National Academies Press: OpenBook

Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data (2014)

Chapter: Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools

« Previous: Appendix D - List of All Data Sets Provided in Eco-Plan
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Screening of Analytic Tools." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22316.
×
Page 111

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

79 Table E.1 lists several analytic tools that ICF evaluated for possible integration with Eco-Plan. For each system, ICF documented information on ownership, scope, scale, fit for Eco-Plan, and purpose. A p p e n d i x e Screening of Analytic Tools

80Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Primary Candidates for Integration Automated Geospatial Water- shed Assessment (AGWA) USDA-ARS South- west Watershed Research Center and U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development Landscape Ecology Branch National GIS-based watershed management tool; AGWA is available as AGWA 2.0 for Esri’s ArcGIS 9.x and 10.x and AGWA 1.5 for Esri’s ArcView 3.x. 2013 Downloadable software Yes AGWA is designed to provide quali- tative estimates of runoff and ero- sion relative to landscape change. GIS provides the framework within which spatially distributed data are collected and used to prepare model input files and evaluate model results. AGWA uses widely available standardized spatial data sets that can be obtained via the Internet. The data are used to develop input parameter files for two watershed runoff and erosion models: KINEROS2 and SWAT. Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) National Yes—includes within the open-source MapWindow GIS interface, a Data Download Tool, proj- ect builder, water- shed delineation routines, and data analysis and model output visualization tools. New features include plug-in inter- faces for well-known watershed and water quality models SWMM5, WASP7, and SWAT 2005. Yes Downloadable multipurpose environmental analysis sys- tem that inte- grates a GIS, national water- shed data, and state-of- the-art envi- ronmental assessment and modeling tools into one convenient package. Yes, but limited to watersheds and water quality issues. Multipurpose environmental analysis system designed for use by regional, state, and local agencies in performing watershed and water quality-based studies. CommunityViz Placeways LLC National Yes. Operates as an extension to Esri’s ArcGIS platform. Yes Yes—it is a website. Yes—it is a Web Tool: CommunityViz is advanced yet easy-to-use GIS software designed to help people visualize, ana- lyze, and com- municate about important land- use decisions. ArcGIS software extension widely used by planners; features flexible and interactive analysis tools, a rich set of presentation tools, and several options for 3-D visualiza- tion of future places. (continued on next page)

81 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Data Basin CBI (Conservation Biology Institute) National Yes Yes Yes—it is a web-based application. Yes Data Basin is a science-based map- ping and analysis platform that supports learning, research, and sustainable environmental stewardship. Ecosystem Manage- ment Decision Support (EMDS) Developed by U.S. Forest Service, and maintained by Redlands Institute National Yes—public domain and free; Full com- patibility with ArcGIS 9.2, 9.3, and 9.3.1. Yes No—down- loadable software Yes Application framework for knowl- edge-based decision support of ecological assessments at any scale. With the high level of public interest in natural resource man- agement in these times, black box solutions are a political liability. The Hotlink Browser displays the evalu- ated state of a knowledge base. Users can navigate the networks of analysis topics to trace the logic of evaluations in an intuitive interface. More importantly, the presentation of results in this graphic format is sufficiently intuitive that users of the system can use the Hotlink Browser as a powerful communi- cation tool that effectively explains the basis of evaluation results to broad audiences. Envision Oregon State University GIS-based tool (beta version) Yes Downloadable software Yes—built on an open, extensible architecture that can be adapted to a variety of location and applications. Created to conduct research about the nature and properties of cou- pled human and natural environ- mental systems in the context of climate change. For developing alternative-futures analysis used to model the landscape impacts of various policy scenarios on land use change and accompanying biophysical impacts. Strongest applications are mapping the cumulative effects of multiple actions at multiple sites as it tracks impacts over time. Has the ability to plug in evaluative models (e.g., credit calculators). FRAGSTATS University of Massachusetts Yes—accommodates ArcGIS10. Program was completely revamped in 2002 (Version 3). Downloadable software Yes Computer software program designed to compute a wide variety of landscape metrics for categorical map patterns. (continued on next page) (continued)

82Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) NOAA Coastal Services Center National Yes—is a geospatial tool. Just one person with intermediate skills in ArcGIS is needed to operate the planner for an entire group. Yes Not a web app— downloadable software Yes Habitat Priority Planner is a spatial decision support tool designed to assist users in prioritizing impor- tant areas in the landscape or seascape for conservation or res- toration action. Creates maps, reports, and data. Teams of people working on habitat decisions use this tool to share information and find answers to questions. The Habitat Priority Planner packages spatial analysis and stakeholder engagement in one geospatial tool. This Esri-based toolbar has been used for strategic conservation planning, to create species moni- toring plans, and to plan for climate change adaptation. Users can cus- tomize base data, select a series of spatial analyses, and work with stakeholders to prioritize areas for management action. Land Change Modeler (LCM) Clark University, Worcester, MA National Available as a software extension for use with Esri’s ArcGIS product. It is compat- ible with ArcGIS 9.2 SP2 and ArcGIS 9.3, but ArcGIS 10 is not supported. Yes Not a web app— commercial software Yes—but a commercial product The Land Change Modeler (LCM) for Ecological Sustainability is an integrated software environment for analyzing land cover change, projecting its course into the future, and assessing its implica- tions for habitat and biodiversity change. Commissioned by the Andes Conservation Biology Cen- ter of Conservation International, LCM is vertical application devel- oped by Clark Labs and inte- grated within the IDRISI GIS and Image Processing software pack- age. The Land Change Modeler for Ecological Sustainability is oriented to the pressing problem of accelerated land conversion and the very specific analytical needs of biodiversity conservation. (continued) (continued on next page)

83 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Land Transformation Model (LTM) Purdue University Has been used in Great Lakes region and internationally. Yes. The LTM com- bines GIS, artificial neural networks, geostatistical, and remote sensing tech- nologies to forecast land use change. Standard inputs are: roads, rivers, eleva- tion, soils, population and two land use maps. These are processed using Esri’s ArcGIS or ArcView software. Development of LTM began in 1995 and is ongoing. Not a web app— downloadable software Yes The model uses landscape ecology principles, patterns of interactions to simulate land use change pro- cess, to forecast land use change. Though the model can be used in any definable region, precedence is given to watersheds. Useful for simulating land use/cover changes across large regions. It can be used to simulate land change in areas that contain several million to even a few hundred million cells. It is thus a useful tool to cou- ple to regional climate, hydrologic, and carbon sequestration models. Landuse Evolution and Impact Assessment Model (LEAM) University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign National Scenario results and impact assessments can be displayed in a number of ways: as simulation movies, through a built-in mapping tool, in graph or chart dis- plays, or simply as raw data. Yes Unknown Yes Environmental, economic, and social system impacts of alternative sce- narios such as different land-use policies, growth trends, and unex- pected events can be tested out in the LEAM modeling environment. Marxan University of Queensland, Australia National Yes Yes Downloadable software Yes—seems to be well regarded and widely used. Marxan is freely available conserva- tion planning software that provides decision support to a range of con- servation planning problems, including the design of new reserve systems, reporting on the perfor- mance of existing reserve systems, and developing multiple-use zoning plans for natural resource manage- ment. It provides many good solu- tions to complex problems, offering a number of options and encourag- ing stakeholder participation. These features provide users with deci- sion support to achieve an efficient allocation of resources across a range of different uses. (continued on next page) (continued)

84Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool NatureServe Vista NatureServe National Compatible with ArcMap 10; fully compatible with Marxan 2.1.1. Yes Not a web app (download- able software program) Yes—supports quantitative and defensible plan- ning approaches that incorporate science, expert opinion, com- munity values, and GIS. It works with a number of other useful software tools to incorpo- rate land use, economics, and ecological and geophysical modeling. The flexible approach and structure of Vista is suitable for planning and GIS experts as well as non- experts with a minimum of training and support. Free decision-support system that helps users integrate conservation with land use and resource planning of all types. Planners, resource managers, scientists, and conservationists can use NatureServe Vista to conduct con- servation planning and assess- ments; integrate conservation values with other planning and assessment activities, such as land use, transportation, energy, natural resource, and ecosystem- based management; evaluate, create, implement, and monitor land use and resource manage- ment scenarios designed to achieve conservation goals within existing economic, social, and political contexts. NEPAssist EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) National Yes—a GIS application that automates and web-enables the col- lection and coordina- tion of information inherent in the envi- ronmental review process mandated by NEPA. Yes Yes, it is a web application— automates and web- enables the collection and coordination of information. Yes. The web- based applica- tion draws environmental data dynami- cally from EPA’s GIS databases and web ser- vices and pro- vides immediate screening of environmental assessment indicators for a user-defined area of interest. NEPAssist is a tool that facilitates the environmental review process and project planning in relation to environmental considerations. These features contribute to a streamlined review process that potentially raises important envi- ronmental issues at the earliest stages of project development. (continued) (continued on next page)

85 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT) NOAA N-SPECT was developed as a decision- support tool for the Waianae area of Oahu, Hawaii, but other coastal communities can use the tool if they have the information needed for the base data layer. Yes—requires MapWindow GIS v.4.8.6 (open source). Yes Not a web app— downloadable software Yes Use OpenNSPECT, the open- source version of the Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool to investigate potential water quality impacts from development, other land uses, and climate change. OpenNSPECT was designed to be broadly applicable. When applied to coastal and noncoastal areas alike, the tool simulates erosion, pollution, and their accu- mulation from overland flow. N-SPECT is complex yet user- friendly GIS extension that helps coastal managers and local deci- sion makers predict potential water quality impacts from non- point source pollution and ero- sion. See http://ebmtoolsdata base.org/tool/n-spect-nonpoint- source-pollution-and-erosion- comparison-tool. TransCAD Caliper Corporation National Stand-alone GIS system Yes No—commercial software Yes—a commer- cial product TransCAD is a GIS system designed specifically for use by transpor- tation professionals to store, display, manage, and analyze transportation data. 2-D and 3-D visualizations, cartography, buff- ering, region/cluster grouping, spatial statistics, and grid gener- ation. Its strengths lie in the ability to create and model trans- portation networks and matrices, providing functions to develop an integrated UTPS. (continued on next page) (continued)

86Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) Developed by Systech Water Resources under sponsorship from Electric Power Research Institute. National Yes—built-in GIS sys- tem to access model coefficients and data by point-and-click on a watershed map. Yes WARMF is now available in the public domain through the EPA Ecosys- tem Research Division TMDL Modeling Toolbox. Yes WARMF is a physically based watershed modeling framework and decision support system for watershed management. It is suitable for applications including watershed stewardship, land use planning, climate change impact, mercury transport, and TMDLs. It also includes a consensus module designed to bring scien- tific information to a stakeholder group and facilitate decision making on a watershed scale. WARMF is now compatible with the U.S. EPA’s BASINS software (e.g., the data extraction and watershed delineation tools of BASINS can be used to set up a WARMF application). Possible Candidates for Integration Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) The ARIES Consortium, which includes many sponsors (e.g., NSF and Conservation International) National and international Unsure Yes Yes—it is a web-based application. Possibly—focus is on ecosystem services. ARIES is a web-based technology offered to users worldwide to assist rapid ecosystem service assessment and valuation (ESAV). Its purpose is to make environmental decision making easier and more effective. ARIES helps discover, understand, and quantify environmental assets and what factors influence their values, for a geographical area and based on its users’ needs and priorities. (continued) (continued on next page)

87 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool C-Plan Conservation Planning System New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage Developed in Australia— but may be more widely applicable. Yes—conservation decision-support software that links with GIS to map options for achieving explicit conservation targets. Interfaces with either Esri ArcView 3 GIS or Zonae Cogito to act as the GIS GUI. Yes Not a web app—free downloadable software Possibly—but may need more investigation. The Environmental Decisions Group is a network of conservation researchers working on the sci- ence of effective decision making to better conserve biodiversity. The EDG includes a variety of Austra- lian and International research cen- tres, hubs, and teams. C-Plan maps options for achieving an explicit conservation goal in a region, allows users to decide which sites (areas of land or water) should be placed under some form of conservation management, accepts and displays these deci- sions, and then lays out the new pattern of options that results. The system displays information in tables, maps, or diagrams that can be used to guide decisions. Circuitscape UC Santa Barbara and The Nature Conservancy staffers National Yes—ArcGIS export to Circuitscape Yes Not a web app Possibly—limited to questions about wildlife connectivity Free open-source program; devel- oped for Mac, Linux, and Windows; applies algorithms from electronic circuit theory to predict patterns in gene flow and connectivity. City Green American Forests National Yes—Esri ArcGIS extension Yes Not a web app— commercial software Possibly An ArcGIS package of models that calculates ecosystem services and economic value for stormwa- ter, carbon storage and seques- tration, air pollution removal, and water quality. Does analysis on user-defined land cover layer. Florida DOT-Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Florida Department of Transportation Florida Yes Yes Online database Possibly—may be only for Florida. (ETDM) program, which collabora- tively works with Florida Water Management Districts (WMDs) to prioritize resource mitigation needs at the watershed or basin level. Early identification of poten- tial impacts is promoted through the program’s Environmental Screening Tool (EST), an online database that overlays transporta- tion project and resource data from various sources, allowing planners to share data and fore- see potential ecological impacts of infrastructure investments. (continued on next page) (continued)

88Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) USGS Fort Collins National Yes—links to GIS data are provided. Unknown No Possibly, but may be outdated— says it uses DOS system— may need more investigation. Quantitatively compare two or more alternative management practices of an area with regard to those practices affecting species in that area; the HEP accounting pro- gram uses the area of available habitat and Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) to compute the values needed for HEP as described in the Ecological Services Manual (ESM 102) and the HEP training course Habitat Evaluation Proce- dures. This is an important tool for land use managers, as they can quantify the effects of alter- native management plans over time, and provide for mitigation and compensation that can allow fair use of the land and maintain healthy habitats for affected species. Impervious Surface Analysis Tool NOAA Coastal Services Center Yes—available as a geographic informa- tion system extension. Not a web app— downloadable software Maybe Used to calculate the percentage of impervious surface area within user-selected geographic areas (e.g., watersheds, municipalities, subdivisions). In small water- sheds, the correlation between an increase in impervious sur- faces and a decrease in water quality has been well estab- lished. People use the informa- tion derived from ISAT to predict how different management sce- narios might impact local water quality. Index of Biological Integrity—Birds, Fish, Inverte- brates, and Plants James R. Karr, University of Washington Nationwide in most habitat types No 1981 but still used. No Maybe—the IBI is a widely used approach to determining ecological health of an aquatic system, using fish or benthic invertebrates. To assess biological integrity of a habitat utilizing one of the four (birds, fish, invertebrates, and plants) as indicators of relative condition of a selected habitat. (continued) (continued on next page)

89 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Information System of Plans (ISoP) Department of Urban and Regional Plan- ning University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign National Unsure—may be a database. Unsure—needs more investi- gation of original source. Possibly—link goes to an example ISoP for one county and illustrates a database that local, county, and regional decision makers can use to find, view, and examine existing comprehensive, environmental/ natural resource, land use, trans- portation, and facilities/ infrastructure plans in the county. The ability to access and compare multiple plans yields more infor- mation pertinent to making a deci- sion than can be found in any one plan, which of necessity sup- presses disagreement and multi- ple perspectives. The result is an ISoP that is a persistent, interac- tive, and continually changing set of information that puts plans to work rather than on a shelf. Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Natural Capital Project National Yes. InVEST models run as script tools in the ArcGIS ArcToolBox environment. Yes Not a web app— downloadable software Possibly A package of models in an ArcGIS extension that calculates eco- system services based on land use/land cover and packaged assumptions about service provision by land cover type. Maryland Watershed Resources Registry Maryland, multiple partners Maryland Yes—provides down- loadable GIS layers. Yes It is a web- based application. Possibly—but specific to Maryland. An interactive mapping tool to characterize and prioritize natural resource management opportunities using a Watershed Approach. Areas across Mary- land have been scored on a scale of one to five stars based on their potential benefits for restoration or preservation. Users can either access the interactive mapping tool or download the data directly http://watershed resourcesregistry.com/. (continued on next page) (continued)

90Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Michigan DOT Wetland Mitigation Site Selection Tool (WMSST) Michigan DOT Michigan Yes Yes Not a web app Possibly—but may be specific to Michigan. A geospatial site selection tool for strategic identification of ideal compensation areas. See http:// tarut.org/. MTRI has developed a WMSST that uses satellite imag- ery, GIS data analysis, and cus- tomized geospatial software to create a user-friendly method of rapidly assessing large water- sheds for suitable locations of wetlands mitigation projects needed due to transportation projects. Miradi CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership) National Not yet but planned Yes Desktop soft- ware program resides on cli- ent’s machine, but data can be sent via Internet col- lection to cen- tral servers. Maybe—but software is evolving so may become more GIS based in future. Miradi uses conceptual models and results in chain diagrams to support project planning, threats assessments, work planning, budgeting, and tools for measuring and reporting on the status of conservation targets and the impact of conservation strategies. Miradi is desktop software that helps conservation practitioners imple- ment the Conservation Measures Partnership’s (CMP: www .conservationmeasures.org) Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) USGS Fort Collins National No 2012 Not a web app Possibly— downloadable software but doesn’t appear to involve GIS. The purpose of PHABSIM is to simulate a relationship between streamflow and physical habitat for various life stages of a spe- cies of fish or a recreational activity. The basic objective of physical habitat simulation is to obtain a representation of the physical stream so that the stream may be linked, through biological considerations, to the social, political, and economic world. (continued) (continued on next page)

91 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool RESTORE Oregon State University Unknown Yes Unknown No Possibly—sounds promising, but the link is bro- ken and more investigation will be needed to find this product online. RESTORE integrates models of watershed function and economic characterizations of restoration options with stakeholder-deter- mined constraints and priorities to provide a tool for stakeholders to identify feasible restoration strate- gies and evaluate the ecological and economic effectiveness of these strategies at addressing watershed-level function. The approach involves integrating (1) models of hydrology, water quality, biodiversity, and habitat quality at the watershed scale, (2) socioeconomic analyses of stakeholder constraints on feasible restoration options, and (3) economic analysis of restoration options to develop a GIS-based decision tool for generating and evaluating resto- ration strategies consistent with stakeholder goals. Spatial Wetland Assessment for Management and Planning (SWAMP) NOAA Website says Intended Use: Ashepoo- Combahee- Edisto River Basin, South Carolina tidal and riverine wet- lands but could be more broadly applicable. Yes Yes Not a web app Possibly A conceptual GIS-based model to help managers prioritize wetland habitats within a watershed. Called the SWAMP, this model consists of two modules, tidal and riverine, that examine a wetland’s contribution to water quality, hydrology, and habitat. The model considers site-specific character- istics obtained from soil and vege- tative data. See http://gcmd.nasa .gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata .do?Portal=GCMD_Services&Key wordPath=ServiceParameters% 7CREFERENCE+AND+ INFORMATION+SERVICES% 7CKNOWLEDGE%2FDECISION+ SYSTEMS&EntryId=NOAA- SWAMP&MetadataView=Full& MetadataType=1&lbnode=mdlb2. (continued on next page) (continued)

92 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Watershed Vulnerability Analysis Center for Water- shed Protection (MD) Northeast, Upper Midwest, and Southeast No—but GIS may be able to be used as part of the process. Yes Not a web app— it’s a report. Possibly—not GIS or web based but outlines an 8-step process for developing effective water- shed plans. Intended Use: Streams within subwatersheds. The model was based on research in the Pacific Northwest and Mid-Atlantic regions. Supporting data exist for the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and Southeast. Outlines a basic eight-step process for creating a rapid watershed plan and pro- vides guidance on delineating subwatersheds, estimating cur- rent and future impervious cover, and identifying factors that would alter the initial classification of individual subwatersheds. Not Appropriate for Integration Applied River Morphology Method Nationwide No No—1996 No No—it is a stream classification system. Provides a detailed explanation of the Rosgen stream classification system (Rosgen 1994a). Link goes to a short course by author. Arkansas Wetland Information Man- agement System Arkansas Multi- Agency Wetland Planning Team Arkansas Yes. Arkansas Wetland Information Manage- ment System pro- vides GIS capability to non-GIS users over the Internet. Unknown— see comment. Yes—Arkansas Wetland Information Management System provides GIS capability to non-GIS users over the Internet. Probably not— limited geogra- phy and more detail would be needed. Only linked to a 2003 newsletter article about the program Basinwide Visual Estimation Technique USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station Mostly western United States No 1993 No Probably not—it’s a PDF of a 1993 paper. Basinwide visual estimation tech- niques (BVET) are statistically reliable and cost effective for esti- mating habitat and fish populations across entire watersheds. Survey teams visit habitats in every reach of the study area to record visual observations. At preselected inter- vals, teams also record actual mea- surements. These observations and measurements are used to com- pute calibration ratios that correct for observer bias. This publication introduces modifications of the original BVET protocols and pro- vides examples and practical instructions for use by resource managers. (continued) (continued on next page)

93 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Method Field Manual for Streams Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Idaho No 2004 Not a web app Probably not— limited to Idaho Initiated to help determine the exist- ing uses and beneficial use sup- port status of Idaho’s water bodies. Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP) monitoring emphasizes sampling, analysis, and assessment of biological assemblages and physical habitat structure of streams to ultimately support characterization of stream integrity and overall quality. This BURP Field Manual provides infor- mation needed for consistency and comparability of monitoring efforts among Idaho Department of Envi- ronmental Quality personnel as well as other entities interested in following these methods. BushBroker Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment Australia 2006 Not a good fit A trading scheme for registering and trading native vegetation offset credits. Native vegetation credits are listed on the BushBroker reg- ister, and these can be bought by another party and subsequently used as an offset for the approved clearing of native vegetation. Bushtender Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment Australia No No Not a good fit This survey protocol develops habi- tat scores based on field site stud- ies that can be conducted on large tracts of land. The resulting score has been used in trials for auction- based conservation financing. Business and Bio- diversity Offset Program (BBOP) International collaborative Not a good fit An international partnership between companies, governments, and conservation experts to explore biodiversity offsets and develop the principles and methodologies required to support best practice in voluntary biodiversity offsets. BBOP has published a set of 10 principles on biodiversity supported unani- mously by the 40 member organi- zations of the BBOP Advisory Committee, together with support- ing material in the form of interim guidance on the design and imple- mentation of offsets. (continued on next page) (continued)

94Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool California Carbon Project Protocols California Climate Action Reserve Not a good fit Carbon credit calculator California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) California Wetlands Monitoring Work- group (CWMW) California Unsure Yes CRAM is gener- ally done in the field with the eCRAM soft- ware installed on a tablet computer or laptop. An online version of the eCRAM software is also available. Yes—a widely used tool in California A wetland functional assessment. Provides rapid, scientifically defen- sible, standardized, cost-effective assessments of the status and trends in the condition of wetlands and related policies, programs, and projects throughout California. Casco Bay Water- shed Wetlands Characterization Method Maine Outdated link CoastRanger MS Discovery Software Ltd. and Halcrow Group Ltd. United Kingdom Unclear—it is a commercial software program. Yes No Probably not—an educational tool for coastal management simulation CoastRanger MS presents a virtual coastline within a PC-gaming type environment. CoastRanger MS incorporates a legacy of past developments and defenses and uses a coastal process simulator to predict the impacts of climate change under different manage- ment scenarios chosen by the user. Users are able to make various decisions about the management of the virtual shoreline and then see the consequences on screen. Combined Assess- ment Procedure/ Habitat Evaluation Procedures (CHAP) Bonneville Power Administration/ NW Habitat Institute Washington and California Probably not—too limited Used to quantify the impact of hydroelectric projects and bene- fits of mitigation in the Pacific Northwest. CHAP is an evolution that allows for crediting out-of- kind habitats. Based on species- habitat associations. (continued) (continued on next page)

95 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Connecticut Method Connecticut DEP and some federal cooperators Connecticut non- tidal wetlands; to be used for not- ing relative value of all wetlands within a town or selected water- sheds in Con- necticut (and was revised for New Hampshire) No—revision may be under way. Based on a 1986 report. Most likely not Probably not Primary purpose: To evaluate wet- lands in planning, education, and wetland inventory; but not for detailed impact analysis on indi- vidual wetlands. Based on Ammann, A.P., R.W. Frazen, and J.L. Johnson. 1986. Method for the Evaluation of Inland Wetlands in Connecticut. DEP Bulletin No. 9. Connecticut Department of Envi- ronmental Protection, Hartford, CT. Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System (CAPS) University of Massachusetts Massachusetts Probably, but no info provided on website to explain what CAPS is or how it works. Yes— website cites 2011 reports. Unsure Not a good fit Not available Conservation Plan for the Southern Watershed Area Virginia Natural Heritage Program Virginia No Date unknown Not a web app This is a conser- vation plan, not a tool. Not available Descriptive Approach (High- way Methodology) Army Corps New England Regulatory Program 1999 New England Unknown 1999 Protocol down- loaded from website. Not a good fit Not available Developing Rapid Methods for Analyzing Upland Riparian Functions and Values WA State To implement upland riparian Laws in Washington. 2009 No Not a good fit A rapid assessment method for non- wetland riparian habitat in Wash- ington State. Indicators are used to identify the potential of a site to provide a function, the potential of the landscape to support the function, and the value the func- tion provides to society. Development of a Floristic Quality Assessment Methodology for Wisconsin Wisconsin Depart- ment of Natural Resources; Report to USEPA Wisconsin It is an Index—does not seem to be GIS based. 2003 Not a web app Probably not— Method for calculating an Index for evalu- ating the quality of natural areas. Not available Eastern Kentucky Stream Assess- ment Protocol (EKY) Army Corps Eastern Kentucky aquatic systems (but RBP can be applied else- where—see comments). Modern versions could potentially use GIS, but these appear to reference reports. 2002 Not a web app No—refer to original RBP (see comment). Version of the 1999 USEPA RBP (Rapid Bioassessment Protocols) calibrated to local condition in Kentucky. Methodology for assessing streams and wadeable rivers. (continued on next page) (continued)

96Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Ecological Site Inventory Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) National—forest and rangelands soils. Unclear—may be a data repository and not a visualization tool. Not a web app Probably not—too specific to cer- tain NRCS data sheets The ESI application provides the capability to enter, edit, and retrieve rangeland, forestry, and agro- forestry plot data. ESI stores plot data collected via the Soil- Woodland Correlation Field Data Sheet (ECS-005), the Windbreak- Soil-Species Evaluation Data Sheet (ECS-004), and the Production and Composition Record (RANGE-417). Ecometrix Parametrix No An integrated function-based ecosys- tem services accounting methodol- ogy that integrates resources and methodologies allowing for decision- making analysis, crediting and trad- ing, and environmental perfor- mance measurement monitoring. Ecosystem Diagno- sis and Treatment Model Jones & Stokes No Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) is a conceptual framework system for rating the quality, quantity, and diversity of habitat along a stream, relative to the needs of a focal species such as coho or Chinook salmon. Ecosystem Valuation Methods Virginia Department of Forestry Not a good fit A package of models on a website that allows landowners to calculate potential ecosystem credits from their lands. Best available models are approved by agencies for use but are still early in development. Environmental Moni- toring and Assess- ment Protocols (EMAP) U.S. EPA No— outdated. No—outdated. Monitoring of the nation’s aquatic resources is now being routinely conducted by the National Aquatic Resource Surveys, run by EPA’s Office of Water. EPA Oregon Stream Methodology Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon perennial and ephemeral streams Unclear—appears to be a manual and data forms available online. Yes Not a web app Not a good fit Doesn’t appear to be an EPA tool although it may have been tested by EPA. This tool has been devel- oped for use in Oregon to provide technical guidance when identify- ing waters that may be subject to the regulatory jurisdiction under Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (continued) (continued on next page)

97 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool EPA Region 10 In-Stream Biologi- cal Monitoring Handbook U.S. EPA No—outdated; a protocol available for download. Evaluation for Planned Wetlands Comtact Environmental Concern Inc. 1994 No Functional assessment of planned wetlands. Fairfax County Stream Physical Assessment Protocols Fairfax County Virginia (Fairfax County) No—appears to be a report. 1998 Not a web app Not a good fit The focus was on biological indica- tors of the ecological health of streams and entailed the sampling of all the major streams and tribu- taries throughout the county to assess stream water quality. Field Manual for Ohio’s Headwater Habitat Streams Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Ohio headwater streams A manual for stream sampling and analysis—GIS could potentially be used. 2009 revision of 1999 document No No—this is a field manual. Fire Regime Condition Class National 2005 No—broken link To provide tools for fire, vegetation, and fuels assessment and man- agement at both the landscape and the stand levels. Methods are used to describe general land- scape fire regime and vegetation- fuel characteristics. Florida Wetland Quality Index Florida Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure South Florida Water Management District 1999 Not a good fit A rapid assessment protocol avail- able online. Floristic Quality Assessment Index National No 1979 No No—this refers to a 1979 paper. See above for FQA for Wisconsin— this was the original research on which that effort was based. Freshwater Wetland Mitigation Quality Assessment Procedure New Jersey DEQ 2005 Not a good fit A wetland functional assessment that evaluates the relative proba- bility that a constructed fresh- water wetland will develop to approximate the functioning of natural wetlands over time. (continued on next page) (continued)

98Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Georgia Potential Wetland Restora- tion Areas (PWRA) GIS Model Georgia Yes 2009 Not a good fit The purpose of this GIS model is to provide state, federal, and non- governmental natural resource managers with a Georgia-specific GIS database of potential areas for wetland mitigation banks and conservation and restoration proj- ects using a GIS model to priori- tize wetland functions and values. This model prioritizes wetland areas based upon ecosystem functions as well as threats to these functions. Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs) FHWA National No Yes No Probably not It is a financial tool—specific to highways, a GARVEE is used as a term for a debt instrument that has a pledge of future Title 23 federal-aid funding. Gravel Bed In-Stream Flows USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain No A methodology for estimating essential water flow regimes needed for the self-maintenance of gravel-bed stream channels. Green Infrastructure The Conservation Fund National No No No Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina North Carolina DENR No 1995 No No Habitat Assessment Model Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado No 2005 No It is a PDF report. Hawaii Stream Bioassessment Hawaii DOH Hawaii streams Unknown Unknown No (continued) (continued on next page)

99 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines— Potential Impact Index USFWS National No—it’s a guidance checklist. 2003 Not a web app— it’s a report. Probably not— very specific to wind projects PII is a protocol that allows the user to evaluate potential develop- ment sites using checklists and rank them against a reference site. Objectives are to: (1) assist developers in deciding whether to proceed with development; (2) provide a procedure to deter- mine pre-construction study needs to verify use of potential sites by wildlife; and (3) provide recommendations for monitoring potential sites post construction to identify, quantify, or verify actual impacts (or lack thereof). King County Func- tional Equivalency Evaluation System King County Depart- ment of Natural Resources and Parks and Depart- ment of Develop- ment and Environmental Resources King County 2008 Not a good fit A methodology to provide a stan- dardized procedure for assessing the functions provided by wet- lands and aquatic areas; the amount those functions are reduced by impacts and the amount of mitigation required to offset the loss. Maryland Green Infrastructure Assessment Maryland DNR Maryland Used GIS to produce the document. 2003 Not a web app No—it is a PDF report. Methods for Assess- ing Wetland Func- tions. Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wet- lands in the Low- lands of Western Washington Washington State Department of Ecology Restricted to depressional and riverine class wetlands located in Washington’s western lowlands. No 1999 Not a web app No—it is a PDF report with methods, pro- cedure, and spreadsheets. A hydrogeomorphic (HGM) reference- based assessment. MetroQuest Envision Sustain- ability Tools Inc. National Yes Yes Commercial desktop soft- ware program No—meant for stakeholders Public engagement software for kiosks, iPads, online, or for work- shops; allows stakeholders to instantly see the connections between choices and conse- quences as they explore alternative future scenarios. Its user-friendly, visually engaging interface allows stakeholders and citizens to make sense of the complex interrelation- ships and the trade-offs required to create a clean, prosperous, and livable future. (continued on next page) (continued)

100Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Michigan Valley Seg- ment Ecological Classification— Inventory Michigan Depart- ment of Natural Resources Michigan River valley segments GIS was used to pro- duce report. 1997 report Not a web app No—but a good reference docu- ment to guide a holistic and landscape-level approach to ecological classification. An approach to create a landscape- based ecological classification system for river valley segments in Michigan is described in this report. Intended Use: Lower Mich- igan. Currently being revised for application for states of Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Minnesota Habitat and Water Chem- istry Protocol Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota 2002 Not a good fit To support assessment of water quality and development of bio- logical criteria for Minnesota streams. These procedures are also applicable for U.S. EPA EMAP stations and sites sus- pected of being impacted by a source of pollution. Minnesota Routine Assessment Method Updated Version Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources Intended Use: Northern Great Plains Prairie Pothole Region wetlands within watershed con- text, including open water bod- ies and streams Doesn’t look like it has a GIS component. It appears to be a downloadable pro- gram using Microsoft Access that stores and organizes field data to be used for assessing, classify- ing, and ranking wetlands. Yes—was updated in 2010. Not a web app No—too limited— but this program could receive data on wet- lands, or orga- nize data before outputting into another tool (it is a Microsoft Access database). Developed to provide a practical assessment tool that would help local authorities make sound wet- land management decisions as they assumed responsibility for regulat- ing wetland impacts. The current version represents a more refined procedure that provides numeric, rather than the original descriptive, ratings. It may be applied to existing wetlands or potential restoration sites. Descriptive and ordinal scale output. Sorts wetlands into Catego- ries of higher or lower protection. Mitigation Ratio Calculator King Economics Not a good fit An analytical tool that can be used to develop wetland mitigation ratios that are technically and legally defensible and are based on achieving “full” replacement of lost wetland services. The tool can be used to establish appropriate ratios for specific wetland permitting decisions, to “score” wetland miti- gation trades, or to assign “credits” to wetland mitigation banks. (continued) (continued on next page)

101 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Montana Stream Mitigation Process U.S. Army Corps of Engineers— Omaha Montana Not a good fit Uses indicators of riparian functions to assign a broader range of trad- ing ratios. Montana Wetland Assessment Method Montana Department of Transportation Montana wetlands 1999 Not a good fit To evaluate wetland function and values. Designed to address high- way and other linear projects, but can be applied to other types of projects including mitigation. Montana Wetland Rapid Assessment Method Montana DEQ Montana GIS could possibly be used when using this method. 2005 No Probably not— more of a field guide The purpose of this guidebook is to assist the field technician in accu- rately completing a rapid field assessment of wetland condition and to document the rapid assessment method. Multi-Scale Assess- ment of Water- shed Integrity Riverside, CA New Hampshire Method New Hampshire DES New Hampshire No 1991 No—it’s a PDF report. Probably not See Connecticut Method above— this was adapted from that. New Jersey Water- shed Method New Jersey Watersheds and wetlands in NJ pinelands GIS-based method for assessing watershed and wetland integrity and the potential impact. 1994 No Probably not New York State DOT Environmental Initiative NY State DOT NY State No 1999 No Probably not North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance NC DENR North Carolina (may be more broadly applicable) A watershed-based wetlands functional assessment model that uses GIS soft- ware and data to assess the level of water quality, wildlife habitat, and hydro- logic functions of individual wetlands. 1999 Not a web app Probably not— does not appear to be a tool that is available online, and may be only applicable to North Carolina. Technical documents, GIS data, and guidance are provided online. (continued on next page) (continued)

102Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Ohio Rapid Assess- ment Method for Wetlands V 5.0 Ohio EPA Ohio only No 2001 Not a web app Probably not— too narrow in scope; this is a user manual and forms. Intended Use: The method is designed to identify the appropri- ate level of regulatory protection a particular wetland should receive. It is not designed or intended to be used to determine a particular wetland’s ecologic or human value. Oregon Rapid Wet- lands Assessment Protocol Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon specific No Yes Not a web app Probably not— used for assess- ing wetlands for purposes of the state Removal- Fill Law, and is also recom- mended by the Portland District Corps of Engineers. ORWAP consists of several down- loadable components including the Users Manual; two Excel spreadsheets; PDF versions of the data forms that users fill out; PDF versions of several of the supple- mental information worksheets; and a separate guidance docu- ment for using ORWAP for state and federal permitting. Oregon Vernal Pool Method Agate Desert vernal pools Oregon No 2007 No—it’s a PDF report. Probably not—too narrow in scope Purpose was to identify functions and values specifically relevant to vernal pool wetlands, and appro- priate indicators for these. Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) Midwest Biodiver- sity Institute for Ohio Environ- mental Protection Agency Ohio, but probably more widely applicable No 2006 report No—it’s a PDF report Probably not—it’s instructions for field crews. Guidance to tabulate data and infor- mation for calculating the QHEI. See http://tycho.knowlton.ohio- state.edu/qhei.html. QHEI gives scientists a quantitative assess- ment of physical characteristics of a sampled stream similar to IBI and ICI biological data. Rapid Bioassess- ment Protocols for use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphy- ton, Benthic Macroinverte- brates, and Fish. Second Edition U.S. EPA No 1999 Not a web app—it’s a report. No—it is published guidance. Developed to provide “a practical technical reference for conducting cost-effective biological assess- ments of lotic systems.” (continued) (continued on next page)

