Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center Robert P. Brooks, Director

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

2. Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the Mid-Atlantic region using synoptic land cover maps Robert P. Brooks, Denice Heller Wardrop, and Joseph A. Bishop Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

3. Penn State Cooperative Wetlands CenterRobert P. Brooks, Director • The mission of the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center (CWC) is to conduct, facilitate, and coordinate interdisciplinary research, monitoring, and training regarding wetlands and related resources, with an emphasis in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states. • Primary thrust of the CWC is research, focused in 3 major areas: • REFERENCE WETLANDS AND WATERSHEDS - Long-term study, monitoring, assessment, and understanding of natural reference wetlands; • RESTORATION AND CREATION - Development of design principles and monitoring protocols for wetland creation and restoration sites; and • ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS AND WETLAND-DEPENDENT WILDLIFE - Development and testing of ecological indicators for wetlands, streams, and forests.

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

5. Outline • Rationale for wetlands monitoring and assessment • Concept and use of reference • Wetland Monitoring Matrix • Case studies

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

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

8. Maximum Highest Ecological Integrity Condition Measurements Condition Gradient Non-Supporting Goals Minimum Human Disturbance Gradient Conceptual Wetland Condition Gradient Low High

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

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

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

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

15. LEVEL 1Landscape Assessment

16. Why on a watershed basis? • Watersheds are more efficient unit financially, socially, ecologically • Accounting Unit (AU) for Integrated 303(d)/305(b) Reporting • Conceptually attractive for local managers • Watershed reporting of wetland condition by state by 2014

18. Forested - 22% Agriculture - 40% Urban - 38%

24. White Deer Creek Bushkill Shavers Creek Yellow Breeches Degraded Brandywine Reference Standard Juniata Little Fishing Creek Spring Creek 0 25 50 75 100 Disturbance Score Level 1 Watershed ScoresBased on 50 Randomly-Selected Wetlands

25. LEVEL 2Rapid Assessment

27. Hydrologic Modification Sedimentation Dissolved oxygen Contaminant toxicity Vegetation alteration Eutrophication Acidification Turbidity Thermal Alteration Salinity Stressor Checklist

28. Rapid Assessment Score • Combination of landscape, buffer, and site-specific stressors • Score=Buffer+(%For*WF)-Buffer Hits Landscape Buffer Wetland Stressors (on-site) Buffer Penetration

32. LEVEL 3Quantitative Assessment

33. Energy dissipation/Short term SW detention Long term SW storage Interception of groundwater Plant community structure and composition Detritus Vertebrate community structure and composition Invertebrate community structure and composition Maintenance of landscape-scale biodiversity HGM Functional Assessment Models for Wetlands • Cycling of redox-sensitive compounds • Solute adsorption capacity • Retention of inorganic particulates • Export of organic particulates • Export of dissolved organic matter

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

35. r = -0.889 P < 0.001

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