Assessing Wetland Condition on a Watershed Basis in the Mid-Atlantic Region Using Synoptic Land-Cover Maps

  • Robert P. Brooks
  • Denice H. Wardrop
  • Joseph A. Bishop


We developed a series of tools to address three integrated tasks needed to effectively manage wetlands on a watershed basis: inventory, assessment, and restoration. Depending on the objectives of an assessment, availability of resources, and degree of confidence required in the results, there are three levels of effort available to address these three tasks. This paper describes the development and use of synoptic land-cover maps (Level 1) to assess wetland condition for a watershed. The other two levels are a rapid assessment using ground reconnaissance (Level 2) and intensive field assessment (Level 3). To illustrate the application of this method, seven watersheds in Pennsylvania were investigated representing a range of areas (89–777 km2), land uses, and ecoregions found in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Level 1 disturbance scores were based on land cover in 1-km radius circles centered on randomly-selected wetlands in each watershed. On a standardized, 100-point, human-disturbance scale, with 100 being severely degraded and 1 being the most ecologically intact, the range of scores for the seven watersheds was a relatively pristine score of 4 to a moderately degraded score of 66. This entire process can be conducted in a geographic information system (GIS)-capable office with readily available data and without engaging in extensive field investigations. We recommend that agencies and organizations begin the process of assessing wetlands by adopting this approach as a first step toward determining the condition of wetlands on a watershed basis.

wetlands watersheds land cover condition assessment Mid-Atlantic Region 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamus, P. R., and Brandt, K.: 1990, 'Impacts on quality of inland wetlands of the United States: A survey of indicators, techniques and applications of community-level biomonitoring data', EPA/600/3-90/073 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, USA, p. 406.Google Scholar
  2. Brinson, M. M.: 1993, 'A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands' Technical Report WRPDE-4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, p. 79+app.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, R. P., Wardrop, D. H. and Perot, J. K.: 1999, 'Development and application of assessment protocols for determining the ecological condition of wetlands in the Juniata River Watershed', EPA/600/R-98-181 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, USA, p. 30.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, R. P., Wardrop, D. H., Cole, C. A. and Reisinger K. R.: 2002, 'Using reference wetlands for integrating wetland inventory, assessment, and restoration for watersheds,' R.W. Tiner (compiler), Watershed-based wetland planning and evaluation, A collection of papers from the Wetland Millennium Event, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, August 2000, Distributed by Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc., Berne, NY, USA, p. 141.Google Scholar
  5. Hughes, R. M., Larsen, D. P., and Omernik, J. M.: 1986, 'Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream potentials', Environ. Manage. 10 (5), 629-635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Karr, J. R., and Chu, E. W.: 1997, 'Biological monitoring and assessment: using multimetric indexes effectively', EPA 235-R97-001 University of Washington, Seattle, WA. USA, p. 149.Google Scholar
  7. Kentula, M.E., Brooks, R.P., Gwin, S.E., Holland, C.C., Sherman, A.D. and Sifneos, J.C.: 1992, Wetlands. An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, p. 151.Google Scholar
  8. Leibowitz, S.G., Abbruzzese, B., Adamus, P.R., Hughes, L.E. and Irish, J.T.: 1992, 'A synoptic approach to cumulative impact assessment: A proposed methodology', EPA/600/R-92/ 167 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, USA, p. 127.Google Scholar
  9. Miller, J.N., Brooks, R.P. and Croonquist, M.J.: 1997, 'Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities', Landscape Ecol. 12, 137-153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. NRC: 1995, Wetlands, Characteristics and Boundarie National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, p. 307.Google Scholar
  11. NRC: 2001, Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 348 pp.Google Scholar
  12. O'Connell, T.J., Jackson, L.E. and Brooks, R.P.: 1998, 'The bird community index: a tool for assessing biotic integrity in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands', Rep. No. 98-4 Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, p. 57.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, R.D., Ammann, A., Bartoldus, C. and Brinson M.M.: 1995, 'An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices', Technical Report WRP-DE-9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Washington, DC, USA, p. 79.Google Scholar
  14. Wardrop, D.H., and Brooks, R.P.: 1998, 'The occurrence and impact of sedimentation in central Pennsylvania wetlands', Environ. Monit. Assess. 51, 119-130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert P. Brooks
  • Denice H. Wardrop
  • Joseph A. Bishop

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations