Kent, Donald M.

Frontmatter
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kent, Donald M.
Applied wetlands science and technology / edited by Donald M. Kent.2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 1-56670-359-X (alk. paper)
1. Wetland conservation. 2. Ecosystem management. 3. Wetlands. 4. Water quality
management. I. Kent, Donald M.

QH75 .A44 2000

333.91'8dc21 00-030927
CIP

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material
is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot
assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.

Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, microlming, and recording, or by any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal or
internal use of specic clients, may be granted by CRC Press LLC, provided that $.50 per page
photocopied is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923
USA. The fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service is ISBN 1-56670-359-
X/009/$0.00+$.50. The fee is subject to change without notice. For organizations that have been granted
a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for
creating new works, or for resale. Specic permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC
for such copying.

Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identication and explanation, without intent to infringe.

2001 by CRC Press LLC

Lewis Publishers is an imprint of CRC Press LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number 1-56670-359-X
Library of Congress Card Number 00-030927
Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Printed on acid-free paper

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Preface
Compared to other ecosystems, wetlands have received an unprecedented amount
of attention. Much of this attention has occurred as a result of, and subsequent to,
passage of Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act in 1977. The Act recognizes
the importance of wetlands to the societal good. That is not to suggest that wetland
values were institutionally unrecognized prior to this time. Beginning in the 1930s,
wetlands were recognized as valuable for the production and protection of wildlife,
especially waterfowl and furbearers. In the 1960s, wetlands were recognized as
important for attenuating oodwaters. Now, wetlands are recognized for providing
these and other functions, including nutrient and contaminant retention and trans-
formation, groundwater recharge, and production export.
Ironically, and coincident with this recognition of wetland value is an awareness
that wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate. Between 1780 and 1980, an
estimated 47 million ha of wetlands were lost in the contiguous United States. Of
the north central wetlands 75 percent, mostly prairie potholes, were lost between
1850 and 1977. Bottomland hardwood forests were cleared at a rate of 67,000 ha
per year between 1940 and 1980. Gulf coast wetlands disappeared at a rate of 10,000
ha per year. Of those wetlands that remain, many are degraded from channelization,
damming, and agricultural and urban runoff. Remaining wetlands are fragmented
or isolated.
This awareness of wetland loss and degradation, and the promulgation of laws
and regulations for protecting wetlands and regulating their use, has spawned the
development and growth of the wetland professions. This book is for working
wetland professionals and nonprofessionals alike. It is intended for managers, reg-
ulators, consultants, and developers responsible for effective decision making. The
book also is intended for anyone interested in how wetlands function, how wetlands
can be protected, and how wetlands can be managed. In some ways, this is a how
to book, in that it is a guide for working with wetlands. However, we understand
that each and every wetland, and each and every situation, is unique and requires a
unique solution. As such, the book seeks to provide the guidelines for effective
decision making.
This second edition of the book, as was the rst, was written by practicing
wetland professionals. In this manner, the most relevant, up to date information on
applied wetland science and technology is available. Each chapter is fully referenced,
providing the reader with an opportunity to seek out more detailed information. The
book has 14 chapters2 fewer than the rst edition. The reduction in the number
of chapters is due to consolidation, and not a reduction, in material. In fact, three
new chapters have been added, and several chapters appearing in the rst edition
have been partly or completely revised. Several new authors have participated in the
revision.
Chapter 1 provides an introduction to wetland management, including denition
and classication. The chapter also discusses legislation and regulation in the United
States to provide the context for subsequent chapters. Chapter 2, Wetland Identi-
cation and Delineation, is a consolidation of Chapters 2 and 3 from the rst edition.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Carl Tammi has updated the subject in response to recent legislation and policy.
Wetland functions and values are discussed in Chapter 3. The subject has been totally
revised from the rst edition, with an emphasis on evaluating wetland functions and
values, including economic values. Chapter 4 is an updated version of the ecological
risk assessment material. As in the rst edition, David Kent and his coauthors discuss
evaluating wetland impacts from anthropogenic chemical, physical, or biological
stressors. Chapter 5 discusses avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetlands from
anthropogenic activities.
Wetlands impacted by anthropogenic activity will require remediation. Enhance-
ment, restoration, and creation of wetlands are methods for remediating impacts.
John Zentner, author of Chapter 6, has consolidated the freshwater and coastal
enhancement, restoration, and creation chapters from the rst edition. Another reme-
diation option is mitigation banking. Chapter 7Wetland Mitigation Banking,
authored by Mike Rolband, Ann Redmond, and Tom Kelsch, is a chapter new to
this edition. Chapter 8, Monitoring Wetlands, is a carryover from the rst edition.
Monitoring is an important component of remediation efforts, as well as fundamental
to treatment wetland programs. Tom and Bill DeBusk have written Chapter 9 on
treatment wetlands. The chapter is completely new and consolidates the discussions
of three distinct chapters in the rst edition.
Chapters 10 through 13 discuss wetland management. Chapter 10 consolidates
Chapters 13 and 14 from the rst edition in discussing design and management of
wetlands for wildlife. The chapter addresses design issues based upon modern
conservation principles and specic management techniques for existing wetlands.
Coastal Marsh Management (Chapter 11) continues to be an important issue, and
Robert Buchsbaums chapter from the rst edition is again included in this edition.
A new chapter on Watershed Management is included in the second edition. Effective
management of wetlands is constrained without consideration of surrounding activ-
ities. The theme of broadened perspectives is expanded even further in Chapter 13,
Managing Global Wetlands. This new chapter, coauthored by Annette Paulin, rec-
ognizes that some wetlands are of international importance and discusses mecha-
nisms for managing these wetlands.
The nal chapter, Wetlands Education, is the anchor for the book. Karen Ripple
has completely revised the chapter. Nevertheless, the intent of the chapter remains
the same as that of the rst editioneffective wetland management and regulation
depends ultimately upon educating the general populace on the value of wetland
functions.
In closing, I am indebted to the contributing authors. Their contributions are
invaluable to those who may read this book and hopefully will inuence the way
wetlands are managed. I am pleased and honored to have worked with each author
and proud to share this book with them. As always, a work of this sort is the result
of numerous discussions both past and present. To all those who have stimulated
and inuenced my thinking, thanks.

Donald M. Kent, Ph.D.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 About the Authors
Dr. Robert Buchsbaum is Massachusetts Audubon Societys coastal ecologist
and is responsible for applied research on coastal habitats and providing technical
analysis on coastal issues. He has published technical papers on a variety of topics
including herbivory by Canada geese on saltmarsh plants, nitrogen dynamics in
decomposing marsh plants, and on eelgrass wasting disease, and nontechnical papers
for the lay public. His recent work includes studies of human impacts on wildlife
and water quality in salt marshes and investigations into the role of the environment
in the ability of eelgrass to resist disease.

Thomas A. DeBusk is the President of Azurea, Inc. and DB Environmental

Laboratories, Inc., environmental consulting and research rms located in central
Florida. He has 23 years experience with the use of aquatic plants and wetlands for
water treatment.

Dr. William F. DeBusk is Assistant Professor in the Department of Soil and

Water Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. He specializes in elemental
cycling, wetland ecology, and analysis of ecosystem processes along spatial gradients.

Dr. James F. Hobson is Senior Project Advisor for Arcadis Geraghty & Miller
in Millersville, MD. He has signicant experience in environmental toxicology and
testing programs in support of existing and new chemical product registrations under
U.S. federal, state, Canadian, and European regulations. He is a diplomate of the
American Board of Toxicology and has frequently spoken at and chaired industrial
and academic conferences on environmental toxicology issues.

Dr. Kenneth D. Jenkins is Director of the Molecular Ecology Institute at

California State University and principal in the consulting rm of JSA Environmental
in Long Beach, CA. He has been directly involved in numerous ecological risk
assessments, especially for hazardous waste sites, and is widely published in the
eld of ecological assessments.

Tom Kelsch is Director of the Conservation Education Initiative which he joined

in 1998. Previously, he worked for 8 years as an environmental scientist with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Ofce of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
in Washington, D.C., including 3 years as Chief of the Wetlands Regulatory Policy
Section. He also has extensive experience as an environmental planner for a private
consulting rm. He earned a masters degree in Environmental Studies from Yale
University and holds a bachelors degree in Landscape Architecture from Michigan
State University.

David J. Kent is currently an environmental toxicologist and consultant with

THE WEINBERG GROUP INC. in Washington, D.C. He formerly was manager of
the aquatic toxicology laboratory and project manager on eld assessments for

2001 CRC Press LLC

International Technology Corporation. He has extensive experience in performing
and managing ecological assessments for a wide variety of regulatory programs
including ecological risk assessments for the pesticide industry and RCRA and
Superfund sites. He has numerous scientic presentations and publications to his
credit in the areas of aquatic toxicology and ecological risk assessment.

Dr. Donald M. Kent is Principal Technical Staff Director with Walt Disney
Imagineering Research and Developments Environmental Science and Technology
Group and a consultant. His broad experience includes ecological and environmental
research, conduct of functional ecological assessments and impact analyses, design
and implementation of mitigation projects, training of international decision makers,
and expert technical review. He continues to investigate and develop various applied
ecological and biotechnological techniques for integrating land use and natural
resource protection.

Kevin McManus is Manager of Technical Services for the Massachusetts Water

Resources Authoritys Toxic Reduction and Control Program. He has 17 years
experience in the environmental eld, working in both the public and private sectors.
He has specialized in environmental impact assessment, wetlands permitting and
mitigation, facility siting, NEPA compliance, pollution prevention, and oil spill
response technologies.

Annette M. Paulin is a Project Manager with Azurea, Inc., where she conducts
original research and develops and implements environmental management and
training programs. Her research experience includes studies of nuisance aquatic
plants, contaminant removal by natural systems, and copper impacts on aquatic
communities. She has also developed training programs for international decision
makers. Presently, her duties include managing a volunteer-based water quality
monitoring program in central Florida.

Ann Redmond is Vice President of Development for Wetlandsbank, Inc. She is

responsible for Wetlandsbanks expansion into new markets, as well as its regulatory
and legislative activities. She was with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection for 12 years as the agencys expert on mitigation and mitigation banking,
leading the development and implementation of rules and legislation in these areas.
She has worked in ecosystem management initiatives, the conceptual framework for
restoration planning, development of functional assessment methods, and sustain-
ability of mitigation projects. She also has worked with a regional water management
agency and as an environmental consultant. She earned her bachelor and master of
science degrees in Biological Science from the Florida State University with empha-
ses on botany and ecology.

Karen L. Ripple is Education Director for Environmental Concern Inc., a

nonprot nonadvocacy corporation devoted to wetland education, wetland research,
and the development and application of technology in the construction, restoration,
and enhancement of wetlands. She has extensive experience as a public school

2001 CRC Press LLC

environmental educator and national teacher trainer specializing in wetlands. She
has authored several articles and coauthored a book of wetland activities for educa-
tors. Prior to her concentration on wetland education, she contributed to a variety
of sheries research projects.

Michael Rolband is the president of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. which
specializes in water resource issues. He is a member of the Virginia Chesapeake
Bay Local Assistance Board, serves on the Fairfax County Stormwater Utility Advi-
sory Group, and is on the boards of the Northern Virginia Chapter of the National
Association of Industrial and Ofce Properties and the National Mitigation Banking
Association. He has taught courses on wetland mitigation, permitting, and Chesa-
peake Bay Preservation Ordinances. He has a bachelor of science and master of
engineering degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering, and a master of business
administration degree from Cornell University.

Carl E. Tammi is a Senior Wetlands Project Manager in the Water Resources

Department of ENSR, Inc. He has over 12 years of professional experience in
wetland assessment, delineation, permitting, mitigation and restoration design, con-
struction, monitoring, and treatment design. He manages a group of wetland scien-
tists who routinely work throughout the United States on capital projects, remedia-
tion and restoration projects, biological monitoring, and applied wetland science
research. He is a Certied Professional Wetland Scientist, and received his Provi-
sional Delineator Certication from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore
District.

John Zentner is a principal with Zentner and Zentner, a professional consulting

rm with ofces in California. Zentner and Zentner specializes in planning and
restoration throughout the western United States. He specializes in wetland science,
land planning, permit processing, and restoration of natural resources. Among other
accomplishments, he is President of the Western Chapter of the Society of Wetland
Scientists and has participated in various federal, state, and local wetland working
groups.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Contents
Chapter 1
Denition, Classication, and U.S. Regulation
Donald M. Kent

Chapter 2
Wetland Identication and Delineation
Carl E. Tammi

Chapter 3
Evaluating Wetland Functions and Values
Donald M. Kent

Chapter 4
Ecological Risk Assessment of Wetlands
David J. Kent, Kenneth D. Jenkins, and James F. Hobson

Chapter 5
Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts to Wetlands
Donald M. Kent and Kevin McManus

Chapter 6
Wetland Enhancement, Restoration, and Creation
John Zentner

Chapter 7
Wetland Mitigation Banking
Michael S. Rolband, Ann Redmond, and Tom Kelsch

Chapter 8
Monitoring Wetlands
Donald M. Kent

Chapter 9
Wetlands for Water Treatment
Thomas A. DeBusk and William F. DeBusk

Chapter 10
Design and Management of Wetlands for Wildlife
Donald M. Kent

Chapter 11
Coastal Marsh Management
Robert Buchsbaum

2001 CRC Press LLC

Chapter 12
Watershed Management
Donald M. Kent

Chapter 13
Managing Global Wetlands
Annette M. Paulin and Donald M. Kent

Chapter 14
Wetlands Education
Karen L. Ripple

2001 CRC Press LLC

Kent, Donald M. Definition, Classification, and U.S. Regulation
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 1

Denition, Classication, and

U.S. Regulation

Donald M. Kent

CONTENTS

Denition
Classication
Classication of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States
A Hydrogeomorphic Classication for Wetlands
U.S. Regulation
Regulating Agencies
Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Resource Conservation Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
References

DEFINITION

Wetlands are dened directly or implicitly in a variety of ways. Several factors,

including personal perspective, position in the landscape, and wetland diversity and
function, contribute to the tractable nature of the denition.
Each individual or group brings to the denition its own perspective based upon
cumulative experience and personal needs (Figures 1 to 4). For example, the lay
person asked to dene wetlands may envision a deep-water marsh teeming with

2001 CRC Press LLC

ducks, or alternatively a dark swamp. To an engineer a wetland may be a place that
will require a specialized construction design to accommodate poorly drained soils.
The scientist likely has a functional perspective, dening a wetland as a place where
anaerobic processes occur, and plants are adapted specially for living in saturated
or inundated conditions. Finally, those charged with regulating wetland use are likely
to have a structural perspective, dening wetlands by characteristic soil, hydrology,
and plants so as to facilitate permit decision making.

Figure 1 Salt marsh is an emergent, interdial estuarine wetland system characterized by

persistent plant species such as cordgrass (Spartina alterniora). Saltmarsh has
a fringe geomorphic setting, and the water source and hydrodynamics are pre-
dominantly surface or near surface bidirectional ows.

Dening wetlands is further complicated by their position in the landscape.

Wetlands are transitional habitats in the sense that they are neither terrestrial nor
aquatic, but exhibit characteristics of both. Their boundaries are part of a continuum
of physical and functional characters, and may expand or contract over time depend-
ing upon factors such as average annual precipitation, evapotranspiration, and mod-
ications to the watershed. The transitional nature of wetland characteristics and the
shifting of wetland boundaries renders precise identication of wetland boundaries
difcult if not impossible.
The diversity of wetland types also contributes to the tractable nature of the
denition. Wetlands include such familiar habitats as marsh and swamp, as well
as less familiar seasonal wetlands such as vernal pools and intermittent streams.
They may be tidal or nontidal, saline or fresh, lotic or lentic, permanent or imper-
manent. Vegetation may consist of herbaceous or woody species, or there may be
no vegetation.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 2 This marsh is an emergent, palustrine wetland with a depressional setting. It is
subject to vertical uctuations in water level, and derives its water from precipitation
and groundwater discharge.

Figure 3 Palustrine wetlands may also be wooded as illustrated by this hardwood swamp.
Swamps frequently have a riverine setting and unidirectional, surface or near-
surface ows.

Wetlands also defy a unifying functional denition. Each wetland is unique with
respect to its size, shape, hydrology, soils, vegetation, and its position in the land-
scape. As such, wetlands exhibit a wide range of functional attributes, including
provision of aquatic and wildlife habitat, retention of sediments and toxicants, ood

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 4 This vernal pool in California is inundated or saturated for a short time in early
spring. It occurs in a depressional setting and is dependent upon precipitation for
water.

attenuation, nutrient metabolism, groundwater recharge, and production export.

Individual wetlands may exhibit some of these attributes, all of these attributes, or
in rare instances, none of these attributes. Moreover, individual wetlands of similar
attributes are likely to provide functions to differing degrees.
Despite the difculty in singularly dening wetlands, several formal denitions
have been proposed. The earliest denition was for managers and scientists, partic-
ularly those concerned with waterfowl and wildlife (Shaw and Fredine, 1956).
Largely a structural denition, it uses language understandable to the lay person.

The term wetland refers to lowlands covered with shallow and sometimes tempo-
rary or intermittent waters. They are referred to by such names as marshes, swamps,
bogs, wet meadows, potholes, sloughs, and river-overow lands. Shallow lakes and
ponds, usually with emergent vegetation as a conspicuous feature, are included in
the denition, but the permanent waters of streams, reservoirs, and deep lakes are
not included. Neither are water areas that are so temporary as to have little or no
effect on the development of moist-soil vegetation.

The denition established two parameters essential for a habitat to be a wetland:

the presence of surface water and the development of moist-soil vegetation. At a
workshop of the Canadian National Wetlands Working Group, 23 years later, a
denition evolved that recognized a third parameter, hydric soils, and which noted
the functional attributes of wetlands (Tarnocai, 1979). Furthermore, it expanded the
previous denition of wetland to include not only those habitats with surface water
but also those having saturated soils.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Wetland is dened as land having the water table at, near, or above the land surface
or which is saturated for a long enough period to promote wetland or aquatic processes
as indicated by hydric soils, hydrophilic vegetation, and various kinds of biological
activity which are adapted to the wet environment.

That same year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a denition that also
recognized wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation as dening
parameters (Cowardin et al., 1979). Intended for wetland scientists, the denition is
distinguished from the Canadian denition in that a wetland need not exhibit char-
acteristics of all three parameters.

Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the
water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.
For purposes of this classication wetlands must have one or more of the following
three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes;
(2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soils; and (3) the substrate is
nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during
the growing season each year.

The three-parameter approach developed for scientists and managers is

reected in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, forming the basis for regulatory
decision making.

The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufcient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas.

CLASSIFICATION

Classication is the act or process of classifying; systematically arranging in

groups or categories according to established criteria. For example, Linnaean tax-
onomy is a binomial nomenclature providing for orderly classication of plants and
animals according to their presumed natural relationships. Classication schemes
may be hierarchical or nonhierarchical. If hierarchical, the classication scheme may
be divisive or agglomerative, and monothetic or polythetic. Hierarchical, divisive,
polythetic classications are common and lend themselves to a wide range of
scientic applications. Regardless of the scheme used, the effect of classication is
to provide a common language.
Many wetland classication schemes have been developed (e.g., Martin et al.,
1953; Stewart and Kantrud, 1971; Golet and Larson, 1974). The classication system
developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) and the classication system developed by
Brinson (1993) have received wide acceptance by scientists, policymakers, and
managers. These classications can be applied across broad geographic areas and
in large part encompass many other classication schemes.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Classication of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States

In 1974, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service directed its Ofce of Biological
Services to design and conduct a national inventory of wetlands. Existing classi-
cation systems were considered too simplistic (Martin et al., 1953) or too geograph-
ically limited (Stewart and Kantrud, 1971; Golet and Larson, 1974; Odum et al.,
1974; Zoltai et al., 1975) to satisfy the requirements of a national inventory. Cow-
ardin et al. (1979) developed a classication of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States to support the national inventory. The objectives of the classication
were to describe ecological units with homogeneous natural attributes, to arrange
these units in a system that would aid resource management decisions, to furnish
units for inventory and mapping, and to provide uniformity in concepts and termi-
nology throughout the United States.
Their classication of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States is
hierarchical, divisive, and polythetic (Table 1). Wetland and deepwater systems are
made up of subsystems, subsystems of classes, and classes of subclasses. Domi-
nance types (plants and animals) are attributed to subclasses. Water regime, water
chemistry, and soil modiers are applied to classes, subclasses, and dominance
types. For example, according to the classication, a cordgrass (Spartina sp.)
saltmarsh would be estuarine (system), intertidal (subsystem), emergent (class),
and persistent (subclass).
Systems are a complex of wetlands and deepwater habitats that share hydrology,
geomorphology, chemistry, and biology. The classication has ve major systems:
marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine. Subsystems are more specic
categories of systems and provide hydrological information. Marine and estuarine
systems encompass subtidal and intertidal subsystems. The riverine system includes
a tidal subsystem, as well as lower perennial, upper perennial, and intermittent
subsystems. Limnetic and littoral subsystems comprise the lacustrine system. The
palustrine system is not divided into subsystems.
The class describes the general appearance of the habitat. Classes are dened
by either the dominant vegetation form or the physiography and composition of the
substrate. Examples include rock bottom, aquatic bed, emergent wetland, and for-
ested wetland. Cowardin et al. (1979) intended that the classes be discernible without
extensive biological knowledge, and in many cases recognizable by remote sensing.
Finer differences in vegetation form or substrate are recognized at the subclass level.
For example, rock bottom is divided into bedrock and rubble, and emergent wetland
is divided into persistent and nonpersistent. Dominance type is the most precise
category and reects the dominant plant species or dominant sedentary or sessile
macroinvertebrate.
Class, subclass, and dominance type levels of the classication are more fully
described by modiers. Water regime modiers describe hydrological characteristics
and require detailed knowledge of duration and timing of surface inundation. Salinity
in all habitats, and pH in freshwater habitats, are water chemistry modiers. Soil
modiers are mineral and organic. The classication also includes special modiers
to describe man-made wetlands, and wetlands modied by the activity of persons
or beavers.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 1 A Classication of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979)
System Subsystem Class
Marine Subtidal Rock bottom
Unconsolidated bottom
Aquatic bed
Reef
Intertidal Aquatic bed
Reef
Rocky shore
Unconsolidated shore
Estuarine Subtidal Rock bottom
Unconsolidated bottom
Aquatic bed
Reef
Intertidal Aquatic bed
Reef
Streambed
Rocky shore
Unconsolidated shore
Emergent wetland
Scrubshrub wetland
Forested wetland
Riverine Tidal Rock bottom
Unconsolidated bottom
Aquatic bed
Rocky shore
Unconsolidated shore
Emergent wetland
Lower perennial Rock bottom
Unconsolidated bottom
Aquatic bed
Rocky shore
Unconsolidated shore
Emergent wetland
Upper Perennial Rock bottom
Unconsolidated bottom
Aquatic bed
Rocky shore
Unconsolidated shore
Intermittent Streambed
Lacustrine Limnetic Rock bottom
Unconsolidated bottom
Aquatic bed
Littoral Rock bottom
Unconsolidated bottom
Aquatic bed
Rocky shore
Unconsolidated shore
Emergent wetland
Palustrine Rock bottom
Unconsolidated bottom
Aquatic bed
Unconsolidated shore
Mosslichen wetland
Emergent wetland
Scrubshrub wetland
Forested wetland

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Cowardin et al. (1979) designed the classication for use over a broad geographic
area, and for use by individuals and organizations with varied interests and objec-
tives. Information about the wetland or deepwater area to be classied is obtained
directly from site inspections, or indirectly from maps, aerial photographs, and other
sources. The type and extent of information necessarily determine the level to which
the area is classied. Cowardin et al. (1979) intended the classication to be open-
ended and incomplete below the class level. Users are expected to identify additional
dominance types and add subclasses as necessary.

A Hydrogeomorphic Classication for Wetlands

A hydrogeomorphic classication for wetlands presented by Brinson (1993,

1995) emphasizes the abiotic characteristics of wetlands. The abiotic characteristics
are intended to be indicators of wetland functions. Brinson (1993) suggests that a
functionally based classication of wetlands is needed for two reasons. First, the
concept of wetlands needs to be simplied to improve communication among
researchers, managers, and the public, and this communication is best achieved by
focusing on processes that are fundamental to sustained existence. Second, para-
digms that clarify the relationship between ecosystem structure and function must
be developed to support monitoring of ecosystem health.
A hydrogeomorphic classication for wetlands was developed to support ongo-
ing efforts at assessing the physical, chemical, and biological functions of wetlands
subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. It has its scientic origins in a
coastal ecosystem classication system based upon biological, geological, chemical,
and physical factors (Odum et al., 1974); a mangrove classication system relying
on vegetation and on water source, quality, and ow (Lugo and Snedaker, 1974);
and a study by Brown et al. (1979) that found that differences among freshwater
forested wetlands are attributed to the amount of water ow. Kangas (1990), who
developed a wetland classication system based upon energy ow and landscape
properties, also inuenced the classication.
The classication is nonhierarchical and has three interdependent components:
geomorphic setting, water source and its transport, and hydrodynamics (Table 2).
Geomorphic setting is dened as the topographic location of the wetland within the
surrounding landscape. The seven geomorphic settings tend to have distinct combi-
nations of hydroperiod, dominant direction of water ow, and zonation of vegetation.
An individual wetland may have characteristics of more than one geomorphic setting
category. Also, a small wetland (e.g., less than or equal to 1 ha) may be difcult to
assign to a geomorphic setting category if it is part of a larger wetland complex.
Water sources include precipitation, groundwater discharge, and surface or near-
surface ow. The latter include ooding from tides, overbank ow from stream
channels, and interow or overland ow from higher potentiometric surfaces. Pre-
cipitation is, of course, a contributor to all wetlands and its relative importance is a
function of the contribution of groundwater and surface water. The relative impor-
tance of the three sources of water can be determined by construction of a water
budget, or more quantitatively by interpreting a hydrograph of the wetland. Bogs

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 2 Hydrogeomorphic
Classication for Wetlands
(Brinson, 1993, 1995)
Geomorphic setting
Riverine
Depressional
Slope
Mineral soil ats
Organic soil ats
Estuarine fringe
Lacustrine fringe
Water source
Precipitation
Groundwater discharge
Surface or near-surface inow
Hydrodynamics
Vertical uctuations
Unidirectional ows
Bidirectional surface or near-surface ows

and pocosins are heavily inuenced by precipitation, fens and seeps by groundwater
discharge, and riverine and fringe wetlands by surface and near-surface ow.
Hydrodynamics refers to the direction of ow and strength of water movement
within the wetland. There are three qualitative categories of hydrodynamics: vertical
uctuations, unidirectional ows, and bidirectional ows. Astronomic tides, wind,
or a combination of both generate the latter. The classication makes inferences
about hydrodynamics based upon velocity of ow, rate of water table uctuations,
particle size distribution of bedload sediments, and the capacity to replace soil
moisture decits created by evapotranspiration. These correspond, respectively, to
the depressional, riverine, and fringe geomorphic settings.
Implementing the classication requires use of indicators of wetland ecological
signicance, prole development, and comparison to reference wetlands. Indicators
are observed in the eld, or derived from maps, photographs, water quality data, or
other sources. Representative indicators of ecological signicance include water
characteristics such as suspended sediment and salinity, water color, pH, nutrient
status, and soil or sediment characteristics (Table 3). Ecological signicance, as
determined from direct observation of wetland function or from indicators, is then
used to develop a prole for the wetland. A prole may be either narrative or tabular,
and is the end point of the classication. Brinson (1993) recommends that prole
development be tied to the establishment of reference wetlands that would be used
to facilitate assessment, training, and mitigation.
The classication emphasizes the interpretation of wetland ecological signi-
cance based upon geomorphic setting, water source, and hydrodynamics, and illus-
trates how fundamental knowledge about water ows and sources can reveal eco-
logical functioning. It does not allow the user to take it to the eld for the purpose
of matching indicators with functions (Brinson, 1993). Also, the interpretation of
ecological signicance results in the description of wetland function without neces-
sarily placing the wetland into a discrete category. Brinson (1993) expects that the

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 3 Hydrogeomorphic Classication for
Wetlands Indicators of Ecological
Signicance (Brinson, 1993)
Water characteristics
Suspended sediments
Salinity
Color
Clear
Black
pH
Acid
Circumneutral
Nutrient status
Low
Medium
High
Soil or sediment characteristics
Mineral
Organic sediments

classication will be used in conjunction with locally recognized wetland names or

with classication of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States developed
by Cowardin et al. (1978).

U.S. REGULATION

Numerous federal statutes have been enacted which impact activities in and
around wetlands (Table 4). These statutes encompass regulation, acquisition, and
restoration of wetlands, incentives and disincentives to use of wetlands, and other
programs. Far from being a cohesive collection of synergistic laws, the statutes have
been initiated and enacted piecemeal over the years by various federal agencies.
Federal authority to regulate wetlands derives principally from Section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344). Section 404
requires landowners and developers to obtain permits prior to dredge and ll activ-
ities in navigable waters. The denition of navigable waters has been extended to
include adjacent wetlands. However, the Water Pollution Control Act exempts normal
agriculture, silviculture, and ranching activities, provided these activities do not
convert areas of U.S. waters to uses to which they were not previously subject, do
not impair the ow or circulation of such waters, or do not reduce their reach.
Due in part to the aforementioned exemptions, Section 404 regulates only
about 20 percent of the activities that impact wetlands. The Food Security Act of
1985 (P.L. 99198 Statute 1354) compensates, in part, for this lack of regulation
through three provisions: Swampbuster, the Conservation Reserve Program, and the
Wetlands Reserve Program. Swampbuster denies federal farm program benets to
producers who plant an agricultural commodity on wetlands that were converted
after December 23, 1985. Although Swampbuster is the only legislative provision
that directly affects eligibility for other federal benets, the policy allowed

2001 CRC Press LLC

producers to plant a commodity crop in wetlands when prices were high enough to
make federal farm program benets unnecessary, and to plant converted wetlands
with a noncommodity crop in years when federal program benets might be needed.
To overcome this deciency, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of
1990 was enacted to make noncomplying producers ineligible for federal benets
for that year and all subsequent years.
By contrast, the Conservation Reserve Program authorizes the federal government
to enter into contracts with agricultural producers to remove highly erodible cropland
from production for 10 to 15 years in return for annual rental payments. Producers
are required to implement a conservation plan that usually includes planting cover
such as grass or trees to hold soil in place and to reduce erosion. The program was
expanded in 1989 to make cropped wetlands eligible for enrollment. Similarly, the
Wetlands Reserve Program offers nancial incentives for landowners to enhance
wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal agricultural land. Landowners may sell a
conservation easement or enter into a cost-share restoration agreement to restore and
protect wetlands. The landowner continues to control access to the land, and may
lease the land for undeveloped recreational activities (e.g., hunting, shing).
Another program that removes land from use is authorized by The Water Bank
Act of 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1301). The Water Bank Program provides funds to purchase
10-year easements on wetlands and adjacent areas for the purpose of preserving,
restoring, and improving the wetlands. Private landowners enter into agreements
with the federal government in which they promise not to drain, ll, level, burn, or
otherwise destroy wetlands, and to maintain ground cover essential for the resting,
breeding, or feeding of migratory waterfowl. Implementation of the program is
concentrated in the prairie pothole region of the United States.
Two other programs having a signicant affect on the preservation of wetlands
are the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718)
and the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 3501). The Stamp Act uses
proceeds from duck stamps to preserve wetlands and adjacent uplands important to
waterfowl through purchase or perpetual easement. The Coastal Barrier Resources
Act attempts to minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of federal
revenues, and damage to sh, wildlife, and other natural resources by prohibiting
federal expenditures and nancial assistance for development of coastal barriers.

Regulating Agencies

Army Corps of Engineers

The Corps is responsible for issuing Section 404 permits authorizing dredge or
ll activities in waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. Approximately
15,000 project-specic permit applications and 40,000 minor activities associated
with regional and nationwide general permits are evaluated each year (United States
General Accounting Ofce, 1991). Wetland determinations and delineations are also
the responsibility of the Corps, including verication of the accuracy of delineations
performed by consultants for permit applicants. Public interest reviews are conducted
to determine the efcacy of permits. Consideration is given to economics, aesthetics,

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 4 Signicant Federal Wetlands-Related Legislation
Legislation
Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act
Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Act
Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act
Fish and Wildlife Act
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act
National Flood Insurance Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Water Bank Act
Endangered Species Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
Section 402, Federal Water Pollution
Control Act
Section 404, Federal Water Pollution
Control Act
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
Food Security Act
Swampbuster
Conservation Reserve Program
Wetland Reserve Program
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
Agricultural Credit Act
Everglades National Park Protection
and Expansion Act
North American Wetlands
Conservation Act
Food, Agriculture, Conservation and
Trade Act
2001 CRC Press LLC
Date Effect on Wetlands
1899 Requires permits from U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers for dredge and ll
activities in navigible waterways and
wetlands
1934 Proceeds of duck stamps used to
acquire habitat
1937 Assistance to states and territories for
restoring, enhancing, and managing
wildlife
1956 Established U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
1958 Requires all federal projects and
federally permitted projects to consider
wildlife conservation
1965 Purchase of natural areas at federal and
state levels
1966 Established National Wildlife Refuge
System
1968 Requires communities to develop
oodplain management programs
1969 Requires Environmental Impact
Statements for federal actions
1970 Purchase easements on wetlands
1973 Prohibits federal agencies from
undertaking or funding projects which
threaten rare or endangered species
1976 Controls disposal of hazardous waste,
reducing threat of contamination to
wetlands
1977 Authorized national system for
regulating sources of water pollution
1977 Regulates dredge and ll activities
1982 Prohibits federal expenditure or
assistance for development on coastal
barriers
1985
Discourages farming on wetlands
Removes erodible crop land from use
Restores and protects wetlands on
private property
1986 Promotes conservation through
intensied cooperation and acquisition
efforts
1987 Preserves land reverting to Department
of Agricultures Farmers Home
Administration
1989 Increased water ow to park and
acquired more land
1989 Increased protection and restoration of
wetlands under the North American
Waterfowl Plan
1990 Strengthened Swampbuster,
Conservation Reserve Program, and
the Wetland Reserve Program
Table 4 (continued) Signicant Federal Wetlands-Related Legislation
Legislation Date Effect on Wetlands
Water Resources Development Act 1990 Requires federal agency development
of action plan to achieve no-net loss
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection 1990 Restoration of coastal wetlands and
and Restoration Act funds North American Waterfowl
Management projects
Coastal Zone Management and 1990 Sets guidelines and provides funding for
Improvement Act state coastal zone management
programs

historic value, sh and wildlife value, value for attenuating oods, navigation,
recreation, water supply and quality, and other needs and welfare of the public.
Compliance inspections are conducted following permit issuance to ensure permit
conditions are met. The Corps has the authority to seek civil or administrative
remedies for violation of permit conditions, or for other unauthorized discharges
into wetlands.

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency has statutory enforcement authority to

deal with unpermitted dredge and ll activities. In addition, the Agency determines
the scope of navigable waters and interprets the scope of exemptions under the
Section 404 Program. In consultation with the Corps, the Agency developed the
guidelines for selection of sites for disposal of dredged or ll materials. The Agency
has veto authority under Subsection 404(c) if disposal of dredged or ll material
will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellsh beds
and shery areas, and wildlife or recreational areas.

Fish and Wildlife Service

The Fish and Wildlife Service is an advisor to the Corps with regard to the Section
404 Program, making recommendations for approval or disapproval of permits, and
recommending conditions for permits to be approved. In addition, the Fish and
Wildlife Service is active in a number of programs designed to protect, restore, and
enhance wetlands. The Fish and Wildlife Service helps the National Resource Con-
servation Service map agricultural wetlands and select and manage wetlands protected
under the Farmers Home Administration Conservation Program and the Wetlands
Reserve Program. The Fish and Wildlife Service also implements restoration projects
on highly erodible cropland under the Conservation Reserve Program and assists the
Department of Agriculture and individual farmers in designing wetland conservation
plans necessary to qualify for Farm Bill incentives. Other activities of the Fish and
Wildlife Service include management of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
research, and development of National Wetlands Inventory maps.

2001 CRC Press LLC

National Resource Conservation Service

The U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service

administers and enforces Swampbuster, the Conservation Reserve Program, and the
Wetland Reserve Program. This includes providing wetlands information to produc-
ers and third parties, identifying and delineating wetlands, monitoring compliance
with regulations, responding to public complaints and producers appeals of deci-
sions, and dealing with violations. Operations are carried out in conjunction with
other federal and state agencies and county committees.

National Marine Fisheries Service

The National Marine Fisheries Service is active in coastal wetland issues and
makes recommendations to the Corps regarding Section 404 permits under authority
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Field staff also work closely with state
sh and wildlife agencies and water quality agencies.

REFERENCES

Brinson, M. M., A Hydrogeomorphic Classication for Wetlands, Technical Report

WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1993.
Brinson, M. M., The HGM approach explained, Natl. Wet. Newsl., November/December,
7, 1995.
Brown, S., Brinson, M. M., and Lugo, A. E., Structure and function of riparian wetlands, in
Strategies for the Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian
Ecosystems, Johnson, R. R. and McCormick, J. F., Tech. Coord., Forest Service General
Technical Report WO-12, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1979, 17.
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., and LaRoe, E. T., Classication of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-79/31, 1979.
Golet, F. C. and Larson, J. S., Classication of Freshwater Wetlands in the Glaciated Northeast,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 116, 1974.
Kangas, P. C., An energy theory of landscape for classifying wetlands, in Lugo, A. E.,
Brinson, M. M., and Brown, S., Eds., Forested Wetlands, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, 15.
Lugo, A. E. and Snedaker, S. C., The ecology of mangroves, Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 5, 39, 1974.
Martin, A. C., Hotchkiss, N., Uhler, F. M., and Bourn, W. S., Classication of Wetlands of
the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientic Report, Wildlife
20, 1953.
Odum, H. T., Copeland, B. J., and McMahan, E. A., Eds., Coastal Ecological Systems of the
United States (4 Volumes), The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1974.
Shaw, S. P. and Fredine, C. G., Wetlands of the United States, Their Extent, and Their Value
for Waterfowl and Other Wildlife. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Circular 39, Washington, D.C., 1956.
Stewart, R. E. and Kantrud, H. A., Classication of Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated
Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 92, 1971.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Tarnocai, C., Canadian wetland registry, in Proceedings of a Workshop on Canadian Wetlands
Environment, Rubec, D. D. A. and Pollett, F. C., Eds., Canada Land Directorate, Eco-
logical Land Classication Series, No. 12, 1979, 9.
United States General Accounting Ofce, Wetlands Overview: Federal and State Policies,
Legislation and Programs, GAO/RCED-9279FS, Washington, D.C., 1991.
Zoltai, S. C., Pollett, F. C., Jeglum, J. K., and Adams, G. D., Developing a wetland classi-
cation for Canada, Proc. N. Am. For. Soils Conf., 4, 497, 1975.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Tammi, Carl E. Wetland Identification and Delineation
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 2

Wetland Identication and Delineation

Carl E. Tammi

CONTENTS

Off-Site Wetland Identication

Identication Resources
Interpreting Resources
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland
Inventory Maps
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service Soil Surveys and the Hydric Soils
of the United States List
Comparison and Corroboration
Aerial Photographs
U.S. Geological Survey Surcial Geologic Maps
Individual State Wetland Maps
On-Site Wetland Delineation
Wetland Hydrology
Hydrological Field Indicators
Hydric Soils
Hydric Soil Field Indicators
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Indicators of Hydrophytic Vegetation
Identifying and Delineating Wetlands
Undisturbed Areas
Disturbed Areas
Difcult Areas
Aids to Delineation
References

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Wetland identication and the science of delineation are regulatory-driven activ-
ities that are commonly required in land-use development, planning, exploration, and
a host of related activities involving future site expansion. Although federally man-
dated wetland regulatory statutes have been in existence for over 25 years, the science
of identifying and delineating the extent and types of wetlands has been consistently
evolving. As the science has evolved, a greater awareness of the functions and values
wetlands provide has occurred with the resultant development of extensive wetland
identication and delineation resources within the last 10 years. Today, the land-use
planner, wetland scientist, and manager have a range of tools in print, graphic, and
electronic format available to assist in making wetland determinations and defendable
jurisdictional delineations. Typically, the science of identifying and delineating wet-
lands is a two-tiered process. An initial ofce-based off-site assessment is conducted
for identication purposes. A legally binding jurisdictional determination requires an
on-site eld assessment called a wetlands delineation.
Identifying the location and determining the areal extent of jurisdictional wet-
lands is an important consideration for those involved in land use management,
development, remediation, or assessment. Today, dening wetland limits and bound-
aries is primarily driven by comprehensive federal and, where applicable, state and
local land-use laws and regulations. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the
principal tool that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency use to regulate the discharge of dredged or ll material into waters
of the United States, including wetlands (33 CFR 320330). At the federal level,
wetlands are further dened from a regulatory viewpoint as, Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration suf-
cient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (33 CFR 328.3).
In identifying and delineating federal jurisdiction wetlands, three essential tech-
nical criteria or factors are applied: the presence of wetlands hydrology through
surcial or groundwater; a prevalence of wetland vegetation (hydrophytes) that
typically has specialized morphological and physiological adaptations to tolerate
saturated or inundated conditions; and wetland soils (hydric soils), which in their
undrained condition exhibit characteristics of somewhat poorly drained, poorly
drained, or very poorly drained soils. Other major federal legislation that drives
wetland identication includes Section 401 Water Quality Certication (delegated
to the individual states), Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Many states have promulgated and adopted wetland protection legislation for
inland, and where applicable, coastal wetlands. Identication and delineation tech-
niques vary slightly from state to state, although most have adopted the principles
of the federal methodology (to be described in greater detail later).
Given the regulatory framework behind wetland protection, it is incumbent upon
project proponents and land-use managers to determine, locate, and identify wetland
resources on a subject parcel. Furthermore, it is important to adequately and accu-
rately determine the location and approximate areal extent, as well as the predom-
inant wetland cover type, early in project planning stages to avoid wetland impacts

2001 CRC Press LLC

and resultant time-consuming permit decisions. This action can streamline the per-
mitting process during more advanced stages of project design through avoidance
and minimization of wetland impacts. An off-site macroscale wetland determination
makes a positive or negative wetland determination for a subject parcel, and deter-
mines the approximate location of wetland and deepwater areas. It also determines
the approximate areal extent and distribution of wetland and deepwater areas, and
the predominant wetland cover type (Cowardin et al., 1979). Finally, an off-site
macrosite wetland determination assesses the need for continued analysis and
approximate level of effort associated with any analyses.
In some instances, information relative to the potential presence of hydric soils,
surcial hydrology, and site disturbance can be determined from off-site wetland
determinations. Historical and current land use as it pertains to wetland resources
can also be ascertained in many circumstances.
By making initial determinations and preliminary conclusions regarding the
aforementioned factors, a project proponent can make informed decisions, save
valuable time and expense, and determine if detailed on-site investigations are
necessary. The level of effort to conduct off-site investigations can vary greatly, and
can be tailored to suit individual site permitting or project requirements.

OFF-SITE WETLAND IDENTIFICATION

For the purposes of this chapter, off-site identication of wetlands is dened as

assembling and interpreting readily available natural resource mapping and reports
and other documents, both published and unpublished, from existing sources, for
the sole purpose of identifying, locating, and describing wetland resources on a
given site or parcel of land. By applying existing resource document information,
the researcher can make initial determinations relative to the perceived presence or
absence of one, two, or sometimes three of the parameters necessary for an area to
be considered a jurisdictional wetland. In instances where on-site inspection is not
necessary or is beyond the scope of the investigation (e.g., National Environmental
Policy Act wide range alternatives analyses, or limited environmental assessments),
off-site wetlands determinations may be the only source of information for environ-
mental planning decisions.
The overall accuracy of off-site wetland determinations is a function of the quality
of the information (sources) used and the ability of an individual(s) to interpret the
data. The keys to conduct of an effective and technically valid analysis include the
following:

Dene the project scope and goals prior to conducting the analysis.
Ensure that a wide range of available sources are investigated and used.
Emphasize comparison and corroboration between different sources for the same site.
Obtain recent data, but also data that cover many different years to assist in
understanding the site history.
Understand individual resource document symbols and interpretation keys.
Understand regulatory requirements for documentation.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The primary objective of off-site wetland determinations is identifying and
determining whether wetlands exist on a parcel, followed by the approximate dis-
tribution and areal extent. In determining and quantifying these parameters, the key
is corroboration between different sources. That is, not only locating wetlands on a
subject parcel from a single source, but corroborating the identication through
multiple sources.
Another important objective of off-site determinations is documenting the dom-
inant wetland cover type on parcels that have been preliminarily determined to have
wetlands within their boundaries. Depending on the source, an interpreter can deter-
mine whether the wetlands are forested, scrubshrub, emergent, aquatic bed, or open
water. Detailed interpretation requires a greater level of effort and expertise but can
result in greater detail, such as evergreen forest vs. deciduous forest, or persistent
emergent vs. nonpersistent emergent, or articially created vs. naturally occurring.
Classication schemes can be tailored to an individual states system, or the widely
accepted federal system developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin
et al., 1979) and now recognized as the Unied Federal Classication Scheme
(Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1995).
Site soil characterizations and surcial hydrological features can also be recog-
nized and described from off-site resources. Published sources exist which reveal
site soils mapping to varying levels of detail and accuracy. Determining the hydro-
logical regime, or simply the hydrology of a wetland, is a signicant feature in
determining the areal extent of wetlands both in the eld and from mapped sources.
Off-site interpretation can reveal a wetlands hydrological source, as well as its
drainage features.

Identication Resources

The rst step in offsite wetland interpretation studies is identifying and obtaining
readily available sources of information. Resources are generally diverse, with vary-
ing levels of accuracy. Also, resources have been dramatically expanded in recent
years with many new tools available to the interpreter. These resources are generally
available and provide a baseline of information from which to work.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps, Standard Edition and Provi-
sional Edition (7.5 minute or 15 minute quadrangles, scales 1:24,000 or 1:25,000,
continental United States, 1:20,000 Puerto Rico, 1:63,360 Alaska), U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior Geological Survey National Mapping Division.
U.S. Department of the Interior/Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetland Inventory Maps (scale 1:24,000, continental United States, 1:63,360,
Alaska), interpreted and adapted from High Altitude Aerial Photography and super-
imposed on U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service County
Soil Surveys, in cooperation with individual state agriculture experiment stations;
used in conjunction with the hydric soils of the United States, 1991, National
Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Aerial photography (stereo-paired, black and white, color, color infrared; positive
transparency/aero negative; various scales and dates), Federal, State, and Commer-
cial Suppliers.
U.S. Geological Survey Surcial Geologic Map Quadrangles (7.5 minute quadran-
gles, scale 1:24,000), U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey.
Individual state wetland maps (limited coverage and level of accuracy).

Interpreting Resources

This section describes in more detail the analysis and interpretation of the
resources listed above. Although the level of detail and accuracy varies with each
source, a rst-time evaluator should be able to extract sufcient information to
reasonably determine if wetlands are present on-site, and the approximate historical
or current location and extent of wetlands.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey National Mapping Divi-
sion generates 7.5- and 15-minute topographic maps through the National Mapping
Program. Available are two separate editions, the Standard Edition Maps and the
Provisional Edition Maps, each produced at 1:24,000 (English units) or 1:25,000
(metric units) for the continental United States. Standard Edition Quadrangles rep-
resent a nished product with the earths topographic relief depicted by contours.
Provisional Edition Quadrangles represent an updated draft format, including hand
lettering and limited descriptive labeling of some physical features.
Stereoplotting eld veried, high altitude aerial photographs produce both
editions. Some quadrangles are mapped by a combination of orthophotographic
images and map symbols, with orthophotographs derived from aerial photographs
by removing image displacements owing to camera tilt and terrain relief variations
(USGS, 1991).
The use of USGS Topographic Maps for off-site wetland identication is often
the rst step to evaluate a sites physical features. In addition to topographic,
hypsographic, infrastructure, and other physical features, the USGS Topographic
Maps provide detailed information relative to vegetation cover types, surface fea-
tures, coastal features, hydrographic features such as rivers, lakes, and canals, and
submerged areas and bogs. Figure 1 is a section of an USGS Quadrangle and depicts
some of these features. The section includes wooded marsh or swamp in the western
and southern parts of the site, perennial ponds or lakes in the central part of the site,
and perennial streams associated with cranberry bogs in the northeast part of the
site. Although most of the wetland and open water interpretation keys that accom-
pany the maps are self-explanatory, the individual submerged areas and bogs keys
require a little elaboration to distinguish among different wetland cover types.
Marsh or swamp designations are wetlands characterized by saturated soil con-
ditions in the root zone (as opposed to inundation), with emergent, herbaceous, or
aquatic bed vegetation as the dominant cover class. An example would be a rush
(Juncus spp., Scirpus spp.) and sedge (Carex spp.) dominated wet meadow.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Figure 1 A U.S. Geological Survey topographic map.

Submerged marsh or swamp designations indicate an inundated root zone condition

with emergent, herbaceous, or aquatic bed vegetative dominants. A typical example
is a broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia) or pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata)
marsh. Wooded marsh or swamp is a wetland characterized by saturated soil con-
ditions with shrub, sapling, or mature forest as the dominant cover class. A saturated
red maple (Acer rubrum) swamp is an example. Submerged wooded marsh or swamp
indicates root zone inundation (ponding) as the dominant water regime with shrub,

2001 CRC Press LLC

sapling, or mature forest as the dominant cover class. A bottomland hardwood forest
dominated by cypress (Taxodium spp.) trees is an example. Land subject to inunda-
tion can be oodplain and ood-prone areas that may support wetland hydrology
and wetland vegetation (hydrophytes). Rice elds and cranberry bogs are examples
of anthropogenically inuenced wetland areas.
Some of the advantages to using USGS Topographic Maps include the relative
accuracy of the topographic contours in undisturbed areas, photointerpretation doc-
umentation is groundtruthed at regular intervals, and individual quadrangles are
periodically photorevised which assists in chronological evaluation of a sites history.
The limitations in using USGS Topographic Maps include interpretation problems
associated with the small scale (1 in. equals 610 m) of the maps, and smaller wetlands
often are frequently unmapped. In some parts of the country, quadrangles may be
too outdated to be of use.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory

Maps

The USFWS initiated the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) program and
mapping in 1975 to assess, measure, and characterize the extent of wetlands and
open water areas throughout the United States. The NWI Maps are produced from
photointerpretation of high altitude, stereo, aerial photographs. High altitude aerial
photographs were selected over satellite imagery because of the problems satellite
imagery had in capturing optimum water conditions for wetland detection, detecting
smaller wetlands, and identifying forested wetlands (Tiner and Wilen, 1983). The
NWI Maps are developed from 1:60,000 color-infrared aerial photographs. Pho-
tointerpretation of the aerials provides a three-dimensional image, thus allowing
the interpreter to identify trees from shrubs, while considering shade and slope.
Wetland and open water types are differentiated based on their characteristic pho-
tographic signatures.
NWI Maps are developed according to a comprehensive evaluation process
(Tiner and Wilen, 1983). The preliminary eld investigations and photointerpretation
of high altitude aerial photographs is the initial step, with review of existing wetland
information and quality control of the interpreted photographs completing the rst
phase. Draft map production is initiated with a subsequent interagency review of
draft maps and nal map production. Available are two series of NWI Maps: the
1:100,000/1:250,000 scale and large scale 1:24,000. The USGS Topographic Map
Quadrangle is used as a base map with wetland and deepwater areas depicted
as overlays.
A new wetland classication was developed by USFWS to correspond with the
NWI Maps. Classication of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States
(Cowardin et al., 1979) describes individual wetland ecological attributes and
arranges them in a hierarchical system that facilitates resource management and
inventory. The three key components in the ecological hierarchy are hydrophytes,
hydric soils, and hydrology.
The use of NWI Maps in off-site wetland identication typically provides the
greatest level of detail and accuracy with the least amount of interpretation effort

2001 CRC Press LLC

and expertise. The USFWS Classication System is a comprehensive and progressive
inventory that groups wetlands into one of ve major systems, marine, estuarine,
lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine, based upon hydrologic, geomorphologic, chem-
ical, and biological factors (Cowardin et al., 1979, see Chapter 1). The hierarchy
progresses through subsystems, classes, and subclasses that further rene and
describe specic wetland structural (vegetation, hydrology, dominant life form, etc.)
components. Figure 2 depicts a representative section from an NWI Map that cor-
responds with Figure 1, and that indicates several different wetland classes within
the palustrine system. Comparing Figure 2 with Figure 1, and using the interpretive
key that accompanies the map, the interpreter is able to determine that the wooded
swamp or marsh of the USGS Map has been further dened as palustrine forested
broad-leaved deciduous wetland. An interpreter can become familiar with this system
with a little practice resulting in quick characterizations of site conditions relative
to wetland types.
The accuracy of NWI Maps varies between systems and classes, with the highest
degree of accuracy occurring for large marine, lacustrine, and estuarine systems.
Less accurate are smaller mapped units for palustrine wetlands, specically palus-
trine forested wetlands. The latter can be misstated owing to photointerpretation
difculties encountered as a result of leaf-in periods, when the interpreter cannot
accurately describe the forest oor (MacConnell et al., 1989). NWI Maps provide
the greatest diversity of all off-site references, with the possible exception of aerial
photographs. However, the latter require a greater degree of photointerpretation
expertise, and the NWI maps were prepared for the express purpose of identifying
and classifying wetlands. Through use of the USFWS Classication system, an
interpreter can characterize a wetlands system, the dominant vegetative structural
life form (e.g., forested, emergent, aquatic bed), its hydrological regime (e.g., inter-
mittent vs. perennial), and substrate (e.g., rock bottom or unconsolidated bottom).
The taxonomy also has provisions for documenting anthropogenic inuence on
created or farmed wetlands (e.g., palustrine farmed cranberry bogs and palustrine
open water articially excavated).
The limitations of NWI Maps for off-site wetlands identication include the
small scale (1 in. equals 2000 ft), errors associated with photointerpretation of select
cover types (principally deciduous forest), limited eld verication, and the lack of
photorevision since initial production. NWI Maps are benecial as a qualitative
reference and are one of the only federally produced and readily available documents
for the sole purpose of identifying, inventorying, and characterizing wetlands.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation

Service Soil Surveys and the Hydric Soils of the United States List

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

produces County Soil Surveys in cooperation with the individual states agricultural
experiment station. Programs have mapped individual soil series based on compre-
hensive eld investigations conducted by Natural Resources Conservation Service
and State soil scientists. To produce the maps, soil scientists observe the steepness,
length and shape of slopes, the size and velocity of streams, the kinds of native

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Figure 2 A National Wetland Inventory map.

plants and rocks, and evaluate soil proles (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service, 1978). Soil proles are examined to the depth of
the parent material and are compared to soil proles examined in other counties for
the purpose of comparing and contrasting known soil series.
A unied soil taxonomy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Classication,
is used across the nation to characterize and classify soil types. Soil series and soil
phase are the most common terms used in describing individual soil types. A soil

2001 CRC Press LLC

series is a grouping of soils that have similar proles and major horizons and are
named after the town in which the series was rst discovered (U.S. Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1978). Phases further rene
the series based on the texture in the surface layer, slope, or stoniness (U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1978). Soil mapping
units and boundaries are depicted as overlays on high altitude aerial photography
and are originally drafted by the eld soil scientists. These boundaries are further
rened following laboratory analysis of soil properties. The nished product indi-
cates soil boundary delineations, soil series descriptions, and biophysicochemical
properties. Additional sections of the soil survey provide information about recom-
mended use and management of the soils, soil properties, and soil formation.
Use of soil surveys for off-site wetland identication is limited to the identi-
cation and distribution of hydric soils. Hydric soils, one of the three essential
characteristics of a federal jurisdictional wetland, have unique physical properties
that set them apart from nonhydric soils. A hydric soil is dened as a soil that is
saturated, ooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic conditions in the upper part (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service, 1991).
The development of hydric soils is ultimately driven by the presence of wetland
hydrology, and under sufciently wet conditions (root zone saturation and inunda-
tion), hydric soils support the growth of hydrophytic vegetation. The U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service has developed a list of
hydric soils of the United States by applying criteria (e.g., drainage class, organic
vs. mineral, etc.) of the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1991). Included in this
list are most of the somewhat poorly drained soil series, and all of the poorly drained
and very poorly drained soils. Hydric soil classications have been developed based
on taxonomic and morphologic features. Tools subsequently have been developed
for assisting in the eld determination of drainage classes (New England Hydric
Soils Technical Committee, 1998).
Through the use of individual soil surveys, an interpreter can determine all
mapped soil series on-site and then cross-reference the list of soils with Hydric Soils
of the United States. Figure 3 is a soil survey map of the site depicted in previous
gures. Examination of the site and cross-reference with the hydric soils list indicates
that Sanded Muck (SB), Peat (Pe), Freshwater Marsh (Fr), Scarboro Sandy loam
(ScA), Muck (Mv), and Au Gres and Wareham loamy sands (AuA) are hydric soil.
The occurrence of hydric soils corresponds with the wooded swamp or marsh,
perennial lakes or ponds, and cranberry bogs of the USGS Map, as well as the
palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous, palustrine farmed wetlands, and palus-
trine open water of the NWI Map.
Although soil mapping involves an intensive eld effort, the accuracy of the soil
maps is quite variable, and areas mapped as hydric soils (a hydric soil series) can
contain inclusions of nonhydric soils. Conversely, areas of nonhydric soils may
contain hydric inclusions. The soil mapping information is best used as a macroscale
assessment tool and should not be used for denitive boundaries of hydric soils. An

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Figure 3 A U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service soils survey.

advantage in using soil surveys and the list of hydric soils is that the interpreter does
not need to spend time learning the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Classi-
cation and taxonomy system to be able to locate areas of mapped hydric soils on a
site, although it is recommended that the interpreter understand the basic principles
underlying the criteria for listing a soil as a hydric soil.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Comparison and Corroboration

USGS Topographic Maps, USFWS NWI Maps, and U.S. Department of Agri-
culture Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Surveys are typically the most
accessible resources and require the least amount of technical knowledge to interpret.
The effectiveness and level of accuracy in conducting off-site wetlands interpretation
studies using these resources is a function of the time needed to obtain each source
and interpreting the information. Emphasis should be placed on comparing and
contrasting individual sources: that is, comparing and corroborating the results from
USGS to NWI to the Soil Survey, being sure to consider the years each source was
initially produced. For example, the USGS indicates wooded marsh or swamp
throughout the western and southern sections of the reference site (Figure 1), the
NWI indicates palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous wetland in the western
and southern sections of the site (Figure 2), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates hydric soils in the western and
southern sections of the site (Figure 3). Therefore, the interpreter can be reasonably
condent that wetlands, and most likely forested wetlands, exist at the site. In an
effort to further rene the information already obtained from these resources, addi-
tional resources can be consulted and evaluated.

Aerial Photographs

Aerial photography has been used since the 1860s for remote sensing land-use
patterns and activities through the use of hot-air balloons (McKnight, 1987). These
actions spawned the development of photogrammetry, the science of obtaining
reliable and defensible measurements from photographs and mapping from aerial
photographs (Ritchie et al., 1988). Historically, the interpretation of aerial photog-
raphy has fallen under the term remote sensing, with the net result being that aerial
photographs were the only tool used in remote sensing. Contemporary views have
altered the term to include a wide range of tools and analytical devices. One recent
denition stated remote sensing is the measurement of reected, emitted, or back-
scattered electromagnetic radiation from the earths surface using instruments sta-
tioned at a distance from the site of interest (Roughgarden et al., 1991). Nonetheless,
aerial photography is used today as a powerful source for remote sensing land use,
including wetland identication, characterization, and perturbation as a result of
anthropogenic activities.
Stereo-paired vertical contact prints provide the most useful and scientically
defensible information as a three-dimensional image of the earths surface is pre-
sented to the interpreter via a stereoscope. This three-dimensional image is obtained
through photographs taken in stereo pairs with end overlap. The photographs are
interpreted with a stereoscope, which allows the interpreter to closely examine site
conditions by adding depth of eld, and provides the ability to distinguish wetland
cover types. Different cover types have characteristic signatures that can be quanti-
ed based on observable color, tone or hue, shadow, texture, and depth of eld.
Color signatures can be further rened using the Inter-Society Color Council and

2001 CRC Press LLC

National Bureau of Standards (ISCC-NBS) method of color description, using Cen-
troid Color Charts (Smith and Anson, 1968).
Permanently and seasonally inundated forested, scrubshrub, emergent, and open
water areas are relatively easy to distinguish from upland habitats using aerial
photographs. Surface water has a different reectance pattern than dry areas. The
difculty comes when trying to identify seasonally saturated wetlands, particularly
seasonally saturated forested wetlands.
Aerial photographs are available in many formats, scales, and geometry
(Figure 4). The most common photograph types used for wetland identication are
vertically oriented black and white, color, and color infrared using aerographic lm.
Aerial photograph geometry (i.e., basis of the angular relationship to the earths
surface) can be divided into two major categories: oblique (including low oblique
and high oblique) and vertical (see Figure 5 and Hudson and Lusch, 1990). Oblique
aerial photographs have an advantage to the interpreter, in that ground features can
be interpreted from a familiar point of view (McKnight, 1987). In addition, owing
to the orientation of the camera for oblique photos, the stereoscopic effect is reduced,
thereby negating the three-dimensional effect. However, due to measurement inad-
equacies and scale development, vertically oriented photographs are used for deter-
mining quantitative information and provide more useful and defensible information
for wetland identication. Combining aerial photographs with groundtruthing can
be a very effective and cost-efcient means to identifying and delineating wetland
boundaries on large parcels.
Film types are also an important consideration in identifying wetlands. Panchro-
matic black and white photographs are the least expensive and most common.
However, color infrared photographs have a demonstrated and signicant advantage.
Color infrared discriminates between living and dead vegetation, enhances open
water areas, and discriminates natural features from man-made features.
Larger scale, low-altitude aerial photography is recommended over smaller scale,
high-altitude aerial photography for clarity, ease of interpretation, distinguishing
ground features, and general resolution. The most useful and accurate interpretations
are made through chronological analysis of a site.
Aerial photographic coverage and availability signicantly limit its use for off-
site wetland identication. Federal and State agencies have inventories with spotty
coverage, which may not be available for purchase. The National Archives (in Utah)
maintains an active database and inventory of aerial photographs (black and white,
color infrared, stereo-paired) covering the entire continental United States for select
years, and these photographs are available for purchase. They are generally high-
altitude, small-scale aerial photographs. Private commercial suppliers often maintain
inventories, and usually specialize within a region (i.e., New England, Northwest,
Southeast). Coverage is largely unpredictable varying from complete chronological
coverage over several years to no coverage at all. Purchase costs can be quite high,
with some rms charging access fees for database reviews.
Because aerial photography provides the base map and framework for most other
off-site resources, it is apparent how important it can be when used in its unrevised
form. Stereo aerial photographic interpretation has evolved into a scientic and
technical discipline of its own and, in some instances, requires considerable expertise

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Figure 4 A vertical black and white aerial photograph.

to extract valid information. Nonstereo paired aerial photographs can be used to

supplement the other off-site information in a qualitative manner. There is much
variability among nonstereo aerial photographs, especially relative to geometry,

2001 CRC Press LLC

 HIGH
OBLIQUE

LOW
OBLIQUE

VERTICAL

90o

Figure 5 Aerial photography angular orientation.

scales, lm types, and coverage. When conducting preliminary qualitative off-site

wetland reviews, interpretation of aerial photographs may not be necessary. However,
if the goal is to quantify wetland site conditions over time, aerial photographs may
prove to be an indispensable tool.

U.S. Geological Survey Surcial Geologic Maps

The U.S. Geological Survey produces surcial geologic maps primarily for use
as indicators of geologic zonation above bedrock. These maps provide some detail
relative to soil and subsurface composition and are helpful in locating and identifying
swamp deposits, alluvium, surface water bodies, and other wetland features. Figure 6

2001 CRC Press LLC

illustrates the location of surface waterbodies, swamp deposits (Qs), and cranberry
bogs on the reference site. The swamp deposit designations are indicative of organic
matter, clay, silt, and sand accumulating in swamps (USGS, 1967).

Figure 6 A U.S. Geological Survey surcial geologic map.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Individual State Wetland Maps

Several individual states have produced wetland maps for use in macroscale
planning, and at least in one instance (MacConnell et al., 1989), for jurisdictional
purposes. Most of the maps are developed based on interpretation of stereo-paired
aerial photography, similar to the process used by the National Wetland Inventory.
Representative states that have produced wetland maps include Maine, Vermont
(based on NWI), Massachusetts (Wetlands Restriction Program), New York, and
New Jersey. Coverage, interpretation keys (classication systems), and accuracy are
variable from state to state.

ON-SITE WETLAND DELINEATION

The ability to document wetland site conditions without detailed on-site

investigations has a demonstrated need from a natural resources planning perspec-
tive as well as from a jurisdictional perspective. Documentation of anthropogenic
inuence on wetlands is another demonstrated need for using off-site materials
for wetland identication. By using the resources and methods discussed above,
a reviewer can generally make a positive or negative determination regarding the
presence or absence of wetlands, estimate the areal extent of wetlands, and, in
some cases, determine major cover types (although a follow-up site inspection is
always recommended for full conrmation). However, off-site wetland identica-
tion is not a substitute for on-site wetland delineation when the goal is a denitive
demarcation or delineation of wetlands for site development and project planning
purposes.
The need to identify jurisdictional wetlands and delineate wetland/upland bound-
aries in the United States is principally driven by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act by state and municipal wetland protection statutes. The wetland protection
statutes, and associated regulatory policies, dictate that wetland boundaries be estab-
lished and, in many cases, conrmed, prior to site development and related land
management activities. Therefore, project proponents are required to characterize
and quantify the differences between wetlands and uplands so that the boundary can
be identied with some certainty and repeatability. This is accomplished by eld
assessment of vegetation, soils, and hydrology.
Through interagency consensus, three characteristics or parameters have been
selected to distinguish wetlands from uplands. First, wetlands are characterized by
the presence of water, typically from a surface or groundwater source. Water levels
in wetlands are typically dynamic, with the frequency of saturation and inundation
varying among wetland types and varying temporally within wetland types. Second,
wetlands are characterized by the presence of unique soils that are diagnostic of
wetland conditions. These soils display properties that indicate anaerobic conditions
in the root zone resulting from prolonged saturation or inundation. Finally, wetlands
are characterized by the presence of wetland vegetation that possesses morphological

2001 CRC Press LLC

adaptations that enable them to tolerate frequent root zone saturation or inundation
and anaerobic conditions. Earlier in this chapter, the regulatory denition of wetlands
was provided. More recently, the National Academy of Sciences (National Research
Council, 1995) proposed another denition of wetlands.

A wetland is an ecosystem that depends on constant or recurrent, shallow inundation

or saturation at or near the surface of the substrate. The minimum essential charac-
teristics of a wetland are recurrent, sustained inundation or saturation at or near the
surface and the presence of physical, chemical and biological features reective of
recurrent, sustained inundation or saturation. Common diagnostic features of wetlands
are hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. These features will be present except
where specic physicochemical, biotic, or anthropogenic factors have removed them
or prevented their development.

There are many factors that affect the presence of these features. Topographical
relief and overall landscape position are signicant physical factors that often dictate
the source for wetland hydrology. For example, topographical depressions often
correspond closely with water table elevation in glaciated wetlands of the northeast-
ern United States. Headwaters of streams and rivers are often the result of sheet
runoff from watersheds that emanate from mountainous regions. Palustrine and
riverine wetlands are often associated with these surface water bodies. Other factors
that inuence the formation of the three wetland factors include stratigraphy, surcial
and bedrock geology, and watershed and climatological conditions including pre-
cipitation and evapotranspiration.
In identifying and delineating wetlands, it is important to establish in advance
the overall goal and scope of the wetland investigation. The investigator should
determine if it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive on-site delineation of the
entire wetland and upland boundary or simply conrm the presence or absence of
wetlands. A wetland determination is the process by which the evaluator makes a
positive or negative assumption that wetlands are extant on a site. This assumption
is based on identifying whether or not wetland characteristics are present anywhere
within the sites boundaries.
Wetland delineation is the process by which the investigator identies and locates
wetlands, then qualitatively or quantitatively assesses the areal extent of wetlands on
the site. This is accomplished through consideration of hydrological eld indicators,
soil proles, and vegetation sampling and inventory. Wetland delineation techniques
and methodologies vary from place to place in response to local and state jurisdictional
requirements. Nevertheless, almost without exception, local and state mandated pro-
cedures are predicated upon parameters dened by the federal agencies. These factors,
and their associated technical criteria, are expressed in the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), the Wetland Identication
and Delineation Manuals, Volumes I and II (Sipple, 1988), the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee
for Wetland Delineation, 1989), the National Food Security Act Manual (U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, 1994), and the National Research Council (1995).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 As federal legislation has evolved, resultant modications to the jurisdictional
denitions and limits have occurred, and likely will continue to occur, with ensuing
performance standard modications (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991; U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1992). Other sources (Tiner, 1991; Sipple, 1992) discuss
the importance of the dynamic nature (e.g., seasonality, degree of wetness) of
wetlands as it relates to the individual factors and the ability to effectively recognize
wetland boundaries. Tiner (1993) proposed an innovative approach to delineating
wetlands based on identifying primary indicators of hydrophytes and hydric soils in
undrained wetlands. Also in 1993, the National Academy of Sciences was tasked
by Congress to conduct an independent assessment of current wetland delineation
practices, with their ndings published in 1995 (National Research Council). The
National Research Council report emphasized regionalizing standard approaches and
evaluation criteria.
This section discusses the three factors associated with wetlands, with an empha-
sis placed on conducting eld assessments that evaluate and characterize each factor.
Techniques are presented which assist the investigator in assessing each factor,
including recognizing eld indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydro-
phytes. In conducting these analyses, it is important that the methodology be prac-
tical, reproducible, efcient, and cost effective. The following sections describe each
factor in depth, and an evaluation procedure for assessing all these in conducting a
wetland delineation.

Wetland Hydrology

Wetland hydrology is the single greatest impetus driving wetland formation

(Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986; Federal Interagency Committee for Wetlands Delin-
eation, 1989; Tiner and Veneman, 1989; Tiner, 1993), and has historically been
the most controversial (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991; Environmen-
tal Law Institute, 1991). Wetland hydrology is characterized by permanent, tem-
porary, periodic, seasonal, or tidally inuenced inundation or soil saturation within
the root zone. This water may derive from surface water (e.g., streams, rivers,
ponds, lakes, ocean), groundwater, overbank ooding, precipitation, sheet ow, or
tidal ooding.
Wetland hydroperiod is a term used to characterize the hydrological condition
of a wetland and is a function of ood duration and ood frequency. All wetlands
are dynamic systems from a hydrological viewpoint. The hydrology of perennial
wetlands varies irregularly on an annual basis. Ephemeral wetlands such as vernal
pools typically have seasonally varying hydroperiods. Tidally inuenced wetlands
experience daily periodic hydrologic uctuations. Keeping in mind this inherent
variation, a wetlands net hydroperiod can be represented by the following equation
(Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986).

V = Pn + Si + Gi Et So) Go T

2001 CRC Press LLC

where

V equals the change in volume of water storage.

Pn equals the net precipitation.
Si equals the surface inows (stream ow and sheet ow).
Gi equals the groundwater inows.
Et equals the evapotranspiration.
So equals the surface outows.
Go equals the groundwater outow.
T equals the tidal inow (+) or outow ().

Wetland hydrology drives the development and distribution of the other two
indicator parameters. Permanent or periodic inundation or saturation of the root zone
during the growing season results in the development of anaerobic conditions, which
is one of the chief determinants of hydric soil conditions. Root zone saturation is,
in turn, responsible for the occurrence and distribution of vegetation that can with-
stand these conditions.
There has been much debate regarding the duration of time required for anaerobic
conditions to develop from root zone saturation or inundation. Until recently, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required a minimum of 2 weeks of continuous
saturation or inundation within the root zone for an area to be considered to possess
wetland hydrology (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991). Presently, the Corps
stipulates that the root zone be saturated or inundated for more than 12.5 percent of
the growing season for an area to have wetland hydrology (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1992). Areas inundated or saturated for 5 to 12.5 percent of the growing
season may or may not have wetland hydrology. The National Research Council, in
their 1995 study, Wetlands: Characteristics on Boundaries, proposed that the thresh-
old for duration of saturation can be approximated as 14 days during the growing
season in most years. Historically, the denition of the root zone and its maximum
vertical extent has been critical to determining jurisdictional limits. This vertical
extent is a direct function of soil series drainage class and permeability. The Corps
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual denes major portions of the root zone
to be that area within 30 cm of the soil surface (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
The ability to identify and delineate wetlands relative to the hydrology parameter
relies on the investigators ability to recognize eld indicators of wetland hydrology.
Generally, quantitative studies and hydrological modeling are not required for on-
site wetland identication and delineation. Although many of the technical aspects
of the scientic discipline of hydrology are widely applicable to wetland formation,
only a rudimentary knowledge of the underlying principles is crucial to wetland
delineation. Prociency in recognizing wetland hydrological indicators, however, is
required.

Hydrological Field Indicators

On-site wetland inspection and delineation require the ability to recognize and
distinguish wetland hydrological eld indicators (Table 1). The indicators provide

2001 CRC Press LLC

visual or assumed evidence of soil saturation or surface inundation. Certain indicators
provide strong evidence of the frequency and duration of saturation or inundation
and can be interpreted to support wetland boundary determinations. Field indicators
include the direct observation of wetland hydrological conditions (during the grow-
ing season), soil characteristics, morphological plant adaptations, and evidence of
water movement (Environmental Laboratory, 1987; Federal Interagency Committee
for Wetland Delineation, 1989).

Table 1 Wetland Hydrological Field Indicators Widely Used

for Identifying Wetlands, and Delineating the
Wetland and Upland Boundary
Direct observation of inundation
Direct observation of soil saturation
Wetland drainage patterns
Plant morphological adaptations
Adventitious roots Aerenchyma
Hypertrophied lenticels Leaf adaptations
Multiple trunks Oxidized rhizospheres
Pneumatophores Shallow roots
Stooling Tree buttressing
Water marks and drift lines
Surface scouring and water-borne sediment deposits
Field conrmed hydric soils
Water-stained leaves

The strongest eld indicator of wetland hydrology is the direct observation of

surface inundation or soil saturation within the root zone during the growing season
(Figure 7). This indicator represents a real-time visual observation of wetland diag-
nostic conditions. Inundation is a valid indicator of wetland hydrology; however, the
boundary or areal extent of a wetland may, indeed, extend far beyond the limit of the
inundated area. Typically (especially in groundwater discharge wetlands), as topo-
graphic elevation increases, the areal extent of inundation decreases, with soil satu-
ration within the root zone becoming the dominant dening characteristic. The depth
to which soil saturation is present, and its persistence, determine whether the area is
a jurisdictional wetland.
Depth is also related to the hydric soil criterion, specically its drainage class
and permeability. Generally, the soil should be saturated within 0 to 46 cm of the
surface during the growing season. Soil saturation can be eld conrmed through an
auger boring to a depth of 46 cm to determine the water table elevation. Saturated
soils will occur below this elevation and slightly above due to capillary action (Envi-
ronmental Laboratory, 1987). Careful attention needs to be paid to extremely ne
textured soils (silty clays and clays) which can have a very high capillary fringe and
not be good indicators of the actual water table elevation. Soils can also be squeeze
tested to extract free water to determine saturation.
Wetland drainage patterns occur along riverine, estuarine, palustrine, and some
lacustrine wetlands. They are typically associated with moving or uctuating water
systems such as streams, rivers, creeks, etc. Visual indicators include drainage chan-
nels, eroded areas, the absence of litter, litter deposits, and characteristic meandering.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 7 The strongest eld indicator of wetland hydrology is the direct observation of
surface inundation or soil saturation.

Many wetland plants have developed specialized morphological adaptations that

enable them to survive and proliferate with their roots in an anoxic environment.
These adaptations have developed in response to root zone saturation and are,
therefore, treated as wetland hydrology indicators (Federal Interagency Committee
for Wetlands Delineation, 1989). The adaptations typically are specialized structures
enabling the plants to capture molecular oxygen and transport it to stems and roots.
This is true of buttressed trees (swollen base of the trunk), pneumatophores (above
ground root structures), adventitious roots (above ground roots), shallow roots,
multiple trunks and stooling, hypertrophied lenticels (exaggerated lenticels on
stems), aerenchyma (air-lled tissue), and leaf adaptations (oating and polymorphic
leaves). An oxidized rhizosphere is also indicative of wetland hydrology. Evidenced
by channels that have developed along the roots for the transport of oxygen, rhizo-
pheres are difcult to observe and clearly identify unless iron oxide concretions
are present.
Watermarks are visible indications of inundation on woody vegetation and other
permanent structures within wetlands. These are considered strong indicators of
the presence of wetland hydrology owing to their conrmation of inundated con-
ditions. Drift lines are visible lines indicating the extent of hydrologically driven
actions. Tidal marshes typically display drift lines with debris and driftwood extend-
ing up to the spring high tide elevation. Drift lines also accumulate along riverbanks
and oodplains.
Surface scouring occurs in wetlands with widely uctuating hydroperiods. Scour-
ing also occurs in areas subject to storm or tidal forces that expose soils, remove
leaf litter, and cause surcial erosion. Sediment deposits on vegetation also indicate
that inundated conditions have occurred in the recent past.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Observations of wetland hydrology are typically performed at the time of the
on-site inspection. However, in cases where long-term observation may be necessary
to conrm precise wetland boundaries, wetland hydrology should be assessed for
longer periods such as entire growing seasons. Long-term hydrological monitoring
can be a labor intensive and costly process unless historical groundwater and surface
water elevation data are available.
In situations where the jurisdictional limits of a wetland have been debated or
questioned and precise boundaries are required (e.g., real estate transactions), hydro-
logical monitoring can typically be accomplished in a cost-effective manner through
the installation and monitoring of hand-set groundwater monitoring wells. Typically,
5 cm diameter slotted screen PVC monitoring wells, 60 to 75 cm long, are installed
at random locations along a transect line extending from within the recognizable
wetland area out to recognizable upland. Hand augers are sufcient to install wells,
and borings should be backlled with washed sand to allow unrestricted passage of
groundwater. Well locations and elevations should be surveyed and plotted on a site
plan, and monitoring of groundwater elevations should be conducted weekly
throughout the growing season. Water level recording can be accomplished using a
sounder mechanism and an incremented cord or tape rule. Precipitation should be
recorded throughout the monitoring period. Regulatory agencies may require several
growing seasons worth of data, which can be impractical from the standpoint of
project timing and cost. Nevertheless, long-term hydrological information represents
the strongest evidence for the extent of wetlands.

Hydric Soils

The soils found in wetlands have unique morphological and other observable
properties that differentiate them from upland soils. A hydric soil by denition is a
soil which is saturated, ooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season
to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1991; New England Hydric Soils Technical
Committee, 1998). Hydric soil properties are a direct function of the frequency and
duration of saturation and inundation, specically in the root zone. Soils that display
ooded and saturated conditions for an extended period (2 weeks or more) during
the growing season create an environment where free oxygen is decient and,
ultimately, unavailable to plants. As a result of this saturation and inundation, hydric
soils display observable eld indicators that are diagnostic of wetland conditions.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
has developed a classication system that provides criteria for listing a hydric soil
as well as categories of the listed hydric soils. This list, Hydric Soils of the United
States, categorizes hydric soils into two major groups: organic soils and mineral
soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service,
1991). Generally, soils with at least 46 cm of organic matter in the upper part of the
soil prole are considered organic soils, or histosols (Tiner and Veneman, 1989).
Organic soils are divided into groups based on the degree to which plant bers and
material are decomposed. Fibrists (peats), hemists (mucky peats and peaty mucks),
and saprists (muck) are organic hydric soils listed in increasing order of plant

2001 CRC Press LLC

material decomposition. Folists are the fourth group of organic soils, but they are
not considered hydric soils because the organic component does not derive from
long-term saturation or inundation (Tiner and Veneman, 1989).
Mineral soils generally have less organic material in the upper part of the prole
than organic soils and have different eld indicators. Mineral hydric soils are also
taxonomically arranged and include soils in Aquic suborders, Aquic subgroups,
Albolis suborder, Salorthids great groups, and Pell great groups of Vertisols (shrink-
ing or swelling dark clay soils, Federal Interagency Committee for Wetlands Delin-
eation, 1989; U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
vice, 1991). Mineral soils are considered hydric soils when any of several criteria
are satised (Tiner and Veneman, 1989). Somewhat poorly drained soils with a water
table less than 15 cm from the surface for a signicant period during the growing
season are hydric. Poorly drained or very poorly drained soils are hydric if the water
table is at or less than 30 cm from the surface for a signicant period during the
growing season if permeability is equal to or greater than 15 cm/hr in all layers
within the top 50 cm, or the water table is less than 46 cm from the surface for a
signicant period during the growing season if permeability is less than 15 cm/hr
in any layer within the top 50 cm. Mineral soils are also hydric if water is ponded
for a long duration (more than 7 days) or a very long duration (greater than 1 month)
during the growing season. Mineral soils frequently ooded for a long duration
(more than 7 days) or a very long duration (more than 1 month) during the growing
season are also considered hydric.
A signicant period is dened as at least 15 consecutive days of saturation or 7
days of inundation during the growing season (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992).
The 1987 Corps Manual, which is the current manual guiding federal jurisdictional
technical delineation, denes growing season as that portion of the year when soil
temperatures at 50 cm below the soil surface are higher than biologic zero (5C).
For ease in determination, the growing period can be estimated to occur when air
temperature exceeds 22C (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992).
Drainage classes are a signicant criterion when determining the presence of
hydric soils, as the soils relate to individual taxonomic groups (New England Hydric
Soils Technical Committee, 1998; Smith, 1973; Tiner and Veneman, 1989). In
addition, eld determination of drainage classes has been made easier through the
use of manuals such as the Field Indicator for Identifying Hydric Soils in New
England (New England Hydric Soils Technical Committee, 1998). All very poorly
and poorly drained soils are hydric soils, assuming the soils have not been drained.
A very poorly drained soil is a soil where water is removed from the soil so slowly
that free water remains at or near the surface during most of the growing season. A
poorly drained soil is a soil where water is removed so slowly that the soil is saturated
periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods. Many
somewhat poorly drained soils are also hydric. A somewhat poorly drained soil is
one where water is removed slowly enough that the soil is wet for signicant periods
during the growing season. Soil mapping provided by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates the soil series drain-
age class which can be eld conrmed using criteria developed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (1991).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Essential to the investigation of soils for hydric properties is an understanding
of soil horizons. Soil horizons, or layers, develop in response to localized chemical
and physical processes resulting from the activities of soil organisms, the addition
of organic matter, precipitation, and percolation. Horizons can be distinguished based
upon color, texture, and composition (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). However,
the soil horizon is essentially a continuum and there is no clear distinction between
one horizon and another.
Soils typically have four major horizons: an organic layer (O) and three mineral
layers (A, B, and C); see Figure 8. The O horizon is the surface layer and is composed
of fresh or partially decomposed organic material. The A horizon is characterized
by an accumulation of organic matter and the loss of clay, iron, and aluminum.
Together, the O and A horizons constitute the zone of maximum biological activity.
The B horizon is characterized by the accumulation of silicates, clay, iron, aluminum,
and humus, whereas the C horizon contains weathered material either similar or
dissimilar to the parent material.
Soil colors also provide critical information on soil wetness, and the degree of
saturation and inundation. The Munsell Color Chart standardizes three aspects of
color: hue, value, and chroma (Kollmorgen Corporation, 1975). Hue describes the
soil based on its relation to the spectral colors (i.e., red, yellow, green, blue, purple,
or a mixture of these colors), value describes the degree of lightness, and the chroma
indicates the strength or purity of the color. The Munsell Color Chart depicts individual
hues on separate pages, with the corresponding value on the vertical axis and the
chroma on the horizontal axis. Soil color is reported as hue, value/chroma for
example, 7.5 YR 2/1. A relatively new standard soil color is the earth tones book that
has an increased number of soil color chips and is being used more commonly for
hydric soil determinations.
Soil colors are an important eld indicator for eld verication of mapped hydric
soils as well as hydric soil inclusions in mapped, nonhydric soils. Both soil matrix,
the predominant color derived from the parent material or deposits, and redoximor-
phic features and concretions, contrasting spots within the matrix, should be char-
acterized. Soil colors are diagnostic of wetland conditions when the matrix chroma
immediately below the A horizon is two or less in redoximorphic features (e.g.,
mottled soils), or one or less in soils without redoximorphic features (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). In some soils, though, it is now recognized that carbon soils with
a chroma of three and the presence of redoximorphic features indicate a hydric soil.

Hydric Soil Field Indicators

Hydric soils display certain eld indicators that provide clues to the degree of
saturation and inundation. These clues are, in turn, indicative of the presence or
absence of wetlands hydrology (e.g., indicate that the root zone has experienced
saturation or inundation). The eld indicators presented in Table 2 are nationally
accepted and were developed based on U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resource Conservation Service factors (Environmental Laboratory, 1987; Federal
Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989; Tiner and Veneman, 1989).
Since that time, there have been several attempts to develop regional hydric soil

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 8 A generalized soil prole. Actual horizons represent a continuum and will not
appear this distinct in the eld.

eld indicators (New England Hydric Soils Technical Committee, 1998). Recogniz-
ing and applying these eld indicators will enable the wetland scientist to eld
conrm or refute the hydric soil criterion. Most of these eld indicators are used
when attempting to recognize hydric mineral soils, and some, such as a high organic
content at the surface, subsurface streaking, and wet spodosols, are particularly
useful when attempting to recognize sandy hydric mineral soils.
As mentioned previously, all organic soils except folists are considered hydric
soils. Organic soils are readily identiable in the eld due to the relatively high
percentage of poorly decomposed organic matter such as vegetative material and
litter in the soil matrix. Organic soils also often possess dark hues and very dark
chromas (7.5 YR 2/0, 10 YR 2/1, etc.).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 2 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
Organic soils (histosols)
Histic epipedons
Suldic material
Aquic or peraquic moisture regime
Reducing condition
Soil color
Mottling or concretions
High organic matter content in surface horizon
Subsurface streaking
Spodic horizon
Note: Indicators are applied to the soil prole
within the root zone.

Histic epipedons are thick (20 to 40 cm) organic surface layers overlying hydric
mineral soils. They develop as a result of prolonged saturation within the root zone,
at least 30 consecutive days or more in most years (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
The presence of suldic material is a strong indicator of permanently saturated
soil conditions. Suldic material is evidenced by a rotten egg-like odor, typically
following soil disturbance. The odor occurs as a result of sulfates being reduced to
suldes under anaerobic conditions associated with prolonged root zone saturation.
This indicator is especially common in tidal marshes.
Elevated groundwater levels characterize aquic and peraquic moisture regimes.
Aquic moisture regimes are mostly reducing, and are nearly free of dissolved oxygen
as a result of saturation due to groundwater or the capillary fringe. A part or all of
the root zone is reduced and totally decient in dissolved oxygen during the growing
season. Peraquic moisture regimes occur when groundwater is always at or near the
soil surface.
Reducing conditions can be observed in hydric mineral soils of high iron content
using a calorimetric test kit. In a reducing environment, ferrous (reduced) ions are
detected using a-adipyridil (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). It should be under-
stood that this test only reveals reducing conditions during the time of the eld
investigation and may not reect conditions typical of a signicant part of the
growing season. Repeated sampling over an extended temporal scale is required to
satisfy the hydric soil criterion.
Soil colors typically provide the most useful and diagnostic eld indicators for
hydric mineral soils. When water is at or near the soil surface for most or all of the
year, soils may become gleyed and take on a lighter dull gray or bluish color. The
color arises from the conversion of oxidized (ferric) iron to its reduced (ferrous)
state, and the subsequent removal of the latter from the soil. Oxidizing conditions
are apparent only along root channels in gleyed soils. The formation of redoximor-
phic features (e.g., mottles, concretions, and depletions) occurs in soils where the
water table uctuates periodically. Saturated, anaerobic conditions cause the solu-
bilization of iron compounds. Subsequent depressions in the water table create an
aerobic environment and iron ions are converted to insoluble oxides that appear as
orange or red mottles in the soil matrix. Relatively longer periods of soil saturation
and anaerobic conditions followed by aerobic conditions convert manganese ions to

2001 CRC Press LLC

oxides. The manganese oxides are deposited as concretions and are evidenced by
small, dark brown or black nodules interspersed with the soil matrix. Both mottles
and concretions persist for long periods after formation and may not reect current
conditions. However, a combination of redoximorphic features and a low matrix
chroma is generally indicative of hydric conditions. Accumulations of iron and
manganese are now generally referred to as redox concentrations (New England
Hydric Soils Technical Committee, 1998). Redox depletions are areas within the
soil with low chromas without iron and manganese oxides.
Soil color is a poor indicator of hydric condition in sandy soils and other indicators
must be used. A high organic matter content in the surface horizon is indicative of
hydric conditions because it is caused by prolonged inundation or saturation. This
prolonged inundation or saturation greatly reduces oxidation of organic matter, lead-
ing to its accumulation. Subsequent lowering of the water table may cause streaking
of the subsurface horizons as organic matter is moved downward through the sand.
Eventually, this downward moving organic matter may accumulate at a point coin-
ciding with the most commonly occurring depth to groundwater. The organic matter
may become cemented with aluminum, forming a less permeable, hardened, spodic
horizon. Each of these characteristics, high organic matter content in the surface
horizon, streaking, and a spodic horizon, is indicative of hydric conditions.
When examining the soil component during wetland identication and delinea-
tion, minimum equipment needs include a hand auger, Munsell Color Chart, delin-
eation data sheets, pencil, and camera. Borings need to be hand augured at locations
along the perceived upland and wetland sides of the boundary, keeping hydrological
and topographical indicators in mind. Borings should extend to depths between 30
to 46 cm to adequately characterize O, A, and B horizons. Diagnostic observations
include depth to groundwater or depth of inundation, and examination for each of
the eld indicators for mineral and organic hydric soils. The hydric soil boundary
should be identied based upon the wetland side having observable characteristics
of hydric soils and the upland side having a general lack of these characteristics.
Visible hydrology will inuence the number of borings needed to adequately dene
the soil boundary.

Hydrophytic Vegetation

Probably the most visible and easily recognizable diagnostic feature of wetlands
is hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation. Hydrophytic vegetation is the sum total of
macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of
inundation or soil saturation are of sufcient duration to exert a controlling inuence
on the plant species present (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Hydrophytes possess
anatomical and physiological adaptations that allow them to survive and thrive in
saturated or inundated soils, where oxygen depletion is the primary factor limiting
vegetation occurrence (Figure 9). Adaptive structures of hydrophytes include aeren-
chyma, adventitious roots, stooling, hypertrophied lenticels, and buttressing.
Plant species with a demonstrated ability to achieve maturity and reproduce
where the root zone is inundated or saturated during the growing season are listed
in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed, 1988, 1995).

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 9 Hydrophytes, such as this skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus ) possess ana-
tomical and physiological adaptations that allow them to survive in saturated soils.

Approximately 7000 species of hydrophytes are listed. Originally designed as an

appendix to Classication of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
(Cowardin et al., 1979), the list was modied to assist in determining the probability
that a vegetation community is a wetland (Wentworth and Johnson, 1986). This is
accomplished by assigning each plant to an indicator category which reects the
probability, expressed as a frequency of occurrence, of a species occurring in wetland
or upland (Table 3). Modiers (+ or ) are also assigned to the categories to further
rene individual species afnity toward wet conditions. A + indicates an increased
probability of wetland tolerance, and a indicates an afnity for drier conditions
(Reed, 1988). The categories should not be equated to degrees of soil wetness. For
example, many obligate wetland species occur in permanently ooded wetlands,
whereas other obligate plants occur in seasonally or temporarily ooded wetlands.

Indicators of Hydrophytic Vegetation

Dominance by hydrophytes is the most reliable indicator for determining whether

hydrophytic vegetation is present. It has its basis in the current federal denition of
wetlands which includes the phrase a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Vegetation is said to be prevalent when it is dominant,
that is, the species contribute more to the character of a plant community than other
species (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). If the dominant species are hydrophytes,
the community consists of hydrophytic vegetation. The standard for determining if
the vegetation is hydrophytic is the 50 percent rulemore than 50 percent of the
dominant vegetation is OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC) on the appropriate

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 3 Indicator Category and Frequency of Occurrence in Wetlands for Plants
Listed (in Reed 1988)
Frequency of
Occurrence in
Indicator Category Wetlands Representative Species
Obligate Wetland > 99 percent Cattail (Typha spp.)
(OBL) Button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis )
Facultative Wetland 6799 percent Soft rush (Juncus effusus )
(FACW) Speckled alder (Alnus rugosa )
Facultative (FAC) 3466 percent Red maple (Acer rubrum )
Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia )
Facultative Upland 133 percent American beech (Fagus grandifolia )
(FACU) White pine (Pinus strobus )
Obligate Upland < 1 percent Black oak (Quercus veltina )
(UPL) Staghorn sumac (Rhus lyphina )
Note: Upland species are not listed.

list of plant species that occur in wetlands (Environmental Laboratory, 1987; U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1991; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992).
Various ecologically based methods are acceptable for determining dominant
plant species. Hays et al. (1981) provides operational descriptions of several tech-
niques suitable for quantitatively measuring habitat variables. The Corps of Engi-
neers recognizes various techniques that consider individual vegetation strata
(Table 4). Consistent with the Corps of Engineers (Environmental Laboratory, 1987;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992), trees and lianas within a 9.1 m (30 ft) radius
of a sample point are identied and measured for basal area at breast height (1.4 m
or 4.5 ft). The basal area of all individual tree species and all individual liana species
are summed and tree species and liana species separately ranked in descending order
based upon total basal area. As an alternative to measuring the basal area of lianas,
the number of individual stems of each species may be counted. As many lianas
branch, stem counts should be conducted at ground level. Lianas are then ranked in
descending order of dominance based upon number of stems.

Table 4 Categories Used in the Assessment of Vegetation Communities

Story Stratum Denition
Woody Tree Woody, nonclimbing, at least 12.7 cm dbh and at
overstory least 6.1 m tall
Liana Woody vines, climbing
Woody Sapling Woody, nonclimbing, at least 1 cm dbh but less
understory than 12.7 cm dbh and at least 6.1 m tall
Shrub Woody, nonclimbing, at least 0.9 m tall but less
than 6.1 m tall
Herbaceous Seedlings and herbs Woody, less than 0.9 m tall, or nonwoody and any
understory height
Mosses and liverworts Small, green, nonowering

Other strata are typically evaluated based upon percent areal coverage. According
to the Corps of Engineers (Environmental Laboratory, 1987; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1992), saplings and shrubs are assessed within a 4.5 m (15 ft) radius,

2001 CRC Press LLC

and seedlings and herbs are assessed within a 1.5 m (5 ft) radius, of a sample point.
For each stratum, the species are ranked in descending order of dominance based
upon percent cover. Mosses and liverworts are only considered when they constitute
an important component of the vegetation community.
In determining whether hydrophytic vegetation is present, the Corps of Engineers
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992) suggests
using the three dominant species from each vegetation stratum and ve species if
only one or two strata are present. The indicator status of each species is recorded.
If the majority of dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC),
then the vegetation is said to be hydrophytic and, therefore, indicative of wetlands.
A variation of the dominance method requires calculation of a prevalence index
(Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Each indicator
category is assigned an index value: OBL equal to 1.0, FACW equal to 2.0, FAC
equal to 3.0, FACU equal to 4.0, and UPL equal to 5.0. Dominant vegetation is
identied based upon its relative frequency of occurrence or relative areal coverage.
An index value is assigned to each species and weighted by its relative dominance
in the community. If the sum of the index value is less than 3.0, then the vegetation
is considered to be hydrophytic.
Although dominance by hydrophytes is the most reliable indicator of hydro-
phytic vegetation, other indicators exist. In general, these other indicators should
be applied only after application of the dominant species method. Nevertheless,
visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation or
soil saturation, particularly if those species have been observed in other wetland
areas, suggests hydrophytic vegetation. This approach may be applied with some
reliability for OBL, and to a lesser extent FACW species, but it is considerably less
reliable for FAC species. The presence of standing water or saturated soil is, in
many cases, insufcient evidence that the observed species are capable of tolerating
anaerobic conditions for an extended period. When in doubt, determine hydrology
and soil characteristics.
Morphological adaptations to inundation or soil saturation such as buttressed
tree trunks, adventitious roots, and shallow root systems are also suggestive of
hydrophytic vegetation (see Table 1). Most individuals of the dominant species
should exhibit morphological adaptations for this indicator to be reliable. However,
not all hydrophytic species have obvious morphological adaptations. Conversely,
apparent morphological adaptations may develop in response to factors other than
soil wetness.

IDENTIFYING AND DELINEATING WETLANDS

Undisturbed Areas

When a site is relatively undisturbed, identifying and delineating wetlands are

accomplished by simultaneously applying the criteria for wetland hydrology, hydric
soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Typically, the best time to identify or delineate
wetlands is during the growing season, when dominant vegetation (especially

2001 CRC Press LLC

annuals) are evident and hydrology can be directly observed. Nevertheless, iden-
tication and delineation of wetlands can be reasonably accomplished at any time
of the year, although the process is made innitely more difcult by snow or ice
cover.
To facilitate wetland identication and delineation, it is helpful to establish a
working baseline. The baseline should extend parallel to any major watercourses or
waterbodies or to any potential wetland areas (Figure 10). It is also helpful to
establish the baseline perpendicular to the topographical gradient. Transects are
established perpendicular to the baseline, with the number of transects depending
upon the length of the baseline and the diversity of plant communities on the site.
Minimally, at least one transect should sample each plant community type. The
Corps of Engineers (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) offers guidelines for estab-
lishing transects. A number of observation points should be established along each
transect. Again, the Corps of Engineers (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) offers
guidelines for establishing observation points. An experienced investigator will min-
imize effort by establishing one observation point in recognizable wetlands and a
second point in recognizable upland. Using observed hydrological, soil, and vege-
tation characteristics at these two observation points as references, the investigator
can then focus his or her efforts on areas that are less readily discernible.

Figure 10 Establishment of a baseline parallel to observed watercourses and perpendicular

to the topographical gradient facilitates wetland identication and delineation.
Transects are established perpendicular to the baseline, and at least one transect
should sample each plant community type.

At each observation point, hydrology, soil, and vegetation are simultaneously

characterized and a determination is made as to whether the area constitutes wetlands
or uplands. More precisely, the observation point is inspected for indicators of
wetland hydrology, indicators of hydric soil, and hydrophytic vegetation. Under
normal conditions, indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soil, and hydrophytic
vegetation must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland. A determination

2001 CRC Press LLC

that the observation point constitutes a wetland is sufcient if the purpose of the
exercise is only identication of wetlands. For the purpose of delineation, subsequent
observation points along the transect, upgradient of the wetland observation point,
must be characterized until wetland indicators are absent. Conversely, initial iden-
tication of an upland observation point requires subsequent investigation of down-
gradient observation points until all wetland indicators are present.

Disturbed Areas

When a site is disturbed, identifying and delineating wetlands through appli-

cation of the criteria for wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation
may be impossible. The disturbance may have been intentional or inadvertent, the
result of unauthorized activities or natural events. Site hydrology may be altered
due to dam construction, water diversion, channelization, or groundwater with-
drawal, resulting in a site that is wetter or drier than normal. Soil may be buried,
removed, or mixed, whereas vegetation may be cut, burned, or converted to agri-
cultural crops.
In many cases, normal application of the methods discussed above will lead to
the conclusion that the site is not a wetland because one or more of the wetland
indicators are likely to be absent. If one or more wetland indicators cannot be
assessed and the site clearly has been disturbed, it is appropriate to evaluate the
remaining indicators and to identify other sources of information regarding the
missing indicator(s). In general, as many sources as possible should be considered
prior to any determination.
There are several avenues of investigation for determining normal site hydrology.
Recent aerial photographs of the site, taken during the growing season, may provide
relatively conclusive information about site inundation and somewhat less conclusive
information about soil saturation. In some instances, a stream or tidal gauging station
may be located in close proximity to the site, allowing calculation of high and low
water elevations. Certain eld indicators of wetland hydrology, such as plant mor-
phological adaptations or high water marks, may be visible. Less reliable but of
some usefulness are historic records, oodplain management maps, and the personal
knowledge of local ofcials or residents.
If ll has been placed on the site, buried soils can reasonably be examined for
hydric soil indicators. Conversely, the removal of surface soil layers may allow for
examination of the exposed subsurface horizons. Plowed soils can be examined
immediately beneath the plow zone. Although inconclusive, review of soil survey
maps, or examination of adjacent, undisturbed soils of the same series may be useful.
Information relative to the preexisting vegetation community varies in its reli-
ability. The most reliable information comes from examination of vegetation com-
munities only partially removed or from review of recent documentation of site
vegetation. Somewhat less reliable is examination of recent aerial photography and
examination of vegetation in adjacent, undisturbed areas. Least reliable are review
of soil survey plant community descriptions, review of National Wetland Inventory
maps, and the recollection of local ofcials or residents.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Difcult Areas

Some wetlands are inherently more difcult to identify and delineate than other
wetlands. The difculty arises because one or more of the wetland indicators may
be impermanent. Slope wetlands in glaciated wetlands have thin soils over relatively
impermeable till or varying hydraulic conditions that produce groundwater seepage.
Hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation are generally readily apparent, but wetland
hydrology is present only during wetter parts of the growing season. Seasonal
wetlands such as vernal pools also lack wetland hydrology during all but the wettest
part of the growing season. Prairie potholes have standing water for the majority
of the growing season in normal or wet years, but they may be dry in years of
below average precipitation. Vegetated ats are dominated by annual plant species
during the growing season, but they are devoid of vegetation outside of the growing
season. Almost without exception, identication and delineation for each of these
wetland types, as well as other difcult wetlands, can reasonably be accomplished
by conducting the evaluation at the appropriate time of the year or in a year of
normal precipitation.

Aids to Delineation

In the last several years, many tools have been developed or improved which
have facilitated the technical procedures associated with wetland delineation. Dif-
ferential Global Positioning System (GPS) software has widely expanded reference
or landscape point location capability, including wetland boundaries. Use of GPS
technology as it applies to wetland jurisdictional delineations has largely involved
the ability to electronically locate wetland boundaries and data points (ags or
transect locations) and place these data points on a site plan or other underlay in an
efcient and reproducible manner. Use of GPS for locating wetland boundaries
allows an operator to collect signicant line and point features, and attribute data
for objects or points in the natural landscape, in a relatively short period of time.
GPS data collection is often undertaken using a backpack unit consisting of handset
data logger and an antenna with differential beacon receiver allowing the operator
to cover large areas and areas with difcult access to record the jurisdictional wetland
boundary. GPS raw data typically needs to be downloaded onto computers for storage
and differential correction but can be readily integrated with Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) software to create site plans or base maps.
The most common limitation of GPS for wetland assessment is human opera-
tional error. Inexperienced operators should understand basic settings and how to
maximize the GPSs efciency. In order to maximize the effective use of GPS, a
digital plan should be utilized with specic horizontal and vertical control. Other
limitations include signal obstruction from the satellite constellation that impairs the
ability of the receiver to collect a position. This can occur under heavy forest cover,
against buildings, or when the sky is effectively blocked. However, satellite positions
change in relation to the operators location on the earth so returning to a position
at a later time may solve the problem.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Technical resources and wetland delineation software also facilitate wetland
delineation. A number of federal, state, and private vendor internet sites have made
it much easier to acquire wetland delineation technical information. This information
includes access to the various wetland delineation manuals, various technical pub-
lications, maps and soil surveys, and delineation software (Table 5).

Table 5 Internet Sites with Wetland Delineation Technical Information

Site
www.fws.gov/fgdcwet.html
www.nwi.fws.gov/qanda.html
www.statlab.iastate/edu/soils/hydric
www.nwi.fws.gov
www.wssinc.com
www.libweb.wes.army.mil
www.itis.usda.gov/itis/index.html
Information
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service publications
Wetland classication
Hydric soil list
National Wetland Inventory maps, plant list
WetForm software
U.S. Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station publications
U.S. Department of Agriculture publications

Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. have developed specialized wetland delin-
eation software, WetForm. A windows-based application, WetForm provides to eld
delineators a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-accepted data form consistent with the
data collection needs of the 1987 Corps Manual. Electronic data entry elds for
observation plot, vegetation, soils, hydrology, and wetland determination are
included and also are consistent with the Corps of Engineer Policy guidance issued
subsequent to the 1987 Manual. The software package includes a vegetation database
and all numerical calculations (e.g., vegetation dominance, percent cover, dominance
ratio) are automatically calculated. Vegetation data elds include common and sci-
entic names of wetland species from the applicable USFWS regions in the conti-
nental United States. The soils database is not comprehensive, but it does have inputs
for matrix and redoximorphic Munsell color, texture, and structure. Soils series from
the U.S. Deparment of Agriculture Soil Conservation Soil Surveys are also in the
database. Hydrological indicator elds are essentially identical to the Corps of
Engineer forms, but related keys are triggered when answers to consistent indicators
are given.

REFERENCES

33 CFR 320330, 1986 Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986.
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., and LaRoe, E. T., Classication of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-79131, 1979.
Environmental Laboratory, Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report
Y-871, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987.
Environmental Law Institute, What is a jurisdictional wetland? Nat. Wet. Newsl., Septem-
ber/October, No. 5, 1991.
Federal Geographic Data Committee (Wetlands Subcommittee), Proposal to Establish the
Cowardin System as the Federal Wetland Classication Standard, 1995.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Hays, R. L., Summers, C., and Seitz, W., Estimating Wildlife Habitat Variables, U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-81/47, 1981.
Hudson, W. D. and Lusch, D. P., Airphoto/satellite imageryan introduction, in Proceedings
of the Remote Sensing and GIS Applications to Nonpoint Source Planning Conference,
sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Northeast Illinois
Planning Commission, Chicago, IL, 1990.
Kollmorgen Corporation, Munsell Soil Color Charts, Baltimore, MD, 1975.
MacConnell, W., Goodwin, D., Jones, K., Stone, J., Foulis, D. B., Springston, G., and
Swartout, D., Wetland Restriction Program: Mapping Standards for Wetlands Restriction
Maps in Massachusetts, Technical Memorandum published by the Massachusetts Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, 1989.
McKnight, T., Physical Geography: A Landscape Appreciation, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1987.
Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G., Wetlands, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1986.
National Research Council, Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries, National Academy
Press, 1995.
New England Hydric Soils Technical Committee, Field Indicators for Identifying Hydric Soils
in New England, 2nd ed., New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission,
Wilmington, MA, 1998.
Reed, P. B., Jr., National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(24), Washington, D.C., 1988.
Reed, P. B., Jr., National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report, Washington, D.C., 1995.
Ritchie, W., Wood, M., and Wright, R., Surveying and mapping for eld scientists, in Aerial
Surveying Techniques, Longman Scientic and Technical, 1988.
Roughgarden, J. S., Running, W., and Matson, P. A., What does remote sensing do for ecology?
Ecology, 72(6), 1918, 1991.
Sipple, W. S., Wetland Identication and Delineation Manual, Vol. 1, Rational, Wetland
Parameters, and Overview of Jurisdictional Approach, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ofce of Wetlands Protection, Washington, D.C., 1988.
Sipple, W. S., Wetland Identication and Delineation Manual, Vol. 2, Field Methodology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofce of Wetlands Protection, Washington,
D.C., 1988.
Sipple, W. S., Time to move on, Nat. Wetl. Newsl., 14, 4, 1992.
Smith, G. D., Soil moisture regimes and their uses in soil taxonomies, in Field Soil Water
Regime, Bruce, R. R., Flach, K. W., and Taylor, H. M., Eds., Soil Scientist Society of
America, Madison, WI, 1973.
Smith, J., Jr. and Anson, T. A., Eds., Manual of Color Aerial Photography, 1st ed., American
Society of Photogrammetry, VA, 1968.
Tiner, R. W., Wetland delineation, in Proceedings of the 1991 Stormwater Management/Wet-
lands/Floodplain Symposium, Aron, G. and White, E. L., Eds., Pennsylvania State
University, Department of Civil Engineering, University Park, PA, 1991.
Tiner, R. W., The primary indicators methoda practical approach to wetland recognition
and delineation in the United States, Wetlands, 13(l), 50, 1993.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Tiner, R. W. and Wilen, B. O., The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services National Wetland Inventory
Project, Technical Memorandum, USFWS, Washington D.C. and Newton Corner,
MA, 1983.
Tiner, R. W. and Veneman, P. L., Hydric Soils of New England, University of Massachusetts
Cooperative Extension, Revised Bulletin C-183-R, Amherst, MA, 1989.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Questions and Answers on the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Manual, CECW-OR 7, October 1991.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Memorandum: Clarication and Interpretation of
the 1987 Manual, CECW-OR, USCOE/Washington, D.C., March 1992.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of
Kennebec County, Maine, USDAISCS Cooperative Publication with the Maine Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1978.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hydric Soils of the
United States, National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Publication No. 1491,
Washington, D.C., 1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Food
Security Act Manual, 3rd ed., 180-V-NFSAM, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed revisions to the Federal Manual for
Delineating Wetlands, Fed. Regist., 58, 157, August 14, 1991.
U.S. Geological Survey, Surcial Geologic Map, Hanover, MA Quadrangle, 1967.
U.S. Geological Survey, Topographic Map, Hanover, MA Quadrangle, 1974.
U.S. Geological Survey, Topographic Map, Duxbury, MA Quadrangle, 1975.
U.S. Geological Survey, Topographic Map Index, 1991.
Wentworth, T. R. and Johnson, G. P., Use of Vegetation for the Designation of Wetlands, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 1986.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Kent, Donald M. Evaluating Wetland Functions and Values
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 3

Evaluating Wetland Functions and Values

Donald M. Kent

CONTENTS

Functions and Values

Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat
Educational and Scientic Venue
Elemental Transformation and Cycling
Flood Flow Alteration
Groundwater Recharge
Particle Retention
Production Export
Raw Materials
Recreation
Soil Stabilization
Evaluating Functions and Values
Representative Evaluation Techniques
Expert Opinion
Wetland Evaluation Technique
Rapid Assessment of Wetlands (RAW)
Wetlands Integrated Monitoring Condition Index (WIMCI)
Hydrogeomorphic Assessment (HGM)
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
Virtual Reference Wetlands (VRW)
Economic Valuation
Economic Valuation Methodologies
Direct Economic Valuation
Indirect Economic Valuation

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The Value of the Worlds Ecosystem Services and
Natural Capital
References

As do all ecosystems, wetlands have functions and values. Functions are pro-
cesses that are inherent to a wetland. They derive from the wetlands hydrological,
geological, biological, and chemical characteristics. For example, groundwater
recharge is a wetland function that occurs when water in the wetland, derived from
precipitation, surface runoff, or both, inltrates downward through permeable soils
to the groundwater table. Wetland functions occur regardless of whether there are
people present to benet from these processes.
Wetland values are functions that prove useful or are important to people. The
aforementioned wetland functioning to recharge groundwater will possess a ground-
water recharge value only if the recharged groundwater is used by local or regional
populations. Values may be provided within the connes of the wetland, for example,
recreation, or beyond the wetland boundaries, for example, ood protection. Another
characteristic of wetland values is that they vary with time and circumstances. Again
returning to the example of a groundwater recharge wetland, a downstream com-
munity drawing drinking water from a surface impoundment does not view the
wetland as valuable to its drinking water supply. Should the surface water supply
diminish or become contaminated, and groundwater withdrawal become necessary,
that wetland now takes on value.
Clearly, wetland functions and values are inextricably linked. Values cannot be
provided without there rst being a function. Conversely, a function has no value
until someone exploits that function. Recognizing the confounding nature of the
relationship between wetland function and value, many functions and values have
been attributed to wetlands (Amman et al., 1986; Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993;
Adamus et al., 1987; Reimold, 1994; Brinson, 1995). Some of the commonly
recognized functions and values of wetlands are listed in Table 1 and described
briey below.

Table 1 Wetland Functions and

Values
Aquatic and wildlife habitat
Educational and scientic venue
Elemental transformation and cycling
Flood ow alteration
Groundwater recharge
Particle retention
Production export
Raw materials
Recreation
Soil stabilization

2001 CRC Press LLC

 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES

Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat

All wetlands, with the exception of those that have been severely degraded,
provide habitat for wildlife. And wetlands with seasonal or permanent surface water
support sh and other aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. Many threatened and
endangered species are associated with wetlands. The type and degree to which
aquatic and wildlife habitat is provided is dependent upon local and landscape
characteristics including water depth and permanence, vegetation type and cover,
habitat size, and the nature of the surrounding environment (Forman and Godron,
1986; Kent, 1994).

Educational and Scientic Venue

Numerous public and private organizations exist for the purpose of educating
people about the importance of wetlands. Educational topics include awareness,
regulations and legislation, conservation and planning, and science and management
(Drake and Vicario, 1994). Wetlands provide an opportunity for studying fundamen-
tal biological and ecological principles including energy ow, biogeochemical
cycling, population biology, and community structure. As well, wetlands are the
focus of more specic studies related directly to inherent functions and values such
as pollutant removal, habitat provision, and ood attenuation.

Elemental Transformation and Cycling

Wetlands serve as sinks, sources, or transformers of many inorganic and organic

chemicals, including those of ecological and socioeconomic importance such as
nitrogen and phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, iron, and manganese. Chemicals enter the
wetland through hydrologic pathways such as precipitation, surface or groundwater,
tidal exchange, or alternatively through biotic pathways including photosynthetic
xation of atmospheric carbon and bacterial xation of nitrogen, respectively. Wet-
lands export or lose chemicals by burying in the sediment, outow in surface or
groundwaters, denitrication, atmospheric loss of carbon dioxide, ammonia volatil-
ization, or methane and sulde release. While within the wetland, chemicals may
become part of the litter, remineralized, translocated in plants, or transformed by
changes in redox potential or biotic components.

Flood Flow Alteration

Wetlands have the potential for reducing downstream peak ows and delaying
the timing of peak ows. Water from precipitation, overbank ow, overland ow,
and subsurface ows may be detained in wetlands by depressions, plants, and debris,
or as the result of the wetland slope. Alternatively, water may be retained in the
wetland, inltrate, and recharge surcial groundwater. The importance of wetlands

2001 CRC Press LLC

for reducing downstream ooding increases with an increase in wetland area, dis-
tance the wetland is downstream, size of the ood, closeness to an upstream wetland,
and the lack of other upstream storage areas (Ogawa and Male, 1983, 1986).
Coastal wetlands also have the capacity to alter ood ows as well as reduce
ood wave severity. In this case, salt marshes and mangrove forests absorb the energy
of coastal storms, thereby protecting inland areas.

Groundwater Recharge

Wetlands with pervious underlying soils recharge underlying materials, ground-

water, or aquifers. Recharge is thought to occur primarily around the edge of
wetlands, making groundwater recharge relatively more important in smaller wet-
lands. As most wetlands are thought to have impervious underlying soils, the majority
of wetlands may not exhibit this function and value (Larson, 1982; Carter and
Novitzki, 1988).

Particle Retention

Wetlands trap and retain sediments, nutrients, and toxicants, primarily through
physical processes. Reduction in water velocity causes sediments, and chemicals
sorbed to sediments, to settle. Dissolved elements and compounds are retained with
inorganic and organic particulates after sorption, complexation, precipitation, and
chelation. In contrast to chemical transformation and cycling, incoming particles are
subject to long-term accumulation or permanent loss from incoming water sources
through burial in the sediments or uptake by vegetation.

Production Export

Some wetlands, especially those with high primary productivity, export dissolved
and particulate organic carbon to downslope aquatic ecosystems. Plant material and
other organic matter are leached, ushed, displaced, or eroded from the wetland,
providing the basis for microbial and detrital food webs.

Raw Materials

Wetlands are a source of plants and animals that serve as raw materials for
various domestic, commercial, and industrial activities. Forested wetlands, for exam-
ple, bottomland hardwoods and cypress swamps, are a source of lumber. Lower
quality timber and woody shrubs are used for the production of other wood products,
paper pulp, or rewood. Marsh vegetation is used for food (e.g., rice), fodder, thatch
for roofs, and other commodities. Wetland wildlife, sh, and shellsh are consumed
as food, and wildlife skins are used for clothing and related items. Because of the
extractive nature of this function and value, the provision of raw materials is likely
to have serious impacts on other wetland functions and values. Sustainable practices
can minimize these impacts.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Recreation

Wetlands provide passive and active recreation including shing, hunting, bird-
watching, hiking, canoeing, photography, and others. The opportunity for recreation
is related to access and landscape heterogeneity. Recreation can at times be incom-
patible with other functions.

Soil Stabilization

Vegetated wetlands have the potential for stabilizing underlying soils. Stems,
trunks, and branches dissipate water energy through frictional resistance and reduce
erosive forces. Roots bind soil. The dissipation of erosional forces and binding of
soil affords protection to nonwetlands in coastal and in riverine areas.

EVALUATING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES

The white and gray literature is replete with methods for evaluating wetland
functions and values. Differences among the methods are reected in the precision,
accuracy, and reliability of conclusions. Critical factors to consider when selecting
or interpreting evaluation methods are whether functions and values are measured
directly or implied through indicators, whether evaluated data are qualitative or
quantitative, whether the evaluation was conducted off-site or on-site, and whether
assumptions and limitations are clearly stated. In general, a method should be
selected based upon the type and level of information desired, available labor and
economic resources, and the required time scale.
Several representative evaluation methods are described below. In many circum-
stances, a combination of two or more of these methods, or development of an
original method, may be most appropriate.

Representative Evaluation Techniques

Expert Opinion

Expert opinion is perhaps the simplest, quickest, and least expensive technique
for evaluating wetland function and value. The technique is most applicable when
a functional assessment is required on short notice, when money is a limiting factor,
and a precise or accurate evaluation is not essential. However, when a group of
experts is convened and empirical information is available, expert opinion can
represent actual function and value with fair accuracy.
At its simplest, expert opinion consists of the professional judgment of an
individual conversant with wetland ecological processes. Individual professional
judgment should not be the entire basis for decision making when the decision can
have serious consequences. More commonly, expert opinion consists of a conven-
tion of experts that come together with the goal of reaching consensus. The

2001 CRC Press LLC

consensus opinion can be given more weight, and more reasonably be used in
critical decision making.
The two expert opinion techniques that have enjoyed widespread use are the
Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi Technique (Delbecq et al., 1975). The
two techniques are similar, except that the Nominal Group Technique requires face-
to-face meeting(s) of participating experts, whereas the Delphi Technique is typically
conducted through correspondence. The Nominal Group Technique is the quicker
and more cost-effective technique if the convening experts are proximally located.
Conversely, the Delphi Technique may be less costly and less time consuming for
participants that interact poorly or are geographically disjunct. In general, the Delphi
Technique will require more time to conduct and complete.
The Delphi Technique is described to illustrate the Nominal Group and Delphi
Techniques process. Delphi was the meeting site in Greece where Oracles met to
discuss matters of the time and issue opinions. In modern times, the Delphi process
consists of a discussion among knowledgeable individuals with the goal of reaching
an agreeable conclusion (Pill, 1971). There are two assumptions fundamental to
the process:

1. Expert opinion is sufcient input to decision making when absolute answers are
unknown.
2. The collective decision of a group of experts will be more accurate than the
professional judgment of an individual.

Involved in a Delphi process are three separate groups: the decision makers, a
moderator, and experts (Turoff, 1970). Decision makers initiate the process by posing
a question, and then seek an individual or group to moderate the process. The
moderator identies experts, designs the initial and follow-up questionnaires, and
summarizes the expert responses. The experts respond to the question posed by the
decision makers and transmitted by the moderator. Generally, the experts are polled,
responses are tabulated, analyzed, and returned to the experts, and the experts
respond again based upon the aggregate responses. The process is repeated until a
consensus is reached. The identity of the experts may remain hidden to all parties
except the moderator throughout the process. Delbecq et al. (1975) indicated that
the quality of Delphi responses is strongly inuenced by the interest and commitment
of the experts.
One area in which the Delphi Technique has been applied with some success is
in the development, habitat suitability curves for sh (Crance, 1985, 1987a, 1987b).
Habitat suitability curves describe the relationship between a habitat variable (e.g.,
water temperature or bottom substrate) and the probability that a sh will use a
habitat with that particular characteristic. Crance (1987b) has offered guidelines for
developing habitat suitability curves, based in part upon general recommendations
by Delbecq et al. (1975). The guidelines are believed to be applicable to terrestrial
species as well.
The number of experts is governed by the number of respondents needed to
constitute a representative pooling of judgments, and the information processing
capabilities of the monitor. A total of 8 to 10 experts are likely an optimal number,

2001 CRC Press LLC

although more or less may be sufcient. Crance (1987b) develops a list of 15 to 20
experts, and then prioritizes the list based upon best knowledge of the species habitat
requirements, geographical coverage, and enthusiasm. The experts should represent
a diversity of knowledge about the habitat use by the species, and overrepresentation
by any single stakeholder group should be avoided.
Experts are mailed an information packet that reiterates the purpose of the
exercise and provides guidelines for responding. A response time of about 10 days
is established. A second information packet is sent after 4 to 6 weeks which sum-
marizes the results of the rst round and includes the preliminary suitability index
curves for each variable and life stage considered to be important, new questions,
and instructions for the second round. Experts review the preliminary suitability index
curves and indicate their agreement or disagreement. Disagreement with a prelimi-
nary curve requires sketching of a new curve and providing explanatory comments.
Responses to the second round are summarized by the monitor and returned to the
experts for further review and comment. The process continues until an acceptable
level of agreement is reached. A nal report is generated which includes feedback
to the experts, and which summarizes exercise goals, process, and results.
Crance (1985) has concluded that Delphi exercises are not a replacement for
empirical curve development, but provide a more updated and interactive exchange
of scientic information than can be achieved with a literature search. Also, Delphi-
derived curves tend to represent average values of habitat quality for a species and,
therefore, will be useful only for predicting average suitability indices.

Wetland Evaluation Technique

The Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET, Adamus et al., 1987) was developed
upon recognition that professional expertise may not always be available, and can
be difcult to reproduce. WETs objectives are to assess most recognized wetland
functions and values, be applicable to a wide variety of wetland types, be rapid and
reproducible, and have a sound technical basis in the scientic literature. There are
11 functions and values assessed by WET (Table 2). In addition, WET assesses the
suitability of wetland habitat for 14 waterfowl species groups, 4 freshwater sh
species groups, 120 species of wetland-dependent birds, 133 species of saltwater
sh and invertebrates, and 90 species of freshwater sh.
Adamus et al. (1987) suggest that WET can be used to compare different wet-
lands, estimate impacts from wetland modication, prioritize wetlands for acquisi-
tion or more detailed study, develop conditions for permits, and compare enhanced,
restored, or created wetlands with reference wetlands. Geographically, WET is
designed for use in the contiguous United States. Users should, at a minimum, have
an undergraduate degree in biology, wildlife management, environmental science or
a related discipline, or have several years of experience in one of these areas.
Knowledge of the Fish and Wildlife Service classication system (Cowardin et al.,
1979, see Chapter 1) and an ability to delineate wetlands are also recommended.
WET evaluates functions and values in terms of social signicance, effectiveness,
and opportunity. Social signicance assesses the value of a wetland to society due
to its special designations, potential economic value, and strategic location. For

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 2 Functions and Values
Assessed by the
Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET,
Adams et al., 1987)
Groundwater recharge
Groundwater discharge
Floodow alteration
Sediment stabilization
Sediment/toxicant retention
Nutrient removal/transformation
Production export
Wildlife diversity/abundance
Aquatic diversity/abundance
Recreation
Uniqueness/heritage

example, a wetland would have a high social signicance value for groundwater
recharge if it were a sole source aquifer, Class II Groundwater, or had wells, and if
it were used as a source of water by a nearby population. Effectiveness assesses the
capability of a wetland to perform a function owing to its physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics, and opportunity assesses the opportunity for a wetland to
perform a function to its level of capability. For example, wetlands with a high
effectiveness and opportunity for recharging groundwater would have permeable
substrata, a negative discharge differential, and no outlet or a restricted outlet.
Functions and values are characterized based upon physical, chemical, or bio-
logical processes and attributes. Characterization is accomplished by identifying
threshold values for predictorssimple or integrated variables that directly or indi-
rectly measure the physical, chemical, or biological processes and attributes of a
wetland and its surroundings. Predictors are chosen for ease of measure or evaluation
and vary in directness and accuracy. Threshold values for predictors are established
by answering questions, and the responses to the questions are analyzed in a series
of interpretation keys. The interpretation keys dene the relationship between pre-
dictors and functions and values based upon information found in the technical
literature. Functions and values are assigned a qualitative probability rating of high,
moderate, or low. The ratings are not direct estimates of the magnitude of a wetland
function or value, but are an estimate of the probability that a function or value will
exist or occur.
In practice, WET requires three steps: preparation, question response, and inter-
pretation (Figure 1). Preparation includes obtaining resources, establishing the con-
text, and dening the assessment and surrounding areas. Type and level of evaluation
are also determined at this time. The Social Signicance Evaluation has two levels:
the rst level has 31 questions and can be completed in 1 to 2 hr. The second level
renes the probability rating for Uniqueness/Heritage function and value, and
requires several hours to several weeks to complete depending upon the availability
of information.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 1 Evaluation process for the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET, Adamus et al.,
1987).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Effectiveness and opportunity are evaluated concurrently at three levels. Each
level consists of a series of questions, and successive levels build upon previous
levels to develop an increasingly detailed characterization. The level selected
depends upon available time and information, and the desired condence in the
evaluation results. Level 1 can be conducted off-site in 1 to 2 hr. Level 2 requires
a site visit and 1 to 3 hr. Level 3 requires a site visit and detailed physical, chemical,
and biological monitoring data. The second level is recommended as an appropriate
level in most circumstances.
Interpretation is accomplished through a series of keys; each key consists of a
series of boxes. Within each box are coded references to a question or group of
questions, and each coded reference is followed by a specied answer of yes or
no. A true or false arrow leads from each box to either another box or to a
probability rating. The user proceeds through each key until a probability rating has
been assigned to each function and value for each type of evaluation. There are
social signicance keys for 11 functions and values, effectiveness keys for 10
functions and values, and opportunity keys for 3 functions and values. The Habitat
Suitability Evaluations are accomplished in the same manner using answers to
questions in Effectiveness and Opportunity Evaluations 1, 2, and 3.
Dougherty (1989) evaluated the applicability of WET to high elevation wetlands
in Colorado. Two subalpine wetland complexes, Cross Creek and Willliams Fork,
at similar elevations but of differing hydrologic regime, size, and geomorphology
were studied in 1985 to evaluate WETs ability to distinguish between similar
wetlands and to compare WETs evaluations to collected data. At both sites, data
were available on groundwater level and surface water stage, groundwater and
surface water quality, vegetation cover and standing crop, and stream gauging. The
wetlands were assessed using WET Social Signicance Levels 1 and 2, Effectiveness
and Opportunity Levels 1, 2, and 3, and Habitat Suitability.
The evaluation indicated differences in ratings between the two wetland com-
plexes and differences between the WET probability ratings and empirical data. Of
the 24 WET probability ratings, 13 were considered questionable, 4 were supported
by empirical data, and 7 were rated moderate and thus considered neutral by Dough-
erty (1989). The 13 questionable ratings centered on three issues. First, WET is
insensitive to the degree of overbank ooding which is a major hydrologic distin-
guishing characteristic of montane and subalpine wetlands in Colorado. Second,
WET does not consider snowmelt which drives high elevation wetland hydrology.
Third, WETs heavy reliance on locality (a relatively small political or hydrologic
area) as a predictor of social signicance functions and values may have articially
applied different probability ratings for oodow alteration and nutrient
removal/transformation to the two wetland complexes.
In the opinion of the author, WET was most accurate in instances where more
detailed data were available (e.g., groundwater measurement) to support the Effec-
tiveness and Opportunity Level 3 assessment. However, the application of WET to
this situation is limited by questions that do not appear to be well suited for
assessment of high elevation wetlands. In part, this may be attributed to the reliance
of WET on the technical literature which is sparse for this region. In closing,

2001 CRC Press LLC

Dougherty (1989) cautions that WET should be considered as a broad-brush tool
for the organization of information and decision making, and not an end in itself.

Rapid Assessment of Wetlands (RAW)

Kent et al. (1990) developed a macroscale wetland function and value assessment
technique to facilitate preliminary land-use planning efforts. The technique was
designed to assess widely recognized wetland functions and values, provide expe-
ditious eld application, apply to a variety of wetland types, and to be reproducible.
The function and value assessment incorporates functions and values, and critical
criteria identied in WET (Adamus et al., 1987) and in the Method for the Evalu-
ation of Inland Wetlands in Connecticut (Amman et al., 1986).
There are 11 functions and values, identical to those of WET, assessed using
available resources (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey maps, soil surveys, National Wet-
land Inventory maps, etc.) and one or more eld visits. Each function and value is
assessed relative to critical criteria (Table 3), which are used to determine whether
or not a wetland potentially provides a function and value under consideration. A
wetland is presumed effective for a function and value if the assigned criteria are
satised. Conversely, a wetland is presumed ineffective for a function and value if
the assigned criteria are not satised. The cumulative value of a wetland is deter-
mined by summing the number of positive responses, dividing this sum by the
number of functions and values being assessed (less than or equal to 11), and
multiplying the resultant quotient by 100. Wetland systems with percents ranging
from 1 to 20 are assigned a poor value, 21 to 40 a below average value, 41 to 60
an average value, 61 to 80 a high value, and 81 to 100 a very high value.
The State of Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning,
conducted a macroscale delineation and function and value assessment of wetlands
at Bradley International Airport in 1990. The purpose of the delineation and assess-
ment was to develop a wetland resource map that would provide guidance to the
Department in the development of the Bradley Master Plan, and to facilitate future
planning by identifying areas requiring more detailed investigation at a later date.
The area covered by the determination and assessment was approximately 405 ha
(1000 acres). Identied were 18 separate wetland complexes, the majority of which
were broad-leaved, deciduous forested wetlands.
Wetlands at the airport were assessed using RAW in the spring of 1990. The
majority of the wetlands were assessed as poor value. These wetlands were primarily
small, isolated wetlands effective only for ood storage and groundwater recharge.
Two larger, contiguous wetlands were assessed as high value, effective for all wetland
functions and values except for aquatic diversity and abundance, recreation, and
uniqueness and heritage. Intermediate size wetlands with a hydrological connection
to other wetlands were assessed as below average and average value.
RAW adequately satised the planning goals of the Connecticut Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Planning. The assessment was conducted in a relatively
short period of time and at low cost. Wetland experts with the Bureau of Planning
reviewed the assessment and found its conclusions consistent with their opinions of
site functions and values. Nevertheless, the authors caution that this technique is

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 3 Functions and Values and Assessment Criteria for the Rapid Assessment of
Wetlands (RAW, Kent et al., 1990)
Function and Value
Aquatic diversity and abundance
Flood ow alteration or ood storage
Groundwater discharge
Groundwater recharge
Nutrient removal and transformation
Production export
Recreation
Sediment stabilization
Sediment and toxicant retention
Uniqueness and heritage
Wildlife diversity and abundance
Criteria
Permanent open water; open water and vegetation
interspersion, water quality suitable for aquatic
organisms
Regulated outow, perceived outow less than
perceived inow, greater than 200 acres and at least
70 percent vegetation coverage
Pervious substrate, nonfringe wetlands with outlet
only
Pervious substrate, permanent inlet and no outlet,
impermanent inundation
Sediment retention, well-vegetated, low water ow
velocity
Permanent outlet, high primary productivity, potential
erosive conditions, permanent or periodic high water
ow velocity
Public use permitted
Potential sediment sources, reduced water inow
velocity, well-vegetated
Potential sediment and toxicant source, absent or
constricted outlet, well-vegetated
Critical habitat for threatened and endangered
species, historical or archaeological site
Large and vegetatively diverse, moderate-sized
oasis, oodplain

applicable only to planning efforts, and that there is no scientic basis for assigning
a cumulative wetland value.

Wetlands Integrated Monitoring Condition Index (WIMCI)

The Wetlands Integrated Monitoring Condition Index (WIMCI) was intended to

provide a framework for cost effective, scientically responsive monitoring of
enhanced, restored, and created wetland functions and values, particularly those
associated with local, state, and federal permit activities (Kent et al., 1992). The
authors recognized that the standard for measuring success was based largely on
structural parameters related to vegetation, and that functional approaches for mon-
itoring wetland ecosystems or addressing impacts were largely nonexistent (Kusler
and Kentula, 1989). WIMCI was designed to directly assess the majority of wetland
functions, to be exible, simple to use, produce repeatable results, relatively inex-
pensive, and to be accomplished in a reasonable period of time.
WIMCI assessed eight functions (Table 4). Values, such as uniqueness, heritage,
recreation, and education, for which insufcient published literature suitable for
objective assessment was lacking, were excluded. So, too, consumptive functions
and values (e.g., agriculture, forestry) inconsistent with the intended use of the index
were also excluded. The eight assessed functions and values are measured directly
and expressed as a fraction of a reference wetland function and value. Individual

2001 CRC Press LLC

functions and values can then be averaged to produce the WIMCI. Condition index
values range from zero for a monitored wetland that does not provide any functions,
to one for a monitored wetland that functions at a level comparable to the reference
wetland. Instances in which the monitored wetland functions and values exceed that
of the reference wetland are also assigned a value of one.

Table 4 Wetlands Integrated Monitoring Condition Index (WIMCI)

Functions, Values, and Measurements (Kent et al., 1992)
Function and Value Measurement
Aquatic habitat Animal species list
Flood attenuation Flood storage capacity
Groundwater recharge Recharge volume
Nutrient metabolism Total nitrogen or total phosphorus
Production export Total suspended organics
Sediment retention Total suspended solids
Toxicant retention Heavy metals, volatile organics, and petroleum
hydrocarbon analysis
Wildlife habitat Animal species list

As the overall WIMCI averages individual functions and values, it is compen-

satory in nature. A high function and value can offset an absent or low individual
function and value. The converse is also true. WIMCI does not allow one function
and value to be an absolute limiting factor to overall wetland condition. The
WIMCI approach is exible in two ways. First, WIMCI can use more or less
functions than described above. Second, WIMCI can be easily modied to assign
weights to individual functions and values. The authors note that WIMCI has not
been applied in its entirety but is based upon commonly used measurement and
assessment techniques.

Hydrogeomorphic Assessment (HGM)

The HGM assessment was designed to accurately and rapidly measure the net
change in wetland function resulting from degradation and restoration (Brinson,
1995, 1996). Changes in function are measured by comparing an impacted or
degraded wetland with reference wetlands. The assessment differs from many other
evaluation techniques by measuring only functions and not values and by requiring
that functions be sustainable. A number of regional guidebooks presenting examples
of how to assess wetlands are in press, in development and testing, or being planned
(Brinson et al., 1997).
HGM rst classies wetlands into functional categories based upon the position
of the wetland in the landscape, dominant sources of water, and the ow and
uctuation of the water. A total of seven wetland classes have been recognized:
riverine, depressional, slope, mineral soil ats, organic soil ats, estuarine fringe,
and lacustrine fringe (see Chapter 1). The classication is intended to simplify the
development and conduct of the assessment.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 For a given wetland class, a series of indicators and variables are developed to
reect the measurable properties of the wetlands functions. Variables are either
hydrologic, representing inow processes, or structural, representing removal pro-
cesses, and are derived from measurements and visual indicators of wetland function
(Table 5). Level of functioning is estimated by combining variables in equations.
Variables scale from zero, indicating no function, to one, indicating function equiv-
alent to a reference standard. Focal wetland functions exceeding the reference stan-
dard are also assigned a value of one. Unlike other evaluation approaches, the user
has the option of reducing the estimated value if the function is determined to be
nonsustainable.

Table 5 Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Assessment

Functions (Brinson et al., 1995)
Hydrologic
Short-term surface water storage
Long-term surface water storage
Maintenance of high water table
Biogeochemical
Transformation, cycling of elements
Retention, removal of imported substances
Accumulation of peat
Accumulation of inorganic sediments
Habitat and food web support
Maintenance of characteristic plant communities
Maintenance of characteristic energy ow

Reference wetlands are the most critical component of the HGM assessment.
Reference standards are established based upon observations and measurements of
wetland sites of the same class. The reference wetlands are intended to be self-
sustaining and representative of the highest levels of overall performance. Reference
wetlands must be established, at a minimum, for regional subclasses in each phys-
iographic province. Because professional judgment and local knowledge are required
to select appropriate reference wetlands, assessment teams comprised of members
with complementary scientic skills are recommended. The assessment concludes
with a calculation of replacement ratios.
To demonstrate its use, Brinson et al. (1995) developed a guidebook for applying
the HGM approach for functional assessment to riverine wetlands. To develop the
guidebook, wetland sites were studied in the glaciated northeast, Gulf coastal plain,
Southwest, Rocky Mountains, Olympic Peninsula, and Puget Sound. The guidebook
is to be used by teams of individuals who adapt the information to riverine wetlands
of their physiographic region. The information in the guidebook must be modied,
calibrated, and tested to determine its effectiveness under local and regional conditions.
The guidebook identied 15 functions of riverine wetlands in 4 major categories:
hydrologic, biogeochemical, plant habitat, and animal habitat (Table 6). A total of
44 variables were identied: 14 for hydrologic functions, 16 for biogeochemical

2001 CRC Press LLC

functions, and 27 for habitat functions. From two to nine measurements are required
to determine the value of an individual variable.

Table 6 Riverine Wetland Functions (Brinson

et al., 1995)
Hydrologic
Dynamic surface water storage
Long-term surface water storage
Energy dissipation
Subsurface storage of water
Moderation of groundwater ow or discharge
Biogeochemical
Nurtient cycling
Removal of imported elements and compounds
Retention of particulates
Organic carbon export
Plant habitat
Maintain characteristic plant communities
Maintain characteristic detrital biomass
Animal habitat
Maintain spatial structure of habitat
Maintain interspersion and connectivity
Maintain distribution and abundance of invertebrates
Maintain distribution and abundance of vertebrates

HGM limits include an inability to compare wetland functions between wetland

classes. Also, the development of a reference wetland set can require tens of thou-
sands of dollars and several months time, limiting the applicability of HGM to
relatively large or controversial projects (Magee, 1996). Criticisms of the HGM
assessment approach include poorly dened terminology (e.g., self-sustaining eco-
systems, sustainable, ecological stability), and an inability to quantify levels of
functions greater than that of reference wetlands (Hruby, 1997). Additional devel-
opment may be necessary before HGM can be widely used (Opheim, 1996).

Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)

HEP was developed in response to a need to document the nonmonetary value

of sh and wildlife resources and is based upon the assumption that habitat quality
and quantity can be numerically described (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980a).
The assessment procedure is a species-habitat approach to impact assessment. Hab-
itat quality for selected evaluation species is documented with the Habitat Suitability
Index (HSI) which is derived from an evaluation of the species key habitat com-
ponents. HSI values are multiplied by area and aggregated to obtain a Habitat Unit
(HU). HUs provide the basis for comparison of the relative value of different
wetlands at the same point in time, or the relative value of the same wetland at two
different points in time. The time and costs associated with a HEP analysis are highly
variable, and depend upon size of the study area, number of cover types, number of
evaluation species, and the number and types of proposed actions.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The steps required to conduct a HEP analysis are depicted in Figure 2 (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1980b). Study limits are dened initially. This includes dening
the study area, delineating cover types, and selecting evaluation wildlife species.
The study area should include areas where direct or indirect biological changes are
expected to occur. The level of delineation of cover types depends upon mapping
constraints and the level of detail required for the analysis. A cover type classication
applicable to the region is recommended. Evaluation wildlife species can be a single
species, a group of species, a species life stage, or a species life requisite. There are
two approaches to the selection of species: selection of species with high public
interest or economic value and selection of species providing a broad ecological
perspective of the assessment area. Examples of the latter include species sensitive
to land-use changes, keystone species, and species that represent guilds.
HUs are determined next. HUs are the product of the total area of available
habitat and the HSI. The total area of available habitat includes all areas that can
be expected to provide some support to the evaluation species. The recommended
method of describing HSI values is through the use of models which may be in
word or mathematical form. Calculating an HSI requires establishing HSI model
requirements, acquiring an HSI model, and determining HSI for available habitat.
Index values are an estimate of habitat conditions in the subject area relative to a
standard of comparison, typically optimal habitat conditions. Values range from 0.0
(no habitat) to 1.0 (optimal habitat). Ideally, HSI models produce an index with a
proven, quantied, positive relationship to carrying capacity. Model development is
described in Habitat Evaluation Procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980b).
Figure 3 is an example of an HSI. Schroeder (1982) developed a HSI model for
the yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) to facilitate consideration in HEP evalua-
tions. The model is applicable to the breeding range, season, and habitat of the
species. Breeding habitat was determined to be deciduous shrubland and deciduous
scrubshrub wetland (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981). There are three vari-
ables that describe the suitability of breeding habitat for the yellow warbler: percent
deciduous shrub crown cover (variable 1), average height of deciduous shrub canopy
(variable 2), and percent of deciduous shrub canopy comprised of hydrophytic shrubs
(variable 3). Optimal habitat is considered to exist at shrub densities of 60 to 80
percent, shrub heights of 2 m, and 100 percent hydrophytic vegetation. Other levels
of suitability are described by the equation (variable 1 variable 2 variable 3)1/3.
Baseline HUs describe the existing ecological conditions which facilitate land-
use planning and alternatives analysis. Baseline HUs can be compared among areas
or to predictions of future HUs for a single area following some change in land use.
The latter application constitutes an impact assessment. Application of HEP to
impact assessments requires predictions of changes in physical, vegetative, and
chemical variables. The same HSI models must be used to determine habitat value
at all points in time.
HEP allows the incorporation of value judgments through the use of a Relative
Value Index (RVI). RVIs are applied as weighting values to the HUs calculated for
each evaluation species. Calculation of RVIs requires dening the perceived signif-
icance of RVI criteria, rating each evaluation species against each criterion, and

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 2 Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) evaluation process (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1980b).

transforming the perceived signicance of each criterion and each evaluation species
rating into a RVI. HUs are no longer directly related to carrying capacity after
adjustment by RVIs.
Unavoidable HU losses can be offset by the development of compensation plans
that apply specied management measures to existing habitat to effect a net increase
in HUs. Compensation may be in kind, in which the goal is to offset the HU loss
for each evaluation species. Alternatively, the compensation plan may have a goal
of equal replacement, in which HU losses may be compensated by a gain of an
equal number of total HUs, regardless of individual evaluation species HUs.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Figure 3 Suitability index graphs for the yellow warbler (Schroeder, 1982).

Virtual Reference Wetlands (VRW)

VRW (Kent et al., 1999) offer an alternative or supplemental approach to assess-

ing wildlife. An idealized standard, the VRW, is established by compiling a list of

2001 CRC Press LLC

all wildlife species occurring in regional wetlands. Compilation can be accomplished
using eld guides, agency lists, scientic publications, the gray literature, or expert
opinion. The VRW can represent wildlife of all wetland types or can be partitioned
by wetland type. Also, the VRW can represent wildlife of all seasons or any one
season. Wildlife of the focal wetland, determined by direct observation, is compared
to the VRW. The approach is applicable to assessing the success of enhancement,
restoration, and creation efforts, or establishing the relative value of a population of
wetlands as part of an alternative analysis.
The VRW approach is repeatable and, because it is based upon direct observation,
allows for evaluation of actual rather than potential function and value. The use of
an idealized standard eliminates the need to identify an appropriate reference wetland
and facilitates comparison and extrapolation to other wetlands. VRW also provide
for calculation of various metrics including relative richness, similarity, and the
proportion of uplandwetland species and habitat generalistsspecialists. The met-
rics can be applied at several temporal and spatial scales. The most serious limitation
of the VRW approach is the inability to compare wildlife abundance.
Kent et al. (1999) applied the VRW approach to evaluation of wildlife in a created
wetland. The created wetland wildlife community was found to be relatively rich,
due in part to the occurrence of upland birds. The wildlife community most closely
resembled that of freshwater marshes of the region consistent with the wetlands
physical characteristics. Habitat specialists were just as likely to occur in the wetland
as habitat generalists.

ECONOMIC VALUATION

There has been recognition in recent years that wetlands provide ecosystem
services, and that these ecosystem services can be economically valued (e.g., Thi-
bodeau and Ostro, 1981; Danielson and Leitch, 1986; Costanza et al., 1997). The
total economic value of a wetland consists of its use value and its nonuse value (see
Table 7 and Pearce and Moran, 1994). Use value represents the value arising from
the actual use of the wetland and is further divided into direct use, indirect use, and
option values. Direct use values include recreation, shing, and forest products.
Indirect use values derive from ecosystem functions such as water quality renovation.
Option values represent an individuals willingness to pay for the option to use a
value at a later date.

Table 7 Categories of Wetland Economic

Values (Pearce and Moran, 1994)
Total Economic Value
Use values Nonuse values
Direct use Bequest values
Indirect use Existence values
Option values

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Nonuse values, by contrast, accrue independent of on-site or off-site use of the
wetland. Somewhat more difcult to estimate, nonuse values are divided between
bequest values and existence values. Bequest values accrue to an individual from
the knowledge that others might benet from the wetland in the future. Existence
values derive simply from the knowledge that the wetland exists, even if the indi-
vidual never sees the wetland. Nonuse value may be quite large relative to use value
(Brown, 1993) and has become increasingly accepted. For example, nonuse values
have been recognized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion and Liability Act (CERCLA, 26 U.S.C. 4611 et seq.) and the 1990 Oil Pollution
Act (35 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
In practice, total economic value is almost impossible to calculate. Unlike nan-
cial analyses, which consider whether a project will be protable for investors,
economic analyses must consider the value of a project to society as a whole. All
economic analyses rely on the accuracy of costs and an accurate prediction of the
future. In practice, many environmental costs are difcult, if not impossible, to
estimate. Existing valuation techniques can reasonably distinguish use values from
nonuse values but cannot reliably distinguish between option, bequest, and existence
values (Pearce and Moran, 1994). Economic valuation is also unlikely to accurately
account for underlying, holistic, ecosystem functions, and for intrinsic value (Pearce
and Moran, 1994; Pimm, 1997).

Economic Valuation Methodologies

Direct and indirect approaches are used to estimate the economic value of
environmental goods including wetlands (Pearce and Moran, 1994). Direct
approaches establish values directly from individuals through surveys or experiments
and can be used to determine both use and nonuse values. Indirect approaches
establish values from actual, observed market-based information. Nonuse values
cannot be determined from indirect approaches.
All of the valuation techniques have advantages and limitations that should be
understood prior to use. In general, users should select and use techniques that are
institutionally acceptable, that consider the needs of the end user(s), and that balance
costs against the level of information required (Pearce and Moran, 1994).

Direct Economic Valuation

Experiments offer the most reliable method for establishing the economic value
of a wetland. For example, to determine the recreation value of a wetland, the wetland
could be enclosed and an entrance fee charged. In practice, it is difcult to design
and establish experiments to determine the economic value of a wetland.
Individuals may be asked to rank their preferences as in the Contingent Ranking
Method. More commonly the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is used and
individuals are asked to state what they are willing to pay for some change in the
provision, or what they are willing to accept to forgo a change in the provision, of
a wetland function or value.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The CVM has three parts. First, a hypothetical description of the terms under
which the function or value is to be offered is presented to the respondent. Second,
the respondent is asked questions to determine how much they value the function
or value. Respondents may be asked whether or not they want to pay for a function
or value if it costs a specied amount or how much they would be willing to pay
for the function or value. And third, relating responses to socioeconomic and demo-
graphic characteristics tests response validity. CVM willingness to pay responses
are analyzed for the frequency distribution of the responses to the valuation questions
and relationships between willingness to pay and socioeconomic variables.
The CVM is not without its shortcomings (Batie and Shabman, 1982; Diamond
and Hausman, 1994; Pearce and Moran, 1994). The quality and presentation of
information described to the respondent can have a signicant effect on results. The
method inherently establishes a hypothetical market which may or may not reect
the behavior of respondents if they had to make actual payments. Also, respondents
may not be familiar with the commodity being valued, and responses are sensitive
to the described method of payment. Arrow et al. (1993) offer guidelines which
improve the reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method.
Stevens et al. (1995) used the CVM to estimate the total value of preserving
different types of wetlands in New England. A survey was mailed to 2,510 randomly
selected New England residents. Each group was asked for their opinions about the
importance of wetlands and about rules and regulations governing wetland preser-
vation in New England. Respondents were also asked to rank four types of wetlands:

1. Wetlands that provide recreation

2. Wetlands containing rare species of plants
3. Wetlands that provide food
4. Wetlands that provide ood protection, water supply, and water pollution control

Surveyed individuals were asked one of ve versions of a contingent valuation

question about the amount of sales tax they were willing to pay to prevent wetland
loss. The rst version asked respondents if they would accept a sales tax of $N each
year for the next 5 years for their highest priority wetland type. The second version
asked for the respondents willingness to pay for all four types of wetland. Version
three asked about the willingness to pay to preserve wetlands containing rare species
of plants. Version four was the same as version two except less information was
provided, and version ve asked about willingness to pay for wetland restoration
rather than preservation.
The survey response rate was 34 percent and 90 percent of respondents said that
wetland preservation was very important to them. Of the respondents, 48 percent
gave top priority to wetlands that provide ood protection, water supply, and water
pollution control; 38 percent gave top priority to wetlands containing rare species of
plants; only 9 and 4 percent gave top priority to wetlands providing recreational
opportunities and food, respectively. Of the respondents, 64 percent were willing to
pay to preserve wetlands. The average respondent was willing to pay between
US$73.89 and US$80.41 per year for wetlands that provide ood protection, water

2001 CRC Press LLC

supply, and water pollution; between US$80.77 and US$96.07 for wetlands contain-
ing rare species of plants, and approximately US$114 to preserve all wetland types.
The aggregate value of New England wetlands was estimated to be between US$242
and US$261 million per year for wetlands providing ood protection, water supply,
and water pollution control, and between US$264 and US$313 million per year for
wetlands containing rare species of plants. There was no signicant difference in
willingness to pay for wetland preservation compared to restoration. The majority
of respondents who would not pay were opposed to the special sales tax.
The authors concluded that a substantial economic value is associated with
wetland preservation and restoration by New England residents. Nevertheless, the
response rate, combined with the tendency for respondents to be better educated
than the average resident, may have inuenced the willingness to pay amount.

Indirect Economic Valuation

Indirect valuations elicit values from observed market-based information, that

is, an individual purchases a good to which the wetland function or value can be
related (Pearce and Moran, 1994). Obtained values will be sufcient for costbenet
purposes. Indirect valuations can be divided into two categories: surrogate market
and conventional market.
Surrogate market techniques consider markets for private goods and services
that are related to environmental goods and services. Individuals reveal the value
they place on the environmental goods and services by the value they place on the
private goods and services. Surrogate market approaches include household produc-
tion functions and the hedonic pricing method.
Household production functions use expenditures for goods or services that are
substitutes for the environmental goods or services. The travel cost approach is
perhaps the most commonly applied household production function and uses expen-
ditures for travel to recreation sites. Money and time spent by individuals to get to
a site are used to estimate willingness to pay for a sites functions and values. Data
requirements for the travel cost approach are extensive and include the number of
visitors to a site, the visitors place of origin, socioeconomic characteristics, journey
duration, direct travel expenses, and purpose of the visit (Pearce and Moran, 1994).
Nevertheless, the travel cost approach can value the demand for recreation function
and value.
Another surrogate market technique, the hedonic pricing method, estimates an
implicit price for an environmental good or service, that is, a use value, by looking
at real markets in which those goods or services are traded (Pearce and Moran,
1994). For example, house or land values are used to establish a relationship between
property prices and proximal environmental attributes. As with the travel cost
approach, data requirements are substantial and may be difcult to obtain.
Conventional market techniques use market prices, or shadow market prices, to
establish the value of an environmental good or service. Recognized are two
approaches: doseresponse and replacement cost (Pearce and Moran, 1994). The
doseresponse technique establishes a doseresponse function by relating damage
to the environment (the response) to the cause of the damage (the dose). A monetary

2001 CRC Press LLC

damage function is established by multiplying the doseresponse function by the
price or value per unit of damage. The approach is applicable to environmental
changes that have impacts on marketable goods; for example, pollution impacts on
sheries, forestry, and agriculture. Cost of application ranges from inexpensive to
expensive depending upon the availability of doseresponse functions. The approach
is not suited to valuing nonuse benets.
As the name implies, the replacement cost approach estimates the cost of replac-
ing or restoring a damaged environment to its original condition. Replacement costs
can be determined by observing actual spending on replacement efforts, or estimation
of the cost of replacement. Incomplete assessment of actual damage, and the practical
inability to replace all functions and values, can lead to underestimation. Conversely,
use of replacement cost to assign value may underestimate ancillary benets of the
replacement.

The Value of the Worlds Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital

Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the value of the worlds ecological services and
natural capital stocks to make the range of potential values more apparent, to
establish a rst approximation of the relative magnitude of global ecosystem services,
to establish a framework for further analysis, and to point out those areas in need
of more research. Ecological services are dened as the ows of materials, energy,
and information from capital stocks that combine with manufactured and human
capital services to produce human welfare. Capital stocks are a stock of materials
or information that exists at a point in time. Trees, minerals, ecosystems, and the
atmosphere are examples of the latter.
Ecosystem services were grouped into 17 major categories and applied to 16
biomes. Only renewable services were considered. The unit value of ecosystem
services was estimated by synthesizing previous studies which used a variety of
methods including direct observation, contingent valuation, and replacement cost.
The areal extent of the 16 ecosystems was determined and multiplied by the unit
value of the ecosystem services to estimate the total value of the worlds ecosystem
services and natural capital. This value is estimated to be in the range of US$1654
trillion per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year.
Wetlands were estimated to have a value of US$29,571 per hectare per year and
a total value of US$4.9 trillion per year. This is approximately 15 percent of total
global ecosystem services. For purposes of the study, the wetland biome consisted
of freshwater wetlands (swamps, bogs, riparian wetlands, and oodplains) and
coastal wetlands (tidal marshes and mangroves). Assigned to freshwater wetlands
were 10 ecosystem services which had a total value of US$19,580 per hectare per
year and a total global value of US$3.2 trillion per year (Table 8). Water supply and
disturbance regulation (i.e., storm protection) were the most signicant ecosystem
services of freshwater wetlands. Assigned to coastal wetlands were 6 ecosystem
services which had a total value of US$9990 per hectare per year and a total global
value of US$1.6 trillion per year. Waste treatment was the most signicant ecosystem
service provided by coastal wetlands, accounting for 67 percent of the total value.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 8 Average Global Value of Annual Wetland Services
(Costanza et al., 1997)
1994 US$ per Hectare per Year
Services Freshwater Coastal Total
Gas regulation 265 265
Disturbance regulation 7,240 1,839 9,079
Water regulation 30 30
Water supply 7,600 7,600
Waste treatment 1,659 6,696 8,355
Habitat/refuge 439 169 608
Food production 47 466 513
Raw materials 49 162 211
Recreation 491 658 1,149
Cultural 1,761 1,761
Total 19,581 9,990 29,571

Costanza et al. (1997) consider their estimate of the value of ecosystem services
to be a minimum estimate because of a number of uncertainties, including the
exclusion of the infrastructure value of ecosystems. Pimm (1997) agrees that the
estimate is clearly an underestimate, in part because ecosystems are exceedingly
complex and poorly understood and, therefore, cannot reasonably be replicated.
Pimm (1997) also questions the moral right to place monetary values on sustaining
the environment for future generations. Both Costanza et al. (1997) and Pimm (1997)
recognize that the value of ecosystem services will increase exponentially as they
become scarcer. Constanza et al. (1997) conclude that their (and subsequent) valu-
ation of ecosystem services will help modify systems of national accounting and
provide a basis for project appraisal.

REFERENCES

Adamus, P. R., Clairain, E. J., Smith, R. D., and Young, R. E., Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET), Vol. II, Methodology, Operational Draft Department of the Army Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987.
Amman, A. P., Franzen, R. W., and Johnson, J. L., Method for the Evaluation of Inland
Wetlands in Connecticut, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Bulletin
No. 9, 1986.
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., and Schuman, R., Report of
the NOAA panel on contingent valuations, Fed. Regist., 58(10), 4602, 1993.
Batie, S. and Shabman, L., Estimating the economic value of wetlands: principles, methods,
and limitations, Coastal Zone Manage. J, 10, 255, 1982.
Brinson, M., The HGM approach explained, Nat. Wetl. Newsl., November/December, 7, 1995.
Brinson, M., Assessing wetland functions using HGM, Nat. Wetl. Newsl., January/February,
10, 1996.
Brinson, M. M., Hauer, F. R., Lee, L. C., Nutter, W. L., Rheinhardt, R. D., Smith, R. D., and
Whigham, D., A Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine
Wetlands, Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1995.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Brinson, M., Lee, L., Ainslie, W., Rheinhardt, R. D., Hollands, G. G., Smith, R. D.,
Whigham, D. F., and Nutter, W. B., Common misconceptions of the hydrogeomorphic
approach to functional assessment of wetland ecosystems: scientic and technical issues,
Wetl. Bull., 14(2), 16, 1997.
Brown, T., Measuring nonuse value: a comparison of recent contingent valuation studies,
W-133 Benets and Cost Transfer in Resource Planning, 6th Interim report, Department
of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, 1993.
Carter, V. and Novitzki, R. P., Some comments on the relation between ground water and
wetlands, in The Ecology and Management of Wetlands, Vol. 1, Ecology of Wetlands,
Hook, D. D., McKee, W. H., Jr., Smith, H. K., Gregory, J., Burrell, V. G., Jr., DeVoe,
M. R., Sojka, R. E., Gilbert, S., Banks, R., Stolzy, L. H., Brooks, C., Matthews, T. D.,
and Shear, T. H., Eds., Timber Press, Portland, OR, 1988.
Costanza, R., DArge, R., de Groots, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., ONeill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., and van den Belt, M.,
The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253, 1997.
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., and LaRoe, E. T., Classication of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication
FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C., 1979.
Crance, J. H., Delphi Technique Procedures Used to Develop Habitat Suitability Index Models
and Instream Flow Suitability Curves for Inland Stocks of Striped Bass, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service WELUT-85/WO7, 1985.
Crance, J. H., Habitat suitability curves for paddlesh developed by the Delphi technique,
N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 7, 123, 1987a.
Crance, J. H., Results on the use of the Delphi technique for developing category I habitat
suitability criteria for redbreast sunsh, in Proceedings of Species Criteria Workshop,
Fort Collins, CO, December 1012, 1986, 1987b.
Danielson, L. E. and Leitch, J. A., Private versus public economics of prairie wetland allo-
cation, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 13(1), 1986.
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., and Gustafson, D. H., Group Techniques for Program
PlanningA Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes, Scott Foresman, Glenview,
IL, 1975.
Diamond, P. and Hausman, J., Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?
J. Econ. Perspect., 8(4), 45, 1994.
Drake, K. and Vicario, M., Wetlands education, in Applied Wetlands Science and Technology,
Kent, D. M., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1994, 363.
Dougherty, S. T., Evaluation of the applicability of the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET)
to high elevation wetlands in Colorado, in Wetlands: Concerns and Successes, American
Water Resources Association, 1989, 415427.
Forman, R. T. T. and Godron, M., Landscape Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986.
Hruby, T., Continuing the discussion: scientic and technical issues regarding the hydrogeo-
morphic approach to function assessment of wetlands, Wetl. Bull., 14(3), 23, 1997.
Kent, D. M., Designing wetlands for wildlife, in Applied Wetlands Science and Technology,
Kent, D. M., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1994, 283.
Kent, D. M., Reimold, R. J., And Kelly, J. M., Macroscale Wetlands Delineation and Assess-
ment, Technical report to the Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Planning, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1990.
Kent, D. M., Reimold, R. J., Kelly, J. M., and Tammi, C. E., Coupling wetland structure and
function: developing a condition index for wetlands monitoring, in Ecological Indicators,
McKenzie, D. H., Hyatt, D. E., and McDonald, V. J., Eds., Elsevier Applied Science,
London, 1992.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Kent, D. M., Schwegler, B. R., and Langston, M. A., Virtual reference wetlands for assessing
wildlife, Fla. Sci., 62, 222, 1999.
Kusler, J. A. and Kentula, M. E., Eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the
Science, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. 600/389/038a, 1989.
Larson, J., Wetland value assessmentstate of the art, in Wetlands: Ecology and Management,
Gopal, B., Turner, R. E., Wetzel, R. G., and Whigham, D. F., Eds., National Institute of
Ecology and International Scientic Publications, Jaipur, India, 1982.
Magee, D. W., The hydrogeomorphic approach: a different perspective, Wetl. Bull., June,
12, 1996.
Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G., Wetlands, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1993.
Ogawa, H. and Male, J. W., The Flood Mitigation Potential of Inland Wetlands, Water
Resources Research Center Publication No. 138, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, 1983.
Ogawa, H. and Male, J. W., Simulating the ood mitigation role of wetlands, J. Water Res.
Plan. Manage., 112, 114, 1986.
Opheim, T., HGM: the beast is unleashed, Nat. Wetl. Newsl., May/June, 2, 1996.
Pearce, D. and Moran, D., The Economic Value of Biodiversity, Earthscan Publications Ltd.,
London, 1994.
Pill, J., The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography,
Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci., 5, 57, 1971.
Pimm, S. L., The value of everything, Nature, 387, 231, 1997.
Reimold, R. J., Wetlands functions and values, in Applied Wetlands Science and Technology,
Kent, D. M., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1994.
Schroeder, R. L., Habitat Suitability Index Models: Yellow Warbler, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.27, 1982.
Stevens, T. H., Benin, S., and Larson, J. S., Public attitudes and economic values for wetland
preservation in New England, Wetlands, 15(3), 226, 1995.
Thibodeau, F. and Ostro, B., An economic analysis of wetland protection, J. Environ. Manage.,
12(1), 19, 1981.
Turoff, M., The design of a policy Delphi, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 2, 149, 1970.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat as a Basis for Environmental Assessment, Division
of Ecological Services, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1980a.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP), Division of Ecological
Services, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1980b.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Standards for the Development of Habitat Suitability Index
Models, 103 ESM, U.S. Department of the Interior Fish Wildlife Service, Division
Ecological Services, 1981.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Kent, David J. et al Ecological Risk Assessment of Wetlands
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 4

Ecological Risk Assessment of Wetlands

David J. Kent, Kenneth D. Jenkins, and James F. Hobson

CONTENTS

The Human Health Risk Assessment Paradigm

Ecological Risk Assessment
The Ecological Risk Assessment Framework
Problem Formulation Phase
Choosing Biological Endpoints
Spatial and Temporal Considerations
Other Considerations
Analysis Phase
Exposure Characterization
Ecological Effects Characterization
Risk Characterization Phase
Predictive Ecological Assessments
Problem Formulation
Exposure Characterization
Ecological Effects Characterization
Risk Characterization
The Quotient Method for Risk Characterization
Retrospective Ecological Assessments
Problem Formulation
Exposure Characterization
Ecological Effects Characterization
Risk Characterization
Summary
References

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Until recently, the term risk assessment generally was applied to the estimate of
risk to human health, typically from chemical exposure. For example, a cancer risk
assessment is an estimate of the risk to humans from carcinogenic compounds.
Recently, however, the term risk assessment has been applied to ecological systems.
An ecological risk assessment is an estimate of the adverse effect to an ecosystem
from chemical, physical, or biological stressors resulting from anthropogenic activ-
ity. This recent interest in assessing ecological health is evidenced by several pub-
lications (Bartell et al., 1992; Cairns et al., 1992; Suter, 1993; Newman and Strojan,
1998; Lewis et al., 1999) including two documents produced by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1992, 1998). The rst of these USEPA docu-
ments, Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (1992), was intended as the rst
step in a long-term program to develop guidelines for the performance of ecological
risk assessments. The second document, Guidelines for the Ecological Risk Assess-
ment, provided more detailed information and is the current guidance on the subject.
The principles of ecological risk assessment can be applied to any ecosystem,
although they may be particularly relevant to wetlands. The extent and rate of wetland
loss, as well as the biologic, economic, and social importance of wetlands, are well
documented (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). Moreover, the transitional nature of
wetlands may make them especially sensitive to stress. Despite the uniform appli-
cation of assessment principles to ecological systems, individual wetlands are suf-
ciently different in their spatial, temporal, and physiochemical characters to warrant
site-specic sampling and analysis (Figures 1 and 2). These differences will inuence
the design and interpretation of the ecological risk assessment.

Figure 1 Risk assessment can be broadly applied to a variety of ecosystems. Nevertheless,

individual wetlands are sufciently different in their spatial, temporal, and physic-
ochemical characters to warrant site-specic samping and analysis. A New
England saltmarsh is shown here.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Figure 2 An Arkansas riverine system wetland.

To understand the use of ecological risk assessment for wetland ecosystems, an

introduction to the principles of risk assessment is necessary. The current basis for
risk assessment is derived from the National Research Council Risk Assessment
paradigm (1983). Following this, an in-depth discussion of the USEPA Ecological
Risk Assessment Framework (USEPA, 1992) is presented as is a discussion of the
challenges and strategies associated with carrying out assessments. Finally, examples
of specic applications to wetland ecosystems are provided.

THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT PARADIGM

The risk assessment paradigm has been used for some time to evaluate the chronic
impacts of environmental pollutants on human health. This strategy was initially
conceptualized by the National Research Council Risk Assessment Panel (NRC,
1983) and formalized by the USEPA in its 1986 Guidelines (USEPA, 1986ae). This
risk assessment paradigm consists of several components:

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Hazard identication: does a chemical contaminant represent a specic threat to
human health? Establishment of causeeffect relationships is central to this com-
ponent.
Dening doseresponse: what is the relationship between the magnitude of the
exposure and the probability of an adverse health effect?
Exposure assessment: what is the potential for human exposure to the chemical of
concern?
Risk characterization: what is the potential magnitude of risk to human health
given the predicted exposure and doseresponse data? What is the uncertainty
associated with this risk estimate?

Standard methodologies are employed to evaluate potential threats to human

health. The methodologies usually involve determining all relevant effects and then
summing those effects to get a total effect value.

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Ecological risk assessments (ERA) examine the probability that undesirable

ecological effects are occurring or may occur as a result of exposure to a stressor
or a combination of stressors. The term stressors is used here to reect the broad
range of anthropogenic factors that can result in ecological perturbations. Stressors
may include any chemical, physical, or biological factor resulting from anthropo-
genic activities that can cause an ecological disturbance. Most often, however, the
term stressor refers to toxic chemicals.
ERAs can be used to address a wide range of issues and are generally classied
as predictive or retrospective. Predictive ERAs are designed to assess the risks
associated with proposed actions, such as the introduction of new chemicals into
the environment and the establishment of new sources of stressors or hypothetical
accidents (USEPA, 1991). Predictive risk assessments have usually followed the
NRC human health paradigm relatively closely while emphasizing the choice of
biological endpoints and related stressorresponse data.
In contrast, retrospective ERAs address the risks associated with stressors released
due to current or previous anthropogenic activities. Examples of retrospective assess-
ments include evaluating the ecological impact of hazardous waste sites and previous
releases or spills. The goal of this type of risk assessment is to establish and dene
the relationship between the pollution source, the distribution of stressors, the expo-
sure of biological endpoints, and the level of effects of this exposure on the ecosystem.
Retrospective assessments often take advantage of eld data to dene contaminant
sources and measure adverse biological effect. Various levels of data collection or
site-specic assessment may be necessary to provide the information required to
design and conduct the retrospective ecological risk assessment, and to achieve a
given level of condence. The challenge here is to establish causeeffect relationships
between the source of stressors and any observed ecological effects.
Some ERAs, such as those used for wetlands, may involve both predictive and
retrospective aspects. For example, in an assessment of a hazardous waste site, the

2001 CRC Press LLC

current status of the site may require a retrospective evaluation, but the long-term
impact of various repetition scenarios would be addressed in a predictive fashion.
As the type of risk assessment to be conducted is dependent upon the ultimate
application of the results, a clear understanding of the objectives of the risk assess-
ment is essential.
The move to ERAs by the regulatory community is driven by a number of factors.
From a legal standpoint, many of the underlying statutes require some form of
evaluation of ecological risk. For example, the Superfund Amendment and Reautho-
rization Act (1987) species that the actual and potential risk to public health and
the environment must be assessed for each hazardous waste site. The use of a basic
risk assessment paradigm would provide a structural framework for ecological
assessment and a consistent strategy for managing various types of risk. This issue
is particularly important when comparing the sensitivity of ecological endpoints
relative to the human endpoint. In some cases, nonhuman endpoints may prove to
be more sensitive than human endpoints, and would, thus, drive the overall risk
assessment. This type of comparison is facilitated by consistency in the strategies
used to carry out risk assessments for both types of endpoints.
Although human health risk assessment strategies provide a useful model, assess-
ing ecological risk has proven to be more complex. A number of factors contribute
to this complexity.

Multiple biological endpoints: these could include multiple species, and various
levels of biological organization (e.g., subcellular, individual, population, commu-
nity, and ecosystem).
More complex exposure pathways: these are determined by the biological endpoints
of concern.
Indirect effects: indirect effects such as habitat impairment or disruption of
intertrophic relationships may be more important than direct exposure to chemicals.
Evaluating impacts on ecosystems: ecosystems are complex, their function is often
not tightly coupled to stressor inputs, and they show resilience and recovery to
varying degrees of stress.

In spite of these complexities, there are some distinct advantages to estimating

risk to ecological endpoints. Exposures and hazards can often be estimated directly
on the species of concern or a closely related surrogate species. This may result in
a more accurate estimate of risk, because there is no need for extrapolation from
more distantly related species as is almost always the case in human risk assessment.
This is particularly useful when multiple stressors or complex exposure matrices are
involved. In ERAs, the biological endpoints of interest can often be tested directly
against the specic stressor or mixture of stressors of concern, thus eliminating the
need to estimate such factors as stressor interactions, chemical form (speciation),
and bioavailability.
Despite the aforementioned advantages, the added complexity associated with
ERAs results in a higher degree of uncertainty than is normally associated with
human health-based risk assessments. This complexity requires more effort in the
initial planning stages so that the nal assessment is well focused. Furthermore,

2001 CRC Press LLC

some modications of the basic NRC risk assessment paradigm are required. The
Risk Assessment Forum within the USEPA has developed the framework (and now
guidelines) for ecological risk assessment which addresses these issues, yet is con-
ceptually consistent with human health risk assessment strategies. It is important to
note that slight differences in terminology exist between the various ERA structures
currently promoted. However, the elements are fairly analogous. For the sake of
simplicity, the discussions in this chapter will utilize the USEPA framework termi-
nology, although the concepts may be drawn from multiple sources.

The Ecological Risk Assessment Framework

Two major elements that form the basis of the ERA framework are the charac-
terization of exposure and the characterization of ecological effects. Aspects of the
two elements are considered in all phases of the framework process. While carrying
this common thread throughout the paradigm, the framework is divided into three
phases. The phases are problem evaluation, analysis, and risk characterization
(Figure 3).

Problem Formulation Phase

The rst step in this process requires dening the specic purpose of the ERA.
Although this may seem trivial, many ERAs suffer from lack of clear focus and, as
a result, may be ambiguous and misleading. Once the specic purpose of the
assessment is dened, the specic goals that must be met to achieve this purpose
are formulated. These goals provide a basis for establishing a precise conceptual
study design. In undertaking the study design, a number of questions must rst be
addressed.

Is the ERA to be predictive or retrospective?

Is the ERA to be site-specic or generic?
What type of ecosystem(s) is at risk?
What types of stressors are involved?
What are the potential source(s) for a given stressor or set of stressors?

Addressing these questions requires a rigorous review of available data. Where

existing data are unavailable or incomplete, it may be necessary to carry out a
preliminary study, particularly to establish the types of potential stressor. Most
important, ecological risk assessment is often an iterative process. A given level of
information is required for developing the design and objectives (i.e., the problem
formulation). Additional data may be required for the complete ERA. Ultimately,
the level of information needed and the extent of new data collection are dependent
upon the objectives, such as the level of certainty desired. As well, the level of
information is dependent upon the outcome of the previous iterations, for example,
how much ecological impact has occurred at a given site or how hazardous a new
chemical may be based on laboratory toxicity studies.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 3 From the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA, 1992).

Choosing Biological Endpoints

An important issue at this stage is determining the appropriate suite of biological

endpoints to be used in the evaluation. Biological endpoints should be carefully
chosen specically to address the overall goals of the assessment. The parameters
to be considered in choosing these endpoints should include the ecological relevance
of the endpoint and the spatial and temporal occurrence of the endpoint relative to
the distribution of the stressors and potential biological receptors.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 In ecological assessments the distinction is often made between assessment
endpoints and measurement endpoints (Warren-Hicks et al., 1989; Suter, 1993).
Assessment endpoints represent the ultimate resource(s) or nal environmental val-
ues that are to be protected. They should have social or biological relevance, be
quantiable, and provide useful information for resource management or regulatory
decisions. For example, successful reproduction of a species in danger of extinction
is an appropriate assessment endpoint. For populations that are valued for commer-
cial or sport uses such as anadromous sh (e.g., salmon) or estuarine or marine
shrimp, the important assessment endpoints could be growth, reproduction, or overall
productivity. Other potential assessment endpoints include yield and productivity,
market or sport value, recreational quality, and reproductive capability (see Warren-
Hicks et al., 1989). In general, assessment endpoints focus on population and com-
munity parameters because ecological risk assessments are usually concerned with
protecting these higher levels of biological organization rather than individual organ-
isms. However, when there is concern for endangered species, the assessment end-
points may indeed focus on the individual organism.
In contrast, measurement endpoints represent the specic parameters that are to
be measured in a given assessment. They are often chosen based upon practical
considerations such as availability and ease of measurement. It is often impossible
from a practical sense to measure some endpoints (e.g., endangered species) and
other more obtainable measurement endpoints are chosen as surrogates for the actual
assessment endpoints of interest. Such measurement endpoints should be well char-
acterized and take into account exposure pathways and temporal factors. Ideally,
measurement endpoints should be chosen so that the data from these endpoints can
be linked directly or indirectly to appropriate assessment endpoints. This latter issue
is often the most difcult to address in ERAs.
At the level of the individual, measurement endpoints may include mortality,
growth, and fecundity. Abundance and reproductive performance are measurement
endpoints on a population level. Other measurement endpoints include species even-
ness and diversity on a community level and biomass and productivity on an eco-
system level. Assessment of endangered species poses a special problem. Because
exposure for an endangered species cannot usually be directly assessed, the residues
of a contaminant in a principal food item can be a measurement endpoint. Alterna-
tively, if exposure to a chemical and its potential impact on an endangered species
is the assessment endpoint, then a co-existing species with similar life history habits
might be used as a surrogate measurement endpoint.

Spatial and Temporal Considerations

Ultimately, the problem formulation phase should result in the establishment of

the study design which will form the basis of the assessment. The design must take
into account a number of environmental and ecological factors that may affect the
stressors or their potential impact on biological systems. Many of these factors have
spatial or temporal components that must be taken into account in the design. Spatial

2001 CRC Press LLC

factors include potential routes of exposure, other sources of stressors, location of
sensitive biological resources, and factors that may modify contaminant mobility or
availability. The changing composition of sediments is an example of the latter.
Temporal factors may include seasonal changes in physical, chemical, or biological
aspects of ecosystems that may inuence the magnitude or form of the stressor or
its potential to cause a biological effect. For example, increased surface water
movement in the wet season in riparian habitats can dramatically affect contaminant
migration and the potential for exposure. Also, seasonal variation in physical or
chemical parameters such as temperature or pH can modify the bioavailability of
contaminants, thus changing the nature of the exposure.
The biological characteristics of the exposure matrix may also change temporally.
Species may be present only seasonally as is typical of migratory waterfowl, anadro-
mous shes, or species that migrate seasonally within a local area. Exposure to a
given species, population, or community may vary with seasonal changes in life
history habits such as seasonal feeding patterns or reproductive cycles. Thus, tem-
poral changes in the biological components of an ecosystem may inuence the
distribution of the stressor or the availability of the biological endpoint within the
ecosystem. Temporal variation would affect the ultimate risk assessment. Therefore,
these temporal patterns must be addressed in designing the sampling scheme and
data collection for the risk assessment.
Temporal considerations may also include long-term historical or predicted
trends in stressor inuence and potential seasonal variation in stressor impact.
Historical or predicted trends are very important to understanding the overall impact
of stress on an ecosystem and may be important to the application of risk information
in risk management decisions such as remediation plans, wetland restoration, and
registration of a new pesticide.

Other Considerations

Another factor to consider is the presence of biological resources that are either
sensitive to stressor impact or may be of particular economic or social importance.
Wetlands are nursery areas for many species that inhabit adjacent terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Other resources may include populations of economically
important species such as anadromous sh populations or endangered species which
are protected by law.
In completing the problem foundation phase of the ERA, these issues must be
addressed in rigorous and systematic fashion. The ultimate goal is the development
of a conceptual model that will serve as a basis for the ERA. The model should
address the spatial and temporal distributions of potential stressors, appropriate
biological endpoints, as well as probable routes and levels of exposure. Finally, the
model should be precisely linked to the goals and purposes of the risk assessment.
A well-conceived conceptual model is essential to the effective implementation of
the subsequent component of the risk assessment.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Analysis Phase

The analysis phase consists of two distinct activities: characterization of exposure

and characterization of ecological effects. It is here that the two main elements of
an ecological risk assessment are most prominent and most closely interrelated.

Exposure Characterization

The goal of exposure characterization is to develop an accurate appraisal of the

potential for exposure to important biological resource or receptors, as represented
by the measurement endpoints, to the identied stressors. Spatial and temporal
factors are particularly important in this stage of the ERA. Issues associated with
multiple routes of exposure must also be addressed at this time.
Both the stressor and the ecosystem must be characterized with regard to the
distribution and pattern of change. This is accomplished through the use of modeling
or monitoring data, or both, depending on whether the ERA is predictive or retro-
spective. Stressors can be characterized from direct sampling, laboratory or eld
testing, or through remote sensing. At this stage, it is important to evaluate the means
by which stressors can be modied in the ecosystem through biotransformation or
other environmental fate processes such as photolysis, hydrolysis, and sorption.
Transport and fate models are often employed, including interactive mass balance
models like the Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS) developed at the
USEPA research laboratory in Athens, GA (Burns et al., 1982). Characteristics of
the ecosystem that can affect exposure also need to be evaluated. These can include
habitat requirements, food preferences, reproductive cycles, and seasonally inu-
enced activities.
After stressor and ecosystem characteristics are dened, the spatial and temporal
distributions are combined to evaluate exposure. Finally, the magnitude and distri-
bution patterns are quantied for the scenarios developed during the problem for-
mulation phase of the ERA. All sources of uncertainty should also be quantied to
the degree possible for the input into the ERA. Recently, probabilistic techniques
have been used to characterize uncertainty under various exposure conditions (Bur-
master and Anderson, 1994; Power, 1996).

Ecological Effects Characterization

The goal of this portion of the analysis phase is to identify and characterize any
adverse ecological effects that are associated with exposure to a particular stressor
or stressors. To the extent possible, these effects should be quantied and any cause
and effect relationships evaluated.
Initially, an evaluation must be made of all effect data that are relevant to the
stressor. The types of data that are relevant will depend upon the characteristics of
both the stressor and the ecological component and also on whether the ERA is to
be predictive or retrospective. Commonly used data types include aquatic toxicity
tests, computer models, quantitative structure activity relationships (QSARs), micro-
and mesocosms, species diversity analyses, articial substrate comparisons, the

2001 CRC Press LLC

Wetland Evaluation Technique (Adamus et al., 1987), and others (Suter, 1993;
USEPA, 1992; McKim et al., 1987; Barnthouse et al., 1986). Data from laboratory
and eld observations, as well as from controlled studies, may be used. These data
are considered based upon their relevance to the measurement and assessment
endpoints. Evaluating the quality of the data, that is, the adequacy of sampling and
statistical design, is an important component of this stage.
The next step is to quantify the ecological response in terms of the stres-
sorresponse relationship. The aim is to describe the relationship between the mag-
nitude, frequency, and duration of the stressor, and the magnitude of the response.
The doseresponse curve in laboratory aquatic toxicity tests is an example of this
type of analysis. Determining relative differences in productivity, biomass, species
composition, and diversity between contaminated and reference sites is also a com-
monly used means of dening this relationship. Any extrapolations required between
the stressor and measurement endpoints must be evaluated as well as any extrapo-
lations between measurement and assessment endpoints. The strength of the causal
relationship must be quantied to the extent possible. Finally, as with the exposure
analyses, quantitative estimates of uncertainty such as natural variability in ecolog-
ical characteristics and responses should be included in the analyses. Often this
analysis of uncertainty can be done probabilistically (Moore, 1996). However, it
should be emphasized that although the goal is to provide quantication of the
stressorresponse relationship, in many cases, it can only be described qualitatively
and, therefore, professional judgment plays an important role in most ERAs.

Risk Characterization Phase

The ultimate purpose of the ERA is to estimate the risk that unacceptable adverse
ecological effects will occur due to exposure to anthropogenic stressors. The risk
characterization phase provides an estimate of the likelihood that an adverse impact
has occurred or will occur. It also should address the relative ecological consequences
that are associated with the various levels of risk. Ideally, risk characterization should
be quantitative and include estimates of uncertainty. However, the complexity of
ecological risk assessments may often preclude precise quantication. Under these
circumstances, qualitative estimates of risk are often employed.
In the risk characterization phase a hazard-exposure matrix is developed. This
matrix represents a fusion of the exposure predictions developed in the exposure
characterization phase and the estimates of effects developed in the ecological effects
characterization phase.
Ultimately, the risk characterization phase should evaluate the ecological con-
sequences or ecological signicance of predicted or observed effects. This is sim-
pler in some cases for retrospective risk assessments, because the changes can be
documented and quantied in situ. Also, the ecological effects, that is, the resulting
changes at higher levels of biological organization or in the ecosystem as a whole
can be monitored directly with the proper sampling design and appropriate refer-
ence sites. In predictive ecological risk assessments, these effects or changes in
ecosystems must be predicted. The degree of uncertainty for such predictions is
relatively large in most situations. As the historical database for ecotoxicology and

2001 CRC Press LLC

ecological risk assessment increases, especially eld data sets, these predictions
will be made with higher levels of condence. Especially important is the eld
validation of risk assessments based on laboratory-based hazard assessments and
modeled exposure assessments.
As a result of the inherently different goals of predictive and retrospective
ecological risk assessments, the remainder of this chapter will provide illustrations
of how ERAs may be applied for each of these types with regard to wetland
ecosystems. The rst type of ERA to be discussed will be the current tiered assess-
ment design, a predictive approach employed by the USEPA in the pesticide regu-
lation program. The second describes a retrospective approach more common in the
assessment of hazardous waste sites or spills.

Predictive Ecological Assessments

A practical example of a predictive risk assessment can be seen in evaluating

the potential ecological impact of the introduction of a new herbicide. Under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and its amendments,
all new pesticides and herbicides must be registered for each specic use. The Ofce
of Pesticide Programs of the USEPA prepared the Standard Evaluation Procedure
for Ecological Risk Assessment (SEP) (Urban and Cook, 1986) to dene the pro-
cedures to be used for the ecological risk assessment process. In short, this document
presents a tiered approach to determining the potential for unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment as a result of the use of pesticides and herbicides.
Additional information for the testing of new pesticides and herbicides can be found
in the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines (USEPA, 1982a, b).
To illustrate this example, consider a new herbicide for control of weeds in rice
paddies adjacent to riparian and emergent wetlands. The goal here is to assess the
potential risk of the new herbicide on the wetland ecosystem based on the toxicology
and environmental fate of the pesticide under the proposed use pattern.

Problem Formulation

The rst activity in this predictive ERA is to dene the scope of the problem.
The planned use pattern for the herbicide requires its application to elds that have
a great dependence on water ow and, thus, have a large potential for transport of
chemicals into adjacent aquatic habitats. It is important that the inherent toxicity of
herbicides be assessed in relation to the likely exposure to various ecological com-
partments. In simple terms, the questions to be answered are how toxic is it and will
there be enough exposure for the toxicity to be realized?
The typical rice eld (Figure 4) may be 10 to 60 ha in size and laser-leveled
to control water ow. The elds are not allowed to get too dry and, if sufcient
rainfall is lacking, they may be ushed with water to depth of 2.5 cm or so on a
fairly regular basis. Once the rice is adequately established, the eld is typically
ooded to a depth of 7.5 to 15 cm, which is then maintained until harvest. The
temporary ush and permanent oodwaters are drained to an adjacent ditch that
runs within 100 m to a small bayou. Emergent and riverine wetlands are associated

2001 CRC Press LLC

with the bayou. Approximately 400 ha of rice drainage enter into the bayou above
and below our hypothetical eld. For this example, let us assume that the herbicide
has a maximum application rate of 2.7 kg (5 lb) active ingredient per hectare and
is applied only once a year, just prior to the permanent ood.

Figure 4 The typical rice eld may be 10 to 60 ha in size and laser-leveled to control water
ow. Flooding and drainage are accomplished through use of the ditch in the
foreground.

Exposure Characterization

Essentially, there are four means by which the herbicide could enter the adjacent
wetland habitats. First, exposure may occur if the pilot applying the material
oversprays the eld and deposits some of the herbicide directly on the wetland.
Second, small droplets of the substance have the potential to drift in the wind during
application. Third, owing to the nature of rice culture, periodic releases of water
are made from the elds. And nally, severe storms could potentially create an
overow of paddy water into nearby wetlands. Each of these routes should be
examined in the ERA.
In most cases, measured concentrations of the new herbicide in the eld will not
be available at this point. Therefore, the potential exposure must be estimated. The
endpoint of interest in the exposure characterization is the determination of an
estimated environmental concentration (EEC). The EEC provides the risk assessor
with a concentration of the herbicide that may be present in the environment. A
tiered approach is commonly used to determine the EEC, moving from simple to
more complex depending on the need for additional information.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The simplest way to determine the EEC is to assume that the herbicide is applied
directly to the water in the wetlands adjacent to the rice elds. Although this is
unlikely, it is possible if, for example, the pilot applying the herbicide overshoots
the eld. In any case, it provides an extreme worst-case exposure scenario. At the
given application rate, and assuming a direct application to water that is 0.6 m deep,
the EEC immediately following application would be 919 ppb (Urban and Cook,
1986). Comparing this EEC to ecological effects would allow a cursory assessment
of risk to be made.
However, this simple method of determining the EEC does not consider variables
that could modify the actual concentrations in the adjacent wetland system. For
example, normal use practices of the herbicide would preclude direct application to
water bodies. Rather, the application would be directly to the eld and transport of
the chemical would be a function of water ow off the eld. In addition, physio-
chemical and environmental fate characteristics of the herbicide may allow it to
partition to the sediments or be metabolized or degraded into either more or less
persistent compounds.
This method represents a screening level estimation of the worst case environ-
mental concentration. Should some concern remain following the screening level
EEC determination, then a more realistic determination is required which may
incorporate additional tiers of evaluation. For example, a second level may incor-
porate additional variables such as drainage basin size, surface area, and percent
runoff into the simple equation. A still more complex EEC determination can be
made utilizing computer models such the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) and
EXAMS (Burns et al., 1982) to predict herbicide concentrations in aquatic systems
resulting from runoff. Finally, in the event that some concern still exists, the last tier
EEC determination may include conducting an actual eld residue monitoring study
in which the herbicide is applied at the maximum label-allowed rate in a test eld
and residues are measured periodically around the eld.
The spatial and temporal factors associated with the introduction of a pesticide
are important to consider. For the herbicide example, these can include the applica-
tion and use rates, water ow dynamics in the rice eld (e.g., is water released
immediately after application or held for a signicant time period before release),
mobility and persistence of the herbicide (e.g., water solubility, hydrolysis/photolysis
rates, metabolism rates, etc.), and potential for bioaccumulation. Other factors
include the timing of application with respect to seasonal biological cycles and the
type and number of organisms that could potentially be affected.

Ecological Effects Characterization

The purpose of this segment of the ERA is to characterize any adverse impacts
that may be associated with the pesticide. Because this is a herbicide, it is designed
to be toxic to certain broadleaf weeds. Therefore, the effects characterization should
be limited to nontarget ora and fauna that may be exposed to the herbicide either
during use or following runoff. To test all of the species that may come in contact
with the herbicide at all of the potential sites of application is unrealistic. Therefore,
a series of standard surrogate species are typically tested.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 As with the determination of the EEC, a tiered approach is usually taken to
quantify the toxicity of the herbicide to nontarget organisms. Results from the rst
tier testing determine the need for second tier testing, and so on. Each tier normally
examines increasingly sensitive endpoints.
Tier I addresses acute toxicity to warm water and cold water sh, as well as to
aquatic invertebrates and plants (World Wildlife Fund, 1992). Acute oral and dietary
dosages to game birds such as bobwhites and mallards are also evaluated for toxicity.
Additional tests of toxicity to estuarine species, honeybees, and others may be
required depending on the use pattern and environmental fate of the compound. Tier
II testing is sometimes required to determine a no-observable-effect concentration
(NOEC) for effects such as reduced survival, growth, and reproduction. Tier II tests
for toxicity to sh early life stage or invertebrate life cycle can be triggered by acute
toxicity where the median lethal concentration (LC50) is less than 1.0 ppm. These
tests can also be triggered by high EEC levels (where EEC is greater than 0.01 of
the lowest Tier I LC50 value), chemical persistence in the environment, continuous
or recurrent exposures, or high potential for bioaccumulation or reproductive effects.
Tier II studies are automatically required for any aquatic use of herbicides. Tier II
avian reproduction studies may also be triggered if Tier I avian tests indicate toxicity.
Tier III full life-cycle tests with sh may be required if the EEC is more than
0.1 of the NOEC from the Tier II sh early-life-stage study, or if data suggest that
there is a potential for impairment of sh reproduction. Finally, Tier IV eld or
mesocosm studies may be invoked if the expected concentrations in the environment
exceed the Tier III NOEC determination. Tier IV eld testing with avian or mam-
malian species may also be required. It is important to note that recent guidance by
the USEPA suggests that decisions on the reregistration of existing pesticides and
herbicides can be made without requiring Tier IV studies (Fisher, 1992). However,
companies wishing to reregister existing pesticides and herbicides where a hazard
for aquatic organisms has been presumed may want to conduct Tier IV testing in
an effort to rebut this presumption.

Risk Characterization Phase

By comparing the estimates of environment concentrations developed in the

exposure characterization section and the estimates of toxicity developed in the
ecological effects characterization section, an assessment of risk of the rice herbicide
to the adjacent wetlands can be generated. There are several methods for examining
the relationship between the EEC and environmental effects (Barnthouse et al.,
1982a, b). One of these is the quotient method of risk analysis.

The Quotient Method for Risk Characterization

The quotient method is often employed for predictive risk characterizations of

single compounds such as pesticides and herbicides. This method is based on a
simple comparison of the estimated exposure to a stressor response value (SRV) for
a specic endpoint. The SRV represents a level of exposure that has been demon-
strated to have unacceptable toxicological effects. When the estimated exposure

2001 CRC Press LLC

derived from the exposure assessment exceeds the SRV, the associated risk is con-
sidered unacceptable. Clearly the choice of the SRV is critical to this approach.
Usually SRVs are derived from laboratory toxicity studies and are estimates of
threshold toxicity for appropriate endpoints, such as 1/10 the acute median lethal
concentration (LC50) or the chronic NOEC.
The use of the quotient method is straightforward and is useful for single
chemicals. However, there are a number of disadvantages to this approach. The
estimate of risk from the quotient method is only as good as the hazard and exposure
estimates. The latter is often based on cursory environmental fate information and
has a low condence level. The hazard assessment data for ecological endpoints are
often based on acute effects (i.e., mortality) rather than subacute effects such as
inhibition of growth rates or impaired reproduction. Moreover, these so called aquatic
hazard assessments are usually based on clean water laboratory tests which may not
accurately reect in situ exposure conditions. Finally, and most importantly, the
quotient method is not useful in estimating risk from multiple stressors.
Most ecological risk assessments, especially retrospective assessments, involve
more than one stressor. Risk from multiple stressors cannot be accurately addressed
by adding the stressorresponse values due to stressor interactions (e.g., synergism,
antagonism, potentiation). In these cases, the hazard assessment and the exposure
assessment phases of the ERA must be modied and tailored to the suite of stressors.
This assumes that the suite of stressors is known or identied in the preliminary
characterization carried out as of the conceptual framework.
The Ecological Effects Branch of the USEPA uses a similar methodology. How-
ever, where the quotient method uses the resultant quotient in a relative ranking to
indicate adverse effects, the Ecological Effects Branch compares the EEC and an
effect level (e.g., LC50) to regulatory risk criteria. Many of the risk criteria sum-
marized in Table 1, incorporate safety factors derived from a toxicological model
presented in the FIFRA regulations. These safety factors are included to allow for
the differential variability and sensitivity among resident sh and wildlife species
(Urban and Cook, 1986).
Based on the results of the risk characterization, a determination is made as
to whether to register the herbicide for use on rice, restrict its use (through required
labeling) to certied applicators, restrict its use to areas with limited wetland
habitat proximal to the elds, or deny registration of the herbicide (World Wildlife
Fund, 1992).
It should be noted that recent debate has centered on the development and use
of probabilistic ecological risk assessment techniques. A cooperative effort between
industry, environmental advocacy groups, and the USEPA, referred to as ECOF-
RAM, has prepared draft documentation of various probabilistic ERA tools (ECOF-
RAM, 1999a, b). The actual use of these tools by pesticide risk assessors remains
to be seen.

Retrospective Ecological Assessments

An example involving an ecological assessment of wetlands adjacent to a haz-

ardous waste site will demonstrate how the principles of ecological risk assessment

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 1 The Regulatory Risk Criteria*
Unacceptable Risk
No Risk Risk Limited by Restricted Use Non-Endangered Species EndangeredSpecies
Acute toxicity Mammals Mammals EEC > LC50 EEC > 1/10LC50
EEC <1/5 LC50 EEC > 1/5 LC50 or
EEC > 1/5 LC10
Birds Birds EEC > LC50 EEC > 1/10LC50
EEC <1/5 LC50 1/5 LC50 < EEC < LC50 or
EEC > 1/5 LC10
Aquatic Aquatic EEC > 1/2 LC50 EEC > 1/20LC50
EEC <1/10 LC50 1/10 LC50 < EEC < 1/2 LC50 or
EEC >1/10 LC10
Chronic toxicity EEC < chronic no effect level NA EEC > chronic effect levels EEC > chronic effect levels
* The criteria listed in this table can be compared to the estimated environmental concentration (EEC) and the effect level to characterize risk. Adapted
from Urban and Cook, (1986).

2001 CRC Press LLC

are applied in a site-specic retrospective study. The principles developed in the
USEPA framework and guideline documents (USEPA, 1992, 1998) can be applied
to retrospective risk assessments as well as, and in some cases better than, the
predictive ERAs (Pascoe et al., 1993). In addition, several other USEPA documents
provide guidance applicable to ecological assessments at hazardous waste sites
(USEPA, 1988, 1989a; Warren-Hicks et al., 1989). Finally, guidance specic to the
Superfund program was issued in 1989 (USEPA, 1989b, c). This guidance, com-
monly referred to as RAGS (for Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund), has
become the main source of procedural information for both human and environmen-
tal health risk assessments.

Problem Formulation

For the purposes of this example, consider a hazardous waste site that is a long-
term chemical manufacturing facility. The facility is located on 2 ha of commercial
land that includes a nontidal marsh. In addition, a levee separates the site from an
adjacent tidal marsh and a large estuarine bay.
The primary objective is to assess the degree of risk that contamination from
the site poses for the adjacent wetland ecosystem. Another objective of this site-
specic assessment is to provide information for the development and evaluation of
an ecologically sound remedial action plan for the site. In the case of the nontidal
wetland, these data can be used to help dene the strategy required to address any
effects of the contamination from the site on the nontidal wetland ecosystem. For
the tidal marsh, these data would provide a basis for determining if contaminant-
related impacts are occurring and whether remediation is necessary. Moreover, if
required, these data could be used to determine the appropriate type and extent of
remediation. The following specic goals can be established for performing an
assessment of risk to the tidal wetlands.

Assess the potential for exposure to the contaminants of concern for ecologically
and socially important species from the tidal wetland.
Determine the potential for acute and chronic toxicological effects from accumu-
lated contaminants on these species.
Evaluate the structure of the populations and communities of plants, benthic inver-
tebrates, and small mammals in the tidal wetland.
Relate the exposure, bioaccumulation, and toxicity data obtained in this assessment
with population, community, and ecosystem data to provide an integrated picture
of the impact of contamination from the site on the adjacent tidal wetland.
Evaluate the source or sources of any stressors that may be identied by examining
the distributional patterns of those stressors in the tidal wetland in relation to
identied sources including the site and the bay. That is, do the stressors come
from the site or from the other sources via the connection to the bay?

Exposure Characterization

The retrospective approach to exposure characterization is usually more direct

than in the predictive approach. In a retrospective ERA, stressors are already present

2001 CRC Press LLC

in the environment. The goal is to determine which stressors are present and in what
concentrations, rather than attempting to predict which stressors might enter the
environment. The potential for exposure can be determined by measuring the actual
accumulated dose of stressor in environmental matrices, including the tissues of
native or transplanted organisms.
The rst step in the exposure characterization phase is to determine the nature
and distribution of the stressors. As indicated above, this is accomplished by col-
lecting samples of the various environmental matrices and analyzing them for the
suspected contaminants. In our waste site example, sampling should be performed
within the site proper, in the on-site nontidal marsh, and at near eld and far eld
locations within the adjacent tidal wetland. Additionally, external reference sites
should be sampled to provide a comparison to the zones within the site and adjacent
wetlands (Figure 5).

Figure 5 For hazardous waste sites, initial sampling commonly requires extra protection for
team personnel.

The precise sampling strategy employed will be dependent upon the exact goals
of the ecological assessment, the structure and function of the ecosystem involved,
and the nature of the contaminants of concern. One approach is a random sampling
strategy that is designed to evaluate differences over relatively broad areas of the
wetland. A grid system comprised of relatively large quadrats is set up within each
zone to be examined. The use of randomly selected sampling stations within each
grid facilitates statistical comparisons between zones, and the number of samples to
be taken per unit area can be calculated (Warren-Hicks et al., 1989). Statistical com-
parisons of data from the nontidal marsh, the near eld tidal marsh and far eld tidal
marsh grids allow for spatial comparisons of the different measurement endpoints

2001 CRC Press LLC

relative to their distances from the site. This provides a basis for an internally controlled
evaluation of the spatial effects of the site. Data on these three zones can also be
compared to the remote reference sites. This strategy provides two independent meth-
ods for evaluating the broad scale effects of the site on the adjacent wetlands.
A second approach for evaluating the impact of the site on the adjacent tidal
wetlands can be used in parallel with the random sampling approach described
above. In this approach, the sampling focus is on the potential route by which on-
site stressors may be transported off-site and into the tidal wetland. In this nonrandom
sampling strategy, a series of stations can be established in the major drainage slough
to provide a spatial gradient of contamination moving from the site to the bay.
The types of sample measurements that are commonly taken at stations such as
those described should include concentrations of contaminants in the sediments,
soils, and surface waters. Measurements of actual concentrations of the stressors in
plants and animals are also helpful. The combined database from all of the sites will
provide the basis for interpreting the extent and magnitude of the stressors on the
site and in the adjacent wetlands.
The exposure characterization discussion thus far has been limited to determining
the nature and distribution of stressors on the site and neighboring wetlands. An
equally important component of this phase of the ERA is to evaluate the potential
routes by which organisms may be exposed to the stressor. In the example, routes
of potential exposure include direct exposure in the sediments and surface waters
and indirect exposure via the food chain. Soils and sediments commonly serve as
sinks for chemical stressors and, thus, will need to be examined closely. The bio-
availability of stressors sequestered in the sediments should also be evaluated
because this could have a profound effect on the actual ecological effects observed.
The degree to which the stressor is bioaccumulated or depurated is also very impor-
tant to the evaluation of actual exposure.
Finally, the temporal aspects of the stressors must be considered. For example,
the standing waters of the nontidal wetland would likely recede during the dry
season. Marsh plants commonly exhibit a rapid growth period at the end of the wet
season and continue this growth into the dry season. As available water diminishes,
plant growth subsides, and eventually the plants senesce and die. These and other
seasonal changes could modify stressor distribution and bioavailability. Therefore,
it is often necessary to perform the ecological assessments during both the growing
and nongrowing seasons.
Some inherent complicating factors must be addressed in order to establish
causeeffect relationships between stressors in the environment and observed
changes in biological endpoints. For example, in highly commercial areas, extensive
anthropogenic activities can result in numerous stressors from multiple sources.
Moreover, these stressors may have differential mobility within ecosystems and the
ratios of one stressor to another may change with distance from the source. This
complexity makes it difcult to relate any observed biological effects to specic
stressors or to a specic source. The spatial and temporal sampling schemes described
above should provide a basis for determining if the concentrations of chemical
contaminants and biological parameters in the wetlands show signicant correlation
with one another and specic relationships to the site.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Ecological Effects Characterization

To accomplish the retrospective ecological assessment, it is necessary to deter-

mine if the stressors from the site have produced adverse effects on the structure
and function of the adjacent wetland ecosystems. In the predictive ERA example,
the emphasis was on performing laboratory studies to determine potential ecological
effects, followed by increasingly higher tier modeling or eld dissipation studies if
warranted by the laboratory data. Conversely, with the retrospective ERA, the empha-
sis is on determining actual ecological effects on the site and in the adjacent wetlands.
This is accomplished by emphasizing eld evaluations of community structure and
the toxicity of soils, sediments, and surface waters. It is important to co-ordinate
the ecological effects sampling with the exposure sample collection on both a spatial
and a temporal scale. In other words, samples for chemical analysis and ecological
effects should be taken at the same time and place whenever possible. Examples of
the types of ecological effects sample measurements commonly taken are provided
in Table 2.

Table 2 Retrospective Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA)

Emphasizing Field Evaluations*
Bioaccumulation of contaminants in dominant plant species
Bioaccumulation of contaminants in dominant benthic invertebrate species
Bioaccumulation of contaminants in small mammals
Bioaccumulation of contaminants in dominant sh species
Sediment toxicity (pore water, elutriates, or solid phases)
Water toxicity
Plant population and community structure within each grid
Benthic infaunal invertebrate population and community structure
Histopathological evaluation of native small mammals or sh
Fish population survey
* Typical ecological effects sample measurements are listed in the table
and should be collected at the same time and place as the chemical
measurements.

As can be seen in Table 2, the emphasis is on measuring actual effects in the

eld whenever possible. Nevertheless, laboratory toxicity tests can play an important
role in the evaluation of wetlands water and sediments affected by hazardous waste
sites (Zimmer et al., 1988; Durda, 1993; Woodward et al., 1988; see Figure 6). The
toxicity of eld collected samples is used to dene the extent of contamination with
regard to direct biological signicance. On-site studies such as cage studies may
also provide valuable information in the delineation of ecological effects.
Measurement endpoints should be chosen for relevant characteristics. Endpoints
may be key ecosystem components that are sensitive to stressors, accumulate the
stressor of concern, or are food resources for higher trophic levels. Other endpoints
include key indicators of ecosystem structure and function or surrogates for stressor
impacts to endangered species or other assessment endpoints that cannot be directly
monitored. Species continuously exposed to contaminated sediment or water have
the greatest potential for contaminant uptake and serve as excellent indicators of

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 6 Ecological effects characterization emphasizes measurement of actual effects in
the eld. Nevertheless, laboratory toxicity tests, such as this sediment test, can
play an important role.

bioaccumulation potential. In wetland sites, marsh plants, benthic invertebrates, and

lter-feeding mollusks are particularly useful indicators of bioavailability. Transfer
of contaminants along the food chain should also be considered.
The biological effects of accumulated contaminants are also complex. Contam-
inants may be stored in an inactive form, mobilized, or excreted. Alternatively, they
can interact with cellular macromolecules causing metabolic perturbations and cel-
lular damage that impact the function of the organism. Thus, while bioaccumulation
of contaminants reects the potential for toxicity, supplemental approaches with
greater resolution are needed to determine actual toxicity to the organism.
Sublethal impacts on the organism can affect higher levels of biological organi-
zation through inhibition of such physiological processes as growth and reproduc-
tion. Changes in these parameters can impinge upon populations and communities.
In addition, if the marsh plant populations are adversely affected, the ecological
impact could result in habitat disturbance for birds and small mammals, including
endangered species. As in the previous cases, impact at these higher levels of
organization can be inferred or measured directly.

Risk Characterization

Comparison of the exposure and ecological effects characterizations is performed

to provide an assessment of risk to both the on-site nontidal wetland and the tidal
estuarine wetland adjacent to the site. Because of the complexity of the linkages

2001 CRC Press LLC

between contaminant distribution and ecosystem effects, the ecological assessment
must be designed to carefully examine the correlations between the concentrations
of contaminants in sediment, soil and water, and biological function observed at any
of several levels of biological organization. The collection of matched samples for
measuring contaminant concentrations in the sediments, bioaccumulation, toxicity,
and population and community status is important to allow a rigorous examination
of the relationships among these endpoints. The specic procedures used in the risk
characterization phase will depend on the design chosen to determine exposure and
ecological effects, as well as the overall purpose for performing the ERA. In the
retrospective example, the primary objective is to assess the degree of risk that
contamination from a hazardous waste site will have on the on-site and adjacent
wetland ecosystems. Data collected includes chemical concentrations in the sedi-
ments and surface waters, bioaccumulation of the stressors in dominant plant and
animal species, sediment and surface water toxicity, sh and wildlife population
surveys, and plant and benthic invertebrate population and community structure.
Initially, the stressor concentration data can be tabulated and plotted on both the
spatial and temporal scales to evaluate trends in concentration. Are the concentrations
higher near the site and lower away from the site? Do concentrations appear to
follow a gradient associated with one or more transport routes away from the site?
Has the stressor partitioned into the sediments or has it been dispersed for some
distance? Furthermore, how do these concentrations relate to water quality standards
and criteria established for wetlands (USEPA, 1990)? Similarly, the sediment and
surface water toxicity data should be tabulated and plotted to show spatial and
temporal trends. Are any trends evident and, if so, do they correlate with the stressor
concentration trends? Bioavailability can be established by comparison of contam-
inant levels in the abiotic matrices and biota exposed to these matrices.
Ecological effects on the population and community level can be evaluated using
several statistical procedures designed for these types of data (Ludwig and Reynolds,
1988). Species diversity, richness, and abundance can be compared using ANOVA
and cluster analyses to determine if differences in these parameters can be correlated
with stressor concentration.
A picture should begin to emerge regarding the levels of exposure and the degree
of effect after comparing all of the collected data. If the picture is sufciently
muddled because of extensive anthropogenic inputs into the systems under investi-
gation, techniques such as the principal components analysis may be used to help
dene the key contaminants associated with specic effects. In addition, fate and
transport processes can often be modeled based on data collected in the eld and
the physicochemical characteristics of the stressors of concern. Ultimately, the actual
assignment of ecological risk will often depend on the professional judgment of the
risk assessor.

SUMMARY

ERA is a rapidly developing and increasingly important discipline that can be

used as a management tool in the protection of wetlands. It is a process that estimates

2001 CRC Press LLC

the impact of anthropogenic activities on ecosystems. The results of ERAs are used
by managers and regulators to determine the appropriate action for the wetland or
site in question. The application of the ERA paradigm as described provides a
framework for assessing risk to ecological resources for a variety of scientic and
regulatory purposes. The principles of ERA can be applied to a variety of situations
including retroactive analysis of anthropogenic activities and predictive assessment
of future actions.
Additional denition of the principles and procedures of ERA is needed to help
risk assessors standardize their methods as much as possible. With this objective in
mind, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has undertaken an
effort to develop standards for the assessment and valuation of wetlands (Ethier,
1993). The use of a standard approach with standard terminology will facilitate
communication and interpretation of results and concepts. Furthermore, this standard
approach will allow for balanced risk management of human health and environ-
mental concerns under a variety of regulatory programs. However, it is important
to understand that even with increased standardization of the ERA framework, ERAs
will still need to be designed on a site- or chemical-specic basis to address the
specic concerns.

REFERENCES

Adamus, P. R., Clairain, Jr., E. J., Smith, R. D., and Young, R. E., Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET), Vol. II, Methodology, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987.
Barnthouse. L. W., Bartell, S. M., DeAngelis, D. L., Gardner, R. H., ONeill, R. V.,
Powers, D. D., Suter, G. W., Thompson, G. P., and Vaughan, D. S., Preliminary environ-
mental risk analysis for indirect coal liquefaction, Draft Report, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1982a.
Barnthouse, L. W., DeAngelis, D. L., Gardner, R. H., ONeill, R. V., Powers, C. D., Suter,
G. W., and Vaughan, D. S., Methodology for Environmental Risk Analysis, ORNL/TM
8167, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1982b.
Barnthouse, L. W., Suter, G. W., Bartell, S. M., Beauchamp, J. J., Gardner, R. H., Linder, E.,
and Rosen, A. E., Users Manual for Ecological Risk Assessment, Publication Number
2679, ORNL-6251, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, TN, 1986.
Bartell, S. M., Gardner, R. H., and ONeill, R. V., Ecological Risk Estimation, Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1992.
Burmaster, D. E. and Anderson, P. D., Principles of good practice for the use of Monte Carlo
techniques in human health and ecological risk assessments, Risk Anal., 14, 477, 1994.
Burns, L. A., Cline, D. M., and Lassiter, R. R., Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS):
User Manual and System Documention, EPA/600/3-82-023, 1982.
Cairns, Jr., J., Niederlehner, B. R., and Orvos, D. R., Eds., Predicting Ecosystem Risk,
Princeton Scientic, Princeton, NJ, 1992.
Durda, J. L., Ecological risk assessments under Superfund, Water Environ. Technol., 45, 42,
1993.
ECOFRAM, Aquatic draft report, The Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment
Methods, May 10, 1999.

2001 CRC Press LLC

ECOFRAM, Terrestrial draft report, The Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment
Methods, May 10, 1999.
Ethier, W. H., New wetlands standards: providing great tools for policymakers, Stand. News,
21, 26, 1993.
Fisher, L., Memo re: decisions on the biological, fate and effects task force, Program Guidance
on Ecological Risk Management, 1992.
Lewis, M. A., Mayer, F. L., Powell, R. L., Nelson, M. K., Klaine, S. J., Henry, M. G., and
Dickson, G. W., Ecotoxicology and Risk Assessment for Wetlands, SETAC Press,
Pensacola, FL, 1999.
Ludwig, J. A. and Reynolds, J. F., Statistical Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988.
McKim, J. M., Bradbury, S. P., and Niemi, G. J., Fish acute toxicity syndromes and their use
in the QSAR approach to hazard assessment, Environ. Health Perspect., 71, 171, 1987.
Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G., Wetlands, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1986.
Moore, D. R. J., Perspective: using Monte Carlo analysis to quantify uncertainty in ecological
risk assessment: are we gilding the lily or bronzing the dandelion? Hum. Ecol. Risk
Assess., 2, 628, 1996.
National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the
Process, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1983.
Newman, M. C. and Strojan, C., Risk Assessment: Logic and Measurement, Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, MI, 1998.
Pascoe, G. A., Blanchet, R. J., Linder, G., and Ingersoll, C. G., Assessment of ecological risks
of contaminated wetland, a Superfund case study, Presented at the 1st SETAC World
Congress, Lisbon, Portugal, March 1993.
Power, M., Probability concepts in ecological risk assessment, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 2,
650, 1996.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Fed. Regist., 52, 13378, April 22, 1987.
Suter, G. W., Ecological Risk Assessment, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1993.
Urban, D. J. and Cook, N. J., Hazard Evaluation, Standard Evaluation Procedure, Ecological
Risk Assessment, EPA 540/9-85-001, 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision E, Haz-
ard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms, EPA 540/9-82-024, 1982a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision N,
Chemistry: Environmental Fate, EPA 540/9-82-021, 1982b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment, Fed. Reg-
ist., 51, 33992, September 24, 1986a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for mutagenicity risk assessment, Fed.
Regist., 51, 34006, September 24, 1986b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for health risk assessment of chemical
mixtures, Fed. Regist., 51, 34014, September 24, 1986c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for health assessment of suspect develop-
mental toxicants, Fed. Regist., 51, 34028, September 24, 1986d.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for exposure assessment, Fed. Regist., 51,
34042, September 24, 1986e.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Review of Ecological Risk Assessment Methods,
EPW23O-10-88-O41, 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams
and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, EPA/444/4-89-001, 1989a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. I,
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, EPA/540/l-89/002, 1989b.

2001 CRC Press LLC

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol. 11,
Environmental Evaluation Manual, 1989c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National
Guidance, EPA 440/S-90-011, 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary Report on Issues in Ecological Risk Assess-
ment, EPA/625/3-91/018, 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk
Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-92/001, 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment, Risk
Assessment Forum, EPA/630/R-95/002F, 1998.
Warren-Hicks, W., Parkhurst, B. J., and Baker, Jr., S. S., Ecological Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Sites: a Field and Laboratory Reference Manual, EPA/600/3/89/013, 1989.
Woodward, D. F., Snyder-Conn, E., Riley, R. G., and Garland, T. T., Drilling uids and the
arctic tundra of Alaska, U.S.A.: assessing contamination of wetlands habitat and the
toxicity to aquatic invertebrates and sh, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 17, 683, 1988.
Zimmer, R. D., Buchanun, G., Charters, D., Ferretti, J., and Kent, D. J., Aquatic toxicological
evaluation of soils collected from a mid-western Superfund site, presented at the 61st
Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Dallas, TX, 1988.
World Wildlife Fund, Improving aquatic risk assessment under FIFRA: report of the Aquatic
Effects Dialogue Group, Washington, D.C., 1992.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Kent, Donald M. et al Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts to Wetlands
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 5

Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts to

Wetlands

Donald M. Kent and Kevin McManus

CONTENTS

Planning
Design and Construction
Design
Construction
Erosion and Sedimentation
Nitrogen Loading
Planning Guidelines
Estimating Nitrogen Loads
Stormwater Runoff
Planning and Nonstructural Practices
Structural BMPs
Pretreatment
Detention Basins/Retention Ponds
Vegetated Treatment
Inltration
Filtration
References

Recent estimates of the extent of global wetlands range from 5 to 8.6 million ha
(Mitsch, 1995). Increasing evidence suggests that the historic extent of global wet-
lands was substantially greater. For example, in Japan, 45 percent of tidal ats have
been destroyed since 1945 (Hollis and Bedding, 1994). Northern Greece has lost

2001 CRC Press LLC

94 percent of its marshland since 1930. In the conterminous United States, an
estimated 47 million ha of wetlands have been lost over the last 200 years an
average rate of 235,000 ha per year (U.S. Ofce of Technology Assessment, 1984;
Dahl, 1990; Hollis and Bedding, 1994). This rate of loss appears to have decreased
dramatically in recent years, to about 32,000 ha per year, coincident with recognition
of the importance of wetlands and a no net loss government policy (Heimlich and
Melanson, 1995). Wetland losses are attributed to lling and draining, primarily in
support of development and agricultural activities.
An unknown number of wetlands, not lled or drained, have been otherwise
impacted by changes in watersheds or adjacent land uses. Alterations to wetland
plant communities lead to increased erosion and sedimentation. Construction of
buildings, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces increases the quantity and
decreases the quality of surface runoff to wetlands. Septic systems and fertilizers
increase the concentration of nitrogen in groundwater ow to wetlands. Activities
adjacent to wetlands can disturb wildlife.
Wetland impacts, both direct and indirect, can be avoided or minimized by
appropriate planning, design, and construction. In this chapter, planning is discussed
as a means for avoiding or minimizing direct impacts to wetlands. Design and
construction techniques are discussed as a means to avoid or minimize indirect
impacts to wetlands. Discussed in some detail are three design and construction
issues. They are erosion and sedimentation, nitrogen loading, and stormwater.

PLANNING

Planning to avoid or minimize direct impacts to wetlands is fundamentally a

three-step process. The rst step is to identify the wetland resource. Discussed in
detail in Chapter 2, this step requires applying hydrology, soils, and vegetation
criteria to undeveloped areas. For large areas, off-site resource identication is an
effective and appropriate approach for preliminary planning. Greater resource res-
olution, typically requiring on-site identication, is more appropriate for smaller
areas and for detailed planning. Characterization and classication (e.g., palustrine
forested wetland, emergent marsh; see Chapter 1) of wetland resources are also
helpful at this stage.
The second step in effective planning is to assign functions and values to iden-
tied wetland resources. Common techniques for determining functions and values
include professional opinion, the use of indicators, direct measurement, and eco-
nomic analysis (see Chapter 3). As with resource identication, off-site and less
detailed approaches are most appropriate for large areas during preliminary planning,
whereas on-site assessments are most appropriate for small areas and detailed plan-
ning. Assigning functions and values will facilitate prioritization in the event that
not all resource areas can be preserved and reveal functions and values that need to
be protected or replaced during construction and operation.
Finally, wetlands identied and evaluated for functions and values are incorpo-
rated into a site selection process. Site selection typically includes identication of

2001 CRC Press LLC

several alternative sites and development of site selection criteria. Alternative sites
satisfy minimal, implicit criteria such as availability and location.
At a minimum, the site selection process should consider the criteria listed in
Table 1 (McManus, 1994). Direct and indirect impacts to wetland and other envi-
ronmental resources should be identied. Other environmental resources include sh
and wildlife, navigation channels, and recreation areas. Projects not dependent upon
access to water should be sited elsewhere. The minimum size required to satisfy the
project purpose should be determined and project conguration and layout evaluated
to further reduce project size. Constructability refers to project topographic, slope,
soil, and backll requirements. Extensive grading, blasting, or lling are typically
associated with environmental impacts and should be avoided. Proximity to support-
ing infrastructure, such as utilities and roadways, affects project size, conguration
and layout, and cost. Cost prohibitive sites should be eliminated; thereafter, the costs
of development should be weighed against the costs of environmental impacts. The
opportunity for successfully satisfying the requirements of various international,
national, regional, and local entities such as regulatory agencies and lending insti-
tutions should also be evaluated.

Table 1 Representative Site

Selection Criteria
(Adapted from
McManus, 1994)
Wetland impacts
Other environmental impacts
Water dependency
Site size
Constructability
Supporting infrastructure
Costs
Regulatory/institutional issues

Larger and more complex projects will require a more detailed site selection
process. In the United States, the National Environmental Policy Act (U.S. Con-
gress/NEPA, 1978) provides guidance as to appropriate criteria for evaluating project
impacts to wetlands and other environmental resources. In addition to environmental
impacts, this approach considers impacts to human uses and the technical, economic,
and institutional feasibility and merits of the site. Table 2 represents a hypothetical
site-screening matrix consistent with the NEPA (McManus, 1994). In the example,
Site 1 is technically and economically feasible, but will likely impact the environment
and human use of the site, and is not publicly acceptable. Site 2 has no signicant
environmental, human use, or institutional constraints but has technical and eco-
nomical issues. Site 3 is the preferred site, having no signicant environmental or
human use impacts, being technically and economically feasible and acceptable to
the public.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 2 A Hypothetical Site Selection Matrix (Adapted from
McManus, 1994)
ScreeningCriteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Environmental
Aquatic Ecosystem
Substrate 0 0 0
Water quality 0 0 0
Water circulation 0 0 0
Normal water uctuations 0 0
Threatened and endangered species 0 0
Other aquatic organisms and wildlife 0 0
Special Aquatic Sites
Sanctuaries/refuges 0 0
Wetlands 0 0
Mudats 0 0 0
Vegetated shallows 0 0 0
Rife and pool complexes 0 0

Human Uses
Water supplies 0 0 0
Recreational and commercial sheries 0 0
Waterrelated recreation 0 0
Aesthetics 0 0
Parks, preserves, wilderness areas 0 0
Archaeological or historical sites 0 0 0
Compatibility with adjacent land uses 0 0
Potential noise impacts 0 0 0
Potential odor impacts 0 0 0
Public health 0 0 0
Trafc increase 0 0 0

Technical
Suitable foundation/soils conditions + +
Adequate land area + +
Access to existing roads and utilities +

Economic
Land acquisition + +
Operation and maintenance + +
Capital costconstruction 0 0

Institutional
Public acceptance 0 +
Compliance with existing regulations 0 0 0
Note: + indicates an expected positive impact; is an expected negative
impact; 0 is an insignicant or no impact.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Design

Once the site selection process has been completed, the focus can shift to design
details, site layouts, construction methods, and other specic engineering require-
ments to minimize unavoidable wetland impacts. A reasoned assessment of the
minimum economically and functionally viable size for a proposed structure(s)
should be made, particularly if the project is not water dependent. Even for water
dependent projects, such as marinas or dredging projects, project scope should be
evaluated with an eye toward minimizing wetland impacts. The project should have
an accurate wetland delineation line depicted on site plans to facilitate evaluation
of layout options.
For projects that may involve clearing of trees and other existing vegetation, care
should be taken to minimize the limits of clearing to the minimum acreage needed
for the project. Maintenance of existing vegetative buffers, particularly within wet-
land areas, is not only a valuable means of providing a visual and auditory buffer
for the facility, but it also may reduce overall facility wetland impacts. This is
particularly true along active coastal shorelines, such as eroding bluffs, beaches, and
dune environments.
The orientation and layout of a project are generally a function of its intended
purpose and use. Many projects, such as railways, roads, and retaining walls, being
linear features, have limited exibility with regard to basic conguration. However,
their actual alignment, relative to wetland areas, can often be optimized to reduce
impacts to insignicant levels. Similarly, layouts of buildings and ancillary struc-
tures such as garages, walkways, and decks can be adjusted to minimize direct
wetland impacts.
Specic design details for a project can also be important factors in reducing
wetland impacts. For example, use of the maximum safe slopes for site preparation
will minimize incursions into wetland areas. Maximum safe slopes can be achieved
using vertical retaining walls, cellular connement, sheet piling, or gabion rock
walls. Backll and other construction materials should ensure good drainage and
scour protection (Nelson, 1995). Another method for minimizing impacts is to use
boardwalks supported by posts or post-like anchors.
Waterway crossings offer another opportunity to minimize wetland impacts.
Typically, culverts are used when crossing small waterways. Culverts should be
designed to pass expected ows (e.g., 100-year ood event), and to avoid changes
to ow velocity and increased erosion and scour. Bridges can minimize impacts to
larger waterways, especially if construction is accomplished in midair using a
crawler crane.

Construction

For many projects, such as subsurface water, sewage, and other utility pipelines,
the primary impacts to wetlands occur during construction. The use of temporary

2001 CRC Press LLC

access materials, specialized construction equipment, and the placement of staging
areas can all affect the level of wetland impacts.
Temporary pile-supported construction trestles can be used to signicantly
reduce direct wetland impacts through ecologically sensitive wetland areas such as
estuarine and fresh-water marshes, beach or dune environments, and peat bogs
(Figure 1). These trestles can be located either directly above, or directly adjacent
to, the work area. Equipment can be brought to the work area using rail-mounted
transport platforms, and the trestle can be constructed in stages to accommodate the
construction schedule. Trestles provide a stable temporary work platform that
directly impacts little wetland acreage.