103 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Remote Functional Wetland Assess- ment Model U.S. EPA and Baldwin Co. Commission Baldwin County, Alabama No 2005 report No—it’s a PDF report. Not a good fit Assess wetlands in the project area in order to categorize them as suitable for conservation, enhancement, or restoration. Nominal and ordinal scale output. Rouge River Project Rapid Assessment Method Wayne County, Michigan No 1997 report No—it’s a PDF report. Not a good fit Provides a regional evaluation of the condition of wetland (river and lake) resources in order to aid in devel- opment of a watershed manage- ment plan. Nominal scale output. Soil Management Assessment Framework USDA-NRCS Intended as a national frame- work to be modified as necessary for more local use. No It’s a 2004 paper. No—it’s a jour- nal article. No—it’s a journal article outlining a method for assessing soil quality. To enhance and extend current soil assessment efforts by presenting a framework for assessing the impact of soil management prac- tices on soil function. Spatial Wetland Assessment for Management and Planning NOAA Ashepoo- Combahee- Edisto River Basin, South Carolina tidal and riverine wetlands Yes No To assess the level of water quality, wildlife habitat, and hydrologic functions of individual wetlands using a watershed-based model in GIS software. Technique for the Functional Assess- ment of Non-tidal Wetlands in the Coastal Plain of VA Virginia Institute of Marine Science Coastal plains of VA No 1991—no, it has been largely phased out. No Not a good fit A wetland functional assessment based on WET that assesses functions of non-tidal wetlands in the coastal plain of Virginia. Out- put is a rating system of high, medium, and low relative proba- bility that a wetland has the opportunity to perform and/or be effective at performing a function. Unified Classification of Direct Threats and Conservation Actions International Union for the Conserva- tion of Nature (IUCN) and the Conservation Measures Part- nership (CMP) Not a good fit (continued on next page) (continued)

104Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Unified Stream Assessment— Urban Sub- watershed Restoration Manual No. 10 Center for Water- shed Protection (MD) Urban corridors of Maryland No 2005 No—link is to a manual. Probably not— limited to urban stream corridors of Maryland. A rapid technique to locate and evaluate problems and restoration opportunities within an urban stream corridor in Maryland. Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Florida DEP Florida No Yes Not a web app Probably not— due to limited focus on Florida and mitigation banking. New link is at http://www.dep.state .fl.us/water/wetlands/mitigation/ umam/index.htm. A functional assessment for wetlands and sur- face waters, but also applicable to several terrestrial habitat types. Determines the amount of mitiga- tion needed to offset adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters and to award and deduct mitigation bank credits. Quantifies gains and losses by developing a multiplier applied to area. Considers landscape sup- port, water environment, and community structure. Also applies factors for time lag for recovery and risk of project failure. Variables for Assess- ing Reasonable Mitigation in New Transportation Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Vermont Unknown 2004 Unknown Not a good fit Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment Pro- tocol Handbooks Vermont DEC Vermont No 2003 No—it’s a handbook. Not a good fit The Handbooks have a focus on those watershed processes and features critical to its riparian corridor management objectives. Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund The Nature Conservancy Virginia No Yes No No—it’s a fund. (continued) (continued on next page)

105 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Virginia Pilot Wetland Restoration, Mitigation, and Conservation Catalog Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia GIS was used to build this database. Yes No Could be of lim- ited value—it’s a database for Virginia wetlands. Watershed Treatment Model Center for Water- shed Protection No Yes No Not a good fit A simple spreadsheet-based approach that evaluates loads from a wide range of pollutant sources, and incorporates the full suite of watershed treatment options. Watershed-Based Preliminary Assessment of Wetland Functions USFWS Wetlands and deepwater habi- tats of U.S.; emphasis on wetlands includ- ing shallow open waterbodies; focus on North- eastern United States. No 2003 report Not a web app—it’s a report. Not a good fit Wetland Evaluation Technique No No No—WET has been super- seded by more rigorous reference- based, region- ally specific methods recently developed. WET is an initial, rapid assessment of wetland functions, designed to assess the qualitative probability that a wetland function will occur. WET has been superseded by more rigorous reference-based, regionally specific methods recently developed. Wetland Value Assessment Methodology Environmental Work Group LA coast marshlands 2002 Not a web app— it’s a report. Not a good fit Wildlife Habitat Appraisal Procedure Texas uplands/ wetlands No 1995 Not a web app— it’s a report. Not a good fit Wisconsin Wetland Assessment Methodology Wisconsin Depart- ment of Natural Resources 2001 Not a web app Not a good fit Provides a standardized process to evaluate the extent to which a specific wetland performs a given function. (continued on next page) (continued)

106Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Habitat Equivalency Analysis Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in Wisconsin Wisconsin 1993 No To establish a standardized general protocol “that can be used when conducting any stream habitat survey, evaluation, monitoring pro- gram, appraisal, or special project. When precise, defensible methods are needed to substantiate man- agement objectives, priorities, or effectiveness [of management treatments].” Heat Source Model Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Willamette No Currently, the Shade-a-Lator tool within the Heat Source model is being used to calculate tempera- ture credits in the Willamette. Requires data from GIS and field collection. Hydrogeomorphic Method U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/EPA/ FHWA National 1993 No—a 1993 technical report National methodology for wetland impacts and mitigation Idaho Small Stream Assessment Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Medium and large rivers in moun- tainous settings 2002 No To assess aquatic life use support for small streams using biological indicators, habitat data, and numeric water quality criteria. The document provides detailed tech- nical information concerning the development and integration of the Stream Macroinvertebrate Index (SMI), Stream Fish Index (SFI), and Stream Habitat Index (SHI) used in the aquatic life use support determination. Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity Smithsonian Envi- ronmental Research Center 2004 No To evaluate the biological integrity of marsh bird communities and assess estuarine wetland condi- tion. Modification of Karr method, above. (continued) (continued on next page)

107 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Instream Flow Incremental Methodology USGS National 2004 No—it is a techni- cal report. IFIM is a tool to assess in-stream flow problems, ranging from sim- ple diversions to complex storage and release schemes. It provides resources managers with a decision-support system for determining the benefits or consequences of different water management alternatives. LandServer Pinchot Institute for Conservation Chesapeake region No—under development— limited geography LandServer is a tool for landown- ers, managers, and governments to identify ecosystem service production opportunities on their lands. The tool is under develop- ment with a current pilot test running in the Chesapeake region. It is a secondary data GIS-based tool that works to identify payment for eco- system services options for landowners. Methods for Assess- ing Wetland Func- tions. Volume II: Depressional Wetlands in the Columbia Basin of Eastern Washington Washington State Department of Ecology Columbia Basin 2000 Not a web app— protocols and spreadsheets No A hydrogeomorphic (HGH) reference- based assessment restricted to depressional class wetlands located in Washington’s Columbia Basin. Methods for Charac- terizing Stream Habitat USGS Nationwide streams No 1998 No To assess status and trends in water quality nationwide and to develop an understanding of the major factors influencing observed conditions and trends. Methods for Evaluating Stream Conditions Forest Service 1983 No Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys Aquatic Invento- ries Project Oregon Department of Natural Resources No Protocol and survey forms; devel- oped to monitor habitat conditions for Oregon streams. (continued on next page) (continued)

108Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Numerical Method for Evaluation of Maine Peatlands No Nutrient Trading Tool No NutrientNet (pow- ered by EPIC) World Resources Institute Yes No Web-based platform customized for each watershed to support nutrient trading. It has a credit calculator, registry, and exchange function. Very similar to Nutrient Trading Tool. Pfankuch Channel Stability 1975 No—has been replaced. Proper Functioning Condition BLM No Rapid Assessment Method for Oregon Tidal Fringe Wetlands No Rapid Stream Assessment Technique Field Methods No Remotely Sensed Indicators for Monitoring Condi- tion of Natural Habitat in Watersheds No Riparian Community Type Classification of Utah and Southeastern Idaho—Inventory Utah, Idaho 1989 No Rogue River Project Rapid Assessment Method Wayne County, Michigan No 1997 report No—it’s a PDF report. No Provides a regional evaluation of the condition of wetland (river and lake) resources in order to aid in development of a water- shed management plan. Nominal scale output. (continued) (continued on next page)

109 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool South Australian Biodiversity Assessment Tool Government of South Australia, Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation Southern Australia (but approach may be more widely applicable). Maybe, but info about it on the web is hard to find—needs more research. No The South Australian Department for Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) has developed the South Australian Biodiversity Assessment Tool around the NCSSA method. SABAT was originally developed to allow assessment of the biodi- versity value of native vegetation. At an individual site level, the tool provides site-based reports on current vegetation condition within a site and provides reports on change of vegetation condi- tion within a site. At a regional/ state scale, the tool provides a central repository for Bushland Condition Monitoring data and collates and reports regional data on a number of attributes related to vegetation condition. Southern California Riparian Ecosys- tem Assessment SCCWRP Southern Califor- nia riparian Yes 1997 No No To assess hydrology, sediment pro- cesses, habitat support, and bio- geochemistry components of riparian habitat using a water- shed-based model in GIS software. Stream and Riparian Habitats Rapid Assessment Protocol USFWS Chesapeake Bay Unknown 2001 Unknown No Provides a comprehensive stream and riparian corridor assessment and inventory protocol for use by trained practitioners to rapidly identify, assess, and prioritize physical stream corridor conditions. Stream Assess- ment in the VA Coastal Zone: Development of a Significant New Database and Interactive Assessment Application Virginia Common- wealth University Virginia 2004 No No Development of a multivariate model of reference stream conditions for the Virginia Coastal Zone using biological, ecological, and geo- morphological variables. (continued) (continued on next page)

110Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Stream Channel Reference Sites U.S. Forest Service 1994 No No Provides techniques from numerous published sources for collecting a minimum set of high-quality data necessary to quantify the physical character of streams for monitor- ing, impact assessment, inven- tory, response to management actions, etc. Stream Corridor Assessment Survey Protocols Maryland Depart- ment of Natural Resources 2001 No No To rapidly assess the general physi- cal condition of a stream system and identify the location of a vari- ety of common environmental problems within the stream’s corridor. Not intended to be a detailed scientific survey, it pro- vides a rapid method of examining an entire drainage network to tar- get future monitoring, manage- ment, or conservation efforts. Stream Impact Assessment Man- ual for the North- ern Virginia Stream Bank Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. VA 2006 No Subjective Evalua- tion of Aquatic Habitats Kansas No To provide a rapid holistic evaluation based on subjective assessments of physical, biological, and chemi- cal parameters of the aquatic system. Temperature Trading Platform Oregon State University No Tool that allows landowners to draw a reach for riparian shade and estimate the temperature credits created. The tool is powered by a derivative of the Heat Source model rather than the Shade-a- Lator. Wetted width and some data still need to be collected in the field, but most run on spatial GIS layers. (continued on next page) (continued)

111 Table E.1. Analytic Tools Evaluated for Integration with Eco-Plan Name Owner Extent GIS Current Web Application? Fit Purpose of the Tool Visual Stream Assessment Protocol USDA-NRCS No NRCS has a number of protocols used by field staff to identify base- line farm conditions and to design conservation plans. Most are visual assessments that provide general scores of conditions. Wadeable Stream Assessment Field Operations U.S. EPA No Contains the field operations and bioassessment methods for evalu- ating the health and biological integrity of wadeable freshwater streams throughout the U.S. These methods can be used to determine stream condition assessment and/or to monitor the effects of impacts on aquatic 155 organisms, particularly benthic macroinvertebrates. Washington Aquatic Habitat Design Guidelines Washington State Department of Natural Resources Washington State aquatic habitats 2004 No To characterize the present (and/or historic) state of habitat and the processes that create and main- tain it so that problems and appropriate restoration options and obstacles can be identified and prioritized. Washington State Wetlands Function Assessment Program Washington State Department of Ecology No The Wetlands Function Assessment Project was a statewide effort to develop relatively rapid, scientifi- cally acceptable methods of assessing how well wetlands per- form functions such as improving water quality, reducing floods, and providing wildlife habitat. The methods were developed for dif- ferent wetland types in Washing- ton State. a Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22(3): 169–199. Note: Blank cells = information not available. (continued)

Next: Appendix F - Draft Wireframes »
Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) S2-C40A-RW-1: Integration of National-Level Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data documents the development of an integrated, geospatial ecological screening tool for early transportation planning to help inform the environmental review process.

EcoPlan is a tool based on ArcGIS online for environmental screening early in the transportation planning process. It accesses data published by federal resource agencies on resources like endangered species, threatened species, and wetlands, and it is also capable of uploading and merging with locally available data. EcoPlan supports the Integrated Ecological Framework developed separately by SHRP 2 and the Federal Highway Administration's Planning Environment Linkages initiative.

The C40 project also produced three other reports: one report related to ecological planning for the California US-101 highway, a proof of concept report about the East-West Council of Governments, and an additional proof of concept report about the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority.

Software Disclaimer: This software is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively "TRB") be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!