Adamus P (2006) Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Assessment guidebook for tidal wetlands of the Oregon Coast: Part 1. Rapid Assessment Method. Report to Oregon Department of State Lands, USEPA, and Coos Watershed Association
Amezaga J, Santamaria L, Green J (2002) Biotic wetland connectivity-supporting a new approach for wetland policy. Acta Oecologica 23:213–222
CrossRefGoogle ScholarArnold C, Gibbons C (1996) Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:243–258
CrossRefGoogle ScholarBartoldus C (1999) A comprehensive review of wetland assessment procedures. Environmental Concern Inc., Maryland
Google ScholarBedford B (1996) The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:57–68
CrossRefGoogle ScholarBedford B (1999) Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the United States and southern Canada. Wetlands 19:775–788
CrossRefGoogle ScholarBolstad P (2005) GIS fundamentals: a first text on geographic information systems, 2nd edn. Eider, Minnesota
Google ScholarBrinson M (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4, Vicksburg, Mississippi
Brooks R, Wardrop D, Bishop J (2004) Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the mid-Atlantic region using synoptic land-cover maps. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94:9–22
CrossRefPubMedGoogle ScholarBrophy L (2005) Tidal wetland prioritization for the Siuslaw River estuary. Report of Greenpoint Consulting prepared for the Siuslaw Watershed Council. Mapleton, Oregon
Bruland G, Hanchey M, Richardson C (2003) Effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on hydrology, soils, and water quality of a Carolina bay complex. Wetland Ecology and Management 11:141–156
CrossRefGoogle ScholarCallaway J (2001) Hydrology and substrate. In: Zedler J (ed) Handbook for restoring tidal wetlands. CRC Press LLC, Florida, pp 89–111
Google ScholarCedfeldt P, Watzin M, Richardson B (2000) Using GIS to identify functionally significant wetlands in the Northeastern United States. Environmental Management 26:13–24
CrossRefPubMedGoogle ScholarCook B, Hauer F (2007) Effects of hydrologic connectivity on water chemistry, soils, and vegetation structure and function in an intermontane depressional wetland landscape. Wetlands 27:719–738
CrossRefGoogle ScholarDahl T (2006) Status and trends of wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998–2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington
Google ScholarDean T, Ferdaña Z, White J, Tanner C (2000) Skagit estuary restoration assessment, identifying and prioritizing areas for habitat restoration in Puget Sound’s largest rural estuary. Report by People for Puget Sound and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available via
http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP230/p230.htm. Accessed 4 Dec 2008
Division of State Lands (1970) Habitat types for the Coos Bay Estuary Plan. Available via
http://www.coastalatlas.net. Accessed 4 Dec 2008
ESRI (2000) ArcView spatial analyst. Environmental Systems Research Institute, California
Google ScholarESRI (2005) ArcGIS 9 Writing geoprocessing scripts with ArcGIS. ESRI, Inc., California
Google ScholarESRI (2006) ArcGIS 9.2. ESRI, Inc., California
ESRI (2009) ArcGIS 9.3. ESRI, Inc., California
Evans N, Thom R, Williams G, Vavrinec J, Sobocinski K, Miller L, Borde A, Cullinan V, Ward J, May C, Allen C (2006) Lower Columbia River restoration prioritization framework. Report PNWD-3652 of Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory prepared for the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. Portland, Oregon
Giannico G, Souder J (2005) Tide gates in the Pacific Northwest, operation, types, and environmental effects. Report ORESU-T-O5-001 of Oregon State University prepared for Oregon Sea Grant. Corvallis, Oregon
Hiers J, Laine S, Bachant J, Furman J, Greene W, Compton V (2003) Simple spatial modeling tool for prioritizing prescribed burning activities at the landscape scale. Conservation Biology 17:1571–1578
CrossRefGoogle ScholarHoulahan J, Findlay C (2004) Estimating the ‘critical’ distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landscape Ecology 19:677–690
CrossRefGoogle ScholarHychka K, Wardrop D, Brooks R (2007) Enhancing a landscape assessment with intensive data: A case study in the upper Juniata watershed. Wetlands 27:446–461
CrossRefGoogle ScholarJennings A, Jennings T, Bailey R (2003) Estuary management in the pacific northwest: an overview of programs and activities in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study. Report ORESU-H-03-001, Oregon Sea Grant. Corvallis, Oregon
Johnston C, Detenbeck N, Bonde J, Niemi G (1988) Geographic information systems for cumulative impact assessment. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54:1609–1615
Google ScholarJones J, Swanson F, Wemple B, Snyder K (2000) Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14:76–85
CrossRefGoogle ScholarKusler J, Brooks G (1987) Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Wetland Hydrology. Association of State Wetland Managers. Chicago, Illinois
Lin J, Bourne S, Kleiss B (2006) Creating a wetland regulation decision support system using GIS tools. U.S Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Technical note ERDC-TN-EMRRP-EM-05. Vicksburg, Mississippi
Liu C, Frasier P, Kumar L, Macgregor C (2006) Catchment-wide wetland assessment and prioritization using the multi-criteria decision making method TOPIS. Environmental Management 38:316–326
CrossRefPubMedGoogle ScholarLyon J, McCarthy J (1995) Wetland and Environmental Applications of GIS. CRC, Florida
Google ScholarMitsch W, Gosselink J (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
Google ScholarNational Research Council (1994) Priorities for coastal ecosystem science. National Academy Press, Washington
Google ScholarNational Research Council (1995) Wetlands, characteristics and boundaries. National Academy Press, Washington
Google ScholarNOAA Coastal Services Center (2000) Pacific Coast Land Cover. Available via
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/pacificcoast.html. Accessed 4 Dec 2009
Oregon Bureau of Land Management (2006) Ground Transportation. Available via
http://www.blm.gov/or/gis/. Accessed 4 Dec 2009
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (2005) Fish passage barriers. Available via
http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata. Accessed 4 Dec 2009
Regional Ecosystem Office (2007) Hydrography. Available via
http://hydro.reo.gov. Accessed 4 Dec 2009
Rumrill S (2006) The ecology of the South Slough estuary: site profile of the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. Oregon Department of State Lands, NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division, Technical Report. Coos Bay, Oregon
Russell G, Hawkins C, O’Neill M (1997) The role of GIS in selecting sites for riparian restoration based on hydrology and land use. Restoration Ecology 5(4S):56–68
CrossRefGoogle ScholarScranton R (2004a) The application of geographic information systems for delineation and classification of tidal wetlands for resource management of Oregon’s coastal watersheds. Masters Thesis, Marine Resource Management Program, Oregon State University
Scranton R (2004b) Tidal wetlands of Oregon’s Coastal Watersheds. Available via
http://www.coastalatlas.net. Accessed 4 Dec 2009
Shreffler D, Thom R (1993) Restoration of urban estuaries: new approaches for site location and design. Report of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories prepared for Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Sequim, Washington
Sutter L (2001) Spatial wetland assessment for management and planning (SWAMP): technical discussion. NOAA Coastal Services Center. Publication No. 20129-CD. Charleston, South Carolina
Thom R, Williams G, Borde A (2003) Conceptual models as a tool for assessing, restoring, and managing Puget Sound habitats and resources. Proceedings of Puget Sound Research, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Olympia, Washington
Tiner R (2005) Assessing cumulative loss of wetland functions in the Nanticoke River watershed using enhanced national wetlands inventory data. Wetlands 25:405–419
CrossRefGoogle ScholarTurner M, Gardner R, O’Neill R (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New York
Google ScholarUS Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) National Wetlands Inventory. Available via
http://www.fws.gov/nwi/. Accessed 4 Dec 2009
USGS (2001) Impervious Surfaces. Available via
http://seamless.usgs.gov/. Accessed 4 Dec 2009
USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (2001) Watershed catchments. Available via
http://edna.usgs.gov/. Accessed 4 Dec 2009
Van Lonkhuyzen R, LaGory K, Kuiper J (2004) Modeling the suitability of potential wetland mitigation sites with a geographic information system. Environmental Management 33:368–375
CrossRefPubMedGoogle ScholarWeller D, Snyder M, Whigham D, Jacobs A, Jordan T (2007) Landscape indicators of wetland condition in the Nanticoke River watershed, Maryland and Delaware, USA. Wetlands 27:498–514
CrossRefGoogle ScholarWhigham D, Weller D, Jacobs A, Jordan T, Kentula M (2003) Assessing the ecological condition of wetlands at the catchment scale. Landschap 20:99–111
Google ScholarWilliams G, Thom R, Evans N (2004) Bainbridge Island nearshore habitat characterization and assessment. Management strategy prioritization and monitoring recommendations. Report PNWD-3391 of Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island. Bainbridge Island, Washington
Zedler J (2000) Progress in wetland restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:402–407
CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar