Abstract
AbstractThere are over 700 aquatic ecological assessment approaches across the globe that meet specific institutional goals. However, in many cases, multiple assessment tools are designed to meet the same management need, resulting in a confusing array of overlapping options. Here, we look at six riverine wetland assessments currently in use in Montana, USA, and ask which tool (1) best captures the condition across a disturbance gradient and (2) has the most utility to meet the regulatory or management needs. We used descriptive statistics to compare wetland assessments (n = 18) across a disturbance gradient determined by a landscape development intensity. Factor analysis showed that many of the tools had internal metrics that did not correspond well with overall results, hindering the tool’s ability to act as designed. We surveyed regional wetland managers (n = 56) to determine the extent of their use of each of the six tools and how well they trusted the information the assessment tool provided. We found that the Montana Wetland Assessment Methodology best measured the range of disturbance and had the highest utility to meet Clean Water Act (CWA§ 404) needs. Montana Department of Environmental Quality was best for the CWA§ 303(d) & 305(b) needs. The US Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Riparian Assessment Tool was the third most used by managers but was the tool that had the least ability to distinguish across a disturbance, followed by the US Bureau of Land Management’s Proper Functioning Condition.
Funder
Directorate for Biological Sciences
Montana Water Center, Montana State University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference48 articles.
1. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, D.C
2. Berglund J, McEldowney R (2008) MDT Montana wetland assessment method. 42
3. Bezombes L, Gaucherand S, Kerbiriou C, et al. (2017) Ecological equivalence Assessment methods: what Trade-Offs between Operationality. Sci Basis Comprehensiveness? Environ Manage 60:216–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0877-5
4. Bick H (1963) A review of central European methods for the biological estimation of water pollution levels. Bull World Health Organ 29:401
5. Birk S, Bonne W, Borja A, et al. (2012) Three hundred ways to assess Europe’s surface waters: an almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecol Ind 18:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.10.009