IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i8p4488-d538076.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of Riparian and Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystem Assessments for National Forests in the Western U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Katelyn P. Driscoll

    (Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA)

  • D. Max Smith

    (Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA)

Abstract

In 2012, the U.S. Department of Agriculture adopted a new planning rule that outlined a process for developing, amending, and revising land management plans for the 155 National Forests, 20 National Grasslands, and one Tallgrass Prairie managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The rule outlines a framework with three phases: assessment, development/amendment/revision, and monitoring. We are assisting National Forests in the western U.S. with the first phase by completing a series of assessments of riparian and groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Here, we describe our methods and the lessons learned over the course of conducting assessments for seven National Forests. Per the requirements of the planning rule, we conduct a rapid assessment of ecological integrity that uses existing data to evaluate drivers, stressors, structure, function, composition, and connectivity. We have collaborated with National Forests, state agencies, and other research groups to obtain datasets representing various wetland landscape features. Our work supports the plan revision process, from assessment through plan approval, and informs future forest and project planning for the restoration and maintenance of structure, function, composition, and connectivity. We developed our assessment methods in collaboration with resource managers at the National Forest and regional level to ensure useful end products such as published technical reports, literature reviews, photo libraries, or collections of datasets related to riparian and groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Our approach and lessons learned throughout the process are relevant to other resource management planning applications, analyses of landscape condition, as well as assessments of other ecosystems, such as forests or grasslands.

Suggested Citation

  • Katelyn P. Driscoll & D. Max Smith, 2021. "Development of Riparian and Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystem Assessments for National Forests in the Western U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4488-:d:538076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4488/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4488/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Cleland & Keith Reynolds & Robert Vaughan & Barbara Schrader & Harbin Li & Larry Laing, 2017. "Terrestrial Condition Assessment for National Forests of the USDA Forest Service in the Continental US," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Shoyama, Kikuko & Kamiyama, Chiho & Morimoto, Junko & Ooba, Makoto & Okuro, Toshiya, 2017. "A review of modeling approaches for ecosystem services assessment in the Asian region," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 316-328.
    3. Abson, D.J. & von Wehrden, H. & Baumgärtner, S. & Fischer, J. & Hanspach, J. & Härdtle, W. & Heinrichs, H. & Klein, A.M. & Lang, D.J. & Martens, P. & Walmsley, D., 2014. "Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 29-37.
    4. Grizzetti, B. & Lanzanova, D. & Liquete, C. & Reynaud, A. & Cardoso, A.C., 2016. "Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 194-203.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    2. Mingjing Guo & Ziyu Jiang & Yan Bu & Jinhua Cheng, 2019. "Supporting Sustainable Development of Water Resources: A Social Welfare Maximization Game Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Nancy Andrea Ramírez-Agudelo & Roger Porcar Anento & Miriam Villares & Elisabet Roca, 2020. "Nature-Based Solutions for Water Management in Peri-Urban Areas: Barriers and Lessons Learned from Implementation Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-36, November.
    4. Jonathan Fletcher & Nigel Willby & David M. Oliver & Richard S. Quilliam, 2023. "Field-Scale Floating Treatment Wetlands: Quantifying Ecosystem Service Provision from Monoculture vs. Polyculture Macrophyte Communities," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Suifeng Zhang & Wang Zhang & Canhua Liu, 2023. "Research on Value Evaluation and Impact Mechanism of Water Ecological Services in Mountainous Cities: A Case Study of Xiangxi Prefecture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-13, January.
    6. Siyu Yue & Huaien Li & Fengmin Song, 2023. "Temporal–Spatial Variations in the Economic Value Produced by Environmental Flows in a Water Shortage Area in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Tao Wu & Peipei Zha & Mengjie Yu & Guojun Jiang & Jianzhen Zhang & Qinglong You & Xuefeng Xie, 2021. "Landscape Pattern Evolution and Its Response to Human Disturbance in a Newly Metropolitan Area: A Case Study in Jin-Yi Metropolitan Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Jens Koehrsen, 2017. "Boundary Bridging Arrangements: A Boundary Work Approach to Local Energy Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-23, March.
    9. Engler, John-Oliver & Kretschmer, Max-Friedemann & Rathgens, Julius & Ament, Joe A. & Huth, Thomas & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2024. "15 years of degrowth research: A systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    10. John, Beatrice & Luederitz, Christopher & Lang, Daniel J. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2019. "Toward Sustainable Urban Metabolisms. From System Understanding to System Transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 402-414.
    11. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    13. Ioannis Souliotis & Nikolaos Voulvoulis, 2021. "Natural Capital Accounting Informing Water Management Policies in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-24, October.
    14. Honeck, Erica & Gallagher, Louise & von Arx, Bertrand & Lehmann, Anthony & Wyler, Nicolas & Villarrubia, Olga & Guinaudeau, Benjamin & Schlaepfer, Martin A., 2021. "Integrating ecosystem services into policymaking – A case study on the use of boundary organizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    15. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    16. Exley, G. & Hernandez, R.R. & Page, T. & Chipps, M. & Gambro, S. & Hersey, M. & Lake, R. & Zoannou, K.-S. & Armstrong, A., 2021. "Scientific and stakeholder evidence-based assessment: Ecosystem response to floating solar photovoltaics and implications for sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    17. Suich, Helen & Howe, Caroline & Mace, Georgina, 2015. "Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A review of the empirical links," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 137-147.
    18. Pettinotti, Laetitia & de Ayala, Amaia & Ojea, Elena, 2018. "Benefits From Water Related Ecosystem Services in Africa and Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 294-305.
    19. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    20. Ruijs, Arjan & van Egmond, Petra, 2017. "Natural capital in practice: How to include its value in Dutch decision-making processes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 106-116.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4488-:d:538076. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.