJ. Neidrauer, and N.C. Krishnan
David R. Swift, Senior Environmental Scientist, Lower East Coast Planning Division, South
Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL 33406; Phone (407) 687-6703; Fax
(407) 687-6442
ABSTRACT:
The South Florida Water Management District is currently developing a lower east coast
water supply plan to guide public policy as it relates to protecting and enhancing the water
resources of South Florida. The study area includes natural areas such as Lake Okeechobee, the
St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee River estuaries, the Water Conservation Areas (WAS), ,
Everglades National Park (ENP), Florida Bay, and Biscayne Bay as well as agricultural and
urban areas.
The plan was initiated in 1992 and involves a large scale public participation process. A
regional computer model, the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM), simulates
current and future surface and ground water conditions within the study area as a method to
evaluate proposed water supply alternatives. Analyses of current and future (year 2010) base
case simulations indicate that significant water supply problems will result in the projected
population growth is allowed to occur without corresponding improvements to the regional
system. These analyses identified the need to improve the volume, timing and distribution of
water delivered to ENP and Florida Bay, improve hydroperiod within Lake Okeechobee's littoral
zone, and reduce the number of flood control discharges from the lake to downstream estuaries.
Over 40 environmental performance measures were developed to evaluate data generated
by the SFWMM. These performance measures represent hydrological surrogates for measuring
how well a particular water supply alternative meets the environmental objectives of the plan for
each identified natural area. Evaluation tools include development of (1) wetland hydroperiod
and surface water ponding difference maps, (2) wetland stage hydrographs and stage duration
curves at key water management gages as compared to "Natural Systems Model" targets, (3)
flow/salinity criteria to protect downstream estuaries, (4) calculation of flow volumes across
model grid cell flow lines, and (5) minimum water level criteria to protect wetland peat and marl
soils. These tools, criteria and performance measures have been successfully applied to evaluate
numerous model runs and water supply alternatives. The majority of government agencies and
local interest groups have accepted this methodology and approach.
Multimetric Index Development Projects
Page 32
-------
Proceedings- "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Measuring habitat for wildlife potential, and using aquatic invertebrate biomonitoring to
evaluate biological integrity in freshwater wetlands. A.L. Hicks
Anna L. Hicks, Project Wetland Scientist, The Environmental Institute, Blaisdell House,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-0820; Phone (413) 545-0952; Fax (413)
545-2304; ahicks@tei.umass.edu
ABSTRACT:
The Environmental Institute at the University of Massachusetts has been responsible for
developing two separate wetland evaluation methodologies: a) WEThings: a habitat assessment
protocol using landscape and wetland indicators to predict possible presence of
wetland-dependent amphibians, reptiles, and mammals of New England; and b) the application
of aquatic invertebrate biomonitoring in freshwater wetlands to measure biotic integrity.
Until now, no methodology existed that allowed agencies to predict potential habitat for
wetland-dependent amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. WEThings serves to meet this need hi
the New England states. The methodology is based on an extensive literature review of
measurable habitat characteristics conducted for each of the listed species, some of which are
rare, threatened, or endangered. Detailed summaries of the literature base were compiled for
each species and serve as the basis from which predictive models were produced. WEThings,
which incorporates a software program, enables researchers, consultants, and state and federal
regulatory agencies to better predict potential habitats for these species.
Invertebrates are becoming increasingly important as a measuring tool to monitor
ecological integrity of water bodies and have proven value in assessing the health of streams and
rivers. Only recently has research commenced on the application of an aquatic invertebrate
bioassessment protocol suitable for wetland conditions. Research was conducted into the
application of a rapid assessment methodology using aquatic invertebrates along with suitable
metric indicators to derive an Invertebrate Biotic Index, accompanied by a Habitat Assessment
that incorporated key landscape and wetland indicators. A summary graph provided an
assessment of wetland ecological integrity, and whether impact was due to habitat degradation or
some other cause, such as chemical pollution.
Multimetric Index Development Projects
Page 33
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
SESSION 5
GENERAL DISCUSSION
General Discussion
Page 34
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
The participants devoted the last day of the conference to two main topics of discussion.
The first topic centered around the technical issues related to bioassessment of wetlands. The
second topic related to potential mechanisms for integrating bioassessment methods (e.g., IBI)
and functional assessment methods (e.g., HGM). The participants also recommended a series of
"next steps" for the EPA's effort to promote wetland bioassessment programs.
Technical Issues Related to Bioassessment of Wetlands
In theory, scientists could use any taxa for assessing the biological integrity of a wetland if
they have a good assessment framework and sampling methods. However, some taxa react more
strongly to stressors and require fewer resources to sample. In addition, the scope of the
bioassessment program will influence the selection of taxa. When assessing the biological
integrity of a single wetland, scientists may decide to only sample taxa that spend their entire
lives within or near the wetland. Stressors from outside the wetland, such as habitat
fragmentation, could contribute to the decline of birds and other mobile taxa. Therefore,
scientists can use mobile species for assessing biological integrity at a watershed or landscape
scale.
Metrics
Several state representatives wanted to know how many metrics they should include hi an
index of biological integrity. In general, scientists will need more metrics to assess wetlands
with rich biota than to assess wetlands with fewer taxa. Although there is no magic number of
metrics to include, Jim Karr recommended that states should include enough metrics to represent
each of the following categories: (1) species/taxa composition, (2) species/taxa richness, (3)
ecological structure/process/function (display guilds), and (4) individual health. Though using
different terminology, these categories are similar to those presented by the Intergovernmental
Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (Figure 1) (ITFM 1995).
Scientists do not have to distribute metrics evenly between these four areas. Workshop
participants suggested that changes in structure (e.g., species richness, composition) come earlier
than changes in functional groups as a habitat becomes increasingly degraded. The changes in
species richness and composition are more easily detected earlier in the degradation of an
environment because of the loss of sensitive and specialized biota. Generally, habitat specialists
will disappear before habitat generalists and tolerant species will disappear before intolerant
species. To detect the degradation of a wetland, scientists will have more difficulty using
functional organization (e.g., bottom-feeder, scavenger, predator) than species richness because it
requires more detailed information. While scientists have used functional organization metrics
for stream fish assemblages, they have not applied them to more complex assemblages such as
macroinvertebrates. Research to understand the functional relationships of the overwhehning
number of invertebrates is incomplete. Thus, scientists may decide to emphasize community
General Discussion
Page 35
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
structure of invertebrates and include more of those metrics in the overall index.
Workshop participants also suggested that researchers could detect "healthy" conditions
by measuring the number of taxa and the presence of sensitive taxa. Both sensitive and tolerant
taxa would survive in "healthy" wetlands, which would result in many taxa present. In a
degraded wetland, the sensitive taxa would not be present and the tolerant taxa would increase in
abundance. Conversely, researchers could detect impaired conditions by detecting decreased
taxa diversity and increased abundance of tolerant assesmblages.
Trophic Dynamics
Productivity
Predation Rate
Recruitment Rate
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 1: Organizational structure for attributes that should be incorporated into biological assessments (ITEM
1995).
Participants suggested that states and tribes avoid making then- metrics too specific while
selecting and calibrating metrics. Likewise, they should avoid developing a new metric and
sampling method for each wetland type. Instead, they should develop a set of standard sampling
methods and metrics. States will likely apply a metric statewide because of limited resources.
The state or tribe could then calibrate the standard metrics to different wetland types by using
reference wetlands of each type.
Combining Metrics
Several workshop participants asked if they should combine metrics into an overall index
of biological integrity. Jim Karr suggested that researchers should include enough metrics to
observe changes in each of a wetland's dominant families and trophic levels. However, scientists
General Discussion
Page 36
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
should be careful when combining trophic levels and major families into a single metric such as
the EPT metric, which is commonly used for stream monitoring. When families respond
similarly to a stressor, combining them into a single metric may be helpful for scientists. If they
respond differently, however, combining them into a single metric may cloud the signals. Figure
2 provides the responses of Ephemeroptera (E), Plecoptera (P), and Tricoptera (T) to a
hypothetical stressor. In this example, the three respond differently to the stressor and separating
them into individual metrics may provide more helpful information than combining them into a
single metric.
I
Number of
Taxa
Level of Disturbance
fFigure 2: A hypothetical example Ephemeroptera (E), Tricoptera (T), and Plecoptera (P) reactions to increasing
habitat disturbance.
Diversity Indices
Several participants recommended that researchers avoid using diversity indices for
bioassessments. Stream scientists developed some indices, such as the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index,
to detect organic pollutants and sediments in streams, and they may not be appropriate for
wetlands. In addition, this type of index clouds the data and hides important trends because it
overemphasizes the middle of the spectrum. As an alternative, workshop participants suggested
that researchers use multimetric indices and focus some metrics on the middle of the spectrum
and focus other metrics on the most tolerant and sensitive species (Figure 3). If the "tolerant"
class begins to dominate the biota, it may be a signal of severe degradation within the wetland.
Similarly, the disappearance of the "sensitive" class could be an early sign of human disturbance.
Researchers do not need to understand fully why the organisms are tolerant or sensitive to use
them as indicators. It is also important to recognize that many responses of assemblages to
increasing habitat disturbance will not be linear.
General Discussion
Page 3 7
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20,1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Abundance
Gradual decline of
assemblage in response
to disturbance
Rapid decline of
sensitive assemblage
Rapid increase of tolerant
assemblage and
subsequent decline
Level of Disturbance 3^-
Figure 3: Hypothetical reactions of different assemblages to increasing habitat disturbance
Infrequently Flooded Wetlands
Many participants were deeply concerned with the lack of research on "drier-end"
wetlands. Most bioassessment programs have focused their research on permanently and semi-
permanently inundated wetlands. Few bioassessment programs have focused on ephemeral
wetlands or those that lack standing water for most of the year. Besides receiving little research,
the ecologically-important "drier-end" wetlands are receiving the brunt of the development
pressures. Further research is clearly needed to develop bioassessment methods for "drier-end"
wetlands.
Next Steps
The workshop participants agreed that there is a nationwide deficiency in wetland
monitoring. To help fill this void, the participants suggested that the EPA should continue to
promote wetland assessment methods and to take a more active, leadership role. The conference
participants suggested that the EPA should pursue the following actions.
Provide Technical and Financial Support - Besides providing increased funding to states
and tribes, the EPA could assist existing programs by providing technical expertise.
Several states stressed the need for additional technical support by EPA regions.
Increase Cooperation and Communication Between States and With Tribes - Several states
suggested that the EPA could help foster cooperation and communication between
neighboring states and with tribes. EPA regions could share available information and
open lines of communication between governments. Participants also stressed the need to
more effectively share study designs, techniques, and results. States or tribes should also
attempt to share reference sites with others in the same ecoregions.
Increase Outreach to Managers and the Public - Participants suggested that the EPA
develop more outreach material for managers and the public. Educating managers about
General Discussion
Page 38
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
the importance and many applications of bioassessment techniques is essential.
Developing bioassessment techniques that can be easily explained to the public is also
important.
Establish Bioassessment Workgroup - Participants suggested that the Wetlands Division
organize an interagency workgroup to produce preliminary guidance for wetland
bioassessment programs. The workgroup would include state, federal, and academic
scientists and would focus on issues such as selecting reference wetlands, classifying
wetlands, selecting and testing metrics, and selecting and testing analytical procedures.
Explain Strengths and Limitations of Assessment Methods - In recent years, many
scientists have developed independent functional and biological assessment methods. The
conference participants suggested that EPA and Corps should identify the best assessment
methods and describe their strengths and limitations. Several participants felt that they
need rapid functional assessments more urgently than bioassessment methods.
Examine Representation of Wetlands in 305ftA Reports - On a broader scale, the
participants suggested that the EPA should reevaluate the 305(b) program as it relates to
wetlands. Is the EPA asking the right questions? How can the EPA improve 3 05(b) for
wetlands? How can states and tribes improve designated uses for wetlands?
Develop Bioassessment Methods for "Drier-end" Wetlands - Participants stressed the
need for more bioassessment research in drier-end wetlands.
Integrating Assessment Programs (IBI, HGMA)
After discussing the technical issues related to wetlands bioassessment, the conference
participants examined how to integrate functional assessment methods (i.e., HGMA) and
bioassessment methods (i.e., IBI).
Integrating HGM Classification and Bioassessment Methods
Several state and federal representatives are using the HGM classification scheme to group
wetlands in their biomonitoring programs. By separating wetlands into distinct groups (e.g.,
riverine, depressional, etc.), states can better distinguish between variations in wetland caused by
different habitat conditions from variations in biota caused by human activities. In addition, a
state can calibrate its index of biological integrity for each wetland type. Instead of creating
many different indices, states could develop one or two indices of biotic integrity and then use
the classification scheme to calibrate the indices to different wetland types.
Conversely, states could use biological parameters to refine their HGM classes and
subclasses. For example, they may not need to distinguish between two types of riverine
General Discussion
Page 39
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
wetlands if the biota of the two wetlands are very similar. In contrast, researchers may need to
separate the two types of riverine wetlands if they have two distinct biological assemblages.
HGM Assessment Methods (HGMA) and Bioassessment Methods
Integrating HGMA and bioassessment methods is a more challenging prospect that
deserves further attention. State managers and the public will be reluctant to accept two distinct
assessment programs due to demands on resources and the potential for duplicating efforts unless
they are well integrated and understood.
HGMA and bioassessment methods are being developed for different regulatory programs
and therefore are different in their approach to characterizing wetlands. The Corps of Engineers
is developing HGMA primarily as a rapid, functional assessment methodology to improve Clean
Water Act §404 permitting and mitigation decisions. HGMA attempts to characterize a broad
range of wetland functions related to hydrologic processes, biogeochemical processes, and
habitat quality. In contrast, other federal and state agencies are developing rapid bioassessment
methods to quantify the biological integrity or condition of wetlands to refine state water quality
standards and biological criteria (Clean Water Act §303). The bioassessment methods take direct
measurements of the biota and often combine measurements (or metrics) into an overall index of
biological integrity. Physical and chemical measurements of study sites typically accompany
biological measurements to help identify causal effects. Although bioassessment programs are
tune and resource-intensive during their development, they have valuable applications when
completed. With rapid bioassessment protocols, states and tribes can track wetland condition,
identify impairment and diagnose sources of impairment, prioritize protection and restoration
efforts, and establish restoration goals and set performance standards for mitigation projects.
Despite being developed for different purposes, the HGMA and bioassessment methods
share several important similarities that states and tribes could use to integrate the two efforts.
Opportunities to integrate the two programs include the following:
Reference Sites - Both HGMA and bioassessment programs establish a network of
reference sites and use them as benchmarks of "healthy" conditions. The workshop
participants suggested that sharing reference sites can be a first step of integrating the two
efforts. The participants also recommend that the HGMA and bioassessment programs
coordinate use of the term "reference," which is currently used differently in each method.
Focus on Biota - As part of its functional assessment, HGMA includes the assessment of a
wetland's plant community, detrital biomass, habitat structure, invertebrate community,
and vertebrate community. Eventually, states and tribes may incorporate rapid
bioassessment protocols into HGMA to strengthen its biological components.
Testing and Validation - Born the functional and biological assessment methods require
extensive testing and verification before states and tribes can apply them effectively.
Many states are building their wetland bioassessment methods from their experiences with
streams, rivers, and lakes. While somewhat similar, wetlands are sufficiently different
General Discussion
Page 40
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop "
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
from other aquatic habitats to prevent the direct transfer of sampling protocols, metrics,
and indices. States and tribes must test the assessment methods to identify appropriate
indicators, establish reference conditions, and calibrate metrics and indices.
Similarly, HGMA must be tested and validated before states can apply it
effectively. For some wetland functions, HGMA relies on estimations rather than on
direct measurements As a result, HGM scientists must first show that the estimations and
professional judgement are good proxies for direct measurements. Also, HGM scientists
must show that important wetland functions were not overlooked. Biological assessment
can serve to validate the HGM approach by providing measures of wetland condition to
compare with HGM overall assessments of function.
Literature Cited
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). 1995. The Strategy for
Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States. Technical Appendixes. Final
Report for the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality.
(available on the Internet at http:/h2o.usgs.gov/public/WICP/repthtml)
General Discussion
Page 41
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
APPENDIX
PARTICIPANT LIST
Paul Adamus
Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc.
6028 N.W. Burgundy Dr.
Corvalis, OR 97330
phone: 541-745-7092
fax: 541-753-4507
e-mail: adamusp@ucs.orst.edu
Bill Ainslie
USEPA - Region 4
345 Courtland St. NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
phone: 404-347-2126
e-mail: ainslie.william@epamail.epa.gov
Randy Apfelbeck
Montana Dept of Environmental Quality
Monitoring & Data Management Bureau
2209 Phoenix Avenue
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MX 59620-0901
phone: 406-444-2709
fax: 406-444-5275
e-mail: rapfelbeck@mt.gov
Peg Bostwick
404 Program Coordinator
Land and Water Management Division
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30458
Lansing, MI 48909
phone: 517-335-3470
fax: 517-373-9965
Dr. Mark Brinson
Department of Biology
East Carolina University
Howell Science Complex
Greenville, NC 27858
phone: 919-238-6307
fax: 919-328-4178
Rob Brooks
Director
Perm. State Cooperative Wetlands Center
Penn. State University
University Park, PA 16802
phone: 814-863-1596
fax: 814-863-7193
e-mail: rpb2@psu.edu
Mary Butterwick
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, W-3-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: 415-744-1985
e-mail: butterwick.mary@epamail.epa.gov
Bruce Carlisle
MA Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
phone: 617-727-9530
fax: 617-727-2754
Bill Cauthron
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
3800 Classen Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 93118
phone: 405-530-8800
fax: 405-530-8900
Colleen Charles
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7005 Ballast Court
Burke, VA 22015-4401
Buddy Clairain
Waterways Experiment Station
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES-ER-W
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg,MS 39180
phone: 601-634-3774
fax: 601-634-4016
APPENDIX
PageA-1
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop'
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Richard Clark
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, ECO-0803
Seattle, WA 98101-1128
e-mail: clark.richard@epamail.epa.gov
Susan Cox
Natural Resource Center, Suite 3200
Center for Coastal Studies
Texas A&M University
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
phone: 512-994-5791
fax: 512-994-2770
Paul Currier
Platte R. Whooping Crane Maint. Trust, Inc.
2550 Diers Ave, Suite H
Grand Island, NE 68803
phone: 308-384-4633
fax: 308-383-4634
Tom Danielson
Wetlands Division, 4502F
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202-260-5299
fax: 202-260-8000
e-mail: danielson.tom@epaniail.epa.gov
Judy Davis
Horsley & Witten, Inc.
3179 Main Street
Bamstable, MA 02630
phone: 508-362-5570
fax: 508-362-5335
Mary Davis
Waterways Experiment Station
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES-ER-W
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
phone: 601-634-2853
fax: 601-634-4016
Melanie Deason
Wetlands Coordinator
New Mexico Department of Environment
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe,NM 87502
phone: 505-827-2921
Barbara A. Demeo-Anderson
Remediation - Seminole Tribe of Florida
6300 Stirling Road
Hollywood, FL 33024
phone: 954-966-6300
Jennifer Derby
U.S. EPA, Region 4
100 Alabama Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
phone: 404-347-3555 ex6510
fax: 404-347-1798
e-mail: derby.jennifer@epamail.epa.gov
Naomi Detenbeck
U.S. EPA, Ecology Division
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55806
phone: 218-720-5617
fax: 218-720-5539
e-mail: detenbeck.naomi@epamail.epa.gov
Suzanne Dilworth
Natural Resource Center, Suite 3200
Center for Coastal Studies
Texas A&M University
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
phone: 512-994-5869
fax: 512-994-2770
Keith Dublanica
Skokomish Indian Tribe
North 541 Tribal Center Road
Shelton, WA 98584
phone: 360-877-5213
fax: 360-877-5148
Diane Eckles
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
phone: 410-573-4553
fax: 410-224-2781
APPENDIX
PageA-2
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20,1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Mike Ell
