, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 477–489 | Cite as

Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles

  • Stephanie E. Gwin
  • Mary E. Kentula
  • Paul W. Shaffer
Special Section on Wetlands in an Urbanizing Landscape


Landscape profiles describing the pattern of the diversity of wetlands in a region can serve as a standard for characterizing the resource and quantifying the effects of management decisions. We used hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification to generate landscape profiles to evaluate the effects of mitigation in the rapidly urbanizing area of Portland, Oregon, USA. The profiles were produced from information on the types, numbers, and relative abundances of wetlands by HGM class. Using field data, topographic maps, and National Wetland Inventory maps, we classified 45 naturally occurring wetlands (NOWs) into regional HGM classes (depression, riverine, slope, andlacustrine fringe) and developed the corresponding landscape profile (the NOW-Profile). We then classified 51 mitigation wetlands (MWs) and added them to the profile (the All Site-Profile) to examine changes in the regional wetland resource. The classification of MWs required development of new, atypical HGM classes to describe the unique combinations of site morphology and landscape setting found in these wetlands:depression-in-riverine-setting, in-stream-depression, anddepression-in-slope-setting. Comparison of the landscape profiles showed that the structure and settings of NOWs and MWs are very different. Most NOWs fell into the regional HGM classes (91%), but most MWs fit the atypical classes (75%). Most NOWs were riverine wetlands (56%), whereas most MWs were depressions-in-riverine-setting and in-stream-depressions (33% for each class). The All Site-Profile showed an increase in the proportion of wetlands with depressional morphology, comprised mostly of MWs. Results also showed that the majority (71%) of MWs were constructed, at least partially,within existing NOWs through an exchange of wetland types and that most of these MWs (86%) belonged to the atypical classes. The approach used shows that the cumulative effects of wetland management decisions can be discerned effectively through HGM classification and development of landscape profiles. Although our results are important in documenting the landscape changes taking place in a specific region through mitigation, our approach is generally applicable for evaluating wetland management decisions and helping resource managers to make better-informed, broad-based decisions about the wetland resource.

Key Words

mitigation wetland creation wetland enhancement wetland restoration Oregon hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification landscape analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Abbruzzese, B. and S. G. Leibowitz. 1997. A synoptic approach for assessing cumulative impacts to wetlands. Environmental Management 21:457–475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Administrative Rules for Oregon’s Removal-Fill-Permit Program, OAR 141-85-005 to OAR 141-85-090. 1986. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Bedford, B. L. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bedford, B. L. and E. M. Preston. 1988. Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: status, perspectives, and prospects. Environmental Management 12:751–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.Google Scholar
  6. Brinson, M. M. and R. Rheinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, S. E., D. White, and A. L. Schaedel. 1991. Oregon ecological regions and subregions for water quality management. Environmental Management 15:847–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, C. A. and R. P. Brooks. 1999. A comparison of the hydrologic characteristics of natural and created mainstem floodplain wetlands in Pennsylvania. Ecological Engineering. 12:(in press).Google Scholar
  9. Confer, S. R. and W. A. Niering. 1992. Comparison of created and natural freshwater emergent wetlands in Connecticut (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 2:143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-79/31.Google Scholar
  11. Dahl, T. E. and C. E. Johnson. 1991. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, Mid-1970’s to Mid-1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, M. M. 1995. Endemic wetlands of the Willamete Valley, Oregon. p. 1–8.In Studies of Plant Establishment Limitations in Wetlands of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-RE-13.Google Scholar
  13. Eggers, S. D. 1992. Compensatory wetland mitigation: some problems and suggestions for corrective measures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Findlay, C. S. and J. Houlahan. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11:1000–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forman, R. T. T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbs, J. P. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland-associated animals. Wetlands 13: 25–31.Google Scholar
  17. Gosselink, J. G. and L. C. Lee. 1989. Cumulative impact assessment in bottomland hardwood forests. Wetlands 9:83–174.Google Scholar
  18. Guard, J. B. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Gwin, S. E. and M. E. Kentula. 1990. Evaluating design and verifying compliance of wetlands created under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in Oregon. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR, USA. EPA/600/3-90/061.Google Scholar
  20. Holland, C. C., J. Honea, S. E. Gwin, and M. E. Kentula. 1995. Wetland degradation and loss in the rapidly urbanizing area of Portland, Oregon. Wetlands 15:336–345.Google Scholar
  21. Holland, C. C. and M. E. Kentula. 1992. Impacts of Section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation on wetlands in: California (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 2:157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kentula, M. K., R. P. Brooks, S. E. Gwin, C. C. Holland, A. D. Sherman, and J. C. Sifneos. 1992a. An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Kentula, M. E., J. C. Sifneos, J. W. Good, M. Rylko, and K. Kunz. 1992b. Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environmental Management 16:109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiesecker, J. M. and A. R. Blaustein. 1997. Population differences in responses of red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) to introduced bull-frogs. Ecology 78:1752–1760.Google Scholar
  25. Kruczynski, W. L. 1990. Options to be considered in preparation and evaluation of mitigation plans. p. 555–570.In J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Kupferberg, S. J. 1997. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 78:1736–1751.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, L. C. and J. G. Gosselink. 1988. Cumulative impacts on wetlands: linking scientific assessments and regulatory alternatives. Environmental Management 12:591–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leonard, W. P., H. A. Brown, L. L. C. Jones, K. R. McAllister, and R. M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis, R. R. III. 1990. Wetland restoration/creation/enhancement terminology: suggestions for standardization. p. 417–422.In J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Magee, T. K., S. E. Gwin, R. G. Gibson, C. C. Holland, J. Honea, P. W. Shaffer, J. C. Sifneos, and M. E. Kentula. 1993. Research Plan and Methods Manual for the Oregon Wetlands Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, USA. EPA/600/R-93/072.Google Scholar
  31. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr. and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacifie Northwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ID, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118–125 (map scale 1∶7,500,000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oregon Removal-Fill Law, O.R.S. 541.605–541.695 and 541.990, and Removal or Filling in Scenic Waterways, O.R.S. 390.805–390.835, 390.905 and 390.925. 1989. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Oregon Wetland Inventory and Wetland Conservation Plans, O.R.S. 196.668–196.692. 1989. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Owen, C. R. 1990. Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Wetlands Association. Madison, WI. USA.Google Scholar
  39. Owen, C. R. and H. M. Jacobs. 1992. Wetland protection as land-use planning: the impact of Section 404 in Wisconsin, USA. Environmental Management 16:345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Race, M. S. and M. S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecological Applications 6:94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shaich, J. A. and K. T. Franklin. 1995. Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Oregon: A Program Evaluation with a Focus on Portland Metro Area Projects. Oregon Division of State Lands. Salem, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Sibbing, J. M. 1997. Mitigation’s role in wetland loss. National Wetlands Newsletter, 19:1, 17 21.Google Scholar
  43. Sifneos, J. C., E. W. Cake, Jr. and M. E. Kentula. 1992a. Effects of Section 404 permitting on freshwater wetlands in Louisiana. Alabama, and Mississippi. Wetlands 12:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sifneos, J. C., M. E. Kentula, and P. Price. 1992b. Impacts of Section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation of freshwater wetlands in Texas and Arkansas. The Texas Journal of Science 44:475–485.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M. M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-9.Google Scholar
  46. Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Wineberg, H. 1993. Population estimates for Oregon: July 1, 1992. Center for Population Research and Census, School of Urban Affairs, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  48. Winter, T. C. 1992. A physiographic and climatic framework for hydrologic studies of wetlands. p. 127–148.In R. D. Robarts and M. L. Bothwell (eds.) Aquatic Ecosystems in Semi-Arid Regions: Implications for Resource Management. Environment Canada. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. N.H.R.I. Symposium Series 7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie E. Gwin
    • 1
  • Mary E. Kentula
    • 2
  • Paul W. Shaffer
    • 1
  1. 1.Dynamac Corporation Environmental ServicesCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.United States Environmental Protection AgencyNHEERL-WEDCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations