Ecosystem health report cards An approach to integrated assessment omas, J.E.,¹ T.J.B. Carruthers,¹ B.J. Longstaff ,² C.E. Wazniak,3 M.R. Hall,3 R.B. Sturgis,4 A.B. Jones,¹ E.C. Wicks,² J.M. Hawkey,¹ J.L. Woerner,¹ W.C. Dennison¹ 1. Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science www.ian.umces.edu 2. EcoCheck, NOAA–UMCES Partnership, www.eco-check.org 3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, www.dnr.state.md.us 4. National Park Service, Assateague Island National Seashore, www.nps.gov/asis Integration and Application Network University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science PO Box 775 Cambridge, MD 21613 U.S.A. www.ian.umces.edu EcoCheck NOAA–UMCES Partnership Oxford Cooperative Laboratory 904 South Morris Street Oxford, MD 21654-1323 U.S.A. www.eco-check.org References 1. Maryland Coastal Bays Program (MCBP). 1999. Today’s treasures for tomorrow: Towards a brighter future. A Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for Maryland’s Coastal Bays. 177 pp. 2. Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P.W. Bergstrom, & R.A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. Bioscience 43(2): 86–94. 3. Stevenson, J.C., L.W. Staver, & K.W. Staver. 1993. Water quality associated with survival of submersed aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries 16(2): 346–361. 4. Valdes-Murtha, L.M. 1997. Analysis of critical habitat requirements for restoration and growth of submerged vascular plants in the Delaware and Maryland coastal bays. M.S. esis, Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. 5. Lea, C., R.L. Pratt, T.E. Wagner, E.W. Hawkes, & A.E. Almario. 2003. Use of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements as targets for water quality in Maryland and Virginia Coastal Bays. Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland and Virginia. National Park Service Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2003/316. National Park Service Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO. 6. Kemp, W.M., R. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, C.L. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E.W. Koch, J.M. Landwehr, K.A. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N.B. Rybicki, J.C. Stevenson, & D.J. Wilcox. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries 27: 363–377. 7. Breitburg, D.L. 2002. Effects of hypoxia, and the balance between hypoxia and enrichment, on coastal fishes and fisheries. Estuaries 25: 767–781. 8. Breitburg, D.L., L. Pihl, & S.E. Kolesar. 2001. Effects of low dissolved oxygen on the behavior, ecology and harvest of fishes: a comparison of the Chesapeake and Baltic systems. In: Rabalais, N.N., & R.E. Turner (eds.). 2001. Coastal Hypoxia: Consequences for Living Resources and Ecosystems. Coastal and Estuarine Studies 58, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp 241–267. 9. Diaz, R.J., & A. Solow. 1999. Ecological and economic consequences of hypoxia. Topic 2. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia assessment. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, Maryland. 10. Howell, P., & D. Simpson. 1994. Abundance of marine resources to dissolved oxygen in Long Island Sound. Estuaries 17: 394–402. 11. Ritter, M.C., & P.A. Montagna. 1999. Seasonal hypoxia and models of benthic response in a Texas bay. Estuaries 22: 7–20. 12. Smith, M.E., & D.M. Dauer. 1994. Eutrophication and macrobenthic communities of the lower Chesapeake Bay: I. Acute effects of low dissolved oxygen in the Rappahannock River. In: P. Hill and S. Nelson (eds). 1994. Toward a Sustainable Watershed: e Chesapeake Experiment, Proceedings of the 1994 Chesapeake Research Conference. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No. 149. 13. Pihl, L., S.P. Baden, & R.J. Diaz. 1991. Effects of periodic hypoxia on distribution of demersal fish and crustaceans. Marine Biology 108: 349–360. 14. Pihl, L., S.P. Baden, R.J. Diaz, & L.C. Schaffner. 1992. Hypoxia-induced structural changes in the diet of bottom-feeding fish and crustacea. Marine Biology 112: 349–361. 15. Baden, S.P., L. Loo, L. Pihl, & R. Rosenberg. 1990. Effects of eutrophication on benthic communities including fish: Swedish west coast. Ambio 19: 113–122. 16. Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program. 2005. Report Card 2005. Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchment Partnership, Brisbane, Australia. 17. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment website. www.ian.umces.edu/neea. 18. Carter, S., T. Lookingbill, J.M. Hawkey, T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison. 2006. A conceptual basis for natural resource monitoring. Inventory & Monitoring Program, Center for Urban Ecology, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., usa. 34 p. Delaware Maryland Virginia Isle of Wight Bay Chincoteague Bay Newport Bay Sinepuxent Bay St. Martin River 0 5 10 miles N 0 5 10 kilometers State border Assawoman Bay ... Abstract e coastal zone supports a large and increasing human population, as well as a significant fraction of the global biological productivity, including most global fisheries. e diversity of habitats in the global coastal zone is heavily impacted by anthropogenic trapping and modifying of water on its way to the ocean. Integrated ecological assessment of the world’s coastal ecosystems is essential for effective management and remediation. e integration of management, monitoring, and science is required to solve the major environmental problems that are occurring in coastal zones around the world. Effective monitoring requires a significant investment of resources. Field work is expensive, data analysis is time-intensive, data integration requires high level scientific input, and recurring costs are subject to inflationary pressures. Integrated ecological assessment provides feedback on these monitoring investments by measuring the effectiveness of management actions. Societal momentum can then be created by successes in assessment and communication. Effective integrated assessment of ecosystem health must: be hypothesis- driven; be spatially and temporally explicit; be adaptable to changing management needs and research findings; be linked to a communication program; have timely outputs; and be highly visible to stakeholders. is poster presents processes and approaches to performing integrated ecological assessments, using an example from the Coastal Bays of Maryland, u.s.a. A conceptual framework was developed Management objective Ecosystem health indicator reshold Maintain seagrass habitat Chlorophyll a < 15 µg l¯¹ Maintain seagrass habitat Total nitrogen < 0.65 mg l¯¹ Maintain seagrass habitat Total phosphorus < 0.037 mg l¯¹ Maintain fish habitat Dissolved oxygen > 5 mg l¯¹ ₂ Increasing nutrient loading Macroalgae Epiphytes Healthy seagrass Phytoplankton A conceptual framework was constructed using management objectives of Maryland’s Coastal Bays, such as Maintain seagrass habitat, to devise ecosystem health indicators that reflect the management objective’s requirements, e.g., Total nitrogen. A biologically-relevant threshold value for each of the indicators was calculated based on literature values, e.g., 0.65 mg l¯1. Values above and below the threshold value were further categorised into additional ranges of values. ¹, ², 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ¹0, ¹¹, ¹², ¹3, ¹4, ¹5 Four common water quality indicators (total nitrogen [TN], total phosphorus [TP], chlorophyll a [algae: chl a], and dissolved oxygen [DO]) were measured, then compared to these biologically relevant thresholds established for maintenance of seagrass, fish, and benthic communities. What is ecosystem health and ecosystem health assessment? ypothesis-driven xplicit—temporally and spatially daptable to changing management needs and research findings inked to a communication program imely outputs ighly visible to stakeholders ‘Ecosystem health’ is a term that is often used, however, it can be quite an intangible concept. We all have an idea of what constitutes ecosystem health. Good water quality, intact habitat, and vigorous living resources are some indicators of a healthy ecosystem. For resource managers of ecosystem health, pertinent questions might include: How can ecosystem health be measured? What should be measured? How should those measurements be analysed? Features of indicators and assessments Healthy seagrass beds are an indicator of good water quality. Hardwood forests are important habitat for many species. Shellfish are an important living resource. Adrian Jones Dave Wilson Dave Wilson living resources framework habitat framework water quality framework Indicators were measured, then categorised relative to biologically-relevant thresholds Indicators were measured, then assessed against thresholds, combined into various indices, and assigned report card grades N 0 5 10 miles 0 5 10 kilometers Median chlorophyll a (μg l¯¹) 2001–2003 < 7.5 7.5–15 15–30 30–50 > 50 e median value for chlorophyll a over the period 2001–2003 was calculated. e five categories were classified relative to seagrass habitat requirements, with 15 µg l¯¹ as the threshold between passing and failing these requirements. living resources indicators habitat indicators water quality indicators N 0 5 10 miles 0 5 10 kilometers Chlorophyll a reshold attainment Passed (score of 1) Passed (score of 1) Failed (score of 0) Failed (score of 0) Failed (score of 0) Values for each site were compared to the relevant threshold value, and given a score of 0 (failed to meet threshold) or 1 (met or passed the threshold) for each indicator. N 0 5 10 miles 0 5 10 kilometers Water quality index 2001–2003 Excellent ≤ 1.0 Good ≤ 0.8 Poor ≤ 0.6 Degraded ≤ 0.4 Very degraded ≤ 0.2 An evenly weighted water quality index was developed. e scores for all variables were summed and divided by the number of variables to result in an index value ranging from 0 to 1 for each site. erefore, an index value of 0 indicated that a station met none of the water quality criteria and would not be expected to support seagrasses or fisheries, while a score of 1 indicated a station met all water quality criteria and should support ecosystem services. Intermediate values indicated the system was variable, and that some ecosystem functions (seagrass beds or fisheries) would be expected to be present periodically. indicator threshold attainment indicator threshold attainment indicator threshold attainment living resources index habitat index water quality index N 0 5 10 miles 0 5 10 kilometers Report card Index range Grade 0.8–1 0.65–0.8 0.5–0.65 0.25–0.5 0–0.25 To calculate report card grades for each subregion within Maryland’s Coastal Bays, the water quality index scores were averaged across all sites within a subregion. Report card scores (A–F) were assigned to ranges of the water quality index scores. living resources report card habitat report card water quality report card Site Chl a (µg l¯1) TN (mg l¯1) TP (mg l¯1) DO (mg l¯1) Site Chl a TN TP DO Site Water quality index (wqi) Subregion wqi score Grade Site 1 15.213 0.820 0.072 4.60 Site 1 0 0 0 0 Site 1 0.00 Sinepuxent Bay 0.80 A … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Site 60 3.929 0.325 0.038 5.23 Site 60 1 1 0 1 Site 60 0.75 St. Martin River 0.11 F Maryland Department of Natural Resources 580 Taylor Avenue Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 U.S.A. www.dnr.state.md.us National Park Service Assateague Island National Seashore 7206 National Seashore Lane Berlin, MD 21811 U.S.A. www.nps.gov/asis Ecosystem health assessments can be further integrated and used in a variety of communication products Index Score Grade Water quality index 0.47 C Habitat index 0.45 C Living resources index 0.63 B Ecosystem health index 0.52 C ¹6 ¹7 ¹8 e approach used in calculating the water quality index can be applied to other indices, such as Habitat and Living resources. ese indices can then be averaged to obtain an integrated index, or report card grade, for many aspects of ecosystem health. Because these report card grades are derived from real data, they are scientifically defensible. Each step in the process is transparent, and can be tailored to suit individual programs. For example, this report card used indicators that are evenly weighted. A modification to this process could be to have certain indicators more heavily weighted, depending on characteristics of the ecosystem in question. www.healthywaterways.org www.ian.umces.edu/neea www.ncrvitalsigns.net
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Ecosystem health report cards An approach to integrated assessmentThomas, J.E.,¹ T.J.B. Carruthers,¹ B.J. Longstaff ,² C.E. Wazniak,3 M.R. Hall,3 R.B. Sturgis,4 A.B. Jones,¹
E.C. Wicks,² J.M. Hawkey,¹ J.L. Woerner,¹ W.C. Dennison¹1. Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science www.ian.umces.edu
2. EcoCheck, NOAA–UMCES Partnership, www.eco-check.org3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, www.dnr.state.md.us
4. National Park Service, Assateague Island National Seashore, www.nps.gov/asis
Integration and Application NetworkUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental SciencePO Box 775Cambridge, MD 21613U.S.A.www.ian.umces.edu
EcoCheckNOAA–UMCES PartnershipOxford Cooperative Laboratory904 South Morris StreetOxford, MD 21654-1323U.S.A.www.eco-check.org
References1. Maryland Coastal Bays Program (MCBP). 1999. Today’s treasures for tomorrow: Towards a brighter future. A Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for Maryland’s Coastal Bays. 177 pp.2. Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P.W. Bergstrom, & R.A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. Bioscience 43(2): 86–94.3. Stevenson, J.C., L.W. Staver, & K.W. Staver. 1993. Water quality associated with survival of submersed aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries 16(2): 346–361.4. Valdes-Murtha, L.M. 1997. Analysis of critical habitat requirements for restoration and growth of submerged vascular plants in the Delaware and Maryland coastal bays. M.S. Thesis, Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.5. Lea, C., R.L. Pratt, T.E. Wagner, E.W. Hawkes, & A.E. Almario. 2003. Use of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements as targets for water quality in Maryland and Virginia Coastal Bays. Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland and Virginia. National Park Service
Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2003/316. National Park Service Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO.6. Kemp, W.M., R. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, C.L. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E.W. Koch, J.M. Landwehr, K.A. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N.B. Rybicki, J.C. Stevenson, & D.J. Wilcox. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay:
water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries 27: 363–377.7. Breitburg, D.L. 2002. Effects of hypoxia, and the balance between hypoxia and enrichment, on coastal fishes and fisheries. Estuaries 25: 767–781.8. Breitburg, D.L., L. Pihl, & S.E. Kolesar. 2001. Effects of low dissolved oxygen on the behavior, ecology and harvest of fishes: a comparison of the Chesapeake and Baltic systems. In: Rabalais, N.N., & R.E. Turner (eds.). 2001. Coastal Hypoxia: Consequences for Living Resources and
Ecosystems. Coastal and Estuarine Studies 58, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp 241–267.9. Diaz, R.J., & A. Solow. 1999. Ecological and economic consequences of hypoxia. Topic 2. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia assessment. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, Maryland.10. Howell, P., & D. Simpson. 1994. Abundance of marine resources to dissolved oxygen in Long Island Sound. Estuaries 17: 394–402.11. Ritter, M.C., & P.A. Montagna. 1999. Seasonal hypoxia and models of benthic response in a Texas bay. Estuaries 22: 7–20.12. Smith, M.E., & D.M. Dauer. 1994. Eutrophication and macrobenthic communities of the lower Chesapeake Bay: I. Acute effects of low dissolved oxygen in the Rappahannock River. In: P. Hill and S. Nelson (eds). 1994. Toward a Sustainable Watershed: The Chesapeake Experiment,
Proceedings of the 1994 Chesapeake Research Conference. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No. 149.13. Pihl, L., S.P. Baden, & R.J. Diaz. 1991. Effects of periodic hypoxia on distribution of demersal fish and crustaceans. Marine Biology 108: 349–360.14. Pihl, L., S.P. Baden, R.J. Diaz, & L.C. Schaffner. 1992. Hypoxia-induced structural changes in the diet of bottom-feeding fish and crustacea. Marine Biology 112: 349–361.15. Baden, S.P., L. Loo, L. Pihl, & R. Rosenberg. 1990. Effects of eutrophication on benthic communities including fish: Swedish west coast. Ambio 19: 113–122.16. Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program. 2005. Report Card 2005. Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchment Partnership, Brisbane, Australia.17. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment website. www.ian.umces.edu/neea.18. Carter, S., T. Lookingbill, J.M. Hawkey, T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison. 2006. A conceptual basis for natural resource monitoring. Inventory & Monitoring Program, Center for Urban Ecology, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., usa. 34 p.
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
Isle ofWightBay
ChincoteagueBay
NewportBay Si
nepu
xent
Bay
St. MartinRiver
0 5 10 miles
N
0 5 10 kilometers
State border
AssawomanBay
...
AbstractThe coastal zone supports a large and increasing human population, as well as a significant fraction of the global biological productivity, including most global fisheries. The diversity of habitats in the global coastal zone is heavily impacted by anthropogenic trapping and modifying of water on its way to the ocean. Integrated ecological assessment of the world’s coastal ecosystems is essential for effective management and remediation.
The integration of management, monitoring, and science is required to solve the major environmental problems that are occurring in coastal zones around the world. Effective monitoring requires a significant investment of resources. Field work is expensive, data analysis is time-intensive, data integration requires high level scientific input, and recurring costs are subject to inflationary pressures. Integrated ecological assessment provides feedback on these monitoring investments by measuring the effectiveness of management actions. Societal momentum can then be created by successes in assessment and communication.
Effective integrated assessment of ecosystem health must: be hypothesis-driven; be spatially and temporally explicit; be adaptable to changing management needs and research findings; be linked to a communication program; have timely outputs; and be highly visible to stakeholders.
This poster presents processes and approaches to performing integrated ecological assessments, using an example from the Coastal Bays of Maryland, u.s.a.
A conceptual framework was developed
Management objective Ecosystem health indicator Threshold
Maintain seagrass habitat Chlorophyll a < 15 µg l¯¹
Maintain seagrass habitat Total nitrogen < 0.65 mg l¯¹
Maintain seagrass habitat Total phosphorus < 0.037 mg l¯¹
Maintain fish habitat Dissolved oxygen > 5 mg l¯¹
₂
Increasing nutrient loading
Macroalgae
EpiphytesHealthy seagrass
Phytoplankton
A conceptual framework was constructed using management objectives of Maryland’s Coastal Bays, such as Maintain seagrass habitat, to devise ecosystem health indicators that reflect the management objective’s requirements, e.g., Total nitrogen. A biologically-relevant threshold value for each of the indicators was calculated based on literature values, e.g., 0.65 mg l¯1. Values above and below the threshold value were further categorised into additional ranges of values. ¹, ², 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ¹0, ¹¹, ¹², ¹3, ¹4, ¹5
Four common water quality indicators (total nitrogen [TN], total phosphorus [TP], chlorophyll a [algae: chl a], and dissolved oxygen [DO]) were measured, then compared to these biologically relevant thresholds established for maintenance of seagrass, fish, and benthic communities.
What is ecosystem health and ecosystem health assessment?
ypothesis-driven
xplicit—temporally and spatially
daptable to changing management needs and research findings
inked to a communication program
imely outputs
ighly visible to stakeholders
‘Ecosystem health’ is a term that is often used, however, it can be quite an intangible concept. We all have an idea of what constitutes ecosystem health. Good water quality, intact habitat, and vigorous living resources are some indicators of a healthy ecosystem. For resource managers of ecosystem health, pertinent questions might include: How can ecosystem health be measured? What should be measured? How should those measurements be analysed?
Features of indicators and assessments
Healthy seagrass beds are an indicator of good water quality.
Hardwood forests are important habitat for many species.
Shellfish are an important living resource.
Adr
ian
Jone
s
Dav
e W
ilson
Dav
e W
ilson
living resources framework
habitat framework
water quality framework
Indicators were measured, then categorised relative to biologically-relevant thresholds
Indicators were measured, then assessed against thresholds, combined into various indices, and assigned report card grades
N
0 5 10 miles
0 5 10 kilometers
Median chlorophyll a (µg l¯¹)2001–2003
< 7.57.5–1515–3030–50> 50
The median value for chlorophyll a over the period
2001–2003 was calculated. The five categories were classified relative to
seagrass habitat requirements, with 15 µg l¯¹ as the threshold between
passing and failing these requirements.
living resources indicators
habitat indicators
water quality indicators
N
0 5 10 miles
0 5 10 kilometers
Chlorophyll a�reshold attainment
Passed (score of 1)Passed (score of 1)Failed (score of 0)Failed (score of 0)Failed (score of 0)
Values for each site were compared to the relevant threshold value,
and given a score of 0 (failed to meet threshold) or 1 (met or passed the
threshold) for each indicator.
N
0 5 10 miles
0 5 10 kilometers
Water quality index2001–2003
Excellent ≤ 1.0 Good ≤ 0.8 Poor ≤ 0.6 Degraded ≤ 0.4 Very degraded ≤ 0.2
An evenly weighted water quality
index was developed. The
scores for all variables were summed and
divided by the number of variables
to result in an index value ranging from 0
to 1 for each site.Therefore, an index
value of 0 indicated that a station met none
of the water quality criteria and would not
be expected to support seagrasses or fisheries, while
a score of 1 indicated a station met all water quality criteria and
should support ecosystem services. Intermediate values indicated the
system was variable, and that some ecosystem functions (seagrass beds or
fisheries) would be expected to be present periodically.
indicator threshold attainment
indicator threshold attainment
indicator threshold attainment
living resources index
habitat index
water quality index
N
0 5 10 miles
0 5 10 kilometers
Report cardIndex range Grade 0.8–1 0.65–0.8 0.5–0.65 0.25–0.5 0–0.25
To calculate report card grades for each subregion within
Maryland’s Coastal Bays, the water quality index scores were averaged
across all sites within a subregion. Report card scores (A–F) were assigned to ranges
of the water quality index scores.
living resources report card
habitat report card
water quality report card
SiteChl a
(µg l¯1)TN
(mg l¯1)TP
(mg l¯1)DO
(mg l¯1)Site Chl a TN TP DO Site
Water quality index(wqi)
Subregionwqi
scoreGrade
Site 1 15.213 0.820 0.072 4.60 Site 1 0 0 0 0 Site 1 0.00 Sinepuxent Bay 0.80 A
… … … … … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … … … … …
Site 60 3.929 0.325 0.038 5.23 Site 60 1 1 0 1 Site 60 0.75 St. Martin River 0.11 F
Maryland Department of Natural Resources580 Taylor Avenue
Tawes State Office BuildingAnnapolis, MD 21401
U.S.A.www.dnr.state.md.us
National Park ServiceAssateague Island National Seashore
7206 National Seashore LaneBerlin, MD 21811
U.S.A.www.nps.gov/asis
Ecosystem health assessments can be further integrated and used in a variety of communication products
Index Score Grade
Water quality index 0.47 C
Habitat index 0.45 C
Living resources index 0.63 B
Ecosystem health index 0.52 C
¹6 ¹7 ¹8
The approach used in calculating the water quality index can be applied to other indices, such as Habitat and Living resources. These indices can then be averaged to obtain an integrated index, or report card grade, for many aspects of ecosystem health.
Because these report card grades are derived from real data, they are scientifically defensible. Each step in the process is transparent, and can be tailored to suit individual programs. For example, this report card used indicators that are evenly weighted. A modification to this process could be to have certain indicators more heavily weighted, depending on characteristics of the ecosystem in question.
www.healthywaterways.org www.ian.umces.edu/neea www.ncrvitalsigns.net
Related Documents
![[UMCES] CBL 11 043 Costs of Stormwater Management ...](https://static.cupdf.com/doc/110x72/61a02188ad1292332e19e463/umces-cbl-11-043-costs-of-stormwater-management-.jpg)
