Natural resource condition assessment: Lewis and Clark National Historical Park
Schwemm CA (ed). 2020. Natural resource condition assessment: Lewis and Clark National Historical Park. Natural Resource Report. NPS/LEWI/NRR—2020/2108. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado
The NRCA study team compiled existing data and information to characterize the condition and trends of high priority natural resources in Lewis and Clark National Historical Park. This report and the spatial datasets provided with it are intended to inform and support park managers and scientists in developing recommendations for protecting and improving the condition of natural resources in the park. The NRCA can also assist park resource managers in meeting the reporting requirements of the Government Performance Results Act and Office of Management and Budget. Resource elements selected for assessment were organized into eleven chapters: 1) Air Quality; 2) Climate; 3) Freshwaters (includes Surface Hydrology/Quality and Groundwater Hydrology/Quality); 4) Estuaries (includes Physical Elements, Biological Components, and specifically Juvenile Salmon), 5) Forest Health and Disturbance; 6) Non-salmonid Fish; 7) Amphibians; 8) Mammals; 9) Natural Night Skies and Natural Quiet; 10) Nearshore Physical Environment; and 11) Landuse and Connectivity. Indicators (quantitatively measurable descriptors) were identified to evaluate the condition and trend of these resources. Reference conditions were established for each indicator, though in some cases sufficient data were not available to provide a quantitative evaluation for an indicator. The selection and identification of indicators even when data are not available for analysis is an important exercise, however, because it establishes a need for new data and provides the foundation for future assessments that may be able to incorporate data that currently do not exist. For each resource, measures for each indicator selected for that resource were compared with reference conditions. In many cases the absence of data for reference conditions and/or the current state of indicators allowed only qualitative comparisons, and for those resources confidence in the assessment was generally low. Evaluation of all indicators for a resource was made subjectively to come to a conclusion regarding the current condition of a resource. With this information the authors then provided their best judgement on each resource condition in terms of management response using the terms “Good”, “Of Moderate Concern”, “Of Significant Concern”, or “Unknown.” Trends in condition were described as “Improving”, “Stable”, “Declining”, or “Unknown.” Finally, as mentioned, the confidence in each resource assessment was provided as "High", "Medium", or "Low".