North Dakota Department of Health
P.O. Box 5520
1200 Missouri Ave.
Bismark,ND 58502
phone: 701-328-5214
fax: 701-328-5200
e-mail: ccmail.mell@ranch.state.nd.us
Sue Elston
U.S. EPA, Region 5
77 W. Jackson Street, WW-16JO
Chicago, IL 60123
phone: 312-886-6113
fax: 312-886-7804
e-mail: elston.sue@epamail.epa.gov
Chris Faulkner
U.S. EPA, Monitoring Branch, 4503F
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202-260-6228
fax: 202-260-7024
e-mail: faulkner.chris@epamail.epa.gov
Elizabeth Fellows
U.S. EPA, Monitoring Branch, 4503F
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202-260-7062
e-mail: fellows.elizabeth@epamail.epa.gov
Siobhan Fennessy
Division of Surface Water
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216
phone: 614-644-2152
fax: 614-644-2329
e-mail:sfenness@prairie.nodak.edu
Charles Fritz
MorrillHall
North Dakota State University
Fargo, ND 58105
phone: 701-231-9464
fax: 701-328-5200
e-mail:fritz@pca.state.mn.us
Sani Garcia
MA Coastal Zone Management
1465 Dougnar Ave
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
phone: 4008-479-4904
MarkGemes
Monitoring and Water Quality Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
phone: 612-297-3363
fax: 612-297-8683
e-mail: mark.gernes@pca.state.mn.us
MarkGershmori
Open Space Department
City of Boulder
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
Duane Gopher
Natural Resource Department
Chippewa-Cree Tribe
Box 542 Rocky Bay Route
Box Elder, MT 59521
phone: 406-395-4207
fax: 406-395-4382
Jim Hayes
Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks
512 S.E. 25th Avenue
Pratt, KS 67124
phone: 316-672-5911
fax: 316-672-6020
Judy Helgen
Monitoring and Water Quality Division Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
phone: 612-296-7240
fax: 612-297-8683
e-mail: judy .helgen@pca.state.mn.us
APPENDIX
PageA-3
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Anna Hicks
The Environmental Institute
Blaisdell House
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
phone: 413-545-2842
fax: 413-545-2304
e-mail:ahicks@tei.umass.edu
Susan Jackson
Office of Science and Technology, 4304W
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202-260-1800
fax: 202-260-1036
e-mail: jackson.susank@epamail.epa.gov
Mark S. Jen
Alaska Operations Office
U.S. EPA, Region 10
222 W. 7th Avenue, #19
Anchorage, AK 99513
phone: 907-271-3411
fax: 907-271-3424
e-mail: jen.mark@epamail.epa.gov
Dr. James Karr
Professor of Fisheries and Zoology
University of Washington
Box 352200
Seattle, WA 98195
phone: 206-685-4784
fax: 206-543-2025
e-mail: jrkarr@u.washington.edu
Mary Kentula
Wetlands Research Program
U.S.EPA,NHEERL
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
phone: 541-754-4478
fax: 541-754-4716
e-mail: kentula.mary@epamail.epa.gov
William Kirchner
Marine and Wetland Section
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Ave, Suite 1200,6WQ-EM
Dallas, TX 75214
phone: 214-665-8332
fax: 214-665-6689
e-mail: kirchner.william@epamail.epa.gov
Heidi Kuehne
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
phone: 317-233-2473
fax: 317-232-8406
Dr. Lyndon Lee
L.C. Lee & Associates, Inc.
221 1st Ave. West, Suite 415
Seattle, WA 98119
phone: 206-283-0673
fax: 206-283-0627
Patricia Lodge
Seminole Tribe of Florida
6300 Stirling Road
Hollywood, FL 33024
phone: 954-967-3489
James Luey
Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
Ecosystems Protection Program
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500, EPR-EP
Denver, CO 80202-2466
phone: 303-312-6791
fax: 303-312-7084
e-mail: luey.jim@epamail.epa.gov
John W. Meagher
Director
Wetlands Division, 4502F
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202-260-1917
fax: 202-260-2356
e-mail: meagher.john@epamail.epa.gov
APPENDIX
Page A-4
-------
Proceedings- "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop"
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Reyhan Mehran
Wetlands Division, 4502F
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Chuck Meyer
Red Lake Chippewa Band
Route 1, Box 103
puposky, MN 56667
phone: 218-679-3959
Eric A. Nelson
Savannah River Technology Center
338 Springwood Drive
Aiken, SC 29803
phone: 803-725-5212
Ruthanne O'Neill
Horsley & Witten, Inc.
3179 Main Street
Barnstable, MA 02630
phone: 508-362-5570
fax: 508-362-5335
John Olson
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1435 North Orchard
Boise, ID 83706
phone: 208-378-5756
fax: 208-378-5744
e-mail: olson.john@epamail.epa.gov
Philip Oshida
Strategies and State Programs Branch
U.S. EPA, Wetlands Division, 4502F
401M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202-260-6045
fax: 202-260-8000
e-mail: oshida.phil@epamail.epa.gov
Derril Putman
Wetland Program
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
2800 N. Lincoln, Suite 160
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
phone: 405-521-2384
Gene Reetz
Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
Ecosystems Protection Program
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500, EPR-EP
Denver, CO 80202-2466
phone: 303-312-6850
e-mail: reetz.gene@epamail.epa.gov
Doreen RobbVetter
Wetlands Division, 4502F
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202-260-1906
fax: 202-260-8000
e-mail: vetter.doreen@epamail.epa.gov
Dave Ruiter
Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
Ecosystems Protection Program
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500, EPR-EP
Denver, CO 80202-2466
phone: 303-312-6794
e-mail: ruiter.david@epamail.epa.gov
Matthew Schweisberg
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building, CWQ
Boston, MA 2203
phone: 617-565-4431
e-mail: schweisberg.matt@epamail.epa.gov
Dan Smith
Waterways Experiment Station
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES-ER-W
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg,MS 39180-6199
phone: 601-634-2718
fax: 601-634-4016
Elizabeth Smith
Natural Resource Center, Suite 3200
Center for Coastal Studies
Texas A&M University
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
phone: 512-994-5069
fax: 512-994-2770
APPENDIX
PageA-5
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop'
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Jan P. Smith
MA Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
phone: 617-727-9530
fax: 617-727-2754
Don Sparling
U.S. Geological Survey
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
11510 American Holly Drive
Laurel, MD 20708-4017
phone: 301-497-5723
fax: 301-497-5744
e-mail: don_sparling@nbs.gov
Edward Steams
Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
Ecosystems Protection Program
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500, EPR-EP
Denver, CO 80202-2466
phone: 303-312-6791
e-mail: steams.edward@epamail.epa.gov
Rich Sumner
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. EPA, NHEERL
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
phone: 541-754-4444
fax: 541-754-7416.
e-mail: sumner.richard@epamail.epa.gov
Chris Swarzenski
U.S. Geological Survey
3535 S. Sherwood Forest Blvd., Suite 120
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
phone: 504-389-0281 ex3219
Dave Swift
Lower East Coast Planning Division
South Florida Water Management District
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
phone: 407-687-6703
fax: 407-687-6442
Billy M.Teels
USDA-NRCS-Wetland Science Inst.
11400 American Holly Drive
Laurel, MD 20708-4014
phone: 301-497-5938
fax: 301-497-5911
e-mail: billy_teels@nbs.gov
Mary Clare Weatherwax
Blackfeet Environmental Office
P.O. Box 2029
Browning, MT 59417
phone: 406-338-7421
fax: 406-338-7451
e-mail: blkftenv@3rivers.net
William Werner
Arizona Game and Fish
2221 W. Greenway Road
Phoenix, AZ 85023
phone: 602-789-3607
Emmett White Temple
Crow Creek Tribe
P.O. Box 380
Fort Thompson, SD 57339
phone: 605-245-2607
Gene Whittaker
NA Wetlands
509 Capital Ct, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4946
phone: 202-647-6223
Dr. Douglas Wilcox
National Biological Service
1451 Green Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
phone: 313-994-3331 ex.256
fax: 406-994-8780
Chris Williams
Wetlands Division, 4502F
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
phone: 202-260-5235
fax: 202-260-8000
e-mail: williams.chris@epamail.epa.gov
APPENDIX
Page A-6
_
-------
Proceedings - "Wetlands: Biological Assessment Methods and Criteria Development Workshop'
September 18-20, 1996. Boulder, Colorado.
Diana Woods
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, W-2-3
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: 415-744-1935
fax: 415-744-1078
e-mail: woods.diana@epamail.epa.gov
Roland Wostl
Office of Environmental Services
Colorado Department of Transportation
4201 E. Arkansas Ave
Denver, CO 80030
phone: 303-757-9788
fax: 303-757-9445
Chris Yoder
Ecological Assessment
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
1685 Westbest Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
phone: 614-728-3382
fax: 614-728-3380
APPENDIX
Page A-'/
-------
------- |