Conducting Regional Assessments of Wetland Condition An Example from the Juniata Watershed

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 EPAs 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
AcknowledgementsFunding 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 USEPAs 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
Conceptual Wetland Condition Gradient
Low
High
9
(No Transcript)
10

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

11

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

12
(No Transcript)
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

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

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

17
(No Transcript)
18
Forested - 22 Agriculture - 40 Urban - 38
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
Level 1 Watershed ScoresBased on 50
Randomly-Selected Wetlands
25
LEVEL 2Rapid Assessment
26
(No Transcript)
27
Stressor Checklist

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

• Eutrophication
• Acidification
• Turbidity
• Thermal Alteration
• Salinity

28
Rapid Assessment Score

• Combination of landscape, buffer, and
  site-specific stressors
• ScoreBuffer(ForWF)-Buffer Hits

Landscape
Buffer
Wetland
Stressors (on-site)
Buffer Penetration
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
LEVEL 3Quantitative Assessment
33
HGM Functional Assessment Models for Wetlands

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

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

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

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 lt 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!