Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) assessments of mitigation sites compared to natural reference wetlands in pennsylvania

Wetlands

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 321-331

  Gebo, Naomi A ^a   Brooks, Robert P ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Compensatory mitigation; Hydrogeomorphic functional assessment; Mitigation banks; Mitigation rule

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA SET; GEOMORPHOLOGY; GIS; MONITORING; WATERSHED; WETLAND;

PENNSYLVANIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84863718963     PISSN: 02775212     EISSN: 19436246     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13157-011-0267-3     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bedford BL (1996) The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecol Appl 6:57-68.
2. Bedford BL, Preston EM (1988) Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: status, perspectives and prospectus. Environ Manag 12:751-771.
3. Bendor T (2009) A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effect on no net loss policy. Landsc Urban Plann 89:17-27.
4. Bishel-Machung L, Brooks RP, Yates SS, Hoover KL (1996) Soil properties of reference wetlands and wetland creation projects in Pennsylvania. Wetlands 16:532-541.
5. Brinson MM (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
6. Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R (1996) The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol Appl 6:69-76.
7. Brody SD, Davis SE, Highfield WE, Bernhardt SP (2008) A spatialtemporal analysis of Section 404 wetland permitting in Texas and Florida: thirteen years of impact along the coast. Wetlands 28:107-116.
8. Brooks RP (2004) (ed) Monitoring and Assessing Pennsylvania Wetlands. Final Report for Cooperative Agreement No. X-827157-01, Between Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC.
9. 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.
10. Brooks RP, Prosser DJ (1995) Wildlife Habitat Suitability Models. Penn State Cooperative Wetland Center Report No. 95-1. University Park. 27pp.
11. Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Cole CA, Campbell DA (2005) Are we purveyors of wetland homogeneity? A model of degradation and restoration to improve wetland mitigation performance. Ecol Eng 24:331-340.
12. Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Cole CA (2006) Inventorying and monitoring wetland condition and restoration potential on a watershed basis with examples from Spring Creek watershed, Pennsylvania, USA. Environ Manag 38:673-687.
13. Brooks RP, Brinson MM, Havens KJ, Hershner CS, Rheinhardt RD, Wardrop DH, Whigam DF, Jacobs AD, Rubbo JM (2011) Proposed hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands of the mid- Atlantic region, USA. Wetlands 31:207-219.
14. Brown SC, Veneman PLM (2001) Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21:508-518.
15. Campbell DA, Cole CA, Brooks RP (2002) A comparison of created and natural wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetl Ecol Manag 10:41-49.
16. Cole CA, Brooks RP (2000) A comparison of the hydrologic characteristics of natural and created mainstem floodplain wetlands in Pennsylvania. Ecol Eng 14:221-231.
17. Cole CA, Cirmo CP, Wardrop DH, Brooks RP, Peterson-Smith JE (2008) Transferability of an HGM wetland classification scheme to a longitudinal gradient of the central Appalachian mountains: initial hydrological results. Wetlands 28:439-449.
18. Dahl TE (2006) Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998-2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
19. Gebo NA (2009) A landscape perspective for refining wetland mitigation in Pennsylvania, USA. Master's thesis, Ecology Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
20. Gutrich JJ, Hitzhusen FJ (2004) Assessing the substitutability of mitigation wetlands for natural sites: estimating restoration lag costs of wetland mitigation. Ecol Econ 48:409-424.
21. Gwin SE, Kentula ME, Shaffer PW (1999) Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. Wetlands 19:477-489.
22. Hoeltje SM, Cole CA (2007) Losing function through wetland mitigation in central Pennsylvania, USA. Environ Manag 39:385-402.
23. Hossler K, Bouchard V, Fennessy MS, Frey SD, Anemaet E, Herbert E (2011) No net-loss not met for nutrient function in freshwater marshes: recommendations for wetland mitigation policies. Ecosphere 2:1-36.
24. Kelly NM (2001) Changes to the landscape pattern of coastal North Carolina wetlands under the CleanWater Act, 1984-1992. Landsc Ecol 16:3-16.
25. Kentula ME, Brooks RP, Gwin SE, Holland CC, Sherman AD, Sifneos JC (1992) An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. In Hairston AJ (ed). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
26. Kentula ME, Gwin SE, Pierson SM (2004) Tracking changes in wetlands with urbanization: sixteen years of experience in Portland, Oregon, USA. Wetlands 24:734-743.
27. Kettlewell CI, Bouchard V, Porej D, Micacchion M, Mack JJ, White D, Fay L (2008) An assessment of wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation in the Cuyahoga River watershed, Ohio, USA. Wetlands 28:57-67.
28. Miller SJ, Wardrop DH (2006) Adapting the floristic quality assessment index to indicate anthropogenic disturbance in Pennsylvania wetlands. Ecol Indic 6:313-326.
29. Minitab, Inc. (2005) Minitab statistical software, version 14. State College, PA, USA.
30. Mitsch WJ, Wilson RF (1996) Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecol Appl 6:77-83.
31. National Research Council (2001) Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the CleanWater Act. National Academy Press, Washington Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2001) Wetlands: Program Overview. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/wwec/general/ wetlands/WetlandReplaceFd.htm.
32. Race MS, Fonseca MS (1996) Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecol Appl 6:94-101.
33. Smith RD, Ammann A, Bartoldus C, Brinson MM (1995) An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Technical Report WRP-DE-9. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Washington, DC.
34. Spieles D (2005) Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced in mitigation wetland banks in the United States. Wetlands 25:51-63.
35. Stokstad E (2008) New rules on saving wetlands push the limits of the science. Science 320:162-163.
36. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2002) National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan. Press release dated 26 December 2002.
37. 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, April.
38. Wardrop DH, Kentula ME, Stevens DL Jr, Rubbo JM, Hychka K, Brooks RP (2007) The condition of wetlands on a watershed basis: The Upper Juniata Watershed in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Wetlands 27:432-445.
39. Zedler JB (1996) Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecol Appl 6:33-37.
40. Zedler JB, Callaway JC (1999) Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restor Ecol 7:69-73.