Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Monitoring and Assessment of Wetlands: Concepts, Case Studies, and Lessons Learned

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Advances in Wetlands Science, Management, Policy, and Practice

Abstract

Monitoring and assessment (M&A) have long been considered critical components of any resource management program where there is a need to evaluate progress and performance over time. Understanding the origins of current monitoring and assessment strategies and techniques for wetlands in the United States provides useful perspectives on how wetlands are both similar and different from other waters and allows us to take advantage of the lessons learned across all aquatic resources. We highlight several knowledge threads that significantly influenced how we approach M&A today, including legal mandates, tools developed to improve the management of resources, and scientific evidence of the utility of M&A information. We describe the role of regional forums in the evolution and development of these tools and in the building of support for their programmatic integration in the Mid-Atlantic Region (MAR). We then tell the story of their use and application at a variety of spatial scales, including site-level mitigation applications in Pennsylvania, watershed application in the Upper Juniata Watershed, regional application in the MAR, and, finally, national application in the National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA). We document the lessons learned, and present an example of promising future use of M&A data in the construction of Tiered Aquatic Life Use (TALU) Standards for wetlands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamus PR (2001) Guidebook for hydrogeomorphic (HGM) based assessment of Oregon wetland and riparian sites: statewide classification and profiles. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RG (1995) Descriptions of the ecoregions of the United States (second edition). Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartoldus CC (1999) A comprehensive review of wetland assessment procedures: a guide for wetland practitioners. Environmental Concern Inc, St. Michaels, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford BL (1996) The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecol Appl 6:57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdaghs M, Johnston CA, Regal RR (2006) Properties and performance of the floristic quality in the Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 26:718–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson MM (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R (1996) The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol Appl 6:69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Perot JK (1999) Development and application of assessment protocols for determining the ecological condition of wetlands in the Juniata River Watershed. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/R-98-181. p 30

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP, DH Wardrop, CA Cole, and KR Reisinger (2002) Using reference wetlands for integrating wetland inventory, assessment, and restoration for watersheds. Pages 9–15. In: RW Tiner (compiler). Watershed-based wetland planning and evaluation. A collection of papers from the Wetland Millennium Event, 6–12 August 2000, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. Distributed by Assoc. State Wetland Managers, Inc., Berne, NY, 141pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Bishop JA (2004) Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the Mid-Atlantic region using synoptic land-cover maps. Environ Monit Assess 94:9–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Cole CA (2006) Inventorying and monitoring wetland condition and restoration potential on a watershed basis with examples from the Spring Creek watershed, Pennsylvania, USA. Environ Manage 38:673–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP, Brinson MM, Havens KJ, Hershner CS, Rheinhardt RD, Wardrop DH, Whigham DF, Jacobs AD, Rubbo JM (2011) Proposed hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands of the Mid-Atlantic region, USA. Wetlands 31:207–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton TM, Uzarski DG, Gathman JP, Genet JA, Keas BE, Stricker CA (1999) Development of a preliminary invertebrate index of biotic integrity for Lake Huron coastal wetlands. Wetlands 19:869–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle DM, Hawkins CP (2008) Land use and the structure of western US stream invertebrate assemblages: predictive models and ecological traits. J N Am Benthol Soc 27(4):986–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole CA (2006) HGM and wetland functional assessment: six degrees of separation from the data? Ecol Indicat 6:485–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council NR (1992) Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 552

    Google Scholar 

  • Council NR (1995) Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Council NR (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 322

