# Presentation: 440948

## Notice: The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Scientists in EPA have prepared the EPA sections, and those sections have been reviewed in accordance with EPA’s peer and administrative review policies and approved for presentation and publication.  The EPA contributed funding to the construction of this website but is not responsible for it's contents. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

**Notice: The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Scientists in EPA have prepared the EPA sections, and those sections have been reviewed in accordance with EPA’s peer and administrative review policies and approved for presentation and publication.  The EPA contributed funding to the construction of this website but is not responsible for it's contents. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.**

## 	Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the Mid-Atlantic region using synoptic land cover maps

Robert P. Brooks, Denice Heller Wardrop, and Joseph A. Bishop

Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

- Robert P. Brooks, Denice Heller Wardrop, and Joseph A. Bishop
- Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center
- Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

## Penn State Cooperative Wetlands CenterRobert P. Brooks, Director

- The _mission_ of the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center (CWC)                            is to conduct, facilitate, and coordinate interdisciplinary research,                   monitoring, and training regarding wetlands and related resources,                            with an emphasis in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states.
- Primary thrust of the CWC is research, focused in _3 major areas_:
- REFERENCE WETLANDS AND WATERSHEDS - Long-term               study, monitoring, assessment, and understanding of natural                 reference wetlands;
- RESTORATION AND CREATION - Development of design             principles and monitoring protocols for wetland creation and              restoration sites; and
- ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS AND WETLAND-DEPENDENT   WILDLIFE - Development and testing of ecological indicators for         wetlands, streams, and forests.

## *Acknowledgements*Funding and collaboration:

- USEPA OWOW, Washington, DC
- USEPA ORD-STAR Grants Program
- USEPA Region 3, Wetlands, Phila., PA
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg and Baltimore District
- PADEP, Div. Waterways, Wetlands & Erosion Control, Harrisburg, PA
- THANKS!

## 	Outline

Rationale for wetlands monitoring and assessment
Concept and use of reference
Wetland Monitoring Matrix
Case studies

- Rationale for wetlands monitoring and assessment
- Concept and use of reference
- Wetland Monitoring Matrix
- Case studies

## 	  Why monitor wetlands?

Determine abundance (area) and condition (function)

Meet CWA integrity goal for all “waters”

Essential component of any Water Management Program

Comply with USEPA’s National Wetlands Monitoring Strategy

- Determine abundance (area) and condition (function)
- Meet CWA integrity goal for all “waters”
- Essential component of any Water Management Program
- Comply with USEPA’s National Wetlands Monitoring Strategy

## 	Wetland Monitoring
 (regulatory and non-regulatory purposes)

Classification and Inventory - use of hierarchical systems such as NWI and HGM over time provide trend data

Assessment Methodologies - intensity of data collection to determine condition (health) will vary by purpose (e.g., permit evaluation vs. regional reporting of condition)

Watershed level reporting and listing - prioritize, rank, and target sites for action (e.g., preservation, conservation, restoration, and mitigation)

-  (regulatory and non-regulatory purposes)
**Classification and Inventory** - use of hierarchical systems such as NWI and HGM over time provide trend data
**Assessment Methodologies** - intensity of data collection to determine condition (health) will vary by purpose (e.g., permit evaluation vs. regional reporting of condition)
**Watershed level reporting and listing** - prioritize, rank, and target sites for action (e.g., preservation, conservation, restoration, and mitigation)

## Conceptual Wetland Condition Gradient

- High

- Low

## Slide 9

## 	    Wetland Monitoring continued...

Practical and feasible:
	- Rotating basins by region
	- Coarse level screening with remote    	sensing
	- Fine level evaluation on selected sites
	- Sharing of compatible reference data
	- Regulatory and non-regulatory 	approaches

*Practical and feasible:*
- 	- Rotating basins by region
- 	- Coarse level screening with remote    	sensing
- 	- Fine level evaluation on selected sites
- 	- Sharing of compatible reference data
- 	- Regulatory and non-regulatory 	approaches

## 				Reference
Benchmark for comparative assessments
Streams:
		     reference = best attainable 
		     disturbed = < reference

Wetlands:  
		     reference std. = best attainable
		     reference = < reference std.

	Need a gradient of sites from high to low ecological integrity.

- Benchmark for comparative assessments
- Streams:
- 		     reference = best attainable
- 		     disturbed = < reference
- Wetlands:
- 		     reference std. = best attainable
- 		     reference = < reference std.
- 	Need a gradient of sites from high to low ecological integrity.

## Slide 12

## Questions

- How do we find the wetlands? (Inventory)
- How do we assess their ecological integrity? (Condition)
- How do we use this information to improve condition? (Restoration)

- Inventory

- Condition

- Restoration

**Notes:**
Always three questions, no matter the resource

## Wetland Monitoring Matrix

- 		_INVENTORY_	  _ASSESSMENT_ 	        _RESTORATION_
- LEVEL 1	Use existing map	  Map land uses in           Produce synoptic
- 		resources (NWI)	  watershed; compute      watershed map of
- 		of wetlands	  landscape metrics          restoration potential
- LEVEL 2	Enhance inventory    Rapid site visit and        Select sites for
- 		using landscape-	  stressor checklist;          restoration; examine
- 		based decision rules  preliminary condition    levels of threat from
- 				  assessment	         surroundings
- LEVEL 3	Map wetland zone	  Apply HGM and IBI     Map specific sites
- 	 	abundance using       models to selected	         for restoration;
- 		verified inventory     sites for condition	         design projects with
- 				  based on reference         reference data sets

## LEVEL 1Landscape Assessment

## Why on a watershed basis?

- Watersheds are more efficient unit financially, socially, ecologically
- Accounting Unit (AU) for Integrated 303(d)/305(b) Reporting
- Conceptually attractive for local managers
- Watershed reporting of wetland condition by state by 2014

## Slide 17

## Forested - 22%

- Agriculture - 40%
- Urban - 38%

## Slide 19

## Slide 20

## Slide 21

## Slide 22

## Slide 23

## Level 1 Watershed ScoresBased on 50 Randomly-Selected Wetlands

**Level 1 Watershed Scores****Based on 50 Randomly-Selected Wetlands**

## LEVEL 2Rapid Assessment

## Slide 26

## Stressor Checklist

- Hydrologic Modification
- Sedimentation
- Dissolved oxygen
- Contaminant toxicity
- Vegetation alteration

- Eutrophication
- Acidification
- Turbidity
- Thermal Alteration
- Salinity

## Rapid Assessment Score

**Rapid Assessment Score**

- Combination of landscape, buffer, and site-specific stressors
- Score=Buffer+(%For*WF)-Buffer Hits

- Landscape

- Buffer

- Wetland

- Buffer Penetration

- Stressors (on-site)

## Slide 29

## Slide 30

## Slide 31

## LEVEL 3Quantitative Assessment

## HGM Functional Assessment Models for Wetlands

- Energy dissipation/Short term SW detention
- Long term SW storage
- Interception of groundwater

- Plant community structure and composition
- Detritus
- Vertebrate community structure and composition
- Invertebrate community structure and composition
- Maintenance of landscape-scale biodiversity

- Cycling of redox-sensitive compounds
- Solute adsorption capacity
- Retention of inorganic particulates
- Export of organic particulates
- Export of dissolved organic matter

## Plant-based IBI metrics - S. Miller

- Tested over 40 potential plant metrics
- Selected 8 to build IBI
- Adjusted FQAI
- % Annuals
- % Non-natives
- % Invasives
- % Trees
- % Cryptogams (ferns and fern allies)
- % Cover of tolerant plant species
- % Cover of *Phalaris arundinacea*

## r = -0.889 P < 0.001

*r* = -0.889 *P* < 0.001

## Summary

- Multi-level assessment approach described and verified at each of 3 levels
- Each of the 3 levels is informative
- Can be adapted to meet federal, state, and tribal needs for all “waters” and WQS
- Can implement coarse-level watershed prioritization now!