PLAN VIEW

pipeline

wood planking
upland

wetland

sheet piling

construction trench

PROFILE

wood planking

sheet piling

pipeline

Figure 1 Temporary pile-supported construction trestles can be used to signicantly reduce

wetland impacts. The trestles may be located either directly above or immediately
adjacent to the work area.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Another effective construction technique uses steel sheet piling to isolate the
active work area, and temporary wood decking placed directly on top of the sheet
piling. This allows construction equipment to access the work areas without com-
pacting wetland soils. Compacted wetland soils lose their original productivity and
hydrologic functions. For smaller projects that may not warrant the use of sheet
piling, geotextile fabric, clean granular material, and wood decking can be placed
within the project alignment.
Sheet piling can also be used in intertidal or shallow freshwater areas. Combined
with siltation curtains, piling can prevent the release of sediment-laden water to
surrounding wetlands and waterways. The use of barge-mounted equipment can also
be used in intertidal and shallow freshwater areas to access sensitive sites. Work
barges can be oated into place on rising tides, and grounded out to provide suitable
access with minimal or no long-term impacts.
For construction of trenches in wetland areas, utility workers have developed
specialized, tracked, trenching vehicles that can operate on soft, unstable soils. The
vehicles work directly within the project alignment. Wide, low-pressure tires on
vehicles that distribute loads across wetland soils and vegetation also reduce vehicle
impacts. For dredging within wetlands, waterways, and waterbodies, clamshell
dredge equipment tted with covers and watertight buckets minimizes sediment
washout and turbidity.
Large construction projects typically require staging areas. Staging areas should
be located outside wetlands and their designated buffer zones and should be paved
to minimize erosion and groundwater impacts. Also, staging areas should include
stormwater management systems designed to trap suspended sediments and to con-
tain accidental releases of fuel oil, lubricants, and other potentially hazardous
releases from equipment.
Scheduling can minimize temporary, construction-related impacts. As a general
rule, wetland work in temperate climates should be scheduled during winter and
early spring when plants are dormant and the soils are frozen or well consolidated.
Soil compaction is minimized, and site cleanup and rehabilitation during the coming
peak growing season are facilitated. Other seasonal restrictions are often applied for
work within coastal environments based upon the expected presence of commercially
and recreationally important sh and wildlife species. Species susceptible to ill-
timed construction include spawning and migrating anadromous sh and shrimp,
overwintering groundsh, and migratory waterfowl.
Another method for minimizing the impacts of construction within wetlands is
proper work sequencing. For example, minimizing the extent of clearing in front of
the active trenching operation will reduce the potential for soil erosion into adjacent
wetlands and reduce impacts to wildlife using the existing vegetative cover. Wherever
possible, work that is required within wetland areas should be completed as quickly
as possible, without excessive delays between the initial disturbance and rehabilita-
tion. Trenching should be conducted as a single, continuous operation, involving
clearing, installation, backlling, and soil restoration. An open trench can act as a
channel to dewater adjacent wetland areas and increase erosion and runoff impacts.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION

Sedimentation of wetlands can be avoided or minimized by preventing soil

erosion and controlling already eroded sediments. There are numerous methods for
erosion and sedimentation control, all of which seek to isolate and contain, to the
maximum extent possible, sediment-laden runoff generated during project construc-
tion activities. The performance of these various methods in the eld varies consid-
erably depending upon the type of soils, water ows, exposure, and other site specic
factors. Figure 2 summarizes some of the more popular sedimentation control meth-
ods. Critical elements of effective erosion and sediment control plans are listed in
Table 3 (Brown and Caraco, 1997).
Erosion and sedimentation control methods can be used singly or in combination.
By limiting the amount of incremental and total land clearing, and maintaining
existing ground cover to the maximum extent possible, potential runoff, gully cre-
ation, rutting, and airborne dust formation can be reduced to acceptable levels.
Cleared land produces as much as 2000 times more sediment than uncleared land
(Paterson et al., 1993). Where feasible, a project site layout should take advantage
of existing vegetation between the clearing limits and adjacent wetlands. Buffers of
at least 25 m in width are the most effective in ltering sediment from construction
site runoff (Woodward, 1989). Vegetative buffers should also be preserved for
projects with shoreline frontage to protect structures from wave and ooding impacts.
Installation of hay bales within shallow cut-off trenches upgradient of wetland
areas can be an effective and inexpensive perimeter control method. Bales should
be staked to the ground, without gaps between bales. Bales should be routinely
monitored, and bales damaged, moved, or destroyed during construction should be
repaired. Construction specications should provide for regular checks of the con-
dition and effectiveness of the hay bale protection systems. Geotextile siltation fences
can be wrapped around hay bales and staked into the ground to provide an extra
measure of protection against the release of ne-grained materials. Siltation fence
efciency ranges from 35 to 86 percent depending upon site conditions (Horner
et al., 1990; W&H Pacic and CH2M-Hill, 1993).
Siltation curtains can also be used effectively in both wetlands and open water
environments. Curtains can be used to surround subaqueous dredging operations,
particularly those occurring within sheet piling, to isolate trench water from the
surrounding environment. Curtains with otation can also be installed around shore-
line construction projects and anchored in place to isolate the work area. However,
the effectiveness of these structures decreases signicantly in areas of strong river
currents, tidal ows, and large tidal ranges, particularly if the curtain is installed
perpendicular to the current ow. In such cases, the siltation curtain experiences
rollover or submergence and is susceptible to damage from debris. Therefore, silt-
ation curtains are most effective in ponds, lakes, and other sheltered water bodies
with little or no variation in water height.
In any construction project, regardless of the proximity to wetlands or other
adjacent sensitive habitats, construction specications should require prompt stabi-
lization of newly exposed soils, including stockpiled soil. Seeding and sodding are
relatively inexpensive, and up to 99 percent effective in reducing erosion (Brown

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 2 Erosion and sedimentation control methods (McManus, 1994). Black indicates the method is suitable for use in the
environment; gray indicates the method is suitable with limitations.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 3 Critical Elements of an Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan (Adapted from
Brown and Caraco, 1997)
Minimize clearing and grading
Protect waterways and stabilize drainage ways
Phase construction to limit soil exposure
Stabilize exposed soils immediately
Protect steep slopes and cuts
Install site perimeter control to lter sediments
Use settlement traps and basins for larger volumes
Use experienced contractors to implement the plan
Tailor the plan to specic site conditions
Assess plan effectiveness after storms

and Caraco, 1997). Seeding is the least expensive option and is appropriate when
temporary stabilization is required. Seeds can be broadcast by hand or hydroseeded.
The latter is a mixture of seeds, water, fertilizer, lime, and mulch sprayed onto the
soil. Sodding is more appropriate for permanently vegetated areas and provides
immediate cover and greater resistance to higher ow velocities.
The construction schedule should allow time for vegetation to become reestab-
lished prior to the end of the growing season. In cases where this is not possible,
more expensive but generally less effective measures, such as mulching or covering
exposed areas with erosion control blankets, jute mats, or geotextile mats, should
be employed. Mulches, blankets, and mats protect seeds from erosion, dehydration,
and animals until the next growing season (Brown and Caraco, 1997). Mulches,
consisting of straw, hay, ber, or wood chips, are effective on at or gently sloping
areas. Erosion control blankets consist of a mulch material held together by a plastic
netting, and jute mats are sheets of woven jute ber. Effective on relatively level
ground, both the blankets and the mats are stapled to the ground after seeding and
degrade over time. Geotextile mats are more appropriate for steeper slopes and
channels. The mats are typically laid on the soil surface and covered with topsoil
and seed.
As previously discussed, isolation of the active work area in both wetlands and
open water areas is an effective method to limit the horizontal extent of disturbance,
particularly in areas where signicant dredging is required. In such cases, dredging
open trenches beyond 1 m in depth requires side slopes which can range from 3:1
to 5:1 or greater, meaning that a 3-m-deep trench would disturb a minimum 20- to
33-m width of sediments. Clearly, this size dredging operation would require the
handling and disposal of large amounts of excess dredged material. Conducting this
work within sheet pilings allows a vertical sidewall, thereby reducing the volume
of material to be handled and isolating the silt-laden trench water from surrounding
marsh and other wetland areas.
Open dredging within or adjacent to wetland areas can produce signicant
amounts of turbidity. If typical dredging equipment is used, for example, a barge-
mounted crane with a clamshell dredge bucket, methods are available which can
reduce turbidity. These include establishing requirements that all lifts of a clamshell
dredge bucket through the water column are vertical, that dredge buckets be used

2001 CRC Press LLC

with covers and gasket seals to prevent washout of sediments and suitable ltering
of water released from stockpiled dredged material.
Hydraulic dredging can also be used in certain unconsolidated sediments to
reduce turbidity. With this method, sediments are removed and pumped as a slurry
to a settling barge or disposal site. While initial turbidity at the point of dredging is
minimal, large amounts of water must be ltered and removed from sediments at
the disposal site, and pumping limitations require that disposal occur in close prox-
imity to the point of dredging.
Construction will often require temporary stockpiling of soils, and care should
be taken to continually spray these piles with water, or cover them, in order to
prevent wind erosion and transport of nes. Similarly, newly graded access roads
should be frequently sprayed with water or dust suppressants to reduce dust forma-
tion. The construction schedule should attempt to minimize the period of time where
exposed stockpiles or unpaved road surfaces are required.
Site grading and excavation activities in areas already served by drainage systems
are a potential concern for sedimentation. Many parking lots, roadways, and other
facilities use stormwater drainage systems that discharge directly into adjacent
wetland areas. In order to minimize the impacts from run-off of sediment-laden
water, existing catch basins and storm drains should be completely ringed with staked
haybales and a layer of lter fabric. Other inlet protection methods include concrete
block wrapped with wire and stones and placing geotextile fabric and stones directly
over the inlet (Brown and Caraco, 1997). These sediment traps will allow stormwater
ow to pass through, but will lter out signicant amounts of suspended sediments.
These structures also provide protection in the event of an accidental fuel oil spill,
hydraulic hose rupture, or other hazardous material release, providing some measure
of initial containment upgradient of adjacent wetland areas. As with all hay bale
structures, the sediment traps need to be maintained and periodically replaced to
ensure their effectiveness.
Excavation for foundations, utility trenches, and other facilities will often extend
below the existing water table, resulting in collection of groundwater within the
excavation. In order to dewater these areas and prevent discharge of sediment-laden
water into surrounding areas, various types of settling basins and detention structures
can be constructed. Sediment removal efciencies generally range from 60 to 90
percent, with higher efciencies associated with wet storage (Brown and Caraco,
1997). These structures allow particulate matter to settle and gradually discharge
ltered runoff. Figure 3 is a schematic representation of a typical settling basin which
can be constructed upgradient of a wetland area using lter fabric and clean rip-rap
material to effectively lter silts and sediments at a construction site. Concrete or
berglass settling basins are also available for use as sedimentation control structures
during dewatering operations and are often used on barges during dredging opera-
tions to lter water discharged from stockpiled dredged materials. Geotextile wetland
lter bags have also been developed to serve as sedimentation and erosion control
devices on construction sites (Figure 4).
The true test of any sedimentation and erosion control plan will occur during
the rst signicant rainfall event during construction. Thus, it is recommended that
on-site resident inspectors monitor the success of the installed erosion control devices

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Ground Slope 15' - 20 (Typ.)
or as Directed

Suitable Device
To Natural
to Dissipate Velocity
Water Course

Sediment Laden Water

Sediment Free Water

Pump Discharge

Flat Stone
Ground Slope
Approved Filter fabric Mat

Baled Hay or Straw

10'-15' (Typ.) or as Direcled

Pump Discharge Line Suitable Velocity Dissipator

Clean Stones
(If Required)

Flat Stone

Approved Filter Fabric Mat

Baled Hay or Straw
Sediment
as Directed

TYPICAL SECTION
SEDIMENT TRAP

Figure 3 Settling basins are used in conjunction with dewatering operations to prevent
discharge of sediment-laden water into wetlands. The basins are constructed
upgradient of wetlands using lter fabric and clean rip-rap material.

during and immediately after a rainstorm or snowmelt. The hay bales, siltation
fences, and other structures should be observed on, at least, a weekly basis to detect
damage from wildlife, machinery, or other activities on site.
Equally important, resident inspectors should conduct frequent visual observa-
tions of the adjacent wetlands or open water bodies to detect turbidity plumes
resulting from on-site runoff. For certain subaqueous activities, signicant short-
term increases in turbidity are unavoidable. Nevertheless, attention should focus
on the effectiveness of the siltation curtains, dredging methods, and dewatering

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Wetland Filter Bag

Flow

Pipe
Water flowing
out from the bag

Figure 4 A geotextile bag can be used on construction sites to remove sediments from site runoff.

2001 CRC Press LLC

practices to ensure that surrounding background levels of turbidity are not signif-
icantly increased. For deepwater areas, the use of a Secchi disk or similar device
will provide a qualitative measure of the water clarity and amount of suspended
sediments during construction.

NITROGEN LOADING

Nitrogen occurs in wetlands in various inorganic and organic forms (Mitsch and
Knight, 1997). Ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite are the most important forms for
wetland processes. Ammonia is an important nutrient for most wetland plants and
autotrophic bacteria and is a growth limiting compound in coastal waters. Coastal
waters are the most highly fertilized ecosystems on earth (Nixon, 1986; Kelly and
Levin, 1986). In natural waters, ammonia is readily oxidized resulting in oxygen
consumption. Ammonia in its unionized form (NH3) is toxic to many forms of aquatic
life at low concentrations (0.2 ppm).
Nitrate is reduced to nitrite in oxygen-poor environments and is conservative in
groundwater. In infants, nitrite combines with fetal hemoglobin preventing oxygen
transport. This potentially fatal condition is known as methemoglobinemia. High
nitrate concentrations have also been linked to carcinogenic effects (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1990).
The primary source of nitrogen, particularly in residential areas, is domestic
wastewater (Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Ofce, 1992; Valiela et al.,
1997). For residential septic systems, the concentration of nitrogen depends upon
soil characteristics, loading rates, distance to the impervious stratum, distance to the
water table, time of year, and depth below the leach eld (Suffolk County Department
of Health Services, 1983; Canter and Knox, 1985). Typical nitrate nitrogen concen-
trations range from 33 to 41 ppm (Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978; Nassau-Suffolk
Regional Planning Board, 1978; Suffolk County Department of Health Services,
1983; IEP, 1988; Robertson et al., 1991). Nitrogen concentrations in nonresidential
areas are less well known and vary widely in character and quantity. In general,
nitrate nitrogen concentrations are higher when no gray water (i.e., sinks and show-
ers) is present.
Secondary sources of nitrogen include lawn fertilizer, atmospheric nitrogen,
and runoff from impervious surfaces. Nitrogen levels from lawn fertilizer vary
with soil type, application rate, precipitation, temperature, turf type, and nitrogen
form. Typical fertilizer application rates range from 0.8 to 1.7 kg/100 m2 (1.7 to
3.8 lb nitrogen/1000 ft2) up to 4.7 kg/100 m2 (9.6 lb nitrogen/1000 ft2) for golf
course greens (Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1978; Cape Cod Planning
and Economic Development Commission, 1979; Eichner and Cambareri, 1990).
Nitrogen leaching rates vary widely, from 0 to 60 percent (Nassau-Suffolk
Regional Planning Board, 1978; Brown et al., 1982; IEP, 1988; Petrovic, 1990).
Controlled application of fertilizer to healthy turf can eliminate or minimize
leaching (Petrovic, 1990).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Atmospheric nitrogen loading, largely from precipitation, is relatively minor
compared to potential loading from wastewater and fertilizers. Precipitation concen-
trations in the United States range from 0.14 to 1.15 ppm nitrate nitrogen (Loehr,
1974). Dry deposition of nitrogen may double this concentration (Valiela et al.,
1997). Nitrogen loading off of impervious surfaces is, however, signicant, ranging
from 0.41 to 1.75 ppm nitrate nitrogen and 1.13 to 10 ppm total nitrogen (IEP, 1988).
Recharge rate off of impervious surfaces is poorly understood. The TR-55 storm-
water modeling program assumes a recharge rate of 98 percent (Soil Conservation
Service, 1986) and the Water Resources Ofce of the Cape Cod Commission (1992)
assumes a 90 percent recharge rate.

Planning Guidelines

Based upon the threat of methemoglobinemia and cancer, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has established a limit of 10 ppm nitrate nitrogen in drinking
water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). Studies on Long Island, NY,
revealed that average nitrate nitrogen concentrations of 6 ppm led to violation of
the 10 ppm criteria 10 percent of the time, and that average concentrations of 3 ppm
led to violation of the 10 ppm criteria 1 percent of the time (Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, 1978; Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1986). Based upon
this information, Long Island recommended that areas be sewered if the average
nitrate nitrogen concentration exceeds 6 ppm. The Cape Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission (1978) and Cape Cod Commission Water Resource Ofce
(1992) adopted a 5 ppm nitrate nitrogen standard.
A second consideration in the establishment of nitrogen standards is protection
of coastal embayments. Each embayment has a unique critical nitrogen loading rate
dependent upon embayment morphology and ushing rate. For example, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Ofce of Environ-
mental Affairs (1991) developed recommended nitrogen loading limits for Buzzards
Bay (Table 4). Recommended nitrogen loads are lower in shallower embayments
than deep embayments and in higher quality waters than lower quality waters. Based
upon studies of Waquoit Bay, MA, Valiela et al. (1997) offer general recommenda-
tions that wastewater disposal within 200 m of shore be limited, that homes be
required to use multiple leaching elds or septic systems, and that fertilizer use be
controlled on near-shore lawns.

Estimating Nitrogen Loads

Several methods have been used to estimate nitrogen loading to groundwater and
coastal embayments. For example, the Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Ofce
(1992) recommends a site-specic mass balance analysis for relatively small sources
and a cumulative loading analysis for proposed sources in groundwater recharge zones
and relatively large sources. The former estimates nitrogen and water uses within the
boundaries of a development, whereas the latter is a recharge zone-wide analysis for

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 4 Recommended Nitrogen Loading Limits for Coastal Embayments
(Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts
Executive Ofce of Environmental Affairs, 1991)
Outstanding
Embayment SB Waters1 SA Waters2 Resource Areas3
Shallow
Flushing < 4.5 350 mg/m3/Vr4 200 mg/m3/Vr 100 mg/m3/Vr
Flushing > 4.5 30 g/m2/yr 15 g/m2/yr 5 g/m2/yr
Deep
Select rate resulting 500 mg/m3/Vr 260 mg/m3/Vr 130 mg/m3/Vr
in lesser annual loading 45 g/m2/yr 20 g/m2/yr 10 g/m2/yr
1 Excellent for sh, other aquatic life and wildlife, primary and secondary contact recreation,
and shellsh harvesting with depuration.
2 Excellent for sh, other aquatic life and wildlife, primary and secondary contact recreation,
and shellsh harvesting without depuration.
3 Outstanding socioeconomic, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic value.
4 Vollenweider ushing term; Vr equals r /1 + r r equals ushing time (years).

existing and proposed conditions. The models estimate the nitrate nitrogen load by
totaling the nitrogen inputs from wastewater, impervious surfaces (roof and paved),
and fertilizer, and dividing nitrogen inputs by total water inputs. Figure 5 illustrates
a mass balance analysis process for a hypothetical 20 house residential development.
In this example, as typically occurs, the majority of nitrate nitrogen originates in
wastewater.
Valiela et al. (1997) developed a model to estimate atmospheric, fertilizer, and
wastewater nitrogen loading to watersheds and receiving waters. Based upon data
from the Waquoit Bay Land Margin Ecosystems Research Project and syntheses
of published information, the model estimates nitrogen inputs to surfaces of the
major types of land use within the landscape. Nitrogen losses in the various water-
shed compartments are then estimated. For example, atmospheric and fertilizer
nitrogen are lost in vegetation, soils, the vadose zone, and aquifer. Wastewater
nitrogen losses occur in septic systems and efuent plumes and during diffuse
transport in aquifers. Nitrogen loss calculations are conducted separately for each
major type of land cover. The model was developed for Waquoit Bay, MA, but is
believed applicable to other rural to suburban watersheds underlain by unconsoli-
dated sandy sediments.
According to the model, the atmosphere is the largest contributor of nitrogen to
the watershed, but wastewater is the largest source of nitrogen to receiving estuaries
(Table 5). The model implies that estuary management should focus on wastewater
disposal, particularly within 200 m of shore. The authors also suggest that installation
of multiple conventional leaching elds or septic systems in high ow parcels could
be benecial. Other recommendations include control of fertilizer use on near-shore
lawns and conservation of parcels of accreting natural vegetation. The latter effec-
tively intercept atmospheric nitrogen.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Model Parameters
Impervious Surfaces Wastewater NO3 35 mg/L
Roof Area 2,000 m2 Roof runoff NO3 0.75 mg/L
Paved Area 4,000 Paved runoff NO3 1.5 mg/L
Natural Area 20,000 m2 Fertilizer 1000 g/100 m2
Lawn Area 10,000 m2 Fertilizer leach rate 0.25
Wastewater 400 L/bedroom
Impervious surface recharge rate 1 meter/year
Natural area recharge rate 0.45 meter/year
Roof
2,000 m2 1 m/yr 1,011 L/m3 1 yr/365 day 5,539.7 L/day
L runoff/day 0.75 mg NO3/L = 4,154.8 mg/day
Paved
4,000 m2 1 m/yr 1,011 L/m3 1 yr/365 day 11079.5 L/day
L runoff/day 1.5 mg NO3/L = 16,619.3 mg/day
Natural
20,000 m2 0.45 m/yr 1,011 L/m3 1 yr/365 24,928.8 L/day
Lawn
10,000 m2 1000 mg/100 m2/yr 1 yr/365 days 68.5 mg/day
Wastewater
3.5 bedrooms 400 L/bedroom 20 bedrooms 28,000 L wastewater per day
L wastewater per day 35 mg NO3/L= 980,000 mg/day
Cumulative nitrate nitrogen load
4, 154.8 + 16, 619.3 + 68.5 + 980, 000 mg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = 14.39 mg/L
5, 539.7 + 11079.5 + 24, 928 + 28, 000 liters

Figure 5 Nitrate nitrogen loading calculations for a hypothetical 20 house

residential development with an average of 3.5 bedrooms per
house.

Table 5 Percent Nitrogen Input to the Watershed, Loss within the

Watershed, and Input to Estuaries According to the
Waquoit Bay Land Margin Ecosystems Research Model
(Adapted from Valiela et al., 1997)
Input to Losses within Input to
Source Watershed Watershed Estuaries
Atmospheric 56 89 30
Fertilizer 14 79 15
Wastewater 27 65 48

STORMWATER RUNOFF

Development is accompanied by an increase in impervious surfaces which

increases stormwater runoff and decreases inltration and evapotranspiration. This
decreases the time for the runoff to reach wetlands and streams, increasing the

2001 CRC Press LLC

frequency and severity of erosion and downstream ooding. During periods of
prolonged dry weather, water tables and stream ows are reduced leading to a loss
of wetland and aquatic habitats.
Hydraulic and biological changes to streams occur when 10 to 20 percent of a
watershed has impervious surfaces [Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection and Massachusetts Ofce of Coastal Zone Management (DEP/CZM),
1997]. Typical impervious area percentages range from 20 to 40 percent for low
density residential developments to 95 to 100 percent for business districts
(Brach, 1989).
Stormwater runoff is contaminated with a variety of pollutants that have various
effects on wetland and aquatic habitats (Bingham, 1994; DEP/CZM, 1997). Nutri-
ents from animal wastes, human wastes, and fertilizers induce algal growth and
lower dissolved oxygen. Sedimentation also lowers dissolved oxygen as well as
increasing turbidity and smothering aquatic life. Pathogens contaminate drinking
water, swimming areas, and shellsh. Metals, hydrocarbons, organic chemicals,
and salt increase the toxicity of the water column and sediments and may bioac-
cumulate in aquatic organisms.
Stormwater impacts to wetland and aquatic habitats can be avoided or mini-
mized through careful planning, use of nonstructural practices, and use of structural
best management practices (BMPs). These measures reduce the volume of runoff,
store runoff water, promote inltration of stormwater to groundwater, and remove
pollutants.

Planning and Nonstructural Practices

Effective stormwater management planning will minimize the size and cost of
structural requirements. Planning and nonstructural practices can mitigate most
stormwater impacts to wetlands and aquatic habitats for small developments. For
larger developments, planning and nonstructural practices can signicantly reduce
the extent and, therefore, the cost of structural BMPs.
Perhaps the most important planning technique available is minimizing imper-
vious surfaces. Minimization of impervious surfaces is critical in recharge areas,
especially those associated with drinking water supplies. Methods for minimizing
impervious surfaces include the maintenance of natural buffers and drainageways.
This allows inltration of runoff, reduces runoff velocity, and removes suspended
solids. Other methods include minimizing steep slopes, reducing building footprints
and parking areas, limiting the width of roadways and the use of sidewalks, using
shallow grassed roadside swales and parking lot islands, using turf pavers, gravel,
and other porous surfaces, and maintaining as much predevelopment vegetation as
possible (DEP/CZM, 1987).
Other planning techniques are also available for managing stormwater. Devel-
opments can be t to the terrain by designing road patterns that match the landform.
Grassed waterways, vegetated drainage channels, and water quality swales can be
constructed along roadways to channel runoff (DEP/CZM, 1987). Similarly, natural,

2001 CRC Press LLC

vegetated drainageways can be preserved, helping to maintain predevelopment ood
volumes, peak discharges, and base ows. Pollutants will be ltered by vegetation
and will bind to underlying soils and organic matter. The planning process should
also attempt to mimic predevelopment hydrologic conditions including peak dis-
charge, runoff volume, inltration capacity, base ow levels, groundwater recharge,
and water quality.
Several nonstructural techniques can also be effective in managing stormwater
quantity and quality. Developments, especially commercial developments, will benet
from preparation of a pollution prevention plan that identies potential sources of
pollution and ensures implementation of practices that reduce pollutants in stormwater
discharges (DEP/CZM, 1987). Example techniques include proper pesticide and
fertilizer application, pet waste management, the proper storage, use, and disposal of
hazardous chemicals, and proper operation and maintenance of septic systems.
Areas accustomed to winter snowfalls use sand and salt to mitigate icy roadways.
Street and parking lot sweeping can reduce total suspended solids like sand and salt
by 5 to 80 percent. Vacuum sweepers tend to be more effective than mechanical
sweepers. Much of the solids also ends up in catch basins, which benet from regular
cleaning. Salt (NaCl) toxicity can be minimized by using alternative de-icing com-
pounds such as calcium chloride (CaCl2) and calcium magnesium acetate (CMA),
and by designating low salt areas on roadways near wetlands and streams. De-
icing compounds should be stored on sheltered, impervious pads, and stored snow
should be placed where it can slowly inltrate into the ground.

Structural BMPs

Structural BMPs are required when planning and nonstructural practices alone
are insufcient to mitigate stormwater impacts. There are ve major categories of
stormwater structural BMPs: pretreatment, detention basins/retention ponds, vege-
tated treatment, inltration, and ltration (Table 6). As with planning and nonstruc-
tural practices, the goals of a stormwater management design using structural BMPs
should be to approximate predevelopment runoff rates and volume and to maximize
pollutant removal. In many instances, the most effective design will incorporate
several BMPs in series.
Selecting a BMP requires consideration of the quantity of stormwater runoff to
be produced, the water quality to be achieved, the proximity of critical areas (e.g.,
wetlands, aquatic habitats), maintenance requirements, aesthetics, cost, and site
constraints (DEP/CZM, 1987; Schueler, 1987; Horner et al., 1994). In many
instances, site physical characteristics limit or determine BMP selection. For exam-
ple, sandy soils will inhibit the use of ponds but will facilitate inltration BMPs.
Pond BMPs require a relatively large contributing drainage area, whereas inltration
BMPs are restricted to a relatively small drainage area. A water table at or near the
surface is essential for wetlands and wet ponds but will preclude inltration BMPs.
Swales and trenches are most effective when slopes are greater than 5 percent but
less than 20 percent. Wet ponds and wetlands should not outow to cold water
streams, and inltration BMPs should not be located close to foundations.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 6 The Major Types of Structural
Best Management Practices for
Stormwater
Pretreatment
Sediment traps
Water quality inlets
Catch basins
Detention/retention ponds
Extended detention ponds
Wet retention ponds
Vegetated treatment
Drainage channels
Water quality swales
Constructed wetlands
Inltration
Dry wells
Trenches
Basins
Filtration
Basins

Pretreatment

Sediment traps, water quality inlets, and catch basins remove debris, oil, and
grease, and sediment and associated pollutants. Settling is the primary treatment
mechanism. Sediment traps are on-line units, whereas water quality inlets and catch
basins are off-line units. Pretreatment BMPs should only be used as pretreatment
devices for other stormwater management technologies because they have limited
storage capacity, short detention times, and do not remove soluble pollutants. Essen-
tial elements of detention basin/retention pond and vegetated systems, pretreatment
BMPs are applicable to other BMPs as well. The longevity of pretreatment BMPs
is high with frequent maintenance.
A sediment trap is an excavated pit or cast structure 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) deep.
Typically, sediment traps can accommodate the 2- and 10-year storms. Water quality
inlets and catch basins are chambered, underground retention systems. Water quality
inlets have multiple chambers with permanent pools of water in the rst couple of
chambers. Floatable debris and sediments are trapped in the rst chamber, oil and
grease are trapped in a second chamber, and water is routed out of a third chamber
into the storm drain or another BMP. Catch basins operate similarly, but only a single
chamber is present. Water quality inlets and catch basins are particularly applicable
to parking lots and other areas with substantial vehicular trafc.

Detention Basins/Retention Ponds

Detention basins capture and hold stormwater for 24 h or more, which permits
solids to settle and downstream ooding to be reduced. Typically, a detention basin
will have a lower stage capable of detaining smaller storms, and an upper stage
capable of detaining larger, less frequent storms. One of the less expensive BMPs

2001 CRC Press LLC

capable of controlling both stormwater quantity and quality, detention basins remove
signicant levels of sediment and sorbed pollutants. Detention basins are largely
ineffective at removing soluble pollutants.
Retention ponds use a deep, permanent pool of water to remove both solid and
soluble pollutants (Figure 6). Soluble pollutants, such as nutrients, are removed by
the biological activity of algae and fringing wetland. Retention ponds also have
additional storage capacity to control peak discharge rates. A pool depth of 0.9 to
1.8 m (3 to 6 ft) is recommended to optimize particle settling.

Figure 6 Retention ponds use a deep, permanent pool of water to remove solid and soluble
pollutants.

Both detention basins and retention ponds require a contributing watershed of

at least 4 ha (10 acres). Inow points should have energy dissipaters and a forebay
or settling zone to trap course sediments. The original design should account for the
gradual accumulation of sediment. A routine inspection should be conducted at least
once a year, and sediment should be removed as necessary.

Vegetated Treatment

Treatment by vegetated BMPs ranges from simple drainage channels to con-

structed wetlands. Each vegetated BMP, to a degree, controls peak discharges by
reducing runoff velocity and promoting inltration and reduces pollutants by trap-
ping, ltering, and inltration. Both drainage channels and water quality swales are
most effective when the percentage of impervious cover in the contributing area is
relatively small and the slope is minimal (0 to 5 percent). Constructed wetlands
require relatively large contributing drainage areas to maintain dry weather base
ows. All vegetated BMPs benet from inclusion of a sediment forebay to settle
large particles.
Drainage channels have grass or some other channel lining so runoff can be
conveyed during large storm events without causing erosion. Channels are applicable
to residential and other low to moderate density areas and can be used in parking
lots. A minimum channel length of 30 m (10 ft) is recommended to optimize pol-
lutant removal.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Water quality swales are drainage channels enhanced to remove stormwater pol-
lutants and are typically sized to accommodate the 10-year storm. The three major
types of water quality swales are dry swales, wet swales, and grassed swales
(DEP/CZM, 1987; Claytor and Schueler, 1996). Dry swales allow for ltering or
inltration through the bottom of the swale. Underlying soils should be permeable,
and the seasonal high water table should not be within 0.7 to 1.3 m of the swale bottom.
Wet swales are useful when the water table is at or near the soil surface, or soils are
poorly drained (Figure 7). Sediment accumulation, ltration, and vegetation uptake
remove pollutants. Grassed swales resemble dry swales in that underlying soils are
relatively permeable, but they are vegetated with moisture-tolerant grass species that
produce a ne, uniform, dense cover. Filtration, vegetation uptake, sediment accumu-
lation, and to some extent inltration are the pollutant removal mechanisms.

Figure 7 Water quality swales remove stormwater pollutants by ltration, vegetation uptake,
sediment accumulation, and inltration.

Constructed wetlands are the most complex, and most expensive, vegetated
treatment BMP. Designed to mimic elements of natural wetlands, constructed wet-
lands reduce peak discharge and reduce the occurrence of downstream ooding,
settle particulate pollutants, and facilitate the uptake of pollutants by vegetation.
Constructed wetlands require relatively large contributing drainage areas to maintain
dry weather base ows, and construction costs are relatively high. Chapter 10 dis-
cusses constructed wetlands for the treatment of stormwater and other waste waters.

Inltration

Inltration BMPs are aggregate-lled devices which capture stormwater runoff

and gradually exltrate the runoff through the bottom of the device into the subsoil

2001 CRC Press LLC

and groundwater. Examples include dry wells and inltration trenches and basins.
Inltration BMPs require permeable underlying soils (minimum 1.3 cm/h) and a
groundwater level at least 0.7 m (2 ft) below the bottom of the inltration device.
To avoid contaminating groundwater, inltration BMPs should not be used when
runoff is highly contaminated. Inltration BMPs can be used to manage peak dis-
charges and reduce runoff volume. Regular maintenance is required because inl-
tration BMPs are susceptible to clogging by sediments.
Dry wells are small pits used for inltrating relatively good quality water such
as roof runoff. With a storage time of 48 to 72 h, dry wells typically have a contrib-
uting drainage area of less than 0.4 ha (1 acre).
Inltration trenches are applicable to sites with gentle slopes (5 percent or less),
groundwater levels at least 1.2 m (4 ft) below the surface, and contributing drainage
areas of 2 ha (5 acres) or less. In addition to reducing runoff volume and peak
discharge, inltration trenches remove soluble and particulate pollutants from runoff.
Inltration trenches require pretreatment by inlets, sumps, swales, or forebays to
remove sediment and oil, and grease which may clog the trench.
Inltration basins resemble detention/retention ponds but are constructed over
permeable soils. The contributing drainage area should be 6 ha (15 acres) or less,
depth to seasonal high water table at least 0.7 m (2 ft), and the soil inltration rate
1.3 to 6 cm (0.5 to 2.4 in.) per hour. A sediment forebay or other pretreatment device
is necessary to capture coarse particulate pollutants. Inltration basins are designed
to have a retention time of 48 to 72 h.

Filtration

Filtration basins consist of sand, peat, or compost underlain by gravel and

perforated underdrains. Filter fabrics may be installed at the top of the bed, and
between the lter media and gravel bed, to minimize clogging. Pollutant removal is
achieved by settling on top of the basin and by straining pollutants through the
ltering media. A sedimentation chamber designed to remove coarse pollutants
precedes the lter basin. Filter basins are applicable to small drainage areas of 0.2
to 2 ha (0.4 to 4 acres) for most development situations. A design ltration rate of
5 cm (2 in.) per hour is typical, and the lter should drain within 24 h.

REFERENCES

Bingham, D., Wetlands for stormwater treatment, in Applied Wetlands Science and Technology,
Kent, D. M., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1995.
Brach, J., Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas: Best Management Practices for Minne-
sota, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Water Quality, St. Paul,
MN, 1989.
Brown, K. W., Thomas, J. C., and Duble, R. L., Nitrogen source effect on nitrate and
ammonium leaching and runoff losses from greens, J. Agron., 74, 947, 1982.
Brown, W. E. and Caraco, D. S., Muddy water in - muddy water out?: a critique of erosion
and sediment control plans, Watershed Prot. Tech., 2(3), 393, 1997.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Canter, L. W. and Knox, R. C., Septic Tank System Effects on Groundwater Quality, Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1985.
Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Ofce, Nitrogen Loading, Technical Bulletin 91-001,
Barnstable, MA, 1992.
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission, Water Supply Protection
Project, nal report, Barnstable, Bourne, Brewster, Dennis, and Yarmouth, Barnstable,
MA, 1979.
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Draft environmental impact statement and proposed 208 water
quality management plan for Cape Cod, Barnstable, MA, 1978.
Claytor, R. A. and Schueler, T. R., Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems, Center for
Watershed Protection, prepared for Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons,
MD, 1996.
Dahl, T. E., Wetland Losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 1990.
Eichner, E. M. and Cambareri, T. C., The Cape Cod Golf Course Monitoring Project, Cape
Cod Commission, Water Resources Ofce, Barnstable, MA, 1990.
Heimlich, R. and Melanson, J., Wetlands lost, wetlands gained, Natl. Wetlands Newsl.,
MayJune, 17(3), 1, 23, 1995.
Hollis, T. and Bedding, J., Can we stop wetlands from drying up?, New Sci., July, 31, 1994.
Horner, R. R., Skupien, J. J., Livingston, E. H., and Shaver, H. E., Fundamentals of Urban
Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues, Terrene Institute, Washington,
D.C., 1994.
Horner, R. R., Guedry, J., and Kortenhog, M. H., Improving the Cost Effectiveness of Highway
Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control, Washington State Transportation
Center, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, WA, 1990.
IEP, Water Resources Protection Study: Town of Yarmouth, Massachusetts, Sandwich,
MA, 1988.
Kelly, J. R. and Levin, S. A., A comparison of aquatic and terrestrial nutrient cycling and
production processes in natural ecosystems, with reference to ecological concepts of
relevance to some waste disposal issues, in The Role of the Oceans as a Waste Disposal
Option, Kullenberg, G., Ed., NATO Advanced Research Workshop Series, Reidel,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1986, 154.
Loehr, R. C., Characteristics and comparative magnitude of nonpoint sources, J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed., 46, 1849, 1974.
Long Island Regional Planning Board, Special Groundwater Protection Area Project for the
Oyster Bay Pilot Area and Brookhaven Pilot Area, 1986.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Massachusetts Ofce of Coastal
Zone Management, Stormwater management, Vol. 2, Stormwater Technical Hand-
book, MADEP, 1997.
McManus, K., Wetlands avoidance and impact minimization, in Applied Wetlands Science
and Technology, Kent, D. M., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1994, 105.
Mitsch, W., The worlds wetlands and SWSa call for an international view, Wetlands Bull.,
September, 1, 4, 1995.
Mitsch, W. H. and Knight, R. L., Treatment Wetlands, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1997.
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment
Management Plan, Hauppauge, NY, 1978.
Nelson, K. A., Design considerations for segmental retaining walls in water environments,
Land Water, July/August, 22, 1995.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Nixon, S. W., Nutrients and the productivity of estuarine and coastal marine ecosystems,
J. Limnol. Soc. S. Afr., 12, 43, 1986.
Paterson, R. G., Luger, M. I., Burby, R. J., Kaiser, E. J., Malcolm, H. R., and Beard, A. C.,
Costs and benets of erosion and sediment control: the North Carolina experience,
Environ. Manage., 17(2), 167, 1993.
Petrovic, A. M., The fate of nitrogenous fertilizers applied to turfgrass, J. Environ. Qual.,
19(1), 1, 1990.
Robertson, W. D., Cherry, J. D., and Sudicky, E. A., Groundwater contamination from two
small septic systems on sand aquifers, Ground Water, 29(1), 82, 1991.
Schueler, T. R., Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing
Urban BMPs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.,
1987.
Soil Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, 2nd ed., Technical Release
55, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1986.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Pilot Plant Study: Nitrogen Removal in
Modied Residential Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, Phase 2Additional
Investigations, Hauppauge, NY, 1983.
U.S. Congress, National Environmental Policy Act, PL 91-190, 42 USC4321, Federal Register,
Vol. 43, U.S. Government Printing Ofce, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts Executive Ofce of Environmental
Affairs, 1991.
U.S. Ofce of Technology Assessment, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation, U.S. Congress,
Washington, D.C., 1984.
Valiela, I., Collins, G., Kremer, J., Lajtha, K., Geist, M., Seely, B., Brawley, J., and
Sham, C. H., Nitrogen loading from coastal watersheds to receiving estuaries: new
method and application, Ecol. Appl., 7(2), 358, 1997.
W&H Pacic and CH2M-Hill, Demonstration project using yard debris compost for erosion
control, Portland Metropolitan Service District, Portland, OR, 1993.
Woodward, S. E., The Effectiveness of Buffer Strips to Protect Water Quality, Masters thesis,
University of Maine, Orono, ME, 1989.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Zentner, John Wetland Enhancement, Restoration, and Creation
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 6

Wetland Enhancement, Restoration,

and Creation

John Zentner

CONTENTS

Site Selection and Analysis

Topography
Vegetation Association Mapping
Site History and Current Status
Hydrological Analysis
Soil Analysis
Cultural Constraints
Adjacent Site Conditions
The Use of Template Associations
Small-Scale Experimental Construction
Goal Setting
Elements of a Goal Statement
Goal-Setting Process
Practicability
Construction Design
Geography
Size and Shape
Location
Slope
Adjacent Uses
Hydrology
Hydroperiod and Depth
Water Supply
Soil

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Vegetation
Succession
Planting Design
Plant Selection
Stock Selection
Planting Density
Weed Control
Cultural Issues
Mosquitoes
Water Quality
Implementation
Construction Sequencing
Protective Flagging
Weed Removal
Salvaging
Grading
Planting
Water Supply
Fencing
As Builts
Maintenance
Weed Control
Erosion Control
Herbivory
Plant Care
Irrigation System Maintenance
Litter Removal
General Maintenance Frequency
Minimizing Maintenance Efforts
Research Needs
References

Freshwater wetlands develop at elevations above open water aquatic habitats and
below uplands. They are found in a wide range of hydrologic conditions, from
permanently ooded (to a depth of 1 m) to seasonally saturated. Freshwater wetlands
occur on a wide variety of soil types including both organic and mineral soils, as
well as in nonsoil conditions. Most freshwater wetlands are either freshwater marshes
or riparian woodlands.
Freshwater marshes are dominated by herbaceous emergents and can be divided
into three general categories reective of hydrology (Figure 1). Wet meadows are
temporarily or intermittently ooded and dominated by graminoids and Juncaceae.
In the United States, seasonal marshes are seasonally ooded or saturated and
dominated by Cyperaceae and Juncaceae. Perennial marshes are permanently or

2001 CRC Press LLC

 UPLAND WET MEADOW SEASONAL MARSH PERENNIAL MARSH OPEN WATER

Hydrology Temporarily flooded or Seasonally flooded or Permanently flooded or

intermittently flooded saturated semi-permanently flooded

Dominant Plants Grasses, rushes Sedges, rushes Cattail, bulrush, tules

Figure 1 Freshwater marshes are dominated by herbaceous emergents and can be divided into three hydrological categories: perennial marsh, seasonal
marsh, and wet meadow.

2001 CRC Press LLC

semipermanently ooded and dominated by tall emergents such as cattails (Typha
latifolia) or bulrush (Scirpus acutus).
Riparian woodlands are dominated by shrubs and trees and are characterized by
impermanent and varying periods of inundation or root zone saturation during the
growing season. Compared to freshwater marshes, riparian woodlands occur on
relatively permeable and well-oxygenated substrates. As with freshwater marshes,
riparian woodlands can be categorized by hydrological regime (Figure 2). High
terrace woodlands are temporarily ooded and dominated by a variety of species,
especially oaks (Quercus spp.), that are typied by heavy seeds with relatively longer
viability. Mid-terrace woodlands are seasonally ooded and generally dominated by
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and other
species with medium weight seeds. And low terrace woodlands are semipermanently
ooded and generally dominated by willows (Salix spp.), silver maple (Acer sac-
charinum), and similar species with relatively light seeds of limited viability. These
categories correspond to Categories V (higher hardwood wetlands), IV (medium
hardwood wetlands), and III (lower hardwood wetlands), as described by Cowardin
et al. (1979), Larson et al. (1981), and Clark and Benforado (1981).
Coastal wetlands share many of the characteristics of freshwater wetlands and
are generally dened as those wetlands that lie within the realm and effects, however
minor, of tidal salt water. As such, coastal wetlands include saltmarsh, fresh and
brackish tidal marsh, and, in tropical waters, mangrove.
Saltmarsh is the most ubiquitous type of coastal wetland, occurring on all coasts
where appropriate substrate and tidal regimes are present (Figure 3). Saltmarshes
are distributed over a relatively broad salinity range, from the high intertidal zone
to the oligohaline habitats upstream on tidal tributaries where salinity may never
exceed 10 parts per thousand. In the United States, various species of cordgrass
(Spartina spp.) are dominant, with rushes (Juncus spp.) also common. On the Pacic
Coast, Spartina foliosa and pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) are common. On the
Gulf Coast and in the southeast, other species of cordgrass (Spartina alterniora,
S. patens), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus)
are typical. Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) marshes, such as the Everglades, occur
in more brackish water. On the Atlantic Coast and to the northeast, Spartina cyno-
suroides, S. alterniora, J. roemerianus, and some other species are common. Wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia) are typical
shrubs associated with salt marshes from the Gulf Coast to New England.
Oligohaline (salinity of 0.5 to 5.0 ppt) and tidal freshwater marshes (salinity
is less than 0.5 ppt) are herbaceous wetlands located in tidally inuenced rivers
or streams. The plant community exhibits a diverse mixture of true marine species
and typical freshwater taxa that tolerate low salinities (Cowardin et al., 1979;
Lewis, 1990).
Mangrove forests are limited in distribution to subtropical and tropical zones
(Figure 4). In the United States, they occur predominantly in southern Florida,
sparsely along the Gulf Coast to the Laguna Madre of Texas, and extensively in
Puerto Rico (Kuenzler, 1974). Many species of trees of different families are called
mangroves, with black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), red mangrove (Rhizo-
phora mangle), and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) common to the

2001 CRC Press LLC

 HIGH TERRACE MID-TERRACE LOW TERRACE
UPLAND WOODLAND WOODLAND WOODLAND

Hydrology Temporarily flooded Seasonally flooded Semi-Permanently flooded

Dominant Plants Oaks Green Ash, Sycamore Willows, Silver Maple

Figure 2 Riparian woodlands are dominated by shrubs and trees. As with freshwater marshes, riparian woodlands can be categorized by hydrological
regime: semipermanently ooded, seasonally ooded, and temporarily ooded.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 3 Saltmarshes are the most widely distributed of coastal wetlands. They occur over
a relatively broad salinity range from the high intertidal zone to oligohaline habitats
on tidal tributaries.

United States. There are an additional 31 species worldwide (Tomlinson, 1986).

All mangroves have features in common that are adaptations for survival in the
saline conditions of the intertidal zone (Tomlinson, 1986). Morphological adapta-
tions include the aerial roots (pneumatophores) of black mangrove that provide for
gas exchange and the viviparous, oating propagules of red mangroves. In fact,
nearly all species of mangroves are viviparous, with the white mangrove being an
exception. Physiological mechanisms for dealing with salt excretion or exclusion
are also characteristic of mangroves.
Lewis (1990) recently dened wetland enhancement, restoration, and creation.
Enhancement is an increase in values afforded to a specic vegetation association
by construction actions. Restoration is the recreation of a specic vegetation asso-
ciation on a site where that association was once known to occur. Creation is the
construction of a wetland from an upland or aquatic site. The term construction will
be used to encompass enhancement, restoration, and creation in this chapter.
The earliest wetland construction projects may have occurred many thousands
of years ago with the manipulation and creation of freshwater and coastal wetlands
to enhance rice or sh harvests. Waterfowl conservation and hunting organizations
have been responsible for numerous wetland construction projects in this century.
New York, especially, had numerous small freshwater marshes created in the mid-
1950s (Dane, 1959). Specic problems associated with wetlands, such as nuisance
mosquitoes, have also resulted in a number of useful research and enhancement
practices. More recently, interest in wetland construction is a response to regulatory
requirements. Nevertheless, there is also a greater public interest and understanding

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 4 Mangrove forests are found throughout the subtropics and tropics. The tree species
which comprise mangrove forests have morphological and physiological adapta-
tions for surviving in intertidal saline conditions.

of the environmental values of wetlands and a desire for the recreation of lost or
diminished landscapes and values.
This chapter discusses the construction of freshwater marshes, riparian wood-
lands, and coastal wetlands. The construction process is described in ve steps
inherent to designing, building, and maintaining wetland landscapes. These steps
are site analysis, goal setting, construction design, implementation, and maintenance.
Implicit in these steps are two tenets. First, specication of a target vegetation
association (TVA) is the primary goal. A TVA provides the habitat for any plant or
wildlife populations that may be desired on the project site and, because of its
structural nature, facilitates maintenance and monitoring efforts. Second, in con-
struction planning there is no substitution for directed observation of the project site
and the TVA.

SITE SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

The ideal construction site will most closely meet the requirements of the
community to be constructed. Therefore, the goals of the project will have substantial
bearing on nal site selection. Construction projects inherently require understanding
the initial cause of habitat differentiation or degradation and determining the prob-
ability that the habitat can be constructed and maintained. The question of habitat
displacement inevitably needs to be addressed in the site selection process as well.
Site analysis is the rst tangible step in a wetland construction project. The
analysis may be completed during a wetland delineation effort, as the rst step in a

2001 CRC Press LLC

neighborhood restoration program, or from many other perspectives. This step pro-
vides the basic framework for goal setting, identication of the TVAs, and develop-
ment of performance standards.
The site analysis typically includes a topographic assessment, wetland vegetation
association mapping and analyses, and a review of historic conditions. The analyses
will also include an assessment of hydrologic, soil, and cultural conditions, and
examination of any nearby templates, or examples, of TVAs. Small-scale experi-
mental wetland construction efforts should be initiated at this time if possible.
Generally, the initial site analysis is completed within a period of three weeks to
three months, with a relatively intensive effort in dening site topography, vegetation
associations, soils, and historic and cultural conditions in the rst few weeks. Less
extensive effort is expended in monitoring hydrology and constructing and observing
experimental wetlands over the remaining period.

Topography

Elevation and slope are two of the more critical factors in determining the success
of wetland construction projects. It is difcult to recommend an absolute planting
elevation for a given species because of local and geographic variability. Synergistic
effects may also alter growth at given elevations. For example, reduced salinity may
permit growth of smooth cordgrass at higher and lower elevations than those typically
recommended for the species.
The optimum elevation can be determined empirically by observing and mea-
suring the lower and upper elevation limits of a nearby natural wetland. Lewis (1990)
recommends that the lowest and highest points should be disregarded, and only the
middle range used for planting. If reference information is unavailable, an adequate
test program should be conducted prior to initiating construction.
Some degree of slope is essential for proper drainage. A gradual slope will
increase the area available for planting and will dissipate hydrologic energy over a
greater area, thereby reducing the possibility of erosion (Broome, 1990). Slope
should be toward water sources to minimize ponding as substrates settle following
site preparation. Gentle slopes do not drain as extensively as steeper ones, which is
generally benecial to most wetland vegetation. However, gentle slopes are more
susceptible than steeper slopes to ponding, which can be especially problematic for
riparian woodland species unless the soils are also relatively permeable.

Vegetation Association Mapping

Wetland vegetation associations for the construction site and surrounding area
can be identied, and their extent determined, by mapping from an aerial photograph.
Aerial photographs are usually available as stock or library lm from an aerial survey
center. These centers y important regions every two to three years, providing a
backlog or library of lm that can be reproduced at a variety of scales. Requesting
a half-tone mylar as well as a print of the project site is important. The mylar can
be used to make blueprints for eld use, and blackline prints can be reproduced and
included in reports.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The borders of the vegetation associations are more precisely dened through
on-site analysis after initial mapping from an aerial photograph. For marshes, ran-
domly selected 1-m plots representative of each vegetation association can be sam-
pled for species and cover. Randomly selected 0.25 hectare (ha) polygons (dened
by tree cover and separation among woodland vegetation associations) are effective
in woodlands.
Table 1 provides an example of vegetation association mapping from a hypo-
thetical freshwater wetland project site in California characterized by gently sloping
hills surrounding a central creek. The result is a table that describes the vegetation
associations and the absolute and relative cover of marsh and riparian woodland
vegetation. A scan of the table and knowledge of the region reveal that three
vegetation associations are present and that the site is dominated by nonnative species
and species representative of disturbed areas. It is also appropriate at this time to
identify and survey any upland areas that may be considered for wetland construction
to ensure that valuable upland habitats are not inadvertently lost.

Table 1 Example of Vegetation Association Mapping from a

Hypothetical Project Site in California1
Area Cover
Vegetation Association Plant Species (ha) (%)
Wet meadow 1.4 80
Lolium perenne* 40

Hordeum hystrix* 30
Elymus triticoides 20
Elymus glaucus 10
Seasonal marsh 1.4 50

Lolium perenne* 40
Juncus balticus 30
Lotus corniculatus* 20
Polypogon 10
monspieliensis*
Perennial marsh 0.9 100

Typha latifolia** 80
Scirpus acutus 20
Low-terrace woodland 0.5 100
Salix lasiolepis** 100
* Nonnative species.
**Species indicative of disturbance.
1 The table provides absolute and relative information for use in site
analysis and target vegetation association selection.

Site History and Current Status

Shisler (1990) states that if wetlands are not present there has to be a reason,
especially for tidal wetlands. Determining this reason is fundamental to reviewing
a site for potential wetland habitat construction. If possible, past functioning of the

2001 CRC Press LLC

wetland should be evaluated, and all past uses of the site should be reviewed prior
to habitat construction. Current and future land use, zoning regulations, and projected
sea-level rise may also have a bearing on site selection.
Historic aerial and other site photographs, and any available topographic or other
maps, are reviewed to dene the past conditions and boundaries of the site vegetation
associations. Important issues to review with these sources include the location of
historic wetland vegetation associations and their relationship to current vegetation
associations, water sources, and cultural elements. Historic aerials are often available
from the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) and local aerial photography sources. His-
toric maps are also found at USGS as well as local historical societies. Costs for
historic aerials are generally less than current aerials, however, reproduction costs
for older maps may be signicant.

Hydrological Analysis

The quantity, quality, and timing of water entering the wetland are of critical
importance to its survival. If the correct hydrology is not present, or is insufcient,
the project will fail (Shisler, 1990).
The initial site analysis provides an opportunity to dene the hydrologic condi-
tions that create the site or template vegetation associations. Generally, hydroperiod,
the duration of inundation or saturation, and water depth best dene the vegetation
association for freshwater wetlands. Accordingly, hydrology stakes and shallow
observation wells are placed in wetland and upland areas to dene surface and
groundwater conditions. The wells typically consist of 10 cm diameter PVC pipe
inserted 1.2 to 2.4 m into the ground, with a surrounding backll of gravel or other
permeable material. Wells and stakes can be observed weekly during the analysis
to dene the depth of ponding and the surface approach of groundwater. However,
short-term monitoring may not reect typical groundwater levels. Long-term ground-
water level data may be available from local water districts or farmers.
For coastal wetlands, hydrologic factors that need to be evaluated during the site
selection process include drainage features, such as channels and ponds, the tidal
regime and range, wave intensity, and salinity. Obviously, some of these can be
manipulated through design while others cannot. It is sometimes necessary to base
site selection upon the most practical trade-off. In general, coastal wetland construc-
tion projects are more likely to be successful in sheltered locations where wave
energy and current velocity are minimal. Salinity variation at the site should be
monitored so that appropriate plant species can be selected. Adequate drainage is
another requirement, because standing water is typically detrimental to the estab-
lishment of wetland vegetation. Wide, shallow channels that retain water at low tide
maximize ushing and plant health. Water quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen, turbidity)
is an especially important factor determining site selection for seagrass restoration
projects. Other factors affecting hydrology are precipitation, surface ows, ground
water, and evapotranspiration. Each of these factors affects habitat productivity and
species diversity.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Soil Analysis

Soil analysis can be one of the most important steps in dening wetland construc-
tion opportunities and constraints, especially for the drier freshwater marshes and
riparian woodlands. The soil analysis can identify the edaphic requirements of the
vegetation, thereby dening the appropriate TVA. Soil analysis will also identify any
restrictions to construction activities because of soil permeability or soil chemistry.
Generally, the best source of information on freshwater wetland soil characteristics
for an area is direct site observations. Direct observations can be supplemented by
local, state, or federal information, such as Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS, formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) soil series maps. The latter are
available at no cost from NRCS ofces. The NRCS and associated services such as
county agricultural ofces often have aerial photographs for review as well. Where
soil series maps are unavailable, NRCS eld personnel may provide on-site assistance.
Site observations typically consist of a series of soil pits, 30 to 50 cm in depth,
dug by hand throughout the site for the purpose of dening surface conditions. Use
of a backhoe to dene conditions at depth is generally helpful and is essential if
signicant excavation is required. Test pits will help identify any signicant variation
in permeability among soil layers. It is also useful to identify similar soils on
proximal, undisturbed sites using the NRCS soil survey so that natural vegetation
associations can be observed and used as a template. Soil chemical properties can
be analyzed in a laboratory. If the site requires the addition of soil, or if the site has
been lled in the past, the possibility of contamination should be investigated.
Generally, sandy soils are more amenable to grading and planting than are silt
and clay. However, some degree of organic content is recommended as a nutrient
source (Broome, 1990). The soil must be of sufcient depth to support planting.
Garbisch (1986) recommends a minimum depth of 0.3 m for marshes. Trees for
woodland construction will typically require a greater soil depth, depending on the
species.
Based on a literature review and eld inspections of created wetlands in New
Jersey, substrate preferences for coastal marshes were ranked as follows:

1. Natural marsh peat

2. Clay and silty clay
3. Estuarine sediments (dredge and ll)
4. Sand (Shisler, 1990)

For riparian woodlands, however, the list is almost completely reversed. Some anoxic
soils can become highly acidic upon exposure to air, such as during earthwork, and
may warrant the addition of a calcareous material such as crushed shell as a buffering
agent. At sites subject to tidal or riverine inundation, sedimentation processes should
be carefully studied. Some degree of sedimentation may be desirable to stabilize
initial plantings; however, burial of seedlings should be avoided.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Cultural Constraints

Few sites are unconstrained by human artifacts. Artifacts may range from pre-
historic remains to buried sewer lines. Visible artifacts such as roads that affect the
project site (e.g., drainage impediment) should be identied. Identication of sub-
surface artifacts is more difcult. Nevertheless, cultural resources can be prelimi-
narily identied in the United States through record searches with the State Historic
Preservation Ofce (SHPO) or local universities. Buried infrastructure may be iden-
tied through interviews and research at local Public Works Departments.

Adjacent Site Conditions

Conditions near the proposed construction site should also be considered. Sites
adjacent to existing functioning wetlands offer the greatest chance for success.
Conversely, an increasing wetland area in the watershed may alter hydrologic
regimes.
The presence of aggressive exotic species close to the proposed site may also
be a problem. In many cases, a buffer zone should be included in the project design.
A buffer zone may increase the diversity of ora and fauna present (Josselyn et al.,
1990) and will protect the site from human and vehicular trafc. The buffer zone
must be kept clear of exotics and other nuisance species that may invade the project
site. Buffer zones with tall vegetation provide animals, especially birds and mam-
mals, with refuge from cold winds, high temperatures, and high waters.
The proximity or attractiveness of the potential construction site to predation
should also be considered. Geese (e.g., Branta canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibe-
thica), and nutria (Myocastor coypus) have all been identied as voracious consum-
ers of newly planted marsh vegetation (Shisler, 1990; Broome, 1990). Conversely,
placement of a well-designed created wetland near a disturbed wetland may offer
refuge to dwindling populations of desirable species.
Open water near potential sites should be assessed for boat trafc and offshore
depth because both can affect wave energy. Shallow offshore water reduces the
severity of waves reaching the shore (Broome, 1990). The degree of wave energy
can be modied to a certain extent (see below), but sites facing more than
5.5 nautical miles of open water are generally not recommended for planting (Crewz
and Lewis, 1991).

The Use of Template Associations

Recreation of an historic vegetation association will in many instances increase

the probability of success. In the event that the TVA is missing or poorly represented
on the project site, a proximally located vegetation association can be used as a
template. The template association should have hydrology and soils similar to existing
or intended conditions for the construction site. In addition to determining species
composition, the template vegetation association should be studied to determine
species evenness and distribution, and identify potential additions to the planting list
and likely successional patterns. The specic TVA to be constructed may be difcult

2001 CRC Press LLC

to predict at this stage of the project. However, initial review of several different
vegetation associations may have a signicant effect on goal setting. For example,
participants in a riparian woodland construction project for a degraded waterway in
Solano County, CA, wished to plant the California sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
extensively due to its stature and appearance. However, the sycamore is adapted to
alluvial ats with relatively permeable soils and would not do well on the project
site's clay soils. Taking the participants to a regional park that included a well-
preserved riparian woodland native to this region and similar to the project site resulted
in the selection of several alternative trees, all better adapted to the project site.

Small-Scale Experimental Construction

When time is available, small-scale experimental projects or pilot studies should

be undertaken to identify soil and hydrology constraints and to rene planning
alternatives. Appropriate studies include determining the water-holding capacity of
unmodied soils, determining germination and salvage survival rates for target
vegetation, rening transplanting techniques, and evaluating construction manage-
ment abilities. The importance of small-scale pilot projects for building condence
and consensus among the planning group should not be underestimated.

GOAL SETTING

The setting of specic goals is crucial to wetland construction projects. Goals

help dene monitoring elements and protocols, and establish standards for judging
success. The latter allows others to objectively evaluate the project and serves as a
basis for practitioner and general public educational efforts.

Elements of a Goal Statement

Goal statements are typically comprised of a substantive objective, for example,

construct 1.3 ha of coastal salt marsh. Specication of a TVA may be the most
appropriate substantive goal as noted in the introduction to this chapter. A TVA can
be related to wetland functions (e.g., provision of wildlife or sheries habitat),
facilitates clear performance standards and monitoring, and can be readily measured.
This is most easily accomplished through comparison with an existing or historically
well-described vegetation association from the project site or a nearby site. One of
the more difcult tasks is to keep the TVA general enough to be realizable, yet
specic enough that the goal is meaningful. Typically, selection of a species type
association, for example a rush-dominated wet meadow, is an effective approach.
Other commonly used options for the substantive element of the goal statement
include a specic wildlife or plant population. In this case, the measurement param-
eter would identify a particular population level as the target. Wildlife goals are
generally less useful than TVAs because wildlife populations vary so greatly year
to year as a result of regional conditions. Regional climate changes can have a much
greater effect on wildlife populations, for example, than the maturation of the

2001 CRC Press LLC

construction site. Moreover, the construction project will build a specic type of
habitat or assemblage of habitats to produce the desired change in wildlife popula-
tions. Therefore, designation of the TVA(s) makes as much sense as designation of
the wildlife goal and is more readily measured.
A wetland function, such as water quality improvement, is also often used as
the substantive element of the goal and the measurement parameter dened to include
an indicator such as percent reduction in target pollutants. Again, functional goals
are still dependent on a specic TVA.
Equally important, and often overlooked or unstated, is the procedural element.
The procedural element of a goal statement refers to the method by which the goal
statement is completed. Too often, goals are developed without discussion with, or
consensus among, all interested parties. Conversely, a large committee may develop
goals that are nonspecic, thereby negating effective evaluation at any point.

Goal-Setting Process

Several points should be considered in the development of goals. Construction

goals should address the concerns of all those meaningfully affected by the project.
Affected parties will include landowners on or adjacent to the project site, regulating
agencies, and operation and maintenance entities such as mosquito abatement and
ood control districts. Table 2 lists parties potentially affected by wetland construc-
tion activities, and goals common to these parties. All parties should be contacted
and their comments solicited on initial goal statements. For smaller-scale projects
where the affected partys interests are relatively similar (e.g., neighborhood groups
reconstructing a local creek), comments should be used to develop a consensus on
project goals. For most projects this is not practicable, and the consultative process
will involve reviewing each comment and incorporating a response into the con-
struction plan.
Experience suggests that a exible, two-step goal development process is most
effective. The initial goals are developed following the initial site analysis and
discussions with the affected parties. Final goals are selected at the conclusion of
the construction design process. Even then, the goals may require modication
during the construction, or even post-construction monitoring phase, as new oppor-
tunities and constraints arise.

Practicability

A substantial body of literature exists on the design and goals of wetland

construction projects (Kusler and Kentula, 1989). However, a signicant gap exists
between those who develop the goals and write the plans and those who construct
wetlands. This gap mirrors a similar chasm found between landscape architects
and landscape contractors and is likely to exist because of education dissimilarities,
professional practices, and even insurance requirements. This gap poses a signi-
cant danger to the development of ecological construction because it may ensure
that important knowledge gained during construction is not incorporated into sub-
sequent designs.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 2 Parties Potentially Affected by Wetland Construction Projects and
Goals Common to These Parties
Affected Parties Goals
Landowners
Site landowner Minimize costs
Adjacent landowners Increase aesthetics
Adjacent residents Eliminate off-site issues (e.g., mosquitos,
odors, oods)
Increase access
Reduce vandalism
Permitting and commenting agencies
Corps of Engineers Provide appropriate data
Wildlife agencies Respond to all concerns
Public land agencies Restore single species habitat
Provide appropriate public access
Ensure success
Operation and maintenance entities
Flood control districts Minimize maintenance costs
Park districts Provide adequate ood conveyance
Mosquito abatement Ensure compatibility with park needs
Minimize mosquito production

Building a wetland shares many basic elements with any landscape construction
project, whether it is gardening or reforestation. The most important issue in any
such project is to determine what conditions create the TVA. Subsequent issues may
arise that threaten vegetation association growth, whether one is planting corn, taro,
or rushes. Wetlands are among the wettest landscapes and, accordingly, the quantity
and quality of the water, as well as the use of soil types which ensure water retention,
are extremely important. Also important are those conditions that result from the
application of signicant amounts of water to the soil such as erosion and salt
buildup, which reduce the viability of the TVA.
Wetland construction strives to achieve ecological function and presumes that
the project, once constructed, will evolve in a natural fashion. Ideally, no maintenance
will occur following an initial establishment period making an understanding of the
successional aspects of the TVA very important. On the other hand, many wetland
construction projects, especially those specically for waterfowl habitat, will use
sources of water that require continued operation and maintenance (Payne, 1992).
Unless the project is built in an extremely remote area, human actions will
inuence the project. Conversely, the project may inuence humans. For these
reasons, wetland construction must consider the role of people in the design and, in
some cases, identify methods for ensuring that potential interactions between the
constructed habitat and people are mutually benecial.
These elements are considered in more detail in the Construction Design section
of this chapter. However, they must also be considered in the goal setting stage.
Ignoring these issues and proceeding without consideration of the practicability of
the project may shorten the planning phase of the project but will likely decrease
the probability of success.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 CONSTRUCTION DESIGN

Geography

Size and Shape

Market or regulatory forces well in advance of any design analysis often

determine the size and conguration of the construction site. Even when strict
limitations exist, the designer must consider the appropriate extent and shape for
the different vegetation associations to be constructed. Recent work stemming from
MacArthur and Wilsons (1967) research on island biogeography suggests that
areas of at least 16 ha contain signicantly greater numbers of species of birds,
mammals, and invertebrates than do smaller areas (Tilghman, 1987; Faeth and
Kane, 1978). Species richness is also positively correlated with edge length and
habitat diversity (OMeara, 1984).

Location

Exposure to wave energy is particularly important for coastal wetland construc-

tion projects. The relationship between wave energy and effects on cordgrass planting
can be related to fetch (the distance traveled by waves). At less than one nautical
mile of fetch, plantings will be unaffected. Between 1 and 3.5 nautical miles, some
replanting is necessary, and over 3.5 nautical miles, some kind of wave-barrier
structure is necessary to protect plantings (Crewz and Lewis, 1991).
Orientation of the site with respect to colonizing (or invading) plants and animals
is another factor inuencing design. Exposure to desirable ora and fauna should
be provided. Conversely, exposure to exotic and nuisance species should be
restricted. Prevailing winds and currents may enhance or deter establishment of
volunteers. The presence and condition of adjacent wetlands may also affect design
specics. For example, preserving isolated patches of desirable vegetation may
inhibit water circulation by creating berms. Sound ecological judgment must be used
in assessing whether existing vegetation impairs or contributes to developing desired
functional attributes at the site (Crewz and Lewis, 1991).

Slope

Perhaps the most critical aspect in successful wetland construction design is

grading the soil surface to the elevation that provides the optimal hydrologic regime
for the TVA (Broome, 1990). It would not be an overstatement to consider accurate
topographic surveys and grading the keystone to meeting wetland construction goals.
Slopes should be as gradual as possible, while still allowing good surface drain-
age at low water conditions. Gentle slopes at the perimeters of the project site are
recommended to reduce erosion and lter runoff reaching the site. If steep slopes
are necessary, they should be stabilized to serve as a deterrent to exotic or nuisance
species invasion. Gradual slopes at the perimeter of construction sites also serve to

2001 CRC Press LLC

prevent compression of vegetative zones owing to sea-level rise, the rate of which
is predicted to increase rapidly after the year 2025 (Crewz and Lewis, 1991).

Adjacent Uses

Signicant opportunities exist for a larger native landscape or a corridor when

adjacent uses include natural or restored lands. Whereas a great deal of information
has been developed on the value of larger sites, the case for creating corridors is more
intuitive. MacClintock et al. (1977), Fahrig and Merriam (1985), and Wegner and
Merriam (1979) all provide study results that suggest that birds and small mammals
actively use natural corridors, and that patches of native landscape connected by such
corridors to larger habitats receive greater wildlife use than isolated patches.
Construction projects should consider potential use of the wetland by people and
the effects of the human landscape on the natural system. Adams and Dove (1989)
document widespread interest in viewing and interacting with wildlife within subur-
ban and urban settings. Providing a trail that offers views and interaction with the
wetland is often the best means to ensure visitors do not impact sensitive areas.
Leaving the edge of the wetland open so that views of the wetland are created may
be the best means to ensure that the wetland is not used for trash and debris dumping.
Glare is best treated with tall, rapidly growing trees as a buffer. Off-road vehicle
access should be eliminated through the use of post and cable barriers between any
public roadways and the wetland, unless steep vertical barriers or moats are provided.
Domestic and feral cats and dogs are signicant predators on ground-nesting wetland
birds. Both can be restrained with fences, and open water is an effective barrier to cats.

Hydrology

Wetland hydroperiod, including the duration and frequency of inundation or

saturation, and depth of inundation, are generally the major determinants of wetland
vegetation associations. However, the manner in which the water is supplied to the
construction site may be equally crucial. Articial supply systems, such as drip or
spray irrigation and pumps, require a signicant amount of maintenance and reduce
the naturalness of the wetland. However, these systems eliminate much of the
uncertainty involved in water supply planning. Natural water supply systems such
as open channels are less manageable but can result in a self-maintaining system
that mimics natural systems. Use of natural water supply systems requires a good
understanding of ecology and engineering and will require more effort in the inves-
tigation and planning stages.

Hydroperiod and Depth

Two models are useful in estimating wetland hydroperiod and depth of inunda-
tion in freshwater wetlands. Slope models are used to dene the hydroperiod and
depth of inundation for wetlands abutting a river or lake. Basin models are used to
model wetlands isolated from riverine or lacustrine systems. For tidal wetlands, a
variety of models have been used to describe tidal ows. In any case, tidal ranges

2001 CRC Press LLC

and important elevations (mean high water, etc.) must be identied; these are gen-
erally derived from local tidal gauges and other records.
Slope wetlands are characterized by seasonally varying water levels with no
implied storage. The relationship between wetland vegetation associations and water
surface elevations is well described (Dickson et al., 1965; Harris et al., 1975). How-
ever, water surface elevation analyses of streamows for storms of various intensity
or duration are complex. Channelized streamow equations have been developed
for ood control analyses. These equations consider the amount of ow, the cross-
sectional area and slope of the channel, and a friction element that denes channel
roughness. The latter reects the capability of channel vegetation to reduce ow
velocity. The HEC-1 model developed by the Corps of Engineers (1981) is an
example of this type of model. Used in conjunction with an accurate topographic
map of a site, these models can predict the depth of water and duration of ooding
at a specic elevation for a specic storm event. However, these models require
accurate data that are typically very expensive to generate.
Slope wetland hydrology can often be more simply dened by directed obser-
vations of the vegetation associations and of the channel during specic storm events.
The locations of wetland vegetation associations in a slope environment relate to
water level, which is related to topographic position. Identifying the elevation of a
TVA relative to the channel and then predicting the creation of a new and similar
association based on a similar channel position is crude but relatively effective
(Figure 5).
Observations during storm conditions are crucial for determining channel behav-
ior during high ows. Widening it to pre-alteration conditions and thus reestablishing
the TVA might easily restore a channelized stream. However, other factors may also
be critical. For example, soil or underlying bedrock may be radically different on
adjacent reaches. Greater or lesser permeability in the construction reach might result
in less or more water than predicted. Other factors such as channel roughness in the
form of dense vegetation or in-channel morphological features may slow ows and
signicantly reduce peak ows. A comparison of stormow peak and duration in
the template and construction reaches can eliminate most sources of error.
Basin wetland hydrology is best dened by a water budget. That is, the water
available to support the wetland is a function of water inow minus water outow.
This is illustrated by

S = P + SI + GI ET SO GO

where

S equals the storage in the wetland basin.

P equals the precipitation.
SI equals the surface inow.
GI equals the groundwater inow.
ET equals the evapotranspiration.
SO equals the surface outow.
GO equals the groundwater outow or inltration.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 5 Determining the appropriate elevation of a constructed slope wetland can some-
times be accomplished through observation of existing vegetation associations
and the elevations at which the associations occur.

Water sources for wetlands include precipitation falling directly on the wetland,
surface inow, and groundwater inow. Precipitation amounts should be identied
on at least a monthly basis. Data are usually available from local weather stations or
airports. In the United States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) handbooks are also a good source of information. Surface inow is the
product of precipitation within the watershed less the amount lost to evapotranspira-
tion and inltration or inow from adjacent lacustrine or riverine sources. For inow
from adjacent sources, a stage-discharge model may be used to determine surface
inow or the elevation of the ood ow can be estimated based upon corresponding
vegetation association boundaries. Groundwater inow is often extremely difcult to
determine and is best accomplished through the use of piezometers.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Water is lost from the wetland (and its watershed) through evapotranspiration,
surface outow, and groundwater outow. Evapotranspiration is often described on
a monthly basis in NRCS soil surveys, NOAA handbooks, and other sources. The
low point in the basin will control the basin water surface elevations and surface
outow. The average storage capacity is then the remaining volume of water in the
basin. Some water owing into the basin will be lost to outow through the soil,
with the amount of outow determined by the height of groundwater and the type
of soil. Where groundwater levels are high or the soil underneath the basin is at eld
capacity, no or little loss will occur. Where groundwater levels are low or the soils
beneath the basin are not at eld capacity, water loss to the soil will be more
signicant. The amount of loss during these conditions is dependent upon soil type,
with clay soils generally appropriating less water than sandy soils.
The factors used in a water budget calculation are often dependent upon each
other and interaction between the surface and groundwater components can confound
the results of the budget analysis (Brown and Stark, 1987). Additionally, many other
factors may affect the parameters or their measurement. In all cases, the models
should be veried, validated, and calibrated through direct observation of existing
or experimental wetlands.

Water Supply

Providing a relatively natural water supply system, or designing a wetland within

a system such as a channel also used for ood conveyance, is relatively simple in
tidal conditions but increasingly problematic with greater freshwater inow. Much
experience, often not positive, has been gained from the design of ood channels
that also host wetland creation efforts. Concrete or earth-lined trapezoidal channels
have been extremely popular in ood control design because they require little land,
are relatively inexpensive to build, keep ood ows below existing ground levels,
and are easy to maintain. As these systems were expanded to provide for wetland
construction, however, the inherent problems associated with this channel design
have become apparent. The substantive problem is the perennial saturation of the
at bottom of the channel, which encourages the development of a low-terrace
riparian woodland. Woody species tend to grow densely and rapidly, creating a
signicant impedance to ood ows.
One resolution of these maintenance conicts would be the establishment of a
wetland vegetation association with relatively low channel impedance. Riparian
woodland associations vary tremendously in their effect on channel impedance but
generally follow a pattern of greater impedance with greater afnity for water. That
is, a low-terrace woodland impedes ood ows more than a mid-terrace association,
which in turn impedes ow more than a high-terrace association. In a study of riparian
woodland establishment patterns at several wetland creation projects in the Central
Valley of California, Zentner and Zentner (1992) observed that the low-terrace wood-
land in this region occurs from the upper edge of the summer water level to approx-
imately the mean annual ood line. The mid-terrace zone occurs from the mean
annual ood line to about the 10- to 15-year storm line, and the high-terrace woodland

2001 CRC Press LLC

occurs from the mid-terrace zone to the 100-year ood line. Therefore, to circumvent
blockage of ood waters by dense low-terrace riparian growth while still providing
for wetlands, broad low terraces could be designed that can accommodate ood ows
despite the dense nature of the vegetation. Alternatively, the low-terrace zone could
be restricted, and terraces would be constructed just above the mean annual ood
line where mid-terrace riparian woodland, in friable soils, or marshes in indurated
soils can be maintained (Figures 6 and 7).
Additional hydrological factors, including water velocity, sediment loading, and
erosion potential, will also be important. Table 3 is a checklist for reviewing channel
design issues. The checklist can be used to review both upstream and downstream
preconstruction and postconstruction conditions. In the western United States, and
most likely for other regions as well, seasonal low water, mean annual ood level,
and the 100-year ood level are the most pertinent water surface elevations. Seasonal
low water level denes the upper limit of perennial marsh and the lower limit of
low-terrace riparian woodland. Mean annual ow approximates the upper limit of
seasonal marsh and low-terrace woodland. The 100-year ood level is an important
cultural limit, and ows above that level resulting from a wetland construction project
will require special consideration. The relevant tidal wetland elevations include mean
tide level, mean higher water (MHW), and mean higher high water (MHHW), all
important boundaries for vegetation associations (Lewis, 1994).
Impedance associated with the vegetation association has an important effect on
channel ow, as does channel bottom slope microtopography. Each of these factors,
as well as channel soil characteristics, are important factors in erosion and sedimen-
tation. Sandy soils erode more easily than clays under most conditions, and imped-
iments to channel ow such as bridges increase scouring through local increases in
ow velocity. Decreases in ow velocity, especially when there is a high sediment
load, will result in silting-in of channel bottom basins.
For coastal wetlands, some kind of proximal offshore structure may be needed
for many sites exposed to moderate wave energy. The protection offered by berms
or breakwaters can be substantial and are a critical factor in successful establishment
of newly planted vegetation. At some sites, construction of a breakwater may be all
that is necessary to stabilize a site, both subtidally and intertidally, and consequently
facilitates signicant habitat improvement. For example, a small spoil island in
Clearwater Harbor, FL, that provided good wildlife habitat for local populations
(especially birds) was experiencing severe shoreline erosion. Offshore seagrass beds
were also showing signs of stress related to excess wave energy. In 1989, a 140-m-
long breakwater of large rocks was constructed approximately 25 m offshore of the
island, seaward of the grass beds. Following breakwater placement, the shoreline
stabilized through formation of a small beach and the seagrass beds appear healthy
and may be expanding in area.
Large rocks and rubble are the material recommended for construction of break-
waters in most circumstances. Smaller material may be less stable, or can consolidate
excessively, prohibiting adequate tidal ushing. Constructed properly, rock berms
used in conjunction with mangrove restoration projects aid in trapping propagules,
thereby reducing or eliminating the need for planting.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 6 To avoid blockage of ood waters by dense, low riparian growth, the low-terrace zone can be restricted and terraces can be constructed above
the mean annual ood line.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 7 Another method for avoiding blockage of ood waters while providing for wetlands is to construct seasonal marsh in low-terrace areas.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 3 A Design Checklist for
Addressing Critical Hydrological
Design Components of Channel
Wetland Construction
Water surface elevations
Seasonal low water level
Mean annual ood level
100-year storm level
Vegetation association
High impedance
Moderate impedance
Low impedance
Channel bottom slope
On-site
Upstream
Downstream
Erosion and erosion potential
On-site
Upstream
Downstream
Sedimentation and sedimentation potential
On-site
Upstream
Downstream

Soil

Soil properties have generally received little consideration in the design and
construction of wetlands. Exceptions include wetlands where soil characteristics
determine the wetland form, such as western vernal pools and bogs. In large part,
this historic inattention to soils is due to the predominance of tidal and perennial
marsh construction which can be supported to some extent on almost any soil as
long as an appropriate hydroperiod and water depth are provided. However, con-
structing the drier freshwater wetland types, such as seasonal wetlands or wet
meadows, has made soil considerations more important.
Soil texture and its corollary soil permeability often strongly inuence the type
of marsh or the development of a woodland in place of a marsh. Hydroperiod and
inundation depth being equal, ne textured, less permeable soils support a wetter
vegetation association and a generally larger wetland than do course textured, more
permeable soils. More permeable and well oxygenated soils (including various
grades of rock) will support woodlands in addition to, or instead of, marshes.
As noted above, tidal and perennial freshwater marshes can be established on
almost any soil type. Soil depth is also an insignicant factor in many instances.
Areas with indurated soil layers at the surface have established perennial marsh
within three months of inundation as have areas of cobble (Zentner and Zentner,
1989). Nevertheless, wetland vegetation establishment is easier where signicant
levels of organic material are present to increase soil water retention capacity. In

2001 CRC Press LLC

several cases, peat or other organic mulches have been added to the substrate and
have increased the growth of perennial marsh species (Brown et al., 1984).
Seasonal marshes generally require a surface horizon of 10 to 45 cm depth and
a soil with some water holding capacity. This is particularly true when root zone
saturation is infrequent. However, if the soil is extremely permeable, seasonal
marshes can still be established where water levels are periodically within 15 to
45 cm of the soil surface. Generally, these conditions must exist for two weeks per
month during the growing season. Seasonal marshes can even be established on
cobble but to a lesser extent than perennial marshes.
Wet meadows are greatly affected by soil type. Typically, wet meadows occur
on clay or clay loam soil which is saturated for 4 to 8 weeks in an average year.
Generally, inundation is infrequent but may be long-standing when it does occur
due to the dense nature of the soil. Soil depth may also be important for many of
the wet meadow species. Some rushes, for example, have a root depth to 1.8 m.
Riparian woodlands may establish on a broad array of substrates, but, as with
marshes, wetter vegetation associations are less affected by soil type than drier
vegetation associations. Accordingly, low-terrace woodland species may establish
on thin cobble layers above mud soils, a useful technique for stabilizing rock weirs
in wetlands. However, mid- and high-terrace woodland species require a greater
depth of permeable soil as noted above.
In some instances, soil analyses of a potential construction site may show that
wetland establishment is not feasible under natural conditions. Godley and Callahan
(1984) document the construction of marsh and riparian woodlands in sandhills of
Florida using a combination of a clay liner and organic soils to retain water. Pond
wetlands with marsh and woodland components have been constructed in the xeric
foothills of central California in cobble piles with extreme permeability using a mixture
of clay and bentonite to retain water (Zentner and Zentner, 1990). Despite the apparent
success of these examples, all sites must be examined with an understanding that
wetland construction on such sites may best be conducted elsewhere. One of the
primary functional objectives of any ecological construction is to minimize or elimi-
nate maintenance after an initial establishment period. Projects that depend on con-
tinual maintenance are at best unnatural, and often unsuccessful in the long term.

Vegetation

At its most basic, plant ecology is the study of plants and plant associations and
the relationship of plants and plant associations to various edaphic and landscape
factors. Because wetland construction seeks to place a specic vegetation association
in a specic location, it is basically applied plant ecology. Plant ecology encompasses
an extremely broad range of subjects. It can be argued that a multitude of factors
affect the landscape position of a plant or vegetation association and, therefore, affect
construction design. Primary among these factors are soil and hydrology. Other
factors having a signicant effect on the establishment and persistence of the TVA
are plant succession, planting design, and ruderal invasion.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Succession

Succession refers to the changes that a vegetation association may go through

in response to autogenic or allogenic factors. Two forms of succession are recog-
nized: phase and type. Phase succession is said to occur when the soil and hydrology
conditions do not change, but the vegetation association changes, usually from a
seral to a mature stage. Generally, most vegetation associations have seral and mature
phases. The variation between seral and mature phases of marshes is relatively
noticeable. Typically, readily seeded species such as cattails dominate the seral stage
of a perennial marsh while species more adapted to vegetative propagation dominate
the mature phase. Seed viability for these mature marsh species is often low or
noncompetitive on bare ground compared with the more adventitious species. As
such, plug planting may be the only practicable means of assuring growth of the
mature phase during the early years of a construction project. Conversely, identifying
the seral stage species of the TVA allows the ecologist the option of not planting
these species but instead simply ensuring a seed source. Understanding this phase
of the TVA is important and is best accomplished through observation of template
sites or experimental plots.
Seral and mature stages of woodland vegetation associations are often extremely
difcult to identify. Successional models for woodlands suggest that the low-terrace
woodland association is the seral stage for the drier vegetation associations. This
may be due to the historic predominance of autogenic succession in woodlands that
once assured episodic or periodic pulses of sediment through the system. Once these
successional forces have been eliminated through ood control, relatively static
vegetation associations may result. However, phase succession is still observable in
the response of species to canopy openings and, in the propagule stage, to varying
degrees of light intensity. Species that do well in full sun when planted in the eld
or in nursery conditions generally represent the seral stage of the TVA. Conversely,
species that require some shade typically comprise the mature stage. A common
problem in woodland construction involves the planting of a full complement of
woodland species in a newly constructed site, that is, a site exposed to full sun,
without consideration of the successional status of each species.
Type succession is said to occur when the soil, hydrology, and vegetation asso-
ciation change. Classical models of succession provide for the eventual disappear-
ance of a freshwater wetland as substrate surface elevations increase due to peat or
sediment buildup and its replacement by an upland forest community (Clements,
1934). Similarly, riparian woodlands would shift from the low-terrace stage through
the high-terrace stage and into an upland woodland or forest. More recent work
suggests that succession in many wetlands is a combination of autogenic forces such
as peat buildup, which direct it in a linear, Clementsian development pattern, and
allogenic forces that may disrupt or reverse this pattern. To some extent, allogenic
forces are more familiar to wetland scientists and are revealed by relatively persistent
zonation which when disturbed exhibits a predictable series of changes (Mitsch and
Gosselink, 1986).
In wetland construction design, succession and the external forces that often
seem to control wetland change are both important parameters. Succession in

2001 CRC Press LLC

wetlands often follows the classical autogenic model. Under more or less natural
conditions, riparian woodlands become isolated from waterways, or sediment
buildup provides for drier conditions, and the wetter association is gradually (or
rapidly in some cases) replaced with a less hydric association (McBride and
Strahan, 1984). Similarly, perennial marshes may gradually increase in surface
elevation to become seasonal marshes or wet meadows. However, the allogenic
model also often holds true. Marshes may not transition through woodlands. For
example, soil conditions adverse to woodlands, especially duripans or heavy clay
layers, favor dense mats of marsh plants. The construction design should also be
sensitive to those forces that may be periodic or episodic such as beavers, oods,
res, or debris ows.
Cultural factors are also increasingly important in succession. When oods are
controlled and the waterway form remains constant, or sediment inputs have other-
wise been signicantly reduced, wetland associations may remain in place without
succeeding to more xeric associations. For example, Klimas (1989) found that high-
terrace, oak-dominated riparian woodlands were signicantly underrepresented in
the lower Mississippi River valley compared to the more mesic woodland associa-
tions. Typically, riparian woodland associations vary in seed size and weight in direct
relationship to their successional stage and location relative to seasonal low water
levels. Low-terrace woodland species have the lightest seeds and are the rst of the
woodland vegetation associations to establish, while the high-terrace species have
heavy seeds and are a much later successional stage. Klimas theorized that levees
acted as barriers to the dispersal of the heavier seeds, which were not transported
by ood waters as easily as the lighter seeds. Similarly, aggregate-rich lands adjacent
to the San Joaquin River, CA, were mined over an 80-year period resulting in a
series of ponds supported by groundwater in a matrix soil of gravely loam. The soils
are very permeable and little to no ooding occurs. A low-terrace willow-cottonwood
association, a typical early sere, dominates all the ponds regardless of age (Zentner
and Zentner, 1989). Without this broad understanding, a designer reviewing the
woodland stands in both regions would tend to underrepresent the upper elevation
woodlands (dominated by oaks in both cases) in the planting plan, thereby mimicking
an altered vegetation association. The construction design must analyze which set
of conditions will govern the construction site and then plan for these accordingly.

Planting Design

If a site is ideally suited to a particular type of habitat improvement, the decision

of whether or not to install plants may present itself. Suitable tidal freshwater sites
can rapidly become vegetated in as little as six months (Broome, 1990). On the
north-central Gulf Coast, two general types of marsh habitat improvement projects
are common. The rst is the use of dredged material which may be conned by
temporary or permanent dikes. Alternatively, dredged material may be deposited
unrestricted in open water. Such projects are rarely or only experimentally planted
and are usually allowed to vegetate naturally. The second less common approach to
unplanted marsh construction is diversion of river ow. This process provides sub-
strate and the introduction of fresh water counteracts the effects of saltwater intrusion

2001 CRC Press LLC

and rising sea level. Again, natural colonization is allowed to occur in projects of
this type (Chabrek, 1990).
The major benet of natural colonization is the automatic use of local gene
stock. However, the time required for natural colonization varies considerably.
Good plant establishment can occur within several months in freshwater tidal
wetlands but may require several years in more saline conditions (Shisler, 1990).
The presence of an adequate seed or propagule source should be veried if natural
colonization is anticipated.
Another option is the use of wetland soils salvaged from another site. The topsoil
(sometimes referred to as mulch) removed from a wetland scheduled for destruction
can be stockpiled and later used as a top layer in a wetland improvement project.
The effectiveness of this soil as a seed bank depends on the plant species present
(exotics and nuisance species may be excessive) and the viability of the seeds. The
latter depends on the species, the length of time the topsoil has been stockpiled, and
the conditions under which the topsoil was stockpiled. This technique is most
effective if the soil is in place at the beginning of the growing season.
Salvaged soils appear to be most useful for construction of seasonal marshes,
probably due to their relatively high species diversity. At least 20 to 25 cm of soil
and plants should be transplanted into the seasonal marsh zone and immediately
supplied with the appropriate hydrologic regime.

Plant Selection

If planting is elected, the species selected will depend on the type of wetland
desired. In Florida, one or two species are commonly used for coastal marsh habitat
projects with the emphasis on smooth cordgrass. However, with the increasing
emphasis on wetland function, complex plantings of multiple species may become
more common. For regional guidelines on plant species selection, refer to the reviews
in Kusler and Kentula (1989). Crewz and Lewis (1991) provide specic guidelines
for species in Florida.
As suggested above, construction of a freshwater perennial marsh in a riparian
situation may require only inow water and at least a thin, preferably organic, soil
layer. A more complex task is ensuring that the marsh is not overwhelmed by weedy
species such as cattails. Planting marsh species representative of the mature perennial
marsh in the proposed establishment zone is cost-effective and provides for rapid
establishment of a diverse ora. Marsh species should be salvaged in the form of
plugs from nearby sites to supplement on-site salvage.
Wet meadows may be established using common agricultural practices such as
preparation of the seed bed and sowing of seed, or direct planting of small, container
species (plugs) into unamended soil. Seed bed preparation (outside of the necessary
hydrologic modications) will consist of weed removal, disking or otherwise culti-
vating the soil, seeding, and harrowing to cover the seed. For species that do not
produce highly viable seed, plugging rooted plants or hydromulching with stolons
should be considered.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Similarly, although it is often neglected in forested wetland construction work,
the herb stratum is an important component of the riparian woodland. One to two
month old plugs of native species should be planted at one to two plugs per square
meter. Additionally, spreading detritus from an existing forest oor may be very
helpful as is planting stock inoculated with the appropriate mycorrhizal fungi.

Stock Selection

The species to be planted and the form of the propagule need to be specied.
Depending on the species and the location, seeds, seedlings, vegetative shoots, or
transplants may be the most desirable planting unit. In the case of mangroves,
propagules are recommended for red mangroves, but seedlings of black and white
mangroves are recommended. Smooth cordgrass can be grown from seed but not
throughout its range. However, plugs and bare-root culms are easily transplanted,
and nursery-grown units from eld-harvested stock are easy to cultivate, handle, and
install. Seedlings grown from seeds of cordgrass and black needlerush are used in
the southeast (Broome, 1990), although transplants of black needlerush are generally
unsuccessful. Saltgrass can be grown from transplants, rhizomes, seeds, or plugs.
In general, plants grown locally should be used because adaptations to local
conditions may create ecotypes. This is especially important with regard to species
with wide geographic ranges such as smooth cordgrass.

Planting Density

Installation on 1-m centers is the standard for most coastal marsh, mangrove,
and seagrass restoration projects. However, this is probably not a realistic speci-
cation. Naturally colonizing species, mangroves for example, tend to initially occur
at much higher initial densities. Density decreases over time, with differential sur-
vival of the hardiest plants. Crewz and Lewis (1991) recommend 25-cm centers for
red mangrove propagules and 50-cm centers for 1-year-old seedlings. As increasing
planting density also increases the cost of a project, there should be a distinction
made for mitigation vs. restoration. The importance of obtaining functional equiv-
alency in mitigation should require higher planting density, while restoration can be
more economical, relying on natural colonization and a longer period of time allowed
to achieve stated objectives. Planting density should be determined according to the
desired rate of plant coverage which should be rapid in the case of mitigation for
short-term wetland losses. The size of the site may also affect planting density
because large sites are often planted at a lower density than a smaller one of the
same wetland type, simply for reasons of economics.
Reviews of riparian woodland plantings have found average densities of mature
stands to vary from 200 to 300 trees per hectare, roughly equivalent to plantings on
2.5- to 3-m centers. Under natural conditions of course, the initial establishment rate
is often much greater, especially for the low-terrace woodland species. A sparser
planting rate assumes some maintenance or other care in planting that will result in
a signicantly higher survival rate than under natural conditions.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Weed Control

Weeds are nonnative, adventitious plants that replace desired components of the
TVA. The term nonnative is used here to describe a species that occurs outside its
historic range or landscape position. Weeds include species such as common reed
(Phragmites communis), which has replaced native species in the New Jersey Mead-
owlands, or melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), which has invaded south Florida
wetlands. Weeds do not include native species, such as cattails, whose growth and
spread are promoted by disturbance but which are typically the natural, seral phase
of a TVA.
In some instances, weed control or elimination can be the sole action taken in
a wetland construction project. The spread of adventitious nonnatives throughout
the environment threatens many native vegetation associations. However, simply
eliminating the exotics will not sufce to restore a TVA. Weed management should
identify and address the conditions that allowed or encouraged the exotics to become
established, remove the exotic, replace the exotic with the appropriate native plant,
and maintain the TVA such that further opportunities for the exotic to become re-
established are limited. For example, a noxious pest in California, bristly ox-tongue
(Picris echiodes) has very light seed that does well in heavily grazed, dense, annual
grasslands. Grazing leaves small openings in the turf that allow the plant to germi-
nate. Mulching bare soil or ensuring a dense carpet of native groundcover, and then
reducing soil disturbance, can effectively eliminate this species.

Cultural Issues

Mosquitoes

Marshes and mosquitoes, as well as the problems caused by mosquitoes, have

been synonymous for millennia. The increase in wetland construction projects has
been a cause of some alarm for mosquito abatement ofcials. Mosquito abatement
ofcials will eventually modify marshes that generate mosquitoes that act as vectors
for diseases or that annoy nearby residents. Mosquito abatement ofcials operate
under a public health and safety mandate and are generally immune to wetland
protection regulations. Mosquito abatement ofcials are, therefore, particularly
interested in inuencing wetland construction design so that postconstruction con-
trol is unnecessary.
Mosquitoes have relatively short growth periods (generally 20 to 30 days) and
can y 2 to 3 km. Those mosquitoes that bite people do not breed in turbid waters,
in waters that are too cold or hot, or rapidly owing waters. Also, insect and sh
predators can signicantly reduce mosquito populations. Generally, optimal condi-
tions for mosquitoes consist of well-vegetated, shallow (less than 20 cm) still water
that is isolated from deeper water that would contain predators.
Wetlands can be designed to limit mosquito production (Figure 8). Wet meadow
and seasonal marsh areas can be designed to dry by the onset of warm weather. This
can be accomplished using the basin model described above to compare evapotrans-
piration rates with the hydrologic requirements of the TVAs to dene weir height.

2001 CRC Press LLC

This, in turn, determines the water depth. Perennial marshes can be designed as a
series of isolated stands adjacent to open water areas that contain mosquito predators.
Ponded water areas would include a slide-gated culvert to allow drainage and
maintenance of the site should a major outbreak occur. In general, designs should
include signicant amounts of wet meadow, seasonal marsh, and open water habitat
but limited perennial marsh. Large expanses of perennial marsh, as are created for
duck clubs, generally also need active annual drainage and intensive management
to limit mosquito production if they are near residential areas.

Wet Meadow
Seasonal Marsh
Perennial Marsh
Open Water

Berm/Dam

Winter Water Level Berm/Dam

Summer Water Level Slide Gate

SM OW KEY
KEY:
Wet Medow (WM)
WM PM Seasonal Marsh (SM)
Perennial Marsh (PM)
Open Water (OW)

Figure 8 Mosquito production can be limited by designing wet meadow and seasonal marsh
areas to periodically dry out, by limiting perennial marsh, and by providing a
permanent open water refuge for mosquito predators.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Water Quality

Untreated stormwater from urban areas is likely to contain pollutants, especially

metals, in such concentrations that water quality objectives are exceeded in down-
stream receiving waters. Many, though not all, pollutants contained in urban runoff
are sediment associated. Controls to remove sediments, such as settling or inltration
basins and ltration devices, are recommended in design manuals as the most
practical manner to control discharges of pollutants in urban runoff (Stahre and
Urbonas, 1989). Settling basins should be designed to retain a specic level of storm
event in the basin for a 24- to 48-h period. Storms between the mean annual and
10year storm levels are often used to dene the basin size. Inltration basins should
be underlain by a soil that allows percolation at a rate sufcient to trap sediments
in the interstitial area for the same storm level. Inow structures for these basins
should be designed so that erosion and short circuiting through the basin are mini-
mized. Outow structures should be dual low ow and high ow, allowing the
passage of extreme events while ensuring that rst ush waters receive the extended
detention or inltration time needed to allow settling. Low ow structures used in
these basins should include trash racks to prevent clogging.

IMPLEMENTATION

The project designer and the contractors should meet and agree upon a specic
order of operations and responsibilities prior to beginning any construction project.
The order of operations set forth in Table 4 is believed to be the most efcient
method of constructing a woodland or marsh project. However, changes in the order
of operations may be necessary to allow for weather conditions or other factors. It
is imperative that the constructed wetlands, as well as any wetlands to be preserved,
are not disturbed by construction activities. This includes using wetlands as right of
ways to transport equipment or as equipment storage areas. Communication and co-
ordination between wetland construction operations and any other construction oper-
ations are essential. Access, turning on or off utilities, stockpiling materials on project
sites, or any situation that might affect either operation should be resolved in advance.

Table 4 Recommended Sequence of Construction Events for

Wetlands Construction
Install protective agging and stakes to preserve or salvage areas
Remove all invasive exotic plants and on-site garbage
Salvage all specied plants
Grade construction site to specications
Dispose of excavated materials at designated ll sites
Prepare woodland planting basins, seed beds, and otherplanting areas
Install water supply or irrigation system and test
Plant in designated zones
Provide protection of construction area
Prepare as-builts and construction report

2001 CRC Press LLC

 An Ecological Monitor (EM) should be designated to ensure that the wetland is
constructed in accordance with the approved construction plan. The EM should be
responsible for certifying that the project has been built in accordance with the
approved construction plan and permits, and should monitor all operations occurring
in the wetland areas. The EM should also attend any preconstruction conferences
and meetings during construction which are pertinent to the wetland.
Among the factors that expedite project implementation is obtaining all necessary
permits issued prior to scheduled site preparation and planting. There can be several
regulatory agencies involved in the wetland construction project and the specic
requirements of each must be met. These obligations typically include assurance
that nearby habitats will not be disturbed and provision of means to control siltation
during construction.
The planting schedule needs to be coordinated with plant availability, regardless
of whether plants are eld-collected or nursery-grown. This also needs to be sched-
uled for the optimal time of the year for planting the species involved. Construction
and nal grading should take place well in advance of the optimum planting dates
because several weeks are required for the settling of ll material (Broome, 1990).
Generally, planting should occur when temperature, rainfall, and salinity are mod-
erate. For example, in the southeast, planting should occur between the rst of April
and mid-June (Broome, 1990). In central and south Florida, this period can be
extended to mid-March through September. Predicted tides and other hydrologic
conditions should be checked to avoid excessively high or low water conditions.
Construction should also be timed to avoid disturbance to seasonally nesting or
migratory wildlife.

Construction Sequencing

Construction should proceed in an orderly sequence for most projects (Table 4).
This sequence begins with the installation of protective agging for any areas to be
preserved and includes removing invasive species, salvaging desired species, grad-
ing, planting, and fencing. Production of as-built plans is the nal operation. Con-
struction of a water supply may be necessary some instances.

Protective Flagging

All existing habitats that will remain undisturbed, those which will be salvaged
within the general work area, and all travel ways should be staked and agged prior
to any grading activities. Flagging should be highly visible and replaced as necessary
so as to be continuously in place during construction activities. Stakes should be at
least 1 m tall and painted an easily observable color such as uorescent orange.
Flagging should extend around the protected area perimeters or along their entire
lengths to prevent any unwanted intrusions or damage. Accidentally damaged plants
or areas should be repaired. All fencing and agging should be removed at the end
of the construction project.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Weed Removal

Mowing or scraping requirements for weed removal will vary from site to site
depending on the amount and type of weeds and the amount of grading. Typically,
areas of noxious weeds should be excavated and the infested soil deposited else-
where. Alternatively, the weeds should be disked, watered to encourage seed growth,
and disked again. The latter should be repeated until weed growth is extremely
sparse. Chemical controls may also be used. Areas with little or no grading will
require at least a thorough mowing so that debris will not hamper construction. A
ail-type mower should be used and all debris thoroughly mulched.

Salvaging

All appropriate plants and soil on site should be salvaged for replanting. Sal-
vaging of wetland soil, and hence the seed bank, can be extremely important for
construction success. Dunn and Best (1983) found that a representation of plants
from all successional stages may only occur where a seed bank has been placed in
the marsh. Erwin et al. (1985) found much higher species richness and cover in
marshes created with salvaged topsoil than with subsoil. However, seeds of woody
species may be absent or underrepresented in seed banks (Leck 1989). The collection
and broadcasting of woody seeds or the planting of propagules can effect timely
development of riparian woodland associations.
Salvaged plants should be kept in the shade and watered if excavation has not
proceeded to the point where they can be planted immediately (within 48 h of
excavation). The viability of salvaged plants declines signicantly after 45 days.
Additionally, marsh plants may be salvaged from selected locations outside the
project site. Salvaging should occur manually or with a trenching or similar narrow-
bucket backhoe, and should remove no more than 20 percent of any one stand.

Grading

Studies of wetland construction projects completed between 1960 and 1980 show
that improper grading and grading management are two of the most important factors
contributing to failure (Garbisch, 1977; Zentner, 1989). The EM is most useful
during this stage and will often be required to make quick decisions when unantic-
ipated issues develop. For example, while excavating a basin for wetland construction
in Folsom, CA, the EM noticed a slightly discolored soil area. The discoloration
proved to be an unobserved sand lens which, if left untreated, would have resulted
in complete drainage of the proposed marsh after inundation. Similarly, large organic
debris may be encountered during excavation and should be incorporated by the EM
into the project. The EM should recognize that few preconstruction soil surveys are
sufcient to precisely dene subsurface conditions.
Grading requirements are dened almost entirely by measurement of elevation
change. These measurements require reference to established benchmarks. Nearby
structures may have recorded elevations that can be obtained from local government
agencies. At least two benchmarks should be used when establishing a site-reference

2001 CRC Press LLC

elevation. As an alternative, local plant populations can be used as a guide to
proper elevations. Juveniles or seedlings of the desired species provide the most
accurate information because they are more sensitive to elevation differences than
adult specimens.
The site should be surveyed after grading and prior to plant installation to ensure
that the specied characteristics have been attained. Topographic surveys should be
completed and reviewed before construction equipment is removed from the site,
so that slope and elevation can be efciently adjusted. Shisler (1990) recommends
preparing a bathymetric or topographic contour map on 15 cm (0.5 ft) contours after
ll has settled but prior to planting. The map also provides a base for as built surveys
and monitoring efforts. If the site has been lled or excavated, sufcient time for
the substrate to settle should be allowed prior to determining and adjusting nal
elevations. This is especially important for tidal sites. The site may be susceptible
to ponding and resuspension (turbidity), and the substrate will not provide adequate
support to young plants, if planting occurs too soon after earthwork.

Planting

As noted previously, plant material may be installed as container stock, bare root
seedlings, cuttings, canes, plugs, or seed. The rst four are typical for woodland
plantings, plugs are most often used in marsh projects, while seed is common for
both woodland and marsh.
Container plants generally range in size from small seedlings to 3.75 l (1 gal)
or similar-sized stock. Smaller stock is less expensive to grow and plant while larger
material can provide an immediate presence to increase buffer capabilities and
aesthetics. Wetland or wetland buffer conditions are rarely as protected as nurseries,
and larger stock will require additional care during the rst year after planting to
reach its potential. All plant material used should be collected from within the
immediate region. Considerations as to the proximity of the gene pools and planted
species vary greatly from one plant species to another. Plant material should be free
from disease, insects, and weeds, not be rootbound, and identied correctly as to
genus and species. All plant species and quantities should correspond to the planting
plan and should be inspected prior to planting.
Container plants should be collected, propagated, and grown for at least one
growing season prior to planting. Stock should be planted in a hole twice as deep
and wide as the root ball (Figure 9). The hole should be backlled with good quality
soil so that the root collar of the plant is level with the surrounding soil level. Slow-
release fertilizer may be added to each planting hole prior to planting the seedling.
A water-conserving polymer may also be useful in arid regions. The root ball should
be covered with at least 1 cm of soil to prevent a wicking effect from drying out of
the root ball. In many irrigated cases, construction of a basin will help hold water
near the plant and ensure adequate irrigation. The basin typically consists of a 0.6 m
diameter (or larger) water ring 5 cm deep with a surrounding berm 5 cm above grade
centered around the plant. Shredded bark or similar mulch should be placed on
watering basins to a depth of 5 cm making sure not to cover the crown of the rootball.
A weed mat may be used to further reduce weed growth but should then be covered

2001 CRC Press LLC

with mulch to prevent overheating of the near-surface soil. Weed mats generally
reduce weed growth but increase construction costs signicantly. In addition, the
weed mats trap moisture and facilitate fungal growth that can lead to reduced plant
viability. Where planting basins are eroded, dirt can settle on top of the weed mat
and form a substrate for weed growth. When drip irrigation is used, a plant emitter
should be placed directly on top of the root ball. The plant should be watered
thoroughly after installation and checked 2 to 3 days later for settling and stress.

Figure 9 Survival of planted stock can be maximized through careful attention to planting,
watering, and fertilizing.

Most container plants will benet from an augured planting hole when riparian
woodland planting occurs in low permeability soils. For example, 3.75 I propagules
with deep tap roots generally require holes augured to a depth of 1.2 m using a
23 cm diameter auger. Holes should be responsive to the plant form. For example,
deep tap root species will use deeper and narrower holes than shallow-rooted species.

2001 CRC Press LLC

All holes should be backlled by the end of the same workday and should be
completely saturated to promote settling of excavated soil.
Bare-root seedlings have been a staple of the fruit tree industry for some time
and are now commonplace in constructed wetlands. Bare-root seedlings are essen-
tially large container stock without the containers. Instructions for container stock
are applicable to bare-root material. Special care should be taken that the material
is planted in a hole deep enough and wide enough to prevent recurving or J-rooting
the tap root.
The use of dormant cuttings in low-terrace woodland construction is well-
recognized. Cuttings should be at least 2 to 5 cm in diameter and 1 m in length,
although these dimensions will vary somewhat by region. At one extreme, construc-
tion work in the xeric southwest may involve auguring deep beneath the surface and
the planting of poles up to 6 m long in attempts to reach subsurface water (Anderson
et al., 1984). At the other extreme, planting the same species in the more mesic
Pacic Northwest, which is characterized by less permeable soil, may require a pole
cutting 30 cm in length or less. All cuttings should be taken from young wood, be
free of disease, 2/3 of the cutting should be pounded into the ground, and the soil
should be tamped around the cutting. The top should be cut off at a 45 degree angle
to facilitate growth. Cuttings must be kept moist and either can be planted the same
day they were cut or left in water for 4 to 5 days to harden off. Cuttings are probably
the most inexpensive way to quickly establish riparian woodland cover.
Canes are effective planting stock for many vines. They resemble cuttings in
that they should be nearly dormant and leaess, 60 to 75 cm long, and in healthy
condition. A shallow trench 3/4 of the cane length should be made and the cane laid
in the trench and largely covered with one end exposed above the soil. The trenches
should be oriented on the contour, that is, perpendicular to the slope.
Plugs are small clumps of herbaceous plant material and associated soil. Plugs
are easiest to salvage with backhoes and excavators, although they are also grown
in containers. Each salvaged plug should be about 30 by 30 cm, and should retain
as much substrate as possible (at least 10 to 20 cm deep). Containerized plugs are
generally much smaller, 3 cm across and 6 to 8 cm deep. Plugs should be planted
so that the bases of the stems are level with the ground surface in inundated to
saturated soil.
All seed used on the site should be certied as to germination percentage and
should be weed and disease free. Seeding rates and ratios should follow specica-
tions developed by the grower. The EM should inspect all seed, soil preparation,
calibration ratios, and phases of seeding operations. Specic soil preparation and
seeding techniques should be adopted for each site and outlined in each sites
planting plan. Generally, seeding will work best when it follows local agricultural
practices. Extensive seed bed preparation (disking, cross-disking, harrowing, and
cultipacking) may not be applicable on all sites but will provide good germination
at relatively low cost. Hydroseeding or hydromulching with stolons may be appli-
cable where dense plantings or site conditions make tractor or hand seeding and
seedbed preparation impracticable. Hydroseeding is more costly and good access
to the planting site is required.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The optimal time for seeding operations is during the dormant period. Seed
broadcast early in the dormant season generally results in greater seed emergence
than seed broadcast later in the dormant season. In arid regions, one key to success
is to establish healthy, growing roots prior to the summer drought, so that the roots
may follow the subsurface moisture level downward through the soil as summer
progresses.
The actual means of plant installation depends on the habitat type, the planting
units used, and the substrate. On intertidal sandy substrates, mechanical means (e.g.,
tobacco planter pulled by a tractor) can be used, while on soft or muddy substrates,
planting must often be conducted by hand working off of wooden mats or rafts.
Transplanted material should be removed from the donor site so conditions
conducive to invasion by exotics or attractive to potentially destructive fauna are not
created. For example, large open patches are attractive to Canada geese and invite
root predation by avian and mammal populations (Shisler, 1990).
The use of fertilizer varies by species. The use of a slow-release fertilizer for
riparian woodlands has been noted above. The effects of fertilizer on mangroves are
unclear, but fertilizer has been shown to accelerate the growth of cordgrass (Broome,
1990). Fertilizer and lime can be used to provide short-term adjustments to substrate
nutrient status and pH. Although plants may respond positively to small amounts of
fertilizer at planting, accommodation to predominant long-term substrate conditions
is probably desirable (Crewz and Lewis, 1991). When used, a time-release fertilizer
incorporated into the substrate at the time of planting is recommended. Broadcasting
fertilizer over the site is expensive, often increases weed cover, and only delays the
achievement of nutritional equilibrium.
Some coastal projects will require temporary protection of newly installed plants
from excessive wave action during a preliminary establishment period. This can be
accomplished by using oating tire breakwaters, earthen dikes, sandbags, and erosion
control fabric. Although unattractive, oating tire breakwaters have the advantage
of being reusable once plant establishment has occurred. The Riley encased meth-
odology (Riley et al., 1999) is a promising technique for establishing mangroves in
moderate to high energy environments. The method places seedlings in slotted PVC
pipes inserted into the substrate in the intertidal zone.

Water Supply

Construction and placement of water control structures are relatively simple

provided certain issues are resolved. First, review the placement of the structure prior
to emplacement. Design analyses are important, and care should be taken to ensure
that the location and design make sense in the eld before blindly following con-
struction plans. Second, ensure that the structure is rmly sealed into the surrounding
soil. Water will tend to erode soil around the structure if proper contact is not provided.
Third, check the structure during daily, seasonal, and episodic ows. Finally, remem-
ber that any structure placed in a waterway will require continual maintenance. Plan
ahead to provide the appropriate nancing and maintenance reminders.
Enclosed supply systems (drip irrigation) may be required during the initial
establishment period to assure the success of new plantings. Spray irrigation is not

2001 CRC Press LLC

recommended owing to its propensity to encourage weeds. Systems connected to a
potable water supply will require a reduced pressure backow assembly inspected
and tested by a certied backow technician. Nonpotable supplies will require
ltering, usually several large lters in sequence. All irrigation lines should include
a tracer line (#14 UF direct burial for easy identication of line location). Generally,
drip irrigation systems consist of a main line of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubing 5
to 15 cm in diameter running to valves that control the ow. From the valves,
secondary or PVC lateral lines, 2.5 to 5 cm in diameter, transport water to local
points where polyethylene (poly) tubing (2.5 cm in diameter) provides water directly
to the plants. Before passing into the poly tubing, all water should be ltered and
the pressure reduced. Smaller poly tubing, known as spaghetti tubing, may be hooked
into the larger poly lines for further movement of water. However, spaghetti tubing
is difcult to maintain and not recommended for most construction projects.
In buffer strips along streets and other visible areas, irrigation should be below
grade. In more secluded areas, mainlines and valves should be below grade, but poly
lines may be installed above grade. The latter reduces trenching costs and eases
maintenance. Jute hooks or 15 cm staples should be used to secure poly tubing in
place. Staples should be placed every 3 m on a run and 30 cm on either side of each
planting. All lines should be thoroughly ushed before inserting emitters, and each
planting receives an emitter. Emitters should be placed directly over the root ball
because the density of the root ball and indigenous soil may be quite different.
Pressure testing upon completion of the main line and valves should be required;
lateral lines should be left on for a period of at least 2 h to visually inspect all leaks.
Upon completing the irrigation system, the EM should make a nal walkthrough to
verify the system is operating correctly.

Fencing

All habitat areas adjacent to streets should be separated from the roadways by
a post and cable or similar barrier. In areas where maintenance access for vehicles
is necessary, locking bullards should be installed in accordance with local speci-
cations. Fencing during the construction period may also be necessary.

As-Builts

The EM should be responsible for overseeing preparation of grading, planting,

and irrigation as-builts when the project is completed. The planting of as-builts
should include the location, genus and species, and container size of each propagule.
The EM should also certify that the project has been built in accordance with the
plan and transmit the as-builts and certication to the appropriate parties.

MAINTENANCE

Popular thought would have it that native plants are pre-adapted to the growing
conditions of a site and should not require substantial maintenance to reach maturity.

2001 CRC Press LLC

However, site conditions in the United States and much of the rest of the world
have changed so radically over the past two centuries that site conditions often no
longer reect the conditions under which native species developed. Good examples
are the wet meadows of the Southwest. Prior to European settlement, these meadows
were dominated by perennial graminoids. With the arrival of Europeans came an
invasion of annuals that almost extirpated the native perennials. Over the past 200
years, invading annuals and introduced livestock have succeeded in producing a
substantial seed bed of annuals, formed thick thatch-dominated near-surface con-
ditions, and fostered the growth of small and large mammal populations. These
changes in the western environment have made construction of native meadows
much more difcult than simply clearing a patch of ground and spreading some
seed. Vigorous maintenance efforts must be carried out to keep the annuals from
re-invading the native meadow.
Additionally, construction is not a natural process, but rather it entails articially
inseminating a site with plant material. Under natural conditions, the plants that reach
10 cm are the few survivors of several thousands of seeds in a favorable microsite at
a time when conditions are relatively optimal for their growth. The project proponent
rarely has the luxury to wait or the knowledge to dene these conditions. Conse-
quently, the species to be planted are unlikely to be propagated naturally and may
not even be planted in a site for which they are now adapted. Maintenance activities
will be needed to ensure that the vegetation association develops as a native vegetation
association, without invasion by harmful exotic species.
The array of tasks required for any one project may not match the list provided
in Table 5, but each project is likely to require some form of maintenance. Although
maintenance is required, it should be viewed as a short-term measure, not only owing
to its costs but because long-term maintenance suggests that the TVA is ill-suited
for site conditions. Consequently, effective wetland construction will entail a good
design to ensure the best possible match between the selected species and a site,
and manipulation of the site to improve planting and growth conditions. Mainte-
nance, even intensive maintenance activities, should generally be limited to the rst
three years after the cessation of planting. If a site is not relatively self-sufcient
after this time, either additional construction work will be required or the design
must be reconsidered.

Weed Control

In most cases, careful design and preplanting weed control procedures will
reduce the burden of weed abatement considerably. However, a freshly graded
construction site is a haven for weeds that may be carried in from off site. The
ecologist must make a distinction between ruderal species that are part of natural
succession and those species that will impede development of the TVA. The latter,
particularly nonnative, aggressive species can be addressed using manual or chemical
controls. The ecologist must also ensure that the appropriate native species replaces
the weed, and the conditions that resulted in weed growth will not reoccur.
Manual controls include hand removal of the entire plant or cutting the plant
above ground. Hand removal of the entire weed is labor intensive and is best suited

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 5 Wetland Construction Maintenance is an Essential Step for
Ensuring Project Success
Problem Tools Survey Frequency
Weeds
Annual Manual 1 to 3 times per year
Perennial Chemical
Woody Hand removal
Erosion
Sheet Redirect ow Post-storm and annually
Scour Regrade
Slump replant
Herbivory
Post-planting Screens Once
Grazing
Plant care
Nutrients Fertilizer As needed
Form Staking
Water supply Basin rework
Pest/diseases IPM/spray
Irrigation
Mortality Replacement Monthly
Litter
Trash Patrol Monthly
* Each project should be assessed for the problems listed and appropriate
remediation should be initiated.

for woody plants. The advantage of hand removal is that the area of impact is usually
quite small. Less specic weed control activities can create the type of disturbance
which results in more weed growth. It is often much less expensive to cut the weed
and then spot spray the stump with an herbicide. However, for conditions that militate
against the use of chemical controls, an array of tools are available from suppliers
that can be used to selectively remove even mid-sized trees without disturbing the
adjacent land or plants.
Cutting can include hand-pruning or chopping, weed whips or similar hand-held
but gas-powered tools, and tractor-driven or oating mowers. Selection of a manual
control method will depend on the type and extent of the weed and the project
design. Hand pruning or chopping is labor intensive and costly unless the personnel
consist of volunteers. Prior to selecting this method, the ecologist should personally
weed a specic area for at least 2 h and develop an estimate of the amount of person-
hours required, multiplying this by the cost of the labor. Where weeding will occur
in dense growth, or where only a few plants among many are to be eliminated, this
method is the most productive. Weed whips and similar tools are very useful for
clearing annual or soft perennial growth over large or small areas where tractors
cannot be driven (e.g., slopes, marshes). However, these should not be used near
planted trees and shrubs or aboveground irrigation lines as even an experienced
practitioner can mistakenly girdle a plant or cut a poly line. Mechanical mowers are
the most efcient means of cutting large areas of vegetation. However, they cannot
run on steep slopes (although some have mowing booms that can reach out and cut
limited areas) and require a certain distance between trees and shrubs to be preserved.

2001 CRC Press LLC

These issues should be considered during the design phase. An easily maintained
project is generally subject to less disturbance and may prove to be more successful.
Timing is often crucial in manually controlling weeds, especially annuals.
Because cutting does not remove the root systems, it is generally important to cut
the plant just prior to seed set to maximize the likelihood of complete control. Even
this technique may not always work. Mowing of the annual yellow star thistle
(Centaurea solstitialis) on clay soils just before seed set almost eliminated this
noxious weed on one site. By contrast, mowing of another population on rocky soils
(where this species thrives) resulted in a second owering several weeks later.
Chemical controls are often the least expensive means of eradicating or reducing
weed growth. However, very few chemicals are licensed for use in wetlands and a
licensed technician is often required by local regulations. Further, environmental
conditions (e.g., wind speeds) never seem to be as optimal as required and spraying
often inicts damage outside the target area. Chemical controls include pre-emer-
gents that are applied to the ground prior to the emergence of the weeds in the spring
and post-emergents that kill or stunt plants during their active growth stages. Pre-
emergents are most useful when applied adjacent to newly planted propagules
because they limit the growth of competing weeds. Post-emergent controls are most
useful for broad areas completely dominated by weeds, areas where no plants are
proposed (e.g., rebreaks), or spot-spraying of individual weeds.
Surveys for weed control needs should start at the beginning of the rst growing
season following construction. Weeding frequency will depend on the weed species
and seasonal growth cycles. Annuals may need controls applied as much as three
times in a year, whereas woody plants can generally be removed once per year.

Erosion Control

Erosion control is best effected by good design. However, one of the truisms of
any construction project is that site conditions are not completely predictable. Unseen
channel irregularities, inclusions of different soil types, and similar events will
require modications to the design during construction in order to minimize subse-
quent maintenance efforts.
Erosion in marshes or the channel banks of riparian woodlands often occurs as
sheet erosion, scouring, or slumping. Sheet erosion takes place on relatively at
slopes and generally results in the loss of all or most of the new plantings. This
typically is due to poor seed bed preparation, inadequate root penetration prior to
the storm, a subsurface soil layer that inhibits root growth, or a combination of these
factors. The remedy is to try again. If possible, channel the owing water into a
swale rather than across the slope.
Scouring occurs on moderate to steep slopes where higher velocities rapidly
remove soil to some depth. Scouring is usually the result of modications that have
increased velocities through the site or re-oriented high velocity ows. Remedies
are cause specic, but look for forces that have increased upstream ows or reduced
downstream elevations.
Slumping occurs when the surface soil on a channel bank moves downward as
a relatively intact unit, often because it has been undercut. The movement will take

2001 CRC Press LLC

anything on top of the soil unit with it including plantings or irrigation lines.
Remedies are, again, site specic, but may be corrected by light grading and replant-
ing after the erosive stimulus has been corrected.
It is not unusual for the design to underestimate the ow velocities at specic
points in a channel. Water supply structures, especially those perpendicular to the
channel, can be undermined or the adjacent side slopes eroded. Heavy rock inter-
planted with fast-growing trees may eliminate future erosion when only a few
centimeter of soil are lost between the structure and the soil. More signicant
erosion will require replacing the structure or identifying and rectifying the cause
of the erosion.
Reviewing the project site for erosion should occur immediately after the rst
three typical storms and each time thereafter for storms of greater intensity. Erosion
controls are best applied annually, either immediately following the storm event that
caused the erosion or during the appropriate planting or grading period.

Herbivory

Grazing has been and may be used to manage a TVA. However, the effect of
herbivores on target plants is not always benecial. The most common remedy for
deer, rabbit, or beaver grazing is to provide wire screens around the plants or planting
area. These screens can be relatively costly to provide, adding as much as US $1.00
to the cost of each plant. Consequently, screening most efciently might be applied
after a problem has surfaced. Screens in or adjacent to waterways should be removed
prior to high water levels or oating material will catch in the screen. This may
create enough mass that the screen, debris, and the plant will wash away. Monitoring
for herbivory should occur weekly during the spring of the rst year after planting,
and less frequently thereafter.

Plant Care

Container-grown trees and shrubs in woodland construction sites may be fertil-

ized once in the spring of the rst and second year after planting if nutrient levels
are low on the site. Fertilizer should be dribbled into the basin around the propagule.
Trees may also need to be staked if wind or other forces are warping or bending
the trees unnaturally. To stake a tree, place two 2.5 m pressure-treated stakes, 5 cm
in diameter, 60 cm into the ground, 30 cm on either side of the tree. The tree should
be bound to the stakes using tree tie tape fastened in a gure-eight pattern, 30 cm
below the top of the stake. Basins around propagules should also be maintained to
supply sufcient irrigation water.
Insect or disease infestations are common on habitat construction projects. Gen-
erally, all infestations should be treated using Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
techniques. Plantings of a single species are especially susceptible to massive out-
breaks that are not well treated by IPM, however, and commercial sprays may be
required. Monitoring for these problems should be completed weekly during the
rst year of the project with remedial action taken immediately.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Irrigation System Maintenance

The irrigation system should be checked regularly and frequently (e.g., weekly)
immediately following planting for malfunction and vandalism. All drip lines and
lters should be ushed as needed. Emitters must be checked regularly for malfunc-
tions, position of emitter over root ball, and vandalism. Flushing end caps must also
be checked regularly. In colder climates, backow devices and mainline systems
should be completely drained at the end of the growing season to prevent rupture
due to freezing.
Irrigation for plantings is a temporary tool to help establish the constructed
vegetation association. Water should be decreased every year, and ideally should not
be needed by the fourth year. Caution should be exercised not to create lush plants
that would become dependent on regular watering. Deep watering should be spaced
at the longest time possible before plants show signs of stress. This type of watering
will encourage plant roots to travel downward into the appropriate water zones in
the soil.

Litter Removal

Wetlands are usually depressions in the landscape and seem to collect litter.
Litter can impede the growth of propagules or seedlings and increase the cost of
plant care maintenance efforts. Therefore, each site is thoroughly policed and all
litter and debris removed from the site at least annually. Construction projects that
are near or within residential areas generally collect the most trash. Over 181 kg of
litter was collected from one project in central California in 2 months time, at a cost
of 42 labor h and US $350 in dump fees. Experience suggests that projects in
residential areas will require at least 1 to 2 h per week for litter collection.

General Maintenance Frequency

Most projects will require a walk through by an ecologist or maintenance

technician every 1 to 3 weeks for the rst 1 to 2 years. The precise number of
visits depends on the size of the site, its proximity to disturbance, and the time of
year. Visits reasonably may be required every week for the rst year and twice
monthly for the next 2 years. Smaller sites, for example those less than 4 ha, can
reasonably be visited once every 2 to 3 weeks during the rst year, and monthly
in subsequent years.

Minimizing Maintenance Efforts

Local education can effectively reduce maintenance efforts associated with van-
dalism and litter. Efforts should be aimed at informing neighbors as to the project
goals, values, and needs, and in enlisting their support for the long-term protection
of the site. Conducting a replanting project for local third through sixth graders at
least once every 2 years has proven helpful. Small brochures for each project that
are mailed to local residents can also be benecial. Preparation of a maintenance

2001 CRC Press LLC

manual in the last year of monitoring for long-term maintenance of the project area
also is effective.

RESEARCH NEEDS

Many issues related to the enhancement, restoration, and creation of wetlands

would benet from the conduct of basic and applied research. This is especially true
for coastal wetlands. These include an increased knowledge about species life
requisites. The physical and chemical properties of wetlands, including topography,
soils properties, subsidence rates (which vary locally), and hydraulic circulation, are
often poorly understood. For wetlands designed to improve local water quality,
information is needed on the effects of treatment on other wetland functions.

REFERENCES

Adams, L. W. and Dove, L. E., Wildlife Reserves and Corridors in the Urban Environment.
National Institute for Urban Wildlife, Columbia, MD, 1989.
Anderson, B.W., Disano, J., Brooks, D. L., and Ohmart, R. D., Mortality and growth of
cottonwood on dredge-spoil, in California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation and
Productive Management, Warner, R. E. and Hendrix, K. M., Eds., University of California
Press, Berkeley, 1984.
Broome, S. W., Creation and restoration of tidal wetlands of the southeastern United States,
in Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Kusler, J. A. and
Kentula, M. E., Eds., Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1990, 37.
Brown, M. T., Gross, F., and Higman, J., Studies of a method of wetland reconstruction
following phosphate mining, in Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on
Wetland Restoration and Creation, Webb, F. J., Ed., Hillsborough Community College,
Tampa, FL, 1984.
Brown, R. G. and Stark, J. R., Comparison of ground-water and surface-water interactions
in two wetlands, in Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems of the American West, Mutz, K. M.
and Lee, L .C., Eds., Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland
Scientists, Society of Wetland Scientists, Wilmington, NC, 1987.
Chabrek, R. H., Creation, restoration, and enhancement of marshes of the north central Gulf
Coast, in Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Kusler, J. A. and
Kentula, M. E., Eds., Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1990, 125.
Clark J. R. and Benforado, J., Eds., Wetlands of Bottomland Hardwood Forests, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1981.
Clements, F. E., The relict method of dynamic ecology, Ecology, 2, 39, 1934.
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., and LaRoe, E. T., Classication of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C., 1979.
Crewz, D. W. and Lewis, R. R., An evaluation of historical attempts to establish emergent
vegetation in marine wetlands in Florida, Florida Sea Grant College Technical Paper No.
60, Florida Sea Grant College, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 1991.
Dane, C. W., Succession of aquatic marsh plants in small articial marshes in New York State,
NY Fish Game, 6(1), 57, 1959.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Dickson, R. E., Hosner, J. F., and Hosley, N. A., The effects of four water regimes upon the
growth of four bottomland tree species, For. Sci., 11(3), 299, 1965.
Dunn, W. J. and Best, G. R., Enhancing ecological succession: seed bank survey of some
Florida marshes and role of seed banks in marsh reclamation, in Proceedings of the 1983
Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation, University
of Kentucky, Lexington, 1983.
Erwin, K. L., Best, G. R., Dunn, W. J., and Wallace, P. M., Marsh and forested wetland
reclamation of a central Florida phosphate mine, Wetlands, 4, 87, 1985.
Faeth, S. H. and Kane, T. C., Urban biogeography: city parks as islands for Diptera and
Coleoptera, Oecologia, 32, 127, 1978.
Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G., Habitat patch connectivity and population survival, Ecology, 66,
1762, 1985.
Garbisch, E. W., Recent and planned marsh establishment work throughout the contiguous
United States: a survey and basic guidelines, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1977.
Garbisch, E. W., Highway and wetlands: compensating wetland losses, Federal Highway
Administration Report No. FHWA-IP-8622, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1986.
Godley, J. S. and Callahan, R. J., Creation of wetlands in a xeric community, in Proceedings
of the 10th Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation, Webb, F. J., Ed.,
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL, 1984.
Harris, R. W., Leiser, A. T., and Fissell, A. T., Plant tolerance to ooding, University of
California at Davis, Department of Environmental Horticulture, Davis, CA, 1975.
Josselyn, M., Zedler, J., and Griswold, T., Wetland mitigation along the Pacic coast of the
United States, in Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science,
Kusler, J. A. and Kentula, M. E., Eds., Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1990, 3.
Klimas, C. V., Limitations on ecosystem function in the forested corridor along the lower
Mississippi River, in Wetlands and River Corridor Management, Kusler, J. A. and
Daly, S., Eds., Proceedings of a symposium presented by the Association of Wetland
Managers, Charleston, SC, July 59, 1989.
Kuenzler, E. J., Mangrove swamp systems, in Coastal Ecosystems of the United States, Vol. I,
Odum, H. T., Copeland, B. J., and McMahan, E. A., Eds., The Conservation Foundation,
Washington, D.C., 1974, 346.
Kusler, J. A. and Kentula, M. E., Eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the
Science, EPA/600/398/0, EPA, Corvallis, OR, 1989.
Larson, J. S., Bedinger, M. S., Bryan, C. F., Brown, S., Huffman, R. T., Miller, E. L., Rhodes,
D. G., and Touchet, B. A., Transition from wetlands to uplands in southeastern bottom-
land hardwood forests, in Wetlands of Bottomland Hardwood Forests, Clark, J. R. and
Benforado, J., Eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1981.
Leck, M. A., Wetland seed banks, in Ecology of Soil Seed Banks, Leck, M. A., Parker, V. T.,
and Simpson, R. L., Eds., Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1989.
Lewis, R. R., Mangrove forests, in Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities,
Lewis, R. R., Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1982, 153.
Lewis, R. R., The restoration and creation of seagrass meadows in the southeastern United
States, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Subtropical Seagrasses of the Southeastern
United States, Durako, M. J., Phillips, R. C., and Lewis, R. R., Eds., Florida Department
of Natural Resources Mar. Res. Pub. No. 42, St. Petersburg, FL, 1987, 174.
Lewis, R. R., Wetlands restoration/creation/enhancement terminology: suggestions for stan-
dardization, in Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Kusler,
J. A. and Kentula, M. E., Eds., Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1990, 417.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Lewis, R. R., Enhancement, restoration, and creation of coastal wetlands, in Applied Wetland
Science and Technology, Kent, D. M., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1994.
MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O., The Theory of Island Biogeography, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ, 1967.
MacClintock, L., Whitcomb, R. F., and Whitcomb, B. L., Evidence for the value of corridors
and the minimization of isolation in preservation of biotic diversity, Am. Birds, 31,
6, 1977.
McBride, J. R. and Strahan, J., Establishment and survival of woody riparian species on gravel
bars of an intermittent stream, Am. Midland Nat., 112(2), 235, 1984.
Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G., Wetlands, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1986.
National Research Council, Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and
Public Policy, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992.
OMeara, T. E., Habitat island effects on the avian community in cypress ponds, Proc. Am.
Conf. SE Assoc. Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 38, 97, 1984.
Payne, N. F., Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of Wetlands, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1992.
Riley, R., Kent, D. M., Salgado, C., and DeBusk, T., The Riley encased methodology for
establishing mangroves, Land Water, May/June, 48, 1999.
Shisler, J. K., Creation and restoration of coastal wetlands of the northeastern United States,
in Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Kusler, J. A. and Kentula,
M. E., Eds., Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1990, 143.
Stahre, P. and Urbonas, B., Stormwater Detention, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.
Tilghman, N. G., Characteristics of urban woodlands affecting breeding bird diversity and
abundance, Land. Urban Plan., 14, 481, 1987.
Tomlinson, P. B., The Botany of Mangroves, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
U.K., 1986.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package: Users Manual, Water
Resources Support Center, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA, 1981.
Wegner, J. F. and Merriam, G., Movements by birds and small mammals between wood and
adjoining farmland habitats, Appl. Ecol., 16, 349, 1979.
Zentner and Zentner, Ball Ranch mitigation program, Report prepared for the Sienna
Corporation, Walnut Creek, CA, 1989.
Zentner and Zentner, Natoma Station monitoring report, Report prepared for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Walnut Creek, CA, 1990.
Zentner and Zentner, Lower Laguna Creek drainage master plan: mitigation program, Report
prepared for Sacramento County, Walnut Creek, CA, 1992.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Rolband, Michael S. et al Wetland Mitigation Banking
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 7

Wetland Mitigation Banking

Michael S. Rolband, Ann Redmond, and Tom Kelsch

CONTENTS

Background
Regulatory Context
The Banking Process
Types of Wetland Mitigation Banks
Perspectives on Mitigation Banking
Ecological Perspective
Regulatory Management Perspective
User Perspective
Economics
Demand for the Product
Service Area
Regulatory Climate
Service Area Size
Mitigation Ratios
Performance Requirements
Monitoring and Maintenance Requirements
Permitting Difculty
Attitudes about Mitigation Alternatives
Regulatory Stability
User Requirements
Competitive Supply of the Product and Product Alternatives
On-Site Opportunity for Wetland Mitigation
Off-Site Opportunities for Wetland Mitigation
Other Wetland Banks
In Lieu Fee Alternatives

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Risk Assessment and Presale of the Product
Revenue Projections
Costs of Mitigation Bank Development
Land Costs
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Long-Term Stewardship
Economic Projections
References

Mitigating the environmental impacts of necessary development actions on wet-

lands and other aquatic resources is a central premise of wetland regulatory pro-
grams. Offsetting losses through the restoration or creation of replacement wetlands
has been promoted as a way to achieve a goal of no net loss of remaining wetland
resources while still permitting unavoidable impacts to occur. As evidenced by recent
studies, however, the effectiveness of on-site compensatory mitigation efforts has
produced mixed results. Success rates range from 27 to 50 percent, due in part to
22 to 34 percent of the mitigation projects never being built (Redmond, 1991;
Gallihugh, 1998; DeWeese, 1994; Brown and Veneman, 1998).
In response to problems associated with individual mitigation efforts, there has
been growing interest in the concept of mitigation banking. Mitigation banking
refers to the restoration, creation, enhancement, and, in certain circumstances, the
preservation of wetlands, for the purpose of compensating for multiple wetland
losses in advance of development actions. It typically involves the consolidation
of small, fragmented wetland mitigation projects into one large contiguous site.
Units of restored, created, enhanced, or preserved wetlands are expressed as credits
which may subsequently be withdrawn to offset debits incurred at a project devel-
opment site.
Mitigation banks provide greater exibility to landowners needing to comply with
mitigation requirements and can have several advantages over individual mitigation
projects. To the advantage of permit applicants, mitigation banks may reduce permit
processing times and provide more cost-effective compensatory mitigation. Most
permit applicants do not wish to become wetland experts, but rather they are simply
seeking authorization to move forward with their development projects. Through the
purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank, these applicants can transfer
the responsibility for providing mitigation to an entity who has the expertise,
resources, and incentive to ensure that the mitigation is ultimately successful.
Mitigation banking also enhances the effectiveness of wetland protection pro-
grams. The environment benets from consolidation of compensatory mitigation
into a single large parcel, or contiguous parcels, that maximize the opportunity to
successfully restore important wetland functions. Establishment of a mitigation bank
often involves nancial resources, planning, and scientic expertise not practicable
to many project-specic compensatory mitigation proposals. Consolidation of
resources can increase the potential for the establishment and long-term management

2001 CRC Press LLC

of successful mitigation. Also, mitigation banking typically ensures that compensa-
tory mitigation is implemented and functioning in advance of project impacts. This
reduces temporal losses of aquatic functions and uncertainty over whether the mit-
igation will be successful in offsetting project impacts.
Finally, consolidation of compensatory mitigation within a mitigation bank
increases the efciency of limited regulatory agency resources. The review and
compliance monitoring of mitigation projects is improved and, thus, agency ability
to ensure the success of efforts to restore, create, or enhance wetlands for mitigation
purposes is improved.

BACKGROUND

The concept of mitigation banking in the United States dates back to the early
1980s when resource agencies, and some in the regulated community, were looking
for ways to mitigate wetland impacts more efciently and effectively. A 1988 U.S.
Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) report proled 13 mitigation banks that were in existence
at the time (Short, 1988). Many of these banks were established by enterprising
individuals who saw the opportunity to establish joint partnerships to protect and
restore priority wetlands using funds from ports, transportation agencies, and others
who needed to offset unavoidable impacts. These early efforts were initiated in the
absence of any federal or state policies on how to establish mitigation banks.
In 1991, in response to a request by Congress, the Corps of Engineers Institute
for Water Resources, in collaboration with the Environmental Law Institute and
others, initiated a comprehensive study of mitigation banking. The purpose of the
study was to determine the potential of mitigation banking for achieving established
wetland goals and to determine the applicability of mitigation banking to the U.S.
Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program. The study included a critical review
and evaluation of existing mitigation banks and an analysis of the economic, policy,
and other institutional issues affecting banking (Reppert, 1992).
The study identied 40 mitigation banks in existence, and another 60 banks that
were under development or being considered for approval. An increase in the devel-
opment of mitigation banks from 1988 to 1992 was the result of state departments
of transportation recognizing the ecological, economic, and administrative benets
of consolidating mitigation efforts. The increase in banks was also instigated in part
because the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efciency Act specically
authorized the use of federal funds for such purposes.
Virtually all of the existing banks identied in the Institute for Water Resources
study were single-user banksbanks established by a public agency or private
company to satisfy their own mitigation needs. Of those banks under development,
however, the survey identied several commercial banks whose intent was to offer
mitigation credits for sale to the general public. Local agencies, private entrepre-
neurs, and joint ventures between government agencies and private entities sponsored
the commercial bank proposals. The Environmental Law Institute in a 1994 study
also noted the trend toward commercial banks.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Another important nding of the mitigation banking study was the need for a
specic policy providing ecological, economic, and legal standards for the estab-
lishment and use of banks. A policy would reduce uncertainty, and in so doing,
encourage further investment. At the federal level, the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rst acknowledged
the potential role for mitigation banks in the Section 404 regulatory program in their
1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). In discussing options for providing com-
pensatory mitigation, the memorandum indicates that use of mitigation banks may
be acceptable where a bank has been approved by the agencies.
In November 1995, the Corps, USEPA, USFWS, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service issued the Federal Guidance
for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks. This policy statement
details the terms and conditions under which the agencies may approve a mitigation
bank for use as compensatory mitigation within the Section 404 regulatory program
and the Swampbuster provisions of the Farm Bill.
Mitigation banking has been endorsed by both the Bush and Clinton adminis-
trations within their comprehensive plans for reforming federal wetland programs.
Moreover, Congress has entertained several legislation proposals to promote the use
of mitigation banks. In 1998, Congress passed a new transportation bill (TEA-21)
that provides further support for the use of mitigation banks to offset wetland impacts
that result from transportation projects.
In addition to the federal policy, approximately 20 states have established, or
are in the process of establishing, policies on mitigation banking. While many of
these policies are generally consistent with the federal policy, each is tailored to the
unique regulatory requirements of state wetland legislation and is responsive to
particular regional conditions.
The interest in establishing mitigation banks appears to be increasing, owing in
part to the release of federal and state policies. In 1994, the Institute for Wetland
Resources identied 46 existing wetland banks in the United States. Only 1 of these
46 was a privately owned bank offering credits to the general public (Environmental
Law Institute, 1994). By 1998, the Corps identied over 200 mitigation banks that
were either approved or under agency review. Of these 200, approximately 40
existing banks and 75 proposed banks were private commercial banks (unpublished
Institute for Wetland Resources survey). Other banking trends include the increased
use of mitigation banks as a watershed management tool and the use of mitigation
credits for other environmental programs such as endangered species and water
quality programs.

REGULATORY CONTEXT

In the United States, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program
to regulate the discharge of dredged or ll material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands. Activities typically regulated under this program include lls
for development, water resource projects such as dams and levees, infrastructure

2001 CRC Press LLC

development including highway and airport construction, and conversions of wet-
lands to uplands for farming or forestry.
In 1990, the Bush Administration implemented the Memorandum of Agreement
between the Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency
Concerning Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines (USEPA, 1990). The Mitigation MOA establishes criteria that
must be satised before a dredge and ll permit can be obtained from the Corps.
First, all practicable steps to avoid wetland impacts must be undertaken by evaluating
less damaging project alternatives. Second, applicants must minimize potential
impacts to wetlands. And nally, all remaining, unavoidable impacts must be offset
through compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation includes the restoration
of historic or degraded wetlands, the enhancement of functions of existing wetlands,
the creation of new wetlands from uplands, or, in exceptional circumstances, the
protection of existing wetlands through acquisition or conservation easement.
As claried in the Mitigation MOA, there is a preference for compensatory
mitigation to be located on-site or as close to the impact site as possible. In this
way, environmental impacts to local ooding, water quality, sh and wildlife habitat,
and other public interests are minimized. In addition, there is a preference that
mitigation be in kind, that is, of the same habitat type as the wetlands to be impacted
to ensure the mitigation provides similar functions and values. These preferences
notwithstanding, the Mitigation MOA also identies mitigation banking as an option
for offsetting unavoidable impacts.
On August 24, 1993, the White House Ofce on Environmental Policy issued a
comprehensive plan for reforming federal wetland programs. Regarding mitigation,
the plan acknowledges that the aforementioned sequential criteria constitute a log-
ical, predictable, and reasonable framework and that mitigation banking is appro-
priate in some circumstances. The plan suggests Congress should endorse banking
as a compensatory mitigation option under the Section 404 regulatory program.
As an outgrowth of the interagency wetland plan, on November 28, 1995, the
Corps, the USEPA, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the USFWS, and
the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a Memorandum to the Field titled
Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al., 1995). The Guidance encourages mitigation
banking as an alternative under the Mitigation MOA. The Guidance states that
mitigation banking is appropriate when compensation for permitted impacts cannot
be achieved at the development site or would not be as environmentally benecial.
Under the terms and conditions of the Guidance, applicants for a Section 404
dredge and ll permit may seek approval from the Corps to compensate for unavoid-
able impacts through the purchase of credits from an operational mitigation bank. In
such circumstances, the Corps may approve use of the mitigation credits where on-
site mitigation is not practicable (i.e., available and capable of being done) or use of
the bank is environmentally preferable to other mitigation options. Moreover, the
agencies have established a general preference for using mitigation bank credits to
offset minor impacts associated with activities authorized under nationwide and other
general permits. Nationwide and general permits are designed to facilitate decision
making on relatively small-scale projects and for impacts typically associated with

2001 CRC Press LLC

linear projects such as road development or utility line installation. Upon authoriza-
tion by the Corps, the legal responsibility for providing mitigation is transferred to
the mitigation bank sponsor through the sale of mitigation credits.
In addition to regulation at the federal level, some states have promulgated
regulations on mitigation banking (Table 1). Regulation by states has the effect of
applying the philosophy and needs of the region to the practice. There are no cases
(as of April 1999) where state law alters the existing federal regulations. In all cases,
mitigation banking is one tool in the mitigation toolbox.

The Banking Process

A bank sponsor, who proposes to establish and operate a mitigation bank, initiates
mitigation banking. Pertinent regulatory agencies form a mitigation bank review
team (MBRT) to work with the bank sponsor. In the United States, the mitigation
bank review team typically consists of an interagency group of federal, state, tribal,
and/or local regulatory and resource agency representatives. The sponsor will discuss
the concept with the MBRT in a pre-application meeting, thereby providing early
feedback for the banker as to whether the concept appears viable. The MBRT
members may also have knowledge of the project area that will assist the banker in
its decision to move forward with the concept. For example, there may be a proposal
to build a welleld proximal to the proposed bank site that would likely affect
hydrologic restoration. Alternatively, there may be a recent or pending designation
of the area as being of signicant conservation interest, to which the bank can then
contribute.
A prospectus describes the proposed project, and in permitting parlance would
constitute a permit application. In the early stages, the prospectus will normally be
presented at a conceptual to moderate level of detail, depending on the region or
project. Once the proposed bank has been deemed appropriate, then the nal details
are developed and provided to the MBRT.
An accepted prospectus becomes a Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). The
MBI is developed by the bank sponsor, in consultation with the MBRT, and sub-
mitted to the MBRT for review and approval. The role of the instrument is to
authorize the mitigation bank project. The instrument includes a preamble describ-
ing the project and sections regarding the establishment, operation, maintenance,
and monitoring of the project. If a Section 404 permit is also required, the permit
is issued as a separate authorization. Because of the importance of these projects,
all MBIs must be publicly noticed. The Institute for Water Resources (1996) has
developed a model MBI.
The MBRT continues to oversee the project once the mitigation bank has been
approved and implemented. The operational phase of the project will continue for
years, until the project has been declared ecologically successful and transitions to
the long-term management phase. During this phase, the sponsor preserves the
project site, completes the physical site work, markets, sells, or uses the credits, and
monitors and maintains the site. The MBRT reviews the monitoring reports, performs
compliance inspections, approves the release of credits, and approves the use of
credits for the offset of permitted impacts. The mitigation bank is then debited an

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 1 Examples of State Wetland Banking Regulations
Mitigation
State Wetland Banking Bankers Use of Credits Mitigation Type Credits Management Land
Florida Department of Envi- Private or public Some advance credits Restoration of Credit assess- Perpetual man- State lands are
ronmental Protection may be available; native, pre-exist- ments are made agement is prohibited for use
and the 5 regional credit releases are ing habitats is using a functional required and as mitigation
water management made with increas- preferred assessment must be endowed banks
districts (Chapter 62- ing function at the methodology prior to the sale of
342, Florida Adminis- site; some credits credits
trative Code) are withheld until
success
Hackensack Interagency Compen- Private or public Possible to obtain Wetland restora- Compensation Endowed perpet- Public or private
Meadowlands satory Wetland Miti- umbrella agreement tion, creation or amounts for the ual management lands may be
District, New Jer- gation Agreement for establishment enhancement offset of impacts is required used
sey (Corps, EPA, NJDEP, and operation of may be used; is decided on a
Hackensack Mead- multiple bank sites; uplands within case by case
owlands commission, some advance use the bank site may basis
NMFS and FWS) of credits may be be assigned
approved; preserva- credit
tion credits available
once site is pre-
served
Louisiana States Coastal Zone Private or public Preservation and Wetland restora- Credits are Public or private
nancial assurances tion, creation, assessed using a lands may be
are required for enhancement, functional used
advance credits; and protection assessment pro-
preservation is for 20 may be used cedure; compen-
yr for marshes and sation amounts
50 yr for forested for the offset of
wetlands impacts is
decided on a
case by case
basis

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 1 (continued) Examples of State Wetland Banking Regulations
Mitigation
State Wetland Banking Bankers Use of Credits Mitigation Type Credits Management Land
Maryland (non- Title 26, Subtitle 23, Private or public Up to 50% of the cred- Based on rations State lands may be
tidal) Code of Maryland its may be available with a 50% used
Regulations for use in the rst two increase in the
(COMAR years after construc- ratio currently
26.23.04.06). Non- tion when the site required of the
tidal Wetlands Mitiga- has been preserved mitigation, uses a
tion Banking Act in perpetuity, con- wetlands bank;
struction is com- ratios vary by
pleted, and the Cowardin Classi-
bonding require- cation and wet-
ments (private banks lands location
only) are met; subse-
quent credit releases
are made based on
demonstrated
increases in function
at the site
Maryland (tidal) Department of the No specic regula-
Environment tions on mitigation
(COMAR banks
26.24.05.01.B(9) in
consultation with
local, state, and fed-
eral agencies
North Carolina Federal guidance; Private Mitigation via pay- No specic state The state regula- Public or private
state provides its ment to a trust fund provisions gov- tions require lands may be
assent by signing the for those permit erning credit adequate, dedi- used
Mitigation Banking applicants requiring release, perpet- cated nancial
Instrument a 401 water quality ual management, surety exists for
certication nancial assur- the perpetual
ances, service land manage-
areas, or credit ment
assessments for
impacts

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 1 (continued) Examples of State Wetland Banking Regulations
Mitigation
State Wetland Banking Bankers Use of Credits Mitigation Type Credits Management Land
Virginia (nontidal) Does not specically Department of Envi- Uplands within the No specic state Public or private
regulate wetlands ronmental Quality bank site may be provisions gov- lands may be
banking; regulations (DEQ) authorizes assigned credit; erning credit used
establish maximum permits to use non- wetland restora- release, perpet-
service area size for tidal wetland banks tion, creation, ual management,
banks approved in enhancement, nancial assur-
accordance with and protection ances, service
applicable federal may be used areas, or credit
and state guidance, assessments for
laws, or regulations impacts
Virginia (tidal) Virginia Marine Private or public Sequencing is Generally habitat Credit assess- Provisions for long- Public or private
Resource Center required prior to restoration or cre- ments are made term manage- lands may be
(VMRC) and Virginia authorizing the use ation; also using the Func- ment and mainte- used
Institute of Marine of an approved bank enhancement or tion Specic nance are
Science (VIMS) as compensation in exceptional cir- Credit Calculation required
from permitted wet- cumstances, methodology;
land losses preservation performance
standards are
used to deter-
mine credit avail-
ability and bank
success
Washington Federal guidance, Private or public Use of credits prior to Wetland restora- Long-term man- The state Depart-
state rules expected meeting all perfor- tion, creation, agement and ment of Ecology
by December 1999 mance standards is enhancement, nancial assur- and local govern-
allowed and preservation ances are ments will be sig-
may be used, required natories to the
though restora- banking instru-
tion is preferred ments

2001 CRC Press LLC

amount representing the loss of wetland functions at the impact site. The permit
applicant nancially compensates the bank sponsor in exchange for allowing its
bank to be debited.
The bank should be protected and managed over the long term after it has been
declared successful. The bank must be legally protected from other future land uses
through a conservation easement or similar mechanism. The sponsor is responsible
for assuring the nancial stability of the bank project over the long term. This
necessitates appointment of a long-term manager. This may be the sponsor or another
entity, such as a public land manager or environmental organization.

Types of Wetland Mitigation Banks

The type of sponsor and the operational use can characterize wetland mitigation
banks. Sponsors include governmental or quasi-governmental agencies, nonprot
organizations, conservation groups, and private for prot companies. Operational
uses include single user and open market sales. The two major types of banks are
dedicated banks and commercial banks.
Dedicated banks are typically created to compensate for a specic type of activity
by a single entity. Dedicated banks include industrial banksbanks created by
agreement or permit to mitigate for a specic user impact in a geographic area by a
private company. An example of an industrial bank in the United States is the Tenneco
LaTerre (Reppert, 1992), a bank sponsored by a private corporation, Tenneco LaTerre,
for the purpose of mitigating wetland losses occurring from its oil and gas exploration
activities in Louisiana coastal marshes. Another example is the Sunrise Valley Nature
Park, a bank that consolidates mitigation for impacts on various separate parcels
owned by Mobil Land Development Company in Reston, VA.
Another type of dedicated bank is a public works bank. State highway depart-
ments, port authorities, or local governments for the purpose of providing mitigation
for public works projects sponsored 75 percent of the 46 banks identied by the
Corps Institute for Water Resources in 1994.
Commercial banks are established by entities whose wetlands credits are avail-
able for purchase on the open market by unrelated entities who need wetlands
compensation for permitted wetlands impacts. Several types of commercial banks
exist. Private entrepreneurial banks create wetland credits and sell them at a prot
sufcient to produce an economic return commensurate with the risk undertaken.
Nonprot banks provide mitigation for various activities to achieve a particular
ecological and/or economic objective. Credit prices are set so that the sponsor can
recover only the costs of the mitigation. For example, the Ohio Wetlands Foundation,
a nonprot group formed by members of the Ohio Homebuilders Association, created
a mitigation bank so that builders could have a source of wetland credits and solve
an industry problem in a specic geographic area. Governmental banks are banks
established by a governmental agency (typically a local government agency) to create
mitigation and cover its costs from sales to mitigate for impacts by other govern-
mental or private entities.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 PERSPECTIVES ON MITIGATION BANKING

Ecological Perspective

Mitigation banking offers several ecological advantages compared to other mit-

igation vehicles. Many of the regulations governing mitigation banking require that
sites be managed over the long term. Therefore, an important evaluation criterion
of the mitigation bank planning and approval process is the long-term viability of
the site. Long-term viability must be assessed within the context of expected changes
in the site's landscape setting. An assessment of this type typically receives less
attention in other mitigation planning.
Mitigation banking typically consolidates many smaller mitigation obligations
into one moderate to large site. Larger sites are more likely to provide signicant
wetland functions and values than smaller sites. Because banks are typically larger
projects than project-specic mitigation, they often include adjacent upland com-
munities. This results in a natural mosaic of upland and wetland in the landscape,
increasing the function and value of the wetland and adjacent areas. Also, the
relatively large size of mitigation banks facilitates their contribution to watershed-
based planning efforts.
Mitigation banks typically provide compensation in advance of impacts, meaning
that there is little temporal loss in function and value. By contrast, traditional on-
site or off-site mitigation is typically implemented or functioning after project
impacts occur. This is particularly true of in lieu fee programs, wherein impacts are
offset by payment to a management program or conservation organization. As a
consequence, temporal losses of functions and values routinely occur. In cases when
mitigation fails, function and value losses may be permanent.
One disadvantage of mitigation banks is that they do not replace lost functions
and values at the point of impact. As such, in cases where on-site mitigation would
be viable, that option should be given strong consideration in advance to reduce the
local ecosystem impacts. Certain wetland functions, such as ood storage and
attenuation and water quality, may not be transferable off site. In some states, such
as Florida, nontransferable functions and values are handled separately to ensure
their appropriate resolution.

Regulatory Management Perspective

Mitigation banks can also enhance the effectiveness of wetlands protection

programs. U.S. federal guidance mandates a team approach to the assessment of
mitigation banking proposals. This approach brings the regulatory and commenting
agencies to the same table, with the result that all agencies can contribute their
expertise and perspective to the project review. This results in a more meaningful
review of the bank proposal and can act to shorten the processing time. The review
of one large mitigation proposal is more efcient than the review of numerous,
project-specic mitigation proposals. A potential disadvantage of this process is the
ability of the team to meet. Limited budgets can limit travel, and coordinating

2001 CRC Press LLC

multiple schedules can be difcult. Reaching consensus on the terms and conditions
of the MBI, as is encouraged by the Federal Guidance, can also be a difcult and
time-consuming process.
Establishment of a mitigation bank involves nancial resources, planning, and
scientic expertise at a level not practicable to many project-specic mitigation
proposals. Consolidation of resources increases the potential for the successful
establishment and long-term management of the mitigation project.
Finally, consolidation of mitigation within a bank increases the efciency of
limited agency resources for inspection and compliance monitoring. This improves
the agencys ability to ensure the success of efforts to restore, create, or enhance
wetlands for mitigation purposes.

User Perspective

Most permit applicants do not wish to become wetland experts but are seeking
authorization to move forward with their development projects. Mitigation projects
may be implemented by people whose main expertise and incentive lies in an
unrelated area, such as housing development or highway construction. By contrast,
mitigation banks are typically sponsored by organizations whose staff is devoted to
implementing successful mitigation projects. A successful banking team provides
the permit applicant with the talent and expertise necessary to ensure that the
environmental goals set forth in a permit will be achieved.
Mitigation banking offers several other advantages to the user. The mitigation
plan already has been approved by the agencies, so the time required reviewing and
approving a permit is substantially reduced. Purchasing credits from an approved
mitigation bank transfers the liability for mitigation success from the user to the
banker. The use of credits from a mitigation bank is generally cost competitive with
on-site mitigation. By contrast, the costs of implementing successful on-site miti-
gation may be considerable and open-ended.

ECONOMICS

The primary economic issues faced by the sponsor of a mitigation bank resemble
those of any business with a product for sale, particularly the real estate development
industry. The product a bank sponsor offers is not necessarily a functioning and
valuable wetland, but a mechanism that allows a bank user to impact wetlands
elsewhere. The goal of the user is more likely to be houses, highways, utility
corridors, or some other development or development-related activity. However,
mitigation banks are somewhat unique in that the sale of credits produces parks and
greenways that provide societal benets to people other than the bank user.
Several factors must be assessed in order to determine the viability of a mitigation
bank (Table 2). Each of the factors that contribute to the economic viability of a
wetland mitigation bank can be quantied. However, these factors are extremely
variable and volatile, which is why the wetland mitigation banking industry, in its
current state of development, is extremely risky. One major element of risk is that

2001 CRC Press LLC

bank demand, product quality, product alternatives, and sometimes price are estab-
lished or strongly inuenced by regulations and policies. These regulations and
policies may change frequently and often vary from project to project and user to user.

Table 2 Factors That Should Be Assessed in Order to

Determine the Viability of a Mitigation Bank
Competitive supply of the product and product alternatives
Risk assessment and presale of the product
Capital and operating costs of product development
Long-term stewardship of the product

Demand for the Product

The demand for mitigation credits is driven by three primary factors: service
area, regulatory climate, and user requirements (Figure 1).

Service Area

The service area is the geographic area in which a particular mitigation bank
can compensate impacts to wetlands. Ecological concerns (e.g., mitigating in the
same watershed where the impact occurred) tend to constrain the appropriate size
of a wetland mitigation bank's service area. Economic concerns dictate that the
larger the service area, the more likely it is that the bank will experience a sufcient
level of demand to be economically practicable. This is because the larger the
service area, all other factors being equal, the greater the number of expected
wetland impacts.

Regulatory Climate

Regulatory climate is a term often used to describe how businesses perceive the
difculty of conducting business in a particular location because of local, state, and
federal government regulatory agencies. If the regulatory climate is so restrictive
that no user in a service area can obtain a permit to impact wetlands, there will be
little demand for wetland mitigation credits (Figure 2). Similarly, the regulatory
climate may impose mitigation conditions so burdensome (e.g., wetland replacement
ratios, performance monitoring, etc.) that impacting wetlands is not cost-effective.
Conversely, mitigation requirements may be so minimal that users can satisfy
requirements without purchasing credits from a mitigation bank. Thus, the regulatory
climate strongly inuences the demand for credits generated by economic activity
users within a service area. Regulatory decisions in several key areas determine the
perception of regulatory climate (Table 3).

Service Area Size

Free-market advocates suggest that service areas should be unlimited, or at least

very large, to encourage maximum levels of competition. This competition could

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 1 Demand for mitigation credits vs. service area size, regulatory climate for obtaining
permits to impact wetlands, and the level of prospective user impact to wetlands
in the service area.

lead to lower prices, and if the quality of created wetland credits was linked to
mitigation ratio requirements, to higher quality wetland compensation. However, the
current regulatory climate appears to be focusing on limiting service areas to rela-
tively small areas. If the service areas are too small, the economic practicability of
wetland banks will be eliminated. For example, the state of Maryland has recently
(1993 to 1998) averaged about 15 hectares (ha) of wetland impacts per year and has
established 20 service areas. A mitigation bank is unlikely to be economically viable.

Mitigation Ratios

Mitigation ratios are established by regulators to compare functions and values

of the impacted wetland to the mitigated wetland. The expected likelihood of success

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 2 Regulatory climate factors vs. demand for mitigation credits.

Table 3 Regulatory Decisions in These Key Areas

Determine the Perception of Regulatory Climate for
Mitigation Banking
Service area size
Mitigation ratios
Performance requirements
Monitoring and maintenance requirements
Permitting difculty
Attitudes toward compensatory mitigation alternatives and
determinations of the practicability of avoidance of impacts
Regulatory stability

2001 CRC Press LLC

(i.e., a safety factor) and the temporal loss of functions and values (i.e., the time lag
between impact and successful mitigation site completion and maturity) are also
considered. In other words, the appropriate (mitigation) compensation ratio is based
on the level of functional replacement provided, the speed at which functional
replacement is achieved, and the risk that the compensation wetland will not perform
as expected (King et al., 1993). Some regulators grant lower mitigation ratios to
mitigation banks in recognition of their reduced temporal loss, reduced risk of failure,
and greater function and value relative to smaller, discontiguous sites. Other regu-
lators grant the same mitigation ratio to mitigation banks as to other types of
mitigation. In at least one instance (Maryland), the mitigation ratio is greater for
banks than for other types of mitigation. The latter has the effect of discouraging
the development of a mitigation banking industry.
Another aspect of risk involves the predictability of the mitigation ratios. Some
regulators are moving toward specic ratio standards for particular types of impacts.
Others are moving toward function and value assessment methodologies that are
repeatable, predictable, and useful for all mitigation efforts. This minimizes staff
demands, maximizes predictability, and ensures fairness for both users and mitiga-
tion providers. However, other regulators seem to be moving in the opposite direction
by relying on the best professional judgment of the permit project manager for each
specic project. This can lead to unpredictable or biased decisions and consume
more staff and banker resources.
Regulatory decisions to penalize or reward mitigation banks with higher or lower
mitigation ratios are a key indicator of the regulatory climate and are the key
determinants of the demand for credits in a service area. The predictability of
mitigation ratios by the bank sponsor affects the economic risk and marketability
of the bank credits. Once the sponsor of a bank has estimated the projected wetland
impacts in a service area over a given time frame, the mitigation ratio must be used
to estimate mitigation credits (i.e., mitigation ratio times projected wetland impacts
equals the mitigation credits). If the mitigation ratio cannot be predicted, it is difcult
to sell the product to a user. This is particularly true if competing products, such as
contributions to a trust fund, have a specied payment rate or mitigation ratio.
Unpredictability of the mitigation ratio also makes it difcult to develop a sound
business plan and economic model for project nancing.

Performance Requirements

The demand and cost of creating mitigation credits are affected by the nature of
wetland performance requirements. The risk of obtaining performance requirements
is related to the specicity of the requirements. For example, if a forested wetland
is required to have 12 5-cm-dbh trees and 160 seedlings per ha by the end of the
third growing season, the cost can be projected relatively accurately. However, if
performance requirements are less specic (e.g., provide forested wetland vegeta-
tion), bank construction costs could reasonably be reduced 75 percent by only
planting seedlings. The risk is high, however, that a future compliance inspection
will determine that performance requirements are not satised, and the bank will

2001 CRC Press LLC

not be permitted to sell credits. The inability of the bank to guarantee credits, or
credits at a xed price, will lead potential bank users to develop their own mitigation
sites rather than purchase bank credits. Experience has shown that providers of site-
specic mitigation rarely suffer hardship due to poor performance.
A linkage between performance requirements and mitigation ratios is logical
and could be structured so as to provide economic incentives to achieve the desired
outcome of mitigation quality. Unfortunately, at this time, many regulators are not
supportive of this practice. Historically, a signicant shortcoming of traditional
wetland mitigation has been the lack of specic performance requirements. This has
led to the low success rate of mitigation projects and a signicant number of
mitigation projects never being initiated (Redmond, 1991; DeWeese, 1994; Brown
and Veneman, 1998; Gallihugh, 1998).

Monitoring and Maintenance Requirements

The demand and cost of creating mitigation credits is affected by the nature,
specicity, and duration of monitoring and maintenance requirements. At this time,
there are no national or regional standards for these requirements, and extreme
variability between projects and locations has been noted. For example, monitoring
duration often varies from 5 to 10 years, and the number of vegetation sample plots
from 0.4 to 8 or more per ha. The sponsor of a proposed bank must attempt to
project these costs in order to complete his business plan. The longer the duration
and the more specic the monitoring and maintenance requirements, the greater the
demand for credits as most permit applicants prefer to minimize temporal commit-
ments to an individual project.

Permitting Difculty

There is no demand for credits unless a permit is issued by the appropriate

agencies to allow a wetland area to be impacted. There is also no demand for credits
if impacts are allowed to wetlands without compensation or the only compensation
required is the preservation of the remaining wetland on a project site. Neither
situation allows a wetland bank to be economically viable. Therefore, a careful
assessment of historical permitting actions and trends is necessary to predict the
regulatory climate characteristic to a specic service area.

Attitudes about Mitigation Alternatives

A mitigation bank cannot sell its credits unless the regulatory agencies agree
that the credits are appropriate compensation and that on-site alternatives are not
ecologically preferable or practicable. Therefore, the demand for credits will depend
on whether on-site mitigation is practicable or whether or not alternatives such as
in lieu fee programs are deemed preferable. Attitudes appear to differ with geo-
graphic and political region.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Regulatory Stability

Wetland regulations in the United States change regularly. If users perceive that
regulations will be relaxed, demand will be reduced as some users wait for less
restrictive regulations. Conversely, a perception of impending greater restrictions
will lead to an acceleration of demand as users try to gain entitlement approvals
before permitting requirements increase.

User Requirements

At this time in the evolution of the wetlands banking industry, users simply
desire to purchase the quantity of credits required by the regulators for a particular
impact. As long as the user, after paying the sponsor, can clearly transfer all wetland
performance risk to the bank sponsor, the user has no interest in the quality of the
product. In most credit sales, this is the situation. This is not the case in single user
banks and in situations where contractually the users share in the risk. User demand
for quality could occur where more than one bank exists in the same service area
if the quality of wetlands affected the permitting decision. However, as of 1999,
there are no reports of quality of wetlands mitigation becoming a permitting factor.
Wetland impacts are the result of development activities. As such, the funda-
mental determinants of the level of mitigation bank user demand are the rate of
economic growth in a given service area, local zoning regulations, and the terms
and conditions of wetland permits that authorize wetland impacts. A related deter-
minant is the areal threshold of wetland impact that requires wetland mitigation.
The lower the threshold, the greater the mitigation acreage created by users of
wetland resources.

Competitive Supply of the Product and Product Alternatives

The economic feasibility of a wetland bank is dependent upon the availability

of compensatory options. The quantity, cost, and regulatory favorability of these
options must be assessed and compared to the product offered by the proposed bank
to estimate what share of the estimated demand the proposed bank can capture. At
some time in the future, regulations may exist that will also require the assessment
of the quality offered by these alternative options. However, at this time, it is not
an issue in supply or demand analysis for credits.
Options for compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts should be evaluated to
determine the economic feasibility of a wetland bank. These options include on-site
and off-site opportunities for wetland mitigation, the availability of suitable wetland
restoration and creation landforms, existing and proposed wetland banks, and in lieu
fee alternatives.

On-Site Opportunity for Wetland Mitigation

The nature of the activities in a service area can create signicant opportunities
for on-site mitigation. For example, if demand is caused by large planned community

2001 CRC Press LLC

developments in a geographic area that includes broad at oodplains with substan-
tial areas of prior-converted croplands (PC lands), then it is likely that these projects
will have ample opportunity for on-site mitigation. As the land values of these parcels
are based upon development yield projections (i.e., how many houses can be built),
and houses are not usually allowed in oodplains today, there is no allocated land
cost to these potential mitigation areas. Therefore, PC lands can be converted to
wetlands with minimal capital costs. In this example, the supply of on-site mitigation
opportunities could render a wetland bank economically nonviable.
Alternatively, this could be a ne banking opportunity if a developer used these
lands to create a bank sufciently large to handle his needs and sell credits to others
or a banker created a joint venture with the developer using his credit needs as an
anchor tenant. Either way, the availability of on-site opportunities for wetland
mitigation greatly inuences the economic viability of a prospective bank.

Off-Site Opportunities for Wetland Mitigation

In many areas of the United States in the mid- to late-1990s, developers, wetland
consultants, and entrepreneurs have learned that one way to avoid the rigorous review
process, performance requirements, monitoring duration, and sometimes greater
mitigation ratios of wetland banks was to simply develop off-site mitigation. The
economies of scale associated with bank projects are achieved in this case by pooling
the mitigation needs of multiple projects in one location, or simply building miti-
gation areas in phases with savings primarily occurring in the monitoring and
maintenance phases.
Areas within the proposed service area that are suitable for easy conversion to
wetlands (such as PC lands), and have a low value for other allowable uses, offer
a product that could be used instead of mitigation bank credits. If this is also an
area where regulators typically impose minimal performance, monitoring, and
maintenance requirements, a bank is unlikely to be able to compete against this
supply alternative.
In the current regulatory climate, off-site mitigation can save considerable costs.
A review reveals that many off-site mitigation sites had a cost advantage over banks
because they only required 5 years of monitoring (vs. 10 years in most banks), had
less restrictive performance requirements, and had no nancial assurance require-
ments or maintenance funding requirements. If this practice is encouraged in the
service area of a proposed bank, the product supply opportunity could render the
bank economically nonviable.

Other Wetland Banks

Obviously the quantity and characteristics of credits available from existing

wetland banks in the proposed service area, as well as proposed banks, should be
determined by contacting the appropriate regulatory agencies. It should be empha-
sized that wetland banks have developed on an ad hoc basis during the late 1970s
to late 1990s. The result is that the agreements that establish these banks are variable,
and existing banks could be operating under agreements that give an economic or

2001 CRC Press LLC

marketing edge over new banks. Therefore, characteristics such as mitigation ratios
and performance requirements that could favor other wetland banks over the pro-
posed bank in the same service area should be analyzed carefully.

In Lieu Fee Alternatives

In lieu fee alternatives emerged in the late 1990s to become one of the most
signicant supply threats to the economic viability of wetland mitigation banks.
Current regulatory structures have permitted compensation for wetland impacts to be
in the form of monitoring fees that do not cover the full costs of compensation. Several
U.S. examples illustrate this point. The Bracut Marsh public commercial bank devel-
oped by the California Coastal Conservancy is forecasted to recover only 54 percent
of total costs at sellout (Environmental Law Institute, 1993). The Fairfax Land Trust
accepted a US $315,000 payment to purchase and preserve a 28 ha tract of wetlands
to mitigate for 3 ha of forested wetland impact at the Stafford County, VA, Airport.
The Trust had no funds remaining after the transaction for taxes and long-term
maintenance and monitoring, and relies upon public donations to fund its operation
(Hal Wiggins, personal communication). In the Chicago area, in lieu fee alternatives
virtually stopped mitigation credit sales in late 1998 by charging signicantly less
than the credit costs of private banks (John Ryan, personal communication).
Another advantage of in lieu fee programs is that many do not face the compen-
sation timing constraints and service area restrictions endorsed by banks. Regulatory
pressure usually minimizes the presale of mitigation credits which exposes private
banks to the difculty of raising capital and the risk of exposing capital. Regulatory
pressure, environmental groups, some state laws, and federal guidance restrict the
service areas of banks. Presale restrictions increase the risk and cost of credit
production and increase capital needs, while service area requirements reduce the
demand for credits for specic banks. Therefore, in lieu fee programs that do not
face these restrictions can gain an economic edge. For example, one Nature Con-
servancy Trust Fund agreement with the Corps allows the Fund to collect fees from
anywhere in Virginia, and expend the funds on preservation, restoration, and creation
projects anywhere in the state. By contrast, a state law requires mitigation bank
service areas to occur in the hydrologic unit code (HUC) of the bank or on an
adjacent HUC within the same rivershed of the bank. The Trust also had the advan-
tage of establishing fees on an impact-by-impact basis and operating without any
specic, published monitoring and maintenance requirements.
The Norfolk District of the Corps has recognized the potential economic edge
for in lieu fees and has established fees at the same (or greater) prices charged by
mitigation banks. By contrast, the Chicago Corps District had nine permitted and
successful wetland banks by the end of 1998. The recent expansion of the in lieu fee
program, in conjunction with a nonprot organization known as Corlands, has almost
eliminated bank credit sales. The Corlands program has several advantages over
mitigation banks, including no assumption of risk, no specic performance require-
ments, lesser service area restrictions, and no timing restrictions. Also, Corlands
pricing does not cover all direct project costs, and some monies are directed toward
studies rather than restoration and creation of resources. The Savannah Corps District

2001 CRC Press LLC

has handled these competitive problems by allowing the use of in lieu fees only in
those service areas that do not contain an operating wetland bank (Ryan, 1998).
At this time, U.S. federal regulators appear to have no consistent policy relating
to in lieu fee programs, although Corps, USEPA, and USFWS ofcials have dis-
cussed this issue in public forums. As of May 1999, an interagency policy memo-
randum on this topic was still being negotiated.

Risk Assessment and Presale of the Product

Ecological concerns about the success of mitigation bank developments cause

some regulators, environmental groups, and policy makers to substantially limit or
prohibit presales of credits and, in some cases, call for no sales until after 5 or 10
years of successful monitoring. In lieu fee programs and traditional on-site or off-
site mitigation programs typically do not face this requirement.
An intriguing issue is the role of the U.S. federal government in determining
presale requirements. The development of a wetland bank is a real estate develop-
ment project, with a relatively unique product. While the agencies involved in
mitigation banking limit the amount of presales for mitigation bank credits, other
federal agencies involved in the nancial banking industry have placed extreme
pressure on nancial institutions that provide federally guaranteed deposits to min-
imize lending exposure to speculative real estate ventures. They do this by requiring
substantive (i.e., 50 percent or more) presales or preleasing. These agencies have
learned that development projects without substantial precommitments from users
have a high likelihood of economic failure because expected future demands do not
always materialize at the projected time or price.
At this time, the regulators of mitigation banks rarely make the connection
between economic and ecological success. Most mitigation bank regulators focus
on minimizing presales, yet the mitigation option that is stated as being the most
ecologically preferred, on-site mitigation, is a 100 percent presale.
Every dollar of funds raised by the presale of credits reduces the capital required
to develop a mitigation bank. Rarely have traditional commercial lenders nanced
private banks as bank development activity is considered extremely risky. Venture
capitalists and speculation investors, expecting rates of return in the 30 to 45 percent
range, have been the primary capital sources to date. The availability of capital from
presales can dramatically reduce the amount of capital required to be raised and,
thus, reduce the cost of the project by reducing the investment return required.
Pre-sales decrease the market risk and reduce exposure to regulatory climate
risk. As the projected length of time that a project sell-out period increases, so too
does the risk premium necessary to compensate investors for this exposure. For
example, the possibility exists that changes to the denition of wetlands areas may
cause some isolated wetlands to be nonjurisdictional (Lazarus, 1998). Other recent
court rulings may cause certain activities in wetlands to no longer require mitigation
(Lee, 1997; McElsh, 1997). These actions could clearly reduce mitigation bank
credit demand.
From the previous discussion, it is evident that delaying the timing of credit
sales increases the risk and the cost of mitigation. This increases the break-even

2001 CRC Press LLC

sales price and must be factored into any economic analysis of a prospective bank.
Figure 3 illustrates the effect on credit prices for a hypothetical conversion of prior
converted cropland from credit sale delays on the break even sales price (Shabman
et al., 1998). This dramatic example may actually underestimate the effect of post-
poning sales in today's economic climate. An investment rate of return of 35 to 45
percent is typically required by potential bank investors to account for the cost of
money, risk level, and alternative investment opportunities.

Alternative Approaches to Ecological Success

$14,000

$12,610

$12,000

$10,000
Price per Credit

$8,000

$6,562

$6,000

$3,966
$4,000 $3,701
$3,041

$2,000

$0
No Assurances Bonding Case 1 Bonding Case 2 Bonding Case 3 Wait to Sell

Figure 3 Wetland credit prices under alternative scenarios for ecological success (given 20
percent target rate of return) for prior converted cropland conversion. No Assur-
ances30 percent of credits sold during the construction year, balance sold over
the next 12 years, no bond. Boding Case 1Same sales rate as no assurances,
but performance guaranteed by a surety bond. Bonding Case 230 percent of
credits sold in the rst year after construction, balance sold over the next 11 years,
performance bonded. Bonding Case 330 percent of credits sold in the fth year
after construction, balance sold in the next 7 years, all bonded. Wait to Sell
Caseno presales, 30 percent of credits sold in the 10th year after construction,
balance sold in the next 2 years. (Adapted from Shabman et al., 1998. With
permission.)

Revenue Projections

Assessing the economic viability of a proposed bank requires a projection of

revenues. The prospective banker must project the rate at which credits can be
expected to be sold over time and the price at which credits can be sold. The
competitive supply of the product and product alternatives, and expected presale
restrictions, will affect the projection.
The projection typically exhibits an inverse relationship between sales rates (or
assumption of the product) and sale price. Local knowledge of mitigation costs, land

2001 CRC Press LLC

costs, and development pressures is necessary to make such projections. Revenue
expectations vary widely throughout the United States (Table 4). By comparison,
wetland mitigation costs for highway projects in the mid-Atlantic States have often
exceeded US $272,000 per ha (Dennison and Schmid, 1997). As for any product,
classical supply/demand relationships will determine the appropriate price of miti-
gation credits. Figure 4 illustrates the supply and demand relationship relative to
credit price (Shabman et al., 1994).

Table 4 Reported Mitigation Credit Sale Prices (US$ per ha) throughout
the United States
State Credit Sale Price Date Source
Louisiana 3,50012,400 1998 Michael Henry, Hydrik Consulting
Ohio 29,70039,500 1998 Tom Sutliff, Ohio Wetlands
Foundation
Georgia 60,00080,000 1999 Art Berger, Wet Inc.
Florida 118,600148,300 1998 Ann Redmond, Florida Wetlands
Bank
Central Virginia 148,300197,700 1998 Mike Kelly, Williamsburg
Environmental
Northern Virginia 197,700308,900 1998 Michael Rolband, Wetland
Studies and Solutions, Inc.
New Jersey 370,700494,200 1998 Bob Sokolove, U.S. Wetland
Services
Washington 617,800 1999 Steve Johnson, Paine Field

COSTS OF MITIGATION BANK DEVELOPMENT

Costs must be estimated for the specic project to determine whether it is feasible
after assessing the demand for mitigation credits and the likely sales price for these
credits. Land development costs, including mitigation bank development costs, usu-
ally fall into three categories: land costs, hard costs, and soft costs.

Land Costs

Although land costs can be a relatively small portion of a development projects

total cost, the costs are always extremely site specic and may vary considerably.
Mitigation banking costs are no different. Therefore, the particular land selected for
acquisition has an enormous inuence over the costs of the project. For example,
prior converted cropland has relatively low conversion costs. Sometimes only plug-
ging drains is necessary to restore wetlands hydrology. Costs can be enormous if
the site requires extensive cut and removal of soil and rock, followed by topsoil
replacement. Alternatively, the sale of these materials could pay for the entire
mitigation project if the material removed is quality sand and aggregate. Often an
entire tract must be purchased, but only a portion can be utilized as a wetland bank,
causing an increase in the net land cost per wetlands area of creation.
As wetland mitigation becomes more common, landowners and realtors are
realizing that land easily convertible to wetlands may have a higher value under that

2001 CRC Press LLC

 CASE A CASE B

- Low-cost restoration - High-cost restoration

- Low-value development pressure - High-value development pressure

Price

Price
supply
supply

demand
Pa Pb
demand
Qa Quantity Qb Quantity

CASE C CASE D
- Low-cost restoration - High-cost restoration
- High-value development pressure - Low-value development pressure
Price

Price
supply

supply
Pd

Pc
demand
demand
Qc Quantity Qd Quantity

Figure 4 Regional economic effects on the potential for mitigation credit markets. (Adapted
from Shabman et al.,1994. With permission.)

use than under more traditional uses (e.g., cropland). This is due to the intrinsic low
cost of converting such land when there is a limited supply in a service area.

Hard Costs

Hard costs include earthwork, erosion and sediment controls, planting, amenity
and habitat enhancements, monitoring, and maintenance. Earthwork costs typically
are the largest cost component, often running from 50 to 80 percent of a projects
cost. The primary cost variables are the volume of material to be moved, the
distance the material needs to be moved, the number of moves of material, surface
area of nal grade lands, and geometry of the site. For example, sites with a high
aspect ratio (long and skinny) cost more than low aspect ratio (square) sites to
grade. Topography, hydrologic characteristics, and soils establish these variables,

2001 CRC Press LLC

although design concepts, particularly topsoil treatments, can also have a signicant
effect.
Local regulatory practices typically establish erosion and sediment control
requirements. Because many wetland mitigation projects are built adjacent to nat-
ural wetlands, erosion and sediment controls can be critical in avoiding unnecessary
impacts. It is not uncommon to see redundant (i.e., dual) erosion and sediment
control systems required next to sensitive areas such as wetlands and streams.
Therefore, these costs are highly variable depending upon site conditions and local
regulations. Costs range from less than US $247 per ha for regularly shaped sites
surrounded by development, to more than US $24,700 per ha for irregularly shaped
creation sites surrounded by wetlands with redundant control requirements. Some
local regulations also require cash escrows and bonds to assure compliance with
erosion and sediment control regulations which must be accounted for in cash ow
projections.
The cost of providing wetland plantings for a mitigation project is highly depen-
dent upon regulator opinions. Currently, there are three general schools of thought
regarding appropriate plantings for wetland mitigation. The rst school recommends
providing good soils, wetland hydrology, and an erosion cover crop, and then
allowing wetland plants to volunteer. The second school recommends planting a
wetland seed mix and seedlings of the target species to assure that a wetland with
the desired species composition is obtained. Often nonpioneer species (e.g., Quercus
spp.) that are desired in a mature system will be planted as seedlings, while pioneer
species (e.g., Acer rubrum, Nyssa sp.) will not be planted because they are expected
to volunteer naturally. Finally, the third school of thought recommends planting a
wetland seed mix, seedlings, and a selection of larger, mast producing specimens
to minimize the temporal loss of habitat, particularly for forested wetlands. For
example, sites planted with 2.5- to 5-cm-diameter trees provide a 7- to 15-year
headstart over seedling-planted sites. Estimated costs associated with these three
schools of thought are illustrated in Table 5. As can be seen from the table, there
are signicant cost differences between the planting schemes.
Amenities such as birdhouses, deadfalls, observation blinds, nature trails, board-
walks, and interpretive stations can be accomplished at all price ranges. Rarely do
regulators require such features, but several bankers have provided signicant pack-
ages of amenity and habitat enhancements to maximize wildlife use and human
educational interaction. Costs have been reported from US $250 to US $12,350 per
ha. Amenity programs can become very expensive very quickly. For example, board-
walk costs range from US $86 to US $325 per m2.
Monitoring and maintenance costs are directly related to the duration of the
requirement, the type of wetland system designed, the performance requirements
specied in the banking instrument, and natural events. For example, maintenance
can be very expensive if a ood washes away newly planted trees. Monitoring and
maintenance costs are often difcult to estimate because the maintenance aspect
is dependent upon the timing of natural events, and regulatory requirements of
the mitigation banking instrument. The latter is usually negotiated after initial
economic investment.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 5 Estimated Costs for Wetland Plantings Associated with Three Schools of
Thought*
4 cm
Container (1.5 in.) dbh
Seedlings Shrubs trees
E&S Wetlands @ 2.44 m @ 3.65 m @ 12.19 m Total Plant
School Seeding1 Seed Mix2 (8 ft) O.C.3 (12 ft) O.C.4 (40 ft) O.C.5 Cost/Ha
1 $3,600.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A $3,600.00
2 $3,600.00 $7,200.00 $5,050.00 N/A N/A $15,850.00
3 $3,600.00 $7,200.00 $5,050.00 $11,250.00 $9,050.00 $36,150.00
* The table depicts an order of magnitude difference between vegetation options for a forested
wetland.
1 $0.36/m2a typical cost for sites in the 1-ha size range (seed and mulch).
2 $0.72/m2a typical cost for a diverse wetlands seed mix on a 1-ha site (seed and mulch).
3 Furnished and installed bare root seedlings with fertilizer and mulch (with warranty); 1,680/ha
[2.44 m off center (O.C.)] at $3.00 each, with 1 yr 65 percent survival warranty (1,500 to 2,000
seedlings).
4 1 gal container grown plants (furnished and installed); 750/ha (3.65 m O.C.) at $15.00 each
(with 1 yr warranty).
5 4 cm dbh trees furnished and installed; 67/ha (12.19 m O.C.) at $135.00 each (with 1 yr
warranty).

Soft Costs

Soft costs include regulatory approval costs, design costs, review fees, nancial
assurances, marketing, accounting, administrative costs, and taxes. Regulatory
approval costs are dependent upon the trading rules established by regulators to
increase the probability of mitigation success (Shabman et al., 1994). Site monitor-
ing, site maintenance, the costs (liability) of project failure, mitigation site design
standards, and other factors may be required. Meeting the requirements of the trading
rules can increase costs and should be incorporated into the capital and operational
costs budgeted for the development of a bank.
Entrepreneurial bankers across the country have reported extremely signicant
direct costs (in the range of several hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars)
attributable to gaining regulatory approval of the mitigation banking instrument, and
related costs of controlling the selected site(s) during the approval process. Costs
include land contract costs (i.e., attorney fees, surveys, title searches, options, and
deposit costs), legal fees for developing the mitigation banking instrument, and
design development costs such as groundwater monitoring, biological surveys, wet-
land delineation, and preliminary mitigation plan design. Figure 5 illustrates how
regulatory approval costs can have a very large effect upon wetland credit prices.
The design of the constructed wetland will have to meet two important con-
straints. These include the constraint imposed by the site itself, and the constraints
imposed by regulators and the local plan approval processes. Before the site is
committed, a preliminary mitigation design should be completed to ensure the site
has the potential to support wetlands and to ensure that the constructed wetland
will be acceptable as mitigation. Once the above constraints have been addressed,

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 5 Wetland credit prices vs. approval costs and demand uncertainty. (Adapted from
Shabman et al., 1998. With permission.)

nal site design will include site hydrology analysis, water budget analysis, grading
plans, erosion and sediment controls, soil requirements, and vegetation selection
and distribution.
Design costs can vary with the site. A relatively simple site, such as a at
oodplain area where the hydrologic linkage with a contiguous stream can be
relatively easily restored, may have low design costs. Conversely, the design costs
of a complex site that includes a number of wetland cells with differing hydrologic
and soil requirements may be high.
Some mitigation projects require permits from federal and state agencies, though
usually these fees are relatively small. However, many local government fees,
required to process grading and erosion and sediment control plans, can be quite
expensive. Costs may be hundreds to thousands of dollars per ha in some localities.
Financial assurances are methods used to provide some guarantee that a mitiga-
tion bank will succeed, and that there are funds available for planned or unplanned
contingencies. Contingencies include site monitoring, maintenance, erosion repair,
and vegetation replanting due to storm effects. Financial assurances will result in
economic costs to the mitigation banker if the mitigation bank does not succeed.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Surety bonds can be used to ensure that a mitigation bank meets specied criteria.
The bonds are only released after the specied criteria are met. This may include
completion and approval of the entire project, or it may address certain milestone
criteria at which, upon completion, a part of the bond is released. For example,
milestone criteria could include a certain vegetation density or percent cover over a
specied part of the mitigation site.
Escrow accounts are another way to ensure that funds are available to conduct
maintenance and other activities (e.g., monitoring) that are necessary for a successful
mitigation bank. Funds are paid into the escrow account when the mitigation bank
receives payment for credits. The amount of deposits into the escrow account can
vary depending upon the factors being considered by regulators. If regulators accept
the presale of wetland credits, then the payment into the escrow account could reect
the risk of failure of the mitigation site, as well as the requirement to have funds
available for monitoring, maintenance, and catastrophic events. If regulators approve
the wetland mitigation (e.g., based upon site design standards), then the escrow
payment may be lower (or a portion of funds collected can be released) and reect
only the future costs of maintenance and other activities.
Marketing, accounting, and administrative costs can become a very signicant
cost component of wetland bank development over time. Prospective sponsors must
budget for the staff time, ofce overhead, and direct expenses related to their
activities. If the product is successfully marketed to users, costs carefully accounted
for, and the entire product managed well, a wetland bank can be ecologically
successful but still be a nancial failure.
Real estate taxes are typically assessed upon private landowners. Thus, until the
site is transferred to a long-term steward that is tax exempt, this is a cost that must
be budgeted for. Some localities will provide signicant tax reductions on land held
in open space for conservation, some may tax the land at the projected value of the
mitigation credits, and others at its market value based on traditional highest and best
use valuations. These practices vary by state and locality and can range in costs by
an order of magnitude. Therefore, this cost must be evaluated on a site by site basis.

LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP

The purposes of long-term stewardship are to provide long-term maintenance

and to assure that no inappropriate land use occurs. Although the ideal wetland
would be self-sustaining and require no maintenance, such wetlands are very rare.
This is particularly true in the short term. In reality, a lack of maintenance can result
in the modication or loss of wetland functions. One common result of a lack of
maintenance is the invasion of unwanted vegetation. Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius), common reed (Phragmites australis), purple loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria), and, in some regions, cattails (Typha sp.) are undesirable in the United
States. Other results can occur also, including topographical changes due to sedi-
mentation or scouring, and water level changes due to problems with input or output
systems. Each of these occurrences can result in ecological changes that may need
to be addressed in order to achieve the goals of the wetland mitigation effort. For

2001 CRC Press LLC

example, scouring can result in the formation of new channels in the wetland, causing
water to exit the wetland more quickly, and decreasing the residence time available
for water column/sediment/vegetation interactions.
The best way to assure long-term protection of any mitigation area from inten-
tional disturbance by man is to record a deed restriction, easement, or conservation
covenant among the land records of the local courthouse that has jurisdiction to the
lands in the mitigation area. This document should identify the legal description of
the property to be protected and the activities allowed on the property. Once this
protection is in place, the land can be safely transferred to the long-term steward.
In order to guarantee that appropriate long-term stewardship occurs, some entity
must be responsible for the site, and there must be sufcient funds available to
accomplish the necessary tasks. Entities available for long-term stewardship include
federal, state, and local resource agencies, nonprot organizations, and private enti-
ties engaged in land conservation.
Government entities require the funds and the manpower to conduct long-term
stewardship of a site. Funding of a government agency, or even the existence of the
government agency, is dependent upon a legislative body, and the priorities of such
bodies may change in the future. Some of this uncertainty can be alleviated by the
presence of long-term funding from a nancial assurance program (e.g., trust fund
established by the banker), although manpower problems may still occur owing to
budgetary constraints.
Government entities may also have trouble protecting the wetland site from other
government entities or programs. Revenue generating activities such as forestry and
agriculture are allowed in wetlands and may appear attractive to government entities
suffering budgetary constraints. In addition, large wetland areas may be the most
economically attractive routes for new roads, particularly if no other alternatives are
available. Political pressure on the government entity could result in impacts to the
constructed wetland site. Nevertheless, government entities can, and do, protect and
maintain an extremely diverse array of natural areas very well.
Nonprot organizations are less vulnerable to political pressure, but they are
vulnerable to nancial problems. These organizations have been known to sell, for
commercial purposes, properties that they consider less important relative to other
properties. Some nonprots, such as the Nature Conservancy, relinquish some of
their acquisitions to government entities. However, most nonprot organizations
operate on low budgets and are able to utilize low paid or volunteer personnel. Thus,
nonprot organizations may be able to efciently utilize trust fund or other available
money for long-term maintenance and protection. Certain nonprot organizations
may reap additional benets from a mitigation site that tends to provide additional
incentives to protect the site. For example, educational institutions could utilize such
a site for long-term research or study with the assurance that the site will remain
available for a very long time.
The mitigation banker does not usually wish to retain ownership of a site after
all of the mitigation credits have been sold. There is no more prot to be made either
from the site or from the long-term stewardship of the site. Thus the mitigation
banker, or other private entity that owns the land, will probably donate the site to a
governmental entity or a nonprot organization. However, occasionally there are

2001 CRC Press LLC

private entities that simply want to conserve the land. The deed restriction discussed
earlier ensures long-term protection regardless of land ownership changes.

Economic Projections

The economic aspects of developing a wetland mitigation bank have been dis-
cussed in this chapter. To gain the nancial resources needed to actually build and
operate a bank from investors, venture capitalists, or nancial institutions, these
elements must be quantied and analyzed. Supply, demand, and regulatory policies
should be assessed by the prospective banker to assess the price that wetland
mitigation credits can be sold at in a specic area. Figure 6 illustrates the relation-
ships of the factors discussed throughout this chapter.
The fundamental elements needed to economically justify creation of a bank
include capital and operating cost budgets, cash ow requirement projections (i.e.,
how the costs budgeted are expected to be expended over time), and sales rate and
sale price projections (which are typically inversely related). These elements should
be combined into one cash ow spreadsheet to model the economics of the proposed
bank. Development of the model then allows sensitivity analyses to determine the
effects of the more variable elements of the project. These elements include sales
rates and credit prices, presale requirements, and phasing of capital expenditures.
The model can then be used to estimate potential returns on the capital needed
to develop the proposed wetland bank. The returns will be adjusted based upon the
perceived level of risk by potential funding sources and compared to alternative
investment options by such sources. A mitigation banker must nd capital sources
that recognize the proposed bank to be a superior investment alternative based upon
its risk tolerance and investment interests. The appropriate capital budgeting tech-
niques used in this analysis are identical to those involved in any capital intensive
industry, and thus are not described in detail herein. For those inexperienced in such
techniques, there are a number of excellent textbooks that address this topic (e.g.,
Bierman and Smidt, 1993).
The fundamental economic test that a wetland bank must meet is the ability to
sell credits at a price that exceeds expected costs and investor return requirements.
This seemingly simple concept is very difcult to predict at this stage in the devel-
opment of the mitigation banking industry. The market at this time is thin, and it is
dependent upon regulatory practices and policies that often appear to change faster
than wetland banks can be approved, constructed, and grown.
A successful wetland bank is one that satises both economic and ecological
criteria. Several banks have achieved that goal to date. Whether or not these dual
goals can be achieved consistently throughout the country by this nascent industry,
and create wetlands ecologically superior to traditional on- and off-site approaches,
remains to be seen. The USEPA has proposed to engage the U.S. National Academy
of Science to study this question over the 19992000 time period.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 6 Regulatory policies inuence wetland mitigation credit markets. (Adapted from
Shabman et al., 1994. With permission.)

2001 CRC Press LLC

 REFERENCES

Apogee Research, An examination of wetlands programs: opportunities for compensatory

mitigation, National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study, IWR Report 94-WMB-5, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, 1994.
Bierman, Jr., H. and Smidt, S., The Capital Budgeting System: Economic Analysis of Invest-
ment Projects, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1993.
Brown, S. and Veneman, P., Compensatory Wetland Mitigation in Massachusetts, Research
Bulletin Number 746, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, 1998.
Brumbaugh, R. and Reppert, R., First Phase Report National Wetland Mitigation Banking
Study, IWR Report 94-WMB-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources, 1994.
Dennison, M. S. and Schmid, J. A., Wetlands Mitigation: Mitigation Banking and Other
Strategies for Development and Compliance, Government Institutes, Rockville,
MD, 1997.
DeWeese, J., An Evaluation of Selected Wetland Creation Projects Authorized through the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento,
CA, 1994.
Eggers, S. D., Compensatory Wetland Mitigation: Some Problems and Suggestions for Cor-
rective Measures, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, 1992.
Environmental Law Institute and Institute for Water Resources, Wetland mitigation banking
report: resource document, National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study, IWR Report
94-WMB-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, 1994.
Environmental Law Institute, Wetland Mitigation Banking, Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, D.C., 1993.
Environmental Law Institute, Wetland Mitigation Banking, Environmental Law Institute, IWR
Report 94-WMB-6, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1994.
Environmental Law Reporter and Environmental Law Institute, Wetlands Deskbook,
Washington, D.C., 1993.
Gallihugh, J. L., Wetland Mitigation and 404 Permit Compliance Study, Vol. 1, Report and
Appendices A, B, D, E, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Barrington, IL, 1998.
Institute for Water Resources, National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study, Model Banking
Instrument, Water Resources Support Center IWR Technical Paper WMB-TP-1, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, May 1996.
King, C., Bohlen, C., and Adler, K. J., Watershed Management and Wetland Mitigation: A
Framework for Determining Compensation Ratios, University of Maryland System Draft
Report #UMCEES, CBL-93-098, 1993.
Lazarus, R., U.S. v. Wilson imposes limits on the reach of Section 404, Natl. Wetlands Newsl.,
20, 2, 1998.
Lee, G., Schlanger, P., and Murray, C., A decision well reasoned, Natl. Wetlands Newsl., 19,
2, 1997.
Liebesman, L. R., Maryland adopts landmark wetlands mitigation banking legislation, Md.
Builder, July/August, 1993.
McElsh, J., The Tulloch Rule is overturned, Natl. Wetlands Newsl., 19(2), 1997.
Redmond, A., Report on the Effectiveness of Permitted Mitigation, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, 1991.
Reppert, R., Wetlands Mitigation Banking Concepts, National Wetland Mitigation Banking
Study, IWR Report 92-WMB-1, 1992.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Salvesen, D., Wetlands: Mitigation and Regulating Development Impacts, 2nd ed., Urban
Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Scodari, P. and Brumbaugh, R., Commercial Wetland Mitigation Credit Ventures: 1995
National Survey, IWR Report 96-WMB-9, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for
Water Resources, Alexandria, VA, 1996.
Scodari, P., Shabman, L., and White, D., Wetlands Credit Markets: Theory and Practice, IWR
Report 95-WMB-7, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources,
Fort Belvoir, VA, 1996.
Shabman, L., Stephenson, K., and Scodari, P., Wetland credit sales as a strategy for achieving
no net loss: the limitations of regulatory conditions, Wetlands, 18, 471, 1998.
Shabman, L., Scodari, P., and King, D., National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study, Expand-
ing Opportunities for Successful Mitigation: The Private Credit Market Alternative,
Institute for Water Resources, Water Resources Support Center, IWR Report 94-WMB-3,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA, 1994.
Short, C., Mitigation Banking, Biological Report 88(41), U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development, Washington, D.C., 1988.
Want, W. L., Law of Wetlands Regulation, The Clark Boardman Callaghan Environmental
Law Series, West Group, New York, 1998.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine
Fisheries Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service, Federal guidance for the
establishment, use and operation of mitigation banks, Fed. Regist., 60, 58605, 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum of Agreement between the Department
of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Determination of
Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, 1990.
Wilkey, P. L., Sundell, R. C., Bailey, K. A., and Hayes, D. C., Wetland Mitigation Banking
for the Oil and Gas Industry: Assessment, Conclusions, and Recommendations, Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 1994.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Kent, Donald M. Monitoring Wetlands
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 8

Monitoring Wetlands

Donald M. Kent

CONTENTS

Reasons for Monitoring

Measures
Properties of Individual Plants
Properties of Vegetation Communities
Landform Properties
Properties of Soil
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Properties
Aquatic Physical and Chemical Properties
Organismal Properties
Properties of Individual Wildlife and Fish Species
Properties of Wildlife and Fish Communities
Approaches to Monitoring
Selecting a Monitoring Approach
Investment and Return
Investment, Return, and Area
Investment, Return, and Time
Measures and Monitoring Approaches
Investment, Measures, and Area
Investment, Measures, and Time
Monitoring Design and Analysis
Design
Analysis
References

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Wetlands monitoring is the checking, watching, or tracking of wetlands for the
purpose of collecting and interpreting data, which is then used to record or control
the wetland or processes affecting the wetland. Not to be confused with wetlands
assessment or evaluation which is the valuation of wetlands, monitoring of wetlands
is a component of mitigation efforts (Kusler and Kentula, 1990; U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1989), the Environmental Protection Agencys Environmental Moni-
toring and Assessment Program (Paul et al., 1990; Leibowitz et al., 1991), and other
programs designed to protect, conserve, and understand wetland resources (New
Hampshire Water Pollution Control Commission, 1989; Haddad, 1990; Walker,
1991). Monitoring efforts are conducted for several reasons using a variety of
techniques to measure and assess an array of structural and functional parameters.
The process of developing and implementing a monitoring program can be
reduced to four basic steps (Figure 1). First and foremost, the reason for monitoring
must be identied and clearly stated. Second, a determination of the measures
appropriate for achieving the stated objective(s) must be made. Third, an approach
commensurate with the level of investment and the required return must be selected.
The size of the area to be monitored, as well as the length of time the area will be
monitored, will affect selection of an approach. Finally, the information gathered
from the monitoring effort must be analyzed and interpreted.

REASONS FOR MONITORING

For the most part, wetland monitoring is conducted for a relatively few, discrete
reasons. Habitat mapping and trend analysis monitoring are conducted to identify
wetlands resources and to detect changes in these resources over time. Examples of
mapping and trend analysis monitoring include efforts in coastal and seaway Canada
(Rump, 1987), coastal India (Nayak et al., 1989), migratory bird habitat in central
California (Peters, 1989), and the National Wetlands Inventory project (Dahl and
Pywell, 1989).
Perhaps the largest monitoring effort of this type is the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (Paul et al., 1990; Liebowitz, 1991). The program, designed
to monitor the condition of wetlands, has stimulated mapping and trend analysis
monitoring throughout the United States (Haddad, 1990; Johnston and Handley,
1990; Orth et al., 1990). Initial aspects of the wetland ecosystems component of the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program focus on determining the sen-
sitivity of various metrics for detecting known levels of stress and determining the
spatial and temporal variability of proposed wetland indicators of condition (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).
Wildlife and sheries management monitoring is also a type of habitat mapping
and trend analysis monitoring. It is conducted to provide information about species
richness and species abundance over time and to assess the effects of management
strategies. The wildlife or sheries population (Henny et al., 1972; Neilson and
Green, 1981; Hink and Ohmart, 1984; Young, 1987; Molini, 1989), habitat indicators
of wildlife richness and abundance (Weller and Fredrickson, 1974; Koeln et al.,
1988), or both (Weller, 1979; Weller and Voigts, 1983) are monitored.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Figure 1 Steps for developing and implementing a wetland monitoring program.

A second reason for monitoring is to determine the effectiveness of enhancement,

restoration, and creation efforts. Examples include evaluation of habitat created using
dredge spoil (Newling and Landin, 1985; Landin et al., 1989) and restoration of
degraded habitats (Pacic Estuarine Research Laboratory, 1990). There are numer-
ous monitoring efforts associated with Section 404, state, and local wetland ll
permits (Kusler and Kentula, 1989; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989; Erwin,
1991) as well.
Impact analysis constitutes a third reason for monitoring. Monitoring is con-
ducted to determine the response of wetlands to identied direct and indirect impacts.
Examples include monitoring of impacts to wetlands on and adjacent to hazardous
waste sites (Watson et al., 1985; Hebert et al., 1990), as well as impacts from discrete
and continuous chemical contamination events (McFarlane and Watson, 1977;
Woodward et al., 1988). Other examples of impact analysis monitoring include
studies of the effects of highway construction (Cramer and Hopkins, 1981), siting
impacts from generating station construction and operation (Wynn and Kiefer, 1977),
2001 CRC Press LLC
effects on wetland ora from exposure to electromagnetic elds (Guntenspergen
et al., 1989), and impacts from agricultural practices (Hawkins and Stewart, 1990;
Walker, 1991).
Finally, wetlands may be monitored to determine the potential for, or effective-
ness of, wetlands for treating point source or nonpoint source discharges. Treatment
monitoring has been applied to studies of the effectiveness of constructed wetlands
for domestic wastewater treatment (Hardy, 1988; Choate et al., 1990; Tennessee
Valley Authority, 1990), mine drainage (Eger and Kapakko, 1988; Stark et al., 1988;
Stillings et al., 1988), stormwater runoff (Meiorin, 1991), and agricultural runoff
(Costello, 1991).

MEASURES

A large number of measures have been applied, or potentially can be applied,

to monitoring of wetland structure and function (Table 1). Commonly used measures
include measures of the properties of individual plants and animals, measures of the
properties of vegetation and wildlife communities, measures of aquatic physical and
chemical properties, and measures of soil properties. Less commonly used are
measures of hydrologic and hydraulic properties such as ood frequency and ground-
water depth. Generally unused are potentially useful measures of landform properties
such as heterogeneity and patch characteristics (Forman and Godron, 1986). The
latter properties are particularly important in the preservation and creation of wet-
lands for wildlife and are likely to be useful for other aspects of habitat mapping
and trend analysis monitoring. Measures of organismal properties are typical of
impact analysis monitoring programs.

Properties of Individual Plants

Measures of the properties of individual plants are used to assess the condition
of natural plants and propagules. In theory, the properties of a plant are affected by
any factor that alters the growth and maintenance of the plant. Factors that affect
plant growth and maintenance include soil nutrients, soil moisture, disease, pest
infestations, and anthropogenic and other disturbances. Information obtained from
measurements of the properties of individual plants can be applied to trend analysis
monitoring, enhanced, restored, and created wetlands monitoring, impact analysis
monitoring, and treatment monitoring.
The simplest measure of an individual plant is survival, that is, whether the plant
is dead or alive. For living plants, measures include basal area, which is the area of
exposed stem if the plant were cut horizontally, and stem diameter, which is the
maximum width of the area of exposed stem if the plant were cut horizontally. Basal
area and stem diameter are usually measured in centimeters (2.5 cm equals 1 in.)
above the ground by ecologists and range managers, and 1.4 m (4.5 ft) above the
ground by foresters. Plant height is the mean vertical distance from the ground at
the base of a plant to the uppermost level of a plant. Cover, including ground cover
(herbaceous plants and low growing shrubs) and canopy cover (other shrubs and

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 1 Measures of Wetland Structure and Function
Properties of individual plants
Basal area Growth rate
Biomass Productivity
Canopy diameter Stem diameter
Cover Survival
Properties of vegetation communities
Basal cover Evenness
Biomass Richness
Cover Survival
Cover type Stratication
Density
Landform properties
Accessibility Interaction
Dispersion Shape
Heterogeneity Size
Isolation
Properties of soil
Classication Organic content
Moisture Texture
Hydrologic and hydraulic properties
Flood storage volume Surface water depth
Frequency of ooding Surface water area
Groundwater depth Surface water velocity
Groundwater recharge volume Surface water width
Aquatic physical/chemical properties
Biological oxygen demand pH
Chlorophyll Salinity
Turbidity Temperature
Dissolved solids Toxicants
Nutrients
Organismal properties
Behavior Metabolism
Bioaccumulation Reproduction
Growth and development Tissue health
Properties of individual wildlife and sh species
Abundance Density
Association Mortality
Age structure Presence/absence
Properties of wildlife communities
Abundance Evenness
Biomass Niche overlap
Density Richness

trees), is that part of the ground area covered by the vertical projection downward
of the aerial part of the plant. Typically, the vertical projection downward is viewed
as a polygon drawn around the plants perimeter and ignores small gaps between
branches. Canopy diameter is the average maximum width of the polygon used for
canopy cover. Basal area, stem diameter, plant height, cover, and canopy diameter,
if repeatedly measured over time, can be used as indicators of plant growth rate.
Plants allocate net production to leaves, twigs, stem, bark, roots, owers, and
seeds. The accumulated living organic matter is the biomass and is usually expressed

2001 CRC Press LLC

as the dry weight per unit of area. Determining the allocation to each part is generally
invasive in that the parts must be removed from the plant and either weighed or
analyzed for energy or nutrient content. Nevertheless, individual plant productivity
can be estimated by sampling leaves, owers, or seeds (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Monitoring of individual plants during the appropriate season will indicate if repro-
duction is occurring. Productivity can be estimated by sampling leaves, owers,
or seeds.

Properties of Vegetation Communities

Just as factors that affect plant growth and maintenance are reected in mea-
surements of the properties of individual plants, factors which affect more than one
individual plant will be reected in measurements of the properties of vegetation
communities. Therefore, measures of the properties of vegetation communities are
of use in assessing the condition of natural and mitigated vegetation communities.
Measures of the properties of vegetation communities include extensions of
the measures applied to individual plants as well as measures which are unique
to the characterization of communities. Measures of community survival, basal

2001 CRC Press LLC

cover, cover, and biomass require the accumulation of measures of individual
plants. The cumulative expression of these measures, relative to the number of
individuals assessed in the case of survival, or relative to the size of the area
assessed in the case of basal cover and cover, provides for the description of the
vegetation community.
Properties unique to vegetation communities include cover type, which is the
assignment of the community or parts of the community, to predetermined categories
(Figure 3). Classication of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States
(Cowardin et al., 1979) is the most commonly used system for describing cover type
and its widespread use provides for comparison among disparate monitoring efforts.
Nevertheless, the development of other descriptive systems is sometimes required
in order to maximize information return. Other measures unique to the community
level are density, which describes the number of individuals per unit of area, and
richness, which is the list of plant species identied in the community of interest.
If each individual plant within the sampling area is identied, then evenness can be
determined. Evenness describes how the species abundances are distributed among
the species. Another widely used measure of community structure, diversity, com-
bines richness and evenness. Because diversity measures combine richness and
evenness, they confound the number of species, the relative abundances of the
species, and the homogeneity and size of the area sampled, and are, therefore, less
useful than measures of richness and evenness. Finally, measures of stratication, a
diversity index reecting the amount of foliage at various levels above the ground,
describe the vertical structure of the vegetation community.

Figure 3 Wetlands can be monitored for cover type, which is the assignment of the plant
community, in this case emergent macrophytes, to predetermined categories.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Landform Properties

Measures of landform properties are used by landscape ecologists to identify

and describe individual communities and the relationships among communities. The
measures can be valuable to wetland scientists interested in local and regional
planning issues, particularly because these issues relate to wildlife and trend analysis.
However, the measures have been infrequently used and, therefore, require precise
denition and identication of limitations, when applied.
Some measures of landform properties, such as shape and size, can be applied
to studies of single wetlands. Shape is typically described as a ratio of wetland
perimeter to wetland area (Bowen and Burgess, 1981). Size is described as the area
of the wetland or by some linear dimension such as length, width, or the ratio of
length to width.
Other measures of landform properties require consideration of more than a
single wetland. Accessibility describes the distance along a corridor of suitable
habitat from one wetland to another and reects the perceived ease of species
movement (Bowen and Burgess, 1981). Dispersion describes the pattern (e.g.,
clumped, uniform, random) of spatial arrangement among wetlands (Pielou, 1977).
Isolation describes the distance of a wetland from other wetlands (Bowen and
Burgess, 1981) and interaction describes the perceived inuence of a wetland on
another wetland through consideration of the distance between wetlands
(MacClintock et al., 1977).

Properties of Soil

Measures of the properties of soils are useful in describing wetland structure

and provide clues to wetland function. As part of mapping and trend analysis
monitoring efforts, measures of soil properties help to distinguish between wetland
and nonwetland areas and provide information as to changes to these areas. If
monitored as part of a wetland enhancement, restoration, or creation effort, including
efforts associated with the establishment of treatment wetlands, measures of the
properties of soil indicate the development of hydric conditions.
Soil is typically classied according to such characters as color, texture, and size
and shape of aggregates. The Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
system is the commonly used taxonomic classication system in the United States.
Based upon the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons
within the prole, the system also provides information about the use and manage-
ment of the soil. Soil texture is based on the relative proportions of the various soil
separates in a sample and is estimated from its plasticity when extruded and by
feeling its grittiness (Hays et al., 1981). Soil moisture is the percent of a given
amount of soil consisting of water and is estimated by the loss of weight on drying.
Soil organic content is the percent of a given amount of soil consisting of organic
matter and is estimated by loss of weight upon ignition.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Properties

Simply stated, a wetland is a wetland because it is wet. Hydrologic and hydraulic

measures provide useful descriptors of wetland structure and also provide valuable
information as to wetland function. Measures of hydrologic and hydraulic properties
provide information about the extent of wetlands as well as the effect of intrinsic
and extrinsic changes to wetlands. Treatment monitoring benets from measures of
hydrologic and hydraulic properties in determining maximum treatment capacity.
Measures of hydrologic and hydraulic properties as part of enhanced, restored, and
created wetland efforts are integral to an assessment of project success.
Velocity describes the speed at which water travels and reects not only the
depth and width of the water body, but also the topographical gradient and the
extent and type of vegetation. Water depth, width, and area are descriptors of
wetland structure. Monitored over time, and in relation to extreme events, these
measures provide an empirical estimate of the frequency of ooding and of ood
storage volume. Flood storage volume can also be estimated using one of a number
of computerized hydrological models (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981; Soil
Conservation Service Hydrology Units 1982 and 1986; Huber and Dickinson,
1988). Model inputs include wetland and watershed slope, vegetative cover, soil
type, and surface type (i.e., pervious or impervious). Groundwater depth, the
distance below the ground surface at which water occurs, can be determined
empirically through the installation and monitoring of wells (Figure 4). Ground-
water recharge volume, the volume of surface water moving down through the soil
to an underlying groundwater system or aquifer, can be estimated using the afore-
mentioned hydrological models.

Aquatic Physical and Chemical Properties

The quality of water affects the growth, maintenance, and reproduction of wet-
land ora and fauna. Wetland water quality is revealed by measures of aquatic
physical and chemical properties. Water quality reects the condition of the sur-
rounding environment and is affected by human activities such as watershed erosion
and point and nonpoint source discharges. Wetland water quality also reects the
condition of the wetland itself. Measures of aquatic physical and chemical properties
are particularly applicable to monitoring of the effects of impacts to wetlands and
monitoring the effectiveness of treatment wetlands.
Water temperature inuences the rate of metabolic reactions, the reactivity of
enzymes, and the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved in water. The pH of water
affects organismal physiological reactions and membrane characteristics. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations must be sufcient to enable diffusion from the water into an
animals blood. Salinity affects water quality through its effect on the ability of
species to maintain osmotic balance. Turbidity restricts the depth to which solar
radiation can penetrate the water column. Dissolved solids, such as carbonates,
bicarbonates, chlorides, phosphates, nitrates, and salts of calcium, magnesium,
sodium, and potassium, affect organismal ionic balance and other physiological
processes. Biological oxygen demand, the amount of oxygen required by bacteria

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 4 Groundwater depth, the distance below the ground surface at which water occurs,
can be monitored empirically using wells.

while stabilizing decomposable organic matter under aerobic conditions, reects the
trophic status of the aquatic body and possibly the extent and type of inputs to the
aquatic body. Trophic status is also revealed by measures of chlorophyll and of
nutrients such as nitrates, nitrites, and phosphates. Measures of toxicants such as
heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and petroleum hydrocarbons provide a
direct measure of contaminants.

Organismal Properties

As with plants, factors that alter the growth, reproduction, and maintenance of
an individual organism will affect the properties of that organism. Therefore, those
properties will be of use in assessing the condition of that organism. Factors that
affect organismal growth, reproduction, and maintenance include water quality,
including the presence or absence of environmental toxins, and the availability of
food and cover. Measures of the properties of individual organisms are of particular
use in monitoring impacted wetlands or in assessing the affects to a natural wetland
used for treatment of a discharge.
Organismal behavior, such as predator avoidance, foraging effectiveness, and
intraspecic social interactions, is modied by factors that affect the wetland. So,
too, the rate or age of the onset of reproduction and the rate of growth and develop-
ment are similarly affected. Factors may also affect organismal metabolism, such as
oxygen consumption, photosynthesis, nutrient uptake, or enzymatic reactivity. In a
more direct sense, organisms express a response to unfavorable environmental factors
by the bioaccumulation of chemical constituents. In some cases, bioaccumulated

2001 CRC Press LLC

chemical constituents are evidenced by changes in tissue health, such as lesions and
tumors.

Properties of Individual Wildlife and Fish Species

Factors that grossly affect organisms, particularly those factors that affect repro-
duction and growth and development, will be reected in properties of individual
wildlife and sh populations. Therefore, measures of the properties of individual
wildlife and sh species are of use in monitoring impacted wetlands. These measures
are also useful for trend analysis monitoring efforts in that they reect the condition
of the wetland relative to the focal species. Finally, measures of the properties of
individual wildlife and sh species provide important information as to the value of
enhanced, restored, and created wetlands as wildlife or sheries habitat.
The simplest measures of individual wildlife and sh species are pres-
ence/absence and abundance (Figure 5). Requiring relatively more effort are mea-
sures of population density, the number of individuals per unit of area. Other
measures are useful in assessing the potential persistence of the species. Mortality
can be expressed as either the probability of dying or as the death rate. The com-
plement of mortality is survival, the probability of living. Natality is the production
of new individuals in the population and can be described as the maximum or
physiological natality or as the realized mortality. Changes in mortality, survival,
and natality are reected in the age structure of the wildlife or sh population.
Declining or stabilized populations are characterized by relatively fewer young in
the reproductive age classes and a relatively larger proportion of individuals in older
age classes. Conversely, growing populations are characterized by a relatively larger
proportion of the younger age classes. Monitoring efforts interested in determining
how a wildlife or sh species is distributed throughout the wetland will use measures
of association.

Properties of Wildlife and Fish Communities

Analogous to the situation with vegetation communities, factors which affect the
reproduction, growth, and development of more than one wildlife or sh species
will be reected in measurements of the properties of wildlife and sh communities.
As with measures of the properties of individual wildlife and sh species, measures
of the properties of wildlife and sh communities are applicable to impact monitor-
ing, trend analysis monitoring, and enhanced, restored, and created wetlands mon-
itoring efforts.
Measures of wildlife or sh community abundance and density provide gross
estimates of wetland condition and suitability (Figure 6). The number of species
occurring in the community is the richness. Evenness refers to how the species
abundances are distributed among the species. The richness and evenness measures
are frequently combined to form a single measure of diversity. Again, the major
criticism of diversity measures is that they confound a number of variables that
characterize community structure (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988). Alternatively, bio-
mass can be used to quantitatively describe wildlife and sh communities. More

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 5 Wildlife presence/absence and abundance can reasonably be monitored with a
minimum of effort.

commonly applied to measures of vegetation communities, biomass is of use in

describing community structure, particularly energy ow. Monitoring efforts inter-
ested in determining how coexisting species use common wetland resources will
use measures of niche overlap.

APPROACHES TO MONITORING

Two broad approaches are available for monitoring wetlands: remote and contact.
Remote monitoring is the acquisition of information about a wetland from a distance,
without physical contact. Conversely, contact monitoring is the acquisition of infor-
mation about a wetland from near at hand, with physical contact.
Remote monitoring of wetlands provides a level of spatial and temporal sampling
that is impractical with contact techniques. Because data are available at large and
synoptic scales, large-scale patterns can be discerned and large-scale processes can
be measured. Space-based remote sensing instruments measure electromagnetic radi-
ation reected and emitted by the earths surface. Visible and thermal satellite data
provide location information about broad vegetation cover types and extent of inun-
dation (Carter et al., 1976; Roughgarden et al., 1991; Wickland, 1991). Comparison
of images along a temporal gradient provides information about land use and vege-
tation successional changes (Mackey and Jensen, 1989; Nayak et al., 1989; Byrne
and Dabrowska-Zielinska, 1981). Information is provided at mesoscale, macroscale,

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 6 Fish community species richness and abundance can be monitored using sh
traps such as this fyke net.

and megascale levels (see Table 2 adapted from Delcourt and Delcourt, 1988). Aerial
photography provides similar information at the microscale and mesoscale levels
(Cartmill, 1973; Haddad, 1990; Jean and Bouchard, 1991).
Contact monitoring cannot reasonably provide information about large-scale
processes, but it does provide for the acquisition of more detailed structural and
functional information on a site-specic basis. Contact monitoring includes measures
of habitat structure, measures of water quality and hydrology, measures of animal
populations, and measures of contaminant levels in wildlife and sh (Cramer and
Hopkins, 1981; Bosserman and Hill, 1985; Watson et al., 1985; Eger and Kapakko,
1988; Hardy, 1988; Pritchett, 1988; Shortelle et al., 1989; Clausen and Johnson,
1990; Conner and Toliver, 1990; Hebert et al., 1990; Oberts and Osgood, 1991;
Walker, 1991). Specic measurement parameters used in contact monitoring are
discussed in Hays et al. (1981), Cooperrider et al. (1986), Graves and Dittberner
(1986), and Adamus and Brandt (1990).
Historically, many contact monitoring programs have been based upon structural
parameters related to vegetation (Larson, 1987; Carothers et al., 1989; Landin et al.,
1989). The recent trend is toward the measurement of appropriate indicators which
reect wetland functional condition (Brooks et al., 1989; Paul et al., 1990; Kent
et al., 1992).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 2 Spatial Hierarchy of Delcourt and Delcourt (1988)
Hierarchical Domains Sublevels Area (m2) Map Scale
1.5 10 14 Smaller scale
Global
Megascale 1 1014 1:20,000,000
Continent
1 1012 1:2,000,000
Macroscale Macroregion
1 1010 1:200,000
Mesoregion
Mesoscale 1 108 1:20,000
Microregion
1 106 1:2,000
Macrosite
1 104 1 1:1 200
Microscale Mesosite
1 102 1 1:1 200
Microsite
1 10 1 1:1 200

SELECTING A MONITORING APPROACH

Ideally, all monitoring programs would have adequate numbers of trained per-
sonnel using replicated, quantitative techniques, and large sample sizes. Monitoring
would be conducted over a sufcient number of years to provide for identication
of stochastic variation. Finally, the data would be subjected to parametric statistical
analysis and the results would have global application.
Realistically, the vast majority of monitoring programs, if not all monitoring
programs, are constrained by the availability of resources. Government monitoring
programs are often understaffed, and the programs are subject to periodic reassess-
ment of priorities. Monitoring programs conducted by academics are sensitive to
available funding. Mitigation monitoring is conducted for the minimum time nec-
essary, using minimum funding, because of the understandable disinterest of devel-
opers in long-term commitment of resources to what may be perceived as an
ancillary activity.

Investment and Return

Given the enormous amount of resources required to effectively and accurately

monitor a single wetland, notwithstanding the resources required to monitor wetlands
at the megascale, it is clear that each monitoring opportunity requires consideration
of investment and return. That is, what information about the wetland is required and
what resources can be applied in pursuit of this information? This consideration must
bear in mind that a commitment of resources to one monitoring opportunity neces-
sarily diminishes the resources available for subsequent monitoring opportunities.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Furthermore, the relationship between investment and return can be expected
to be logarithmic: as investment increases, the rate of increase in return decreases
(Figure 7). To illustrate this point, consider the monitoring of a 32-ha created
wetland for wildlife species richness. For a single sampling technique, a pedestrian
transect, 1 h of sampling resulted in the identication of 8 species, 4 h of sampling
identied 15 total species, 7 h of sampling identied 18 total species, and 10 h of
sampling identied 22 total species. A decline in return relative to the level of
investment is also evident when multiple sampling techniques are used. After 84 h
of pedestrian transect sampling, fyke net sampling, scan sampling, and auditory
sampling identied 32 species. An additional 84 h (for a total of 168 h) of sampling
identied 12 more species, and a third 84-h sampling event (total of 252 h) yielded
7 more species.

Figure 7 The relationship between investment and return can be expected to be logarithmic.
That is, as investment increases the rate of increase in return decreases.

Clearly, in this example an investment of 1 h was inadequate to reasonably

describe species richness on the site. However, if the question is, Are wildlife
species present on the site? then 1 h is adequate. Conversely, if it is important to
identify nearly every species using the site, then an investment of 250 or more hours
is more realistic. In most cases, information needs, whether for determination of
wildlife species richness or any other wetland variable, fall somewhere in-between
these two extremes. Continuing with the example, an investment of more than 250 h
only results in the identication of 7 more species than an investment of 168 h. This
is a 16 percent increase return for a 50 percent increase in investment. Again, in the
real world of budget constraints and additional commitments, selecting a level of

2001 CRC Press LLC

investment commensurate with the level of information required is essential. Nev-
ertheless, the effect of a less than comprehensive monitoring effort on project output
must be recognized prior to initiation of the monitoring effort.
As discussed above, information returned from a given monitoring effort is a
function of the amount of resources invested in that effort. The rate of increase in
return decreases as investment increases. Selection of an appropriate level of invest-
ment, and consequently development of a pragmatic monitoring program, is expe-
dited by considerations of space and time.

Investment, Return, and Area

For a given level of investment, return decreases with increasing area to be

monitored. Conversely, as the area to be monitored increases, the level of investment
must be correspondingly increased to maintain a given level of information return.
The relationship between area and return for a given level of effort, as it was between
investment and return, is logarithmic because sampling parameters are typically area
specic (Figure 8). Returning to the example of monitoring wildlife species richness,
a monitoring technique which comprehensively samples a 1-ha site will only sample
one half of a 2-ha site, one fourth of a 4-ha site, and so on. As such, in order to
monitor larger areas, either the investment must be increased accordingly or a lesser
return accepted.

Figure 8 When sampling parameters are area specic, the relationship between area and
return is inversely logarithmic. A relatively greater level of investment is required
to maintain a given level of return as the size of the area to be monitored increases.

The scale at which an investment is made, and at which a return is realized, is

a function of the reason for monitoring. Habitat mapping and trend analysis moni-
toring occurs on the microscale to the megascale, with monitoring for wildlife and
sheries management occurring primarily at the microscale and mesoscale.
Enhanced, restored, and created wetlands monitoring occurs at the microscale.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Impact analysis monitoring occurs at the microscale and mesoscale, and treatment
monitoring occurs at the microscale.

Investment, Return, and Time

The effect of time on monitoring investment and return has historically been
restricted to consideration of the length of the monitoring program. Habitat map-
ping and trend analysis monitoring occur for undened but generally prolonged
periods. Monitoring of sheries and wildlife management occurs for extended
periods corresponding with management goals, although, short-term efforts do
occur (Shortelle et al., 1989). Monitoring of enhanced, restored, and created wet-
lands generally occurs for nite periods of time (typically 2 to 7 years) and
frequently corresponds with permit conditions. Impact analysis monitoring con-
tinues until such time as the impact source is remedied or the nature and extent
of the impact is understood. Treatment monitoring occurs for extended periods
corresponding with treatment needs.
Characteristic of most programs, regardless of the reason for monitoring, is
establishment of a monitoring scheme that proceeds without variation until pro-
gram completion. This type of effort, which can be described as continuous
investment monitoring, is represented by a straight line when time is plotted against
monitoring investment.
In some instances, continuous investment monitoring can be reasonably modied
over time to achieve an efcient balance between investment and return. For example,
monitoring of an enhanced, restored, and created wetland may include tracking of
structural aspects related to construction (e.g., propagule survival, surface or ground-
water elevation), as well as determination of wetland function (e.g., species richness,
sediment, and toxicant retention). As an alternative to the maintenance of this
relatively large investment throughout the monitoring period, structural and func-
tional monitoring could be conned to an initial critical period, perhaps as little as
2 to 3 years, and subsequent years committed to monitoring of functional compo-
nents. The level of investment could be reduced to levels commensurate with habitat
mapping and trend analysis after a suitable period (Figure 9a). Similarly, impact
analysis monitoring could be reduced to levels commensurate with habitat mapping
and trend analysis after an initial investment intensive period (Figure 9b). In each
case, gaining an understanding of the relationship between site specic structure
and function is essential.

Measures and Monitoring Approaches

A number of the measures listed in Table 1 cannot be accomplished through

remote sensing and, therefore, only lend themselves to contact monitoring. Properties
of soil, individual organisms, and aquatic physical and chemical properties cannot
reasonably or effectively be measured without observations at the site. Measures of
the properties of individual plants and vegetation communities also largely lend
themselves to contact monitoring. However, measurement of vegetation community
cover type and canopy cover can reasonably be accomplished through the use of

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 9 Most monitoring programs use a continuous level of investment throughout. Rea-
sonably, monitoring investment for enhanced, restored, and created wetlands (a)
and impact analysis (b) could consist of an initial investment intensive period
followed by a less intensive period(s) designed to balance investment and return.

aerial photography or satellite imagery, and individual tree canopy cover can be
accomplished through the use of aerial photography when vegetation is sparse and
relatively isolated. Similarly, properties of individual wildlife species and wildlife
communities can in certain situations be remotely monitored. For example, presence
and absence, abundance, and density can be accomplished through aerial photo-
graphs or aerial yovers of large species living in open habitats. Measures of
landform properties only lend themselves to remote monitoring, either through the
use of aerial photography or satellite imagery.
Measures of hydrologic and hydraulic properties are accomplished by contact
monitoring, remote monitoring, or a combination of the two. Measures of ground-
water and surface water depth can only be accomplished through contact monitoring.
Measures of surface water area are best accomplished through remote monitoring,
whereas monitoring of the frequency of ooding can reasonably be accomplished
through either contact or remote monitoring. Flood storage volume and groundwater
recharge volume which require knowledge of wetland and watershed slope, vegeta-
tive cover, soil type, and surface type (impervious or pervious) require both contact
and remote monitoring.

Investment, Measures, and Area

Any measure can be applied to any size monitoring area given a sufcient
investment. Nevertheless, for many measures there is a point where either the
investment required is too large to be practical or the return is diminished to the
point where the information in nonrepresentative of actual conditions. Measures of
the properties of individual plants, vegetation communities, soil, organisms, and
aquatic physical and chemical properties are generally most effective at the micros-
cale level, although vegetation community cover type is effectively applied to the
mesoscale and macroscale and in rare cases to the megascale (Haddad, 1990).
Measures of landform properties are most effectively applied to the mesoscale and

2001 CRC Press LLC

macroscale, although these measures are applicable to the microscale. Hydrologic
and hydraulic measures are most effectively applied at the microscale and mesoscale,
but measures of ood frequency and surface water area are effective at the macros-
cale. Properties of individual wildlife species and wildlife communities are also most
effectively measured at the microscale, although measures of abundance, density,
and richness are sometimes applicable at the mesoscale.

Investment, Measures, and Time

Analogous to the relationship between measure and area, any measure can be
applied over any length of time given a sufcient investment. Generally, contact
monitoring measures require a greater investment in time, money, and skill than
remote monitoring measures and are, therefore, more difcult to apply over long
periods of time because of inevitable staff turnover and shifting priorities. Properties
of individual plants, soil, organisms, and aquatic physical and chemical properties,
some hydrologic and hydraulic measures, and individual and community wildlife
properties are more effectively measured over relatively short periods of time. Mon-
itoring programs to be conducted for relatively long periods of time are more effective
if they use remote measures such as properties of landforms, vegetation community
cover type, or in some cases wildlife abundance, density, or richness measures.
Contact monitoring measures are applicable over long periods, even given a
reasonable level of investment, if sample size and frequency are reduced. However,
a reduction in investment inevitably reduces the monitoring return through reduction
in result representativeness. No attempt should be made to minimize sample size
and frequency without rst assessing the impact to the return, and then determining
if the reduction in return is acceptable. For example, a reduction in sample size or
sample frequency will increase the variance in the data. This variance must be
evaluated to determine if it obscures the information sought, that is, the data are too
imprecise to be of practical use. Frequently, this reduction in monitoring investment
results in the production of an index rather than a direct measure. An alternative
approach to reducing sample size and sample frequency of contact measures is to
establish a relationship between the contact measure of interest and a remote mea-
sure. In this way, the remote measure becomes an indicator of a wetland condition
generally determined through a contact measure.

MONITORING DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

Design

Monitoring data is the product of either an experimental or an observational

approach (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988). An experimental approach, analogous to a
true experiment (Hicks, 1982), presumes that the wetland is subject to experimental
manipulation. That is, one or more independent variables are manipulated and their
effect on one or more dependent variables is determined. Any differences among
the dependent variables are attributed to the independent variables. By contrast, an

2001 CRC Press LLC

observational approach uses measurements on the wetland over a range of natural
conditions. The observer can either study and compare separate wetlands or different
parts of the same wetland, subject to differing conditions at the same point in time.
Alternatively, the same wetland or part of a wetland can be studied or compared at
two separate points in time.
Regardless of the approach, effective monitoring of wetlands requires an initial
understanding of monitoring goals. This statement of the problem should include
one or more criteria for assessing the results of the monitoring effort. The criteria
should be measurable, and the achievable accuracy of the measure understood. If
an experimental approach is used, then the independent variables must be dened
and levels established.
Consideration must be given as to how the data are to be collected. The extent
of the difference to be detected and the degree of variability in the data will determine
the number of observations required. In the absence of this information, the sample
size should be as large as resource constraints will allow. Because there are always
a number of variables that cannot be controlled, the order of data collection should
be randomized. Randomization averages out the effects of time, and because ran-
domization allows the monitoring effort to proceed as if the errors of measurement
were independent, a key assumption of most statistical tests is satised (Hicks, 1982).

Analysis

Information obtained from a monitoring effort must be examined and inter-

preted. Statistics facilitate this examination and interpretation and are generally
descriptive or inferential in nature. Descriptive statistics simply describe a sample,
whereas inferential statistics allow inference, or the development of conclusions,
based on a sample.
Descriptive statistics include measures of central tendency such as mean, mode,
and median. Measures of dispersion, such as standard deviation and variance, indi-
cate how the data are distributed around the central tendency.
Spatial pattern can be an important descriptor of wetland plant and animal
communities. Three basic spatial patterns, random, clumped, and uniform, are
recognized. Random patterns suggest environmental homogeneity or nonselective
behavioral patterns, clumping suggests that individuals are aggregated in more
favorable parts of the habitat, and uniform patterns suggest negative interactions
between individuals (Pemberton and Frey, 1984). Analysis of spatial patterns is
useful in that it suggests hypotheses that might be tested to explain underlying
causal factors.
Species-abundance relationships reveal information about the structure of the
wetland community and lead to theories about such issues as community stability,
resource partitioning, and species-area relationships (Hutchinson, 1959; McGuin-
ness, 1984). Species abundances can be based upon number of individuals per species
or, alternatively, on other variables such as biomass or percent cover. The simplest
analysis of species-abundance relationships is a frequency distribution. Other char-
acterizations of species-abundance relationships are indicated by indices of species
richness, species evenness, and diversity.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Patterns in species interactions are revealed by analyses of species afnity. Niche
overlap indices indicate how coexisting species use a common resource. Measures
of interspecic association indicate whether or not two species select or avoid the
same habitat. When a sample contains quantitative measures of species abundances,
the covariation in abundance between species can be assessed.
Inferential statistics allow for testing of hypotheses about the data. If the popu-
lation from which the sample was drawn can be assumed to have a known distribution
and the sample items are independent of each other and normally distributed, then
parametric statistics can be used. The t-test is used to compare the means of two
samples (or the mean of a sample to a standard), and an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) test is used to compare more than two means. In experimental situations
where independent and dependent variables are dened, regression analysis is used
to predict the effect of changing the independent variable on the dependent variable.
Correlation analysis determines the degree of association between two factors of
unknown relationship. When no assumption about the distribution of the population
or the sample can be made, nonparametric statistics are appropriate. The Mann-
Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis k-sample test are analogous to the t-test and
ANOVA, respectively, and a contingency table can be used to test for associations
between variables.
Community classication is the grouping or clustering of objects based upon
their resemblance (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988). Its use in monitoring of wetlands
is in comparing a wetland with a reference wetland or in comparing the same wetland
at two different points in time. Community classication is accomplished through
the use of resemblance functions, association analysis, and cluster analysis. Com-
munity ordination is a term used to describe a set of techniques in which samples
are arranged in relation to one or more coordinate axes, thereby facilitating identi-
cation of similar and dissimilar samples (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988). Ordination
techniques are intended to simplify and condense large data sets, and to identify key
environmental factors. Techniques include polar ordination, principle component
analysis, correspondence analysis, and various nonlinear ordinations. Community
interpretation techniques provide for the evaluation of the effects of environmental
factors on the patterns revealed by community classication and ordination. Inter-
pretation of community classication data is accomplished with discriminate anal-
ysis, whereas interpretation of ordination data is accomplished through the use of
regression and correlation statistics (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988).

REFERENCES

Adamus, P. and Brandt, K., Impacts on Quality of Inland Wetlands of the United States: A
Survey of Indicators, Techniques, and Applications of Community Level Biomonitoring
Data, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/600/3-90/073, 1990.
Bosserman, R. W. and Hill, P. L., Community ecology of three wetlands, in Proceedings of
the Pennsylvania State University Wetlands Water Management Mined Lands Confer-
ence, 1985.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Bowen, G. W. and Burgess, R. L., A Quantitative Analysis of Forest Island Pattern in Selected
Ohio Landscapes, Publication ORNL-TM-7759, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1981.
Brooks, R. P., Arnold, D. E., Bellis, E. D., Keener, C. S., and Croonquist, M. J., A methodology
for biological monitoring of cumulative impacts on wetland, stream and riparian com-
ponents of watersheds, Draft presentation at International Symposium: Wetlands and
River Corridor Management, 1989.
Byrne, G. F. and Dabrowska-Zielinska, K., Use of visible and thermal satellite data to monitor
an intermittently ooding marshland, Remote Sens. Environ., 11, 393, 1981.
Carothers, S. W., Mills, G. S., and Johnson, R. R., The creation and restoration of riparian
habitat in southeastern arid and semiarid regions, in Wetland Creation and Restoration:
The Status of the Science, Report No. 600/3-89/038, Kusler, J. A. and Kentula, M. E.,
Eds., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, 1989, 359.
Carter, V., Alsid, L., and Anderson, R. R., Mans impact upon wetlands, in ERTS-1: A New
Window on Our Planet, Geological Survey Professional Paper 929, Williams, R. S. and
Carter, W. D., Eds., 1976, 293.
Cartmill, R. H., Evaluation of remote sensing and automatic data techniques for character-
ization of wetlands, in Proceedings of the ERTS-1 Symposium, Washington, D.C., 1973,
1257.
Choate, K. D., Watson, J. T., and Steiner, G. R., Demonstration of Constructed Wetlands
for Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters: Monitoring Report for the Period March
1988October 1989, Report No. TVA/WR/WQ-90/11, Tennessee Valley Authority,
Knoxville, TN, 1990.
Clausen, J. C. and Johnson, G. D., Lake level inuences on sediment and nutrient retention
in a lakeside wetland, J. Environ. Qual., 19(1), 83, 1990.
Conner, W. H. and Toliver, J. R., Observations on the regeneration of bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum) in Louisiana swamps, South. J. Appl. For., 14(3), 115, 1990.
Cooperrider, A. Y., Boyd, R. J., and Stuart, H. R., Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center, Denver,
CO, 1986.
Costello, C. J., Wetlands treatment of dairy animal wastes in Irish drumlin landscape, in
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Hammer, D. A., Ed., Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, MI, 1991, 702.
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., and LaRoe, E. T., Classication of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Fish Wildlife Service Biological Report
FWS/OBS-79/31, 1979.
Cramer, G. H. and Hopkins, W. C., The Effects of Elevated Highway Construction on Water
Quality in Louisiana Wetlands, Federal Highway Administration Report No.
LA-75-4G-F, 1981.
Dahl, T. E. and Pywell, H. R., National status and trends study: estimating wetland resources
in the 1980s, in AWRA Wetlands: Concerns and Successes Symposium, American Water
Resources Association, 1989, 25.
Delcourt, H. R. and Delcourt, P. A., Quaternary landscape ecology: relevant scales in space
and time, Land. Ecol., 2, 23, 1988.
Eger, P. and Kapakko, K., Use of wetlands to remove nickel and copper from mine drainage,
in Proceedings of the Tennessee Valley Authority First Annual Conference on Constructed
Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1988, 780.
Erwin, K. L., An evaluation of wetland mitigation in the South Florida Water Management
District, Report to the South Florida Water Management District, Contract No.
C89-0082-A1, 1991.
Forman, R. T. T. and Godron, M., Landscape Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Graves, B. M. and Dittberner, P. L., Variables for Monitoring Aquatic and Terrestrial Envi-
ronments, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 86(5), 1986.
Guntspergen, G., Keough, J., Stearns, F., and Wikum, D., ELF Communications System
Ecological Monitoring Program: Wetland StudiesFinal Report, Prepared for
Submarine Communications Project Ofce, Technical Report E066202, Contract No.
N00039-88-C-0065, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Haddad, K., Marine wetland mapping and monitoring in Florida, Fish Wildlife Service
Biological Report 90(18), 1990, 145.
Hardy, J. W., Land Treatment of municipal wastewater on Mississippi Sandhill Crane National
Refuge for wetlands/crane habitat management: a status report, in Proceedings of the
Tennessee Valley Authority First Annual Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Waste-
water Treatment, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1988, 186.
Hawkins, A. S. and Stewart, J. L., Environmental Management Program: Long Term Resource
Monitoring Program for the Upper Mississippi River System, Prepared for the Winona
County Soil and Water conservation District, Lewiston, MN and the Fish and Wildlife
Service, Onalaska, WI, Report No. EMTC-90/05, 1990.
Hays, R. L., Summers, C., and Seitz, W., Estimating Wildlife Habitat Variables, Fish Wildlife
Service Biological Report FWS/OBS-81/47, 1981.
Hebert, C. E., Haffner, G. D., Weis, I. M., Lazar, R., and Montour, L., Organochlorine
contaminants in duck populations of Walpole Island, J. Great Lakes Res., 16(1), 21, 1990.
Henny, C. J., Anderson, D. R., and Pospahala, R. S., Aerial Surveys of Waterfowl Production
in North America, 195571, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish Wildlife Service
Special Scientic ReportWildlife 160, 1972.
Hicks, C. R., Fundamental Concepts in the Design of Experiments, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York, 1982.
Hink, V. and Ohmart, R. D., Middle Rio Grande Biological Survey Final Report, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, NM, 1984.
Huber, W. C. and Dickinson, R. E., Stormwater Management Model, Version 4: Users
Manual, Cooperative Agreement CR-811607, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Athens, GA, 1988.
Hutchinson, G. E., Homage to Santa Roasalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals?
Am. Nat., 93, 145, 1959.
Jean, M. and Bouchard, A., Temporal changes in wetland landscapes of a section of the
St. Lawrence River, Canada, Environ. Manage., 15, 241, 1991.
Johnston, J. B. and Handley, L. R., Coastal Mapping Programs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services National Wetlands Research Center, Fish Wildlife Service Biological Report
90(18), Federal Coastal Wetland Mapping Programs, 1990, 105.
Kent, D. M., Reimold, R. J., Kelly, J., and Tammi, C., Coupling wetlands structure and
function: developing a condition index for wetlands monitoring, in Ecological Indicators,
Vol. 1, McKenzie, D. H., Hyatt, D. E., and McDonald, J. V., Eds., Elsevier Science,
Essex, England, 1992, 559.
Koeln, G. T., Jacobson, J. E., Wesley, D. E., and Rempel, R. S., Wetland inventories derived
from Landsat data for waterfowl management planning, in Proceedings of the 53rd
Wildlife Management Institute of North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, 1988, 303.
Kusler, J. A. and Kentula, M. E., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science,
Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1990.
Landin, M. C., Clairain, E. J., and Newling, C. J., Wetland habitat development and longterm
monitoring at Windmill Point, Virginia, Wetlands, 9, 13, 1989.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Larson, J. S., Wetland mitigation in the glaciated northeast: risks and uncertainties, in Miti-
gating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United States: An
Assessment of the Science Base, Larson, J. S. and Neill, C. S., Eds., University of
Massachusetts Environmental Institute Publication No. 871, 1987.
Leibowitz, N. C., Squires, L., and Baker, J. P., Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program: Research Plan for Monitoring Wetland Ecosystems, EPA Report No.
EPA/600/391/010, 1991.
Ludwig, J. A. and Reynolds, J. F., Statistical Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988.
MacClintock, L., Whitcomb, R. F., and Whitcomb, B. L., Evidence for the value of corridors
and minimization of isolation in preservation of biotic diversity, Am. Birds, 31, 6, 1977.
Mackey, H. E. and Jensen, J. R., Wetlands mapping with spot multispectral scanner data, in
Proceedings of the 9th Annual Convention on Surveying and Mapping AutoCartography,
Baltimore, MD, 1989.
McFarlane, C. and Watson, R. D., The detection and mapping of oil on a marshy area by a
remote luminescent sensor, in Proceedings of the American Petroleum Institute Oil Spill
Conference, American Petroleum Institute, New Orleans, LA, 1977, 197.
McGuinness, K. A., Equations and explanations in the study of species-area curves, Biol.
Rev., 59, 423, 1984.
Meiorin, E. C., Urban runoff treatment in a fresh/brackish water marsh in Fremont, California,
in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Hammer, D. A., Ed., Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1991, 677.
Molini, W. A., Pacic yway perspectives and expectations, in Proceedings of the 54th
Conference of the Wildlife Management Institute for North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources, Wildlife Management Institute, 1989, 529.
Nayak, S., Pandeya, A., Gupta, M. C., Trivedi, C. R., Prasad, K. N., and Kadri, S. A.,
Application of satellite data for monitoring degradation of tidal wetlands of the Gulf of
Kachchh Western India, Acta Astron., 20, 171, 1989.
Neilson, J. D. and Green, G. H., Enumeration of spawning salmon from spawner residence
time and aerial counts, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 110(4), 554, 1981.
New Hampshire Water Pollution Control Commission, Assessment of Wetlands Management
and Sediment Phosphorous Inactivation, Kezar Lake, New Hampshire: Phase 2 Imple-
mentation and Monitoring, Concord, NH, 1989.
Newling, C. J. and Landin, M. C., Long-Term Monitoring of Habitat Development at Upland
and Wetland Dredged Material Disposal Sites 19741982, Dredging Operations Tech-
nical Support Program Report No. WES/TR/D-85-5, 1985.
Oberts, G. L. and Osgood, R. A., Water quality effectiveness of a detention/wetland treatment
system and its effect on an urban lake, Environ. Manage., 15(1), 131, 1991.
Orth, R. J., Moore, K. A., and Nowak, J. F., Monitoring seagrass distribution and abundance
patterns: a case study from the Chesapeake Bay, in Fish Wildlife Service Biological
Report 90(18): Federal Coastal Wetland Mapping Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1990, 111.
Pacic Estuarine Research Laboratory, A Manual for Assessing Restored and Natural Coastal
Wetlands with Examples from Southern California, California Sea Grant Report No.
T-CSGCP-021, La Jolla, CA, 1990.
Paul, J. F., Holland, A. F., Schimmel, S. C., Summers, J. K., and Scott, K. J., USA EPA
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: an ecological status and trends
program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 90(18), 71, 1990.
Pemberton, S. G. and Frey, R. W., Quantitative methods in ichnology: spatial distribution
among populations, Lethaia, 17, 33, 1984.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Peters, D. D., Status and trends of wetlands in the California Central Valley, in AWRA
Wetlands: Concerns and Successes, American Water Resources Association, 1989, 33.
Pielou, E. C., Mathematical Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977.
Pritchett, D. A., Creation and monitoring of vernal pools at Santa Barbara, California, in
Proceedings of Environmental Restoration: Science and Strategies for Restoring the
Earth, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1988, 282.
Roughgarden, J., Running, S. W., and Matson, P. l. A., What does remote sensing do for
ecology? Ecology, 72(6), 1918, 1991.
Rump, P. C., The state of Canadas wetlands, in Proceedings of the Peatlands Symposium,
Association of State Wetland Managers, Edmonton, Canada, 1987, 259.
Shortelle, A. B., Dudley, J. L., Prynoski, B., and Boyajian, M., Vernal pool wetlands: wildlife
values, acidication and a need for management, in AWRA Wetlands: Concerns and
Successes Symposium, American Water Resources Association, Tampa, FL, 1989, 463.
Soil Conservation Service, Technical release no. 20 (TR-20), National Technical Information
Service, 1982.
Soil Conservation Service, Technical release no. 55 (TR-55), National Technical Information
Service, 1986.
Stark, L. R., Kolbash, R. L., Webster, H. I., Stevens, S. E., Dionis, K. A., and Murphy, E. R.,
The Simco #4 Wetland: biological patterns and performance of a wetland receiving mine
drainage, in Mine Drainage and Surface Mine Reclamation, Vol. I, Information Circular
No. 9183, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1988, 332.
Stillings, L. L., Gryta, J. J., and Ronning, T. A., Iron and manganese removal in a Typha
dominated wetland during ten months following its construction, in Mine Drainage and
Surface Mine Reclamation, Vol. I. Information Circular No. 9183, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
1988, 317.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Design and Performance of the Constructed Wetland Wastewater
Treatment System at Phillips High School, Bear Creek, Alabama, Report No.
TVA/WR/WQ-90/5, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN, 1990.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-1 Flood Hydorgraph Package: Users Manual, Water
Resources Support Center, The Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA, 1981.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Evaluation of Freshwater Wetland Replacement Projects in
Massachusetts, New England Division, Waltham, MA, 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program,
EPA/600/390/060, 1990.
Walker, W. W., Water quality trends at inow to Everglades National Park, Water Res. Bull.,
27, 59, 1991.
Watson, M. R., Stone, W. B., Okoniewski, J. C., and Smith, L. M., Wildlife as monitors of
the movement of polychlorinated biphenyls and other organochlorine compounds from
a hazardous waste site, in Proceedings of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference,
1985, 91.
Weller, M. W., Birds of some Iowa wetlands in relation to concepts of faunal preservation,
Proc. IA Acad. Sci., 86, 81, 1979.
Weller, M. W. and Fredrickson, L. H., Avian ecology of a managed glacial marsh, Living
Bird, 12, 269, 1974.
Weller, M. W. and Voigts, D. K., Changes in the vegetation and wildlife use of a small prairie
wetland following a drought, Proc. IA Acad. Sci., 90, 50, 1983.
Wickland, D. E., Mission to planet earth: the ecological perspective, Ecology, 72(6),
1923, 1991.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Woodward, D. F., Snyder-Conn, E., Riley, R. G., and Garland, T. R., Drilling uids and the
Arctic tundra of Alaska, U.S.A.: assessing contamination of wetlands habitat and the
toxicity to aquatic invertebrates and sh, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 17(5),
683, 1988.
Wynn, S. L. and Kiefer, R. W., Monitoring vegetation changes in a large impacted wetland
using quantitative eld data and quantitative remote sensing data, in Proceedings of the
Sensing of Environmental Pollutants 4th Joint Conference, New Orleans, LA, 1977, 178.
Young, D. A., Petroleum extraction and waterfowl utilization within a major wetland complex:
are they compatible? in Proceedings of the Peatlands Symposium, Edmonton, Canada,
1987, 165.

2001 CRC Press LLC

DeBusk, Thomas A. et al Wetlands for Water Treatment
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 9

Wetlands for Water Treatment

Thomas A. DeBusk and William F. DeBusk

CONTENTS

General Features of Wetlands that Contribute to Contaminant Removal

Types of Treatment Wetlands
Free Water Surface Wetlands
Subsurface Flow Wetlands
Hybrid Treatment Wetlands
Treatment Wetland Components
Treatment Wetland Vegetation
Hydroperiod and Hydraulics
Treatment Wetland Soils
Treatment Wetland Contaminant Removal Processes
Physical Removal Processes
Biological Removal Processes
Chemical Removal Processes
Planning and Design
Treatment Wetlands as a Unit Process
Regulatory Issues
Preliminary Feasibility and Alternatives Analyses
Design Considerations
Construction and Management
Construction
Management
Performance
Suspended Solids and Organic Carbon Removal
Removal of Organic Carbon and Suspended Solids from Waste
Stabilization Pond Efuents

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Nitrogen Removal
Nitrogen Removal from Food Processing Wastewaters
Phosphorus Removal
Removal of Trace Metals, Toxic Organic Compounds, and Complex
Mixtures of Contaminants
Wetland Treatment of Urban Runoff
Wetland Treatment of Landll Leachates
Pathogen Removal
Conclusions
References

Wetlands are widely regarded as biological lters, providing protection for water
resources such as streams, lakes, estuaries, and groundwater. Although naturally
occurring wetlands have always served as ecological buffers, research and develop-
ment of wetland treatment technology is a relatively recent phenomenon. Studies of
the feasibility of using wetlands for wastewater treatment were initiated during the
early 1950s in Germany. In the United States, wastewater to wetlands research began
in the late 1960s and increased dramatically in scope during the 1970s. As a result,
the use of wetlands for water and wastewater treatment has gained considerable
popularity worldwide. Currently, an estimated 1000 wetland treatment systems, both
natural and constructed, are in use in North America (Cole, 1998).
The goal of water and wastewater treatment is the removal of aqueous contam-
inants in order to decrease the possibility of detrimental impacts on humans and the
rest of the ecosystem. The term contaminant is used in this context to refer to any
constituent in the water or wastewater that may adversely affect human and envi-
ronmental health. Many contaminants, including a wide variety of organic com-
pounds and metals, are toxic to humans and other organisms. Other types of con-
taminants may not be hazardous in the conventional sense but nevertheless pose an
indirect threat to our well being. For example, loading of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen
and phosphorus) to waterways can result in excessive growth of algae and unwanted
vegetation. This growth diminishes the recreational, economic, and aesthetic values
of lakes, bays, and streams.
Constructed wetlands have been successfully used as treatment systems for
domestic wastewater efuent, from single-residence wetlands to large municipal
wastewater treatment facilities. Similarly, wetlands may be used effectively for
treatment of animal and aquaculture wastes. The use of wetland retention basins for
treatment of stormwater runoff has become relatively commonplace. The composi-
tion of stormwater varies greatly, depending on the surrounding land use. For exam-
ple, urban runoff may contain soil particles, dissolved nutrients, heavy metals, oil,
and grease. Residential and agricultural runoff may also contain organic matter and
pesticides. A variety of industrial wastes, including pulp and paper, food processing,
slaughtering and rendering, chemical manufacturing, petroleum rening, and landll
leachates are amenable to wetland treatment.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 While wetlands are remarkable in their ability to treat diverse types of contam-
inated waters, there are limitations that should be carefully considered prior to the
implementation of any wetland treatment system. Pretreatment, for example, primary
sedimentation or anaerobic or aerobic stabilization, is often required prior to feeding
domestic and industrial efuents into a wetland. Selected water contaminants
removed within a treatment wetland ultimately may become available for assimila-
tion and potentially be toxic to wetland biota. A sound understanding of wetland
contaminant removal processes (Reddy and DAngelo, 1997), the long-term fate of
these contaminants, and contaminant removal effectiveness of various wetland types
is critical in the proper design and operation of treatment wetlands.

GENERAL FEATURES OF WETLANDS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO

CONTAMINANT REMOVAL

The unique combination of structural and functional attributes sets wetlands

apart from terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in their ability to remove or sequester
nutrients and toxic environmental contaminants. For example, shallow water, low
current velocity, and the physical ltering action of plant stems and leaves provide
favorable conditions for settling of particulate matter. Wetlands also provide sub-
strates for a multitude of chemical and microbiological processes, promoting nutrient
removal and storage within the complex maze of microsites in the soil and vegetation
cover. The total surface area available for microbial activity in the soil and the
overlying dead plant material (litter or detritus) is extremely high in wetlands.
Physical, chemical, and microbiological processes are further enhanced in wetlands
by retention of water for extended periods within this biologically active zone.
Another important characteristic of wetlands is the presence of anaerobic (oxygen-
depleted) soils during periods of ooding which gives rise to an aerobicanaerobic
interface, or boundary, near the soil surface. This juxtaposition of aerobic and
anaerobic conditions provides an environment for unique chemical and microbio-
logical reactions that greatly enhance the removal of nutrients from inowing water.
Wastewater-borne labile organic carbon compounds, expressed as biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), are readily removed in anaerobic and aerobic microenvi-
ronments of treatment wetlands. Reduced nitrogen (N) compounds (e.g., ammonium)
are nitried in aerobic regions, from which the products can migrate (either by bulk
transfer or diffusion) to anaerobic regions. Denitrication of the produced NOx
species occurs rapidly due to the preponderance of anaerobic conditions and ready
availability of labile carbon compounds from decaying vegetation and organic soils.
In this sequential N removal process, nitrication typically is the rate-limiting step
due to low oxygen availability in many parts of the system.
Plant uptake and adsorption to soil surfaces contribute to short-term phosphorus
(P) removal in wetlands. However, the only prominent, long-term P sink is thought
to occur through soil accumulation. Large wetland areas are therefore required to
achieve substantial P removal.
Treatment wetlands differ in two fundamental ways from more conventional
wastewater treatment unit processes. First, wetlands sacrice consistently high

2001 CRC Press LLC

microorganism densities and strict process control for reduced construction costs
and operator attention. Second, solids processing occurs internally in wetlands, so
no biological sludge management is required, at least on the short-term. For the
above reasons, treatment wetlands have moderate to high land requirements.
In summary, a number of physical, chemical, and biological processes operate
concurrently in constructed and natural wetlands to provide contaminant removal
(Figure 1). Removal of contaminants may be accomplished through storage in the
wetland soil and vegetation or through losses to the atmosphere. Knowledge of the
basic contaminant removal concepts is extremely helpful for assessing the potential
applications, benets, and limitations of wetland treatment systems. These processes
are described in more detail in a later section.

TYPES OF TREATMENT WETLANDS

Treatment wetlands are generally classied as either free water surface (FWS) or
subsurface ow (SSF) systems (Figure 2). Subsurface ow wetlands are the common
system design implemented in Europe for domestic wastewater treatment which has
greater than 500 treatment wetlands. In North America, with around 600 treatment
wetlands, the FWS type is more common (Cole, 1998). In the United States, FWS
wetlands for domestic wastewater treatment commonly occur in communities with
1000 or fewer people, although some large FWS wetlands exist in cities with popu-
lations greater than 1 million. As of late 1998, South Dakota was the state with the
greatest number of operational (nonpilot) FWS wetlands (42), followed by Florida
(24) and California (11) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).
The widespread use of treatment wetlands in South Dakota, a state with harsh
winter conditions, provides a good indication of the versatility of treatment wetlands,
as well as the circumstances under which they are an appropriate and competitive
technology. Because of low capital (owing to inexpensive land) and operating costs
and the ability to provide winter water storage, waste stabilization ponds (WSPs)
have been widely implemented for domestic wastewater treatment during the past
four decades. As of 1991, 246 communities in South Dakota were using WSPs. A
drawback of WSPs is that they do not consistently provide low efuent suspended
solids, ammonium, and total phosphorus concentrations. A strong interest in addi-
tional protection of the quality of water resources, as well as in creating new wildlife
habitat, has led to the upgrading of many WSPs with treatment wetlands during the
past decade (Dornbush, 1993). The South Dakota state regulatory agency has encour-
aged the use of constructed wetlands by providing design guidelines and economic
assistance with treatment wetland construction.

Free Water Surface Wetlands

FWS design typically incorporates a shallow layer of surface water, owing over
mineral (sandy) or organic (peat) soils. Vegetation often consists of marsh plants,
such as Typha (cattails) and Scirpus (bulrush), but may also include oating and
submerged aquatic vegetation and wetland shrubs and trees (Figure 3). Natural

2001 CRC Press LLC

2001 CRC Press LLC

Volatilization
NH3 CO2, CH4 N2
Volatile organics
Plant storage

Decomposition Denitrification
Organic C NO3-
Inflow Sedimentation SURFACE
WATER
DETRITUS
(LITTER)
Plant uptake
Burial Adsorption
- NH4+, metals, P, organics
(to clays, Fe/Al hydroxides, SOIL
organic matter)
Soil storage
Precipitation
(peat) - P (with Fe, Al, Ca)
- Metals (with sulfides)

Figure 1 Contaminant removal mechanisms and transformations in free water surface (FWS) wetlands.
 Inflow Outflow SURFACE
WATER
DETRITUS
(LITTER)
SOIL
(MINERAL
OR PEAT)
FREE WATER SURFACE WETLAND

WATER
LEVEL

DETRITUS
(LITTER)
Inflow Outflow GRAVEL
OR SOIL

SUBSURFACE-FLOW WETLAND

Figure 2 Schematic of free water surface (FWS) and subsurface ow (SSF) wetlands.

wetlands, both forested and herbaceous, have also been effectively used as FWS
treatment wetlands.
For some treatment applications, FWS wetlands are designed and managed to
encourage dominance by either oating or submerged macrophytes. Water depth is
one parameter that can be controlled to discourage emergent macrophytes, thereby
allowing development of either a oating aquatic macrophyte (FAM) or submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) system.
Free water surface wetlands vary dramatically in size, from less than 1 ha to
greater than 1000 ha. Large FWS wetlands are even being used as a nutrient control
technology to treat runoff from entire regional watersheds. For example, over 16,000
ha of FWS wetlands are being constructed in South Florida to remove P from
agricultural drainage water before it enters the Everglades (Moustafa et al., 1999).
Free water surface wetlands offer ecological and engineering benets beyond
water treatment. Free water surface wetlands used for treating agricultural and urban

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 3 Free water surface (FWS) wetlands incorporate a shallow layer of surface water
and vegetation such as these emergent macrophytes.

runoff also reduce hydraulic runoff peaks from storm events. Effectiveness depends
on the wetland size (volume), location in the watershed, and conguration of inlet
and outlet structures (Schueler, 1996). Many FWS treatment wetlands provide both
a recreational amenity and wildlife habitat. Iron Bridge wetland in Orlando, FL and
the Arcata marsh in Humbolt, CA have each provided water treatment and other
ecological and aesthetic benets for more than a decade (Jackson, 1989; Gearhart
and Higley, 1993).

Subsurface Flow Wetlands

Subsurface ow wetlands differ from FWS wetlands in that they incorporate a

rock or gravel matrix that the wastewater is passed through in a horizontal or vertical
fashion (see Figure 2). Unless the matrix clogs, the top layer of the bed in horizontal
ow systems will remain dry. The SSF conguration offers several advantages,
including a decreased likelihood of odor production and no insect proliferation within
the wetland as long as surface ponding is avoided. Unlike FWS wetlands, SSF
systems provide no aesthetic or recreational benets and few, if any, benets to
wildlife.
Subsurface ow wetlands continue to provide effective treatment of most waste-
water constituents through the winter in temperate climates. The subsurface micro-
bial treatment processes still function, albeit at a reduced rate, even when the surface
vegetation has senesced or died, and the matrix surface is covered with snow and
ice. Subsurface ow wetlands also can be operated in a vertical ow fashion which

2001 CRC Press LLC

can reduce matrix clogging problems and enhance certain contaminant removal
processes such as nitrication.
Because of the high cost of the gravel or rock matrix, SSF wetlands never attain
the large spatial footprint of the large FWS wetlands. Concerns over matrix clogging
and the potential high cost of renovation also limit the deployment of extremely
large SSF wetlands. However, SSF are nding increased use for small applications,
such as for small communities or single family homes. The limitations of septic
systems for nutrient control have become more apparent in the past two decades
(Hagedorn et al., 1981), and SSF wetlands are one technology that is being deployed
to improve nutrient removal performance (Mitchell et al., 1990). Subsurface ow
systems are the only wetland conguration suitable for this purpose, because they
create no standing water, thereby limiting the likelihood of human exposure to
wastewater pathogens (House et al., 1999).

Hybrid Treatment Wetlands

A number of treatment wetlands have been constructed that combine different

wetland types. Some, such as the 134-ha Eastern Service Area wetland in Orlando,
FL, consist of constructed FWS wetlands that are followed by natural forested
wetlands. This particular conguration was based on regulatory needs, with the
natural parcel receiving water only after pretreatment by the constructed wetland
(Schwartz et al., 1994). Other hybrid systems are based on specic contaminant
removal needs. For example, the key to enhanced nitrogen removal in SSF wetlands
is to create an intermediate step in the process train with an oxygenated environment
that enhances nitrication in the rock or gravel matrix. Many subsurface wetlands
accomplish this by sequencing horizontal ow beds with vertical ow beds or by
recirculating partially treated efuent onto an inow region rock or sand lter to
enhance nitrication (Cooper et al., 1997; Reed and Brown, 1995). Other investiga-
tors have recommended operating vertical ow beds with various draw and ll cycles
to enhance chemical oxygen demand (COD) and nitrogen removal, but performance
using this technique has been mixed (Burgoon et al., 1995; Boutin et al., 1997).
Regardless of the approach used to stimulate nitrication, the SSF wetland is con-
gured so that the nitrate-rich efuent subsequently is introduced into an anoxic
section of the bed where denitrication readily occurs.

TREATMENT WETLAND COMPONENTS

Treatment Wetland Vegetation

Macroscopic vegetation is the most prominent feature of treatment wetlands.

Free water surface wetlands can develop as simple monocultures of weedy or
competitive species such as Typha (cattail) or Phragmites (reed), but more often
they contain a diversity of other emergent and oating plants within genera such
as Pontederia, Sagittaria, Eleocharis, Utricularia, and Lemna. Treatment wetlands
typically are planted just prior to initial ooding to ensure rapid vegetative cover

2001 CRC Press LLC

development and to facilitate initiation of water treatment. Under extreme operating
conditions, such as high organic, nutrient, or hydraulic loading rates, the system
may remain a monoculture or near monoculture for the life of the treatment system.
Similarly, subsurface ow wetlands usually remain dominated by the species
planted prior to startup, typically Phragmites (reed), Scirpus (bulrush), or Typha
(cattail). This is due both to the difculty of seeds and other propagules in becoming
established on the beds surface and the often high organic loading provided to SSF
systems.
Under less rigorous environmental conditions, the vegetative community that
develops over time in FWS wetlands may bear little resemblance to the species
originally planted. At the Eastern Service Area Treatment Wetland (Orlando, FL),
one constructed wetland is quite shallow and experiences periodic drydown, and the
second, while also shallow, is continuously inundated. This system is used for further
polishing of domestic wastewater that has received conventional, advanced treatment
to levels below 5 mg BOD/l, 5 mg total suspended solids (TSS)/l, 3 mg N/l, and
1 mg P/l (Schwartz et al., 1994). Upon wetland startup, 13 species were planted into
the mineral soils at a density of 336 plants per ha. The vegetative communities in
the two constructed wetlands were sampled at 1 and 4 years after planting. Only
one of the most abundant species occurring at year four in each wetland was a
species that was originally planted (Table 1).
In a wetland ecosystem self-organization experiment, Mitsch et al. (1998) estab-
lished two individual 1-ha wetlands for treating Olentangy River water in Ohio. One
wetland was planted with 2400 propagules (rootstock and rhizomes), representing
13 plant species at an overall density of 0.24 plants/m2. Species planted included
Nelumbo lutea, Nymphaea odorata, and Potamogeton pectinatus in the deepest
(0.6 m depth) region, Scirpus validus and Scirpus uviatilis at moderate (0.3 m)
depth, and Spartina pectinata, Sparganium eurycarpum, Acorus calamus, Sagittaria
latifolia, Pontedereria cordata, Juncus effusus, Saururus cernuus, and Cephalanthus
occidentalis in the shallow, littoral (0 to 0.3 m) region. The second wetland, adjacent
to the rst, was left unplanted. The wetlands were evaluated each year after start-
up for water treatment aspects and ora and fauna characteristics. As of year three,
9 of the 13 original stocked species in the planted wetland were still present, although
the total number of macrophyte species had increased to 65 (Mitsch et al., 1998).
The unplanted wetland had similar vegetation at year three, and had 54 macrophyte
species. However, only 1 of the 13 species originally planted in the adjacent wetland
were present. Treatment performance and fauna of the two systems were remarkably
similar at year three.
Whether or not to plant a FWS treatment wetland upon start-up, as well as what
density to plant, is dictated by the urgency to achieve an operational system. If the
system is built a year or two in advance of water or wastewater treatment needs,
and the design does not call for any specic vegetation components, then existing
studies clearly show that natural recruitment can be relied upon for development of
a diverse plant community. Depending on the depth and nutrient regime of the
wetland, mats of lamentous algae, phytoplankton, or submerged macrophytes likely
will dominate in the wetland water column prior to development of a dense emergent
macrophyte community.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 1 Characteristics of Herbaceous Vegetation Communities in
Two Shallow Eastern Service Area Wetlands, Orlando, FL
Frequency Rank
P/R Year 1 Year 4

Wetland #1
Mikania scandens R NF* 1
Baccharis halimifolia R 28 2
Myrica cerifera R 35 3
Hydrocotyle umbellata R 19 4
Ludwigia repens R 26 5
Galium tinctorium R 55 6
Setaria geniculata R 43 7
Ptilimnium capillaceum R 27 8
Juncus effusus P 39 9
Andropogon golmeratus R 86 10

Wetland #2
Hydrocotyle umbellata R 3 1
Mikania scandens R 118 2
Panicum repens R 10 3
Typha domingensis R 13 4
Cyperus compressus R NF 5
Ludwigia repens R 19 6
Fuirena scirpoidea R 41 7
Juncus scirpoides R 16 8
Sagittaria lancifolia P 33 9
Rhynchospora microcephala R 1 10
Notes: Wetland #1 experiences periodic drydown and wetland #2 is con-
tinuously inundated.
Values represent frequency of occurrence rankings in May 1988
and December 1992, 1 and 4 years after planting. The rst column
denotes whether the species was originally planted (P) or naturally
recruited (R).
* NF means not found.
Source: Wallace, Ecosystem Research Corporation, Gainesville, FL.

From a water treatment perspective, macrophyte vegetation provides a number

of functions (Brix, 1997). In FWS wetlands, dense macrophyte stands shade the
water column reducing or eliminating phytoplankton populations. Conversely, in
sparse macrophyte stands, the emergent stems may serve as attachment sites for
periphytic algae. In either case, the submerged plant portions also provide surface
area for colonization by bacteria that contribute to processing of carbon, nitrogen,
and other wastewater constituents.
Emergent and oating macrophytes shield the water from direct sunlight and,
therefore, moderate the temperature of the shallow water column. These plants also
tend to dissipate or block wind and wave energy and, therefore, help maintain
quiescent conditions in the water column. This promotes settling of wastewater-
borne solids and inhibits resuspension of occulant sediments from the bottom.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Some oating species, such as the duckweeds, provide a dense oating mat on the
waters surface that can inhibit oviposition by mosquitoes and even act as a barrier
to prevent escape of odors produced in the bottom sediments or water column.
The contribution of belowground plant tissues, rhizomes, and roots to wastewater
treatment depends on the system conguration. In FWS wetlands, the roots of
emergent plants assimilate nutrients from the soil porewater and also provide an
anchoring function that can reduce erosion. In a SSF wetland or a FWS wetland
dominated by oating plants, the roots are in intimate contact with the wastewater
and O2 leakage from the roots can enhance microbial processes (e.g., nitrication)
that require oxic conditions. Oxygen is transported internally to the plant roots either
by passive molecular diffusion or convective (bulk) ow of air through the internal
lacunae. The convective air ow can be driven by a number of physical processes,
including wind velocity gradients in the plant canopy and temperature or humidity
differences between the interior and exterior of the plant (Brix, 1993, 1994).
In SSF and FAMs systems, the plant roots are in intimate contact with the
wastewater. In these systems, the diffuse root mats harbor bacteria which may also
benet from oxygen transported from the foliage to the rhizosphere. For these
systems, a number of investigations have been conducted to determine the effective-
ness of various vegetation types on treatment performance. Gersberg (1985) con-
ducted one of the rst studies to compare effectiveness of cattail (Typha) and bulrush
(Scirpus) for ammonia removal in a SSF treatment wetland. Using large gravel bed
systems receiving domestic wastewater, these investigators found that bulrush (Scir-
pus) beds provided greater ammonia removal than either unvegetated beds or beds
containing cattail (Typha). A nitrogen mass balance revealed that macrophyte uptake
accounted for only a small percentage of the N removed from the wastewater, so
the higher nitrication rate for the Scirpus bed was attributed to this species greater
oxygen transport capacity.
Results from numerous small-scale studies have demonstrated that the species
of plants used in treatment wetlands can affect system contaminant removal perfor-
mance, particularly for the nutrients N and P. Both emergent and oating macro-
phytes have been rigorously characterized with respect to their N and P uptake
capability. For most nutrient-laden waters in moderate climates, water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) provide the highest rates
of N and P uptake among oating species (DeBusk et al., 1996a; Reddy and DeBusk,
1985). Among emergent macrophytes, cattail (Typha), bulrush (Scirpus), and reed
(Phragmites) provide some of the highest N and P removal rates. Short-term P uptake
rates in excess of 37 g P/m2 per year have been reported for these productive oating
and emergent species (Reddy and DeBusk, 1985; Tanner, 1996).
Despite obvious between-species differences in nutrient uptake, assessments of
full-scale treatment wetlands reveal few differences in contaminant removal perfor-
mance between wetlands dominated by different plant species. This is because in
the long-term, most of the nutrients assimilated by the plant standing crop are
recycled by plant senescence, detritus production, and decomposition back into the
water column and sediment compartments. What does seem to affect contaminant
removal performance on a large scale is overall plant habit, that is, whether emergent,
submerged, or oating species dominates the plant community. These differences

2001 CRC Press LLC

in habit inuence water column and sediment-water interface environmental condi-
tions, such as dissolved oxygen concentrations and solar radiation inputs, that are
the critical master factors in controlling element cycling and contaminant removal
in wetlands (Reddy and DAngelo, 1997; Reddy et al., 1999).
Finally, where prominent plant morphological differences exist (or differences
in survival) in a given waste stream, performance differences for a particular plant
habit (e.g., oating or emergent) will occur. For example, oating aquatic macro-
phyte systems dominated by large-leafed water hyacinth and pennywort provide
superior BOD removal performance compared to small-leafed duckweeds. This is
likely because of the greater surface area of underwater rhizomes and roots and
greater foliage to rhizosphere O2 transport by the larger-leafed oating species
(Clough et al., 1987).

Hydroperiod and Hydraulics

In the natural landscape, hydroperiod (frequency and duration of ooding) is a

prominent factor that dictates wetland occurrence and characteristics. Factors that
inuence natural wetland hydroperiod include surface water and groundwater inputs
and losses. Additionally, the total annual volume of rainfall and evapotranspiration,
as well as the seasonal distribution of these atmospheric water uxes, will inuence
the type of wetland that occurs.
Hydroperiod characteristics are less of a concern for wetlands that receive a
relatively constant hydraulic loading, such as from a domestic wastewater source.
Such wetlands often are isolated from groundwaters. Moreover, evapotranspiration
and rainfall generally need to be accounted for only in assessing their inuence on
the efuent quality and mass contaminant removal budget and to ensure storage for
large rainfall events (e.g., 25- or 100-year storm events). Atmospheric water uxes
also must be carefully understood and addressed where unusual climatic (extremely
low annual rainfall) or site-specic conditions (highly permeable soils) exist.
Treatment wetland hydraulics relate to the ability of the wetland to physically
accommodate water inputs, as well as internal reactor design characteristics that
contribute to contaminant removal. Because FWS wetlands are shallow basins,
typically 0.5 to 1.5 m deep with the water column occupied in part by macrophytes,
water passing through the wetland is subject to a certain amount of friction-induced
headloss. Shallow areas and areas with dense vegetation provide the most resistance
to ow. Headloss in FWS wetlands will not be a major design concern unless the
hydraulic loading rate is unusually high, the wetland aspect ratio (length to width
ratio) is high, or the ow path extremely long. By contrast, careful hydraulic design
is paramount in SSF wetlands where all of the ow is being routed through a gravel
or rock matrix. Common parameters related to the hydraulic design of treatment
wetlands include hydraulic loading rate (HLR, usually expressed in cm/day) and
hydraulic retention time (HRT, units usually in days). The former is obtained by
dividing the ow (Q ) by the wetland area (A); the latter is calculated by dividing
the ow by the water volume (V ) of the wetland.
Performance forecast modeling of treatment wetlands is based on the concept
that these systems behave as plug-ow reactors, with ow moving in lock step

2001 CRC Press LLC

through the treatment wetland. However, tracer studies conducted with emergent,
oating, and submerged macrophyte-dominated treatment wetlands (DeBusk et al.,
1990; Kadlec and Knight, 1996) reveal that ow patterns depart widely from ideal
plug-ow characteristics. Temperature-related water column density gradients, the
heterogeneous and clumped nature of vegetation, and uneven microtopographical
features result in the development of rapid ow paths and internal dispersion and
mixing (Kadlec, 1990). The net outcome is that some of the inuent water reaches
the efuent end of the system long before the calculated hydraulic retention time
(HRT), and a considerable amount is held longer than the calculated HRT. From a
performance-forecasting standpoint, these deviations from plug-ow have been
addressed by using different hydraulic reactor models. For example, HRT has been
modeled using several continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) in series, or a
plug-ow reactor followed by multiple CSTRs (Kadlec, 1997; King et al., 1997).
Recognition of nonideal ow characteristics, as documented by full-scale tracer
studies, has led to most treatment wetlands being designed with a means of evenly
distributing the inuent across the entire width of the wetland. Once water enters
the wetland, however, ows coalesce into small rills that then combine to create
large short-circuiting channels. These ow channels typically remain intact until the
water is redistributed by structural means. Both deep channels and earthen berms
perpendicular to ow have been used to redistribute water in wetlands (Kadlec and
Knight, 1996). However, neither rational design parameters nor performance benets
for these structural modications have been rigorously characterized. Nevertheless,
large treatment wetlands are often compartmentalized for purposes of improving
ow distribution, as well as to facilitate dry-down and maintenance of selected
portions of the treatment system (Figure 4).

Treatment Wetland Soils

Surface ow treatment wetlands can be constructed on both mineral and organic

soils. Organic soils are generally categorized as having greater than 12 to 20 percent
organic matter content, a pH less than 6.0, low bulk density, and high water holding
and cation exchange capacities (Faulkner and Richardson, 1989). Mineral soils have
a low organic matter content, high bulk density, and often provide greater nutrient
availability than organic soils.
Soils in FWS treatment wetlands serve several functions. Soils must provide
appropriate physical and chemical support for the emergent macrophytes. The soil
should have physical properties that facilitate planting and recruitment of the aquatic
vegetation and that physically can support the plants under ooded conditions. The
soil also must provide adequate nutrition to support macrophyte growth, particularly
when treating waters of unusual chemical composition (e.g., industrial wastewaters)
that may be decient in certain plant macro- and/or micronutrients.
Treatment wetland subsoils must exhibit low permeability. In most instances,
unless treating exceptionally clean waters or efuents, the treatment wetland should
be isolated from groundwaters (aquifers). Therefore, the soil prole should contain
an impermeable layer (hydraulic conductivity of less than 106 cm/s) that inhibits
vertical water movement. If the soil prole is overly permeable and the internal

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 4 The Iron Bridge wastewater polishing wetland in Orlando, FL has compartments
to improve ow distribution.

wastewaters must be isolated from groundwaters, then a clay, bentonite, or vinyl

liner can be incorporated into the wetland. Permeability of the site soils will also
dictate their suitability for use in constructing berms.
Because soil is a prominent storage component (for nutrients etc.) in a FWS
wetland, a soil type must be selected that does not add undesirable contaminants to
the overlying water column. Extreme examples of soil nutrient export have actually
resulted in treatment wetland use being curtailed. Operation of a forested wetland
in central Florida that received advanced secondary domestic efuent was halted
due to an export of P and organic N. This hydrologically altered wetland had been
dry for more than 10 years prior to rehydration with wastewater efuent. Water
quality transects within the wetland and laboratory soil column incubations revealed
that the exported compounds resulted from ooding the highly oxidized soils. Almost
1 year of water exchange was required to reduce export of soil constituents to the
water column (Figure 5).
Some of the large wetlands in South Florida constructed on muck soils, previ-
ously used for agricultural crops, have also exhibited an increase in water column
nutrient levels upon ooding. The Everglades Nutrient Removal Project, a 1370-ha
wetland designed to reduce P in agricultural drainage waters from the range of 150
to 200 g/l to 50 g/l, exhibited water column P levels up to 370 g/l in the rst
2 months after ooding (Koch, 1991). Within 10 months, water column P concen-
trations had declined to 46 g/l. Experience with these wetlands demonstrates that
historical land use and soil management practices (e.g., fertilization of agricultural
elds) can inuence wetland water quality during the start-up phase.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 5 Proles of total organic carbon (TOC) with distance through a forested treatment
wetland 3 and 6 months after ooding with advanced secondary domestic waste-
water efuent. Prior to rehydration, the wetland had been hydrologically altered
(dry) for more than 10 years.

Regardless of the system design approach and type of vegetation that is encour-
aged, large FWS wetlands usually provide some habitat for fauna. Previous land use
practices, therefore, should be assessed not only based on nutrient control, but also
from a wildlife health aspect. For example, residual pesticides in previously farmed
vegetable farms soils may be released into the surface water upon ooding, creating
a hazard to waterfowl and other wildlife using the wetland.

TREATMENT WETLAND CONTAMINANT REMOVAL PROCESSES

An understanding of wetland contaminant removal processes can facilitate wet-

land design, and aid dramatically in system troubleshooting should contaminant
removal performance not be as expected. Wetlands provide effective transformation
and storage of many water-borne constituents. Contaminants removed from the
inow are either re-exported in an aqueous, but more innocuous form (e.g., chlorine
to chloride), are stored in the sediments (e.g., P, metals), or are lost from the system
in a gaseous form (e.g., methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen gas). A number of
physical, biological, and chemical processes are responsible for contaminant removal
in wetlands.

Physical Removal Processes

Wetlands are capable of providing highly efcient physical removal of contam-

inants associated with particulate matter in the water or waste stream. Surface water
typically moves very slowly through wetlands due to the characteristic broad sheet
ow and the resistance provided by rooted and oating plants. Sedimentation of

2001 CRC Press LLC

suspended solids is promoted by the low ow velocity and by the fact that the ow
is often laminar (not turbulent) in wetlands. Mats of oating plants in wetlands may
serve, to a limited extent, as sediment traps, but their primary role in suspended
solids removal is to limit resuspension of settled particulate matter.
Efciency of suspended solids removal is proportional to the particle settling
velocity and the length of the wetland. For practical purposes, sedimentation is
usually considered an irreversible process, resulting in accumulation of solids and
associated contaminants on the wetland soil surface. However, resuspension of
sediment may result in the export of suspended solids and yield a somewhat lower
removal efciency. Some resuspension may occur during periods of high ow
velocity in the wetland. More commonly, resuspension results from wind-driven
turbulence, bioturbation (disturbance by animals and humans), and gas lift. Gas lift
results from production of gases such as oxygen from photosynthesis, and methane
and carbon dioxide produced by microorganisms in the sediment during decompo-
sition of organic matter. For some wetlands, build-up of sediment to detrimental
levels can occur, necessitating dry-down and sediment consolidation.

Biological Removal Processes

Biological removal processes represent a prominent pathway of contaminant

removal in wetlands. Probably the most widely recognized biological process for
contaminant removal in wetlands is plant uptake. Wetland plants readily take up
contaminants that are also essential nutrients, such as nitrate, ammonium, and phos-
phate. However, certain wetland plant species are also capable of uptake and even
signicant accumulation of certain toxic metals such as cadmium and lead. The rate
of contaminant removal by plants varies widely, depending on the plant growth rate
and the concentration of the contaminant in the plant tissue. Woody plants, that is,
trees and shrubs, provide relatively long-term storage of contaminants compared
with herbaceous plants. However, contaminant uptake rate per unit area of land is
often much higher for herbaceous macrophytes such as Typha. Algae may also
provide a signicant amount of nutrient uptake but are relatively susceptible to the
toxic effects of heavy metals. Storage of nutrients in algae is relatively short-term,
due to the rapid turnover (life cycle) of the algae. Bacteria and other microorganisms
also provide uptake and short-term storage of nutrients and some other contaminants
in the soil.
As plants age and eventually die, dead plant material, known as detritus or litter,
accumulates at the soil surface. Some of the nutrients, metals, or other elements
previously removed from the water by plant uptake are lost from the plant detritus
and recycled back into the water. Leaching of water-soluble contaminants may occur
rapidly upon the death of the plant or plant tissue, while a more gradual loss of
contaminants occurs during decomposition of detritus by bacteria and other organ-
isms. Recycled contaminants may be ushed from the wetland in the surface water
or may be removed again from the water by biological uptake or other means.
In most wetlands, there is a net accumulation of plant detritus because the rate
of decomposition is substantially reduced relative to upland ecosystems by the low
availability of oxygen for the decomposers. Anoxic and anaerobic conditions

2001 CRC Press LLC

generally prevail in wetland soils because the extremely low diffusion rate of oxygen
in water (approximately 10,000 times slower than in air) is not sufcient to replenish
the oxygen consumed by the microbial decomposers. Therefore, decomposition of
the detritus is not complete, resulting in accumulation and burial of partially decom-
posed organic matter. In this manner, some of the contaminants originally taken up
by plants can be trapped and stored as peat. Peat may accumulate to great depths
in wetlands and can provide long-term storage for contaminants. However, peat is
also susceptible to decomposition if the wetland is drained or soils otherwise
exposed, in which case the contaminants incorporated in the peat may be released
and either recycled or ushed from the wetland.
Although microorganisms may provide a measurable amount of contaminant
uptake and storage, their metabolic processes play a much more signicant role in
the removal of organic compounds. Microbial decomposers, primarily soil bacteria
associated with the native organic matter in wetlands, use organic carbon (C) as a
source of energy converting it to carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) gases. This
affords a biological mechanism for removal of a wide variety of organic C com-
pounds including those found in municipal wastewater, food processing wastewater,
pesticides, and petroleum products. The efciency and rate of organic C degradation
by microorganisms are highly variable among different types of organic compounds.
Microbial metabolism also affords removal of inorganic nitrogen, that is, nitrate
and ammonium, in wetland soils. Certain bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas spp.) meta-
bolically transform nitrate into nitrogen gas (N2), a process known as denitrication.
The N2 is subsequently lost to the atmosphere, thus denitrication represents a means
for permanent removal, rather than storage, of nitrogen by the wetland. Removal of
ammonium in wetlands can occur as a result of the sequential processes of nitri-
cation and denitrication. Nitrication, the microbial (Nitrosomonas and Nitro-
bacter) transformation of ammonium to nitrate, takes place in aerobic regions of the
soil and surface water. The newly formed nitrate can then undergo denitrication
when it diffuses into the deeper, anaerobic regions of the soil. The coupled processes
of nitrication and denitrication are universally important in the cycling and bio-
availability of nitrogen in wetland and upland soils.

Chemical Removal Processes

In addition to physical and biological processes, a wide range of chemical

processes are involved in the removal of contaminants in wetlands. The most
important chemical removal process in wetland soils is sorption, which results in
short-term retention or long-term immobilization of several classes of contaminants.
Sorption is a broadly dened term for the transfer of ions (or molecules with positive
or negative charges) from the solution phase (water) to the solid phase (soil).
Sorption actually describes a group of processes that include adsorption and pre-
cipitation reactions.
Adsorption refers to the attachment of ions to soil particles, either by cation
exchange or chemisorption. Cation exchange involves the physical attachment of
cations, or positively charged ions, to the surfaces of clay and organic matter particles
in the soil. Cations are bonded to the soil by electrostatic attraction, a much weaker

2001 CRC Press LLC

force than chemical bonding; therefore, the cations are not permanently immobilized.
Many contaminants in wastewater and runoff exist as cations, including ammonium
(NH4+, a plant nutrient) and trace metals such as copper (Cu2+). The capacity of soils
for retention of cations, expressed as cation exchange capacity (CEC), generally
increases with increasing clay and organic matter content. Chemisorption represents
a stronger and more permanent form of bonding than cation exchange. A number
of metals and organic compounds can be immobilized in the soil via chemisorption
with clays, iron (Fe), aluminum (Al) oxides, and organic matter. Phosphate can also
bind with clays and Fe and Al oxides through chemisorption.
Phosphate can also precipitate with iron and aluminum oxides to form new
mineral compounds (Fe- and Al-phosphates) that are potentially very stable in the
soil and afford long-term storage of phosphorus. In the Everglades and other wetlands
that contain high concentrations of calcium (Ca), phosphate can precipitate to form
Ca-phosphate minerals which are stable over a long period of time. Another impor-
tant precipitation reaction that occurs in wetland soils is the formation of metal
suldes which are highly insoluble and are, therefore, an effective means for immo-
bilizing many toxic metals in wetlands.
Volatilization, which involves diffusion of a dissolved compound from the water
into the atmosphere, is another potential means of contaminant removal in wetlands.
Ammonia (NH3) volatilization can result in signicant removal of nitrogen if the
pH of the water is high (greater than about 8.5). However, at neutral or low pH,
ammonia nitrogen exists almost exclusively in the ionized form (ammonium, NH4+ )
which is not volatile. Many types of organic compounds are volatile and are readily
lost to the atmosphere from wetlands and other surface waters. Although volatiliza-
tion can effectively remove certain contaminants from the water, it may prove to be
undesirable in some instances, due to the potential for polluting the air with the
same contaminants.

PLANNING AND DESIGN

Constructed and natural wetlands have been used extensively to treat many types
of wastewaters and other contaminated waters such as urban and agricultural runoff.
High levels of removal can be achieved for a number of contaminants, including
suspended solids, nutrients, metals, and organic compounds, in treatment wetlands.
However, there are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of wetlands for waste-
water treatment. In some cases, it may not be possible to achieve the desired level
of concentration reduction due to natural background levels. Also, there is a relatively
high degree of time-dependent variability in treatment efciency associated with
wetlands, especially when compared with conventional treatment technologies
(Kadlec, 1997). Because the contaminant removal interactions among vegetation,
soils, and hydrologic wetland components are complex, contaminant removal ef-
ciency varies widely among the types of treatment wetlands. Moreover, the actual
pollutant loading that the treatment wetland can accommodate also varies.
Treatment performance criteria for contaminant removal in wetlands may be
based on the contaminant concentration in the wetland outow or on the total or

2001 CRC Press LLC

percent mass removal of the contaminant. As a case in point, the efciency of
nutrient removal decreases signicantly as inow concentration approaches the
natural background concentration of the nutrient in the wetland, even though the
outow concentration may be well within the desired range. Conversely, nutrient
removal efciency, in terms of mass removal, may increase substantially as the
loading rate is increased to moderate levels, yet the outow concentration may
exceed the desired level. It is important that the selected criteria accurately reect
the actual performance of the wetland relative to the objectives and intended uses
of the wetland treatment system. The actual performance of treatment wetlands is
generally dependent on a multitude of factors, including inow concentration, mass
loading rates, wetland design, and climate.

TREATMENT WETLANDS AS A UNIT PROCESS

For proper design and operation of treatment wetlands, it is important that they
be considered part of an overall water treatment train. Because of this, the contam-
inant removal effectiveness of the treatment wetland will be inuenced by the
performance of the upstream unit processes. Examples of upstream unit processes
for wetlands include sedimentation ponds or deep forebays for wetlands treating
urban runoff and primary clariers and/or secondary treatment processes (e.g., acti-
vated sludge) for wetland treatment of domestic wastewaters. Similarly, treatment
wetlands are not always the nal unit process in a treatment train. Wetlands can be
followed by ltration or disinfection processes.
The treatment train concept is critical to consider for wetland treatment for two
reasons. First, an overall assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the unit
processes allows for a nancially as well as technically optimized system. Second,
the performance of the treatment wetland will be dictated in part by the quality (e.g.,
average, variability) of the water discharged by the upstream unit processes. For
example, the treatment train might include a conventional, advanced secondary
domestic wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to nitrify ammonium, a treatment
wetland designed to provide further N removal through denitrication, and disin-
fection by chlorine. If during the lifetime of the treatment system the WWTP
becomes overloaded and fails to nitrify the wastewater ammonium, then the wet-
lands efuent quality will dramatically decline. In turn, ammonium discharged from
the wetland would reduce the effectiveness (or increase the cost) of the subsequent
disinfection unit process.

Regulatory Issues

Federal, state, and local regulations must be carefully reviewed before using a
constructed or natural wetland for water treatment in the United States. Almost all
point discharges into wetlands, whether municipal, agricultural, or industrial waste-
waters, will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. Federal regulations on the use of constructed wetlands for wastewater

2001 CRC Press LLC

treatment are not overly restrictive, and the wetland essentially can be considered
to be a unit process in the wastewater treatment train.
By contrast, federal regulations discourage the use of natural wetlands for waste-
water treatment because wetlands are considered waters of the United States and
should not be used for waste assimilation or transport (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1990). However, natural wetlands have been, and still are, used for waste-
water treatment, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognizes this by
noting that natural wetlands can be used for this purpose under limited conditions.
The promoter of a natural wetland-based treatment system, therefore, will have to
successfully argue that the wastewater introduction will not interfere with designated
and existing uses of the wetland or downstream waters. In many cases, this means
that prior to discharge into the natural wetlands, concentrations of oxygen-demand-
ing substances, solids, nutrients, and heavy metals of a water source must be
extremely low and that water introduction will not signicantly alter the wetland
hydroperiod. These restrictions, of course, can limit the effectiveness of the natural
wetland as a unit treatment process.
Florida, a state with a long history of regulating the use of wetlands for water
treatment, has developed a Wetland Application Rule that recognizes four distinct
types of wetlands used for domestic wastewater treatment: natural receiving wet-
lands, natural treatment wetlands, hydrologically altered treatment wetlands, and
constructed wetlands. Depending on the classication, the rule places limits on the
quality of the efuent introduced into the wetland, the hydraulic loading rate, the N
and P loading rate, and the ongoing biological monitoring requirements to ensure
no disruption of system integrity. Natural receiving wetlands, the most protected
category, can only receive tertiary treated efuent at loadings not to exceed 5 cm
(2 in.) of water per week and 25 g N and 3 g P per m2 per year. Constructed wetlands,
the least restrictive category, have no xed hydraulic or nutrient loading limits, but
the wetland designer must provide reasonable assurance that the system will provide
treatment and will function as a viable wetland habitat.

Preliminary Feasibility and Alternatives Analyses

A number of site-specic issues must be addressed siting a treatment wetland.

Information needs include characteristics (mean, and ranges of ow and composi-
tion) of the water or wastewater source, treatment goals, regulatory requirements,
and site topography, hydrology, soil, and climate characteristics. One of the most
fundamental decisions relates to goals. Is the wetland simply to provide water
treatment, or also to provide wildlife habitat and/or an aesthetic or recreational asset
to the community? It should be noted that wildlife activity (e.g., waterfowl excreta)
could elevate nutrient and fecal coliform levels both within a wetland and at the
nal discharge. Similarly, constituents in the waste stream, for example, pesticides
in agricultural runoff or metals in industrial wastewaters or urban runoff, can accu-
mulate in the wetland sediments and plants, and ultimately impact wetland fauna.
In general, the safest region in a treatment wetland to encourage wildlife habitat is
the mid-region, away from high contaminant loadings in the inuent and some

2001 CRC Press LLC

distance from the efuent, where the wastes cannot impair the quality of the dis-
charged water.
As part of an analysis, the investigator should assess the effectiveness and
economic costs of alternative technologies, alternative sites, and alternative process
trains. For municipal wastewater treatment, the treatment wetland typically provides
secondary and/or advanced treatment. However, there may exist a more cost-effective
combination of unit processes (with or without a wetland component) that provides
for lower life-cycle costs.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Treatment wetlands can be inexpensive to construct and simple to operate com-

pared to many water treatment technologies. This has led to their widespread use
during the past two decades. There are several approaches to designing wetlands for
water treatment, and there are good references available to support these designs.
Several fundamental questions should be addressed in the design process. Will a
treatment wetland provide the desired efuent contaminant concentrations? What is
the most reliable, cost-effective treatment wetland conguration? How much land
will be required? The bulk of the costs of treatment wetlands, such as land purchase
and berm construction, is related to area requirements. How robust is the system
(i.e., what is the risk of compliance problems)?
A good starting point for design is to access one of the available pollutant
reduction models that has been veried against the North American Wetland Treat-
ment System Database (NAWTSD). The NAWTSD, compiled with funding from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, lists the performance of several hundred
treatment wetlands. Several authors and agencies have provided overviews of the
NAWTSD, as well as discussions of the benets and limitations of these data for
design purposes (Kadlec and Knight, 1996; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1999). Both area-specic and volume-specic models are available for treatment
wetland design purposes. Both types of models allow the designer to derive the
acreage of wetland from the inow pollutant concentration, desired outow concen-
tration, and hydraulic loading rates (Reed et al., 1995; Kadlec and Knight, 1996).
Kadlec and Knight (1996) have reported a suite of pollutant settling rate coef-
cients for the areal model that is useful for initial design purposes. The areal model
is as follows:

ln((Ce C*)/(Ci C*)) = (k/q)

where

Ce equals the target efuent concentration (mg/l).

Ci equals the inuent concentration (mg/l).
C * equals the background concentration (mg/l).
k equals the rst-order areal rate constant, m/yr.
q equals the hydraulic loading rate, m/yr.

2001 CRC Press LLC

This equation can be rearranged in the form

A = (0.0365Q/k) ln((Ci C*)/(Ce C*))

where

A equals the wetland area in ha.

Q equals the inuent ow, m3/day.

One key factor to note with respect to wetland design is that treatment wetlands
are extraordinarily effective at removing or transforming some constituents but are
quite inefcient at removing others. As the wetland area must be based on worst-
case conditions, it is these latter constituents that will dictate the overall area require-
ment. If just one constituent in a waste stream is markedly expanding the wetland
area requirement (and therefore cost), then as part of an alternative analysis the
designer should assess techniques for accelerating removal of this contaminant,
either in the wetland or in an upstream or downstream unit process.
An equally important concept for design is that treatment wetlands exhibit a
background constituent concentration below which the wetland is unlikely to provide
treatment. This is the C* in the areal model described above. A designer can obtain
some perspective for which contaminants are recalcitrant (difcult to remove) in a
wetland environment, and what the likely minimum contaminant background levels
are, by inspecting k and C* values for the areal model for FWS wetlands derived
from the NAWTSD (Table 2). The values in Table 2 also provide an indication of
the relative performance of FWS and SSF treatment wetlands. On a unit area basis,
SSF systems are more effective than FWS at removing a number of constituents
including BOD and nitratenitrogen.

Table 2 Preliminary Model Parameters for FWS and SSF Wetlands

Developed from the North American Wetlands Treatment System
Database*
k20 (m/yr) C * (mg/L)
Parameter FWS SSF FWS SSF
BOD 34 180 3.5 + 0.053Ci 3.5 + 0.053Ci
TSS 1000 1000 5.1 + 0.16Ci 7.8 + 0.063Ci
Organic N 17 35 1.5 1.5
NH4-N 18 34 0 0
NOx-N 35 50 0 0
TN 22 27 1.5 1.5
TP 12 12 0.02 0.02
* The k20 represents the rst-order areal rate constant at 20C and C * represents
the likely wetland background concentration. Ci represents the constituent inow
concentration. Higher k values correspond to higher mass contaminant removal
rates. (From Kadlec and Knight, 1996.)

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Most predictive models used for sizing treatment wetlands are empirical and not
intimately linked to actual contaminant removal processes. The k values depicted
above, for example, are lumped parameters that simply represent the net result of
all the internal processes in a wetland that contribute to the removal of a constituent.
For phosphorus, the k value is low because burial of P in the sediment is thought
to be the only long-term P removal process (Richardson and Craft, 1993). Phosphorus
is actually quite dynamic in wetlands, owing to settling of inuent particulate P,
assimilation and short-term or long-term storage of ortho- or soluble reactive P by
algae, microorganisms, and macrophytes, sorption of dissolved organic or organic
P forms, and decomposition of the organic P forms. While some of the above
processes can be rapid and sequester large amounts of P, slow burial is the ultimate
removal mechanism. The k value for the areal model, therefore, integrates all of
these processes.
The areal model described above, or one of the volumetric models, can be used
for preliminary sizing. At a more detailed design level, the engineer must account
for site-specic factors as well as expected seasonal variations in performance in
the nal area requirement assessment (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).
When is more site-specic information needed beyond published design models?
First, intimate process knowledge becomes more critical for treating unusual waste
streams, for challenging environmental conditions (e.g., cold climates), or for con-
ditions under which stringent permit limits will be imposed. Further, if the wetland
does not seem appropriate for the site (e.g., exceeds available area), more site-specic
information may be required. The use of smaller wetland footprints beyond what is
predicted by the design model may be realistic, but this may only be achieved by a
better understanding of the contaminant removal processes with the particular waste-
water and, perhaps, stricter operator monitoring and control once the system is
operational. Outdoor mesocosm-scale studies can be performed to assess site-specic
removal rates for the limiting contaminants. Hydraulic analyses can be performed
to determine if the addition of more cells or internal berms can improve internal
ow patterns and, therefore, water treatment performance.

CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT

Construction

Construction plans and specications must be prepared once design parameters

are established. While the prominent cost components of a treatment wetland are
often related to earthmoving (land grubbing and grading and berm construction),
allowance must be made for other features including access roads, water distribution
(inlet and outlet), structures and plumbing, and rock or gravel placement (SSF
wetlands). Erosion control measures also must be incorporated for the berms.
A suitable soil substrate for planting must be provided for FWS wetlands, such
as a loamy soil that the roots and rhizomes can readily penetrate. If initial vegetation
planting is performed, consideration must be given to the type of propagules (e.g.,

2001 CRC Press LLC

seeds, bare-root seedlings, or eld-harvested plants), planting density (1 m spacing
is often used), and appropriate elevations and planting depths. Fertilizer also may
be required to initially establish the plant standing crop depending upon the water
source to be treated. Care must be taken not to compact the soil matrix prior to
and during planting. Control of water elevations during the wetland start-up period
can help ensure the success of the planted vegetation and to discourage unwanted,
weedy species.
Construction costs, on an areal basis, are substantially greater for SSF wetlands
than for FWS wetlands due to the purchase and transport of the rock or gravel
matrix. In some cases, this is compensated for by the fact that the matrix reduces
the area required to treat a given ow. The median cost of FWS wetlands in North
America as of 1995 was US $44,600 per ha, and for subsurface ow wetlands,
US $358,000 per ha (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).

Management

In general, the operational risks associated with using a wetland for water treat-
ment purposes are probably no greater than those for more conventional treatment
processes. As with any other water treatment technology, the wetland treatment
system must be properly designed and operated. Moreover, in preparing and nego-
tiating a permit for a treatment wetland, it is critical to establish compliance limits
that account for the likely temporal variations in wetland performance. Operators of
treatment wetlands have little short-term control over the diverse microenvironments
that provide actual water treatment within the wetland. Poor efuent quality caused
by a problem internal to the treatment wetland can be difcult to correct quickly.
A phenomenon that has caused compliance problems in several FWS wetlands
is die-off of emergent vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the efuent discharge.
This creates an area of open water where phytoplankton can thrive. These unicellular
algae can, in turn, be exported from the system, creating high efuent concentrations
of TSS and associated constituents. Establishment of long-term permit limits
(annual average or long-term running averages) for compliance will help minimize
the risks associated with such unpredictable events. This is particularly critical for
treatment wetlands used for nonpoint source treatment, such as for agricultural and
urban runoff, where temporal variations in hydraulic and contaminant loading are
pronounced and unpredictable. If short-term guidelines, such as daily or weekly
permit levels, are required, they should be substantially more liberal than the long-
term guidelines.
Most wetlands are sampled on an inowoutow basis, for both water quantity
and quality characteristics (Figure 6). For performance upset situations, it can be
helpful to collect samples with distance from the inow to outow to determine
whether an undesirable export situation is simply the passage of an inow parameter
through the system without treatment or whether the contaminant is being generated
internal to the wetland. If it is being generated internally, then transect sampling can
be a useful diagnostic tool to pinpoint the location and cause.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 6 Automatic recording device used for measuring water stage and ows in FWS
wetlands.

Some management of treatment wetlands may be required to ensure that nui-

sance or public health problems are avoided (Kent and DeBusk, 1997). A common
nuisance situation is odors. Suites of inorganic and organic sulfur-containing com-
pounds are found in many types of wastewaters and can contribute to odors in
treatment wetlands. A good rule of thumb for FWS systems is to reduce or eliminate
anaerobic zones in the inow region of treatment wetlands, for example, by pre-
treating high organic strength wastewaters. Food processing wastewaters, which
are high in COD, have been successfully treated in FWS systems by incorporating
step-feed inuent structures to spread the high strength wastewaters over a greater
area. Dense mats of oating macrophytes, such as duckweeds, have been shown
to successfully reduce odors. Subsurface ow wetlands generally appear to be more
successful at containing odors, although efuent structures (e.g., weirs) that cause
agitation can disperse odors.
Treatment wetlands can also be breeding grounds for mosquitoes which are both
a nuisance and vectors for a host of human and animal diseases (Russell, 1999). If
a treatment wetland is located in an area where such mosquito-borne diseases occur,
it is critically important that its siting, design, and operation mitigate potential health
risks. Situating the wetland away from human habitation (further than the typical
ight line of mosquitoes) is important as is the incorporation of vegetation types
and densities that facilitate biological (e.g., sh) and, if necessary, chemical control
of the mosquito larvae.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 PERFORMANCE

The NAWTSD, with approximately 200 wetland sites (Knight et al., 1993),
provides a general basis for assessing contaminant removal performance of treatment
wetlands. The database was developed from wetland treatment systems that collec-
tively represent a wide range of contaminant types and loading and design charac-
teristics. Therefore, it should be recognized that these data provide only a rough
approximation of specic contaminant removal efciency in treatment wetlands.
There are many wetland congurations, dedicated to various water treatment
goals, for which performance data exist. To clearly understand the potential con-
taminant removal performance of a treatment wetland, it is helpful to review long-
term performance of existing systems, focusing on those contaminants that originally
dictated wetland area requirements and contaminant loading rates. For example,
FWS and SSF wetlands have been designed for BOD and TSS removal from
domestic wastewaters (i.e., secondary treatment), as well as for N and P removal
(i.e., advanced treatment). Although in both circumstances the wetland is used for
domestic wastewater treatment, the design loading rates for the different contami-
nants will vary widely (e.g., the area requirement for P removal is markedly higher
than that for BOD removal) as will the contaminant removal performance. A brief
overview of treatment wetland performance for specic types of contaminants using
different congurations (e.g., FWS, SSF) is presented below.

Suspended Solids and Organic Carbon Removal

Wetlands are capable of achieving a high efciency for suspended solids (TSS)
removal from the water column. Suspended matter in the water may contain a number
of contaminants, such as nutrients, heavy metals, and organic compounds. These
contaminants may themselves be in particulate form or they may be physically or
chemically bound to the particulate matter. Thus, in cases where the bulk of the
contaminant load is associated with particulate matter, physical settling of suspended
solids can result in efcient removal of the contaminants from the water or waste-
water stream.
Among the FWS wetlands included in the NAWTSD, the average outow con-
centration of TSS was 14 mg/l, compared with an average inow concentration of
46 mg/l. This represents a mass removal rate of 7.0 kg/ha per day, or 68 percent
removal on a percentage basis. For SSF systems, average inow TSS levels of
48 mg/l were reduced to 10 mg/l, providing a mass removal rate of 35 kg/ha per
day, 74 percent removal (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Although wetlands generally
provide effective removal of suspended solids, the removal efciency decreases
substantially when the concentration of TSS approaches the natural background level
of about 10 mg/l. Most wetland treatment systems are overdesigned for TSS removal
(having been designed for removal of other contaminants). Therefore, background
concentrations of TSS are often attained a short distance downstream from the
wetland inow.
Wetlands contain vast numbers of organic C-using microorganisms adapted to
the aerobic (O2-rich) surface waters and anaerobic (O2-depleted) soils and, thus, are

2001 CRC Press LLC

capable of highly effective removal of organic compounds from a variety of waste-
waters. Organic matter contains approximately 45 to 50 percent carbon (C) which
is used by these microorganisms as a source of energy. Many microorganisms
consume oxygen (O2) to break down organic C to carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane
(CH4), both of which are lost to the atmosphere. Therefore, the release of excessive
amounts of organic C to surface waters can result in a signicant depletion of O2,
and the subsequent mortality of sh and other O2-dependent aquatic or marine
organisms. Wetlands also store and recycle copious amounts of organic C contained
in plants and animals, dead plant material (litter), microorganisms, and peat. There-
fore, wetlands tend to be natural exporters of organic C as a result of decomposition
of organic matter into ne particulate material and dissolved compounds.
The more readily degradable organic C compounds typically found in domestic
wastewaters are rapidly removed in wetlands. Biological removal of a variety of
recalcitrant (not readily decomposed) organic C compounds, including lignin-based
compounds and petroleum products, can also be achieved in wetlands, although
removal rates may be substantially lower. A commonly used parameter for biolog-
ically available C is biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which is actually a measure
of the rate of O2 consumption by microorganisms using the available organic C in
the water or soil. The normal procedure for determining BOD in water samples
measures the amount of O2 depletion occurring over a 5-day period (BOD5). Chem-
ical oxygen demand (COD) is a second common indicator of oxygen-demanding
substances, particularly for industrial wastewaters and runoff streams.
Wetlands generally provide substantial removal of BOD5, despite a naturally
occurring background level of approximately 1 to 6 mg/l. The average outow
concentration of BOD5 for FWS wetlands in the NAWTSD was 8.0 mg/l, compared
with an average inow concentration of 30.3 mg/l, representing a mass removal rate
of 5.1 kg/ha per day and 71 percent removal efciency. For SSF systems, average
inow BOD5 levels of 27.5 were reduced to 8.6 mg/l, at a mass removal rate of 18.4
kg/ha per day and 63 percent removal efciency (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).

Removal of Organic Carbon and Suspended Solids from Waste

Stabilization Pond Efuents

Waste stabilization ponds (WSPs) are a domestic wastewater treatment technol-

ogy common to both developed and developing countries. Treatment ponds differ
in their characteristics based mainly on organic matter (BOD5) loading. Highly
loaded (225 to 560 kg BOD5/ha per day) ponds usually are anaerobic, moderately
loaded (55 to 200 kg BOD5/ha per day) ponds typically are facultative, and lightly
loaded (65 to 135 kg BOD5/ha per day) ponds are often aerobic (Water Environment
Federation, 1996). Aerobic conditions also are promoted in some WSPs by using
oating, mechanical aerators. Ponds frequently are connected in sequence to improve
hydraulics and enhance treatment performance of the overall WSP system.
While providing effective pathogen and BOD removal, WSPs typically produce
an efuent with high TSS concentrations, as well as a high (alkaline) daytime pH.
The high TSS usually is not related to the inuent TSS loading, but rather is caused
by the high microalgae densities that develop in the ponds. Because microalgae are

2001 CRC Press LLC

organic particles, the exported TSS can exert a long-term oxygen demand as well
as release nutrients in receiving waters. The particulate matter also can clog equip-
ment (e.g., ne emitters) used for irrigating agricultural crops with the pond efuent.
During the daytime, high water column pH conditions created by microalgae pho-
tosynthesis in the WSP may result in efuent unionized ammonia (NH3-N) concen-
trations that are toxic to aquatic fauna in the receiving waters.
Polishing of WSP efuents has become one of the prominent uses for treatment
wetlands. In the early 1990s, WSPs were the most common type of front end or
preliminary treatment of wastewaters prior to introduction into a FWS or SSF
wetland (Reed and Brown, 1995). The original work on wetland treatment of WSP
efuents dealt with simply allowing oating aquatic plants, typically water hyacinths,
to grow over a portion of the efuent region of the ponds (Orth and Sapkota, 1988;
Wolverton and McDonald, 1979). Later studies and commercial applications
involved the use of small-leaved oating plants (duckweeds) for this same purpose.
Results from outdoor tank studies with the oating plant duckweed demonstrate that
while this small-leaved plant is slightly less effective than WSPs for BOD5 removal,
it does provide an efuent sharply lower in TSS than the nonvegetated ponds
(Table 3). Floating plants, therefore, can be effective, when deployed in the nal
cell (for WSPs in series) or efuent region (for a single pond) for reducing particle
export from WSP systems.

Table 3 Inuent and Efuent BOD5 and TSS

Concentrations*
BOD5 TSS
mg/l mg/l
Inuent 193 59
WSP efuent 84 133
Duckweed pond efuent 99 36
* BOD5 and TSS concentrations in microcosm waste stabi-
lization ponds (WSP) and oating plant-dominated (duck-
weed) ponds; Each system received primary domestic
efuent at a hydraulic retention time of six days. Values
represent means of weekly measurements from duplicate
tanks over a seven month (NovemberJune) period.

While partial oating macrophyte cover can improve WSP treatment, the periodic
plant harvest requirement for large ponds often is undesirable. Free water surface
and SSF wetlands now are more commonly used than oating plant systems for
upgrading WSP efuents. Wetlands have proved effective for this purpose as long
as realistic TSS loadings are used (typically 10 to 48 kg/ha per day) and adequate
emergent vegetation cover is maintained, particularly in the efuent region of the
wetland (Gearhart and Higley, 1993).

Nitrogen Removal

Nitrogen (N) is a major component of municipal wastewater, stormwater runoff

from urban and agricultural lands, and wastewater from various types of industrial

2001 CRC Press LLC

processes. Environmental and health problems associated with excessive amounts
of N in the environment have been well documented. For example, high concentra-
tions of nitrate in drinking water supplies can cause methemoglobinemia, or blue
baby syndrome, in infants. Unionized ammonia (NH3), found in certain types of
wastewater efuent, is potentially toxic to many aquatic and marine organisms. In
addition, eutrophication of surface waters frequently is linked with elevated N
concentrations, especially in coastal and estuarine environments.
Nitrogen exists in many forms in the environment and transformations among
different forms may occur rapidly and frequently. Municipal and industrial waste-
water may contain signicant amounts of both organic and inorganic forms of N.
Inorganic N, which includes nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium, may also be present at
high concentrations in agricultural and urban runoff. In the environment, nitrite and,
especially, nitrate are usually found in well-aerated waters, while ammonium is the
more persistent form of inorganic N in anaerobic wetland soils.
Wetlands provide a relatively high level of N removal, although the natural
background level of N in wetland outows is typically greater than 1 mg/l owing
primarily to decomposition and export of the native organic matter (Figure 7). The
average outow concentration of ammonium (expressed as N) in North American
FWS wetlands was 2.2 mg/l, compared with an average inow concentration of
4.9 mg/l. The average ammonium removal on a mass and percentage basis was
0.35 kg/ha-day and 38 percent, respectively. Mean inow and outow values for
ammonium for SSF wetlands were 6.0 and 4.5 mg/l, with mass and percentage
removal rates of 0.62 kg/ha per day and 9 percent, respectively (Kadlec and Knight,
1996). Biological conversion of ammonium to nitrate (nitrication) accounts for
much of the ammonium removal in wetlands. The use of higher strength wastewaters
and the prevalence of anaerobic conditions in the subsurface bed explain the gen-
erally poorer ammonium removal performance of SSF wetlands.

Figure 7 Proles of nitrogen species (ammonium, nitrate, and organic nitrogen) with dis-
tance through a newly ooded forested treatment wetland. Prior to rehydration,
the wetland had been hydrologically altered (dry) for more than 10 years. This
caused a short-term export of organic N and ammonium.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Nitrate removal efciency is generally high in wetlands. The average reduction
in nitrate (including nitrite) concentrations for the NAWTSD was 5.6 to 2.2 mg/l
for FWS wetlands and 4.4 to 1.6 mg/l for SSF wetlands. Mass nitrate plus nitrite
removal rates (and percentage removal efciencies) for these respective systems
were 0.40 kg/ha per day (51 percent) and 1.89 kg/ha per day (61 percent) (Kadlec
and Knight, 1996). The biological process of denitrication, that is, conversion of
nitrate to nitrogen gas, provides a means for complete removal of inorganic N from
wetlands as opposed to storage within the vegetation or soil. Accordingly, the
removal efciency for nitrate is frequently very high for wetlands with high inow
concentrations.
The average reduction in total N (inorganic plus organic forms) concentrations
in North American wetlands was 9.03 to 4.27 mg/l for FWS wetlands and 18.92 to
8.41 mg/l for SSF wetlands. Mean total N mass removal rates averaged 1.06 and
5.85 kg/ha per day for FWS and SSF wetlands, respectively (Kadlec and Knight,
1996). Note that the higher mass removal rates for SSF wetlands than FWS systems
for N, BOD5 , and TSS is related principally to their higher mass loading rates
(typically four to six times higher than FWS wetlands) on a unit area basis.

Nitrogen Removal from Food Processing Wastewaters

Recently, investigators have begun sequencing wetland unit processes to enhance

overall system nitrogen removal performance. A pilot-scale combined wetland sys-
tem in the state of Washington was tested in 1995 for its effectiveness in treating
potato processing wastewaters (Kadlec et al., 1997). Potato processing produces a
high organic strength wastewater, with a chemical oxygen demand (COD) of approx-
imately 3000 mg/l. The goal of the pilot-scale wetland treatment system was to
produce an efuent suitable for land irrigation. Nitrogen reduction by the wetland
was a particularly difcult challenge because TN levels needed to be reduced from
above 150 mg/l to less than 50 mg/l.
Project scientists selected a combination system comprised of two horizontal
FWS wetlands (HSF1 and HSF2), followed by a downward, vertical ow SSF
wetland (VFW3), and then a nal horizontal ow FWS wetland (HSF4) to test.
Wastewater owed by gravity through the two initial horizontal ow wetlands which
were designed to provide organic matter (COD) and TSS removal. Efuent from
HSF2 was then spray-irrigated onto the surface of the vertical ow wetland (HSF3),
designed for nitrication. Efuent from VFW3 was then gravity-fed to HSF4, where
the principal goal was denitrication of the nitrate produced in VFW3.
Performance data for the pilot-scale combined system demonstrated dramatic
changes in efuent quality in the various system unit processes (Kadlec et al., 1997).
The initial wetlands (HSF1, HSF2) provided good COD and TSS removal as well
as mineralization of organic N to NH4-N (Table 4). In the vertical ow wetland, the
bulk of the NH4-N was nitried to NO3-N. Some denitrication also appeared to
occur in this wetland. The nal wetland (HSF4), in turn, removed much of the
remaining nitrate by denitrication.
Many wastewater constituents, such as N, require sequential exposure to dif-
ferent environments in order to be transformed and removed from the water. The

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 4 Summer Performance (mg/l) of a Pilot-Scale Combined
Wetland for Treating Potato Processing Wastewaters*
Efuent
Inuent HSF1 HSF2 VFW3 HSF4
COD 2986 1056 601 209 161
TSS 607 85 72 48 37
Organic N 91 10 3 13 12
NH4-N 73 129 116 26 29
NO3-N 1 1 1 43 13
* The initial two horizontal ow wetlands, HSF1 and HSF2, were designed
for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and suspended solids (TSS) reduc-
tion. The third wetland, VFW3, a vertical ow wetland, was designed to
enhance nitrication. The nal wetland, HSF4, was designed for deni-
trication. From Kadlec et al. (1997). With permission.

implementation of combined systems that link separate unit processes in the

appropriate sequence to effect contaminant removal is a useful strategy for remov-
ing complex compounds. Data from the pilot-study with potato processing waste-
water were used to design a full-scale system that was recently placed into
operation.

Phosphorus Removal

Phosphorus (P), like N, is a major plant nutrient. Hence, addition of P to the

environment often contributes to eutrophication of lakes and coastal waters. In many
cases, wetlands do not provide the high level of efcient long-term removal for P
that they provide for N. This is, in part, due to the lack of a gaseous sink, analogous
to denitrication, for P removal. Nevertheless, most wetlands can provide signicant
P removal from water and wastewater through a combination of physical, chemical,
and biological processes.
Orthophosphate (HPO42 and H2PO4 ) is the predominant inorganic form of P in
surface waters. This form of P readily accumulates in wetland vegetation and soils
as a result of biological uptake and chemical bonding. Based on data from the
NAWTSD, the average orthophosphate concentration reduction was 1.75 to
1.11 mg/l for FWS wetlands with mass and percentage removal rates of 0.12 kg/ha
per day and 41 percent (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). The NAWTSD does not provide
orthophosphate data for SSF wetlands.
Organic forms of P are much less biologically and chemically reactive in wet-
lands than orthophosphate. Particulate organic P may be removed by settling from
the water column. Both dissolved and particulate organic P ultimately may be
biologically broken down to inorganic P (mineralization) and subsequently removed
through biological and chemical processes.
The average total P concentration reduction for FWS wetlands was 3.78 to
1.62 mg/l, and that for SSF wetlands, 4.41 to 2.97 mg/l. Respective mass (and
percentage) removal rates for FWS and SSF systems were 0.17 kg/ha per day
(34 percent) and 1.14 kg/ha per day (22 percent) (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 It is notable that of the contaminants discussed above, P is the element that has
the lowest background concentration in treatment wetlands. Several large emergent
marshes in Florida have provided long-term efuent P concentrations below
0.05 mg/l (Jackson, 1989; Moustafa et al., 1999).

Removal of Trace Metals, Toxic Organic Compounds, and Complex

Mixtures of Contaminants

A number of metals are required in trace amounts for plant or animal growth.
Some of these micronutrients such as copper, selenium, and zinc, are toxic at higher
concentrations and may be found in certain types of wastewaters. Other metals, such
as cadmium, mercury, and lead, found in industrial or other types of wastewater,
have no known biological benet and are toxic even at relatively low concentrations.
Furthermore, certain metals have a tendency to become concentrated at higher levels
of the food chain. This biomagnication effect can lead to serious health hazards to
higher consumers, including humans.
Removal of metals in wetlands may occur through a number of processes includ-
ing plant uptake, soil adsorption, and precipitation. Plant uptake rates and tolerance
of metals vary considerably among plant species. Some upland plant species have
demonstrated the ability to store high concentrations of metals in roots and other
tissues. Metals may also tend to accumulate on the root surfaces of plants, rather
than being absorbed into the plant.
Wetlands can be effective sinks for metals due to the relative immobility of most
metals in wetland soils. A number of metals, including cadmium, copper, nickel,
lead, and zinc, form nearly insoluble compounds with suldes under anaerobic
conditions in wetland soils. In addition, some metals, such as chromium, copper,
lead, and zinc, form strong chemical complexes (chemisorption) with organic matter
in the soil or water. Metals, for example chromium and copper, also may be bound
through sorption to clays and oxides of manganese, aluminum, and iron. Nickel also
binds with organic matter and iron/manganese but may become mobilized under
certain conditions.
In addition to heavy metals, there are multitudes of degradation-resistant and
toxic natural and man-made organic compounds that may be present in wastewater
efuent or runoff. Quantitative data on removal of organics, such as pesticides and
petrochemicals, are limited. However, measurable removal of a wide variety of
organic compounds has been documented for wetland treatment systems.
Both mineral and organic soils may adsorb organic compounds via chemisorp-
tion (strong interaction) or physical adsorption (weak interaction). Microbes are
capable of degrading most classes of organic pollutants, but the rate of degradation
varies considerably, depending on chemical and structural properties of the organic
compound, and the chemical and physical environment in the soil. For example,
highly halogenated hydrocarbons such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are
extremely resistant to decomposition due to their low solubility in water and the
lack of a structural site for enzyme attachment for degradation. Other possible
mechanisms for removal of organics in wetlands are volatilization and photochem-
ical (sunlight) degradation.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Studies have documented successful wetland treatment of PCBs, lindane, pen-
tachlorophenol, and atrazine. In most cases, actual removal processes, for example
sediment retention or microbial degradation, were not determined. However, there
is substantial evidence that a number of toxic organics, such as pentachlorophenol,
break down readily under the alternating aerobic and anaerobic conditions found in
wetland soils.

Wetland Treatment of Urban Runoff

There currently exists considerable interest in using wetlands for treating urban
runoff which can contain a mixture of suspended solids, oxygen-demanding sub-
stances, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and other potentially toxic organics. Treatment
of urban runoff is particularly challenging because factors such as intervals between
storm events can inuence the contaminant loading to the wetland, and the volume
(size) of the rainfall event can control the hydraulic residence time of contaminants
in the treatment wetland. In short, wetlands used for urban runoff treatment are
exposed to very dynamic hydraulic and contaminant loadings, and this requires the
deployment of unique designs.
Several features are common to wetlands used for treating urban runoff (Living-
ston, 1989; Schueler, 1996). Deep forebays (e.g., 1 m deep) focus sediment accu-
mulation at the inow points to the wetland. Energy dissipation devices reduce
velocities that could scour sediments or vegetation. Variable water depths encourage
a diversity of vegetation, and a permanent water pool helps to maintain wetland
characteristics during droughts. Also, most runoff treatment wetlands have a dened
sediment cleanout schedule (usually every 5 to 10 years) and a specic wetland-to-
watershed area ratio (often 0.01 to 0.02).
Performance of wetlands for urban runoff treatment is often difcult to quantify.
Inowoutow sampling must be performed on a storm-event basis, and much of
the inow water (and associated contaminants) can be lost to vertical seepage. As
a consequence, contaminant loadings to groundwaters often are ignored in docu-
menting performance of stormwater detention facilities.
Because of the strong afnity many metals have for particles, the sediments and
vegetation of several urban runoff detention facilities have been evaluated for heavy
metal retention (Shutes et al., 1997). A marsh system used for urban runoff detention
in California provided the following heavy metal removal efciencies: lead (83
percent), chromium (53 percent), zinc (51 percent), copper (32 percent), and nickel
(12 percent). Analysis of ecosystem compartments in the marsh demonstrated highest
metal concentrations in the surcial sediments followed by plant roots (Meiorin,
1989). This accumulation of metals in the sediments is common for urban runoff
detention facilities (Shutes et al., 1997).

Wetland Treatment of Landll Leachates

Like urban runoff, landll leachates contain a mixture of contaminants whose

concentrations can vary markedly over time. Landll leachate composition is con-
trolled by the type of solid waste disposed of in the landll, the amount of leachate

2001 CRC Press LLC

dilution from rainfall, and the age of the landll. Leachate composition can change
over time, with the fresh leachate often anoxic with a high COD, and the more aged
leachate containing a reduced oxygen demand but higher concentrations of heavy
metals and potentially toxic organics. Constructed wetlands have been scrutinized
as a technology for treating landll leachates for only the past decade (Kadlec, 1998),
with most of the existing treatment wetland performance data pertaining to oxygen
demanding substances and nutrients (DeBusk, 1998).
Mass balances of leachate-borne heavy metals have been obtained but only at
the mesocosm scale. One 14 month study investigated metal removal from landll
leachate in wetlands dominated by either oating (Lemna minor) or emergent mac-
rophytes (Typha latifolia) (DeBusk et al., 1996b). Landll leachate amended with
lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd) to levels of 100 and 400 g/L, respectively, was fed
continuously to outdoor mesocosm tanks situated adjacent to a landll. Despite the
high hydraulic loading rate (14.6 cm/day) and short hydraulic retention times (2.4
days), both wetland types removed approximately 50 percent of the inuent metals
(Table 5). On a mass basis, the surcial sediments were the principal site of metal
sequestration, containing over 2000 mg/m2 of both Pb and Cd. Nearly all sediment
Pb and Cd were present as metal suldes which suggests that these metals are neither
bioavailable nor toxic to biota (Di Toro, 1992). Cattail roots were the second most
prominent site of metal immobilization, containing between 250 to 400 mg/m2 of
Pb and Cd. No overt toxic affects to ora or fauna (sh) were observed in this
investigation.

Table 5 Inuent and Efuent Lead and

Cadmium Concentrations (g/L)
for Landll Leachate*
Lead Cadmium
Inuent 396 105
Cattail efuent 196 52
Duckweed efuent 219 52
* Lead and cadmium concentrations fed to
microcosm wetlands dominated by cattail
(Typha domingensis ) and duckweed (Lemna
minor ). Values represent weekly means from
duplicate microcosms that received a continu-
ous ow of spiked leachate for 14 months.

Pilot-scale wetlands dominated by Typha and Lemna were evaluated for their
effectiveness at removing hydrocarbons from industrial wastewater (Salmon et al.,
1998). Wetlands containing these two macrophytes performed comparably, reducing
total hydrocarbon (THC) levels from 60 mg/l to below 8 mg/l at a 1.5 day hydraulic
retention time. A mass balance showed that of the 1431 g THC/m2 loaded to the
wetlands over a 1 year period, around 25 percent were volatilized and 63 percent
were degraded by microbial activity. Only a small fraction (4 percent) was recovered
on and in the wetland sediments.
Treatment wetlands can effectively remove many metals and synthetic organic
compounds from wastewaters. Because there is little performance information

2001 CRC Press LLC

available upon which to design these systems, pilot-scale studies typically should
be conducted prior to implementation of a full-scale system. The pilot should be
used to develop design information as well as to obtain a clear understanding of
the fate and bioavailability of potentially toxic compounds both within the unit
processes and in the system efuent.

Pathogen Removal

Pathogens in wastewaters and surface waters that are fed into treatment wetlands
include bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and helminths (parasitic worms). Because treat-
ment wetlands were rst studied and deployed in industrialized countries of Europe
and North America where post-treatment disinfection is common, the removal of
pathogens internal to wetlands was not of critical concern. Indeed, the biggest
consideration was the occasional increase in pathogens observed as wastewater was
passed through FWS wetlands caused typically by avian activity. More recently,
with interest in using wetlands globally for wastewater treatment purposes, the
pathogen removal performance of wetlands is being scrutinized.
Most enteric bacteria and viruses are not thought to survive long outside the
host organisms, so natural die-off is one process by which these organisms are
removed in treatment wetlands. Other factors that contribute to bacteria and virus
removal in natural systems include competition, predation, sedimentation, ltration,
adsorption, pH extremes, and photolysis. Routine microbiological assessments of
surface waters use groups of organisms such as total and fecal coliforms as indi-
cators of fecal contamination.
From an international public health perspective, multiple cell waste stabilization
ponds are recommended as a cost-effective domestic wastewater treatment technol-
ogy. The WSP water column conditions (high UV and pH) are effective for bacteria
and virus destruction, and a long hydraulic retention time (HRT) contributes to
helminth ova removal by sedimentation (Bartone and Arlosoroff, 1987). Well-
designed and operated WSPs usually meet the microbiological standards of less than
1000 fecal coliforms/100 ml recommended for the agricultural reuse of domestic
efuents (World Health Organization, 1989).
Studies with various treatment wetland congurations have demonstrated a 1-log
(90 percent) to 2-log (99 percent) reduction for indicator bacteria, depending on the
system HRT. Studies with pilot-scale SSF wetlands planted with Phragmites dem-
onstrated 1.1- to 1.9-log removals of Escherichia coli and total coliforms at HRTs
in as short as 6 hours (Green et al., 1997). These removals increased to as high as
3.1 log after 48-hours detention in the gravel bed. Plant root exudates, or the micro-
organisms associated with the plant rhizosphere, may also contribute to pathogen
destruction. Gravel lled SSF wetlands containing bulrush (Scirpus) achieved greater
total coliform reduction (from 6.7 107/100 ml to 5.77 105/100 ml) than a non-
vegetated gravel bed (Gersberg et al., 1989).
Studies with indicator organisms reveal that the bacterial and viral reduction
provided by treatment wetlands is slightly superior to conventional wastewater
treatment processes such as activated sludge. The latter typically provides a 1-log
reduction. Tests in a Typha-dominated FWS wetland that received secondary efuent

2001 CRC Press LLC

at a nominal 3.3 day HRT demonstrated 90 to 99 percent reductions of both bacteria
and virus indicators (MS-2 bacteriophage, Gersberg et al., 1989). These investigators
cautioned, however, that post disinfection would be needed to satisfy local require-
ments (1000 TC/100 ml) for discharge.
While wetlands can be an effective technology for pathogen removal, there
remain some concerns for using treatment wetlands, particularly FWS congura-
tions, in tropical regions. Many human parasites have complex life cycles that rely
on intermediate animal hosts. Wetland environments, unlike WSPs, can support many
of these avian and mollusk hosts and, therefore, provide an environment for prolif-
eration rather than the destruction of the pathogenic organisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment wetlands offer great promise for the low-cost treatment of contami-
nated waters and wastewaters. Successful wetland treatment system designs require
careful consideration of the actual contaminant removal processes and how the rates
and effectiveness of these processes may change over time as the system ages. A
sound understanding of treatment goals and contaminant removal processes will lead
to the most appropriate and cost-effective unit process (e.g., wetland, waste stabili-
zation pond, conventional WWTP) or sequence of unit processes.

REFERENCES

Bartone, C. R. and Arlosoroff, S., Irrigation reuse of pond efuents in developing countries,
Water Sci. Technol., 19, 289, 1987.
Boutin, C., Lienard, A., and Esser, D., Development of a new generation of reed-bed lters
in France: rst results, Water Sci. Technol., 35, 315, 1997.
Brix, H., Macrophyte-mediated oxygen transfer in wetlands: transport mechanisms and rates,
in Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, Moshiri, G. A., Ed., Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1993.
Brix, H., Functions of macrophytes in constructed wetlands, Water Sci. Technol., 29, 71, 1994.
Brix, H., Do macrophytes play a role in treatment wetlands? Water Sci. Technol., 35, 11, 1997.
Burgoon, P. S., Reddy, K. R., and DeBusk, T. A., Performance of subsurface ow wetlands
with batch-load and continuous-ow conditions, Water Environ. Res., 67, 855, 1995.
Clough, K. S., DeBusk, T. A., and Reddy, K. R., Model water hyacinth and pennywort systems
for secondary treatment of domestic wastewater, in Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment
and Resource Recovery, Reddy, K. R. and Smith, W. H., Eds., Magnolia Publishing,
Orlando, FL, 1987.
Cole, S., The emergence of treatment wetlands, Environ. Sci. Technol., 33, 1998.
Cooper, P., Smith, M., and Maynard, H., The design and performance of a nitrifying vertical-
ow reed bed treatment system, Water Sci. Technol., 35, 215, 1997.
DeBusk, T. A., Langston, M. A., Burgoon, P. S., and Reddy, K. R., A performance comparison
of vegetated submerged beds and oating macrophyte systems for wastewater treatment,
in Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control, Cooper, P. F. and Findlater, B. C.,
Eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 1990.

2001 CRC Press LLC

DeBusk, T. A., Peterson, J. E., and Reddy, K. R., Use of aquatic and terrestrial plants for
removing phosphorus from dairy wastewaters, Ecol. Eng., 5, 371, 1996a.
DeBusk, T. A., Laughlin, R. B., and Schwartz, L. N., Retention and compartmentalization of
lead and cadmium in wetland microcosms, Water Res., 30, 2707, 1996b.
DeBusk, W. F., Evaluation of a constructed wetland for treatment of leachate at a municipal
landll in northwest Florida, in Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Landll
Leachates, Mulamoottil, G., McBean, E., and Rovers, F. A., Eds., Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL, 1998.
Di Toro, D. M., Mahony, J. D., Hansen, D. J., Scott, K. J., Carlson, A. R., and Ankley, G. T.,
Acid volatile sulde predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium and nickel in sediments,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 26, 96, 1992.
Dornbush, J. N., Constructed wastewater wetlands: the answer in South Dakotas challenging
environment, in Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, Moshiri, G. A.,
Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1993.
Faulkner, S. P. and Richardson, C. J., Physical and chemical characteristics of freshwater
wetland soils, in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial
and Agricultural, Hammer, D. A., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1989.
Gearhart, R. A. and Higley, M., Constructed open surface wetlands: the water quality benets
and wildlife benets, in Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement,
Moshiri, G. A., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1993.
Gersberg, R. M., Gearhart, R. A., and Ives, M., Pathogen removal in constructed wetlands,
in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricul-
tural, Hammer, D. A., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1989.
Gersberg, R. M., Role of aquatic plants in wastewater treatment by articial wetlands, Water
Res., 20, 363, 1985.
Green, M. B., Griffen, P., Seabridge, J. K., and Dhobie, D., Removal of bacteria in subsurface
ow wetlands, Water Sci. Technol., 35, 109, 1997.
Hagedorn, C., McCoy, E. L., and Rahe, T. M., The potential for ground water contamination
from septic efuents, J. Environ. Qual., 10, 1, 1981.
House, C. H., Bergmann, B. A., Stomp, A. M., and Frederick, D. J., Combining constructed
wetlands and aquatic and soil lters for reclamation and reuse of water, Ecol. Eng., 12,
27, 1999.
Jackson, J., Man-made wetlands for wastewater treatment: two case studies, in Constructed
Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural, Hammer,
D. A., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1989.
Kadlec, R. H. and Knight, R. L., Treatment Wetlands, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1996.
Kadlec, R. H., Burgoon, P. S., and Henderson, M. E., Integrated natural systems for treating
potato processing wastewater, Water Sci. Technol., 35, 263, 1997.
Kadlec, R. H., Overland ow in wetlands: vegetation resistance, J. Hydraulic Eng., 116(5),
691, 1990.
Kadlec, R. H., Deterministic and stochastic aspects of constructed wetlands performance and
design, Water Sci. Technol., 35, 149, 1997.
Kadlec, R. H., Constructed wetlands for treating landll leachate, in Constructed Wetlands
for the Treatment of Landll Leachates, Mulamoottil, E., McBean, G., and Rovers, F. A.,
Eds., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1998.
Kent and DeBusk, Managing treatment wetlands, Land and Water, November/December,
p. 52, 1997.
King, A. C., Mitchell, C. A., and Howes, T., Hydraulic tracer studies in a pilot scale subsurface
ow constructed wetland, Water Sci. Technol., 35, 189, 1997.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Koch, M. S., Soil and Surface Water Nutrients in the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project,
Technical Publication #9104. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm
Beach, FL, 1991.
Knight, R. L., Ruble, R. W., Kadlec, R. H., and Reed, S., Wetlands for wastewater treatment:
Performance database, in Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, Moshiri,
G. A., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1993.
Livingston, E. H., Use of wetlands for urban stormwater management, in Constructed Wet-
lands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural, Hammer, D. A.,
Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1989.
Meiorin, E. C., Urban runoff treatment in a fresh/brackish water marsh in Fremont, California,
in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricul-
tural, Hammer, D. A., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1989.
Mitchell, D. S., Breen, P. F., and Chick, A. J., Articial wetlands for treating wastewaters
from single households and small communities, in Constructed Wetlands in Water Pol-
lution Control, Cooper, P. F. and Findlater, B. C., Eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford, England,
1990.
Mitsch, W. J., Wu, X., Nairn, R. W., Weihe, P. E., Wang, N., Deal, R., and Boucher, C. E.,
Creating and restoring wetlandsa whole-ecosystem experiment in self-design,
BioScience, 48, 1019, 1998.
Moustafa, M. Z., Newman, S., Fontaine, T. D., Chimney, M. J., and Kosier, T. C., Phosphorus
retention by the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project: An everglades stormwater treat-
ment area, in Phosphorus Biogeochemistry in Subtropical Ecosystems, Reddy, K. R.,
OConner, G. A., and Schelske, C. L., Eds., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1999.
Orth, H. M. and Sapkota, D. P., Upgrading a facultative pond by implanting water hyacinth,
Water Res., 22, 1503, 1988.
Reddy, K. R. and DeBusk, W. F., Nutrient removal potential of selected aquatic macrophytes,
J. Environ. Qual., 14, 459, 1985.
Reddy, K. R. and DAngelo, E. M., Biogeochemical indicators to evaluate pollutant removal
efciency in constructed wetlands, Water Sci. Technol., 35, 1, 1997.
Reddy, K. R., White, J. R., Wright, A., and Chua, T., Inuence of phosphorus loading on
microbial processes in the soil and water column of wetlands, in Phosphorus
Biogeochemistry in Subtropical Ecosystems, Reddy, K. R., OConner, G. A., and Schel-
ske, C. L., Eds., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1999.
Reed, S. C. and Brown, D., Subsurface ow wetlandsa performance evaluation, Water
Environ. Res., 67, 244, 1995.
Richardson, C. J. and Craft, C. B., Efcient phosphorus retention in wetlands: fact or ction?
in Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, Moshiri, G. A., Ed., Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1993.
Russell, R. C., Constructed wetlands and mosquitoes: health hazards and management
optionsan Australian perspective, Ecol. Eng., 12, 107, 1999.
Salmon, C., Crabos, J. L., Sambuco, J. P., Bessiere, J. M., Basseres, A., Caumette, P., and
Baccou, J.C., Articial wetland performances in the purication efciency of hydrocar-
bon wastewater, Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 104, 313, 1998.
Schueler, T., Unpublished data, presented at Surface-Flow Constructed Treatment Wetland
Technology Assessment Workshop, sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Bureau Mines, and City of Phoenix, 1996.
Schwartz, L. N., Wallace, P. M., Gale, P. M., Smith, W. F., Wittig, J. T., and McCarty, S. L.,
Orange County, Florida Eastern Service Area reclaimed water wetlands reuse system,
Water Sci. Technol., 29, 273, 1994.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Shutes, R. B. E., Revitt, D. M., Mungur, A. S., and Scholes, L. N. L., The design of wetland
systems for the treatment of urban runoff, Water Sci. Technol., 35, 19, 1997.
Tanner, C. C., Plants for constructed wetland treatment systemsa comparison of the growth
and nutrient uptake of eight emergent species, Ecol. Eng., 7, 59, 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National
Guidance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofce of Water Regulations and
Standards, EPA 440/S-90011, Washington, D.C., 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater Treat-
ment: A Technology Assessment, Draft Document, March 1999.
Wallace, P. M., Ecology of Created Wetland Communities in the Orange County Eastern
Service Area Reclaimed Water Wetlands System, Fourth Operational Year Monitoring
Report, March 1991August 1992, Ecosystem Research Corporation, Gainesville, FL,
1992.
Water Environment Federation, Operation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, Manual
of Practice, Vol. II, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA, 1996.
World Health Organization, Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and
Aquaculture, World Health Organization Technical Report Series No. 778, WHO,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.
Wolverton, B. C. and McDonald, R. C., Upgrading facultative wastewater lagoons with
vascular plants, J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed., 51, 305, 1979.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Kent, Donald M. Design and Management of Wetlands for Wildlife
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 10

Design and Management of

Wetlands for Wildlife

Donald M. Kent

CONTENTS

Design
Size
Relationship to Other Wetlands
Disturbance
Design Guidelines
Management
Management Approaches
Management Techniques
Vegetation Management
Burning
Grazing
Herbicide Application
Mechanical Management
Blasting
Bulldozing, Draglining, and Dredging
Crushing
Cutting
Disking
Propagation
Water-Level Manipulation
Articial Nesting and Loang Sites
Fisheries
References

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Wildlife management had been concerned primarily with the administration and
regulation of waterfowl and furbearer harvests prior to the 1930s. It was about this
time that wildlife managers, as well as the public, recognized that wildlife resources
were not limitless. Leopold crystallized this emerging perspective in his book Game
Management (1933) that gave birth to the scientic management of wildlife popu-
lations and wildlife habitats.
Wetlands are especially critical habitats for wildlife and exceed all other land
types in wildlife productivity (Vaught and Bowmaster, 1983; Cowardin and Goforth,
1985; Payne, 1992). Wildlife species use wetlands on either a permanent or transitory
basis for breeding, food, and shelter (Pandit and Fotedar, 1982; Rakstad and Probst,
1985). In the United States, wetlands provide critical habitat for 80 of 276 threatened
and endangered species. Approximately 64 percent of the wildlife in the Great Lakes
region of the United States inhabit or are attracted to wetlands, including 62 percent
of the birds, 69 percent of the mammals, and 71 percent of the amphibians and
reptiles (Rakstad and Probst, 1985). From 67 to 90 percent of commercial sh and
shellsh species are either directly or indirectly dependent upon wetlands (Peters
et al., 1979; Vaught and Bowmaster, 1983; Radtke, 1985). Wetlands are also the
principal habitat for furbearers and waterfowl. Approximately 10 to 12 million ducks
breed in the contiguous United States and 45 million ducks depend on wetlands
throughout the United States and Canada for their existence (Vaught and Bowmaster,
1983; Radtke, 1985).
Wetland wildlife has a quantiable economic value. Hundreds of millions of
dollars are spent annually on birdwatching and other wildlife observations. Fresh-
water sherman spent $7.8 billion dollars in 1980 and waterfowl hunters spent $950
million in 1975 (Radtke, 1985). In 19751976, more than 8.5 million furbearer pelts
with a value in excess of $35.5 million were harvested (Chabreck, 1979).
Valuable wetland habitats are being lost and degraded at an alarming rate;
more than 200,000 ha of wetlands are lost per year (Low in Payne, 1992). Annual
losses to agriculture range from 1 to 4 percent (Weller, 1981). Prairie potholes in
the United States and Canada are lost at a rate of 1 to 2 percent per year, and 75
percent of northern central United States wetlands were lost between 1850 and
1977 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1980; Radtke, 1985; Melinchuk and
Mackay, 1986). Bottomland hardwood forests were cleared at a rate of 66,800 ha
per year between 1940 and 1980, reducing forested wetlands in some states by
96 percent (Korte and Fredrickson, 1977; Radtke, 1985). Coastal wetlands have
also suffered dramatic losses, with more than 10,000 ha per year being lost from
Gulf Coast wetlands (Chabreck, 1976; Gagliano, 1981). Many of the wetlands
that remain are degraded from channelization, damming, and agricultural and
urban surface runoff. As well, these remaining wetlands are typically fragmented
or isolated and occur on private land.
Coincident with the loss and degradation of wetlands is a decline in continental
waterfowl populations. Breeding mallard populations have declined at a rate of up
to 19 percent since 1970 (Melinchuk and MacKay, 1986). Weller (1981) estimates
that 90 million waterfowl nests were lost in the north central United States between
1850 and 1977, and wintering waterfowl populations declined by 70 percent between

2001 CRC Press LLC

the mid-1950s and 1983 (Whitman and Meredith, 1987). The effect of wetland loss
and degradation on other wildlife remains largely undetermined.
The exceptional value of wetlands as wildlife habitat, and the continued loss and
degradation of wetlands, necessitate the careful design of new habitats and the
management of existing habitat. The majority of high quality wetland habitats, those
uninuenced by extrinsic disturbances, are already preserved in parks and refuges.
Opportunities for designing new habitats are few. Many other wetland habitats offer
less than optimal habitat. For the latter, application of management techniques can
increase productivity.

DESIGN

A wetland designed for wildlife is the combination of details and features that,
when implemented, results in the provision of habitat for wildlife that use wetlands
to satisfy all or part of their life requisites. The design should be a preliminary sketch
or plan for work to be executed, conceived in the mind, and fashioned skillfully. In
practice, designs for wetlands can take several forms.
The simplest and earliest efforts at designing wetlands for wildlife were char-
acterized by the preservation of wildlife habitat. The most prominent effort among
these in the United States was the establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge
system, which protects uplands as well as wetlands. Florida's Pelican Island was the
rst refuge, established in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt to protect egrets,
herons, and other birds that were being killed for their feathers. There are presently
over 450 National Wildlife Refuges, comprising a network that encompasses over
90 million acres of lands and waters. Southern bayous, bottomland hardwood forests,
swamps, prairie potholes, estuaries, and coastal wetlands are represented. Preserva-
tion of wetland wildlife habitat continues, although at a slower pace, through the
efforts of government initiatives and private organizations.
The restoration and enhancement of historic wetlands and the creation of new
wetlands characterize more complex approaches to the design of wetlands for wild-
life. Illustrative of large-scale restoration efforts in the United States, the 1985 Food
Security Act has provided for wetland restoration on Farmers Home Administration
and Conservation Reserve Program lands. Almost 55,000 acres of agricultural lands
were restored to wetlands between 1987 and 1989, and another 90,000 acres were
targeted for restoration in 1990 and 1991 (Mitchell in Kusler and Kentula, 1990).
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act enacted in 1989 will provide 25
million dollars annually in federal matching funds over the next 15 years for resto-
ration of wetlands vital to waterfowl and other migratory birds. Wildlife managers
(Weller, 1987, 1990; Weller et al., 1991) have effected other restoration and enhance-
ment efforts for years, in some cases to counteract the effects of previous manage-
ment efforts (Talbot et al., 1986; Newling, 1990; Rey et al., 1990). At a generally
smaller scale, restoration designs occur as mitigation requirements for regulated
wetland lls (Kusler and Kentula, 1990).
Designing wetlands for wildlife through creation of wetlands is undoubtedly
a greater challenge than preservation or restoration. Whereas design through

2001 CRC Press LLC

preservation is accomplished through observation of current wildlife use, and design
through restoration is accomplished through historical knowledge of wildlife use,
creation requires the attraction of wildlife to a new resource. Prominent among
creation efforts in the United States is the Dredged Material Research Program of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1976). Authorized by the River and Harbor Act
of 1970, the USACOE Waterways Experiment Station (WES) initiated research in
1973 that included testing and evaluation of concepts for wetland and upland habitat
development (Garbisch, 1977; Lunz et al., 1978a). WES has since designed and
constructed thousands of acres of freshwater and coastal wetlands from dredged
material and demonstrated the value of these wetlands to wildlife (Cole, 1978;
Crawford and Edwards, 1978; Lunz et al., 1978b; Webb et al., 1988; Landin et al.,
1989). As is the case with restoration, the wetland regulatory process has resulted
in a large number of small-scale wetlands designed at least in part for wildlife
(Michael and Smith, 1985; USCOE, 1989; Kusler and Kentula, 1990).
The fundamental principles for effective design are the same regardless of
whether a design for wetland wildlife is accomplished through preservation of
existing wildlife habitat, restoration or enhancement of historic wetland habitat, or
the creation of new wetland habitat. The principles are related to minimum habitat
area, minimum viable population, and tolerance of the wildlife species for distur-
bance. Therefore, the objective of this chapter is to discuss the effects of wetland
size, the relationship of the wetland to other wetlands, and anthropogenic disturbance
on wetland effectiveness for providing wildlife habitat.

Size

Size is generally the rst factor considered in designing a wetland for wildlife.
Ideally, the objectives of the design, for example provision of all life requisites for
the species of interest, determine wetland size. More often, land or nancial con-
straints, or even mitigation requirements, pre-ordain the size of the wetland. In these
instances, an assessment should be made of what wildlife species can reasonably
be supported.
Grinnell and Swarth (1913) were the rst to note the relationship between the
number of species and the size of the habitat in their study of montane peaks.
Following attempts to quantify the relationship for terrestrial habitats (Cain, 1938),
it was the application of the concept to true islands which led to its widespread
recognition (MacArthur and Wilson, 1963, 1967). In what has become known as
the theory of island biogeography, the greater the size of the island the greater the
species richness. This relationship is described by

S = CAz

where S is the number of species, A is the area, and C and z are dimensionless
constants that need to be tted for each set of species-area data (Figure 1, MacArthur
and Wilson, 1967). The relationship is thought to occur primarily because larger
islands have more habitat and greater habitat diversity.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 z

Figure 1 The theory of island biogeography suggests that the greater the size of the island,
the greater the species richness (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967). The relationship
is thought to occur because larger islands have more habitat and greater habitat
diversity.

Although the theory has its origins in terrestrial ecology, there are reservations
about the applicability of island biogeography to terrestrial reserves (Kushlan, 1979;
Harris, 1984; Forman and Godron, 1986). Certainly there are inherent differences
between the two systems because the nature of surrounding habitat is far more
distinct for oceanic islands than terrestrial islands. This should result in differences
in true island and terrestrial island immigration rates. Nevertheless, the relationship
between terrestrial island size and species richness has been demonstrated to hold
for birds and large mammal species and for habitat types such as forests, urban
parkland, caves, and mountains (Culver, 1970; Vuilleumier, 1970, 1973; Brown,
1971; Peterken, 1974, 1977; Moore and Hooper, 1975; Galli et al., 1976; Gavareski,
1976; Whitcomb, 1977; Thompson, 1978; Fritz, 1979; Gottfried, 1979; Robbins,
1979; Bekele, 1980; Whitcomb et al., 1981; Ambuel and Temple, 1983; Lynch and
Whigham, 1984). Therefore, despite inherent differences between oceanic and ter-
restrial islands, there is evidence that the same isolating mechanisms are operating.
The degree to which these mechanisms operate is, of course, dependent upon the
degree of habitat insularity, which in turn depends on species-specic habitat spec-
icity, tolerance, and vagility. Harris (1984) has suggested that the isolating mech-
anisms operate most strongly on amphibians and reptiles, followed by mammals,
resident birds, and then migratory birds. The degree to which the latter group is
susceptible depends on breeding site delity and the extent to which reproduction
is restricted to the breeding site.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 An estimated 47 million ha of wetlands were lost in the contiguous United States
between 1780 and 1980 (Dahl, 1990). This loss has fragmented and insularized
remaining wetlands, producing in many cases relatively small terrestrial islands.
Wildlife populations are increasingly isolated and reduced in size, leading inevitably
to extinction (Senner, 1980). Extinction occurs for several reasons. First, small,
closed populations are more susceptible to extrinsic factors such as predation, dis-
ease, and parasitism, and to changes in the physical environment. Second, demo-
graphic stochasticity, the random variation in sex ratio and birth and death rates,
contributes to uctuations in population size (Steinhart, 1986), increasing the sus-
ceptibility of small, closed populations to random extinction events. Finally, small,
closed populations suffer genetic deterioration, primarily due to inbreeding, leading
to a decrease in population tness (Soul, 1980; Allendorf and Leary, 1986; Ralls
et al., 1986; Soul and Simberloff, 1986).
The effects of inbreeding depression can be illustrated by considering the fate
of a small, closed population (Senner, 1980). For an effective population size (Ne ,
number of breeding individuals) of 4, constrained by extrinsic factors to a maximum
of 10 individuals, genetic heterozygosity declines with each successive generation
(Figure 2). As heterozygosity declines, the average survival of offspring declines
due to inbreeding depression. Inbreeding depression includes viability depression,
which is the failure of offspring to survive to maturity, and fecundity depression,
which is the tendency for inbred animals to be sterile. Mammals, in which the male
X chromosome is always hemizygous, also suffer sex ratio depression by way of a
relative increase in males. As fecundity decreases, the population size can no longer
be maintained at its limit. The probability of survival, while initially very high, drops
very sharply after approximately 15 generations. The population approaches extinc-
tion after approximately 25 generations.
The rate of loss of heterozygosity per generation (f ) for inbreeding populations
is equal to 1/2Ne , and animal breeders note an obvious effect on fecundity as f
approaches 0.5 or 0.6 (Soul, 1980). Because

f = 1 (1 1/2Ne ,)t

substituting 0.6 for f and solving for t (number of generations) indicates that the
number of generations to the extinction threshold is approximately 1.5 times Ne
(Soul, 1980). Smaller populations and those with shorter generation times become
extinct in less time than larger populations and those with longer generation times
(Figure 3).
Domestic animal breeders have determined that an inbreeding rate of 2 or 3
percent per generation is sufcient for selection to eliminate deleterious genes
(Stephenson et al., 1953; Dickerson et al., 1954). Citing differences between domes-
tic and natural populations, Soul (1980) has recommended that a 1 percent inbreed-
ing rate be adapted as the threshold for natural populations. Because

f = 1/2Ne ,

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 2 The fate of a small (Ne = 4), closed population constrained by extrinsic factors to
few individuals (10 in this example) is a decline in genetic heterozygosity, a decline
in offspring survival, and a decline in population size (Senner, 1980).

the minimum effective population size is 50 if the inbreeding rate is to be maintained

at 1 percent. However, even at this rate a population of Ne = 50 will lose about 1/4
of its genetic variation in 20 to 30 generations (Soul, 1980). Setting the inbreeding
rate at 0.1 percent, Franklin (1980) has recommended a minimum effective popu-
lation size of 500 individuals for long-term survival. Depending upon generation
length, number of young, and percent survival, the minimum viable population size
may be somewhat more or less than 500 (Shaffer, 1981).
Of course, genetic risks are not the only threat to long-term population survival.
Demographic risks such as disease, meteorological catastrophes, and populations
too dispersed to effect breeding can also be important contributors to the determi-
nation of minimum viable population size when populations are very small (Good-
man, 1987). However, with few exceptions, genetic deterioration should occur well
in advance of demographic extinction, and demographic risks will be seen to exac-
erbate genetic risks. Also, many demographic risks are largely unpredictable, there-
fore negating the development of effective design criteria discrete from those derived
from genetic considerations. Therefore, it seems reasonable to emphasize genetic
risks when estimating minimum viable population size.
For reproductively isolated populations, minimum refuge size is a product of
home range size and minimum effective population size. The home range sizes for
many wetland wildlife species are poorly understood (as is the degree of reproductive

2001 CRC Press LLC

 e

Figure 3 Based on the rate of loss of heterozygosity per generation for inbreeding popula-
tions, the number of generations to the extinction threshold is 1.5 times Ne
(Soul, 1980). Smaller populations and those with shorter generation times
become extinct in less time than larger populations and those with longer gener-
ation times.

isolation). Nevertheless, for purposes of illustration, consider three distinct wetland

species: the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), the Pacic water shrew (Sorex bendirei),
and the mink (Mustela vison). The bullfrog is territorial only during breeding and
has been observed living and breeding in permanent ponds as small as 1.5 m diameter
(Graves and Anderson, 1987). Pacic water shrew are territorial and have a home
range of approximately 1 ha (Harris, 1984). Male and female mink have generally
distinct home ranges of approximately 12 ha (Allen, 1986). Minimum refuge sizes
for a minimum effective population size of 50 are 1.9 102, 54.5, and 600 ha,
respectively. For a minimum effective population size of 500 individuals, refuge
sizes are 0.19, 545, and 6000 ha. These estimates are likely conservative because
they assume all individuals in the populations are contributing to the gene pool. As

2001 CRC Press LLC

noted above, minimum refuge size is modied by generation length, number of
young, and percent survival.
Some existing preserves appear to be large enough to support minimum viable
populations of at least some species. National Wildlife Refuges range in size from
0.4 ha in Mille Lacs, AK, to 8 million ha in Yukon Delta, AK, and average approx-
imately 80,000 ha. Although many refuges consist of uplands as well as wetlands,
it is clear that at least some National Wildlife Refuges are large enough to support
minimum viable populations of some species. However, few opportunities remain
for the preservation of such large tracts, and wetlands outside the refuge system may
not be large enough to support minimum viable populations. For example, 28 percent
of wetland habitats in the east and central Florida region are less than 2 ha in size,
and 40 to 60 percent are less than 20 ha in size (Gilbrook, 1989). Restoration,
enhancement, and creation of riverine wetlands have sometimes resulted in relatively
large contiguous habitats (Baskett, 1987; Weller et al., 1991). More frequently how-
ever, these efforts result in wetlands of hundreds of ha, tens of ha, and even areas
of less than 1 ha (Michael and Smith, 1988; Ray and Woodroof, 1988; Reimold and
Thompson, 1988; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989; Landin and Webb, 1989).

Relationship to Other Wetlands

Given the paucity of large wetlands available for preservation, and the very real
possibility that smaller wetlands will not support minimum viable populations of
many species, it is necessary to provide mechanisms for interpopulation movement.
Interpopulation movement increases effective habitat size and creates a metapopu-
lation (Gilpin, 1987). The metapopulation is composed of an interacting system of
local populations that suffer extinction and are recolonized from within the region.
The metapopulation will be sustained if the source(s) of colonists are proximally
located, and the immigration rate is greater than the reciprocal of the time to
extinction (Brown and Kodric-Brown, 1977). The metapopulation has a decreased
danger of accidental extinction compared to individual populations and an ability
to counter genetic drift through occasional migration. In the absence of a metapo-
pulation, the wetland internal disturbance regime becomes the critical design feature,
and the minimum dynamic area must be large enough to support internal colonization
sources (Pickett and Thompson, 1978). As discussed above, this minimum dynamic
area is likely to be unattainable in many instances.
Metapopulations can reasonably be established and maintained if interpopulation
movement can be effected at a minimum rate of every few generations (Wright,
1969; Nei et al., 1975; Kiester et al., 1982; Allendorf, 1986). The rate of movement
is a function of the distance between populations and the quality of the intervening
habitat, and will vary among species based upon dispersal ability, habitat specicity,
and habitat tolerance.
The rate of movement between populations varies inversely with the distance
between habitats (McArthur and Wilson, 1967; Diamond, 1975; Gilpin, 1987; Soul,
1991). Animals nd it more difcult to disperse from one habitat to another as the
distance between habitats increases, and habitats are more likely to be recolonized
following extinction events if habitats occur in close proximity (Figure 4, Wilson

2001 CRC Press LLC

and Willis, 1975; Brown and Kodric-Brown, 1977; Soul, 1991). For example,
unoccupied spruce grouse (Dendragapus canadensis) habitat is signicantly further
from occupied habitat than other occupied habitat (Fritz, 1979). Rodents, rabbits,
and hares appear to benet from proximally located habitats (Soul, 1991), and
mammals typically disperse less than 5 home range diameters (Chepko-Sade and
Halpin, 1987). Generally, small, sedentary, cursorial species with narrow habitat
tolerances will be more greatly affected by the distance between habitats than will
large pedestrian species, volant species, migratory species, and species with broad
habitat tolerances.

Figure 4 Animals nd it easier to disperse from one habitat to another if those habitats are
closely juxtaposed than if habitats are widely separated. For example, in this
photograph two wetlands are separated by about 20 m of upland. Close juxtapo-
sition of habitats also facilitates recolonization following local extinction events.

Ultimately, interpopulation movement is determined by the quality of the inter-

vening habitat, with quality a function of species-specic habitat tolerance (Harris,
1984; Forman and Godron, 1986; Noss, 1987). At its simplest, intervening habitat
can be viewed as either unsuitable or suitable, with unsuitable habitat constituting
barriers to movement and suitable habitat constituting corridors. Roadways are
classic barriers that inhibit the movement of mammals (Oxley et al., 1974; Madsen,
1990), and are responsible for the death of an estimated 100 million amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals per year (Arnold, 1990; Anon., 1992; Lopez, 1992).
Some bird species have an intrinsic aversion to abandoning cover (Diamond, 1973;
Soul, 1991), and rodents tend to stay within suitable habitat (Holekamp, 1984;
Garrett and Franklin, 1988; Wiggett and Boag, 1989). At the mesoscale and

2001 CRC Press LLC

macroscale, lakes, mountains, and valleys affect mammal dispersal (Shirer and
Downhower, 1968; Seidensticker et al., 1973; Storm et al., 1976).
For species such as these with poor dispersal abilities or narrow habitat toler-
ances, individual populations comprising the metapopulation must be connected by
suitable habitat. Alternatively, discrete habitats could be closely juxtaposed. Road-
way crossings should be avoided, although movement can be effected for some
species by the use of underpasses (Arnold, 1990; Madsen, 1990; Soul, 1991).
Unsuitable habitat is more likely to be used as a corridor if the transit time between
populations is short enough that forage and cover are not required.
Other species have greater dispersal abilities and broader habitat tolerances. For
example, a Florida black bear (Ursus americanus) traversed eight major highways,
a dozen other roadways, a river, several canals, fences, farmland, and skirted sub-
urban areas in an 11 week journey (Arnold, 1990). As another example, McIntyre
and Barrett (1992) noted that Australian bird species preferred to move within
forested areas but traversed open areas when necessary. For species such as these,
intervening habitat is comprised of various degrees of suitability, each of which can
be tolerated for various lengths of time.
Few, if any, specic guidelines exist for determining the effective distance
between populations, or the quality of intervening habitat. In the absence of specic
information demonstrating the broader abilities of dispersers, wetland design efforts
should focus on establishing corridors of habitat similar to that being used by existing
individual populations. Individual populations should be located as closely together
as possible so as to minimize transit time, and corridor width should approach home
range diameter as transit time increases. Noss (1993) recommends that corridors be
wide enough to minimize edge effects, meet the needs of the most sensitive species,
and accommodate a variety of successional stages. This conservative approach is
more likely to ensure long-term survival of species with poor dispersal abilities such
as amphibians, reptiles, some bird species, and small mammals than other designs.
For large mammals and some bird species, corridors may consist of dissimilar habitat
if species use can be demonstrated. For migratory bird species, corridors may be
largely unnecessary, and design efforts should focus on providing habitat require-
ments at breeding and wintering sites, and stopping points in-between.

Disturbance

Disturbance is a change in structure caused by factors external to the hierarchical

level of the system of interest (Pickett et al., 1989). As it pertains to wildlife,
disturbance alters birth and death rates by directly killing individuals or by affecting
resources upon which those individuals rely (Petraitis et al., 1989). Generally, small
areas are more susceptible to disturbance than larger areas (Norse et al., 1986).
Disturbance can be either natural, in that it occurs as part of normal community
dynamics, or anthropogenic. Natural disturbance provides for the continued exist-
ence of species which use temporary habitats (Soul and Simberloff, 1986), and
species richness is generally maximized at moderate frequencies or intensities of
disturbance (Connell, 1978; Pickett and White, 1985). Natural disturbance regimes

2001 CRC Press LLC

can be accommodated within a single large reserve (alpha diversity) or by a series
of reserves (beta diversity) serving a metapopulation.
By contrast, anthropogenic disturbance is generally detrimental to overall, long-
term community health. Anthropogenic disturbance can be intrusive, in which people
or domesticated animals enter wetland habitat and normal community processes are
disrupted. Intrusive disturbance has been institutionalized at many local, state, and
federal reserves with the advent of nature trails and viewing areas. Other examples
of intrusive disturbance include boat and vehicle incursions, hunting, and lumbering.
The primary effect of intrusive disturbance is to disrupt waterfowl, wading bird, and
raptor nesting and foraging (Pough, 1951; Kushlan, 1976; Palmer, 1976; Kale, 1978;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984; Short and Cooper, 1985; Peterson, 1986;
Ambruster, 1987).
The simplest way to counter intrusive disturbance is to prevent access to habitats.
However, denying public access to natural areas is difcult to justify and even more
difcult to enforce. Moreover, denied access diminishes the educational value of
natural areas. Therefore, more realistic efforts will focus on minimizing the disrup-
tive effects of the intrusion by avoiding sensitive areas, restricting access at critical
times of the year, and limiting the number of people accessing the area at any one
time. Secondary efforts will include avoiding damage to vegetative and water
resources by constructing low impact trails and establishing viewing areas at the
periphery of the habitat.
Anthropogenic activities external to the wetland also cause disturbances. Clas-
sically, the wetland edge was viewed as an area of increased vertebrate biomass and
productivity (Leopold, 1933; Lay, 1938; McAtee, 1945; Giles, 1978). Certain species
of wildlife, notably deer (Odocoileus spp.), rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.), gamebirds, and
some raptors, appear to benet from the juxtaposition of wetlands and uplands
(Bider, 1968; Gates and Hale, 1974; Gates and Gysel, 1978; Petersen, 1979; Wilcove
et al., 1986). More recently, there has been recognition of the detrimental effects of
this juxtaposition (Figure 5). The edge is subject to an increased frequency and
severity of re, hunting and poaching, nest predation, nest parasitism, and a replace-
ment of the native mammal community by exotic species (Stalmaster and Newman,
1978; Robbins, 1979; Tremblay and Ellison, 1979; Rodgers and Burger, 1981;
Whitcomb et al., 1981; Brittingham and Temple, 1983; Wilcove, 1985a, b; Klein in
Brown et al., 1989; Soul, 1991). Differences in microclimate, browsing, and other
disturbances favor weedy plant species and a vegetation community that differs
markedly from the interior (Wales, 1972; Ranney, 1977; Forman and Godron, 1986;
Lovejoy et al., 1986).
The extent of the edge effect on interior species has only been reasonably
quantied for forest bird species. The effect, if any, to emergent and other open
wetland systems remains to be addressed. Nevertheless, Wales (1972) and Ranney
(1977) determined that major vegetation changes occur from 10 to 30 m into the
forest, with the greatest effects occurring along the southerly edge. Lovejoy et al.
(1986), working in tropical rainforests, found microclimate varied up to 100 m into
the interior, and that interior birds did not occur within 50 m of the edge. In temperate
forest, Whitcomb et al. (1981) found a negative impact from surrounding altered
habitats on interior bird species occurring up to 100 m from the forest edge, whereas

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 5 Although the edge was historically viewed as an area of increased productivity,
recent evidence has illustrated detrimental effects to interior species from exposure
to anthropogenic disturbance.

Wilcove (1985a) found edge-related nest parasitism and predation to songbirds up

to 600 m from the edge.
Whether the edge is viewed as benecial or detrimental depends upon the
objectives of the design. Regardless of objectives, a decrease in the ratio of interior
to edge will increase the relative number of edge adapted species and decrease the
relative number of interior adapted species. Isodiametric (round) wetlands will
maximize the interior-to-edge ratio, whereas elongated wetlands will minimize the
interior-to-edge ratio. Isodiametric wetlands also have a secondary benet of mini-
mizing internal dispersal distance (Diamond, 1975; Wilson and Willis, 1975). Main-
taining interior adapted species with a decreasing interior-to-edge ratio will likely
require increased protection and management.
Clearly, detrimental edge effects on interior species will be reduced as refuge
size increases. If the edge effect extends to 100 m (Lovejoy et al., 1986), then wetland
refuges must be larger than 10 ha to accommodate interior species. Wetland refuges
must be greater than 100 ha to accommodate interior species if the effect extends
600 m as Wilcove (1985a) has suggested. Wetlands smaller than these minimum
sizes will, in theory, accommodate only edge adapted or disturbance tolerant species.
However, caution must be exercised in extrapolating effects on temperate and tropical
forest bird species to wetland species in general.
Another way in which to minimize disturbance associated with detrimental edge
effects is to establish upland buffers to the wetland refuge. Wetland-related wildlife
use surrounding uplands to fulll part of their life requisites. In the United States,

2001 CRC Press LLC

Errington (1957) noted rabbits, woodchucks, foxes, ducks, herons, small birds, and
mammals, skunks, minks, and muskrats using the upland areas adjacent to Iowa and
South Dakota marshes. Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and pheasants (Phasianus
colchicus) seek cover in dense upland vegetation surrounding wetlands (Gates and
Hale, 1974; Linder and Schitosky, 1979). Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
pheasant, northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and leopard frog (Rana pipiens) forage
in upland borders (Errington and Breckenridge, 1936; Dole, 1965; Gates and Hale,
1974; Petersen, 1979). Salamanders, and some frogs and toads, spend the majority
of their adult lives in elds and forests (Behler and Find, 1979). Waterfowl, turtle,
and mammal breed along the upland border of wetlands (Allen and Shapton, 1942;
Errington, 1957; Jahn and Hunt, 1964; Pils and Martin, 1978; Weller, 1978; DeGraaf
and Rudis, 1986; Kirby, 1988). The upland buffer also serves as a travel corridor, a
refuge during periods of high water, and a shield for wetland species from anthro-
pogenic activity (Meanly, 1972; Porter, 1981)
In large part, buffers proposed to protect wetland wildlife are based upon best
professional judgment or knowledge of species spatial requirements. Leedy et al.
(1978) determined that a buffer of up to 92 m is necessary on either side of a stream
to provide required wildlife habitat elements. This opinion has surfaced in several
efforts to establish effective wildlife buffers in New Jersey (Roman and Good, 1985;
Diamond and Nilson, 1988; New Jersey Department of Environmental Regulation,
1988). Adopting a more rigorous approach, Brown et al. (1989) considered spatial
requirements, and using guilds and indicator species, determined that buffers should
be 98 to 224 m wide, with a minimum of 15 m of upland included in the buffer.
Buffers in the latter study are measured from the waterward edge of forested areas,
whereas marsh buffers are measured from the landward edge of the wetland.
There are few studies which note the distance at which wildlife are disturbed by
human activity, and much of this information is anecdotal (Short and Cooper, 1985;
Brady and Buchsbaum, 1989; Brown et al., 1989). Disturbance distances for 23
species of birds range from 6 to 459 m, and averaged 74 m (Table 1). No strong
patterns are apparent that would suggest a relationship between disturbance distance
and taxonomic group, body size, or ecological niche.
In a less direct manner, buffers protect wetland wildlife by removing sediment,
nutrients, salt, bacteria, virus, and chemical pollutants from agricultural and urban
surface runoff (Karr and Schlosser, 1977; Sullivan, 1986; U.S. Department of Agri-
culture Soil Conservation Service, 1986; Potts and Bai, 1989). Berger (1989) sug-
gested that one reason for a general decrease in the number of amphibians is
excessive agricultural chemical pollution. Vegetated buffers can be effective in pre-
venting or minimizing environmental degradation of wetlands (Dillaha et al., 1989).
Determining appropriate buffer widths adequate to reduce the level of distur-
bance to wetlands from surface runoff has received more rigorous examination than
attempts to establish buffers based upon direct disturbance to wildlife. Recommen-
dations vary considerably and reect regional and local differences in the aforemen-
tioned factors (Table 2). Empirical studies have identied buffer needs of 15 m to
61 m to prevent natural debris and sediment accumulation in streams (Trimble and

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 1 Disturbance Tolerance Distances for 23 Species of Birds (Short and
Cooper, 1985; Brady and Buchsbaum, 1989; and Brown et al., 1985)
Disturbance
Scientic Name Common Name Distance (m)
Anas americana American widgeon 92
Anas clypeata Northern shoveler 92
Anas discors Blue-winged teal 92
Anas fulvigula Mottled duck 37
Anhinga anhinga Anhinga 6
Ardea horodias Great blue heron 100
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk 31
Calidra alba Sanderling 73
Calidris alpina Dunlin 92
Calidris mauri Western sandpiper 73
Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper 73
Casmerodius albus Great egret 18
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Willet 73
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer 55
Egretta caerulea Little blue heron 55
Egretta thula Snowy egret 73
Eudocimus albus White ibis 73
Fulica americana American coot 37
Haliaetus leucocephalus Bald eagle 459
Pandion haliaetus Osprey 6
Pelicanus occidentalis Brown pelican 6
Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant 6
Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe 73
Average 74

Sartz, 1957; Broderson, 1973). Theoretical treatments have identied buffer needs
of 15 to 224 m (New Jersey Department of Environmental Regulation, 1988; Brady
and Buchsbaum, 1989; Brown et al., 1989; Dillaha et al., 1989; Potts and Bai, 1989;
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 1991).
Generally, wetland refuges surrounded by natural vegetation, particularly trees
and shrubs that serve as visual and auditory screens from anthropogenic activity,
will likely withstand smaller buffers than wetlands surrounded by disturbed habitats.
Wetlands surrounded by passive recreational areas, such as golf courses and ball
elds, will likely withstand smaller buffers than wetlands surrounded by residential,
commercial, and industrial development. Wetland refuges surrounded by gentle
slopes, natural vegetation communities, and course-grained, well-drained soils with
a relatively high organic content will likely withstand smaller buffers than refuges
surrounded by steeper slopes, disturbed vegetation communities, and ne-grained,
poorly drained soils with a relatively low organic content. Buffer size should
generally increase with an increase in the quality of the wetland, an increase in the
size and intensity of surrounding development, and a decrease in surface runoff
particle size.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 2 Suggested Buffer Widths to Reduce the Level of Disturbance to Wetlands
Suggested Buffer (m) Basis Study
Up to 43 Maximum distance sediment Trimble and Sartz (1957)
transported from logging road
to streams
1561 Natural control of debris and Broderson (1973)
sediment accumulation in
streams
1592 Vegetation interspersion, Roman and Good 1985
wetland size, quality of
surrounding habitat, potential
for impacts
1586+ Slope, vegetation, soil New Jersey Department of
characteristics, value of Environmental Regulation
wetland, intensity of (1988)
development
92122 Water quality maintenance, Brady and Buchsbaum (1989)
public health protection,
wildlife protection
23224 Groundwater drawdown, Brown et al. (1989)
sediment and turbidity control,
wildlife
2030 Vegetation Dillaha et al. (1989)
75+ Vegetation and soil Potts and Bai (1989)
characteristics, development
intensity, and type
0159 Wetland quality, soil type East Central Florida Regional
Planning Council (1991)

Design Guidelines

Wildlife responds to largely physical characteristics when selecting a habitat.

Nevertheless, three factors,

1. The size of the wetland

2. The relationship of the wetland to other wetlands
3. The level and type of disturbance

will largely determine the effectiveness of a wetland for long-term wildlife use.
Ideally, a wetland designed for wildlife, regardless of whether the design uses
preservation, enhancement, restoration, or creation to achieve its objectives, should
be large enough to support an estimated minimum viable population of the species
of interest. In many cases, establishment of a wildlife community is the objective,
and an indicator species with signicant areal requirements should be identied.
The wetland should be large enough to support at least 50, and ideally 500, breeding
individuals, and area requirements can be estimated from knowledge about species
home range sizes.
In most instances, wetlands being designed will be large enough to support
minimum viable populations of only those species with small areal requirements.
For other species, the design should focus on establishment of a metapopulation
through ensuring interpopulation movement. Interpopulation movement can be

2001 CRC Press LLC

effected for all species by close juxtaposition of individual populations or provision
of habitat corridors. Species with broad habitat tolerances will use a variety of
landscape elements as long as barriers such as roads, waterways, and waterbodies
are avoided. Wetlands for migratory bird species will not require corridors. However,
designers of wetlands for migratory bird species should recognize that sustainability
of a seasonal population is dependent upon one or more wetlands hundreds or even
thousands of kilometers distant.
Wetlands designed to support disturbance intolerant species should limit intru-
sions or protect critical areas during sensitive times of the year. Interior species are
unlikely to thrive in wetlands less than 100 ha in size or to persist in wetlands less
than 10 ha. The establishment of an upland buffer can increase the effective size
of a wetland. Buffers should be established on a case by case basis through con-
sideration of soil type, vegetation type in the buffer, adjacent land use, slope, runoff
particle size, wetland quality, and indigenous wildlife. Nevertheless, a buffer of
approximately 200 m width appears to be adequate in most instances to minimize
direct disturbance to wildlife and to reduce water quality impacts from contaminated
surface runoff. An upland buffer also provides life requisites to many wetland
wildlife species.

MANAGEMENT

Management Approaches

Management of wildlife ranges from passive approaches exemplied by preser-

vation of self-regulating habitat, to semi-active approaches such as the installation
of nest boxes, to active approaches such as impoundments that require periodic
water, soil, and vegetation manipulation. As management schemes become more
active, and intrinsically more complex, monetary and labor costs increase, and the
chances for sustainability and success decrease.
To many, purchase of existing habitat is the only feasible way of protecting
unique areas for bird nesting or migration stopovers (Weller, 1987). In the United
States, this approach is illustrated by the actions of the National Audubon Society,
Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The latter group has been purchasing Waterfowl Production Areas since the 1960s
in an effort to maintain continental waterfowl populations.
It is vainglorious to expect that managers can improve on the complex dynamic
processes of natural undisturbed wetlands. Active management will, by necessity,
enhance habitat for some species while degrading habitat for other species. Man-
agement may fail because of inadequate or inaccurate information, imprecise water
control, colonization, and modication by nuisance species, or even political or
public pressure to terminate or modify management techniques or goals (Fredrick-
son, 1985). Therefore, it seems reasonable to reserve active management for wetlands
known to be degraded and created wetlands.
Historically, wildlife management overwhelmingly emphasized waterfowl, and
other species were managed incidentally, if at all (Figure 6, Payne, 1992). In large

2001 CRC Press LLC

part, management was applied to game species (Graul and Miller, 1984). Single
species (or in some cases guild) management typically included prioritization of
wildlife species, determining the requirements of these species, obtaining informa-
tion on local environmental conditions, and determining the wildlife value and
growth requirements of local plants (Chabreck, 1976).

Figure 6 Until recently, wildlife management efforts were focused largely on preservation
and creation of waterfowl production areas.

The 1970s gave rise to regulations in the United States that required the man-
agement of wildlife for diversity, as well as to an increased public interest in
managing species other than waterfowl (Rundle and Fredrickson, 1981). Both con-
sumptive and nonconsumptive species were to be preserved (Odom, 1977; Martin,
1979). The Colorado Nongame Act of 1973 required that all native species be
perpetuated, and the 1976 National Forest Management Act required the maintenance
of animal diversity. Managers recognized early that the single species approach was
inadequate for ensuring the maintenance of diversity, and yet it was impossible to
manage for all species (Wagner, 1977).
Graul and Miller (1984) reviewed several approaches to managing for diversity.
The management indicator approach is intended to benet a featured species. Typ-
ically, this is a game species, but sometimes a threatened or endangered species or
a species of public interest is selected (Gould, 1977). The relationship between the
featured species and other species must be understood to ensure maintenance of
diversity. The ecological indicator approach manages for stenotopic species, species
having a narrow range of adaptability to changes in environmental conditions. The
approach assumes that eurytopic species, species tolerant of wide variation in their
environment, will have their requirements satised indirectly (Graul et al., 1976).

2001 CRC Press LLC

The habitat diversity approach manages vegetation stand type and age class rather
than individual wildlife species (Siderits and Radtke, 1977). The success of the
approach is sensitive to the size of habitat blocks set aside. Finally, the special
features approach emphasizes habitat features such as snags, edges, perches, etc.
(Graul, 1980). None of these approaches have been tested in any rigorous manner
that would permit determination of their effectiveness. Another approach applicable
to active management, and also untested, is to mimic the soil, hydrology, or vege-
tation of a natural, undisturbed wetland that has the desired species.

Management Techniques

There are a number of techniques used to manage wetlands for wildlife (e.g.,
Weller, 1987; Whitman and Meredith, 1987; Payne, 1992). The majority of these
techniques are directed at managing vegetation. Other techniques are directed at
providing nonvegetative structural requirements such as feeding opportunities and
breeding sites. Selected vegetation management techniques, including burning,
grazing, herbicide application, mechanical manipulation, propagation, and water
level manipulation, are discussed herein. Articial breeding and loang sites are
also discussed.

Vegetation Management

Burning

Fires were a naturally occurring event in many palustrine emergent wetlands

prior to mankind's intervention. Fire functioned to eliminate accumulated plant
material and to return nutrients to the soil. Burning has been widely used for marsh
management, particularly in United States Gulf Coast marshes (Hoffpauer, 1968;
Chabreck, 1976; Wright and Bailey, 1982). Wetland wildlife managers use re to
promote the growth of green shoots, roots, and rhizomes of grasses and sedges that
are then available to foraging geese. Fallen seeds are exposed to ducks, and dead
plant material is eliminated which increases the value of the habitat to ducks,
muskrats (Ondatra zibethica), and nutria (Myocastor coypus). Burning creates deep
pools and edge for nesting and feeding waterfowl and controls or eliminates unde-
sirable vegetation.
There are three types of burns: cover, root, and peat (Payne, 1992). Cover
(surface, wet) burns are conducted when the water level is at or above the root
horizon and are used to convert monotypic stands of reed (Phragmites communis),
cattail (Typha spp.), or unproductive sedge to plants that provide food and cover to
nutria, muskrat, duck, and geese. This is accomplished by releasing plants with an
earlier growing season than the undesirable plant species. Root burns are used to
control or eliminate climax vegetation or other plants of low wildlife value. Hotter
than cover burns, root burns are conducted when the soil is dry to a depth of 8 to
15 cm. The roots of undesirable plants are burned, and more desirable plants, which
have roots extending to greater depths, are spared. Peat burns are conducted during
droughts in an effort to convert marsh into aquatic habitat. The re burns a hole in

2001 CRC Press LLC

the peat which then lls with water. Peat burns are more common in freshwater
marshes where there is sufcient organic material in the soil to support the re than
in coastal marshes.
Timing of the burn depends upon the type of burn (cover, root, or peat) and the
intended objective. Patchy late summer cover burns expose insects to migrating
shorebirds (Bradbury, 1938). Root and peat burns at this time of year can be used
to eliminate reed and cattail, and are most effective if reooding can be accomplished
(Mallik and Wein, 1986). Late summer or early fall cover burning will decrease
muskrat populations by decreasing the availability of den building material (Daiber,
1986). Elimination of undesirable woody vegetation is also accomplished in late
summer or early fall through a root burn (Linde, 1985). Patchy winter cover burns
increase edge and access for waterfowl nesting the following spring and provide for
control of reed and cattail (Ward, 1942; Beule, 1979). Olney threesquare (Scirpus
olneyi), American bulrush (Scirpus americanus), and saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus
robustus) benet by late winter cover burning and reooding of saltmarsh cordgrass
(Spartina patens). Spring cover burns will increase muskrat populations by stimu-
lating the production of succulent shoots (Daiber, 1986).
Fires are difcult to direct and extinguish. This is particularly true in bog
wetlands where res may burn for days or weeks (Payne, 1992). A means for
extinguishing the re, either an auxiliary water supply that can be sprayed on the
marsh or a means for reooding, should be provided. Burns should not be conducted
during the waterfowl breeding season because ducklings are particularly susceptible
to fast res through dead vegetation. Nor should burns be conducted in areas with
a high erosion potential or in drought years unless a root or peat burn is intended.
Burning has some short-term adverse impacts on wetland wildlife. Inevitably,
cover is reduced, forcing ducks to concentrate in unburned areas which increases
their susceptibility to predation. Winter cover is reduced, which has an ancillary
effect of reducing the wetland's ability to trap and retain snowfall. This latter effect
can be signicant in precipitation decit regions (Ward, 1968). Burning also results
in a short-term reduction in the insect prey base (Opler, 1981). These short-term
impacts are overshadowed by the long-term benets to wildlife.

Grazing

Weller (1987) has suggested that bison grazing on northern prairies may have
beneted certain wildlife species by opening up dense stands of vegetation. Grazing
in wetlands arrests plant community succession and tends to reduce undesirable
perennials and increase annuals (Chabreck et al., 1989). Grazing animals may create
openings in dense vegetation bordering riparian areas (Krueger and Anderson, 1985).
In uplands bordering wetlands, grazing reduces cover for predators and fuel for res
and inhibits grassland invasion by brush.
Today, cattle are the primary agent for habitat management through grazing,
although sheep, horses, and even muskrat can be effective. Sheep are more easily
controlled than cattle and tend to be more effective at removing undesirable plants
through their close grazing (Ermacoff, 1968). Horses are better at controlling woody

2001 CRC Press LLC

vegetation (Pederson et al., 1989). Muskrats are very effective at reducing persistent
emergent cover but are very difcult to control (Weller, 1987).
Waterfowl are the primary beneciaries of controlled grazing, although shore-
birds and furbearers may occasionally benet. Openings in otherwise impenetrable
cover allow access by nesting ducks. Migrating and wintering waterfowl, especially
snow geese (Chen caerulescens), forage on exposed seeds, sprouts stimulated by
grazing, and roots and rhizomes exposed by hoof impacts (Chabreck, 1968; Daiber,
1986). Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) concentrate in overgrazed marshes, and upland
sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) are attracted by shorter cover (Chabreck, 1976;
Weller, 1987). ONeil (1949) has suggested that marshes managed for furbearers be
subjected to grazing.
Grazing intended to improve waterfowl nesting habitat should occur in the winter
or early spring (Rutherford and Snyder, 1983), and no more than 50 percent of the
forage plants should be removed annually (Payne, 1992). To increase the value of
marsh habitat for migratory and wintering waterfowl, grazing may continue through
spring and early summer. Cattle (or other grazing agent) should be excluded July
through September to promote the growth and seed production of annual grasses
and sedges (Chabreck, 1976; Chabreck et al., 1989). The marsh can be ooded in
fall and winter to attract ducks or left unooded to attract geese.
There are drawbacks to the management of wetlands through grazing in that
management for one guild, waterfowl, inevitably reduces habitat value for other
species such as small birds and mammals. Cattle trample dens and cause underground
tunnels to collapse. Domestic grazers also compete with wildlife herbivores for food.
Overgrazing has more serious consequences in that it negatively impacts habitat for
all wildlife species. Ducks and other waterfowl will not nest or feed in exposed
areas, and overgrazing of riparian areas can destroy the streambank, increase erosion,
and decrease plant vigor.

Herbicide Application

Application of herbicides should, in most instances, be used as a last resort.

Herbicides exhibit lethal and sublethal effects on plants and animals, a problem
exacerbated by the difculty needed to apply and control their application. Therefore,
application is likely to affect nontarget species, including desired species. Further-
more, some herbicides will persist in the soil and potentially could contaminate
surface water and ground water. In aquatic environments, treatment of large areas
can result in oxygen depletion from decaying plants.
To minimize the potential negative impacts of herbicide application, herbicides
should only be used where other methods are ineffective, treat the smallest area
possible, apply the herbicide when hazards to wildlife are least, and follow the
manufacturers instructions. The safest herbicides are organophosphates and carbam-
ates because they persist in the environment for relatively short periods compared
with organochlorine herbicides.
Despite the drawbacks of herbicide use, they can be effective in eliminating or
reducing dense emergent vegetation. Herbicides have successfully been used to
create open water areas in dense marsh vegetation, thus increasing habitat value for

2001 CRC Press LLC

waterfowl (Weller, 1987; Payne, 1992). Water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) has,
for the most part, been impossible to control without the use of herbicides. Extensive
efforts have been undertaken along the eastern seaboard of the United States to rid
coastal marshes of common reed and to encourage revegetation with native species
(Jones and Lehman, 1987). Application of herbicide to reed is generally required in
two successive years, with burning off of dead reed following treatment.
Annuals, biennials, and perennials are most easily controlled at the seedling
stage. Summer annuals are best treated in spring, and winter annuals in fall, during
germination. Biennials are most effectively treated as rosettes in the fall. The veg-
etative stage of annuals and perennials is moderately to poorly controlled with
herbicides, and control during seed set is largely ineffective (Hansen et al., 1984).
Aquatic vegetation is best treated when the foliage is above the water and is rain or
dew free (Gangstad, 1986). Herbicides injected into the ground are most effective
when applied in the spring.
Cattail and common reed are treated somewhat differently than other plants.
Existing growth should be cut so that the herbicide can be applied to seedlings. If
cutting is not feasible, a herbicide that will be translocated from the leaves to the
rhizome should be applied to the foliage in the fall immediately prior to senescence.
For the most part, woody perennials can be effectively treated at any time of the
year. Herbicides can be applied to cuts or notches in the trunk or to stumps after
cutting. Herbicides applied to the canopy should occur after the leaves have fully
formed but prior to the development of a heavy cuticle.

Mechanical Management

Mechanical methods of management include blasting, bulldozing, crushing, cut-

ting, disking, draglining, and dredging. These methods are applied to decrease the
density of existing vegetation or to ensure the maintenance of open areas in newly
created or restored habitat. This is achieved by scraping vegetation, deepening basins,
breaking up sod-forming grasses or organic deposits, and retarding woody growth.
The result is the creation of open water areas for feeding and breeding waterfowl
in deeper marshes and for ground-dwelling wildlife in shallow marsh and wet
meadow habitat (Linde, 1985; Weller, 1987; Payne, 1992). Also, mechanical man-
agement is used to prepare newly constructed wetlands or dewatered wetlands for
planting. Prior to management through mechanical methods, an evaluation should
be conducted that compares long-term expected benets to short-term impacts to
plant and animal communities.

Blasting

Blasting is a relatively inexpensive method for creating openings in dense,

emergent vegetation. It is best applied in mineral soils, when the water level is at
the soil surface to 20 cm below the surface (Hopper, 1971). Historically, dynamite
was used to blast openings, but beginning in the 1960s ammonium nitrate fertilizer
mixed with fuel oil has been used. The latter is approximately 1/10th the cost of
dynamite and much safer to handle.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Basins created by blasting are generally bowl or cone-shaped with steep sides.
Although blasting is the least expensive way to create open water areas and to
reduce the density of vegetation, there is very little control over the shape and size
of the areas created. Sloughing of the sides will likely occur over the rst year or
two following blasting, and basins in organic soils may rell requiring a repeat of
the process.

Bulldozing, Draglining, and Dredging

Bulldozing, draglining, and dredging are used to open up dense marsh by scrap-
ing or basin deepening (Figure 7). To prevent regrowth, basins must be excavated
below the photic zone. The methods can be applied to dewatered impoundments, or
to newly constructed wetlands that have not been ooded, to the benet of waterfowl
and muskrat (Linde, 1985; Weller, 1987). The abrupt edges and absence of vegetation
which characterize newly constructed basins cause them to appear unnatural for a
few years and will likely be less attractive to water birds (Provost, 1948; Strohmeyer
and Fredrickson, 1967; Weller, 1987).

Figure 7 Bulldozers can be used to open up dense vegetation or create new basins.

Bulldozing is the more economical of the methods and allows the most accurate
contouring. It can be effective in dry to moist mineral soils. Draglines are used in
wetter situations and are more difcult to control than a bulldozer. The dragline can
be operated from upland, on mats placed on the wetland, or on a frozen surface
during winter in temperate regions. Dredging is the most costly of the methods and
is generally impractical except for very large projects.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Crushing

Crushing is an effective method for creating openings in dense, persistent emer-

gent vegetation such as cattail and common reed. It is most effective when treatment
takes advantage of the plants natural carbohydrate translocation cycle (Beule, 1979).
Carbohydrate reserves stored in the rhizome are used in the spring to produce new
leaves. When fully formed, the new leaves will replace the drawn-down reserves by
translocating the products of photosynthesis. Crushing of the new leaves when they
are nearly fully formed interrupts the cycle and rhizome reserves are depleted.
Regrowth will be stunted or precluded. Successive annual treatments are generally
sufcient to permit establishment of more desirable plant species from the seed bank
or from planting or seeding.

Cutting

Plants vary in their response to cutting. For example, cattail abundance is gen-
erally decreased by cutting, especially successive annual cutting. By contrast, marsh
smartweed (Polygonum coccineum) appears to tolerate and, perhaps, even to be
stimulated by cutting (Pederson et al., 1989).
Cutting is effective because rhizomes are dependent upon oxygen which is
supplied to the rhizomes by way of aerenchyma in the leaves. If the leaves are cut,
and the substrate remains inundated, oxygen ow to the rhizomes is cut off and the
plant will die (Laing, 1941). An effective strategy is to cut the leaves as close to the
ground surface as possible in the fall or winter. In colder climates, the leaves can
be on ice. Cutting success can be improved by inundating the stubble to a depth of
10 to 20 cm and repeating the operation for 2 or 3 consecutive years.

Disking

Disking is used to break up sod-forming grasses too dense to be used by ground-

dwelling wildlife. Also, disking helps to prevent growth of woody vegetation, retards
lling in of wetlands by breaking up organic deposits, prepares new marsh for
planting by breaking up sod and peat, and aerates dewatered soils thereby stimulating
plant growth upon reooding (Grifth, 1948; Burger, 1973). The technique is most
effective if repeated every 3 to 4 years. Disking is largely ineffective for control of
cattail and other plants with rhizomes due to resprouting (Payne, 1992).
Managers of marshes in the southeastern United States use disking to stimulate
the growth of Asiatic dayower (Aneilema keisak) which is a valuable duck food.
Disking occurs in February or March. Fall disking creates habitat for common snipe
(Gallinago gallinago).

Propagation

Propagation of wetland plants was relatively common in the 1940s, and was
used primarily to establish emergents and marsh edge species (Linduska, 1964). The
technique has experienced a revival of sorts with the advent of wetlands mitigation.

2001 CRC Press LLC

However, propagation is a relatively expensive operation, and failures are still com-
mon. In most instances, the natural seed bank will be more than adequate provided
water levels are appropriate (Ermacoff, 1968; Weller, 1987).
Nevertheless, propagation can be an effective strategy for many wetlands
(Figure 8). For example, three-cornered rush (Scirpus olneyi) can be successfully
established in the southeastern United States salt marsh, where it enhances habitat
for snow geese and muskrat (Ross and Chabreck, 1972). It can also be an effective
strategy for small areas and for newly created areas if invasion by undesirables
species is likely (Weller, 1990; Payne, 1992). Payne and Copes (1986) suggest that
propagation is a reasonable strategy if less than 15 percent of an existing wetland
is vegetated with desirable perennial species.

Figure 8 Although the natural seed bank will generally be more than adequate under
appropriate conditions, propagation can be effective for small or newly created
wetlands.

Propagules come in many forms including seed, rootstock, rhizome, tuber, cut-
ting, seedling, and transplant. Seeding constitutes the least expensive propagation
method and is especially appropriate for large areas. It is also the most convenient
method, in that seeds can be stored until needed. Note, however, that the cost and
logistical difculty of seeding increase dramatically if seeds are collected rather than
purchased. Mulch can increase the success of most seeding efforts. The mulch
shelters seedlings, helps to retain soil moisture, and reduces soil erosion until such
time as the propagules establish soil-holding root systems.
Tubers can also be broadcast and, in some instances, can be harvested mechan-
ically. Tubers, roots, and rhizomes make maximum use of the plant material but are
susceptible to washout if ooding occurs after propagation (Payne, 1992). Cuttings
are a relatively low cost option and can be collected fairly quickly. As with tubers,

2001 CRC Press LLC

roots, and rhizomes, cuttings are susceptible to washout. Survival is generally lower
than that of rooted propagules (Payne, 1992).
Seedlings and transplants are the most expensive propagules but exhibit generally
greater survival than other propagules (Payne, 1992). Seedlings generally permit
greater exibility because they can be stored and planted over longer periods of time
than transplants. Transplanting should ideally occur during dormancy.
Propagules should be selected on a site-specic basis. Undoubtedly, the wildlife
manager will select plants that maximize use of the wetland by target wildlife, for
example, summer annuals for ducks or annual and perennial grasses and legumes
for geese. However, care should be taken to ensure that the selected species are
appropriate for the intended soil and hydrological conditions. Water quality, espe-
cially turbidity and pH, can also be important factors contributing to propagation
success. Whenever possible, propagules should originate from a nearby site, or the
site itself, as native, locally adapted species are most successful (Coastal Zone
Resource Division, 1978). Other factors, such as the ability to withstand waves or
ice, can be important in certain situations.
Annuals are propagated by seed. Broadcasting is less reliable than row cropping
and requires 50 to 55 percent more seed (Crawford and Bjugstad, 1967). Perennials
are propagated by seed or vegetative propagule. The latter should consist of vigorous
stock, and care should be taken not to damage roots and the stem during removal,
transport, and planting. The propagule should be pruned after planting to decrease
transpiration, and a support should be provided to prevent wind damage. Large,
dense plantings are more resistant to herbivory than small, sparse plantings
(Payne, 1992).
To ensure that adequate nutrients are available, the propagule can be fertilized
as planted, or the surrounding soil can be fertilized just prior to planting. Slow
release fertilizer is generally best and can be placed in or near the planting hole. If
placed in the planting hole, the fertilizer should be well below the root ball so as
not to burn the roots. As a maintenance measure, fertilizer can be applied during or
just before the growing season. Warm season species are best fertilized in the spring
or early summer, whereas cool season species are best fertilized at the time of seeding
and again at midwinter (Carpenter and Williams, 1972).

Water-Level Manipulation

Water depth and hydroperiod determine wetland plant community composition.

Therefore, water-level manipulation encourages or discourages particular types and
species of plants. Wildlife is attracted to the type of vegetation community that
develops in response to water-level manipulation and is directly affected through
the creation or elimination of aquatic habitat.
Manipulating water levels in wetlands can be an effective management technique
for increasing wildlife productivity (Wilson, 1968; Chabreck, 1976; Rundle and
Fredrickson, 1981; Fredrickson and Taylor, 1982; Knighton, 1985). The degree of
substrate drainage, surface relief, and substrate composition are equally important
in determining vegetation interspersion (Knighton, 1985). Water-level manipulation
can be accomplished relatively inexpensively if a small, simple water control

2001 CRC Press LLC

structure can be constructed at the downstream end of a naturally occurring basin.
The water control structure should be capable of effecting a complete drawdown
and should be able to manipulate water levels with a precision of 5 to 7 cm. Costs
increase dramatically if levee construction is required. Water level manipulation can
also be affected by pumping water in or out of an impoundment, although this option
is more costly than periodic adjustment of a water control structure. Deep organic
soils (greater than 15 cm) generally preclude management through water level
manipulation because reooding results in oating mats (Knighton, 1985).
Manipulation includes both drawdown and ooding. Drawdowns reduce or elim-
inate undesirable plant species, facilitate decomposition of vegetation and the return
of nutrients to the soil, allow desirable plant species to germinate or recover from
ood stress, concentrate prey for wildlife, and reduce or eliminate nuisance sh and
wildlife (Kadlec, 1960; Linde, 1969; Weller, 1987). Flooding decreases the density
of emergent vegetation and increases the production of invertebrates, thereby enhanc-
ing the suitability of the wetland for waterfowl breeding and brood rearing.
The response of plants to the manipulation of water levels depends on the timing
and extent of drawdown and ooding and the plant community successional stage.
Consequently, wildlife community composition and productivity are dependent on
these factors. For example, late summer ooding will freeze-proof emergent
marshes, thereby increasing muskrat numbers. Conversely, a partial late fall draw-
down will expose invertebrates and minnows to migrant ducks. A fall drawdown
conducted over several years will reduce or eliminate muskrat, carp (Cyprinus
carpio), and bullhead (Ictalurus spp.).
Management techniques using water level manipulation have been developed
largely to benet waterfowl. Generally, achievement of a 1:1 ratio of emergent
vegetation to open water will maximize waterfowl use (Weller and Spatcher, 1965;
Weller, 1975; Bookhout et al., 1989; Pederson et al., 1989). Maintenance of pool
level will encourage perennial emergent vegetation suitable for dabbler duck nesting
and brood rearing. A partial drawdown in spring will encourage regrowth of peren-
nials if more cover is needed (Weller, 1987; Bookhout et al., 1989).
Management for migratory and wintering waterfowl requires periodic drawdown
and reooding. Typically, drawdown occurs in spring or early summer so that soils
can drain, thereby stimulating germination and growth of grasses, sedges, and other
seed-producing plants from the seed bank (Kadlec, 1960). The seed bank may be
inadequate in saline wetlands and impounded bays (Pederson and Smith, 1988).
Floating-leaved and submergent vegetation density will be reduced by drawdown,
and perennial emergent vegetation growth will be suppressed. Complete drawdown
exposes mudats and encourages dense stands of moist soil plants, primarily non-
persistent annual and biennial emergents which are prolic seed producers. Seed
viability declines if mudat emergents are continuously ooded for several years
(Knighton, 1985). Complete drawdown also encourages undesirables such as willow
(Salix spp.) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), therefore, periodic inspec-
tions will be required to prevent invasion by these species. The wetland is reooded
in fall to make moist soil plant seeds available to waterfowl. Reooding should be
gradual to avoid otation of emergents, scouring, and mortality from turbidity
(Weller, 1987). Reooding to a depth of 10 to 25 cm benets dabbling ducks,

2001 CRC Press LLC

whereas diving ducks and common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) benet from
deeper depths (Payne, 1992).
Water levels can also be manipulated to manage wetlands for rails and shorebirds
(Neely, 1959; Griese et al., 1980; Rundle and Fredrickson, 1981; Payne, 1992). Rails
are attracted to wetlands with robust emergent vegetation and water depths less than
50 cm deep, and preferably less than 15 cm deep. When spring rail use is desired,
wetlands vegetated with annual grasses and smartweeds must be dewatered over the
winter to protect vegetation from ice and waterfowl. Fall use can be encouraged by
reooding drawn down wetlands in late summer (Johnson and Dinsmore, 1986).
Shorebirds are attracted to gradual drawdowns creating extremely shallow water (0
to 5 cm) interspersed with exposed, saturated soil. Spring ooding or disking can
be used to suppress growth of aquatic plants. Rail management will, to some extent,
also benet dabbling ducks, whereas shorebird management will provide some
benet to geese.
Manipulation of water levels in hardwood forests can encourage oaks and other
mast producing species to the benet of ducks, beaver (Castor canadensis), wood-
cock (Scolopax minor), mink (Mustela vison), squirrel (Sciurus spp.), raccoon (Pro-
cyon lotor), and muskrat. These so-called green tree reservoirs are ooded to a mean
depth of approximately 40 cm in the fall and drawn down in late winter or early
spring prior to the start of the growing season. Complete drawdown is essential to
preclude development of undesirable vegetation (Hunter, 1978; Vaught and Bow-
master, 1983). Waterfowl are especially beneted by the described manipulations
because ooding makes mast available to wintering waterfowl, and the drawdown
concentrates invertebrate prey items for migrating waterfowl.
Water-level manipulation is a long-term management strategy, and some type of
managed disturbance will be required at intervals of 5 years or less (Payne, 1992).
Drawdowns for waterfowl should reasonably be accomplished every 2 to 4 years in
marshes. Moreover, the cyclic nature of water-level manipulation management,
variation inherent in the seed bank, and seed bank response to edaphic conditions
will likely result in differing marsh vegetation communities from year to year. In
green tree reservoirs, the soil should be allowed to dry out every few years so as to
discourage the establishment of vegetation characteristic of wetter habitats. Flooding
should be withheld for a 2 to 3 year period after acorn production to encourage
seedling establishment. Annual differences in wildlife community composition and
use can be expected.

Articial Nesting and Loang Sites

Development of upland areas adjacent to wetlands and overharvesting of trees

have contributed to a decline in waterfowl populations. Articial nesting and loang
sites can be an effective means for increasing the local habitat carrying capacity for
waterfowl when upland nesting sites are limited (Johnson et al., 1978; Lokemoen
et al., 1984). Articial areas increase the shoreline to wetland surface area ratio,
thereby increasing the amount of sites available to breeding pairs. Islands provide
an increased measure of security from predators as well as reducing the level of
anthropogenic disturbance. Nevertheless, articial areas are less likely to be accepted

2001 CRC Press LLC

by wildlife and are more likely to be used by upland nesting waterfowl such as
Canada goose (Branta canadensis) than by marsh edge birds such as American coot
(Fulica americana) (Weller, 1987).
Articial nesting and loang sites should be located in areas frequented by
waterfowl, but where natural nesting and loang sites are limited. Depending upon
local predators and the nature of proximal disturbance, islands should be located 9
to 170 m from the mainland and closer to leeward than to the windward side of the
mainland (Jones, 1975; Giroux, 1981; Ohlsson et al., 1982). Water depth around the
island should be 0.5 to 0.75 m (Hammond and Mann, 1956). Islands should be 0.5
to 5 ha in size because smaller areas are too small to support a breeding pair and
larger areas might support predators (Duebbert, 1982; Higgins, 1986). Long, narrow,
rectangular islands will maximize the number of breeding pairs. A low prole will
be less attractive to predators, although the area should be high enough to prevent
ooding of ground nesters (Hoffman, 1988). Groundcover should be fairly dense
(greater than 50 percent) and consist of grass, legumes, and forbs. Coots and grebes
like vegetation extending into the water (Swift, 1982). Dense grass will encourage
nesting by gulls, whereas woody shrubs will provide habitat for herons (Soots and
Parnell, 1975). Trees should be avoided because they provide perches for raptors
and crows.

Fisheries

Managing wetlands for wildlife while at the same time maintaining a sheries
is difcult, and in many instances the two are mutually exclusive. The typical
freshwater wetland managed for wildlife is subject to variations in water level,
whereas management for sheries requires a relatively stable water level. Water level
uctuation increases turbidity, and periodically increases water temperature and
decreases dissolved oxygen levels. Freezing to the bottom is also likely to occur in
shallow impoundments. As such, only those species tolerant of uctuating and
relatively extreme conditions, such as carp and bullhead, will persist, and then only
if deeper areas are provided which can serve as refugia. Carp and bullhead typically
are discouraged in managed freshwater wetlands because as they dislodge vegetation
and increase turbidity.
Wetlands connected to deepwater habitats provide a better opportunity for rec-
onciling the conict between wildlife and sheries. Diked wetlands on Lake Erie
that are managed for waterfowl allow for sh movement through water control pipes
(Petering and Johnson, 1991). Relatively many species have been recorded in the
wetlands (Johnson, 1989), but for the most part these species are tolerant of extreme
conditions and do not use the diked wetlands for spawning. The effectiveness of the
diked wetlands for sheries is limited by the number of access points and the
provision of sufciently deep water only during the fall waterfowl migration period.
Limited access and lowered water levels also limit the sheries value of
impounded coastal wetlands. Waterfowl management requires the closure of
impoundments during peak sh recruitment periods. As such, marsh nursery use
by estuarine-dependent saltwater species decreases, whereas use by freshwater
species increases (Herke et al., 1987). Nevertheless, use of impounded coastal

2001 CRC Press LLC

wetlands by marine transient species can be increased by providing deepwater
refugia such as perimeter ditches, and by reducing impediments to movement
between the impoundment and deepwater areas. The latter can be accomplished by
increasing the number of water control structures and by using water control
structures such as variable crest weirs or slotted weirs which permit sh movement.

REFERENCES

Allen, A. W., Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink, Revised, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 82(10.127), 1986.
Allen, D. L. and Shapton, W. W., An ecological study of winter dens, with special reference
to the eastern skunk, Ecology, 23(1), 59, 1942.
Allendorf, F. W. and Leary, R. F., Heterozygosity and tness in natural populations of animals,
in Conservation Biology: Science of Scarcity and Diversity, Soul, M. E., Ed., Sinauer
Associates, Sunderland, MA, 1986.
Allendorf, R. W., Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity, Zoo Biol., 5,
181, 1986.
Ambruster, M. J., Habitat Suitability Index Models: Greater Sandhill Crane, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.140), 26, 1987.
Ambuel, B. and Temple, S. A., Area dependent changes in the bird communities and vegetation
of southern Wisconsin forests, Ecology, 64, 1057, 1983.
Anon., Animal road kill toll tops 2,600 at 64 of Floridas state parks, Florida Environ., June
1992, 6(6), 1992.
Arnold, C., Wildlife corridors, CA Coast Ocean, Summer 1990, 10, 1990.
Baskett, R. K., Grand Pass Wildlife Area, Missouri: modern wetland restoration strategy at
work, Incr. Our Wetland Res., 220, 1987.
Behler, J. L. and Find, F. W., The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles
and Amphibians, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1979.
Bekele, E., Island Biogeography and Guidelines for the Selection of Conservation Units for
Large Mammal, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1980.
Berger, L., Disappearance of amphibian larvae in the agricultural landscape, Ecol. Int. Bull.,
17, 65, 1989.
Beule, J. D., Control and Management of Cattails in Southeastern Wisconsin Wetlands,
Wisconsin Department Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin 112, 40, 1979.
Bider, J. R., Animal activity in uncontrolled terrestrial communities as determined by a sand
transect technique, Ecol. Monogr., 38, 269, 1968.
Bookhout, T. A., Bednarik, K. E., and Kroll, R. W., The Great Lakes marshes, in Habitat
Management for Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl in North America, Smith, L. M.,
Pederson, R. L., and Kaminski, R. M., Eds., Texas Technical University Press, Lubbock,
1989, 131.
Bradbury, H. M., Mosquito control operations on tide marshes in Massachusetts and their
effect on shore birds and waterfowl, J. Wild. Manage., 2, 49, 1938.
Brady, P. and Buchsbaum, R., Buffer Zones: The Environments Last Defense, Report sub-
mitted to the City of Gloucester, MA by Massachusetts Audubon: North Shore, 1989.
Brittingham, M. C. and Temple, S. A., Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline?
BioScience, 33, 31, 1983.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Broderson, J. M., Sizing Buffer Strips to Maintain Water Quality, M. S. thesis, University of
Washington, 1973.
Brown, J. H., Mammals on Mountaintops: Nonequilibrium Insular Biogeography, Am. Nat-
ural., 105, 467, 1971.
Brown, J. H. and Kodric-Brown, A., Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immi-
gration on extinction, Ecology, 58, 445, 1977.
Brown, M., Schaefer, J., and Brandt, K., Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in
the East Central Florida Region, Center for Wetlands Publication #8907, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL, 1989.
Burger, G. V., Practical Wildlife Management, Winchester Press, New York, 1973.
Cain, S., The species-area curve, Am. Midl. Natural., 19, 573, 1938.
Carpenter, L. H. and Williams, G. L., A Literature Review on the Role of Mineral Fertilizers
in Big Game Range Management, Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department Special
Report 28, 1972.
Chabreck, R. H., Weirs, plugs and articial potholes for the management of wildlife in coastal
marshes, Proc. Marsh Estu. Manage. Symp., 1, 178, 1968.
Chabreck, R. H., Management of wetlands for wildlife habitat improvement, in Estuarine
Processes, Vol. 1, Wiley, M., Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1976, 226.
Chabreck, R. H., Wildlife harvest in wetlands of the United States, in Wetland Functions and
Values: The State of Our Understanding, Greeson, P. E., Clark, J. R., and Clark, J. E.,
Eds., American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, MN., 1979, 618.
Chabreck, R. H., Joanen, T., and Paulus, S. L., Southern coastal marshes and lakes, in Habitat
Management for Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl in North America, Smith, L. M.,
Pederson, R. L., and Kaminski, R. M., Eds., Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock,
1989, 249.
Chepko-Sade, B. D. and Halpin, Z. T., Mammalian Dispersal Patterns, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL, 1987.
Coastal Zone Resources Division, Handbook for Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Development on
Dredged Material, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report D-7837, 1978.
Cole, R. A., Habitat Development Field Investigations, Buttermilk Sound Marsh Development
Site, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Georgia: Summary Report, Technical Report D-
7826, U.S. Army Corpos of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,
1978.
Connell, J. H., Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs, Science, 199, 1302, 1978.
Cowardin, L. M. and Goforth, W. R., Summary and research needs, in Water Impoundments
for Wildlife: A Habitat Management Workshop, General Technical Report NC-100, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experimental Station,
1985, 135.
Crawford, H. S., Jr. and Bjugstad, A. J., Establishing Grass Range in the Southwest Missouri
Ozarks, U.S. Forest Service Research Note NC-22. 4, 1967.
Crawford, J. A. and Edwards, D. K., Habitat Development Field Investigations, Miller Sands
Marsh and Upland Habitat Development Site, Columbia River, Oregon, Appendix F:
Postpropagation Assessment of Wildlife Resources on Dredged Material, Technical
Report D-77-38, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks-
burg, MS, 1978.
Culver, D. C., Analysis of simple cave communities. I. Caves as islands, Evolution, 24,
463, 1970.
Dahl, T. E., Wetland Losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 1990.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Daiber, F. C., Conservation of Tidal Marshes, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1986.
DeGraaf, R. M. and Rudis, D. D., New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History and
Distribution, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experi-
ment Station General Technical Report NE-108, 1986.
Diamond, J. M., Distributional ecology of New Guinea birds, Science, 179, 759, 1973.
Diamond, J. M., The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design
of natural preserves, Biol. Conserv., 7, 129, 1975.
Diamond, R. S. and Nilson, D. J., Buffer delineation method for coastal wetlands in New
Jersey, in Symposium on Coastal Water Resources, Proceedings of the American Water
Resources Association, 1988.
Dickerson, G. E., Blunn, C. T., Chapman, A. B., Kottman, R. M., Krider, J. L., Warwick, E. J.,
and Whatley, J. A., Jr., in collaboration with Baker, M. L., Lush, J. L., and Winters, L. M.,
Evaluation of Selection in Developing Inbred Lines of Swine, University of Missouri
College of Agriculture Research Bulletin 551, 1954.
Dillaha, T. A., Sherrard, J. H., and Lee, D., Long-term effectiveness of vegetative lter strips,
Water Environ. Technol., November 1989.
Dole, J. W., Summer movements of adult leopard frogs, Rana pipiens, Ecology, 46(3),
236, 1965.
Duebbert, H. F., Nesting of waterfowl on islands in Lake Audubon, North Dakota, Wild. Soc.
Bull., 10, 232, 1982.
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, ECFRPC Wetland Buffer Criteria and
Procedures Manual, Draft No. 7, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council,
Winter Park, FL, 1991.
Ermacoff, N., Marsh and Habitat Management Practices at the Mendota Wildlife Area,
California Department Fish Game Leaet 12, 1968.
Errington, P. L., Of Men and Marshes, Macmillan, New York, 1957.
Errington, P. L. and Breckenridge, W. J., Food habits of marsh hawks in the glaciated prairie
region of north-central United States, Am. Midl. Natural., 17, 831, 1936.
Forman, R. T. T. and Godron, M., Landscape Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986.
Franklin, I. R., Evolutionary change in small populations, in Conservation Biology: an
EvolutionaryEcological Perspective, Soul, M. E. and Wilcox, M. E., Eds., Sinauer
Associates, Sunderland, MA, 1980, 135.
Fredrickson, L. H., Managed wetland habitats for wildlife: why are they important? in Water
Impoundments for Wildlife: a Habitat Management Workshop, General Technical Report
NC-100, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experi-
mental Station, 1985, 1.
Fredrickson, L. H. and Taylor, T. S., Management of Seasonally Flooded Impoundments for
Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 148, 1982.
Fritz, R. S., Consequences of insular population structure: distribution and extinction of spruce
grouse populations, Oecologia, 42, 57, 1979.
Gagliano, S. M., Special report on Marsh Deterioration and Land Loss in the Deltaic Plain
of Coastal Louisiana, Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, LA, 1981.
Galli, A. E., Leck, E. C. F., and Forman, R. T. T., Avian distribution patterns within different
sized forest islands in central New Jersey, Auk, 93, 356, 1976.
Gangstad, E. O., Freshwater Vegetation Management, Thomas Publishers, Fresno, CA, 1986.
Garbisch, E. W., Jr., Recent and Planned Marsh Establishment Work Throughout the Contig-
uous United States: A Survey and Basic Guidelines, Technical Report D-77-3, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1977.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Garrett, M. G. and Franklin, W. L., Behavioral ecology of dispersal in the black-tailed prairie
dog, J. Mammals, 69, 236, 1988.
Gates, J. E. and Gysel, L. W., Avian nest dispersion and edgling success in eld-forest
ecotones, Ecology, 59, 871, 1978.
Gates, J. M. and Hale, J. B., Seasonal Movement, Winter Habitat Use, and Population
Distribution of an East Central Wisconsin Pheasant Population, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin No. 76, Madison, WI, 1974.
Gavareski, C. A., Relation of park size and vegetation to urban bird populations in Seattle,
Washington, Condor, 78, 375, 1976.
Gilbrook, M. J., Spatial and Size Distribution of Wetland Habitats in the East Central Florida
Region, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Winter Park, FL, 1989.
Giles, R. H., Jr., Wildlife Management, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 1978.
Gilpin, M. E., Spatial structure and population vulnerability, in Viable Populations for
Conservation, Soul, M. E., Ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.
Giroux, J., Use of articial islands by nesting waterfowl in southeastern Alberta, J. Wild.
Manage., 45, 669, 1981.
Givens, L. S., Nelson, M. C., and Ekedahl, V., Farming for waterfowl, in Waterfowl Tomorrow,
Linduska, J. P., Ed., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 1964, 599.
Goodman, D., The demography of chance extinction, in Viable Populations for Conservation,
Soul, M. E., Ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987, 11.
Gottfried, B. M., Small mammal populations in woodlot islands, Am. Midl. Natural., 102,
105, 1979.
Gould, N. E., Featured species planning for wildlife on southern national forests, Trans.
N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf., 42, 435, 1977.
Graul, W. D., Grassland management practices and bird communities, in Workshop Proceed-
ings: Management of Western Forests and Grasslands for Nongame Birds,
DeGraaf, R. M. and Tilghman, N. G., compilers, U.S. Department Agriculture, Forest
Service General Technical Report INT-86, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Ogden, UT, 1980, 38.
Graul, W. D. and Miller, G. C., Strengthening ecosystem management approaches, Wildl. Soc.
Bull., 12, 282, 1984.
Graul, W. D., Torres, J., and Denney, R., A species-ecosystem approach for nongame
programs, Wildl. Soc. Bull., 4, 1976.
Graves, B. M. and Anderson, S. H., Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bullfrog, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.138), 1987.
Griese, H. J., Ryder, R. A., and Braun, C. E., Spatial and temporal distribution of rails in
Colorado, Wilson Bull., 92, 96, 1980.
Grifth, R., Improving waterfowl habitat, Trans. N. Am. Waterfowl Conf., 13, 609, 1948.
Grinnell, J. and Swarth, H. S., An account of the birds and mammals of the San Jacinto area
of southern California, with remarks upon the behavior of geographic races on the
margins of their habitats, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 10, 197, 1913.
Hammond, M. C. and Mann, G. E., Waterfowl nesting islands, J. Wildl. Manage., 20,
345, 1956.
Hansen, G. W., Oliver, F. E., and Otto, N. E., Herbicide Manual, U.S. Bureau Reclamation,
Denver, CO, 1984.
Harris, L. D., The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of
Biotic Diversity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1984.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Herke, W. H., Knudson, E. E., and Knudsen, P. A., Effects of semi-impoundment on estuarine-
dependent sheries, in Waterfowl and Wetlands Symposium: Proceedings of a Symposium
on Waterfowl and Wetlands Management in the Coastal Zone of the Atlantic Flyway,
Whitman, W. R. and Meredith, W. H., Eds., Delaware Coastal Management Program,
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE,
1987, 403.
Higgins, K. F., Further evaluation of duck nesting on small manmade islands in North Dakota,
Wildl. Soc. Bull., 14, 155, 1986.
Hoffman, R. D., Ducks unlimiteds United States construction program for enhancing water-
fowl production, in Proceedings of a Conference Increasing our Wetland Resources,
Zelazny, J. and Feierabend, J. S., Eds., National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.,
1988, 103.
Hoffpauer, C. M., Burning for coastal marsh management, Proc. Marsh Estuary Manage.
Symp., 1, 134, 1968.
Holekamp, K. E., Natal dispersal in Beldings ground squirrel (Spermophilus beldingi), Behav.
Ecol. Sociobiol., 16, 21, 1984.
Hopper, R. M., Use of Ammonium NitrateFuel Oil Mixtures in Blasting Potholes for Wildlife,
Colorado Department Natural Resources Game Information Leaet 85, 1971.
Hunter, C. G., Managing green tree reservoirs for waterfowl, Int. Waterfowl Symp., 3,
217, 1978.
Jahn, L. R. and Hunt, R. A., Duck and Coot Ecology and Management in Wisconsin, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin #33, Madison, WI, 1964.
Johnson, D. L., Lake Erie wetlands: sheries considerations, in Lake Erie and Its Estuarine
Systems: Issues, Resources, Status and Management, Krieger, K. A., Ed., NOAA Estuary
of the Month Seminar Series 14, May 4, 1988, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Johnson and Dinsmore, Habitat use by breeding Virginia rails and soras, J. Wildl. Manage.,
50, 387, 1986.
Johnson, R. F., Woodward, R. O., and Kirsch, L. M., Waterfowl nesting on small manmade
islands in the prairie wetlands, Wildl. Soc. Bull., 6, 240, 1978.
Jones, J. D., Waterfowl Nesting Island Development, U.S. Bureau Land Management Technical
Note 260, 1975.
Jones, W. L. and Lehman, W. C., Phragmites control and revegetation following aerial
applications of glyphosate in Delaware, in Waterfowl and Wetlands Symposium: Pro-
ceedings of a Symposium on Waterfowl and Wetlands Management in the Coastal Zone
of the Atlantic Flyway, Whitman, W. R. and Meredith, W. H., Eds., Delaware Coastal
Management Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, Dover, DE, 1987, 185.
Kadlec, J. A., The Effect of Drawdown on the Ecology of a Waterfowl Impoundment,
Michigan Department Conservation Report 2276, 1960.
Kale, H. W., Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Birds, University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, 1978.
Karr, J. R. And Schlosser, I. J., Impact of Nearstream Vegetation and Stream Morphology on
Water Quality and Stream Biota, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report #600/3-
77-097, 1977.
Kiester, A. R., Schwartz, C. W., and Schwartz, E. R., Promotion of gene ow by transient
individuals in an otherwise sedentary population of box turtles (Terrapene carolina
triunguis), Evolution, 36(3), 617, 1982.
Kirby, R. E., American Black Duck Breeding Habitat Enhancement in the Northeastern United
States: A Review and Synthesis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
88(4), 1988.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Knighton, M. D., Vegetation management in water impoundments: water level control, in
Water, Impoundments for Wildlife: A Habitat Management Workshop, Knighton, M. D.,
Ed., General Technical Report NC-100, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, 1985, 39.
Korte, P. A. and Fredrickson, L. H., Loss of Missouris lowland hardwood ecosystem, Trans.
N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf., 42, 31, 1977.
Krueger, H. O. and Anderson, S. H., The use of cattle as a management tool for wildlife in
shrub-willow riparian systems, in Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Recon-
ciling Conicting Uses, Johnson, R. R., Ziebell, C. D., Patton, D. R., Folliott, P. F., and
Hamre, R. H., Eds., U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120, 1985, 300.
Kushlan, J. A., Site selection for nesting colonies by the American white ibis (Eudomicus
alba) in Florida, Ibis, 118, 590, 1976.
Kushlan, J. A., Design and management of continental wildlife reserves: lessons from the
Everglades, Biol. Conserv., 15, 281, 1979.
Kusler, J. A. and Kentula, M. E., Wetland Creation and Restoration: the Status of the Science,
Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1990.
Laing, H. E., Effect of concentration of oxygen and pressure or water upon growth of rhizomes
of semisubmerged water plants, Bot. Gaz., 102, 712, 1941.
Landin, M. C. and Webb, J. W., Wetland development and restoration as part of Corps of
Engineer programs: case studies, in Proceedings: National Wetland SymposiumMiti-
gation of Impacts and Losses, Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc., 1989, 388.
Landin, M. C., Clairain, E. J., Jr., and Newling, C. J., Wetland habitat development and long
term monitoring at Windmill Point, Virginia, Wetlands, 9(1), 13, 1989.
Lay, D., How valuable are woodland clearings to birdlife, Wilson Bull., 50, 254, 1938.
Leedy, D. L., Maestro, R. M., and Franklin, T. M., Planning for Wildlife in Cities and Suburbs,
Urban Wildlife Research Center, Inc., Ellicott City, MD, 1978.
Leopold, A., Game Management, Charles Scribner & Sons, New York, 1933.
Linde, A. F., Techniques for Wetland Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources Report 45, 1969.
Linde, A. F., Vegetation management in water impoundments: alternatives and supplements
to water-level control, in Water Impoundments for Wildlife: A Habitat Management
Workshop, Knighton, M. D., Ed., U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report
NC-100, 1985.
Linder, R. L. and Schitoskey, F., Jr., Use of wetlands by upland wildlife, in Wetland Functions
and Values: The State of Our Understanding, Greeson, P. E., Clark, J. R., and Clark, J. E.,
Eds., Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, 1979, 307.
Linduska, J. P., Ed., Waterfowl Tomorrow, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 1964.
Lokemoen, J. T., Lee, F. B., Duebbert, H. F., and Swanson, G. A., Aquatic habitats-waterfowl,
in Guidelines for Increasing Wildlife on Farms and Ranches, Henderson, F. R., Ed.,
Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, KS, 1984, 161B.
Lopez, B., Implacable corridors of death, Los Angeles Times, October 4, 1992.
Lovejoy, T. E., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., Rylands, A. B., Malcolm, J. R., Quintela, C. E., Harper,
L. H., Brown, K. S., Jr., Powell, A. H., Powell, G. V. N., Schubart, H. O. R., and
Hays, M. B., Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments, in Con-
servation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, Soul, M. E., Ed., Sinauer
Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA, 1986, 257.
Lunz, J. D., Diaz, R. J., and Cole, R. A., Upland and Wetland Habitat Development with
Dredged Material: Ecological Considerations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1978a.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Lunz, J. D., Ziegler, T., Huffman, R. T., Wells, B. R., Diaz, R. J., Clairain, E. J., Jr., and
Hunt, L. J., Habitat Development Field Investigations, Windmill Point, Marsh Develop-
ment Site, James River, Virginia: Summary Report. Technical Report D-77-23, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1978b.
Lynch, J. F. and Whigham, D. F., Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding bird communities
in Maryland, USA, Biol. Conserv., 28, 287, 1984.
MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O., An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography, Evolu-
tion, 17, 373, 1963.
MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O., The Theory of Island Biogeography, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ, 1967.
Madsen, A. B., Otters, Lutra lutra, and trafc, Flora Fauna, 96(2), 39, 1990.
Mallik, A. V. and Wein, R. W., Response of a Typha marsh community to draining, ooding
and seasonal burning, Can. J. Bot., 64, 2136, 1986.
Martin, E. M., Hunting and harvest trends for migratory game birds other than waterfowl:
19641976, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientic ReportWildlife
218, 1979.
McAtee, W. L., The Ring-Necked Pheasant and Its Management in North America, American
Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C., 1945.
McIntyre, S. and Barrett, Habitat variegation, an alternative to fragmentation, Conserv. Biol.,
6(1), 146, 1992.
Meanly, B., Swamps, River Bottoms and Canebrakes, Barre Publishers, Barre, MA, 1972.
Melinchuk, R. and MacKay, R., Prairie Pothole Project: Phase 1 Final Report, Wildlife
Technical Report 861, Wildlife Branch, Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources,
Regina, SK, 1986.
Michael, E. D. and Smith, L. S., Creating Wetlands Along Highways in West Virginia, West
Virginia Department of Highways and U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA/WV-
85/001, 1985.
Moore, N. W. and Hooper, M. D., On the number of bird species in British woods, Biol.
Conserv., 8, 239, 1975.
Neely, W. W., Snipe eld management in the southeastern states, Proc. Ann. Conff Southeast
Assoc. Game Fish Comm., 14, 30, 1959.
Nei, M., Maruyama, T., and Chakraborty, R., The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in
populations, Evolution, 29, 1, 1975.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Regulation, Wetland Buffer Delineation Method.
State of New Jersey Division of Coastal Resources, Trenton, New Jersey, 1988.
Newling, C. J., Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests in the lower Mississippi Valley,
Restor. Manage. Notes, 8(1), 23, 1990.
Norse, E. A., Rosenbaum, K. L., Wilcove, D. W., Wilcox, B. A., Romme, W. H., Johnston,
D. W., and Stout, M. L., Conserving biological diversity in our national forests, The
Wilderness Society, 1986.
Noss, R. F., Corridors in real landscapes: a reply to Simberloff and Cox, Conserv. Biol., 1(2),
159, 1987.
Noss, R. F., Wildlife corridors, in Ecology of Greenways, Smith, D. S. and Hellmund, P. C.,
Eds., University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1993, 43.
Odom, R. R., Sora (Porzana carolina), in Management of Migratory Shore and Upland Game
Birds in North America, Sanderson, G. C., Ed., International Association Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C., 1977, 57.
Ohlsson, K. E., Robb, A. E., Jr., Guindon, C. E., Jr., Samuel, D. E., and Smith, R. L., Best
Current Practices for Fish and Wildlife on Surface-Mined Land in the Northern
Appalachian Coal Region, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-81/45, 1982.

2001 CRC Press LLC

ONeil, T., The Muskrat in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes, Louisiana Department Wildlife
and Fisheries, New Orleans, 1949.
Opler, P. A., Management of prairie habitats for insect conservation, J. Nat. Areas Assoc., 1,
3, 1981.
Oxley, D. J., Fenton, M. B., and Carmody, G. R., The effects of roads on populations of small
mammals, J. Appl. Ecol., 11(1), 51, 1974.
Palmer, R. S., Ed., Handbook of North American Birds, Vol. 2, Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT, 1976.
Pandit, A. K. and Fotedar, D. N., Restoring damaged wetlands for wildlife, J. Environ.
Manage., 14, 359, 1982.
Payne, N. F., Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of Wetlands, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1992.
Payne, N. F. and Copes, F., Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Improvement Handbook, U.S.
Forest Service, Washington, D.C., 1986.
Pederson, R. L. and Smith, L. M., Implications of wetland seed bank research: a review of
Great Basin and prairie marsh studies, in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Freshwater
Research, Wilcox, D. A., Ed., Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, 1988, 81.
Pederson, R. L., Jorde, D. G., and Simpson, S. G., Northern Great Plains, in Habitat Man-
agement for Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl in North America, Smith, L. M.,
Pederson, R. L., and Kaminski, R. M., Eds., Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock,
1989, 281.
Petering, R. W. and Johnson, D. L., Distribution of sh larvae among articial vegetation in
a diked Lake Erie wetland, Wetlands, 11(1), 123, 1991.
Peterken, G. F., A method of assessing woodland ora for conservation using indicator species,
Biol. Conserv., 6, 239, 1974.
Peterken, G. F., Habitat conservation priorities in British and European woodlands, Biol.
Conserv., 11, 223, 1977.
Peters, D. S., Ahrenhoz, D. W., and Rice, T. R., Harvest and value of wetland associated sh
and shellsh, in Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding,
Greeson, P. E., Clark, J. R., and Clark, J. E., Eds., American Water Resources Association,
Minneapolis, MN, 1979, 606.
Petersen, L., Ecology of Great Horned Owls and Red-Tailed Hawks in Southeastern Wisconsin,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, 1979.
Peterson, A., Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bald Eagle (Breeding Season), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.126), 1986.
Petraitis, R. S., Latham, R. E., and Niesenbaum, R. A., The maintenance of species diversity
by disturbance, Q. Rev. Biol., 64, 393, 1989.
Pickett, S. T. A. and Thompson, J. N., Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves, Biol.
Conserv., 13, 27, 1978.
Pickett, S. T. A. and White, P. S., Eds., The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch
Dynamic, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985.
Pickett, S. T. A., Lolasa, J., Armesto, J. J., and Collins, S. L., The ecological concept of
disturbance and its expression at various hierarchical levels, Oikos, 54, 129, 1989.
Pils, C. M. and Martin, M. A., Population Dynamics, Predatory-Prey Relationships and
Management of the Red Fox in Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Technical Bulletin No. 107, Madison, WI, 1978.
Porter, B. W., The wetland edge as a community and its value to wildlife, in Selected
Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management,
Richarson, B., Ed., 1981, 15.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Potts, R. R. and Bai, J. L., Establishing variable width buffer zones based upon site charac-
teristics and development type, in Water: Laws and Management, Proc. American Water
Resources Association, 1989, 6.
Pough, R. H., Audubon Water Bird Guide, Doubleday, Garden City, NJ, 1951.
Provost, M. W., Marsh blasting as a wildlife management technique, J. Wildl. Manage., 12,
350, 1948.
Radtke, R. E., Wetland management: public concern and government action, in Water
Impoundments for Wildlife: A Habitat Management Workshop, General Technical Report
NC-100, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experi-
mental Station, 1985, 9.
Rakstad, D. and Probst, J., Wildlife occurrence in water impoundments, in Water Impound-
ments for Wildlife: A Habitat Management Workshop, General Technical Report NC-
100, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experimental
Station, 1985, 80.
Ralls, K., Harvey, P. H., and Lyles, A. M., Inbreeding in natural populations of birds and
mammals, in Conservation Biology: Science of Scaricity and Diversity, Soul, M. E.,
Ed., Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 1986, 35.
Ranney, J. W., Forest Island EdgesTheir Structure, Development and Implication to
Regional Forest Ecosystem Dynamics, EDFB/IBP-77-1, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, TN, 1977.
Ray, D. K. and Woodroof, W. O., Mitigating impacts to wetlands and estuaries in Californias
coastal zone, in Proceedings: National Wetland SymposiumMitigation of Impacts and
Losses, Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc., 1988, 106.
Reimold, R. J. and Thompson, D. A., Wetland mitigation effectiveness, in Proceedings:
National Wetland SymposiumMitigation of Impacts and Losses, Association of State
Wetland Managers, Inc., 1988, 259.
Rey, J. R., Shaffer, J., Tremain, D., Crossman, R. A., and Kain, T., Effects of reestablishing
tidal connections in two impounded subtropical marshes on shes and physical condi-
tions, Wetlands, 10(1), 27, 1990.
Robbins, C. S., Effect of forest fragmentation on bird populations, in Management of North
Central and Northeastern Forests for Nongame Birds, DeGraaf, R. M. and Evans, K. E.,
Eds., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report NC-51,
1979, 198.
Rodgers, J. A., Jr. and Burger, J., Concluding remarks: symposium on human disturbance
and colonial waterbirds, Colonial Waterbirds, 4, 69, 1981.
Roman, C. T. and Good, R. E., Buffer Delineation Model for New Jersey Pinelands Wetlands,
Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Division of Pinelands Research, New
Jersey Pinelands Commission, 1985.
Ross, W. M. and Chabreck, R. H., Factors Affecting the Growth and Survival of Natural and
Planted Stands of Scirpus olneyi, Proc. 26th Annual Conference of the Southeastern
Association of Game and Fish Commissions, New Orleans, 1972.
Rundle, W. D. and Fredrickson, L. H., Managing seasonally ooded impoundments for
migrant rails and shorebirds, Wildl. Soc. Bull., 9(2), 80, 1981.
Rutherford, W. H. and Snyder, W. D., Guidelines for Habitat Modication to Benet Wildlife,
Colorado Division Wildlife, Denver, 1983.
Seidensticker, J. C., Hornocker, M. G., Wiles, W. V., and Messick, J. P., Mountain lion social
organization in the Idaho primitive area, Wildl. Monogr., 35, 1, 1973.
Senner, J. W., Inbreeding depression and the survival of zoo populations, in Conservation
Biology: An EvolutionaryEcological Perspective, Soul, M. E. and Wilcox, M. E.,
Eds., Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 1980, 209.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Shaffer, M. L., Minimum population sizes for conservation, Bioscience, 31, 131, 1981.
Shaw, S. P. and Fredine, C. G., Wetlands of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Circular 39, 1956.
Shirer, H. W. and Downhower, J. F., Radio tracking of dispersing yellow-bellied marmots,
Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 71, 463, 1968.
Short, H. L. and Cooper, R. J., Habitat suitability index models: great blue heron, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.99), 1985.
Siderits, K. and Radtke, R. E., Enhancing forest wildlife habitat through diversity, Trans.
N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf., 42, 425, 1977.
Soots, R. F., Jr. and Parnell, J. F., Introduction to the nature of dredge islands and their wildlife
in North Carolina and recommendations for management, in Proceedings of a Conference
on Management of Dredge Islands in North Carolina Estuaries, Parnell, J. F. and
Soots, R. F., Eds., University of North Carolina Sea Grant Collaborative Program
Publication UNC-SG-75-01, 1975, 1.
Soul, M. E., Thresholds for survival: maintaining tness and evolutionary potential, in
Conservation Biology: An EvolutionaryEcological Perspective, Soul, M. E. and
Wilcox, M. E., Eds., Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 1980, 151.
Soul, M. E., Land use planning and wildlife maintenance: guidelines for conserving wildlife
in an urban landscape, Am. Plan. Assoc. J., 57(3), 313, 1991.
Soul, M. E. and Simberloff, D., What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of
nature reserves? Biol. Conserv., 35, 19, 1986.
Stalmaster, M. V. and Newman, J. R., Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagle to human
activity, J. Wildl. Manage., 42, 506, 1978.
Steinhart, P., Articial species, Audubon, 88, 8, 1986.
Stephenson, A. B., Wyatt, A. J., and Nordskog, W. W., Inuence of inbreeding on egg
production in the domestic fowl, Poult. Sci., 32, 510, 1953.
Storm, G. L., Andrews, R. D., Phillips, R. L., Bishop, R. A., Siniff, D. B., and Tester, J. R.,
Morphology, reproduction, dispersal, and mortality of midwestern red fox populations,
Wildl. Monogr., 49, 5, 1976.
Strohmeyer, D. L. and Fredrickson, L. H., An evaluation of dynamited potholes in northwest
Iowa, J. Wildl. Manage., 31, 525, 1967.
Sullivan, J. K., Using buffer zones to battle pollution, Environ. Protection Agency J., 12(4),
8, 1986.
Swift, J. A., Construction of rafts and islands, in Managing Wetlands and Their Birds,
Scott, D. A., Ed., Proc. 3rd Technical Meeting on Western Palearctic Migratory Bird
Management, International Waterfowl Research Bureau, Slimbridge, Gloucester,
England, 1982, 200.
Talbot, C. W., Able, K. W., and Shisler, J. K., Fish species composition in New Jersey salt
marshes: effects of marsh alterations for mosquito control, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 115,
269, 1986.
Thompson, L. S., Species abundance and habitat relations of an insular montane avifauna,
Condor, 80, 1, 1978.
Tremblay, J. and Ellison, L. N., Effects of human disturbance on breeding of black-crowned
night herons, Auk, 96, 364, 1979.
Trimble, G. R., Jr. and Sartz, R. S., How far from a stream should a logging road be located?
J. For., 10, 339, 1957.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Third Annual Report of the Material Research Program,
Environmental Effects Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1976.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Evaluation of Freshwater Wetland Replacement Projects in
Massachusetts, New England Division, Waltham, MA, 1989.

2001 CRC Press LLC

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (Appraisal),
Washington, D.C., 1980.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds, Technical Release Number 55, 1986.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast
Region, 1984.
Vaught, R. and Bowmaster, J., Missouri Wetlands and Their Management, Conservation
Commission of the State of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, 1983.
Vuilleumier, F., Insular biogeography in continental regions. I. The northern Andes of South
America, Am. Nat., 104, 373, 1970.
Vuilleumier, F., Insular biogeography in continental regions. II. Cave faunas from Tesoin,
southern Switzerland, Syst. Zool., 22, 64, 1973.
Wagner, F. H., Species vs. ecosystem management: concepts and practices, Trans. N. Am.
Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf., 42, 14, 1977.
Wales, B. A., Vegetation analysis of north and south edges in a mature oak-hickory forest,
Ecol. Monogr., 42, 451, 1972.
Ward, E., Phragmites management, Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf., 7, 294, 1942.
Ward, P., Fire in relation to waterfowl habitat of the Delta Marshes, Proc. Ann. Tall Timbers
Fire Ecol. Conf., 8, 255, 1968.
Webb, J. W., Landin, M. C., and Allen, H. H., Approaches and techniques for wetlands
development and restoration of dredged material disposal sites, in Proceedings: National
Wetland SymposiumMitigation of Impacts and Losses, Association of State Wetland
Managers, 1988, 132.
Weller, M. W., Studies of cattail in relation to management for marsh wildlife, IA State J.
Sci., 49, 383, 1975.
Weller, M. W., Wetland habitats, in Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Under-
standing, Greeson, P. E., Clark, J. R., and Clark, J. E., Eds., Proceedings of the National
Symposium on Wetlands, 1978, 210.
Weller, M. W., Estimating wildlife and wetland losses due to drainage and other perturbations,
in Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management,
Richardson, B., Ed., Minnesota Water Planning Board, Water Resources Research Center,
University of Minnesota, Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission and Great Lakes
Basin Commission, 1981, 337.
Weller, M. W., Freshwater Marshes: Ecology and Wildlife Management, 2nd ed., University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1987.
Weller, M. W., Waterfowl management techniques for wetland enhancement, restoration and
creation useful in mitigation procedures, in Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status
of the Science, Kusler, J. A. and Kentula, M. E., Eds., Island Press, Washington, D.C.,
1990, 517.
Weller, M. W. and Spatcher, C. E., Role of Habitat in the Distribution and Abundance of
Marsh Birds, Iowa State University Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Sta-
tion Special Report 43, 1965.
Weller, M. W., Kaufmann, G. W., and Vohs, P. A., Jr., Evaluation of wetland development
and waterbird response at Elk Creek Wildlife Management Area, Lake Mills, Iowa, 1961
to 1990, Wetlands, 11(2), 245, 1991.
Whitcomb, R. F., Island biogeography and habitat islands of eastern forest, Am. Birds, 31,
3, 1977.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Whitcomb, R. F., Lynch, J. F., Klimkiewicz, M. K., Robbins, C. S., Whitcomb, B. L., and
Bystrak, D., Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest,
in Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes: Ecological Studies 41,
Burgess, R., Ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981, 125.
Whitman, W. R. and Meredith, W. H., Introduction, in Waterfowl and Wetlands Symposium:
Proceedings of a Symposium on Waterfowl and Wetlands Management in the Coastal
Zone of the Atlantic Flyway, Whitman, W. R. and Meredith, W. H., Eds., Delaware
Coastal Management Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Control, Dover, DE, 1987, 5.
Wiggett, D. R. and Boag, D. A., Intercolony natal dispersal in the Columbian ground squirrel,
Can. J. Zool., 67, 42, 1989.
Wilcove, D. S., Forest Fragmentation and the Decline of Migratory Songbirds, Ph.D. thesis,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1985a.
Wilcove, D. S., Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds, Ecology,
66, 1211, 1985b.
Wilcove, D. S., McLellan, C. H., and Dobson, A. P., Habitat fragmentation in the temperate
zone, in Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, Soul, M. E., Ed.,
Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA, 1986.
Wilcox, B. A., Insular ecology and conservation, in Conservation Biology, an Evolutionary
Ecological Perspective, Soul, M. E. and Wilcox, B. A., Eds., Sinauer Associates, Inc.,
Sunderland, MA, 1980, 95.
Wilson, E. O. and Willis, E. O., Applied biogeography, in Ecology and Evolution of
Communities, Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1975, 522.
Wilson, K. A., Fur production on southeastern coastal marshes, Proc. Marsh Estuary Manage.
Symp., 1, 149, 1968.
Wright, H. A. and Bailey, A. W., Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982.
Wright, S., Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 2, The Theory of Gene Frequencies,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1969.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Buchsbaum, Robert Coastal Marsh Management
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 11

Coastal Marsh Management

Robert Buchsbaum

CONTENTS

Historical Coastal Marsh Management

Coastal Wetland Destruction
Mosquito Control
Biology of Salt Marsh Mosquitoes
Habitat Alteration by Grid Ditching
Pesticides and Bacterium
Exploitation of Coastal Wetlands
Marsh Diking
Contemporary Marsh Management
Recent Trends in Coastal Wetland Loss
Mosquito Control by Open Marsh Water Management
OMWM vs. Grid Ditching
Effect of OMWM on Mosquitoes
Effect of OMWM on Marsh Processes
Other Potential Management Uses of OMWM
Recommendations for Mosquito Control
Impacts of Docks and Piers
Buffer Zones and Coastal Wetlands
Water Quality Aspects of Buffers
Pathogenic Microorganisms
Nitrogen
Wildlife Habitat Aspects of Buffers
Examples of Buffer Protection Programs
Restoration of Degraded Wetlands with Particular Emphasis on
Introduced Species
Future Considerations
References

2001 CRC Press LLC

 HISTORICAL COASTAL MARSH MANAGEMENT

When European settlers rst arrived in the northeast United States, they often
settled around salt marshes (Nixon, 1982). Marshes were valued as a source of food
for livestock because there was little open grazing land. Native Americans of the
northeastern United States, unlike their counterparts in other parts of North America,
did not regularly maintain open lands. Marshes had traditionally been used for
grazing sheep and cattle in Europe (Jensen, 1985), thus it was not surprising that
they would be similarly valued in the New World.
As more and more farmland was cleared for pasture, attitudes toward coastal
wetlands changed for the worse. Marshes were at best ignored and at worst were
perceived as worthless land that bred mosquitoes and other pestilence. The best use
of the coastal wetlands was in being reclaimed and put to some useful purpose. Up
until about the 1970s, the two most widespread management activities in coastal
wetlands were outright destruction and mosquito abatement.

COASTAL WETLAND DESTRUCTION

Coastal wetlands have been lled and degraded to create more land area for
homes, industry, and agriculture. Estimates of wetland lost since colonial times have
not always distinguished coastal from inland wetlands, so we must rely to some
extent on estimates of all wetland to estimate coastal wetland losses. Dahl (1990)
estimated that the United States has lost 30 percent of its original wetlands acreage
(53 percent if Alaska and Hawaii are excluded). An estimated 46 percent of the
original wetlands area of Florida and Louisiana, the two states with the largest
acreage of coastal wetlands (almost seven million ha combined), have been lost
(Watzin and Gosselink, 1992). About 90 percent of Californias original area of
wetlands have been destroyed (Figure 1, Watzin and Gosselink, 1992).
Evaluations of coastal wetland loss suggest that over one half of the original
U.S. salt marshes and mangrove forests have been destroyed, much of it between
1950 and the mid-1970s (Watzin and Gosselink, 1992). Between the mid-1950s and
mid-1970s, the coterminous United States lost an estimated 373,300 acres of vege-
tated estuarine wetlands, a 7.6 percent loss (Frayer et al., 1983). Such losses and
modications have been particularly acute in San Francisco Bay. Most of the bays
tidal marshes have been lled by the activities of gold miners, agriculture, and salt
production. Hydrologic changes caused by dams, reservoirs, and canals have reduced
the freshwater ow to only about 60 percent of its original volume.
Similar activities have occurred in other urban areas. Major airports were built
on lled tide lands in New York City, Boston, and New Orleans. The upscale Back
Bay section of Boston was once a shallow embayment fringed with salt marshes.
Old maps of the city indicate extensive areas of water that are now dry land. Similarly,
the original shoreline of Manhattan was irregular with bays and inlets, a far cry from
the present almost linear expanse of piers and highways.
Marshland, with its rich, peaty soil, was often reclaimed for agriculture in
Europe. Both mangrove swamps and salt marshes in Florida have also been destroyed

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 1 Salt marsh dominated by pickleweek (Salicornia virginica) near Stinson Beach,
CA; over 90 percent of Californias wetlands, including most of its original coastal
marshes, have been destroyed.

to create waterfront homes and marinas and for the construction of the Intracoastal
Waterway (Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1992a, b). Over 40 percent of
the salt marshes and mangroves in Tampa Bay have been lost since 1940 (Florida
Department of Natural Resources, 1992a, b). Lake Worth in Palm Beach County
has lost 87 percent of its mangroves and 51 percent of its salt marshes.

MOSQUITO CONTROL

Mosquito control activities in coastal wetlands have involved both physical

alteration of the habitat to make it less suitable for mosquito breeding (source
reduction), and the use of chemical and/or biological agents to directly kill adult
and larval mosquitoes. Although the use of pesticides often receives the most public
attention, habitat alteration is ultimately of more concern because of its potential to
irreversibly alter coastal wetlands.

Biology of Salt Marsh Mosquitoes

Mosquito breeding areas on salt marshes and mangrove forests typically occur
at the irregularly ooded upper edges of these habitats (Figure 2). Sites may include
spring tides associated with the new and full moons. Mosquitoes may also breed
among sporadically inundated tufts of high marsh plants, such as salt marsh hay

2001 CRC Press LLC

(Spartina patens) in East Coast marshes. Eggs of most species such as Aedes
solicitans, the most common nuisance mosquito in the northeastern United States,
are laid on the surface of a marsh typically in shallow depressions or along the edges
of drying salt pannes at least several days after the last spring tide. The eggs incubate
in the air and hatch only after the subsequent spring tide or rain rells depressions
on the marsh surface. The larvae, known as wrigglers because of their corkscrew-
like movements, undergo four feeding stages (instars) and a nonfeeding but active
pupal stage. Adults emerge in anywhere from several days to several weeks after
the eggs hatch depending on the temperature.

Figure 2 Typical habitat of salt marsh mosquito larvae during a spring tide; the pools are
within a short form smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniora) marsh and will usually
dry up prior to the next spring tide precluding a permanent sh population.

Salt marsh mosquitoes typically produce several broods per year and are said to
be multivoltine. Because they are tied to the lunar tidal cycle, the emergence of
adults from marshes tends to be synchronized. Coastal residents experience this as
periodic waves of mosquitoes, which may occur every 2 or 4 weeks depending on
the height of the spring tide and weather conditions.
The success of mosquito breeding on a salt marsh depends on a number of
factors. If the pool dries out before the larvae can complete all stages and emerge
as adults, the larvae will die. Similarly, permanent pools that support predatory sh
such as Fundulus spp. and Gasterosteus spp. will not support mosquito larvae and
are not a suitable habitat for eggs. Low marsh areas that are ooded daily by tides
are not sites of mosquito breeding because they do not provide the prolonged period
of air incubation the eggs require, and they are accessible to predatory sh.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Habitat Alteration by Grid Ditching

Although the most radical habitat alteration for mosquito control is lling the
marsh, most mosquito control activities have involved water management of some
kind. Habitat alteration for mosquito control in coastal wetlands reached the zenith
of activity in the United States during the Depression (Provost, 1977). Both the
Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration had programs
to reclaim marshes by digging ditches at regular intervals on the marsh surface.
Although these ditches were ostensibly intended to remove standing water from the
marsh surface and to lower the water table, they really were built without regard for
where pannes existed or mosquitoes actually bred. As a result, many marshes or
sections of marshes that did not breed mosquitoes were ditched. At the time such
considerations were not considered signicant because a major purpose of the
ditching projects was to put people to work. The grid ditching pattern, estimated to
have occurred in over 95 percent of northeast marshes, is evident from an airplane.
The effectiveness of controlling mosquitoes by grid ditching marshes, and its
impacts on marsh processes, has been debated for the last 40 years (Bourne and
Cottam, 1950; Lesser et al., 1976; Provost, 1977). The debate was largely initiated
by the publication of observations that waterfowl use of a marsh in Kent County,
DE, had declined after the marsh was subjected to grid ditching (Bourne and Cottam,
1950). Bourne and Cottam noted declines in invertebrate populations in the ditched
portion of this marsh compared to an unditched section. They also noted the dom-
inance of high marsh shrubs, groundsel tree (Baccharis halmifolia), and salt marsh
elder (Iva frutescens) along the edge of ditches. Bourne and Cottam predicted that
these high marsh shrubs would continue to spread onto the ditched marsh at the
expense of the previously existing smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniora, as long
as the ditches remained functional. This initiated a long standing debate about grid
ditching between wildlife managers, whose goal was to manage salt marshes for
waterfowl, and mosquito control agencies, whose goal was to reduce mosquito
populations. In retrospect, there really is very little evidence on either side about
the harmful effects of grid ditching on marsh wildlife (Provost, 1977).
The marsh ditching debate centered on the purported lowering of water tables
and gradual drying out of marshes. Clearly, a ditch that drains a panne will negatively
affect wildlife that depends on that panne. But because marsh peat has such a strong
afnity for water, the water table itself may only be lowered in the immediate
vicinity (ca. 1 m) of the ditch (Balling and Resh, 1982). Thus, ditches are not likely
to cause an overall lowering of the marsh water table. Lesser et al. (1976) reexam-
ined the Kent County, DE, marsh in the 1970s and found that, contrary to the
prediction of Bourne and Cottam, smooth cordgrass still dominated much of the
ditched marsh even though the ditches were maintained in good working order.
After the cessation of navigational dredging in the channel, which had caused a
general lowering of the water table in the marsh, the area of high marsh shrubs had
actually declined, and smooth cordgrass had increased (Provost, 1977). Dredging
of navigable waters adjacent to marshes (Lesser et al., 1976) often complicates
studies of the effect of ditching.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The most intensive studies of the effects of ditching on marsh vegetation and
marsh organisms have been carried out in San Francisco Bay, New Jersey, and
Delaware marshes. Putting aesthetic considerations aside, ditching a marsh obviously
increases the amount of tidal water owing into the high marsh, creating narrow
bands where low marsh habitats penetrate into high marsh. Strips of smooth
cordgrass penetrate salt marsh hay habitat along ditches in East Coast marshes.
Ditching allows the tall ecophenotype of smooth cordgrass (Valiela et al., 1978),
which dominates the lower part of the intertidal zone along the edges of tidal creeks,
to extend into the high marsh. Increased productivity of marsh vegetation and
invertebrates can result from this change (Shisler et al., 1975; Lesser et al., 1976;
Balling and Resh, 1983). The improper placement of dredge spoils and other struc-
tural alterations of the habitat, however, compromise such factors.
Ditching increases the heterogeneity of the marsh, both in terms of physical
characteristics and the biota. The banks of the mosquito ditches are characterized
by lowered salinities compared to the adjacent high marsh because regular tidal
ushing prevents the build up of hypersaline conditions (Balling and Resh, 1982).
In addition, the substratum along the edge of ditches is likely to be better oxygenated
than areas further back because of the lowered water table at low tide (Mendelssohn
et al., 1981; Howes et al., 1981; Balling and Resh, 1982). In San Francisco Bay,
pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), a low marsh species, tends to have higher pro-
ductivity along ditches than elsewhere on the marsh (Balling and Resh, 1983).
Balling and Resh attribute this higher productivity to the tendency of near-ditch
areas to have lower salinities than the surrounding marsh. In less saline marshes,
the tendency of pickleweed to be outcompeted by baltic rush (Juncus balticus), a
brackish water species, is also attributed to lower average salinities along ditches.
The response of invertebrates to ditching in San Francisco Bay varies seasonally.
The diversity of arthropods decreased away from ditches during the dry season in
San Francisco Bay salt marshes (Balling and Resh, 1982). The reverse was true
during the wet season except in a natural channel and an old ditch that had relatively
greater biomass of vegetation and more complex structure than most of the ditches
present (Balling and Resh, 1982). Balling and Resh conclude that the arthropod
community adjacent to mosquito ditches will eventually resemble that adjacent to
natural channels.
Along the east coast, a number of studies indicate that ditching has no marked
effect on invertebrate populations of salt marshes (Shisler and Jobbins, 1975; Lesser
et al., 1976; Clarke et al., 1984). Lesser et al., for example, found an increase in
populations of ddler crabs (Uca spp.) and the salt marsh snail (Melampus biden-
tatus) in ditched marshes compared to controls. Ditching may very likely enhance
sh populations of salt marshes. Fish density and diversity increased in ponds when
these were connected to a ditching system ((Resh and Balling, 1983). As long as
ponds are not drained, ditching increases the amount of available marsh habitat to
sh by increasing the amount of open water at high tide. It also allows the sh
access to parts of the marsh that are normally not available to them. The ditches
serve as corridors by which sh may enter the vegetated surface of the marsh at
high tides (Rozas et al., 1988). This movement of sh, particularly the mummichog
(Fundulus heteroclitus), is important to the productivity of marsh sh in that it allows

2001 CRC Press LLC

the sh to feed on invertebrates of the marsh surface, resulting in more rapid growth
rates (Weissberg and Lotrich, 1982). Ecologically, it is a mechanism by which the
productivity of the vegetated surface of the marsh is transported into the surrounding
estuarine habitats as these sh become prey for larger sh or birds. Using ume
nets, more than 3 times as many individual sh and 14 times the sh biomass per
area were caught in intertidal rivulets of tidal freshwater marshes than in larger creek
banks (Rozas et al., 1988). These intertidal rivulets are structurally similar to
mosquito ditches.
Ditching of salt marshes has historically been considered harmful to populations
of salt marsh birds (Urner, 1935; Bourne and Cottam, 1950). Clarke et al. (1984)
found lower numbers of shorebirds, waders, terns, and swallows on ditched marshes
compared to adjacent control marshes that had substantial areas of pannes. Because
there were no differences in invertebrate populations, they attributed this observation
to difculty of foraging along ditches, possibly because of their steep sides. Other
than swallows, the number of passerines (songbirds) was unaffected.
Perhaps the most destructive aspect of ditching to salt marsh ecosystems has
been related to the placement of dredge spoils. In many cases, spoils have simply
been left along the side of the excavated creek bank where they form levees that are
rarely, if ever, inundated by the tides. These levees are typically colonized by species
of plants normally found at the upland edge of the marsh, such as the salt marsh
elder in east coast marshes. If the levees are high enough, the normal ow of high
tides over the surface of the marsh is impeded.
The negative impact of dredge spoil dispersal can be avoided by proper man-
agement procedures designed to ensure that the spoils do not form levees along the
border of mosquito ditches. A rotary ditcher, for example, spreads dredge spoils
thinly over the marsh surface and has a temporary fertilizing effect (Burger and
Shisler, 1983). Using the dredge spoils from ditches to create small islands that do
not impede the general sheet ow of water over a marsh during a high tide may
actually be benecial to wildlife that require a mixture of upland and wetland
habitats. Shisler et al. (1978) found that clapper rails (Rallus longirostris) frequently
nested on spoil islands in New Jersey marshes.

Pesticides and Bacterium

Pesticides are still used to control salt marsh and mangrove mosquitoes. Broad-
spectrum pesticides, such as organophosphates (e.g., malathion) or pyrethroids (e.g.,
resmethrin), are sprayed on marshes in an attempt to kill emerging adults as they
y off the marsh. In Essex County, Massachusetts, malathion use has been timed to
coincide with the emergence of adults from the marsh before they have had a chance
to disperse to upland habitats (personal communication, W. Montgomery, Essex
County Mosquito Control Project). These pesticides break down relatively quickly
in the environment compared to those in wide use 20 years ago, such as organochlo-
rines (e.g., DDT, dieldrin). However, organophosphates are toxic to nontarget organ-
isms, particularly aquatic invertebrates and sh.
Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) is a bacterium that produces a protein
toxin that affects mosquito larvae. Bti may be spread by hand or aerially over salt

2001 CRC Press LLC

pannes that contain mosquito larvae. Although more specic than pesticides, Bti
may still have some impact on nontarget dipterans that may occur in marshes,
particularly chironomids (Lacey and Undeen, 1986). Chironomid larvae are an
important item in the diet of sticklebacks (Ward and Fitzgerald, 1983). Bti treatment
of salt marsh pools may potentially impact the food sources of these sh that are
essential in the trophic structure of salt marshes because they are consumed by other
sh, birds, and mammalian predators. Bti is less toxic to chironomid larvae than to
mosquito larvae (Lacey and Undeen, 1986), thus avoiding nontarget effects on
chironomids requires judicious measurement of nal concentrations.

EXPLOITATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS

When coastal wetlands were not being destroyed outright, or ditched for mos-
quito control, they were sometimes managed to provide useful products. Humans
have used the vegetation itself. Salt marsh hay is still cut from northeast marshes.
Although not the most ideal fodder for livestock, it has the advantage of containing
virtually no weed seeds; thus, it is much sought after by gardeners for mulch. Nixon
(1982) cited a 19th century survey that showed that farmers in Rhode Island cut
1557 metric tons of salt marsh hay from more than 1015 ha of marsh in 1875. The
salt marsh hayers beneted from the creation of mosquito ditches that drained pannes
and created a regular grid pattern on the marsh, making it easier to move equipment
around on the marsh. As the hayers were primarily interested in the salt marsh hay,
a high marsh species, they would sometimes build dikes or other barriers to restrict
regular tidal inundation.
Marshes have also been managed to provide wildlife for hunting. Typically,
impoundments have been created on salt marshes to provide open water habitat for
waterfowl. Impoundments often create a new set of problems, most notably invasion
by aggressive, alien plant species such as common reed (Phragmites australis) and
purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) that are more tolerant of brackish conditions.
Impoundments may reduce the exchange of tidal water into the marsh and, thus,
reduce the ability of coastal wetlands to export organic matter into surrounding
coastal waters (Montague et al., 1987). They also act as barriers to the movement
of marsh sh, as well as anadromous sh, that may be passing through marshes.
In tropical regions, tannins are extracted from mangrove bark, and the wood is
used for charcoal. Mangrove swamps, however, have not historically been managed
to the extent that salt marshes have.

MARSH DIKING

Diking of marshes has been carried out to create impoundments for wildlife, for
ood control, to create pleasure boating and swimming areas, and for the construc-
tion of causeways for roads and railroads. Often this causes habitat degradation
behind the dike because tidal ushing is reduced and the water stagnates.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Diking can have drastic effects on marsh vegetation and, by extension, seriously
alter populations of marsh fauna. If salinities behind the dike are diminished due to
reduced tidal ushing, aggressive brackish water species such as the common reed
and cattails (Typha spp.) will replace the natural salt marsh vegetation (Figure 3;
Niering and Warren, 1980; Roman et al., 1984; Beare and Zedler, 1987). Overall
productivity of the vegetation may increase in response to lowered salinities or
decrease if the tidally restricted area becomes hypersaline (Zedler et al. 1980).

Figure 3 Common reed (Phragmites australis) encroaching on salt marsh cordgrass; such
scenes are common along the upland edge of East Coast marshes, particularly
where tidal ow has been restricted.

Often, marsh creeks behind dikes have lower water quality than those seaward.
Portnoy (1991) observed lower dissolved oxygen and higher than normal levels of
suldes behind a dike on the Herring River in Welleet, MA. This area is plagued
by periodic sh kills and high numbers of mosquitoes, both consequences of stag-
nation. In the past, road construction on ll over marshes did not plan for mainte-
nance of adequate tidal ushing in their design. Roads block sheet ow of tidal
water over the marsh surface, and culverts for tidal creeks are often too small to
maintain the normal tidal range and ushing. Flood and ebb tides behind a road
across a marsh may be delayed several hours by an inadequately sized culvert
compared to that seaward of the road, and the tidal range may be reduced by 25 per
cent or more.
Restoring the normal tidal circulation to a formerly diked area can reverse these
negative effects. Slavin and Shisler (1983) noted substantial increases in wading
birds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and gulls in a marsh when the dike of a tidally restricted
salt marsh hay farm was breached. Conversely, the number of passerines declined.
They also observed increases in smooth cordgrass and declines in salt marsh hay.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Recent studies of Connecticut salt marshes have documented a striking decline in
brackish species and expansion of the natural salt marsh with removal of dikes
(Sinicrope et al., 1990). Simply removing a dike, however, does not always lead to
the return of the natural salt marsh vegetation. If the peat has been oxidized or eroded
behind the dike, the wetland surface may be lowered and the area may remain
unvegetated and ooded (personal communication, J. Portnoy, S. Warren).
Marshes are dynamic systems that may move up or down the shoreline in
response to changes in sea level. Diking along the upland edge of marshes, a common
ood control measure in urban areas, prevents the normal migration of the marsh.
The future of such marshes is dubious if rising sea levels occur as a result of increases
in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

CONTEMPORARY MARSH MANAGEMENT

U.S. federal and state laws and regulations reect a new appreciation by the
general public for the function and value of coastal wetlands. The outright legal
destruction of large areas of coastal marshes and mangrove swamps is, hopefully, a
thing of the past. Nonetheless, several signicant management issues still remain.
These isssues include recent wetland losses caused by direct or indirect human
impacts, the effects of activities that are still permitted by federal and state wetlands
regulations such as mosquito control procedures, and the construction of docks and
piers over marshes. Other issues include the cumulative impact of activities in
watersheds surrounding the coastal wetland including activities in wetland buffers,
and restoration of degraded coastal wetlands.

Recent Trends in Coastal Wetland Loss

Losses of coastal wetlands still occur, albeit at a slower rate than prior to 1970.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services National Wetlands Inventory Project estimated
that a net loss of 28,665 ha of vegetated estuarine wetlands occurred in the
coterminous United States between 1974 and 1983 (Tiner, 1991). This is about 1.5
percent of the total existing wetland area in 1973 and represents a decline in the
rate of loss from the mid-1950s through the mid-1970s. An increase of 4670 ha
occurred in nonvegetated estuarine wetlands, such as tidal ats.
Recent losses have been subtler than those of the past, consisting primarily of
a transformation of estuarine vegetated wetlands to deepwater habitat rather than
conversion to urban or agricultural land (Tiner, 1991). The majority of the recent
losses have occurred in the Mississippi delta and the Florida Everglades (Field et al.,
1991). Studies along the northern Gulf of Mexico have implicated rapid shoreline
subsidence, and the inability of marshes to keep up with this subsidence due to
relatively low accretion rates as major factors (DeLaune et al., 1989; Turner and
Rao, 1990). Localized alteration of hydrology caused by the building of canals and
levees for ood control has increased surface water levels on marshes, stressing and
killing the vegetation (DeLaune et al., 1989; Mendelssohn and McKee, 1988). The

2001 CRC Press LLC

break up of a vegetated wetland into smaller, and then larger, ponds can occur several
kilometers from a canal (Turner and Rao, 1990). Louisiana lost 2.9 percent (23,887
ha) of its wetlands from 1974 to 1983, largely through these processes.
During this same period, Texas experienced a loss of about 4049 ha and New
Jersey and South Carolina lost over 405 ha (Tiner 1991). For the entire United States,
18,200 ha were lost to urban development, about 1000 ha of which were mangrove
swamps in Florida. Another 1620 ha were converted to agricultural use.

Mosquito Control by Open Marsh Water Management

In response to the concern over grid ditching, a technique called Open Marsh
Water Management (OMWM) was developed in the mid-Atlantic states in the 1950s
(Ferrigno et al., 1975). OMWM consists of a system of reservoirs and canals in
mosquito breeding areas that allow predatory sh, generally Fundulus sp., access
to waterlogged areas of high marsh where mosquito larvae develop. Often, the
reservoirs are hectare-sized champagne ponds and are at least 1 m deep to provide
an adequate refuge for the sh during the several weeks of neap tide. In the northeast,
old mosquito ditches are converted into reservoirs by deepening them and plugging
up their junction with natural tidal creeks (Hruby and Montgomery, 1985). Canals
are dug from reservoirs to mosquito breeding areas to allow passage of sh
(Figure 4). The success of OMWM in controlling salt marsh mosquitoes has been
documented (Ferrigno et al., 1975; Hruby et al., 1985).

Figure 4 This small reservoir pool and two shallow radial canals in a salt marsh in
Gloucester, MA, are part of an OMWM system. The reservoir is 1 m deep, and
the canals are 0.3 m deep. The reservoirs of OMWM systems of mid-Atlantic and
southern salt marshes may be as large as 1 ha or more.

2001 CRC Press LLC

OMWM vs. Grid Ditching

The chief advantage of OMWM compared to grid ditching is that it does not
drain the pannes and pools on the marsh surface. An OMWM system, unlike grid
ditches, is not connected to tidal creeks. Seawater enters reservoirs and canals by
sheet ow directly over the marsh surface during spring high tides, in the same
manner as it oods nearby mosquito breeding habitats. The water is then trapped in
the reservoirs and canals and does not drain out at low tide because the connections
with the tidal creeks have been eliminated. Where water ows through old mosquito
ditches, a sill at the junction of the ditch with a tidal creek, or at a relatively high
point in marsh topography, achieves the same goal.
OMWM systems are site specic. This is more a function of the recent overall
enlightened management of salt marshes than of OMWM in particular, as grid
ditching could also have been site specic. For an OMWM system to function
properly, managers must identify the mosquito breeding sites through a monitoring
program and then integrate the OMWM design into the hydrology of the area.
Another advantage of OMWM systems compared to grid ditching is that they
are easier to maintain. Grid ditches periodically have to be cleaned out or redug
because the steep banks become scoured by tidal action and often collapse. This is
particularly true in the northeastern United States where large tidal ranges occur.
Ironically, this often creates more of a mosquito problem than was initially present
because a clogged ditch that no longer allows passage to sh is an excellent mosquito
breeding habitat. Portnoy (1982) found higher numbers of mosquitoes (Aedes can-
tator) in mosquito ditches, even those treated with a larvicide, than in natural surface
pools untreated with larvicides in a diked river basin on Cape Cod. As OMWM
systems are not subject to the scouring action of tidal water rushing through creeks,
they should require less maintenance, although no one has actually compared the
two types of systems for any length of time.
Finally, the development of rotary ditchers has allowed dredge spoils to be placed
over marshes in a thin layer, thus reducing impacts to vegetation. In OMWM systems
in Massachusetts, vegetation visibly recovers the second growing season after dep-
osition of spoils by rotary ditchers (personal communication, W. Montgomery,
T. Hruby). In New Jersey, thin deposition of dredge had little visible effect on
vegetation even in the initial year of deposition (Burger and Shisler, 1982).

Effect of OMWM on Mosquitoes

Monitoring the success of OMWM efforts in terms of its ability to control

mosquitoes is complex because mosquito numbers and the numbers of broods
produced per year vary substantially both temporally and spatially on the marsh
depending on the timing of rainfall, spring tide events, and temperature. Neverthe-
less, Hruby et al. (1985) determined that the number of mosquito larvae declined
by 75 to 99 percent in the OMWM marsh compared to the numbers in the same site
the year before it was altered, while larval numbers in adjacent control areas
remained roughly the same.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 In addition to allowing sh predation on the mosquito larvae, OMWM systems
are likely to interfere with the hatching cycle of mosquito eggs which need to
incubate for a period in air. The number of larval mosquitoes that survive to pupate
as adults on the marsh surface are negatively correlated with both tidal inundation
and with sh numbers (Figures 5 and 6). In a comparison of mosquito emergence
in an unaltered marsh, a grid ditched marsh, and an OMWM system, signicantly
fewer mosquitoes were observed emerging from the OMWM system than the unal-
tered marsh (unpublished data). No mosquitoes emerged from the ditched marsh.
Fish were present in the ditches of the grid ditched marsh and on the unaltered and
OMWM system marsh surfaces during the spring tide.

Figure 5 Relationship between tide height above the marsh surface during a spring high
tide and the number of mosquitoes that survive to emerge as adults; sampling
occurred in a ditched marsh, an OMWM marsh, and an ulaltered control marsh.

Effect of OMWM on Marsh Processes

There have been few studies of the long-term impacts of OMWM. Brush et al.
(1986) concluded that OMWM had little impact on bird numbers on a Massachusetts
salt marsh. In the rst year after a ditched marsh was converted to an OMWM

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 6 Relationship between sh numbers on the salt marsh and emerging mosquito
numbers; sampling occurred in a ditched marsh, an OMWM marsh, and an unal-
tered control marsh.

system, shorebirds (e.g., sandpipers, plovers, and others) numbers increased, pre-
sumably because the spoils provided accessible foraging for invertebrates. Their
numbers declined in subsequent years as the vegetation grew up through the spoils.
Marsh passerines declined at rst and then increased to pre-OMWM levels, and
other groups of birds were unaffected. Brush et al. suggest that bird numbers were
more closely related to the number of pannes on a marsh than to whether it was
altered by OMWM, ditched, or remained unaltered.
Peat cores from a northern Massachusetts salt marsh were examined for inver-
tebrates using Berlese funnels. No signicant difference in types of organisms was
detected between unaltered marsh and an OMWM marsh (unpublished data).
Occasionally, the reservoir pools of an OMWM system become stagnant during
periods of hot weather and neap tides. Mosquito ditches that have been appropriated
for OMWM seem especially prone to this because they tend to be long, narrow, and
relatively deep. A thick layer of algae may form on the surface with hypoxic or
anoxic water beneath. In Massachusetts marshes, sh kills have not been observed,
but in some Florida counties stagnation and declining water quality of pools have
occurred leading to declines in sh populations. Constructing channels to increase
tidal exchange has mitigated the latter.

Other Potential Management Uses of OMWM

In the future, OMWM techniques may be useful as part of an integrated approach

to restoring degraded marshes. A decline in the invasive brackish water common
reed is evident in OMWM marshes that include a perimeter ditch at the border of
the upland. The perimeter ditch prevents freshwater surface and groundwater ow
from moving out over the natural salt marsh, and salinity levels are maintained at

2001 CRC Press LLC

those appropriate for salt marsh vegetation. Dredge spoils created by OMWM may
be potentially useful for enhancing nesting areas for marsh birds. Dredge spoils may
be colonized by wildlife such as rails that forage on marshes but which require drier
nest sites (Shisler et al., 1978). Judicious placement of dredge spoils into small
islands rather than levees may enhance wildlife habitat of the marsh without imped-
ing circulation. Another way to enhance wildlife habitat value is to design the
reservoir pools so that they function as foraging areas for shorebirds and waders.
This can be accomplished by creating a gently sloping edge to reservoir pools.

Recommendations for Mosquito Control

OMWM is an alteration of a salt marsh with ecological consequences and should

only be used if there is a documented, compelling reason. Ideally, OMWM would
comprise one facet of an integrated approach to mosquito control. At a minimum,
an integrated pest management (IPM) approach to controlling nuisance mosquitoes
on salt marshes is a useful theoretical framework for determining when and how to
intervene. An IPM approach should begin by determining a threshold level at which
control measures are necessary. Although many residents near marshes might assert
that even one mosquito bite per hour is too many, a threshold level of annoyance
that is specically related to salt marsh mosquitoes needs to be determined before
proceeding with any action. If the predetermined annoyance threshold has been
exceeded, then trapping of adult mosquitoes is carried out to determine if mosquitoes
from salt marshes are a signicant cause of the nuisance. If disease is an issue, the
threshold will be some indicator of the presence of the disease.
If salt marsh mosquitoes are shown to be the cause of the nuisance, then mon-
itoring of levels of larval mosquitoes in salt marshes should be initiated. Standards
developed by the Massachusetts Audubon Society and the Essex County
(Massachusetts) Mosquito Control Project include one full year of mosquito larvae
monitoring before any alterations are considered (Hruby and Montgomery, 1986).
Monitoring includes weekly sampling with a standard mosquito larvae dipper
throughout the growing season at stations where mosquito larvae are suspected of
occurring. Control is considered appropriate if three broods of mosquitoes containing
at least ve larvae per dip occur during the growing season. If two broods are
observed with greater than ve mosquitoes per site, then the site is monitored for
another season before a decision is made. Potential impacts of alterations on other
marsh organisms, such as breeding and foraging birds, are also taken into consid-
eration before proceeding further.
When control is justied, the most ecologically benign procedures or combina-
tion of procedures should be selected. A proactive approach includes public educa-
tion to reduce the risk of public exposure and review of drainage plans for devel-
opments, subdivisions, and roads by appropriate local and state agencies to ensure
that they do not contribute to reduced tidal ushing in coastal wetlands. A source
reduction approach for disturbed habitats that supports large populations of larval
mosquitoes includes OMWM (1 ha or larger) areas, or selective ditching in smaller
areas. Although commonly used, pesticide application for nuisance control is less
cost effective than source reduction in the long term. Pesticide use requires repeated

2001 CRC Press LLC

application and will likely require increasing application frequencies and doses as
mosquitoes develop resistance (Oara and Allison, 1986). Any control mechanism
should be evaluated on a regular basis and modied as necessary. Both mosquitoes
and nontarget organisms should be monitored.

Impacts of Docks and Piers

Outright destruction of coastal marshes by private landowners is no longer

allowed in many parts of the country. However, building docks and piers over salt
marshes is still a permitted activity. Although there are few data on this subject,
there is concern on the part of resource managers about the impacts of these struc-
tures on marshes. Managers are particularly concerned about the effects of shading
on vegetation, and the potential for scouring around support posts. The Massachu-
setts Ofce of Coastal Zone Management has recently sponsored research on the
effects of small docks and piers on tidal ats and eelgrass beds adjacent to salt
marshes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for permitting
these structures under Section 404b(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972, requires that marsh vegetation beneath a dock not be impacted by the dock.
No design standards are provided to ensure that light does reach plants beneath the
dock. The Massachusetts Executive Ofce of Environmental Affairs has adopted
pier guidelines (Table 1).
The docks themselves may be less of a problem than the human and boat trafc
they encourage. Marshes are very susceptible to trampling, as scientists who have
repeatedly sampled in the same area of marsh are well aware. A catwalk over a
marsh is probably a less harmful way to reach a boat than walking directly on the
marsh. Footsteps gradually erode a path into the marsh surface leading to loss of
vegetation and subsidence of peat. The boats themselves, maneuvering in the
shallow water of marsh creeks, resuspend sediment that may affect submerged
vegetation and shellsh beds. Boats also contribute to the erosion and slumping of
peat along the banks of marshes. Community piers are an effective alternative to
individual piers.

Buffer Zones and Coastal Wetlands

Wetland laws typically regulate activities within a wetland, and for a small buffer
strip around a wetland. The rationale for regulatory authority over a fringe area
around the wetland is that activities within that fringe potentially impact the wetland.
A number of states have adopted wetland buffers ranging from 45 to 300 m from
the edge of wetlands in critical areas (Table 2). Buffer distances such as these
represent a compromise between protecting the private property interest of the
landowner and the public interest in the wetland. In the ideal world, each buffer
distance would be determined after a case by case analysis of soils, hydrology, slope,
vegetational cover, the characteristics of the wetland resources being protected, and
the nature of the development being proposed. Some states have adopted such a case
by case approach using a ranking system based on the above criteria (Diamond and

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 1 Summary of Guidelines for the Construction of Piers in Critical Areas
T-docks and oats at the end of a pier are preferred in that they allow a vessel to be parallel
to the shoreline and in deeper water; in any case, the stern of a vessel at a pier must be
facing toward deeper water
Seasonal docks are preferred over permanent ones
Pile driving is preferred over jetting
Docks should be as small in scope as possible with as few pilings as possible; the goal is to
allow unimpeded transport of sediment
Spacing of pilings should be no closer than 20 the diameter of the pilings when the dock
is located in a salt marsh and never any closer together than 3 m
Piers in salt marshes should be of wood construction; if treated lumber is used, only
nonleaching types
No stabilization structures should be proposed even if the pier is adjacent to an eroding
bank
Piers located in an anadromous sh run should be designed so that there is no change
in the rate of ow within the run; construction should not be allowed at times when the
sh are running
The pier and the uses of the pier should not encroach upon navigational channels and mooring
areas
A dock should not be designed to end in water that is too shallow to oat the vessel at all
tides; however, very long elevated walkways are likely to have environmental impacts
No pier should extend beyond the length of existing piers used for similar purposes and in no
case should the length extend more than 1/3 of the way across a water body
A higher level of environmental review is required for proposed walkways wider than 4 ft,
proposed oats greater than 300 ft2, and any structure proposed to be less than 4 ft above
a salt marsh; the review should clearly demonstrate that the structure will have no adverse
impact on the marsh, adjacent mudats, or submerged aquatic vegetation
The dock should be designed so that the approach path of vessels is at least 50 ft from the
edge of any salt marsh
The primary factor in determining the location of the dock on a lot is the avoidance of sensitive
resources
The necessity for mitigation should be avoided to the maximum extent possible
Adapted from the Massachusetts Ofce of Coastal Zone Management (1988).

Table 2 Buffer Distances around Critical Areas

Adopted by Various States
Minimum Buffer Zone Width
State (m)
Maine 4590
Maryland 90
New Jersey 90
Rhode Island 60
Washington 60
Wisconsin 300
Adapted from Brady and Buchsbaum (1989).

2001 CRC Press LLC

Nilson, 1988). Unfortunately, political realities, the expense of evaluating individual
properties, and scientic uncertainty about the relationship of the buffer to wetland
functions often make a case by case approach unrealistic.
The rationale for protecting coastal and inland wetlands is that they perform
certain functions that are valuable to the public. Coastal wetlands enhance the water
quality of coastal waters by removing potentially harmful constituents before they
reach open water. Coastal wetlands are also rich habitats for sh, shellsh, and
wildlife. Water quality and habitat values are related because poor water may result
in increased incidence of disease in marine organisms as well as rendering some
organisms, such as shellsh, unharvestable. In addition to these two values, buffers
also help to maintain the aesthetics of a wetland by preserving scenic qualities.

Water Quality Aspects of Buffers

Pathogenic Microorganisms

Buffers can play a key role in a management strategy to reduce pollution before
it reaches a coastal wetland (Abernathy et al., 1985; Lawrence et al., 1985, 1986).
Particulate pollutants, such as microorganisms, suspended solids, and pollutants asso-
ciated with sediments, are slowed down and entrained by physical processes within
the soil. Soluble nutrients may be removed by biological activity within the buffer.
Pollution by bacteria and viruses from domestic wastes is a particular concern in
coastal wetlands. Bacteria and viruses render shellsh unt for human consumption
and create a public health threat at swimming beaches. The percentage of potentially
harmful microorganisms in sewage and stormwater that reaches a wetland area is
largely a function of time. The longer it takes for these organisms to be transported
from their source to a resource area, the less their numbers will be at that resource
area. Bacteria and viruses are adsorbed to soil particles in the buffer, downgradient
movement is slowed, and they eventually die (Hemond and Benoit, 1988).
The velocity of water in surface runoff is much faster than that of groundwater.
Therefore, stormwater runoff will potentially pose a greater risk of microbial con-
tamination than domestic sewage. Stormwater runoff was the major source of high
fecal coliform counts in Buttermilk Bay and many other water bodies in Wareham,
MA (Heufelder, 1988). Fecal coliform bacteria were almost completely attenuated
within 7 m of leaching elds.
Characteristics of the buffer determine in part the extent that microorganisms
are detained. Important characteristics include the permeability of the soil, slope
gradient, extent of vegetation, and degree of channelization. Occasionally, water
percolating through the soil will reach an impermeable layer, such as bedrock or
clay, and then be channelized rapidly into coastal wetlands.
The distance a microorganism will travel from its source and still remain viable
depends not only on characteristics inherent to the buffer but also on the type of
organism. Survival times of up to 27 weeks in soils were reported for some microor-
ganisms, and the distances these organisms traveled from their source ranged from 2
to 837 m (Hagedorn, 1984). Viruses may travel as far as 400 m in groundwater from
sewage inltration basins (Keswick and Gerba, 1980). In seawater and freshwater,

2001 CRC Press LLC

average times for a 90 percent decline in concentrations of coliform bacteria were 2.2
and 57 hr, respectively (Mitchell and Chamberlain, 1978). The lateral distance micro-
organisms will travel from a leaching eld can be estimated based on these die-off
rates and the groundwater ow rate.
Under certain conditions, viruses and bacteria which are potentially harmful to
humans may travel further from their source than buffer distances of even 100 m,
particularly in poorly functioning or antiquated wastewater treatment systems or in
stormwater runoff. Buffer distance is a difcult parameter to isolate in the eld
because it usually correlates with overall density of development. In one study, there
was a signicant correlation between concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in a
salt marsh creek and the number of houses within 30 m of the edge of the marsh
(Bochman, 1991). The number of houses within 30 m, however, correlated with the
total number of houses within the watershed.

Nitrogen

Nitrogen is of particular concern to coastal waters because it stimulates blooms

of phytoplankton and seaweed. These blooms harm the aesthetics of coastal waters
and threaten other marine plant and animal life due to the lowering of light and
dissolved oxygen levels. The efcacy of removing nitrogen with a large buffer
depends on whether the nitrogen enters the wetland through surface runoff or in
groundwater. Nitrate in surface runoff will slowly percolate through the root zone
of plants where it will be taken up by vegetation both in the buffer and the wetland
(Woodwell, 1977; Ehrenfeld, 1987; Knight et al., 1987). However, if the surface
runoff is very rapid, vegetation in the buffer may be ineffective in taking up nitrogen
before it reaches a wetland.
Nitrogen in groundwater will only be removed when it nears the surface of a
wetland or a water body either through plant and algal uptake or through denitri-
cation. When in the groundwater, nitrogen in groundwater is thought to be con-
servative and not subject to attenuation by biological or physical processes (Valiela
and Costa, 1988). If this is the case, a large buffer will not protect a coastal
embayment or salt pond from potential eutrophication unless it provides sufcient
area for dilution. Instead, nitrogen can be managed by land use controls that limit
the amount of nitrogen entering the watershed or by wastewater treatment proce-
dures (denitrication systems, tertiary treatment) that remove nitrogen before it
can enter groundwater.

Wildlife Habitat Aspects of Buffers

There are several reasons why a buffer is thought to enhance the wildlife habitat
value of a coastal wetland. Many wildlife species that live in wetlands depend on
the surrounding upland for cover, nesting, foraging, and migration. According to the
classic ecological notion of the ecotone, wildlife will be more abundant at the
wetland-buffer boundary because two habitat types coexist in close proximity. Many
birds and mammals forage on the abundant invertebrates and sh of a salt marsh
but require the surrounding upland for nesting or as a refuge during high tides. In

2001 CRC Press LLC

addition to providing an alternative source of essential resources, a buffer also
insulates the animals of the wetland from disturbance from developments located
around its periphery, a characteristic that is particularly valuable for smaller wet-
lands. Human activity brings not only noise but also domestic animals and those
native and alien wildlife (e.g., starlings, cowbirds) that are well adapted to human
habitation and often compete with native wildlife in transitional areas. A 90 m
distance has been recommended to provide a buffer against disturbance around state
and federal wildlife refuges and conservation areas (Diamond and Nilson, 1988).
Determining the actual impact of different sized buffers on wetland wildlife in
the eld is difcult, primarily because wildlife respond to a number of different
aspects of the landscape that cannot be controlled. A reasonable approach is to infer
the role of the wetland buffer by examining the life history of different animals. In
habitat evaluation procedures, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service typically considers
buffer size as one component in calculating habitat suitability indices. Rogers et al.
(1975) also evaluate the adequacy of aquatic buffers in ranking of biotic natural
areas of the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
Several examples illustrate the importance of buffers to wildlife species that
occur in coastal salt and freshwater marshes. The area immediately surrounding
coastal wetlands is important for providing the seclusion a number of species of
waterfowl need to nest free from predation and disturbance. Kirby (1988) states that,
It has long been recognized that lands adjacent to areas managed for waterfowl
play a major role in the entire management scheme. Black ducks (Anas rubripes)
nest either on islands in wetlands or in areas immediately adjacent to wetlands up
to 1.2 km from the wetland (Kirby, 1988). Ideal nesting habitat for black duck is
heavily vegetated on at least one side to provide concealment from predators.
Gadwalls (Anas strepera) typically nest in drier shoreline areas within 30.5 m of
water (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986). Canada geese (Branta canadensis) also nest near
the waters edge in fresh and salt marshes (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986).
Short and Cooper (1985) suggest that human disturbance and the resulting loss
of nesting sites have been the most important factors contributing to declines in
some great blue heron (Ardea herodias) populations in New York and British Colum-
bia. Nesting sites for great blue herons may be many miles from their foraging areas
(DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986), and creeks and shallow ponds on marshes are typical
feeding sites. A suitable foraging area should be at least 100 m from human activities
and habitation (Short and Cooper, 1985). In Essex Bay, MA, there is a signicant
inverse correlation between the extent of development in the buffer along the marsh
edge and the number of foraging wading birds (Figure 7).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for mink
(Mustela vison) assumes that a minimum strip of 100 m along the edge of a wetland
enhances the value of that wetland to mink (Allen, 1986). In a study in Alaska, 68
percent of all observations of mink were either in a wetland itself or within 100 m
of the wetland. Rapid declines of mink populations along the shores of Lake Ontario
were associated with small increases in the human population along the shoreline.
River otter (Lutra canadensis) also occur along the edges of coastal ponds, salt
marshes, and estuaries (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986).

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 7 Relationship between the number of houses along the marsh edge and number
of foraging wading birds in a salt marsh in Essex Bay, MA.

Examples of Buffer Protection Programs

A number of states and regions have investigated the question of setting buffer
distances around coastal and inland wetlands. These include Maryland (Rogers et al.,
1975), Rhode Island (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,
1984), New Jersey Pinelands (Roman and Good, 1985), central Florida (Brown and
Shaeffer, 1990), and Washington (Castelle et al., 1992a, b). In addition, Phillips and
Phillips (1988) have independently proposed a method for the estimation of shoreline
buffer zones. Two approaches are illustrated.
Phillips and Phillips (1988) proposed a simple physical model to enable man-
agers to predict the size of a buffer necessary to attenuate pollutants from stormwater.
The delivery of pollutants to a wetland or water body is related to the energy of
surface ow generated during a storm event. This energy can be predicted from

1. The permeability of water into the soil within the buffer

2. The slope gradient down which the stormwater runs
3. The width of the area over which the runoff ows (i.e., the buffer size)
4. The surface roughness of the buffer (Phillips and Phillips, 1988)

2001 CRC Press LLC

The rst is measured as hydraulic conductivity or inltration rate and is generally
available from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for the various soil types. The
second is obtained during the planning stages of any project. Vegetation is a major
part of surface roughness which is factored into the model as a roughness coefcient.
The use of this model requires eld measurement of a nearby reference buffer to
which the buffer under consideration is compared. Because this model is based on
transport of suspended particles, it is valid for bacteria and pollutants associated
with particles, but not for soluble pollutants.
The New Jersey Pinelands Commission, which has regulatory authority over
development in the globally signicant pine barrens of southeastern New Jersey, has
set up a systematic decision-making ow chart for establishing buffer distances from
wetlands resources (Roman and Good, 1985). Major variables taken into account
are the perceived value of the wetland resource and the nature of the activity being
proposed near the wetland. The New Jersey Pinelands model includes several special
cases in which the buffer is set at 90 m. These include proposed activity in a
designated preservation district (the core area of the Pinelands), within 90 m of an
Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) swamp, activities in which resources
are extracted, and activities that include on-site wastewater treatment systems. Atlan-
tic white cedar swamps in the Pine Barrens are afforded particularly strong protection
because they contain a large assemblage of rare species, and they have historically
been severely impacted by human activity. Activities proposed within existing
densely developed areas are required to have a minimum buffer of 15 m.
If none of the special cases apply, then the proposed activity is subject to a three-
step procedure to establish the buffer distance. The evaluator of the project develops
a numerical index of wetland value based on comparing the site-specic wetland to
a standard evaluation scheme. Criteria comprising the value index include presence
or absence of endangered species, vegetation quality, surface water quality, water
quality maintenance, wildlife habitat, and socio-cultural values. Potential localized,
cumulative, and watershed-wide impacts, and the slope, are all considered in deriving
this index. Last, the value and impacts indices are averaged to derive a buffer
delineation index. Wetlands that have a high value index and a high potential for
impacts are assigned the largest buffer distance, 90 m.

Restoration of Degraded Wetlands with Particular Emphasis on

Introduced Species

One aspect of degradation of salt marshes that is often associated with human
activities is the invasion of salt marshes by introduced species, many of which are
exotics (nonnative). The danger is that these species, lacking natural controls in their
adopted habitats, will outcompete the native vegetation and cause overall changes
in the ora and fauna of the marshes.
Introduced low marsh species tend to colonize bare substrate at the lower margins
of marshes (Frenkel and Boss, 1988) and do not generally compete with the native
salt marsh species. A number of species of low marsh plants have been introduced
into Pacic Coast marshes. These include the cordgrasses Spartina alterniora and

2001 CRC Press LLC

S. anglica, and the eelgrass Zostera japonica (Frenkel and Boss, 1988; Calloway
and Josselyn, 1992). The cordgrass S. densiora, a native of Chile, has been acci-
dentally introduced into Humboldt Bay, CA. Modes of introduction of these species
include transport of seeds in oyster culture and in ballast from ships. An example
of an introduced low marsh plant competing with a native species is S. x townsendi,
a vigorous hybrid of the native cordgrass, S. anglica, and the introduced North
American species, S. alterniora. This hybrid is outcompeting S. anglica in British
salt marshes.
The mid and high marshes are less susceptible to colonization by introduced
species than the bare substrate of the low marsh (Frenkel and Boss, 1988). In most
salt marsh systems, these sections tend to be densely vegetated already, requiring a
strong competitive ability if an introduced species is to be successful. In addition,
the suspected sources of marsh plant introductions, oyster culture and ballast, are
generally in direct contact only with low marsh. Nonetheless, the changing mosaic
nature of salt marsh vegetation (Miller and Egler, 1950) insures that bare areas are
always present for opportunistic species. Salt marsh hay, a native of East Coast
marshes, has colonized a number of marshes in the Pacic Northwest. In Siuslaw
Estuary, OR, this species is limited to the relatively open Scirpus maritimusDes-
champsia caespitosa community of the mid marsh, where its dense growth habit
has crowded out native marsh plants. The plants were likely introduced accidentally
in packing material (Frenkel and Boss, 1988). Management of mid and high marsh
invasive species requires mechanical removal of plants, an increasingly difcult
process as the plant population expands.
The vegetation of the upper edge of coastal wetlands, where saltwater grades
into freshwater, is particularly prone to alteration through changes in hydrology. As
mentioned earlier, invasions of common reed along the east coast and cattails in
southern California have been associated with reduction in salinities (Niering and
Warren, 1980; Roman et al., 1984; Beare and Zedler, 1987). Mitigation requires
restoration of the historical tidal exchange by removing barriers and, where ll has
been deposited, regrading the marsh to elevations suitable for salt marsh species.
Because common reed tolerates a wide range of salinities up to about 25 ppt,
mechanical removal of this species may be required to allow reestablishment of salt
marsh species. Although salt marsh managers often view common reed-dominated
habitats as less valuable to wildlife than the native salt marsh (Roman et al., 1984),
it is important to consider the context in which this plant occurs within a mixed
landscape. In urban marshes, dense stands of common reed adjacent to salt marshes
may provide the only cover for wildlife species in an otherwise exposed environment.
The common reed-dominated zone of Belle Isle Marsh in metropolitan Boston, MA
was the part of the marsh where muskrats (Ondatra zibethica) and red-winged
blackbirds (Agelaius phoenicus) nested and black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax
nycticorax) roosted (Buchsbaum and Hall 1990). The American bittern (Botaurus
lentiginosus), an uncommon shy species, occurs primarily within the common reed
zone at this marsh.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

In the last 20 years, the amount of legal protection given coastal wetlands by
the federal government and many coastal states has increased substantially. This,
combined with an increase in our scientic understanding of the ecology of these
habitats, offers hope for future protection and management. Nevertheless, the large-
scale destruction of marshes for development is being replaced by other potential
threats. Mosquito control will continue to be a major factor in the management of
salt marshes and mangrove swamps. Therefore, evaluation of the effects of OMWM
and related procedures on various marsh processes is still required. The projected
expanding human population along the coast (Culliton et al., 1990) will continue to
place pressure on coastal wetlands even when the actual wetland is protected. More
people means development of buffer areas and surrounding watersheds, incremental
losses of small pieces of coastal habitats, and increases in recreational-related struc-
tures and activities that impact coastal wetlands.
Management and mismanagement of coastal wetlands in the past and present
have occurred on a local scale in which decisions have focused on protecting (or
not protecting) individual wetlands. The most signicant future management issues
will be related to global and regional changes that occur on a scale beyond which
there is any precedent for management. The transformation of marshes to deepwater
habitats in Louisiana due to shoreline subsidence, the largest single cause of recent
vegetated wetland loss in the United States, is not a problem amenable to traditional
localized solutions. Similarly, addressing the threat to coastal wetlands caused by
projected rising sea levels will require global cooperation.

REFERENCES

Abernathy, A. R., Zirschy, J., and Borup, M. P., Overland ow wastewater treatment at
Easley, S.C., J. Water Poll. Control Fed., 57, 291, 1985.
Allen, A. W., Habitat Suitability Models: Mink, Revised, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 82(10.127), 1986.
Allen, A. W. and Hoffman, R. D., Habitat Suitability Index Models: Muskrat, U.S. Department
of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.46, 1984.
Balling, S. S. and Resh, V. H., Arthropod community response to mosquito control recircu-
lation ditches in San Francisco Bay salt marshes, Environ. Entomol., 11, 801, 1982.
Balling, S. S. and Resh, V. H., The inuence of mosquito control recirculation ditches on
plant biomass, production, and composition in two San Francisco Bay salt marshes,
Estuar. Coastal Shelf Sci., 16, 151, 1983.
Beare, P. A. and Zedler, J. B., Cattail invasion and persistence in a coastal salt marsh: the
role of salinity reduction, Estuaries, 10, 165, 1987.
Bochman, A., Buffer Zones and Water Quality in the Parker River/ Essex Bay Area of Critical
Environmental Concern: A Correlational Study, Unpublished M.S. thesis, Harvard
University Extension School, 1991.
Bourne, W. S. and Cottam, C., Some Biological Effects of Ditching Tidewater Marshes,
Research Report 19, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1950.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Brady, P. and Buchsbaum, R., Buffer Zones: The Environments Last Defense, Massachusetts
Audubon Society, Wenham, MA, 1989.
Brown, M. and Shaeffer, J., Buffer Zones for Wetlands and Wildlife in East Central Florida,
University of Florida Center for Wetlands, Publication 8907, Gainesville, 1990.
Brush, T., Lent, R. A., Hruby, T., Harrington, B. A., Marshall, R. M., and Montgomery, W. G.,
Habitat use by salt marsh birds and response to open marsh water management, Colonial
Waterbirds, 9, 189, 1986.
Buchsbaum, R. and Hall, M., Baseline Assessment of Belle Isle Marsh in Anticipation of
Restoration, Report to the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, 1992.
Burger, J. and Shisler, J., Succession and productivity on perturbed and natural Spartina salt
marsh areas in New Jersey, Estuaries, 6, 50, 1983.
Calloway, J. C. and Josselyn, M., Introduction and spread of Spartina alterniora in south
San Francisco Bay, Estuaries, 15, 218, 1992.
Castelle, A. J., Conolly, C., Emers, M., Metz, E. D., Meyer, S., and Witter, M., Wetlands
Buffers: An Annotated Bibliography, Publication No. 9210, Adolfson Associates, pre-
pared for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program Washington State Depart-
ment of Ecology Olympia, 1992a.
Castelle, A. J., Conolly, C., Emers, M., Metz, E. D., Meyer, S., and Witter, M., Mauermann,
S., Erickson, T., and Cooke, S. S., Wetlands Buffers: Uses and Effectiveness, Publication
No. 9210, Adolfson Associates, prepared for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management
Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, 1992b.
Clarke, J. A., Harrington, B. A., Hruby, T., and Wasserman, F., The effect of ditching for
mosquito control on salt marsh use by birds in Rowley, MA, J. Field Ornithol., 55,
160, 1984.
Culliton, T. J., Warren, M. A., Goodspeed, T. R., Remer, D. G., Blackwell, C. M., and
McDonough, III, J. J., Second Report of Coastal Trends: 50 Years of Population Change
along the Nations Coast, 19602010, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Strategic Assessment Branch, Rockville,
MD, 1990.
Dahl, T. E., Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 1990.
DeGraaf, R. M. and Rudis, D. D., New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and
Distribution. NE Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report NE-108, U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Forest Service, Broomall, PA, 1986.
DeLaune, R. D., Whitcomb, J. H., Patrick, W. H., Perdue, J. H., and Pezeshki, S. R., Accretion
and canal impacts in a rapidly subsiding wetland. I. 137Cs and 210Pb techniques, Estuaries,
12, 247, 1989.
Diamond, R. S. and Nilson, D. J., Buffer delineation method for coastal wetlands of New
Jersey, Symp. Coast. Water Res. Amer. Water Res. Assoc., May 1988.
Dzierzeski, M., Vegetation Changes in a Hydrologically Altered Salt Marsh Ecosystem,
Unpublished Masters thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durhham, 1991.
Ehrenfeld, J. G., The role of woody vegetation in preventing groundwater pollution by nitrogen
from septic tank leachate, Water Res., 21, 605, 1987.
Executive Ofce of Environmental Affairs, Report of the Living Resources Committee of the
Technical Advisory Group on Marine Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Exec-
utive Ofce of Environmental Affairs, 1991.
Ferrigno, F., Slavin, P., and Jobbins, D. M., Salt marsh water management for mosquito
control, in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the New Jersey Mosquito Control
Association, 1975, 32.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Field, D. W., Reyer, A. J., Genovese, P. V., and Shearer, B. D., Coastal Wetlands of the United
States: Accounting of a Valuable National Resource, Strategic Assessment Branch,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1991.
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Salt Marshes, 1992a.
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Floridas Mangroves, 1992b.
Frayer, W. E., Monahan, T. J., Bowden, D. C., and Graybill, F. A., Status and Trends of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Coterminous United States, Department of
Forest and Wood Science, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, 1983.
Frenkel, R. E. and Boss, T. R., Introduction, establishment and spread of Spartina patens on
Cox Island, Siuslaw Estuary, Oregon, Wetlands, 8, 33, 1988.
Hagedorn, C., Microbiological aspects of groundwater pollution due to septic tanks, in
Groundwater Pollution Microbiology, Bitton, G. and Gerba, C. P., Eds., John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1984, 181.
Hemond, H. F. and Benoit, J., Cumulative impacts on water quality functions of wetlands,
Environ. Manage., 12, 639, 1988.
Heufelder, G., Bacterial monitoring in Buzzards Bay, EPA 503/4-88-001, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA, 1988.
Howes, B., Howarth, R., Teal, J. M., and Valiela, I., Oxidation-reduction potentials in a salt
marsh. Spatial patterns and interactions with primary production, Limnol. Oceanogr., 26,
350, 1981.
Hruby, T., Montgomery, W. G., Lent, R. A., and Dobson, N., Open marsh water management
in Massachusetts: adapting the technique to local conditions and its impact on mosquito
larvae during the rst season, J. Am. Mosquito Contr. Assoc., 1, 85, 1985.
Hruby, T. and Montgomery, W. G., Open Marsh Water Management Manual for Open Tidal
Marshes in the Northeast, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Ecosystems Management
Series, 1986.
Jensen, A., The effect of cattle and sheep grazing on salt marsh vegetation at Skallingen,
Denmark, Vegetatio, 60, 37, 1985.
Jordan, T. E., Correll, D. L., Peterjohn, W. T., and Weller, D. E., Nutrient ux in a landscape:
the Rhodes River watershed and receiving waters, in Watershed Research Perspectives,
Correll, D., Ed., Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, 1986.
Keswick, B. and Gerba, C., Viruses in groundwater, Environ. Sci. Technol., 14, 1290, 1980.
Kirby, R. E., American Black Duck Breeding Habitat Enhancement in the Northeastern United
States: A Review and Synthesis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
88(4), 1988.
Knight, R. L., McKim, T. W., and Kohl, H. R., Performance of a natural wetland system for
wastewater management, J. Water Poll. Control. Fed., 59, 746, 1987.
Lacey, L. A. and Undeen, A. H., Microbial control of mosquitoes and blackies, Ann. Rev.
Entomol., 11, 265, 1986.
Lawrence, R. R., Leonard, R., and Sheridan, J. M., Managing riparian ecosystems to control
nonpoint pollution, J. Soil Water Conserv., 40, 871, 1985.
Lawrence, R. R., Sharpe, J. K., and Sheridan, J. M., Long term sediment deposition in the
riparian zone of a coastal plain watershed, J. Soil Water Conserv., 41, 266, 1985.
Lesser, C. R., Murphy, F. J., and Lake, R. W., Some effects of grid system mosquito control
ditching on salt marsh biota in Delaware, Mosquito News, 36, 69, 1976.
Massachusetts Ofce of Coastal Zone Management, Guidelines for Dock and Pier Construc-
tion in ACECs and Ocean Sanctuaries, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, Exec-
utive Ofce of Environmental Affairs, Boston, MA, 1988.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Mendellsohn, I. A., McKee, K. L., and Patrick, W. H., Oxygen deciency in Spartina alterni-
ora roots: metabolic adaptations to anoxia, Science, 214, 439, 1981.
Mendelssohn, I. A. and McKee, K. L., Spartina alterniora die-back in Louisiana: time course
investigation of soil waterlogging effects, J. Ecol., 76, 509, 1988.
Miller, W. B. and Egler, F. E., Vegetation of the Weqetequock-Pawcatuck tidal-marshes, Conn.
Ecol. Monogr., 20, 143, 1950.
Mitchell, R. and Chamberlain, C., Survival of indicator organisms, in Indicators of Viruses
in Water and Food, Berg, G., Ed., Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI, 1978, 15.
Montague, C. L., Zale, A. V., and Percival, H. F., Ecological effects of coastal marsh impound-
ments: a review, Environ. Manage., 11, 743, 1987.
Niering, W. A. and Scott Warren, R., Vegetation patterns and processes in New England salt
marshes, BioScience, 30, 301, 1980.
Nixon, S., The Ecology of New England High Salt Marshes, FWS/OBS-8155, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Ofce of Biological Service, Washington, D.C., 1982.
Oara, D. D. and Allison, J. R., A comparison of alternative mosquito abatement methods
using benet-cost analysis, J. Am. Mosquito Contr. Assoc., 2, 522, 1986.
Phillips, J. D. and Phillips, L. R., Delineation of shoreline buffer zones for stormwater
pollution control, Symp. on Coastal Water Res. Amer. Water Res. Assoc., 1988.
Portnoy, J. W., Report on the Mosquitoes of the Herring River Basin, Cape Cod National
Seashore, 1982, Report No. 12, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, North
Atlantic Region Water Resource Program, 1982.
Portnoy, J. W., Summer oxygen depletion in a diked New England estuary, Estuaries, 14,
122, 1991.
Provost, M. W., Source reduction in salt marsh mosquito control: past and future, Mosquito
News, 37, 689, 1977.
Resh, V. H. and Balling, S. S., Tidal circulation alteration for salt marsh mosquito control,
Environ. Manage., 7, 77, 1983.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Coastal Resource Management
Plan, Ofce of Environmental Coordination, Providence, RI, 1984.
Rogers, J., Syz, S., and Golden, F., Maryland Upland Natural Areas Study, Vol. 1, Eastern
Shore, Prepared for Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program, Annapolis,
MD, 1975.
Roman, C. T. and Good, R., Buffer delineation model for New Jersey pinelands wetlands,
Division of Pinelands Research Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ, 1985.
Roman, C. T., Niering, W. A., and Warren, R. S., Salt marsh vegetation change in response
to tidal restriction, Environ. Manage., 8, 141, 1984.
Rozas, L. P., McIvor, C. C., and Odum, W. E., Intertidal rivulets and creekbanks: corridors
between tidal creeks and marshes, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 47, 303, 1988.
Shisler, J. and Jobbins, D. M., Aspects of biological productivity in mosquito ditched salt
marshes, Proc. NJ Mosquito Exterm. Assoc., 62, 48, 1975.
Shisler, J., Lesser, F. H., and Schultze, T. L., Re-evaluation of some effects of water manage-
ment on the Mispillion Marsh, Kent County, Delaware, Proc. NJ Mosquito Exterm.
Assoc., 66, 276, 1975.
Shisler, J., Schultze, T. L., and Howes, B. I., The effect of the marsh elder (Iva frutescens)
on the standing crop biomass of Spartina patens and associated wildlife, Biol. Conserv.,
14, 159, 1978.
Short, H. J. and Cooper, R. J., Habitat suitability index models: great blue heron, U.S. Fish
Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(10.99), 1985.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Sinicrope, T. L., Hine, P. G., Warren, R. S., and Niering, W. A., Restoration of an impounded
salt marsh in New England, Estuaries, 13, 25, 1990.
Slavin, P. and Shisler, J. K., Avian utilization of a tidally restored salt hay farm, Biol. Conserv.,
26, 271, 1983.
Tiner, R. W., Recent changes in estuarine wetlands of the coterminous United States, Coastal
Wetlands Coastal Zone 1991 ConferenceASCE, 1991, 100.
Turner, R. E. and Rao, Y. S., Relationships between wetlands fragmentation and recent
hydrologic changes in a deltaic coast, Estuaries, 13, 272, 1990.
Urner, C. A., Relation of mosquito control in New Jersey to bird life of the salt marshes,
Proc. 22nd Annu. Meet. New Jersey Mosquito Exterm. Assoc., 130, 1935.
Valiela, I. and Costa, J., Eutrophication of Buttermilk Bay, a Cape Cod coastal embayment:
concentrations of nutrients and watershed nutrient budgets, Environ. Manage., 12,
539, 1988.
Valiela, I., Teal, J. M., and Deuser, W. G., The nature of growth forms of the salt marsh grass,
Spartina alterniora, Am. Nat., 112, 461, 1978.
Ward, G. and Fitzgerald, G. J., Fish predation on the macrobenthos of tidal salt marsh pools,
Can. J. Zool., 61, 1358, 1983.
Watzin, M. C. and Gosselink, J. G., The Fragile Fringe: Coastal Wetlands of the Continental
United States, Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, LA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., and National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD, 1992.
Weissberg, S. B. and Lotrich, V. A., Importance of an infrequently ooded intertidal marsh
surface as an energy source for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus: an experimental
approach, Mar. Biol., 66, 307, 1982.
Woodwell, G. M., Recycling sewage through plant communities, Am. Sci., 65, 556, 1977.
Zedler, J. B., Wineld, T., and Williams, P., Salt marsh productivity with natural and altered
tidal circulation, Oecologia, 44, 236, 1980.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Kent, Donald M. Watershed Management
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 12

Watershed Management

Donald M. Kent

CONTENTS

Managing Watersheds
Elements of Management
Denition and Delineation
Watershed Characterization
Prioritization
Developing and Implementing a Watershed Program
Monitor and Adjust
Source Control
Municipal Wastewater
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Agricultural BMPs
Urban Stormwater Runoff BMPs
Innovative Solutions
Watershed-Based Trading
Case Studythe Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Anacostia Watershed Restoration
References

Wetlands tend to occupy topographic low points in the landscape and are thus
recipient of water and eroded materials from higher in the landscape. The inux of
water and other materials gives each wetland its character, supports its internal
processes, and in part determines wetland function and value. In meager or excess
amounts, water and other materials may alter or hinder wetland processes and

2001 CRC Press LLC

diminish functions and values. Therefore, effective wetland management requires
management of parts of the landscape contributing water and other materials to
wetlands. The contributing areas of the landscape constitute the watershed.
The concept of managing at the scale of watersheds has been evolving in the
United States for about 100 years. In the 1890s, the U.S. Inland Waterways Com-
mission recommended to Congress that each river system be treated as an integrated
system. Throughout the rst half of the 20th century, the focus of watershed man-
agement was on the use of water resources for energy, navigation, ood control,
irrigation, and drinking water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b). In
1944, the Pick-Sloan Plan proposed to reduce ood damage by constructing large
dams. The plan was opposed by some that believed that more effective ood control
could be accomplished by managing rural, upstream watersheds than by constructing
large dams (Peterson, 1998).
During the 1950s and 1960s the management emphasis shifted to protecting
drinking water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b). The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1956 funded publicly owned treatment works, and the Water
Quality Act of 1965 required states to develop standards for interstate waters.
The Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act of the 1970s and 1980s further
emphasized large-scale protection of water resources. The Clean Water Act estab-
lished a permitting program for point source polluters, provided additional funding
for wastewater treatment and state water quality programs, and authorized programs
to reduce, prevent, and eliminate pollution to surface and ground waters. The Safe
Drinking Water Act established the basis for protecting surface and ground water
supplies with an emphasis on preventing contamination.
In recent years, the focus of water quality management has shifted to include
nonpoint sources of pollution. Watershed management provides a necessary frame-
work for managing nonpoint pollution. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency developed the Watershed Protection Approach (1995a). Through focus
on hydrologically dened resource areas, rather than jurisdictional boundaries, the
Watershed Protection Approach is designed to more effectively protect and restore
aquatic resources and protect human health than the historical approaches. The
Approach targets priority problems, involves stakeholders, seeks integrated solu-
tions, and measures success.

MANAGING WATERSHEDS

A watershed is technically a divide separating one drainage area from another

(Chow, 1964). More commonly, and as applied to watershed management, water-
sheds are areas that drain to surface water bodies. Watersheds come in all shapes,
and range in size from a few to several million km2. Depending upon the type and
extent of water quality problems, administrative boundaries, and technical con-
straints, watershed management may be applied to local watersheds, major water-
sheds, river basins, aquifers, or composites of surface watersheds and aquifers.
From a water quality standpoint, watersheds have two elements. Terrestrial
habitats, including urban, suburban, and rural areas, are the sources of particulate

2001 CRC Press LLC

and dissolved materials. Particulate and dissolved materials derive from wastewater
discharges, stormwater runoff, and erosion. The other element, surface water bodies
including streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, and coastal habitats, are the recep-
tacles for particulate and dissolved materials. Materials may become trapped in the
receiving water body or be transported downstream.
Watershed management attempts to sustain and improve water quality by focus-
ing on hydrologically dened resource areas. This is in contrast to historical efforts
to regulate individual point sources of pollution. Watershed management also inte-
grates various efforts to manage nonpoint sources of pollution. A fundamental
premise of watershed management is that water quality and ecosystem issues can
be more effectively addressed at the watershed level than at the level of the individual
waterbody or polluter (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a). Because
watershed management addresses both point and nonpoint sources of pollution, it
is an effective mechanism for protecting water and habitat quality.
Several benets, all of which save time and money, derive from watershed
managements holistic approach (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a, b,
1996a). Regulatory efciency is enhanced by coordinated monitoring, shared respon-
sibility for assessment, and consolidated permitting. Decision making is improved
by consideration of all stressors affecting water quality, systematic review of water-
shed basins, an increase in the availability and level of detail of watershed informa-
tion, and a pooling of resources. An enlarged information base, systematic review,
and enhanced coordination improve targeting of resources; and resources are focused
on environmental results rather than programmatic activities such as permitting and
reporting. Finally, innovative solutions are encouraged by watershed management,
including ecological restoration, protection of critical areas, wetland mitigation
banking, and watershed-based trading.
Inherent to a successful watershed management program is stakeholder involve-
ment. Stakeholders are individuals and organizations that are affected by water
quality management decisions. This includes state and federal agencies charged with
protecting water quality, businesses that rely on water or discharge waste, and
citizens that use waterbodies and waterways for drinking water or recreation. Stake-
holders share responsibility for monitoring, setting priorities, and developing and
implementing management strategies.

Elements of Management

Watershed management has ve elements (see Figure 1):

1. Denition and delineation

2. Characterization
3. Prioritization
4. Program development and implementation
5. Monitoring and adjustment

Each of these elements will now be discussed briey.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Figure 1 Elements of a watershed management program.

In addition, watershed management requires development of a project team and

public support. The former may include local, state, regional, and federal regulating
agencies, research scientists, policymakers, trade associations representative of
pollution sources, and nongovernmental organizations. The composition of the
project team will vary with geographic scope and institutional infrastructure. Public
support is important for developing applicable management goals, encouraging

2001 CRC Press LLC

cooperation among disparate project team members, implementing management
actions, and monitoring success.

Denition and Delineation

Denition and delineation are the selection of management boundaries. Man-

agement boundaries may encompass local watersheds, groups of local watersheds,
river basins, aquifers, or some combination of watersheds, basins, and aquifers.
Ideally, management boundaries should be large enough to benet from an economy
of scale, take advantage of government and technical expertise, and yet be manage-
able for the long term (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a). As mentioned
above, the boundary will in practice reect the type and extent of the water quality
issues and administrative boundaries. Nested watersheds, where small watersheds
are subsets of larger watersheds, facilitate management at multiple scales (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b). For example, local stakeholders can
manage local watersheds, while state or regional entities can manage river basins.

Watershed Characterization

The watershed should be characterized after the management boundary has been
dened and delineated. The purpose of characterization is to describe the physical
characteristics of the watershed, to determine the water quality status and trends of
watershed waters, and to identify potential water quality stressors and their sources.
The physical description of the watershed should include geology, topography,
soils, land use, hydrology, and signicant biological resources. The latter may
include threatened and endangered species and critical habitat. Surface water bodies
should be described with respect to their designated uses and physicochemical and
biological water quality. A baseline water quality monitoring program will need to
be established if existing information is inadequate. Ideally, the baseline program
will include physical, chemical, and biological indicators of water condition (see
Chapter 8).
Potential point (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities, industrial discharges) and
nonpoint (e.g., urban stormwater, agricultural runoff) sources of pollution should be
described by location, type, and absolute and relative loadings to the receiving body
(Table 1). Rarely does one source or one type of pollution cause a problem. Existing
control measures should also be described. Projecting expected watershed demo-
graphics and land use as they relate to potential sources of pollutants is also helpful
at this stage.

Prioritization

Watershed characterization may identify few issues, and available resources

may be sufcient to effect comprehensive management. More likely, the extent and
degree of watershed issues will exceed the resources expected to be available for
management. In such instances, watershed goals, targets, and action items must be
prioritized. Prioritization may be logically directed at individual waterbodies or

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 1 Water Quality Stressors Typically Associated with Land
Uses and Land Use Activities
Land Use or Activity Stressor
Agriculture Sediment
Nutrients
Bacteria
Pesticides
Construction Sediment
Forestry Sediment
Golf courses Nutrients
Pesticides
Impoundments Altered hydrology
Industrial discharge Inorganic and organic chemicals
Metals
Mining Sediments
Metals
Septic systems Nutrients
Bacteria
Urban runoff Sediment
Nutrients
Bacteria
Pesticides
Altered hydrology
Metals
Wastewater treatment facility Nutrients
Bacteria

waterways within the watershed (Table 2). Alternatively, specic pollutants or pol-
lutant sources could be prioritized.
Water quality impairments that pose a risk to public health should receive top
priority and be addressed as quickly as possible. Other policy-related criteria include
water quality goals, designated water uses, and waterbody or waterway value. These
criteria are related when the waterbody or waterway is used for drinking water,
commercial shing, or recreation. Waters with more stringent water quality goals,
greater designated uses, and higher value might reasonably receive high priority.

Table 2 Criteria for Prioritizing Watershed

Management Efforts Directed at Improving
Waterbody and Waterway Water Quality
Degree of waterbody/waterway impairment
Designated use of the waterbody/waterway
Knowledge about water quality, stressors, and sources
Probability of success
Resources available for management
Risk to ecosystem health
Risk to public health
Stakeholder support
Type of waterbody/waterway impairment
Value of the waterbody/waterway
Water quality goals for the waterbody/waterway

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Programmatic criteria, including knowledge about watershed waters, resources
available for management, stakeholder support, and probability of success, also
impact the implementation of management actions. Insufcient knowledge about
the watershed will require a return to the characterization stage. Alternatively,
insufcient knowledge about individual waters may eliminate their consideration
from the management process. In the absence of sufcient resources, some goals,
targets, and action items may have to be eliminated. Lack of stakeholder support
may necessitate initiation of an education program and postponement of actions.
Conversely, projects with stakeholder support will be easier to implement. Goals,
targets, and action items with a high probability of success are important at the
beginning of a watershed management program to demonstrate program effective-
ness to stakeholders.
The type and degree of water quality impairment and ecosystem health relate
directly to the physical, chemical, and biological character of the waterbody or
waterway. Waterbody and waterway water quality can be compared against regula-
tory or designated use standards or against the minimum requirements of aquatic
organisms such as sh. Reviewing plant and animal richness and diversity can assess
ecosystem health. Systems with impaired water quality or poor ecosystem health
may be priorities.
As noted above, the threat to public health will be the superceding criteria for
prioritization. In the absence of a public health risk, other criteria may become
superceding based upon local or regional policy concerns, programmatic constraints,
or stakeholder interest. Nevertheless, particularly in the early stages of a watershed
management program, formalized evaluation of assorted criteria facilitates consid-
eration of multiple perspectives, exible problem solving, and stakeholder support.
This approach also provides a basis for reevaluating a goal, target, or action item if
circumstances change. A matrix analogous to the site selection criteria matrix illus-
trated in Chapter 5 could be used to ensure careful consideration of all issues.

Developing and Implementing a Watershed Program

Developing and implementing a watershed management program requires

knowledge of the type and degree of water quality problems, the source of the
problems, and the available and achievable solutions. This was achieved in the
characterization stage. The prioritization stage helped determine the sequence of
management actions. This stage has two components: program development and
program implementation.
Program development focuses on dening a strategy for improving watershed
water quality. This is accomplished by setting management goals, targets, and action
items. Goals are long-term visions of the watershed and may be programmatic,
activity-based, centered on best management practices (BMPs) installation, water
quality-oriented, or biological. An example goal might be stating that all surface
waters will support commercial and recreational sheries by the year 2010. Setting
of additional near-term or interim goals may facilitate continued stakeholder support
and a sense that progress is being made toward long-term goals. Goals are supported
by targets, which are specic, quantiable objectives. For example, reducing nutrient

2001 CRC Press LLC

loads by 50 percent and restoring historical riparian vegetation will restore commer-
cial and recreational sheries. Finally, action items ensure that goals and targets will
be achieved. Action items are specic projects with assigned roles and responsibil-
ities and a scheduled completion date. For example, the local chapter of the ecolog-
ical restoration society will restore bank vegetation along a 1 km stretch of the
headwater stream extending from point A to point B, beginning May 1, 2000 and
completing the restoration by June 30, 2000.
Together, the goals, targets, and action items will be a mix of local and watershed-
wide regulations, management practices, economic incentives, and education and
training programs. Again, one of the benets of watershed management is the
opportunity for innovative solutions, such as pollution trading (discussed later in
this chapter), ecological restoration (see Chapter 6), and mitigation banking (see
Chapter 7). Installation of controls should be site specic and tailored to hydrology,
topography, geology, the resource to be protected, and politics.
Documentation in the form of a watershed management plan is fundamental to
program development. The plan should describe the watershed, characterize water
quality and pollutant sources, list priorities, and describe the process leading to
setting of goals, targets, and action items. In addition, the plan should dene roles
and responsibilities, identify funding sources and mechanisms, establish a schedule,
and describe how program effectiveness will be assessed. Documenting development
of the watershed management program facilitates reevaluation, claries intent and
the decision-making process, and serves as a reference for future management. The
plan should be periodically updated.
Program implementation requires reaching consensus on goals, targets, and
action items, developing an organizational infrastructure for effecting controls, and
establishing procedures. Consensus is facilitated by stakeholder involvement in
watershed denition and delineation, characterization, prioritization, and program
development. An organizational infrastructure must carry out management actions,
account for funds, maintain the schedule, and communicate to stakeholders. Controls
must be properly installed and subject to periodic inspection and maintenance.
Effective actions should be documented as procedures and become part of the
watershed plan.
Successful watershed management programs will secure commitments for fund-
ing and installation and management of controls. Commitments should come from
both those implementing and administering actions and from those installing con-
trols. Commitments may be formal or rely on public accountability (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1995a). The former are written and detail expectations
for all parties. The latter provide for public review through meetings or publications.
Funding may derive from the operating budgets of participating organizations,
businesses, municipal bonds, taxes, grants from nonparticipating organizations, dona-
tions, or fees. Additional support may come from in-kind contributions. Large or
complex watershed management programs may benet from a funding schedule. The
schedule would reect potential funding sources, application dates, dates funding is
required, and tasks to obtain funding (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a).
Ultimately, successful programs have multiple incentives for stakeholder partic-
ipation (Table 3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a). Stakeholders

2001 CRC Press LLC

should be thoroughly educated about the reasons, goals, and progress of the water-
shed management program. Individuals responsible for implementing, installing,
and maintaining pollution controls should receive adequate training and technical
assistance. Individuals and businesses should be compensated for control costs that
benet society as a whole.

Table 3 Incentives for Participating in a Watershed Management Program

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a)
Incentive Description
CostShare Payment to polluters for the installation of controls
Education Including function and value of waterbodies and waterways; goals,
targets, and action items; benets of controls; and progress
Purchase Purchase of critical areas including source water protection areas,
riparian areas, critical habitat, lands from owners unwilling to
institute controls
Regulation Environmental laws and regulations, zoning ordinances, use
restrictions, performance standards
Tax advantage Conservation easements, credits for installation of controls
Technical assistance Installation of controls, training of on-site managers, provision of
procedural documents

Monitor and Adjust

Ideally, monitoring will have been effected prior to the implementation of any
management actions to characterize the watershed and provide a baseline for com-
parison, and after the implementation of management actions, monitoring documents
the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of the watershed management program. Docu-
mented monitoring results also provide the basis for communicating with stakehold-
ers and facilitate long-term maintenance of pollutant controls.
Perhaps most importantly, monitoring provides a basis for making adjustments
to the watershed management program. Adjustments will be necessary if manage-
ment actions are partly or wholly ineffective at achieving program goals or targets.
Program adjustments will also be necessary if management actions are effective;
goals and targets must be reprioritized. Finally, monitoring provides a basis for
making program adjustments in response to signicant land-use changes.
Monitoring plans should derive directly from program goals, targets, and action
items. Continuing with the earlier example, monitoring of native sheries might
include direct counts of sh, preferably by age class. Depending upon program
goals, monitoring may encompass biological, chemical, physical, and program-
matic parameters (see Chapter 8). Table 4 lists parameters commonly monitored
as part of a watershed management program. Chemical and physical parameters
should be monitored routinely, as well as during storm events, to characterize the
initial ush of pollutants. Biological parameters effectively may be monitored
seasonally or annually.
Voluntary citizen monitoring programs have become increasingly common in
the United States. The success of these programs is dependent upon effective training
and a good quality assurance/quality control program.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 4 Parameters Likely To Be Monitored in a
Watershed Management Program
Type Parameter
Biological Benthic macroinvertebrate richness
Biotic index
Fish and wildlife abundance
Fish and wildlife richness
Vegetation cover or density
Vegetation richness
Chemical Biological oxygen demand
Dissolved oxygen
Nutrient concentration
pH
Toxicants
Physical Suspended solids
Temperature
Turbidity
Programmatic Enforcement actions
Funds received and disbursed
Meetings
Permit issuance
Reports

SOURCE CONTROL

Municipal Wastewater

Municipal wastewater contains suspended solids, biodegradable organics (e.g.,

proteins, carbohydrates, fats), pathogens, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phos-
phorus. Depending upon the service area, wastewater may also contain organic and
inorganic carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, acutely toxic compounds, pesticides,
heavy metals, and dissolved organics. In the absence of high concentrations of the
latter constituents, nutrients are the primary constituents of concern. Excessive
nutrients discharged to aquatic environments increase the growth of undesirable
plants and algae, decrease dissolved oxygen levels, and in some instances promote
ammonia toxicity.
In the early 20th century in the United States, wastewater was discharged directly
to streams and rivers via storm sewers. The accumulation of sludge, odors, and other
unsightly conditions led to the separation of storm drains and sewers, and the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Initially, most treatment facilities
provided only primary treatment, which consisted of screening and sedimentation
to remove oating and settleable solids. Later, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency mandated secondary treatment as the minimum standard for facilities. Sec-
ondary treatment involves biological and chemical processes to remove most of the
organic matter.
Treated wastewater was historically disposed of by the easiest method possible.
For coastal communities, this may have included ocean discharge, a practice that is

2001 CRC Press LLC

increasingly discouraged (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Away from the coast, discharge
to inland surface waters is the most common method for disposing of treated
wastewater. Surface discharge relies on the assimilative capacity of the receiving
water, a capacity that has been increasingly exceeded for many waterways in the
latter part of the 20th century. In response, many wastewater facilities are being
required to provide advanced treatment.
Advanced wastewater treatment removes additional suspended and dissolved
substances, especially nitrogen and phosphorus. At conventional treatment facilities,
advanced processes remove nitrogen by biological nitrication and denitrication,
separate stage biological denitrication, airstripping, breakpoint chlorination, and
ion exchange (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Phosphorus is removed by chemical pre-
cipitation with metal salts or lime, and ltration. Microorganisms can also be stressed
to force additional phosphorus uptake.
Large wastewater facilities exceed the treatment needs and nancial resources
of small communities. Clustered homes may use a package treatment facility. More
typically, rural homes will use on-site treatment consisting of a septic tank and
disposal eld. BOD, SS, N, P, bacteria, and viruses are the primary constituents of
concern with on-site disposal. Onsite systems should be set back from surface and
ground waters, the distance of the setback contingent upon system capacity and soil
permeability (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Schueler (1995) has noted that more than
one on-site septic system per 2.8 ha can result in shellsh bed closures (Figure 2).

Figure 2 On-site septic systems located too close to coastal waters can result in shellsh
bed closures.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Natural treatment systems have many of the same treatment processes as con-
ventional facilities (e.g., sedimentation, ltration) and have additional, unique treat-
ment processes (e.g., photosynthesis, plant uptake). Land-based and wetland systems
effect treatment of municipal wastewater. Both types of systems are preceded by
mechanical pretreatment including ne screening and primary sedimentation.
The three fundamental types of land treatment are slow rate, rapid inltration,
and overland ow (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Slow rate systems are potentially the
most effective land treatment and entail the application of wastewater to vegetated
land to provide treatment and irrigation. Wastewater is consumed by plants and is
evapotranspirated. Treatment is effected in large part by wastewater percolation
through the soil. Rapid inltration systems entail the intermittent application of
wastewater to shallow, unvegetated inltration or spreading basins. As with slow
rate systems, treatment occurs as wastewater percolates through the soil. Overland
ow systems are relatively less effective than slow rate and rapid inltration systems
and are used in areas with relatively impermeable soils. Wastewater is distributed
across the upper part of a graded, vegetated slope, and runoff is collected in ditches
at the toe of the slope. Treatment is effected primarily by evapotranspiration.
Wetland systems are inundated areas supporting aquatic vegetation (Kadlec and
Knight, 1996). Filtration, sedimentation, precipitation, plant uptake, and other pro-
cesses effect signicant reduction and removal of wastewater constituents. Chapter 9
discusses wetland treatment systems at length.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Best management practices (BMPs) are operational procedures designed to

reduce pollutant discharge to surface water or groundwater and to minimize changes
to hydrology and hydraulics. BMPs reduce the pollutant load by reducing the volume
of discharge water, reducing the concentration of pollutants in discharged water, or
both. A watershed management program may include agricultural and urban BMPs
(Tables 5 and 6).

Agricultural BMPs

Modern agricultural practices rely on fertilizers and pesticides to increase crop

yield. Excess or misapplied fertilizer can cause algal blooms, stimulate growth of
noxious plants, and decrease available oxygen for sh and other aquatic organisms.
High concentrations of nitrogen may cause methemoglobinemia (see Chapter 5).
Pesticides can be chronically or acutely toxic to humans and aquatic organisms.
Agricultural practices may also be accompanied by excessive erosion. Sediment
erosion increases surface water turbidity and may smother benthic organisms. Nutri-
ents, pesticides, and heavy metals occur in particulate form or can be attached to
dirt, sediment, and detritus. Sediment accumulation may also alter waterway hydrol-
ogy and hydraulics by increasing ow velocity and decreasing ow capacity.
Fertilizer BMPs operate by reducing the amount of fertilizer used and retaining
unused fertilizer on-site (Bottcher et al., 1995; South Florida Water Management
District, 1999). BMPs include soil chemistry management and calibrated soil

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 5 Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for Agriculture
Fertilizer control
Banding fertilizer
Calibrated soil testing
Cover crop
On-farm retention of drainage water
Soil chemistry management
Split application
Pesticide control
Buffer zone
Spill management
Integrated pest management
Mixing, loading, and washdown location
Precise application
Sediment control
Bank contouring
Bank stabilization
Sediment traps and settling basins

Table 6 Best Management

Practices (BMPs) for
Urban Stormwater Runoff
Buffer zones
Fertilizer management
Green parking lots
Land-use restrictions
Limit soil disturbance
Minimize impervious surface
Stormwater retention and treatment

testing, banding and split application, on-site retention of drainage water, and
buffer zones (Table 5, Figure 3). Soil chemistry management maintains the soil
pH to maximize the availability of nutrients to plants, minimize nutrient leaching,
and immobilize metals. Calibrated soil testing bases fertilizer recommendations
on yieldresponse curves developed by correlating soil nutrient levels with crop
yields. Banding places fertilizer in strips adjacent to plant roots and is most
effective for crops without a continuous root mat. Split application is the practice
of applying half the total amount of fertilizer semi-annually rather than all at one
time. Buffer zones between crops and surface waters help prevent the misappli-
cation of fertilizer to adjacent surface waters.
Pesticide BMPs rely heavily on educating and training applicators (Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, 1998). Mixing, loading, and equipment washdown loca-
tions should be permanent, consisting of an impermeable surface located close to
the storage building. Impermanent mixing, loading, and washdown locations should
be relocated frequently to prevent the accumulation of pesticides to toxic levels.
Both permanent and impermanent facilities should be located away from surface

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 3 Buffer zones between elds and surface waters minimize misapplication and lter
runoff.

waters. As with fertilizers, establishment of buffer zones between crops and surface
water will minimize the inadvertent application of pesticides to water resources.
Establishing formal practices and procedures effects spill management. For example,
containers are stored upright with tight, closed covers in sealed bottom, covered
facilities. Any spills are contained with barriers and absorbent material. Precise
application reduces the quantity of pesticide used on the crop. Techniques include
controlled droplet technology, canopy-dimension spray machine discharge towers,
drift control agents, spray calibration and maintenance, and minimized bandwidth.
Pesticide quantities can be further reduced through integrated pest management
(IPM). IPM encompasses a broad spectrum of practices that cumulatively minimize
pests (Leslie, 1994; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1998). Key pests and benecial
organisms are identied, and cultural practices are implemented to minimize pests
and enhance biological controls. Practices include soil preparation, crop rotation,
use of resistant crop varieties, variable planting dates, modied irrigation, and cover
crops. Benecial organisms may also be augmented. Chemicals are applied only
when pests are present.
Sediment erosion can be minimized by increasing ditch sideslopes to reduce
erosion potential, contouring the top of the bank away from surface waters, and
stabilizing the bank (Bottcher et al., 1995; South Florida Water Management District,
1999). The latter can be achieved by using rock gabions at the water line, rip-rap,
or establishing rooted plants. Sediment that escapes the site can be captured in
settling traps and basins. Sediment traps are barriers placed in widened sections of

2001 CRC Press LLC

ditches or canals. The traps slow water velocity, inducing the settling of particles.
Settling basins are sumps in the bottom of ditches or canals that collect suspended
particles. Accumulated sediments must routinely be removed from sediment traps
and settling basins.

Urban Stormwater Runoff BMPs

In urban and suburban areas, runoff from impervious substrates is an important

contributor to watershed degradation. Impervious cover increases stream peak dis-
charge, velocity, and volume. The increase in ows widens streambanks and down-
cuts the streambed. In addition, impervious surfaces collect pollutants from the
atmosphere, vehicles, and other sources which are, in turn, transferred to surface
waters during storm events (Figure 4). Stormwater runoff constituents include nutri-
ents, metals, hydrocarbons, bacteria, and viruses (Bingham, 1994). Stream degrada-
tion, including disruption of benthic communities and sheries, occurs at 10 to 25
percent impervious cover (Hollis, 1975; Garie and McIntosh, 1986; Luchetti and
Fuersteburg, 1993; Schueler, 1995). Minimizing lot setbacks, decreasing road
widths, and narrowing or eliminating sidewalks can reduce the amount of impervious
cover. Clustering development can reduce the amount of impervious surface by 10
to 50 percent, primarily by reducing roadways (Schueler, 1995).

Figure 4 Pollutants from the air, vehicles, and other sources are transferred from parking
lots to surface waters during storm events.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Runoff from impervious surfaces can be retained and treated using stormwater
BMPs. Stormwater BMPs include in-line treatment methods like inlets, catchbasins,
sump pits, and oil and grit separators (Schueler, 1987; England, 1997). However,
in-line BMPs have limited storage capacity, and large storm events tend to resuspend
trapped particles. Frequent maintenance is required. End of pipe BMPs include
detention basins and retention ponds, vegetated lters, and ltration and inltration
devices. These BMPs are discussed at length in Chapter 5.
The principles of impervious surface reduction and stormwater retention and
treatment can also be extended to parking lots (Schueler, 1995). To reduce surface
area, spaces can be allotted for compact cars. The use of porous pavement and
interlocking pavers instead of asphalt and concrete increases inltration and
decreases runoff. Stormwater retention and treatment can be effected by directing
surface runoff to specially designed areas within or adjacent to the parking lot (Bitter
and Bowers, 1994). These areas lter or inltrate runoff.
Other methods for reducing watershed degradation from urban runoff include
land use restrictions, buffer zones, limiting soil disturbance, and fertilizer manage-
ment. Land use restrictions can prevent development in, or in close proximity to,
critical areas such as streams, oodplains, riparian zones, shorelines, wetlands, and
steep slopes. Buffer zones between critical areas and development offer additional
protection by preventing inadvertent or indirect impacts. Buffer zones also provide
ltering and inltration of runoff and reduce disturbance to wildlife. Limiting soil
disturbance on construction sites to the immediate work area, and implementing
sedimentation and erosion controls, will minimize transport of soil and other particles
to aquatic resources (see Chapter 5). Lawn and garden fertilizers can be managed
in much the same way as described for agricultural areas to prevent eutrophication
and methemoglobinemia.

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS

Watershed management provides opportunities for innovative problem solving.

Chief among these are habitat restoration, mitigation banking, and watershed-based
trading. Wetland enhancement, restoration, and creation are the subject of Chapter 6,
and mitigation banking is the subject of Chapter 7. Watershed-based trading is
discussed next.

Watershed-Based Trading

Watershed-based trading is an exchange of efuent control responsibility

between pollutant dischargers to achieve water quality objectives (U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1996b; Commonwealth of Virginia, 1996). A market-based
approach, watershed-based trading enables a pollutant source with a high cost of
control to purchase allowances from dischargers elsewhere in the watershed with a
lower cost of control. Allowances are a quantity of efuent the discharger is allowed
to release. The exchange of allowances does not increase overall efuent discharge
in the watershed.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Several potential benets accrue from watershed-based trading to regulators,
trading partners, and the community at large (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1996b). Economically, the cost of pollutant control is reduced for individual dis-
chargers by purchasing the least expensive option and taking advantage of economies
of scale. As a direct corollary, the overall cost of managing water quality in the
watershed is reduced. Dischargers that sell allowances reap direct nancial benets.
Environmentally, watershed-based trading may achieve equal or greater water quality
for the same or less cost, provide an incentive to polluters to go beyond the minimum
pollutant reduction required, and encourage innovation. Innovation may address
broader goals like conservation and preservation, ecological restoration, and endan-
gered species protection. Socially, watershed-based trading encourages dialogue
among stakeholders. Programmatically, watershed-based trading provides managers
with a exible approach for accelerating watershed-wide water quality improvement
programs for point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
Participants in a watershed-based trading program could include point source
dischargers, indirect dischargers (i.e., industrial or commercial operations that dis-
charge to a treatment facility), and nonpoint sources. Trading might occur intra-
facility, between point source dischargers, between indirect dischargers, between
nonpoint sources, or between point and nonpoint sources (Table 7). Fundamentally,
a trading program requires a buyer to compensate the seller to reduce pollutant loads
sufciently to bring both facilities or land uses into compliance with discharge or
water quality standards. The basis for the trade may be total maximum daily load
or another expression of total efuent per unit of time that establishes a loading
capacity for the dened area. Alternatively, the basis for the trade may be a point
source permit. Public or private banks that buy and sell pollutant allowances may
also effect trading.

Table 7 Types of Watershed-Based Trading (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

1996b)
Intra-facility trading A facility cost-effectively allocates pollutant discharges among
outfalls
Point source to point A point source purchases an allowance from a second point source
source trading rather than reduce its own pollutant discharge
Pretreatment trading An indirect discharger purchases an allowance from a second
indirect discharger rather than increase its own pretreatment
Nonpoint to nonpoint A nonpoint source polluter purchases an allowance from a second
source trading nonpoint source polluter rather than enhance its own control
practices
Point to nonpoint A point source purchases an allowance from a nonpoint source
source trading rather than reduce its own pollutant discharge

Trading systems may take one of three forms (Commonwealth of Virginia, 1996).
Open trading systems represent a slight departure from the typical permit process
by allowing regulated sources to modify permits to reect an exchange of pollution
control requirements. Allowances are only created when a source discharges less
than the amount allowed under the permit. A closed trading system establishes an
efuent discharge limit for a specied group of dischargers within a geographical

2001 CRC Press LLC

area. Responsibility for efuent control is delegated to individual group members,
and trading can only occur if total efuent discharge does not exceed the prescribed
limit. A full closed system extends the closed system concept to all efuent discharge
sources within the watershed. All point and nonpoint sources are assigned an initial
allocation of allowances. As with closed systems, new pollutant sources are only
permitted by acquiring existing allowances.
Development of an effective watershed-based trading program requires consid-
eration of several issues. Trading demand is created when discharge limits are
constrained. When trading demand is created, there should be a clear transfer of
nancial and legal obligations. Trading is most effective when partners are close, as
efuent distribution will shift with increasing distance. Nonpoint sources and best
management practices are more difcult to quantify than point sources. Trades
between point sources and nonpoint sources should include a trading ratio that favors
the point source to compensate for this uncertainty. Monitoring of receiving waters,
best management practices, and nances is essential.

CASE STUDYTHE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED

Management of the Chesapeake Bay watershed illustrates many of the principles

and practices discussed throughout this chapter. Chesapeake Bay is the largest
estuary in the United States (Figure 5). The Bay is home to more than 2700 species
of sh and wildlife, and is surrounded by 15 million people. A total of 48 major
tributaries drain over 25,910 ha in Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
West Virginia. The Bay is shallow, averaging only 8 m, and has a ratio of land area
to water volume of 10 to 1.
Exacerbated by shallow water and the large land-to-water ratio, the Chesapeake
Bays decline was evident in the 1950s, but it was not until the 1970s that scientists
attributed the decline in Bay water quality to three factors: excess nutrients, sedi-
ment, and toxic chemicals. Nutrients originated from domestic wastewater dis-
charges and agricultural and stormwater runoff. Agricultural areas, construction
sites, and erosion were the source of sediments. Toxic chemicals originated with
businesses within the watershed.
Initial efforts to reverse the decline in Chesapeake Bay water quality focused on
upgrading wastewater treatment facilities. However, these efforts were insufcient
to accomplish Bay restoration, leading to comprehensive efforts to control nonpoint
sources of pollution. In 1983, the governors of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
the mayor of the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency agreed to cooperate toward solving Chesapeake Bay water quality problems.
In 1987, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, as it became known, established
a goal of reducing nutrient input to the Bay by 40 percent from 1985 levels by the
year 2000. Several interrelated programs, including the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Act and the Anacostia Restoration Agreement, have been developed to accomplish
this goal.
The Virginia General Assembly enacted the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
in 1988 to establish a cooperative program between state and local governments to

2001 CRC Press LLC

 New York

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

Virginia

Figure 5 The Chesapeake Bay and Anacostia River (shaded area) watersheds.

reduce nonpoint source pollution. Inherent to the Act is an effort to balance economic
interests and water quality concerns by requiring the use of resource management
practices for environmentally sensitive lands. The Act establishes a relationship
between local land use decisions and water quality protection by granting local
governments the authority to manage water quality. With the exception of towns that
drain directly to the Atlantic Ocean, all cities and counties bordering on tidal waters
(i.e., Tidewater, VA) are required to comply with the Act.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The Act established the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board. The Board is
comprised of nine individuals representing various locales and interests such as
agriculture, environmental management, nonagricultural businesses, and govern-
ment. According to the Act, the Board is charged with promulgating and maintaining
regulations, providing technical and nancial assistance to Tidewater governments,
providing technical assistance and advice to regional and state agencies, and ensuring
that local government plans and ordinances are in compliance with Act regulations.
The Board is assisted by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
(1995), a state agency in the Secretariat of Natural Resources. The Department
provides technical assistance and advice to local governments. Assistance includes
administering a grants program, interpreting Act regulations, compliance reviews of
comprehensive plans and ordinances, and review of private development plans. The
Department also provides training for local planners and engineers.
The Board promulgated Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and
Management Regulations in 1989. The Regulations establish a framework for com-
pliance and require local Tidewater governments to adopt a water quality program.
Listed in the Regulations are 11 performance criteria (Table 8). Local programs,
which tend to differ among localities, adopt or amend local land use plans and
ordinances to incorporate water quality protection measures consistent with the Act.
Program compliance has three phases.

Table 8 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management

Regulations Performance Criteria (Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department, 1995)
Minimize impervious cover
Minimize disturbed land
Preserve existing vegetation
Pump out septic tanks every 5 years and require 100 percent reserve drainelds for new
development
Erosion and sediment control for disturbances greater than 2500 ft2
No net increase in stormwater pollutant loadings for new development and 10 percent reduction
in loadings for redevelopment
Plan review for developmemt exceeding 2500 ft2
Agricultural conservation plans
Forestry best management practices
Evidence of wetland permits prior to clearing or grading
Regular and periodic best management practice maintenance

Phase I objectives include determining the geographic and ecological extent of

environmentally sensitive lands, mapping said lands, designating Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas, and implementing water quality performance criteria. Chesa-
peake Bay Preservation Areas are those lands that have the potential to most directly
impact water quality. These are lands that protect water quality, Resource Protection
Areas (RPAs), and lands that could potentially damage water quality, Resource
Management Areas (RMAs).
RPAs are presumed to lter pollutants from runoff and include a 30 m landward
buffer. Development within RPAs is restricted to water dependent projects, redevel-
opment, water wells, passive recreation, and historic and archeological activities.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 RMAs are contiguous with the inland boundary of RPAs. If improperly used or
developed, RMAs have the potential to degrade water quality or otherwise damage
RPAs. RMAs include lands with highly erodible soils or steep slopes, highly per-
meable soils, 100-year oodplains, and nontidal wetlands not included in RPAs.
Development is permitted in RMAs in accordance with performance standards.
Local governments can designate parts of RPAs and RMAs as Intensely Devel-
oped Areas under certain conditions. More than 50 percent of the land area must be
covered by impervious surface, the land area must have public water and sewer, or
the existing housing density must be 10 or more units per ha. The designation is
intended to encourage redevelopment and inll activity rather than new development.
Phase II objectives require local governments to adopt a Comprehensive Plan or
Plan Amendment that incorporates water quality protection measures consistent with
the Act. The Comprehensive Plan provides a policy framework for community
development. Act regulations require that the comprehensive plan address physical
constraints to development, protection of potable water supplies, shoreline erosion,
access to waterfront areas, and redevelopment. Local governments may include other
elements in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, Table 9 lists policies of the
Fairfax County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan, which emphasize prevention of pol-
lution from nonpoint sources (Fairfax County, 1990).

Table 9 Policies of the Fairfax County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan Designed to

Prevent and Reduce Pollution of Surface Waters
Implement a best management practice (BMP) program
Update BMP requirements as more effective strategies become available
Minimize impervious surfaces
Minimize the application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to lawns and landscaped areas
Preserve stream valleys when locating and designing stormwater dentention and BMP facilities
Update erosion and sediment regulations; minimize grading
Retrot stormwater management ponds to become BMPs
Monitor BMP performance
Maintain high standards for discharges from point sources

Phase III objectives require local governments to adopt or revise a zoning

ordinance (e.g., erosion and sediment control) that protects water quality consistent
with the Act. Many local governments amend existing ordinances to encompass the
11 performance criteria listed in the Act. Phase III provides local governments with
an opportunity to revisit the criteria and incorporate language specic to their local
land use management program. An evaluation of the compatibility of Act regulations
with local development standards also occurs in Phase III.
Nutrient pollution in the watershed is declining, but additional efforts are required
(Chesapeake Executive Council, 1996; Chesapeake Bay Program, 1999). Phosphorus
loads to the bay were reduced by 2,721,500 kg per year between 1985 and 1997,
and the 40 percent reduction goal is likely to be achieved. Nitrogen loads declined
by 14,515,000 kg per year, but additional reductions are needed to achieve the 40
percent reduction goal. Gains in nonpoint source nitrogen reduction were offset by
increases in point source nitrogen. Additional reductions to achieve the 40 percent
goal may come from upgrades to wastewater treatment facilities, an option that was

2001 CRC Press LLC

earlier rejected because of cost. Nutrient reductions have not markedly improved
water clarity in the Bay.
Other indicators suggest the program is having an impact. Many waters of the
watershed that had been closed to shing because of kepone contamination have
been reopened. Industries within the watershed reduced chemical releases by 67
percent between 1988 and 1997. More than 700,000 ha of farmland were placed
under nutrient management (i.e., comprehensive plans for efcient nutrient use)
between 1985 and 1997. Restoration efforts have reforested 350 km of riparian
zone, and sh passage construction and barrier removal have reopened 1000 km of
spawning habitat.

Anacostia Watershed Restoration

The Anacostia River watershed is a critical area within the Chesapeake Bay
Program and illustrates management approaches at a local level. The Anacostia River
has a 70 ha watershed in the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Water
quality problems in the Anacostia are largely attributed to combined sewer overows,
urban runoff, and erosion from construction activities and surface mining operations
(Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1990; Anacostia Restoration
Team, 1991). The situation has been exacerbated by a 75 percent reduction in
watershed forest cover.
The State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George (Maryland) Counties,
and the District of Columbia initiated the Anacostia Restoration Agreement in 1987.
The Anacostia River Restoration Committee is the primary oversight group and is
comprised of representatives from the aforementioned entities, County and District
of Columbia departments, state and federal agencies, and nongovernmental organi-
zations. Various policy and technical committees coordinate the participation of more
than 60 different agencies.
The Restoration Committee established broad water quality, biological, land use,
and outreach goals for the Anacostia watershed (Table 10). The primary program-
matic mechanism for accomplishing these goals is the development of Subwatershed
Action Plans (SWAPs). SWAPs detail the schedule and location of watershed
projects and are intended to streamline the approval of individual projects and dene
roles and responsibilities. Each SWAP will assess water quality and the aquatic
community, dene goals and targets, identify management opportunities, prioritize
projects, and monitor results. In addition, each SWAP will develop plans to increase
wetlands and forest cover within the subwatershed.
Management actions are focused on implementation of basin-wide controls,
stream restoration, and communicating with stakeholders (Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, 1990). Basin-wide controls include abatement of combined
sewer overows, retrotting of urban stormwater controls, new discharge restrictions
on point sources of pollution, enhanced stormwater and sediment control regulations
for development, and surface mine reclamation. Stream restoration efforts include
the establishment of stream buffers, riparian restoration, streambank stabilization,
and sh habitat enhancement. The progress of the basin-wide controls and stream

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 10 Goals of the Anacostia River Restoration Committee
Reduce pollutant loads in the tidal estuary by the turn of the century
Enhance aquatic diversity and provide for an urban shery
Restore the spawning range of anadromous sh
Increase the acreage of tidal and nontidal wetlands
Expand the range of forest cover and create a contiguous corridor
Make the public aware and increase volunteer participation
Adapted from Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1992. With
permission.

restoration efforts is being assessed through baseline, performance, and storm event
water quality sampling, and biological and habitat surveys.
Considerable effort is being devoted to communicating watershed issues, project
goals, and results to stakeholders (Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments, 1998). An annual report details the implementation of controls, restoration
efforts, and monitoring results. A quarterly newsletter is devoted to citizen accom-
plishments and restoration activities. Subbasin educational documents have also been
developed. In addition, subbasin coordinators promote public participation through
slide presentations, stream walks, and clean-up efforts.
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Program continues to make progress
toward its goals (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1998). Instal-
lation of a swirl concentrator facility has reduced oatable material and total phos-
phorus discharges from the largest combined sewer overow by 25 to 30 percent.
No sh kills have been reported in the river since 1992, and submerged aquatic
vegetation has begun to reestablish itself in lower sections of the river. Stream
restoration projects have been initiated and completed, and native sh reintroduced
to part of the watershed have survived. Anadromous sh spawning habitat has been
increased by 30 km by removal and modication of barriers to sh movement. Tidal
and nontidal wetlands have been created, and amphibians have been restored to
vernal pool habitats. More than 25,000 trees have been planted on 20 ha in support
of riparian forest restoration. The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
public outreach program has communicated to more than 60,000 people, and the
Anacostia River Education Center was established by the District of Columbia and
the Potomac Electric Power Company. Efforts continue to control stormwater runoff
and high sediment loads and to expand recreational opportunities in the watershed.

REFERENCES

Anacostia Restoration Team, A Commitment to Restore Our Home River: A Six Point Plan
to Restore the Anacostia River, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, D.C., 1991.
Bingham, D. R., Wetlands for stormwater treatment, in Applied Wetlands Science and
Technology, Kent, D. M., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1994, 243.
Bitter, S. and Bowers, J., Bioretention as a water quality best management practice, Water
Prot. Tech., 1(3), 114, 1994.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Bottcher, A. B., Izuno, F. T., and Hanlon, E. A., Procedural Guide for the Development of
Farm Level Best Management Practice Plans for Phosphorous Control in the Everglades
Agricultural Area, Version 1.1, Circular 1777, University of Florida Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, 1995.
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, A Guide to the Bay Act, 1995.
Chesapeake Bay Program, The State of the Chesapeake Bay: A Report to the Citizens of the
Bay Program, EPA 903-R99-013, CBP/TRS 222/108, Annapolis, MD, 1999.
Chesapeake Executive Council, Commonwealth of Virginia Shenandoah and Potomac River
Basins Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy, nal comment draft, Virginia Secretary of
Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Department of Environmental Quality, 1996.
Chow, V. T., Handbook of Applied Hydrolog, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.
Commonwealth of Virginia, Commonwealth of Virginia Shenandoah and Potomac River
Basins Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources,
Virginia Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, Virginia Department of Conser-
vation and Recreation, and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 1996.
England, G., Stormwater sediment control using bafe boxes and inlet devices, in Proceedings
of the Fifth Biennial Stormwater Research Conference, South Florida Water Management
District, 1997, 142.
Fairfax County, Policy Plan: The Countywide Policy Element of the Comprehensive Plan for
Fairfax County, Virginia, 1990.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Best Management Practices for Agrichemical Handling and
Farm Equipment Maintenance, 1998.
Garie, H. and McIntosh, A., Distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates, Water Res. Bull., 22,
447, 1986.
Hollis, G., The effect of urbanization on oods of different recurrence intervals, Water Res.
Res., 11(3), 431, 1975.
Kadlec, R. H. and Knight, R. L., Treatment Wetlands, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1996.
Leslie, A. R., Ed., Integrated Pest Management for Turf and Ornamentals, Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL, 1994.
Luchetti, G. and Fuersteburg, R., Relative sh use in urban and nonurban streams, Proceedings
of the Conference on Wild Salmon, Vancouver, Canada, 1993.
Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse, 3rd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, The state of the Anacostia: 1989 status
report, prepared for the Anacostia Watershed Team, Washington, D.C., 1990.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Anacostia Watershed Restoration Progress
and Conditions Report, 19901997, prepared for the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee, 1998.
Peterson, J. W., Meet the National Watershed Coalition, Land Water, January/February,
10, 1998.
Schueler, T., Controlling Urban RunoffPractical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban
Best Management Practices, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, D.C., 1987.
Schueler, T., Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection, prepared for the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C., 1995.
South Florida Water Management District, Guidebook to Develop a BMP Environmental
Protection Plan, draft, 1999.

2001 CRC Press LLC

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Watershed Protection: A Project Focus, Environmental
Protection Agency 841-R-95-003, Ofce of Water, Washington, D.C., 1995a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach, Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency 841-R-95-004, Ofce of Water, Washington, D.C., 1995b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Why watersheds, Environmental Protection Agency
800-F-96-001, Ofce of Water, Washington, D.C., 1996a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading,
Environmental Protection Agency 800-R-96-001, Ofce of Water, Washington,
D.C., 1996b.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Kent, Donald M. Managing Global Wetlands
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 13

MANAGING GLOBAL WETLANDS

Annette M. Paulin and Donald M. Kent

CONTENTS

The Ramsar Convention

Membership
Wetland Denition and Classication
Management
Additional Support
Case Studies
Florida Everglades
Functions and Values
Threats and Impacts
Conservation Effort
The Mekong Delta
Functions and Values
Threats and Impacts
Conservation Efforts
The Pantanal
Functions and Values
Threats and Impacts
Conservation Efforts
The Wadden Sea
Functions and Values
Threats and Values
Conservation Efforts
References

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Historically, a signicant amount of wetland management effort has been focused
on individual wetlands. Commonly, individual wetlands are encompassed and reg-
ulated by a single authoritative unit, such as a town or city. With the advent of
watershed management, the focus has broadened to include simultaneous consider-
ation of multiple wetlands. Watershed management typically requires cooperation
and coordination among several authoritative units, such as municipalities, counties,
and states. Managing wetlands that cross international boundaries or wetlands within
a single country, but that are of international importance, poses additional challenges.
Managing wetlands that cross international boundaries requires cooperation and
coordination among countries. This may be accomplished informally by communi-
cation between respective government environmental agencies, or formally by estab-
lishment of joint proclamations or management plans. Understanding that an indi-
vidual countrys best interests are served by ensuring protection of shared wetland
resources is fundamental to effective management.
In some instances, wetland function and value, even those contained with a single
country, may be of global importance. For example, a wetland may function as ood
storage for downstream, transboundary communities. Continued wetland function
would ensure that downstream communities have adequate irrigation for agriculture
and are protected from catastrophic oods. Alternatively, a wetland may be a critical
breeding or wintering area for migratory sh and wildlife.
Managing wetlands at the global level could be self-regulating. That is, resource
users, whether governments or private entities, would recognize the value of wetlands
and protect their investment. The World Trade Organization might be a model or a
vehicle for this type of management. Success would require sustainable use of
resources, an accurate valuation of all wetland values, and a mediation process.
Lending institutions might also effect management. Funding of signicant develop-
ment projects would require conduct of a costbenet based environmental impact
assessment. The perspectives of both the applicant country and the international
community would need to be considered. Some international lending institutions
require an impact assessment, but the process does not appear to adequately value
wetland resources.
Presently, the United Nations through the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
effects management of global wetlands. Participation in the Ramsar Convention is
voluntary, and there is no enforcement authority. Wetland protection is effected
through education and management assistance. The rst part of this chapter describes
the approach and operation of the Ramsar Convention. The balance of the chapter
describes four wetlands of international signicance. The wetlands illustrate a range
of challenges and the conservation efforts being enacted to protect wetland functions
and values.

THE RAMSAR CONVENTION

The primary instrument for the protection and management of wetlands on a

global scale is the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
(Ramsar Convention, 1999). As of 1999, there were 114 contracting nations and 975

2001 CRC Press LLC

wetlands totaling 70.7 million ha. The United Nations Educational, Scientic, and
Cultural Organization serves as the depository for information, and funds the Con-
vention. The Ramsar Convention recognized that wetlands have great economic,
ecological, and cultural value, and that encroachment and loss of wetlands must be
reduced. Because water resources for wetlands often cross political boundaries, the
Ramsar Convention now provides a framework for intergovernmental cooperation
in the conservation and wise use of wetlands.

Membership

A nation must have one listed wetland to become a participating member of the
Ramsar Convention. A wetland can be listed if it satises at least one of several
criteria. Geographical and ecological criteria include being representative of a natural
or near natural wetland, common to more than one biogeographical region, repre-
sentative of a wetland that plays an important role in the natural connection of a
major river basin or coastal system (especially where located in a transborder
position), or unique as a rare or unusual type of wetland in the biogeographical
region. A wetland may also satisfy listing criteria by playing a role in plant or animal
species integrity. For example, the wetland may support rare, vulnerable, or endan-
gered species by maintaining genetic and ecological diversity of the ora or fauna
of a region, by providing habitat for plants or animals at a critical stage of their
biological cycle, or by containing one or more endemic plant or animal species or
communities. The nal criteria for listing are related to biological value and are
based on supporting regulatory waterfowl communities of 20,000 or more individ-
uals, a substantial number of a particular group of waterfowl, or 1 percent of the
individuals in a population of a species or subspecies of waterfowl.
If a wetland satises at least one criterion, it will be listed as a wetland of
international importance. If a wetland fails to satisfy the criteria, measures may be
taken to restore or enhance its values and function in order to meet one of the criteria.
If these measures fail, the site will be not be listed.
Dues are paid based on a sliding scale determined by Gross National Product
of the member nation. Members of the Ramsar Convention have certain obligations.
These include considering wetland conservation within the framework of land-use
planning, promoting conservation of wetlands throughout their region, and estab-
lishing wetland reserves. Members must also provide in-country training in the elds
of wetland research and management, and exchange information and data with other
members of the Convention. Finally, members must consult with the Ramsar Con-
vention regarding management implementation, especially when it involves trans-
boundary wetlands, shared water resources, or shared development aid for projects.

Wetland Denition and Classication

The Ramsar Convention has a denition and classication system for identifying
wetlands of international importance. Wetlands are dened as areas of marsh, fen,
peatland, or water, whether natural or articial, permanent or temporary, with water
that is static or owing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the

2001 CRC Press LLC

depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters and may incorporate
riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetland, and islands or bodies of marine
water deeper than six meters at low tide lying within the wetlands (Davis, 1994).
The denition incorporates ecosystems that are an integral part of a major water
system and is broader than many other operational wetland denitions (see
Chapter 1).
The Ramsar Convention (Davis, 1994) recognizes four major types of wetlands.
Marine wetlands are coastal wetlands including rocky shores and coral reefs. Estu-
arine wetlands are located between salt water and fresh water bodies, or dry land
including deltas, tidal marshes, and mangrove swamps. Lacustrine wetlands are
wetlands associated with lakes. Palustrine wetlands are isolated marshes, swamps,
or bogs. Wetlands are classied when listed as wetlands of international importance
by the Ramsar Convention.

Management

The Convention assists members with plans of action for management of their
wetlands by sharing information and through the activities of a Scientic and Tech-
nical Review Panel. The Panel is comprised of experts in the eld of wetland
management. They provide members with expert opinions and assist with the design
of management plans.
The management planning process has three steps: description of the site, form-
ing evaluations and objectives, and designing an action plan or prescription. Descrip-
tion of the site includes identifying the wetland type(s) and creating an inventory of
the ora and fauna. This rst step is used to establish criteria for listing the site.
The evaluation provides a detailed report of the site, including information on
biological diversity, integrity, rarity, fragility, history, cultural and aesthetic value,
social and economic value, education and research opportunities, and potential uses
for recreation. In evaluating the site, concise objectives are formed for best man-
agement practices. These objectives are based strictly on the evaluation of the site,
and are intended to fully protect its characteristics. After the objectives are outlined,
any factors that may hinder their achievement, including both natural and human-
induced, are identied. Considering the objectives and mitigating factors, operational
objectives are developed. Management strategies are established based on the best
possible alternatives under the given circumstances. A limit of acceptable change is
established to meet protection obligations.
Finally, a plan of action is outlined which may include zoning, habitat manage-
ment, species management, contextual uses, education, and research initiatives.
Specic projects and work programs are designed to implement these actions. Over
time, reviews of progress at the site are presented to the Ramsar Convention to
ensure operational success, or to facilitate changes in objectives and action plans.

Additional Support

The Ramsar Convention provides additional assistance to member nations

through three documents: the Montreux Record and Monitoring Procedure (Davis,

2001 CRC Press LLC

1994), Towards the Wise Use of Wetlands (Davis, 1993), and the Economic Valuation
of Wetlands (Barbier et al., 1997). The Montreux Record lists priority sites that are
undergoing ecological changes owing to human activities. The Scientic and Tech-
nical Review Panel supports a procedure for monitoring site changes and imple-
menting management strategies.
National management strategies are encouraged to comply with guidelines
described in Towards the Wise Use of Wetlands (Davis, 1993). The Ramsar Con-
vention denes the wise use of wetlands as sustainable utilization for the benet
of mankind in a way compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of
the ecosystem (Davis, 1993). Guidelines include establishing an integrated
approach to policy making using coordinated efforts of national, regional, and local
institutions, and providing policies that promote wetland protection in land-use
planning, environmental audits, nancial incentives, and permit processes.
Wise Use provides examples of management strategies by describing wetland
inventories, monitoring techniques, research on identifying values, wetland use, and
landscape function. The management strategies include establishment of training
programs and promotion of public awareness (Davis, 1993). Actions outlined by
Wise Use include maintaining ecological integrity, sustainable use, balancing restric-
tions with cultural uses, and integrating wetland management with development
plans. The latter seeks to achieve a balance between conservation and the use of
wetland resources. Wise Use also provides 17 case studies to illustrate management
issues and lessons learned from the implementation of the Wise Use guidelines.
The Ramsar Convention developed a guide, Economic Valuation of Wetlands
(Barbier et al. 1997), to facilitate the economic valuation of wetland resources.
Developed in conjunction with the Department of Environmental Economics and
Environmental Management at the University of York, the Institute of Hydrology,
and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the document outlines several
approaches to valuate the economic value of wetlands and weigh the benet of
development strategies with the degradation it may cause to wetland resources. One
somewhat unique aspect of the document is the emphasis on social, cultural, and
political values for decision-making. This is accomplished by addressing not only
the valuation of direct economic benets from wetlands (e.g., timber and food
resources), but also indirect economic benets (e.g., biological functions such as
ood attenuation and future uses and benets) and nonuse values (e.g., biodiversity
and cultural heritage).
The framework provided in Economic Valuation of Wetlands includes seven steps
(Table 1). In practice, the valuation requires an interdisciplinary approach and the
cooperative effort of specialists, including economists, hydrologists, shery and
wetland biologists, and sociologists.
The rst step in the valuation is selecting the appropriate approach. There are
three assessment approaches, impact analysis, partial valuation, and total valuation,
available based on the type of development and degree of impact to the wetlands
integrity. An impact analysis assesses the external costs of off-site development or
activities such as discharges from industries or mining activities. This analysis would
compare the benet of the activity to the losses in specic wetland resources from
off-site impacts. A partial valuation is used to evaluate changes in the allocation or

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 1 Framework for the Economic Valuation of Wetlands
(Barbier et al., 1997)
1. Select an assessment approach
2. Dene the wetland boundary and system boundary
3. Identify and rank wetland components, functions, and attributes
4. Relate components, functions, and attributes to type of use value
5. Identify information required to assess uses
6. Quantify economic values
7. Implement the appraisal method

the alternative uses of wetland resources. An example is the diversion of oodwater

for irrigation. While not all of the wetland resources may be impacted, valuation of
the benets lost is compared to benets gained from the irrigation project. In addition,
evaluation of the alternative uses of the oodwater would be considered. Such alter-
natives may be the use of oodplains for sh farming or agricultural benets from
nutrient loading of oodwaters. The third approach, total valuation, is used to evaluate
a wetlands contribution to society as a whole. This valuation may be applied in
wetland preservation strategies and regional natural resource assessments.
The second step in the framework is to dene the wetland area, time scale, and
analytical boundaries of the assessment. The dened parameters will differ based
on the assessment approach. An impact assessment may only require a short time
scale such as the time discharge ows from an industry and small analytical bound-
aries such as the area of the water resources impacted. A total valuation may require
consideration of all wetland resources, a large analytical boundary, and an extended
time scale.
Step three identies the corresponding functions and attributes of the wetland.
This step requires review of previous research and may require additional research
to ensure thorough identication of the functions and attributes to be considered in
the valuation. This critical stage will also require the collaborative teamwork of
specialists in differing elds.
Step four in the valuation denes and prioritizes the values of the identied
wetland functions and attributes (see Chapter 3). Functions and values may be use
(e.g., direct, indirect, and option or quasi-option) or nonuse. Direct uses are values
most often used in economic valuation studies because these activities are directly
marketed. Examples of direct use include agricultural resources, fuelwood, recreation,
harvesting, and transportation uses. In many instances, these activities are used for
subsistence purposes and appropriate evaluation techniques must be applied. How-
ever, either as marketed or subsistence resources direct use can be quantied based
on a marketed economic value. Indirect use values are primarily ecological functions
that protect or support direct uses. These values include ood attenuation, erosion
control, nutrient retention, and groundwater recharge. Option and quasi-option values
are potential future uses (both direct and indirect) and future information use. Value
accrues by delaying development or exploitation. Option and quasi-option values
may change with changes in economic, social, and scientic circumstances.
Nonuse value is the wetlands intrinsic existence value. The most difcult to
quantify, nonuse value includes biodiversity, cultural heritage, and preservation for

2001 CRC Press LLC

future generations. Contributions to conservation campaigns are one indicator of the
value society places on these uses.
Step ve in the valuation process is to obtain detailed information about the
identied values. This information includes scientic data, statistical data on human
uses, economic inputs and outputs of activities, and survey results, and is critical to
the valuation process. For example, scientic data will provide details on indirect
use values such as ood retention capacity, degree of erosion protection, populations
of harvested species, and growth rates of forests. Statistical data on human uses and
economic inputsoutputs of activities, including agricultural and shery yields and
tourism revenuesprovide detail on direct marketable uses. Information from sur-
veys may provide valuable information on option based or intrinsic values that are
otherwise difcult to quantify.
Once an appropriate assessment approach is chosen, and values are identied,
classied, and dened statistically, the actual valuation is conducted. Most critical
in this sixth step is choosing the proper technique for valuating resources and their
use. Economic Valuation for Wetlands does not detail the methods for each technique,
although it provides a list of advantages and disadvantages. For example, market
prices may be applied to direct market uses, while surrogate market price may be
applied to a wetland resource that is not marketed but is closely related to a marketed
good or service. Another direct use method is indirect substitute, where the cost of
an alternative source of resources is applied to the wetland resource such as water
imported from the outside vs. water used from the wetland.
For indirect uses, approaches such as the value in changes in productivity and
damage costs avoided can be used to determine the impact of ecological degradation.
To determine option values and nonuse values, the contingent valuation method is
most widely used. Because of its context in nonuse valuation, this method is con-
troversial. However, it does provide an assessment of an individuals or societys
willingness to pay for the value, or how much compensation they would require
upon loss of the use. Another approach to determining option and nonuse values is
to determine the sustainable yield of current activities and alternative or compen-
sating projects that could be offered. If current activities are not sustainable, alter-
native scenarios that offer higher social returns are offered. Compensating projects
offer mitigation for environmental degradation, while maintaining long-term sus-
tainability in the overall natural system and ensuring nonuse values.
The nal step in the valuation framework is to implement the appropriate
appraisal method. Again, Economic Valuation of Wetlands does not detail methods
but lists advantages, disadvantages, and most appropriate cases for implementation.
These methods include costbenet analysis, multiple criteria analysis, land suit-
ability/classication models, environmental impact assessments, and cost-effective-
ness analysis. Upon implementation of appraisal methods, Economic Valuation of
Wetlands stresses the importance of applying the economic valuation methods within
social, political, and cultural contexts. In addition, this valuation should be conducted
with interdisciplinary collaboration and provide effective institutional capacity build-
ing upon decision making. This capacity is based on the training and information
provided by those conducting the valuation to those involved in decision making.
Thus, the valuation should be founded on thorough information and appropriate

2001 CRC Press LLC

evaluation techniques. As stated by Delmar Blasco, Secretary General for the Ramsar
Convention Bureau, It is important to stress that economic valuation is not a panacea
for all decisions, that it represents just one input into the decision-making process,
along with important political, social, cultural and other considerations. The goal of
this text is to assist planners and decision-makers in increasing the input from
economic valuation in order to take the best possible road towards a sustainable
future (Barbier et al., 1997).

CASE STUDIES

Four case studies illustrate the types of management issues confronting countries
with wetlands of international importance (Table 2). Both freshwater and coastal
wetland systems in developed and developing countries are represented. The types
of threats and impacts include excessive resource extraction, altered hydrology, and
pollution. Conservation efforts include restoration, international agreements, protec-
tion of critical areas, education, and use restrictions.
The Everglades is contained wholly within the United States. The Everglades
supports many threatened and endangered species and migratory bird populations.
Groundwater recharge and surface water ow are critical to the social and economic
well-being of burgeoning South Florida. The other case studies illustrate issues
associated with transboundary wetlands. The Mekong Delta is a major coastal
system. The Delta has recovered from wartime impacts but is now threatened by
unsustainable subsistence use and upstream hydropower projects. The Pantanal is a
signicant contributor to regional biodiversity. In some ways, the situation in the
Pantanal mirrors that of the Everglades in the early 20th centurya large, relatively
pristine and productive wetland is threatened by a proposal to alter regional hydrol-
ogy to accommodate economic growth. The Wadden Sea is a major coastal and
shallow marine system in northern Europe. Located in a developed region of the
world, the Wadden Sea is subjected to coastal armament and pollution.

Florida Everglades

Known as the River of Grass, the Florida Everglades is one of the largest
freshwater marshes in the world, historically encompassing about 3.5 million ha
(Figure 1). It extends from Lake Okeechobee in south central Florida to the southern
tip of Florida where its wide mouth empties into Florida Bay and other smaller bays
and estuaries. The headwaters of the Everglades begin as small streams and lakes
in central Florida and ow through the Kissimmee Lakes and River system. This
system leads to Lake Okeechobee, a 300 ha natural reservoir formed in the center
of the state when sea levels fell during the last ice age. Water historically owed
over the southern edge of Lake Okeechobee and into the Everglades. From here the
water owed to the Gulf of Mexico via the Caloosahatchee River and to the Atlantic
Ocean via the St. Lucie River (Robinson et al., 1996).

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 2 Characteristics of Case Study Wetlands
Function and Threats and
Location Size (ha) Habitat Value Impacts Conservation Efforts
Florida Everglades United States 3,500,000 Freshwater marsh, Fish and wildlife Agriculture, altered Protected areas,
mangrove, swamp, habitat, recreation, hydrology, restoration plan,
slough, estuary, tourism, pollution, exotic stormwater treatment
shallow bay agriculture, vegetation areas, agricultural
drinking water, BMPs
cultural heritage
Mekong Delta Laos, Myanmar, 3,900,000 Melaleuca forest, Fisheries, Deforestation, Protected areas,
Thailand, mangrove, tidal agriculture, forest pollution, education,
Cambodia, mudat resources, hydropower Commission toward
Vietnam transportation Sustainable
Development
Pantanal Brazil, Bolivia, 11,000,000 Swamp, forest, Flood control, sh Cattle ranching, Protected areas,
Paraguay savannah, lake and wildlife habitat, agriculture, education,
margin scrub, sheries, cattle overshing, Intergovernmental
gallery forest ranching, tourism hunting, Hydrovia Committee on
project Hydrovia
Wadden Sea Denmark, 1,350,500 Tidal channel, mud Primary Infrastructure Joint Declaration on
Germany, at, salt marsh, productivity, sh development, the Protection,
Netherlands beach, dune and wildlife habitat, pollution, shellsh protected areas,
tourism, recreation harvesting prohibited shoreline
armoring

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Lake
Okeechobee
Florida

EAA WCA-1

WCA-2

WCA-3

Miami
Everglades
National
Park

Florida Bay

Figure 1 The Florida Everglades; the shaded area represents the remnant EvergladesFlor-
ida Bay ecosystem; WCAs are water conservation areas. (Modied from South
Florida Water Management District, 1999.)

Functions and Values

Small elevation differences within the Everglades contribute to the formation of

many distinct ecosystems including swampy cypress domes, hydric hardwood ham-
mocks, pinewoods, freshwater sloughs, brackish estuaries, shallow shorelines and
embayments, and deeper gulf waters (Frazier, 1996; World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, 1990). These diverse ecosystems are habitat for 25 terrestrial and 2 aquatic
mammals including the endangered Florida black bear (Ursus americanus), Florida
panther (Felis concolor), and West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Over 300
species of birds have been observed, many of which use the area as a stop on their
migration to and from Central and South America. Many of North Americas water-
fowl and shore birds can be found using the Everglades as a seasonal home. Some,
like the wood stork (Mycteria americana), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), glossy

2001 CRC Press LLC

ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), and roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), are threatened or
endangered. The threatened or endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus),
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), indigo snake (Drymarchon corais),
loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and
green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) are among the more than 50 species of reptiles
inhabiting the Everglades.
The ora of the Everglades is as varied as its ecosystems, with 10,000 species
of seed-bearing plants and 120 species of trees. Plant types range from the charac-
teristic sawgrass (Cladium jamaicensis), to bromeliads and epiphytic orchids, to
tropical (e.g., gumbo limbo, Bursera simaruba) and temperate (oaks, Quercus spp.)
trees. Over 60 plant species found in the Everglades are endemic to South Florida.
Periphyton is an important component of the Everglades ecosystem. High in calcite
and dominated by lamentous blue-green algae, the periphyton community helps
build marl, a soil overlying the limestone foundation of the Everglades, and supports
an intricate food web.
In the transition from fresh to salt water, the Everglades estuarine systems provide
a nursery for the Florida Bays shing industry. In 1989, harvesting of lobster
(Panulirus argus), stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), and pink shrimp (Penaeus
duorarum) brought in revenue of US $61 million (Redeld et al., 1999). One county
alone made over $35 million in 1992, making the Everglades and Florida Bay an
important economic resource (Robinson et al., 1996). In addition, Everglades
National Park is an economic center for tourism with over 250 thousand visitors a
year (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1990).
Another economic interest operating within the Everglades historic boundary is
agriculture. Based mainly on sugarcane crops, this multibillion dollar industry relies
on the rich soils of drained portions of the Everglades. Unfortunately, the develop-
ment of this industry has had profound direct and indirect effects on the integrity
of the Everglades ecosystem.
The Everglades also has important social and cultural values. Demand for fresh-
water resources increased markedly with the development of South Florida. The
porous nature of the limestone baserock recharges an underlying aquifer. A total of
90 percent of the regional population receives its potable water from this aquifer.
Freshwater recharge into the southern part of the Everglades prevents saltwater
intrusion into the aquifer. The Everglades also protects South Florida residents from
heavy surf associated with hurricanes and high tides. Mangrove forests and barrier
islands along the coastal edges serve as protective barriers.
The Everglades cultural value derives from historic and continued habitation by
indigenous peoples (Robinson et al., 1996). The Calusa and Tequesta arrived in
Florida 11,000 years ago and thrived until the early 1800s when they succumbed to
diseases and war accompanying European settlers. Remnants of the Calusa and
Tequesta remain in the form of shell mounds and artifacts. Other Native Americans,
the Seminoles, ed to Florida in the early 18th century when tribes were pressured
west and south by colonial expansion. A small, non-Christian faction of the Semi-
noles, the Miccosukee, lives in the Everglades today.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Threats and Impacts

Impacts to the Everglades are related to a long history of cultural and economic
development. The earliest records of the rst ecological changes to the system are
from the late 19th century (Robinson et al., 1996). In 1881, one of the rst devel-
opers, Hamilton Disston, began draining wetlands around Lake Okeechobee to create
farmland. In addition, canals were built within the northern part of the watershed.
While these drainage efforts had little effect on Lake Okeechobee and its overows
into the Everglades, it opened the door to reclaiming the Everglades for civilization
(Derr, 1993). With mild year-round weather and fertile soils, the area quickly became
an agricultural center.
To support development, the State of Florida encouraged drainage. The Ever-
glades Drainage District excavated 700 km of canals by 1927. The Hoover Dike
was built along the southern shore of Lake Okeechobee in the late 1920s in response
to ood disasters caused by several hurricanes. In large part, the dike separated the
lake from the Everglades. During this same time period, the Tamiami Trail was
built, linking Miami with the Gulf Coast. This roadway, built through the middle
of the Everglades, separated the northern and southern Everglades disrupting the
natural hydroperiod.
Construction of the canals, Hoover Dike, and the Tamiami Trail had a quick and
obvious impact on the hydrology of the Everglades. Models indicate that the rst
four canals removed 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year from the system. Impacts
to wildlife, especially waterfowl, were evident. In addition, a 1.2 m decrease in
groundwater levels caused soils to oxidize and subside. By 1940, 1.8 to 2.1 m of
soil was lost and the slope of the land became concave, reversing the direction of
ow in the northern part of the Everglades toward Lake Okeechobee (Robinson
et al., 1996; Redeld et al., 1999).
In 1948, in response to concerns about droughts and oods in the northern part
of the Everglades, Congress authorized an expansion of the canal system (McLean
and Bush, 1999). The US $208 million Central and South Florida Project consisted
of 1250 km of ood control canals. The Central and South Florida Flood Control
District was established to manage the project and to allocate water resources through
the system of canals, levees, locks, and dams. Additional levees were built south of
Lake Okeechobee to block sheet ow to the increasingly populated Atlantic Coast.
The levees were also used to create Water Conservation Areas that would retain the
waters of the Everglades.
During this same time period, the southernmost 5 percent of the historic Ever-
glades was designated as a National Park. However, this designation would not
protect the Everglades fragile and valuable ecosystem. By the 1960s, degradation
of the Everglades was a sensitive issue throughout the United States. Congress
enacted the Water Resource Development Act in 1970, mandating a minimum water
delivery to the Everglades. In 1972, the Water Resources Act was passed, mandating
the protection of the Everglades through improvements in water quantity and quality.
The Central and South Florida Flood Control District was renamed the South Florida
Water Management District (one of ve newly formed districts in the state), with a
new mission of protecting water quality and preserving environmental values

2001 CRC Press LLC

(Robinson et al., 1996). The new District was required to balance the water resource
needs of urban, agricultural, and natural areas. Areas in the northern and central part
of the Everglades, between the Everglades Agricultural Areas and Everglades
National Park, were placed under protection and designated as the Everglades Pro-
tection Area. During the next 20 years, studies would indicate that the Everglades
continued to be impacted. Despite new water discharge requirements, the quality
and quantity of water resources delivered to the park were inadequate to maintain
ecosystem health.
For decades, the most obvious change to the ecosystem was alteration of the
hydrologic ow. Conversion of more than 50 percent of the historic Everglades to
agricultural and urban areas resulted in a decrease in regional water storage. The
construction of canals, drainage ditches, and dikes to control oodwaters dramati-
cally changed natural sheet ow and hydroperiod. Sudden releases from the water
control structures inundated areas that that had been abnormally dry for extended
periods, disrupting foraging and nesting habits of wading birds and herpetofauna.
In addition, changes in water depth altered macrophyte and algal community com-
position, disrupting primary production processes.
The disruption in natural sheet ow to the Everglades has impacted areas as far
south as the Florida Bay, and possibly the coral reefs of the Florida Keys (Robinson
et al., 1996). Because freshwater ow has decreased, salinity levels have risen
stressing aquatic organisms adapted to narrower salinity ranges. In addition, waters
of Florida Bay have warmed, altering current exchange patterns with the Atlantic
Ocean. Reduction in freshwater ows to the Everglades has also impacted mangrove
and upland communities of the Atlantic Coast as groundwater recharge decreased
and saltwater intrusion increased.
The loss in groundwater recharge has also impacted the supply of potable water
to the region (Robinson et al., 1996). Groundwater resources, the primary source of
South Floridas water supply, are used at a rate exceeding recharge rates. Freshwater
has become scarcer, and potable water must be imported to large parts of the region.
Research indicates that the water reaching the Everglades is of poor quality
(McCormack et al., 1999). Stormwater runoff diverted by canals to the Everglades
Protection Area contains high levels of nutrients from agricultural areas. Once an
oligotrophic system, the Everglades now exhibits signs of eutrophication. Natural
surface water total phosphorus concentrations are between 4 to 10 ppb, while agri-
cultural runoff concentrations range between 50 to 200 ppb total phosphorus. Natural
soil total phosphorus concentrations are between 200 to 500 ppb, whereas soil
concentrations downstream of agricultural areas reach 1000 ppb total phosphorus.
Elevated concentrations of total phosphorus are linked to shifts in algae species better
adapted to high nutrient loading. Sudden algal blooms cause low water column
dissolved oxygen levels threatening invertebrate organisms. In Lake Okeechobee,
algal blooms cause sh kills. Florida Bay has experienced low dissolved oxygen
levels with subsequent impacts to seagrass communities vital to sheries.
High nutrient loading has also contributed to a shift from diverse wetland plant
species to a monoculture of cattails in some parts of the Everglades. Under high
nutrient conditions, cattails are able to out compete sawgrass and other macrophytes,
especially when accompanied by hydrologic changes.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Hydrologic and other disturbances have created opportunities for the establish-
ment of exotic vegetation (Ferriter et al., 1999). Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebin-
thifolius), Australian pine (Casuarina litorea), and especially melaluca (Melaleuca
quinquenervia), are of primary concern. Melaluca is the dominant exotic in some
parts of the Everglades. It thrives in lower water levels and produces thousands of
seeds per plant. Melaleuca was introduced to the Everglades in the belief that its
high evapotranspiration rate would dry out wet areas (Derr, 1993; Robinson
et al., 1996).
The latest threat to the Everglades is the accumulation of mercury in sediments
(Fink et al., 1999). Mercury is deposited from the atmosphere and converted to
highly toxic methylmercury by sulfate bacteria. Methylmercury bioaccumulates and
has the potential for affecting wildlife at all levels of the food web. Top predators
may accumulate up to 10 million times the concentration in water. Mercury also
presents a human health risk, and sh consumption in the Everglades, eastern Florida
Bay, and the Big Cypress Conservation Area is either prohibited or restricted.
Although the accumulation of methylmercury has not been observed to affect repro-
ductive rates in waterbirds, it may affect eating and foraging habits (Frederick et al.,
1999; Bouton et al., 1999). Mercury poisoning is the suggested cause of several
Florida panther deaths and reduced litter sizes (Florida Panther Interagency Com-
mittee, 1989).

Conservation Efforts

In 1988, the United States government sued the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation and the South Florida Water Management District for failing to
maintain high water quality in waters owing to the Everglades National Park and
the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. In 1991, a settlement was reached and
the defendants agreed to guarantee water quality and water quantity needed to
preserve and restore the unique ora and fauna of the Park and the Refuge (Robinson
et al., 1996). With a July 2002 deadline to meet these agreements, the state of Florida
passed the Everglades Forever Act in 1994. Strategies outlined in the Act are designed
to achieve water quality standards by December 31, 2006. The Everglades Forever
Act mandated a fair share of restoration costs be borne by agricultural interests. In
addition, the Act recognized that urban development encroached upon the natural
system and authorized the South Florida Water Management District to impose a
homeowners tax of an average of US $10 a year (Robinson et al., 1996).
Initial management efforts focused on reducing nutrient loading from agricultural
area stormwater runoff to the Everglades Protection Area (Chimney et al., 1999).
The Everglades Nutrient Removal Project purchased agricultural land and converted
it to wetland stormwater treatment areas (STAs). The STAs are macrophyte-based
systems designed to remove phosphorus from agricultural stormwater runoff. The
original goal of the STAs was to reduce total phosphorus in agricultural runoff to
50 ppb or less and to discharge the treated water to the Everglades Protection Area.
To date, the STAs have reduced total phosphorus concentrations to an average of
22 ppb, an 82 percent load reduction (Redeld et al., 1999). A total of 63 metric

2001 CRC Press LLC

tons of phosphorus have been removed that would have been discharged to the
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are being implemented in the Everglades
Agricultural Area (Whalen et al., 1999). A total of 16 BMPs have been identied
and implemented through regulatory and educational initiatives. The BMPs include
increased water detention for settling of nutrients, fertilizer application controls (e.g.,
direct root application by banding or split application), sediment controls (e.g., ditch
improvements and sump installation), pasture management, xeriscaping, and vege-
tative ltering. During the rst 3 years of BMP implementation (1995 to 1998), the
total phosphorus load was reduced by 55 percent (Redeld et al., 1999).
Additional management initiatives are focused on mercury, supplemental treat-
ment technologies, and a Central and South Florida restudy. Mercury studies will
provide information about the complex interactions between phosphorus, sulfate,
and other water quality parameters and methylmercury. Other studies and modeling
will estimate the no observable adverse effect level for Everglades sh and wildlife.
Other research is underway to identify supplemental technologies for reducing
nutrient loads to the EPA. Recent studies have suggested that optimal total phos-
phorus concentrations should not exceed 10 ppb. STA performance must be supple-
mented to achieve this level. Currently, nine technologies, ranging from chemical
treatment to improved treatment wetland design, are being evaluated. Submerged
aquatic vegetation and periphyton-based wetland treatment systems appear promis-
ing. Successful technologies may be integrated into the existing STAs or imple-
mented as an additional treatment system. However, certain guidelines must be met,
including technical feasibility, local acceptability, and large-scale applicability. The
most effective technology(s) will be implemented by December 2003.
The largest conservation effort is a restudy of the Central and South Florida
Project (McLean and Bush, 1999). The main objective of the study is to create
additional storage and increase water owing to the Everglades Protection Area
(Redeld et al., 1999). The study will include intensive modeling of hydrologic
regimes, ecosystem dynamics, and water storage. Implementation will cost an esti-
mated US $7.8 billion and may include modication of existing ood control
structures, optimization of hydrologic regimes, and waterway restoration. Plans to
return the Kissimmee River to its natural state are being developed and implemented.
This project alone will be one of the largest restoration projects in the world.

The Mekong Delta

The Mekong River ows from the Himalayan Mountains of China 4200 km to
the South China Sea. During its course, the river travels through the countries of
Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam (Figure 2). The river
drops its sediment load upon reaching the calm waters of the China Sea, creating
shallow plateaus where vegetation grows. This is the Mekong Delta. The Mekong
Delta encompasses 3.9 million ha of mangrove and melaleuca forests, tidal mudats,
and shrimp and sh ponds (Frazier, 1996).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 INDIA

CHINA

BURMA Hanoi

L GULF
A
O OF
S
Vientiane TONKIN

V
IE
Rangoon

T
N
A

A
THAILAND

NA SE
Bangkok
CAMBODIA

H CHI
ANDAMAN
Phnom
SEA Penh

SOUT
G
U

Ho Chi Minh
L
F

Mekong
O
F

Delta
S
IA
M

Figure 2 The Mekong Delta.

Functions and Values

The many wetlands of the Mekong Delta are habitat for breeding colonies of
native waterfowl (Frazier, 1996). Over 50 species of migratory birds use the wetlands
during the migratory period. The coastal wetlands also provide protection to the
coastline, reducing erosion from wave action. The majority of the coastal wetlands
are mangrove forests that act as a sediment lter, reducing turbidity and increasing
water quality. The inland wetlands are comprised mainly of melaleuca forests. These
seasonally ooded wetlands reduce the acidity and sulfur content of underlying soils.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The Mekong Delta plays a critical role in the economy of Vietnam (Khoa and
Roth-Nelson, 1994; Frazier, 1996). Vietnamese rely heavily on the Delta for food,
fuelwood, timber, and water resources. Much of the land area is used for agriculture,
especially rice production, and aquaculture including sh, crab, and shrimp nurseries.
Timber from both mangrove and melaleuca forests are used for rewood, furniture,
home construction, and tannin. Other goods from the Delta include paper, glue,
synthetic ber, sugar wine, and salt. In addition, the Delta's waterways are transpor-
tation routes between economic centers. Because of its economic signicance, the
Mekong Delta has become a cultural center of over 14 million inhabitants (20 percent
of Vietnams population), with a density of 300 to 500 people per km2.

Threats and Impacts

The Vietnam War contributed heavily to the initial degradation of the Mekong
Delta (Khoa and Roth-Nelson, 1994; Frazier, 1996). Napalm bombs and defoliants
destroyed much of the vegetation, including nearly half of the mangrove forests. A
large section of the Delta, the Plain of Reeds, was drained for combat. Many people
were left homeless when the war ended. In an effort to survive and to rebuild their
nation, the people of Vietnam exploited what little resources remained.
The Mekong Delta has recovered signicantly from the war, although the area
still suffers from unsustainable uses of resources (Duc, 1993; Khoa and Roth-Nelson,
1994). Inland, melaleuca forests are used as a fuelwood resource and are areas of
agricultural and aquacultural activities. Due to the highly acidic soils, production is
low, and the farms are often abandoned. Thus, there is a continuous cycle of forest
clearing as subsistence farmers move to new plots of forest. As the melaleuca timber
resources are depleted, wood from coastal mangroves is exported inland. Mangrove
deforestation increases coastal erosion; up to 70 m of land is lost to the sea per year
(Bentham et al., 1997). The loss of coastal mangroves also leads to salt water
intrusion, disrupting the delicate balance of fresh and salt water to which many
organisms have become adapted.
Another impact to water quality is pollution from human activities both within
the Delta and the upper Mekong River Basin (Mekong River Commission, 1995).
Sewage is regularly disposed of directly into the water. Upstream, agricultural
activities contribute both nutrients and chemicals into the Delta's water source.
These pollutants decrease water quality and compromise the integrity of the wet-
land ecosystems.
Additional threats to the Deltas integrity arise from the development of the upper
Mekong River Basin (Lohmann, 1990). Planned at high water velocity points along
the Mekong River are 6 to 50 hydropower projects. The diversion of fresh water may
alter the Deltas hydrologic regime and salinity, reduce organic matter inputs, increase
pollution, and decrease sh populations (Lanza, 1996; Wegner, 1997).
The hydropower projects are of international importance. In an area of great
economic instability, countries have much to gain from reliable and relatively
inexpensive energy (Tu, 1996; Osborne, 1996; Chape and Inthavong, 1996). For
example, much of the Mekong lies along Cambodias border. Presently, Cambodia's

2001 CRC Press LLC

development needs are minimal because its population is small and its economy is
restrained by a socialist political system. However, dams constructed in Cambodia's
part of the Mekong River could harness large amounts of energy and be sold to
more developed countries, such as Thailand, where populations are booming and
economic opportunities are growing due to capitalistic industrialization and a dem-
ocratic political system. Conicts in water resource allocation could arise as
Mekong River Basin nations achieve economic development at the expense of the
economic and cultural stability of the Vietnamese living in the Delta. In a region
of historical conict and instability, cooperation between countries of the Mekong
River basin is necessary to maintain current peaceful conditions.

Conservation Efforts

Although the Mekong Delta is not a site listed under the Ramsar Convention,
Vietnam is a participating member (with one listed site). As a member, it must meet
obligations outlined by the Convention. These include promoting wetland conser-
vation throughout the region, establishing wetland reserves, considering wetland
conservation within the context of land use planning, and promoting training in the
management of wetland resources.
Through the Ministry of Water Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture, the
Vietnam Government has established six protected wetland regions within the
Mekong Delta (Khoa and Roth-Nelson, 1994; Beilfuss and Barzen, 1994). They are
the Tram Chin Crane Reserve at Dong Thap Muoi, the Nam Can Mangrove Reserve,
Vo Doi Melaleuca Protected Forest, and three waterfowl breeding colonies in Bac
Lieu, Cai Nuoc, and Dam Doi. Management within these sites includes protection
of waterfowl, the reestablishment of mangrove and melaleuca forests, and the res-
toration of hydrologic regimes. The State Program on the Rational Utilization of
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection designs management plans,
research studies, and training programs to be implemented in the reserves.
The Vietnam government is also promoting community awareness and cooper-
ation (Duc, 1993; Bentham et al., 1997). In promoting sustainable use of mangrove
and melaleuca forests, the government is issuing long-term leases of land resources
(owned by a socialist political system) to farmers and shermen. Under the rental
agreement, farmers and sherman gain use rights while promising to restore and
conserve resources. In mangrove forests, 5 to 10 ha are leased and 20 to 30 percent
of the area may be used for aquaculture. The remainder of the area must be reforested
or preserved. At melaleuca forest sites, 10 ha plots are leased; 7.5 ha must be
preserved or replanted and 2.5 ha will be used for permanent agriculture.
In addition to the leasing plan, community education is provided to facilitate
local participation in the plan. The Soil Science Department of Hanoi State Univer-
sity has provided a plan for sustainable agriculture. The plan outlines a system of
rotating crops and intercropping using key native ora species. This system reduces
the acids and sulfates in the soils that make cultivation unproductive. Also outlined
is a proposed land-use plan that designates areas of protection and human activities
(Khoa and Roth-Nelson, 1994).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 To address the potential conicts with the implementation of hydropower
projects, the ve countries in the Mekong River basin have formed the Mekong
River Commission toward Sustainable Development (Tu, 1996). The Commission
has conducted a detailed diagnostic study to assess the development projects in
context with socioeconomic structures, political frameworks, and ecological
resources. From this study, the Commission has outlined a basic plan of action
(Mekong River Commission, 1997). The plan addresses the need to build institutional
frameworks for environmental management and policy making, establishing basin-
wide environmental standards, and strengthening environmental regulatory and
enforcement mechanisms. To provide critical support to environmental agencies,
training programs will be developed to diversify the workforce. Also, information
systems will be improved to provide data on basin ecosystems and resources, and
pollution and degradation sources. With this additional support, the development of
project plans will incorporate environmental concerns and protection. In an initiative
to promote community participation, environmental protection will include programs
for land tenure and poverty alleviation. The Commission hopes to approach problems
with an adaptive and responsive attitude.

The Pantanal

The Pantanal encompasses 11 million ha and is the worlds largest freshwater

wetland. Much of the Pantanal is in the states of Matto Grosso and Matto Grosse
de Sol, Brazil, with lesser parts in the countries of Bolivia and Paraguay (Figure 3).
The Pantanal is 100 m above sea level, and situated between the Plateau of Matto
Grosso (to the east) and the savannas of Bolivia (to the west). Erosional material is
deposited at the bottom of the plateau, making the Pantanal an inland alluvial fan.
As a broad, at basin, the Pantanal acts as a reservoir for water owing from the
east to west and is the headwaters for the Paraguay River. Further downstream, the
Parana River meets the Paraguay forming a large waterway that ows through ve
countries. The nal destination of this waterway is the Rio De La Plata at Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Annual rainfall in the region averages between 100 to 130 cm, with most rainfall
occurring between December and June. The Pantanal helps to regulate water owing
to the Paraguay by acting as a sponge for oodwaters. Over a 6-month period, ood
waters are slowly released, maintaining dry season ow. The slow release of ood-
waters also creates a lag between the high peaks of both the Paraguay and Parana
Rivers, preventing catastrophic oods.

Functions and Values

As noted above, the Pantanal provides ood control for the Paraguay-Parana
river system. In addition, the Pantanal enhances water quality because suspended
sediments settle in its calm waters before entering the Paraguay. The Pantanal also
has high ecological value in its diverse ecosystems and wildlife (Mittermeier et al.,
1990; Gottgens et al., 1998). Habitats include swamp, deciduous forest, savannah,
lake margin scrub, and gallery forest. The fauna of the Pantanal includes 230 species

2001 CRC Press LLC

 CARIBBEAN WESTINDIES
Gulf
SEA of
Venezuela

PA Barranquilla Maracaibo Caracas

N AM
A Gulf Medellin VENEZUELA Georgetown
of
Panama Bogota Paramaribo

GU

FR YA
SU
Cayenne

GU
YA

EN NE
RI
Cali

NA

NA

CH
M
IA

E
O MB
C OL
Quito Manaus Amazon

R
O
Guayaquil

D
Belem

A
U
C
Fortaleza
E

PE
BRAZIL

AT L AN T I C
Recife
RU
Lima

Salvador
BOLIVIA The Brasilia
La Paz Pantanal
De
Sucre Mato Grosso
Belo Horizonte

PA
Iquiqui Aracatuba
CHILE

R
AG Rio de Janeiro
UA
Curtiba
Y
Asuncion San
Paulo

Cordoba Porto
Alegre

O CEA N
Mendoza UR
UG
PACI FI C O C EAN

UA
Santiago Buenos Y
Aires
Montevideo
La Plata
I NA
ENT
ARG

FALKLAND
ISLANDS
Strait of Magellan Stanley

Figure 3 The Pantanal.

of sh, 80 species of mammals, and 50 species of reptiles. Residing in small

populations are threatened and endangered species such as the giant otter (Pteronura
brasiliensis), giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), maned wolf (Chrysocyon
brachyurus), and the jaguar (Panthera onca). Over 650 species of birds have been

2001 CRC Press LLC

observed, including the hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyancinthinus), the rhea
(Rhea americana), and the jabiru stork (Jabiru mycteria). The Pantanal is also a
signicant staging area for three bird migration routes.
Economic activities in the Pantanal include shing, cattle ranching, and tourism.
Cattle ranching is the signicant activity, with more than 10,000 ha of grazing land
and 10 million cattle. The region has its own cultural heritage based around this
industry, with unique music, clothing, language, and food. In part because of its
unique culture and diverse ecosystems, the Pantanal is quickly becoming a tourist
destination. Up to 10,000 people visit the area annually, and the potential for
expanded tourism is great.
Another cultural value of the Pantanal is that it is home to many indigenous
peoples (Bucher et al., 1993). There are 19 reservations in the area and as many as
12 distinct groups of people. Some of these groups are known for their handicrafts
and music, while others are close to extirpation.

Threats and Impacts

Unsustainable economic activities impact the Pantanal ecosystem (Mittermeier

et al., 1990; Bucher et al., 1993). Cattle ranching requires large tracts of land for
grazing. Wetlands are drained and forests cut down to create pastures for grazing
and other agricultural activities. In addition, cattle trample vegetation, and their
selective grazing changes vegetative composition. Native fauna such as puma (Felis
concolor), jaguar, and armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) may compete for food
with cattle, or prey on cattle, and thus are hunted and killed.
Another impact is overshing. Large catches of pacu (Colossoma metrei), catsh
(Surubum sp.), cacharra (Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum), and other species are taken
from area lakes. Much of the overshing is attributed to the commercial shing
industry which exports sh to large cities in the region. Some local overshing
occurs as well.
Hunting has impacted the populations of many indigenous species. In addition
to hunting animals to protect livestock, ranchers hunt to supplement their income.
Supplemental hunting increases as the value of beef decreases. Interestingly, sub-
sistence hunting rarely occurs, because most residents rely on sh and beef for food.
Sport hunting and hunting for skins have made the greatest impacts on native fauna.
Otter, ocelot (Felis pardalis), jaguar, and caiman (Caiman crocodilus) are hunted
for their skins. Tourists often participate in sport hunting, shooting birds, caiman,
and various mammals from roadsides.
Apparently passive recreation is also accompanied by impacts (Mittermeier et al.,
1990; Junk, 1993). Visitors often disturb wildlife by throwing stones at caiman, or
scaring birds into ight to create a photographic opportunity. Little infrastructure or
organization exists to effect public education.
Other impacts to the Pantanal include siltation of wetlands and waterways as
the result of deforestation, and pollution from agricultural activities and mining.
Also, wildlife losses occur through the international skin and animal trade (Bucher
et al., 1993).

2001 CRC Press LLC

 The greatest threat to the Pantanal is the proposed waterway project known as
Hidrovia (Bucher et al., 1993; Gottgens et al., 1998). The Hidrovia project is a
system of channels designed to enhance navigation of the Paraguay and Parana
Rivers. This enhancement would increase the transport of goods to ports throughout
the region, especially in Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil. The project engenders
signicant changes to waterway morphology, including bottom dredging, channel
straightening, and waterow regulation.
The potential impacts to the Pantanal are not completely understood and could
be devastating. The most signicant impact would be a reduction in ood storage
capacity. With the straightening of river channels, water will ow at a higher velocity,
thereby causing the Pantanal to drain. Ironically, this may make the rivers difcult
to navigate. Dredging activities will increase turbidity, decreasing water quality and
impacting aquatic insects and sh populations. Other likely impacts include the loss
of ecological and biological diversity because energy and food web relationships
will be altered. Destruction of the wetlands could result in enormous social costs
because many regional economic and cultural activities rely on the Pantanals eco-
logical resources.

Conservation Efforts

The Pantanal is listed as a Wetland of International Importance. However, 95

percent of the wetland is privately owned (Bucher et al., 1993). Only three areas are
designated as reserves: Pantanal National Park (135,000 ha), the Federal Reserve of
Cara-Cara (61,126 ha), and the Taima Ecological Station (12,000 ha).
Concerned landowners have formed the Pantanal Defense Society to encourage
sustainable practices in the region (Mittermeier et al., 1990). Issues being addressed
include wise land use, erosion control, pollution reduction, and improved ranching
practices. The Rural Workers Union, state governments, scientic research organi-
zations, and environmental agencies have met to discuss sustainable use of key
wildlife species. Strategies include caiman farming to reduce poaching and sh
farming. Ranching practices are being evaluated to reduce hunting.
To implement the Hidrovia project, the basin countries formed the Intergovern-
mental Committee on the Hidrovia (CIH, Gottgens et al., 1998). As part of devel-
opment plans, the CIH conducted an economic feasibility study. However, the study
may have inaccurately evaluated the environmental costs of the Hidrovia project. A
technical panel of reviewers concluded that the study failed to fully estimate signif-
icant environmental losses to such industries as shing and cattle ranching, and that
it overestimated the project benets such as soybean exports and iron ore values
(Gottgens et al., 1998). In addition, the panel stated that the study failed to provide
information on existing transportation routes and plans that might be more environ-
mentally benign. Finally, the panel criticized the initial study for the lack of input
from indigenous cultures and the lack of information on the long-term environmental
effects of the project. In response, the InterAmerican Development Bank and the
United Nations Development Program contributed US $10 million in technical
assistance to conduct assessments of the engineering, economic, and environmental
costs of the project.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Brazil and Paraguay have, or are considering, abandoning the Hidrovia Project
because of questionable economic benets (Bucher et al., 1993; Gottgens et al.,
1998). In 1998, Brazils Federal Environmental Agency abandoned the proposed
construction of the waterway along its border. The national courts terminated all
ongoing studies for the construction of Hidrovia, instead focusing on smaller
nonstructural improvements. Paraguay is also considering abandoning its portion
of Hidrovia. Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has provided
insight into past mistakes associated with large channelization projects in the
United States, such as those on the Mississippi River and in South Florida. How-
ever, Bolivia and Argentina are continuing to dredge new channels to create
waterways for commercial use.

The Wadden Sea

The Wadden Sea stretches from the north coast of The Netherlands, along
Germanys coastline to the Skallingen Peninsula in Denmark (Figure 4). Encom-
passing 1,350,570 ha, the shallow sea has a wide diversity of ecosystems. Large
bays exist where the rivers meet the sea. Tidal channels, mud ats, salt marshes,
beaches, and dunes exist where the sea meets the land. Numerous barrier islands
and sand bars protect the coastline from the harsh North Sea.
Tidal ats comprise two thirds of the Wadden Sea (Frazier, 1996; Common
Wadden Sea Secretariat, 1997). Diurnal tides bring 1500 ha of water from the North
Sea into the Wadden, doubling its size. Sand and silt carried with the tide settle in
the calmer waters of the Wadden creating tidal ats that are exposed at low tide. As
the largest stretch of tidal ats in the world, the Wadden Sea accounts for 60 percent
of all tidal areas in Europe and North Africa.

Functions and Values

The productivity of the Wadden Sea can be compared with that of tropical rain
forests (Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, 1997). Shallow water and high nutrient
levels result in high primary productivity. Phytoplankton and algae support a great
abundance and diversity of bird, mammal, and sh species. The environment of the
Wadden Sea is highly variable, with extreme temperatures, salinities, and water
levels. Indigenous species have adapted to these extremes, and there are more than
250 endemic species and ecotypes. The Wadden Sea is a site of international impor-
tance for waterfowl species. Documented are 52 distinct populations of 41 species.
Of the individuals from 20 populations, one half use the area during a stage of their
annual life cycle and 10 species are endemic. Approximately 10 to 12 million birds
stop in the area to rest and feed during migration (Davis, 1993; Dugan, 1993; Frazier,
1996).
The Wadden Sea is also habitat for marine mammals such as the harbor seal
(Phoca vitulina), the gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), and the bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus). In addition, the Wadden Sea is a spawning and migration
ground for 102 species of sh, with 34 designated as rare or extremely rare. Many
of these species are found only in the sea during certain times of the year. Large

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Denmark

Wadden
Sea

Netherlands Germany

Figure 4 The Wadden Sea.

percentages of major commercial species such as plaice (Pleuronectes platessa),

sole (Solea solea), and North Sea herring (Clupea harengus) mature in the Wadden
Sea, making the sea economically important to the region.
Other economic values of the Wadden Sea are tourism and recreation. Currently,
30 to 40 million people a year visit the Wadden Sea (Davis, 1993). The tourism
industry has become one of the most important economic inputs into the area, with
some barrier islands completely dependent upon tourism for economic stability.

Threats and Impacts

The most obvious impact to the Wadden Sea is the construction of embankments,
dikes, and shipping ports (Enemark, 1993; Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, 1997).
Construction of embankments have reduced the number of bays and impeded the
natural migration of barrier islands and sandbars. Collectively, these infrastructure
projects have resulted in the loss of 16,000 ha of land area, almost half of what now
remains. This loss reduces natural habitat and accentuates the difference between
low and high tides, thereby creating the potential for the loss of coastline from
erosion and submersion.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Pollution from rivers that discharge into the Wadden Sea have impacted four of
ve estuaries in Denmark (Davis, 1993; Dugan, 1993). Only the Verde Ao in Den-
mark exists in a fairly natural state, while the Ems, Weser, Elbe, and Elder introduce
high concentrations of nutrients and contaminants into the Wadden Sea. Contami-
nants include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides that enter food chains
and weaken the immune and productive systems of marine mammals. High concen-
trations of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus contribute to large algae blooms
and the production of toxic algae such as those associated with red tides.
Contaminants are also transported in tidal waters from the North Sea (Dugan,
1993). Dredge material containing heavy metals are dumped offshore, carried by
currents, and deposited into the Wadden Sea. Atmospheric processes deposit nitrogen
and cadmium in the Wadden Sea.
Other impacts are attributed to commercial activities such as shellsh farming,
hunting, and tourism. Shellsh harvest and culture beds impact the ecosystem by
changing species composition, food competition between organisms, nutrient bal-
ances, and species abundance (Frazier, 1996). The historic hunting of seals has
stressed already low populations trying to recover from viral epidemics, although a
ban on seal hunting has increased the population from 3,600 to 10,000 (Common
Wadden Sea Secretariat, 1997). Increased tourism has led to the construction of
additional embankments and disturbance to wildlife. Peak tourism time, May to
September, is critical to seal reproduction and pup growth. Disturbance by sightseers
on sandy beaches during nursing time reduces fat reserves in seal pups and, hence,
their chance for survival.

Conservation Efforts

To protect the Wadden Sea and its resources, initiatives must encompass the
policies of several nations. As an important regional resource which is impacted by
activities of several parties, cooperation on a international level is addressed through
the Ramsar Convention using guidelines provided in Towards the Wise Use of
Wetlands program.
From 1978 to 1982, protective measures were hindered by intercountry differ-
ences in policies and administration (Davis, 1993; Common Wadden Sea Secretariat,
1997). In 1982, cooperation for protection was established through the Joint Dec-
laration on the Protection of the Wadden Sea. In 1991, the wise use concept was
applied to the framework for this trilateral cooperation, and the protection of the
Wadden Sea has become the foremost example of the Ramsar Conventions Wise
Use program. Fundamental to the program and the Joint Declaration is a goal of
achieving, as much as possible, a natural and sustainable ecosystem in which natural
processes proceed in an undisturbed way. The framework describes the actual situ-
ation of the Wadden Sea including ecological values, human uses, and potential and
existing threats. A reference situation is provided evaluating the full potential values
of the ecosystem. The target of these values includes an inventory of the diverse
habitat types, the greatest potential integrity of these habitats, protection of organ-
isms, and high water quality. To establish these values, scientic, political, social,

2001 CRC Press LLC

and cultural parameters are addressed and incorporated into management principles
and monitoring and research programs.
The management principles mediate between actual policies and human uses.
Outlined are seven management principles. They include informed decision-making,
best technological and environmental practices, zoning based on ecosystem fragility,
and mitigation or restoration where activity cannot be avoided.
In applying the management principles, international objectives have been estab-
lished. Embankments and any other sea defense that would encroach on tidal ats
are prohibited. In addition, protection for saltmarsh and dunes, with emphasis on
ora and fauna, will be increased. This includes a ban on pesticides, fertilizers, and
other toxins. Large areas, including inter- and subtidal zones, will be closed to mussel
shing. Zones of recreation will be established based on the sensitivity of the location
and type of activity. For example, hovercrafts and jet-scooters are completely pro-
hibited, while recreational boats and ships are restricted to designated zones. Hunting
of migratory birds will be phased out, and hunting of nonmigratory species will be
allowed based on the stability of the population. To reduce pollutant discharges, a
50 percent reduction in fertilizer, and up to a 70 percent reduction of some metals
is proposed. Direct dumping and offshore discharge will be prohibited, and ports
will be upgraded to minimize ship wastes (Enemark, 1993). Monitoring and research
programs will assess the progress of these management initiatives, while broadening
the knowledge on which to base new strategies and principles.
In accordance with the wise use guidelines, each nation has designated national
parks, wildlife refuges, and other protected areas within the Wadden Sea. The
Netherlands established the Wadden Sea Memorandum, a national planning docu-
ment that incorporates national, state, and regional administration of management
strategies. Areas covered by the memorandum are nature preserves, where any
activity that may damage ora, fauna, or scenic views is prohibited.
In Germany, states are given authority to establish national parks through the
Federal Nature Conservation Act. The parks are part of a zoning system. Zone I
areas are heavily regulated, and may be totally restricted from public access. Zone
II areas only allow activities which will not degrade ecosystem integrity.
In Denmark, the Wadden Sea in its entirety is designated as a nature and wildlife
reserve by the Statutory Order of 1982. It prohibits any activities that change or
destroy the natural environment. Public access to important seal and bird areas is
prohibited. In other areas, boating and recreational activities are regulated. Shell
shing is restricted in major parts of the tidal zone and permitted in shipping routes
and waters offshore of the islands.
Under the Ramsar Convention, the preserved and restricted areas of the Wadden
Sea are listed as sites of international importance. Through the wise use program,
Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany are guided by common objectives to protect
the integrity of the Wadden Sea. Every 3 years the Trilateral Governmental Wadden
Sea Conference is held and attended by responsible ministries from each nation.
The ministries include the Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management in Fisheries,
The Netherlands; the Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety, Germany; and the Minister for the Environment and Energy,

2001 CRC Press LLC

Denmark. At the conferences, ministers discuss implementation and progress, create
additional protective measures, and assess the current quality of the Wadden Sea.

REFERENCES

Barbier, E. B., Acreman, M., and Knowler, D., Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Guide for
Policy Makers and Planners, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland, 1997.
Beilfuss, R. D. and Barzen, J. A., Hydrological wetland restoration in the Mekong Delta,
Vietnam, in Global Wetlands: Old World and New, Mitsch, W. J., Ed., Elseveir Science,
Amsterdam, 1994, 453.
Bentham, W., Chuyen, N. D., van Lavieren, L. B., and Verheught, W. J. M., Rehabitating the
Mangrove Forests of the Mekong Delta, Ecoconsult, The Netherlands, 1997.
Bouton, S. N., Frederick, P. C., Spalding, M. G., and McGill, H., Effects of chronic, low
concentrations of dietary methlymercury on the behavior of juvenile Great Egrets (Ardea
albus), Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 18(9), 1934, 1999.
Bucher, E. H., Bonetto, A., Boyle, T., Canevari, P., Castro, G., Huszar, P., and Stone, T.,
Hidrovia, an Intitial Environmetnal Examination of the Paraguay-Parana Waterway,
Wetlands for the Americas, Manomet, MA, and Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1993.
Chape, S. and Inthavong, C., Protected Areas, Biodiviersity Conservation and the Develop-
ment Imperative in Lao PDR: Forging the Links, draft report, IUCN World Conservation
Unit, 1996.
Chimney, M. J., Nungesser, M., Newman, J., Pietro, K., Germain, G., Lynch, T., and
Moustafa, M. Z., Stormwater treatment areasstatus of research and monitoring to
optimize effectiveness of nutrient removal and annual report on operational compliance,
in 2000 Everglades Consolidated Report, Draft, South Florida Water Management
District, 1999, 6-1.
Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, The Trilateral Cooperation on the Protection of the Wadden
Sea, Ramsar Convention Bureau, 1997.
Davis, T. J., Ed., Towards the Wise Use of Wetlands: Report of the Ramsar Convention Wise
Use Project, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland, 1993.
Davis, T. J., Ed., The Ramsar Convention Manual: A Guide to the Ramsar Converntion on
Wetlands of International Importance, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland,
Switzerland, 1994.
Derr, M., Redeeming the Everglades, Audubon, September/October, 48 and 128, 1993.
Duc, L. D., Rehabilitation of the melaleuca oodplain forests in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam,
in Towards the Wise Use of Wetlands: Report of the Ramsar Convention Wise Use Project,
Davis, T. J., Ed., Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland, 1993, 140.
Dugan, P., Ed., Wetlands in Danger: A World Conservation Atlas, Oxford University Press,
New York, 1993.
Enemark, J., Wise use of the Wadden Sea, in Towards the Wise Use of Wetlands: Report of
the Ramsar Convention Wise Use Project, Davis, T. J., Ed., Ramsar Convention Bureau,
Gland, Switzerland, 1993, 25.
Ferriter, A., Thayer, D., Laroche, F., Bodle, M., and Davis, S., Exotic plants in the Everglades,
in 2000 Everglades Consolidated Report, Draft, South Florida Water Management
District, 1999, 14-1.
Fink, L., Rumbold, D., and Rawlik, P., The Everglades mercury problem, in 2000 Everglades
Consolidated Report, Draft, South Florida Water Management District, 1999, 7-1.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Florida Panther Interagency Committee, Status report. Mercury Contamination in Florida
Panthers, Technical Subcommittee, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Everglades National Park, December 1989.
Frazier, S., compiler, Directory of Wetlands of International Importancean Update, Ramsar
Convetion Bureau, Gland, Switzerland, 1996.
Frederick, P. C., Spalding, M. G., Sepulveda, G. E., Williams, M. S., Jr., Lorazel, S. M., and
Samuelson, D. A., Exposure of great egret (Ardea albus) nestlings to mercury through
diet in the Everglades ecosystem, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 18(9), 1940, 1999.
Gottgens, J. F., Fortney, R. H., Meyer, J., Perry, J. E., and Rood, B. E., The case of the
Paraguay-Parana Waterway (Hidrovia) and its impact on the Pantanal of Brazil: a sum-
mary report to the Society of Wetlands Scientists, Wetlands Bulletin, The Society of
Wetlands Scientists, September, 1998, 12.
Junk, W. J., Wetlands of tropical South America, in Wetlands of the World: Inventory, Ecology,
and Management, Whigham, D. F. et al., Eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Neth-
erlands, 1993, 679.
Khoa, L.V. and Roth-Nelson, W., Sustainable wetland use for agriculture in the Mekong River
delta of Vietnam, in Global Wetlands: Old World and New, Mitsch, W. J., Ed., Elsevier
Science, Amsterdam, 1994, 737.
Lanza, G. R., A Review of Nam Leuk Hydropower Development Project Environmental
Impact Assessment Final Report, International Rivers Network, Berkeley, CA, 1996.
Lohmann, L., Remaking the Mekong, Ecologist, 20(2), 61, 1990.
McCormack, P. V., Newman, S., Miao, S., and Fontaine, T. D., Ecological needs of the
Everglades, in 2000 Everglades Consolidated Report, Draft, South Florida Water
Management District, 1999, 3-1.
McLean, A. R. and Bush, E. L., Central and south Florida restudy, in 2000 Everglades
Consolidated Report, Draft, South Florida Water Management District, 1999, 10-1.
Mekong River Commission towards Sustainable Development, Annual Report, Mekong River
Commission Secretariat, Bangkok, Thailand, 1995.
Mekong River Commission towards Sustainable Development, Mekong River Basin Diag-
nostic Study: Final Report, Mekong River Commission, Bangkok, Thailand, 1997.
Mittermeier, R. A., De Gusmao Camara, I., Padua, M. T. J., and Blanck, J., Conservation in
the Pantanal of Brazil, Oryx, 24 (2), 103, 1990.
Osborne, M., Exploring the Mekongs past and present, Asia Pac. Mag., 2, 26, 1996.
Ramsar Convention Bureau, About the Ramsar Convention; Website: http://ramsar, 1999.
Redeld, G., Goforth, G. F., and Rizzardi, K. W., Major ndings and preliminary implications
of the 2000 Everglades Consolidated Report, in 2000 Everglades Consolidated Report,
Draft, South Florida Water Management District, 1999, 1.
Robinson, G. B., Robinson, S. C., Lane, J., Nelson, D., Hveem, L., and Carrasco, N., Discover
a Watershed: The Everglades, produced by the Watercourse for the South Florida Water
Management District, Bozeman, MT, 1996.
Tu, T. D., Sustainable development in the Mekong River Basin, Land Lines, 8(3), 1996;
Website: www.lincolninst.edu/landline/1996/may/mekong2.
Wegner, D. L., Review comments on Nam Theun 2 hydrolelectric project environmental
assessment and management plan, International Rivers Network, Berkeley, CA, 1997.
Whalen, B., P. Whalen, T., and Kosier, T., Effectiveness of best management practices., in
2000 Everglades Consolidated Report, Draft, South Florida Water Management District,
1999, 5-1.

2001 CRC Press LLC

White, W. C., Review of Greater Mekong Task Force Strategies, International Rivers Network;
Website: htp:www.irn.org, 1997.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Directory of Wetlands of International Importance:
Sites Designated for the List of Wetlands of International Importance, Ramsar Conven-
tion Bureau, Gland, Switzerland, 1990.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Ripple, Karen L. Wetland Education
Applied Wetlands Science and Technology
Editor Donald M. Kent
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001
 CHAPTER 14

Wetland Education

Karen L. Ripple

CONTENTS

School System Requirements

Science Curriculum
Science Content Standards
Multidisciplinary Units
Student Action Projects
Service Learning Credits
Wetland Program Features Important to Educators
Lesson Plan Format
Instructional Objectives
Multiple Intelligences
Hands-On Learning
Cooperative Learning
Performance-Based Instruction
Evaluating Wetland Programs and Activities
Wetland Educational Programs for Grades K12
National Education Programs
WOW!: The Wonders of Wetlands
Project WILD Aquatic Education Activity Guide
Childrens Groundwater Festival
Discover Wetlands
A World in Our Backyard: A Wetlands Education and
Stewardship Program
Wading into Wetlands
Student Wetlands Action Projects
Schoolyard Habitats Program

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Wicked Big Puddles: A Guide to the Study and Certication of
Vernal Pools
Handbook for Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability
WILD School Sites and Taking Action
POW!: The Planning of Wetlands
Grant Funding
Membership Organizations
Wetland Education for Professionals
Certication
University Continuing Education
Independent Professional Training
Environmental Concern Inc
Wetland Training Institute
Richard Chinn Environmental Training
Institute for Wetland and Environmental Education and
Research
Membership Organizations
References

In the United States, public perception of wetlands as wastelands is slowly

evolving into recognition of wetlands as productive, valuable natural resources
(Tiner, 1998). Laws and regulations passed in the last three decades are beginning
to curb wetland destruction previously encouraged through Congressional Swamp
Land Acts (Kusler and Opheim, 1996). Wetland education is slowly evolving in
response to changing attitudes.
During the 1960s, college level ecology courses included wetland studies.
Wetland education materials for students in grades kindergarten through twelve
(K12), however, were developed much later. Wetland activities within the newly
developed environmental study units, and isolated wetland activities connected to
regional issues, gradually appeared in classrooms. As the value of wetlands to
society increased, the need to include wetland material within our educational
programs was nally recognized and acted upon in the late 1980s. Now the eld
of wetland education is rapidly expanding, and resources of all kinds are readily
available to educators.
This chapter discusses educational approaches and programs applicable to K12
wetland educators and identies key elements of their success. Educational options
for wetland professionals are also considered. The chapter reviews national education
programs containing activities that can easily be integrated into current K12 curric-
ula. The programs require minimal teacher preparation. Current educational emphasis
on developing student problem-solving skills leads naturally to programs encouraging
the creation, restoration, enhancement, and monitoring of schoolyard wetlands. These
newer programs are also reviewed. Model programs for student participation in
wetland certication are examined next, as students learn to take action to protect
our vanishing wetlands. Some funding sources for wetland education projects and

2001 CRC Press LLC

teacher training are discussed as well as organizations that effectively disseminate
information on wetlands. Finally, professional courses for those seeking to improve
their techniques, skills, and knowledge in relation to wetlands are examined. Ways
of staying abreast of issues, methods, and information in the eld of wetlands are
also suggested.
Undergraduate education and graduate research programs on wetlands, while
important to increasing our wetland knowledge base, are not discussed herein.
Colleges and universities can more readily supply current information on available
courses and programs if contacted directly. Methods of disseminating knowledge
are constantly evolving. While research generates knowledge through experimenta-
tion and exploration, applied science renes the techniques and tools. The fruits of
both research and applied science are transmitted to college students through a
combination of lecture and laboratory work. While the lecture/laboratory approach
to teaching has been traditionally linked to college courses and college bound student
programs, this approach is not always effective. Younger students, and those not
college bound, tend to respond to more active educational approaches that have
practical applications to their own lives.
Primary and secondary school students may not understand the relationship
between wetlands and their lives. Alternatively, they may feel wetland losses are too
large a problem with which to cope. Consequently, teaching techniques must be
continually developed and rened to better t the capabilities, interests, and needs
of younger students as well as the broader community. Those outside the education
eld may not realize the importance of meeting the educational requirements of
school systems as well as the needs of individual educators. Both are important to
gain acceptance for a wetland program or activity. Providing something that young
students like is not enough to gain access to the classroom.

SCHOOL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

School systems establish the science curriculum based upon national science
content standards or more stringent local standards. Increasingly, curricula include
multidisciplinary units and student action projects. In addition, some school systems
require students to earn service learning credits as a requirement for graduation. A
closer look at these requirements and how they affect new wetland programs is
warranted.

Science Curriculum

A science curriculum includes the science courses that will be available to

students in a particular grade and what unit topics will be covered within those
courses. The curricula of a school system are set by the superintendent, the curric-
ulum specialists (e.g., science supervisor etc.), and the school board. Some systems
allow teacher input. If a school system decides that wetland units will be taught in
the second and eighth grades, then wetland materials targeting sixth graders will not
likely be considered for use by that school system.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 State, county, district, city, or some combination of these bodies organizes school
systems. To understand the science curriculum of a particular school system, begin
at the state level by determining what is mandated statewide, then contact appropriate
local school boards to learn how state mandates are applied. If wetland programs
or materials meet the state level curriculum criteria, they are more likely to be
acceptable at the local level. Table 1 provides one example of a school science
curriculum and the units covered in some courses.

Table 1 An Example of Part of a District Science Curriculum

Grade Course or Class Units or Topics
1 Science Seeds and plants
Earth, dinosaurs, and space
Magnets
Schoolyard habitat
2 Science Animal classication
Weather
Sink or oat
Wetlands
3 Science Insects
Earth
Machines
Forestry
4 Science Ecosystems
Atmosphere
Electricity
Recycling
5 Science Soils and plants
Rocks and minerals
Estuaries
6 Science Physiology
Dangerous storms
Light
Ecology
7 Science Zoology
Astronomy
Force and motion
Environmental issues
8 Science Genetics
Dynamic earth
Acids and bases
Global energy
9 Environmental Science Environmental concepts
Biomes of North America
Terrestrial ecosystems
Wetland ecosystems
9 Biology Classication
Human anatomy and physiology
Plant structures and processes
Ecosystems, populations, and
communities

2001 CRC Press LLC

Science Content Standards

Science content includes scientic knowledge, understanding, and abilitiesthe

essential material contained within the units of a science course. Science content
standards dictate the knowledge students should acquire through their science
studies.
In 1995, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
developed national science standards. The standards are grouped into three grade
levels and eight categories, all of which might include some aspect of wetland science
(Table 2). The three grade levels are K4, 58, and 912. Standards in the rst two
categories, Unifying Concepts and Processes and Science as Inquiry, are consistent
across all grade levels because these lifelong processes are basic for an understanding
of the natural world. In the remaining six categories, the middle school standards
build on those of the primary grades, and the high school standards build on those
of the middle school level. The categories of Physical Science, Life Science, and
Earth and Space Science focus on the facts, concepts, principles, theories, and
models within each subject area. The Science and Technology category links the
natural world and the designed world, with many parallels to the Science as Inquiry
category. The category of Science in Personal and Social Perspectives concentrates
on decision-making skills in personal and social issues. The nal category, History
and Nature of Science, reects the change of science through time and the inuence
of science on world cultures.
These national standards have been adopted unchanged by many educational
systems. State and local school systems set their own standards, which usually are
more stringent and more detailed than the national standards, and often reect local
needs and issues. Designers of science programs, including those about wetlands,
should consider cross-referencing the national standards with their activities, thereby
relieving educators of that necessity.

Multidisciplinary Units

Multidisciplinary programs, projects, or study units incorporate more than one

subject or content area. Currently in favor with school systems, this approach blends
boundaries between subjects and promotes teamwork among teachers. Multidisci-
plinary units also remind students that subject areas do not divide the world beyond
the school walls. One intriguing aspect of wetlands is that it is not just a science
topic, although many treat it as such. Wetlands and water can form a multidisciplinary
theme for an entire school or link activities within an entire grade level.
Thanks to innovative teachers and a supportive principal at Thomas Jefferson
High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax, VA, students there have been
studying natural wetlands during integrated freshman biology, language arts, and
technology courses. Recently, students began creating research wetlands within a
school courtyard and soon will determine effective ways to enhance nearby natural
wetlands. Additional courses are expected to shift focus to the wetland and water
theme in the future, eventually involving the entire school body in wetland activities.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 2 National Science Content Standards
Grades K4
Unifying Concepts and Processes
Systems, order, and
organization
Evidence, models, and
explanation
Change, constancy, and
measurement
Evolution and equilibrium
Form and function
Abilities necessary to do
scientic inquiry
Understandings about
scientic inquiry
Properties of objects and
materials
Position and motion of
objects
Light, heat, electricity, and
magnetism
Characteristics of organisms
Life cycles of organisms
Organisms and
environments
Properties of earth materials
Objects in the sky
Changes in earth and sky
2001 CRC Press LLC
Grades 58
Systems, order, and
organization
Evidence, models, and
explanation
Change, constancy, and
measurement
Evolution and equilibrium
Form and function
Science as Inquiry
Abilities necessary to do
scientic inquiry
Understandings about
scientic inquiry
Physical Science
Properties and changes of
properties in matter
Motions and forces
Transfer of energy
Life Science
Structure and function in
living systems
Reproduction and heredity
Regulation and behavior
Populations and ecosystems
Diversity and adaptations of
organisms
Earth and Space Science
Structure of the earth system
Earths history
Earth in the solar system
Grades 912
Systems, order, and
organization
Evidence, models, and
explanation
Change, constancy, and
measurement
Evolution and equilibrium
Form and function
Abilities necessary to do
scientic inquiry
Understandings about
scientic inquiry
Structure of atoms
Structure and properties of
matter
Chemical reactions
Motions and forces
Conservation of energy and
increase in disorder
Interactions of energy and
matter
The cell
Molecular basis of heredity
Biological evolution
Interdependence of
organisms
Matter, energy, and
organization in living
systems
Behavior of organisms
Energy in the earth system
Geochemical cycles
Origin and evolution of the
earth system
Origin and evolution of the
universe
Table 2 (continued) National Science Content Standards
Grades K4 Grades 58 Grades 912

Science and Technology

Abilities of technological Abilities of technological Abilities of technological
design design design
Understandings about Understandings about Understandings about
science and technology science and technology science and technology
Abilities to distinguish
between natural objects and
objects made by humans

Science in Personal and Social Perspectives

Personal health
Characteristics and changes
in populations
Types of resources
Changes in environments
Science and technology in
local challenges
Personal health
Populations, resources, and
environments
Natural hazards
Risks and benets
Science and technology in
society
Personal and community
health
Population growth
Natural resources
Environmental quality
Natural and human-induced
hazards
Science and technology in
local, national, and global
challenges

History and Nature of Science

Science as a human Science as a human Science as a human
endeavor endeavor endeavor
Nature of science Nature of scientic
knowledge
History of science Historical perspectives
Adapted from the National Research Council, 1995. With permission.

Student Action Projects

In some study units, students are encouraged, and sometimes required, to take
action in a way that will make a positive difference in their school, community, or
environment. These are often called student action projects. Wetland monitoring,
protection, and creation are often the focus of these student environmental action
projects. Removing trash from a wetland, raising funds to purchase wetland plants
for a restoration project, planting a degraded wetland, and stenciling storm drains
to indicate that they empty into a wetland are examples of student action projects
(Figure 1).

Service Learning Credits

In an increasing number of states, students must participate in a minimum

number of hours of community service as a requirement for high school graduation.
Called service learning credits, students also reect and communicate what was

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 1 In student action projects, students make a positive difference in their school,
community, or environment. Third grade students planting a small constructed
wetland at Horsehead Wetland Center is but one example of the many possibilities
for positive change that can empower our youth.

learned in providing the service. A coordinator within the school system suggests
existing community service activities available to students and coordinates new
community service projects. Wetland restoration, creation, monitoring, and protec-
tion projects usually provide opportunities for student service learning credits.

WETLAND PROGRAM FEATURES IMPORTANT TO EDUCATORS

What features do educators look for when they evaluate new programs? Educa-
tors save precious time if activities are presented in a lesson plan format with clearly
stated instructional objectives. Activities that encourage use of multiple intelligences
and a variety of learning styles, such as hands-on learning, cooperative learning, or
performance-based instructional techniques, are favored over the lecture/laboratory
technique often used by colleges. A closer look at the needs of educators is necessary
to understand how effective wetland programs are designed. The best programs will
have many of the features described next.

Lesson Plan Format

A lesson plan indicates what an educator intends to accomplish with a lesson

and how he or she intends to accomplish it. Most school systems require teachers
to write detailed daily lesson plans before teaching a class and to have those plans

2001 CRC Press LLC

at hand during the lesson. Many teachers are required to submit daily lesson plans
to a supervisor for approval before the lesson is taught. Lesson plan formats vary
from system to system, but minimally contain an objective, an activity and/or
assignment, and some type of student assessment to determine if the objective was
accomplished. Programs that are organized with lesson plan formats are easier for
teachers to incorporate into their plans.

Instructional Objectives

Instructional objectives are statements expressing what the student is expected

to accomplish with an assignment and are an important part of the lesson plan.
Statements of objectives, or learning outcomes, have two essential parts: the action
verb and the content. The action verb indicates the skill to be achieved, such as
measure. The content indicates the knowledge to be gained, such as water tem-
perature. Simple, specic wording of the objective allows students to clearly under-
stand what is expected of them and eases teacher determination of whether the
objective has been accomplished. For example, students will appreciate wetlands
is a vague and immeasurable objective. Imitate the sounds or motions of your
favorite wetland creature is more specic, more measurable, and therefore more
useful as a guide for both teachers and students.
Blooms taxonomy is a hierarchy of instructional objectives that build upon each
other, extending from simple to complex thinking processes, and from concrete to
abstract. The basic levels of the hierarchy from simple to complex are knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956).
Table 3 summarizes the objectives of each level, the type of thinking skill required
to achieve the objective, and action verbs consistent with those thinking skills.

Table 3 Verbs for Instructional Objectives (Bloom, 1956)

Action Verbs Consistent with
Thinking Skill Level Objective Objective
1. Knowledge Recall information Circle, dene, designate, determine,
identify, label, list, mark, match, name,
select, specify, state, underline
2. Comprehension Understand and Condense, describe, explain, interpret,
interpret material outline, restate, rewrite, summarize,
trace, translate
3. Application Use material in a new Build, construct, demonstrate, draw,
situation illustrate, make, measure, model,
operate, show, solve, use
4. Analysis Examine parts and Analyze, classify, compare, contrast,
relationships debate, diagram, differentiate, explore,
graph, organize, monitor, specify, test
5. Synthesis Rearrange parts to form Compose, construct, create, design,
a new idea, plan, or develop, establish, invent, plan,
relationship predict, produce, suggest, write
6. Evaluation Judge material based Assess, choose, compare, conclude,
on evidence decide, evaluate, grade, judge, justify,
rank, select, support, value

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Within a study unit, action verbs used in the objective should reect increasingly
higher thinking levels as student skills develop. For instance, when a topic is rst
introduced a student might be expected to name the three parameters utilized in
wetland delineation, a level 1 skill. After some study, the same student might be
able to describe six characteristics of hydric plants, which is a level 2 skill. Later
the student could be expected to demonstrate a level 3 skill, for example, illustrate
or list the hydric characteristics of a cattail. A student who could classify plants
as hydric or nonhydric is using level 4 skills. Design a wetland planting plan
utilizes thinking skills of level 5, and to assess the success of a restored wetland
would involve level 6 skills.

Multiple Intelligences

Traditional IQ tests primarily measure language and logic. Students weak in

these areas may excel in other aspects and still be creditable students. Now recog-
nized by educators are other types of intelligence (Lazear, 1999). Originally proposed
as a theory by Howard Gardner (1983), these multiple intelligences and their char-
acteristics now include the eight intelligences summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983)

Intelligence Description
Verbal/linguistic Use of words and language
Logical/mathematical Reasoning, use of numbers, relationship and pattern recognition,
analysis, problem solving
Visual/spatial Use of art and imagination, creation of mental pictures
Musical/rhythmic Recognition of rhythmic and tonal patterns, sensitivity to sounds
Bodily/kinesthetic Use of the body in physical motion
Interpersonal Communication person-to-person
Intrapersonal Use of self-knowledge
Naturalist Recognition of the parts of the natural environment

Recognizing these multiple intelligences, educators frequently provide for a

variety of learning styles in programs and activities, thereby helping students more
readily achieve their objectives (Figure 2). Educators and their students readily
accept wetland education programs that both allow, and encourage, students to use
all of their talents.

Hands-On Learning

Hands-on learning activities actively involve students in the learning process.

Effective at all ages, this teaching technique works especially well with younger
students, hyperactive students, and those with short attention spans (Figure 3). Stu-
dents handle and manipulate objects other than papers and pencils. Usually students
are out of their seats for at least part of the activity, which often occurs outdoors.
This is an important way for many students to learn. It has long been known in
education that some knowledge is retained if it is simply heard, more is retained if

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 2 Educators use multiple intelligences to role-play salt marsh organisms during a
WOW!: The Wonders of Wetlands teacher training workshop. Notice the rising tide,
waving sea grasses, swimming sh, and a tubeworm in her black trash bag tube.

it is heard and seen, but when a student can manipulate the material in some fashion,
then they usually own it. For example, hearing someone talk about shing can be
informative. Watching a sherman sh is more helpful, but actually shing is hands-
on learning.
Each person has a unique learning style. Hands-on activities t with many
personal learning styles, and are effective with most students. Wetlands activities,
such as assessing habitat utilization by birds or amphibians, are often well suited to
hands-on teaching techniques.

Cooperative Learning

Students working together to complete an assignment in small learning groups

of mixed ability are practicing cooperative learning. In this teaching technique,
students assume a greater responsibility for learning and for helping each other to
accomplish the objectives of the activity (Kagan, 1997). The teacher allocates stu-
dents to each group in a manner that will achieve a high level of heterogeneity. Each
member of the group is assigned a job, such as facilitator, reporter, or recorder
(Figure 4). The number of jobs required to complete the task as a team determines
the number of students per group. The teacher either assigns jobs within a group or,
if students select their job, it must be different than during the last activity. Teachers
structure the activity so that the objectives, and the steps to achieve the objective,
are clear to students. Cooperative procedures and skills are taught to group members

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 3 During hands-on learning, educators determine ground elevations along a transect
using meter sticks, string, and a line level. The data gathered will be converted
into a topographic map of the wetland site. Use of both manual and intellectual
skills in this learning technique can be much more effective than simply examining
a prepared topographic map.

prior to the activity and then monitored while groups work on an assignment. Each
member of a group receives the same grade on an activity, so all benet from working
together to achieve more than any one person could alone.
During a cooperative learning assignment, a four-member group might have a
facilitator, a supply manager, a recorder, and a reporter. The facilitator ensures that
the group follows each step correctly and in sequence, stays on task, and meets
deadlines. The supply manager obtains the needed materials at the appropriate time
and returns them when and where appropriate. The recorder writes data, observa-
tions, or information collected by the group on the appropriate forms or in an
appropriate format. The reporter coordinates writing the group report. This teaching
technique requires much more preplanning by teachers but can be extremely effec-
tive. When the technique is successful, teachers may not appear to be busy during
an assignment, because in essence, they become consultants to their students.
Team skills learned by students are directly applicable to the real job world and
are skills valued by many employers. Specically, students focus on assignments
and skills needed to successfully work together. They take responsibility for them-
selves and the success of their group, with students encouraging each other to the
benet of all. Ideally, with no group leader, leadership responsibilities are shared or
alternated. In practice, this is probably the most difcult aspect of cooperative
learning to achieve and the most important for team success. Many wetland activities
effectively use cooperative learning techniques.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 4 With cooperative learning each group member has a role that contributes toward
group accomplishment of the task. During this site survey by educators, there is
one person holding the rod, one recorder writing the elevations measured on a
data sheet, one instrument person sighting on the rod and stating the elevation
observed, and two aggers who have completed marking the area to be surveyed
and are now learning the roles of recorder and instrument person. Through coop-
eration, the group accomplishes more than one person could working alone.

Performance-Based Instruction

Performance-based instruction is a teaching technique in which students must

solve problems and think critically by using basic knowledge and skills in real life
situations (McTighe, 1996). This type of instruction cannot be assessed using typical
multiple choice, truefalse, ll in the blank, or short answer tests because there are
many possible correct answers. Instead, a group of students solves a problem, such
as design a one acre wetland suitable for frogs (Figure 5). Some states, such as
Maryland, grade schools through performance assessment tests of students. Wetland
activities can be a basis for performance-based instruction, especially many aspects
of creating and monitoring wetlands.

EVALUATING WETLAND PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

There are several potential questions to be asked in determining whether a wetland

program fullls the needs of a school system or if a wetland activity is appropriate
for a particular group of students. Is the program or activity suitable for the course
and grade level needs of the science curriculum? Does it satisfy the science content

2001 CRC Press LLC

Figure 5 With performance-based instruction, students solve problems and think critically
using basic knowledge and skills in real life situations. These educators are
determining how much rainwater runoff from the roof will be available to support
a small constructed wetland.

standards (national, state, or localdepending on the target audience)? Is the program

or activity multidisciplinary? Are student action projects included from which stu-
dents could potentially earn service learning credits? Are the activities in a lesson
plan format? Are instructional objectives clear, and do they contain appropriate action
verbs? Do the activities allow use of multiple intelligences? Are teaching techniques
such as hands-on learning, cooperative learning, or performance-based instruction
utilized? Programs generating the greatest number of yes answers to these questions
likely will apply to a broader audience. Many excellent, but specialized, programs,
such as those focusing on action projects, may generate fewer yes answers because
they are intended to t within a larger program.
In the activity Water We Have Here? from WOW!: The Wonders of Wetlands
(Appendix 15-1 in Slattery and Kesselheim, 1995), students conduct a variety of
tests on wetlands water to quantify physical characteristics, compare them to stan-
dards, then form some conclusions about the water quality. Using this activity as an
example, how would each of the aforementioned school system requirements, and
features important to educators, apply? Appropriate subject areas and grade levels
are listed in the shaded area of the rst page, so t within the curriculum is easily
determined. The summary and objective sections suggest which science content
standards are supported by the activity, but the connection could be more explicit.
The activity is multidisciplinary. No service learning credit is identied. However,
the wrap-up and action section of the procedure section, and the extensions section,
suggest student action projects that might provide opportunities for service learning

2001 CRC Press LLC

credit. The activity is in a lesson plan format, including objectives, procedures, and
assessment. The objectives are clear, contain the action verbs measure and monitor,
and draw conclusions that are from several thinking skill levels. Many intelligences
are utilized in this activity (e.g., verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, bodily/kines-
thetic, interpersonal, and naturalist), but this can be ascertained only by reading
through the activity. The WOW! book indicates that all of the activities involve hands-
on learning. Performance-based and cooperative learning techniques could also be
utilized, but this is not stated. Overall, this sample activity fullls most school system
requirements and contains many features important to educators. Presumably, this
is the reason why curriculum guides containing this type of activity have been so
successful.

WETLAND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR GRADES K12

Within every school there are unsung heroes and heroines, teachers who have
pulled together bits and pieces of traditional programs in their own creative ways
to challenge their unique group of students to understand and appreciate wetlands.
Teachers and a supportive PTA president in Newark, DE, are guiding the entire
second grade at Brader Elementary School, not just in the study of wetlands, but
also in the enhancement of a schoolyard wetland by enlarging it and planting a
greater variety of wetland plants. All involved were delighted when a pair of mallard
ducks took up residence and raised a family in the wetland before it was dedicated!
Success stories such as this often result from the efforts of small groups of
enthusiastic, dedicated educators motivated by the desire to share the knowledge
and problem-solving skills that students need to live in harmony with each other
and our environment. How do success stories like this develop? What wetland
programs do these teachers use? What wetland educational resources are available?
Described below are a number of wetland educational programs. Contacts are pro-
vided in Table 5.

National Education Programs

Many programs are available that focus on local wetland issues. The following
programs have been successful on a national scale. This is not intended to be an
inclusive list, but these popular programs are representative of those that are readily
available to educators. Most were produced by nonprot organizations and predate
the national science content standards discussed earlier.

WOW!: The Wonders of Wetlands

WOW!: The Wonders of Wetlands (Slattery and Kesselheim, 1995) is a unique

educators guide that focuses entirely on wetlands. WOW! provides hands-on activ-
ities designed to excite and educate students, then illustrates that action can be taken.
The original WOW! was written by Britt Eckhardt Slattery of Environmental Concern
Inc. in 1991. It contains original drawings and 44 hands-on wetland activities for

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 5 Contact Information for Educational Programs Described in This Chapter
Program
WOW!: The Wonders of Wetlands,
POW! The Planning of Wetlands
Project WILD Aquatic, WILD School
Sites, Taking Action
Childrens Groundwater Festival
Discover Wetlands
A World in Our Backyard
Wading into Wetlands
Schoolyard Habitats Program
Wicked Big Puddles
Handbook for Wetlands Conservation
and Sustainability
2001 CRC Press LLC
Contact Address Phone/Web Site
Environmental Concern Inc. P.O. Box P 410-745-9620
St. Michaels, MD 21663 www.wetland.org
Project WILD 707 Conservation Lane 301-527-8900
Suite 305 www.projectwild.org
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
The Groundwater Foundation P.O. Box 22558 800-858-4844
Lincoln, NE 68542-2558 www.groundwater.org
Washington Department of P.O. Box 47600 360-407-7472
Ecology, Publications Distribution Olympia, WA 98504-7600 www.wa.gov/ecology/pubs
Environmental Media P.O. Box 1016 800-363-3382
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
National Wildlife Federation 8925 Leesburg Pike 800-588-1650
Vienna, VA 22184 www.nwf.org
National Wildlife Federation 8925 Leesburg Pike 800-822-9919
Vienna, VA 22184-0001 www.nwf.org/nwf/habitats/
schoolyard/index.html
Vernal Pool Association, Reading 62 Oakland Road 781-944-8200
Memorial High School Reading, MA 01867 earth.simmons.edu/vernal/
pool/store.htm
Izaak Walton League of America, 707 Conservation Lane 800-BUG-IWLA
Save Our Streams Program Gaithersburg, MD 20878-2983 www.iwla.org/sos
grades K12 grouped into ve chapters: introducing wetlands, plants and animals,
water, soil, and issues.
In 1995, Environmental Concern partnered with The Watercourse of Bozeman,
MT, to revise WOW!. Background information was expanded, the lesson plan format
and arrangement were improved, and some activities were revamped. The Water-
course and Western Regional Environmental Education Council produced project
WET, an activity guide that focuses on water resources, in 1995. At that time WOW!
became the wetlands module for Project WET, and facilitator training was initiated.
WOW! can be used as a stand-alone wetlands unit, or selected activities can be
integrated into current study units. To assist school systems in determining curric-
ulum t, a summary of activities by grade level and a unit planning guide are
provided. Suggested grade levels are again listed in a shaded block within each
activity along with subject areas. Most activities are multidisciplinary. Conserving
Wetlands in the original WOW! has been separated into two activities stressing
student action. Additionally, an appendix on Planning and Developing a Schoolyard
Wetland Habitat has been included. A table cross-referencing the national science
content standards and the activities (as has been done separately with the New Jersey
State standards) would be a useful addition. Presented in an educator-friendly, lesson
plan format, the activities have clearly stated objectives, procedures, assessments,
and extensions. A variety of learning styles and teaching techniques are utilized.
WOW! is available through Project WET workshops, through workshops pro-
vided by Environmental Concern, or directly from Environmental Concern or The
Watercourse. While not required for purchase of WOW!, attendance at a workshop
is strongly encouraged.

Project WILD Aquatic Education Activity Guide

Beginning in the early 1970s, Project Learning Tree (American Forest Founda-
tion, 1995) was one of the rst hands-on, interdisciplinary, supplemental education
programs that contained activities for teachers to use with students K12. Project
Learning Tree is co-produced by the Council for Environmental Education (formerly
the Western Regional Environmental Education Council, Inc.) and the American
Forest Foundation (formerly the American Forest Institute). It contains a few wetland
activities, but forests, not wetlands, are the primary focus.
Project WILD was developed as a joint project by the Council for Environmental
Education and the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies using a similar
format. The Project WILD Activity Guide (Council for Environmental Education,
1992) became available in 1983. As in Project Learning Tree, a few wetland activities
are included, but the primary focus of the project is wildlife, not wetlands.
In 1987, the Project WILD Aquatic Education Activity Guide (Council for Envi-
ronmental Education, 1992) made its national debut as a part of Project WILD.
Containing 40 hands-on water and wildlife activities for grades K12, this guide is
designed to either supplement existing courses or stand alone as an aquatic education
course. The material does not focus exclusively on wetlands but covers aquatic
awareness and appreciation, wildlife values, ecological principles, management and

2001 CRC Press LLC

conservation, culture and wildlife, trends, issues and consequences, and responsible
human actions.
Information to assist school systems in determining curriculum t is provided
in a box at the beginning of each activity. Within the box are listed the appropriate
grade levels and subjects (many are multidisciplinary). In the appendices, grade
level, subject, skills, and topics (one of which is actions) index all activities. A
section on Taking Action deals more directly with student action projects, many of
which could result in service learning credits. As with most programs, the science
content standards are not yet referenced.
For educators, each activity is formatted like a lesson plan. Objectives are clearly
stated, and methods for attaining those objectives are described. Background infor-
mation to assist the teacher, materials needed for the activity, a step-by-step proce-
dure for conducting the activity, possible variations and extensions of the activity,
and a means to evaluate student performance are also provided. Skills are listed in
a box with other information and indicate that multiple learning styles are used in
the activities. Of the activities, six make use of problem-solving skills. Group size
listings indicate which activities might use cooperative learning techniques.
The Project WILD Aquatic Education Activity Guide cannot be purchased. It is
distributed free, along with the Project WILD Activity Guide, to participants attending
a 6-hour workshop conducted by trained state coordinators and facilitators. To locate
your state coordinator, check the listing on the Project WILD Web site.

Childrens Groundwater Festival

This program is decidedly different, and wildly successful, with twice as many
applications as spaces are available. The Groundwater Foundation has been spon-
soring the Childrens Groundwater Festival in Nebraska annually since 1989 and
the idea has spread to many other states and Washington, D.C. Fifth grade students
from across Nebraska travel to Grand Island and for 4 hours become immersed in
a wide variety of hands-on activities dealing with groundwater and closely related
themes such as wetlands. Presenters are volunteers from government, private indus-
try, and education. Sponsors and grants cover expenses.
Teachers prepare students with a groundwater unit before attending the Festival
and follow-up with review activities. Toward that end, a Festival Outreach Packet
(Groundwater Foundation, 1996) containing hands-on activities is available to edu-
cators. These activities t the Nebraska fth grade curriculum and content standards
are multidisciplinary, have a lesson plan format with objectives, provide for multiple
learning styles, and suit a variety of instructional techniques. National standards do
not appear to be addressed. In another publication, Bringing the Festival Home
(Groundwater Foundation, 1996), students are encouraged to perform a community
service project connected with groundwater after attending the festival. For those
interested in organizing their own festival, Making Waves: How to Put on a Water
Festival (Killham, 1996) is available from The Groundwater Foundation as are a
number of other publications and resources.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Discover Wetlands

The curriculum guide Discover Wetlands (Usher et al., 1995) was developed for
Washington State educators in 1988, and substantially revised in 1995. Although
the guide is state specic, it is so well prepared for classroom use that it is frequently
cited and imitated. The guide contains four units: Washingtons wetlands, functions
and values, people and wetlands, and eld studies. Each unit is subdivided into four
or ve topics containing hands-on activities.
The original target group was grades 48, but this was expanded to include
grades K12. Curriculum guidelines are provided in an appendix. The activities are
cross-referenced with the Washington State curriculum goals and are multidisci-
plinary. Student action projects are suggested in the Extensions section of some
activities. To assist educators, all activities are presented in a lesson plan format.
However, the objectives often lack action verbs. The need for multiple learning
techniques is satised and all activities are hands-on. Performance-based instruction
and cooperative learning techniques are not addressed but could be used. To order
copies of Discover Wetlands (Publication #88-16) contact the Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology.

A World in Our Backyard: A Wetlands Education and Stewardship

Program

A World in Our Backyard (Madison and Paly, 1994), produced by the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, contains both a curriculum
guide and a video for use by classroom educators in New England. Wetland infor-
mation is provided in eight chapters with hands-on activities for students. Topics
include wetland science, types, functions, threats, locations, eld studies, protection,
and adoption. Classes that perform stewardship activities to protect local wetlands
receive Adopt A Wetland certicates from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region I, upon application.
The guide is intended for use by middle school teachers as a supplement to
existing curricula. Suggested uses are as a short wetland unit, for long-term multi-
disciplinary study, and with extracurricular organizations. Science standards are not
addressed, but adopting a wetland would qualify as an action project. For educators,
the activities are presented in lesson plan format, but lack an assessment and often
an objective. Activities are hands-on and encourage use of multiple intelligences.
Cooperative learning and performance-based instruction are not addressed. The
video provides information about wetlands in an entertaining format. To order copies
of the video and curriculum guide, contact Environmental Media.

Wading into Wetlands

Wading into Wetlands (National Wildlife Federation, 1997) is part of the very
popular Ranger Ricks NatureScope magazine series published by the National
Wildlife Federation for elementary school aged children. The original version,

2001 CRC Press LLC

produced in 1989, was updated in 1997. Information and hands-on activities are
provided for use in the classroom, in community group activities, or individually,
to help children understand and appreciate wetlands.
The age group targeted is grades K8, but no attempt is made to correlate the
material with curricula or content standards. Many activities are multidisciplinary.
Student action projects are not included. For educators, a limited lesson plan format
is used that includes objectives. Use of multiple intelligences is promoted in the
hands-on activities, but performance-based instruction and cooperative learning tech-
niques are not included. This book is available in bookstores and through the National
Wildlife Federation.

STUDENT WETLANDS ACTION PROJECTS

Some programs are not intended to function as a curriculum, but rather spur
students into taking some environmental action. Toward that end the following
programs are successfully empowering students to take action on wetlands.

Schoolyard Habitats Program

Introduced in 1995, the Schoolyard Habitats Program of the National Wildlife

Federation promotes the establishment of habitat learning sites (including wetlands)
on school grounds. To accomplish this, a prepaid habitat certication kit may be
ordered. The Application for Certication, which is also available at their Web site,
may be printed, completed, and returned with the appropriate fee.
The application contains ve sections that require thought and planning to
achieve. The categories include project goals and description, key project partici-
pants, components of the habitat (e.g., availability of food, water, cover, and places
to raise young), a site diagram, and use of the habitat in the curriculum. The program
does not include activities or study units but recognizes the extra effort that is
required of students and educators to establish habitat areas. By design, the appli-
cation focuses attention on the essential elements of habitat and the steps necessary
for a successful habitat project.
With habitat certication comes the newsletter Habitats and an opportunity to
order and post a sign indicating that the National Wildlife Federation certies the
habitat. For further information contact the National Wildlife Federation.

Wicked Big Puddles: A Guide to the Study and Certication of Vernal

Pools

The Wicked Big Puddles (Kenney, 1995) guide resulted from student action
projects at Reading Memorial High School in Massachusetts. Individuals, groups,
and high school students produced it as an aide in the identication, study, and
certication of vernal pools. A vernal pool is a type of depression wetland in which
snow melts and spring rains collect. Vernal pools exist long enough to be used for
amphibian reproduction but usually are dry in summer. Unless certied, vernal pools

2001 CRC Press LLC

are presumed not to exist and, therefore, have no protection from destruction. While
the certication forms and procedures are specic to Massachusetts, wetlands (and
vernal pool) certications are being conducted in other jurisdictions as well. Check
with your state department of natural resources or department of the environment
for information about programs in your state.
The guide is designed for use by high school students and adults as a project
and does not have a lesson plan format. Two publications of the Massachusetts
Audubon Society may provide additional help in this endeavor, Vernal Pool Lessons
and Activities (Childs and Colburn, undated) and Certied: a Citizens Step-by-Step
Guide to Protecting Vernal Pools (Colburn, 1993). To order copies of Wicked Big
Puddles, contact the Vernal Pool Association.

Handbook for Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability

The target audiences for the Handbook for Wetlands Conservation and Sustain-
ability (Firehock et al., 1998) are community organizations, such as local chapters
of the Izaak Walton League. The focus is on establishing a wetland stewardship
program, monitoring the wetland, and taking action to protect or enhance the wet-
land. Secondary school students working with adults can use the material presented,
but again, schools are not the target audience. The needs of school systems and
educators are, therefore, not addressed.
The Handbook was published by the Save Our Streams Program of the Izaak
Walton League of America in 1996. After 2 years of eld testing with chapters
across the nation, the second edition was printed in 1998. The rst three chapters
provide basic wetland information in a readable format, while the next ve chapters
supply information and directions on how to establish a stewardship program, mon-
itor the many aspects of a wetland, and conserve wetlands by taking action. The
second half of the Handbook contains references, resources, contacts, and 12 appen-
dices giving detailed directions on some aspect of wetlands conservation.
This useful manual is available directly from the Izaak Walton League. Also
available are 2-day workshops to provide assistance in the many hands-on aspects
of conserving wetlands.

WILD School Sites and Taking Action

WILD School Sites (Charles, 1993) and Taking Action (Stoner, 1995) are both
produced by the Council for Environmental Education in conjunction with Project
WILD. Both supply directions for developing schoolyard habitats, including wet-
lands, through a variety of student actions. WILD School Sites presents the rationale
for providing habitat, basic wildlife habitat needs, suggestions for projects, steps for
creating a plan, and putting the plan into action. The site may also be certied
through the National Wildlife Federation for a small fee. Taking Action, an educa-
tors guide to involving students in environmental action projects, may or may not
involve a school site, yet provides ideas of what actions to take and how to accom-
plish those actions.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 By design, both publications focus on action projects. Neither provides lesson
plans nor instructional objectives. Both are multidisciplinary, allow use of multiple
intelligences, and could be implemented using a variety of teaching techniques.
These two projects thoughtfully guide educators through the difcult process of
gaining acceptance for a project and getting it started. For additional information,
contact Project WILD.

POW!: The Planning of Wetlands

Newly available in 1999, POW!: The Planning of Wetlands (Ripple et al., 1999)
provides background information for educators on the enhancement, restoration,
creation, and monitoring of wetlands. Student activities to accomplish that goal are
also provided. Using the same format as WOW!: The Wonders of Wetlands, this action
project guide is designed for use with students in grades 512. Modied activities
are included for use with younger students (grades K4), but they might also
participate with older student partners in the main activities.
The national science content standards and activities are cross-referenced in a
table to assist school systems in determining curriculum t. Most activities are
multidisciplinary. As a student action project, planning a wetland could provide
service learning credits. To guide educators, each activity is presented in a lesson
plan format with instructional objectives, procedures, assessments, and extensions.
Multiple intelligences are used in most activities, with many opportunities for use
of performance-based instruction and cooperative learning.
The manual may be ordered from Environmental Concern Inc., which also
provides a 3-day course to guide educators in planning wetlands. Package programs
are available that include manuals, a 3-day course, and professional guidance on
wetland siting and design.

Grant Funding

Funding is available for obtaining programs such as those discussed above, or

developing new wetland educational programs. The larger government grants, avail-
able at the national level, require much planning and preparation to produce a grant
proposal. They often require matching funds and are highly competitive. State and
regional government grants generally offer lower funding levels, require less paper-
work, may or may not require matching funds, and are somewhat less competitive.
Most large corporations set aside money for grants, some of which may be available
for wetland education. While some advertise the funds available in competitive,
established programs, others award money if solicited, and if the grant proposal
matches their interests. Foundations of all sizes also offer grants. Small local com-
panies should not be overlooked if the grant funding request is modest and will in
some way benet the local area. To save time and effort, match funding request levels
and the area to be affected to appropriate organizations at the national, state, and
local levels. It is also acceptable to request funds from more than one source.
For those unfamiliar with writing grant proposals, it must be stressedread and
follow all directions and guidelines. Those reviewing the proposals may know very

2001 CRC Press LLC

little about what is being proposed, but they can evaluate whether the required
information has been supplied, and whether it is presented in an appealing manner.
Incomplete grant proposals typically are rejected. Before the merits of a proposal
can be considered, it must be complete.
If a proposal is rejected, inquire as to why if reasons or copies of reviewers
comments are not supplied with the rejection letter. Quite possibly there was no
aw in the proposal, just that more funds were requested than were available. Heed
suggestions for improvement, and then do not hesitate to reapply to the same
organization or to another.
Be sure the program ts the needs and skill levels of the intended audience if
requesting grant funds for a program. A wetland program designed for fth graders
may not be utilized at all in areas that have second and ninth grade wetland units
in the curriculum. A grant proposal is stronger and more likely to be funded if it
can be shown that a need for the program exists.
One of many references that can help in writing a strong grant proposal is Grant
Funding for Your Environmental Education Program: Strategies and Options prepared
by the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE, 1993).
Courses are also available offering tips and techniques for writing grant proposals
through local college continuing education and workforce training programs.
There are several ways of locating appropriate granting agencies, including
mailing lists for grant information from appropriate federal agencies, publications
with summary lists of available grants, Internet search, and Internet alert groups.
Each has advantages. For those who prefer hard copy information booklets and
forms, check the local library for directories that provide information on agencies,
corporations, and foundations that offer grants. Most directories are updated yearly.
Contact the organizations that appear most appropriate for your needs, then request
grant information, applications, and placement on their mailing list. Be aware that
within each federal agency there are many programs offering grants, most on an
annual cycle. In addition, many agencies have regional ofces that offer grants within
specic areas.
If Internet is your information tool of choice, try an Internet search for grants
or, if you prefer to have a search done for you, try an organization such as U.S.
Opportunity Alert (www.usalert.com/public/register.asp) that will deliver targeted
funding information automatically via e-mail for a fee. Whatever funding source
you choose to pursue, follow their guidelines carefully, fully complete the application
and/or proposal, and submit paperwork on time.

Membership Organizations

A host of pertinent organizations are available that network people and infor-
mation. Many focus on environmental education, but an increasing number are
stressing wetland education. Most have publications, workshops, and/or conferences
to help educators stay abreast of new ideas, new materials, and training that is
available. Table 6 provides a listing of some national organizations that provide a
variety of benets for wetland educators.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Table 6 Organizations Which May Benet Wetland Educators
Organization Benets Address Phone/Web Site
American Water Resources Publications 950 Herndon Parkway, Suite 300 703-904-1225
Association Conferences Herndon, VA20170-5531 www.uwin.siu.edu/~awra
Local sections
American Water Works Association Publications 6666 West Quincy Ave. 303-794-7711
Drinking water week Denver, CO 80235 www.awwa.org
Blue Thumb Project
Ducks Unlimited Publications One Waterfowl Way 800-45ducks
Local chapters Memphis, TN 38120-2351 www.ducks.org
Conservation
Global Rivers Environmental Publications 206 South Fifth Ave., Suite 150 734-761-8142
Education Network (GREEN) Workshops Ann Arbor, MI 48104 www.igc.org/green
Network www.earthforce.org
Kits
Izaak Walton League of America, Publications 707 Conservation Lane 800-BUG-IWLA
Save Our Streams Program Workshops Gaithersburg, MD 20878-2983 www.iwla.org
Local chapters
National Audubon Society Publications Education Division 212-979-3000
Workshops/camps 700 Broadway www.audubon.org
Local chapters New York, NY 10003
National Marine Educators Publications P.O. Box 1470 228-0-374-7557
Association (NMEA) Annual conference Ocean Springs, MS 39566-147 www.marine-ed.org
Local chapters
National Science Teachers Publications 1840 Wilson Blvd. 703-243-7100
Association (NSTA) Convention Arlington, VA 22201-3000 www.nsta.org
Programs
National Wildlife Federation Publications 8925 Leesburg Pike 800-588-1650
Workshops Vienna, VA 22184 www.nwf.org
Nature Conservancy Publications 4245 North Fairfax Dr., Suite 100 703-841-5300
Local chapters Arlington, VA 22203-1606 www.tnc.org
Conservation

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 6 Organizations Which May Benet Wetland Educators
Organization Benets Address Phone/Web Site
North American Association for Publications 410 Tarvin Road 706-764-2926
Environmental Education Annual conference Rock Spring, GA 30739 www.naaee.org
(NAAEE) Sections/activities
Member directory
Sierra Club Publications 730 Polk Street 317-231-1908
Activities San Francisco, CA 94109 www.sierra.org
Wetlands projects
Terrene Institute Publications 4 Herbert Street 703-548-5473
Conferences Alexandria, VA 22305 www.terrene.org
Wetlands month

2001 CRC Press LLC

 WETLAND EDUCATION FOR PROFESSIONALS

To be effective and competitive, professionals in any eld must stay current with
information, techniques, and regulations. Both continuing education courses offered
by universities and training workshops offered by independent professional groups
are available to wetland professionals. Membership organizations encourage net-
working of people and sharing of information. They also help members stay abreast
of conferences and training opportunities.

Certication

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers certication program is specic for wetland
delineation. The program was designed to ease the burden of wetland delineation
under Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Currently that program is not funded.
The Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS) has created a certication program to
satisfy the need to identify individuals who are qualied to assess and manage
wetlands. The certication program has no legal or ofcial standing but signies
that a Professional Wetland Scientist meets the standards established by his/her peers.
It requires both education and experience and is designed to meet the needs of a
broad range of wetland professionals. For more information on the SWS Professional
Certication Program, call 800-627-0629 or check the Web site: www.wetland
cert.org.

University Continuing Education

Universities with postgraduate continuing education programs often have short

courses for wetland professionals who wish to improve their knowledge and skills,
need to refresh them, or need to catch up on the latest developments in the eld.
One outstanding example is the Cook College Continuing Professional Education
Program of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Rutgers offers programs
in wetland delineation, protecting watersheds, stabilization and restoration of dis-
turbed sites, planning hydrology for wetland construction, and more. The Society
of Wetland Scientists lists colleges offering training at www.sws.org/colleges. Dis-
cover what else is available in your region by contacting local colleges and univer-
sities directly.
In coastal states, the National Sea Grant College Program provides resources
for workshops, research, and grants. Sea Grant is a partnership program consisting
of government, industry, and universities and is designed to provide research,
education, and outreach on the seas and their land borders. The National Sea Grant
Depository of publications is located at the University of Rhode Island and can be
accessed by telephone (401-874-6114) or Web site (www.nsgd.gso.uri.edu). The
Web site also provides links to all Sea Grant Colleges. If living or working in a
coastal state, check the nearest Sea Grant College for a wealth of resources and
possible training opportunities.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Independent Professional Training

A wide variety of professional training opportunities are available from many

excellent independent commercial and nonprot organizations. The reputation of
the instructor is often key to the quality of the course, but even unknowns are worth
some risk if the program has a good reputation. The organizations that follow are
representative of what is available, but the list is not comprehensive. For a more
complete listing of training opportunities worldwide, check the Ramsar Web site
(www.ramsar.org/wurc_training_directory.htm) or the Society of Wetland Scientists
Web site (www.sws.org/training).

Environmental Concern Inc.

Environmental Concern Inc. is a small nonprot organization with a singular

focus on wetlands. They have a long-term commitment to wetland education, search
and development, and application of technology in wetland construction, restoration,
and enhancement. Quality professional courses are offered in the areas of wetland
delineation, wetland hydrology, wetland mitigation, evaluation for planned wetlands,
wetlands botany, wetlands horticulture, and more. Wetlands courses for educators
are now offered as well. Scholarships are available for college juniors and seniors,
government regulators, and educators. Occasionally, conferences on selected wetland
topics are convened.
Environmental Concern has published a variety of wetland-related books and
the Wetland Journal. The Wetland Journal, published four times per year, encourages
contributions and comments from professionals in the eld. For a professional course
schedule, a subscription to the Wetland Journal, or information about other publi-
cations, contact Environmental Concern Inc. at P.O. Box P, St. Michaels, MD 21663
or on the Web at www.wetland.org.

Wetland Training Institute

The Wetland Training Institute, Inc. is a commercial association of instructors

from government, private industry, and academia that was formed to provide pro-
fessional training in water resource conservation, management, and regulation.
Courses offered at a variety of locations include wetland delineation, wetland soils
and hydrology, wetland construction and restoration, hydrology of constructed wet-
lands, federal wetland policy, and more. Some publications are also available. Con-
tact the Wetland Training Institute for more information and schedules at P.O. Box
31, Glenwood, NM 88039 or on the Web at www.wetlandtraining.com.

Richard Chinn Environmental Training

Richard Chinn Environmental Training is a small but well-publicized commercial

venture offering courses in Florida and many locations throughout the country.
Wetland Delineation and Management Training (plus other courses unrelated to

2001 CRC Press LLC

wetlands) are scheduled annually. For additional information and schedules contact
CET Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc., P.O. Box 10776, Pompano Beach,
FL 33061-6776 or on the Web at www.richardchinn.com

Institute for Wetland and Environmental Education and Research

The Institute for Wetland and Environmental Education and Research (IWEER),
a private educational organization, offers short training courses for environmental
professionals. Courses focus on wetland-related topics which are presented by a faculty
of recognized experts, all of whom have experience teaching. Course topics include
wetland delineation, wetland hydrology, wetland classication, hydrogeomorphic con-
cepts, plant identication, and more. Courses are offered at a variety of locations and
are mostly eld oriented. For additional information and a schedule of courses, contact
the Institute for Wetland and Environment Education and Research, P.O. Box 288,
Leverett, MA 01054 or on the Web at members.aol.com/iweer.

Membership Organizations

Professional organizations offer a variety of training and networking opportuni-

ties that help to maintain and increase levels of competency for wetland specialists.
Table 7 lists organizations that may help ll that need.

2001 CRC Press LLC

 Table 7 Organizations of Interest to Wetlands Professionals
Organization Benets Address Phone/Web Site
American Association for the Publications, meetings 1200 New York Ave., NW 202-326-6400
Advancement of Science (AAAS) Education section Washington, DC 20005 www.aaas.org
Association of State Wetland Managers Publications, meetings P.O. Box 269 518-872-1804
Workshops Berne, NY 12023-9746 www.aswm.org
Registry
Ecological Society of America (ESA) Publications, meetings 2010 Mass. Ave., NW, Suite 400 202-833-8773
Workshops Washington, DC 20036 www.sdsc.edu/
Education section ~ESA/esa.htm
Environmental Law Institute (ELI) Training 1616 P St., NW, Suite 200 202-939-3800
Seminars Washington, DC 20036 www.eli.org
National Association for Conservation Publications, meetings P.O. Box 855 202-547-6223
Districts (NACD) Conventions League City, TX 77574-0855
National Science Foundation (NSF) Publications 4201 Wilson Blvd. 703-306-1234
Grants Arlington, VA 22230 www.nsf.gov
Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Publications, meetings 1207 Seminole Hwy., Suite B 608-262-9547
Conferences Madison, WI 53711 www.ser.org
Training
Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS) Publications, meetings P.O. Box 1897 913-843-1221
Training Lawrence, KS 66044-8897 www.sws.org
Certication
Soil Science Society of America Publications, meetings 677 South Segoe Rd. 608-273-8095
Conferences Madison, WI 53711-1086 www.soils.org
Certication
Water Environment Federation Publications 601 Wythe Street 800-666-0206
Conferences Alexandria, VA 22314-1994 www.wef.org
Training

2001 CRC Press LLC

 REFERENCES

American Forest Foundation, Project Learning Tree, American Forest Foundation, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1995.
Bloom, B., Ed., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain,
David McKay, Inc., New York, 1956.
Charles, C., Ed., WILD School Sites, Council for Environmental Education, Bethesda,
MD, 1993.
Childs, N. and Colburn, E., Vernal Pool Lessons and Activities, Massachusetts Audubon
Society, Lincoln, MA.
Colburn, E. A., Ed., Certied: A Citizens Step-by-Step Guide to Protecting Vernal Pools,
5th ed., Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA, 1993.
Council for Environmental Education, Project WILD Activity Guide, Council for Environ-
mental Education, Bethesda, MD, 1992.
Council for Environmental Education, Project WILD Aquatic Education Activity Guide, Coun-
cil for Environmental Education, Bethesda, MD, 1992.
Firehock, K., Graff, L., Middleton, J. V., Starinchak, K. D., and Williams, C., Handbook for
Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability, Izaak Walton League of America,
Gaithersburg, MD, 1998.
Gardner, H., Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New
York, 1983.
Groundwater Foundation, Festival Outreach Packet, The Groundwater Foundation, Lincoln,
NE, 1996.
Groundwater Foundation, Bringing the Festival Home, The Groundwater Foundation, Lincoln,
NE, 1996.
Kagan, S., Cooperative Learning, Kagan Cooperative Learning, San Clemente, CA, 1997.
Kenney, L. P., Wicked Big Puddles, Vernal Pool Association, Reading Memorial High School,
Reading, MA, 1995.
Killham, A., Making Waves: How to Put on a Water Festival, The Groundwater Foundation,
Lincoln, NE, 1996.
Kusler, J. and Opheim, Our National Wetland Heritage, Environmental Law Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1996.
Lazear, D., Eight Ways of Teaching: The Artistry of Teaching for Multiple Intelligences,
Skylight Publishing, Andover, MA, 1999.
Madison, S. and Paly, M., A World in Our Backyard: A Wetlands Education and Stewardship
Program, Environmental Media Center, Chapel Hill, NC, 1994.
McTighe, J., What happens between assessments? Educ. Leadership, December
January, 1996.
National Wildlife Federation, Wading into Wetlands: Ranger Ricks Nature Scope, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1997.
National Wildlife Federation, Schoolyard Habitats Planning Guide, National Wildlife Feder-
ation, Vienna, VA.
National Research Council, National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 1995.
North American Association for Environmental Education, Grant Funding for Your Environ-
mental Education Program: Strategies and Options, NAAEE, Troy, OH, 1993.
Ripple, K. L., Garbisch, E., Krause, M. L., and Lathbury, M. E., POW!: The Planning of
Wetlands, Environmental Concern Inc., St. Michaels, MD, 1999.
Slattery, B. E., WOW!: The Wonders of Wetlands, Environmental Concern Inc., St. Michaels,
MD, 1991.

2001 CRC Press LLC

Slattery, B. E. and Kesselheim, A. S., WOW!: The Wonders of Wetlands, Environmental
Concern Inc., St. Michaels, MD, and The Watercourse, Bozeman, MT, 1995.
Stoner, D. K., Taking Action, Council for Environmental Education, Bethesda, MD, 1995.
Tiner, R. W., In Search of Swampland, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1998.
Usher, L., Lippy, K., and Pauls, S., Eds., Discover Wetlands, Publication #88-16, Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, revised July 1995.
The Watercourse and Western Regional Environmental Education Council, 1995.
Project WET, The Watercourse, Bozeman, MT and WREEC, Houston, TX, 1995.

2001 CRC Press LLC