, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 543–560 | Cite as

An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands

  • M. Siobhan Fennessy
  • Amy D. Jacobs
  • Mary E. Kentula


We analyzed 40 existing wetland rapid assessment methods that were developed for a variety of purposes, including informing regulatory decisions and local land use planning, and reviewed them for their potential to assess ecological integrity or condition. Four evaluation criteria were used. We determined if the method 1) can be used to measure condition, 2) is truly rapid, 3) includes a site visit, and 4) can be verified. This resulted in six methods being selected for evaluation relative to a conceptual model describing the core elements of a wetland assessment method, including universal indicators of soil, hydrology, and biotic communities, as well as regional indicators. An additional nine methods were kept for ideas on indicators, scoring, or regionalization. From this review, we identified five general areas that need to be addressed when adapting existing methods or developing new methods to assess condition: 1) definition of the assessment area, 2) treatment of wetland type, 3) approaches to scoring, 4) consideration of highly valued wetland types or features, and 5) procedures for validation with comprehensive ecological data. With scoring in particular, we present the advantages of a method that produces a single integrative score. Development of a rapid assessment method can assist those interested in incorporating condition assessment into their programs because they require less time in the field and less taxonomic expertise than more quantitative methods, which can lead to significant cost savings and increased sample sizes.

Key Words

ecosystem integrity ecosystem stressors indicators wetland bioassessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Abbruzzese, B. and S. G. Leibowitz. 1997. A synoptic approach for assessing cumulative impacts to wetlands. Environmental Management 21: 457–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammann, A. P. and A. Lindley Stone. 1991. Method for the Comparative Evaluation of Nontidal Wetlands in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH, USA. Source: NH Department of Environmental Services, Water Resource Division, Wetlands Bureau, P.O. Box 2008, Concord, NH 03302. NHDES-WRD-1991-3.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, R. G. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States, second edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, USA. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391.Google Scholar
  4. Bartoldus, C. C. 1999. A comprehensive review of wetland assessment procedures: a guide for wetland practitioners. Environmental Concern, Inc., St. Michaels, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Bedford, B. L. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecological Applications 6: 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bedford, B. L. 1999. Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the United States and Southern Canada. Wetlands 19: 775–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, USA. Source: Scholar
  8. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA.Techni-Technical Report WRP-DE-4.Google Scholar
  9. Brinson, M. M. and A. Malvarez. 2002. Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status and threats. Environmental Conservation 29: 115–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, University Park, PA, USA. Source: The Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, University Park, PA 16802. Report No. 2002-1.Google Scholar
  11. Brooks, R. P., D. H. Wardrop, and J. A. Bishop. 2004. Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the Mid-Atlantic Region using synoptic land-cover maps. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94: 9–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Burglund, J. 1999. Montana Wetland Assessment Method. Montana Department of Transportation and Morrison-Maierle, Inc., Helena, MT, USA. Source: Montana Department of Transportation, Environmental Services, 2701 Prospect Ave., P.O. Box 201001, Helena, MT 59620-1001.Google Scholar
  13. Carletti, A., G. De Leo, and I. Ferrari. 2004. A critical review of representative wetland rapid assessment methods in North America. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: S103-S113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, USA. Source: The Audubon Society of New Hampshire, 3 Silk Farm Road, Concord, NH 03301.Google Scholar
  15. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.FWS/OBS-79/31.Google Scholar
  16. Fennessy, M. S., R. Geho, B. Elfritz, and R. Lopez. 1998. Testing the Floristic Quality Assessment Index as an Indicator of Riparian Wetland Disturbance. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Unit, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Fennessy, M. S., A. D. Jacobs, and M. E. Kentula. 2004. Review of Rapid Methods for Assessing Wetland Condition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. EPA/600/R-04/009.Google Scholar
  18. Finlayson, C. M. and N. Rea. 1999. Reasons for the loss and degradation of Australian Wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Furgro East Inc. 1995. A Method for the Assessment of Wetland Function. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD, USA. Source: Fugro East Inc., Six Maple Street, Northborough, MA 01532.Google Scholar
  20. 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, USA.Source: Bruce K. Carlisle, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02202.Google Scholar
  21. Innis, S. A., R. J. Naiman, and S. R. Elliott. 2000. Indicators and assessment methods for measuring the ecological integrity of semi-aquatic terrestrial environments. Hydrobiologia 422: 111–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs, A. D. 2003. Delaware Rapid Assessment Procedure, Version 1.2. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE, USA. Source: Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Water Resources Division/Watershed Assessment Section, 820 Silver Lake Blvd., Suite 220, Dover, DE 19904.Google Scholar
  23. Junk, W. J. 2002. Long-term environmental trends and the future of tropical wetlands. Environmental Conservation 29: 414–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karr, J. R. 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 221–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karr, J. R. and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5: 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kentula, M. E., S. E. Gwin, and S. M. Pierson. 2004. Tracking changes in wetlands with urbanization: sixteen years of experience in Portland, Oregon, USA. Wetlands 24: 734–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kusler, J. and W. Niering. 1998. Wetland assessment: have we lost our way? National Wetlands Newsletter 20: 1–14.Google Scholar
  29. 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. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, USA. EPA/600/R-92/167.Google Scholar
  30. 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. Miami, FL, USA. Source: Law Engineering, 3301 Atlantic Ave., Raleigh, NC 27604.Google Scholar
  31. 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, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Mack, J. J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 5.0: User’s Manual and Forms. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water, 401/Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, OH, USA. Technical Report WET/ 2001-1. Source: Scholar
  33. Miller, R. E. Jr. and B. E. Gunsalus. 1999. Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure. Natural Resource Management Division, Regulation Department, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL, USA, Technical Publication REG-001. Source: Scholar
  34. 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, USA, Source: Scholar
  35. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, third edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Roth, E., R. Olsen, P. Snow, and R. Sumner. 1996. Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology. Wetlands Program, Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR, USA, Source: Wetlands Program, Oregon Division of State Lands, 775 Summer St. NE, Salem, OR 97310.Google Scholar
  37. 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. Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS, USA, Technical Report WRP-DE-9.Google Scholar
  38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. Biological Assessments and Criteria: Crucial Components of Water Quality Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, EPA 822-F-02-006. ( Scholar
  39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, USA, EPA-841-R-02-001.Google Scholar
  40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, EPA 841-B-03-003.Google Scholar
  41. Van Dam, R. A., C. Camilleri, and C. M. Finlayson. 1998. The potential of rapid assessment techniques as early warning indicators of wetland degradation: a review. Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality 13: 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wardrop, D. H., M. E. Kentula, D. L. Stevens, Jr., S. F. Jensen, and R. P. Brooks. 2007a. Assessment of wetland condition: an example from the Upper Juniata Watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 27: 416–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wardrop, D. H., M. E. Kentula, S. F. Jensen, D. L. Stevens, Jr, and R. P. Brooks. 2007b. Assessment of wetlands in the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA, using the hydrogeomorphic approach. Wetlands 27: 432–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Washington State Department of Ecology. Draft ashington ex.html State Wetlands Rating System: Western Washingt tion. Second Edition. Washington State Department of ewYork, NY,USA. WA, USA, Publication #93-74. Source: Scholar
  45. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System: Western Washington, second edition. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, USA, Publication #93-74. Source: Scholar
  46. Whigham, D. F., A. D. Jacobs, D. E. Weller, T. Jordan, E., M. E. Kentula, S. F. Jensen, and D. L. Stevens, Jr. 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: 462–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winter, T. C. 1988. Conceptual framework for assessment of cumulative impacts on the hydrology of non-tidal wetlands. Environmental Management 12: 605–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Winter, T. C. 1992. A physiographic and climatic framework for hydrological studies of Wetlands. p. 127–48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Winter, T. C. 2001. The concept of hydrologic landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37: 335–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zedler, J. 2005. How compatible are biodiversity and ecosystem service goals? National Wetlands Newsletter 27: 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Siobhan Fennessy
    • 1
  • Amy D. Jacobs
    • 2
  • Mary E. Kentula
    • 3
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentKenyon CollegeGambierUSA
  2. 2.Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental ControlWater Resources Division/Watershed Assessment SectionDoverUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Western Ecology DivisionCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations