&EPA
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory
Corvallis, OR 97333
EPA/600/R-11/104
September 2011
POTENTIAL FRAMEWORKS FOR REPORTING
ON ECOLOGICAL CONDITION AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
FOR THE 2011 NATIONAL WETLAND CONDITION ASSESSMENT
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-11/104
September 2011
POTENTIAL FRAMEWORKS FOR REPORTING ON
ECOLOGICAL CONDITION AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
FOR THE 2011 NATIONAL WETLAND CONDITION ASSESSMENT
BY
Mary E. Kentula, Teresa K. Magee, and Amanda M. Nahlik
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Western Ecology Division
Corvallis, OR 97333
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
-------
-------
NOTICE
This document on the potential framework s for reporting on the National Wetland Condition
Assessment was funded wholly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subject to
review by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and Western Ecology
Division and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of
the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
The citation for this document is:
M.E. Kentula, T. K. Magee, and A. M. Nahlik. 2011. Potential Frameworks for Reporting on Ecological
Condition and Ecosystem Services for the 2011 National Wetland Condition Assessment. EPA/600/R-
11/104. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Key documents for the National Wetland Condition Assessment are:
National Wetland Condition Assessment: Site Evaluation Guidelines (EPA-843-R-10-004)
National Wetland Condition Assessment: Field Operations Manual (EPA-843-R-10-001)
National Wetland Condition Assessment: Laboratory Methods Manual (EPA-843-R-10-002)
National Wetland Condition Assessment: Quality Assurance Project Plan (EPA-843-R-10-003)
-------
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Alan Herlihy (Oregon State University), Michael Scozzafava (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water), and Robert Ozretich (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development) for contributing their valuable time to review a draft of this document
and for their constructive comments that substantially improved the quality of the final report. We
especially want to thank our colleagues who produced the reports for the National Wadeable Stream
and the National Lake Assessments. They provided us with a wealth of ideas and a clear path for laying
out frameworks for the data analysis for the 2011 National Wetland Condition Assessment and for the
presentation of the results. Tony Olsen, Steve Paulsen, Dave Peck, and John Van Sickle, in particular,
generously provided sound advice, examples to consider, and a sounding-board for our ideas.
-------
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notice ill
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vii
The 2011 National Wetland Condition Assessment 1
Survey Design 2
Ecological Indicators and Reference Condition 6
Field Sampling Design 6
A Model for Reporting NWCA Results: The Existing NARS Reports 9
Reporting the Ecological Condition of Wetlands 21
Extent of the Resource 22
Status of Ecological Condition 22
Extent of Stressors 23
Relationship Between Stressors and Ecological Condition 25
Reporting on Ecosystem Services Provided by Wetlands 37
Reporting on Ecological Services by the NARS Assessments 37
Additional Reporting on Ecosystem Services by the 2011 NWCA 41
Final Ecosystem Services from 2011 NWCA Data 41
Final Service: Habitable Climate 45
Final Service: Water for Consumption 45
Combining Wetland Condition and Services through a Landscape Context 49
Maps to Support Decision Making-An Example from South East Queensland, Australia 49
Landscape and Service Profiles 50
Summary 52
Literature Cited 53
APPENDIX A. DATA FORMS FROM THE NWCA 59
VII
-------
VIM
-------
POTENTIAL FRAMEWORKS FOR REPORTING ON
ECOLOGICAL CONDITION AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR
THE 2011 NATIONAL WETLAND CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this document is to present potential frameworks for reporting the results from the 2011
National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and its partners. We, first, provide background on the goals, objectives, and design of
the NWCA and its relationship to other USEPA National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS). Next, we
explore how the results of the 2011 NWCA might effectively be presented in a baseline report on
national wetland condition within two frameworks. One addresses reporting on ecological condition;
the other, ecosystem services.
THE 2011 NATIONAL WETLAND CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The 2011 NWCA was the first-ever national assessment of wetland condition and the fifth in a series of
national aquatic surveys, after streams, rivers, lakes, and coastal systems. It was implemented by the
USEPA in collaboration with states, tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other federal
partners.
The goals of the NWCA are to:
• Produce a report that describes the ecological condition of the Nation's wetlands;
• Assist state and tribes in the implementation of wetland monitoring and assessment
programs that will guide policy development and aid decision making; and
• Advance the science of wetland monitoring and assessment to support management
needs (Scozzafava 2009).
The initial results of the NWCA are targeted for publication in 2013, and repeat surveys will be
conducted every five years, resources permitting.
The NWCA was designed to build on the achievements of the USFWS Wetland Status and Trends (S&T)
Report. The S&T Report characterizes changes in wetland acreage across the conterminous United
States. Paired together, the S&T Report and the NWCA will provide the public and government agencies
with comparable, national information on wetland quantity and quality (Scozzafava et al. 2011).
Specifically, the S&T Report addresses wetland acreage gained or lost annually, where the greatest gains
and losses are occurring, and what wetland types are most vulnerable to loss. The NWCA is designed to
produce detailed information on wetland quality by wetland type and region of the country, providing
insight into the implications of the changes in area reported by the S&T effort.
-------
SURVEY DESIGN
The NWCA sample design is linked to the design for the S&T Report, thus assuring that comparable
information on wetland quantity and quality is produced. Both efforts use an ecological definition of
wetlands; specifically:
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is
usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands must have one or
more of the following three attributes:
• at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes;
• the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil, and
• the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some
time during the growing season of each year (Dahl 2006).
The NWCA Target Population is defined as: Tidal and nontidal wetlands of the conterminous U.S.,
including certain farmed wetlands not currently in crop production. The wetlands have rooted
vegetation and, when present, open water less than 1 meter deep (USEPA 2011d). The Target
Population is composed of seven of the wetland classes used in the S&T Report (Table 1).
The survey design for the NWCA mirrors that used for the other NARS, which produces a spatially
balanced sample with each point having a known probability of being sampled (Stevens and Olsen 1999,
Stevens and Olsen 2000, Stevens and Olsen 2004). For the NWCA, the sample points were randomly
selected from the USFWS S&T sample plots, the most consistent and up-to-date source of mapped
wetlands on a national scale (Scozzafava et al. 2011)(Figure 1).
A total of 900 points were sampled with revisits to 100 sites for quality assurance checks (Figure 2). In
addition, 137 reference sites were sampled (i.e., least-disturbed sites; see Ecological Indicators and
Reference Condition below) and a number of states invested resources to supplement sample size to
allow for state- or regional-scale reporting on wetland condition (Table 2).
The NWCA was designed so wetland condition could be reported by wetland type for the Nation and by
aggregated ecoregions based on the Omernik Level III Ecoregions (Omernik 1987, USEPA 2011a)
(available on line at ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/us/Eco_Level_lll_US.pdf)(Figure 3). Additional
reporting units being considered are USEPA Regions (Figure 4) and major river basins (Figure 5)
Estimates of the wetland area having a particular value for an indicator or falling into a particular
condition class are based on the weights from the survey design used to select the points to be sampled.
For examples of how this has been done for other surveys see Stevens and Jensen (2007) and Olsen and
Peck (2008). In the NWCA, the weight indicates the wetland area in the Target Population represented
by a point from the sample draw. The weights for the survey are then adjusted to account for additional
sites (i.e., the oversample points) that are evaluated when the primary sites are not sampled (e.g., due
to denial of access, being non-target) (Figure 2). Estimates of wetland condition are obtained by
summing the weights of sites in a condition class within a particular reporting unit (e.g., Figures 3-5).
2
-------
TABLE 1. Wetland classes used in the USFWS Status and Trends reporting that also form the Target Population for
the NWCA. The S&T classification system is a modification of the one developed by Cowardin et al. (1979).
USFWS Status and
Trends Class
Estuarine Intertidal
Emergent
Estuarine Intertidal
Forested/Shrub
Palustrine Forested
Palustrine Shrub
Palustrine Emergent
Palustrine
Unconsolidated Bottom
/Aquatic Bed
Palustrine Farmed
Examples
Saltwater marsh
Mangrove forest
Bottomland hardwoods
Cypress swamps
Bogs
Pocosins
Lacustrine/Riverine fringe
Freshwater marsh
Prairie potholes/kettles
Vernal Pools
Other natural ponds
Agricultural fields that have
Brackish marsh
Swamp tupelo
Ash Swales
Bayberry fens
Natural cranberry bogs
Fens
Wet Meadows
Urban/residential ponds
Other created ponds with natural
characteristics
reverted to wetlands
TABLE 2. NWCA sampling supplemented in particular states or regions to allow for statewide or regional reporting
of wetland condition. # of Sites = the total number of sites in the assessment. * = assessment uses supplemental
sites only, i.e., does not include sites from the 2011 NWCA sample. All = all wetland types in the NWCA Target
Population (see Table 1).
State/Region
Alaska
California
Idaho
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Jersey
North Dakota
Ohio
The Southeast
(NC, SC, GA, AL)
Wisconsin
# of Sites
50*
43
50
150
110*
70*
53
50
90*
65
Wetland Type(s)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Palustrine Forested
All
Locale Assessed
The North Slope
the state
the state
the state
11 state HGM regions
the state
the state
the state
Piedmont, and Southeast Plains regions
Southeast Plains Till region
-------
Status and Trends 2005 Plot Locations
NeffPscfK Coast Plots
FIGURE 1. Map of the locations of the USFWS S&T plot locations from 2005. Each red dot is a 4-mi plot that contains
mapped wetlands, deepwater habitat, and uplands. Additional plots were added on the Pacific Coast by the USFWS S&T
program to assure an adequate sample for the NWCA.
FIGURE 2. Map of the conterminous United States showing all the points from the NWCA sample draw.
• = the primary sample points; • = oversample points (for use if the primary points are not sampleable)
A- = revisit sites (primary sites that are resampled for quality assurance purposes)
-------
FIGURES. Map of the
conterminous United States
showing the aggregate Omernik
Level III Ecoregions (Omernik 1987,
USEPA2011a)usedbythe
Wadeable Streams and National
Lake Assessments (USEPA 2006b,
2009).
FIGURE 4. Map of the
conterminous United States
showing the USEPA Regions.
FIGURES. Map of the
conterminous United States
showing the major river basins
(MRB) and the number of the S&T
plots from 2005 in each.
f«fiip««atfr plans
j uH>"M.ama
| VJtaetn Uatrtatos
-------
ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS AND REFERENCE CONDITION
Like the NARS assessments of other aquatic resources, the NWCA uses ecological indicators to estimate
condition of the wetland resource. Although directly assessing ecological condition is difficult and
complex, the use of indicators to estimate condition has proven to be tractable and cost-effective for
many ecosystems (Jackson et al. 2000, Dale and Beyeler 2001). Indicators of biological or ecological
condition have been successfully used for many kinds of ecosystems (e.g., aquatic, riparian, wetland) to
assess current status, monitor trends in condition, predict ecosystem changes or to detect or diagnose
sources of ecosystem stress (Cairns et al. 1993, Jackson et al. 2000, Dale and Beyeler 2001, Cohen et al.
2004, Ferreira et al. 2005, Bryce 2006, Whittier et al. 2007, Jacobs et al. 2010, Mack and Kentula 2010,
Magee et al. 2010).
The most useful ecological and biological indicators are represented by easily interpretable metrics that
succinctly convey complex information about condition of a particular resource (Jackson et al. 2000,
Dale and Beyeler 2001). This tenet informed the criteria, process, and rationale for the selection of
ecological indicators for the NWCA, which are detailed in Magee (in preparation). In addition, Table 3
lists some of the indicators and metrics used in evaluating condition of streams and lakes (see/4 Model
for Reporting NWCA Results: Existing NARS Assessment Reports for Wadeable Streams and Lakes) and
Table 4 lists some of the indicators and metrics that are likely to be considered in the NWCA analysis
(see Reporting on the Ecological Condition of Wetlands).
Ecological or biological indicators are typically used in concert with the concept of reference condition to
describe the standard or benchmarks against which to compare current condition (Stoddard et al. 2006).
For example, the condition of the wetland resource can be estimated by comparing values for indicators
measured in the sample of wetlands in a reporting unit (e.g., wetland type or region) with those from an
appropriate set of reference sites. A percentile of the reference value can then be used to define good,
fair, and poor condition classes for the purpose of making population-level condition estimates (Paulsen
etal. 2008b).
Ideally, reference condition is based on sites that are in near pristine condition, i.e., are in a natural and
anthropogenically undisturbed state. However, pristine conditions are uncommon or absent in most
places; thus, an alternative concept is required for defining reference condition (Bailey et al. 2004,
Stoddard et al. 2006). An excellent discussion of four different definitions of reference condition (i.e.,
minimally-disturbed, least-disturbed, historical, and best attainable) and the respective utility and
limitations of each is provided in Stoddard et al. (2006). Previous NARS assessments, by necessity,
defined reference condition as least-disturbed and good condition as greater than or equal to the 25th
percentile of values observed in the reference population for the measure being used to quantify
condition (USEPA 2006b, 2008, 2009).
FIELD SAMPLING DESIGN AND RATIONALE
The primary data set for the NWCA was gathered using what is commonly known as an intensive or
Level 3 assessment. This approach is part of the "three-level framework" which is being encouraged by
6
-------
the USEPA as a strategy for designing effective wetland monitoring programs (USEPA 2006a). The
framework breaks assessment procedures into three levels which vary in the degree of effort needed
and the scale of application. The levels range from broad, landscape assessments using readily available
data (Level 1 methods), to rapid field methods (Level 2), to intensive biological and physical-chemical
measures (Level 3)(Fennessy et al. 2007). The three levels can be used together in a comprehensive
assessment effort (e.g., Wardrop et al. (2007b)) or independently (e.g., Mack (2001)), depending on the
objectives of the assessment, the resources available, and the degree of confidence required in the
results (Wardrop et al. 2007b). The NWCA employed all three assessment levels. The Level 3
assessment is the focus of the summary of the indicator selection process (Magee in preparation), and
this document and the associated reporting. The Level 1 and 2 assessments are referenced as they
relate to analysis of data from the Level 3 assessment.
The choice of NWCA field methods and indicators was influenced by considerations of timing and the
resources required, in particular, the need to complete travel and sampling for a site typically in one
day. A brief overview of the methods is presented below. Details are presented in the NWCA Field
Operations Manual (USEPA 2011b). Additional information on the NWCA technical approach can be
found in the documents at http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/assessment/survey/index.cfm.
Most of the data for the NWCA was collected in the Assessment Area (AA). The AA represented the
point, i.e., the location defined by the coordinates generated by the sample draw based on the survey
design. The NWCA sampling protocols were designed to produce an assessment of the ecological
condition of wetland area at the point. This approach assumed that condition can change spatially,
especially in a large wetland.
The size of the AA ranged from 0.1 to O.Sha, depending on the size of the sampleable area at the point,
and had to be at least 20m wide to accommodate the plots for sampling vegetation. The lower size limit
also corresponded to the limit of detection of the USFWS's S&T program (Dahl and Bergeson 2009). The
upper size limit was large enough to accurately characterize the wetland area at the point using Level 3
methods (e.g., see Wardrop et al. (2007b)) but was small enough to be sampled in one day by a field
crew of 4-6 persons (e.g., see Kentula and Cline (2004)).
The field crew sampled the AA and an area immediately adjacent to the AA (i.e., the buffer) to collect
ecological data, and information on the stressors present. A brief description of the indicators used in
the NWCA, excerpted primarily from Scozzafava et al. (2011), is presented below. The process for
selecting the indicators and the rationale supporting their use is detailed in Magee (in preparation). The
methods used for data collection are detailed in USEPA (2011b).
Vegetation was characterized by collecting plant data in plots systematically placed across the AA.
Vegetation is a major component of biodiversity found in wetlands and is habitat for a myriad of
organisms. The composition and abundance of plant species is both reflective of, and may influence,
the hydrology, water quality, and soil characteristics of a wetland. Plants respond to, and are affected
by physical, chemical, or biological disturbances and stressors (Selinger-Looten et al. 1999, Rayamajhi et
-------
al. 2006). In addition, the presence and abundance of alien plant species often indicate degraded or
declining quality.
Soils data were collected in four soil pits and include an on-site description of the soil profile and
collection of four types of soil samples (chemistry, bulk density, stable isotope, and soil enzymes) for
laboratory analysis. Soils cycle nutrients, store pollutants, mediate groundwater, and provide habitat for
microorganisms, invertebrates, and other more complex organisms (Richardson and Vepraskas 2001).
Biogeochemical processes and ecosystem services that rely on hydric soils directly influence wetland
condition. Soil structure and chemistry can indicate water quality and hydrology (Hargreaves et al.
2003, Mitsch and Gosselink 2007).
Hydrologic data include an assessment of hydrologic sources and connectivity, indirect evidence of
hydroperiod, estimates of hydrologic fluctuations, and documentation of hydrology alterations or
stressors. Wetland hydrology is the primary driver of wetland formation and persistence. Hydrology
affect soil geochemical dynamics, plant productivity, nutrient cycling, and accretion and erosion of
organic and inorganic materials in wetlands (Tiner 1999, Mitsch and Gosselink 2007).
When standing water was present at a wetland assessment area, water chemistry samples were taken
and analyzed for general surface water conditions, various chemical analytes, and evidence of
disturbance. Total nitrogen and phosphorus reflect the trophic state of the wetland, providing crucial
information on possible eutrophication (Keddy 1983). Anthropogenic disturbances such as hydrologic
modifications and land use changes are known to alter water quality variables (Lane and Brown 2007).
Algae data were collected from sediments (benthic samples) and from the surface of vegetation stems
and leaves (epiphytic samples). Algae respond rapidly to ecological change in wetlands and have been
widely used as indicators of wetland condition because of their rapid reproduction rates, short life
cycles, and broad distribution (McCormick and Cairns Jr. 1994). More notably, because nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus are limiting factors to most types of algae, they respond quickly to excess
nutrients. In addition, diatom species can provide insights into past hydrology such as recent flooding,
standing water, or droughts (McCormick and Cairns Jr. 1994, USEPA 2002, Lane and Brown 2007).
The presence of stressors was measured in the AA and buffer. Identification of stressors will be used to
detect factors likely affecting ecological condition. Stressors act to degrade ecological condition,
consequently their evaluation is an important component of an assessment method (Fennessy et al.
2007).
-------
A MODEL FOR REPORTING NWCA RESULTS: THE EXISTING NARS REPORTS
A hallmark of each NARS assessment is the timely completion of an assessment report that effectively
describes the national and regional condition of a specific aquatic resource. Each NARS report
communicates key results on ecological condition based on initial analyses of the field data. Results are
based on scientifically sound analytical approaches with application of appropriate reference data. The
results are presented in a format that is easily understood by a variety of audiences (e.g., lay people,
policy makers, and resource managers, as well as scientists) to maximize their accessibility and utility.
Complete data sets are also made publically available so that they can be used by other research efforts.
A detailed documentation of the scientific work that was conducted to support the development and
implementation of the NARS assessments is presented in a 2008 special issue of the Journal of the North
American Benthological Society (Carlisle and Hawkins 2008, Hawkins et al. 2008, Herlihy et al. 2008,
Herlihy and Sifneos 2008, Hughes and Peck 2008, Ode et al. 2008, Olsen and Peck 2008, Paulsen et al.
2008a, Ringold et al. 2008, Shapiro et al. 2008, Stevenson et al. 2008, Stoddard et al. 2008, Stribling et
al. 2008, Van Sickle and Paulsen 2008, Yuan et al. 2008) with an overview by Paulsen et al. (2008b).
A summary of results from two previous NARS reports are presented as a model for reporting wetland
condition. Specifically, Table 3 summarizes the results in the reports from the Wadeable Stream (USEPA
2006b) and Lake (USEPA 2009) Assessments. The major categories of results presented in the two
reports and in Table 3 are:
• extent of the resource (Table 3-A),
• status of ecological condition (Tables 3-B, 3-C),
• extent of stressors (Tables 3-D through 3-G), and
• relationship between stressors and ecological condition (Tables 3-H through 3-J).
-------
TABLE 3. Results presented in the reports from the Wadeable Stream and Lake Assessments (USEPA 2006b, 2009). Figures internal to this table
are from these assessment reports.
TABLE 3-A. EXTENT OF RESOURCE
INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Number of lakes by size class
Stream length in miles
Bar chart of % of lakes by all, natural
and man-made for the Nation
Bar chart of stream miles for the
Nation and by ecoregion
Estimated from sample design using the associated sample
weights. Each individual site selected in the probability sample
has a weight. The weight indicates the stream length (or
number of lakes) in the target population represented by that
site.
Number of lakes in the Nation and ecoregions
Stream miles given by ecoregion
Number of lakes on bar chart of
results
Stream miles on bar chart of results
Estimated from sample design using the associated sample
weights. Each individual site selected in the probability sample
has a weight. The weight indicates the stream length (or
number of lakes) in the target population represented by that
site.
Lake Size
Number
of Lakes
Natural
(29,308)
Man-Made
(20,238)
National
(lower 48)
Southern Appalachian
Western Mountains
Temperate Plains
Northern Appalachians
Coastal Plains
Upper Midwest
Xeric
Southern Plains
Northern Plains
671,051
3 178,449
26.436
_L
J
20 40 60 80
Percentage of Lakes
100
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000
Figure 9. Length of wadeable, perennial streams in each WSA ecoregion (U.S. EPAAVSA).
10
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-B. OVERALL BIOLOGICAL QUALITY
INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATIONOF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Principal Descriptor of Biological
Condition
Lakes: Pie charts of % of all, natural, and man-
made lakes by condition category for the Nation
Streams: Pie charts of % stream miles by
condition category for the Nation and
ecoregions
Lakes: Estimated for lakes from sample design using associated
weights and the Planktonic O/E results (or Index of Taxa Loss).
Streams: Estimated for streams from sample design using
associated weights and the Macroinvertebrate IBI.
National
All Lakes
49,546
Natural Lates
29,308
Kan-Mada Lakes
20,238
| Qood - "--ZOTt Taxa Loee [ J Fair - 20% -10% Taxa LOSE f Poor - xlOK Taxs Loss
National Summary
56% Good
21% Fair
22% Poor
-
H ;-,viv
•
.
_i -".
,£3" ' -
^^ >
•\
MLA Sampled Sites
Figure ES-1. Biological condition of lakes nationally and based on lake origin.
1.7%
9.5%
Plains and Lowlands
242,264 miles
Eastern Highlands
276.362 miles
National
Biological Condition
5.0%
• Good
D Fair
• Poor
D Not Assessed
Figure ES-I. Biological condition of wadeable streams (U.S. EPA/WSA).
11
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-C. INDIVIDUAL INDICATORS OF BIOLOGICAL CONDITION
INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Index of Taxa Loss - Ratio of Observed to
Expected (O/E)
Lakes: Number of lakes and bar charts
by % of all, natural, and man-made lakes
and condition category for the Nation
using Planktonic O/E
Streams: Bar charts of % taxa loss
categories by % of stream miles for the
Nation and ecoregions using
Macroinvertebrate O/E
A list of expected taxa (or "E") at individual sites are predicted
from a model developed from data collected at reference sites
and compared to the taxa observed (or "O") at a probability
site to quantify taxa lost.
Natural
(29,308)
Man-Made
(20,238)
0 20 40 60 8Q 100 0 20 40 60 80 ICO
Percentage of Lakes Percentage of Lakes
m Good
CZlFar
I i < 2D% = Goed
Figure 6. Assessment of quality using the Planktonic O/E Taxa Loss and Lake Diatom Condition Index.^
National
(lower 48)
16.8% 19.1', IHX 27.9% I IBS
10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Stream Miles
• > SOX Tua Loss [U 20-50X Taxi Loss
D IO-2CBbTaiaLtjss • < lOSTuiLoss D NOT Assessed
Figure 14. Macroinvertebrate taxa loss as measured by the O/E Ratio of Taxa Loss (U.S. EPA/WSA).
The O/E Taxa Loss indicator displays the loss of taxa from a site compared to reference for that region.
Scores O.I lower than reference represent a 10% loss in taxa.
12
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-C. INDIVIDUAL INDICATORS OF BIOLOGICAL CONDITION (continued)
INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Indices of Biological
Integrity(IBI)
Lakes: Number of lakes and bar charts by
% of all, natural, and man-made lakes and
condition class for the Nation using a
Diatom IBI
Streams: Number of stream miles and
bar charts by % stream miles and
condition class for the Nation and
ecoregions using a Macroinvertebrate IBI
The Lake Diatom Condition Index is composed of metrics describing five
characteristics of diatom assemblages: taxonomic richness or number of distinct
taxa; taxonomic composition; taxonomic diversity; adaptations of the organisms,
e.g., coloration, mode of movement, to where they live; and pollution tolerance.
The Stream Macroinvertebrate IBI is composed of metrics representing six
characteristics of macroinvertebrate assemblages: taxonomic richness, taxonomic
composition, taxonomic diversity, feeding groups, habits, and pollution tolerance.
Siream Length (ml)
0 20 40 SO 80 100
Percentage of Lakes
National
Man-Made
(20,238)
Rguis 6. Assessment of quality using the Planktomc C€ Taxa Loss and Lake Diatom Condition Index.'
20 30 « 50 60
Percentage of Stream Miles
• Goon Dfar iPoor D Not Assessed
Figure 13. Biological condition of streams based on Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Condition
13
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-D. CHEMICAL STRESSORS OF LAKES
STRESSOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Extent of presence for specific chemical
stressors in lakes
Number of lakes and bar
charts by % of all, natural, and
man-made lakes and condition
class for each chemical
stressorforthe Nation
Five of eight key chemical stressors that commonly affect lake biota were
measured:
• Phosphorus, Nitrogen and Turbidity reported as linked indicators that
jointly influence clarity of water and concentrations of algae.
• Lake Acidification as measured by Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC).
ANC is determined by the soil and underlying geology of the
surrounding watershed. Lakes with high levels of dissolved
bicarbonate ions (e.g., limestone watersheds) are able to neutralize
acid depositions and buffer effects of acid rain.
• Dissolved Oxygen concentrations measured from the top two meters
in the middle of the lake and ranked based on oxygen thresholds as
high, moderate, and low - with low being of concern or hypoxic.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
4538%
Turbidily
t •
National
(49,546)
Natural
(29,308)
Man-Made
(20,238)
0 SO » 50 BO 100 C K 40 60 80 190 0 20
Percentage of Lakes
••Goal cn Fait • Pro,
Figure}. Phosphorus, nitrogen, and lunidity in three [are classes.
National
(49,546)
Natural
(28,308)
Man-Made
(20,238)
m
l
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Lakes
IB Non-Mac a AeftXUnw
M Pcac Huron Ciwi
Figure 8. Acid neutralizing capacity tor lakes of the U.S.
0 ZD 40 SO K 100
Pereentagaot Lakes
MIACOIMU !
Figure 9. Dissolved oxygen for lakes of the U.S.
14
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-E. CHEMICAL STRESSORS OF WADEABLE STREAMS
STRESSOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Extent of presence of selected
chemical stressors
Number of stream miles and
bar charts by % stream miles
and condition class for each
chemical stressorforthe
Nation and ecoregions.
Four chemical stressors were selected because of national or regional concerns about
the extent to which each might be impacting the quality of stream biota. The stressors
measured were:
• Phosphorus is typically considered the most likely nutrient limiting algal growth in
the U.S. (Higher concentrations generally reflect greater stress.)
• Nitrogen is the primary nutrient limiting algal growth in some regions of the U.S.
(Higher concentrations generally reflect greater stress.)
• Excessive salinity occurs in areas with high evaporative losses of water and can be
exacerbated by repeated use of water for irrigation or by water withdrawals.
• Acidification of streams can be caused by the effects of acid deposition or acid
mine drainage, particularly from coal mining.
Ssram Lifrt [ml)
Plains and ,
Lowlands ;~ rrrr:
Prr^ M 1 l+la-*
IliiDWn IHlf DN«A!!i!!<
Figure IS, Total phosphorus concentrations in U.S, streams (US, EPA/WSA). Percent of stream length
with low, medium, and high concentrations of phosphorus based on regionally relevant thresholds derived
from the leasi-disturbed regional reference sites, Low concentrations are most similar to reference condition:
medium tc«trate ire greater itan the 7Slh percentile of reference condition; and high conceniratlons are
greater than the 95th percentile of reference condition.
IM.7B
tf,tf
Hon
lit* Dltflin
figure i 6. Totil nitrogen concentrations in U.S. streims (U.S. EPA/WSA). Percent of itreim length
with to, medium, inrj hijti concentratns of nitnp based on region!; relevant thresholds toed from tto
leasi-distuiied regional reference sites. Low concentrations are most slmiiir to reference condition; medium
concentrations are greiter tiian die 75th percentlle of reference condition; aid high concentrations ire greiter
0 II Jl 10 « SO H 11 !i 10 Id
tatf of SIM Nils
I In DHutai iHif DNittaafi
Figure IJ, Salinity conditions in U.S. warm (Ui EPAIWSA), This Indiaor Is tad on dettrlcil
rnndnrilviiy nip^urpd in mm Mnl« Thmhoirii m hsspd (in ranriitta at lHW-riimirhp(i rpginnsl
referacesto.
la»(|Kitllt) DFlr(««>ie*l IFoor|ji(iro(ioj9inl)iil*| DNotAisani
Figure 11. Acldilicition in U.S. stream! (US, EFA/WSA). Streams ire considered icidic wta ANC ulues
611 below lero. Streams are considered iensltive to acidifation during rainH events when ANC «l» are
between 0 and 2i millequltoenB, Both ranges were scored is inthropogenicafy icidic In poor condition. Atldlc
streams with high concentrations of sulfate are associated with acid mine drainage, whereas low concentrations
of sulfate indicate acidification due to acid rain.
15
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-F. PHYSICAL STRESSORS OF LAKES
STRESSOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Extent of lake resources
affected by physical stressors
Number of lakes and bar charts by % of all,
natural, and man-made lakes and
condition class for each stressor for the
Nation
Four physical stressors were evaluated:
• Lakeshore habitat condition as measured by the amount and type of
shoreline vegetation. It is based on observations in three layers, i.e.,
understory grasses and forbs, mid-story non-woody and woody shrubs,
and overstory trees.
• Shallow water habitat condition as measured by the presence of living
and non-living features such as overhanging vegetation, aquatic plants
(macrophytes), large woody snags, brush, boulders, and rock ledges.
• Physical habitat complexity combines data from the lakeshore and
shallow habitat to estimate the condition of the amount and variety of
all cover types at the water edge.
• Lakeshore human disturbance as measured by evidence of direct
human alteration of the lakeshore, e.g., removal of trees to create a
picnic area, construction of a lakeshore residential area.
.
La keshore Habitat
H«,Mt
National
(49,546)
H17.I*
•t35.(*
-
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-G. PHYSICAL STRESSORS OF WADEABLE STREAMS
STRESSOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Extent of stream miles
affected by physical stressors
Number of stream miles and
bar charts by % stream miles
for the Nation and ecoregions
and condition classes
Four physical stressors were evaluated:
• Relative bed stability describes the effects of streambed sediments as measured by
comparing the particle size of observed sediments to the size of sediment that a
stream can move or scour during flood stage.
• In-stream habitat as measured by the sum of the amount of in-stream fish
concealment features and habitat (e.g., boulders, overhanging vegetation).
• Riparian vegetative cover as measured by the sum of the amount of woody cover
provided by the ground layer, woody shrubs, and canopy trees.
• Riparian disturbance as measured by the tally of 11 specific human activities and
disturbances along the stream reach and their proximity to the stream.
Sirem Lsojtn i^|
li'.KIl'
National
Stream Lefh (fill
National
Figure 1i, Streimbed sediments in U,S, streams (US, EPA/WSA), This Indicator measures
ol streambeds imp»ed by Increised sedimentation, which Mimes alteration from referents cor
defined by least-disturbed reference sites in each of the nine W5A ecoregons.
lG«oJ Oft! fan QNolteM
Figure JO, liMtreim (iih habitat in U.S. streams (US, EFA/WSA|. Thii imitator aims the amount of
in-stream habitat that Held crews found in streams, Hjbitit consisted of undercut tanks, boulders, large pieces
of wood, and bran Thresholds are based on conditions at regional reference shm
National
I Pur DtttAmd
ILlw QNldln IHjl DNltaHU
,..._. ...f., TL. , Fkire 22, Riparian disturbance in U,S. streams (U.S. EPAWSAI. This indicator is based on field
Figurell. Riparian vegetative cover in U.S. streams (US ErAmSAl This ndicator sums die amount of *
,, observations ot 11 different types of human influence (e,?,, dams, pavement, pasture! and their proximity to
woody cover provided by three layers of riparian vegetation: trie ground layer. Kiody shrubs, and canopy trees.
,, , a stream in 11 riparian plots alons trie stream.
Thresholds are based on condition! at regional reference sites.
17
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-H. RELATIVE RISK OF STRESSORS TO BIOLOGICAL CONDITION IN LAKES
STRESSOR EXTENT/RISK METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Relative extent of stressors
Number of lakes and bar charts
showing relative ranking of all
stressors by % of all, natural and
man-made lakes for the Nation
Estimate of the occurrence of stressors by population of lakes using the
weights associated with the sample design.
Relative risk to biological condition
Number of lakes and bar charts
showing ranking of relative risk of
stressors by % of all, natural and
man-made lakes for the Nation
Relative risk to biological condition is a way to the likelihood of having
poor biological condition when the magnitude of a stressor is high versus
low. The ratio between these two likelihoods is the relative risk.
Biological condition was based on the Planktonic O/E indicator.
Attributable risk
Number of lakes and bar charts
showing ranking of attributable
risk of stressors by % of all, natural
and man-made lakes for the
Nation
Attributable risk provides an estimate of the proportion of the
population in poor biological condition that could be reduced if the
effects of a particular stressor were eliminated. It is calculated by
combining extent and relative risk into a single number. For lakes
biological condition was based on the Planktonic O/E indicator.
Relative Extent
Relative Risk to
Biological Condition
Attributable Risk
National
(49,546)
Natural
(29,308)
pb*gi C
-Made S*e(!aw Water H
<2O 236)
0 20 413 60 SO 100
Fare«ntajje or Lakes Rat«d
Poor for Each Stressor
246
Relative Risk
0 20 40 60 SO
Percentage of Lake
Figure 1 5. Relative extent of poor stressors conditions. Relative risks of impact to piankton O/E and Attributable risk (combining Relative
extent and Relative risk).
18
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-1. RELATIVE RISK OF STRESSORS TO BIOLOGICAL CONDITION IN STREAMS
STRESSOR EXTENT/RISK METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Relative extent of stressors
Bar charts showing relative ranking of
all stressors by % stream length for
the Nation and by ecoregion
Occurrence of stressors by stream length using the weights associated
with the sample design.
Relative risk to biological condition
Bar charts showing ranking of relative
risk of stressors by % of stream
length for the Nation and by
ecoregion
Relative risk to biological condition is a way to examine the likelihood of
having poor biological condition when the magnitude of a stressor is
high versus low. The ratio between these two likelihoods is the relative
risk. Biological condition was based on the Macroinvertebrate IBI and
the Index of Taxa Loss (O/E indicator).
Relative Risk to
Macroinvertebrate
Condition
Relative Risk
O/E
Taxa Loss
Z5
Percentage Stream Length in Most Relawe Risk Relieve Risk
Disturbed ComStlDn
N = Nitrogen RD = Ripar-un Disturbance 1-sFM = lu-strcam Fiih Habitat S = Salinity
P = Phosphor SS =StreambedSedir™5rcs RVC = ftjporan Vegrtath* Cow A = AciificaBon
Figure 24. Extent of stressors and their relative risk to Macroinvertebrate Condition and O/E
Taxa Loss (U.S. EPA/WSA). This figure shows the association between a stressor and biological condition and
answers the question,"What is the increased likelihood of poor biological condition when stressor X is raced
in poor condition^" It is important to note that this figure treats each stressor independently and does not
account for the effects of combinations of stressors.
19
-------
TABLE 3 continued.
TABLE 3-J. OVERALL TROPHIC STATE OF LAKES
TROPHIC STATE
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Trophic Condition
Bar charts showing % of all,
natural and man-made lakes by
trophic category
Trophic state was determined by chlorophyll a concentrations found in
lakes assigned to the categories of oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic,
and hypereutrophic. Results compared to those using Secci transparency,
total nitrogen, and total phosphorus.
Change in Trophic Condition
Pie chart showing % change in
trophic condition
Proportion of lakes in the National Eutrophication Survey that exhibited
improvement, degradation, or no change in trophic condition between the
1972 National Eutrophication Survey and the 2007 Lakes Survey.
National
(49,546)
Natural
(29,308)
Man-Made
(20,238)
Trophic State
Chlorophyll
Number
of Lakes
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Lakes
^•B Oligotropluc (<= 2 ug/L)
I I Mesotrophic (>2-7 ug/L)
•• Eutrophic (>7 to 30 mg/'L.i
•• Hypereutrophic {> 30 ug/L)
Change in Trophic State
(Chlorophyll a)
No Change
51.1%
Figure ES-3. Proportion ol National Eufrophicalion Sur/ey
(NES) lakes that exhibited improvenEnt, degadation. w no
char>ge in trophic state based on the comparison of lhe 1972
Nationaf Eulrophcation Survey and ine 20Q7 Naional Lakes
tesesssaarL
20
-------
REPORTING THE ECOLOGICAL CONDITION OF WETLANDS
A framework to reporting on ecological condition for the 2011 NWCA is outlined in this section.
Example elements of this reporting framework are presented in Table 4. It is anticipated that the report
on the NWCA (targeted for completion in 2013) would, at minimum, include the major categories of
results describing ecological condition that are presented in the Wadeable Stream and Lake Assessment
reports (Table 3; USEPA (2006b, 2009). Parallel result categories to be considered for NWCA reporting
are:
• extent of the wetland resource (Table 4-A),
• status of wetlands ecological condition (Tables 4-B, 4-C),
• extent of stressors (Tables 4-D through 4-G), and
• relationship between stressors and ecological condition (Table 4-H).
In addition, Table 4 also lists ways the NWCA might report on aspects of ecological condition unique to
wetlands or which have not been previously included in NARS reporting. These unique indicators are
denoted in Table 4 as NEW in the "Status" column.
Reporting for some results requires more information and effort than others; therefore, the "Status"
column of Table 4 indicates the ability to report on each of the types of results listed and what is needed
to complete the analysis for reporting. Status codes, reflecting increasing level of effort, are:
• RPT - Indicators for which sufficient data will be available for analysis and reporting upon:
o completion of data entry, validation and verification, and/or
o reconciliation of nomenclature for algae and vascular plants to the respective national
standards used for NWCA.
• RES - Indicators for which research is required before reporting can be completed. For example:
o ancillary data (e.g., autecology and species trait information, coefficients of conservatism
for plant species) must be gathered or developed,
o analysis must be conducted to calculate metrics or develop indices of condition (e.g.,
development of an Index of Biotic Integrity or Observed/Expected Taxa (O/E) index for
plants and for algae), or
o a new approach or metrics describing wetland condition must be developed or evaluated.
• REF - Indicators that require sufficient data from reference sites and on human-mediated
disturbance to establish good, fair, and poor condition are dependent on the availability and
determination of appropriate reference for each reporting group.
The text in the next four sections draws on Table 4 to provide a concise picture of the potential content
of the 2013 NWCA report and to highlight the additional work required to report certain types of results.
21
-------
EXTENT OF THE RESOURCE
The description of the extent of the wetland resource can be similar to that for wadeable streams and
lakes primarily because the data required come from the survey design and the site evaluation process
(Tables 3 and 4; USEPA (2011d)). The NWCA will report on the area of the target population as a whole
and by S&T and Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classes for the Nation, by ecoregion and, potentially, other
reporting units (Table 4-A).
NWCA can report on the extent of the resource in ways that will inform and augment the USFWS S&T
Reports. For example, NWCA can report the wetland area that is non-target (see Table 1) and
document the proportion of the non-target area due to map error (i.e., places identified as wetland on
the S&T sample plots that are not wetland), to being an excluded wetland type, or to being in active use
for agriculture, aquaculture, or industry. The NWCA also will have data on the portion of the target
population in the Palustrine Farmed Class along with information on the likely wetland type before the
agricultural activity occurred.
In addition, the NWCA will provide information on various wetland types in the Palustrine
Unconsolidated Bottom Class, especially those commonly characterized as freshwater ponds (i.e., small
bodies of water shallow enough for sunlight to reach the bottom, permitting growth of aquatic plants
(Dahl 2006)). Freshwater ponds had the largest percent increase in area nationally of any wetland type
between 1998 and 2004 and have been increasing in area since the first S&T Report on wetland area in
1956 (Dahl 2006). Most of the created ponds were: (1) small warm water ponds for fishing, (2) artificial
water detention retention and water hazard ponds constructed in many cases for ornamentation or
water management, and (3) ponds constructed for aquaculture (Dahl 2006). The resulting shift in
wetland types from vegetated wetlands to those dominated by open water can involve changes in
ecological structure and processes in the affected area (e.g., see Gwin et al.(1999), Magee et al. (1999),
Shaffer and Ernst (1999), Shaffer et al.(1999), Magee and Kentula (2005)). The USFWS S&T program has
added descriptive categories of the physical and ecological characteristics of freshwater ponds to their
analysis of changes in wetland area between 2004 and 2009 (pers. com. T.E. Dahl, USFWS). The NWCA
will augment S&T reporting with information on the types and condition of wetlands in the Palustrine
Unconsolidated Bottom Class based on the S&T categories of freshwater ponds.
STATUS OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
Tables 4-B (Biological Condition) and 4-C (Wetland condition) illustrate potential reporting elements that
are similar and different (NEW in the status column) compared to other NARS assessments. The NWCA
can eventually report on condition in ways that are similar to the Wadeable Streams and Lakes
Assessments (Table 3). However, several constraints (e.g., the availability of autecological data and
appropriate reference site data, and the research required for some analysis approaches) will influence
the specific content for reporting on condition in the 2013 NWCA report.
22
-------
For example, the Wadeable Stream and Lake Assessments report on biological condition (USEPA 2006b,
2009). The Wadeable Stream Assessment focused on macroinvertebrates; the Lake Assessment,
plankton and diatoms. Both assessments used Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) and an Index of Taxa Loss
(Observed taxa/Expected taxa (O/E)). The NWCA will collect data on vegetation and algae that would be
suitable for development of IBIs and O/E, plus a Floristic Quality Index (FOJ) (e.g., Lopez and Fennessy
(2002), Rooney and Rogers (2002), Mathews (2003), Bourdaghs et al. (2006), and Miller and Wardrop
(2006)). However, although Vegetation IBIs and FOJs have been developed for a number of states and
regions and for a number of wetland types (see Mack and Kentula (2010) for a review), they are not
available for the Nation or for all states or regions.
Data from the NWCA can support development of all three types of indices, but additional information
or research is required for their completion. For example, data on plant traits are needed for developing
vegetation IBIs and FOJs and comparison of data from reference sites is needed for IBIs and FQIs. O/E
has not been used for wetlands and requires extensive reference data. Consequently, while work
progresses on gathering needed information and generating indices such as IBIs, FQIs, and O/E metrics
for vegetation and algae, the NWCA also may need to focus on other approaches to reporting ecological
condition for the 2013 NWCA report.
The ecological condition of wetlands might initially be described using several approaches. For example:
• The condition of the wetland vegetation could be described using simple metrics (see examples
in Table 4-B). For example, the proportion of the area of the resource dominated by wetland
vegetation as defined in Lichvar and Kartesz (2009) or by the presence and abundance of native
and alien plant species, and/or aspects of vegetation structure appropriate to wetland types.
• Overall wetland condition could be evaluated employing multivariate analyses (e.g., Johnston et
al. (2009)) and/or metric evaluation (e.g., Jacobs et al. (2010)) using the NWCA data on
vegetation, soils, hydrology, surface water characteristics, and algae (see examples in Table 4-C).
EXTENT OF STRESSORS
The NWCA will report on the area of the target population affected by stressorsforthe wetland
resource and by S&T and HGM Classes for the Nation, by ecoregion, and, potentially, other reporting
units. The NWCA can report on biological, chemical, and physical stressors (Tables 4E-4G), as was done
for the Wadeable Stream Assessment (USEPA 2006b). The Lake Assessment only reported on chemical
and physical stressors (USEPA 2009).
The use of biological, chemical, and physical stressor data is consistent with current approaches to
assessing wetlands and recognizes the connection between the presence of stressors and wetland
condition. For example, rapid assessment methods have been developed which use only stressors as
indicators of condition (e.g., the Delaware Rapid Assessment Method (Jacobs 2007)) and models
comprising an HGM assessment (a Level 3, intensive assessment) use stressors as variables (e.g.,
Whigham et al. (2007), Wardrop et al. (2007a)). Recognizing the various applications of stressor data in
wetland assessment, it will be important to avoid simultaneously using the same data to describe
23
-------
condition and account for impacts on condition. For example, if the presence of alien plant species is
used as an indicator of condition, it should not be used as a stressor affecting condition in an analysis
that involves the correlation between condition and stressors.
Stressors data were collected in the field in three ways for the NWCA. Data on stressors associated with
each of the indicators (i.e., vegetation, soils, hydrology, water quality, algae) were collected as part of
sampling the AA (USEPA 2011b). Data on stressor presence and proximity to the AA were collected
along four transects in the buffer (specifically, residential and urban stressors, hydrology stressors,
agricultural and rural stressors, industrial stressors, habitat/vegetation stressors, and targeted alien
plant species) (USEPA 2011b). Finally, stressor data were collected from aerial photographs across the
entire AA and buffer and verified in the field as part of the rapid assessment method (USA-RAM) used in
the NWCA (USEPA 2011e).
Collection of stressor data was designed to support three types of analyses. Biological, chemical, and
physical stressors can be treated as categories from which a short list of stressors can be selected based
on national or regional concerns about the extent they might be impacting the quality of wetlands. For
example, see portions of Table 3 and the sections on stressors in the reports from the Wadeable Stream
and Lake Assessments (USEPA 2006b, 2009). Stressor data also can be used to place the AA on a
gradient of disturbance relative to reference condition. This is one approach to the development of IBIs.
The other, which was used in the Wadable Stream Assessment, is to use reference and poor condition to
establish the ends of the gradient. Finally, the data describing proximity to the AA of stressors observed
in the buffer can be used to explore the potential effect of stressors with distance from the AA.
Other wetland assessments suggest additional ways to scrutinize the stressor data. For example, the
rigorous collection of vegetation data in the NWCA will generate data that can be used to explore the
relationship between the presence of invasive and alien species and wetland condition. Alien and
invasive plants are a key stressor to global ecosystems. They promote alterations in native species
composition, ecosystem structure, or ecosystem processes (Vitousek et al. 1997, Dukes and Mooney
2004). Ringold et al. (2008) demonstrated the strengths and limitations of collecting information on
restricted number of invasive plants as part of a survey of aquatic ecosystems. They recommended use
of the approach in future surveys because of the amount of useful information gathered inexpensively
compared to a sampling the entire plant community. Because of the work of Ringold et al., collection of
information on a targeted set of alien plant species was included in the buffer sampling protocol for the
NWCA (USEPA 2011b). Information on the targeted species is also available from the complete
vegetation sampling done in the AA.
Magee et al. (2010) created an Index of Alien Impact (IAI) for streamside ecosystems in the John Day
river basin in eastern Oregon and demonstrated the potential for its use in informing management
decisions and in selecting priorities for alien control and vegetation conservation or for setting
restoration goals. The IAI estimates the collective impact of multiple alien species by integrating a series
of ecological traits associated with the impacts of these species into one index. The NWCA will collect
part of the data needed to produce an IAI; however, an additional effort to produce a database of plant
traits is required.
24
-------
Stressor data from the NWCA might be examined to relate specific types of human activities to impacts
on wetland condition. Whigham et al. (2007) showed that in the Nanticoke Watershed in Delaware
wetland condition was related to level of disturbance and that the types of disturbance was related to
wetland type. Flats were impacted by timber harvesting practices; riverine wetlands, by stream
channelization. In the case of the Upper Juniata Watershed in Pennsylvania, the predominance of
hydrologic modification, vegetation alteration, and sedimentation across all wetland classes reflected
the conversion of forest to agriculture or urban/residential uses (Wardrop et al. 2007b).
Additionally, the data on stressors associated with land use in the buffer might be used to explore
wetland condition in relation to the setting of the AA. A way to do this was demonstrated by Wardrop
et al. (2007a) as part of a functional assessment of wetlands in the Upper Juniata Watershed. They
defined three reference domains (Natural, Agricultural, and Developed) based on predominant land
cover in the setting of the sites sampled. They demonstrated that level of wetland function was related
to land use setting with sites in the Natural Domain being much more likely to be the high functioning,
while those in the Agricultural Domain were dominated by sites with an overall low level of functioning.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRESSORS AND ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
The NWCA can report on the relationship between stressors and ecological condition as was done for
wadeable streams and lakes (Tables 3 and 4; USEPA (2006b, 2009)). This is possible because the analysis
uses the results on wetland condition and the extent of stressors discussed previously. The descriptions
of the analysis of the relative risk of stressors to condition are taken from the reports of the Wadeable
Stream and Lake Assessments (USEPA 2006b, 2009).
Relative extent of stressors is a measure of how common a stressor is. The area of wetland and the %
of the wetland area in which each stressor occurs would be ranked to determine which are most
common. This can be done for the Nation and by ecoregion to determine which stressors occur widely
versus those which are regionally important. It can also be done by S&T and/or HGM Class to determine
which stressors are common in particular wetland types.
Relative risk is a way to examine the likelihood of having poor ecological condition when the magnitude
of a stressor is high versus low. The ratio between these two likelihoods is relative risk. This analysis
can be done by geographic reporting units and wetland type.
Attributable risk provides an estimate of the proportion of the population in poor biological condition
that could be reduced if the effects of a particular stressor were eliminated. It is calculated by
combining extent and the relative risk into a single number. The ranking of stressors according to
attributable risk represents their relative magnitude or importance relative to decreased biological
condition and can be used by policy makers and managers to prioritize actions by stressor, geographic
area and/or wetland type.
25
-------
TABLE 4. Potential NWCA results from the 2011 assessment. The STATUS column indicates the ability to report on each of the types of results
listed in the table. The forms from the NWCA referenced in the table are found in the Field Operations Manual (USEPA 2011b) and in Appendix
A.
RPT = Sufficient data is immediately available for reporting once a clean data base is obtained (e.g., upon completion of validation and
verification of the data and reconciliation of nomenclature for algae and plants)
REF = Sufficient data is required from reference sites for reporting
RES = Research is required before reporting (e.g., ancillary data needs to be collected, or analysis needs to be conducted to develop metrics,
indices, or approach to condition assessment)
NEW = Unique to NWCA
TABLE 4-A. DESCRIPTION OF WETLAND RESOURCE
STATUS I INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
RPT
Area of target wetland population by:
Wetland resource
- S&T Class
- HGM Class
Bar chart of % wetland area and
table with estimated area for
the Nation and by ecoregion
Estimated from sample design and associated weights.
Each individual site selected in the probability sample
has a weight. The weight indicates the wetland area in
the target population represented by that site.
Data to make these estimates are from Forms PV-1
and AA-2.
RPT
Area of target wetland population unsampleable
because:
Access permission denied
Permanently inaccessible
Sampleable area too small (<0.1 ha)
Unsampleable area >10% of AA
Sampleable area crosses HGM boundaries
Bar chart of % wetland area and
table with estimated area for
the Nation and by ecoregion
Estimates of area for wetlands that were
unsampleable that can be categorized based on
information recorded on Form PV-1.
RPT
NEW
Area of initial sample draw that was non-target
because of:
Map error
Non-target wetland type
Active crop production
Industrial/Agriculture/Aquaculture use
Inundation by water >lm deep
Bar chart of % wetland area and
table with estimated area for
the Nation and by ecoregion
Estimates of area for wetlands that were non-target
that can be categorized based on information
recorded on Form PV-1.
26
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-A. DESCRIPTION OF WETLAND RESOURCE (continued)
STATUS
INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
RPT
NEW
Description of Palustrine Farmed Class by:
Current use; type of agricultural use and
sampleable wetlands
S&T type for points not sampleable due to
ongoing agricultural activities
Chart of % wetland area and
table with estimated area for
each Palustrine Farmed Class
for the Nation and by
ecoregion
Estimated with data and categories from Form PV-1
data using sample design and associated weights.
RPT
NEW
Description of Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Class
by category, for example:
Sampleable
Unsampleable
o Waste treatment
o Industry, agriculture , aquaculture
o Impermeable due to manufactured liner
o Water depth >1 m
Chart of % wetland area and
table with estimated wetland
area for Palustrine
Unconsolidated Bottom Class
for the Nation and by
ecoregion
Estimated with data and categories from Form PV-1
data using sample design and associated weights.
RPT
NEW
Comparison of findings above with most recent USFWS
Status and Trends Report
Written discussion
Not applicable
27
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-B. BIOLOGICAL CONDITION
STATUS INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
REF
RES
Overall Biological Condition by:
-Wetland resource
- S&T Class
-HGMtype
Charts of % wetland area by condition
category for the resource and by
wetland class for the Nation and
ecoregion
The above with wetland area estimates
Estimated from indices such as:
• Vegetation IBI (Data from Forms V-2, V-3, V-4, ancillary
autecology information)
• Algae IBI (report on subset of population, taxonomic
composition data from lab analysis of algae samples,
ancillary autecological information)
• Floristic Quality Index (Data from Form V-2, ancillary
information)
• Vegetation O/E (or Index of Taxa Loss) (Data from Form V-2)
• Algae O/E (report on subset of population, taxonomic
composition data from lab analysis of algae samples)
REF
RES
Index of Taxa Loss - Ratio of
Observed to Expected (O/E)
Bar charts of % taxa loss for the
resource and by wetland class for the
Nation and ecoregions using
Vegetation O/E
The above with wetland area estimates
Estimated from a list of expected taxa (or "E") at individual AAs are
predicted from a model developed from data collected at reference
sites and compared to the taxa observed (or "O") at a site to
quantify taxa lost.
Data are from Forms V-2 for vegetation, for algae data are from
taxonomic composition data from lab analysis of algae samples.
REF
RES
Indices of Biologic Integrity
(IBI)
Bar charts by % wetland area and
condition class for the resource and by
wetland class for the Nation and
ecoregions using a Vegetation IBI
The above with wetland area estimates
Wetland Indices composed of metrics representing characteristics of
plant and algal assemblages. Characteristics to consider might
include metrics describing species richness, nativity, longevity,
sensitivity to disturbance or conditions altered from natural state,
and functional guilds. Other characteristics that might be
considered in developing a Vegetation IBI might include various
plant species traits, wetland indicator status, or floristic quality (see
next row on Floristic Quality Indices).
Data for vegetation are from Forms V-2, V-3, V-4 and ancillary
autecological information. Data for algae are from taxonomic
composition data from lab analysis of algae samples and ancillary
autecology information.
28
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-B. BIOLOGICAL CONDITION (continued)
STATUS
INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATIONOF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
RES
REF
Floristic Quality indices
Bar charts by % wetland
area and condition class for
the resource and by wetland
class for the Nation and
ecoregions using a
Vegetation IBI
The above with wetland
area estimates
The Floristic Quality Index (FQI) approach based on plant species
composition can also be used for wetland plants (e.g., Taft et al.
(1997), Lopez and Fennessy (2002), Mathews (2003), Cohen et al.
(2004), Bourdaghs et al. (2006), Miller and Wardrop (2006)). Data
are from Forms V-2, V-4.
Construction of FQI requires development of Coefficients of
Conservatism for plant species.
RPT
NEW
Wetland Vegetation Condition - Status
Bar charts by % wetland
area by condition class for
the resource and by wetland
class for the Nation and
ecoregions
The above with wetland
area estimates
Vegetation condition might be evaluated using simple metrics or
condition classes describing aspects of species composition or
structure that are at least somewhat independent of specific
reference condition. For example:
• An evaluation of whether the vegetation is dominated by
wetland plant species and/or by native species (e.g.,
Magee et al. (1999)). Data are from Form V-2.
• An evaluation of elements of vegetation vertical structure
that are widely considered to characterize good condition
in particular wetland types. Data are from Forms V-3, V-4.
RPT
RES
NEW
Wetland Vegetation Condition - Alien Species
Alien species can reflect decreases in
ecological condition of wetland vegetation
and increased human mediated disturbance.
However, alien species, particularly those
that are invasive, can also be considered
direct stressors to wetland ecosystems (see
Table 4-E).
Note: if the presence of alien plant species is
used as an indicator of condition, it should
not be used as a stressor affecting condition
in an analysis that involves the correlation
between condition and stressors.
Bar charts by % wetland
area by alien metric for the
resource and by wetland
class for the Nation and
ecoregions
The above with wetland
area estimates
Vegetation condition can be described in relation to the presence
and abundance of alien species. Alien species reflect changes
from natural vegetation composition indicating decreased
condition. For example:
• An evaluation of the absolute or relative number or
abundance of all or individual alien plant species (e.g.,
Ringold et al. (2008), Magee et al. (2010)). Data are from
Forms V-2, V-4, B-l. RPT: Can be calculated when data are
available.
• Metrics describing alien impact (e.g., Magee et al. (2010))
can reflect condition, but may also be used in other
contexts to assess stress and relative risk to wetlands. Data
are from Forms V-2, V-4, B-l; ancillary autecological data.
RES: Requires research and acquisition of data on plant
species characteristics.
29
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-C. SOIL AND OVERALL WETLAND CONDITION
STATUS
INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATIONOF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
RES
NEW
Wetland soil condition
Bar charts by % wetland area
by condition class for the
resource and by wetland class
for the Nation and ecoregions
The above with wetland area
estimates
An evaluation of the wetland soils using the soil variables
sampled including profile descriptions and soil chemistry. Data
are from Form S-l and soil chemistry analysis results. Soil
chemistry analysis includes carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, calcium,
potassium, magnesium, sodium, aluminum, iron, manganese, and
traces elements (USEPA 2011c).
RPT
RES
NEW
Overall wetland condition
Bar charts by % wetland area
by condition class for the
resource and by wetland class
for the Nation and ecoregions
The above with wetland area
estimates
Wetland condition evaluated using methods such as:
• Multivariate analysis approaches (e.g., Magee et al.
(1999), Magee et al. (2008), Johnston et al. (2009)),
and/or
• Metric evaluation approaches (e.g., Jacobs et al. (2010),
Sifneosetal. (2010)).
Either approach could use :
• Biological data on vegetation (Forms V-2, V-3, V-4,
ancillary autecological data) and/or algae (lab analysis
results for chlorophyll a, microcystin, and taxonomic
composition, ancillary autecological data).
• Physical data based on soils (Form S-l, soil chemistry
analysis results), hydrology (Form H-l), surface water
characteristics (Form WQ-1, water chemistry analysis
results, and
• Data describing stressors in the AA and Buffer, (Forms B-
1 and Form H-l).
30
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-D. EXTENT OF STRESSORS OF WETLANDS
STATUS
STRESSOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
RPT
Extent of presence of
each stressor in
wetlands
Bar charts by % wetland area for the
resource and by wetland class for the
Nation and ecoregions
The above with wetland area estimates
A number of hydrologic stressors were assessed in the AA (Form H-l) because
of their potential for negative effects on wetland condition, and/or national
or regional concerns about the extent to which each might be impacting
wetland quality. Categories of stressors measured are:
• Damming features
• Shallow channels
• Impervious surfaces
• Recent sedimentation
• Pumps
• Field tiling
• Excavation/dredging
• Pipes
• Culverts
• Ditches
• Other.
RES
NEW
Extent of presence of
each stressor in
wetlands
Bar charts by % wetland area for each
stressor for the resource and by
wetland class for the Nation and
ecoregions
The above with wetland area estimates
A number of algal- based stressors were assessed in the AA because of their
potential for negative effects on wetland condition, and/or national or
regional concerns about the extent to which each might be impacting wetland
quality. Laboratory analysis of algae samples provides taxonomic
composition and chlorophyll a concentration data. Categories of stressors
measured are:
Alien and invasive algae species
Trophic state as indicated by algal chlorophyll a concentration.
31
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-D. EXTENT OF STRESSORS OF WETLANDS (continued)
RPT
NEW
Extent of presence of
each stressor in the
immediate vicinity of
wetlands (i.e., in the
buffer)
Bar charts by % wetland area for each
stressor for the resource and by wetland
class for the Nation and ecoregions
The above with wetland area estimates
A number of stressors were assessed in the buffer area immediately adjacent
to the AA (Form B-l) because of their potential negative effects on wetland
condition, and/or national or regional concerns about the extent to which
each might be impacting wetland quality. Categories of stressors in the buffer
measured are:
Residential and urban
Agricultural and rural
Industrial development
Hydrologic alteration
Habitat/vegetation
Targeted alien species.
RPT
NEW
Wetland condition as
indicated by presence
of stressors in the
wetland and
immediate
surrounding area
Bar charts by % wetland area for each
condition class for the resource and by
wetland class for the Nation and
ecoregions
The above with wetland area estimates
Calculation of stressor impact in AA and in the area immediately surrounding
the AA (Form B-l and USA-RAM (USEPA 2011e)) as done for the stressor
based rapid assessment used in the Juniata Watershed Assessment (Wardrop
etal. 2007b).
32
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-E. BIOLOGICAL STRESSORS OF WETLANDS
STATUS
STRESSOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
RPT
RES
NEW
Extent of the presence of each
biological stressor in wetlands and its
association with condition
Note: If the presence of alien plant
species is used as an indicator of
condition, it should not be used as a
stressor affecting condition in an
analysis that involves the correlation
between condition and stressors.
Bar charts by % wetland area for
each condition class for each
stressor for the Nation and
ecoregions
The above with wetland area
estimates
Alien species (biological stressors) were assessed in the AA and
in the area immediately surrounding the AA (Form B-l) because
of their potential negative effects on wetland condition, and/or
national or regional concerns about the extent to which each
might be impacting wetland quality. Three ways in which alien
species can be examined are:
• An evaluation of the absolute or relative number or
abundance of all or individual alien plant species (e.g.,
Magee et al.(1999)and (2010)). Data are from Forms V-
2, V-4, B-l. RPT: Can be calculated when data are
available.
• Data on list of targeted alien species (Form B-l) is a
useful and low cost method for collecting information
on the impact of a key stressor (Ringold et al. 2008).
• An Index of Alien Impact (Magee et al. 2010) can be
used to estimate the collective ecological impact of alien
species in a particular location or community type. RES:
requires research on plant characteristics.
33
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-F. CHEMICAL STRESSORS OF WETLANDS
STATUS I STRESSOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS I METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
RES
NEW
Extent of the presence of
each chemical stressor in
wetlands and its
association with condition
Bar charts by % wetland area
and condition class for each
stressor by wetland type for
the Nation and ecoregions
The above with wetland area
estimates
A number of chemical stressors were assessed in the AA because of their
potential negative effects on wetland condition, and/or national or regional
concerns about the extent to which each might be impacting wetland quality.
Categories of chemical stressors measured are:
• Overall soil chemistry is a new type of data for a NARS assessment. Soils
are an important characteristic of wetlands and soil chemistry has been
used to describe wetland ecological status and restoration progress (e.g.,
Shaffer and Ernst (1999), Craft (2000)). Data are from lab analysis of
carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, calcium, potassium, magnesium, sodium,
aluminum, iron, manganese, and trace elements (USEPA 2011c).
• Phosphorus and nitrogen in the soil is a new type of data for a NARS
assessment. Phosphorus and nitrogen are important nutrients that
cause eutrophication of aquatic systems and decline in ecological
condition when in excess. Wetlands are important in sequestering
phosphorus (Richardson 1985) and remove nitrogen from water and
soils through denitrification (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Numerous
studies have investigated the role of these nutrients in wetlands (e.g.,
Craft et al. (1989), Mines et al. (2006), Aldous et al. (2007), Loomis and
Craft (2010).
• Trace elements (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead, zinc, etc.) at
elevated levels can be potential stressors and indicate pollution sources.
• Water chemistry (pH, conductivity, nitrogen, phosphorus) is measured
in all NARS assessments because of National or regional concerns about
the extent to which chemical stressors in the water might be impacting
aquatic biota (USEPA 2006b, 2009). The interpretation of the water
chemistry data from the NWCA will require research because not all
wetlands have surface water and wetlands often serve as sinks and
sources in the landscape. They can transform chemicals to the
atmosphere, thus removing them from the water, or accumulate
chemicals to create toxic conditions (see Mitsch and Gosselink (2007) for
a discussion of wetland biogeochemistry).
34
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-G. PHYSICAL STRESORS OF WETLANDS
STATUS I STRESSOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
RES
NEW
Extent of the presence of
each physical stressor in
wetlands and its
association with
condition
Bar charts by % wetland area
for each stressor and condition
class for the resource and by
wetland class for the Nation
and ecoregions
The above with wetland area
estimates
A number of physical stressors were assessed because of their potential negative
effects on wetland condition, and/or national or regional concerns about the
extent to which each might be impacting wetland quality. Categories of physical
stressors measured are:
• Hydrologic alteration as measured by the presence of hydrologic
stressors in the AA (Form H-l) and in the buffer (Form B-l). Hydrologic
conditions are key to the maintenance of wetland structure and
function; therefore alterations to wetland hydrology can have major
impacts on wetland condition, including destruction of the wetland (see
Mitsch and Gosselink (2007) for a discussion of the importance of
hydrology in wetlands).
• Hydrogeomorphic alteration as measured by changes in
hydrogeomorphic type from what would be expected for the location of
the wetland (Form AA-2). Wetland hydrogeomorphology is the basis for
wetland functioning in the landscape, therefore changes in
hydrogeomorphology result in changes in wetland function (Brinson
1993).
• Wetland habitat condition as measured by the % cover of vascular
vegetation strata (Form V-3). Wetlands are habitat for a variety of
species. They are especially known as habitat for birds as evidenced by
the fact that about a third of the bird species of North America use
wetlands for food, shelter and/or breeding (Kroodsma 1979). REF:
Evaluating this stressor will require reference data.
• Physical habitat complexity combines data from the wetland (% cover of
vascular vegetation strata, Form V-3) and buffer (buffer natural cover
strata; Form B-l) to estimate the condition of the amount and variety of
all cover types in and surrounding the wetland. REF: Evaluating this
stressor will require reference data.
• Buffer human disturbance as measured by evidence of direct human
alteration in the buffer, e.g., removal of trees to create a picnic area,
construction of a residential area (Form B-l).
35
-------
TABLE 4 continued.
TABLE 4-H. OVERALL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRESSORS AND ECOLOGICAL CONDITION: RELATIVE RISK OF STRESSORS TO WETLAND
CONDITION
STATUS I STRESSOR EXTENT/RISK METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
RES
Relative extent of stressors
Bar charts showing relative
ranking of all stressors by % of the
area of resource and by area of
wetland class for the Nation and
ecoregions
The above with wetland area
estimates
Relative extent evaluates how widespread and common a
stressor is. It is done using the occurrence of stressors over the
resource and by wetland class and the weights associated with
the sample design.
RES
Relative risk to wetland condition
Bar charts showing ranking of
relative risk of stressors by % of
the area of the resource and by
area of wetland class for the
Nation and ecoregions
The above with wetland area
estimates
Relative risk is a way to examine the likelihood of having poor
ecological condition when the magnitude of the stressor is high
versus low. The ratio between these two likelihoods is the
relative risk.
RES
Attributable risk
Bar charts showing ranking of
attributable risk of stressors by %
of the area of the resource and by
area of wetland class for the
Nation and ecoregions
The above with wetland area
estimates
Attributable risk provides an estimate of the proportion of the
population in poor condition that could be reduced if the effects
of a particular stressor were eliminated. It is calculated by
combining extent and relative risk into a single number.
36
-------
REPORTING ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY WETLANDS
This analysis examines the types of data collected by the NWCA for their utility in documenting the
status of the ecosystem services provided by wetlands. Ecosystem services are defined by the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. The notion of
ecosystem services is fundamental to the concept of sustainability because it highlights the dependency
of humans on the natural world for well-being. Ecosystem services can also be used as a tool for
effectively communicating the importance of ecosystems to decision-makers and the public by making a
connection between the condition of the environment and things people value.
Wetlands are ecotones, or zones of transition, between terrestrial and aquatic systems (Johnston 1993).
As such, wetlands are recognized for their role as regulators of the flows of materials and of other
processes occurring across the landscape (Risser 1993). As human population continues to increase,
wetlands are projected to suffer continued loss and degradation, thus reducing the capacity of these
ecosystems to provide valued services that contribute to human well-being. Major policy decisions in
the next decade must address trade-offs among current and future uses of wetland resources. The
NWCA is a potential mechanism for tracking the status and trends in the ability of the Nation's wetlands
to provide services over time. At minimum, knowing the ecological condition of wetlands can provide
general information on the status of services based on the assumption that wetlands in good condition
likely deliver the services one would expect for the wetland type and region. This assumption is being
tested in a number of research projects funded by the USEPA.
REPORTING ON ECOLOGICAL SERVICES BY THE NARS ASSESSMENTS
The recent report to the U.S. President, "Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the
Economy" (President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 2011), called for:
• An integrated, comprehensive assessment of the condition of U.S. ecosystems;
• Predictions concerning trends in ecosystem change;
• Syntheses of research findings on how ecosystem structure and condition are linked to the
ecosystem functions that contribute to societally important ecosystem services; and
• Characterization of challenges to the sustainability of benefit.
The NARS assessments are well along the path to addressing these recommendations. NARS are
conducting comprehensive assessments of the condition of the Nation's aquatic systems and will have
the ability to track trends in aquatic ecosystem changes as the assessments are repeated over time.
Although NARS assessments were not designed to measure ecosystem services, recent surveys have
begun reporting such information. For example, the most recent National Lakes Assessment (USEPA
2009) related the presence of algal toxins, contaminants in fish tissue, and pathogen indicators to the
suitability for recreation, an ecosystem service provided by lakes (Table 5). Following the example of
the National Lake Assessment, the NWCA will report on the presence of algal toxins in wetlands as they
affect the provision of recreational opportunities, and, potentially, provision of drinking water for
humans and livestock. This is being made possible through a partnership with the U.S. Geological
37
-------
Survey's Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory, which is completing direct and indirect (i.e.,
through indicators) measurements of algal toxins as part of the NWCA.
Cyanobacteria or blue-green algae are a common component of algal communities in wetlands and
other aquatic systems. As stated in the Lake Assessment Report, exposure which most likely occurs
through accidental ingestion or inhalation, may produce allergic reactions such as skin rashes, eye
irritations, respiratory symptoms, and in some cases gastroenteritis, liver and kidney failure, or death.
The USEPA does not presently have water quality criteria for algal toxins, but the World Health
Organization and several states have established exposure guidelines.
As was the case for the National Lakes Assessment, the NWCA is designed to provide information on
general conditions across the population of wetlands as opposed to specific information on a particular
wetland. Therefore, NWCA is the first ever national survey for the presence of algal toxins in wetlands
and will provide a strong first step in understanding their distribution. At the same time, research is
needed to understand the potential effects of algal toxins and, with that understanding, their impact on
wetland services such as recreational use and provision of drinking water.
38
-------
TABLE 5. Examples of how the ecosystem service of recreation was reported for the National Lakes Assessment. Figures are taken from the
assessment report (USEPA 2009).
SUITABILITY OF LAKES FOR RECREATION
INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Algal Toxins
Bar charts showing % of all, natural, and man-
made lakes by indicator of algal toxin risk and for
microcystin presence
Algal toxin risk is reported according to criteria established by the
World Health Organization using the following indicators:
Chlorophyll a concentrations
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) cell counts
Microcystin concentrations
Microcystin presence
National
(49,546)
Natural
(29,308)
Man-Made
(20,238)
21.4%
10.6%
H-U5.8%
t- H 39.7%
114.3%
Cyanobacteria Microcystin Risk
t- -120.4%
6.8%
h H 19.1%
r.1%
I- H 22,3%
J
6.4%
0.7%
0.2%
113%
0.3%
0%
0%
I
D 20 40 6Q SO 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 ZO 40 80 80 100
Percentage of Lakes
CZl Low Risk d] Moderate Risk ^B High Risk
National
(49,546)
Natural
(29,308)
Man-Made
(20,238)
Microcystin
Presence
Number
of Lakes
30.1%
130.6%
I 29.5%
14,929
8,955
5.975
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Lakes
39
-------
TABLE 6. SUITABILITY OF LAKES FOR RECREATION (CONTINUED)
INDICATOR OR METRIC
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
METHOD OF ESTIMATION OR CALCULATION
Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Bar charts showing % of all, natural, and
man-made lakes by indicator of
contaminants in fish tissue
Risk is reported in terms of mercury and PCBs in predator fish.
Pathogen Indicators
No data presented
Research is being conducted on the use of Quantitative Polymerase
Chain Reaction (qPCR) as a measurement of Enterococci bacteria,
which are indicators of the presence of animal excrement and the
possibility of disease causing agents carried by fecal matter.
Contaminants in Predator Fish
Mercury
PCBs
20 40 BO BO
Percentage of Lakes
For Mercury: For PCBs:
100
'•303 pel!
»300ppB
•12pptJ
40
-------
ADDITIONAL REPORTING ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES BY THE 2011 NWCA
The ability to assess wetland services in the NWCA depends on indentifying indicators of services and
the associated metrics that can be measured within the logistical constraints of the assessment. As a
first step in this process, the Western Ecology Division of the USEPA's National Health and
Environmental Effects Laboratory hosted a meeting of natural and social scientists to identify metrics of
Final Ecosystem Services for wetlands and estuaries (Ringold et al. 2011).
Final ecosystem services are the "components of nature directly enjoyed consumed, or used to yield
human well-being"(Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). The term "final" is used to emphasize the ultimate (i.e.,
last) biophysical entity in nature used by people and requires that people must interact with the
biophysical entity to receive the benefit. Nahlik et al. (submitted) argue for adoption of the final
ecosystem services approach because it
• Avoids much of the ambiguity associated with other definitions by restricting ecosystem services
to the things in an ecosystem with which people directly interact;
• Eliminates double-counting ecosystem services;
• Encourages natural and social scientists to collaborate by connecting ecosystem services to both
ecological features and people; and
• Can be understood by the public (non-scientists) without translation or interpretation because
the beneficiaries determine the services by their use.
In the following sections, we discuss two possible approaches, a Final Ecosystem Service Approach and
Landscape Approach, by which the data from the 2011 NWCA may be used to report on wetland
services.
FINAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM 2011 NWCA DATA
Table 6 presents a list of Final Ecosystem Services adapted from Ringold et al. (2011). Data collected
under the NWCA is compatible for services that operate at the global and regional scales because the
NWCA is designed to report at a broad scale (i.e., national and regional). The 2011 NWCA includes
collection of data that have the potential to be used to address the final services of provision of a
habitable climate and of water for consumption. Specifically, organic matter content and natural
abundances of the stable isotope15N in wetland soils are being measured as part of the 2011 NWCA.
41
-------
TABLE 6. Beneficiary Categories and Final Ecosystem Services adapted from Ringold et al. (2011). The last column (HGM Type) indicates the
naturally occurring hydrogeomorphic type of wetland (Brinson 1993) likely to deliver the Final Ecosystem Service. ALL = all types; NONE = no
type; TF = tidal fringe; DP = depression; FL = flats; LF = lacustrine fringe; RT = riverine tidal; RV = riverine non-tidal; SL = slope. Actual delivery of
the services depends on the location of the wetland in the landscape and its ecological condition.
BENEFICIARY CATEGORIES | FINAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICE(S) | HGM TYPE
Global Scale
Basic Needs
habitable climate (due to carbon sequestration);
water for consumption (due to purification by denitrification)
ALL
Regional Scale
Security
reduced risk of flooding events (due to flood water storage and flood peak reduction);
reduced damage from storm surge (due to shoreline protection)
ALL
Local Scale
Agriculture
Aquaculture
Food Extraction
Irrigation
Large-scale Livestock Production
Grazing
Processing
Biomass Harvest
Industry
Mineral Extraction
Fiber & Ornamental Extraction
Processing
Discharge
Hydroelectric and Other Power Generation
Pharmaceuticals and Food Supplements
Business Property
Trapping
conditions for cultivating fish, shellfish, and plants; operations in situ (e.g., open ocean
salmon pens) and ex situ (e.g., fish hatcheries constructed adjacent to an aquatic ecosystem)
harvesting of edible flora, fauna, and fungi
water for crops
water for livestock in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO)
water and feed (vegetation, e.g., salt hay) for livestock use
water to prepare edible plant or animal products
collection of plant or animal materials used to generate energy or produce goods (e.g., feed,
polymers, horticultural products, mushrooms)
minerals and other materials from the substrate
harvested fiber (e.g., peat) and ornamental products (e.g., floral greens, branches, cones)
water to prepare non-consumable products
water to dilute and area to receive liquid industrial waste
water movement used to produce power (e.g., flowing water, waves)
organisms used for medicinal purposes
proximate access to the ecosystem (e.g., piers, marinas, water-view restaurants)
furs and hides for commercial sale
TF, DP, LF
ALL
DP, SL
DP, SL
TF, DP, RT, RV, SL
DP, SL
ALL
ALL
ALL
DP, SL
DP
RT, RV
ALL
DP, TF, LF, RT, RV
DP, LF, RT, RV
42
-------
TABLE 6 (continued). Beneficiary Categories and Final Ecosystem Services adapted from Ringold et al. (2011). The last column (HGM Type)
indicates the naturally occurring hydrogeomorphic type of wetland (Brinson 1993) likely to deliver the Final Ecosystem Service. ALL = all types;
NONE = no type; TF = tidal fringe; DP = depression; FL = flats; LF = lacustrine fringe; RT = riverine tidal; RV = riverine non-tidal; SL = slope. Actual
delivery of the services depends on the location of the wetland in the landscape and its ecological condition.
BENEFICIARY CATEGORIES | FINAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES | HGM TYPE
Local Scale (continued)
Commercial Transportation
Goods
People
Municipal, Governmental and
Residential
Drinking Water Source
Residential Property
Waste Water Treatment Plants
Recreational
Nature Appreciation, Hiking,
Viewing
Wading, Swimming, Scuba
Fishing, Hunting
Boating
Ice skating
Customs
Spiritual and Ceremonial
Artistic
Subsistence
Water
Food
Fiber, fur
Infrastructure
conditions (e.g., deep water, channels) that allow moving goods
conditions (e.g., deep water, channels) that allow moving people
water for human consumption
property value due to proximate access to the ecosystem (e.g., views, recreation)
area to receive treated municipal discharge
organisms that can be viewed, habitat that provides a pleasing, inspirational, or relaxing sensory
experience
conditions for wading or swimming
organisms that can be fished or hunted
area suitable for boating, canoeing, kayaking
area suitable for ice skating
conditions for spiritual and ceremonial activities
inspiration or materials for art
water for human consumption and other uses
edible plants and animals
materials for clothing, containers
materials for buildings and other structures
NONE
NONE
DP, SL
ALL
DP
ALL
DP, RT, RV, LF, TF
ALL
DP, RT, RV, LFJF
DP, RV, LF
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
43
-------
TABLE 6 (continued). Beneficiary Categories and Final Ecosystem Services adapted from Ringold et al. (2011). The last column (HGM Type)
indicates the naturally occurring hydrogeomorphic type of wetland (Brinson 1993) likely to deliver the Final Ecosystem Service. ALL = all types;
NONE = no type; TF = tidal fringe; DP = depression; FL = flats; LF = lacustrine fringe; RT = riverine tidal; RV = riverine non-tidal; SL = slope. Actual
delivery of the services depends on the location of the wetland in the landscape and its ecological condition.
BENEFICIARY CATEGORIES | FINAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICE(S) | HGM TYPE
Local Scale (continued)
Non-Use
Existence
Option, Bequest
Academic
Education
Research
knowing that the ecosystem exists (not directly experienced by the individual)
knowing that the ecosystem exists so that it can be enjoyed or used in the future
opportunities to educate and communicate about all ecosystem services
opportunities for study of all ecosystem services
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
44
-------
FINAL SERVICE: HABITABLE CLIMATE
Climate change is a major threat to the survival of species and integrity of ecosystems (Hulme 2005). It
is expected that climate change will negatively affect wetlands through alterations in hydrologic
regimes, which will require innovations in wetland management and restoration (see the review by
Erwin (2009) and the papers cited therein). At the same time, wetlands are important to global carbon
dynamics and climate because of their large soil carbon pools, greenhouse gas emissions, and potential
for carbon sequestration (Bridgham et al. 2006). The greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are naturally produced in wetlands. Although CH4 and N2O are quite
potent, with a radiative potential of 21 and 310 times that of CO2, they are emitted from wetlands at
significantly lower levels than CO2 (Song et al. 2008, Gleason et al. 2009), with about an order of
magnitude difference among each of the gases (i.e., CO2>CH4>N2O). Furthermore, Mitsch et al. (in
prep.) modeled carbon balances (CO2 and CH4 emissions versus carbon sequestration) using data from
18 wetlands from around the world and found that over the long term (>100 years) most wetlands are
net carbon sinks (Lenart 2009, Mitsch 2011). This echoes the estimates of Bridgham et al. (2006) that
approximately 98% of the carbon in North American wetlands resides in the soil, with the largest
amount found in peatlands.
Organic matter content at depth might be used as an indicator of potential carbon sequestration and,
with vegetation cover data, as an estimate of the size of the carbon pool. Application of NWCA data to
maintenance of habitable climate will require research; however, the work of Bridgham et al. (2006) on
the carbon balance of North American wetlands can serve as a starting point. The NWCA will collect
data on organic carbon content of wetland soils from every horizon to a depth of 125 cm. Collection of
carbon data at depth is important because it is the carbon buried deeper in the soil that is stored and
may be sequestered over long time periods. Often, shallow soil cores are collected to estimate carbon
storage; however, the amount of carbon within the rooting zone of a wetland is variable because it is
often subject to periods of wetting and drying and the associated oxidation.
Another carbon pool is the plant biomass. Although only a small percentage of the carbon stored in
plant biomass will be sequestered in the soils, the plant biomass is inextricably linked to the
sequestration process, and, therefore, important for understanding carbon pools. No systematic
inventory of wetland plant biomass has ever been undertaken in North America (Bridgham et al. 2006).
The plant cover estimates from the NWCA can provide a "first-cut" estimate of wetland plant biomass.
Because the NWCA is a national survey of key characteristics of multiple wetland types, the data will fill
gaps in the literature identified by Bridgham et al. (2006) and could improve estimates of the carbon
budget associated with wetlands and add the ability to track changes over time.
FINAL SERVICE: WATER FOR CONSUMPTION
Reactive nitrogen (Nr) is a type of stressor that does not behave like traditional toxic chemicals because
(1) its effects cross traditional regulatory media; (2) its effects are highly variable, and therefore, place-
dependent; and (3) it exists in many forms that interact with each other (USEPA 2008). Further
complicating matters, Nr is one of life's essential elements. Population growth and demands for energy
and food lead to increases of Nr in the environment. Projections show that Nr pollution will increase for
45
-------
the foreseeable future along with increased environmental and human health problems (USEPA 2008).
In the case of surface waters, increases in Nr contribute to:
• contamination of water supplies,
• eutrophication and associated algal blooms, fish kills, and loss of habitat,
• acidification of lakes and streams, and
• reduced buffering capacity in estuarine and marine waters (USEPA 2008).
Wetlands often exist in optimal locations for intercepting nitrogen-laden surface water, and anaerobic
conditions characteristic of wetlands aid in the removal of nitrate, one of the major species of Nr,
through the process of denitrification. National denitrification estimates have the potential to allow
evaluation of the ability of the wetland resource to provide this critical process to support the provision
of water for consumption.
Although denitrification and nitrogen retention in wetlands can be estimated, traditional methods tend
to be labor-intensive and costly, and require long-term monitoring due to high variability. Scientists at
the USEPA's National Health and Environmental Research Laboratory's Western Ecology Division are
conducting a study in conjunction with the NWCAto develop a tool for quantifying denitrification that
can be applied regionally and nationally within a monitoring framework. The monitoring tool will be an
index of denitrification potential that uses stable isotopes as an indicator. Stable isotopes have the
ability to (1) integrate key ecological processes through space and time and (2) indicate the presence
and magnitude of these processes. For these reasons, measurement of natural isotope abundances of
nitrogen (615N) from one-time soil sampling may be able to provide more comprehensive, long-term
information than traditional types of analyses. In theory, stable isotopes may be a good candidate for
use as a monitoring tool; however, this application for isotopes has been relatively unexplored in
naturally-occurring wetlands.
The research will be a combination of extensive and intensive studies designed to test and develop the
use of stable isotopes as an indicator of denitrification in wetlands. Intensive work at the level of
individual wetlands is being conducted to examine the relationship between actual denitrification in a
wetland and that suggested by the isotope pattern (Figure 6). The extensive effort at the level of a
watershed, state, or region will provide information on how the isotope method can be applied in a
monitoring framework and on the ability to extrapolate from the intensive work (Figure 7).
46
-------
g
+-•
o
CD
Q
R2>0.
<515N
FIGURE 6. Example of the possible relationship between
denitrification and isotopic 615N measurements that could
serve to interpret isotope data collected as a monitoring
tool in wetlands.
A)
B)
f'15N
Region 8
Region 10
Region 5
Region 3
FIGURE 7. Example of possible relationships between denitrification and isotopic 615N measurements in
different USEPA Regions. Regional isotopic signatures could cluster along A) the same trend line or B)
different trend lines depending on region or other wetland characteristics (e.g., HGM type).
Additionally, the isotope indicator was incorporated into the sampling for the 2011 NWCA (Figure 8;
USEPA (2011b)) so that the potential for its use at the national scale is examined.
Stable isotopes are a feasible candidate for use as a monitoring tool. EPA Regional offices and their
component state wetland programs would benefit from having a tool to rapidly estimate the ability of
wetlands to retain nitrogen, thus aiding in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development, prescribing
best management practices for watershed restoration, and increasing information about reference sites
and the way wetlands function in the landscape.
47
-------
Remove the plunger.
Carefully remove the syringe,
supporting the soil core as it
is lifted.
Push the syringe 10 cm into
the soil. The air hole should
be above the soil.
Replace the plunger, pushing it
down just enough to cover the
air hole.
J
Slowly extrude the core using
the plunger.
Avoid pushing the plunger
beyond the end of the coring
device.
FIGURE 8. Extracting a soil core for an isotope soil sample for the NWCA. Photos by Casey Pollock and
Amanda Nahlik, USEPA.
48
-------
COMBINING WETLAND CONDITION AND SERVICES THROUGH A LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
Examination of the contents of Table 6 reveals that all of the Final Ecosystem Services (except for those
in the Global Scale category) require information on the setting of the wetland and the proximity to
human use to evaluate probable Final Ecosystem Services. The landscape setting is also important
because the wetlands producing the services work best as spatially distributed systems and when they
are open to hydrologic and biological fluxes with other systems, including those managed by humans
(Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). These factors point to the importance of using landscape or Level 1
assessment to address wetland services in conjunction with NWCA data. In the following sections, we
present two examples of how Level 1 assessment data could be used to address wetland services -
maps to support decision making and landscape and service profiles.
MAPS TO SUPPORT DECISION MAKING - AN EXAMPLE FROM SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA
The ecosystem services framework for South East Queensland, Australia, is an excellent example of how
ecological, spatial, and ecosystem services information can be used to support decision making
(Maynard et al. 2010). With the help of technical experts, Maynard et al. identified ecosystem services
and determined what major landscape types (Ecosystem Reporting Categories) provided functions that
lead to these services and to what extent. This resulting information was used to develop a series of
maps that identify where ecosystem services are being produced. The first set of maps designates the
locations of the ecosystems of interest. The second set designates the spatial distribution of each
ecosystem function associated with the production of services and is based on best professional
judgment of experts and available data. These maps are overlaid to produce a Total Ecosystem Function
map that indicates the areas performing a high level of ecosystem function and, therefore, potential to
provide the full range of ecosystem services one would expect from the ecosystems in that setting
(Maynard et al. 2010).
While this has been one of the most successful demonstrations of an ecosystem service framework to
date (Nahlik et al. submitted). Maynard et al. (2010) also acknowledge that detailed information on
ecological condition is a gap in their assessment of ecological resources. At minimum, the important
piece of information that the NWCA adds to the evaluation of the delivery of wetland services is the
ecological condition of the wetland resource. Wetlands in good ecological condition are likely to be
functioning as they should. Properly functioning wetlands are likely to deliver the final services one
would expect given the wetland type and landscape setting. Data on changes in condition over time will
be essential to anticipating potential losses of ecosystem services and the benefits from preventive or
remedial actions.
South East Queensland agencies and organizations will use the maps and associated information that
resulted from the efforts of Maynard et al. (2010) to facilitate the prioritization of geographic areas
within the region according to ecological significance and to target areas to generate credits for damage
to the delivery of services due to development elsewhere. Data on ecological condition and the
attributable risk of stressors from the NWCA would be invaluable to evaluating the tradeoffs associated
with these types of decisions. Consideration of the tradeoffs is vital to addressing the tension between
49
-------
the value of beneficial uses so that decisions between two different valued options can be made more
effectively and the protection needed to assure that use does not destroy what is valued.
LANDSCAPE AND SERVICE PROFILES
The relative abundance of functional classes of wetlands (e.g., HGM classes (Brinson 1993)) is
characteristic of a landscape unit such as a watershed and reflects its hydrologic, geologic, and
topographic characteristics (Bedford 1996). Therefore, functional types of wetlands occur in different
combinations and in different land use and land cover settings resulting in a mosaic of functional
surfaces (Forman 1995). The simplest way to illustrate such pattern is in a landscape profile, i.e., a graph
of the relative abundances of functional classes of wetlands in a unit of the landscape (Gwin et al. 1999),
which allows for easy identification of how the hydrology, geology, and topography vary among settings.
For example, the naturally occurring landscape profiles for Portland, Oregon, and the Upper Juniata and
Nanticoke watersheds differ and reflect their respective landscape settings (Figure 9). Therefore,
changes in the relative abundances of wetland functional classes in an area due to development and
land use result in a change in the relative abundances of ecological functions and the related services
(Kentula et al. 2004). A landscape profile for the Portland, Oregon, area that accounts for wetland
creation, restoration and enhancement required to mitigate wetland loss permitted under Section 404
of the U.S. Clean Water Act shows a change from a riverine dominated landscape to one dominated by
wetland functional types atypical to the area (Figure 10; Gwin et al. (1999), Kentula et al. (2004)). Figure
11 demonstrates the loss of flood protection, an ecosystem service, which occurs with this change in
wetland type and the associated landscape profile.
Landscape profiles have been generated through surveys of wetlands (e.g., Gwin et al. (1999), Kentula et
al. (2004), Wardrop et al. (2007b)) and through GIS modeling by Johnson (2005). The NWCA is collecting
data on the HGM type of wetlands sampled and has the potential to generate a landscape profile for the
Nation and at smaller scales in association with the assessments being done of various states and
regions (Table 2). The resulting profiles can be related to the potential delivery of services, for example,
as given in Table 6.
Landscape profiles can also be used to extrapolate results from areas with data, e.g., the state and
regional assessments, to areas with a similar profile and land use patterns. For example, Figure 7 shows
possible relationships between denitrification and 615N measurements in different USEPA Regions that
are being developed and could be used to predict denitrification potential in less data-rich areas.
50
-------
Lacustrine
Slope
Depression
Riverine
Flat
Tidal Fringe-
C
F
1
1
1
1
1
20 40
Percent of Wetland Area
Location
CD Portland, OR
CD Upper Juniata
• Nanticoke
1
1
eo a
0
FIGURE 9. Landscape profiles showing the relative wetland area by HGM class in the Portland, Oregon,
metropolitan area (purple bars), the Upper Juniata Watershed in the Ridge and Valley area of
Pennsylvania (green bars), and the Nanticoke Watershed of Delaware and Maryland (yellow bars).
1
Riverine 1
1
Slope 1 I
Lacustrine \_\
r
Depression (
Atypical 1 1
0 10 20
Percent
I I
: Naturarfy Occurring Wetland -
•H3 Mitigation Wetland
I
30 40 5
of Wetlands
Kentula et al. 2004.
0
FIGURE 10. Landscape profile of wetlands in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area showing the
change from a riverine dominated landscape to one dominated by wetland functional types atypical of
the region due to mitigation requirements (Kentula et al. 2004).
51
-------
FIGURE 11. Typical hydrographs from naturally occurring (NOW) and mitigation (MW) wetlands in the
Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area. The red arrow indicates the difference in flood storage capacity
between the NOWs and MWs. (Adapted from Shaffer and Kentula (1997)).
SUMMARY
The report of the results from the NWCA (targeted for completion in 2013) can parallel the existing
NARS reports (USEPA 2006b, 2009) and augment those reports with new information. The NWCA report
would, at minimum, include the major categories of results describing ecological condition that are
represented in the Wadeable Stream and Lake Assessment reports (Table 3; USEPA (2006b, 2009).
Parallel result categories to be considered for NWCA reporting are:
• extent of the wetland resource,
• status of wetland ecological condition,
• extent of wetland area with detectable levels of toxic algae,
• extent of stressors, and
• relationship between stressors and ecological condition.
The NWCA can eventually report on condition in ways that are similar to the Wadeable Streams and
Lakes Assessments (Table 3). However, several constraints (e.g., the availability of autecological data
and appropriate reference site data, and the research required for some analysis approaches) will
influence the specific content for reporting on wetland condition. In addition, the NWCA might report
52
-------
on aspects of ecological condition unique to wetlands or which have not been previously included in
NARS reporting (Table 4).
The NWCA has the capacity to report additional aspects of the extent of the resource, ecological
condition, and extent of stressors. These are discussed in the related subsections of the Reporting the
Ecological Condition of Wetlands section. The idea of using NARS data to address the delivery of
ecosystem services is new and was addressed to a limited degree in the National Lakes Assessment's
reporting on suitability for recreation (USEPA 2009), which the NWCA can also do. Additional reporting
on delivery of services will require research. The efforts that are most developed support reporting on
the maintenance of a habitable climate through documentation of the role of wetlands in carbon
dynamics and on provision of water for consumption through documentation of the role of wetlands in
denitrification.
This report demonstrates the wealth of information that can be produced by the NWCA for the 2013
report and going forward. It also highlights the value of the NWCA to the decision making that will
govern the use, management, and protection of our wetland resource.
LITERATURE CITED
Aldous, A. R., C. B. Craft, C. J. Stevens, M. J. Barry, and L B. Bach. 2007. Soil phosphorus release from a restoration
wetland, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Wetlands 27:1025-1035.
Bailey, R. C., R. H. Norris, and T. B. Reynoldson. 2004. Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems: Using the
reference condion approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, New York, USA.
Bedford, B. L. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland
mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:57-68.
Bourdaghs, M., C. A. Johnston, and R. R. Regal. 2006. Properties and performance of the floristic quality in the
Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 26:718-735.
Boyd, J. W. and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standarized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics 63:616-626.
Bridgham, S. D., J. P. Megonigal, J. K. Keller, N. B. Bliss, and C. Trettin. 2006. The carbon balance of North American
wetlands. Wetlands 26:889-916.
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Bryce, S. A. 2006. Development of a bird integrity index: measuring avian response to disturbance in the Blue
Mountains of Oregon, USA. Environmental Management 38:470-486.
Cairns, J., P. McCormick, and B. Niederlehner. 1993. A proposed framework for developing indicators of ecosystem
health. Hydrobiologia 263:1-44.
Carlisle, D. M. and C. P. Hawkins. 2008. Land use and the structure of western US stream invertebrate
assemblages: predictive models and ecological traits. Journal of the North American Bethological Society
27:986-999.
Cohen, M. J., S. Carsenn, and C. R. Lane. 2004. Floristic quality indices for biotic assessment of depressional marsh
condition in Florida. Ecological Applications 14:784-794.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Craft, C. 2000. Co-development of wetland soils and benthic invertebrate communities following salt marsh
creation. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:197-207.
53
-------
Craft, C. B., S. W. Broome, and E. D. Seneca. 1989. Exchange of nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic carbon between
transplanted marshes and estuarine waters. Journal of Environmental Quality 18:206-211.
Dahl, T. E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998 to 2004., U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Dahl, T. E. and M. T. Bergeson. 2009. Technical procedures for conducting status and trends of the Nation's
wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Washington, D.C.
Dale, V. H. and S. C. Beyeler. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological
Indicators 1:3.
Dukes, J. S. and H. A. Mooney. 2004. Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North America by invasive
species. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 77:411-437.
Erwin, K. 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetlands
Ecology and Management 17:71-84.
Fennessy, M. S., A. D. Jacobs, and M. E. Kentula. 2007. An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecological
condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:543-560.
Ferreira, M. T., P. M. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, F. C. Aguiar, and A. Albuquerque. 2005. Assessing biotic integrity in
Iberian rivers: Development of a multimetric plant index. Ecological Indicators 5:137-149.
Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge/New York.
Gleason, R. A., B. A. Tangen, B. A. Browne, and N. H. Euliss Jr. 2009. Greenhouse gas flux from cropland and
restored wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region. Soil Biology and Biogeochemistry 41:2501-2507.
Gwin, S. E., M. E. Kentula, and P. W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through
hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. Wetlands 19:477-489.
Hargreaves, P. R., G. Brooks, J. S. Ross, and P. R. Poulton. 2003. Evaluating soild microbial biomass carbon as an
indicator of long-term environmental change. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 35:401-407.
Hawkins, C. P., S. G. Paulsen, J. Van Sickle, and L L. Yuan. 2008. Regional assessment of stream ecological
condition: scientific challenges associated with the USA's national Wadeable Steam Assessment. Journal
of the North American Bethological Society 27:805-807.
Herlihy, A. T., S. G. Paulsen, J. Van Sickle, J. L. Stoddard, C. P. Hawkins, and L. L. Yuan. 2008. Striving for consistency
in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale.
Journal of the North American Bethological Society 27:860-877.
Herlihy, A. T. and J. C. Sifneos. 2008. Developing nutrient criteria and classification schemes for wadeable streams
in the conterminous US. Journal of the North American Bethological Society 27:932-948.
Hines, J., J. P. Megonigal, and R. F. Denno. 2006. Nutrient subsidies to belowground microbes impact aboveground
food web interactions. Ecological 87:1542-1555.
Hughes, R. M. and D. V. Peck. 2008. Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the art of compromise
among science, logistics, and reality. Journal of the North American Bethological Society 27:837-859.
Hulme, P. E. 2005. Adapting to climate change: is there scope for ecological management in the face of a global
threat? Journal of Applied Ecology 42:784-794.
Jackson, L. E., J. C. Kurtz, and W. S. Fisher, editors. 2000. Evaluation guidelines for ecological indicators. EPA/620/R-
99/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
Jacobs, A. D. 2007. Delaware Rapid Assessment Procedure Version 4.1. Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Jacobs, A. D., M. E. Kentula, and A. T. Herlihy. 2010. Developing an index of wetland condition from ecological data:
An example using HGM functional variables from the Nanticoke watershed, USA. Ecological Indicators
10:703-712.
Johnson, J. B. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Profiling: An Approach to Landscape and Cumulative Effects
Analysis. EPA/620/R-05/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Johnston, C. A. 1993. Material fluxes across wetland ecotones in northern landscapes. Ecological Applications
3:424-440.
Johnston, C. A., J. B. Zedler, M. G. Turbure, C. B. Frieswk, B. L. Bedford, and L. Vaccaro. 2009. A unifying approach
for evaluating the condition of wetland plant communities and identifying related stressors. Ecological
Applications 19:1739-1757.
54
-------
Keddy, P. A. 1983. Freshwater wetland human-induced changes: indirect effects must also be considered.
Environmental Management 7:299-302.
Kentula, M. E. and S. P. Cline. 2004. Riparian Investigations in the John Day and Lower Deschustes Basins of Eastern
Oregon: Amendment to Quality Assurance Project Plan. Internal Report, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Kentula, M. E., S. E. Gwin, and S. M. Pierson. 2004. Tracking changes in wetlands with urbanization: sixteen years of
experience in Portland, Oregon, USA. Wetlands 24:734-743.
Kroodsma, D. E. 1979. Habitat values for nongame wetland birds. Pages 320-343 in P. E. Gresson, J. R. Clark, and J.
E. Clark, editors. Wetland functions and values-The state of our understanding. American Water
Resources Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Lane, C. R. and M. T. Brown. 2007. Diatoms as indicators of isolated herbaceous wetland condition in Florida, USA.
Ecological Indicators 7:521-540.
Lenart, M. 2009. An unseen carbon sink. Nature: Reports Climate Change. DOI:10.1038/climate.2009.125.
Lichvar, R. W. and J. T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, Version 2.4.0
(https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and
Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH and BONAP,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Loomis, M. J. and C. B. Craft. 2010. Carbon sequestration and nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus) accumulation in
river-dominated tidal marshes, Georgia, USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74:1028-1036.
Lopez, R. D. and M. S. Fennessy. 2002. Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland
condition. Ecological Applications 12:487-497.
Mack, J. J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands, version 5.0: User's Manual and Scoring Forms.
Technical Report WET/2001-1, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water,
401/Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, OH.
Mack, J. J. and M. E. Kentula. 2010. Metric Similarity in Vegetation-Based Wetland Assessment Methods.
EPA/600/R-10/140, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
Magee, T. K., editor, in preparation. Selecting Ecological Indicators for the 2011 National Wetland Condition
Assessment. EPA/XXX/X-XX/XXXX. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
Magee, T. K., T. L. Ernst, M. E. Kentula, and K. A. Dwire. 1999. Floristic comparison of freshwater wetlands in an
urbanizing environment. Wetlands 19:517-534.
Magee, T. K. and M. E. Kentula. 2005. Response of wetland plant species to hydrologic conditions. Wetland Ecology
and Management 13:163-181.
Magee, T. K., P. L. Ringold, and M. A. Bollman. 2008. Alien species importance in native vegetation along wadeable
streams, John Day River basin, Oregon, USA. Plant Ecology 195:287-307.
Magee, T. K., P. L. Ringold, M. A. Bollman, and T. Ernst, L. 2010. Index of Alien Impact: a method for evaluating
potential ecological impact of alien plant species. Environmental Management 45:759-778.
Mathews, J. W. 2003. Assessment of the floristic quality index for use in Illinois, USA, wetlands. Natural Areas
Journal 23:53-60.
Maynard, S., D. James, and A. Davidson. 2010. The development of an ecosystem services framework for South
East Queensland. Environmental Management 45:881-895.
McCormick, P. and J. Cairns Jr. 1994. Algae as indicators of environmental change. Journal of Applied Phycology
6:509-526.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Miller, S. J. and D. H. Wardrop. 2006. Adapting the floristic quality assessment index to indicate anthropogenic
disturbance in central Pennsylvania wetlands. Ecological Indicators 6:313-326.
Mitsch, W. J. 2011. Wetlands - A significant global sink of carbon? Abstracts, International Association for
Landscape Ecology (IAEL), 8th IAEL World Congress, Beijing, China.
Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting
Ecological Economics 35:25-33.
55
-------
Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands, fourth edition. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Mitsch, W. J., A. M. Nahlik, B. Bernal, L. Zhang, C. J. Anderson, S. E. Jorgensen, U. Mander, and H. Brinx. in prep.
Wetlands, carbon, and climate change. BioScience.
Nahlik, A. M., M. E. Kentua, M. S. Fennessy, and D. H. Landers, submitted. Where is the consensus? A proposed
foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecological Economics.
Ode, P. R., C. P. Hawkins, and R. D. Mazor. 2008. Comparability of biological assessments derived from predictive
models and multimetric indices of increasing geographic scope. Journal of the North American
Bethological Society 27:967-985.
Olsen, A. R. and D. V. Peck. 2008. Survey design and extent estimates for the Wadeable Streams Assessment.
Journal of the North American Bethological Society 27:822-836.
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 77:118-125.
Paulsen, S. G., C. P. Hawkins, J. VanSickle, L. L Yuan, and S. M. Holdsworth. 2008a. An invitation to apply national
survey data to ecological research. Journal of the North American Bethological Society 27:1017-1018.
Paulsen, S. G., A. Mayio, D. V. Peck, J. L Stoddard, E. Tarquinio, S. M. Holdsworth, J. V. Sickle, L L Yuan, C. P.
Hawkins, A. T. Herlihy, P. R. Kaufmann, M. T. Barbour, D. P. Larsen, and A. R. Olsen. 2008b. Condition of
stream ecosystems in the US: an overview of the first national assessment. Journal of the North American
Bethological Society 27:812-821.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2011. Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting
Society and the Economy. Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC.
Rayamajhi, M.,T. Van, P. Pratt, and T. Center. 2006. Temporal and structural effects of stands on litter production
in the Melulueca quinquenervia dominated wetlands of south Florida. Wetland Ecology and Management
14:303-316.
Richardson, C. J. 1985. Mechanisms Controlling Phosphorus Retention Capacity in Freshwater Wetlands. School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke University, Durham, Norht Carolina 27706.
Richardson, J. L and M. J. Vepraskas, editors. 2001. Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscape, and
Classification. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Ringold, P. L, T. K. Magee, and D. V. Peck. 2008. Twelve invasive plant taxa in US western riparian ecosystems.
Journal of the North American Bethological Society 27:949-966.
Ringold, P. L, A. M. Nahlik, J. W. Boyd, and D. Bernard. 2011. Report from the Workshop on Indicators of Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services for Wetlands and Estuaries. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Risser, P. G. 1993. Ecotones at Local to Regional Scales from around the World. Ecological Applications 3:367-368.
Rooney, T. P. and D. A. Rogers. 2002. The modified floristic quality index. Natural Areas Journal 22:340-344.
Scozzafava, M. E. 2009. Identifying indicator classes for a survey of wetland ecological integrity at the continental
scale: The National Wetland Condition Assessment process. National Wetlands Newsletter 31:8-12.
Scozzafava, M. E., M. E. Kentula, E. Riley, T. K. Magee, G. Serenbetz, R. Sumner, C. Faulkner, and M. Price. 2011.
The National Wetland Condition Assessment: National data on wetland quality to inform and improve
wetlands protection. National Wetlands Newletter 33:11-13.
Selinger-Looten, R., F. Grevilliot, and S. Muller. 1999. Structure of plant communities and landscape patterns in
allubial meadows of two flooded plains in the north-east of France. Landscape Ecology 14:213-229.
Shaffer, P. W. and T. L. Ernst. 1999. Distribution of soil organic matter in freshwater emergent/open water
wetlands in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Wetlands 19:505-516.
Shaffer, P. W. and M. E. Kentula. 1997. Location and design influence hydrologic dynamics of wetland mitigation
projects. EPA/910/R-97/007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X and the Society for
Ecological Restoration, Seattle, WA.
Shaffer, P. W., M. E. Kentula, and S. E. Gwin. 1999. Characterization of wetland hydrology using hydrogeomorphic
classification. Wetlands 19:490-504.
Shapiro, M. H., S. M. Holdsworth, and S. G. Paulsen. 2008. The need to assess the condition of aquatic resources in
the US. Journal of the North American Bethological Society 27:808-811.
Sifneos, J., A. T. Herlihy, A. D. Jacobs, and M. E. Kentula. 2010. Calibration of the Delaware Wetland Rapid
Assessment Protocol to a more comprehensive measure of wetland condition. Wetlands 30:1011-1022.
56
-------
Song, C., J. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, and Z. Zhao. 2008. Emission of CO2, CH4 and N2O from freshwater marsh in
northeast of China. Journal of Environmental Management 88:428-436.
Stevens, D. L, Jr. and S. F. Jensen. 2007. Sampling design, implementation, and analysis for wetland assessment.
Wetlands 27:515-523.
Stevens, D. L, Jr. and A. R. Olsen. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources. Journal of
Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 4:415-428.
Stevens, D. L, Jr. and A. R. Olsen. 2000. Spatially restricted random sampling designs for design-based and model-
based estimation. Pages 609-616 in Accuracy 2000: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences. Delft University Press, The
Netherlands.
Stevens, D. L., Jr. and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially-balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of American
Statistical Association 99:262-278.
Stevenson, R. J., Y. Pan, K. M. Manoylov, C. A. Parker, D. P. Larsen, and A. T. Herlihy. 2008. Development of diatom
indicators of ecological conditions for streams of the western US. Journal of the North American
Bethological Society 27:1000-1016.
Stoddard, J. L, A. T. Herlihy, D. V. Peck, R. M. Hughes, T. R. Whittier, and E. Tarquinio. 2008. A process for creating
multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. Journal of the North American Bethological Society
27:878-891.
Stoddard, J. L, D. P. Larsen, C. P. Hawkins, P. K. Johnson, and R. H. Norris. 2006. Setting expectations for the
ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications 16:1267-1276.
Stribling, J. B., K. L Pavlik, S. M. Holdsworth, and E. W. Leppo. 2008. Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in
taxonomic identification for biological assessments. Journal of the North American Bethological Society
27:906-919.
Taft, J. B., G. S. Wilhelm, D. M. Ladd, and L A. Masters. 1997. Floristic quality assessment for vegetation in Illinois: a
method for assessing vegetation integrity. Erigenia 15:3-95.
Tiner, R. W. 1999. Wetland indicators: A guide to wetland identification, delineation, classification, and mapping.
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL
USEPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Using Algae to Assess Environmental Conditions in
Wetlands. EPA/822/R-02/021, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2006a. Application of Elements of State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program for Wetlands.
Wetlands Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC.
http://www,epa.gov/owow/wetlands/monitor/.
USEPA. 2006b. Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams. EPA/84l/B-06/002,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2008. Ecological Research Program Multi-Year Plan FY2008-2014: February 2008 Review Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2009. National Lakes Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Lakes. EPA/841/R-09/001, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC.
USEPA. 2011a. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States (revision of Omernik, 1987). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory-Western Ecology
Division, Corvallis, OR.
USEPA. 2011b. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA/843/R-10/001, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2011c. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Laboratory Methods Manual. EPA/843/R-10/002, U. S
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2011d. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Site Evaluation Guidelines. EPA/843/R-10/004, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2011e. National Wetland Condition Assessment: USA-Rapid Assessment Method, Version 11. EPA/XXX/R-
10/XXX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Van Sickle, J. and S. G. Paulsen. 2008. Assessing the attributable risks, relative risks, and regional extents of aquatic
stressors. Journal of the North American Bethological Society 27:920-931.
57
-------
Vitousek, P. M., C. M. D'Antonio, L. L Loope, M. Rejmanek, and R. Westbrooks. 1997. Introduced species: a
significant component of human-caused global change. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 86:33212-33218.
Wardrop, D. H., M. E. Kentula, S. F. Jensen, D. L Stevens, Jr., and R. P. Brooks. 2007a. Assessment of wetlands in
the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA, using the hydrogeomorphic approach. Wetlands
27:432-445.
Wardrop, D. H., M. E. Kentula, D. L Stevens, Jr., S. F. Jensen, and R. P. Brooks. 2007b. Assessment of wetland
condition: an example from the Upper Juniata Watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 27:416-430.
Whigham, D. F., A. Deller Jacobs, D. E. Weller, T. E. Jordan, M. E. Kentula, S. F. Jensen, and D. L Stevens. 2007.
Combining HGM and EMAP procedures to assess wetlands at the watershed scale-Status of flats and
non-tidal riverine wetlands in the Nanticoke River watershed, Delaware and Maryland (USA). Wetlands
27:462-478.
Whittier, T. R., R. M. Hughes, J. L Stoddard, G. A. Lomnicky, D. V. Peck, and A. T. Herlihy. 2007. A structured
approach for developing indices of biotic integrity: three examples from western USA streams and rivers.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:718-735.
Yuan, L L, C. P. Hawkins, and J. V. Sickle. 2008. Effects of regionalization decisions on an O/E index for the US
national assessment. Journal of the North American Bethological Society 27:892-905.
58
-------
APPENDIX A. DATA FORMS FROM THE NWCA
59
-------
60
-------
• FORM PV-1: NWCA POINT VERIFICATION FORM (Front) Reviewed bv nnman: •
x ' •
SITE ID: NWCA11- VISIT: OREGON Q1 O2 DATE: / / 2 0 1 1
EVALUATOR: AFFILIATION:
POINT LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY
Directions to POINT:
\
^..c| site
O Dense Vegetation O Steep/Unstable terrain
^^^^ ^^f
O Deep Water O Livestock
O Other (describe):
Specie, Acce s Requirements
O Locked Gates O Special Permits
Additional Access Comments: ^^
<*v
PREDOMINANT W TLA, '0 TYPE AT THE POINT (MARK ONE)
Status & Trend Categories INCLUDED in target Copulation
O E2EM - Estuarine Intertidal Emergent
O E2SS - Estuarine Shrub/Forested
O PEM - Palustrine Emergent
O PSS - Palustrine Scrub/Shrub
O PFO - Palustrine Forested
O PUBPAB - Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom/Aquatic Bed (see conditions)
O Pf- Palustrine Farmed (see conditions)
Status & Trend Categories EXCLUDED from target population
O Estuarine/Marine Intertidal Aquatic Bed (SAV)
O Estuarine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore (mudflats)
O Estuarine/Marine Subtidal (deep water)
O Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore (non-tidal mudflats)
O Lacustrine/Riverine (deep water)
O Other (upland, developed, etc)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
If either PUBrAB or Pf c,,e marked above then indicate the presence of any feature(s) that exclude the POINT from sampling in the
appropriate section below.
Palustrine ,-arn. d ^.lark all that apply)
O resence of row or close grown crops (list type in comments)
O '"*' -
-------
Site ID:
FORM PV-1: NWCA POINT VERIFICATION FORM (Back) Reviewed bydnmai): |
NWCA11- DATE: / / 2 0 1 1
IS POINT SAMPLEABLE
O YES O original POINT is sampleable (fill in category below)
O POINT can be relocated (fill in category below
AND enter documentation for relocated point)
SAMPLEABLE CATEGORIES
O E2EM - Estuarine Intertidal Emergent
O E2SS - Estuarine Scrub Shrub/Forest
O PEM - Palustrine Emergent
O PSS - Palustrine Scrub Shrub
O PFO - Palustrine Forested
O PUBPAB - Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom/Aquatic Bed. Ponds
that are not used solely for waste treatment or for other strictly
industrial, aquacultural, or agricultural purposes.
O Pf- Palustrine Farmed. Farmed wetlands that are not currently
being intensively managed for crop (row and close ground crops,
rice, horticulture) production.
O NO (fill in category below)
NON-SAMPLEABLE -TEMPORARY CATEGORIES
O Temporarily Non-Sampleable
NON-SAMPLEABLE - NO ACCESS CATEGORIES
EGORIES
O Access permission denied
O Permanently inaccessible
O Temporarily inaccessible
NON-SAMPLEABLE - NON TARGET CATEGORI
O Map Error
O Non target wetland type
O Active crop production during index ^riod
O Strictly used for an Industrie agr:,ul*'jrai/aquacultural purpose
O Inundated by water > 1m in depth (over 90% of 60m around pt)
O Other (describe)
NON-SAMPLE '.dLt. A. . JANT BE ESTABLISHED
O SampleaH'e area too • mall
O Unsar- leable Tea greater than 10%
O S - ipleai. - ' da crosses hydrogeomorphic (HGM) boundary
DOCUMENTATION FOR RL OUSTED POINT
Provide GPS coordinates for the
relocated point (use NAD83)
Basis for Wetland Determination
(fill in all that apply):
O Hydrophytic vegetation predominant
O Hydric soil predominant
O Wetland hydrology is present
If at least one of the above is filled in
the POINT is a wetland for the p
of this survey.
Decimal Degrees
Latitude
,
Longitude
—
Hydrophytic \'jgei, *ion Indicators (describe):
Hydi. ^ Soil Indicators:
High organic content
Reducing conditions
Soil Map Unit:
Q Histosol Q Concretions
Q Sulfidic odor O Gleyed
O Aquic moisture regime
Q Histic epipedon
O Organic streaking
Listed as hydric? O Yes O No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: O Standing water O Water marks
O Buttressed trunks O Water stained leaves O Water carried debris
O Saturated soils O Oxidized rhizospheres O Shallow roots
O Other
O Bare areas
O Floating mat
COMMENTS
7893231643
NWCA Point Verification Form 03/10/2011
-------
FORM AA-1: NWCA ASSESSMENT AREA ESTABLISHMENT (Front)
Reviewed by (initial):.
Site ID:
NWCA11-
Date:
/ 2 0 1 1
VISIT: O 1 O2
Instructions: Fill in the Date above. The date is always the first day of sampling no matter how many days taken for
sampling. Visit # 1 is when the sampling was done. Visit # 2 is a scheduled revisit. Complete the table below by providing the
person's name for each position on the crew and filling in the bubble indicating the protocol(s) completed by the person.
Refer to Reference Card AA-1 for information on establishing the Assessment Area. 4
Field Crew Personnel:
Tasks:
AA VEG BUFFER SOIL HYP WQ AL
Crew Leader:
Vegetation Team
Botanist/Ecologist:
Botanist Assistant:
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
AB Team
AB 1:
AB2:
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ASSESSMENT AREA ESTABLISHMENT
Can an AA that contains the original POINT be established?
O Yes Proceed to "AA Layout Used".
O No Document the reasons in the Comment section. Follow the procedures in the NWOA Site Evaluation Guidelines for relocating the POINT at this site
or for selecting an alternate POINT (i.e., alternate NWCA site). If the POINT can be reioca* ;d at this site, complete the documentation required in
the Site Evaluation Guidelines and proceed to "AA Layout Used".
AA Layout Used (Mark one):
O Standard Circular AA O Standard Circular AA-Shifted O Polyg' n AM
(land Boundary AA
Area of the AA: 0.
ha (1 ha is 10,000m2)
Location of AA CENTER (Mark one) •
O The POINT is the AA CENTER
O The POINT is not the AA CENTER; the coordinates o, the CENTER are:
LAT
Record GPS accuracy below b>- ni J
coordinate measurement.
Number of satellites:
^^
loting the nu
LONG NAD 83 (Decimal Degrees)
mber of satellites traced for the LAT/LONG reading above and the variance (in meters) associated with the
istance variance:
m
COMMENTS AND NOTES
NWCA Assessment Area Establishment 03/10/2011
4567552925
-------
FORM AA-1: NWCA ASSESSMENT AREA ESTABLISHMENT (Back)
Reviewed by (initial):
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1 1
SKETCH MAP
Annotate an aerial photo and/or make a sketch below to document the plan for establishing the AA and any changes made
during actual AA establishment. A fine-point, silver Sharpie® or similar pen works well for marking photos. At minimum,
include the information below in the documentation.
Draw the AA boundary and indicate the position of the POINT and AA CENTER, the AA boundaries, bearings and estimates
of important distances (e.g., segments of the AA boundary), a north-arrow, and other information that might be useful for AA
establishment. On the day of sampling, update the plan to reflect what was actually done.
* Add the approximate locations and boundaries of the vegetation plots with a square with the plot number inside.
* Add the approximate locations of the soil pits with their letter designation, e.g., A, B, C, D.
* Note the nature and direction of environmental gradients, water bodies, major vegetation patches, and other
prominent features of the site and the surrounding area.
If a photo was annotated, place it in the Site Packet with the completed FORM AA-1 and fill in the buhNe:
O Annotated photo included in the Site Packet
2324552924
NWCA Assessment Area Establishment 03/10/2011
-------
FORM AA-2: NWCA ASSESSMENT AREA CHARACTERIZATION
Reviewed by (initial):.
Site ID: NWCA11-
Date:
/ / 2 0 1 1
FWS Status and Trends Class
Mark predominant class. If classes are equally abundant in a complex, mark the target class from the survey design or, if the target class is
not present, mark the class nearest the POINT. Refer to Reference Card AA-3, Side A for descriptions of the classes.
O Estuarine Intertidal Emergent (E2EM)
O Palustrine Emergent (PEM)
O Palustrine Forested (PFO)
O Palustrine Farmed (not currently in crop production) (Pf)*
O Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom/Aquatic Bed (PUBPAB)
* See NWCA Site Evaluation Guidelines for criteria for inclusion.
O Estuarine Intertidal Shrub/Forested (E2SS)
O Palustrine Scrub Shrub (PSS)
Hydrogeomorphic Type
Mark the class (one) and, if possible, the subclass (one). Refer to Reference Card AA-3, Side B
Class
O Depression
O Flats
Subclass
O Closed
O Closed Beaver Impounded
O Closed Human Impounded**
O Closed Human Excavated**
O Closed Human Excavated and Impounded*
O Open
O Open Beaver Impounds
O Open Human Impounded**
O Open Human Excavated**
O Open Human Excavated and Impounded*
O Mineral Soil
O Organic Soil
< / Hu, ^n Jtered*
w-5—
O Lacustrine Fringe
O Naturally occurring
rtificially Flooded
O Riverine
O Tidal
O Upper Perennial (1st and 2nd order)
O Lower Perennial (3rd and higher
O Complex
O Beaver Impounded
O Human Altered**
O Slope
O Stratographic
O Topographic
O Human Altered*
O Tidal Fringe
O Naturally occurring
O Human Altered**
Refer to Reference Card AA-? Si>. •> B foi examples of human altered hydrogeomorphic types.
Other Wetland Classification Systems
If other wetland classification system(s), e.g., a state system, is/are used in the area, list the system and the predominant class below.
Wetland Class:
Wetland Class:
Wetland Class:
COMMENTS
4933080782
NWCA Assessment Area Characterization 03/10/2011
-------
D
-------
Site ID:
Location:
O AA Center
NWCA11-
ON OS
FORM B-1: NWCA BUFFER SAMPLE PLOTS (Front)
DATE:
OE OW
Reviewed by (initial
/ 720
:
1 1
Fill in bubble(s) if plot(s) could not be sampled and flag — >
O Plot 1 O Plot 2 O Plot 3
•
Buffer Natural Cover Strata
Fill in bubbles for all that apply: Canopy Type: D = Deciduous; E = Evergreen. Leaf Type: B = Broadleaf; N = Needle Leaf. Absent: No tree canopy.
Strata Section: Fill in appropriate cover class bubble for each strata type for each plot. 0 = Absent; 1 = Sparse(<10%); 2=Moderate(10-40%); 3 = Heavy (40-75%); 4 = Very Heavy (>75%)
Buffer
Plotl
Big Trees (>
Canopy Type: ^J ^)
Leaf Type: Q Q
0.3m DBH)
Small Trees (<0.3m DBH)
Woody Shrubs, Saplings
(0.5m-5mHIGH)
Woody Shrubs, Saplings
(<0.5m HIGH)
Herbs, Forbs and
Grasses
Bare
ground
Litter, duff
Rock
Water
Submerged
Vegetation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
Absent: ^)
Flag
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
Buffer
Plot 2
Big Trees (=
Small Trees (
Canopy Type: Q Q
Leaf Type: ^) ^)
0.3m DBH)
<0.3m DBH)
Woody Shrubs, Saplings
(0.5m-5mHIGH)
Woody Shrubs, Saplings
(<0.5m HIGH)
Herbs, Forbs and
Grasses
Bare ground
Litter, duff
Rock
Water
Submerged
Vegetation
Stressor Presence/Absence - Confirm that a filled data
Residential
and
Urban Stressors
Fill bubble if present - Plot
Road - gravel
Road - two lane
Road - four lane
Parking Lot/Pavement
Golf Course
Lawn/Park
Suburban
Residential
Urban/Multifamily
Landfill
Dumping
Trash
Other:
Other:
1
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
o
c
2
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
c
3
O
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
Flag
o
000
Industrial DevMopmer, ' Iressors
Fill bubble if preset. -Plot
Oil Dril'ing
Gas Well?
Mine urface)
Mine (uni.
,rground)
Military
Other:
Other:
Other:
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Flag
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Absent: Q
Flag
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
bubble indicates presence
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
O
Buffer
Plot3
Canopy Type: Q Q Abse t: Q
Leaf Type: © Q -|ag
Big Trees (>0.3m DBH)
Small Trees (<0.3m DBH)
Woody Shrubs, Saplings
(0.5m-5m HIGH)
Woody Shrubs, Saplings
(<0.5m HIGH)
Herbs
Forbs ind
c asses
Bare ground
Litter dUTf
Rock
Water
Submerged
| Vegetation
0
0
C
C
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
O
0
0
o
o
Ol(T
0
t,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
o
o
and an unfilled bubble indicates absence by filling this bubble. O
Hydrology Stressors
Fill bubble if present - Plot
Ditches, Channelization
Dike/Dam/Road/RR
(IMPEDE FLOW)
Water Leve
Excavation,
Fill/Spoil F
Be-1
Control ,. oictur
P-edging
inks
Fresh'" De, ->siter t
(UNV .oh, TEU
diment
Soil Loss/Root Exposure
Wall/Ft,, -ap
Inlets, Outlets
Point Source/Pipe
(EFFLUENT OR STORMWATER)
Impervious surface
(SHEETFLOW)
nput
Other:
Other:
1
o
~
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
0
O
O
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
3
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
Flag
Agricultural & Rural Stressors
Fill bubble if present - Plot
Pasture/Hay
Range
Row Crops
Fallow Field (RECENT-RESTING
ROW CROP FIELD)
Fallow Field (OLD -GRASS,
SHRUBS. TREES)
Nursery
Dairy
Orchard
Confined Animal Feeding
Rural Residential
Gravel Pit
Irrigation
Other:
1
O
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
2
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
3
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
Flag
Habitat/Vegetation Stressors
Fill bubble
if present - Plot
Forest Clear Cut
Forest Selective Cut
Tree Plantation
Tree Canopy
(INSECT)
Herbivory
Shrub Layer Browsed
(WILD OR DOMESTIC)
Highly Grazed Grasses
(OVERALL <3' HIGH)
Recently Burned Forest
Canopy
Recently Burned Grassland
(BLACKENED)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Flag
Fill bubble if present - Plot
Herbicide Use
Mowing/Shrub Cutting
Trails
Soil Compaction
(ANIMAL OR HUMAN)
Offroad vehicle damage
Soil erosion (FROM WIND, WATER,
OR OVERUSE)
Other:
Other:
NWCA Buffer Sample Plots 03/10/2011
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Flag
8621005046 £
-------
FORM B-1: NWCA BUFFER SAMPLE PLOTS - TARGETED ALIEN SPECIES (Back)
Reviewed by (initial):
Site ID: NWCA11-
DATE:
/ 2 0 1 1
O Confirm a filled data bubble indicates presence and an unfilled bubble indicates absence by filling in this bubble
Fill bubble if present - Plot
Flag
Fill bubble if present - Plot
Flag
Fill bubble if present - Plot
Flag
Eurasian Watermilfoil
Purple Loosestrife
Johnson Grass
Water hyacinth
Knotweed
Kudzu
O.OiC
Yellow Floating Heart
Japanese Knotweed
Multiflora Rose
Giant Salvinia
Perennial Pepperweed
Common Buckthorn
c
O
Garlic Mustard
Giant Reed
Himalayan Blackberry
Poison Hemlock
Cheatgrass
Tamarisk
Mile-A-Minute Weed
Reed Canary Grass
Other:
Birdsfoot Trefoil
Common Reed
Other:
Canada Thistle
000
Leafy Spurge
00
Other:
PLOT COORDINATES
Provide GPS coordinates at the center of the Buffer Plot (#3) at the far end of each Buffer Tr nsect and for the Buffer Plot at the AA CENTER. Indicate the
location of the plot coordinates by filling in the appropriate bubble.
If Buffer Plot 3 can not be accessed, take the coordinates at the nearest practicable loca. n ALG. 'G THE TRANSECT. This is important because all Buffer
Plots are centered on the Buffer Transects and the coordinates will indicate the location of the transect. Fill in the "nearest practicable location" bubble, fill in the
flag box, and describe where the coordinates were taken and why in the comme' * sectio below. The coordinates of the nearest practicable location can be
either placed as close to the center of Plot 3 as possible or at the center of the lasi -ccef siole Buffer Plot.
Location of coordinates (choose one):
OAA CENTER O N3 O S3 O E3
OW3
Flag
Nearest, -acticable location (flag and comment below)
Latitude North
Longitude West
Decimal Degrees; NAD83
Flag
7568341903
NWCA Buffer Sample Points - Targeted Alien Species 03/10/2011
-------
FORM V-1: NWCA VEGETATION PLOT ESTABLISHMENT (Front) Reviewed byimmai):.
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1 1
Vegetation Plot Layout - Fill in the bubble for the Vegetation Plot Layout configuration used in this AA (see Reference
Card V-1 for descriptions of plot layout configurations).
O Standard Veg Plot Layout -1/2 ha Circular AA (Veg Plots on 2 axes, cardinal directions from AA Center)
Alternate Veg Plot Layouts
Q Wide Polygon AA Veg Plot Layout -1/2 ha Polygon AAwith width and length >30m (Veg Plots on 2 axes)
Q Narrow Polygon AA Veg Plot Layout - 1/2-ha Polygon AA < 30m wide (Veg Plots on 1 axis)
O Wetland Boundary AA Veg Plot Layout - AA <1/2-ha polygon equal to wetland boundary (Veg Plots distrih"*ed
If obstacles prevent placement of plot(s) in the locations designated by the Veg Plot Layout select d ab' ve, a/so fill in
the bubble for Obstacle Veg Plot Layout below
Cj Obstacle Veg Plot Layout (Describe obstacles in Notes section on the back of this form)
Plot locations in Relation to AA Center (in non-standard vegetation plot layouts)
Plot
Plotl
Plot 2
Plot3
Plot 4
Plots
Estimated Distance (m)1
Magnetic N Bearing2
distance from AA Center to the
closest plot corner (e.g., determine with
itertape, rangefinder, or by pacing)
2Bearing from the AA Center along plot
placement line to the closest plot corner.
Add the locations of the Veg Plots and Soil Pits to the aerial p">oto annox *ed during AA establishment, or if no photo is available to AA sketch
map on Form AA-1. Number Veg Plots 1 through 5 using guidelines on Reference Card V-1. Label Soil Pits, A-D, as determined by the AB Team. If
appropriate, record the nature and direction of environmei Lal gra , %nts (e.g., slope, water depth, etc.), water bodies, and major vegetation
patches in the notes section on the back of this form.
Plant Species Nomenclature: Plant spec ;es Barnes should be based on USDA-PLANTS (http://plants.usda.gov/)
O USDA-PLANTS - Fill to indicate name i for . 'am species observed at this site have been reconciled to USDA-PLANTS.
Record citations for Floras/F^la "UK as/Databases used for plant identification
1.
5.
NWCA Vegetation Plot Establishment 03/10/2011
5049429474
-------
FORM V-1: NWCA VEGETATION PLOT ESTABLISHMENT (Back) Reviewedbyimmai):.
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1 1
NOTES:
If needed elaborate on reasons for plot layout selection and make notes about unique features of vegetation or environment.
NWCA Vegetation Plot Establishment 03/10/2011
5400429475
-------
g FORM V-2a: NWCA VASCULAR SPECIES PRESENCE AND COVER (Front)
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1 1
Reviewed by(init
^\e 1
ah:
Of
1
Instructions:
1. General: Print using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Write as neatly as possible, keeping all marks within data fields or workspace areas.
2. Species Name: List binomial name or pseudonym for each plant species observed in the Veg Plots (See the NWCA FOM for Pseudonym assignment rules).
3. Presence Data: For each species occurring in a quadrat nest (SW or NE corners of Veg Plot) , record the smallest quadrat/plot size in which t occurs by filling in the appropriate bubble (S (small) = 1-m2 quadrat,
M (medium) = 10-m2 quadrat.) If a species does not occur in a particular nest, but occurs in the 100-m2 Veg Plot, fill in the L (large) bubble for that nest.
4. Predominant Height Class: For each species observed, note its predominant height across each 100-m2 Veg Plot by recording the appropriate height class code (def "d be1 jw).
5. Cover Data: Estimate cover across each 100-m2 Veg Plot (0 to 100%; See NWCA-FOM) for each species observed and record in the Cover data field. If necessary, use the gray workspace to make preliminary cover
estimates for each species in each of the four quarters of the Veg Plot, and then combine preliminary estimates to obtain total cover for the species in the Veg Plot and record in the Cover data field.
6. Collect Specimens and Assign Collection Numbers: For each Unknown Species (U) or designated Quality Assurance (QA) specimen collected fill in the appropriate bubble in the Complete if Collecting column. Once
collected, assign collection numbers, beginning with 1, consecutively in order of observation or collection.
~
O Fill bubble to confirm empty data fields for a species in a particular plot mean 1) for presence or height class, species /lot present, or 2) for %Cover fields, cover = 0 zero.
Complete
if
Collecting
U
QA
I
I
©
I
I
I
I
©
©
I
Coll
Height Classes (except E, which may occur in any vertical stratum):
1 = <0.5m, 2 = >0.5-2m, 3 = >2-5m, 4= >5-15m, 5 = >15-30m, 6 = >30m, and E = liana, vine or epiphyte species
Species Name or Pseudonym
K
-------
FORM V-2a: NWCA VASCULAR SPECIES PRESENCE AND COVER (Back)
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1 1
NWCA Vascular Plant Species Presence and Cover (Back) 03/10/2011
-------
0 FORM V-3: NWCA VEGETATION TYPES (Front) Reviewed byonmai,: A
Site ID: NWCA11-
Date: / / 2 0
1 1
Instructions:
1. Estimate the cover for each Vascular Vegetation Stratum.
2. Estimate cover and collect categorical data for Non-Vascular Taxonomic Groups.
3. Cover can range from 0 - 100% for each of the following groups: submerged aquatic vegetation, floating aquatic vegetation, lianas, vines, and
epiphytes, each height class of other vascular vegetation and each Non-Vascular Group.
COVER DATA CELLS:
O Confirm that empty cells equal zero by filling in this bubble
Predominant S & T Class
If plot is Pf - Palustrine Farmed (not currently in production) fill Pf bubble AND indicate
predominant S & T class each plot would be if never cropped.
If not Pf - Palustrine Fanned select the predominant S & T class for each plot.
E2EM - Estuarine Intertidal Emergent PSS - Palustrine Scrub Shrub
E2SS - Estuarine Intertidal Scrub/Shrub/Forested PFO - Palustrine Forested
PEM - Palustrine Emergent PUBPAB - Palustrine
(see Reference Card AA-3, Side A for definitions) UnconsolidatedBottom/Aquatic Bed
% Cover Vascular Vegetation Strata
COVER OF SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION (rooted in sediment, most
plant cover submerged or floating on water) (0 - 100%)
COVER OF FLOATING AQUATIC VEGETATION (not rooted in sediment) (0 - 100%)
COVER OF LIANAS, VINES AND EPIPHYTES IN ANY HEIGHT CLASS (0 - 100%)
COVER FOR ALL OTHER VASCULAR VEGETATION FOR EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING HEIGHT CLASSES:
>30m tall: e.g., very tall trees (0 - 100%)
>15 to 30m tall: e.g., tall trees (0 - 100%)
CATEGORICAL DATA:
Q Confirm a filled data bubble indicates Yes and an unfii ->d
bubble indicates No by filling in this bubble
Plotl
QPf
Q E2EM
Q E2SS
Q PEM
Q PSS
Q PFO
O PUBPAB
Plotl
Plot 2
QPf
Q E2EM
Q E2SS
Q PEM
Q PSS
Q PFO
O PUBPAB
Plot 2
fc
Plots
QPf
Q E2EM
Q E2SS
Q PEM
Q PSS
Q PFO
O PUBPAB
Plots
X?
1
Cx
^k •%
>5 to 15m tall: e.g., very tall shrubs; short to mid-sized trees (0 - 100%
>2 to 5m tall: e.g., tall shrubs; tree saplings (0 - 100%)
0.5 to 2m tall: e.g., medium height shrubs; tree seedlings and sap. "•"«• (all
emergent/terrestrial herbaceous species (0 - 100%)
< 0.5m tall: e.g., low emergent/terrestrial; herbaceous peck " low shrubs;
tree seedlings (0 - 100%)
% Cover and Categorical Data for Non-Vas .ult. Taxa
COVER OF BRYOPHYTES (mosses and liverwoK > gK v'mg on ground
surfaces, logs, rocks, etc.) (0 - 100%)
Fill bubble if Bryophytes are dimin^ ed b> ^phdgnum or other
peat-forming mosses ^ ^
COVER OF LICHENS growing on ground surfaces, logs, rocks, etc. (0 - 100%)
COVER OF ARBOREAL EPIPHVT. J F XYi ^HYTES AND LICHENS (see NWCA-
FOM for cover estimation pr • edun - \r . this group) (0 - 100%)
COVER OF FILAMENTOUS OR MAT FORMING ALGAE (0 - 100%)
COVER OF MACRC ,LGAE (freshwater species/seaweeds) (0 - 100%):
When Macroalgae is present, fill in all bubbles that apply for each Veg Plot:
Algat ->ccur as wrack (detached, debris, stranded)
Algae is attached/living
Algae Status Unknown (Can't determine whether algae
is wrack or attached/living)
Flag Comments Flag
Plotl
O
O
0
O
Plot 2
O
O
0
O
Plots
O
O
0
O
Plot 4
O Pf
Q E2EM
Q E2SS
O PEM
Q P£ ;
Q PR-
O PUBh-,_
"'014
Plot 4
O
O
0
O
PlutS
QPf
v E2Elvi
O ~?ss
QPEM
f PSS
r PFO
O PUBPAB
Plots
Plots
O
O
0
O
Flag
>T
Flag
Flag
Comments
^^ Flag codes: K = No measurement made, U = Suspect measurement., F1,F2, etc. = misc. flags assigned by each field crew. ^^
Ik Explain all flags in comment section. 4741595533 ^^k
NWCA Vegetation Types 03/10/2011
-------
A FORM V-3: NWCA GROUND SURFACE ATTRIBUTES (Back) Reviewed by
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1 1
Instructions: For each around surface attribute carefully record the requested data.
(initial): |
• w
1 . Water Cover - Estimate total percent of Veg Plot area covered by water, then estimate cover for each subcategory of water. The sum of covers for water
subcategories should equal the total water cover. Where floating/submerged and emergent vegetation occur together, classify water type based on vegetation type
with greatest cover; if cover is equal classify as water and emergent vegetation.
2. Water Depth - Measure water depth with marked 1-m PVC pole or ruler at 3 locations representing the water level range across the plot.
3. Litter - Estimate total cover of litter, identify predominant types (all types with ^25% cover), or if total litter is < 25% cover indicate primary litter type, measure litter
depth in SWand NE most corners of Veg Plot in center of 1-m2 quadrat.
4. Bareground - Estimate cover for exposed a) soil/sediment, b) gravel/cobble, c) rock. (The sum of a+b+c fl 00%).
5. Dead Woody Material Cover - Estimate cover (0 to 1 00%) for each category of dead woody material.
COVER DATA CELLS:
O Confirm that empty cells equal zero by filling in this bubble
CATEGORICAL DATA:
^ ^T^%
O Confirm a filled data bubble indicates presp""e a. •< an
unfilled bubble indicates absence by fillin , in t ;s b. bblc
Water Cover Plot 1
1) Total Cover of Water (percent of Veg Plot area with water = a+b+c < 100%)
a) % Veg Plot area with water and no vegetation
b) % Veg Plot area with water and floating/submerged aquatic vegetation
c) % Veg Plot area with water and emergent vegetation
Water Depth (make 3 depth measurements in a Veg Plot within
a 10 minute period)
Minimum Depth (cm)
Plotl
Plot 2
Plot 3
^p*
Dl0i2
Predominant Depth (cm) | f ^^^^^
Maximum Depth (cm)
Time of Day (24 hour clock)
Cover of Bareground = a+b+c <100%
a) Exposed soil/sediment
b) Exposed gravel/cobble (~2mm to 25cm)
c) Exposed rock (>25cm)
Plotl
Vegetative Litter Plot 1
Total Cover Vegetative Litter (0-100%)
Predominant (>25% cover) or Primary Litt< / type(s) (see Instructions) (Fill in all
that apply): T = Thatch (dead graminoiu (e.g., rasses, adges, rushes), leaves, rhizomes,
or other material) F = Forb
D = Deciduous Tree .. = Broadleaf Evergreen Tree
C = Coniferous Tree N = None
Litter Depth (cm) in center o 1-m2 iua' rat at SW Veg Plot corner
Litter Depth (cm) in cei 5cm diameter) (0-100%)
Cover of Downed ine Woody debris (<5cm diameter) (0-100%)
OTQE
OFQD
O cQ N
Plotl
Plot 2
Plot 2
OTQE
OFQD
OcQ N
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 3
Plot 3
OTQE
OFQD
O cQ N
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 4
Plot 4
Plot 4
OTQE
OFQD
O cQ N
Plot 4
-•lots
Plots
Plots
Plots
OTQE
OFQD
QcQ N
Plots
Flag
Flag
Flag
Flag
Flag
Flag Comments
Flag codes: K = No measurement made, U = Suspect measurement., F1 ,F2, etc. = misc. flags assigned by each field crew.
^^ Explain all flags in comment section. 1184195537 ^ft
NWCA Ground Surface Attributes 03/10/2011
-------
FORM V-4a: NWCA SNAG AND TREE COUNTS AND TREE COVER (Front)
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1 1
Reviewed by (initial):.
in the appropriate bubble in the Tree or Snag
Instructions for Recording Data:
1. Fill out Header Information.
2. If Live Trees or Snags are Absent from a Veg Plot,
Absence field.
3. If either Live Trees or Snags are Present in a Veg Plot, collect data across the entire 100-m2area of
each Veg Plot.
4. Standing Dead Trees and Snags (angle of incline > 45°): Count snags > 5cm DBH by diameter class
and record the total number of snags for each DBH class in the white data column for the appropriate
Veg Plot.
5. For Each Live Tree Species: Use one row for each plot in which each tree species is found. Be sure to
indicate the Veg Plot number in the Plot # column next to each species name.
6. Cover of trees in height classes: Record species names or pseudonyms for each tree species.
Ensure pseudonyms match those used on Form V-2. Record the percent cover (0-100%) for each tree
species for each of the following height classes: < 0.5m, 0.5 to 2m, > 2 to 5m, > 5 to 15m, >15 to 30m,
>30m.
7. Live Trees: Count trees > 5cm DBH in each Veg Plot by species in DBH classes and record the total
number of trees for each diameter class in the white data column.
8. Counting Trees or Snags: If needed, for smaller DBH classes when many trees or snags are pres<_
a running tally* of the numbers of all snags, or for each tree species, in each DBH class can be
recorded in the gray shaded workspace in the DBH columns. Once all the snags or tree species ar
tallied for a plot, record the total number for each species in each DBH class in the white data field for
each DBH column.
Tally
format*
O Fill in bubble to confirm i qt en.pty data cells equal zero.
TREES OR SN kGS A ^SENCE: Fill in all that apply:
LTA=Live Trees Abs. xnt. DTA=Dead Trees/Snags Absent
Plotl
OLTA
O DTA
Plot
OLTA
O :T/.
Plots
O LTA
O DTA
Plot 4
OLTA
O DTA
Plots
OLTA
ODTA
Stand ng Dead Tree/Snag Counts by DBH Class
(White box = data field, Gray box = tally workspace)
Plot
5 to 10c">
Plot#
O1 O4
8ios
rr tr t
Live Tree Species Name/Pseudonym
~ 5m
Tree Cover by leigh ~lass
15m 30m
>30m
11 to 25cm
26 to 50cm
51 to 75cm
76 to
100cm
101 to
200cm
Flag
Tree Counts by DBH Class
(White box = data field, Gray box = tally workspace) (DBH = diameter breast height)
5 to 10cm
11 to 25cm
26 to 50cm
51 to 75cm
76 to
100cm
101 to
200cm
>200
cm
Flag
8^5
O3
O 1 O4
SI05
i 1 O 4
i 2 O 5
i 3
8^5
O3
O1 O4
8§05
Flag codes:K= No im s- ement made, U = Suspect measurement, F1, F2, etc = misc.flags assigned by each field crew. Explain all flags in comment section on back side of form.
2318393335
;asurerr
se Cour
NWCA Snag & Tree Counts (Front) 03/10/2011
-------
g FORM V-4a: NWCA SNAG AND TREE COUNTS AND TREE COVER (Back)
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1 1
Plot#
O1 O4
8§05
O 1 O 4
O 2 O 5
O 1 O4
O2 Q5
O3
O 1 O 4
O 2 O 5
8285
O3
O 1 O4
O2 Q5
O3
O1 O4
8§05
8285
O3
O 1 O4
O2 Q5
O3
O 1 O 4
O 2 O 5
8285
O3
O 1 O4
8i05
O 1 O 4
O 2 O 5
8285
O3
O 1 O4
8§05
Flag
Live Tree Species Name/Pseudonym
Tree Cover by Height Class
<0.5m
8
>0.5-
2m
>2-5m
=
(V
>5-
15m
>15-
30m
E
£
>30m
*%
Comment
V
Reviewed by (
V*^2
nitial):
Of
•
Tree Count? jy L~200
cm
Flag
Comment
• Flag codes:K = No measurement made, U = Suspect measurement, F1, F2, etc = misc. flags assigned by each field crew. __.. ^^fi?4l 4
NWCA Snag & Tree Counts (Back) 03/1 0/201 1 Explain all flags in comment section.
-------
rFORM S-1 : NWCA SOIL PROFILE DATA (Front)
Soil Pit: O A OB OC OD Wed by (
Refer to Reference Cards S-1 through S-4 for summary of protocols for collecting data on this page.
Site ID: NWCA11- Soil Map Unit Symbol from Site Packet: Date: ^^ ^ 2
O Fill in if this Soil Pit is the Representative Pit (up to12
Samples Collected column the bulk density (B) and C
collected.
Sample ID, if Representative Pit:
N W C A 1 1 -
SOIL PIT LOCATION
Near Veg Plot #:
O Standard location near
O Alternate Location
Distance „
(from SE c
SE corner of
, Bearing
arner of Veg F
Horizons
Samples Collected
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Horizon
Name-
(soil
scientist
will
complete)
Depth
(cm) to
lower
boundary
of
Horizon
Fill in if
lower
boundary
is abrupt
(< 2 cm)
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Veg Plot
O
lot)
5cm deep) and indicate in the CATEGORICAL DATA CELLS:
hemistry (C) samples _ Fin in this bubble to confirm that a filled bubt
Redox, Organic, or Mottle Features Section)
Final Pit Depth: cm
-
-
SOIL PIT ATTRIBUTES
Total Pit Depth: cm
Time of Pit Excavation
^•^ (hh:mm)
i 1 1 ' i 1 1 24 hr cloc
Lighting Conditions:
O Bright O Dappled
O Overcast O Shaded
Soil Texture (fill one per horizon)
>s
•a
c
03
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
Loamy/Clayey
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
Mucky Mineral
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
Organic
P = Peat,
M = Muck,
MP = Mucky Peat
U = Unspecified
OP
O M
OP
O M
OP
O M
OP
O M
O
C vi
OF-
OP
O M
OP
O M
OP
O M
O MP
Ou
O MP
Ou
O "IP
Ou
p -IP
JU
O VIP
O
O MP
Ou
O MP
Ou
O MP
Ou
O MP
Ou
% Rock Fragments
>2mm
% Roots
COVER DATA CELLS:
Fill in this bubble to confirm that empty Data
U Horizon with Distinct or Prominent Features
O IMPENETRABLE LAYER PRESENT
If present, indicate Type:
O Clay Pan
O Cemented layer
O Bedrock
k O Large boulder
O Other
Depth t iw Su 'ace: cm
Soil Matrix Color
Hue
1^1>
X^
p
3
Value*
?
Chroma
nitial):
0 1 1
^
le indicate^ iresenoe (except for Absent in the
and an empty bubble indicates absence.
Cells for % Surface Area Rock or Roots and %
squal zero.
INITIAL READINGS
O Hydrogen Sulfide odor (rotten eggs)
O Inundated/saturated soil in pit:, If Present:
Initial Color:
Hue Value Chroma
Color reading depth from surface: cm
O Color change after exposure to air
Redoximorphic, Organic, or Mottle Features
1
_Q
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Feature Types
(fill n all observed in horizon)
Composition
Fe = Iron
Mn =
Manganese
C = Carbon
U = Unable
to specify
O Fe QC
O MnQ U
QFeQC
O MnQU
O Fe QC
O MnQ U
QFeQC
O MnQU
O Fe QC
O MnQ U
QFeQC
O MnQU
O Fe QC
O MnQ U
QFeQC
O MnQU
O Fe QC
O MnQ U
Redox
Features
S = Soft
masses,
N = nodules,
concretions,
P = pore
linings, D =
depletions
OSQN
OPOD
Os ON
OP OD
OSQN
OPOD
Os ON
OP OD
O s O N
O P O D
Os ON
OP OD
O s O N
O P O D
Os ON
OP OD
O s O N
O P O D
Mottles &
Org. Features
M = mottles
MS = masked
sand grains,
OB = organic
bodies, OF =
other organic
features
O M O MS
O OBO OF
OM O MS
O OBO OF
O M O MS
O OBO OF
OM O MS
O OBO OF
O M O MS
O OBO OF
OM O MS
O OBO OF
O M O MS
O OBO OF
OM O MS
O OBO OF
O M O MS
O OBO OF
Masked
Sand
Grains
'o
c
% of Horizon with Dist
or Prominent Features
Color of Most Evident
Feature
Hue
Value
Chroma
Flag
. Flag codes: K = No measurement made, U = Suspect measurement, F1, F2, etc = misc. flags assigned by each field crew. .
Explain all flags in comment section on the back of this form. 1968209140
^ NWCA Soil Profile Data (Front) 03/10/2011 K a ^
-------
r'"0!l09S ,U9Uiuioo m s6B|i MB U!B|dx3 TTOZ/OT/eO (*>eg)eieaa|!iaJdl!OSVDMN —
•M9JO p|3jj i|OB9 Aq pauBjssB sBBij-asjiu = oja 'zj '[.j ')U3ui3jnsB3iii padsns = n 'apsui )U3ui3jnsB3iii ON = »:s3poo BBIJ
C
y*C
)U3uiuioo BBIJ
^•4 _ (iiBMiiaeu
r ^4 °i uMop
O papaiioo 3|duiBS ON saiuAzug iuaiuipaS SJUBUIUIOO 01 a|duiBS ^
>* ' soejjns pi
i i i i i i i
O punojB 9
Q papailoo 3|duiBs ON adojos| |ios sjuaujujoo 01 3|duiBs BBIJ tussqv wo
saiuAzug }uauNpas/ado}os| i;os (wo) iji<
SJU8LULUOO JOJBO|pU| |JOS ONpAjH
(l 'S) SHOS AUJBOT )i|Bug sn|Biuouv - 02d O
^ (S) SHOS u|B|d poou tunouipajd -61-d O
(1) OIW9A psonpsy - 81-d O (n-V) aaej
^ (l) OUIJOO BJI3Q - /|,J O
(H) suojsssjdso su|B|d MBm - 91-d O (
(1 'd 'N) aoBjjns ouquin - Cl-d O
f (l 'd-N) SSB|/\| 9S9UBBuB|/\|-uoj| - zil O (n
(n-y) aoBjjns >IJBQ umi - 6s O (i) O!JM:)O P9'9'd9a • ^J O
(n-y 'd 'N) aoBi-ms >|JBQ - /s O (a"a) S|°°d |BUJ9A ' 6d O
(n~V) X!J1BI/\I Padduis - 9S O (n-V) suo!ss9jd9Q xopay - 8d O
(n-v) -opay APUBS - gs O (n"v) 90BiJns >|JBQ P9»9id9a - zd O
(n-V) xi- 'l/\l paAaio APUBS - tS O (n"v) 9OBJjnS >lJBa xopay - 9d Q
(y 'W 'd) lead JO lB9d A>|on|A| mo 9 - es O (n"V> X!JJB|A| P9'9'd9a • £J O
(H '0) lead JO lB9d A>|on|A| mo 9'2 - 2S O (n"v) X!J'B|A| p9A9|° AlUBO"1 " 2d °
(S 'y O'V) |BJ9W|/\| A>)on|/\| APUBS - I.S O '° "^'V' IBJ9U!I^I A>|on|/\| AUIBOT - \, j Q paAJt
SMOS APUBS SMOS AaABio/AuiBon
x\
V }
luauiuioo BBIJ
>i30|3 jij $z (IUUJ:MM)
:UOj)BAJ3SqO |3A3| J3)BMJO 3UIJ1
soe^ins punojB mojj mdsp) uoj)BJn)BS
(|9A9| J9)EM 0) UMOp
inojB mojj mdgp) );d u; |3A3| Jaie/v\
(soejjns
\oqe J9)EM jo mdsp) JaiB/y\ aoBjjns
adAi J3)B/\/\
JaQ jaiBM lid MOS
(l) xopay aujBJd ISBOQ - g|,v Q
(n~V) aoBjjns >|JBQ >p!m - ZVM O
jns >|JBQ M0|ag pa)3|d3Q - n,v O
(N 'IAJ) >|on|/\| mo z - OI.V O
L 'd 'H 'O 'd 'Q) >pn|/\| mo \. - 6V O
(n) 33U3S3jd >|on|Aj - 8V O
'1 'd) |BJ3U||Aj A>|on|Aj mo 9 - /v O
(n '1 'd) S3|poa omBBjQ - 9V O
n-N 'd '0) SJ3ABT psy!)BJ)s - 9V O
(n-V) apums uaBojpAH - fV O
(n-v) oiism >ioBia - cv O
(n-v) uopadjdg aiysiH - 2V O
(n-V) IOSOJSIH - I.V O
SMOS iiv
sqo JO)B3;pu| MOS oupAH ON - Q
:A|aaB )Bi]) ||B u; jj]d
'S||og oupX|-| joj eemiuwoo iBomqoei IBUOJJBN eqj qjjM uojjBjedooo u| 'soyN 'VQSH '('SPS) SICI0N 'A'O PUB 'yn|-| 'M'O 'SBNSBA 'IAI'1 'O'Z UOJSJSA 'se^Bjg
pejmn 9M1 u! SI!°S °MP^H i° sjojBoinui piay 01-02 'sojAjeg UOIJBAJSSUOO seojnosey IBUOJJBN 'ejnjinouBvio jueiujJBdeQ sejBjg pejmn (z PUB |BnuB|/\| suojjBjedo P|9!d VOAAN SM1 u! 9"S
PJBO 8ou8J8^8y (i, ojjeiey - ts3j|v. iB^oiBOjpU! ijoea qojijM u; (n oj v) sajeis SD snouiiujajuoo 8fr aMl u; uojBay aojnosay pue~| VQSH) sjojeoipui i;os oupAH
1 ' r 2 1 /
t
:(|eijiui)Aq p3M3|A3y
:aiBQ -H.VOMN :ai ^!S
aO oO aO vO :i!d MOS
(>peg) viva anuoyd nios VOMN : i-s lAiyod A
-------
£ FORM H-1 : NWCA ASSESSMENT AREA HYDROLOGY (Front)
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1
Reviewed bv (initial): ^fe
1
Time of Sampling (hh:mm): Tjdal stage. Q NA Q |ncoming Q Outgoing Q slack O Flood
&4 tir CIOCK I II I
Weather description: Day of sampling:
Week prior to sampling:
Identify and Rank Water Sources / Stressors:
Rank the top 3 Water Sources (1 = most influential). Rank the top 3 Stressors (1 = most stress) by perceived influer.ce on the
Site/Assessment Area Hydrology.
Water Sources - Natural
O Fill in this bubble to confirm that all water sources were considered, but only those present were marked.
Stream Inflow (creeks, rivers)
Outflow
Springs (seeps)
Lake
Precipitation (rain, snow)
Groundwater
Present
O
0
0
O
O
0
Rank Top 3 Sources
from 1-3
O1 O2 Q3
O1 O2 Q3
O1 O2 Q3
Q1 O2 Q3
Oi O2 Os
O1 O2 Q3
Flag
Snow Melt
Overbank Flooding
Estuary Tidal Channel
Tidal Surge
Other (describe with flar ,
\^r
Present
O
c
r>
o
0
Ra k Top ' Sources
from ,-3
Qi 02 Os
O1 O2 Q3
Q1 O2 Q3
Oi O2 Os
Oi O2 Os
Flag
Hydrologic Stressors
O Fill in this bubble to confirm that all hydrologic Stressors were considered, but only those present were marked.
Damming Features
Dikes
Berms
Dams
Railroad Bed
Roads
Shallow Channels
Animal Trampling
Vehicle Ruts
Impervious Surfaces
Roads
Concrete
Asphalt
Recent Sedimentation
+
Present
O
0
0
O
O
O
0
c
O
O
o
Rank Top 3
Stressors from 1 -3
O1 O2 Q3
O1 O2 Q3
O1 O2 Q3
Q1 O2 Q3
Flag
O1 O2 O' |
O1 O2 Q3 I
U 1 O 2 U 3
Oi O2 Q3
Q1 O2 Q3
Oi O2 Os
Q1 O2 Q3
Pump
, Ration
^^ j Water Supply
Other
T ,eld Tiling
^xcavation / Dredging
Pipes
Sewer Outfall
Standpipe outflow
Culverts
Corrugated Pipe
Box
Ditches
Inflowing
Outflowing
Other (describe with flag)
Present
O
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
Rank Top 3
Stressors from 1-3
O1 O2 Q3
O1 O2 Q3
Q1 O2 Q3
O1 O2 Q3
Q1 O2 Q3
O1 O2 Q3
Oi O2 Os
O1 O2 Q3
Oi O2 Os
Q1 O2 Q3
Oi O2 Os
Oi O2 Os
Depth of Deepest Ditch:
^^^^^t Measure cross sectional depth in 3 places if a ditch is present in the AA
O N Ditch Present
Depth 1 =
(cm)
Depth 2 =
(cm)
Depth 3 =
(cm)
Flag
Flag
^
Flai, Comments
^fe Flag codes: K = No measurement made, U = Suspect measurement, F1,F2, etc. = misc. flags assigned by each field crew.
Explain all flags in comment section. 9911639020 ^)
NWCA Assessment Area Hydrology 03/10/2011
-------
I FORM H-1: NWCA ASSESSMENT AREA HYDROLOGY (Back) Reviewed byimmai):.
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: / / 2 0 1 1
USACOE - Hydrology Indicators Fill in bubbles for all applicable indicators.
(Reference Card H-1 provides details about each indicator. Not all indicators will be found in every wetland).
Observation of Surface Water or Saturated Soils and other Site Condition Evidence
O Stunted or Stressed Plants Q Geomorphic Position Q Microtopographic Relief
O Surface Water O Hign Water Table Q Soil Saturation Q Shallow Aquitard
FLAG
Evidence of Recent Inundation
O Water Marks Q Aquatic Invertebrate
O Algal Mat or Crust Q Drainage Patterns
O Water-stained Leaves Q Sediment Deposits
O lron Deposits
O Marl Deposits
O Sparsely Vegetated Q Drift Deposits
Concave Surfaces
O Surface Soil Cracks O Moss Trim Lines
O Salt Crust
O Biotic Crust
FLAG
Evidence of Current or Recent Soil Saturation
O Hydrogen Sulfide Odor O Fiddler Crab Burrows
O Dry Season Water Table Q Salt Deposits
O Crayfish Burrows O Surficial Thin Muck
Flag codes: K = No measurement made, U =
Suspect measurement, F1,F2,
v u X *S
etc. = misc. flags assigned by each field crew. Explain all flags in comment section.
6783639024
NWCA Assessment Area Hydrology 03/10/2011
-------
g FORM WQ-1 : NWCA ASSESSMENT AREA WATER QUALITY (Fron
Site ID: NWCA11- Date: /
t) Reviewed bv (initial): |
/ 2 0 1 1
Presence of Surface Water in the AA: O Yes
O No Confirm Sampleable Surface Water (>15cm): O Yes O No
Characteristics of Sampled Water Location
Choose one:
O Freshwater O Saline
O Brackish
Choose one:
! O Tidal
O Non-Tidal
O Pond
O Lake
Choose One:
O Channel O Other:
O Backwater
Characteristics of AA Surface Water Body (where sampled) - Mark all that apply Flag:
SUBSTRATE COLOR: WATER CLARITY:
O Black O Clear
O Brown O Turbid
O Gray O Stained
O Milky
O Other O Other
SUBSTRATE:
Vegetation Present?:
O Yes O No
O Sand O Cobble
O Muck O Shellhash
O Gravel Q Organic
O Other O Mineral Soil
WATER SMELL:
O None O Algae r
O Chemical O Rotten
Vegetal
O Sulphur O Fishy
O f^'ier
TV_
Water Chemistry SarrV ng
SAMPLE ID: Chillc
OY«
QN<
Time Collected
id: (hhmm) 24 hour clock
s
>
k^k
~^
^ COMMENTS
WA'i :R SURFACE:
^or O Film O Algae Bloom
O Floe O Vegetation
°n O Sheen
O Other
No Sample Collected Q
Duplicate t 'ater Chemistry Sampling
Collect duplicate sample at team ist, 10th, 20th site with sampleable water
DUPLICATE SAMPLE ID: Chillt
O Ye
QN<
Time Collect* J
id: (hhmm) 24 nout 'ock
s
•
Cun. -lative number of sites with sampleable water.
V +*
COMMENTS
Optional - Surface Water Field Probe Readings
Instrument manufacturer and r ~<
O
o,l:
Flag
^^ ^
DO(mg/L) XX.X
/vV
pH XX.XX
Conductivity (uS/cm) XXX.XX
• i i
i i i
Temp. (°C) XX.X 1
Surface Water Measurements
Surface Water > 100cm O Yes O No
Maximum Depth of Surface Water(cm):
% AA covered with surface water:
Flag codes: K = No measurement made, U = Suspect measurement, F1 ,F2, etc. = misc. flags assigned by each field crew.
Explain all flags in comment section on the back of this form. 8980109746
NWCA Water Quality 03/10/2011
-------
FORM WQ-1 : NWCA ASSESSMENT AREA WATER QUALITY (Back)
Site ID: NWCA11-
NWCA Water Quality 03/10/2011
-------
FORM ALG-1 : NWCA ALGAE
Reviewed by (initial):.
Site ID: NWCA11-
Date:
/ 2 0 1 1
SAMPLE ID:
Algal Toxins Sample
a r
No Sample Collected
Collected?
#of
Subsamples
Comments *
Epiphytic Algae
OY
£*
SAMPLE ID:
Algae Taxonomic ID Sample
a r
ass: Chlorophyll-a Sample
No Sample Collected Q
NO sample collected Q
SAMPLE ID:
Comments'
Use comment field to explain: No measurement, suspect measurement or observation made.
6285024681
NWCA Algae 03/10/2011
-------
D
-------
-------
------- |