USDA NRCS, Easement Programs Division

University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

NATIONAL EASEMENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

Cooperative Agreement 68-7482-10-540

Executive Summary Report: Strategies to Monitor, Manage, and Ensure

Compliance of NRCS Conservation Easements

October 2012

This executive summary was assembled from the complete final report for the

National Easement Assessment Project:

Gray, M.J., K.E. Edwards, W.B. Sutton, H.M. Hagy, D.C. Osborne, G.D. Upchurch,

and Z. Guo. 2012. USDA NRCS National Easement Assessment Project, Final

Report (October 2012). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, National Easement Assessment Project. Washington, DC.

Funding for the assessment project was provided by the USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service through the Easement Programs Division in support of the

National Easement Assessment Project. This project was conducted in collaboration

with the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture.

The expressed goal of this synthesis is to inform deliberations of managers and

policymakers regarding the current effectiveness and potential improvements to

NRCS conservation easement programs. This synthesis represents a scientific

assessment that was reached independently of the current position or policy of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture or the United States government.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

NRCS

National

Easement

Assessment

Project

Developing Strategies

to Monitor, Manage,

and Ensure

Compliance of NRCS

Conservation

Easements

1

Introduction and Justification

Private lands are an essential component to natural resource conservation in the United States. More than

half of the land in the contiguous United States is managed for agriculture, forestry, or rangeland

(NABCI/IWJV 2009). Moreover, the majority of habitat needed for wildlife conservation (approximately

80%) in the United States is interspersed on lands under private ownership (Benson 2001). Therefore,

establishing and maintaining cooperative partnerships with private landowners is critical to improving

land conservation efforts and stewardship responsibilities. Conservation easements have become a

commonly used and important strategy for protecting, enhancing, and restoring habitat on privately-

owned land. Conservation easements are legal agreements made between a landowner and a third party

that limit allowable land uses (e.g., development, clearing) and protect conservation values (e.g., fish and

wildlife habitat; Byers and Ponte 2005). Federal, state, and local agencies and non-governmental

organizations increasingly use easements to protect conservation values on private lands associated with

wetlands, forests, grasslands, farmlands, ranchlands, and scenic and historic areas (Byers and Ponte

2005).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is

recognized as a leader in natural resource conservation on private lands. The NRCS provides financial

and technical assistance for landowners to conserve, restore, and protect natural resources (NRCS 1996;

NABCI/IWJV 2009). Since 1992, NRCS has been acquiring easements through conservation programs

which have tremendous potential to impact wildlife habitat and populations on private land. Conservation

programs also serve to address other resource concerns including soil and energy conservation and

maintenance of air and water quality (NABCI/IWJV 2009). USDA conservation provisions have

resulted in the establishment of five NRCS programs that protect private lands using long-term

easements: the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Emergency Watershed Protection Program-

Floodplain Easements (EWPP-FPE), Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), Healthy Forests Reserve

Program (HFRP), and the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP). The Statement of Federal

Financial Accounting Standards 29 (SFFAS 29) considers these easements held by the United States as

stewardship lands which must be accounted for as part of the agency’s financial accountability reporting.

As the easement holder, the NRCS has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the public investment on

‘stewardship lands’ enrolled in USDA conservation easement programs (NRCS 2010a). NRCS also has

the responsibility to ensure the easement program objectives are achieved. Once an easement is acquired

and restoration practices have been implemented, the NRCS is responsible for conducting regular

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

NATIONAL EASEMENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

Executive Summary Report: Strategies to Monitor, Manage, and

Ensure Compliance of NRCS Conservation Easements Matthew J. Gray, Katherine E. Edwards, William B. Sutton, Heath M. Hagy, Douglas C. Osborne,

Gabriel D. Upchurch, and Zhimei Guo

2

monitoring to report the condition of those stewardship lands (i.e., long-term easements) and determine

whether easements are meeting statutory program objectives (NRCS 2010a).

With approximately $5 billion in funding allocated to program implementation and the acquisition of

nearly 2.6 million acres of easements over the past 19 years, NRCS needs to establish a nationwide

monitoring program for their conservation easements. Monitoring data are critical to assess condition,

determine whether sites are on a trajectory to meet program objectives, and guide long-term management

decisions. For NRCS, condition includes administrative (i.e., compliant land-use) and biological

components. Program-specific monitoring policies for easements are in place to guide NRCS in meeting

these responsibilities and to maintain working relationships with landowners. Both on-site and remote

monitoring has been conducted primarily for land-use compliance to assess whether the terms of the

easement deed are being met. However, to date, standard procedures for monitoring biological condition

on NRCS easements have not developed. Several external and internal reviews have raised concern about

NRCS complying with its monitoring policy (NRCS 2010a). A 2008 Office of Inspector General Audit

of NRCS’ monitoring of WRP easements found deficiencies in the quality and frequency of monitoring

activities (OIG 2008; NRCS 2010a). Additionally, an NRCS Oversight and Evaluation study of WRP

and EWPP-FPE found favorable reviews for restoration planning within these programs, but reported

limitations in easement monitoring and landowner compliance (NRCS 2009; NRCS 2010a). The NRCS

National Office is working aggressively to improve on these shortcomings with the 2010 formation of the

Land Stewardship Team, which is specifically responsible for monitoring, management, and enforcement

on easement lands. The NRCS has recognized the need to develop standardized monitoring procedures to

ensure that easements are compliant with allowable land uses and to report biological condition on

easement lands for programs with conservation objectives.

The NRCS is responsible for monitoring and managing approximately 14,000 easements among the five

conservation easement programs. However, the ability of NRCS to adequately conduct easement

monitoring and management depends upon staffing levels and technical expertise of field staff (NRCS

2010a). Compliant land use has been historically monitored by site visits, which requires considerable

resources if sites are monitored annually. Biological monitoring (e.g., assessment of plants, animals,

soils, and other conservation values and their interactions) of easements has occurred in some states, but

has been inconsistently implemented nationally. The 2008 WRP Audit attributed a majority of

compliance violations to a lack of sufficient resources available for NRCS staff to monitor sites regularly

(NRCS 2010a). The need and demand for biological expertise has increased with expanded program

objectives and easement property acreage in recent years, whereas the number of NRCS biologists has

declined (NRCS 1996). Between 2006 and 2009, NRCS lost 21% of staff biologists as the result of

declines in technical assistance funds (NABCI/IWJV 2009). These biologists may not have been

dedicated to program support but did provide some level of technical support for monitoring activities.

Current staffing workload required for enrolling, restoring, and completing documentation for

establishing easements results in staff focusing activities on compliance monitoring with minimal time

and resources available for monitoring biological condition.

Similar to other agencies and organizations responsible for monitoring and managing large landholdings,

NRCS is challenged with developing efficient and cost-effective strategies for executing long-term

stewardship responsibilities (NRCS 2010a). To assist with this endeavor, the NRCS Easement Programs

Division (EPD) in collaboration with the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture (UTIA)

established the National Easement Assessment Project (NEAP). Through NEAP, protocols were

developed for monitoring biological condition on NRCS easements. These recommendations will assist

NRCS in determining possible strategies, financial and staff needs, and required training to ensure

effective monitoring, management, and enforcement of stewardship lands. Recommendations provided

by NEAP can also be used to support the agency’s development of a supplement to the Implications of

3

Long-term Wetlands Conservation Easement: Report to Congress, and will assist in the NRCS meeting

their financial accountability requirements for stewardship lands (SFFAS 29).

Herein, we provide a summary of monitoring and management strategies and associated costs of federal

and state agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with similar land monitoring and

management responsibilities to the NRCS. We present financial and technical resources and projected

costs of improving an inventory, monitoring, and management program for the NRCS based on strategies

used by the reviewed entities. Detailed overviews of monitoring programs, protocols for on-site and

remote monitoring, administrative structure, approximate budgets, and staffing and workload estimates

are provided for 13 federal, state, and non-governmental organizations in the NEAP final report (Gray et

al. 2012). We review and summarize bioassessment techniques used for monitoring biological condition

and describe procedures used to monitor compliance and conduct natural resource inventories by other

entities. We also provide preliminary strategies and recommendations to report condition of NRCS

stewardship lands that should be considered for implementation by the NRCS to meet fiduciary

responsibilities. Detailed information including experimental designs, strategies for integrating remote

sensing and on-site bioassessment procedures, and conceptual models for designing and implementing a

national inventory, monitoring, and management program for NRCS stewardship lands can be found in

the NEAP final report (Gray et al. 2012). We present a multi-tiered approach to monitoring biological

condition on NRCS easements considering current and potential future resource requirements that

involves a more comprehensive and statistically valid approach to monitoring than currently implemented

by NRCS. We also provide a summary of preliminary results and recommendations from a NEAP pilot

study in eastern North Carolina that evaluated classification of habitat types on WRP easements using

remote imagery and identified on-site indicators of biological condition. Lastly, we propose potential

strategies to evaluate the ability of NRCS easements to provide ecosystem services to the

greater landscape.

Review of Monitoring Programs

The UTIA NEAP team has completed a review of federal agencies and NGOs with major land monitoring

and management programs in the United States as part of the NRCS NEAP (http://neap.tennessee.edu/).

Federal agencies included the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the U.S. Bureau

of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the U.S. National Park Service (NPS).

Non-governmental organizations reviewed included Ducks Unlimited (DU), Klamath Bird Observatory

(KBO), Land Trusts, National Audubon Society (Audubon), Pheasants Forever (PF) and Quail Forever

(QF), Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO), and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Of the federal

agencies and NGOs reviewed, annual budgets for biological monitoring range from approximately $1.2

million for regional monitoring ($4.80/acre; RMBO) to $80 million for nationwide monitoring

($0.11/acre; USFS; see pp. xxi – xxiii of the NEAP final report). Entities that monitor easements for

land-use compliance spent between $0.37/acre – $2.37/acre (TNC and PF, respectively). Although

federal agencies are not allowed to develop endowments, several NGOs use endowments to generate

funds for monitoring compliance and subsequent enforcement, which range in value from $15,000 –

$35,000 per easement (PF and Audubon, respectively).

Monitoring programs vary substantially among federal agencies and NGOs in scope and scale, types of

indicators measured, and allocated resources. Additionally, inventory, monitoring, and management

program objectives; sampling methodologies, intensities, and schedules; and types of biological indicators

assessed vary widely and do not necessarily reflect those that should be implemented on NRCS

easements. We provide an initial approximation of the possible investment that may be required for

4

NRCS to operate an easement-specific biological inventory and monitoring program. It is likely that

these estimates represent minimum required resources. We extrapolated monitoring costs of each agency

on a per acre basis and multiplied those by NRCS permanent easement holdings (approximately 14,000

easements, 2.6 million acres). Estimates represent the potential costs of implementing monitoring

procedures on 20% of NRCS conservation easements annually as outlined by the USDA-NRCS Circular

21 (i.e., on-site monitoring every 1 in 5 years) if NRCS were to follow protocols of the reviewed agencies

and organizations (see p. xxiii of the NEAP final report). Overall estimates ranged from $2.8 – 27.1

million needed annually for biological monitoring. This estimated range of funding represents

approximately 0.3% – 3.1% of the NRCS total apportionment for easement programs (WRP, FRPP, GRP,

and HFRP combined) and 4.5% – 43.5% of the NRCS Technical Assistance apportionment for FY 2011.

For annual on-site compliance monitoring, estimated costs ranged from $0.33 –1.6 million, whereas

annual funding needed for enforcement ranged from $0.9 –1.3 million. Enforcement estimates include

some costs for landowner contact, notification of violations, documentation, and other administrative and

legal support. We emphasize that these estimates are extrapolations of costs reported by other agencies

with different land responsibilities and missions, and should be used only as an approximation of the costs

required by NRCS to improve their current monitoring program. Detailed cost and workload estimates

for different monitoring levels developed for NRCS easements are provided in the Bioassessment section

of this report and are based on key components of monitoring strategies currently used by other federal

natural resource agencies and NGOs.

Current NRCS Monitoring

Current NRCS policy requires annual monitoring of easements by either on-site inspection or remote

evaluation. Monitoring procedures and policy have been revised as of June 2011 to incorporate the

reporting of condition and to help address the significant and increasing monitoring workload on

easement lands by the NRCS (NRCS 2011). For all easements that have deeds held by the NRCS, on-site

reviews are now required in year one of a five year monitoring cycle, an ownership review in year two,

and off-site monitoring in the subsequent three years. More frequent on-site monitoring also may be

required following detection of a potential violation. The NRCS conservation easement programs require

development of a Plan of Operation (also referred to as the conservation plan) to document the terms for

the restoration, enhancement, maintenance and management of easements, and to convey these

requirements to the landowner. The plan addresses resource concerns on easements and identifies any

restrictions or prohibited activities to the easement, as well as restoration practices and compatible use

(NRCS 2010b). The NRCS is required to conduct annual reviews of easements, contracts, and agreements

to ensure program purposes and objectives are being met (NRCS 2010a,b).

Current NRCS monitoring focuses on verifying compliance with easements terms and conditions, and

ensuring that lands are compatibly used and maintained according to approved conservation plans or

Compatible Use Authorizations (CUAs). On-site inspections include viewing or traversing the easement

to ensure boundaries are clearly marked, ensuring the operation and maintenance of the easement is being

achieved, identifying potential threats and stressors to conservation values of the easement including

hazardous materials, evaluating the course of restoration, evaluating habitat objectives, evaluating

threatened or endangered species requirements, evaluating the hydrology, evaluating the vegetation

(including exotic and invasive species), evaluating cultural resources and water rights, determining if

enhancements are needed and documenting any violations (NRCS 2010a).

A standardized Annual Monitoring Worksheet is used to collect information during on-site inspections by

the NRCS (see pp. 350 – 355 of the NEAP final report). State Conservationists have the authority to

expand the questions to include state-specific resource concerns (NRCS 2011). Based on responses to the

Annual Monitoring Worksheet, condition of Stewardship Lands are classified as either 1) Green – No

5

Action Needed, 2) Yellow – Work Action Needed, or 3) Red – Violation, Action Required. All

stewardship lands also undergo an ownership review, off-site monitoring, summary review, and on-site

monitoring according to a set annual schedule. An ownership review involves making contact with the

landowner to verify ownership and is only applicable in the year following on-site monitoring that did not

require administrative follow-up (such as development of a CUA), corrective actions, or violations. Off-

site monitoring has been approved through the use of a newly adopted remote sensing-based monitoring

strategy, GeoObserver, using annually acquired high resolution aerial photography. The summary review

is applicable after the easement has been attained but prior to completion of restoration. This includes a

cursory site visit, verification of ownership, and determination of whether terms and condition of the

easement deed are being met. On-site monitoring includes completion of the assessment worksheet and

notification to the landowner through various means (e.g., phone, letter, post card) that a field inspection

will be taking place on the easement and providing an opportunity for landowner participation.

Continual and consistent monitoring of biological condition is only conducted within a few states due to

constraints on available funding and personnel resources. In general, the existing system and resources

are not adequate for quantitative conclusions regarding biological condition of NRCS easements on a

nationwide scale. In addition to the mandated monitoring worksheet, a number of states (e.g., Missouri,

Nebraska, and Wisconsin) have conducted additional quantitative assessments to evaluate wetland

condition and estimate program benefits (e.g., assessment of vegetation, cover types, hydrology, soil

characteristics, and wildlife habitat quality using habitat suitability indices of target taxa). Much of the

biological monitoring conducted on NRCS conservation easements is accomplished through university

research projects and the NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), but these efforts

typically consist of monitoring over a short duration (2 – 4 years).

Compliance Monitoring of Reviewed Entities

Most of the non-governmental organizations with easement holdings monitor primarily for compliance

with terms and conditions set forth in each easement contract (e.g., Audubon, DU, Land Trusts, PF,

TNC). Additionally, the USFWS monitors activities on their wetland and grassland easements for

compliance purposes. To lay the foundation for effective compliance monitoring, most organizations

complete a Baseline Documentation Report (BDR) or similar report that details the condition of the

easement at the time of acquisition or conveyance. The BDR serves as a reference guide of the original

condition of the easement for monitoring personnel to reference during on-site visitations. Baseline

Documentation Reports vary by organization but may include land ownership and topographic maps,

aerial photographs, descriptions of landscape context and nearby land uses, assessment of conservation

values, threats to ecological integrity, management needs and recommendations, required frequency of

monitoring, and photographs and GPS locations of infrastructure, improvements, or other factors that

could threaten conservation values in the future. In addition to a BDR, entities may require additional

evaluation of the easement following the initial landowner consultation, such as the Preliminary Property

Inspection Report (PPIR) used by Ducks Unlimited. This evaluation includes documenting the general

habitats present on an easement property by acreage, outlining landowner conservation objectives,

summarizing the ecological values of the property, and documenting legal and physical conditions (e.g.,

title issues, mortgage restrictions, existing infrastructure, agricultural operations).

Annual monitoring is conducted on-site using a standardized inspection form to help ensure compliance,

document potential violations, and record potential threats to easements (e.g., invasive species, adjacent

land uses). Standard forms include qualitative observations describing easement condition, surrounding

land uses, new or planned infrastructure, new or modified practices (e.g., timber harvest, excavation,

dumping, etc.), alteration from the BDR, restoration needs, potential threats to condition, and potential

violations. This form is completed by biologists or specialists during a driving or walking inspection of

the property boundaries, and may be accompanied by the landowner. Photographs may also be taken at

6

fixed points and of any occurrences that might constitute a violation of easement terms or threats to

conservation values. Easements are officially monitored annually, but staff often visit easements and meet

landowners several times per year in order to foster positive relationships and reduce land-use violations.

In addition to on-site evaluations, several organizations use remote imagery including aerial photography

or satellite imagery in combination with site visits for planning purposes, to assess property boundaries, to

conduct a preliminary assessment of potential changes, or identify possible violations (e.g., Land Trusts,

PF, TNC, USFWS).

Biological Monitoring of Reviewed Entities

All of the federal agencies we reviewed have implemented programs to monitor components of biological

condition, including status and trends of fish, wildlife, and forest resources on agency lands. These

include the BLM Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) Program, the EPA National Condition

Wetland Assessment (NWCA), the USFWS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program, the USFS Forest

Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program, and the NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program.

Additionally, some NGOs including the RMBO and the KBO conduct monitoring of avian taxa to assess

population status, distribution, and habitat management needs. Although specific missions vary among

entities, monitoring efforts of the aforementioned programs contribute to determination of natural

resource sustainability, guide policy and decision-making of conservation and management efforts, and

allow detection and early warning of changing conditions.

Monitoring of biological condition is primarily conducted through on-site assessment. Although specific

indicators vary among agencies, most employ standardized data collection protocols to guide sampling,

including collection of core indicator variables (e.g., vegetation composition, soil characteristics, water

quality) that are relatively consistent across ecosystem types (e.g., NPS “vital signs”, USFS, BLM, EPA).

Several agencies also include flexibility in their monitoring programs to intensify survey efforts and

incorporate additional indicators to address specific resource or management questions at multiple spatial

scales depending on regional, state, or local monitoring objectives (i.e., USFS FIA). In addition to on-site

evaluations, remote sensing technology is used by federal agencies to evaluate and classify habitats,

document landscape characteristics, and support field assessments (e.g., EPA NWCA, NRCS NRI, USFS

FIA, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory). General guidelines have been developed for sampling

designs to ensure scientifically-sound monitoring practices and to reduce discrepancies in sampling

intensities among states and regions. This includes use of permanent sampling grids whenever feasible

(e.g., NPS, USFS), and the use of probability-based sampling, such as the Generalized Random

Tessellation Stratified Design, which is used extensively by the EPA, NPS, and the RMBO.

Partnerships

Partnerships can be an important component of implementing a monitoring program. By incorporating

partners in an inventory and monitoring program, an agency typically can increase the amount of surveys,

share costs involved with inventory and monitoring, and create a data-sharing environment between or

among agencies. The EPA’s NWCA program represents a classic example of working partnerships.

With this program, state natural resource agencies and biological monitoring teams are contracted to

complete state-level wetland surveys. This strategy saves monetary resources by using the pre-existing

workforce at the state level to achieve national monitoring goals. It also achieves a secondary objective

by providing a wetland monitoring program to those states that have not developed a state monitoring

program. One ambition of the NRCS EPD is to develop a nationwide monitoring program for easements.

If this occurs, the NRCS should consider involving possible state and regional partners during the early

stages of development.

7

Points to Consider for an Improved NRCS Inventory and Monitoring Program

Tailor monitoring strategies to address conservation easement objectives at local, regional, and

national levels.

Establish a monitoring plan and secure sufficient funding before easements are acquired.

Conduct BDR and PPIR documentation procedures on NRCS easements to establish baseline

conditions relevant for future status and trend reporting.

Conduct pilot studies to field test indicator variables.

Employ a probabilistic survey method such as the GRTS design.

Consider stratifying survey sites by eco-region, state, and if possible, by ecosystem functional

group (e.g., Cowardin class level [wetlands]) to provide the capability to report biological

condition at multiple scales and to control for regional variation within ecosystem types.

Develop hierarchical levels of indicator variables to address national objectives (Tier 2

bioassessment approach) or national, regional, and state/local monitoring objectives (Tier 3

bioassessment approach).

Adopt an assessment strategy similar to the EPA’s NWCA in a Tier 4 bioassessment approach.

Create digitized and georeferenced maps to inventory habitat types on all easements before and

after restoration.

Complete ground-truthing of habitat types on a portion of easements to assure accuracy of habitat

inventories.

Review of Management Programs

Management strategies and associated costs vary substantially among federal agencies, state agencies, and

NGOs due to variable missions and responsibilities on their landbases. We report the approximate

staffing levels, costs, and management practices used by various agencies and extrapolate those costs to

NRCS stewardship land holdings (see p. xxiv in the NEAP final report). Thus, our cost estimates are not

projections for total management costs of NRCS stewardship lands, but estimates of costs for each agency

based on their objectives and practices extrapolated to current NRCS easement acreages. State natural

resources agencies in states where significant WRP and GRP easements exist, spend on average

$107/acre on their private land management programs. Such programs provide private landowners with

financial and technical assistance for vegetation succession management and controlling of woody and

invasive species encroachment. In addition, management of NRCS easements on fee-title lands includes

staff costs for technical assistance. The USFWS refuges and complexes reported spending $23/acre

managing fee-title lands and $6/acre on management of easements. Most costs of the USFWS for

management are attributed to salary for administration and coordination on fee-title lands, and technical

assistance and administration on easements. Management decisions of fee-title lands are made on a per

refuge or management district basis and activities include timber management, invasive species control,

moist-soil management, prescribed burning of grasslands, and water management. Although the USFWS

does not obtain management responsibilities on private lands, they do provide technical assistance

through their Partner’s for Fish and Wildlife Program. The USFS (FIA) reported spending $9.5/acre on

management on public lands, with a majority of their management efforts focused towards timber harvest,

control of invasive vegetation, and recreation management. Management decisions regarding USFS lands

are made at the national forest level and follow the agencies mission to sustain the health, diversity, and

productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands. The NPS and BLM were contacted but did not

provide cost estimates for management. We were unable to obtain per acre management costs from

NGOs. However, Pheasants Forever reported spending $21.8 million annually on management,

restoration, and associated salaries for providing financial and technical assistance on private land

8

management in 16 states. Pheasants Forever’s Farm Bill Program has impacted some 2.2 million acres of

habitat improvement and restoration, of which an estimated 90% has been conducted using Farm Bill

Program dollars. Projected management costs for NRCS easements using estimates from these agencies

and organizations ranged from $25 million – $283 million when extrapolated to total easement acreages.

Our review of current NRCS management strategies revealed that staff spend 8.5 hrs/month (range <1 –

16 hrs/month) per easement on management activities (primarily planning and technical assistance), and

the time dedicated to management largely depends on willingness of the landowner to implement

management practices without compensation. We report staffing levels, workloads, and common

management practices implemented on easements by program and state using results from a questionnaire

distributed to NRCS state offices (Appendix F in the NEAP final report). Based on the survey, states

indicated that 49% of WRP, 81% of EWPP, 14% of GRP, 0% of HFRP, and 5% of FRPP easements need

additional annual management. Primary responsibilities for management of easements enrolled in the

working lands programs (GRP and FRPP) are conducted by the landowner or other cooperating entities.

States surveyed indicated that the most needed management practices not currently being implemented

were invasive weed control, water level manipulation, improved grazing practices, and prescribed burning

(Table 1). Generally, states reported that the current level of technical assistance (TA) funding is limiting

their ability to effectively assist landowners in making management decisions and ensuring scheduled

management actions are being implemented appropriately. Additional TA funds are needed to update

management plans and appropriately monitor easements for compliance. State NRCS offices indicated

that an additional $87/acre (SE = $79, n = 5) in financial assistance (FA) and $16/acre (SE = $25, n = 5)

in TA funding is needed to properly manage easements to meet state and national program objectives (see

pp. xxviii in the NEAP final report). Additional FA dollars would be used for maintaining water control

structures and levees, reestablishing vegetation cover where restorations were unsuccessful, and

controlling vegetation succession, invasive plants and woody encroachment.

Wetlands Reserve Program easement located in eastern Tennessee.

9

Table 1. Management practices most commonly used, needed to be used more frequently, and most feasible to implement according to a subsample of

state Natural Resources Conservation Service offices for the Wetlands Reserve Program (n = 8) and Grassland Reserve Program (n = 6).

Wetlands Reserve Program Grassland Reserve Program

Management Practice Most

Common

Most

Needed

Most

Feasible

for NRCS

Most

Feasible

for

Landowner

Most

Common

Most

Needed

Most

Feasible

for NRCS

Most

Feasible

for

Landowner

Brush management 2 1 1 1 2

Disking

1

Drilling of wells 1

Fencing

1 1

Fire breaks 1

Food plots 4

2

1

Grazing livestock 3 2 3 3 1 2

Haying/pasture planting 2

2

3

Heavy use area 1

Ideal habitat

1

Infrastructure repairs 1 1

Invasive weed control 6 2 3 2

1

Levee/Road maintenance 3 1 1

Litter removal

Moist-soil management 3 1

Mowing 3 1

4

1

Pest management 1 1 1

Pipelines, tanks, water mgt.

3 1

1

Prescribed burning 3 2 3 3 1 1

Restoration of declining

habitat

1 1

Stream bank stabilization 1

T&E species conservation

Timber management 2 1

Trail develop./maintenance 1

1

Water level manipulation 4 2 1 3

Wildlife habitat mgt. 2 1 1

10

Remote Monitoring

The NRCS is required to monitor compliance and condition on their stewardship lands to ensure national

program objectives are being met and taxpayer contributions are invested wisely. One of the objectives

of NEAP is to develop recommendations on how NRCS can use remote sensing to monitor compliant

land use and biological condition. Through an extensive investigation of NRCS capabilities and a review

of remote sensing uses by other federal, state, and local agencies and non-governmental organizations, the

NEAP team provides preliminary recommendations on three levels of remote monitoring for NRCS

easements: 1) monitoring compliance, 2) monitoring status and trends of habitat types, and 3) remote

monitoring of biological condition.

Compliance Monitoring

Following the release of USDA-NRCS Circular 21, which allows off-site monitoring of easements three

out of every five years, the NRCS recently approved a newly developed remote compliance monitoring

strategy. This strategy relies on remote sensing to accomplish compliance monitoring using existing

NRCS Remote Sensing Laboratories (RSLs) and annually acquired high resolution aerial photography.

The remote monitoring strategy is being implemented in conjunction with a new web-based geographic

information system (GIS), GeoObserver, which was developed and is administered by the National

Geospatial Management Center (NGMC). GeoObserver provides instant access to multiple years of

easement photography, easement boundary data, and previous monitoring data. States can use

GeoObserver to review baseline maps and monitoring data, and investigate potential violations.

GeoObserver maintains a chronological record of baseline and monitoring observations and can be

accessed by all levels of NRCS for reporting purposes. Not only does this strategy combine local

knowledge of easements (states) with powerful remote sensing capabilities (RSLs), it also has several

advantages over on-site visits for compliance monitoring:

Annually acquired aerial photography permits regular reviews of entire easements regardless of

size or accessibility.

Annually acquired aerial photography provides a nationally centralized historical record of

easement imagery that can be revisited as needed.

When using aerial photography and trained personnel, remote sensing staff can obtain second

opinions on image interpretation from colleagues and supervisors to improve accuracy of

compliance monitoring.

Using aerial photography permits compliance monitoring by a small, centralized, and dedicated

cadres of staff, which over time will result in increased efficiencies (e.g., increased accuracy and

consistency; decreased monitoring time).

Using aerial photography will minimize the need to travel to easements for compliance

monitoring, resulting in resources saved for on-site visits.

Using a web-based GIS application, GeoObserver, allows participation in the monitoring process

without the need for specialized software (e.g., states can work with RSLs to conduct monitoring;

managers can access data and generate reports).

GeoObserver is custom designed with only the necessary tools for NRCS compliance monitoring,

thus staff can be easily trained to use it.

GeoObserver provides instant access to all the data needed to conduct change detection.

GeoObserver provides standardized choices for attributing features which creates more nationally

consistent data.

GeoObserver maintains chronological records of all observations resulting in a detailed record of

easement history.

11

GeoObserver makes the data collection and entry process seamless.

GeoObserver automatically stores the data in a nationally centralized geodatabase.

Based on meetings with the EPD, RSLs, and NGMC, and review of a GeoObserver pilot study completed

in Spring 2011, we support the NRCS’s decision to implement this remote compliance monitoring

strategy and to continue development of GeoObserver as a monitoring tool.

Status-and-Trends Monitoring

The NEAP team has reviewed strategies currently used by the NRCS National Resources Inventory (NRI)

and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (i.e., Wetlands Status and Trends study) for application in

an annual natural resources inventory for stewardship lands. An easement inventory program would use a

combination of remote sensing and on-site visits to make inferences on the status and trends of habitat

types on easements. While limited habitat classification data is currently collected in some states, a

nationally-supported approach is needed. These programs share two characteristics that form the

foundation of their monitoring strategies: 1) they are remote sensing based and 2) they monitor for

change. The NRCS RSLs have had the responsibility of conducting image interpretation for the NRI

since 2004, placing them in an ideal position to build upon their experience and success. The NEAP team

believes the RSLs can be instrumental in developing a status-and-trends monitoring program for NRCS

conservation easements. We recommend that NRCS develops an annual remote monitoring status-and-

trends program (i.e., inventory) for estimating the development and maintenance of habitat types on

stewardship lands, which would provide a course evaluation of biological condition. This strategy would

provide multiple benefits for monitoring, managing, and reporting such as:

Annual inventory of the acreage of habitat types found on easement lands by easement, county,

state, region, nation, easement program and other desired levels of stratification.

Annual assessment of changes in acreage of habitat types due to losses, gains, and conversions.

Identification of mechanisms resulting in changes in the acreage of habitat types (e.g., desired

successional processes, fire, invasive species, non-compliant activities).

The ability to compare existing habitat types to what was originally planned to assist in

restoration planning and adaptive management.

A consistent historical record of easement change over time.

Use of the habitat type data to conduct geospatial analysis and extract landscape metrics that can

be used in conjunction with on-site monitoring for assessing biological condition (see section

below).

We recommend that the EPD work with the RSLs and other pertinent NRCS entities to develop a habitat

inventory and a status-and-trends program for stewardship lands following protocol similar to NRI. The

protocol will involve two major components: the initial inventory year and subsequent change detection.

In general, we suggest that within 1 – 2 years of restoration completion, RSL analysts use high resolution

aerial imagery to conduct an inventory of habitat types found on the easement. Analysts can use GIS

software to delineate habitat types using image interpretation and heads-up digitizing. Habitat types

should be classified according to one or more Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) endorsed

classification systems (e.g., Anderson et al. 1976; Cowardin et al. 1979). Similar to the NWI, the

classification accuracy will depend on the availability of ancillary data to assist in classifications.

Ancillary data collected as part of the on-site biological monitoring could be shared with RSL analysts to

assist in classifications. Data will need to be stored in a national geodatabase for use in analysis and

reporting. We recommend that quality assurance standards similar to NRI are followed to maintain

integrity of the results. A partner, similar to the Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, will need

to be identified to lead the status-and-trends analyses. The NEAP team recently completed a pilot study

to provide insight into these processes and estimate workload and costs associated with an inventory and

12

status-and-trends monitoring program for easements (see North Carolina Pilot Study section below).

Additionally, a proposal was drafted by Drs. Matthew Gray and Heath Hagy (Validation and training of

new strategies to monitor biological condition on NRCS Wetlands Reserve Program easements) and

submitted to EPD in May 2012 that could be used to test recommendations from the North Carolina Pilot

Study over a larger region and to train the RSLs in remote classifications.

The year after the initial inventory of habitat types on easements, remote monitoring efforts would

transition to change detection. Analysts would need to compare the current year’s aerial imagery to

previous delineated habitat types to determine if changes have occurred. Adjustments could be made to

habitat polygons and their classifications to match changes in size or conversions found in the current

year’s imagery. After image analysis is completed, data will need to be quality checked then added to a

national status-and-trends geodatabase. Geospatial analyses can be performed subsequently to estimate

trends in habitat types on easements.

The aforementioned recommendations are preliminary but have a high likelihood of success considering

the long-term success of the NRI and NWI. The NRCS RSLs are extremely capable of performing a wide

range of remote sensing analyses through their 8-year role in interpreting imagery associated with the

NRI. The RSLs have the capability and capacity to detect and record land-use change using image

interpretation techniques and geospatial software. Although NRCS could independently develop and

execute a status-and-trends program for easements, we recommend that the agency consider partnering

with the USFWS NWI in the planning stages. The NWI analysts have considerable experience in

classifying wetland habitat types based on Cowardin et al. (1979), and could provide insight to NRCS

analysts. Additionally, there may be opportunity to share image analysis efforts and data between

agencies if this strategy is implemented. We recommend that there is significant investment in planning

and testing protocols prior to implementation to increase the likelihood of success.

Biological Condition Monitoring

An inventory and status-and-trends monitoring program would provide valuable information about the

habitat types on NRCS easements but it would not provide reliable data on biological condition (i.e.,

habitat quality). To report on biological condition, the NRCS needs to conduct on-site monitoring and

collect data on biological indicators. Although technological limitations prevent reliable remote

monitoring of biological condition, data collected using remote sensing can be linked to structure and

function of an ecosystem. For example, indicators related to landscape composition (e.g., buffer width,

easement size, edge/area ratio, fragmentation, connectivity) can impact site conditions and wildlife

populations. Through extensive literature reviews and consultation with natural resource professionals,

the NEAP team has identified indicators that have a high likelihood of being related to biological

condition on easements for each national program. The NEAP team has developed bioassessment

approaches that can be tested nationwide for usefulness in predicting biological condition at various

spatial resolutions including local, regional, and national scales. These tools contain landscape metrics

that the RSLs can estimate for use in monitoring biological condition. The NEAP team also recently

completed a pilot study to identify important indicators on WRP easements in North Carolina and

examine relationships between remotely-sensed habitat types and on-site indicators for classifying and

inventorying land cover types present on NRCS stewardship lands.

13

North Carolina Pilot Study

The NEAP team partnered with the NRCS East Remote Sensing Laboratory (ERSL), NRCS Easement

Programs Division (EPD), NRCS East National Technology Support Center (ENTSC) and North Carolina

NRCS to conduct a pilot study on Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) easements in North Carolina.

Additional support and consultation was received from the NRCS National Wetland Team, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Midwest Biodiversity Institute, and other state, federal, and

non-government agencies. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of

the ERSL at remotely classifying habitat types using a combination of nationally accepted vegetation

classification systems, remote imagery types, image analysis methods, and observer experience levels.

Land cover classification will allow the NRCS to monitor the status and trends of habitat types that

develop on easements. Concurrently, we used on-site bioassessment protocols modified from the EPA’s

National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) to identify reliable indicators of biological condition.

Specific objectives of the pilot included:

Estimate accuracy and efficiency of remote habitat classifications among four imagery types, four

levels of ancillary data, and four observers with different levels of experience.

Evaluate geospatial database types and structures for storing land cover data.

Identify indicators that accurately represent biological condition on easements, and allow

assessment national program objectives.

Identify correlations between remote habitat classifications and on-site biological indicators.

Estimate costs associated with staffing levels, data collection and analysis, and reporting results

from remote habitat classification and on-site data collection.

Outcomes from the North Carolina pilot study include preliminary recommendations on imagery type and

amount of ancillary data that should be used by observers to maximize accuracy of remote classifications,

while considering efficiency, costs, and staff requirements. Additionally, a preliminary list of biological

indicators is provided with strong correlation with WRP restoration in the NEAP final report (Gray et al.

2012). Using these results, the NEAP team provides recommendations on strategies to develop a

nationwide program for monitoring biological condition on easements. Given the small geographic extent

of the pilot study, we recommend these ideas are tested over a larger region prior to nationwide

implementation.

Methods and Study Design

We chose to use WRP easements for the pilot study, because it is the largest NRCS easement program,

and these easements contain a diversity of wetland and terrestrial cover types. North Carolina was used

as the study area because of close proximity to the ERSL and UTIA. The study was conducted on 16

WRP easements in Halifax, Jones, Washington, Tyrrell, Pamlico, Carteret, and Bertie counties in eastern

North Carolina. Easements ranged in size from 34.5 – 1,435 acres, and included sites where no

restoration practices had been completed and those where restoration practices had been completed 1 – 13

years ago.

Keystone Aerial Surveys (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) collected low-altitude, high-resolution digital

aerial photographs for 16 WRP easements during November 2011. Four types of 4-band (i.e., blue, green,

red, near infrared) digital imagery were acquired: mono (8- and 15-cm) and stereo (8- and 15-cm

resolution). The mono and stereo imagery were mosaicked and had 8- and 12-bit radiometric resolutions,

respectively. We used natural color analog imagery (30-cm) obtained by NRCS for training observers,

14

preliminary classifications for subsequent field visits, and to determine the best structure of the

geodatabases before experimentation.

We collected on-site data to aid in the remote classification of habitat types present on easements and to

identify possible biological indicators of easement condition from late August through October 2011.

Ancillary field data collected for remote classifications included vascular vegetation species data (e.g.,

species, height classes, diameter-at-breast height), soils information (e.g., soil type, depth), and hydric

indicators (e.g., water lines, oxidize rhizospheres). These data were collected from survey points that

were allocated systematically along two randomly-placed transects in each easement. In October 2011,

after completion of transect surveys, we conducted wetland surveys in seven forested and seven

herbaceous wetlands on WRP easements to evaluate potential intensive and rapid wetland condition

assessment techniques. We sampled wetlands using modified protocols from the EPA’s NWCA and

USA-RAM protocols, which included vascular plant (e.g., species, height class, percent cover), soil (e.g.,

soil type, depth), and stressor land-use (e.g., diking, mowing, ditching) indicators of wetland condition.

Additionally, we measured hydric soil indicators using the NWI procedures and by examining hydric soil

profiles. In order to identify biological indicators that track biological condition during restoration, we

sampled seven reference sites in nearby National Wildlife Refuges (i.e., Roanoke National Wildlife

Refuge), National Forests (i.e., Croatan National Forest), and private lands that represented relatively

undisturbed (i.e., reference) conditions. Biological indicators identified in the pilot are provided in

Appendix C of the NEAP final report.

Following image acquisition and processing, we classified habitat types via on-site visits using a

combination of classification previously used on federal lands (Figure 1; Anderson et al. 1976, Cowardin

et al. 1979, and Dall et al. 1997). Prior to site visits, apparent habitat boundaries were digitized and field

maps generated to facilitate reconnaissance. Habitat classifications were conducted during February

2012. Team members walked the habitat boundaries with a Trimble Pathfinder GPS unit and classified

habitat types on all easements. Acreage per habitat type on each easement from ground-truthing was

compared with remote classifications.

The study was a 4 x 4 x 4 factorial design with main effects being observer experience, ancillary

information, and image type. As discussed, there were four imagery types (8-cm stereo, 15-cm stereo, 8-

cm mono, and 15-cm mono) and four ERSL observers with different experience levels (Expert,

Experienced, Intermediate, and Novice). Additionally, there were four levels of ancillary information: 1)

NRCS soils data, USGS 10-m digital elevation models (DEMs) and slope, and NRCS 2011 analog

imagery, 2) level 1 + 3-m DEMs, 3) level 1 + level 2 + field indicators collected on site, and 4) level 1 +

level 2 + level 3 + habitat classifications by the field crew at randomly selected points. Field indicators

included dominant plant species and relative coverage, hydric soil indicators and soil profiles, and

indicators of surface hydrology. Using GIS, remote observers used these different data levels to heads-up

digitize and classify habitats within the imagery as upland, wetland, or riparian habitats following the

Easement Classification System (ECS; Figure 1). In wetlands, classifications followed Cowardin et al.

(1979) to subclass level with water regime and special modifiers. In riparian areas, observers delineated

habitats to subclass according to Dall et al. (1997). In uplands, observers followed a modified

classification based on Anderson et al. (1976). Each observer viewed each easement once and analyzed

four easements per imagery and information type (n = 16). Heads-up digitizing of mono and stereo

imagery was completed by the ERSL in June 2012.

Major Findings and Recommendations

Imagery. Classification accuracy by remote observers was greatest using mono imagery of both

resolutions compared to stereo imagery for upland and wetland systems. The 15-cm mono imagery was

slightly better for classifying uplands and superior for classifying total wetland acreage than other

15

imagery types. Total processing, average production time, and average downtime were greater when

using stereo imagery compared with mono imagery. Production time included time spent studying the

imagery, studying collateral data, setting up the software, loading images, waiting on images to refresh,

digitizing, attributing, and quality assurance. The 8-cm stereo imagery had the longest production time,

whereas the 8-cm mono imagery had the shortest production time. Production time for 15-cm mono

imagery was similar to the 8-cm mono imagery. Downtime included time spent idle due to

software/imagery issues. The 8-cm stereo imagery had the longest downtime associated with it, whereas

the 15-cm mono imagery had the least amount of downtime. Stereo imagery provided some potential

benefits, such as being able to observe the difference in vegetation height and digitize on the ground.

However, in its current state, stereo digitizing in ArcMap was very tedious and had multiple glitches. The

ERSL staff reported slow refresh rates, settings being lost, difficulty loading images and poor ability to

see color infrared photography as being issues with heads-up digitizing using the stereo imagery. For

implementation at the national scale, we recommend the NRCS use 15-cm mono imagery for remote

habitat classification on easements. This resolution was superior to stereo imagery in terms of accuracy

assessment for both uplands and wetlands, was more efficient in terms of overall production time, and had

significantly fewer issues associated with software attributing to less downtime. Acquisition and

processing costs for 15-cm mono imagery are estimated at $3.1 million. Furthermore, the NRCS is

already moving forward with the custom GeoObserver software application (for compliance monitoring)

which only supports mono imagery. Joint acquisition of shared imagery for compliance and habitat

inventories would be a cost-saving measure for the NRCS.

Observer Experience Level. Variability in habitat type acreages among observers did not consistently

correspond with the amount of experience. Classification accuracy with the 15-cm resolution imagery was

least variable, and staff of differing experience levels seemed best able to classify habitats using this

imagery. Processing time of less-experienced staff was greater than the experienced staff; however, these

differences are expected to diminish over time. The minimum per acre time for the three lower expertise

levels (novice, intermediate, and experienced) were 0.012, 0.013, and 0.014 hours, respectively. The

minimum per acre time of an expert (the highest expertise level) was the lowest at 0.005 hours. For

wetland classification, a previous understanding of the Cowardin et al. (1979), hydrophytes, hydric soils

and wetland function likely will decrease processing time. In this pilot study, the more experienced

observers were familiar with mapping wetlands using NWI protocol, which facilitated understanding the

ECS. Given WRP is the largest easement program, NRCS should consider hiring remote observers at the

intermediate to experienced levels (GS 7-9 federal service grade) with previous training in wetland

classification. Additionally, to ensure consistency in classification, training should be provided in

wetland processes and the ECS prior to starting classifications.

Ancillary Information. We detected no statistical trends in accuracy given the amount of ancillary

information that was provided to remote observers. However, several benefits of ancillary information

were qualitatively reported by the remote observers. Observers reported that the analog imagery was

helpful in identifying deciduous trees. The 10-m DEMs, 10-m slope grid, and 10-m contours had limited

usefulness, because the WRP easements in this study never had >10 m change in elevation. Several

observers indicated that the soils data were important to explain differences in vegetation and hydrology

patterns on easements; however, knowledge of hydric soils was important to use these data. The 3-m

DEM was useful for about one-quarter of the easements where elevation change exceeded 3 m. The 1-m

contour data with the 3-m DEMs were helpful along river systems. The data collected by the field crew

typically was not helpful, but this may be a consequence of sampling design. Field data were collected at

systematically placed plots across an easement, resulting in an over collection of data in uniform habitats

and under sampling in areas with several habitat types. The usefulness of field data needs greater testing.

In future efforts, data should be collected via stratified sampling where data are collected in each habitat

type. In practice, remote observers could provide maps for field crews to gather information in unknown

16

areas. With field crews equipped with handheld GPS units and a point shapefile of an easement, data

could be collected in areas most useful for remote observers.

Remote observers also recommended that additional information be collected in the field and tested to

determine if it increases accuracy and efficiency. These data included soils information (soils map unit

name, soil classification, drainage class, capability class and subclass), depth and thickness of soil layers,

evidence of gleyed and mottled soils, hydrophyte information with corresponding wetland indicator

status, and percent woody vegetation coverage in 3 height strata: <1 m, 1 – 6 m, and >6 m. Also,

reference photos at field assessment points likely would assist remote observers. Remote observers

would benefit from access to digitized restoration and management plans for each easement, because

newly restored or managed areas may have unusual photo signatures. Observers also reported that access

to the NRCS PLANTS database was useful.

Classification System. Based on the results of this pilot study, the NEAP team is confident in the

capability of RSLs leading a nationwide habitat classification system for EPD. Given the experience with

this pilot, the ERSL is in an excellent position to lead training of the other RSLs. Prior to nationwide

implementation, we recommend that the ECS is tested across a larger geographic area. Additionally, the

usefulness of field crews needs greater testing. We recommend that all RSLs participate in an expanded

pilot, which also would serve as a training opportunity.

Land Classification Costs

Based on the average total workload of the three lower expertise levels (0.013 hr/ac for total workload

estimation), the total time to classify NRCS easements (2.6 million as of September 2011) is estimated to

be 33,800 hours. Assuming an hourly rate of $25.87 for a novice/intermediate observer (ERSL salary +

benefits plan for GS 7 – Step 2), the costs for staff salary and benefits are approximately $0.9 million.

Estimated costs for an intermediate/experienced observer at an hourly rate of $32.75 (ERSL salary +

benefits plan for GS 9 – Step 2) are approximately $1.1 million. Based on the total workload of the

expert level in the pilot study, personnel at this expertise level would require approximately 13,000 hours

for land classification. Assuming an hourly rate of $53.07 (ERSL salary + benefits plan for GS12 – Step

7), the costs will be lower due to decreased workload time, approximately $0.7 million. It is expected

that classification efficiency will increase over time; hence, operating costs should decrease as the RSLs

become more skilled at habitat classifications on easements.

Costs for collecting the field data used in remote classification included on-site data collection, transit

between field offices and easements, data entry and processing, and per diem costs. On average, it took

nine hours to collect vegetation and soil indicators from 10 data points. Incorporating transit and office

time, the total per easement workload is 23 hours. Using a staff hourly rate of $32.75 (GS 9 – Step 2), the

staff salary will be $753 per easement. Thus, the total costs (including mileage, equipment, training, and

per diem costs) to collect field data are estimated to be $917 per easement. If data are collected from 10

locations per easement and from 10% of NRCS easements (i.e., 1,400 easements), estimated costs will be

$1.3 million.

For this pilot, the cost for 4-band 15-cm imagery (including orthorectification and mosaicking costs and

the Aerial Photography Field Office’s 3% administrative fee) was $3.86/ac. The pilot study costs show

that the 8-cm imagery was $0.09 less than the 15-cm imagery per acre. However, given that the photo

cost per acre will decrease as a larger area is acquired, the per acre costs based on the pilot study likely

represent a gross overestimation due to the small extent of acreage flown. Based on discussions with the

vendor and specialists with the NRCS NGMC, we estimated costs based on imagery currently collected

by the NRI and the WRP. We assume costs for 15-cm and 8-cm mono will be relatively similar but will

depend on additional factors (e.g., number of flight lines flown, topography, flight angle, and weather).

17

We used $1.14/ac as the per acre cost for a 15-cm, 4-band mono orthorectified photo for estimating

imagery costs based on the 2010 NRI and WRP expenses. The total estimated cost for flying 15-cm mono

imagery of all NRCS easements is $2.97 million. The total mosaicking costs for all NRCS easements is

approximately $0.1 million. Thus, annual imagery and mosaicking costs for 2.6 million acres of

easements is $3.1 million.

Conclusions

The pilot results demonstrate that the NRCS RSLs have the capacity and expertise to effectively

inventory habitats on WRP easements using remote technologies. The NEAP team and ERSL conclude

that remote monitoring is a valuable tool that will better enable the NRCS EPD to meet their fiduciary

responsibilities for stewardship lands. Prior to nationwide implementation, we recommend that additional

discussion and testing of the ECS. The results of the pilot study indicate that, with some improvements to

the ECS, software, and standardization of the classification process, remote monitoring will help the

NRCS to inventory stewardship lands in an efficient, nationally consistent and uniform manner, and allow

the agency to meet programmatic and financial reporting requirements.

Riverine habitat on an easement in eastern

North Carolina.

Collecting data for biological monitoring

of NRCS easements.

18

NEAP Easement Classification System U – Uplands System P – Palustrine System L – Lacustrine System R – Riverine System Rp – Riparian System

Subsystems Subsystems Subsystems

None None 1 – Limnetic1

2 - Littoral 1 – Tidal 2 – Lower Perennial

3 – Upper Perennial

4 – Intermittent1

5 – Unknown Perennial2

1-Lotic 2-Lentic

Classes and Subclasses Class Modifiers Classes and Subclasses Classes and Subclasses

GL - Grassland Pa – Hayed or grazed pasture

Ra – Rangeland

Df- Dormant Season

Flooded

RB-Rock Bottom RB-Rock Bottom1 RB-Rock Bottom EM - Emergent

1 – Warm Season Grass 1-Bedrock 1-Bedrock 1-Bedrock 1-Persistent

2 – Cool Season Grass 2-Rubble 2-Rubble 2-Rubble 2-Nonpersistent

3 - Forbs UB-Unconsolidated Bottom UB-Unconsolidated Bottom1 UB-Unconsolidated Bottom SS – Scrub/Shrub

1-Cobble/Gravel 1-Cobble/Gravel 1-Cobble/Gravel 1-Deciduous Broadleaf

2-Sand 2-Sand 2-Sand 2-Deciduous Needleleaf

3-Mud 3-Mud 3-Mud 3-Evergreen Broadleaf

SS – Scrub/Shrub and Brush Hu - Herbaceous

Understory

Df- Dormant Season

Flooded

4-Organic 4-Organic 4-Organic 4-Evergreen Needleleaf

1-Deciduous Broadleaf AB-Aquatic Bed AB-Aquatic Bed1 SB-Streambed1, 3 5-Dead

2-Deciduous Needleleaf 1-Algal 1-Algal 1-Bedrock 6-Deciduous

3-Evergreen Broadleaf 2-Aquatic Moss 2-Aquatic Moss 2-Rubble 7-Evergreen

4-Evergreen Needleleaf 3-Rooted Vascular 3-Rooted Vascular 3-Cobble/Gravel FO-Forested 5-Dead 4-Floating Vascular 4-Floating Vascular 4-Sand 1-Deciduous Broadleaf

6-Deciduous US-Unconsolidated Shore RS-Rocky Shore 5-Mud 2-Deciduous Needleleaf

7-Evergreen 1-Cobble/Gravel 1-Bedrock 6-Organic 3-Evergreen Broadleaf

FO-Forested Hu - Herbaceous

Understory

Su - Scrub/Shrub

Understory

Df- Dormant Season

Flooded

2-Sand 2-Rubble AB-Aquatic Bed 4-Evergreen Needleleaf

1-Deciduous Broadleaf 3-Mud US-Unconsolidated Shore 1-Algal 5-Dead

2-Deciduous Needleleaf 4-Organic 1-Cobble/Gravel 2-Aquatic Moss 6-Deciduous

3-Evergreen Broadleaf ML-Moss/Lichen 2-Sand 3-Rooted Vascular 7-Evergeen

4-Evergreen Needleleaf 1-Moss 3-Mud 4-Floating Vascular

5-Dead 2-Lichen 4-Organic RS-Rocky Shore

6-Deciduous EM-Emergent EM-Emergent 1-Bedrock

7-Evergreen 1-Persistent 2-Nonpersistent 2-Rubble

DE-Developed None 2-Nonpersistent US-Unconsolidated Shore

1-Residential SS-Scrub/Shrub 1-Cobble/Gravel

2-Commercial and Services 1-Deciduous Broadleaf 2-Sand

3-Industrial 2-Deciduous Needleleaf 3-Mud

4-Transporation, Communications, and Utilities 3-Evergreen Broadleaf 4-Organic

5-Industrial and Commercial Complexes 4-Evergreen Needleleaf EM-Emergent

6-Mixed Urban or Built-up Land 5-Dead 2-Nonpersistent

7-Other Urban or Built-up Land 6-Deciduous

AG-Agricultural Df- Dormant Season

Flooded

7-Evergreen Wetland and Deepwater

Special Modifiers 1-Cropland FO-Forested

2-Orchards, Groves, and Ornamental Horticulture 1-Deciduous Broadleaf Water Regime Modifiers b-Beaver

3-Confined Feeding Operations 2-Deciduous Needleleaf J-Intermittently Flooded F-Semipermanently Flooded d-Partly Ditched/Drained 4-Food Plot 3-Evergreen Broadleaf A-Temporarily Flooded G-Intermittently Exposed f-Farmed

5-Other Agricultural Land 4-Evergreen Needleleaf B-Saturated H-Permanently Flooded h-Diked/Impounded

Upland Special Modifiers 5-Dead C-Seasonally Flooded K-Artificially Flooded r-Artificial

d-Drained g-Gravel 6-Deciduous s-Spoil e-Ditched m-Mowed 7-Evergreen x-Excavated

p-Paved n-Harvested 1, 2 Use of Subsystem is limited to corresponding classes. m-Mowed

q-Succession management 3 Streambed class is limited to Tidal and Intermittent subsystems. n-Silviculture

Figure 1. The NEAP Easement Classification System hierarchical structure used in the North Carolina pilot study.

19

Bioassessment Approaches and Estimated Costs

Overview of Bioassessment Approaches

Understanding the ecological processes operating within an ecosystem is essential for determining

biological condition. Biological and condition assessment (hereafter bioassessment) approaches compare

a series of indicators across the full range of habitat conditions for a particular ecosystem and generate

predictions of biological condition based on the response of indicator variables. These approaches act as

an early warning system and provide a means to identify sites that are functioning at low levels of

biological condition (McDonald et al. 2002; Fennessey et al. 2007). A wide range of bioassessment

approaches exist, each with different assumptions, data requirements, and applications. To select an

appropriate approach, it is necessary to consider several factors including overall study objectives, the

disturbance gradient, spatial scale of the assessment, indicator variable classes (e.g., biological or

physical), reference or target conditions, and workloads/costs.

Bioassessment methods are commonly categorized as level 1, level 2, and level 3 approaches. Level 1

approaches generally rely on landscape-scale data and do not involve on-site evaluations, level 2

approaches require field visits to rank sites on a series of qualitative indicators, and level 3 approaches

often require an intensive site visit and detailed assessments of quantitative indicators (Fennessey et al.

2007). Often, multiple levels will be included in a single bioassessment program. For example, level 3

methods are often used to validate and calibrate level 1 and 2 methods.

Level 1 approaches are used to provide a coarse assessment of biological condition. Remotely-sensed

indicators are often used to compare data, such as landscape composition and fragmentation among sites

to derive an estimate of a site’s ecological condition. This general approach is relatively inexpensive due

to the lack of on-site data collection; major costs associated with this approach include acquiring the

necessary remotely-sensed data (i.e., imagery, software, workstations) and providing training for

technicians to use the associated software. Level 1 approaches are not appropriate to evaluate the

biological processes within an ecosystem but can be used to infer site condition by using attributes from

the surrounding landscape. Because level 1 approaches rely on remotely-sensed data and do not involve

on-site data collection, extensive model calibration is necessary to ensure accuracy of condition

assessments. Concurrent detailed site surveys (level 3 approaches) are commonly used to calibrate the

findings from the remotely-sensed condition assessments.

Level 2 approaches (i.e., rapid assessment procedures) are composed of a series of weighted, semi-

quantitative indicators that provide a rapid estimate of biological condition. These indicators are

generally similar to those used during more intensive approaches, but the numerical scale has been

simplified to reduce the time necessary to complete the assessment. The scaled scores for each metric are

summed to provide an overall site score that can be compared among all evaluated sites. Although level 2

approaches can be used effectively as a proxy for on-site biological condition, the semi-quantitative

nature of the data requires that a more intensive approach also be used to calibrate and evaluate the

accuracy of the rapid assessment procedure. Level 2 approaches require an on-site visit and generally

take anywhere from 1 – 8 hours to complete an assessment at one site (Fennessey et al. 2007). Various

states have successfully developed state-specific wetland condition assessment procedures including Ohio

(ORAM; Mack 2001), California (California Rapid Assessment Method [CRAM]; Collins et al. 2008),

Delaware (Delaware Rapid Assessment [DERAP]; Jacobs 2010), and Washington State (Washington

State Wetland Rating System, Western Version; Washington State Department of Ecology 1993). The

EPA is currently evaluating the applicability of a nationwide wetland rapid assessment procedure (USA-

RAM), which will be calibrated with the results of the NWCA (EPA 2011).

20

Level 3 approaches demand the most time and resources, but also provide a highly accurate representation

of a site’s biological condition. The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) and the Hydrogeomorphic

approach (HGM) represent commonly used level 3 approaches. The IBI was developed with the

assumption that life-history characteristics of a target species group (e.g., stream fishes or breeding birds)

can be used to develop a multi-metric index describing site condition. A composite site score is derived

by summing each of the representative species metrics (Karr and Chu 1993). For an IBI to accurately

represent biological condition, the organismal group must have a response that correlates with the

biological gradient being evaluated. Often, species within an organismal group will display a wide array

of responses; therefore it may be advantageous to group species by functional guilds. For example,

O’Connell et al. (2000) used guild structure (e.g., foraging, migration, and nesting guilds) of breeding

birds to assess overall condition of forested sites in the EPA’s mid-Atlantic region. Because sampling

points were stratified by habitat type throughout the entire region, the resulting IBI model could be used

to infer overall site condition throughout the entire region. Similarly, Gray and Summers (2012) used

three breeding bird nesting and foraging guilds to characterize state of restoration at bottomland WRP

sites in Tennessee. In general, IBI approaches require intensive sampling to obtain a relatively complete

representation of the species present within a site. It is assumed that the composition of the measured

biological community is an accurate representation of the cumulative stressors in a system; specific

stressors typically are not directly measured for IBI assessment.

Although a majority of condition assessment techniques have been developed for wetland ecosystems, it

is important to note that these techniques can be adapted to develop terrestrial condition assessments

(O’Connell et al. 2000; Andreason et al. 2001; Browder et al. 2002; Glennon and Porter 2005). To

develop a bioassessment approach that accurately represents biological condition, it is essential to have an

awareness of the natural processes operating within an ecosystem. Effective biological condition

assessment programs should be developed on well-established monitoring objectives that have

foundations in sound biological and mathematical principles.

NEAP Strategy for a Potential Biological Monitoring Program on NRCS Easements

An important aspect of any bioassessment approach is identifying indicators that will provide a reliable

assessment of biological condition. After extensive literature review and consultations with natural

resource experts, we have identified key indicators for each easement program objective that can be

measured to address national, regional, state and local objectives. For each indicator, we have identified

metrics (i.e., measurable attributes) that may be useful in assessing indicator condition and subsequent

achievement of program objectives. We used various approaches to identify measurable indicators

including planning meetings with NRCS and other natural resource professionals experienced in

monitoring and bioassessment, surveys of NRCS employees, reviews of restoration plans, examination of

the scientific literature, state ranking criteria for easement enrollment, and a small-scale pilot study in

North Carolina.

During the first nationwide planning meeting for NEAP in Kansas City, Missouri, we devoted one day to

discussing and identifying indicator variables that had potential to reflect biological condition on WRP,

GRP, and HFRP easements. These discussions included approximately 75 professionals with various

expertise in natural resources and bioassessment procedures. Because WRP easements are highly

variable, we further divided these discussions into forested and herbaceous wetlands. Prior to the

meeting, we requested that each participant provide a list of potential indicators they thought could

accurately determine whether the national objectives of the aforementioned programs were met. A total

of 269, 119, and 72 indicator variables were provided for WRP, GRP, and HFRP, respectively. After

discussing the indicators during the Kansas City meeting, we requested that all professionals rank each

variable (scale 1–5) based on its likelihood to track a restoration gradient (from an early to late state), and

specify which national program objective was being met. Each variable was evaluated based on its

21

overall biological importance and the feasibility with which it could be measured. Subsequently, the

NEAP team determined each indicator’s average score among meeting participants. Average rankings

based on biological importance, feasibility, and a combined score of these metrics are provided in

Appendix A of the NEAP final report for each national program objective associated with WRP, GRP,

and HFRP.

Another approach we employed to identify potential indicators was to review the NRCS state ranking

criteria used for selecting easements for enrollment. Each state develops its ranking sheets for each

easement program, which includes questions and scores to reflect a state’s priorities. The purpose of

reviewing state ranking sheets was to identify state priorities and determine if any patterns existed for

priorities among states and regions. We used an ArcGIS compatible format to spatially display patterns

in ranking criteria (i.e., objectives) to identify shared priorities among states to assist in selecting

measurable indicators for monitoring biological condition (see Appendix B of the NEAP final report). A

total of 35 and 29 major indicator criteria were identified for the GRP and WRP, respectively. We further

used these state ranking criteria to develop conceptual models for grassland and wetland ecosystems and

to develop indicator lists for Tier 2 and Tier 3 monitoring approaches (discussed below).

Proposed NRCS Monitoring Tiers

Tier 1 Approach. The Tier 1 bioassessment approach includes the use of pre-existing NRCS

monitoring strategies (i.e., yes/no qualitative data sheets) to determine biological condition on NRCS

easements. Indicators for this tier include a series of fully qualitative questions to assess the status of pre-

determined management objectives. Although this approach permits the tracking of whether specific

objectives have been completed, it will not provide a robust measure of biological condition for

conservation easements (DeSteven and Gramling 2011). Overall, we do not recommend this approach

and believe that NRCS needs to employ additional methods to accurately monitor biological condition on

stewardship lands.

Tier 2 Approach. The proposed Tier 2 bioassessment approach consists of a set of pre-determined

indicators developed to evaluate biological condition at a national scale for both the WRP and the GRP.

Indicators within this tier consist of variables relevant at the national program scale, and do not

necessarily correspond with regional or state objectives (Table 2; see pp. 382 – 397 in the NEAP final

report for a full list of indicators for WRP and GRP). Indicators have been organized into groups that

represent specific monitoring objectives for each easement program. Each indicator has been scored

relative to its potential correlation with biological condition on a scale of low (1 point), medium (2

points), and high (3 points). Literature-derived values have been assigned for each indicator to provide

threshold values to guide the scoring of condition estimates. Indicators can be scored individually at the

indicator level or can be summed to evaluate specific monitoring objectives. Additionally, indicator

values can be summed across all monitoring objectives to derive an overall representation of biological

condition. Because Tier 2 does not include the designation of reference field sites, the estimates of

biological condition will not represent “true” site condition and can only be compared relatively to other

assessed easement lands. Overall, Tier 2 is a very flexible design where additional national-scale

monitoring objectives can be added as necessary. We recommend that this tier be used if NRCS is only

concerned with monitoring biological condition at the national scale and not at regional, state, or local

scales.

Tier 3 Approach. The proposed Tier 3 bioassessment approach is similar to the Tier 2 approach in that

pre-determined indicators have been developed to evaluate biological condition, but Tier 3 has been

extended to address national, regional, and state/local scales. Tier 3 includes a greater number of

indicators, regionalized reference condition thresholds, and a more thorough evaluation of biological

condition. As with Tier 2, Tier 3 indicators are organized into groups for each program objective (Table

22

3; see pp. 382 – 419 in the NEAP final report for a full list of indicators for WRP and GRP) and each

indicator can be scored as low (1 point), medium (2 points), and high (3 points) to correlate with

biological condition. All indicators from Tier 2 are used in Tier 3 to represent national scale indicators,

and additional indicators have been added to incorporate monitoring objectives at the regional and

state/local scales. As with Tier 2, indicators can be scored individually at the indicator level, summed to

evaluate specific monitoring objectives, and also at the total easement scale. Tier 3 also does not

incorporate reference field sites; hence estimates of biological condition are relative only to NRCS

easements in the same program. Tier 3 is an optimal approach if incorporation of monitoring objectives

at multiple NRCS administrative scales is desired. Additionally, Tier 3 has the same flexibility of Tier 2

where additional monitoring objectives can be added as necessary.

Tier 4 Approach. The Tier 4 bioassessment approach for determining biological condition on NRCS

conservation easements will use a combination of level 2 (rapid) and level 3 (intensive) bioassessment

approaches. The long-term goal of this approach is to develop a strategy that permits reliable prediction of

biological condition on NRCS conservation easements and also provides the methodology to evaluate and

calibrate rapid condition assessments.

Tier 4 will include the development of a vegetation IBI, which will be developed by using biological

aspects (e.g., species richness, species diversity, percent composition) of the vascular plant community to

determine biological condition on conservation easements. In this tier, field reference conditions must be

established as a means to determine sites of high biological condition. A total site score will be

determined by summing the component scores for each indicator, resulting in site scores of low, medium,

good, or high condition. These scores can be used as either a stand-alone estimate of biological condition

or can be used to calibrate various rapid assessment approaches. The resulting rapid approaches can

ultimately be used to provide a much quicker estimate of biological condition at a given site.

Tier 4 also includes rapid bioassessment techniques, which include a set of semi-quantitative indicators

that permit rapid estimation of biological condition at a site. Similar to intensive approaches, an overall

site score is derived by summing scores from each indicator. However, with rapid approaches, indicator

scores are ranks instead of measured values on a continuous scale, which results in a quick, but often,

less-accurate assessment of condition when compared to the IBI approach. We developed draft rapid

bioassessment models for both the WRP and GRP using indicators derived from the published literature

and previously published rapid assessment approaches ([ORAM] Mack 2001; [CRAM] Collins et al.

2008; [NWCA] EPA 2011).

To evaluate the accuracy of a proposed rapid approach, it is essential to compare the condition scores

derived through the rapid approach versus an intensive assessment approach. Well-designed rapid

approaches should approximate the condition score obtained through the intensive approach; however,

when an accurate fit does not result, the rapid score can be calibrated either by weighting the indicators

based on pre-existing knowledge of the biological process(es) (Mack 2001), or by using regression

coefficients to weight the indicators after comparing the statistical fit between the intensive and rapid

approaches (Sifneos et al. 2010). We provide a method to use information-theoretic approaches to

evaluate multiple hypotheses of biological condition for preliminary rapid approaches for determining

biological condition on WRP (Table 4) and GRP (Table 5) easements (see pp. 213 – 216 and 423 – 431 in

the NEAP final report for the full rapid assessment approaches for WRP and GRP). Our proposed rapid

assessment approaches provide the option to either sum all recommended indicator variables or use an

information-theoretic approach (outlined in greater detail in the bioassessment chapter of the NEAP final

report) to develop a parsimonious index of biological condition (Tables 6,7). We are certain that Tier 4

assessment will provide reliable predictions of biological condition on easements for NRCS; however, a

pilot study should be performed for initial model calibration.

23

Costs and Workload of Proposed Tiered Approaches

We estimated the potential costs of implementing a national inventory and monitoring program at each

tier. Total workload estimates for monitoring all NRCS easements (approximately 14,000 easements) at

each tier ranged from 56,000 hours (Tier 1) – 119,000 hours (Tier 3). This workload includes time

required for transit to field sites, on-site data collection, and office time for data entry, analysis, and

reporting. Total estimated costs for implementing each assessment tier to monitor all NRCS easements

(14,000 easements) ranged from $3.85 million (Tier 1) – $7.67 million (Tier 4). These costs would incur

according to NRCS’s current 5-year monitoring schedule. Thus, annual costs are approximately $0.8

million (Tier 1) – $1.6 million (Tier 4) to monitor 20% of NRCS easements each year. This estimated

range of funding represents approximately 0.1% – 0.2% of the NRCS total apportionment for

easement programs (WRP, FRPP, GRP, and HFRP combined) and 1.3% – 2.6% of the NRCS Technical

Assistance apportionment for FY 2011. These costs include allocation for administration, staff salaries,

transportation, equipment, data management, and training. These costs roughly translate to $1.54/acre

(Tier 1) – $3.07/acre (Tier 4). However, sampling would occur on a per easement basis hence depend on

the number of easements monitored and not the actual easement acreage. Per easements costs for each

assessment tier are estimated at $275, $428, $532, and $548 for Tiers 1 – 4, respectively.

Advantages of Monitoring Biological Condition with Tiers 1 – 4

Overall, each monitoring tier will provide different benefits based on the level of funding and time to

complete the surveys. Tier 1 will require the lowest investments of time and monetary resources, but will

not provide an accurate assessment of biological condition. Tier 2 will require approximately 55% more

resources than Tier 1, but will provide NRCS with a standardized method to evaluate biological condition

at the national scale. Tier 3 will require approximately 94% more resources than Tier 1, but condition

can be monitored at national, regional, and state/local administrative scales of NRCS. Although Tiers 2

and 3 provide NRCS with a flexible strategy to monitor condition, the values in Tables 2 and 3 were

derived from the published literature and expert opinion, and therefore represent typical conditions of

natural grassland and wetland ecosystems. Although Tier 4 requires the greatest monetary investment, it

will provide NRCS with a true estimate of biological condition at the habitat patch and easement scale.

Importantly, Tier 4 can be developed to include rapid bioassessment approaches, which will facilitate

rapid estimates of biological condition on easements. Lastly, Tier 4 could be tailored to include

components of Tiers 2 or 3 to target specific monitoring objectives on an easement. Considering the

advantages of Tier 4, we recommend that NRCS adopt this strategy for monitoring biological condition

on stewardship lands.

24

Table 2. Sub-set of indicators and threshold levels for monitoring biological condition on NRCS Grassland Reserve Program easements using a

Tier 2 assessment strategy.

Criteria thresholds - condition Criteria thresholds - condition

Objective Indicator Metrics Low Med High Low Med High

Grazing Operations

Land Use Grazing / Haying Intensity

Heavy Mod Light Heavy Moderate Light

Heavy-Use Areas High Mod Low

High - Abundant

livestock trails with

extensive impacts of

erosion on local waste

sources and/or more than 1 relatively large area of

heavy-use for

supplemental feeding or water sources; easily

identified

Moderate - Abundant

livestock trails with minimal

impacts of erosion and at

least 1 moderate to large sized heavy-use area with

minimal impacts on local

water sources; easily identified

Low - Few or no livestock

trails and no large heavy-use

areas for supplemental

feeding or around water sources; minimal impacts on

ecosystem, quality of

livestock production area, or local water sources

Forage health/quality

Forage cover <50% 50% - 89% >90%

<50% - most of the

easement is planted to or

contains palatable, and desirable herbaceous

vegetation for livestock

grazing/haying

50-89% - significant area of the easement contains

palatable, and desirable

herbaceous vegetation for livestock grazing/haying

>90% easement - majority of the easement contains

palatable, and desirable

herbaceous vegetation for grazing livestock or haying

Exotic plant cover >40% 15% - 40% <15%

High >40% vegetation

cover on the easement consists of exotic

introduced species;

introduces species exhibit reduced resistance to

environmental stressors

and increase prevalence of disease; reduced

wildlife benefits

Moderate 15-40% of the

vegetation cover on the easement consists of exotic-

introduced plant species

Low <15% of the vegetation

cover on the easement consists of exotic-introduced

plant species

25

Table 3. Sub-set of indicators and threshold levels for monitoring biological condition on NRCS Wetlands Reserve Program easements using a

Tier 3 assessment strategy.

Criteria thresholds - condition Criteria thresholds - condition

Objective Indicator Metrics Low Med High Low Med High

Groundwater

Recharge Hydrology

Rapid drainage

capability (% of

easement able to be rapidly

drained)

>90% 50 - 90% <50%

>90% - water control structure or other

capability exists that can

drain most of the easement area where

standing water

accumulates

50 - 90% - water control structure or other capability

exists that can rapidly (1

week or so) drain significant amounts of the easement

area where standing water

accumulates

<50% - at least half of the

wetlands on the easement cannot be rapidly drained (1

week or so) by a water

control structure or other capability exists accumulates.

This ensures wetland

diversity and longevity and lower risk to not being

impounded (no forgetting that

boards are out of the structures)

Outflowing

ditches

(abundance and influence)

High Med None

High (lots of ditches exist

to drain the wetland behind control structures

or through ground-water

seepage)

Med (some ditches exist to

remove water, but they are stopped up, have low-flow

volumes, or can function as

wetlands themselves

None - no significant or functional ditches exist to

move water off the easement

Surface water retention time

annually - >1

acre water present

None <30 days >10 days

No surface water -

subsurface water may

contribute to recharge in some easements, but this

is not able to be rapidly measured

<10 days (very little surface water exists annually)

>30 days - significant

retention of surface water and

opportunity for infiltration

Topography

Flat topography

or formed basins <10% 10-50% >50%

% easement without significant slope or with

few closed basins - low

chance of wetland formation with surface

water

Some slopes and flat ground present - some chance of

surface water pooling

Flat topography and/or many basins present - large amount

of pooling likely

Macrotopography

creating many

basins

Uncommon Somewhat

common Common

Area level and flat with

no undulations, vernal

pools, or basins from tree-falls

Area with some undulations,

potholes, and vernal pools

Area rolling, with many

potholes and isolated basins,

and topographic variety

26

Table 4. Example indicators from a draft rapid bioassessment procedure for determining biological

condition on Wetlands Reserve Program easements. Selection of potential indicators along

with condition indices were derived using Mack (2001), Collins et al. (2008), and EPA (2011).

Ecological

Component Indicator

Biological Score

Low (1) Medium (2) Good (3) High (4)

Hydro

logic

(24 t

ota

l poin

ts)

Max. Water Depth

(M_WATERD)

Maximum water depth

in the assessment area is < 20 cm

Maximum water depth in the assessment area

is between

20 cm – 46 cm

Maximum water depth in the assessment area

is between

46 cm – 70 cm

Maximum water depth

in the assessment area is > 70 cm

Duration of inundation or saturation

(D_INUND)

Assessment area

experiences periods of rapid drying < 30 days

or is permanently

flooded

Assessment area

maintains flooded or

saturated conditions between 30 – 60 days

Assessment area

maintains flooded or

saturated conditions between 61 – 90 days

Assessment area

maintains flooded or

saturated conditions >90days, but does

experience a drying

cycle at least once over a 10 year period

Modification to hydrologic regime

(MOD_HYDRO)

Modifications in the

assessment area have occurred recently,

and/or the assessment area has not recovered

from past

modifications, and/or the modifications are

ongoing

Assessment area is recovering

from past modifications which

altered the wetland's

natural hydrologic regime

The assessment area

has recovered from past modifications which

altered the wetland's natural hydrologic

regime

There are no

modifications apparent to the

evaluator in the

assessment area

Hydrologic

connectivity

(H_CONN)

All water within the

assessment area is

contained within water banks, levees, with no

hydrologic connection

to the upland

Between 50% - 90% of water within the

assessment area is

contained within banks, levees with

partial hydrologic

connection to the upland

Between 49% - 10% of

assessment area has

unrestricted access to the uplands without

levees or artificial

banks

>90% of the water

within the assessment

area has unrestricted access to the uplands

without levees or

artificial banks

Water source

(WATER_S)

Rainfall and water

pumped directly into

the wetland are the primary water sources

in the assessment area;

the natural hydroperiod is so altered that upland

vegetation may

dominate

Rainwater or water

pumped directly into the wetland basin are

the primary water

sources in the

assessment area;

other natural water

sources contribute a small amount to the

water budget

Natural water inputs (rainfall, groundwater,

and perennial surface

water) are primary

water sources, but

artificial means (pumps,

etc.) are a minor water source

Rainfall, groundwater and perennial surface

water are the major

water sources for the wetland

Hydroperiod (HYDRO)

Both the filling/inundation and

drawdown/drying of the

assessment area deviate from natural conditions

(either increased or

decreased in magnitude and/or duration)

The filling or inundation patterns in

the assessment area

are of substantially lower magnitude or

duration than would

be expected under natural conditions,

but thereafter, the AA

is subject to natural

drawdown or drying

Hydroperiod of the

assessment area is characterized by natural

patterns of filling or

inundation, but thereafter, is subject to

more rapid or extreme

drawdown or drying, as compared to more

natural wetlands

Hydroperiod of the

assessment area is

characterized by natural patterns of filling or

inundation and drying

or drawdown

27

Table 5. Example indicators from a draft rapid bioassessment procedure for determining biological

condition on Grassland Reserve Program easements.

Ecological

Component Indicator

Biological Score

Low (1) Medium (2) Good (3) High (4)

Lan

dsc

ape

(12

to

tal

poin

ts)

Surrounding Landuse (S_LAND)

Three or greater

anthropogenic landuses

(e.g., roads, housing envelopes, cropping)

occur within 1 km of

the assessment area

At least two

anthropogenic landuse

(e.g., roads, housing envelopes, cropping)

occurs within 1 km of

the assessment area

Only one

anthropogenic landuse

(e.g., roads, housing envelopes, cropping)

occurs within 1 km of

the assessment area

No anthropogenic

landuses (e.g., roads,

housing envelopes, cropping) occur within

1 km of the assessment

area

Landscape Connectivity

(L_CONN)

No grassland habitats

exist within 1 km of the

assessment area with no intervening barriers

Only 1 native grassland

habitat exists within 1 km of the assessment

area with no

intervening barriers

At least 2 grassland

habitats exist within 1 km of the assessed

wetland with no

intervening barriers

Three or greater

grassland habitats exist within 1 km of the

assessed wetland with

no intervening barriers

Topographic Complexity

(T_COMP)

Assessment area has a

single uniform slope with little change in

elevation and only 1 or

2 habitat patches

Assessment area has

little change in elevation or slope, but

is composed of

multiple habitat patches

Assessment area has a

variety of slopes; however, habitat

patches tend to be

regular and uniform

Assessment area has a

variety of slopes and

changes in elevation and is composed of

multiple habitat types

that result in undulation and height changes

Dis

turb

ance

Reg

ime

(16 t

ota

l poin

ts)

Fire Frequency (F_FREQ)

Burning does not occur or has not occurred in

the past 10 years or

greater within the assessment area

Burning has occurred

on 7 - 10 year interval within the assessment

area

Burning has occurred

on a 4 – 6 year interval within the assessment

area

Burning has occurred on

a 1 – 3 year interval within the assessment

area

Woody Plant

Encroachment

(W_ENCR)

Woody vegetation

cover is > 50% within

the assessment area

Woody vegetation

cover is between 20% - 50% within the

assessment area

Woody vegetation

cover is between 5% - 20% within the

assessment area

Woody vegetation cover

is < 5% in the

assessment area

Anthropogenic

Disturbances

(ANTH_DIST)

> 75 of the assessment

area is impacted by anthropogenic

disturbances(ditching,

cropping, etc.) which threaten to alter

grassland functions

Between 75% - 50 % of the assessment area is

impacted by

anthropogenic disturbances (ditching,

cropping, etc.) which

threaten to alter grassland functions

Between 49% - 25% of the assessment area is

impacted by

anthropogenic disturbances (ditching,

cropping, etc.) which

threaten to alter grassland functions

< 25% of the assessment

area is impacted by anthropogenic

disturbances (ditching,

cropping, etc.) which threaten to alter

grassland functions

Grazing Intensity

(GR_INT)

Assessment area is

overgrazed (≥ 0.56 au/ha) and no grazing

rotation system has

been established

Assessment area is

moderately grazed (between 0.26 au/ha -

0.56 au/ha) and no grazing rotation system

has been established

Assessment area is

moderately grazed (0.26 au/ha – 0.56

au/ha) and a grazing rotation system has

been established

Assessment area has not

been overgrazed (< 0.26 au/ha) and a grazing

rotation system has been

established

28

Table 6. Example preliminary models of habitat condition for Grassland Reserve Program easements.

Please refer to Table 9 in the bioassessment chapter of the NEAP final report for indicator

abbreviations.

Potential Model

Model Support

NULL Null model: no relationship among indicator variables and “true” easement condition

S_LAND + S_COMP + ANTH_DIST

Surrounding landuse, anthropogenic disturbances, and level of soil

compaction will represent the impacts of human disturbance and soil disturbances on grassland condition

S_LAND + W_ENCR + F_FREQ

Surrounding landuse, woody vegetation encroachment, and fire

frequency will represent the impacts of human disturbance and disturbance regime on grassland condition

S_LAND + GR_INT + S_COMP

Surrounding landuse, grazing intensity, and soil compaction will

represent the impacts of human disturbance and livestock management on grassland condition

S_LAND + EX_SPEC + W_ENCR

Surrounding landuse, exotic plant species, and woody vegetation

encroachment will represent the relationships among surrounding landuse and undesired vegetation establishment on grassland

condition

L_CONN + GR_BIRD + ST_PATCH

Landscape connectivity, grassland bird habitat, and structural patch richness will represent the relationships among landscape

complexity and the presence of indicator species to estimate

grassland condition

L_CONN + POLL_HAB + ST_PATCH

Landscape connectivity, pollinator habitat, and structural patch

richness will represent the relationships among landscape

complexity and the presence of grassland target habitats to estimate grassland condition

L_CONN + ANTH_DIST + MICRO

Landscape connectivity, anthropogenic disturbances, and

microtopography will represent the relationships among anthropogenic disturbances, landscape complexity, and availability

of microtopography to estimate grassland condition

T_COMP + MICRO + CO_DOM

Topographic complexity, microtopography, and the number of co-dominant plant species will represent the relationships among

topographic complexity at the landscape and microsite scale and

richness of co-dominant plant species on grassland condition

T_COMP + ANTH_DIST + EX_SPEC

Topographic complexity, anthropogenic disturbances, and exotic

plant species cover will represent the influence of topographic complexity at the landscape scale, anthropogenic disturbances, and

exotic plant species establishment on grassland condition

POLL_HAB + CO_DOM The availability of pollinator habitat and the number of co-dominant plant species will represent the influence of target habitats and

vascular plant species on grassland condition

F_FREQ + EX_SPEC Fire frequency and exotic plant species cover will illustrate the influence of disturbance and exotic plant establishment on grassland

condition

GR_BIRD + CO_DOM Target grassland bird detections along with the number of co-dominant plant species will provide an accurate assessment of

grassland condition

GR_BIRD + EX_SPEC Target grassland bird detections along with exotic plant species cover will provide an accurate assessment of grassland condition

29

Table 7. Example preliminary models of habitat condition for Wetlands Reserve Program easements.

Please refer to Table 10 in the bioassessment chapter of the NEAP final report for indicator

abbreviations.

Potential Model

Model Support (Hypotheses)

Null

Null model: no relationship among indicator variables and “true”

easement condition

AA_BUFF + S_LAND + BUFF_DIST + L_CONN + T_COMP

Buffer width, surrounding landuse, buffer disturbance, landscape connectivity and topographic complexity will represent the collective

impacts of anthropogenic disturbances and topographic complexity on

wetland condition

M_WATERD + D_INUND + MOD_HYDRO + H_CONN +

WATER_S + HYDRO

Maximum water depth, duration of inundation, hydrologic

connectivity, modifications to hydrology, water source, and

hydroperiod will represent the impacts of hydrologic modifications on wetland condition

OM_ACC + N_PLLAY + EX_SPEC + CO_DOM + VB_STRUC

Organic matter accumulation, number of plant layers, exotic species

coverage, number of co-dominant plant species, and vertical biotic structure will represent the impacts of biological structure on wetland

condition

ST_PATCH + W_INTER + MICRO + CWD

Structural patch richness, wetland interspersion, level of microtopography, and coarse woody debris cover will represent the

impacts of physical structure quality on wetland condition

S_LAND + BUFF_DIST + D_INUND

Surrounding landuse, buffer disturbance, and duration of inundation will represent the impacts of human disturbance and wetland

hydrology on wetland condition

S_LAND + BUFF_DIST + EX_SPEC

Surrounding landuse, buffer disturbance, and exotic species coverage will represent the collective impacts of anthropogenic disturbance and

exotic species on wetland condition

AA_BUFF + OM_ACC + CWD

Buffer width, organic matter accumulation, and coarse woody debris cover will represent the collective contribution of buffer size and

organic and physical structure on wetland condition

M_WATERD + D_INUND + WATER_S

Maximum water depth, duration of inundation, and water source will represent the contribution of factors impacting wetland water budget

on wetland condition

CO_DOM + EX_SPEC + N_PLLAY

Number of co-dominant plant species, exotic species cover, and number of plant layers will represent the contribution of the plant

community to wetland condition

BUFF_DIST + EX_SPEC + MOD_HYDRO

Buffer disturbance, exotic species cover, and modifications to

hydrology will represent the impacts of anthropogenic disturbances to

the buffer area and overall wetland hydrology on wetland condition

W_INTER + MICRO + CWD

Wetland interspersion, microtopography, and coarse woody debris

cover will represent the contribution of structural biological features on

biological condition

L_CONN + H_CONN + ST_PATCH

Landscape connectivity, hydrologic connectivity, and structural patch

richness will represent the collective contribution of landscape

connectivity and complexity on wetland condition

L_CONN + W_INTER + M_WATERD

Landscape connectivity, wetland interspersion, and maximum water

depth will represent the collective influence of landscape connectivity

and wetland structure and hydrology on wetland condition

30

Ecosystem Services Valuation

The UTIA NEAP team has developed a framework to evaluate ecosystem services on NRCS conservation

easements (Figure 2). Ecosystem service valuations can be used to compare management strategies and

evaluate management effects on conservation values (e.g., wildlife habitat, water purification, carbon

sequestration, etc.) relative to program objectives (Tallis et al. 2011). Periodic valuations can be used to

detect trends in conservation value over time and inform future management decisions (Tallis et al. 2011).

The proposed framework assimilates periodic remote and on-site monitoring data using a geospatial

modeling suite to assess ecosystem service values and tradeoffs. We have investigated the use of software

applications for conducting ecosystem services valuation on easements and suggest the use of the

Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) software to quantify, map, and value

the benefits provided by terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems on easements. InVEST was developed by

the Natural Capital Project to support natural resource management decision-making and has been widely

used by regional and international projects. InVEST can provide information on ecosystem service

values at local and regional scales and compare tradeoffs between managing for specific ecosystem

services (e.g., timber production, water purification, sediment retention, carbon sequestration). InVEST

can be used in conjunction with periodic monitoring to describe trends in ecosystem services over time as

a result of management practices and spatial habitat conservation. Ultimately, ecosystem service

valuation provides evidence of societal benefits from investing in, managing, and ensuring compliance

on NRCS conservation easements.

Figure 2. NEAP proposed framework for evaluation of ecosystem services on NRCS easements.

31

Major Recommendations

Dedicate staff and resources to establish a robust comprehensive inventory, monitoring, and

management program. Allocate resources for full-time employees with computing, geospatial, and biological expertise

dedicated solely to coordinating the monitoring and reporting efforts. House inventory and monitoring staff within NRCS National Technology Support Centers, RSLs,

and National Headquarters. Coordinate on-site monitoring activities among states and partners. Integrate a data management infrastructure with the Conservation Delivery Streamlining

Initiative. Make biological monitoring data available to users outside the agency to demonstrate effective

use of public investment similar to U.S. Forest Service FIA. Develop a comprehensive inventory of habitat types on all easements administered by the

RSL’s using recommendations from the NEAP WRP Pilot. Adopt the Tier 4 strategy for monitoring biological condition on NRCS easements. Establish a robust sampling design (i.e., GRTS) that will allow the NRCS to make inferences on

the state of condition (low to high) at multiple levels of NRCS administration without requiring

all easements to be sampled annually. Perform ecosystem services valuation periodically on stewardship lands to provide information

on management practices and conservation values to stakeholders and public officials. Establish a data management infrastructure within a central data-delivery system accessible

through a web-based portal that can link biological monitoring information to management on

easements and allows transfer of raw data, reports, and other information. Devote at least 1/3 of financial and time resources allocated for monitoring to data

management, analysis, and reporting as recommended by the National Park Service. Conduct frequent (≥ annual) site visits and maintenance of signage and boundary markers to

encourage compliance.

Conclusions

As a leader in natural resource conservation and private lands stewardship, the NRCS has undertaken the

esteemed task to protect wetlands, grasslands, farmlands, and forested lands of the United States in

perpetuity. As the agency continues to acquire stewardship lands, the necessary resources to ensure

compliance and monitor biological condition will need to increase. The strategies and recommendations

for remote and on-site monitoring provided in this report set the foundation for a nationwide Easement

Inventory & Monitoring Program. These strategies and recommendations were compiled from a

comprehensive review of federal, state, and non-governmental agencies and incorporate the best science-

based methods available for reporting at multiple scales of administration. Once implemented, these

monitoring approaches will provide the necessary information for establishing decision support tools

under an umbrella of an adaptive management framework to demonstrate financial accountability and

environmental benefits on NRCS stewardships lands.

32

References

Anderson, J.R., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover

classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964.

United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., USA.

Andreasen, J. K., R. V. O’Neill, R. Noss, and N. C. Slosser. 2001. Considerations for the development

of a terrestrial index of ecological integrity. Ecological Indicators 1:21–35

Benson, D. E. 2001. Wildlife and recreation management on private lands in the United States. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 29:359–371.

Browder, S. F., D. H. Johnson, and I. J. Ball. 2002. Assemblages of breeding birds as indicators of

grassland condition. Biological Indicators 2:257–270.

Byers, E., and K. M. Ponte. 2005. The Conservation Easement Handbook. Land Trust Alliance and the

Trust for Public Land, San Francisco, California, USA.

Collins, J.N., E.D. Stein, M. Sutula, R. Clark, A.E. Fetscher, L. Grenier, C. Grosso, and A.

Wiskind. 2008. California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for Wetlands, v. 5.0.2. 157 pp.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater

habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, D. C., USA.

Dall, D., C. Elliot, and D. Peters. 1997. A System for mapping riparian areas in the western United States.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Washington, D. C.

Environmental Laboratory. (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical

Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi,

USA.

DeSteven, D, and J. M. Gramling. 2011. Assessing wetland restoration practices on southern agricultural

lands: the Wetland Reserve Program in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Final Report USDA

NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project-Wetlands.

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2011. National wetland condition assessment. USA-RAM

manual, version 11.0.United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office

of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C. 20460. (In review).

Fennessey, S. M., A. D. Jacobs, and M. E. Kentula. 2007. An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing

the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:543–560.

Glennon, M. J., and W. F. Porter. 2005. Effects of land use management on biotic integrity: an

investigation of bird communities. Biological Conservation 126:499–511.

Gray, M. J., and E. A. Summers. 2012. Standard bioassessment procedures for evaluating ecological

restoration in southeastern hardwood bottomlands. UT Ag Research Report 12-04. 14 pp.

33

Gray, M.J., K.E. Edwards, W.B. Sutton, H.M. Hagy, D.C. Osborne, G.D. Upchurch, and Z. Guo. 2012.

USDA NRCS National Easement Assessment Project, Final Report (October 2012). U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Easement

Assessment Project. Washington, DC.

Jacobs, A.D. 2010. Delaware rapid assessment procedure, Version 6.0. Delaware Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. 36pp.

Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu. 1993. Restoring life in running waters. Better biological monitoring. Island

Press, Washington, D.C. 206 pp.

Mack, J. J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for wetlands v. 5.0, user’s manual and scoring forms.

Columbus: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology

Unit.

McDonald, M. E. S. Paulsen, R. Blair, J. Dlugosz, S. Hale, S. Hedtke, S. Heggem, L. Jackson, K. B.

Jones, B. Levinson, A. Olsen, J. Stoddard, K. Summers, and G. Veith. 2002. EMAP research

strategy: environmental monitoring and assessment program. United States Environmental

Protection Agency. EPA 620/R-02/002. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

20460.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative Committee and Intermountain West Joint Venture

[NABCI/IWJV]. 2009. Field guide to the 2008 Farm Bill for fish and wildlife conservation

(version 1.1).

O’Connell, T. J., L. E. Jackson, and R. P. Brooks. 2000. Bird guilds as indicators of ecological condition

in the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications 10:1706–1721.

Sifneos, J. T., A. T. Herlihy, A. D. Jacobs, M. E. Kentula. 2010. Calibration of the Delaware rapid

assessment protocol to a comprehensive measure of wetland condition. Wetlands 30:1011–1022.

Tallis, H.T., T. Ricketts, A.D. Guerry, S.A.Wood, R. Sharp, E. Nelson, D. Ennaanay, S. Wolny, N.

Olwero, Vigerstol, K., D. Pennington, G. Mendoza, J. Aukema, J. Foster, J. Forrest, D. Cameron,

K. Arkema, E. Lonsdorf, C. Kennedy, G. Verutes, C.K. Kim, G. Guannel, M. Papenfus, J. Toft,

M. Marsik, J. Bernhardt. 2011. InVEST 2.2.2 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project,

Stanford. <http://ncp-dev.stanford.edu/~dataportal/invest-

releases/documentation/InVEST_2.2.2_Documentation.pdf > Accessed 25 April 2012.

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. 1996.

Framework for the future of wildlife.

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. 2009.

Oversight and Evaluation Final Report: Restoration Activities – Wetlands Reserve Program and

Emergency Watershed Protection Program Floodplain Easement. Operations Management and

Oversight Division (December 2). Draft.

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. 2010a.

Implications of Long-term Wetlands Conservation Easements: Report to Congress.

34

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. 2010b.

Wetlands Reserve Program Manual. Title 440, Part 514.

<http://policy.nrcs.usda.gov/RollupViewer.aspx?hid=17111> Accessed 30 Nov 2011.

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. 2011.

Easement stewardship lands monitoring and condition documentation. Circular 21.

< ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/SD/win/Intranet/National_Circulars/440-

PGM_Circular%20No.%2021_Easement%20Monitoring%20and%20Conditions%20Documentat

ion.pdf > Accessed 30 Nov 2011.

United States Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, Western Region [OIG]. 2008.

Audit Report: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wetlands Reserve Program,

Wetlands Restoration and Compliance. Report No. 10099-4-SF (August), Washington, DC.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Washington state wetlands rating system: western

Washington, second edition. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, USA,

Publication #93-74. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/93074.html>Accessed 23 May 2011.