Wetlands

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 490–504

Characterization of wetland hydrology using hydrogeomorphic classification

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

Abstract

Hydrologic data are essential for understanding relationships between wetland morphology and function and for characterizing landscape-scale patterns of wetland occurrence. We monitored water levels in 45 wetlands for three years to characterize the hydrology of wetlands in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon, USA and classified wetlands by hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class to determine whether hydrologic regimes differed in wetlands in different HGM classes. We also compared hydrologic regimes in naturally occurring wetlands (NOWs) and mitigation wetlands (MWs) and in wetlands with/without a human-made water-retention structure to determine whether and how human modifications are changing the hydrology of wetlands. We found no relationship between hydrologic attributes and land use, soil association, or wetland area. We did find significant differences related to presence of a water-retention structure and to wetland type (NOW or MW). Water levels were higher and had less temporal variability and more extensive inundation (as % wetland area) in MWs and in wetlands modified to include a retention structure. HGM class was very effective for characterizing wetland hydrology, with significant differences among, HGM classes for water level and for extent and duration of inundation. For three regional classes, we found the lowest water levels and lowest extent/duration of inundation in slope wetlands, intermediate conditions in riverine wetlands, and the highest water levels and greatest extent and duration of inundation in depressions. In “atypical” classes (Gwin et al. 1999), average water level and extent of inundation were similar to conditions in depressions, but the within-site variability in water levels in depressions-in-slope-setting and in-stream-depressions was significantly smaller than in the regional classes (p ≤ 0.001). Results highlight the importance of both geomorphic setting and wetland structure in defining wetland hydrology and support the use of HGM for wetland classification. Because hydrology is an important determinant of many wetland functions, resource managers using restoration and mitigation to offset wetland losses should strive for project design and siting that re-establish the hydrogeomorphology of natural wetlands to improve the likelihood of replacing wetland functions.

Key Words

hydrogeomorphic setting water retention wetland hydrology wetland mitigation wetland morphology wetland restoration Portland Oregon, USA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Cole, C. A., R. P. Brooks, and D. H. Wardrop. 1997. Wetland hydrology as a function of hydrogeomorphie (HGM) subelass. Wetlands 11:456–467.Google Scholar
  6. Confer, S. R. and W. A. Niering. 1992. Comparisons of created and natural freshwater emergent wetlands in Connecticut (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 2:143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corkran, C. C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, M. M. 1995. Endemic wetlands of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. p. 1–8In 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
  9. Dunne, T. and L. B. Lcopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrenfeld, J. G. and J. P. Schneider. 1991.Chamaecyparis thyoides wetlands and suburbanization: effects of nonpoint source water pollution on hydrology and plant community composition. Journal of Applied Ecology 28:467–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrenfeld, J. G. and J. P. Schneider. 1993. Responses of forested wetland vegetation to perturbations of water chemistry and hydrology. Wetlands 13:122–129.Google Scholar
  12. Erwin, K. L. 1991. An Evaluation of Mitigation in the South Florida Water Management District, Volume 1. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Galatowitsch, S. M. and A. G. van der Valk. 1996. Characteristics of recently restored wetlands in the Prairie Pothole region. Wetlands 16:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerig, A. J. 1985. Soil Survey of Clackamas County, Oregon. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Convallis, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Green, G. L. 1982. Soil Survey of Washington County, Oregon. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Convallis, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Green, G. L. 1983. Soil Survey of Multnomah County, Oregon. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Guard, B. J. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Gwin, S. E., M. E. Kentula, and P. W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. Wetlands 19:(477–489).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holland, C. C., J. E. 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
  20. Kentula, M. E., R. E. Brooks, S. E. Gwin, C. C. Holland, A. D. Sherman, and J. C. Sifneos. 1992a. An Approach to Decision Making in Wetland Creation and Restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  21. 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. Environmental Management 16:109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kiesecker, J. M. and A. R. Blaustein. 1997. Population differences in responses of red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) to introduced bullfrogs. Ecology 78:1752–1760.Google Scholar
  23. Kusler, J. A. and M. E. Kentula. 1990. Executive Summary p xvii-xxv.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
  24. 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 Field Manual for the Oregon Wetlands Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, USA. EPA/600/R-93/072.Google Scholar
  25. Milliken, G. A. and D. E. Johnson. 1984. Analysis of Messy Data, Volume 1: Designed Experiments. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  27. National Climate Data Center (NCDC). 1995. Climatological Data Annual Summary: Oregon, 1994, Volume 100. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climate Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  28. National Climate Data Center (NCDC). 1996. Climatological Data Annual Summary: Oregon, 1995, Volume 101. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climate Data Center. Asheville, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  29. National Climate Data Center (NCDC). 1997. Climatological Data Annual Summary: Oregon, 1996, Volume 102. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climate Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (ODLCD). 1992. What is an Urban Growth Boundary? Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Omernik, J. M. 1988. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of Association of American Geographers 77:118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Owen, C. R. 1990. Effectiveness of Compensatory Wetland Mitigation in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Wetlands Association, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Stokes, M. E., C. S. Davis, and G. G. Koch. 1995. Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1999

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations