Montana wetland assessment method / prepared by Jeff Berglund, Western EcoTech.

Berglund, Jeff.

doi:10.5962/bhl.title.24923

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The HGM Approach uses reference conditions collected on riparian wetlands only. In contrast, MWAM has applications across the broader physiographic regions and relies on professional experience and literature to establish sub-index scores (Berglund and McEldowney 2008). This could also account for individual MWAM metrics or indices providing information that contradicts the averaged condition score indicated in our factor analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

What is the Best Wetland Assessment Tool? A Discrimination of Overlapping Assessment Approaches.

Kleindl

Church

Rains

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There 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 nuance of condition across a disturbance gradient and 2) has the most utility to meet the largest regulatory need. We used descriptive statistics to compare wetland assessments (n = 16) across a disturbance gradient determined by a landscape development index. We also used factor analysis to determine if each tool’s metrics correspond to its overall results and performed as designed. We interviewed 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. Many tools had internal mechanics that hindered the tool’s ability to act as it was designed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%