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl TE (2006) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl TE (2011) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies SP, Jackson SJ (2006) The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16:1251–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2007a) An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:543–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy MS, JJ Mack, MT Sullivan, E Deimeke, M Cohen, M Micacchion, M Knapp (2007b) Assessment of wetlands in the Cuyahoga River watershed of northeast Ohio. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2007-4. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  • Foundation TC (1988) Protecting America's wetlands: an action agenda. Final report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebo NA, Brooks RP (2012) Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) assessments of mitigation sites compared to natural reference wetlands in Pennsylvania. Wetlands 32:321–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwin SE, Kentula ME, Shaffer PW (1999) Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. Wetlands 19:477–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herlihy AT, Paulsen SG, Van Sickle J, Stoddard JL, Hawkins CP, Yuan LL (2008) Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:860–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs AD (2007) Delaware rapid assessment procedure version 4.1. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson JB (2005) Hydrogeomorphic wetland profiling: an approach to landscape and cumulative effects analysis. EPA/620/R-05/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan TE, Andrews MP, Szuch RP, Whigham DF, Weller DE, Jacobs AD (2007) Comparing functional assessments of wetlands to measurements of soil characteristics and nitrogen processing. Wetlands 27:479–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karr JR, KD Fausch, PL Angermeier, PR Yant, IJ Schlosser (1986) Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Special Publication 5, The Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentula ME (2007) Monitoring wetlands at the watershed scale. Wetlands 27:412–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kentula ME, Brooks RP, Gwin SE, Holland CC, Sherman AD, Sifneos JC (1992) Wetlands: an approach to improving decision making in wetland restoration and creation. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentula ME, TK Magee, AM Nahlik (2011) Potential frameworks for reporting on ecological condition and ecosystem services for the 2011 National Wetland Condition Assessment. EPA/600/R-11/104, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusler JS, Kentula ME (1990) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold L (1977) A reverence for rivers. Governor’s Conference on the California Drought. Los Angeles, CA, 7 March 1977

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez RD, Fennessy MS (2002) Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecol Appl 12:487–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack JJ (2007) Developing a wetland IBI with statewide application after multiple testing iterations. Ecol Indicat 7:864–881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mack JJ, ME Kentula (2010) Metric similarity in vegetation-based wetland assessment methods. EPA/600/R-10/140, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee TK, Kentula ME (2005) Response of wetland plant species to hydrologic conditions. Wetl Ecol Manage 13:163–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee TK, Ernst TL, Kentula ME, Dwire KA (1999) Floristic comparison of freshwater wetlands in an urbanizing environment. Wetlands 19:517–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews JW (2003) Assessment of the floristic quality index for use in Illinois, USA, wetlands. Nat Area J 23:53–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller SJ, Wardrop DH (2006) Adapting the floristic quality assessment index to indicate anthropogenic disturbance in central Pennsylvania wetlands. Ecol Indicat 6:313–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller SJ, Wardrop DH, Mahaney WM, Brooks RP (2006) Plant based index of biological integrity (IBI) for headwater wetlands in central Pennsylvania. Ecol Indicat 6:290–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM (1995) Ecoregions: a spatial framework for environmental management. In: David WS, Simon TP (eds) Biological assessment and criteria tool for water resources planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 49–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM, Bailey RG (1997) Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions. J Am Water Resour Assoc 33:935–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston EM, Bedford BL (1988) Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland functions: a conceptual overview and generic framework. Environ Manage 12:565–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooney TP, Rogers DA (2002) The modified floristic quality index. Nat Area J 22:340–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Scozzafava ME, Kentula ME, Riley E, Magee TK, Serenbetz G, Sumner R, Faulkner C, Price M (2011) The national wetland condition assessment: national data on wetland quality to inform and improve wetlands protection. Natl Wetlands Newsl 33:11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer PW, Ernst TL (1999) Distribution of soil organic matter in freshwater emergent/open water wetlands in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Wetlands 19:505–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer PW, Kentula ME, Gwin SE (1999) Characterization of wetland hydrology using hydrogeomorphic classification. Wetlands 19:490–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sifneos JC, Herlihy AT, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2010) Calibration of the Delaware rapid assessment protocol to a comprehensive measure of wetland condition. Wetlands 30:1011–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RD, Wakeley JS (2001) Hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions: guidelines for developing regional guidebooks - Chapter 4 Developing assessment models. ERDC/EL TR-01-30, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RD, A Ammann, C Bartoldus, MM Brinson (1995) An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS, USA, Technical Report WRP-DE-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein ED, Ambrose RF (1998) A rapid impact assessment method for use in a regulatory context. Wetlands 18:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens DL, Jr., AR Olsen (2000) Spatially restricted random sampling designs for design-based and model-based estimation. Pages 609–616 in Accuracy 2000: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences. Delft University Press, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens DL Jr, Jensen SF (2007) Sample design, execution, and analysis for wetlands assessment. Wetlands 27(3):515–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens DL Jr, Olsen AR (1999) Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources. J Agr Biol Environ Stat 4:415–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens DL Jr, Olsen AR (2004) Spatially-balanced sampling of natural resources. J Am Stat Assoc 99:262–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson RJ, Hauer FR (2002) Integrating hydrogeomorphic and index of biotic integrity approaches for environmental assessment of wetlands. J N Am Benthol Soc 21:502–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Hawkins CP, Johnson PK, Norris RH (2006) Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecol Appl 16:1267–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thom RM (1997) System-development matrix for adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects. Ecol Eng 8:219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thom RM (2000) Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects. Ecol Eng 15:365–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thom RM, Williams G, Borde A, Southard J, Sargeant S, Woodruff D, Laufle JC, Glasoe S (2005) Adaptively addressing uncertainty in estuarine and near coastal restoration projects. J Coast Res AI:94–108

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2002) Scientific panel’s assessment of fish and wildlife mitigation guidance. GAO-02-574, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, 64pp

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Methods for evaluating wetland condition: introduction to wetland biological assessment. EPA-822-R-02-014. Office of Water, USEPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Elements of a state water monitoring and assessment program. EPA 841-B-03-003, Washington, DC. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements>

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006a) 2006–2011 EPA strategic plan: charting our course. EPA-190-R-06-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006b) Wadeable streams assessment: a collaborative survey of the nation's streams. EPA/841/B-06/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources, final rule. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/wetlands_mitigation_final_rule_4_10_08.pdf.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) National lakes assessment: a collaborative survey of the nation's lakes. EPA/841/R-09/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011a) National wetland condition assessment: site evaluation guidelines. EPA/843/R-10/004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011b) Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik, 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory-Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011c) National wetland condition assessment: field operations manual. EPA/843/R-10/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Core elements of an effective state and tribal wetlands program framework. http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/wetlands/cefintro.cfm (accessed 7 July 2012)

  • Van Sickle J (2008) An index of compositional dissimilarity between observed and expected assemblages. J N Am Benthol Soc 27(2):227–235 Van Sickle J, Paulsen SG (2008) Assessing the attributable risks, relative risks, and regional extents of aquatic stressors. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:920–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardrop DH, Kentula ME, Stevens DL Jr, Jensen SF, Brooks RP (2007a) Assessment of wetland condition: an example from the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 27:416–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardrop DH, Kentula ME, Jensen SF, Stevens DL Jr, Brooks RP (2007b) Assessment of wetlands in the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA, using the hydrogeomorphic approach. Wetlands 27:432–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardrop DH, Glasmeier AK, Peterson-Smith J, Eckles D, Ingram H, Brooks RP (2011) Wetland ecosystem services and coupled socioeconomic benefits through conservation practices in the Appalachian region. Ecol Appl 21(suppl):93–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whigham DF, Deller Jacobs A, Weller DE, Jordan TE, Kentula ME, Jensen SF, Stevens DL (2007) Combining HGM and EMAP procedures to assess wetlands at the watershed scale - status of flats and non-tidal riverine wetlands in the Nanticoke River watershed, Delaware and Maryland (USA). Wetlands 27:462–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB, Callaway JC (1999) Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restor Ecol 7:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Riparia, Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, 302 Walker Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Denice Heller Wardrop, Robert P. Brooks & Sarah J. Chamberlain

  2. USEPA, NHEERL-WED, 200 S.W. 35th Street, Corvallis, OR, 97333, USA

    Mary E. Kentula

  3. Department of Biology, Kenyon College, 205 Higley Hall, Gambier, OH, 43055, USA

    M. Siobhan Fennessy

  4. Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Route 1208 Greate Road, 1346, Gloucester Point, VA, 23062-1346, USA

    Kirk J. Havens & Carl Hershner

Authors
  1. Denice Heller Wardrop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary E. Kentula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert P. Brooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Siobhan Fennessy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah J. Chamberlain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kirk J. Havens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carl Hershner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denice Heller Wardrop .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Riparia, Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, Old Main 201, University Park, 16802, Pennsylvania, USA

    Robert P. Brooks

  2. , Riparia, Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, Old Main 201, University Park, 16802, Pennsylvania, USA

    Denice Heller Wardrop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wardrop, D.H. et al. (2013). Monitoring and Assessment of Wetlands: Concepts, Case Studies, and Lessons Learned. In: Brooks, R., Wardrop, D. (eds) Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Advances in Wetlands Science, Management, Policy, and Practice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5596-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation