EPA/620/R-04/009

January 2004

REVIEW OF RAPID METHODS

FOR ASSESSING WETLAND CONDITION

By

M. Siobhan Fennessy1, Amy D. Jacobs2, and Mary E. Kentula3

1 Biology Department

Kenyon College

Gambier, OH 43022

2 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Water Resources Division/Watershed Assessment Section

Dover, DE 19904

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory

Western Ecology Division

Corvallis, OR 97333

NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
i

NOTICE

This review of wetland assessment methods was funded wholly by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and conducted in support of the Environmental Monitoring

and Assessment Program (EMAP). It has been subjected to review by the Natural Health and

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and Western Ecology Division and approved for

publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor

does mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or

recommendation for use.

The correct citation for this document is:

Fennessy, M.S., A.D. Jacobs, and M.E. Kentula. 2004. Review of Rapid Methods for

Assessing Wetland Condition. EPA/620/R-04/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank several reviewers for their insightful comments that

substantially improved the quality of this report. John Calloway (University of San

Francisco), Andree Breaux (California Regional Water Quality Control Board), David

Lawhead (California Department of Fish and Game) and Randy Apfelbeck (Montana

Department of Environmental Quality) all contributed valuable time in reviewing a previous

draft. We would like to pay special thanks to Richard Sumner (U.S. EPA) for his invaluable

assistance in developing these ideas and his endless energy in advancing the science that

supports wetland protection. 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements............................................................................. ii

Introduction....................................................................................... 1

Analysis of Methods ........................................................................... 15

Observations and Conclusions ................................................................ 20

Literature Cited................................................................................... 28

Appendices........................................................................................ 30

Appendix A.............................................................................. 31

Appendix B.............................................................................. 37

Appendix C.............................................................................. 45
iv

FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual model showing the links between the wetlands being evaluated and the

core elements of a rapid assessment method. The model is hierarchical with respect to the

ecological features that define wetlands (ovals on the left) and the indicators which can be

adapted to evaluate the resulting wetland condition (boxes on

right)............................................................................................... 16

Figure 2. A schematic to illustrate the concept of ecological integrity as the integrating

function of wetlands encompassing both ecosystem structure and processes. In this case

integrity is shown to include biogeochemical processes that lead to functions such as nitrogen

removal, hydrological processes that lead to the flood control function, and habitat functions

(based on Smith et. al., 1995)............................................ 24
v

TABLES

Table 1. Citations and sources for the assessment methods reviewed. ...................7

Table 2. Summary of the rapid assessment methods reviewed in the report including

information on what each method assesses (e.g., functions versus condition), the wetlands

types the method was designed for, an estimate of how long a typical wetland assessment

might take using the method, and a summary of our conclusions on each method..... 10

Table 3. Major categories of indicators used in the rapid assessment methods reviewed,

including the characteristic(s) that the indicator is based on and a tally of methods using that

indicator (from high to low). Note that this table is not comprehensive in that it does not

include all indicators given in each method. A more detailed list of indicators can be found

in the appendix (Table B-1)............................................................. 18

Table A-1. A comparison of the seven methods selected for evaluation relative to the

conceptual model (Figure 1) summarizing how each method addresses the universal features

that define wetland ecosystems...................................................... 31

Table A-2. A comparison of the seven methods selected for evaluation relative to the

conceptual model (Figure 1) summarizing how each method addresses regional factors

including the wetland types specific to the region as well as any consideration given to the

ecosystem services provided by and/or special values placed on some wetlands.. 33

Table A-3. A comparison of the seven methods selected for evaluation relative to the

conceptual model (Figure 1) summarizing how each method addresses the stressors that act

to degrade wetland condition. ............................................................ 35

Table B-1. Indicators selected from the sixteen rapid assessment methods originally

included in our analysis. Note that this table is not comprehensive in that it does not include

all indicators given in each method. Indicators of most interest and/or applicability have

been selected, with an emphasis on rapid indicators that make up the core elements (universal

features, regional factors, and stressors) of any assessment method.

........................................................................................... 37
1

INTRODUCTION

A priority of the EPA’s National Wetland Program is the development of wetland

monitoring and assessment programs by States and Tribes. A primary goal of such programs

is to report on the ambient condition of the wetland resource. Strategies for designing an

effective monitoring program are described in what is known as the “three-tier framework”

for wetland monitoring and assessment. This approach breaks assessment procedures into a

hierarchy of three levels that vary in intensity and scale, ranging from broad, landscape-scale

assessments (known as Level 1 methods), rapid field methods (Level 2) to intensive

biological and physico-chemical measures (Level 3). Each level can be used to validate and

inform the others, for example data collected with a rapid method can be used to validate and

refine remote, landscape level techniques. Biological assessments (Level 3) are often used to

calibrate or validate rapid methods (Level 2). Rapid assessment methods hold a central

position in monitoring programs because once established, they can provide sound,

quantitative information on the status of the wetland resource with a relatively small

investment of time and effort.

This report provides an analysis of existing wetland rapid assessment methods that

have been developed for use in state and tribal programs. There is an increasing number of

wetland assessment procedures available. In this analysis we set out to identify the rapid

methods that are most suitable for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands, whether it

be for regulatory purposes, to assess the ambient condition of wetlands on a watershed basis,

or to determine mitigation project success. The methods reviewed here were developed for a

variety of purposes including use in regulatory decision making, local land use planning, and

the assessment of ambient ecosystem condition. Despite the different program needs that

sparked their development, many of these methods share common features.

As we began this work we recognized that there have been many rapid methods

written over the past ten years, making available an abundance of very useful information on

wetland assessment. This means that for wetland programs requiring an assessment method

there are a wealth of tested ideas available, limiting the need to “reinvent the wheel.” In our

analysis we have highlighted the common ground that many of these methods share,
2

particularly the metrics that appear to be very robust under a wide variety of circumstances.

These metrics should be highly transferable among states or regions. Additionally, we

identified some common pitfalls to avoid when developing a rapid assessment method

specifically to evaluate wetland condition. We present many of the results of our review in

the form of tables and bulleted text with the idea that the main points would be readily

accessible to the reader. For those who would like more specifics on a method, we have

provided complete citations and information on how to obtain copies of the 16 methods

reviewed (Table 1).

Rapid assessment methods have been shown to be sensitive tools to assess

anthropogenic impacts to wetland ecosystems (Fennessy et al. 1998; van Dam et al. 1998,

Bartoldus 1999, Mack et al. 2000). As such they can serve as a means to evaluate best

management practices, to assess restoration and mitigation projects, to prioritize wetland

related resource management decisions, and to establish aquatic life use standards for

wetlands. Our goal was to evaluate existing methods that were developed for a broad array of

purposes for their use in assessing condition; this review is in no way a critique of each

method relative to its intended use. An appropriate Level 2 method will be a valuable tool

for many states that are moving toward developing state-wide wetland assessment programs.

By building upon existing monitoring tools we will be able to more fully incorporate

wetlands into water quality programs.

Criteria used to evaluation assessment methods

In adopting or developing a rapid assessment method for use in wetland monitoring

and assessment programs, we felt the following four considerations were important:

1) The method can be used to measure condition. A principal goal of the Clean

Water Act is to maintain and restore the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the

waters of the United States. According to 33 U.S.C. §1251(a) integrity can be defined as the

ability of a system to support and maintain a “...balanced integrated, adaptive community of

organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to

the natural habitat of the region” (Karr and Dudley 1981, U.S. EPA 2002a). By contrast,

ecological condition describes the extent to which a given site departs from full ecological
3

integrity (if at all). Condition can be defined as the relative ability of a wetland to support and

maintain its complexity and capacity for self-organization with respect to species

composition, physico-chemical characteristics and functional processes as compared to

wetlands of a similar class without human alterations. Ultimately, condition results from the

integration of the chemical, physical and biological processes that maintain the system over

time. Methods best suited to measure condition reflect this by providing a quantitative

measure describing where a wetland lies on the continuum ranging from full ecological

integrity (or the least impacted condition) to highly impaired (poor condition). A single

numeric score is the result. This score is not meant to measure absolute value or have

intrinsic meaning, but allow comparisons between wetlands to be made.

By contrast, many of the wetland assessment methods developed to date report on a

suite of functions and values, or assess only the habitat value of a given area. Many rapid

functional assessment methods assign qualitative scores (high, medium, low) to each function

individually, an approach that makes comparisons between wetlands sites difficult. Because

a primary goal of monitoring and assessment programs is to report on the ambient condition

of the wetland resource (U.S. EPA 2003), methods that evaluate condition directly should

effectively serve program needs. Information derived from monitoring programs can also be

used to develop and support aquatic life use designations for the implementation of wetland

water quality standards. Condition can describe the relative ability of a waterbody to support

its designated uses, thus the adoption of a rapid method is a key in the implementation of

such standards. The issues associated with evaluating condition versus function are discussed

in more detail below.

2) The method should be rapid. Consideration was given to how much time a

method would take to complete. A rapid method must be able to provide an accurate

assessment of condition in a relatively short time period. For this reason we define

“rapid” as taking no more than two people a half day in the field and requiring no more

than a half day of office preparation and data analysis to come to an answer. We also

considered the relative ease of collecting field data required by each method. The time

required to complete the methods evaluated here ranged from a few hours to more than

two days.
4

3) The method must be an on-site assessment. An accurate evaluation using a

rapid method requires a site visit to ensure that the method captures the current condition

of the wetland and does not infer condition based solely on surrounding landscape

characteristics or the potential of a wetland to perform certain wetland functions. The

notion of awarding points to a wetland because it has the opportunity to perform certain

functions (regardless of whether or not it is doing so) dates back to some of the earliest

wetland assessment methods (e.g., WET; Adamus 1987). This information, while

valuable, does not relate directly to the measurement of ecological condition.

The requirement of a site visit implies that field protocols must be developed to

ensure consistency and repeatability between users. One important decision is how to

define the area of wetland to be included in the assessment. This is referred to as the

‘wetland assessment area’ or the area within a ‘scoring boundary.’ In many instances this

is a simple matter of assessing the entire wetland, for example, when assessing a

relatively small wetland the scoring boundaries will generally coincide with jurisdictional

boundaries. When dealing with very large wetlands or a smaller area that is part of a

larger wetland complex, decision rules to identify what area to include in the assessment

must be developed. Misidentification of the assessment area can result in either the

under- or over- scoring of a given wetland (e.g., Mack 2001).

4) The method can be verified. Verification may be achieved based on information

gathered through empirical studies using results from more intensive wetland monitoring

activities (i.e., Level 3 assessments). In this way the assumptions behind the assessment can

be tested. 

Study Approach

Over 40 methods were originally considered for analysis. We focused on the methods

reviewed by Bartoldus (2000) and those that were subsequently published. We quickly

evaluated each method; if it was obvious that the method was not a rapid assessment it was

eliminated from further consideration. For example, the original list included many Level 3

methods such as full HGM functional assessments (e.g., Brinson 1993, Smith et al. 1995) and
5

wetland indexes of biotic integrity (IBIs; see Karr and Chu 1997). Several landscape level

assessments (Level 1) such as the Synoptic Approach for Wetlands Cumulative Effects

Assessment (Leibowitz et al. 1992, Abbruzzese and Leibowitz. 1997) were also listed. When

these methods were eliminated, 25 of the 41 methods had been disqualified.

The remaining 16 methods were kept for a more detailed analysis using the four

criteria described above (see Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix C: Overview of Methods). This

report describes the results of our more detailed review culminating with the identification of

seven methods that meet the four criteria outlined above. These seven were further evaluated

relative to a conceptual model describing the components of an ecologically sound wetland

assessment method (Figure 1 and Appendix A). All 16 methods were considered for ideas on

indicators, scoring or regionalization (Table 3). 

Implementing a Rapid Assessment Method

Several operational issues must be addressed to successfully develop or adapt a rapid

assessment method and put it to use in the field. These include how wetlands in the state or

region will be classified, how the method will be scored (e.g., will some indicators be

weighted more heavily than others), and ways in which the values that we place on certain

wetland functions or characteristics can be recognized.

Wetland classification schemes have been developed to help reduce the variability

inherent in wetland ecosystems. Classification systems typically define wetland types

according to differences in hydrologic conditions (source of water, hydroperiod,

hydrodynamics), vegetation (emergent, shrub-scrub), topography (depressional, riverine), and

to a lesser degree, soils (muck, peat, unconsolidated). The goal of classification is to reduce

variability within a class and enable more sensitivity in detecting differences between leastimpacted and impaired wetlands. Classification schemes may be based on landscape

characteristics (for example Omernik’s or Bailey’s ecoregions), or local environmental

conditions (Cowardin classification, or the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach (U.S. EPA

2002b). Some assessment methods embed the issue of classification within the method while

others, particularly those that are based on indicators of stressors, are “blind” to wetland type.
6

Finally, many rapid methods acknowledge that some wetland types or features are

particularly valuable regardless of condition. For instance, wetlands in urban settings may

have a high degree of human disturbance and therefore be of low condition, but they may be

highly valued as green space or for the educational opportunities they provide. We term

metrics that award extra points for these reasons “value added metrics”. These can

substantially increase the flexibility of the method to meet program needs.
7

Table 1. Citations and sources for the 16 wetland assessment methods reviewed. 

Name Citation Source

Delaware Method

(Draft)

Jacobs, A.D. Working Draft. Delaware Rapid Assessment

Procedure. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control, Dover DE.

Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control, Water Resources

Division/Watershed Assessment Section, 820

Silver Lake Blvd., Suite 220, Dover, DE 19904

Florida Wetland Quality

Index (FWQI)

Lodge, T.E., H.O. Hillestad, S.W. Carney, and R.B. Darling.

1995. Wetland Quality Index (WQI): A Method for

Determining Compensatory Mitigation Requirements for

Ecologically Impacted Wetlands. Proceedings of the

American Society of Civil Engineers South Florida Section,

Annual Meeting, Sept 22-23, 1995, Miami, FL.

Law Engineering, 3301 Atlantic Ave., Raleigh, NC

27604

Florida Wetland Rapid

Assessment Procedure

(FWRAP)

Miller, R.E., Jr. and B.E. Gunsalus. 1999. Wetland Rapid

Assessment Procedure. Technical Publication REG-001.

Natural Resource Management Division, Regulation

Department, South Florida Water Management District, West

Palm Beach, FL. 

The document can be downloaded from

http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/reg/nrm/wrap99.htm

Maryland Department of

the Environment Method

(MDE method)

Furgro East, Inc. 1995. A Method for the Assessment of

Wetland Function. Maryland Department of the

Environment, Baltimore, MD. 240pp.

Fugro East Inc., Six Maple Street, Northborough,

MA 01532

Massachusetts Coastal

Zone Management

Method

Hicks, A. L. and B. K. Carlisle. 1998. Rapid Habitat

Assessment of Wetlands, Macro-Invertebrate Survey Version:

Brief Description and Methodology. Massachusetts Coastal

Zone Management Wetland Assessment Program, Amherst,

MA.

Bruce K. Carlisle

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

100 Cambridge Street

Boston, MA 02202

(617) 626-1200

Minnesota Routine

Assessment Method

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 2003.

Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating

Wetland Functions (MNRAM) Version 3.0. Minnesota Board

of Water and Soil Resources, St. Paul, MN.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources

(651) 296-3767,

http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/mnram/inde

x.html
8

Name Citation Source

Montana Wetland

Assessment Method

Burglund, J. 1999. Montana Wetland Assessment Method.

Montana Department of Transportation and MorrisonMaierle, Inc., Helena, MT

Montana Department of Transportation,

Environmental Services, 2701 Prospect Ave., P.O.

Box 201001, Helena, MT 59620-1001

New Hampshire Coastal

Method

Cook, R.A., A.J. Lindley Stone, and A.P. Ammann. 1993.

Method for the Evaluation and Inventory of Vegetated Tidal

Marshes in New Hampshire: Coastal Method. Audubon

Society of New Hampshire, Concord, NH.

The Audubon Society of New Hampshire,

3 Silk Farm Road, Concord, NH 03301

New Hampshire Method Ammann, A.P. and A. Lindley Stone. 1991. Method for the

Comparative Evaluation of Nontidal Wetlands in New

Hampshire. NHDES-WRD-1991-3. New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH.

NH Department of Environmental Services, Water

Resource Division, Wetlands Bureau, P.O. Box

2008, Concord, NH 03302 (603) 271-2147

Ohio Rapid Assessment

Method (ORAM)

Mack, J.J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for

Wetlands v. 5.0: User’s Manual and Forms. Ohio EPA

Technical Report WET/2001-1. Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency Division of Surface Water, 401/Wetland

Ecology Unit, Columbus, OH.

The document can be downloaded from

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/401/

Oregon Freshwater

Wetlands Assessment

Method

Roth, E., R. Olsen, P. Snow, and R. Sumner. 1996. Oregon

Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology. Wetlands

Program, Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR.

Wetlands Program, Oregon Division of State

Lands, 775 Summer St. NE, Salem, OR 97310

Penn State Stressor

Checklist

Brooks, R.P., D.H. Wardrop, and J.A. Bishop. 2002.

Watershed-Based Protection for Wetlands in Pennsylvania:

Levels 1 & 2 - Synoptic Maps and Rapid Field Assessments,

Final Report. Report No. 2002-1 of the Penn State

Cooperative Wetlands Center, University Park, PA

16802. 64 pp.

The Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center,

University Park, PA 16802

Virginia Institute of

Marine Science Method

(VIMS)

Bradshaw, J.G. 1991. A Technique for the Functional

Assessment of Nontidal Wetlands in the Coastal Plain of

Virginia. Special Report No. 315 in Applied Marine Science

and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,

College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.

The document can be downloaded from

http://ccrm.vims.edu/VIMSMethodReportNo315.pdf
9

Name Citation Source

Washington State

Wetland Rating System

(Eastern)

Washington State Department of Ecology. Draft revision.

Washington State Wetlands Rating System: Eastern

Washington. Second Edition. Publication #02-06-019.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

The documents can be downloaded from

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0206019a.html

Washington State

Wetland Rating System

(Western)

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Washington

State Wetlands Rating System: Western Washington. Second

Edition. Publication #93-74. Washington State Department

of Ecology, Olympia, WA

The documents can be downloaded from

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/93074.html

Wisconsin Rapid

Assessment Method

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1992. Rapid

Assessment Methodology for Evaluating Wetland Functional

Values. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

9pp.Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, PO

Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707
10

Table 2. Summary of the 16 rapid assessment methods reviewed in the report including information on the method’s suitability for

assessing condition, the wetlands types the method was designed for, an estimate of how long a typical wetland assessment might take

using the method, and a summary of the pros and cons for using each method to assess condition.

Procedure Assesses Condition? Wetland Types

Assessed Time to Do Pros Cons

Delaware Method

(Draft)

Yes Tidal and non tidal

wetlands in Delaware

< 0.5 day Can be used on all HGM

subclasses

Rapid and easy to use

May not work where

stressors are not obvious,

i.e., non-point source

impacts

Stressor list would require

regionalization

Florida Wetland

Quality Index

(FWQI)

No

Evaluates mitigation site

compliance

Mitigation wetlands Day + Combines indicators for an

overall score

Weights indicators based on

their importance

Easy to use

Not a rapid assessment

Developed specifically for

mitigation sites, may not

be applicable for naturally

occurring wetlands

Florida Wetland

Rapid Assessment

Procedure

(FWRAP)

Yes

Designed for mitigation

projects with a habitat

emphasis but does provide

a single score that may be

interpreted as condition.

Designed for mitigation

projects, but may have

broader applications

< Day Rapid

Easy to follow directions

Allows user to adjust scores

based on the site conditions

Narrative descriptions of

variables combine many

indicators into one score

Heavily weighted to

evaluate wildlife habitat
11

Procedure Assesses Condition? Wetland Types

Assessed Time to Do Pros Cons

Maryland

Department of the

Environment

Method (MDE

method)

No

Functional capacity for

each of 8 functions.

Results in an overall score

but does not represent

condition because

opportunity metrics are

included

Non tidal palustrine

vegetated wetlands

Day + Comprehensive list of 

indicators and wetland

characteristics

Flow charts easy to read,

providing a well organized

layout for scoring

Not a rapid assessment

Does not include many

stressor indicators

Massachusetts

Coastal Zone

Management

Method

Yes

Provides a single score for

habitat and surrounding

landscape

Separate versions for

freshwater wetlands and

salt marshes

0.5 day Rapid

Developed specifically to

evaluate macroinvertebrate

habitat but metrics have

much wider applicability

Evaluates both tidal and

nontidal systems

Format is easy to follow

Flexible scoring allows

observer to assign scores

within a range

Combines numerous

metrics into one indicator

Combines all human

stressors into one indicator

Minnesota Routine

Assessment Method

No Freshwater wetlands 0.5 day Comprehensive list of

indicators

Some questions difficult to

assess rapidly in the field

and may require GIS
12

Procedure Assesses Condition? Wetland Types

Assessed Time to Do Pros Cons

Minnesota Routine

Assessment Method

(continued)

Scores of 12 functions and

restoration potential,

sensitivity to

development, and

stormwater treatment

needs

Includes measures of

value and opportunity

A computer program is

required to score each

function

Montana Wetland

Assessment Method

Yes

Designed to evaluate 12

functions but provides

single score that may be

interpreted as condition

Score relates to a

regulatory category based,

in part, on degree of

disturbance and

replacement potential

Freshwater wetlands 0.5 Day Easy to use

Good ideas for rapid field

indicators

Some indicators not rapid

and may be difficult to

determine in the field

Emphasis is on identifying

unique and high value

wetlands

New Hampshire

Coastal Method

No

Scores 12 separate

functions

Tidal marshes of New

Hampshire

Day + Good list of indicators

Ideas for adapting nontidal

methods to tidal systems

Not a rapid assessment

No overall score produced

New Hampshire

Method

No

Scores each of 14

functional values

Nontidal wetlands of

New Hampshire

Day + Good list of indicators Not rapid

No overall score produced
13

Procedure Assesses Condition? Wetland Types

Assessed Time to Do Pros Cons

Ohio Rapid

Assessment Method

(ORAM)

Yes Freshwater wetlands < 0.5 day Questions are clearly stated

Rapid

Provides an overall rating

Easy to calculate final score

Includes some value

measurements therefore

scores some types of

wetlands higher not

necessarily due to

condition

Oregon Freshwater

Wetlands

Assessment Method

No

Scores each of 9 functions

Weighted heavily on

measures of value and

opportunity

Freshwater wetlands Day + Comprehensive list of valueadded indicatorsNot a rapid assessment

Function category

descriptions are vague

(e.g., provides habitat for

some wildlife species)

Penn State Stressor

Checklist

Yes

Weights all stressors as

being equal

Freshwater wetlands < 0.5 day Field portion of method is

easy to use

Rapid

Method is not rapid due to

landscape analysis that is

required prior to field use

Stressor list would need to

regionalization

Virginia Institute of

Marine Science

Method (VIMS)

No

Scores each of 7 functions

Weighted heavily on

measures of opportunity

Freshwater wetlands,

primarily streams

Day + Approach to using landscape

attributes in functional

assessment may be useful in

the development of

landscape assessment

techniques

Not a rapid assessment

Primarily a desktop

evaluation

Evaluates opportunity not

condition

Complex data needs
14

Procedure Assesses Condition? Wetland Types

Assessed Time to Do Pros Cons

Washington State

Wetland Rating

System (Eastern/

HGM-based)

No

Evaluates functions and

special characteristics

Weighted heavily on

opportunity

Freshwater wetlands in

eastern Washington

0.5 day Rapid

Questions clearly stated

Easy to perform

Provides overall score

Includes some value

measurements

Rates wetlands higher

based on opportunity

Washington State

Wetland Rating

System (Western)

Yes

Also evaluates sensitivity

to disturbance, rarity, and

irreplaceability

Freshwater wetlands in

western Washington

0.5 day Rapid

Easy to use

Includes measures of

condition

Includes some value

measurements

Certain types of wetlands

score higher because of

opportunity

Not all wetlands receive a

numerical score

Wisconsin Rapid

Assessment Method

No

Scores each of 7 functions

and values

Weighted heavily on

measures of value and

opportunity

Freshwater wetlands Day Rapid assessment

Questions clearly stated

Easy to perform

Relationship between

indicators and function

scores based on best

professional judgment

Includes opportunity and

value measurements
15

ANALYSIS OF METHODS

Of the sixteen methods analyzed, seven met the four criteria we established (assess

condition, are rapid, require a site visit, and can be validated), indicating that they could be

considered for use in developing and implementing a wetland monitoring and assessment

program (see Appendix A – C for details on the methods). These methods were, the draft

Delaware Method, the FWRAP, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Method, Montana

Method, ORAM, the Penn State Stressor Checklist, and the Washington State Wetland

Rating System-Western. Each method was evaluated relative to a conceptual model (Figure

1) showing the relationship between the ecological features that define wetlands (ovals on the

left) and the indicators used to evaluate the resulting wetland condition (boxes on right). The

model illustrates how method development proceeds from an understanding of the ecological

factors that create and sustain wetlands, of how regional hydrogeologic conditions such as

geomorphology and the pathways of water flow drive the formation of regional wetland

classes with characteristic structure and functions, and how these wetland types respond to

anthropogenic disturbance (stressors). Effective rapid assessment techniques are based on

indicators of wetland condition that are derived from an understanding of the processes that

create, maintain and degrade wetlands on the landscape.

Wetlands by definition are characterized by three features: hydrology (hydroperiod,

mean depth, etc.), the presence of hydric soils and the resulting biotic communities,

particularly the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrology is considered the master

variable of wetland ecosystems, driving the development of wetland soils and leading to the

development of the biotic communities (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). We term these the

universal features of wetlands and they serve as the foundation of any assessment method

(Table A-1).

The model also recognizes that wetlands vary regionally and that this variability must

be accounted for when developing reliable indicators of condition. Regionalization
16

Figure 1. Conceptual model showing the links between the wetlands being evaluated and the core elements of a rapid assessment method.

The model is hierarchical with respect to the ecological features that define wetlands (ovals on the left) and the indicators that can be

adapted to evaluate wetland condition (boxes on right).
17

in this case is described in terms of the hydrogeologic settings and the hydrogeomorphology

that dictate wetland form and function and that influence the selection or calibration of

indicators (Table A-2). The values placed on specific wetland classes or ecosystem services

are also addressed here. Hydrogeologic settings are defined as the position of wetlands

relative to surface and ground water inflows and the characteristics of the surficial geology

that control water movement (Winter 1988, 1992, Bedford 1996). The specific landscape

settings that support wetlands are termed “templates” by Bedford (1999). Templates are the

result of hydrologic variables operating at the landscape scale that generate and maintain

different wetland types, or classes. The diversity of wetland types (kinds, numbers, relative

abundance, and spatial distribution) can be summarized in a wetland landscape profile. In this

way regional hydrogeologic and hydrogeomorphic characteristics act as a sieve, selecting for

the wetland types and locations (i.e., the profile) that are sustainable in a particular landscape.

The ecological factors that define wetlands (hydrology, soils, and biota) are the basis

for indicators (or assessment questions) with broad applicability under a wide range of

circumstances and are expected to be components of any method. We define these as the

core elements of a method. Common indicators reflecting the core elements are shown in

Table 3 and include those on hydrology, soils, vegetation, and landscape setting. All sixteen

methods reviewed address hydrology; many emphasize the stressors that affect hydrologic

processes (e.g., ditching and culverts; Table 3). Hydroperiod is another important

consideration; half of the methods use the duration of flooding and the sources of water to the

wetland as core indicators. Soils received the least attention with several methods not

mentioning soils at all. Features of the biotic communities, particularly vegetation, were the

basis for many indicators. Most methods rely on the structural characteristics of the plant

community (number of communities present, degree of interspersion, vegetation cover) as

indicators of overall biotic richness. Plants are considered “one of the best indicators of the

factors that shape wetlands within their landscape” (Bedford 1996). Wetland vegetation

provides critical habitat structure for
18

Table 3. Major categories of indicators used in the rapid assessment methods reviewed, the

characteristic(s) on which the indicator is based on and a tally of methods using that indicator

(from high to low). A more detailed list of indicators can be found in Appendix B.

I. Core Element Indicators developed for, or

based on:

Number of methods employing

indicator (16 maximum)

Hydrology: Hydrologic alterations (stressors) 14

Hydroperiod 9

Type of outlet restriction 8

Water quality 8

Surface water connectivity 7

Flood storage potential 7

Groundwater recharge and/or

discharge

4

Water source(s) 3

Degree of water level fluctuation 3

Maximum water depth 1

Soils/substrate: Soil type 4

Substrate disturbance 2

Presence of mottles 1

Depth of A horizon 1

Munsell color (matrix/mottles) 1

Microtopography 1

Sediment composition 1

Vegetation: Number of vegetation classes 12

Degree of interspersion

(community types or open water)

8

Extent of invasive species 8

Vegetation alterations 6

Habitat value to wildlife 5

Endangered/threatened species,

their habitat or communities

4

Coarse woody debris 3

Dominant Vegetation 2

Plant species diversity 2

Area of open water 1

Landscape setting: Surrounding land use cover 14

Connectivity to other wetlands or

corridors

8

Extent of and/or vegetation type

in buffer zone

7

Extent of human land use in

buffer

5

Wetland size 5

Ratio of wetland to watershed

size or watershed size

3

Land use in watershed 3

Wetland morphology 2

Position of wetland in watershed 1
19

other taxonomic groups, such as epiphytic bacteria, phytoplankton and some species of algae,

periphyton, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and fish. The composition and diversity of plant

community influences diversity in these other taxonomic groups.

Finally, wetlands are subject to human activities (e.g., changes in land use or

hydrology) that stress the system and degrade its ecological integrity (Table A-3). One of the

assumptions underlying any condition assessment method is that wetlands respond

predictably to stressors. Indicators of wetland condition can be based either on the response

of the wetland to these stressors (e.g., the percent cover of invasive species, the number of

vegetation communities present) or on the stressors themselves (hydrologic modification).

Stressor indicators can be very robust since the stressors have a negative effect on condition

regardless of wetland type, for instance hydrologic modification has a negative impact

whether it be in a coastal marsh or a riparian forest. The most robust rapid methods appear to

combine both types of indicators.
20

OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Our review of existing rapid assessment methods and experience leads to the

following conclusions and observations on the adoption of such methods for wetland

monitoring and assessment programs.

Definition of the wetland assessment area

The definition of the wetland assessment area varies by method, ranging from

sampling a fixed area around a point (for instance, a 0.5-ha area; the Draft Delaware

Method), to sampling the wetland as a whole (the New Hampshire Coastal Method). The

latter approach can be problematic when large complexes made up of different wetland types

are encountered, making it difficult to define a single wetland, or when very large wetlands

require sampling. Some methods use a combination of approaches, for instance, the Ohio

Rapid Assessment Method defines the assessment area using a ‘scoring boundary’ which can

be based either on the wetland’s natural (jurisdictional) boundary (i.e., the whole site) or on

boundaries defined by natural breaks in hydrology (much as stream sampling is done by a

defined stream reach). This can mean that ‘whole’ wetlands are not being sampled in the

traditional sense, but the data collected will be consistent and provide an assessment of the

ambient condition of the resource. The seven methods that we applied to our model could all

be easily adapted for use in whole wetlands or a defined assessment area within a wetland,

depending on the user’s objectives.

The definition of the assessment area is important because it influences how the data

are collected and how the results are reported (e.g., by area of wetland resource, by wetland),

understood, and, therefore, used. It is vital that the definition of the assessment area be

thoroughly evaluated prior to the implementation of a monitoring effort. This evaluation

should consider 1) how well the definition can be applied in sample design and site selection,

e.g., can it be used with mapped or GIS information, 2) how well and consistently the

definition can be applied in the field, 3) how ecologically meaningful the results will be, and

4) how useful the results will be in achieving the objectives of the monitoring or management

program.
21

Issues of classification

A key consideration in the development of a rapid method is the issue of wetland type

and the need for classification. It is crucial to avoid the pitfall of creating a different version

of the method for each wetland class in the region. However, recognizing that there are

different wetland classes, for instance, using the hydrogeomorphic classification system

(HGM), is an important consideration in the development and use of a rapid method for two

reasons: 1) different classes may be subject to different stressors, and 2) different classes may

vary in their relative susceptibility to particular stressors. The reference condition for a given

class, defined by wetlands least impacted by human activities, is used to set the benchmark

for the attainable ecological condition within that class. This can be accomplished in several

ways: 1) use an a priori classification scheme to segregate sites before use of the rapid

assessment method, 2) weigh the indicators according to wetland type within the method

itself, or 3) stratify a posteriori as the data allow. The first approach implies that different

versions of a method will be required, one for each class. This can be problematic for several

reasons including the fact that each version will have to be separately validated and the fact

that some wetlands, or some mosaics of wetlands, are not cleanly placed into a category

without making the classification system very detailed, thus increasing the need for more

versions (see below). The second and third approaches allow the creation of a single method

for use in all wetland types and are therefore more robust. The latter type of method

sometimes embeds the issues of class within the method itself, for instance, in the Ohio

Rapid Assessment Method the rater is asked to evaluate the wetland being assessed relative

to other wetlands of similar type and hydrology, i.e., to other sites of the same HGM class.

The result is that wetlands of different classes but the same relative level of human impact

will receive relatively similar scores. In this approach the scoring expectations may differ for

each class (including for their reference sites) due to the different levels of human impacts.

For instance, riparian wetlands, because of their landscape position, may suffer more

anthropogenic influence than do depressional bogs.

Another method that embeds class within the method is the draft Delaware method

that includes a suite of stressors, some of which are only found in certain types of wetlands.

Only scores for the same wetland type can be compared after the data are collected since the

range of possible scores may vary by class.
22

The costs in time and resources needed to develop different versions of a method

must also be recognized. For instance, the sample size needed to statistically detect

differences (or lack thereof) between classes or other groupings is influenced by the

variability of the parameter(s) being measured. The USEPA Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program has arrived at a “rule of thumb” that, absent any information on the

variability of what is being measured, 50 sites per class should be assessed to increase the

likelihood that the sample will be adequate. (See www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/surdesignfaqs.htm

for information on sample size and other monitoring design issues.) Therefore, a single

method can be brought on line, evaluated and developed much more quickly than a suite of

methods.

We have found that most methods are blind to wetland class, but at the same time

most also track the type of wetland being assessed for uses such as ground-truthing wetland

inventories, or for post-stratification of the data. Evidence provided by the methods we have

reviewed suggests that diverse wetlands types can be “clumped” without losing any of the

power of the rapid assessment. Wetlands may differ in terms of their HGM class or floristic

composition, but all are degraded by stressors. 

Methods that assess functions versus condition

A major focus of our analysis was to identify those methods that could assess the

ecological condition of a site. These methods provide a single score as an overall evaluation

of the ecological status of a site. Many of the existing functional assessment methods do not

provide information on ecosystem condition because results are provided in terms of an

“answer” for each function assessed (8 to 14 in the methods reviewed here), making it

difficult to compare the relative condition or extent of anthropogenic impacts between sites.

For example, the results of both the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (Version 1.0)

and the Oregon Freshwater Wetlands Assessment Method are expressed as a series of ratings

for each of nine functions. The Oregon Method uses qualitative scores to indicate that the

wetland “has the function” (earning a high score), that the “function is impacted or degraded”

(mid) or that the “function is lost or not present” (low). For the Minnesota Method each

function assessed is assigned one of four ratings ranging from “exceptional” to “low.” In a

test of ten depressional wetlands, approximately 40 percent of the functions evaluated by the

Minnesota method scored “medium” while 65 percent of the functions received a score of
23

“mid” using the Oregon method (Fennessy et al. 1998). Only one function at one site

received an “exceptional” score using the Minnesota method, in this case for the floral

diversity function where a state endangered sedge species was found. It should be noted that

the ten wetlands included in this study were selected to represent the full gradient of human

disturbance (least impacted to highly impaired), so despite the large apparent differences in

condition, all ten wetlands received very similar scores, making it difficult to distinguish

between them, limiting the sensitivity of the method. Assigning qualitative scores on a

function by function basis also makes it virtually impossible to report on the condition of the

resource as a whole. 

Another concern is that in some functional methods, defining the highest level of a

function doesn’t necessarily equate with high ecological condition. Scoring by the highest

degree of functionality can be a trap because maximizing one function (e.g., water quality

improvement) may cause a reduction in others (e.g., supporting characteristic diversity).

Ultimately, if a wetland is functioning as an integrated system with a high degree of

ecological integrity it will perform all of its characteristic functions at the full levels typical

of its class (i.e., at the level of the reference condition). If in adopting a method there is a

desire to recognize wetlands that provide valuable functions despite moderate to high levels

of degradation, points could be awarded to acknowledge this value, after the score for

condition has been determined.

From an ecological standpoint, wetlands perform a wide variety of functions at a

hierarchy of scales ranging from the specific (e.g., nitrogen retention) to the more

encompassing (e.g., biogeochemical cycling) as a result of their physical, chemical and

biological attributes. At the highest level of this hierarchy is the maintenance of ecological

integrity, the function that encompasses all ecosystem structure and processes (Figure 2,

Smith et. al., 1995). The link between function and condition lies in the assumption that

ecological integrity is an integrating “super” function of wetlands. If condition is excellent

(i.e., equal to reference condition), then the ecological integrity of the wetland is intact and

the functions typical of that wetland type will also occur at reference levels.
24

Figure 2. A schematic to illustrate the concept of ecological integrity as the integrating

function of wetlands, encompassing both ecosystem structure and processes. In this case

integrity is shown to include biogeochemical processes that lead to functions such as nitrogen

removal and hydrological processes that lead to the flood control function, and habitat

functions (based on Smith et. al., 1995).

Scoring

The approach used for scoring a rapid method must also be established. A common

approach is to assign scores by placing the ‘answers’ to assessment questions into different

categories and then assigning a score by category. For example, an assessment of the

average buffer width around a wetland could be scored using categories such as “narrow”

(e.g., 10 – 25m), “medium” (25 – 75m), or “wide” (greater than 75m). Different points

would be awarded for each of the three categories. This approach tends to dampen the

variability in scoring, resulting in less measurement error, i.e., different people are likely to

get the same answer making results repeatable and the method robust.

Several methods included in this review (e.g., New Hampshire Method, Minnesota

Routine Assessment Method) calculate the level of a function assigned to a wetland using

simple equations that combine different variables. This can be problematic because it makes

the functional scores more difficult to validate (more variables, as well as their interactions,

must be validated for each function). We also note that in arriving at a final score, many of

Ecological Integrity

Biogeochemical Cycling

Nitrogen Cycling

Nitrogen

Removal

Hydrology

Hydrologic Connectivity

Flood Control

Biological Diversity

Vegetation Diversity

Characteristic

Vegetation

Community 
25

the methods reviewed lead the person doing the assessment through a relatively detailed

analysis requiring a lot of detail, but then leave the ultimate result of the assessment to the

“best professional judgment” of the user, or to some “gut level reaction” that appears hard to

defend. There needs to be a transparent process for coming to a result for the assessment if it

is to be repeatable and defensible.

Enhancing scores for highly valued wetlands or features

Some of the methods reviewed include what might be termed “value added metrics.”

These are metrics that provide the opportunity for points to be added for a specific wetland

type or feature that is deemed particularly valuable in that region. For example, Metric 5 in

the ORAM addresses regional values by adding points for wetland types that are rare and

support a high level of plant diversity such as the Oak Openings wetlands on the sand plains

of Lake Erie. The Western Washington Method (from which the Ohio method was

developed) does the same for eelgrass beds. Enhancing the score in this way might be done

for several reasons: 1) if the results of the rapid assessment are considered in regulatory

decisions then more weight can be given to valued wetland types that are deserving of

protection regardless of their condition, and 2) some stakeholders who have a say in the

development and use of such a method may feel more satisfied about its validity if scores are

enhanced for wetlands or habitat features that they view as particularly important. For

instance, some wetlands that provide important waterfowl or amphibian habitat may be

weighted more heavily. Additional metrics may also be added for use in evaluating

mitigation wetlands. If this approach is taken, it is important that such “value added metrics”

be kept separate from the metrics that indicate condition or stressors. By keeping condition

metrics and value added metrics separate, the metrics that reflect ecological condition can be

combined for a condition score that can be used to track the status of the site or the resource,

then the “value added metrics” can be added in to get an overall score to be used in the

regulatory process. 

Validation with comprehensive ecological data

A central component in the development of a rapid method is its validation with more

comprehensive ecological assessment data (Level 3 assessments such as IBI or HGM type

data). The relationship between the rapid method and Level 3 data must be established so

that the rapid method, with careful sampling design, can be used to extrapolate the more
26

detailed results to the resource base as a whole (i.e., through probability-based sample

design). It will also allow confidence limits on the use of a rapid assessment to be

determined, increasing the reliability and defensibility of the method.

Summary

This report provides a first step in developing guidance for the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency to the states and tribes on how to develop a rapid assessment method or to

adapt an existing method for use in a wetland monitoring program. From an initial review of

40 methods, 16 were selected for an in-depth analysis and seven were selected for an in-depth

evaluation. We used four criteria to select these methods: 1) the method must measure the

current condition of the wetland, 2) its use requires a site visit to complete the assessment, 3)

the method is truly rapid, and 4) the assumptions that underlie the method can be verified.

The wetland assessment methods reviewed have multiple programmatic and regulatory uses,

including ambient condition monitoring, mitigation planning and establishment of

performance criteria, monitoring status and trends, local land use planning to protect the

ecological integrity of wetlands, and for use in regulatory decision making. These uses

highlight the fact that a scientifically sound rapid assessment method can serve as a

cornerstone in a state or tribe’s wetland protection program.
27

LITERATURE CITED

Abbruzzese, B., and S.G. Leibowitz. 1997. A synoptic approach for assessing cumulative

impacts to wetlands. Environmental Management 21(3):457-475.

Adamus, P.A. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET). Volume 2-Methodology. U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

Bartoldus, C.C. 1999. A comprehensive review of wetland assessment procedures: A guide

for wetland practitioners. Environmental Concern, Inc., St. Michaels, Maryland.

Bedford, B.L. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for

freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:57-68. 

Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Wetland Functional Assessment.

Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

Bedford, B. L. 1999. Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland

restoration in the United States and Southern Canada. Wetlands 19:(4):775-788.

Detenbeck, N.E., S.M. Galatowitsch, J.A Atkinson, and H. Ball. 1999. Evaluating

perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes

Basin. Wetlands 19(4):789-820.

Fennessy, M. S., R. Geho, B. Elfritz, and R. Lopez. 1998. Testing the Floristic Quality

Assessment Index as an Indicator of Riparian Wetland Disturbance. Final Report to U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,Wetlands Unit,

Division of Surface Water. Grant CD995927.

Karr, J.R., and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals.

Environmental Management 5:55-68.

Leibowitz, S.G., B. Abbruzzese, P.R Adamus, L.E. Hughes, and J.T. Irish. 1992. A Synoptic

Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment: A Proposed Methodology. EPA/600/R-92/167.

U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 129 pp.

Mack, J. J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands, Manual for Using Version

5.0. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin Wetland2001-1-1. Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency, Division of Surface Water, 401 Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, Ohio.

Mack, J. J., M. Micacchion, L. Augusta, and G. R. Sablak. 2000. Vegetation Indices of Biotic

Integrity (VIBI) for Wetlands and Calibration of the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for

Wetlands v. 5.0. Final Report to U.S. EPA. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,

Division of Surface Water, 401 Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, Ohio.
28

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, Third edition. John Wiley and Sons, New

York.

Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for

assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and

functional indices. Technical Report WRP-DE-9. Waterways Experiment Station, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

Stevenson, R. J. and R. Hauer. 2002. Integrating hydrgeomorphic and index of biotic

integrity approaches for environmental assessment of wetlands. Journal of the North

American Benthological Society 21(3):502-513.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. Biological Assessments and Criteria: Crucial

Components of Water Quality Programs. EPA 822-F-02-006. Washington D.C.

(http://www.epa.gov/ost/biocriteria/basics)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition:

Wetlands Classification. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-822-

R-02-017. Washington, D.C. (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wetlands/).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and

Assessment Program. EPA 841-B-03-003. Washington D.C.

(http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid.html)

Van Dam, R.A., C. Camilleri, and C.M. 1998. The potential of rapid assessment techniques

as early warning indicators of wetland degradation: a review. Environmental Toxicology and

Water Quality 13:297-312. 

Winter, T.C. 1988. Conceptual framework for assessment of cumulative impacts on the

hydrology of non-tidal wetlands. Environmental Management 12: 605-620.

Winter, T.C. 1992. A physiographic and climatic framework for hydrological studies of

Wetlands, pp. 127-148 In R.D. Robarts and M.L. Bothwell, (eds.) Aquatic Ecosystems in

Semi-arid Regions: Implications for Resource Management. N.H.R.I. Symposium Series 7.

Environment Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
29

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Comparison of Methods to Conceptual Model.

Table A-1. Comparison relative to core elements.

Table A-2. Comparison relative to wetland type, and services and values.

Table A-3. Comparison relative to stressors.

Appendix B: List of Indicators from the Methods

Appendix C: Overview of Methods
30

APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF METHODS TO CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Table A-1. A comparison of the seven methods that may be used to assess condition relative to how each method addresses the universal

features that define wetland ecosystems.

Method Hydrology Soils Biotic Communities

Delaware Method (Draft) Incorporated into method by

evaluation of stressors that affect

hydrologic processes.

Incorporated into portion of the

method evaluating biogeochemical

cycling and the stressors that affect

soil processes.

Incorporated into the method by

the evaluation of stressors that

affect the biotic communities.

Florida Wetland Rapid

Assessment Procedure

Considers evidence that hydrologic

regime is a adequate to maintain a

viable wetland system

Not considered Considers wildlife utilization in

terms of habitat, disturbance,

food sources; tree and shrub

canopy in terms of likelihood of

providing habitat; herbaceous

plants in terms of cover,

disturbance, native vs exotic

Massachusetts Coastal

Zone Management Rapid

Habitat Assessment

Method

Evaluated in terms of stressors and

degree of alteration, e.g., restriction

of inlets and outlets.

Ranks by type with rocks and gravel

with little organic matter rated the

lowest.

Considers number of Cowardin

vegetation classes (more is

better), number and types of food

sources, presence of buffer.

Montana Wetland

Assessment Method

Considers duration of surface water.

Rates flood attenuation as amount of

site subject to periodic flooding.

Rates surface water storage as area

of site subject to periodic flooding

or ponding relative to frequency and

duration of flooding.

Rates groundwater

Not considered Rates structural diversity as

number of Cowardin vegetation

classes present and relates to

general wildlife habitat.

Considers habitat for federally

listed or proposed threatened or

endangered species.

Considers fish/aquatic habitat
31

Method Hydrology Soils Biotic Communities

Montana Wetland

Assessment Method

(continued)

discharge/recharge based on

presence of indicators (e.g., springs,

seeps, inlet but no outlet).

relative to duration and frequency

of flooding, cover (e.g., rocks,

logs), and shading.

Rates food chain support relative

to vegetation cover and structural

diversity, and hydrologic

characteristics.

Ohio Rapid Assessment

Method

Considers source; maximum water

depth, duration of inundation (the

more permanent and deeper the

water the higher the score); and

connectivity to other surface waters

and upland.

Rates in terms of disturbance Rates overall habitat

development and also degree of

alteration (see stressors).

Vegetation ranked as to: number

of communities present, degree

of interspersion.

Considers microtopography

—presence of hummocks, woody

debris, standing dead, pools.

Penn State Stressor

Checklist

Evaluates in terms of the stressors

that affect hydrology, for example,

ditching and culverts.

Evaluates in terms of the stressors

that affect substrate characteristics,

in particular, sedimentation.

Evaluates in terms of the

stressors that affect habitat, in

particular, vegetation alteration.

Washington State

Wetland Rating System,

Western Version

Considers amount of inundation and

flow

Gives extra points to wetlands with a

deep organic layer.

Considers plants, mosses, woody

vegetation; plant diversity;

structural diversity; degree of

interspersion; habitat features

(nests, snags, open water),

connection with a stream; part of

a corridor; cover of vegetation

types, proximity to priority

habitats
32

Table A-2. A comparison of the seven methods that may be used to assess condition relative to how each method addresses regional

factors including the wetland types specific to the region as well as any consideration given to the ecosystem services provided by and/or

special values placed on some wetlands.

Method Wetland Types Services and Values

Delaware Method (Draft) HGM Classes. Regionalizes by changing the

thresholds for interpretation of the assessment

relative to HGM class. 

Not included.

Florida Wetland Rapid

Assessment Procedure

Does not consider wetland type in the

assessment. Is designed for use in a wide range

of systems, but is not intended to be used to

compare types.

Primary focus of the assessment is habitat, also

considers water treatment.

Massachusetts Coastal Zone

Management Rapid Habitat

Assessment Method

Has a form for all freshwater wetlands and

another for salt marshes.

Not included.

Montana Wetland Assessment

Method

Uses regional versions of the national HGM

classes and vegetation classes (aquatic bed,

emergent, scrub-shrub, forested, moss-lichen).

Rates relative abundance of similarly classified

sites within the basin.

Considers Habitat for Montana Natural Heritage

Program listed species.

Flood attenuation – considers residences or

businesses downstream of wetland

Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Retention and Removal

- opportunity (i.e., probable or actual source);

presence and amount of vegetation, of flooding and

ponding, and of restriction of outlet.

Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization – cover and

flooding of plant species with deep, binding roots.

Uniqueness - rareness of wetland type or species

present, and amount of disturbance.

Recreation or Education - potential for use,

ownership, and amount of disturbance.
33

Method Wetland Types Services and Values

Ohio Rapid Assessment

Method

Does not consider wetland type in the

assessment except in terms of special value.

Wetland Area is used as an assessment factor

with larger being better.

Gives extra points to wetlands of special

significance and wetlands that are habitat for

threatened or endangered species or migratory bird

habitat.

Penn State Stressor Checklist Does not consider wetland type in the

assessment, but can present the results by

wetland classes.

Not included.

Washington State Wetland

Rating System, Western

Version

Tidal and non-tidal evaluation is not type

specific. Bigger is better, especially if wetland

is part of a complex.

The office form of the assessment is focused on

determining the regulatory category of the wetland

based on whether it has been designated by the

State, Heritage Program, Federal agency or local

government as having sensitive or endangered

species, or is considered significant locally for

functions such as shoreline protection, and water

storage.
34

Table A-3. A comparison of the seven methods that may be used to assess condition relative to how each method addresses the stressors

that act to degrade wetland condition. 

Method Stressors

Delaware Method (Draft) Entire method scores stressors relative to their potential effect on hydrology, biogechemical cycling,

and habitat/plant community. Also includes potential for effects (positive and negative) of what is in

the area 100m around the wetland.

Florida Wetland Rapid

Assessment Procedure

Hydrologic modification

Adjacent land use as ameliorated by a buffer

Massachusetts Coastal Zone

Management Rapid Habitat

Assessment Method

From surrounding landscape:

Land use – commercial, industrial, transportation rated lowest; forestry and open space rated highest

Amount impervious cover -- >20% rated lowest; <5% rated highest

% Natural vegetation -- <10% rated lowest; >50% rated highest

Ratio wetland/drainage basin area -- <2% rated lowest; >10% rated highest

Possible sources of pollution -- industrial, commercial effluent and urban stormwater rated lowest; no

source rated highest

Onsite:

Hydrology-- variability in water levels (altered or human controlled ranked lower); restriction of outlet

(presence gets lower rating); degree of tidal flushing for tidal systems

Soils -- high sedimentation given lowest rating; high erosion gets lowest rating for tidal systems.

Human activities -- rated lowest if human activities severely degrade the wetland

Montana Wetland Assessment

Method

Disturbance – considers the site and area adjacent (within 500 feet); categories considered are natural;

not cultivated but moderately grazed, hayed or selectively logged, minor clearing, fill, or hydrologic

alteration, few roads or buildings; cultivated or heavily grazed or logged, substantial grading, fill,

clearing, or hydrologic alteration, high road or building density

Vegetation alteration -- predominant weedy, alien and introduced species, degree of disturbance to

vegetation

Hydrology -- culverts, dikes and other structures, restriction of outlets if present
35

Method Stressors

Ohio Rapid Assessment

Method

Vegetated buffers scored as an ameliorating factor.

Intensity of land use scored. Score decreases with increasing land use intensity.

Modifications to hydrology, with highest score for none and lowest for recent or no recovery.

Substrate disturbance rated.

Habitat modification rated.

Rates coverage of invasive plants.

Penn State Stressor Checklist Considers categories of stressors and their indicators. Score is adjusted to account for ameliorating

effects of a buffer, if present. The categories of stressors are:

Hydrologic modification

Sedimentation

High biological oxygen demand

Toxicity due to contaminants

Vegetation alteration

Nutrient enrichment or eutrophication,

Acidification

Turbidity

Thermal alteration

Washington State Wetland

Rating System, Western

Version

Hydrologic modifications

Grazing

Impervious surface >12% in upstream watershed

Exotic plants

Runoff from roads or parking lots

Dumping

Vegetated buffers scored as an ameliorating factor
36

APPENDIX B: LIST OF INDICATORS USED IN THE METHODS

Table B-1. Indicators selected from the 16 rapid assessment methods included in our

analysis. Note that this table is not comprehensive in that it does not include all indicators

given in each method. Indicators of most interest and/or applicability have been selected,

with an emphasis on rapid indicators that make up the core elements (universal features,

regional factors, and stressors) of any assessment method.

I. Hydrology

Wetland Characteristic Indicator Method(s) *

Hydroperiod: Hydrologic regime MDE; MT; NH COASTAL;

Oregon

Ratio of wetland area to

watershed area (determines

water inflow)

MDE; VIMS

Microrelief of wetland

surface

MDE

Upland plants encroaching

into wetland

FWRAP

Die-off of wetland plants

(trees) due to increased

hydroperiod

FWRAP; Penn State

Sources of water: Observation: seeps springs,

surface water inflows,

precipitation

ORAM; WIRAM

primary source of water

(maps or in field)

Oregon

Water level fluctuation

(degree of):

Water marks silt rings on

trees

MDE

Absence of leaf litter MDE

Drift Line deposition MDE; Oregon

Sediment deposits on plants MDE; Oregon

Debris deposited in channels MDE

Flashy water level changes: Debris marks, erosion lines,

stormwater inflows

WIRAM

Outlet restriction: Observation of the length (in

feet) of the restriction

MDE; Mass

Observation of degree of

hydrological modification by

artificial control (dams,

weirs, etc.)

DE; Mass; MN RAM; NH

Coastal

Outlet restriction: Surface water outlet (none,

intermittent, permanent)

Mass; MT; Oregon; WSWRSeast

Water quality/chemistry: Extent of obvious visual

indicators, e.g., algae,

turbidity, odors, etc.

Florida WQI; MT; Penn

State; VIMS; WIRAM;

WSWRS-west
37

Wetland Characteristic Indicator Method(s) *

Excess sedimentation

(observe deposits, plumes)

New Hampshire; Penn State

Pollution (obvious spills,

plumes, odors; adjacent

industry)

Mass; Penn State

A. Eutrophication Excess algae Florida WQI; Penn State;

VIMS; WIRAM

Direct discharge from

agriculture feedlots, etc.

Penn State

Direct discharge from septic

or sewage treatment system

Penn State

Dominance of nutrient

tolerant plant species

Penn State

B. Acidification Acid mine discharges,

adjacent mined lands,

absence of biota

Penn State

Maximum water depth Observation ORAM

Duration of inundation or

saturation

Observation ORAM; VIMS; WIRAM

Groundwater recharge and

/or discharge:

Evidence of seeps and

springs

MDE; MT; ORAM; WIRAM

Hydrologic alterations due to

observed:

Evidence of ditching DE; FWQI; FWRAP; MDE;

MN RAM; MT; ORAM;

Penn State; WSWRS-west;

NH Coastal ; WIRAM

Stream channelization DE

Stream channelization within

one mile above wetland

Oregon

Stormwater inputs DE; ORAM; WIRAM; Penn

State

Point source discharge DE; ORAM; Penn State

Filling, grading dredging (%

of site affected)

DE; Penn State

Filling, grading dredging

(presence/absence)

ORAM; MN RAM; WSWRSwest

Tiles, culverts ORAM; WIRAM; MN RAM;

Penn State

Road/railroad present that

impedes flow

DE; ORAM; Penn State

Dams, dikes Mass; NH Method; Oregon;

Penn State; WIRAM

Hydrologic alterations due to

observed (continued):

Tidal restriction in tidal

wetlands

DE; NH Coastal

Surface hydrologic

connectivity:

Direct observation in the

field or aerial photo/maps

MDE; Oregon

Direct observation in the

field – landscape position

MN RAM; NH Method;

ORAM; VIMS; WIRAM;
38

Wetland Characteristic Indicator Method(s) *

Observation of streams

connected to wetlands

Oregon

Flood storage potential: Federal Emergency

Management Agency flood

maps or U.S. Geological

Survey data sources.

MDE; Oregon

Water-vegetation

interspersion in flow-through

wetlands

MN RAM; MT; NH Method

Degree of channelization

within wetland

MN RAM

Wetland is located within

enclosed basin (no inlets or

outlets)

Oregon

Ratio of wetland:watershed

size

WIRAM; VIMS

II. Soils

Wetland Characteristic Indicator Method(s)*

Soil type: Soil series from Natural

Resource Conservation

Service county soils maps

MDE; WIRAM; MN RAM

1/4 acre of undisturbed

organic soil > 16 inches deep

WSWRS-west

Soil morphology: Evidence of soil subsidence FWRAP

Mottles Presence of WIRAM

Depth of A horizon Measure in field WIRAM

Munsell color of matix,

mottles

Munsell color chart WIRAM

Microtopography: Observation of hummocks,

tussocks

ORAM

Sediment composition Relative amounts of gravel,

sand, silt/mud, organic

material

Mass

Substrate disturbance Observation of disturbance

(none to recently occurred)

ORAM; MN RAM

Soil Anoxia (biogeochemical

cycling)

Soil 2” below surface is clay,

organic matter or has rotten

egg smell

WSWRS- east
39

III. Vegetation

Wetland Characteristic Indicator Method(s)*

Dominant vegetation: Most abundant plant species

in a 30’ radius plot

MDE

Estimate dominant plant

community type

Oregon

Number of vegetation

classes:

Count number of community

types within wetland

Mass; MDE; MN RAM; MT;

NH Coastal; NH Method;

ORAM; VIMS; WIRAM;

WSWRS-west

Estimate percent of area

covered by each of four

Cowardin classes

Oregon

Plant species diversity Count number of species

with cover > 5% (don’t have

to identify species)

WSWRS-west

Degree of interspersion: Observation and comparison

with diagrams

MDE; MT; NH Method;

ORAM; Oregon; VIMS;

WIRAM; WSWRS-west

Number of vegetation layers

(vertical layers)

Observation MDE

Observation for those layers

larger than 1/4 acre

WSWRS-west

Dead (coarse) woody debris Observation (abundant to

rare)

MDE; ORAM; VIMS

Evidence of debris removal ORAM; Penn State

Interspersion of vegetation

and open water

Observation and comparison

with diagrams

MDE; NH Method; VIMS;

WIRAM; WSWRS-east

Area of open water Estimate, in acres Oregon

Wetland edge complexity: Observation (high to low

convolution)

MDE

Vegetation alterations due to

observed:

Evidence of mowing DE; ORAM; Penn State

Evidence of tree harvesting DE; ORAM; Penn State;

WSWRS-west

Vegetation alterations due to

observed (continued):

Excessive herbivory DE; Penn State

Excessive sedimentation

(presence of sediment

tolerant plants)

Penn State

Management or conversion DE; ORAM

Burning DE

Trails cut DE

Toxic contaminants (severe

vegetation stress)

DE; ORAM; Penn State;

VIMS
40

Wetland Characteristic Indicator Method(s)*

Chemical defoliation DE, Penn State

Sedimentation ORAM

Nutrient enrichment ORAM

Nutrient enrichment as

evidenced by algal mats, etc.

WIRAM

Farming ORAM; WSWRS-west

Presence of threatened &

endangered species

Observation MT; NH Method; ORAM;

WSWRS-west

Presence of invasive species: Estimate coverage or assess

dominance of invasive plants

DE; FWRAP; NH Coastal

Penn State

Evaluate coverage of native

species

WIRAM

Estimate coverage of

invasive plants using defined

list of species

ORAM

Cover of non-native species

greater than 10% and appear

to be invading

WSWRS-west

Habitat value: Vegetation appropriate as

food base

Mass; MT; NH Method;

WIRAM

Wetland area WSWRS-west

IV. Landscape Setting

Wetland Characteristic Indicator Method(s)*

Presence of buffer zones Width of buffer ORAM; Penn State;

WSWRS-west

Type of land use in buffer

zones

Land use in buffer FWQI; NH Method; ORAM;

Penn State; WSWRS-west

Percent of buffer (to 500’ in

width) that is woodland or

idle land

NH Coastal

Ratio of square feet of paved

surfaces within 150’ of

wetland to wetland area

NH Coastal

Percentage of wetland’s edge

that is bordered by upland

wildlife habitat (to 150’) or

by natural vegetation (to 25’)

Oregon

Surrounding land use Determine dominant land use

in the 500’ zone surrounding

site

Mass; NH Coastal; Oregon
41

Wetland Characteristic Indicator Method(s)*

Estimate percent of

watershed in listed land use

categories

MN RAM; WIRAM

Percent of land use that is in

forest or natural vegetation

(within 300’)

VIMS

Percent impervious surfaces Mass

Percent natural vegetation Mass

Degree of human land use in

buffer zones

Number of buildings per

wetland area (number

occupied dwellings/total

wetland area)

NH Coastal

Area around wetland

relatively free of human

impacts (yes, no)

MN RAM

Intensity (density) of

development in 100m around

site

DE

Presence of agriculture,

foresty, marinas, golf

courses, sand/gravel

operations, forest harvesting

in last 15 years

DE

Density of buildings within

the 500 feet of site

NH Coastal; NH Method

Roads (types, number) in

100m around site

DE; NH Method

Evidence of fragmentation MDE

Wetland Morphology Presence of distinct banks NH Coastal; NH Method

Wetland Size Estimate size of assessment

area

MDE; NH Coastal; NH

Method; ORAM; Oregon

Ratio of wetland to

watershed size

Determine ratio Mass; NH Method

Position of wetland in

watershed

Topographic position MDE

Land use in watershed Dominant land use in

watershed upstream from

wetland

MDE; NH Method; Oregon

Zoning in 500’ area around

wetland edge

Tabulate zoning categories,

by percent

Oregon

Landscape position Classify (similar to HGM

classes)

VIMS

Connectivity to other

wetlands or corridors

Presence of wetlands or

corridors in target wetland’s

vicinity

MDE; MN RAM; NH

Coastal; NH Method;

Oregon; VIMS

Wetland part of or connected

to riparian or upland corridor

ORAM; WSWRS-west
42

Wetland Characteristic Indicator Method(s)*

Perennial surface water

connection to stream

WSWRS-west

Seasonal surface water

connection to stream

WSWRS-west

Organic matter always

exported to perennial stream

WSWRS-west

Organic matter exported to

stream seasonally

WSWRS-west

Wetland on a floodplain ORAM

* Method abbreviations used in the Table above include the following:

Method Name Method Abbreviation

Delaware Method (Draft) DE

Florida Wetland Quality Index FWQI

Florida Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure FWRAP

Maryland Department of the Environment Method MDE method

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Method Mass

Minnesota Routine Assessment Method MN RAM

Montana Wetland Assessment Method MT

New Hampshire Coastal Method NH Coastal

New Hampshire Method NH Method

Ohio Rapid Assessment Method ORAM

Oregon Freshwater Wetlands Assessment Method Oregon

Penn State Stressor Checklist Penn State

Virginia Institute of Marine Science Method VIMS

Washington State Wetland Rating System (Eastern) WSWRS-east

Washington State Wetland Rating System (Western) WSWRS-west

Wisconsin Rapid Assessment Method WIRAM 
43

APPENDIX C: OVERVIEW OF METHODS

DELAWARE METHOD (Draft)

Citation: Jacobs, A.J. WORKING DRAFT. Delaware Rapid Assessment. Delaware

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.

Scoring: This method evaluates wetland condition based on the presence or absence of

stressors. Four categories of stressors are evaluated; those that affect hydrology, habitat,

biogeochemical cycling, and the surrounding landscape. An overall score for site condition

is calculated using a formula that combines the four category scores. The overall score is

scaled to determine a condition category based on the HGM subclass being evaluated.

List of Functions and stressors:

Hydrology

Ditching

Stream channelization

Weir or dam

Stormwater inputs

Point source

Filling, grading, dredging

Road/ railroad

Tidal restriction

Habitat/ Plant Community

Mowing

Farming

Grazing

Forest harvesting

Excessive herbivory

Invasive species

Chemical defoliation

Pine conversion

Managed burning

Trails

Dumping

Biogeochemical Cycling

Microtopography alterations

Sediment deposits

Eroding banks

Increase in nutrients

Dense algal mats

Forest harvesting

Landscape Setting

Development

Sewage disposal

Trails

Roads

Stormwater drains
44

Landfill

Direct run-off/ erosion

Agriculture

Forest harvesting

Marinas

Hydromodification

Golf Course

Mowed area

Sand/ gravel operation

General Conclusions: The Delaware Draft method was developed specifically to evaluate

condition but is still being refined to include appropriate stressors and calibrate the weighting

of stressors and the scores relative to different HGM subclasses. The method allows for

regionalization by changing the thresholds for interpretation of the assessment relative to the

HGM class. Further adjustment of the stressor weights would be required for use in areas

outside of the mid-Atlantic coastal plain to reflect the impacts of stressors in the region being

considered. A major assumption of this method is that the site is in good condition unless

there is evidence to the contrary. This may be a problem for areas that have a lot of nonpoint

source impacts that are difficult to evaluate using the stressors provided. The method is easy

to use and can be conducted in less than half a day.
45

FLORIDA’S WETLAND QUALITY INDEX (FWQI)

Citation: Lodge, T.E., H.O. Hillestad, S.W. Carney, and R.B. Darling. 1995. Wetland

Quality Index (WQI): A method for determining compensatory mitigation requirements for

ecologically impacted wetlands. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers

South Florida Section Annual Meeting, Sept 22-23, 1995, Miami, FL.

Scoring: The FWQI was developed to evaluate five wetland mitigation areas. The method

assesses 17 indicators. Each indicator is scored 0.1, 0.5 or 1.0 and then multiplied by a

weighting factor. An overall score for the site is calculated by summing the 17 weighted

indicator scores and then dividing by the total possible points.

List of indicators:

Aquatic prey base abundance

Based on fish, prawns, and crayfish

Not rapid involves sampling and identification

Aquatic prey base diversity

Based on fish, amphibians, crayfish, prawn and apple snails

Not rapid same sampling as above

Category I exotic pest plant species

Involves aerial photo interpretation and some sampling plots

Diversity of macrophytes

Involves plot samples

Based on dominant species

Habitat diversity within 1000 feet

Number of different habitats

Hydroperiod

Requires long term monitoring data

Hydropattern

Requires long term monitoring data

Intactness of wetland resource

Peat/muck soil layer

Protected animal species use

Protected plant species

Proximity to aquatic refugia

Sheet flow (during inundation)

Surrounding landscape condition

Water quality

Wetland vegetation cover

Wildlife use

General Conclusions: The WQI method was developed to evaluate wetlands created for

mitigation purposes and would not be applicable to assess condition on a wide variety of

naturally occurring wetlands. Additionally, the method was not meant to be a rapid

assessment because some of the indicators require quantitative data that needs to be collected

over several sampling periods. However, the method was easy to follow and the questions

for scoring indicators were clearly stated. We use this method for ideas on how to weight

and combine indicators to calculate an overall score for each site. 
46

FLORIDA WETLAND RAPID ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE (FWRAP)

Citation: Miller, R.E., Jr., and B.E. Gunsalus. 1999. Wetland rapid assessment procedure.

Updated 2nd edition. Technical Publication REG-001. Natural Resource Management

Division, Regulation Department, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm

Beach, FL. (http://www.sfwmd.gov/newsr/3_publications.html)

Scoring: The FWRAP method is a rating index to evaluate created, enhanced, preserved, or

restored wetlands and was developed to be a simple, accurate and consistent regulatory tool.

The method incorporates concepts from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Habitat

Evaluation Procedure (HEP) and, therefore, has a strong habitat emphasis. Six variables are

evaluated on each site. Each variable is assessed with several indicators and scored between

0-3 based on a set of calibration descriptions. An overall score for the site is then calculated

by summing the scores for the six variables and dividing by the total possible score.

List of variables and indicators:

Wildlife utilization

Evidence of wildlife utilization

Abundance of macroinvertebrates, amphibians and forage fish

Upland food sources

Human disturbance

Cover and habitat for wildlife

Wetland overstory/shrub category

Exotic and invasive canopy/ shrub species

Habitat

Recruitment of native canopy/ shrub species

Snags and den trees

Human disturbance

Condition of canopy trees

Wetland vegetation ground cover

Desirable species

Exotic species

Human disturbance

Seed germination

Managed burns

Adjacent upland wetland buffer

Buffer width

Species composition

Cover, food, and roosting areas for wildlife

Adjacency to wildlife corridor

Field indicators of wetland hydrology

Plant stress due to hydrology

Hydroperiod

Alterations to hydrology

Soil subsidence

Presence of upland plant species

Water quality input and treatment systems

Surrounding land use
47

Type of water management systems

General Conclusions: The FWRAP method evaluates mitigation projects based on six

variables. The scoring of the variables is easy to perform based on narrative descriptions.

Additionally, the method is rapid to perform in the field. Because each variable is scored

based on the presence of several indicators, it may be difficult to assign scores in some

situations where indicators do not all fall in the same category. Some flexibility is provided

by allowing the user to assign scores of 0.5 between primary scores of 0-3. The FWRAP

method has a strong focus on habitat and provides a measure of the quality of wildlife habitat

provided by a site more than the overall condition for a site.
48

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT METHOD

Citation: Furgro East, Inc. 1995. A method for the assessment of wetland function.

Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. 240pp.

Scoring: The MDE Method assesses nontidal, palustrine vegetated wetlands using six

functions. Each function can be assessed using a desktop method or a field method and is

calculated by summing scores for a set of indicators (fewer indicators are used for the

desktop method) and then dividing by the total possible points. Indicators are weighted

differently based on the number of possible points that can be attained. A total functional

capacity can be calculated for the site by adding together the scores of the six functions. 

List of functions and indicators:

Ground water discharge

Hydrogeomorphic type

Nested piezometer data

Inlet/ outlet class

Relationship to regional potentiometer surface

Presence of springs and seeps

Wetland soil type

Surface water hydrologic connection

Water chemistry

Surficial geologic deposit under wetland

Water regime

Microrelief of wetland surface

Relationship to steep slopes

Hydrologic alteration (ditching, channelization)

Flood flow attenuation

Hydrogeomorphic type

Inlet/ outlet class

Degree of outlet restriction

Basin topographic gradient

Wetland water regime

Surface water fluctuations

Ratio of wetland area to watershed size

Stem density

Microrelief of wetland surface

Presence of dead plant material

Adjacency to a water body or water way

Occurrence of down cut stream channel

Occurrence of ditching

Modification of water quality

Frequency of overbank flooding

Microrelief of wetland surface

Wetland land use

Basin topographic gradient

Degree of outlet restriction

Topographic position in the watershed

Hydrogeomorphic type
49

Water regime

Inlet/ outlet class

Stream sinuosity

Dominant vegetation type

Occurrence of overbank flooding

Percent of wetland edge bordering a sediment source

Occurrence of ditching

Cover distribution

Occurrence of dead plant material

Hydric soil type

Sediment stabilization

Hydrogeomorphic type

Frequency of overbank flooding

Overland flow from uplands potential

Evidence of retained sediments

Microrelief

Stem density

Percent of wetland edge bordering a sediment source

Wetland area to watershed area ratio

Aquatic Diversity/ Abundance

Hydrogeomorphic type

Association with open water

Water regime

Water/ cover ratio

Stream sinuosity

Dominant vegetation

Wetland class richness

Vegetative density

Wetland juxtaposition

Known habitat for anadromous or catadromous fish, trout, or warm water fish

Habitat for aquatic invertebrates, reptiles or amphibians

Wetland land use

Adjacent to undisturbed upland habitat

Adjacent to known upland wildlife habitat

Buffer for water body

Occurrence of debris dams in wetland stream

Within or adjacent to Chesapeake Bay Critical Area

Wildlife Diversity/ Abundance

Wetland size

Wetland class richness

Wetland class rarity

Wetland class edge complexity

Surrounding upland habitat

Wetland juxtaposition

Water regime

Wetland land use

Microrelief of wetland surface

Presence of seeps and springs

Water chemistry
50

Vegetative interspersion

Interspersion of vegetation cover and open water

Presence of islands

Presence of rare, endangered or threatened species

Linked to a significant habitat

Connected to a known wildlife corridor

Number of vegetation layers and percent of cover

Fragmentation of once larger wetland

Watershed land use

Adjacency to designated wildlife habitat

Regional significance

General Conclusions: The MDE method evaluates wetlands based on six functions using

models similar to an “HGM-Light” approach. This method requires a lot of data and is not in

our opinion a rapid assessment. We estimated that to perform either the desktop or field

version would require more than a day. Detailed and easy to read flow-charts are provided to

score each function. An overall score can be calculated by summing the function scores but

it is not specifically a measure of condition. Certain HGM subclasses are scored higher for

some of the functions because of their potential to perform the function. A fairly

comprehensive list of indicators is used for each function; however, few of them address

stressors or landscape features.
51

MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT METHOD

Citation: Hicks, A.L. and B.K. Carlisle. 1998. Rapid habitat assessment of wetlands, macroinvertebrate survey version: brief description and methodology. Massachusetts Coastal Zone

Management Wetland Assessment Program, Amherst, MA.

Scoring: Wetland sites are scored based on five indicators of the quality of the surrounding

landscape and eight indicators of the quality of the wetland. Different indicators are provided

for freshwater and saltwater wetlands. Each indicator is scored 0 – 6. General criteria lead

the observer to one of four blocks of scores for each indicator. Best professional judgment is

then used to assign the score within each block. The total score for the site is calculated by

summing the scores of all indicators and dividing by the highest possible score. All

indicators receive the same weight. 

List of Indicators:

Landscape Indicators

Dominant land use

% impervious surface

% natural vegetation

Ratio wetland/ drainage basin

Possible major sources of pollution

Wetland Indicators (tidal indicators in parentheses)

Water level fluctuation (tidal fluctuation)

Outlet restriction

Rate of sedimentation (rate of erosion)

Nature of sediments (nature of substrate at water/ substrate interface)

Vegetation diversity

% Presence of a vegetated buffer of 100ft. width

Food sources

Degree of human activities in wetland

General Conclusions: The MA Coastal Zone Management Method was developed to assess

habitat integrity and quality for macroinvertebrates. Although some of the landscape

indicators may require a fair amount of office time to calculate, the field portion is rapid and

could be completed in less than half a day. The format is easy to follow and self-explanatory

and we liked the ability of the observer to assign a score within a given range. Although the

manual states that the method is for evaluating macroinvertebrate habitat, it is likely good for

assessing overall condition, however, it may lack some sensitivity because it lumps most

human-stressors into one indicator of human activities.
52

MINNESOTA ROUTINE ASSESSMENT METHOD (MNRAM)

Citation: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (MBWSR). 2003. Minnesota

routine assessment method for evaluating wetland functions (MNRAM). Version 3.0.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, St. Paul, MN 53pp.

Scoring: The Minnesota routine assessment method evaluates 12 functions based on a set of

questions for each function. Each question is designed to evaluate a particular aspect of the

function and is given a score of high/medium/low or a yes/no answer. Narrative descriptions

are given for each category and which include quantitative measures and guidance is

provided for how to score each question. Decision trees and formulas are then provided on

how to combine the answers to the questions to calculate a function score. Scores range from

0.1 – 2.0 which are categorized into low, medium, high and exceptional functional ratings.

Additional evaluation information is rated for wetland restoration potential, wetland

sensitivity to stormwater and urban development, and additional stormwater treatment needs.

No overall score is calculated for the wetland. 

List of function/value characteristics and indicators:

Special features

Vegetative diversity/ integrity

Community rating

Presence of invasive species

Maintenance of characteristic hydrologic regime

Outlet

Dominant upland land use

Soil condition/ wetland

Stormwater runoff/ pretreatment

Flood and stormwater storage/ attenuation

Outlet – flood attenuation

Dominant upland land use

Upland soils

Soil condition

Sediment delivery

Stormwater pretreatment and detention

Subwatershed wetland density

Emergent vegetation percent cover (flow through wetlands)

Emergent vegetation roughness (flow through wetlands)

Channels/ sheet flow

Downstream water quality protection

Dominant upland land use

Stormwater runoff pretreatment and detention

Sediment delivery

Upland buffer width

Upland area management

Upland area slope

Emergent vegetation percent cover (flow through wetlands)

Emergent vegetation roughness (flow through wetlands)

Downstream sensitivity

Outlet for flood
53

Maintenance of wetland water quality

Vegetative diversity/ integrity

Dominant upland land use

Stormwater runoff pretreatment and detention

Upland buffer width

Upland area management

Upland area slope

Sediment delivery

Nutrient loading

Shoreline protection

Shoreline

Rooted shoreline vegetation

Wetland width

Emergent vegetation erosion resistance

Shoreline erosion potential

Bank protection ability

Management of characteristic wildlife habitat structure

Wildlife barriers

Vegetative ranking

Wetland detritus

Upland buffer width

Upland area management

Upland area diversity

Outlet natural hydrologic regime

Stormwater runoff pretreatment and detention

Vegetation interspersion

Community interspersion

Wetland interspersion

Amphibian breeding/ hydroperiod

Amphibian breeding/ fish

Amphibian overwintering habitat

Maintenance of characteristic fishery habitat

Fishery quality

Final wetland water quality ranking

Maintenance of characteristic amphibian habitat

Amphibian breeding potential/ hydroperiod

Amphibian breeding potential/ fish

Amphibian overwintering habitat

Upland buffer width

Wildlife barriers

Dominant upland land use

Stormwater runoff pretreatment and detention

Aesthetics/ recreation/ education/ cultural/ science

Rare educational opportunity

Wetland visibility

Proximity to population

Public ownership

Public access

Human influences/ wetland
54

Human influences/ viewshed

Spatial buffer

Recreational activities

Commercial uses

Commercial crop/ hydrologic impact

Groundwater interaction

Soil properties

Subwatershed landuse and runoff characteristics

Wetland size and upland soils

Wetland hydrologic regime

Inlet/ outlet configuration

Upland topographic relief

Wetland restoration potential

Wetland restoration potential

Number of landowners affected

Subwatershed wetland density

Wetland restoration size

Proportion of wetland drained

Potential buffer width

Likelihood of restoration success

Wetland sensitivity to stormwater input and urban development

Vegetation type

Additional stormwater treatment needs

Maintenance of wetland water quality index

General Conclusions: The Minnesota method evaluates wetland sites based on 12 functions. 

A list of 72 questions are used to calculate the functions. Some of the questions would be

difficult to answer in the field and it is noted that these can be evaluated using GIS. The

formulas and decision trees are complicated for many of the functions, however, an

electronic version of the method is available which automates the process. Function scores

do not necessarily depict condition because measures of value and opportunity are included.

No overall score is calculated for the site.
55

MONTANA WETLAND ASSESSMENT METHOD

Citation: Berglund, J. 1999. Montana wetland assessment method. Montana Department of

Transportation and Morrison-Maierle, Inc., Helena, MT.

Scoring: The Montana Wetland Assessment Method evaluates 12 functions. Functions are

scored 0.1 – 1.0 and rated as high, medium, or low based on a set of indicators that are also

scored 0.1 to 1.0. Sites are then placed into Category I, II, III and IV based on criteria that

are outlined in the methods. These categories are not equivalent to condition but rather their

uniqueness or high value for certain functions. 

List of functions and indicators:

Listed/ proposed threatened and endangered species habitat

Primary, secondary, or incidental habitat

Habitat for rare plants or animals

Primary, secondary, or incidental habitat

General wildlife habitat rating

Observations and sign

Structural diversity

Class cover distribution

Duration of surface water

Disturbance

Fish/aquatic habitat

Duration of surface water

Cover

Shading

Species present

Flood attenuation

Area subject to flooding

% Flooded that is forested, scrub/shrub

Outlet present

Short and long term surface water storage

Area subject to flooding or ponding

Duration of surface water

Frequency of flooding

Sediment/nutrient/ toxicant retention and removal

% cover of wetland vegetation

Evidence of flooding

Outlet present

Sediment/ shoreline stabilization

% cover by species with deep root masses

Production export/food chain support

Area of vegetated cover

Structural diversity

Outlet present

Duration of surface water

Groundwater discharge/ recharge

Check all indicators that apply, springs, vegetation growing during dormant season, toe of

slope, seep, outlet no inlet, no confining layer, inlet no outlet
56

Uniqueness

Presence of rare communities

Disturbance

Recreation/ education potential

Known recreation or education location

Public vs. private ownership

General Conclusions: The Montana method was developed for use in a regulatory context to

evaluate sites where proposed impacts may occur. This method is focused on identifying

areas with high value or uniqueness and does not specifically evaluate condition, although it

does group wetlands of like-condition into broad categories. The method is easy to use and

the tables simplify the calculation of the function scores. Some of the field indicators are not

rapid and may be difficult to accurately assess.
57

NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL METHOD

Citation: Cook, R.A., A.J. Lindley Stone, and A.P. Ammann. 1993. Method for the

evaluation and inventory of vegetated tidal marshes in New Hampshire. The Audubon

Society of New Hampshire, Concord, NH. 77pp.

Scoring: This method evaluates nine functions for tidal marshes, each of which is scored

based on several indicators. Each indicator is given a value of 0.1, 0.5, or 1.0 and are all

weighted equally. Indicators are then averaged to get a numerical score between 0.1 and 1.0

for each function. No overall score is calculated for each wetland, rather a series of graphs

are produced for each function.

List of functions and indicators:

Ecological Integrity

Invasive species presence

Tidal restrictions

Type of tidal restriction

Ditching

Dominant land use in 500ft. buffer

Ratio of the number of occupied buildings to the to area of assessment unit

% of assessment area that has a natural buffer at least 500ft.

Square feet of impervious surface within 150ft. of assessment area

Shoreline anchoring

Type of marsh

Morphology

Storm Surge Protection

Size of assessment area

Type of marsh system

Wildlife, Finfish, and Shellfish Habitat

Size of assessment area

Score of Ecological Integrity

Type of tidal restriction

Diversity of habitat types

Presence of SAV

% of assessment area that has a natural buffer at least 500ft.

Proximity to freshwater wetlands

Water Quality Maintenance

Size of assessment area

Number of tidal restrictions

Type of tidal restriction

Recreational potential

Presence of shellfish beds

Waterfowl hunting

Opportunities for wildlife observation

Canoe and boat passage

Canoe and boat access

Public parking

Handicap accessibility

Visitor center, tails or boardwalks
58

Aesthetic Quality

Ecological integrity

Wildlife observation

Visible land use

General appearance

Noise level

Odors

Educational Potential

Wildlife observation

Visitor center, trails or boardwalks

Proximity to other habitats

Parking

Student safety

Handicap accessibility

Noteworthiness

Rare or endangered species

Other significant species present or listed as exemplary community

Historical or archaeological site

Located in urban setting

Used as long-term research site

General Conclusions: The Coastal Method assesses each tidal marsh evaluation unit based

on nine functions. The estimated time to perform this method is greater than one day so this

method would not be considered a rapid assessment method. The numerous indicators that

are used in this method provide good ideas for rapid indicators especially for services and

values. Additionally, this method provides a good example for how to adapt a nontidal

method to tidal systems. The directions for scoring each function are easy to follow;

however, the equations used to generate scores will be difficult to defend or validate. The

functions are not intended to specifically evaluate condition at each site but rather assess how

individual functions are performing. The final output is a score for each function and a

collection of graphs; no overall score is produced for each site.
59

NEW HAMPSHIRE METHOD

Citation: Ammann, A.P., and A.L. Stone. 1991. Method for the comparative evaluation of

nontidal wetlands in New Hampshire. NHDES-WRD-1991-3. New Hampshire Department

of Environmental Services, Concord, NH.

Scoring: This method evaluates 14 functions, each of which is scored based on several

indicators. Each indicator is given a value of 0.1, 0.5, or 1.0. To calculate the score for each

function, all the indicators are averaged with each indicator receiving the same weight. No

overall score is calculated for the wetland. 

List of Functions and Indicators:

Ecological Integrity

% Area having poorly drained soils or open water

Zoning of wetland ** not clear

Water quality of water associated with wetland

# Occupied buildings within 500 ft to area of wetland

Percent of wetland filled

% Of wetland with 500ft. buffer

Human activity in wetland

Human activity in upland

% Of plant community being altered include invasives

% Of wetland being drained

Number of road crossing per 500ft. of wetland

Wetland wildlife habitat

Ecological integrity score

Area of shallow open water

Water quality of water associated with wetland

Wetland diversity

Dominant wetland class

Interspersion of vegetation

Wetland juxtaposition

Number of islands

Wildlife access to other wetlands

Percent of wetland edge bordered by upland wildlife habitat

Finfish habitat

Land use in watershed above wetland

Water quality of the water associated with wetland

Barriers/ dams

Stream width

Shade

Character of stream channel

Abundance of cover

Spawning areas

Education potential

Ecological integrity score

Wetland wildlife habitat score

Proximity to school

Presence of nature preserve or wildlife management area
60

Proximity to other plant communities

Off-road parking

# of wetland classes assessable to site

Access to perennial stream

Access to pond

Safety

Public access

Visual/ aesthetic quality

Handicap accessibility

Visual/ aesthetic quality

# wetland classes visible from primary viewing location

Dominant wetland class

Noise level

Odors

Extent of open water visible

General appearance

Landform contrast

Surrounding land use

% area dominated by flowing shrubs/ trees or bright in fall

Wetland wildlife habitat score

Water-based recreation in watercourse associated with the wetland

Fishing permitted

Hunting permitted

Wildlife observation

Water quality of watercourse associated with wetland

Canoe and boat passage

Off-road public parking

Access to water, launch site

Visual/ aesthetic quality score

Flood Control Potential

Area of wetland

Area of watershed above the outlet

Wetland control length

Ground water use potential

Existing wells

Potential water supply

Ground water quality of aquifer

Water quality of water associated with wetland

Sediment trapping

Slope of watershed above wetland

Sources of excess sediment

Opportunity for sediment trapping

Effective floodwater storage

Distance to perennial stream or lake

Dominant wetland class

Areas of impounded open water

Nutrient attenuation

Opportunity of sediment trapping

Potential sources of excess nutrients
61

Opportunity for nutrient attenuation

Potential for sediment trapping

Dominant wetland class

Wetland hydroperiod

Shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces

Wetland morphology

Width of wetland bordering watercourse

Vegetation density

Urban Quality of Life

Dominant land use within 0.5miles

Rate of development within 0.5miles

Area of shallow permanent open water

Wetland diversity

Dominant wetland class

Interspersion of vegetation and/or open water

Stream corridor vegetation

Proximity to schools

Off road parking

Safety

Access to stream or lake

Number of wetland classes visible

Dominant wetland class visible

Area open water visible

Area dominated by flowering shrubs/ trees

General appearance

Water quality of water associated with wetland

Opportunities for wildlife observation

Hazards

Historical site potential

Proximity to perennial water course

Visible stone or earthen foundation, berms, dams, standing structures

Existence of mill pond at site

Presence of historical buildings

Noteworthiness

Critical habitat for T&E species

Study site for research

National natural landmark

Local significance

Archaeological site

Connected to state or federally designated river

General Conclusions: The New Hampshire Method was a precursor to the Coastal Method

described above and uses similar methods to evaluate functions based on a set of indicators.

The estimated time to perform this method is greater than one day so this method would not

be considered a rapid assessment method. However, we feel that some of the indicators used

to calculate each function could be used as potential indicators in a rapid assessment method.

This method does not evaluate condition at each site; rather how each individual function is

performing. No overall score is produced for each site.
62

OHIO RAPID ASSESSMENT METHOD (ORAM)

Citation: Mack, J.J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 5.0: User’s

Manual and Forms. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2001-1. Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency Division of Surface Water, 401/Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, OH.

The document can be downloaded from http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/401/.

Scoring: The Ohio Method evaluates the quality of wetlands using six metrics. Each metric

is scored by evaluating several indicators. An overall score is calculated by summing the

scores from all metrics. Some metrics are weighted more than others by having the potential

to score more points. The score is then used to place wetlands into three categories that have

different regulatory implications. 

List of metrics and indicators:

Wetland area (size)

Upland buffers and surrounding land use

Average buffer width

Intensity of predominant surrounding land use

Hydrology

Sources of water

Connectivity

Maximum water depth

Duration of standing water/ saturation

Modifications to natural hydrologic regime

Habitat alteration and development

Substrate/ soil disturbance

Habitat development

Habitat alteration

Special wetland communities

Vegetation, interspersion, microtopography

Wetland plant communities

Horizontal community interspersion

Microtopography

General Conclusions: ORAM is used to evaluate the quality of wetlands for both regulatory

and ambient condition assessment purposes. The method is easy to use because the questions

are clearly written and the presence or absence of the indicators that the user is asked to

evaluate can be assessed rapidly in the field. The method includes indicators of ecological

condition and indicators of disturbance which provides a good characterization of the site.

Because the method was developed for regulatory purposes, it includes some “value-added”

metrics such as the presence of rare species that may not necessarily be metrics that indicate

condition. Several of these value-added metrics may also score particular types of wetlands

higher than others, which again may not be indicative of condition.
63

OREGON FRESHWATER WETLANDS METHOD

Citation: Roth, E., R. Olsen, P. Snow and R. Sumner. 1996. Oregon freshwater wetland

assessment methodology. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR.

Scoring: This method evaluates nine functions for each site. Functions are scored by

answering a set of questions after performing a characterization of the site. The

characterization is primarily an office exercise to gather extensive information about the site

and the surrounding landscape. Each function is then assigned a category of how it is

performing using narrative criteria based on the answers to each question. No overall score is

calculated. 

List of functions and indicators:

Wildlife habitat

Number of Cowardin wetland classes present

Dominant wetland class

Wetland class and upland inclusion interspersion

Area of open water

Hydrological connectivity

Hydroperiod

Percent of edge that is upland wildlife habitat or the width of vegetated buffer

Fish habitat

Portion of stream associated with wetland that is shaded by vegetation

Physical character of the stream channel

Percent of stream that contains cover objects

Water quality of water bodies in upstream watershed

Surrounding land use

Species of fish present

Variability of water depth

Percent of lake containing cover items

Percent of the shoreline that is vegetated

Primary water source

Percent of wetland that is vegetated

Size

Located in the 100year floodplain

Water flow out of the wetland restricted

Percent of wetland that is forested or scrub-shrub

Land use downstream or down slope of wetland

Comprehensive plan land-use designation upstream

Sensitivity to impact

Hydrology upstream modified

Zoned land use within 500ft.

Dominant vegetation class

Enhancement potential

Assessment results for wildlife, fish, water quality and hydrology functions

Degree of tillage or compaction of soil

Water source

Open to the public

Visible hazards to the public
64

Potential for fish and wildlife habitat study

Physical access to other habitats

Public access to point within 250ft. of wetland

Access for people with limited mobility

Public boat launch or water access

Trails, viewing areas

Opportunity for fishing

Opportunity for hunting

Aesthetic quality

General appearance of wetland

Visual characteristic of the surrounding area

Odors present

Noises

General Conclusions: The Oregon method evaluates functions for use in local planning on

the landscape level. Nine functions are assessed and assigned to broad categories of

functional performance. Gathering the information in the characterization part of the method

to answer these questions is time consuming. This method provides a comprehensive list of

value-added indicators. Many of the questions are based on assessing wetland value or the

opportunity for a site to perform a function rather than assessing condition. Additionally,

some of the questions also score wetter and bigger wetlands higher. Functions are assigned to

broad categories, which may tend to score most wetlands in the middle and few at the top and

bottom; this may limit the ability of the method to differentiate sites.
65

PENN STATE STRESSOR CHECKLIST

Citation: Brooks, R.P., D.H. Wardrop, and J.A. Bishop. 2002. Watershed-Based Protection

for Wetlands in Pennsylvania: Levels 1 & 2 - Synoptic Maps and Rapid Field Assessments,

Final Report. Report No. 2002-1 of the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, University

Park, PA

16802. 64 pp.

Scoring: The current version of the Penn State method evaluates wetland condition by using

a stressor checklist to modify a previously completed landscape level assessment which

categorizes land use within a 1-km radius of the site. The checklist tabulates the number of

stressors present at a site and accounts for the ameliorating effects of the surrounding buffer.

A buffer score is calculated based on the width of the buffer and the vegetation type. A

stressor score is calculated by adding the number of stressors that are found at the site; all

stressors receive equal weighting. If the surrounding land use affects wetland condition by

‘penetrating’ the buffer (for example the presence of culverts that allow the effects of the

surrounding land to impact the wetland despite the presence of the buffer) the value of the

buffer is decreased in calculating the score. An overall score is then calculated using the

formula below. Penn State is developing versions of the Stressor Checklist that do not

require the completion of a landscape assessment to use the stressor checklist. 

CONDITION = CF [ ]

 ̨

 ̋

 ̧

Ó

Ì

Ï + -  ̇

 ̊

 ̆ Í

Î

È - BUFFERSCORE BUFFERHITS STRESSORS FLC

10

10 # %

Where:

CF = calibration factor (100/114) needed to standardize the scores to a scale of 0 to 100

%FLC = percent forested land cover, i.e., the results of the landscape assessment

#STRESSORS = the number of the ten categories of stressors present on site (Table 1)

BUFFERSCORE = a value from 0 to 14 assigned to the buffer given its type and width

BUFFERHITS = number of the eight stressor indicators present that were likely to

“puncture” the buffer; can not exceed the value of BUFFERSCORE 

List of indicators:

Buffer

Width

Vegetation type

Stressors

Hydrologic modification

Ditch

Tile drain

Dike

Weir/dam

Stormwater inputs

Point source (non stormwater)

Filling, grading, dredging

Road/ railroad

Dead/dying trees
66

Sedimentation

Sediment deposits/ plumes

Eroding banks/ slopes

Active/ recently active adjacent construction, plowing, heavy grazing, or forest harvesting

Siltiness on ground or vegetation

Urban/ road stormwater input/ culvert

Dominant presence of sediment tolerant plants

Dissolved Oxygen

Excessive density of aquatic plants or algal mats in water column

Excessive deposition or dumping of organic waste

Direct discharges of organic wastewater or material

Contaminant Toxicity

Severe vegetation stress

Obvious spills, discharges, plumes, odors

Wildlife impacts

Adjacent industrial sits, proximity of railroad

Vegetation Alteration

Mowing

Grazing

Tree cutting

Brush cutting

Removal of woody debris

Aquatic weed control

Excessive herbivory

Dominant presence of exotic or aggressive plant species

Evidence of chemical defoliation

Eutrophication

Direct discharges from agriculture feedlots, manure pits

Direct discharges from septic or sewage treatment systems

Heavy or moderately heavy formation of algal mats

Dominant presence of nutrient tolerant species

Acidification

Acid mine drainage discharges

Adjacent mined lands/ spoil piles

Excessively clear water

Absence of expected biota

Turbidity

High concentration of suspended solids in water column

Moderate concentration of suspended solids in water column

Thermal alteration

Significant increase water temperature

Moderate increase in water temperature

Salinity

Obvious increase in concentration of dissolved salts

General Conclusions: The Penn State method combines a landscape level assessment with a

rapid field assessment. The field part of the method assesses the condition of wetlands by

making the assumption that a site is in good condition unless there is evidence of disturbance
67

present. The field portion of the method is easy to use consisting primarily of a checklist of

stressors and is very rapid. Some of the stressors are specific to Pennsylvania and may

require some adaptation for use in other areas where different stressors are present. The

landscape analysis portion of the method excludes it from being a rapid assessment, however

Penn State is developing versions of the stressor checklist that do not require the landscape

analysis to score a wetland.
68

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARIN SCIENCE METHOD

Citation: Bradshaw, J. 1991. A technique for the functional assessment of nontidal

wetlands in the coastal plain of Virginia. Special Report No. 315 in Applied Marine Science

and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary,

Gloucester Point, VA.

Scoring: The VIMS method assesses nontidal wetlands on the coastal plain of Virginia for

their opportunity and effectiveness to perform seven functions. Each function is evaluated by

a set of factors that can be determined by desktop analysis of maps and existing data. Each

factor is given a rating of high, medium or low. Narrative guidance is then provided to

assign a rating of high, medium, or low for the function based on the factor ratings. No

overall score is calculated for the site. 

List of functions and indicators:

Flood storage and storm flow modification

Proportion of 2-year, 24-hour storm volume stored in wetland

Watershed slope

Retention/ detention of storm water within wetland

Nutrient retention and transformation

Potential source of excess nutrients

Proportion of land with nutrient runoff that is not treated prior to entering wetland

Average runoff in 2-year 24-hour storm

Average slope of watershed (same as in function 1)

Proportion of 2-year 24-hour storm volume stored in wetland (same as in function 1)

Retention/ detention ranking (same as in Function 1)

Sediment and toxicant trapping

Potential sources of sediments

Potential sources of nutrients

Proportion of land with sediment source that is not treated prior to entering wetland

Proportion of land with toxicant source that is not treated prior to entering wetland

Average runoff (same as above)

Watershed slope (same as above)

Proportion of 2-year 24-hour storm volume stored in wetland (same as above)

Retention/ detention ranking (same as above)

Sediment stabilization

Erodibility of soils within the wetland

Erosive conditions present (includes some stressors)

Flooding

Wetland roughness

Wildlife Habitat (this function is based on disturbance that would degrade the habitat and that

all types of wetlands provide habitat)

Surrounding land use

Wildlife access to other wetlands over land

Disturbance within wetland

Potential sources of toxic inputs to wetlands

Regional biodiversity (rarity)

Special habitat features (not rated or used in the functional score)
69

Aquatic Habitat (most factors not dependent on condition)

Permanent water

Accessibility of wetland to fish

Water quality

Channel as habitat

Cover

Public use of the wetland

Public access to wetland

Other factors (These factors are not used to evaluate specific functions but are independent

variables to analyze and describe data) 

Disturbance in surrounding landscape

Disturbance within wetland (generic qualitative rating low, mod, high)

Landscape position

Stream order

General Conclusions: The VIMS method is primarily a desktop evaluation of the potential

for a wetland to perform seven functions. Each function is assessed by answering several

questions that require rather detailed information. There is no quantitative formula for

translating the answers from the questions into an evaluation of function only narrative

guidance. This method evaluates the opportunity the wetland has to perform a function based

on landscape attributes and does not necessarily assess the actual condition of the wetland.

Additionally, there is no overall rating of the site. Because of the complexity of information

needed to complete this method we would not consider this a rapid assessment.
70

WASHINGTON STATE WETLANDS RATING SYSTEM (Eastern)

Citation: Washington State Department of Ecology. Draft revision. Washington State

Wetlands Rating System: Eastern Washington. Second Edition. Publication #02-06-019.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0206019a.html).

Scoring: The Eastern Washington Method evaluates wetlands based on two criteria: the

functions the wetland provides and special characteristics of the wetland. The categorization

based on function uses a series of questions with categorical answers that are specific to the

hydrogeomorphic type of wetland that is being evaluated. A final score is produced based on

a water quality improvement, hydrologic, and habitat functions that determines if the sites is

Category I, II, III, or IV. The categorization based on special characteristics is a series of

yes/no questions that determines if the site is Category I, II, or III. Each series of questions

places the wetland into a regulatory category. 

List of indicators in the Eastern Washington Version:

Categorization based on functions provided

Water Quality

Opportunity to improve water quality

Surface water flow

Soil properties

Emergent/ persistent vegetation

Seasonal ponding/ inundation

Surface depressions trapping water

Vegetation width and type along lakeshore

Slope

Hydrologic

Opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion

Surface water flow

Water storage

Vegetation type

Vegetation width and type along lakeside

Habitat

Vegetation structure

Presence of aquatic bed

Vegetation species richness

Interspersion

Special habitat features

Buffer width and land use

Inclusion in wetland corridor

Proximity to priority habitats

Surrounding land use

Presence of carp

Categorization based on special characteristics

Vernal pools
71

Alkali wetlands

Natural heritage wetlands

Bogs

Forested wetlands

General Conclusions: The Eastern Washington Method was designed with the same purpose

as the Western Washington Method to evaluate sites based on their sensitivity to disturbance,

significance, rarity, irreplaceability, and the functions they provide. However, the two

methods are very different. The Eastern Washington Method requires the user to identify the

hydrogeomorphic type of wetland being evaluated. This avoids rating certain functions

higher for wetlands based on their type but rather evaluates wetlands only in reference to

those of the same hydrogeomorphic type. Secondly, the Eastern Washington Method doubles

the function score for wetlands that have the opportunity to perform that function based on

their landscape position, inputs to the wetland etc. Because of this measure, this method may

not evaluate condition; however, the method could be easily modified to eliminate the

opportunity factor. The questions are clearly stated and generally easy to assess in the field.

Additionally, the method is concise and rapid to perform and an overall score is produced for

the characterization of functions.
72

WASHINGTON STATE WETLANDS RATING SYSTEM (Western)

Citation: Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Washington State Wetlands

Rating System: Western Washington. Second Edition. Publication #93-74. Washington

State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/93074.html).

Scoring: The Western Washington Method evaluates wetlands based on a series of

questions. The questions are a combination of yes/ no and categorical answers which place a

site into four regulatory categories. If the site is identified as a category I or IV site then no

score is produced, rather the questions lead you to the appropriate category. If the site is a

Category II or III site, scores are calculated to determine which is the appropriate category.

List of indicators in the Western Washington Version:

High Quality Natural Wetland

Human caused disturbances

Impervious surface in the watershed

Hydrological modification

Grading, filling, or logging

Grazing

Non-native plants

Water quality degradation

Irreplaceable Ecological Functions

Bogs and Fens

% cover of sphagnum

% cover of invasive species

Rare species

Vegetation classes

Mature forested wetland

Age of trees

Type of trees (deciduous, evergreen)

Structural diversity

Invasive species

Estuarine wetlands

Listed as a protected or special area

Size

Human disturbance

Hydrology

Buffer

Community diversity

Eelgrass and Kelp Beds

Presence of eelgrass

Presence of kelp beds

Category IV wetlands

Size

Hydrology

Species composition

Significant habitat value
73

Wetland area

Wetland type

Plant species diversity

Structural diversity

Interspersion

Habitat features

Connection to streams

Buffer

Connection to other habitat areas

General Conclusions: The Washington Method was designed to evaluate sites based on their

sensitivity to disturbance, rarity, irreplaceability, and the functions they provide. This

method evaluates condition but also includes some value measurements that could potentially

score a site higher based on a variable that is not related to condition (e.g., the type of

wetland). The questions are clearly stated and generally easy to assess in the field.

Additionally, the method is concise and rapid to perform. Several versions of the

Washington method were created to account for the variability in wetland types across the

state. Determining the regulatory category (I-IV) from the questions is straightforward;

however, an actual numerical score is only calculated for category II and III wetlands.
74

WISCONSIN RAPID ASSESSMENT METHOD

Citation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1992. Rapid assessment

methodology for evaluating wetland functional values. Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, Madison, WI. 9pp.

Scoring: The Wisconsin Method evaluates eight functions. A list of yes/ no questions for

each function determines if each indicator is present on site. After completion of these

questions and a site description, best professional judgment is used to assign the site to a

category of low, medium, high, exceptional or N/A for each function. A section is also

provided to identify special features or “red flags” for a site. No overall score is calculated

for the site. 

List of indicators:

Site Description

Hydrologic Setting

Vegetation

Soils

Surrounding land uses

Special Features

Functions

Floral diversity

Diversity of native plants

Rare plant community

Wildlife and Fishery Habitat

Species observed

Vegetation diversity and interspersion

Ratio of open water to cover

Surrounding upland habitat value

Wildlife corridor

Part of a large tract of habitat

Distance to other wetlands

Adjaceny to permanent water body

Food base

In priority watershed

Unique habitat

Flood and stormwater storage/ attenuation

Presence of steep slopes, large impervious area, moderate slopes with row cropping or

overgrazing

Reduction of run-off velocity

Flashy water level response to storms

Drainage impediment

Wetland storage capacity

Flood water storage

Water Quality Protection

Stormwater inputs

Nutrient and sediment sources

Flood/ stormwater attenuation
75

Trapping of suspended sediments

Water detention

Indicators of excess nutrients

Shoreline Protection

Wetland type

Wave action

Submerged and emergent vegetation

Stream bank erosion

Stream bank vegetation

Groundwater Recharge and Discharge

Indicators of groundwater springs

Contribution to base flow

Located on or near groundwater divide

Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education and Science

Visability of wetland

Location to population centers

Ownership

Access

Presence of human influences

Viewshed

Diversity of wetland

Diversity of landscape

Encouragement of exploration

Recreational activities

Use for education or research

General Conclusions: The Wisconsin method evaluates eight functions for whether a

“functional value is present and to assess the significance of the wetland to perform those

functions.” Although some of the indicators address condition, the overall method is an

evaluation of the value and opportunity of the wetland for performing various functions. The

questions are clear and easily guide the user through the method while looking at the site;

however, there is not a quantitative method for using the answers to the questions to score the

functions. The final assessment is a list of scores (high, medium, low) for eight functions and

there is no overall score for the site.