903R91004
             PALUSTRINE WETLAND CREATION
                MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS
                IN PENNSYLVANIA  1985 - 1989
                           REPORT

                            April 1991
                                     TT.S. EPA Region Id
                                     Rs."ionsl Center for Environmental
                                      Information
                                     -.<•-;••) Aich Street(3FM52)
                                     ; -. •- -.Jldphia, PA 19103
                            prepared for:
                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                            Region III
                     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
QH
76.5
.P4
K55
1991
                            submitted by:

                       Gannett Fleming, Inc.
                      Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

-------
        PALUSTRINE WETLAND CREATION MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS
Prepared by:
Ms. Norma L. Kline, Ecologist
387 East Howard Street
Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823
Submitted to:
Mr. Frank Swit, Project Manager
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
207 Senate Avenue
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania  17011
Prepared for:
Ms. Barbara Z. D'Angelo, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Prepared under:
U.S. EPA Contract Number 68-D-80024

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
     Section                                                    Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS  	i
LIST OF FIGURES	iv
LIST OF TABLES  	v
LIST OF EXHIBITS	vi
PREFACE 	vii
          ANALYSIS OF U,S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MITIGATION
          RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTION 404 DISCHARGES INTO
          PENNSYLVANIA WETLANDS
INTRODUCTION	1

BACKGROUND  	3

METHODS	5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  	9

     Mitigation Recommendations	9
     Wetland Creation Mitigation	11
     Purposes of Wetland Discharges	16

CONCLUSIONS  	18

REFERENCES  	19
          EVALUATION OF PALUSTRINE WETLAND CREATION
          MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS
LITERATURE REVIEW  	21

     Wetland Creation	21
     Wetland Creation Evaluation	24

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                 (Cont'd)
      Section                                                          Page
STUDY SITES	27

      Site Selection  	27
      Borough of Huntingdon Wetland Creation Site	34
      PennDOT Bryan Mills Wetland Creation Site	41

WETLAND REFERENCE SITE SELECTION	46

      Methodology	46
      Results  	48
      Discussion and Conclusions  	51

EVALUATION OF WETLAND CREATION SITE EFFECTIVENESS	51

      Methodology	51
      Results and Discussion   	55
      Borough of Huntingdon Wetland Creation Site	57
      PennDOT Bryan Mills Wetland Creation Site	62

CONCLUSIONS   	71

      Effectiveness of the Wetland Creation Sites	71
      Effectiveness of Wetland Creation Evaluation Methodology	75

REFERENCES  	77

APPENDICES

      A.    LIST OF SECTION 404 PERMIT APPLICATIONS
           REVIEWED  	A-l

      B.    STATUS OF WETLAND CREATION SITES THAT EPA AND FWS
           RECOMMENDED AS MITIGATION FOR SECTION
           404 DISCHARGES	B-l
                                    11

-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
                       (Cont'd)
C.    FIELD DATA - BOROUGH OF HUNTINGDON
     WETLAND CREATION SITE	C-l

D.    FIELD DATA - PENNDOT BRYAN MILLS
     WETLAND CREATION SITE	D-l

E.    DESIGN PLANS FOR THE BOROUGH OF HUNTINGDON
     WETLAND CREATION SITE	E-l

F.    DESIGN PLANS FOR THE PENNDOT BRYAN MILLS
     WETLAND CREATION SITE	F-l

G.    MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS: RECAP OF THE
     EXISTING LITERATURE 	G-l
                          m

-------
                                 LIST OF FIGURES


Number                                                                         Page

  1           Configuration of a notched box plot	8

  2           Approximate locations of the wetland creation
             sites in Pennsylvania   	12

  3           Notched box plots	14

  4           Location of the Borough of Huntingdon
             wetland creation site   	39

  5           Location of the PennDOT Bryan Mills
             wetland creation site   	43
                                         IV

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES

Number                                                                         Page

  1           Type and frequency of mitigation recommendations  	10

  2           Total acres of palustrine wetland classes in PA 	11

  3           Type and number of activities associated with
             water dependent discharges  	16

  4           Type and number of activities associated with
             non-water dependent discharges	17

  5           Dominant vegetation observed at the Borough of
             Huntingdon wetland creation site	58

  6           Indicators of vegetation vigor at the Borough
             of Huntingdon wetland creation site	59

  7           Percent bare ground observed at the Borough
             of Huntingdon wetland creation site	60

  8           Acreage and percent of palustrine wetland
             classes expected and observed at the Borough of
             Huntingdon wetland creation site	62

  9           Dominant vegetation observed at the PennDOT
             Bryan Mills wetland creation site	66

 10          Indicators of vegetation vigor at the PennDOT
             Bryan Mills wetland creation site	67

 11          Percent bare ground observed at the PennDOT
             Bryan Mills wetland creation site	69

 12          Acreage and percent of palustrine wetland
             classes expected and observed at the PennDOT
             Bryan Mills wetland creation site	71

-------
                                LIST OF EXHIBITS
Number                                                                          Page

  la          Borough of Beliefonte wetland creation site
             - north half	31

  Ib          Borough of Belief onte wetland creation site
             - south half	32

  2           PennDOT Beauty's Run wetland creation site	33

  3           PennDOT Bryan Mills wetland creation site	35

  4a          Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site
             - west half	36

  4b          Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site
             - east half	37

  5a          Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site
             - west half	63

  5b          Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site
             - east half	64

  6a          PennDOT Bryan Mills wetland creation site
             - south half	72

  6b          PennDOT Bryan Mills wetland creation site
             - north half	73
                                          VI

-------
                                       PREFACE

    This report assesses the effectiveness of palustrine wetland creation mitigation via the
implementation of wetland mitigation policy and the field evaluation of wetland creation sites
constructed during the study period.  The information presented herein analyzes permanent Clean
Water Act section 404 discharges  into palustrine wetlands  in Pennsylvania as proposed via
permit applications issued for review from 1985 through 1989. More specifically, the purposes
of the research were to provide information regarding 1) the general purposes of section 404
discharges into wetlands; 2) the rate and frequency of the types of mitigation recommended by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for proposed
discharges into wetlands; 3) the classification per Cowardin  et al. (1979) of wetland creation
accepted by the agencies to mitigate for section 404 discharges into palustrine  wetlands; 4)
literature review of freshwater wetland creation mitigation and  evaluation; and 5) field evaluation
of freshwater wetland creation sites.

    The records of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State College, Pennsylvania field office
were the primary source of data used to research wetland mitigation, including wetland creation,
for the period  of  study.  Additional information was provided by Environmental Protection
Agency Region III and the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers District offices.  The database
emphasized the permit recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish
and Wildlife Service rather than the permit  decisions of the Corps of Engineers Districts,
consequently this report reflects the perspectives of the Environmental Protection  Agency and
the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding mitigation for Clean Water Act section 404 discharges
into wetlands, rather than mitigation implemented via the Corps permit decision process.
                                           vn

-------
      ANALYSIS OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
      FOR SECTION 404 DISCHARGES INTO PENNSYLVANIA WETLANDS

                                INTRODUCTION

      The Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 program regulates the discharge of dredge or
fill material into wetlands and other waters of the United States in order to restore and maintain
the  chemical, physical,  and biological integrity of these  waters  (Environmental Protection
Agency  1980). The section 404 program is administered jointly by the U.S. Environmental
Protection  Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The COE processes
and issues  permit applications. The EPA reviews and provides recommendations regarding the
issuance, modification or denial of permit applications.  The EPA bases section 404 permit
application recommendations in accordance with the Agency's Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines and
guidance prepared jointly by EPA  and COE (Environmental Protection Agency 1980). In
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) comments  in an advisory capacity on the damage a proposed section 404 discharge may
have on fish and  wildlife resources (Corps of Engineers 1986).  Mitigation for section 404
discharges  to waters of the United States is required by EPA and Corps regulations, as well as
EPA and FWS mitigation policies (Environmental Protection Agency 1980; Ciupek 1986; Corps
of Engineers 1986; Holmberg 1988).

       EPA and  FWS have used the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) definition of
mitigation  (40 CFR 1508.20) in combination with the mitigation sequencing required by the
Section 404(b)(l)  Guidelines as the basis for their mitigation policies (Ciupek 1986; Holmberg
1988; Kruczynski 1989). The types of mitigation described by CEQ regulations are combined
for  the purposes of the section 404 program into avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation  (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army 1990).
Compensation mitigation entails counteracting for the impact  of section 404 discharges by
replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Compensatory mitigation for section

-------
404 discharges into wetlands can include the creation of man-made wetlands and the restoration
or enhancement of degraded wetlands.

        For discharges into wetlands the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines require mitigation be
implemented in a particular sequence (Kruczynski 1989).  First, attempts to avoid discharges into
wetlands are to be considered.  Second, attempts  to minimize the discharges associated with a
project are to be considered.   Then, if appropriate, compensatory  mitigation (i.e.,  wetland
restoration, enhancement or creation) is considered for the unavoidable loss of wetland functions
resulting from adverse impacts to aquatic systems  (Ciupek 1986; Meagher 1988).  This manner
of interpreting mitigation has been practiced since the inception of wetland regulation by the
CWA (Kusler 1988).

        Via the section  404 permit process, EPA  and FWS review and comment on a
case-by-case basis regarding the potential for adverse  environmental  impacts  by proposed
discharges into wetlands.   The need for adaptability in application of the  Guidelines to the
evaluation  of proposed  section 404 discharges  and,  hence,  the application of mitigation
sequencing in keeping with the potential for adverse environmental impact proposed by a section
404 permit application are recognized (Environmental Protection Agency 1980; Meagher 1988).
Yet, EPA regulations and policy and FWS policy necessitate mitigation sequencing when making
recommendations regarding proposed wetland discharges (Ciupek 1986; Kruczynski 1989).
Despite the emphasis placed upon mitigation sequencing, Quammen (1986) has noted the lack
of information on mitigation which involves avoidance and minimization of impacts proposed
in permit applications.

        This research has been undertaken to review CWA section 404 discharges into palustrine
wetlands as proposed via COE permit applications and to provide information regarding 1) the
general purposes of section 404 discharges into wetlands; 2) the rate and frequency of the types
of mitigation recommended by EPA and FWS for  proposed discharges into wetlands; and 3) the
classification and areas of wetland creation accepted by the agencies for section 404 discharges
in order to target wetland creation  sites authorized by section 404 permits for field evaluation.

-------
                                   BACKGROUND

       Wetlands are characterized by soils, hydrology and vegetation, as well as other factors.
Federal regulations define wetlands as  semi-aquatic areas that are inundated or saturated by
water for sufficient periods of time  during the growing seasons to favor the growth of plants
adapted to life in saturated soils (EPA 1980; COE 1986). There are two broad categories of
wetlands; inland and coastal wetlands. Usually palustrine wetlands are located on the floodplains
of rivers  and streams, in isolated depressions surrounded by dry land, in the shallow water areas
of lakes  and ponds (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1988) and at the headwaters of
streams.

       The three most common types of palustrine wetlands in the mid-Atlantic region of the
nation are emergent wetlands dominated by grasses, sedges, and other herbaceous vegetation;
shrub wetlands vegetated with woody plants less than 20 feet in height;  and forested wetlands
dominated by trees greater than 20 feet tall. As of 1979, about 2% of Pennsylvania was covered
by wetlands.  Pennsylvania's nearly one-half million acres of wetlands consisted of emergent
wetlands  (14.1%),  shrub wetlands (28%),  forested wetlands  (44.4%) and freshwater ponds
(13.5 %)  (Tiner 1987). Almost half of the palustrine emergent, shrub and forested wetlands were
concentrated in the northeastern and  northwestern corners of Pennsylvania with about 25 % and
20% wetlands, respectively (Tiner 1989; Tiner and Finn 1986).  The  Appalachian highlands of
Pennsylvania, excluding the glaciated northeast, contained 46% of the wetlands (Tiner 1989).

       Wetlands can provide plant and animal habitat, water quality improvement, flood water
storage and abatement, erosion protection, sediment control, food and timber production, habitat
for threatened  and endangered species, recreation and education opportunities (Conservation
Foundation 1988; U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service 1984;  Tiner 1987).  In recognition of the
importance of wetlands as a public resource, the discharge  of  dredge or fill material into

-------
wetlands has been regulated by section 404 of the CWA since 1977 (Kruczynski 1989).  Due
to their  import  and sensitivity,  the discharge  of dredge or fill material into  wetlands is
considered one of the "most severe environmental impacts" addressed by the Section 404(b)(l)
Guidelines (Environmental Protection Agency 1980;  1989).

        The discharges of dredge or fill material into wetlands and other waters of the United
States usually requires a section 404 permit from U.S Army Corps of Engineers.  Excavation
activities in  wetlands require  a permit under certain circumstances  (Perry  1986).  Individual
permit applications are required for many section 404 discharges. Individual permit applications
provide for a case-by-case evaluation of the consequences of proposed discharges to the aquatic
environment (Corps of Engineers 1986).  Certain discharges into wetlands and other waters of
the United States are considered to have  minimal individual and cumulative effects and are
regulated by general permits (Environmental Protection Agency 1980).  Discharges authorized
by general permits are not individually assessed  by the COE, EPA and FWS.

        Generally, EPA and FWS review and comment upon proposed section 404 discharges
into wetlands  and  other waters of  the  United States  via individual permits  applications.
Individual permit applications can be issued by the COE as Public Notices (PNs) or Letters of
Permission (LOPs).  In addition, one form of general permit, nationwide permit 26, has an
established notification procedure  for certain proposed discharges which can result  in the
issuance of a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN). EPA and FWS  can review PDNs and make
recommendations regarding proposed discharges into headwater and isolated waters and  their
wetlands, or the agencies can request that the COE issue an individual permit application for the
proposed discharge.  At its discretion,  the COE can decide to issue an  individual permit for a
nationwide permit 26 discharge (Corps of Engineers 1986). The issuance of an individual permit
application for discharges into headwater and isolated water wetlands regulated by nationwide
permit 26 allows EPA, FWS and COE to review the full environmental effect of the proposed
discharge and the compliance of the discharges with the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines (Corps of
Engineers 1986).

-------
                                     METHODS

        The files of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the State College, Pennsylvania field
office were the primary source of data for the study. The FWS files provided an accessible,
comprehensive, centralized record of section 404 permit applications. Additional information
was provided by EPA Region III and the Corps of Engineers.  PNs, LOPs and PDNs issued
from January  1985 through December 1989  in Pennsylvania were reviewed  to identify and
collect data on EPA and FWS mitigation recommendations for permit applications which
proposed permanent section 404 discharges into palustrine wetlands.  As the intent of the
research was to describe the application of mitigation policy for proposed section 404 discharges
into wetlands,  data were not collected from permit applications that dealt solely  with discharges
into waters  of the United States other than  wetlands; that did  not  clearly involve  wetland
discharges; or  that involved temporary discharges into wetlands which the applicant intended to
restore.  The permit logs  maintained by FWS indicated that one  PN issued by the Baltimore
District COE in 1985 for a section 404 discharge into a open water wetland was missing from
the files.

       Methods of  categorizing the  data for EPA and FWS comments  on  mitigation and
discharge characteristics were conducted as described by Ott (1988), Simon (1978),  and Runyon
and Haber (1977).  The types of mitigation — avoid, minimize, and compensatory (i.e., create,
restore, enhance) were defined  based on  the Guidelines (Environmental Protection  Agency
1980), Kusler  (1988), Lewis (1989), and empirical experience (N. L.  Kline, pers. obs.).

       Data collected on the extent of the  discharge and the purposes of the proposed wetland
discharges were based upon those stated in the PN, LOP, or PDN,  unless project files indicated
modification of the discharge.  The area of wetland impacted by  the proposed discharge was
considered to be that directly affected.  Excavation  of a wetland was not considered a section
404 discharge unless the permit application  indicated  that the excavation  resulted  in the
placement of dredge  or fill material regulated by the CWA (Corps of Engineers 1986). If no
differentiation  was made between wetland  discharges and discharges into other waters of the

-------
United States not being considered in this study, then the amount stated was assumed to be for
discharges into wetlands.   For one project, a range of wetland acreage to be created  was
recommended, so the average was calculated and tabulated.  For another project, two distinct
types of wetlands were to be created, but only the acreage for both types was specified.  For
data analysis the acreage to be created was divided evenly between the two wetland types.  The
average of the EPA and FWS wetland creation recommendations  was used for one permit
application on which the agencies' recommendations differed.

       Data on EPA and FWS mitigation recommendations for proposed wetland discharges
were collected from comments on permit applications submitted by the agencies to the COE.
Usually the final comments submitted by an agency were used,  unless incorporation of earlier
comments contained in the project file was necessary to adequately represent the position of the
agency on mitigation. Data were collected on whether an agency recommended mitigation and,
if so, the type(s) of mitigation recommended.  Mitigation recommendations made for discharges
proposed in PDNs were recorded accordingly.  EPA and FWS requests for individual permits
applications in response to nationwide permit 26 PDNs were not reported, as these requests did
not conform to the mitigation categories established by the policies of the agencies.

       The types of palustrine  wetlands to be impacted by discharges or to be created to
compensate for discharges were categorized in keeping with the categories of the classification
system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979).  The palustrine wetland classes were determined
based upon  designation in  the permit  application, agency comments, mitigation  plans, site
descriptions depicting wetland types and/or associated project documentation. Consequently, the
classification of wetland classes did not  adhere strictly to the life form compositions defined by
Cowardin et al.

        Collection of data on projects that involved multiple permit applications was based upon
how the Corps processed  the  applications.   Comments on multiple applications for a single
project were collected as though they addressed a single permit application when project revision
or regulation changes resulted  in a different permit application, yet the Corps made a single

-------
decision regarding permit issuance.  EPA and FWS comments on multiple applications for a
single project were collected for each permit application when the Corps made separate decisions
regarding permit issuance for each application, and/or if the permit application was withdrawn
by the applicant prior to a final decision by the Corps and the project was not resubmitted.  Few
of the proposed wetland discharges reviewed involved multiple permit applications.

       The intent of reviewing all section 404 permit application notices issued from  1985
through 1989 was to collect information on all proposed permanent discharges into palustrine
wetlands in Pennsylvania during the period of study. Thus, data analysis and interpretation were
based on the assumption  the data comprise the population of interest.

       Descriptive data  analysis  was used  to  interpret the data.   Data calculations  were
performed by hand and  using MINITAB  statistical software  (Minitab, Inc. 1990).   Data on
mitigation types, wetland types, and purposes of discharges were analyzed within the constraints
of nominal data (Simon 1978; Ryan, Joiner and Ryan 1985; Ott 1988). The frequency at which
the agencies recommended types of mitigation was determined by combining EPA and FWS
recommendations for section 404 discharges into wetlands. As EPA and FWS require mitigation
sequencing when making recommendations for proposed wetland discharges, permit application
review should result in  the  avoidance and minimization of discharges into wetlands;  and,
consequently, the population shape of the sizes of creation sites and section 404 discharges for
which permits were issued was expected to have a distribution skewed to the right. Therefore,
exploratory and rough confirmatory nonparametric statistics were used to analyze these data, as
nonparametric procedures are less  influenced  by data set extremes  and undetected  data
contamination (T. P. Hettmansperger, The Penn. State  Univ., pers. commun.).

       Notched box plots were used to describe the sizes of proposed section 404 discharges
and the sizes of wetland creation areas recommended for mitigation. Notched box plots display
data using the median, quartiles, extremes, and confidence intervals around the median (Figure
1). The box plot can be used to describe data variability, symmetry and distribution (Ott 1988),
while the notch provides a rough measure of the significance of difference between the values

-------
of notches of other box plots (McGill et al. 1978).  The box of a box plot represents the first
and third quartiles or middle 50% of the population (i.e., inter-quartile range).  The median
(second quartile) is designated by a vertical line within  the box.  Lines known as  "whiskers"
extend from the box to data points within 1.5 times the inter-quartile range (IQR) from the
median or encompassing 99% of the population.  Data points beyond the ends of the whiskers
are outliers. The probability of an outlier representing the population of interest is less than 1 %.
Outliers are designated as individual points in a notched box plot graph (Figure 1).
                      Figure 1. Configuration of a notched box plot
           First
          quartile
 Third
quartile
                             Median
                                                                 Mild outlier
                                                                     J
                                                                     *
                             Extreme outlier
                                t
                             Notch
  Whisker
                                        Scale

-------
A data point located beyond 1.5 times the IQR is called a mild outlier and a data point beyond
3 times the IQR is called an extreme outlier.  The notch within the box estimates the confidence
interval for the median.  The notch confidence interval is calculated using the sample size and
a selected confidence coefficient (T. P. Hettmansperger, The Penn. State Univ., pers. commun.;
Ott 1988;  McGill et al. 1978).  A 95% confidence coefficient was used to approximate the
medians for proposed  section 404 discharges  and wetland creation  areas recommended to
compensate for those discharges.

                            RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

       Data were collected from March through May 1990.  Appendix A contains a list of the
permit applications from which data were collected.  Of the 144 permit application files that met
initial study criteria 139 (96.5 %) were sufficiently complete to be analyzed. A total of 795 acres
of wetland discharges were proposed in the 139 permit applications. Proposed discharges ranged
in size from 0,01 to 56.8 acres.  Eleven permit applications did not specify the acres of wetland
impact to result from the proposed discharge.

Mitigation Recommendations

       EPA and FWS recommended at least one type of mitigation  for 125 (89.9%)  of the
proposed discharges. More than one type of mitigation was recommended by the agencies for
60 (48%)  of the wetland discharges for which the agencies recommended mitigation.  Three
multiple mitigation  recommendations accounted for 72.9% of the 60 such recommendations
made by the agencies. In order of rank  they were: 1) avoidance and restoration by the removal
of existing dredge or fill material, 2) minimize impacts and create wetlands as mitigation, and
3) minimize impacts and restore wetlands impacted by discharges authorized by the section 404
permit process. The high occurrence of EPA and FWS recommendations for mitigation, coupled
with the emphasis placed on avoiding and minimizing impacts in combination with the different
types of compensatory mitigation, seem to reflect  what would be expected by the practical
application of prescribed mitigation policy to section 404 permit review.

-------
       Of the  290 mitigation recommendations made by the agencies for 139 proposed
discharges, avoidance was the most frequent recommendation made by the agencies (Table 1).
The combined frequencies of the avoidance and minimization recommendations accounted for
slightly less than half (45.9%) of the total recommendations  made  for proposed  wetland
discharges.  Restoration  was the second most frequent recommendation. The frequency of
restoration recommendations was high as many of these recommendations were for the removal
of discharges that were unacceptable to EPA or FWS. Of the 45 wetland discharges for which
the  agencies recommended  restoration 31 (68.9%) were  for wetland discharges that were
violations of the Clean Water Act.
TABLE 1
TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND FISH AND WILDLIIFE
SERVICE FOR PROPOSED SECTION 404 DISCHARGES INTO
PALUSTRINE WETLANDS (1985-1989)
Mitigation Type
Avoidance
Minimization
Creation
Restoration
Enhancement

Frequency
89
44
67
78
12
N = 290
Percent
30.7%
15.2%
23.1%
26.9%
4.1%

       The agencies  recommended compensatory mitigation for 93  (66.9%) of the permit
applications and more than one type of compensatory mitigation was  recommended for some
wetland discharges. Wetland enhancement was recommended for 10 discharges or (10.8%) of
the discharges for which the  agencies advised compensatory  mitigation. The agencies
recommended wetland restoration for discharges proposed in 45 permit applications.  For 31
                                         10

-------
(68.9%) of these 45 discharges restoration was recommended to remove existing dredge or fill
material.  While the rates of recommendation for wetland creation and restoration are similar,
these types  of mitigation tended to  be recommended for different types of discharges  into
wetlands.  Often, wetland restoration was associated with discharges considered avoidable by
the agencies. Wetland creation seemed to be associated with discharges for which impacts had
been sufficiently minimized or were deemed unavoidable. Statistical testing would be necessary
to confirm these apparent associations; however, such testing was outside the scope of the study.

Wetland Creation Mitigation

         EPA and FWS recommended wetland creation for 47 discharges into wetlands.  This
comprised 33.8% of the projects reviewed and 50.5% of all projects for which the agencies
recommended compensatory mitigation. Table 2 indicates the total number of acres of palustrine
wetland classes  that the  agencies  recommended  for  creation.    The palustrine  wetland
classification most often recommended by the agencies for wetland creation  consisted of a
mixture of palustrine wetland classes.  The approximate locations of the  wetland creation area
sites are illustrated in Figure 2.
TABLE 2
TOTAL ACRES OF PALUSTRINE WETLAND CLASSES EPA AND FWS
RECOMMENDED AS CREATION MITIGATION FOR SECTION 404
DISCHARGES IN PENNSYLVANIA WETLANDS FROM 1985 THROUGH 1989
Wetland Classification
Palustrine emergent
Palustrine scrub-shrub
Palustrine forested
Palustrine open water
Mixture of palustrine classes
Class not specified
TOTAL
Total Acres
8.96
8.33
5.56
1.16
131.50
19.12
174.63
                                           11

-------
                     1
                   s -a

                   •* g
                   S-S
                   b
                   u c3

                   SI

                   •p
                   So
                   o •
                             C

                             I
                             V)

                             e
                             O



                             I
                             "53


                             
-------
        Proposed discharges for which EPA and FWS recommended wetland creation (N=46)
ranged from 0.03 acres to 40 acres in size.  One permit application did not specify the acres of
wetland to be filled. The median proposed discharge size was 1.75 acres. A 95% confidence
interval for the median was 0.98 to 2.26 acres.  The shape of the population of proposed section
404 discharges was skewed to the right.  Sixteen or 34.7% of the discharge into wetlands were
less than one acre in size and  36 (78.3%) were  less than 5 acres in size.  The box plot of
proposed discharges (Figure 3a) designated five discharges as outliers. One proposed discharge
was a mild outlier and four discharges were extreme outliers.   Approximately  99%  of the
discharges for which the agencies recommended  permit approval and wetland creation were
equal to or less than 7.7 acres in size.

        Based upon the information contained in the FWS permit application files, 58 wetland
creation areas were recommended to compensate for aquatic impacts resulting from  the 46
discharges.  The specific number of acres of wetlands to be created was not specified for two
of the section 404  discharges.  EPA and FWS recommended the creation of 174.6 acres of
wetlands.  The sizes of the wetland creation areas ranged from 0.03 to 40 acres (Figure 3b).
The median size of the total wetland creation sites was 1.08 acres.  The 95 % confidence interval
for the median was 0.80 to 1.85 acres. The shape of the population of all recommended wetland
creation areas was skewed to the right. Twenty-three (23) (39.7%) of the wetland creation areas
were less than one acre in size;  48 (82.8%) were less than 5 acres in size.  The box plot for the
total wetland creation areas designated four outliers: three mild outliers and one extreme outlier.
Wetland creation areas recommended by the agencies were unlikely to exceed 8.2 acres in size.

        Figures 3a and 3b illustrate that the sizes of all the wetland creation areas recommended
by EPA and  FWS were representative of the sizes  of the wetland discharges proposed in the
permit applications. These two box  plots had nearly identical IQRs, indicating little variation
in the data between the two populations  (T. P. Hettmansperger , The Penn. State Univ., pers.
commun.; Ott 1988).  The notches in the box plots overlapped, roughly indicating no significant
difference between  the medians and supporting a determination that the recommended wetland
creation areas reflected the proposed discharges. Inferential statistical analysis of the population
                                           13

-------
                                                                                                                 - CM
                                                                                                                  -CO
                                                                                                                   CM
                                                                                                                  -CM
                                                                                                                   CM
                                                                                                                   CM
4
 s
                                                                                                                 z CM
                                    CO
tJ

re
                                                                                                                 = 09
0)
                                     ra
                                     O)
Q)

E
  o
  o
  ฃ

ฅ
 u.
-^3-

  re


1

 •s
T
-O-
                                                                                                                   -at

                                                                                                                          VI
                                                                                                                         +J
                                                                                                                          O
                                      0)
                                    o
                                   -co-
                                     re

                                     ฃ
                                     re
                                                                          co
                                                                          re
  re

  o
 re

!
                                                                                                                          OJ

                                                                                                                         A
                                                                                                                          o
                                                                                                                         -P
                                                                                                                          o
 ts
                                     "re
1
                                                                                                                    -CO
                                                                          tJ
                                                                          C
                                                                          re
                                                                                                                   -CM

                                     fi
 re
                                                                          i
                                                                           o
                                                                          -JC3-
                                                                                         T
                                       ^-T-     d>

                                        :        SH




                                        =  ^     teC
                                                          14

-------
variances or medians would be required to confirm this determination.

       Based on acreage, EPA  and FWS most often recommended a mixture  of palustrine
wetland classes to be created for the mitigation of section 404 discharges into Pennsylvania's
wetlands (Table 2). Mixture wetland areas ranged from 0.23 to 40 acres (Figure 3c), however,
99% of the areas were from 0.23 to 8.2 acres in size. The IQR for these creation areas was
1.09 to 4.95 acres.  As with  the total wetland creation areas,  the agencies were  unlikely to
recommend mixture wetland creation areas in excess of 8.2 areas.

       As depicted by the box plot (Figure 3c), the population distribution of mixture wetland
creation areas was skewed less to the right than that of all wetland creation areas.  About 18
percent of  the mixture wetland creation areas were less then one acre in  size, as compared to
39.7% for  all wetland creation areas.  The median for the mixture wetland creation areas was
2.22 acres  with  a 95%  confidence interval of 1.39 to 4.17 acres.  Although the overlapping
notches of  Figures 3b and 3c roughly indicated no significant difference between  the estimated
medians  for the total and mixture  wetland  creation sites, the narrower notch of Figure  3b
indicated a more precise estimate of the median for all the wetland creation areas than the wider
notch of the mixture wetland creation areas (T.P. Hettmansperger, The Penn.  State Univ., pers.
commun.). The IQR and, in particular, the width of the notch illustrated in Figure 3c suggested
the mixture wetland creation areas may be larger than the non-mixture wetland creation areas
which comprise the balance of the wetland creation recommendations.  The project schedule and
resources did not permit additional analysis of the data to verify this hypothesis.

       Each of the three box  plots in  Figure 3  were skewed to the  right.  The outliners for
proposed section 404 discharges were in excess of 7.7 acres in size.   Outliers for wetland
creation areas recommended by EPA and FWS were in excess  of 8.2 acres.  For all permit
applications reviewed the proposed discharges ranged from 0.01  to 56.8 acres. In  comparison
to all the proposed discharges, the distribution of the discharges and the wetland creation area
sizes recommended by the agencies further supported the analysis that EPA and FWS implement
mitigation sequencing when making recommendations for regarding section 404 discharges.
                                           15

-------
       It should be noted that the sizes of recommended wetland creation areas may not reflect

the size of the wetland(s) actually created for the mitigation of permitted discharges, as one or

more wetland sites may need to be created to compensate for the area of wetlands impacted by

the permitted discharge.


Purposes  of Wetland Discharges


       Of the 47 proposed discharges for which the agencies recommended creation to mitigate

for wetland  impacts, 6 (12.8%) had activities associated  with water  related discharges (as

determined on  a case-by-case basis)(Table 3) and 41  (87.2%)  had activities associated with

non-water dependent discharges (Table 4).
                                     TABLE 3
                       TYPE AND NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES
                           ASSOCIATED WITH WATER
                 RELATED DISCHARGES* FOR WHICH EPA AND
                  FWS ACCEPTED WETLAND CREATION (N=6)
                Boat basin construction (1)
                Fish pond facility (1)
                Flood control project (1)
                Peat mining (1)
                Waterfowl habitat creation (1)
                Water reservoir expansion (1)
                   This is not to suggest that the below listed activities are always considered
                   to be water related or water dependent as defined in the 404(b)(l)
                   guidelines.
                                        16

-------
               	TABLE 4	

                TYPE AND NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED
                  WITH NON-WATER DEPENDENT DISCHARGES
                           FOR WHICH EPA AND FWS
                    ACCEPTED WETLAND CREATION (N=41)
               Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (13)
                   highway construction (9)
                   bridge replacement (2)
                   bridge construction (1)
                   road widening (1)
               Road construction (4)
               Wastewater treatment plant expansion (4)
               Airport expansion (3)
               Industrial development (3)
               Commercial development (2)
               Gas extraction (2)
               Residential development (2)
               Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (2)
                   highway ramps (1)
                   interchange construction (1)
               Creation of aesthetic, spiritual and recreation area (1)
               Golf course construction (1)
               Municipal waste landfill (1)
               School construction (1)
               Storage facility expansion (1)
               Storm water control structures (1)
               Railroad transfer facility expansion (1)
       Unlike the water related discharges, the number of activities associated with the different
types of non-water dependent discharges were not equally distributed. Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation (PennDOT), road construction and wastewater treatment plant expansion
projects accounted for slightly more than half (51.2%) of the 41 non-water dependent discharges

for which EPA and FWS recommended wetland creation.  PennDOT projects accounted for
31.7%  of the non-water dependent discharges and for 27.7% of all the section 404 discharges
into wetlands for which the agencies recommended wetland creation.  Development activities
accounted for nearly all the discharges.
                                        17

-------
        Non-water dependent discharges into wetlands were proposed for 74.1% of the 139
permit applications analyzed and water related discharges proposed for the remaining 25.9% of
the applications.  The percentage of discharges with non-water dependent purposes (87.2%) and
water dependent purposes (12.8%) for which EPA and FWS recommended wetland creation
mitigation contained a higher percent of non-water dependent discharges than proposed overall.

                                   CONCLUSIONS

        Analysis of EPA and FWS comments on 139 section 404 permit applications issued from
1985 through 1989 for permanent discharges into palustrine wetlands located in Pennsylvania
suggested that  the  mitigation recommendations of EPA and  FWS  for proposed wetland
discharges reflect the mitigation precepts of both agencies.  Because descriptive statistics were
used to analyze the compatibility between agency mitigation requirements and actual mitigation
recommendations,  confirmatory analysis is required to  statistically confirm  the association
suggested by this study.

        Almost 75%  of the  section 404 permit applications reviewed  proposed non-water
dependent discharges.  Development accounted for nearly all the activities associated with the
non-water dependent discharges. The agencies recommended wetland creation for approximately
one-third of the section 404 discharges in the permit applications reviewed.  Based on acreage
a mixture of palustrine wetland classes was most frequently recommended for wetland creation
by EPA and FWS to mitigate for discharges into wetlands.  The sizes of the wetland creation
areas recommended by  the agencies  to mitigate  for  section 404 discharges  was  better
approximated by the notched box plot  for  the total wetland  creation areas.  Hence, it  is
recommended that mixture wetland creation areas ranging from 0.8 to 1.85 acres be targeted for
the field evaluation of palustrine wetland creation mitigation effectiveness.
                                          18

-------
                                  REFERENCES
Ciupek, R. B. 1986. EPA's conservative policy on mitigation, p. 12-13.  National Wetlands
Newsletter 8:5.

Conservation Foundation. 1988. A better system to protect wetlands is needed. Conservation
Foundation Letter. No. 5.

Corps of Engineers.  1986. Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final rule. 33 CFR
Parts 320 through 330. Department of the Army, Department of Defense. Federal Register Vol.
51, No. 219. Washington, D.C.

Cowardin  et al. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States.
FWS/OBS-79/31. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior.  Washington, D.C.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1980.  Guidelines for specification of disposal  sites  for
dredged or fill material.  40 CFR Part 230. Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 249. Washington,
D.C.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Highlights of section 404: federal regulatory program
to protect waters of the United States.  EPA Office of Wetland Protection. Washington,  D.C.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. The benefits of wetlands. FWS F-301 U.S. Department of the
Interior. Washington, D.C.

Hettmansperger, T. P. Fall 1989. Personal communications. The Pennsylvania State University.
University Park,  PA.

Holmberg, N.  D. 1988. The role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in developing section
404 permit mitigation requirements, p. 55-56. In J. A. Kusler, M. L. Quammen and G. Brooks
(eds.) Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium:  Mitigation of Impacts  and Losses.
Association of State Wetland Managers.  ASWM Technical Report 3.

Kruczynski,  W. 1989. Mitigation and  the section 404 program: a perspective, p.  137-142. In
J.  A.  Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland Creation  and  Restoration: The Status  of the
Science, Volume II: Perspectives. EPA/600/3-89/038 a, b, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis,  OR.

Kusler. J.  A. 1988.  Major issues:  mitigation of impacts and losses, p. 6. In J. A. Kusler, M.
L. Quammen and G. Brooks (eds.) Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation
of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers. ASWM Technical Report 3.

Lewis, R. R.  1989. Wetlands restoration/creation/enhancement terminology:  suggestions for
standardization. In J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland creation and restoration: the
status of  the  science, volume II: perspectives.   U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory Corvallis, OR.

                                         19

-------
McGill, R. et al. 1978. Variations of box plots. The American Statistician 32:12-16.

Meagher,  J. W. 1988. Federal Mitigation Regulations,  p.  37-39. In J. A. Kusler, M. L.
Quammen and G. Brooks (eds.) Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation
of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers. ASWM Technical Report 3.

Minitab, Inc. 1990. MINTTAB statistical software. Minitab, Inc. State College, PA.

Ott, L. 1988. An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. PWS-Kent Publishing Co.
Boston, MA. 835 pp.

Perry,  E.  1986.  An introductory guide to wetland identification and the regulatory  process.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  State College, PA.

Quammen, M. L.  1986.  Measuring the success of wetlands  mitigation. National Wetlands
Newsletter 8:5.

Runyon, R.  P. and A. Haber.  1977. Fundamentals of behavioral statistics.  Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co. Reading, PA. 446 pp.

Ryan, B. F., B. L. Joiner and T. A. Ryan, Jr. 1985. Minitab handbook. PWS-Kent Publishing
Company. Boston, MA. 379 pp.

Simon, J.L.  1978. Basic research methods in social sciences:  the art of empirical investigation.
2nd ed. Random House, Inc. New York, NY. 558 pp.

Tiner, R.  W., Jr. 1989. Current status and recent trends in Pennsylvania's wetlands.  In S. K.
Majumdar et al.  (eds.) Wetlands ecology and conservation:  emphasis in Pennsylvania.  The
Pennsylvania Academy of Science.  Easton, PA.

Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1987. Mid-Atlantic wetlands a disappearing natural treasure, p.l. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, National  Wetlands Inventory Project.
Newton Corner, MA.

Tiner, R. W., Jr. and J.T. Finn. 1986. Status and trends of wetlands in five Mid-Atlantic states:
Delaware, Maryland,  Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. U.S. Fish and  Wildlife
Service, Fish  and Wildlife Enhancement, National Wetlands Inventory Project,  Region 5.
Newton Corner, MA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  and U.S. Department of the Army. 1990.  Revised
Memorandum  of agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department
of the Army concerning the determination of mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(l) Guidelines. Washington, D.C. 6 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1988. America's wetlands our vital link between  land
and water. Office of Wetlands Protection, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. OPA-87-016.
                                         20

-------
             EVALUATION OF PALUSTRBSE WETLAND CREATION
                          MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS

                               LITERATURE REVIEW

Wetland Creation

       Wetland creation has been defined as building a wetland where one did not previously
exist (Kusler 1988) and as the transformation by humans of an area of permanent uplands into
a wetland (Lewis 1989).  While wetland creation has often been required to compensate for
CWA section 404 discharges into wetlands, there is a want of information on freshwater wetland
creation projects (Quammen 1986; Erwin 1989a; Lowry 1989; Jackson Submitted).  Summaries
of available research indicate that total failure of wetland creation projects has been rare (Kusler
1988) and partial failure common (Kusler 1988; Kusler and Kentula 1990).  Wetland creation
is considered a  formidable venture.  Indeed, the replication of a natural wetland is considered
unachievable (Kusler and Kentula 1990). As Ciupek (1986) cautioned, the risk associated with
successfully  creating  wetlands is high.

       In  part the lack  of successful  wetland  mitigation projects has been  attributed  to the
attempt to implement a new  technology with  a limited research base  (Jackson  Submitted).
Difficulties associated with wetland creation and its assessment can be complicated by the
regulatory process.   Low compliance with  permit conditions has limited wetland mitigation
evaluation (Quammen 1986). Pierce, Landin and Allen (1988) attributed insufficient compliance
monitoring,  as  well  as  inadequate mitigation objectives and methods to a  lack  of program
personnel  and funds.  The status of wetland mitigation science necessitates that mitigation plans
be scrutinized prior to permit issuance to decide whether the plan counteracts the impacts to
wetlands associated with the discharge (Jackson Submitted).

       The ability to create different types of wetlands varies (Kusler 1988;  Garbisch 1989b;
Lowry 1989). Freshwater marshes are considered easier to create that other types of freshwater
wetlands (Kusler 1988), although Erwin (1989a) cited several problems with marsh creation
projects in the  southeast United States.  Per Zedler and Weller (1989)  nearly all freshwater
                                          21

-------
restoration and creation projects have been palustrine or open marsh wetlands.  Lowry (1989)
confirms this was true in the glaciated northeastern  United States and that consequently the
ability to create forested wetlands, bogs, and fens has been hampered. These reasons have been
presented for the focus on open water and marsh wetlands: wildlife values (Lowry 1989; Zedler
and Weller 1989), aesthetic values (Zedler and Weller 1989), and the comparative ease and
lower cost of creating these types of wetlands compared to  other wetland types (Lowry 1989).

       The capacity to create different types of wetlands has been correlated to the hydrologic
source and hydraulics.  Garbisch (1989b) considers the design and construction of wetlands with
either 1) constant water flow and water levels or 2) near  surface groundwater with seasonal
flooding as "straightforward."   He acknowledges difficulty in  the design and construction of
temporarily  flooded  wetlands  and wetlands with fluctuating groundwater as the source of
hydrology.

       The critical role  of hydrology  in natural and created  wetlands has been  repeatedly
acknowledged (Gosselink and Turner 1978; Hollands, Hollis and Larson 1986;  Kusler 1987;
Kusler 1988; Pierce, Landin and Allen 1988; Lowry 1989; Niering 1989; Kentula In press).
Hydrology is the key component of any wetland system (Gosselink and Turner 1978; Mitsch and
Gosselink 1986).  The hydrology determines the vegetative community in a wetland (Tiner
Undated; Hollands, Hollis and Larson  1986;  Niering 1988).  Most wetlands have oscillating
water  levels  resulting in dynamic  vegetative  communities.   Accordingly,  Niering  (1989)
recommended that wetland creation projects contain constant, fluctuating hydrologic regimes to
promote self-sustaining wetland communities. The development of the intended plant community
requires the creation of the appropriate hydrology. Nonetheless, the success varies for attaining
a dominance of hydrophytes at wetland creation sites (Lowry 1989). The establishment of the
necessary hydrologic conditions  to support the desired plant community should be a goal of
wetland creation (Niering and Kraus (1986); Erwin (1989).

       Creation  of the appropriate  hydrology depends upon 1) an accurate analysis of the
hydrologic conditions at the creation site, 2) designing and constructing the intended hydrology,
and 3) providing plan flexibility  to offset design error (Lowry 1989).  Understanding the
                                          22

-------
hydrology and hydraulics of the site and the landscape  surrounding the site is important to
mitigation success (Vance 1988; Kusler and Kentula 1990).

       In addition to creating the necessary hydrology,  various recommendations have been
made to promote freshwater wetland creation site success:

       •     The creation site must have suitable soils (Erwin 1989a). The soils and substrate
must provide the suitable environment for the planned hydrologic regime and vegetation (Lowry
1989). The substrate surface must be appropriate to the type of wetland being created (Niering
and Kraus 1986);

       •     Lowry (1989) stresses that wetland creation be performed in the same watershed
and stream reach as the original wetland.  He emphasizes that the proposed hydrologic regime
be well documented;

       •     Creation projects need clear, ecologically  sound goals, as well as quantitative
methods for goal assessment (Erwin 1989a; Kusler and Kentula 1990). Pre- and post-monitoring
requirements are needed.  After permit issuance interagency coordination is required (Reimold
and Cobler  1986; Erwin 1989b).  The import of enforcing  and monitoring mitigation project
permit conditions has been noted by Quammen (1986) and Kusler (1988);

       •     Project   designs  should  contain  plans for  sedimentation  control,  pollution
abatement,  etc., particularly in  urban areas, as  wetlands creation sites tend to  be exposed to
surface runoff from developed areas and experience severe sedimentation due to high gradient
slopes adjacent to the area,  and lack of vegetation on slopes. In developed areas sites may be
located on  nutrient  rich streams and streams impacted by  human  induced sediment (Kusler
1988);

       •     To construct the type of wetland planned the original wetland must be completely
assessed (Erwin 1989a) and the effort must be made to find the best possible site (Reimold and
Cobler 1986).  A sufficient budget must be available to accomplish the project  design (Erwin
1989a);
                                          23

-------
       •     The mitigation plan should  contain planting details, consisting of the timing,
density, elevation, and propagule type (Reimold and Cobler 1986). Mulch, plant materials, and
seedbank materials need to be properly handled and applied (Niering and Kraus 1986;  Erwin
1989a);

       •     Problematic exotic vegetation and nuisance animals should not be allowed on site
(Kusler 1988; Erwin 1989a);

       •     Frequent consideration has been given to vegetating the wetland creation site.
Lowry (1989) suggests vegetation plans incorporate  indigenous  species appropriate  to the
anticipated soil and hydrologic conditions.  Transporting the upper 6-12 inches of soil from the
original wetland  and placing it  at  the  creation site has  been  recommended  to promote
colonization (Niering and Kraus 1986; Lowry 1989).  To aid the creation of shrub and forested
wetland Lowry (1989) suggests transplantation of woody vegetation from the original wetland.

Wetland Creation Evaluation

       A lack of wetland mitigation evaluation has been cited (Brooks and Hughes 1988; Lowry
1989; Kusler and Kentula 1990; Jackson Submitted).  In the compilation of wetland mitigation
literature, Jackson (Submitted) speculates that  nowhere is there  a consistent, comprehensive,
complete information base for the creation projects authorized by the section 404 program nor
is there a standardized process for their evaluation.  The EPA is in the process of developing
standards  to characterize  mitigation sites, however, the process will not provide standards by
which to judge site success or failure (R. Sumner, Environ. Prot. Agency, pers. commun.).

       Several difficulties have been encountered evaluating wetland mitigation success:

       •     In part the evaluation of freshwater mitigation project success is obstructed by a
limited data base regarding project goals, site descriptions, construction plans, and evaluator bias
(Jackson submitted);

       •     Zedler and Weller (1989) indicate that it is not  necessarily  clear  whether  to
evaluate permit  compliance  or  the  wetland  functions  provided by  the creation  site.   A
                                          24

-------
consequence of this lack of clarity is that project evaluation frequently results in controversy;

       •     Typically, conceptual mitigation plans prohibit appropriate plan review and lack
the detail to enable mitigation plan evaluation (Garbisch 1989a; 1989b); and

       •     A  lack of project specific goals and criteria complicates evaluation of project
success (Quammen 1986; Erwin 1989a; Kusler and Kentula 1990).

       To provide objectivity in site evaluation, the use of specific guidelines is recommended
(Lowry 1989). It is also important to use scientifically defensible standards (Zedler and Weller
1989).    Quammen   (1986) promoted  wetland  creation  site  monitoring  via  scientific
experimentation.   Due to a shortage of scientific information on creation or restoration projects
Kusler (1988) advises mitigation sites be considered  on-going experiments that may require
remedial action for an unspecified time period.  Niering and Kraus (1986) recommend site
monitoring for a  minimum of three years.

       Quammen (1986) urges that evaluation be performed  by an independent party and that
field measurements be included in the assessment.  Kentula (In press) advises the collection of
field data on principal biological and chemical variables on site.  She has inventoried vegetation,
estimated vegetation cover, analyzed site hydrology, soils, and water quality. At a minimum,
Lowry (1989) recommends vegetation data collection consist of species composition, density and
cover and that the data be collected for an extended length of time.  Lowry advises collecting
information on the hydroperiod, water chemistry, soils, and habitat use.  To varying degrees the
data collection recommendations of Kentula and Lowry have been suggested by Quammen
(1986), Niering  and  Kraus  (1986), and Erwin  (1989a).  Additional information related  to
vegetation has consisted of plant vigor, determination of bare areas on site (Niering and Kraus
1986), site location information (Quammen 1986),  and site size (Quammen 1986;  Niering and
Kraus  1986).

       The lack of quantitative data on mitigation site vegetation has received comment (Zedler
and Weller 1989). Because of the time needed to establish a plant community, the evaluation
of a creation project requires taking into account the time elapsed since construction and the time
of year when assessment will occur.  Lowry (1986) notes that the growth of wetland vegetation
                                          25

-------
on creation sites has been used to determine mitigation success.  Yet, long-term monitoring of
vegetation permanence, plant community life form or function do not exist.

       Opinions differ regarding the comparison of wetland creation sites to natural wetland
(i.e., reference) sites.  Use of reference sites has been advocated by Abbruzzese et al. (1S88),
Brooks and  Hughes (1988), Zedler and Weller (1989), and Kentula (In press).   Zedler and
Weller (1989) support landscape level comparisons of natural and constructed wetlands in order
to comprehend short-term and long-term restoration goals,  Kentula (In press) cites a similar
approach using statistical methods.  Due to the natural variation of individual wetlands even of
the same type Pierce, Landin and Allen (1988) questioned attempts to statistically compare
natural and man-made wetlands.  Erwin (1989a) recommends the comparison of created and
natural wetlands only be used to assess structure and function  characteristics of created and
reference wetlands.   Garbisch  (1989b) discounts the use of reference wetlands  to  evaluate
creation projects.

       A primary  focus of EPA wetland  mitigation research addresses the extent to which
created  wetlands replicate natural wetland functions and values (Abbruzzese  et  al. 1988).
Kentula (In press) proposes the comparison of reference and created wetland sites to determine
whether over time created sites resemble natural wetlands.  Information on how the hydrologic
and biological functions of natural and created wetlands compare is needed (Zedler and Weller
1989).

       As the ecology of a site is influenced by the ecoregion in which it is located (Omernik
1987) and by the  surrounding land use (Urban, O'Neill and Shugart 1987), the selection of
reference sites needs to account for these factors.  Kentula (In press) questions the comparison
of created wetlands located in urban or agricultural land use areas to less disturbed natural areas.
Research by Ehrenfeld (1983) supports Kentula.  Ehrenfeld comments on a similarity in the
vegetation communities of wetlands in developed areas and attributes the similarity to the type
of  disturbance,  including  surrounding  land   use  activities,  rather  than  environmental
characteristics of the wetland.   Brooks and Hughes (1988) also acknowledge  the influence
development land use patterns could have on a wetland plant community.

       When evaluating disturbed wetlands the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
                                          26

-------
Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989) requires
the selection of a reference site with vegetation, soils, hydrology and topography similar to the
disturbed site.  Brooks and Hughes (1988) recommend  a ratio of three  reference sites  per
mitigation site and, among other criteria, selecting natural wetlands of the same size, class and
in the same ecoregion.

       Omernik (1987) defines ecoregions in the conterminous United States based upon distinct
regional patterns of climate, soils, geology,  vegetation and physiography.  He observes that
ecosystems within the ecoregions are more likely to be similar with each other than ecosystems
in other ecoregions.  Kentula (In press) concurs with Omernik.  Abbruzzese et al. (1988) have
developed a method to compare creation and reference sites using a random selection process
to identify  natural wetlands of the same class and size in similar ecoregions.  The method is
being used to compare the hydrology, vegetation, soils and topographic characteristics of the
sites. This method is being developed to apply conclusions regarding mitigation success to a
broad geographic region and to provide a statistically defensible, objective site selection method.
One of the disadvantages of the Abbruzzese et al. (1988) method is the extensive amount of field
time required to identify reference sites.

       In summary, the development of wetland creation science and technology is still new and
largely experimental.  The same is true of wetland creation evaluation methods.  There is a need
to evaluate wetland creation  sites to expand on existing information.   The need seems equally
great to conduct evaluations of wetland creation projects within experimental and quantifiable
constraints.
                                    STUDY SITES

Site Selection

       The primary criterion for selecting wetland creation sites for field evaluation is that the
sites represent the creation mitigation recommendations made by EPA and FWS for section 404
permit applications  issued from  1985  through  1989 for  permanent discharges into palustrine
wetlands.  Analysis of the recommendations made by the agencies specified  the most frequent
wetland classification per Cowardin et al. (1979) and the median wetland creation area size.
Based on acreage, a mixture of palustrine wetland classes was most frequently recommended for
                                          27

-------
wetland creation  by EPA and  FWS to mitigate for discharges into  wetlands.   The  more
statistically  accurate approximation  of the representative size of wetland  creation  areas
recommended by the agencies for mitigation was  the estimated median for all  the wetland
creation  areas  which  ranged from 0.8  to  1.85  acres.   For  mixture wetland  creation
recommendations the estimated median ranged from  1.39 to 4.17 acres. (Refer to Part I for data
analysis specifics.)

       The  other study site  selection  criteria to be considered were 1) the site  must be
sufficiently  established to permit evaluation of  vegetation and comparison of creation site
vegetation to reference site vegetation; 2) all creation and reference sites are located in the same
ecoregion; and 3) the site owner approve of site evaluation.

       After determining the type and size of wetland creation site targeted for field evaluation,
the status of the wetland creation sites was investigated.  Information on specific wetland sites
was requested from each of the Corps  of Engineer (COE) Districts, FWS and, EPA (B. Z.
D'Angelo, correspondence, Environ. Prot.  Agency, Philadelphia, Pa., 5/21/1990; N. L. Kline,
correspondence, Bellefonte, Pa., 5/18/1990, 5/25/1990).  Information  was obtained from the
Baltimore,   Philadelphia  and Pittsburgh COE  Districts,  the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, FWS and EPA (L. Zicari, Environ. Prot. Agency, Pers. commun.; R. Hassel,
Phila.  Dist.  Corps of Eng., pers. commun.; F.  R. Plewa, Bait. Dist. Corps of Eng.,  pers.
commun.; R. Sobol, Pitts. Dist. Corps  of Eng., pers. commun.; C.  J. Kulp, Fish and Wildl.
Serv.,  pers.  commun.; Kehler 1990; S. Kehler, Pa. Dept. of Trans., pers. commun.; Brown
1988).

       The  wetland creation sites considered for evaluation were in the Central Appalachian
ridges  and valleys ecoregion located in central  Pennsylvania (Omernik 1987).   Within the
ecoregion there were 5 creation sites composed of a mixture of palustrine wetland classes that
had been permitted 1985 to 1989 and which were constructed.  The 11.4 acre site located  at the
Beaver Meadow Industrial Park, DuBois, Clearfield County did not comply with the site size
criterion and required remedial action scheduled for summer 1990 (R. Sobol, Pitts. Dist. Corps
of Eng., pers. commun.).  The remaining 4 wetland creation sites ranged in size from 0.67 acre
to 3.9  acres (D. E. Roeseke, Dept. of Army Permit NABOP-RE-86-0435-1, Bait. Dist. Corps
of Eng., Bait., Md.,  1986; Gannett Fleming Transportation Engineers, Inc. 1988; Kehler  1989;
                                          28

-------
H. K.  Fahy, Consultant, pers. commun.).  The sizes and ages of the 4 creation sites did not
precisely conform to the site selection criteria, however, due to the limited number of wetland
creation sites available, each of these sites was considered for evaluation. Field visits took place
May 30 through June 1, 1990.

       The Borough of Bellefonte wetland creation site was  one of the mitigation conditions of
a permit issued by the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers in 1988 for discharges required to
expand an existing wastewater treatment plant. The approximately four acre creation site was
partially constructed in May-July 1989.   Delay in site construction resulted from several
thwarted attempts to locate a suitable upland site in the Spring Creek watershed.  The site was
finally located in  Bellefonte, Spring Township, Centre County.   The primary source  of
hydrology for  the palustrine emergent/open water site was  a  spring-fed,  perennial stream.
Hydric soils from the original wetland were placed on site as seedbank material.  The stream
was relocated through  the creation site during April 1990.  Emergent vegetation  was planted
April 28, 1990 (H. K.  Fahy, Consultant, pers. commun; F. R. Plewa, Bait.  Dist. Corps of
Eng., pers.  commun.). Based upon the site investigation it was determined that the wetland
creation site was not sufficiently established to warrant evaluation of vegetation or  compare
vegetation on site to a wetland reference site. Exhibits la and Ib depict portions of the Borough
of Bellefonte wetland creation site.

       In October  1988, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)  received
an individual section 404 permit from the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers (State College
Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., unpubl. data) to relocate a portion of Beauty's Run
and fill 1.2 acres of palustrine emergent, 1.0 acres of palustrine shrub-scrub wetlands and an
unspecified amount of stream bank wetlands for the construction of the Route 15 bypass (L.R.
1036,  Section A-ll) in Old  Lycoming  and Lycoming Townships, Lycoming County.  The
replacement wetland was to be created in a borrow pit immediately south of the original wetland
and adjacent to the bypass. The 3.9 acre mitigation plan developed was to replace in-kind the
wetlands and stream bank wetlands (Gannett Fleming Transportation Engineers, Inc. 1988). Site
construction began in fall 1989 (S. Kehler, PA. Dept. of Trans., pers. commun.).  Based on
rough estimates made during a May 31,  1990 site investigation, approximately 75% of the site
was unvegetated, approximately 15 % of the site contained  standing water, and approximately
10% of the  site was vegetated. Dead saplings and shrubs as well  as unplanted saplings were
                                           29

-------
observed at the site. The condition of the site was reported to PennDOT for remedial action (R.
Pugh, Gannett Fleming Trans.  Eng., Inc., pers. commun.).  The PennDOT Beauty's  Run
wetland creation site did not meet the site selection criterion requiring established vegetation.
Also, the site had been identified as requiring remedial action making further evaluation to
promote correction of site conditions unnecessary. Exhibit 2 depicts the PennDOT Beauty's Run
wetland creation site.

      Use of nationwide permit-26 was authorized by the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers
in September 1988 (C. A. Smith, correspondence, Bait.  Dist. Corps of Eng., Bait., Md.,
9/30/1988) for discharges into 0.4 acre of wetlands adjacent to Mill Race to relocate a section
of Route 220 between Hughesville and Picture Rocks, Wolf Township, Lycoming County.  The
0.66 acre wetland creation site was located adjacent to  the stream and wetlands filled for
highway construction (Skelly and Loy Engineers-Consultants 1988a, 1988b; Kehler 1990).  The
Bryan Mills  site was constructed  in spring  1989  (R. Burns, Pa.  Dept. of Trans., pers.
commun.). The site visit determined that vegetation was established on site, the site would be
approximately 2 growing  seasons old in late summer 1990,  and PennDOT approved  site
evaluation (A.  L.  Welker, correspondence,  Pa. Depart,  of  Trans.,  Montoursville,  Pa.,
6/18/1990).  Exhibit 3 portrays the site.

      Construction of the 0.67  acre wetland creation site by the Borough of Huntingdon was
completed in late 1986. Shrub plantings occurred in September 1987 (J. Coffman, Borough of
Huntingdon, pers.  commun.). The mitigation site was required  for discharges into palustrine
scrub-shrub and palustrine open  water wetlands adjacent to the Juniata River for the expansion
of an existing wastewater treatment plant in Smithfield Township, Huntingdon County (D. E.
Roeseke, Dept. of Army Permit NABOP-RE-86-0435-1, Bait.  Dist. Corps of Eng., Bait., Md.,
1986).  The creation site is located between the Borough of Huntingdon wastewater treatment
plant facility and the Juniata River. During the June 1, 1990 site investigation it was determined
the site warranted  evaluation and the Borough agreed to evaluation of the site (J. Coffman,
Borough, of Huntingdon, pers. commun.).  Exhibit 4 portrays the site.

      While slightly smaller in size than required by the site selection criteria, the Borough of
Huntingdon  and PennDOT Bryan Mills sites sufficiently met  the other criteria  to warrant
evaluation. From a more practical perspective, the sites were the only ones available in the area

                                         30

-------
 |
3
Q
                                                                                o
                                                                                I
                                                                                •a
                                                                                I

                                                                                ซ2

                                                                                a
                                                                                (L>
                                                                                cq
                                                                               !
.
rS
•a
                                          31

-------
 |
I

Q
                                                                                        ง
                                                                                        09
                                                                                       O
                                                                                       • i-4


                                                                                       1
                                                                                       o


                                                                                       •a
                                                                                       
-------
o
o\
CO
1
Q
                                                                                     e
                                                                                     o

                                                                                    •a
                                                                                    I
                                                                                     VI
                                                                                    r\
                                                                                     >>
PQ

H

O
I
                                            33

-------
to which study was confined due to schedule and budget constraints.  After selecting  the 2
wetland creation sites for field evaluation, additional information was obtained to compile case
histories of the study sites and to aid in the selection of wetland reference sites.

Borough of Huntingdon Wetland Creation Site

       On March 14,1986 an after-the-fact preliminary public notice was issued which proposed
the filling of 2.25 acres of palustrine forested wetland to add secondary treatment facilities to
the  existing  wastewater   treatment  plant   (WTP)  (D.  W.  Roeseke,   Public  Notice
NABOP-RE-86-0435-1, Baltimore District Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Md., 1986).  After
the review of alternatives to the proposed discharge by FWS, EPA, COE and Pennsylvania Fish
Commission, the discharge  was minimized  to 0.6 acres of wetlands with  wetland creation
mitigation required to compensate for the discharge (J. Valentine and R. Tibbot, correspondence,
Pa. Fish Comm., Bellefonte, Pa., 2/27/1986; E. Perry, correspondence, Fish and Wildl. Serv.,
State College, Pa., 2/14/86;  C. J. Kulp, correspondence, Fish and Wildl.  Serv., State College,
Pa., 4/9/1986; G. A. Jones, correspondence,  Environ.  Prot. Agency, Phila., Pa., 4/14/1986;
W. J. Hoffman, correspondence, Environ. Prot. Agency, Phila., Pa., 5/30/1986; R. Tibbot,
correspondence, Pa. Fish Comm., Bellefonte, Pa., 6/30/86; D. E. Roeseke, Dept.  of  Army
Permit NABOP-RE-86-0435-1, Bait. Dist. Corps of Eng., Bait., Md.,  1986).  The COE permit
issued  June  25,  1986  contained  a wetland  creation  plan developed  by the  COE  which
incorporated to varying degrees the comments of the other agencies.

       The wetland impacted by the  section 404  discharge was a 0.6  acre palustrine open
water/scrub-shrub wetland located at the WTP.  The WTP is  located in  Smithfield  Township
approximately 500 feet southeast of the Borough of Huntingdon in Huntingdon County. The
wetland was located in an area containing Atkins silt loam soils, which are deep,  nearly  level,
poorly drained soils on floodplains (Merkel 1978).

       The wetland creation  site is located in the floodway/fioodplain between the Juniata River
and the Borough of Huntingdon WTP and palustrine forested wetlands located near Snyder Run
Road.  Figure 4 indicates the creation site location.
                                          34

-------
en

 &
s


I
o
                                                                             a
                                                                             •a

                                                                              d
                                                                              o
                                                                             •ฃ3
                                                                              ซi

                                                                              ง
                                                                             2

                                                                              rt

                                                                             s-
                                                                             H
                                                                             O

                                                                             |
                                        35

-------
o
o\
a\
I
s
Q
                                              c
                                              o
                                              ง
                                              C

                                              O
                                             fl
  60
  3


  ง
 CO
 ฃ
,1
                      36

-------
o\
s
Q
                                                                                           •a
                                                                                           JS
                                                                                           •4-^
                                                                                            1X3
                                                                                            Kt
                                                                                            d
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            O

                                                                                           •a
                                                                                            o
                                                                                           •o
                                                                                            a*
                                                                                            ง
i
                                                37

-------
       Within a 2,000 foot radius of the wetland creation  site (284.7 acres ฑ 14.2 acres)
approximately 45.2% (128.6 acres ฑ 6.4 acres) is developed; approximately 54.8% (156.1 acres
ฑ7.8 acres) is undeveloped.   Generally,  development consisted of highways, primary  and
secondary roads, WTP, agricultural fields,  residential and commercial development.  The
undeveloped portions consist of palustrine forested wetlands, Snyder Run, the Juniata River, and
forested areas.  Outside the 2,000 foot radius a major influence on the site is the Borough of
Huntingdon located immediately upstream (U. S. Geological Survey 1970a; 1981).

       According to item (b) of the remedial plan attached to the June 25, 1986 COE permit,
the site is to be a 0.1 acre pond surrounded by a 0.5  acre scrub-shrub wetlands.  However,
based on the site drawing  included with the remedial plan and items b(l) through b(3) of the
remedial plan, the creation site is to be approximately  29,500 square feet (0.67 acre) in size.
About 5,400 square feet (0.12 acre) is to be a permanent water pool of which 50% is to be about
3  feet  deep.   Approximately 24,100  square  feet  (0.55  acre)  is to  be a  palustrine
emergent/scrub-shrub wetland,  consisting  of approximately 0.52 acre emergent  wetlands
surrounded by  0.03 acre scrub-shrub wetlands (D.  E. Roeseke, Dept. of Army Permit
NABOP-RE-86-0435-1, Bait. Dist. Corps of Eng., Bait., Md., 1986).  The 0.67 acre site is to
be approximately 18%  open water, 77% emergent, and 5%  scrub-shrub wetlands.  Appendix
E contains the COE remedial plan for the wetland creation site.

       Hydric soils were removed from the original wetland and placed at the creation site as
a emergent vegetation seedbank (J.  Coffman, Borough of Huntington,  pers.  commun.).   The
remedial plan specified the planting of approximately 165 shrubs, consisting  of these species:
alder  (Alnus sp.), willow (Salix sp.), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum).  and arrow-wood
(Vibernum dentatum).   A row  of approximately 40 conifers, consisting of eastern hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis) or Norway spruce (Picea abies) were to be planted  between the palustrine
scrub-shrub area and WTP.

       The pond shoreline was to be irregularly shaped.  About 75% of the  open water areas
was to be gently sloping with approximately  25%  steeply sloped. Approximately 50% of the
                                          38

-------
.  ct^  • ^  •  • •
    Tv7*"-: .*•••-
          Wedand Creation Site
Figure 4. Location of the Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site
Source:  Huntingdon and Mount Union, PA Quadrangles, U.S. Geographic Survey

-------
total pond area was  designed to be approximately three feet deep.  Provision was made for
modification of this design based upon approval by a COE inspector.

       As designed, the sources of hydrology  for the wetland creation site consisted of 1)
surface flow from spring seeps that originate on the opposite side of Snyder Run Road and enter
the palustrine  forested wetland  adjacent to the site as intermittent and perennial streams  via
culverts under the road; 2) a ditch that directs  surface flow from the culvert to the wetland
creation site; 3) floodwaters of the Juniata River  as the site is located in the floodway and 100-

year floodplain of the river; and 4) groundwater, as site excavation was designed to intercept
saturated soils (J. Valentine and R. Tibbot, correspondence, Pa. Fish Comm., Bellefonte, Pa.,
2/27/1986; D. E. Roeseke, Dept. of Army Permit NABOP-RE- 86-0435-1, Bait. Dist. Corps
of Eng., Bait., Md.,  1986; J. Coffman, Borough of Huntingdon, Pers. commun.; N. L. Kline,
pers. obs.).

       Site  construction began in the  late summer-early fall 1986.  Soils  removed from  the
original wetland were placed on the prepared wetland creation site (J. Coffman, Borough of
Huntingdon, pers. commun.). The area was stabilized with mulch in November 1986 (J. H.
Patten, Earth Disturbance Ins Rep. Pa. Dept. of Environ. Resour.,  1986). The site was seeded
with Latho flat pea in spring 1987 and the shrubs were planted in September 1987 (J. Coffman,
Borough of Huntington, pers. commun.).   The 210 shrubs planted were basket willow (60),
black alder (40), silky dogwood  (60) and arrow-wood (50). Conifers planted  were hemlock (20)
•and Norway spruce (20) (J. C. Geiser,  correspondence, Borough of Huntingdon, Huntingdon,
Pa., 5/11/1987).

       The  cost of  surveying,  constructing and  planting the  wetland creation  project  was
$16,810.  The cost did not include an  estimate  of COE resources used to  design the  site  (R.
Meyers, correspondence, Commonwealth Eng. and Tech., Inc.,  Harrisburg, Pa.,  8/3/1990).
                                          40

-------
PennDOT Bryan Mills Wetland Creation Site

       The purpose of the proposed discharge was to place fill material into Mill Race stream
and adjacent wetlands in order to relocate a portion of U.S. Route 220, Section 033 (L.R.  19)
(Skelly and Loy Eng. Consultants, Wetland Mitigation Rep.  S.R. 0220-L.R. 19 Relocation,
Harrisburg, Pa., 1988).  PennDOT issued a Plan of Study in  1986 (Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation 1986).  Records indicate that environmental impacts and alternatives to the
proposed discharge were considered by PennDOT, FWS, Pennsylvania Fish Commission (PFC),
Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Environmental Review Committee.  Initially, the PFC
and FWS preferred  an  alternative that  would result in less impacts to  aquatic resources,
however, the agencies agreed to the final alignment given information provided by PennDOT
on highway safety design (C. J. Kulp,  correspondence, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.,  State
College, Pa., 1/12/1987, 3/23/1988, 4/25/1988; U.S. Dept. of Trans. Fed. Hwy. Adm. and  Pa.
Dept. of Trans., Undated; Skelly and Loy Eng. Consultants, Lycoming Co. S.R. 0220, Section
033 (L.R. 19)  Bryan Mills wetland field view minutes, Harrisburg, Pa.,  Undated; D. Spotts,
correspondence,  Pa.  Fish Comm.,  Bellefonte,  Pa.,  3/17/1988, 4/20/1988;  A.L.  Welker,
correspondence, Pa. Depart,  of Trans., Montoursville, Pa., 2/9/1987, 3/28/1988).

       A draft mitigation report was submitted for review by the agencies in January 1988 (files,
Pa. Dept. of Trans., Montoursville, Pa.).  On May 19, 1988 PennDOT submitted a Joint Permit
Application for the project.   The application contained a site sketch and conceptual mitigation
plan (F. W. Bowser, Joint permit application E41-203, Pa. Dept. of Trans., Harrisburg, Pa.,
1988). The final wetland mitigation plan was submitted to the Environmental Review Committee
for review in July 1988 (S. Kehler, memo, Pa. Dept. of Trans.,  Harrisburg, Pa., 7/25/1988)
and approved by the FWS and PFC in August 1988 (C. J. Kulp, correspondence, U.S. Fish  and
Wildl. Serv.,  State College,  Pa., 8/15/1988; D. Spotts, correspondence,  Pa. Fish Comm.,
Bellefonte, Pa., 8/4/1988).   The  Baltimore District  COE  issued  a nationwide  permit-26
September 30,  1988  (C.  A.  Smith, correspondence,  Bait. Dist.  Corps of Eng., Bait.,  Md.,
9/30/1988).
                                          41

-------
       The environmental losses associated with the authorized discharge were 0.4 acres of
direct wetland loss, 0.01 acres of indirect wetland loss, and 632 feet (0.25 acre) of stream loss
(F. W. Bowser, Joint permit application E41-203, Pa. Depart, of Trans., Harrisburg, Pa., 1988;
Skelly and Loy Eng.- Consultants, Wetland Mitigation Rep. S.R. 0220-L.R. 19 Relocation,
Harrisburg, Pa., 1988).  The wetlands were located adjacent to Mill Race and immediately to
the west of the original alignment of S.R.  220.  Figure 5 shows the  site location.  Both Mill
Race and  the two wetlands impacted by the project were in the headwaters of Muncy Creek,
between Picture Rocks and Hughesville, Wolf Township,  Lycoming County, Pennsylvania (R.
Burns, Pa. Dept. of Trans., pers. commun.).  The wetlands and stream were located in an area
containing Basher silt loam and Alvira silt loam soils (Skelly and Loy Eng.-Consultants, Wetland
Mitigation Rep. S.R. 0220-L.R.  19 Relocation, Harrisburg, Pa., 1988). Both soils are included
on the Lycoming County list of hydric soils (Soil Conservation Service Undated(b)).

       The mitigation plan involved the diversion of the Mill Race into a shallow wetland basin
via a relocated stream  channel.  The wetland basin  was  to be  developed  as  a palustrine
scrub-shrub/emergent wetland with open water through the center of the system.   (Skelly and
Loy Eng. Consultants, Wetland Mitigation Rep. S.R. 0220-L.R. 19 Relocation, Harrisburg, Pa.,
1988).

       Within a 2,000 foot radius (284.7 acres ฑ 14.2 acres) of the creation site approximately
77.4% (220.4 acres ฑ11.0 acres) is developed; approximately 22.6% (64.3 acres  ฑ3.2 acres)
is  undeveloped.  Development  consists generally of cropland, pasture, highway, roadways,
residential and commercial structures. The  undeveloped portions consists of Mill Race, Muncy
Creek, uncultivated open fields, forested areas, and wetlands adjacent to the streams (U.S. Dept.
of Trans.  Fed.  Highway. Adm. and Pa. Dept. of Trans., Undated; U. S. Geological Survey
1970b).

       Calculations based on the final mitigation plan  (Skelly and Loy Eng.  Consultants,
Wetland Mitigation Rep. S.R. 0220-L.R.  19 Relocation, Harrisburg, Pa., 1988), site plans
provided by PennDOT District 3-0 (Skelly  and Loy Eng.  Consultants, Wetlands replacement
                                          42

-------
                             Wetland Creation Site
                         Mill
Figure 5.  Location of the PennDOT Bryan Mills wetland creation site
 Source:  Picture Rocks, PA Quadrangle, U.S. Geographic Survey
                                  43

-------
design T.  R. 220-S.R. 0220 site schematic, Harrisburg,  Pa., 1988), and the Environmental
Assessment (U.S. Dept. of Trans. Fed. Hwy. Adm., and Pa. Dept. of Trans., Undated) were
used to determine the size of the wetland creation site, excluding the 0.03-acre stream relocation.
The wetland creation site was to be approximately 0.66 acre and was to consist of 0.16 acre
(24%) palustrine open water,  0.27 acre  (41%) palustrine emergent, and 0.23 acre (35%)
palustrine  scrub-shrub  wetlands. An additional 0.44 acre of terrestrial upland habitat was to be
developed due to disturbance  associated  with stream  relocation  and grading to create the
wetlands.  Appendix F contains wetland creation site plans.

       The final  wetland mitigation report indicated that the soils would be removed from the
impacted wetlands and placed in the creation site to a depth of about 6 inches (Skelly and Loy
Eng.  Consultants, Wetland Mitigation Rep.  S.R. 0220-L.R. 19 Relocation,  Harrisburg, Pa.,
1988). The soils were to serve as a seedbank  for wetland vegetation (R. Burns, Pa. Dept. of
Trans., pers. commun.).  The proposed construction schedule was as follows (Skelly and Loy
Eng.  Consultants, Wetland Mitigation Rep.  S.R. 0220-L.R. 19 Relocation,  Harrisburg, Pa.,
1988):

March-April 1989       -  Basin grading, seed bed preparation, construction of the relocated
                          channel

April-May 1989          -  Construction of channel structure, planting of shrub and emergent
                          species,  except common buttonbush and stiff arrowhead

August-September 1989  -  Diversion of Mill Race through wetland system, timing dictated by
                          height of groundwater and degree of establishment by vegetation

September-October 1989  -  Planting of aquatic bed species and common buttonbush

April-May 1990        -    Planting stiff arrowhead and determining year 1 plant survival
                                         44

-------
       A hydrologic and hydraulic evaluation report prepared for the  wetland  creation site
indicated the site would have a reliable source of water consisting of groundwater discharge into
both the stream and wetland creation area, flood flows from the stream, and surface runoff into
the stream from the  0.27 square mile drainage area surrounding the site (Skelly and Loy Eng.
Consultants, Wetland Habitat Replacement S.R. 0220 Relocation, Wolf Twp., Lycoming Co.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Evaluation Rep., Harrisburg, Pa., Undated).

       The actual excavation and grading of the entire site started in  April 1989 and was
completed by July 25, 1989. Plantings were started May 4, 1989 and completed May 19, 1989.
Seeding was started  in May 1989 and continued during September 1989.  The Route 0220-LR
19 Wetlands Replacement Site Update (Skelly and Loy Eng.Consultants, Harrisburg, Pa., 1989)
indicated that the following wetland species were planted:

       •     Shrub-scrub species —  common buttonbush fCephalanthus occidentalism,  silky
dogwood (Cornus amomum'). red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). arrow-wood (Viburnum
dentatum). and common winterberry (Ilex verticellata);

       •     Emergent species — sweetflag (Acorus calamus), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides),
three-square bulrush (Scirpus  americanus),  soft-stem  bulrush  (ฃL validus), giant  burreed
(Sparganium eurycarpum) and stiff arrow-head (Sagittaria rigida).

       The emergent and  shrub plantings  were planted as designed (Skelly and  Loy  Eng.
Consultants, Planting Plan, Lycoming Co., Pa., revised 7/21/1988, Harrisburg, Pa.).  The
aquatic bed species were not planted as of the last available project report (Skelly and Loy Eng.
Consultants, Route 0220-LR 19 Wetlands Replacement Site Update, Harrisburg, Pa., 1989).

       The cost of  wetland creation site construction was approximately $89,000, or about
$130,000 per acre.  The cost of plantings was $50,000 and the cost for site preparation was
$39,000  (A. L. Welker,  memo, Pa. Dept.  of Trans.,  Montoursville, Pa.,  12/20/1988).
PennDOT and Federal Highway Administration funds were used to construct the site.
                                         45

-------
                     WETLAND REFERENCE SITE SELECTION

Methodology

       Wetland reference sites were natural wetlands which were not modified or disturbed by
human activity (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989; Kentula In press).
Kentula (In press) defined reference wetland  sites as natural wetlands  of the same type and
approximate size as the mitigation sites, which are located in the same ecoregion and ecological
setting.

       The project schedule and resources did not permit the  extensive reference site selection
procedures pursued by Kentula (In press) and Abbruzzese et al. (1988) or the  use of the number
of sites recommended by Brooks and Hughes (1988).  One reference  site was  selected per
wetland creation site. Every attempt was made to assure that the creation and reference sites
were as similar as possible.  A  reference wetland was selected which reflects the vegetation,
hydrology, wetland classification per Cowardin et al. (1979),  ecoregion, and ecological setting
of the respective wetland creation site.

       The close association of hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation  demonstrated by Scott
et al.  (1989) was used to identify hydric soils with groundwater and saturation characteristics
similar to those required by the hydrophytic vegetation and site design of each wetland creation
site.  Both wetland creation sites contained an area  of standing water  and  emergent wetland
areas.  These site features are indicative of  soils  that are  saturated and the open water area
would require a water table at or close to the surface.  Soils on county hydric  soil lists that have
these hydrologic characteristics were used to target possible wetland reference sites.

       Land use characteristics  within a 2,000 foot radius of the wetland creation site were
determined. Important land uses beyond the designated radius were noted  (Brooks and Hughes
1988). Estimates of the percent of developed and natural land use activities  encompassed by the
                                           46

-------
2,000 foot radius circle were made for each wetland creation site.  Reference sites with a similar
percent of developed area and natural area (ฑ  10%) were targeted for selection provided other
site criteria were met.

       Estimates of developed and natural areas were made using photocopies of the most recent
available 7.5 minute USGS topographic map and the topographic map colors and symbols which
designate developed and natural areas as defined by Wegweiser et al. (1972) and Kjellstrom
(1976).  A  calibrated compass was used to encircle the approximate center of the wetland
creation/reference site (1 inch = 2,000 feet on a 7.5 minute quadrangle).  A ฑ 95% accurate
planogrid was used to determine the area within the circle occupied by developed and natural
land uses.

       To identify a similar reference site, the following characteristics were identified for each
wetland creation site:  sources of hydrology, site classification per Cowardin et al. (1979) and
National Wetland Inventory (Undated(a)), percent of each palustrine wetland class on site, site
size,  slope, and surrounding land use.   National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps,  USGS
topographic maps and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil survey maps were used to target
natural wetlands as potential wetland reference sites. Wetland creation site and surrounding land
use characteristics were visually confirmed in the field prior to beginning wetland reference site
field investigations.

       Information  on dominant hydrophytes,  indicator of vegetation vigor, and  percent bare
ground were collected at the wetland creation and reference sites.  These site characteristics will
be compared to  indicate whether the created wetlands resemble the natural wetlands.

       Hydric soils used to target potential wetland reference sites were selected based upon:
                                           47

-------
       •     Information available regarding the water level requirements (Plewa  1987)  of
shrubs planted on site and herbaceous vegetation observed on site (R. McCoy, Huntingdon STP
Mitigation Site Visit of 9/22/88 Field Notes, Fish and Wildl. Serv., State College, Pa.);

       •     Wetland creation site design specifications regarding standing  water and soil
saturation (D. E. Roeseke, Dept. of Army Permit NABOP-RE-86-0435-1, Bait. Dist.  Corps of
Eng., Bait., Md., 1986); and

       •     The seasonal high water table, permeability, and topographical characteristics of
the hydric soils listed by the SCS offices of Huntingdon, Juniata and Mifflin Counties (Merkel
1978; Liscomb and  Farely 1987; Soil Conservation Service Undated(a), Undated(b)).

       •     Atkins, Barbour, Pope, Tyler, and Purdy soils were used  to target  potential
references sites.   These are hydric soils or soils with hydric components described as nearly
level, poorly drained soils in bottomlands with a seasonal high water table at or within 6 inches
of the surface (Liscomb and Farely 1987; Merkel 1978).
Results
       The Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site was visited July 10, 1990 to confirm
site characteristics needed for reference site selection. The percent of area occupied by each
palustrine wetland class on site was  determined by averaging three ocular estimates of each
class.  As the bare ground observed  on site had been inundated with water June 1, 1990 the
range of the palustrine open water area was estimated by combining the percent of open water
area with the percent of area which was bare ground.  Sources of hydrology were noted. Site
size was estimated by pacing.  The vegetation characterizing the site was recorded. The percent
of developed and natural land use activities surrounding the site was visually verified.
                                          48

-------
       Based upon site selection methodology and Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site
characteristics, the criteria for selecting the wetland reference site were established as:

       •     An  approximately 0.65  acre palustrine emergent wetland characterized  by
spikerush, cattail, and burreed with 30% to 60% open water which was located on nearly level
soils in bottomlands;

       •     Land use surrounding the  wetland  was to be 43%-48% developed  area and
52%-58% natural area.  The site needed to be located downstream of an urbanized area and,
preferably, adjacent to a palustrine  forested wetland;

       •     The wetland should be located in the floodplain and/or floodway of the Juniata
River or one of its major tributaries. The site should be as close to the stream as possible as
the wetland creation site was about 25 feet from the edge of the Juniata River;

       •     Site sources of hydrology should consist of soils with a seasonal  water table at or
near the surface, floodwaters, and surface flow;

The wetlands have not been disturbed or altered by human activity.

       Seven (7) potential wetlands reference sites were identified from NWI maps  (National
Wetland  Inventory Undated(a), Undated(b),  1986a,  1986b, 1986c,  1986d,  1986e), USGS
topographic maps (U.S. Geographic Survey 1970a,  1971a, 1971b, 1977, 1978,  1979, 1981) and
soil survey maps (Liscomb and Farely 1987; Merkel 1978). These sites were located along the
Juniata River and Little Juniata River in Huntingdon, Juniata, and Mifflin Counties.  Potential
reference sites were investigated from July 9  through July 13, 1990.   An additional four
potential sites were suggested by individuals encountered during the field investigations and nine
areas were incidentally encountered.   While the  later two methods  of identifying potential
wetland reference sites did not comply  with the established methodology, the areas warranted
consideration and therefore were considered.
                                          49

-------
       Twenty  potential  references sites were investigated, but none of the sites met the
established criteria.

       Of the seven sites identified by research methodology, two sites had been modified by
human activities (i.e, agriculture, impoundment); two wetlands were the wrong classification —
palustrine aquatic bed  and palustrine scrub-shrub; one palustrine emergent  wetland did not
comply with reference site hydrology, vegetation or size requirements; one site was inaccessible
due to posting;  and another site consisted of forested bottomlands.

       The four areas recommended as potential reference sites contained palustrine scrub-shrub
wetlands or emergent wetlands smaller than required (<0.05 acre).

       The other nine areas investigated did not contain sites which conformed to reference site
criteria.  One site dominated by willow (Salix sp.) was pastured.  Another site was a forested
wetland.  An emergent  wetland dominated by sedges (Carex spp.) did not comply with the size,
hydrology, vegetation or percent open water criteria.  One site may have been filled or was
surrounded by an inaccessible thicket of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).  A mapped palustrine
emergent wetland was actually an upland meadow. A forested bottomland area was located on
one site with targeted soils, land use, and ecological setting characteristics. The remaining three
areas surveyed were portions of the stream bank along the Juniata River which were visible from
the car on Route 103 between Newton Hamilton and Mt. Union, Route 333 between Lewistown
and Mifflin, and along the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River from the dam to the confluence
of the two streams.  Little could be observed from the car due to the dense bottomland forest
and the proximity of the highways  to the rivers.

Discussion and Conclusions

       Intuitively, the  methods used  to target  wetland reference sites  should  have eventually
resulted in the identification of a natural wetland that was comparable with the Borough of
                                          50

-------
Huntingdon wetland creation site.  Yet, limitations in methods and approach, and lack of time
could account for the inability to locate a reference site.  Further,  it is possible that the
Huntingdon  WTP wetland creation site  is ecologically unique, and  a naturally-occurring
comparable wetland does not exist in the study area.

       The Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site was constructed approximately 25 feet
from the edge of the Juniata River and therefore subject to floodwaters (D. E. Roeseke, Dept.
of Army Permit  NABOP-RE-86-0435-1,  Bait. Dist.  Corps of Eng., Bait., Md., 1986; J.
Coffman, Borough, of Huntingdon, pers. commun.) and alluvial deposition.   The  alluvial
material deposited in the floodplain closest to a stream is coarser than that deposited farther
inland (J. J. Eckenrode, Soil Conserv. Serv., pers. commun.).  Cunningham et al. (1977) noted
that in Pennsylvania floodplains well-drained conditions occur due to permeable layers below
the B horizon which allow lateral flow to streams.  The well-drained conditions that occur in the
floodplain area closest to the stream may not permit the occurrence of a natural palustrine
emergent wetland with the vegetation and hydrologic characteristics of the wetland creation site.

       Using the same procedure employed for the Borough of Huntington wetland creation site,
reference site criteria had been determined for the PennDOT Bryan Mills  creation site.
However, potential reference sites were not targeted for the Bryan Mills site nor were field
investigations conducted due to project constraints resulting from the unsuccessful search for a
Borough of Huntingdon wetland reference site. Instead, the project scope was modified to assess
wetland creation site effectiveness without comparison to wetland reference sites.

         EVALUATION OF WETLAND CREATION SITE EFFECTIVENESS

Methodology

       Most  newly created wetland sites  are  expected to have  wetland hydrology and
hydrophytic vegetation field indicators (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation
                                         51

-------
1989).  Yet, the dynamic nature of hydrology makes this wetland indicator the most difficult to
identify (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989; Tiner Undated). Hydric
soil characteristics are likely to be lacking  if the substrate on which the site is constructed
contains recently saturated or inundated non-hydric soils.  Thus, recently created wetlands may
lack the soils and hydrology  field indicators used to define wetlands (Federal Interagency
Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989).

       Cowardin  (1982)  indicated that in new wetlands the vegetation would  provide  more
information than soils or hydrology and that the dominant vegetation in a wetland is primarily
determined by the hydrology. As the dominant species in an ecosystem are more important than
non-dominants (Niering 1985), the extent of hydrophytes as dominant vegetation at the wetland
creation sites will be used to determine site effectiveness.

       Quammen (1986)  recommended that  wetland creation site evaluation be  determined in
an experimental manner.  Pre-established criteria should be used to determine the project success
and to promote objective site evaluation (Quammen 1986; Erwin 1989a; Lowry  1989; Kusler
and Kentula 1990).  Zedler and Weller (1989) promoted the use of scientifically-based methods
to collect the data used to assess constructed wetland success or failure (i.e., effectiveness).

       Data collection methods were those in  the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency  Committee for Wetland  Delineation 1989).  Using
the intermediate-level on-site determination method sampling procedure, the effectiveness of the
wetland creation sites were assessed according to the percent of dominant plant species that were
hydrophytes.   The vegetation unit sampling  procedure was used because the wetland creation
sites and their vegetation units  were too small to use  the transect method and  the use  of
vegetation units permitted the calculation of the area of each palustrine wetland class created.
                                           52

-------
      Under normal  circumstances,  one of the criteria for determining the presence of
hydrophytic vegetation is that more than 50% of the dominant species  are obligate (OBL),
facultative wetland (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC) species (Tiner Undated).  Under the less
than normal circumstances at a wetland creation area the percent of dominant hydrophytic plant
species used to determine wetland creation effectiveness reflected the 75% area! cover vegetation
success criteria suggested in the literature (Niering and Kraus 1986; Lowry 1989) and the 85 %
specified for wetland vegetation cover and/or planting survival at wetland  mitigation sites in
some  Philadelphia District COE  permits  (R.  V. Locurcio, Dept.  of the Army  Permit
NAPOP-R-85-0390-11, Phila.  Dist. Corps of Eng., Phila., Pa., 1985; R. V. Locurcio, Dept.
of the Army Permit NAPOP-R-86-0298-12, Phila. Dist.  Corps of Eng., Phila., Pa., 1986; R.
V. Locurcio,  Dept. of the Army Permit NAPOP-R-85-1123-DA-NP26, Phila.  Dist. Corps of
Eng.,  Phila., Pa., 1986; R. V. Locurcio, Dept. of the Army Permit NAPOP-R-87-0265-1,
Phila. Dist. Corps of Eng., Phila., Pa., 1987;  R. V.  Locurcio, Dept. of the Army Permit
NAPOP-R-87-0139-13, Phila. Dist. Corps of Eng., Phila., Pa., 1987; G. W. Quinby, Dept. of
the Army Permit CENAP-OP-R-86-1035-11, Phila. Dist. Corps of Eng., Phila., Pa., 1987; G.
W. Quinby, Dept. of the Army Permit CENAP-OP-R-87-1451-13, Phila. Dist.  Corps of Eng.,
Phila., Pa., 1987; G. W. Quinby, Dept. of the Army Permit CENAP-OP-R-88-1191-13, Phila.
Dist.  Corps  of  Eng., Phila., Pa.,  1988; F.  J.  Cianfranni,  Dept.  of the Army  Permit
CENAP-OP-R-89-0025016(NP 7, 14, and 26), Phila. Dist. Corps of Eng.,  Phila., Pa., 1989;
F. J.  Cianfranni, Dept.  of the Army Permit CENAP-OP-R-89-1659-16(NP26), Phila. Dist.
Corps of Eng., Phila., Pa., 1989).

      The effectiveness of the vegetation units of the wetland creation sites was  evaluated using
these criteria:

      Effective  = .>_85% of  the dominant plant species are hydrophytes
      Partially effective = 75%-84% of the dominant plant species are hydrophytes
      Non-effective  = < 75 % of the dominant plant species are hydrophytes.
                                         53

-------
       Hydrophytes were defined as plant species with an obligate to facultative-minus wetland
indicator  status per  the National List of  Plant  Species That Occur  in Wetlands:  1988
Pennsylvania (Reed 1988).  Ponded water on site with trace or no emergent or woody species
was defined as areas of palustrine open water.  Palustrine open water areas were not sampled
or evaluated as vegetation units.

       Overall wetland creation site  effectiveness was based on the percent of hydrophytes
dominating each of the vegetation units and the estimated area  of wetlands  created.  If the
percent of hydrophytes dominating all vegetation units on the wetland creation site belonged to
the percent range  of a single effectiveness criterion (e.g., _>_85%  hydrophytes dominate) the
entire site received that rating.  When the percentage of hydrophytes dominating the vegetation
units included more than  one of the effectiveness criteria,  the median percent for all the
vegetation units was used to represent  site effectiveness and to determine the effectiveness rating
for the wetland creation  site.  The median was used to represent hydrophytic vegetation area!
cover because the  median was less influenced by data set extremes and the data were expected
to be skewed (T. P. Hettmansperger,  The Penn. State Univ., pers. commun.).  The size of the
site was measured  to estimate the area and composition (i.e., acres per wetland class) of wetland
creation in accordance with site design.  Vegetation units defined as  effective and partially
effective were used to calculate the wetland area created.

       Field  evidence of hydrology  was recorded.   Soil  samples  were taken to note soil
characteristic changes (i.e. color, mottling) that resulted from recent inundation or soil saturation
(B. Z. D'Angelo,  Environ. Prot. Agency, pers. commun.), and  to observe depth to saturated
soil. Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color 1988) were used  to record soil characteristics.

       Qualitative information was used to augment data on site effectiveness. Data representing
vegetation vigor, percent bare ground, and field evidence of hydrology supplemented the criteria
used to evaluate the  site.   Plant vigor was defined  by the percent of vegetation  observed
yellowing or  wilted.   Bare ground will be  defined  as ground  area without  area! cover by
vegetation (Erwin  1989b).
                                           54

-------
       During July 23, 1990 field observations were made of the percent bare ground occurring
in areas of four natural wetlands. The areas ranged from 0.23 to 0.6 acre in size and were
located within larger palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub-shrub, and palustrine forested wetland
systems at Bear Meadows, Harris Township, Centre County,  and wetlands on COE property
adjacent to Bald Eagle Creek, Boggs Township, Centre County. The average of three ocular
estimates at each wetland area was used to approximate the percent bare ground at the site.  The
percent bare ground at the four sites ranged from 0%  to trace (< 1%). Due to the difficulty of
visually discerning the difference between trace (< 1%)  and 1%, it was arbitrarily decided that
up to 5% bare ground would be acceptable.  Percent bare ground  was estimated for each
vegetation unit.

       Wetland site sampling in late July-early August provided the opportunity to observe
extreme low water conditions and to collect fruiting vegetation (Brooks and Hughes 1988). Late
growing season site assessment has been recommended when field time is restricted (Erwin
1989b). For these reasons data collection was planned for late July-early August. Sampling at
this time also permitted assessment of the PennDOT  Bryan Mills wetland creation site as late
as possible in its second growing season.

       Panoramic photos were taken of each wetland creation  site during  field data collection.

Results and Discussion

       Identification of vegetation units and the collection of vegetation data and field hydrology
information at the wetland creation sites complied with the federal manual (Federal Interagency
Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989).   Dominant vegetation was identified using Fassett
(1957), Fernald  (1989), Peterson and McKenny  (1968), Newcomb  (1977), Brown  (1979),
Knobel (1980), Little (1980), and Dix  (Dept. of Botany, The  Penn. State Univ., Univ. Park,
Pa.).   Estimates  of area and depth were made for open water bodies.  Appendices C and D
contain the vegetation and hydrology data collected at the Borough of Huntingdon and PennDOT
Bryan Mills wetland creation sites.
                                         55

-------
       At the PennDOT Bryan Mills site, the decision was made to collect data on partially dead
or dead vegetation in addition to the other indicators of vegetation vigor.

       Soil sampling at both wetland creation sites was severely limited by conditions resulting
from  site disturbance  related to project  construction.   Coarse  fragments  in  the soil made
obtaining soils samples to a depth of 18 inches with  a soil probe impracticable.   Therefore, the
intent of soil sampling was modified.   The soil samples  were taken to a depth  of 18 inches or
to resistance.  Soil characteristics observed on site were used to confirm the expected soils and
to note soil saturation.  Degrees of soil saturation were defined as follows: saturated — extracted
free water from  compressed  soil; moist  --  compressed soil  left a water  stain; and dry —
compressed  soil exhibited no water content.

       The  Borough of Huntington wetland creation  site contained an  extensive  area  of
continuous bare ground.  The decision was made to characterize this area of bare ground as a
"vegetation  unit" due to the size of the area and because the area could not be reasonably
incorporated into an adjacent vegetation unit based on vegetation structure or composition. The
collected vegetation and hydrology  data  were analyzed  in  the  same manner as  the other
vegetation units.   Information  on vegetation vigor was  not collected because only trace
vegetation was present.

       At the Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site, measurements of area for the entire
site and vegetation units were made by  pacing.  A compass was used for orientation.  The area
of open water (Unit D) was determined by subtracting the sum of  the vegetation units from the
total area. The same procedure was used to estimate the  size of the PennDOT Bryan Mills site.
Tape measurements were made of site width since standing water in Vegetation Unit D and the
open water  areas (Unit H)  located in the center of  the site  made measurements by pacing
impossible.  The area of Vegetation Unit D and Unit H  was calculated in the same manner as
the open water area at the Borough of Huntingdon site. The area of open water was determined
by averaging four visual estimates of the  percent of open water  within the area occupied  by
Vegetation Unit D and Unit H. The degree of accuracy  for site measurements was determined
by calculating the percent for total areas observed divided by the  total acres  expected.
                                           56

-------
Borough of Huntingdon Wetland Creation Site

      Data were collected at the Borough of Huntingdon site August 7 through August 9, 1990.
No precipitation occurred during data collection. From March through July of the 1990 growing
season in Huntingdon County, rainfall was below normal each month (Merkel 1978; Rep., Bait.
Dist. Corps of Eng.-Raystown Dam, pers. commun.).

      During August  7,  1990, Vegetation Units A, B, C, E, F, G,  and the open water area
(Unit D) were identified and the boundaries were flagged.  As necessary, reference was made
to site design plans to  define site boundaries (D.  E.  Roeseke, Dept.  of Army Permit
NABOP-RE-86-0435-1, Bait. Dist. Corps of Eng., Bait., Md., 1986).

      The percent of hydrophytic plant species that dominated each vegetation unit ranged from
0% to 100%;  the median for the vegetation units was 80% (Table 5).  Based on established
evaluation criteria Vegetation Units B (0.19 acre) and  C (0.14 acre) were effective palustrine
emergent wetland creation areas; the 0.01  acre Vegetation Unit E was an effective palustrine
scrub-shrub wetland creation area; and Unit D  comprised the 0.17 acre palustrine open water
area created on site.

      Indicators of vegetation vigor at the wetland creation sites are contained in  Table 6.
Yellowing vegetation was observed in Vegetation Units B and  C --  the palustrine emergent
components of the wetland creation site. Branching burreed (Sparganium androcladum) was a
dominant species in these vegetation units.  Branching burreed comprised 80% area! cover in
Vegetation Unit B  and  25%  area! cover in Vegetation Unit C.   In Vegetation Unit B
approximately 95% of the  burreed was yellowing; approximately 75% of the  burreed was
yellowing in Vegetation Unit C. Regarding the other dominant species in these vegetation units
about 15 % of the least spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis') in Vegetation Unit B and approximately
10% of the blunt spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa) in Vegetation Unit C were yellowing.  Least
spikerush comprised 65% areal cover in Vegetation Unit B and blunt spikerush 35% areal cover
in  Vegetation Unit C.  The yellowing exhibited by vegetation on site could be attributed to
                                         57

-------

































in
w
CQ

EH






































0)
.p
•rH
CO
fl)
ฃง
•^ -H
•P
l

* 0
• _J
•ป-1 _,
e ฃ
o 1?
Q n
^

CQ














•K
rr< *
c 2
id R
•p
c 'd
o t!
•H W
^j
Id n
4J H
fl) "^
tP %
* -H

4J.g

Id rrt
C 'S
^
W
*










*
to
0)
^ฃ
r" ^i
C ?•ซ
gฃ
.5 o
6 rrt
o P
rrj J^l
•C
-P j;
fl
fl)
fetation
it /name
Q) S





















Q)
4J
•rH
10
C
0

to
0)
•rH
o
fl)
A
to
4->
C
id
C
•H
e
o
TJ

O
[Z;









<*ป
O



<





















^.
B

r-3 T3
CQ id
O ซH
U
1 O
1 ^J
Tl
-0 C
Q) id
0)
rH ฃ4
rH 3
3-H
XI C
id
C7* 0
•H id
X! O
0 W
r-i ^^
id
ID
CQ








dp
O
o
H



^
CQ
O

1
1

*— *
to
•H
^
id
rH
3
O
•H
U


(0
•H
J_l
id
Xi
0
Q)
rH
H
N^ri
to
j3
0)
X






(J
CQ
o

1
1

^^
10
•rl
^
-p
to
rj
rH
id
fi

id
•H
0
•H
JJ
-a
3
X
o
X)
TJ
•H 0)
a a)
u
4J
10
id
0)
,J)














Ul
r*
to
J_4
id
33














CQ






ij
CQ
o

1

^•^
id
to
rj
-p
X)
0

10
•H
}_l
id
X!
0
o
fl)
rH
PL)
N— rJ
X!
to
3
M
0)
X


l"3
CQ
O

1
1

^^
e

4J
id
-P
0
c

o

e

c
t-3 O
CQ (7
O >
rH
1 O
1 ft
N_*
•o
0) 73
0) Q)
M Q)
M >
3 -P
*Q M
id
-H g^g
a c to
to
-P
c
3
rH
CQ








dP
O
O
rH


•H
U Q)
C -P
id -P
r-l O
CQ Q





















,j
CQ
O

1
1

^^
id
•H
X)

T3

id
•H
C

0)
c
•H
i_3
SMซ
H
0)
C
Q)

•H
a
Q)
to
rH
id
(t.







































CQ
O ปJ
CQ
1 O
1
1
X! 1
to
3 X
)-f O
0) XI
X TJ
•H fl)
(X 0)
CO (0
-P X!
(0 10
Id rH

r— 1 53














U

o
tO -H
id -P
id
rrj jj
a) a)
C tP
•rt fl)

0)
T3 O
C
to
Id rH
Q) O

id a>
U
rH Id
0) rH
-P -P
id
> A
-p
C-H
fl) s
a
O 0)
-p
1 -H
I tfl
c
0) 0
rH
id d)
O 4J
•H id
rH $
a.
id a>
TJ
•P C
o o
* a






0)
4J
id
^

a)
o

Q















i
U

pt,

1
|

^^
10
•H
G
fl)
4->

ncus
3
hi
SHป

X!
to
3

X!
4J
id
FU










rH
• r-|
CO
























)J
CQ
O

1
1

^••^
id

id
rH
3

j_i
fl)
to

w
3
C
rH
*M<

fl)
T)
id
A
4J
O
O
fi
CO


























4-
|j
Q
rtj
fe

|
1

x-ซ
to
3
to
3
MH
0)

ncus
3


X!
g

4J
4H
O
CO















^
QJ
mj
fa

i
i

^.^
to
•H
to
C
fl)
0
id
0

to
C
fl)
•rH
-P
id
O
B
H
V_x

T3
a)
a)
ป
H
0)
fl)

V
Q)
-P
P
O
a
CO














W











i_3
ft
&

1
1

*~*
id
•H
k
id
^

id
•H
rH
•H
C
O
o
U
"•ซ•
X3
o
4J
fl)

pj
J(
O

a








-AA
Or*
O
VD


CJ
rtj
p&4

1
1

X~N
id
a)
0
id
-P
•rH
^

to
3
to
CO
•H
U
3: 0
U C
< fl)
PnX!
3: -P
U 1 JH
•< >4 I id
Pn CQ ft
o *o ^^
1 fl)
1 1 0) r-l
1 ป fl)

O rH fl) fl)
O Q) S 0)
ST3 fl) rH
&rH -0 U
o id
•O T) -P
>i-P -P X
X O -P O
H O O-H
•H e a^3
CO CO CO EH














,



i_3
ft
^

1
1

x_ซ
to
3
•H
rH
O
4.4
•H
•P
id
H

to
3
^
>
x:
4J
Id

&d
id
1 0)
i a
X! CT
O C
-P-H
Q) -P
> W
id
C H

O Q)
li ^ป
U W























gt
U
rtj
fe
1


fl)
fl)
rH
fl)
0)
•I—I
a>
-p
4-1
0

CO

s
o
                                                                        (U
                                                                       CO
                                                                       CO
                                                                        C
                                                                        id
                                                                       rH
                                                                       -P
                                                                        0)
                                                                    CQ
                                                                    O

                                                                    
-------
limited nutrient availability or extended lack of water (J. J. Eckenrode, Soil Conserv. Serv.,
pers. commun.).
TABLE 6
INDICATORS OF VEGETATION VIGOR AT THE BOROUGH OF HUNTINGDON
WETLAND CREATION SITE
Vegetation unit/name
A
B
C
E
F
G
Yellowing species
Trace vegetation: data not
collected
Blunt spikerush, branching
burreed,* broad-leaf cattail,
least spikerush*
Blunt spikerush,* branching
burreed*
None
None
Sedge, woolgrass
Wilted species
Trace vegetation: data not
collected
None
None
None
None
None
* Dominant species

       The percent bare ground in Vegetation Unit B exceeded the 5 % limit of  acceptability
(Table 7).  The percent bare ground in Unit D represents the soil exposed by a receding open
water area. More noteworthy, however, was approximately 0.1 acre of bare ground designated
as Vegetation  Unit  A.   Vegetation Unit  A  comprised  about  16%  of the  entire site.
(J.J.Eckenrode, Soil Conserv. Serv., pers. commun.) A lack of organic matter may account for
the lack of vegetation in Vegetation Unit A.

       Several field  indicators of hydrology were  observed at the Borough of  Huntingdon
wetland creation site:

       Two areas of inundation were observed. One area approximately 25 feet by 30 feet had
standing water which ranged in depth from surface inundation to two inches. The approximately
                                          59

-------
TABLE 7
PERCENT BARE GROUND OBSERVED AT THE BOROUGH OF HUNTINGDON
WETLAND CREATION SITE
Vegetation unit/name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Percent bare ground observed
>99%
8%
2%
4%
<1%
2%
0%
0.17 acre open water area (Unit D) ranged in depth from surface inundation to greater than 3
feet in depth (Rep., Borough of Huntingdon, pers. commun.);

       About 85 % of the bare ground surface in Vegetation Unit A was saturated or moist and
exhibited cracked, drying mud, coated with dried and/or living algae. Slightly less than half of
the 0.19 acre Vegetation Unit B was covered with cracked, drying mud and remnants of algae.
These same signs of cracked, drying mud were observed at the boundary of Vegetation Units
B and E;

       Evidence of surface flow was observed in the ditch entering the south side of the site.

       Based on the slope of the WTP property adjacent to the site,  overland flow from the
WTP enters the west end of the site; and evidence of fluctuating water levels in the open water
area  (Unit D) was observed during data collection, as well as during earlier site visits. Exhibits
4a and  5a demonstrate  the  fluctuations in  water  level.   The lower water level illustrated in
Exhibit 5a is representative of the conditions observed July 10, 1990. A visit to the site 2 days
later, after a day of constant rain, revealed water covering approximately 85% of the site. The
water ranged in depth from surface inundation to about 10 inches.  During data collection in
August  1990 water marks and algal drift lines were observed around the receding  open water

                                           60

-------
area of Unit D. Damp marks on snags anchored in Unit D indicated that the water had recently
been 4 inches higher.  A WTP employee reported that the open water area was elevated August
6 after heavy, steady rain August 5, 1990 (Rep., Borough, of Huntingdon, pers. commun.).

       Harbour high-bottom soils have very poor suitability for pond creation due to substratum
permeability and flooding.  Atkins silt loam soils are rated as having good suitability for this
purpose.  However, a limitation of Atkins  soils  for pond creation is  a  pervious substratum
(Merkel 1978). Compacting Harbour soils would not reduce permeability (JJ. Eckenrode, Soil
Conserv. Serv., pers.  commun.). Instead, placement of a minimum of 6 inches of impervious
material (i.e., clay) would be needed to  successfully pond water.

       Although soil  sampling was severely  restricted by  site conditions, the evidence  of
hydrology obtained from soil samples suggested that depth to soil saturation varied considerably
on site. No apparent  correlation was observed between soil saturation and the bare  ground in
Vegetation Unit A.

       Comparison of the characteristics of soils sampled to soils mapped on site indicated that
the wetland creation site was primarily built at the interface of the Atkins silt loam and Harbour
high-bottom soils (Merkel 1978). Harbour soils have a poor suitability for creating wetland plant
habitat and very poor suitability for creating shallow water areas, while Atkins soils have a good
suitability rating for these types of habitat creation (Merkel 1978). Due to the lack of moisture
holding capacity and fluctuating water table of Harbour soils, the closer that the wetland creation
site was constructed to the transition area between the Harbour and Atkins soils the greater the
likelihood of site success (J. J.  Eckenrode, Soil Conserv. Serv., pers. commun.).

       Table 8 specifies the acres and percent of palustrine wetland classes expected on site and
the approximate acres and percent of wetland classes observed.  The palustrine open water area
was larger than planned, while the palustrine emergent and scrub-shrub areas were smaller. The
sum of palustrine wetland classes observed represented  80%  of the estimated size of the entire
 0.64 acre wetland creation site.
                                          61

-------
       Exhibits 5a and 5b depict the Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site during data
collection.
**
***
TABLE 8
ACREAGE AND PERCENT OF PALUSTRINE WETLAND
CLASSES EXPECTED AND OBSERVED***
AT THE BOROUGH OF HUNTINGDON
WETLAND CREATION SITE
Palustrine wetland class
Open water
Emergent
Scrub-shrub
Total
Expected*
0.12 acre (18%)
0.52 acre (77%)
0.03 acre (5%)
0.67 acre
Observed**
0.17 acre (33%)
0.33 acre (65%)
0.01 acre (2%)
0.51 acre
Source:  D.E. Roeseke,  Department of the Army  Permit  NABOP-RE-86-0435-1,
Baltimore District Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, MD, 1986
Sum of effective and partially effective vegetation units
Accuracy of estimates for size of observed areas  = ฑ 5%
PennDQT Bryan Mills Wetland Creation Site


       Data was collected at the PennDOT Bryan Mills wetland creation site from July 30

through August 2 and August 6, 1990.


       During July 30 and 31, 1990, Vegetation Units A through G and the open water area

(Unit H) were identified and the boundaries were flagged.  Reference was made to site design

plans to define  site boundaries as needed.   (Skelly and Loy Eng. Consultants,  Wetlands

Replacement Design Planting Schematic Revised 7/21/1988, Harrisburg, Pa.).


       Three of the nine dominant species were ruderals — species that grow in waste places or
                                         62

-------
CO
                                                                                                -

                                                                                              13

                                                                                               •ป-*
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                               <0
                                                                                               C3
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               ง
                                                                                              T3
                                                                                               O
                                                                                              f
                                                                                              2
                                                                                              o
                                                                                              •a
                                                                                              UJ
                                             63

-------
t>
+J
 CO


 I
                                               13
                                               -c

                                                •4-J
                                                CO
                                                KJ
                                                (D
                                                
-------
among rubbish (Fernald 1989).  The ruderal species were bitter dock (Rumex obtusifolius').
common plantain (Plantago majort. and birds-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus)  (Gleason 1952;
Gleason and Cronquist 1963; Fernald 1989).

       Bitter dock, common plantain, and birds-foot trefoil all have a FACU wetland indicator
status (Reed 1988).  The presence of at least one of these species as a dominant in Vegetation
Units C, E, and F resulted in their designation as non-effective wetland creation areas.  There
is some evidence  (Chambers 1989)  that  birds-foot  trefoil prefers  wetter conditions than
designated by the wetland indicator status in Reed. However, other sources referenced (Gleason
1952; Gleason and  Cronquist 1963; Fernald  1989) regarding the degree of  soil saturation
preferred by birds-foot trefoil, or bitter dock and common plantain, were  inconclusive. Given
the lack of consensus regarding the wetness preference of birds-foot  trefoil, or the other
ruderals, and the extensive resource base used to designate the wetland indicator status of species
listed in Reed (1988), the categories assigned by Reed to these species was used to assess the
effectiveness of the vegetation units and, consequently, the entire site.  To determine whether
disturbance  due to site construction or hydrologic conditions contributed more to the presence
of the dominant ruderal species will require  reevaluation of the  site after later growing seasons.

       At the PennDOT Bryan  Mills  wetland creation site  the percent of  hydrophytes as
dominant plant species in Vegetation Units A through G ranged from 0%  to 100%; the median
was 60% (Table 9).  Based on the effectiveness criteria, Vegetation Unit D  was an effective 0.12
acre palustrine emergent wetland  creation area and Vegetation Units A (0.15  acre) and B (0.07
acre) were partially  effective palustrine scrub-shrub  wetland creation areas.  Unit H consisted
of the 0.03 acre palustrine open water area  created on site.

       Table 10 reports the occurrence of yellowing, wilted and partially  dead/dead vegetation
observed on site.  At least one of these indicators of vegetation vigor was evident to varying
degrees in each vegetation unit.  Extensive evidence of vegetation stress in hydrophytes was
observed in Vegetation Units A, B, C, and F at the PennDOT Bryan Mills site.  Lack of water
was considered the cause of vegetation stress, since non-hydrophytic vegetation did not exhibit
these characteristics.
                                           65

-------


































CTl

W
rH
CQ

EH




































EH
O
Q
d
d
0) 1
(d CQ
•H
8
Q















*
•d *
d 2
(0 ft
-p
CfC
1 \
0 w
•H W
jj
(d, o
4J R
•"

_^,
d
10 n-<
d 'S
•H S
E 	 i
3
O t
^"^ Q)
^
?












*
Ul
(1)
.p
g ft
'B ฐ
-P C
cu 5
rT^
3 _i
O
•(—
id

0
o
(d
•P
d
.

Q)

J^
Q)
J^J
d
•H











+
[5
CJ
 W
d
o

g
o
CJ

d
0

g
o
CJ

2

43
<4H
O
CO

<*>
in
r-
ซ









u

CM

1
1

x— *
g

jj
(0
-P
C
0)
•d

g

d
•H
XI
•H
^>
^*

-d
o
0
f
j;
O
J^
rH
-x 4.
Ulg
Ul <3
(d CM

tr> i
•P i
d
0) X!
XI Ul
QซrH
0
•p -p
13 MH
0) O
05 co


O
00
CQ





















I-,
u
<
CM

1 +
•a
d <
•H CM
(0
-P 1
d i
id
rH X!
(X (0
d 2
0

g *4H
O O
CJ CO








oY>
O
If)




O






,J
CQ
0
1
j

^^
id
10
rj
•P
X)
0

Ul
•rH

0





(_5
CQ
O
1
1

^.
id
•c
•H
Cj
•H
>_l

(0
•H
4J
4J
•H
G
tJ
CO
^^
fQ
id
Q)
xi

o

a a) rH
Ul
4J
d
rj
rH
CQ

Ul
X!

r(
id
jg

(0
n_i
(j-l
•rH
-p
CO

o
0
rH
Q



















|
|
CM U
rf
1 CM
1
1
rH 1
•H
O Ul

O
if)




w







1
8
(rf
CM

1
1

X-N
Ul
rj
•H
rH
1 0
U-H
< Ul
CM 3
4J
1 XI
1 O

rH X
U-H Q)
< 0 g
D^ (LJ 3
CU PH

1 -p

T3 -P O
000
O O T3
f V rH
> Ul 0)
o -a -P
ll li ^J
rH-H-H
< CQ CQ




















4-
g
CM g
rij
1 CM
I
1
ฃ>i 1
rH 01

O




0


d
o
Ul -H
id -P
id
•d -P
0) Q)
C 0^
•rM 0)
M-l ^
0)
"d o
d
U)
Id rH
Q) O
rH
id 0)
0
rH Id
(1) rH
-p -p
id

d-H
0) 3=

O 0)
-P
1 -H
1 01
d
Q) 0
rH
XI rH
id a)
O 4J
•H id
rH >
a
(d (I)

4-) C
0 0
z a







•p
id
d
cu
ft
0


w

                                                                00
                                                                CO
                                                                CTi
                                                                H
                                                                -p
                                                                 0)
                                                              i
                                                             tJ  rH
                                                             CQ
                                                             O  O
                                                                 O
                                                             <4H  O
                                                              o
                                                                 -p
                                                              ui
                                                              3  X!
                                                             -P  EH
                                                              (d
                                                             -P  W
                                                              01  CD
                                                                 •H
                                                              rH  U
                                                              o  a)
                                                             -P  Q
                                                              (d  co
                                                              o
                                                             •H  -JJ
                                                             13  d
                                                              d
                                                             •H
                                                                 04
                                                             T3
                                                              d
                                                              (d  o
                                                             rH
                                                             -p  -p
                                                              Q)  Ul
                                                              ui
                                                              Q)
                                                             -P
                                                              O  !5 -d
                                                              rH      0)
                                                             T)  VH  Q)
                                                             *  *
66

-------


































o


Cd
CQ
<
E"1




































H
O
Q
C
0)
04 
(U -H
X! (0
-P
C
-P 0
id -H
4J
M id
O Q)
U* >H
•H O
^>
r.'S
C C
o id
•H rH
-P -P
id a)
-P ป
0)
d> w
 ซH
•H

O
C

T3

>i
rH
rH
id
•H
-P
id
&





to
(U
•H
o
Q)
ft
to

T>
Q)
4J
rH
•H
X







10
a)
w
•H
0
Q)
03
C
•H
jj
rH
Q)
X



งง
•H 5
+> c
*rt *•*
*0 ^
U
u* <-<
fl) tj
M
•H O
(0 O
c o 5
O 1 Oป
I T) O
i Q) Tl
O M
O >i
4C j^*
* -rH
•- t>i-H
TJ >-l W
0 M
0 0> -
ฃ XI *O
JH O
ฃ Q) O
0 -P 5
>-l C D1
14 -H O


^
0)
•H
to
O
1

0) Jปi
M rH
•H
- to
•0
0) -
Q) T3 T3
> 0 O
rH O O
Q) S S
IS O^ &>
Q) O 0
h^ 73 *O



^ ^
X!^
tO rH

XI (0
C
O -XI
-P 73 W
-P O 3
XI 5
&>-P
* O  0 0
o i 5
>H T3 &1
M 0) O
•< M T3


^




-*
^i >Q
^ O
0) O

M 5^*0
0) O O
-P T3 O

•H Vl &1
ฃ 0) O
-H -O
C (0
O O >i
o O>-H
U M tO












'O
0)
0)

rH
0)
Jj
Q)
r^



^
^r*
to

C
0
1
*
'O *
O XI
o to
ปS 3
^ M
O -P
M 4H
>H O
ft, tO


(Q


















0)
O


















0)
c
0







*
X!
to
M
4J
0
10

-
T)
0)
0)
p
J_l
CQ


U


















0)
o













•o
a)
0)

rH
0)

ฃ

^
_- y.
a) <H 5
Q) Q)
•H "^TJ
ft - Id
tO rH Q)
•H X!
-P Id IS
C -P O
3 -P JH
CQ U id


Q


















0)
c
o













TS
0)
0)

rH
0)
5
0)
h)












T3
0)
Q)

M
S


H

8
-H
to
C 0
0 1
6 TJ
i a)
O M
O
*
* -
- !>i
"O M
O M
O 0)
> Xl T3
M O
IS Q) O
04J 5
M C a>
M -H o











*
•a
o
0


*>l
o
^1
a







0
o
o
* *
- >1
•O M
O M
0 0)
IS XI
I* (U
0 4J
M C
3>


fe


















0)
c
o
55

















Q)

O
a










&>
id
rH
4J
0)
(1)
W


O

                                      id
                                      0)
                                     •O
                                      0)
                                     -P
                                      a)
                                     O
                                     o
                                     o

                                     T3
                                     (d
                                     0)
                                     •d
                                      id
                                     X!
                                  10
                                  a)  a)
                                 •HX!
                                  o
                                  a)  o
                                  a* -P
                                  -P 
-------
      In the vegetation units designed as palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, major portions of the
herbaceous and shrub strata were yellowed. In both Vegetation Units A and B, approximately
85% of the shrubs were yellowing. The incidence of partially dead or dead shrubs was 40% in
Vegetation Unit A; 30% in Vegetation Unit B; and 85% in Vegetation Unit F. Wilted shrubs
occurred in Vegetation Units A and F. Soft rush (Juncus effusus) comprised 80% areal cover
in Vegetation Unit A and 50% areal cover in Vegetation Unit B.  Soft rush  was a dominant
species in both vegetation units.  Approximately 75 % of the soft rush in Vegetation Unit A and
50% of the soft rush in Vegetation Unit B were yellowing.

      Vegetation Units C, D, E, and G were designed and planted as  palustrine emergent
wetlands.   Soft rush was a co-dominant in Vegetation Unit  C with  90% areal  cover.
Approximately 75% of the soft rush in Vegetation Unit C was yellowing.  To a lesser extent,
yellowing  was noted in Vegetation  Unit D where about 25% of the vegetation exhibited this
characteristic.  Two of  the three dominant plant species were yellowing — stiff arrowhead
(Sagittaria rigida) and blunt spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa).  Each species had 66% areal cover
in the vegetation unit.  Nearly 15 %  of the stiff arrowhead and about 5 % of the blunt spikerush
were yellowing.

      The percent bare ground observed at the wetland creation site is contained in Table 11.
The percent bare ground in each vegetation unit was within the 5% limit of acceptability.

      On July 30, 1990 a local resident indicated there had been no  precipitation for about a
week.  Light rain occurred the  day before data were collected on field hydrology.  For the
Lycoming County 1990  growing season,  rainfall was below normal during March, April and
June and above normal during May and July  (Rep., Natl. Weather Bur.-Williamsport, pers.
commun.).
                                         68

-------
                                    TABLE 11
                      PERCENT BARE GROUND OBSERVED
                                AT THE PENNDOT
                    BRYAN MILLS WETLAND CREATION SITE
                 Vegetation unit/name
                          A
                          B
                          C
                          D
                          E
                          F
                          G
Percent bare ground observed
            2%
            0%
            0%
            0%
            0%
      The following indicators of hydrology were observed at  the PennDOT Bryan Mills
wetland creation site:

      •      Evidence of hydrology was found at Vegetation Units D and H, which comprised
about 22% of the site. Two open water areas (Unit H) located in the center of an inundated
palustrine emergent area (Vegetation Unit D) received surface waters from relocated Mill Race
and ground water intercepted by excavation (Rep., Pa. Dept. of Trans., pers. commun.);

      •      There was evidence of limited overland flow entering the western side of the site;

      •      Approximately 5% of the approximately 0.15 acre Vegetation Unit A contained
long, narrow patches and other small patches of ground that were saturated at the surface. The
south end Vegetation Unit A contained an area approximately 18 feet by 27 feet  which was
saturated to the surface;

      •      A zone  of saturation and/or inundation was observed along the boundary of
Vegetation  Unit D and  the  adjacent Vegetation Units A,  B,  C, and  E.   This  zone of
saturation/inundation ranged in width from 17 inches to 172 inches and had water depths ranging
from surface inundation to 9 inches;
                                        69

-------
       •      Another area of surface inundation, approximately 12 feet by 16 feet, occurred
in the center of Vegetation Unit B where the relocated stream entered Vegetation Unit D; and

       •      In Vegetation Unit D inundation ranged in depth from 1 inch to greater than 30
inches.

       No field evidence of hydrology was noted in Vegetation Units F and G.

       Although soil sampling was severely restricted  by site conditions,  the evidence of
hydrology  obtained  from  soil samples  suggested  that  the depth to soil  saturation  varied
considerably.

       Comparison of the characteristics of soils sampled to soils mapped on site (Kohler 1986)
indicated the wetland creation site was built as planned on Basher silt loam soil. These soils are
rated as having a  poor potential  for creating wetland plant habitat and shallow water areas,
because management requirements are difficult and intensive (Kohler 1986).  The permeability
of Basher soils results in a fluctuating water table and a lack of  moisture holding capacity.
Compacting will not reduce permeability. A minimum of six inches of impervious material (i.e.
clay) laid on top of Basher soils is required to  reduce  permeability.   (J. J.  Eckenrode, Soil
Conserv. Serv., pers. commun.).

       Table 12 specifies the acres and percent of palustrine wetland classes  expected  and
observed on site.  The palustrine open water area and palustrine emergent wetland area were
much smaller  than planned. The palustrine scrub-shrub area was essentially  the same  size as
designed.  All three palustrine wetland classes comprised different percentages of the entire site
than planned.   The sum of the observed palustrine wetland classes represented 55% of the
estimated size of the entire (0.67  acre) wetland creation  site.

       Exhibits 6a and 6b illustrate the PennDOT Bryan Mills wetland creation site  during data
collection.
                                           70

-------
TABLE 12
ACREAGE AND PERCENT OF PALUSTRINE WETLAND CLASSES
EXPECTED AND OBSERVED*** AT THE PENNDOT
BRYAN MILLS WETLAND CREATION SITE
Palustrine wetland class
Open water
Emergent
Scrub-shrub
Total
Expected*
0.16 acre (24%)
0.27 acre (41%)
0.23 acre (35%)
0.66 acre
Observed**
0.03 acre (8%)
0.12 acre (32%)
0.22 acre (59%)
0.37 acre
       **
       ***
Source:      Skelly and Loy Engineers-Consultants, Wetland Mitigation Report
             State Route 0220 - L.R. 19 Relocation, Harrisburg, PA, 1988
Sum of effective and partially effective vegetation units
Accuracy of estimates for size of observed areas =  + 1.5%


                      CONCLUSIONS
Effectiveness of the Wetland Creation Sites


       After about 4 growing seasons, the Borough of Huntingdon site was determined to be a

partially effective palustrine wetland creation mitigation site.  This determination was based upon

effectiveness criteria used to assess  the percent of dominant hydrophytes observed in the 6
vegetation units on site and supported by the extent of effective wetland acreage created at the

site.


       The 0.1 acre  unvegetated area on site was the primary reason for the determination of

partial effectiveness, although two-thirds  of the 0.03 acre palustrine scrub-shrub area were

considered non-effective.


       The observed field hydrology was indicative of the fluctuating water table attributed to

Barbour soils.  The extent of stress evidenced by one of the dominant emergent hydrophytes
                                           71

-------
O
CO

•r
 
-------
o
o\
o
CO
                                                                                     c
                                                                                     o
                                                                                    •zi
                                                                                     ffil

                                                                                     8
                                                                                     o

                                                                                    •9
                                                                                    PQ

                                                                                    H
                                                                                    O
I
                                                                                    W
                                          73

-------
(i.e., branching burreed) suggested nutrient and/or hydrology deficiencies on site.  A lack of
organic matter has been suggested as the reason for the expanse of bare ground at the wetland
creation site.

       Possible remedial action  needed to improve the wetland creation  site includes  the
placement of impervious material on site to improve water retention and the addition of organic
matter to promote vegetation growth. Soil analysis and  more extensive sampling of the ground
water hydrology is needed to understand how soil content, soil permeability, and ground water
fluctuation contribute to site conditions should remedial action be required for the site.

       After nearly  2 growing seasons,  the PennDOT Bryan Mills site was  designated a
non-effective palustrine wetland creation mitigation site.  This determination was based upon the
established effectiveness criteria used to assess the percent of dominant hydrophytes observed
in the seven vegetation units and supported by the extent of effective/partially effective wetland

acreage created at the site.  The prevalence of yellowing, wilted herbs and shrubs, as well as
shrub mortality supports the non-effective site determination.

       The presence of FACU ruderal plants as dominant species in the vegetation units was a
factor in classifying the site as unsuccessful. If the occurrence of ruderal species was primarily
related to  site  disturbance, rather than as a consequence of  site hydrology in addition to
disturbance, the extent of areal cover by these species would be expected to decrease with time.

       The PennDOT Bryan Mills site did have an  area of effective wetland creation which was
located at  the lowest point on site.  The  palustrine open  water and the adjacent  palustrine
emergent wetlands appeared to maintain constant standing water and/or surface-saturated soils.
The hydrology  source for this area was intercepted ground water and the  relocated stream.
                                           74

-------
       Site plans specified ground water as a key source of hydrology for the wetland creation
site during periods of low streamflow.  The fluctuating water table and lack of water retention
capacity associated with Basher silt  loam soils may  account  for the extent and  severity of
hydrophytic vegetation stress observed on a majority of the site and the non-effective rating for
4 of the 7 vegetation units.  A deficiency of organic matter/nutrients could also be a source of
vegetation stress as extensive  surface soil removal was required to construct  the site.

       If remedial action is required for the site, soil analysis and more extensive information
regarding the hydroperiod would be needed to understand how soil content,  soil permeability,
ground water fluctuations and  surface  flow contribute to existing site conditions.  The placement
of impervious material on site to improve water retention may be required to make the entire
wetland creation site effective.

Effectiveness of Wetland Creation Evaluation Methodology

       The  effectiveness criteria and methodology used to evaluate  the percent of dominant
species at the wetland creation sites were appropriate, given the literature available, limited field
evidence of hydric soil characteristics expected at newly created wetlands, and the dynamics of
field hydrology.  Nonetheless, a change in the method of determining overall site effectiveness
is suggested in order to simplify site evaluation.  The use of only two effectiveness criteria,
effective and non-effective, to assess vegetation units would facilitate evaluating overall wetland
creation site  success.   After  using the effectiveness  criteria  (i.e.,  percent of dominant
hydrophytes) to evaluate each vegetation unit, the total  area of the effective vegetation units
could be used to determine overall site success. For example: If J>_85% of the wetland acreage
created is determined to be effective, the entire site would be considered successful.

       The data collected on vegetation vigor  and percent bare ground contributed significantly
to the  analysis of site conditions.  A  detailed  soils investigation would enhance the assessment
of the growth medium and substrate at  the wetland creation site as well.
                                            75

-------
       The comparison of wetland creation sites to natural wetland reference sites could provide
information regarding the degree to which creation sites resemble natural wetlands.  Yet, the
time required to identify and assess reference sites may add a prohibitive cost to wetland creation
evaluation projects.
                                            76

-------
                                   REFERENCES
Abbruzzese, B.  A. et al.  1988.  Selecting  sites  for  comparison with created  wetlands. Jn
Proceedings of Symposium  '87-Wetlands/Peatlands. Compiled by C. D. A. Rubec and R. P.
Overend. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1987. pp. 291-297.

Brooks, R. P. and R. M. Hughes. 1988. Guidelines for assessing the biotic communities of
freshwater wetlands. In J. A. Kusler, M. L. Quammen, and G. Brooks (eds.). Proceeding s of
the National Wetlands Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. ASWM Technical Report
3. Association of State Wetland Managers. Berne, NY. 460 pp.

Brown, D.  1988.  Special  project report: evaluation of mitigation activities Pennsylvania
Turnpike Interchange 23. Fish and Wildlife Service. State College, PA.  8 pp.

Brown, L. 1979. Grasses an identification guide. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 240
pp.

Chambers,  R. D. (ed.). The Penn State agronomy guide. The Pennsylvania State University.
University Park, PA.

Ciupek, R. B. 1986. EPA's conservative policy on mitigation, p. 12-13. National Wetlands
Newsletter  8:5.

Cowardin,  L. M. et al. 1979. Classification of wetlands and  deepwater  habitats of the United
States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service,  U.S.
Department of the Interior.  Washington, D.C.

Cowardin, L. M. 1982. Wetlands and deepwater habitats:  a new classification.  Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 37:2.

Cunningham, R. L. et al.  1977.  Soils of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University
College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. Progress report 365. University Park,
PA.

Ehrenfeld, J. G. 1983. The effects of changes  in land-use on swamps of the New Jersey Pine
Barrens. Biological Conservation 25:353-375.

Erwin, K. L. 1989a. Freshwater marsh creation and restoration in the southeast. In J. A. Kusler
and M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland creation and  restoration: the status of the science, volume I:
regional overviews. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, OR, EPA 600/3-89/038a.

	1989b. Wetland evaluation for restoration and creation. In J. A. Kusler and M.
E. Kentula  (eds.) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science, volume II:

perspectives.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Environmental  Research Laboratory

                                         77

-------
Corvallis, OR, EPA 600/3-89/0385.

Fassett, N. C. 1957. A manual of aquatic plants. University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI. 405
pp.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. 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.D.A. Soil Conservation Service.
Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication, pp. 76 plus appendices.

Fernald, M. L. 1989.  Gray's Manual of Botany. Dioscorides Press. Portland, OR.  1630 pp.

Gannett Fleming Transportation Engineers, Inc. 1988. Wetlands mitigation report for L/R. 1036,
section All final design Lycoming County. Camp Hill, PA.

Garbisch,  E.  W. 1989a. Information needs in the planning process for wetland creation and
restoration. In J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland creation and restoration: the status
of the science, volume II: perspectives. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory
Corvallis, OR, EPA 600/3-89/038b.

	1989b. Wetland enhancement, restoration, and construction.  In S. K. Majumdar
et al.  (eds.) Wetlands  ecology and conservation: emphasis in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Academy of Science. Easton, PA.

Gleason, H. A. 1952. The new Britton and Brown illustrated flora of the northeastern United
States and adjacent Canada. Vol.  1-3. The Hafner Publishing Company, New York, NY.

Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States
and adjacent Canada. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York, NY.

Gosselink,  J. G.  and R.  E. Turner. 1978. The role  of hydrology in  freshwater wetland
ecosystems. In R. E.  Good, D. F.  Whigham and R. L. Simpson (eds.) Freshwater wetlands
ecological processes and management potential. Academic Press. New York, NY.pp. 378.

Hollands,  G.  G.,  G.  E. Hollis and J. S. Larson. 1986. Science base for freshwater wetland
mitigation in  the northeastern United States: hydrology. In Larson,  J. S. and C. Neill (eds.).
Mitigating  freshwater wetland alterations in  the glaciated northeastern United States: an
assessment of the science  base.   Proceedings of a workshop held  at The  University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, September 29-30, 1986. Amherst, MA.

Jackson, J. M. Submitted. The status of nontidal, freshwater wetlands creation, restoration, and
enhancement  in the United States. Reno, NV.

Kentula, M. E. In press. Wetlands evaluation II: the extensive approach — EPA's research
program and investigation of an extensive sampling approach to comparing created and natural
wetlands.

                                         78

-------
Kehler, S. 1990 PennDOT wetland replacement areas constructed as of 11/30/89. Pennsylvania
Department Transportation. Harrisburg, PA. 3 pp.

Kjellstrom, B. 1976. Be expert with map and compass: the complete "orienteering" handbook.
Charles Scribner's Sons. New York, NY. 214 pp.

Knobel, E. 1980. Field guide to the grasses,  sedges and rushes of the United States.  Dover
Publications,  Inc. New York, NY. 83 pp.

Kohler, C. D.  1986. Soil survey of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.  U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Kusler, J. A.  1988. Wetland restoration/creation: a summary of science views and perspectives.
In J. A.  Kusler, M. L. Quammen and G. Brooks (eds.) Proceedings of the national wetland
symposium: mitigation of impacts and losses. ASWM technical report 3. Association of State
Wetland Managers.  Berne, NY.

Kusler, J. A.  and M. E. Kentula. 1990. Executive summary. In J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula
(eds.) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science.  Island Press. Washington,
D.C. 591 pp.

Kusler, J. A. 1987. Hydrology:  an introduction for wetland managers. In J. A. Kusler and G.
Brooks (eds.) Proceedings of the national wetlands  symposium: wetland hydrology.  ASWM
Technical report 6.  Association of State Wetland Managers. Berne,  NY. pp. 339.

Lewis, R. R. 1989. Wetlands restoration/creation/enhancement terminology:  suggestions for
standardization in J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland creation and restoration: the
status  of the science,  volume II:  perspectives.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory Corvallis, OR, EPA 600/3-89/038b.

Little,  E. L.  1980. The Audubon Society field guide to North American trees eastern region.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York, NY. 714 pp.

Liscomb,  G. and  W.  H.  Farley. 1981.  Soil  Survey of  Juniata and  Mifflin Counties,
Pennsylvania. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 177 pp.

Lowry, D.  L. 1989. Restoration and creation of palustrine wetlands associated with riverine
systems of the glaciated northeast. In J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland creation and

restoration: the status  of  the science,  volume I: regional  overviews.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory Corvallis,  OR, EPA 600/3-89/038a.

Merkel, E. J. 1978. Soil survey of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania.  U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 122 pp.
                                         79

-------
Mitsch , W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, NY.
539 pp.

Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell soil color charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments
Corporation. Baltimore, MD.

National Wetland Inventory. Undated(a). Alexandria, PA. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service.

	Undated(b). Huntingdon, PA. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.

	Undated(c). National wetlands inventory information and legend for map products.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.  St. Petersburg, FL.

	 1986a. Mifflintown, PA. U.  S. Department of the Interior, Fish  and Wildlife
Service.

	1986b. Mexico, PA. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

	 1986c. Mt. Union, PA. U.  S. Department of the Interior, Fish  and Wildlife
Service.

	1986d. Newton Hamilton, PA. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.

	 1986e. Lewistown, PA. U.  S. Department of the Interior, Fish  and Wildlife
Service.

Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company.  Boston, MA.
490 pp.

Niering, W. A. 1985. Wetlands. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, NY.  638 pp.

	1988. Hydrology, disturbance,  and vegetation change. In J. A. Kusler and G.
Brooks (eds.). Proceedings of the national wetland symposium: wetland hydrology.  ASWM
technical report 6.  Association  of State Wetland Mangers. Berne, NY.

	1989. Vegetation dynamics in relation to wetland creation. In J.A. Kusler and
M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland creation and restoration: the status  of the  science, volume II:
perspectives.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, OR, EPA 600/3-89/038b.

Niering, W.A. and M. L. Kraus. 1986. Science base for  freshwater wetland  mitigation in the
northeastern United States:  vegetation.  In Larson, J.  S.  and C. Neill (eds.).  Mitigating
freshwater wetland alterations in the glaciated northeastern United States: an assessment of the
                                          80

-------
science base, Proceedings of a workshop held at The University of Massachusetts,  Amherst,
September 29-30, 1986. Amherst, MA.

Omernik, J.  M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers,  77(1): 118-125.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1986. Relocation of traffic route 220 environmental
assessment plan of study L.R.  19, section 033 Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Montoursville,
PA.

Peterson, R. T. and M. McKenny. 1968. A field guide to wildflowers northeastern/northcentral
North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 420 pp.

Petrides, G.  A. 1972. A field guide to trees and shrubs. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 428
pp.

Pierce, R. J.,  M. C. Landin, and H. H. Allen. 1988. Artificially created wetlands: myth or
mysticism.  In J. A. Kusler  and G.  Brooks  (eds.). Proceedings of the  national wetland
symposium:  wetland hydrology.ASWM technical  report 6.  Association of State  Wetland
Mangers. Berne, NY.

Plewa, F. R. 1987. A guide to wetland plantings in Pennsylvania and recommended approaches
to establishing vegetative cover. State College Field Office Special Project Report No.  87-1. U.
S. Department of the Interior, Fish and  Wildlife Service. State College, PA.

Quammen,  M. L. 1986.  Measuring the success  of wetlands mitigation. National  Wetlands
Newsletter 8:5.

Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: 1988 Pennsylvania.
NERC-88/18.38. National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg,
FL.

Reimold, R. J. and S. A. Cobler. 1986. Wetlands mitigation effectiveness. Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc. Wakefield, MA. 75 pp.

Scott, M.  L.,  W. L. Slauson, C. A. Segelquist, and G. T. Auble.  1989.   Correspondence
between vegetation and soils in wetland  and  nearby uplands.  Wetlands Vol. 9 No. 1.

Skelly and Loy Engineers-Consultants. 1988a. Wetland mitigation report State Route 0220-L.R.
19 relocation.  Harrisburg, PA.

	1988b. Wetlands replacement design Traffic Route 220-S.R. 0220 site schematic.
Harrisburg, PA.

Soil Conservation Service. Undated(a). Hydric soils-Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. U. S.
Department of Agriculture. Huntingdon, PA.
                                         81

-------
	 Undated(b). Hydric soils-Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Williamsport, PA.

Tiner, R. W., Jr. Undated. An update of federal wetland delineation techniques.  U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Newton Corner, MA.
Urban D. L., R. V. O'Neill, and H. H. Shugurt, Jr.  1987. landscape ecology a hierarchical
perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns.  BioScience Vol.  37 No. 2. pp.
119-127.

U.S.  Department  of Transportation Federal  Highway  Administration  and  Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation. Undated. L.R.  19 Lycoming County, Pennsylvania State Route
0220  relocation environmental  assessment.  Pennsylvania  Department of  Transportation.
Montoursville, PA.

U.S. Geographic Survey. Undated. Topographic map symbols. Washington, D.C.

	1970a. Mt. Union, PA quadrangle. Washington, D.C.

	1970b. Picture Rocks, PA quadrangle. Washington, D.C.

	1971a. Aughwick, PA quadrangle. Washington, D.C.

	1971b. Newton Hamilton, PA quadrangle. Washington, D.C.

	1977. Alexandria, PA quadrangle. Washington, D.C.

	1978. Mifflintown, PA quadrangle. Washington, D.C.

	1979. Mexico, PA quadrangle. Washington, D.C.

	1981. Huntingdon, PA quadrangle. Washington, D.C.

Vance, H. Hydrology and hydraulic requirements of successful wetlands.  In J. A. Kusler and
G. Brooks (eds.). Proceedings of the national  wetland symposium: wetland hydrology.ASWM
technical report 6. Association of State Wetland Managers. Berne, NY.

Wegweiser,  Baker,  Schneider and Lukert. 1972. Laboratory problems in general  geology.
Department of Geosciences, Edinboro University. Edinboro, PA. 173 pp.

Zedler,  J. B. and M. W. Weller.  1989. Overview and future directions. In J.A.  Kusler and
M.E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Volume I:
regional reviews. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, OR.
                                         82

-------
       APPENDIX A
     List of Section 404
Permit Applications Reviewed
           A-l

-------
                                    APPENDIX  A

List of section 404 permit applications reviewed

       As of May 7, 1990 139 projects were reviewed that involved section 404 permit
applications for permanent discharges into palustrine wetlands in Pennsylvania
from 1985 through 1989. The 47 projects for which EPA or FWS recommended
wetland creation have been marked with an asterisk (*).

Baltimore District

*Altoona City Authority (NABOP-RR-87-0621)
Andrew and Pauline Verost (NABOP-RR-1293)
* Anthony Kenia (NABOP-RE-89-1507-4)
*Borough of Bellefonte (NABOP-RE-87-18-4-3)
Borough of Galeton (CENABOP-RR-89-2767-8)
*Borough of Huntingdon (NABOP-RE-86-0435-1)
Centre Township Supervisors (NABOP-RE-88-2087)
Chad-Mor, Inc. (NABOP-RR-87-0249)
*Deer Creek Business Park (NABOP-RR-86-1431)
Delmar Zeisloft - Zeisloft Construction Co.  (CENAB-OP-RR-87-1831-3)
Dole E. McGuire (NABOP-RR-86-0059)
Donald A.  Kegarise (NABOP-RE-89-1562-6)
Francis Burnier (CENABOP-RE-88-1948-4)
*Fred W. Bowser  - PennDOT (NABOP-RR-86-0309)
*Fred W. Bowser  - PennDOT (NABOP-RE-88-0649)
*Fred W. Bowser  - PennDOT (NABOP-RE-89-1968)
Greenfield  Township Supervisors (NABOP-RE-89-0759-4)
Hammermill Paper Group (NABOP-RE-87-0023-4)
Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. (NABOP-RR-86-0799)
Hempt Brothers, Inc. (NABOP-RR-86-1193)
John and Grace Nagle (NABOP-RR-86-1204)
Lake Benton Peat Moss Co., Inc. (NABOP-RR-86-0057)

-------
Montdale Association, Inc. (CENABOP-RR-89-3375-4)
*PennDOT - District 8-0 (NABOP-RR-87-1638-3)
*PennDOT (NABOP-RE-89-1577)
PennDOT (NABOP-RE-87-0243-1)
Pennsylvania Fish Commission (NABOP-RR-86-1388)
*Pennsylvania Fish Commission (NABOP-RE-89-0472)
Pennsylvania Fish Commission (NABOP-RE-88-3783-4)
Pennsylvania Peat Moss, Inc. (NABOP-RR-87-0408)
Philadelphia Electric Power Company (NABOP-RR-86-1389)
Raymond L. Wolfe (NABOP-RR-85-1358)
Richard Bumgard - Penguard Construction, Inc. (NABOP-RE-85-0833-1)
Richard Kearny (CENAB-OP-R-87-1407-6)
Richard R. Thorpe (NABOP-RR-87-0222-revised)
Reichdrill, Inc.  (NABOP-RR-85-1294)
R.N. Fitch & Sons, Inc. (CENAB-OP-RE-88-2907-6)
Robert and Alice Foster (CENAB-OP-RE-87-0777-4)
Robert M. Mumma -- Bobali Corporation (NABOP-RE-85-0407-1)
Scranton Lackawanna Industrial Building Co. (NABOP-RR-86-1192)
Shamokin Dam  Borough (NABOP-RR-87-0885-3)
Stonesifer Trust Committee (CENAB-OP-RE-89-1047)
SugarloafPeatCo.  (NABOP-RR-86-0648)
William L. Schutter -- Atlantic Corporation (NABOP-RE-87-1381-6)
Wissinger's Bellemeade, Inc. (NABOP-RR-87-0369)

Buffalo District

Bureau of State  Parks - DER (NCBCO-S-85-476-7
*Ninth Coast Guard District (LOP -- 85-263-1)

-------
Philadelphia District

Borough of Beaver Meadows (NAPOP-R-85-0047-5)
Buck Hill Falls Co. (CENAP-OP-R-88-0054-16 (NP26)
Burton L. Mott (NAPOP-R-86-0125-12 (NP26)
*Chessie Systems Railroads (NAPOP-R-85-0676-1)
*Chester County  Water Resources Authority (CENAP-OP-R-87-1127-16)
*City of Philadelphia (CENAP-OP-R-88-0340-13)
*City of Philadelphia (NAPOP-R-86-0344-12)
*Claude DeBotton (CENAP-OP-R-86-1472-13; originally NAPOP-R-86-1472 (DA-NP26)
Conrad and Barbara Mock (CENAP-OP-R-88-0841-11)
Cross  Keys Development Co. (CENAP-OP-R-88-0014-16 (NP26)
Croton Lake Corporation (NAPOP-R-86-0538-13)
Cumru Township (CENAP-OP-R-87-1220-15)
DER -- Bureau of State Parks (NAPOP-R-85-1129-5)
DER - Bureau of State Parks (CENAP-OP-R-88-0392-16)
E.J. Callaghan & Co. (CENAP-OP-R-88-0536-17 (NP26)
*Ferguson and Flynn (CENAP-OP-R-88-0025-16)
*Fred Bowser  -  PennDOT (CENAP-OP-R-86-1035-11)
*Fred Bowser  -  PennDOT (NAPOP-R-85-0390-11)
Gene Evans -  Blue Ridge Peat Farms (NAPOP-R-86-0258-12)
George Hatchard (NAPOP-R-86-0418-12  (DA NP26)
Guya and Charles Lloyd (CENAP-OP-R-88-3135-13)
Hyponex Corporation (NAPOP-R-85-0790-12)
*Kode  Development  Association,  Inc.  (NAPOP-87-0265-1 (NP26); formerly NAPOP-R-86-1013-1
       (DANP26)
James  and Edward Strasser (NAPOP-R-86-0169-12)
Lynch Corporation (NAPOP-R-85-0606-11)
Macoby Run Golf Course (CENAP-OP-R-89-0792-16 (PDN)
Midas Realty Corporation (NAPOP-R-86-0486-11)
Naaman's Creek  Center (CENAP-OP-R-89-1917-11)
Nicholas Hameza (CENAP-OP-R-88-1418-1)
Nolen Investors (CENAP-OP-R-87-0061-13 (Draft)

-------
 *PennDOT (CENAP-OP-89-1659-16 (NP26)
 *PennDOT (NAPOP-R-87-0139-13)
 *PennDOT (NAPOP-R-86-0298-12)
 *Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (NAPOP-R-85-1123 (DA NP26)
 *Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (CENAP-OP-R-88-0685-11 (PDN)
 Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (CENAP-OP-R-87-1451-13)
 Robert Haase - International Peat, Inc. (NAPOP-R-85-1023-12)
 Robert Smith (CENAP-OP-R-89-1877-24)
 Russell Angstadt (NAPOP-R-85-0414)
 Saw Creek Club, Inc. (NAPOP-R-85-0009-11)
 Seltzer Organization (NAPOP-R-87-0733-12 (NP26); formerly NAPOP-R-86-0080-13)
 Thomas Treadway -- Tri-State Transfer Co. (CENAP-OP-R-88-1011-22)
 "Toll Brothers, Inc. (CENAP-OP-R-0773-15)
 *U.S. Department of the Navy (CENAP-OP-R-89-1231-1)
 *Villages and the Makefields, Palmer Farm Village and Laurel Oaks (PDN number not available)

 Pittsburgh District

 Albert Lang (ORPOP-F-85-71)
 Alfred J.  Palanky (CEORP-OR-87-116)
 *Allegheny County -- Department of Aviation (ORPOP-F-86-14)
 Arthur White (ORPOR-F-86-112)
 Beacon Truck Stop, Inc. (ORPOP-F-86-26)
 Beaver Meadow Industrial Park (CEORP-OR-87-129)
 *Borough of Grove City (CEORP-OR-88-53)
Borough of Scottdale (ORPOP-F-85-63)
Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation (ORPOP-F-85-95)
 *City of DuBois (ORPOP-85-36)
City of DuBois (CEORP-OR-89-49)
Clyde G.  Mostoller (ORPOR-F-86-96)
Coleman Brothers Enterprises (ORPOP-F-86-20)
 *Coudersport Area School District (ORPOR-F-87-43)
*County of Westmoreland (ORPOP-F-85-56)

-------
Curtis & Son, Inc. (ORPOP-F-86-107)
D.M. Boyd Co. (ORPOR-F-87-16)
Donald Delia (ORPOP-F-86-100)
*Doran and Associates, Inc. (ORPOP-F-85-66)
Doran and Associates, Inc. (ORPOP-F-85-93)
Edwin W.  Gott, Jr. (ORPOP-F-86-86)
Erie National Wildlife Refuge (CEORP-OR-89-19)
*Erie National Wildlife Refuge (CEORP-OR-89-40)
*Franklin Township  Municipal Sanitary Authority (CEORP-OR-88-97)
*Fred R. Bowser - PennDOT (ORPOP-F-86-6)
*Fred R. Bowser - PennDOT (ORPOR-F-87-5)
*Fred R. Bowser -- PennDOT (CEORP-OR-88-31)
*Fred R. Bowser -- PennDOT (CEORP-OR-88-25)
Freeport Terminals, Inc. (ORPOP-F-85-28)
George and Janet Marie Dunlap (CEORP-OR-88-109)
George D. Zamias (ORPOR-F-87-27)
John Kerna (CEORP-OR-87-96)
Kirila Contractors, Inc. (ORPOP-F-85-88)
*Lee-Simpson Associates, Inc. (ORPOP-F-86-3)
Lee-Simpson  Associates, Inc. (ORPOP-F-85-105)
*McDonald's Corporation (CEORP-OR-89-70)
Meridian Exploration Corporation (ORPOP-F-86-85)
Midway Coal Company (ORPOP-F-86-5; originally 85-98)
Nace Brothers Chrysler Plymouth (CEORP-OR-87-91)
*Neil Singer - Sugar Grove Gas Gathering (ORPOR-F-87-2)
OHM Associates (CEORP-OR-87-79)
Pearl E. Mattis (ORPOR-F-86-94)
*Resource Conservation Corporation (CEORP-OR-88-7)
*Rev. F. Thomas Suppa - St. Leo Church (ORPOP-F-86-106)
Sky Haven Coal, Inc. (ORPOP-F-85-108)
Thomas and Craig Gnagey (87-6)
*Tom McLaughlin (ORPOP-F-85-87)

-------
                         APPENDIX B
                Status of Wetland Creation Sites
                             that
EPA and FWS Recommended as Mitigation for Section 404 Discharges
                             B-l

-------
       The information on wetlands creation sites contained herein was compiled from the records of
the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III.  In addition,
information was provided by the staff of the Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers,
Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation.


       The information outlined below is based on that obtained as of July 1990.  A blank item indicates
that information was lacking on this aspect of the project.  The individual  or agencies that provided
information on the status of a wetland creation site has been indicated as the source.


      These wetland creation  sites  are  marked  with an asterisk  (*) designate  information obtained
subsequent to the preparation of Part I of the report and  Appendix A.


Baltimore District
Applicant: Altoona City Authority (NABOP-RR-87-0621)
Location: Logan Township, Blair County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: PEM — 0.5 acres
Status:

Applicant: Anthony Kenia (NABOP-RE-89-1507-4)
Location: Tunkhannock Township, Wyoming County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation: Public Notice contained creation plan
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PAB -- 1.85 acres
Status:

Applicant: Borough of Bellefonte (NABOP-RE-87-1804-3)
Location: Spring Township, Centre County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type of wetland: PEM/POW/PSS -- approximately 4 acres
Status: Site Construction 5-7/1989; stream relocated into site 4/1990; site planted 4/28/1990.
Source: Baltimore District Army Corps of Engineers; Helen K Fay Consultant

Applicant: Borough of Huntingdon (NABOP-RE-86-0435-1)
Location: Smithfield Township, Huntingdon County
Date permit issued:  6/25/1986
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes

-------
Type and size of wetland: POW/PSS - 0.67 acre
Status: Constructed  1986; shrubs planted 9/1987; see site evaluation in report
Source: Baltimore District Corps of Engineers; Jay Coffman, Borough of Huntingdon

Applicant: Cedarwood Construction Co., Inc.*
Location: East Hempfield and Manheim Townships, Lancaster County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Not specified
Status: Constructed  ~ date unknown;  site largely unvegetated in October 1988 due to extensive use by
  off road vehicles
Source: N. L. Kline

Applicant: Deer Creek Business Park  (NABOP-RR-86-1431)
Location: Shrewsbury, York County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: POW - 4 sites of 0.03 acres each
Status:

Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (NABOP-RE-88-0649)
Location: Old Lycoming and Lycoming Townships, Lycoming County
Date permit issued:  10/7/1988
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes -Public Notice contained creation plan
Type of wetland: PEM/PSS/PFO - 3.9 acres
Status: Constructed  1989; shrub/sapling plantings to be completed in spring 1990; reported for remedial
  action  by design consultant; see project narrative for status as of 5/31/90 site visit
Source: Gannett Fleming Transportation Engineers; Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (NABOP-RR-86-0309)
Location: Lycoming County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type of wetland: PEM/PSS - acres not specified
Status:

Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (NABOP-RE-89-1968)
Location: Lancaster, Lancaster County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation: Public Notice contained creation plan
Type  and size of wetland: POW/PEM/PSS - 0.75 - 1.0 acre
Status:

Applicant: PennDOT (NABOP-RE-89-1577)
Location: Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County
Date permit  issued: 5/15/1989
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS - 0.75 and 1.5 acres; PSS/PFO -- 3.4 acres
Status:

-------
Applicant: PennDOT (NABOP-RR-87-1638-3)
Location: Harrisburg Township, Adams County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: PEM - 0.2 acre
Status: Constructed about  1989
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Applicant: Pennsylvania Fish Commission (NABOP-RE-89-0472)
Location: Benner Township, Centre County
Date permit issued: Yes
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: PEM — 1.0 acre
Status: Project construction and wetland creation mitigation not yet started
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service
Buffalo District
Applicant: Ninth Coast Guard District (LOP - 85-263-1)
Location: City of Erie, Erie County
Date permit issued: 7/11/1985
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: POW - 0.4 acre
Status: Wetland constructed; emergent fringes of cattails and burreed; mallards nesting and feeding onsite.
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service
Philadelphia District
Applicant: Cain Township (CENAP-OP-R-88-2747-15)*
Location: Cain Township, Chester County
Date permit issued: 10/24/1989
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Type not specified - 0.9 acre
Status: No indication of mitigation status in files
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Chessie Systems Railroads (NAPOP-R-0676-1(DA-NP26)
Location: Upper Chichester Township, Delaware County
Date permit issued: 9/15/1985
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS -- 1.13 acres
Status: Constructed 1986; planted 1986
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers; Fish and Wildlife Service

-------
 Type and size of wetland: POW/PSS -- 0.67 acre
 Status: Constructed 1986; shrubs planted 9/1987; see site evaluation in report
 Source: Baltimore  District Corps of Engineers; Jay Coffman, Borough of Huntingdon

 Applicant: Cedarwood Construction Co., Inc.*
 Location: East Hempfield and Manheim Townships, Lancaster County
 Date permit issued:
 Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
 Type and size of wetland: Not specified
 Status: Constructed - date unknown;  site largely unvegetated in October 1988 due to extensive use by
   off road vehicles
 Source: N. L. Kline

 Applicant: Deer Creek Business Park  (NABOP-RR-86-1431)
 Location: Shrewsbury, York County
 Date permit issued:
 Permit issued required mitigation:
 Type and size of wetland: POW ~ 4 sites of 0.03 acres each
 Status:

 Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (NABOP-RE-88-0649)
 Location: Old Lycoming and Lycoming Townships, Lycoming County
 Date permit issued: 10/7/1988
 Permit issued required mitigation: Yes —Public Notice contained creation plan
 Type of wetland: PEM/PSS/PFO - 3.9 acres
 Status: Constructed 1989; shrub/sapling plantings to be completed in spring 1990; reported for remedial
   action  by design consultant; see project narrative for status as of 5/31/90 site visit
 Source: Gannett Fleming Transportation Engineers; Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

 Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (NABOP-RR-86-0309)
 Location: Lycoming County
 Date permit issued:
 Permit issued required mitigation:
 Type of wetland: PEM/PSS -- acres not specified
 Status:

 Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (NABOP-RE-89-1968)
 Location: Lancaster, Lancaster County
 Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation: Public  Notice contained creation plan
Type and size of wetland: POW/PEM/PSS - 0.75 - 1.0 acre
Status:

Applicant: PennDOT (NABOP-RE-89-1577)
Location: Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County
Date permit  issued: 5/15/1989
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS -- 0.75 and 1.5 acres; PSS/PFO - 3.4 acres
Status:

-------
Applicant: PennDOT (NABOP-RR-87-1638-3)
Location: Harrisburg Township, Adams County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland:  PEM - 0.2 acre
Status: Constructed about 1989
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Applicant: Pennsylvania Fish Commission (NABOP-RE-89-0472)
Location: Benner Township, Centre County
Date permit issued: Yes
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland:  PEM - 1.0 acre
Status: Project construction and wetland creation mitigation not yet started
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service
Buffalo District
Applicant: Ninth Coast Guard District (LOP - 85-263-1)
Location: City of Erie, Erie County
Date permit issued: 7/11/1985
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: POW - 0.4 acre
Status: Wetland constructed; emergent fringes of cattails and burreed; mallards nesting and feeding onsite.
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service
Philadelphia District
Applicant: Cain Township (CENAP-OP-R-88-2747-15)*
Location: Cain Township, Chester County
Date permit issued: 10/24/1989
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Type not specified - 0.9 acre
Status: No indication of mitigation status in files
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Chessie Systems Railroads (NAPOP-R-0676-1(DA-NP26)
Location: Upper Chichester Township, Delaware County
Date permit issued: 9/15/1985
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS - 1.13 acres
Status: Constructed 1986; planted 1986
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers; Fish and Wildlife Service

-------
Applicant: Chester County Water Resources Authority (CENAP-OP-R-87-1127-16)
Location: West Cain Township, Chester County
Date permit issued: 12/3/1987
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Type not specified -- 11  acres
Status:

Applicant: City of Philadelphia (CENAP-OP-R-88-0340-13 and 86-0322)
Location: Tinicum Township, Delaware County
Date permit issued: 5/23/1988
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Tidal wetlands -- 2.6 acres created or enhanced
Status: No indication of status in files
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: City of Philadelphia (NAPOP-R-86-0344-12)
Location: Philadelphia Airport, Philadelphia County
Date permit issued: 5/21/1986
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Tidal wetlands — 2.2 acres
Status: Most work completed as of 10/19/89
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Claude DeBotton (CENAP-OP-R-86-1472-13 (NP26) and 88-1191)
Location: Edgemont Township, Delaware County
Date permit issued:  7/19/88
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS -- 1.4; PEM -- 0.7
Status: Site constructed; Corps has monitoring  reports
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

* Applicant:  Cross Keys Development Co. NP-26
Location: Plumstead Township, Bucks County
Date permit issued:  2/16/1988
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM or POW in detention basins ~ 2.7 acres
Status: No status indicated in files
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

Applicant:    Ferguson   and   Flynn   (CENAP-OP-R-89-0025-16(NP26);   formerly
CENAP-OP-88-0025-16(PDN)
Location: Bethel Township, Delaware County
Date permit issued:  4/7/1989
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS - 1.61  acres
Status: Work in progress as of 9/18/1989
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

-------
Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (CENAP-OP-R-86-1035-11) - Blue Route Sections 200-600, D3T
Location: Delaware and Montgomery Counties
Date permit issued: 11/23/1987; revised 1/10/1989
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland:  PEM/PSS/POW -- 4.31 acres
Status: Constructed in 1988
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (NAPOP-R-85-0390-11) - Blue Route Section 100
Location: Ridely Township, Delaware County
Date permit issued: 12/3/1985; amended 4/13/1988
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS/POW -- 6.2 acres
Status: Three (3) acres constructed  in 1987; remaining 3.2 acres incorporated into the mitigation for
  Sections 200-600, D3T due to abandonment of the Paper Products mitigation site
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Applicant: Kode Development Associates, Inc.  (NAPOP-87-0265-l(NP26)
Location: Borough of Bristol, Bucks County
Date permit issued: 3/25/1987
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS - 3.52 acres
Status: Date of construction uncertain; partially planted as of 2/1990;  remedial work in progress; site
  being monitored by Fish and Wildlife Service and Philadelphia District Corps
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service; Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

*Applicant: Oakleigh Farms (CENAP-OP-R-89-0745-22(NP12,  14, 26)
Location: Buckinghanm Township,  Bucks County
Date permit issued: 5/22/1989
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS -- 0.5 acres
Status: No status on file
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: PennDOT (CENAP-OP-R-89-1659-16(NP26)
Location: Horsham Township, Montgomery  County
Date permit issued: 8/31/1989
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Type not specified - 0.57 acre
Status: Status not available
Source: Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: PennDOT (NAPOP-R-87-0139-13)
Location: East Whiteland Township, Chester County
Date permit issued: 4/21/1987
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Type not specified - 1.8 acres
Status: No indication of status in files
Source: Philadelphia District Corps  of Engineers

-------
Applicant: PennDOT (NAPOP-R-86-0298-12)
Location: Lehigh and Northhampton Counties
Date permit issued: 12/8/1986
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS/POW -1,2, and 2.9 acre sites per Corps; 1.5, 2, and 3 acre sites
   per PennDOT
Status: Constructed 1986/1987
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Applicant: Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (NAPOP-R-85-1123(DANP26)
Location: Uwchlan Township, Chester County
Date permit issued: 2/6/1986
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/POW/PSS - 5 acres
Status: Construction completed 9/15/1987; mitigation evaluated by Fish and Wildlife Service (Brown
   1988)
Source: Philadelphia District Corps  of Engineers; Fish and Wildlife service

Applicant: Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (CENAP-OP-R-88-0685-11)
Location: Plymouth Township, Montgomery County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes; Site to be selected within 60 days of permit issuance
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS -- 2.49 acres
Status:

* Applicant: Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (CENAP-OP-R-1451-13)
Location: Tinicum Township,  Delaware County
Date permit issued: 12/30/1987
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Type not  specified -- 2.2 acres
Status Construction in progress per 4/27/1989 Corps field report
Source: Philadelphia District Corps  of Engineers

Applicant: Toll Brothers,  Inc.  (CENAP-OP-R-0773-15)
Location: Lower Makefield Township, Bucks County
Date permit issued: 7/28/1987
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: PEM and PSS -- total  of 2.17 acres
Status:

Applicant: U.S. Department of the Army  (CENAP-OP-R-89-1231-1)
Location: Philadelphia County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: Not specified
Status:

Applicant: Villages at the Makefields, Palmer  Village and Laurel Oaks (PDN No. Unknown)
Location: Makefield and Middletown Townships, Bucks County
Date permit issued:

-------
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: Type not specified - 1.88 acres
Status:
Pittsburgh District
Applicant: Allegheny County Department of Aviation (ORPOP-F-86-14)
Location: Enlow, Allegheny County
Date permit issued: 5/5/1986
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: POW/PEM/PSS  -- 6 acres
Status: Not completed
Source: Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Borough of Grove City (CEORP-OR-88-53)
Location: Grove City, Mercer County
Date permit issued: 2/2/1989
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PFO/PSS -- 1.5  acres
Status: Completed - needs to be field checked
Source: Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: City of DuBois (ORPOP-85-36)
Location: City of DuBois,  Clearfield County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation:Public Notice contained creation plan
Type and size of wetland: PEM/POW/PSS  -- 0.57 acre
Status: Site was not developed so mitigation was not constructed
Source: Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Coudersport Area School District (ORPOR-F-87-43)
Location: Coudersport, Potter County
Date permit issued: 6/18/1987
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM - 0.19 acre
Status: Constructed in 1988; emergent wetland - diverse wet meadow plant community developed
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service

Applicant: County of Westmoreland (ORPOP-F-85-56)
Location: Westmoreland and Fayette Counties
Date permit issued: 8/1985
Permit issued required mitigation: Public Notice contained creation plan
Type and size of wetland: PSS  — 5 acres
Status: Constructed 1989; to be planted with 5 shrub species during the summer 1990; site borders lake
  recently built on park land
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service

-------
Applicant: Doran and Associates, Inc.  (ORPOP-F-85-66)
Location: Venango Township, Erie County
Date permit issued: Permit number 85079 issued -- date unknown
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Type not specified -- 0.11 acre
Status:

Applicant: Erie National Wildlife Refuge (CEORP-OR-89-40)
Location: Guys Mills, Crawford County
Date permit issued: Permit issued -- 3/17/1986
Permit issued required mitigation: Public Notice contained creation plan
Type and size of wetland: POW/PEM  -- 6 acres created for waterfowl habitat (0.05 acres filled)
Status: Constructed as a wet  meadow that is flooded in fall for waterfowl
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service

Applicant: Franklin Township (CEORP-OR-88-97)
Location: Murraysville, Westmoreland County
Date permit issued: 7/3/1989
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: Type not specified - 2.1  acres
Status: Not built -- mitigation plan and site still needed
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service; Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Fred  Bowser, PennDOT (ORPOP-F-86-6)
Location: Franklin Park Borough and Ohio Township, Allegheny County
Date permit issued: 4/25/1986
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS/POW - 23.7 acres
Status: 8.7  acres constructed  about 2 years ago; 15 acres under construction in Spring 1990
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (CEORP-OR-88-25)
Location: Fallowfield Township, Washington County
Date permit issued: 5/1988
Permit issued required mitigation:  Yes
Type and size of wetland: PEM/POW/PSS/PFO - 2 and 3 acres
Status: Under construction in spring 1990; mudslide occurred after construction -- wetland being dug
  out and replanted
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; fish and wildlife Service

Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (CEORP-OR-88-31)
Location: Licking and Beaver Townships, Clarion County
Date permit issued: 7/1988
Permit issued required mitigation: No
Type and size of site: Type not specified - 0.03 acre
Status: No mitigation  required as no response from federal agencies (Pittsburgh COE); 0.03 acre creation
  recommended  by Fish and  Wildlife Service
Source: Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers; Fish and Wildlife Service

-------
Applicant: Fred Bowser, PennDOT (ORPOR-F-87-5)
Location: Zelienople, Butler County
Date permit issued: 3/30/1987
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS/POW -- 1.0 acre
Status: Constructed early 1987; Replanted 5/1/1990 due to devegetation by waterfowl
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Applicant: Lee-Simpson Associates, Inc. (ORPOP-F-86-3)
Location: DuBois, Clearfield County
Date permit issued: 6/27/1986
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: POW/PEM/PSS -- 11.4 acres
Status: Completed  1989; area south of Beaver Drive was replanted during week of 7/1/1990; 9 acres site
  never has enough water; 2.5 acres site experiences severe water fluctuations - will probably develop
  into  solid stand of cattails
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service; Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: McDonald's Corporation (CEORP-OR-89-70)
Location: Somerset, Somerset County
Date permit issued:
Permit issued required mitigation:
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: Type not specified - 1.0 acre
Status: No construction or mitigation  as of 7/3/1990; mitigation to be onsite
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service; Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Neil Singer, Sugar Grove Gas Gathering (ORPOR-F-87-2)
Location: Sugar Grove Borough, Warren County
Date permit issued: 8/20/1987
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes - 1:1 creation
Type and size of wetland: PEM — 0.2 acre
Status: Not constructed as of 4/1990
Source: Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Resource Conservation Corporation (CEORP-OR-88-7)
Location: Shade, Somerset County
Date permit issued: Processing suspended pending issuance of DER permits for landfill facility
Permit issued required mitigation: Public Notice contained creation plan; additional plans submitted by
  applicant
Type and size of wetland: POW/PAB/PEM/PSS/PFO - 40 acres
Status: Final mitigation plans not approved; DER permits still pending on landfill
Source: Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Rev. F. Thomas  Suppa, St. Leo Church (ORPOP-F-86-106)
Location: Sandy Township,  Clearfield County
Date permit issued: 12/17/1986
Permit issued required mitigation:

-------
Type and size of wetland: PSS -- 0.14 acre
Status: Shrub-scrub wetland developed along edge of pond; fish ladder required by Corps not built
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service; Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Tom McLaughlin (ORPOP-F-85-87)
Location: Mill Village, Erie County
Date permit issued: 1/8/1986
Permit issued required mitigation:
Type and size of wetland: PEM/PSS - 1.95 acres
Status: Wetland discharge never started -- permit expired 12/21/1989
Source: Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers

Applicant: Willowbrook Mining Co.  (Permit No. 86152)
Location: Washington Township, Lawrence County
Date permit issued: 3/31/1987
Permit issued required mitigation: Yes
Type and size of wetland: POW/PSS/PEM/Deepwater -- 27.7 acres
Status: Completed
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service; Norma L. Kline

-------
    APPENDIX C
      Field Data
Borough of Huntingdon
 Wetland Creation Site
        C-l

-------
       Appendix C contains the field data used to evaluate the effectiveness

of the Borough of Huntingdon wetland creation site.
                                         Data Form
                       Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method

Site: Borough of Huntingdon
Vegetation Unit: A (approximately 0.1 acre)
Date: August 7  - August 9, 1990
                                  Vegetation Unit Sampling


Herb species


                        Percent Areal         Cover          Midpoint of
       Species             Cover            Class          Cover Class           Rank

  1. spadderdock            < 1 %              T                 -                None

  2. least spikerush          <1%              T                 —                None

  3. marsh seedbox          <1%              T                 —                None

  4. blunt spikerush          <1%              T                 --                None


                                         Sum  of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
                               20% of Total Midpoint Value  --

Shrub species — None

Woody vine species —  None

Sapling species -  None

Tree species - None


                                         Hydrology

Unvegetated area approximately 25 feet by 30 feet inundated with water ranging from surface to 2 inches
in depth.


Approximately 85% of the bare soil surface still saturated or damp from recent inundation.

-------
Approximately 95% of the bare soil surface exhibited drying, cracked mud; about 90% of the same area

covered with living/dried algae.


Surface of bare ground bordering Unit D (open water) was saturated in a band ranging from 0 to 38

inches in width (median = 15 inches) indicating the extent of inundation withdrawal since rain of 8/5/90.


The 3 soil samples taken  in the unit  to characterize soil saturation indicated*:


   Al  - surface: saturated (appeared recently inundated)
         ~2 inches: moist
         —18 inches: moist

   A2 — 10 inches: dry
         — 16 inches: rnoist
         ~ 20 inches: moist

   A3  -- surface: saturated
         ~ 2 inches: saturated
         ~3 inches: moist

*A11 soil samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.


                                          Summary

Dominant Plant Species                     Indicator Status                      Stratum

No dominant species onsite

Percent of dominant species that are  OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  0%
                                          Data Form
                       Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method

Site: Borough of Huntingdon
Vegetation Unit: B (approximately 0.19 acre)
Date: August 7 - August 9, 1990

-------
                                Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species
Species
* 1 . branching burreed
(Sparganium androcladum)
*2. marsh seedbox (Ludwigia
palustris)
*3. least spikerush (Eleocharis
acicularis)
4. blunt spikerush
5. broad-leaf cattail
6. purple loosestrife
7. spadderdock
8. dotted smartweed
9. bitter dock
10. spotted jewelweed
11. grass #1
12. smartweed #1
13. ditch stone crop
14. willow-herb
15. monkey-flower
16. arrowhead
17. bugleweed
18. St. Johnswort
19. herb #1
20. grass #2
21. herb #2
22. false pimpernel
23. redleg
24. soft-stem bulrush
25. sedge
Percent Areal
Cover
80
60

65
40
30
10
6
6
6
5
2
1
1
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Cover Class
6
5

5
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Midpoint of
Cover Class
85.5
63.0

63.0
38.0
38.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
—
-
—
-
~
-
—
--
—
—
Rank
1
2

2
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None

-------
Species
1. buttonbush
Percent Areal
Cover
Cover Class
T
Midpoint of
Cover Class
                                 Sum of Midpoints  347.5
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints  173.75
                     20% of Total Midpoint Value   69.5
Shrub species

                     Percent Areal                            Midpoint of
                                                                                 Rank

                                                                                 None

                                         Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
                               20% of Total Midpoint Value   -

Woody vine species -- None

Sapling species -- None

Tree species -- None


                                         Hydrology

Approximately 40% of the surface of Vegetation Unit B was covered with cracked, drying mud.

Approximately 45% of the surface covered with a film of living/dried algae.

The 4 soil samples taken in the Vegetation Unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:

Bl — surface: saturated
    ~7 inches:  moist
    — 9.5 inches: moist
    ~ 11 inches: moist
    ~ 13 inches: moist

B2 — surface: saturated
    — 6 inches:  moist
    ~ 8 inches:  dry

B3 - surface: moist
    ~6.5 inches: moist
    -8.5 inches: moist

B4 - surface: saturated
    -2 inches:  moist
    -4 inches:  moist

*A11 soil samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.

-------
                                       Summary

Dominant Plant Species                     Indicator Status

1. Sparganium androcladum                       OBL                               Herb
2. Ludwigia palustris                             OBL                               Herb
3. Eleocharis acicularis                           OBL                               Herb

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  100%

-------
                                        Data Form
                      Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: Borough of Huntingdon
Vegetation Unit: C (approximately 0.14 acre)
Date: August 7 - August 9,  1990
                                 Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species

Species
*1. least spikerush (Eleocharis
acicularis)
*2. marsh seedbox (Ludwigia
palustris)
*3. blunt spikerush (Eleocharis
obtusa)
*4. dotted smartweed
(Polygonum punctatum)
*5. branching burreed
(Sparganium androcladum)
*6. false pimpernel (Lindernia
dubia)
7. monkey-flower
8. redleg
9. bitter dock
10. willow-herb
1 1. ditch stone crop
12. smartweed #1
13. rice cutgrass
14. broad-leaf cattail
15. spikerush #3
16. flat sedge
17. spadderdock
18. herb #1
19. jewelweed
Percent Areal
Cover
66

50

35

20

25

25

15
15
15
15
15
10
5
5
5
1
1
1
<1

Cover Class
5

4

4

3

3

3

2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
T
Midpoint of
Cover Class
63.0

38.0

38.0

20.5

20.5

20.5

10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
—

Rank
1

2

2

3

3

3

4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
None

-------
Percent Areal
Cover
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Midpoint of
Cover Class Cover Class
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Rank
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
             Species
  20. blue vervain
  21. boneset
  22. soft rush
  23. bedstraw
  24. grass #1
  25. bugleweed
  26. smartweed #2
  27. grass #2
  28. grass #3
                                         Sum of Midpoints          281.5
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints          140.75
                               20% of Total Midpoint Value         56.3
Shrub species ~ None
Woody vine species — None
Sapling species — None
Tree species — None

                                         Hydrology
There was no evidence of surface inundation.
The 2 soil samples taken in the Vegetation Unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:
Cl -- surface: moist
     ~ 10 inches: moist
     — 18 inches: moist
C2 - surface: moist
     ~9  inches: moist
     ~ 18 inches: moist
*A11  soil  samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.

-------
                                       Summary

Dominant Plant Species                      Indicator Status                          Stratunr

1. Sparganium androcladum                       OBL                               Herb
2. Ludwigia palustris                             OBL                               Herb
3. Eleocharis acicularis                           OBL                               Herb
4. E. obtusa                                     OBL                               Herb
5. Polygonum punctatum                          OBL                               Herb
6. Lindernia dubia                               OBL                               Herb

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  100%

-------
                                         Data Form
                       Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method

Site: Borough of Huntingdon
Name: Unit D (approximately 0.17 acre)
Date: August 7 - August 9,  1990

                                  Vegetation Unit Sampling

Herb species

                      Percent Areal                         Midpoint of
      Species             Cover         Cover Class         Cover Class           Rank

  1. spadderdock            < 1                T                 -                None


                                          Sum of Midpoints


Shrub species — None

Woody vine species -- None

Sapling species -- None

Tree species - None


                                         Hydrology

Ground surface inundated with water from the surface to greater than 3 feet in depth (Rep., Borough of

Huntingdon, pers. commun.).


During August 7, 1990 the open water area (Unit D) was flagged using the edge of surface inundation

as the boundary line. During August 8 and 9, 1990, water marks and algae drift lines were observed

around the periphery of the receding open  water area. Based on water marks on snags anchored in open

water area had recently been up to 4 inches deeper.


The soil was saturated at the surface at the edge of Unit D where water had receded since August 7,

1990.

-------
The 1 soil sample taken in the Vegetation Unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:

Dl — surface: inundated with water
     ~2 inches: moist
     ~7 inches: moist

*Only 1 sample was taken as inundation made it impossible to find probe hole for a deeper sample.
                                         Summary

Dominant Plant Species                        Indicator Status

1.  No dominant species

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  N/A

-------
                                        Data Form
                      Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: Borough of Huntingdon
Vegetation Unit: E (approximately 0.01 acre)
Date: August 7 - August 9, 1990
                                 Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species
Species
*1. spotted jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis)
*2. path rush (Juncus tenuis)
*3. soft rush (J. effusus)
4. woolgrass
5. herb #1
6. boneset
7. purple loosestrife
8. sedge #1
9. grass #1 1
10. crown vetch
1 1 . willow-herb
12. bitter dock
13. herb #2
14. false nettle
15. bugleweed
16. sedge #2
17. broad-leaf cattail
18. monkey-flower
19. creeper
Percent Areal
Cover
50
15
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Cover Class
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T
T
T
T
Midpoint of
Cover Class
38.0
10.5
10.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
—
—
~
—
Rank
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
None
None
None
None

-------
              Species

 20. herb #3

 21. willow

 22. goldenrod

 23. teasel

 24. daisy fleabane

 25. clearweed

 26. arrow-leaved tearthumb

 27. ground ivy
Percent Areal
Cover
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Midpoint of
Cover Class Cover Class
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Rank
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
                                         Sum of Midpoint
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
                              20% of Total Midpoint Value
                                             95.0
                                             47.5
                                             19.0
Shrub species


               Species

 *1. smooth alder (Alnus serrulata)

 *2. silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Percent Areal
Cover
30
20
Cover Class
4
3
Midpoint of
Cover Class
38.0
20.5
Rank
1
2
                                         Sum of Midpoint
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
                              20% of Total Midpoint Value
                                             58.5
                                             29.25
                                             11.7
Woody vine species


      Species

 1. grape



Sapling species - None

Tree species — None
Percent Areal
   Cover
Cover Class

     T

 Sum of Midpoint
Midpoint of
Cover Class
Rank

None

-------
                                         Hydrology

No surface inundation observed.


Approximately 5% of the soil surface consisted of cracked, drying mud.


Water borne sediment deposited by overflow was observed in a 5 foot wide band adjacent to the ditch

designed to convey surface flow into the site.


The 1 soil sample taken in the Vegetation Unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:

El --  ~2.5 inches: saturated
     ~5 inches: saturated
     ~7 inches: saturated

*A11 soil samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.



                                         Summary

Dominant Plant Species                       Indicator Status                   Stratum

1. Impatiens capensis                              FACW                        Herb
2. Juncus tenuis                                   FAC-                         Herb
3. J.  effusus                                      FACW+                      Herb
4. Cornus  amomum                                FACW                        Shrub
5. Alnus serrulata                                 OBL                          Shrub

Percent of dominant  species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  100%

-------
                                        Data Form
                      Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: Borough of Huntingdon
Vegetation Unit: F (approximately 0.02 acre)
Date: August 7 - August 9, 1990
                                 Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species
Species
*1. spotted jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis)
*2. crown vetch (Coronilla varia)
*3. thicket creeper (Parthenocissus
yitacea)
4. clearweed
5. berry vine
6. willow-herb
7. herb #1
8. goldenrod
9. bitter dock
10. thistle
11. mustard
12. false nettle
13. ox-eye daisy
14. herb #2
15. rush #1
16. smartweed #1
17. bugleweed
18. cattail
19. grass #1
Percent Areal
Cover
85
30
35
20
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
Cover Class
6
4
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Midpoint of
Cover Class
85.5
38.0
38.0
20.5
20.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Rank
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

-------
              Species

 20. everlasting pea

 21. mint

 23. true forget-me-not

 24. soft rush

 25. daisy fleabane

 26. monkey-flower

 27. sycamore

 28. cinquefoil

 29. woolgrass

 30. arrow-leaved tearthumb
Percent Areal
Cover
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1

-------
                                         Hydrology


Vegetation Unit would receive surface water flow from the wastewater treatment plant area.

The 2 soil samples taken in the Vegetation Unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:

Fl --  ~5 inches: dry
      ~ 8-10 inches:  dry
F2 —  surface: dry
      ~5.5 inches: dry
      ~7 inches: dry
      ~ 10 inches: dry

*A11 soil samples taken to a depth of ~. 18 inches or resistance.


                                         Summary

Dominant Plant Species                        Indicator Status

1. Coronilla varia                                 UPL                          Herb
2. Impatiens capensis                              FACW                        Herb
3. Parthenocissus vitacea                           FACU                        Herb
4. Cornus amomum                                FACW                        Shrub
5. Alnus serrulata                                 OBL                          Shrub

Percent of dominant  species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 60%

-------
                                       Data Form
                      Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: Borough of Huntingdon
Vegetation Unit: G (approximately 0.01 acre)
Date: August 7 - August 9,  1990
                                 Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species
Percent Areal
Species Cover
*1. everlasting pea (Lathyrus
latifolius)
*2. spotted jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis)
*3. crown vetch (Coronilla varia)
4. smartweed #1
5. arrow-leaved tearthumb
6. vine #1
7. willow-herb
8. goldenrod
9. teasel
10. bugleweed
11. sedge
12. mint
13. boneset
14. monkey-flower
60
50
40
25
7
10
5
5
5
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Cover Class
5
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
T
T
T
T
Midpoint of
Cover Class
63.0
38.0
38.0
20.5
10.5
10.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
-
—
—
—
Rank
1
2
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
None
None
None
None
                                       Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
                              20%  of Total Midpoint Value
192.5
 96.3
 38.5
Shrub species — None

Woody vine species - None

-------
Sapling species -- None

Tree species — None


                                         Hydrology

Portion of the Vegetation Unit immediately adjacent to Vegetation Unit F would receive surface water

flow from the wastewater treatment plant area.


The 2 soil samples taken in the Vegetation Unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:

Gl -- surface: moist
      ~ 8 inches: moist
      ~ 11 inches: moist
      ~ 14 inches: moist

G2 -- ~ 1 inch: moist
     ~6 inches: moist
     ~ 14 inches: moist

*A11  soil  samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.


                                         Summary

Dominant Plant Species                        Indicator Status                    Stratum

1. Coronilla varia                                  UPL                          Herb
2. Lathyrus latifolius                               UPL                          Herb
3. Impatiens capensis                               FACW                        Herb

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  33%

-------
    APPENDIX D
     Field Data
PennDOT Bryan Mills
Wetland Creation Site
        D-l

-------
                                       APPENDIX D


       Appendix D contains the field data used to evaluate the effectiveness of the PennDOT Bryan Mills

wetland creation site.
                                        Data Form
                      Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: PennDOT Bryan Mills
Vegetation Unit: A (approximately 0.15 acre)
Date: July 30 - August 2 and August 6, 1990
                                 Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species
Species
*1. soft rush (Juncus et'fusus)
*2. common plantain (Plantago
major)
3. bitter dock
4. English plantain
5. sedge #1
6. marsh seedbox
7. cinquefoil
8. sedge #2
9. monkey -flower
10. boneset
1 1 . deer-tongue grass
12. timothy
13. bugleweed
14. sedge #3
15. spotted jewel weed
Percent Areal
Cover
80
30

25
25
25
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
<1
<1
<1
Cover Class
6
4

3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T
T
T
Midpoint of
Cover Class
85.5
38.0

20.5
20.5
20.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
—
-
—
Rank
1
2

3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
None
None
None

-------
             Species
  16. rice cutgrass
  17. arrow-leaved tearthumb
  18. daisy fleabane
  19. grass #1
 20. red clover
 21. blue vervain
 22. grass #2
 23. goldenrod
 24. woolgrass
 25. thistle
 26. soft-stem bulrush
 27. burreed
 28. ditch stone crop
 29. sensitive fern
 30. spikerush
Percent Areal Cover Class Midpoint of
Cover Cover Class
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
Rank
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
                                          Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
                                20% of Total Midpoint Value
206.0
103.0
41.2
Shrub species
Species Percent Areal
Cover
*1. arrow wood (Vibirnum
dentatum)
*2. common winterberry
(Ilex verticillata)
3. buttonbush
4. silky dogwood
5. red-osier dogwood
6. shrub #1
30
20
8
8
8
1
Cover Class
4
3
2
2
2
1
Midpoint of
Cover Class
38.0
20.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
3.0
Rank
1
2
3
3
3
4

-------
                                           Sum of Midpoints           93.0
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints            46.5
                                20%  of Total Midpoint Value           18.6
Woody vine species - None

Sapling species - None

Tree species - None


                                          Hydrology

At the south end of the Vegetation Unit there was an approximately 18 foot by 27 foot area that was

saturated to the surface.


There was a band of soil saturation/inundation along the boundary of Vegetation Units A and D which

ranged in width from 17 inches to 54 inches (median = 34 inches).


Water stains were noted on < 1 % of the vegetation.


Long, narrow pockets (possibly equipment tracks) of saturated soil and small patches of of saturated soils

were observed. These areas comprised about 5%  of the Vegetation Unit.


The 3 soil samples taken in the unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:

  Al	3.5 inches: moist
       repeated sampling attempts ranged from dry to saturated

  A2  - surface: dry
       ~3 inches: moist

  A3	1.5 inches: dry
       — 3.5 inches: moist
       ~8.5 inches: moist

*A11 soil  samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.

-------
                                       Summary

Dominant Plant Species                        Indicator Status                  Stratum

1. Juncus effusus                                  FACW+                   Herb
2. Plantago major                                 FACU                     Herb
3. Vibirnum dentatum                             FAC                       Shrub
4. Ilex verticillata                                 FACW+                   Shrub

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 75%

-------
                                       Data Form
                      Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: PennDOT Bryan Mills
Vegetation Unit: B (approximately 0.07 acre)
Date: July 30 - August 2 and August 6, 1990
                                 Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species
Species
*1. birds-foot trefoil
(Lotus corniculatus)
*2. soft rush (Juncus effusus)
*3. redtop bentgrass
4. jewel weed
5, sedge #1
6. boneset
7. timothy
8. bitter dock
9. rice cutgrass
10. grass #1
1 1 . monkey-flower
12. soft-stem bulrush
13. St. Johnswort
14. sedge #2
15. deer-tongue grass
16. goldenrod
17. forget-me-not
18 mash seedbox
Percent Areal
Cover Class Cover
95 6

50 4
50 4
10 2
5 1
2 1
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
<1 T
Midpoint of
Cover Class
85.5

38.0
38.0
10.5
3.0
3.0
-
-
-
—
—
—
-
—
-
—
-
—
Rank
1

2
2
3
4
4
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
                                        Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
                              20%  of Total Midpoint Value
178.0
 89.0
35.6

-------
 Shrub species
Percent Areal
Species Cover
*1. arrow wood (Vibirnum
dentatum)
*2. red-osier dogwood
(Cornus stolonifera)
3. buttonbush
4. silky dogwood
25

8
5
3
Cover Class
3

2
1
1
Midpoint of
Cover Class
20.5

10.5
3.0
3.0
Rank
1

2
3
3
                                          Sum of Midpoints         37.0
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints          18.5
                               20% of Total Midpoint Value          7.4
Woody vine species — None

Sapling species - None

Tree species — None


                                          Hydrology

The relocated  stream enters the site via Vegetation Unit B.

At the boundary of Vegetation Units B and D there was an approximately 12 foot by  16 foot area

containing standing water from 1 to 5 inches in depth.


There was a band of soil saturation/inundation along the boundary of Vegetation Units B and D which

ranged in width from 18 inches to 82 inches (median = 60 inches). This band incorporates the 12 foot

by  16 foot area containing standing water cited in the previous paragraph.


The 3 soil samples taken in the unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:

  Bl - surface: moist
        ~ 16 inches: moist

-------
  B2 - surface: saturated

  B3 - surface: saturated

*A11 soil samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.


                                        Summary

Dominant Plant Species                       Indicator Status                   Stratum

1. Juncus effusus                                 FACW+                     Herb
2. Lotus corniculatus                              FACU-                      Herb
3. Agrostis alba                                  FACW                       Herb
4. Cornus stolonifera                              FACW+                     Shrub
5. Vibirnum dentatum                             FAC                         Shrub

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  80%

-------
                                        Data Form
                      Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: PennDOT Bryan Mills
Vegetation Unit: C (approximately 0.05 acre)
Date: July 30 - August 2 and August 6, 1990
                                 Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species
         Species

 * 1.  soft rush (Juncus
     effusus)

 *2.  common plantain
     (Plantago major)
Percent Areal
   Cover

     90
     25
Cover Class

     6


     3
 Midpoint of
Cover Class

    85.5
    20.5
Rank

  1
3. sedge #1
4. English plantain
5. giant burreed
6. cinquefoil
7. soft-stem bulrush
8. boneset
9. deer-tongue grass
10. goldenrod
1 1 . jewel weed
12. bugleweed
13. rough cinquefoil
14. St. Johnswort
15. rush #1
15
10
10
5
5
5
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.5
10.5
10.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

-------
          Species
16. herb #1
17. bitter dock
18. common three square
19. clover
20. daisy fleabane
21. forget-me-not
22. arrow-leaved tearthumb
23. sedge #2
24. blue vervain
25. grass #1
26. rice cutgrass
27. monkey-flower
28. sweetflag
29. woolgrass
30. grass #2
3 1 .  timothy
Percent Areal
Cover
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
.
-------
                                          Hydrology


There was a band of soil saturation along the boundary  of Vegetation Units C and D which ranged in
width from 24 inches to 134 inches (median = 63 inches). Within this band of saturated soils there were
limited areas of inundation ranging from 3.3 inches to 6.5 inches, in depth.


The 2 soil samples taken in the unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:


  Cl  - ~2.5 inches: moist
        ~6 inches: moist
        ~8 inches: moist

  C2	8.5 inches: moist

*A11 soil samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.


                                          Summary

Dominant Plant Species                         Indicator Sjatus                   Stratum

1. Juncus effusus                                   FACW+                      Herb
2. Plantago major                                  FACU                        Herb

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  50%

-------
                                        Data Form
                      Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: PennDOT Bryan Mills
Vegetation Unit: D (approximately 0.12 acre)
Date: July 30 - August 2 and August 6,  1990
                                 Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species
Species
* 1 . marsh seedbox (Ludwiga
palustris)
*2. stiff arrowhead
(Sagittaria rigida)
*3. blunt spikerush
(Eleocharis obtusa) -
4. giant burreed
5. soft rush
6. broad-leaf cattail
7. rice cutgrass
8. smartweed #1
9. jewelweed
10. smartweed #2
11. sedge #1
12. sweetflag
13. boneset
14. monkey-flower
15. green bulrush
16. sedge #3
17. flatsedge
18. dwarf St. Johnswort
19. herb #1
20. ditch stone crop
2 1 . deer-tongue grass
22. water plantain
Percent Areal
Cover
80
66
66
25
6
8
8
6
6
5
2
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Cover Class
6
5
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Midpoint of
Cover Class
85.5
63.0
63.0
20.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
Rank
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None

-------
                                         Sum of Midpoints           293.5
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints           146.75
                               20%  of Total Midpoint Value           58.7

Shrub species - None

Woody vine species -- None

Sapling species -- None

Tree species -- None


                                         Hydrology

Ground surface of the entire unit was inundated with water ranging in depth from 1 to 9 inches (median
= 5 inches) at the  boundary  of Vegetation Unit D with Vegetation Units A, B, C, and E to a depth
greater than 30 inches at the boundary of Vegetation Unit D with the open water areas.


                                         Summary

Dominant Plant Species                        Indicator Status                   Stratum

1. Ludwigia palustris                               OBL                         Herb
2. Sagittaria rieida                                 OBL                         Herb
3. Eleocharis obtusa                               OBL                         Herb

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC   100%

-------
                                        Data Form
                      Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: PennDOT Bryan Mills
Vegetation Unit: E (approximately 0.16 acre)
Date: July 30 - August 2 and August 6, 1990
Herb species
                                 Vegetation Unit Sampling
                             Percent Areal                Midpoint of
Species
*1. birds-foot trefoil
(Lotus corniculatus)
*2. redtop bentgrass
(Agrositic alba)
3. giant burreed
4. soft rush
5. bitter dock
6. boneset
7. sedge #1
8. common plantain
9. smartweed #1
10. smartweed #2
1 1 . deer-tongue grass
12. rice cutgrass
13. English plantain
14. grass #1
15. forget-me-not
16. St. Johnswort
17. rush #1
18. spikerush
19. arrowhead
20. marsh seedbox
21. monkey -flower
Cover
95
75
8
12
15
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Cover Class
6
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Cover Class
85.5
63.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
—
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
Rank
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None

-------
                              Percent Areal                 Midpoint of
            Species                Cover      Cover Class   Cover Class        Rank
  22. bugleweed                     < 1            T             —            None
  23. sensitive fern                  < 1            T             —            None
  24. daisy fleabane                 < 1            T             --            None
  25. smartweed #3                  <1            T             --            None
  26. duckweed                      < 1            T             -            None
  27. arrow-leaved tearthumb         < 1            T             --            None
  28. annual  ryegrass                < 1            T             --            None
  29. timothy                       < 1            T             --            None
                                         Sum of Midpoints           204.0
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints            102.0
                               20% of Total Midpoint Value            40.8
Shrub species - None
Woody vine species - None
Sapling species -- None
Tree species -- None

                                         Hydrology
There was a band of soil saturation along the boundary of Vegetation Units E and D  which ranged in
width from 20 inches to 172 inches (median = 54 inches). Within this band of saturated soils there were
limited areas of inundation ranging from the surface to 5 inches.

The 4 soil samples taken in the unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:
  El - surface: moist
       ~ 16 inches: moist
  E2 - surface: saturated
  E3 -- surface: saturated

-------
  E4	1 inch: dry
       ~2 inch: dry

''All soil samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.
                                        Summary

Dominant Plant Species                         Indicator Status

1. Agrostis alba                                    FACW                     Herb
2. Lotus corniculatus                                FACU-                     Herb

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  50%

-------
                                         Data Form
                       Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: PennDOT Bryan Mills
Vegetation Unit: F (approximately 0.07 acre)
Date: July 30 - August 2 and August 6, 1990
Herb species

           Species
  *1. birds-foot trefoil (Lotus
     corniculatus)
  *2. redtop bentgrass
     (Agrostis alba')
  *3. bitter dock (Rumex -
     obtuslfolia)
  4. English plantain
  5. timothy
  6. clover
  7. boneset
  8. morning glory
  9. cinquefoil
                                  Vegetation Unit Sampling
Percent Areal                Midpoint of
   Cover      Cover Class   Cover Class
     98
     40
     30
     15
2
T
T
T
T
T
98.0
38.0
38.0
10.5
Rank
  1
  3
None
None
None
None
None
                                         Sum of Midpoints
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
                               20% of Total Midpoint Value
                                     184.5
                                      92.75
                                      36.9
Shrub species

          Species
 *1. arrow wood
    (Vibirnum dentatum)
 *2. common winterberry
    (Ilex verticillata)
  3. red-osier dogwood
Percent Areal
Cover
50
Cover Class
4
Midpoint of
Cover Class
38.0
   20
  <1
  20.5
     Rank
       1

       2

    None

-------
                                        Sum of Midpoints           58.5
Dominance Threshold Number Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints           29.25
                              20% of Total Midpoint Value            11.7

Woody vine species - None

Sapling species - None

Tree species — None


                                        Hydrology

No field indicators of field hydrology were observed.

The 2 soil samples taken in the unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:

  Fl	1 inch: dry
       ~3 inches: dry

  F2 -- surface: dry
       ~3 inches: dry

*AI1 soil samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.


                                        Summary

Dominant Plant Species                        Indicator Status

1.  Agrostisalba                                   FACW                     Herb
2.  Lotus corniculatus                               FACU-                     Herb
3.  Rumex obtusifolia                               FACU-                     Herb
4.  Ilex verticillata                                  FACW+                    Shrub
5.  Vibirnum dentatum                              FAC                       Shrub

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 60%

-------
                                         Data Form
                       Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
 Site: PennDOT Bryan Mills
 Vegetation Unit: G (approximately 0.02 acre)
 Date: July 30 - August 2 and August 6, 1990
                                  Vegetation Unit Sampling
Herb species
Species
*1. birds-foot trefoil
(Lotus corniculatus")
*2. bitter dock (Rumex
obtusifolia)
3. English plantain
4. redtop bentgrass
5. timothy
6. sweetflag
7. deer-tongue grass
8. annual ryegrass
(ominance Threshold Number
Percent Areal
Cover
80
30
20
20
1
<1
<1
<1
Cover Class
6
4
3
3
1
T
T
T
Sum of Midpoints
Equals 50% x Sum of Midpoints
20% of Total Midpoint Value
Midpoint of
Cover Class
85.5
38.0
20.5
20.5
3.0
--
-
—
167.5
83.8
33.5
Rank
1
2
3
3
4
None
None
None

Shrub species -- None

Woody vine species - None

Sapling species - None

Tree species — None
                                         Hydrology

No field indicators of field hydrology were observed.

The 1 soil sample taken in the unit to characterize soil saturation indicated*:

-------
  Gl -- surface: dry
       ~2 inches:  dry

"All soil samples taken to a depth of ~ 18 inches or resistance.
                                     Summary Sheet

Dominant Plant Species                      Indicator Status

1. Rumex obtusifolia                              FACU-                       Herb
2. Lotus corniculatus                              FACU-                       Herb

Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  0%

-------
                                        Data Form
                       Intermediate-Level Onsite Determination Method
Site: PennDOT Bryan Mills
Name: Unit H (approximately 0.03 acre)
Date: July 30 - August 2 and August 6, 1990
                                  Vegetation Unit Sampling

Herb species

                            Percent Areal                     Midpoint of
          Species               Cover        Cover Class      Cover Class          Rank

  1. stiff arrowhead                < 1              T               --              None

  2. marsh seedbox                 < 1              T               --              None


                                         Sum of Midpoints


Shrub species -- None

Woody vine species -- None

Sapling species -- None

Tree species -- None


                                         Hydrology

Unit H consists of 2 open water area located at the center of Vegetation Unit D.  The water ranged in

depth from approximately 2 feet to more than 3 feet (N. L. Kline, pers. obs.; Skelly and Loy

Eng.-Consultants, Bryan Mills Grading Plan,  Harrisburg,  Pa.,  1988).



                                         Summary

Dominant Plant Species                        Indicator Status                  Stratum

No dominant species

Percent of dominant species that are  OBL, FACW, and/or FAC  N/A

-------
    APPENDIX E
 Design Plans for the
Borough of Huntingdon
 Wetland Creation Site
        E-l

-------
                  The source of the design plans contained in Appendix E was:
D.E. Roeseke, 1986, Department of the Army Permit NABOP-RE-(Borough of Huntingdon)-86-0435-l,
U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland.

-------
A

-------
•   u
  (,

-------
    APPENDIX F
 Design Plans for the
PennDOT Bryan Mills
Wetland Creation Site
        F-l

-------
                  The sources of the design plans contained in Appendix F were:
Skelly  and Loy  Engineers-Consultants,  1989,  Route 220 - L.R.  19 Wetlands Replacement Update,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and

Skelly and Loy Engineers-Consultants, 1988, Grading Plan revised 7/21/1988, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

-------
- i
r > a-
i "*
j.
"' 7 --• ^
a 0 . 2 1 .1
z a ~ *
UJ ซ <
^ a =
UJ tvt ^
a ซ 5
3 >- ซ
1 ง1 >
* ป, t >-
!ซ'!
UJ I
3 o
> 0
_j
-
u
*
to

0

X
















t_

-*
h-
5
0.




w
*
s
c
i
o
u



V
O
Pe ซ5
1 2 8 "-3
c | 3 a -5 J T
f^ " ~* ^ ^Q?2g
"^.a = i_ = 55aS2^ซl
A S Sซ8'ฐ5-3-O?5?5O EIO
•^ia^oSo^S0^.^* —
4 jiilililjiilll



q^
Q






-------
- LIMIT OF GOADING

-------
                                   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
       Many people have contributed to the completion of this project. The willingness of the Borough
of Huntingdon and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to allow evaluation of their wetland
creation sites made  the field  research possible.  The staff of the U.S.  Fish  and Wildlife Service,
Philadelphia  District Army  Corps  of Engineers,  Pittsburgh  District  Army  Corps of Engineers,
Environmental Protection Agency-Region III, and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation contributed
significantly by providing information on the status of wetland creation sites. Barbara Z. D'Angelo, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, provided vital assistance by coordinating information acquisition with
the other federal  agencies. Charles J.  Kulp deserves special mention for providing access to the records
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which made mitigation policy analysis possible, and content of the
reportance in acquiring the information provided by EPA.

-------
        APPENDIX G
    Mitigation Effectiveness:
Recap of the Existing Literature
            G-l

-------
THE STATUS OF NONTIDAL, FRESHWATER WETLANDS
   CREATION, RESTORATION, AND ENHANCEMENT
               IN THE UNITED STATES


            MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS:
       RECAP OF THE EXISTING LITERATURE
                      Report to:


         Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
             Wetlands and Marine Policy Section
                 842 Chestnut Building
             Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107
                     Submitted by:


                   Janet M. Jackson
               University of Nevada System
                 Desert Research Institute
                    P.O. Box 60220
                  Reno, Nevada 89506
                     April 16, 1990

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION	      1
STATE OF THE SCIENCE	      2
METHOD OF EVALUATION	      3
REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER WETLAND CREATION,
  RESTORATION, AND ENHANCEMENT EFFORTS	      4
REGION I 	      4
REGION II 	      6
REGION III	      7
REGION IV	      9
  Forested Wetlands	      9
  Palustrine Wetlands	     12
REGION V 	     13
REGION VI	     16
REGION VII	     16
REGION VIII	     16
REGION IX	     19
REGION X 	     27
CONCLUSIONS	     29
APPENDIX I - BIBLIOGRAPHY

                             LIST OF TABLES
  Table 1. REGION I	      5
  Table 2. REGION III 	      8
  Table 3. REGION IV 	      10
  Table 4. REGION V  	      14
  Table 5. REGION VI 	      17
  Table 6. REGION VII	      18
  Table 7. REGION VIII	     20
  Table 8. REGION IX 	     21
  Table 9. REGION X  	     28

-------
INTRODUCTION

     The quantity and  quality of wetlands  in  the United  States are increasingly at risk from
development  activities involving human-induced disturbances such as dredging,  filling, clearing,
draining, or flooding. In effort to offset deleterious impacts imposed by these activities, the Clean
Water Act of 1977 requires restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters. Section 404 of the act provides the primary legislative authority behind
Federal efforts to control practices that are destructive to the Nation's wetlands. Control of pollution
from discharges of dredged or fill material into wetlands is administered by the Corps of Engineers
through Section 404 of the Act.

     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to prohibit, withdraw or restrict
the specification of a Section 404  discharge site to prevent the unacceptable adverse impact of a
project. During the last decade, compensatory replacement mitigation has become a standard option
within the 404 process for offsetting destruction and alteration of wetlands. Over the past decade, EPA
has encouraged compensatory mitigation efforts such as wetlands creation if there are no alternatives.
However, current experience and knowledge of wetlands creation, restoration and enhancement has
indicated that  consideration of whether a proposed mitigation plan  actually prevents or offsets
significant  impacts must  be  carefully considered prior to  issuance of permits.   The roles  and
responsibilities of the United States Corp of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in overseeing the mission of the program is recently reviewed by Kruczynski (1989).

     The use of wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement as mitigation for development and
other environmental impacts is a currently  popular means for attempting  to offset  unavoidable
destruction or disturbance of wetlands. There are many uncertainties and problems associated with
the effectiveness of wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement as compensatory mitigation. The
extent and nature of these uncertainties has been the subject  of a recent  two-volume document
produced by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Research Laboratory in
Corvallis, Oregon (EPA 1989), as well as many recent national symposia and conferences: for example:
the Hillsborough Community College annual proceedings on Wetlands Restoration and Creation
(Webb, 16 volumes, 1973-1989); "Proceedings: National Wetland Symposium, Mitigation of Impacts
and Losses" (Kusler et al. 1986); "Increasing our Wetland Resources" (Zelazny and Feierabend 1987);
"Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in  the Glaciated Northeastern United States:   An
Assessment of the Science Base"  (Larson  and Neill 1986); "Proceedings of the Society of Wetland
Scientists' Eighth Annual Meeting:  Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems of the American West" (Mutz
and Lee, 1987); "Restoration, Creation, and Management of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems in the
American West (Mutz et al. 1988); and others. In addition. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
recently completed an extensive bibliography of wetlands creation and restoration which provides
abstracted   references   to  bibliographic   information  contained  in  their  digital  Wetland
Creation/Restoration Data Base (Schneller-McDonald et al. 1989).

-------
     EPA's Region III Office of Wetlands and Marine Policy is in the process of formulating guidelines
to be used in mitigation decision making. This report has  been prepared in association with EPA
Region Ill's efforts to provide background information for this endeavor. The report condenses and
summarizes  the voluminous information on the subject of non-tidal, freshwater wetlands creation,
restoration and enhancement, and attempts to draw conclusions about the state of the science. Many
of the projects reviewed for this report are not a result of Section 404 permitting, however, they provide
a basis for evaluating the extent to which freshwater creation, restoration and enhancement has
succeeded.

STATE OF THE SCIENCE
     The status of the science of freshwater wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement in the
United States has been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed (see, for example, EPA, 1989).  A substantial
number of projects have been planned and/or implemented throughout the United States. While the
specific circumstances of many of these projects are documented in the scientific literature and
government documentation, information on many projects is restricted to in-house, unpublished
reports that are difficult to obtain.

     Although creation, restoration, and enhancement are a popular means of mitigating for loss of
wetlands, there are few documented conclusions about overall success in the field.  This disparity in
the literature is  related, in part, to the relative infancy of the science, and lack of technological
sophistication associated with many ongoing projects. The extensive efforts of EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon has resulted in a region-by-region assessment, yet most
conclusions  drawn by the multiple authors of this work point to the reporting of nebulous successes
and the needs for further research and more  funding.

     The  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recent evaluation of the  "biological  effectiveness" of
mitigation measures implemented since 1984 (Roelle and Manci, 1989) concluded that comprehensive
efforts to evaluate mitigation effectiveness are largely subjective and should be interpreted cautiously
for the following reasons:

       •   Quantitative studies of complex mitigation efforts can be technically difficult,
           expensive, and time consuming;
       •   Appropriate standards of comparison may be difficult to define;
       •   Pre-project baseline data are often lacking or insufficient, rarely covering the
           range of variability innerent in natural systems;
       •   Suitable control sites may not exist, especially in heavily developed areas;
       •   The responsibilities for mitigation evaluation may fall into an "institutional
           gap" among the resource management agencies.
     The Environmental Protection Agency  reached similar conclusions  in their comprehensive
evaluation effort:

-------
      •   Practical experience and the available science base on restoration and creation
          are limited for most types and vary regionally.
      •   Most wetland restoration and creation projects do not have specified goals,
          complicating efforts to evaluate "success".
      •   Monitoring of wetland restoration and creation projects has been uncommon.
      •   Restoration or  creation  of  a  wetland  that  "totally   duplicates"  a
          naturally-occurring wetland  is impossible; however, some systems may be
          approximated and individual wetland functions may be restored or created.
      •   Partial project failures are common.
      •   Success varies with the type of wetland and target functions including the
          requirements of target species.
      •   The ability to restore or create particular wetland functions varies by function.
      •   Long term success may be quite different from short term success.
      •   Long-term  success  depends  upon  the ability to  assess, recreate,  and
          manipulate hydrology.
      •   Success  depends  upon  the long term  ability to manage,  protect,  and
          manipulate wetlands and adjacent buffer areas.
      •   Success depends upon expertise in project design and upon careful project
          supervision.
      •   "Cook book" approaches for wetland restoration or creation will likely be only
          partially successful.
METHOD  OF EVALUATION

     The scope of this investigation did  not permit the evaluation of all freshwater wetland creation,
reclamation, or enhancement projects in the United States. The major constraint associated with the
investigation  was the  availability of reference materials detailing the  extent of success on a
project-by-project basis. A representative sample of information was thus examined for information
describing the types of projects implemented over the past decade, and the level of success obtained.
Materials examined during this process included two basic perspectives:  1) The perspective of
members of the project team (typically consisting of the developer, consulting firm and local regulatory
official) responsible for the implementation of the project; and 2) The perspective wetland scientists
who have attempted to review the wetland creation, restoration and enhancement efforts of these
teams, typically on  a regional basis. This report attempts to provide a profile and summary of
conclusions of the teams and reviewers.

     Determining  the overall  effectiveness of  freshwater wetlands  creation, restoration, and
enhancement has typically involved consideration of a variety of  parameters.  Although small
successes may be claimed based on the creation or restoration of wetlands for a given purpose, many

-------
wetland scientists believe that overall success is achieved with creation, restoration, or enhancement of
all of the specific functions of wetlands.  These functions, as identified in the Federal Highway
Administration's wetland assessment methodology (Adamus and Stockwell, 1983) are:

       •  Groundwater recharge and discharge;
       •  Flood storage and desynchronization;
       •  Shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces;
       •  Sediment trapping;
       •  Nutrient retention and removal;
       •  Food chain support;
       •  Habitat for fisheries;
       •  Habitat for wildlife;
       •  Active recreation, and;
       •  Passive recreation and heritage value.
REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER WETLAND  CREATION,
RESTORATION, AND ENHANCEMENT EFFORTS
     The following regional assessments provide a review of the extent to which non-tidal, freshwater
wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement projects have been planned and/or implemented on a
regional basis. The regions discussed in this section correspond to the EPA's ten regions, and provide
an overview of the extent to which freshwater wetlands creation, restoration, and enhancement occur
throughout the United States.

REGION I
     This region encompasses the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts. New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Vermont. Freshwater wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement projects in
these states are not well documented.  Lowry provides a summary of creation and restoration projects
associated with the riverine systems  of the glaciated northeast (Lowry, 1989),  and Hollands (1989)
reviews creation and restoration of kettle and pothole wetlands, some of which occur in this region.
Larson and Neill's (1987) assessment of the science base for mitigating freshwater wetland alterations
also provides a limited amount of information on actual projects. Reimold and Cobler (1986) report
on the success of three freshwater wetland mitigation sites.  Lowry (1989) notes that, for the glaciated
northeast United States, "There has been no compilation of the experience obtained from most of the
wetland creation projects in the region and there appears to be a general lack of detailed monitoring
which would provide data necessary  for assessment of results".

     Table 1 provides a partial list of representative freshwater wetland creation and restoration
projects in the region for which documentation was available.  This list is far from complete. Lowry

-------
UJ
 E
 3

 O


 to


 U
J  >
 C  -3
 1)   C
 re ^

 C  C
 II
 I
 c  o
 D  C
 y; • —
 u  re

 cLS
 u
 i_  —
 v_  3
  c  c
  re  c
     c
     c
    '5b







OBJECTIVE





|PM
N
75


i_*
U ic
H u:

Q *S


~
Z
L^
si
IM
r_
r^
—



G
,^ป

c
3
u.
re
op
ao
ble of renovatin
re
Q.
re
CJ
1/5
•a
_re
u
^

u
^
ON



00
ON


^
OC
ON
"™~
•y;
-3
re
~
—


I-495/Route 25,
Bourne, Mass.
-3
0
Q

00
c
•5
o
D_
'o
_u
o re
c aj
_re Jt:
oj 32
^ ' ^
re #
c a
0 u
•G 00
re re
^j i—
uซ w
CJ x
•-S
0
fN




ซ*
00
ON


^
OC
ON
•^^
-y^;
"3
"5
r


Coulter Drive,
Concord, Mass.


o
JC
2
1
c
u
Qfl '
U •*
C *
E D.
ซ U
u cj
C :—
5*0
Jo
0.=
"• o
re -^
ation ol
constru<
u
1_ TI
CJ
*ฃ
^
r~"



00
—




ON
OC
ON
— •
O

f
re
CL,
Andover Business
Andover, Mass.
3

JC,
1
_Q
3 „_;
to U
- E
c c.
 re
to
oo 2
OJ
c/3

"o
o
_ฃ
(/3
E
c
00
L.
11
U Q.
c ซ
re o

i'i
o c


Q
**<
*•"'



IT)
CO
T—1




^"\
OC
ON

|
-J
cL
L-
\*s
U
Digital Equipment
Littleton, Mass.
00

^5
o
_ฃ;
1
C
00
1*

u-S

CJ
"^
>o



00
ON

U
-S
CJ

a?j

"3
0
C ^^^
QC S


Z
if
c
cu
D
i
u

"o
o
-C
re
E
•*— ป
c
lustrine emerge
re
0.^
0|
it
ซs tu
u >
U "3

^
t-;
~^



oo
ON

U
Xl
U

3^

"a
•^
E ^3
tf —


re
Z
li
ll
u

'o
o
_J-
1
•fcrf
c
lustrine emerge
•uction.
re n
Q.g
o S
0 ^
i i
re ^
(Ji ^A
CJ JE
CJ

-------
(1989), for example, reports that over 200 small-scale projects have been created in Massachusetts
since 1983.  Other efforts in this region may also be undocumented. Few projects are reported for New
Hampshire, and only one project is known from Rhode Island (Lowry 1989). Butts (1986) provides an
overview of the status of wetlands creation/mitigation projects related to state highway construction in
Connecticut.  Freshwater wetland projects in Vermont and Maine have not been documented.  In
general, most of the projects created in this region are small-scale mitigation efforts designed to offset
the consequences of highway construction and development.

     Reimold and Cobler (1986; also see Reimold and Thompson 1986) conducted an evaluation of
freshwater wetland mitigation  effectiveness for this region, which included  evaluations of three
created freshwater wetlands. The Syfeld site in Keene, New Hampshire, which was intended to create
5 hectares of freshwater palustrine emergent wetland, resulted in the excavation and planting of 2
hectares for a freshwater emergent wetland. The site was rated "marginally successful", based partly
on faulty design criteria (i.e. steep banks, deep water, sparsely established vegetation). The Tamposi
and Nash site in Nashua,  New  Hampshire, a 0.7 hectare mitigation project, was rated "ineffective"
because of sparse vegetation, steep banks, and construction site drainage into the wetland area. The
third freshwater project evaluated was a Connecticut Department of Transportation effort to create 9
hectares of wetlands  in five separate basins.   Although  partial  success  was noted,  an  overall
"ineffective" rating was assigned to the project, based on steep slopes and poor location. Reimold and
Cobler concluded that mitigation effectiveness is dependent on proper site choice, detailed ecological
evaluation, and explicit permit  conditions.

     With respect to the overall extent of success in this region, there are indications that  project
managers frequently claim success for  projects  based  on short term restoration of a single wetland
function.  In general, long term success has not been considered, and project planning does provide a
basis  for monitoring  and evaluation over  the long term.  Successful creation,  restoration, and
enhancement must be dependent on 1) the  ability to understand the hydrogeologic conditions and
model and control the water budget of the wetlands; 2) the ability of site contractors to understand and
carry out plans 3)  Flexibility in  project design to allow for mid-course corrections (Lowry 1989). It is
possible that in many cases, these guidelines have not been followed.

REGION II
      This region includes the states of New Jersey and New York. The territories of Puerto Rico and
Virgin Islands  also fall within the Region II domain but are not considered in this analysis. Little
information is  available on projects in this region, however, a number of undocumented  projects are
known for the state of New York, and New Jersey is in the planning stages of several large replacement
wetlands (Lowry 1989).

      The largest freshwater wetland mitigation effort in this region is the 32 hectare Southern Tier
Allegheny River Valley project,  New York (Southern Tier Consulting 1987). Another large scale effort
in the planning stages is the wetland mitigation plan for the Manasquan Reservoir System, which

-------
would develop and enhance wetland values lost as a result of reservoir construction (Hinkle 1987).
Other work concerning wetlands creation in the region includes the success achieved in upstate New
York in natural establishment of vegetation in draw-down zones.  This work indicates that species
which flourish naturally in draw-down  zones may be useful in efforts  to revegetate the barren
draw-down zones at other reservoirs (Burt 1987).

     In effort to standardize tracking procedures and create an effective means to monitor success,
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has created a computerized monitoring
system  for the state's wetlands  mitigation  projects.  This project  has  been implemented after
examination of the results of over 170 salt marsh  and tidal freshwater wetland projects completed in
the state.  Based on this information, it was apparent that evaluation, tracking, and enforcement of
mitigation efforts was ineffective. The purpose of the system is to provide a centralized data record
that will help  to  avoid repeating past failures and increase regulatory enforcement (Kantor and
Charette 1986).

REGION III

     This region encompasses the states of Delaware, Maryland,  Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia, and  also includes  Washington D.C. The information available on freshwater wetlands
creation, restoration, and enhancement includes  overviews of 32 Section 404 compliance wetlands in
Virginia (CE Maguire 1985); 17 Section 404 compliance wetlands in the COE Baltimore District
(Princeton Aqua Science 1985), an overview of the effectiveness of coal mine reclamation  in western
.Pennsylvania (Brooks 1984) and miscellaneous reports describing specific projects (Table 2).

     Brooks et al (1987) note that there is great potential for wetland creation, restoration, and
enhancement on coal mined lands, and abundant opportunity for establishment of various wetland
functions, including erosion and sedimentation control, abatement of mine drainage, wildlife habitat,
and landscape enhancement. Surface coal mining plans may include the creation of wetlands with
little  additional cost.  Adobe Mining  Inc. in northwestern  Pennsylvania developed  numerous
palustrine wetlands at several mine sites, and reported early indications that the ecological diversity of
the sites has improved and  that wildlife response is  occurring (Branch 1987).  Wieder et al.  (1985)
report that the use of Sphagnum dominated wetlands to treat mine drainage may be effective for sites
where drainage water have a pH of 4 or less. Sand and gravel operations also present opportunities for
wetland creation  in this region.

     A variety  of other  wetlands  creation, restoration,  and enhancement  projects  have been
implemented in this region.  An experimental effort  at the University of  Maryland determined the
potential  for improvement of the water quality of storm runoff through artificial wetlands (Athanas
 1987).  The treatment  of wastewater by created wetlands  in Iselin. Pennsylvania demonstrates
consistent compliance with  EPA's secondary treatment standards (Watson et al. 1987).   Wetlands
construction along the Patuxent River by the Maryland State Highway Administration incorporated

-------
 ,_o

 •a
 o


 •si

 t5
 u
 II
 " 00
 = .=
 JC -C
 r- t/3
 c
 C co

  '
 3 ฃ?
 15
 งi I

 II
J>

 y .2'
 ฃ c
II
  l
2 i
'
  c
  C

  00
II





OBJECTIVE
u
N
S3



U CO
52
•^. fa-
Q ฐ





U
"y
<-


Qฃ
U
U.
UJ
OS






(3

—
O
as
cu



=
TT
CO
E
o
^
'U—
o
c
3
Created wetland to treat storm r
ha watershed

<•*
js
r~-
^^
^^


i
i
i
i




oc
oc
Ov

f
V5
?3
C
CO
.C
•*^
<
•^^
^J
c
CO
:>^
C
i
•—-<
— j"
3J
0-
C3
-d
^ :
B!ซ
">>
CO
^
y c
.E ฐ
U^ '-L?
11
IS
II
Replacement of a multi-fund
emergent wetland to mitigate
complex

CO
_c
ir^

CN


r-
oo
ON






^^
^j
*Y^
*j^j
ON


Vv
•—
y
^
o
ffl
>,
i/3
L-
y
>
c
D

v:
C
i-, '
c ^
r|
^^
= e^
c co
^, ^^
^ 2 c
C 2*
oo -u
'iซ $
tu ^
Q S
r- U
5 oo
^ b.
ฐ2 y
CO ฃ
a u
Maryland State Highway Adminii
and construction of a palustrine
land


co


i/->


rt
oo
ON







VT>
3O
^\
>^ *

J=
C
CO
ffl
•o
c
•Tt
7Q
&•
CO
2
,
L.
•1J
-1*
5

b^
1
3
(Ml
*rt
2 c
c
o

<3
0)
u
1
_O
Adobe Mining Company mitigal
of palustrine emergent wetlands


CO
^5

CS

C >.
ซJ g •
C c
y y .
5 p"
<- 2 c
___ —
"5
t/3
CO
C/3
CO
^
co
>%
Experimental revegetation using
amendment


i
i
i



i
i
i
i
i
i
i
\o
00
ON
C
O

v5
3
O
I

*
-X
o
3
CO


•V
? d
y S
ฃ a.
c „
a. y
ป c
CO t.
5 ซ
CO X -
ฃ•3 :
C/2
ง•ง>•
ฃ3 i
ฃ^

•>-
&
13
ป*ซ
l_ OC
1) CO
13. E
Prototype wetland to improve w
stream affected by acid mine dra


i
i
i




i
i
i
i


j*
c
'ฃ

*j
ฐo
(3
c
CO
E
.E r-
y oo
22



c
2 g
3^
*^
= ฃ••
ฃ2
o ' ~™
- I
3* '
o 2
Ss -.
ฃz .

c
CU
E
•*-rf
CO
OJ
+w
S3
4ปป
CO
Low cost marsh system for wastew


i
i
i
i



i
i
i
i


•o
00
ON

' '
•
5S
•ป••ป
cu
C
0
W2
rrt
$




CO
E
CO
>
1
c
ฃ
c" .
y .
C/3 "
C/3
CX
U
y
V}
E
o
'^4—
O
Wetland constructed to remove ir
& springs adjacent to coal mine

fN
E
o

S



i
i
i
i


in
oo
ON

^^

"a
•*^ป
5u
u.
U
•o
OJ
^
•3
C
CO
"^
CO
2
^
y
i

^
c
"11
4^
E
• 1
^
S

-------
flood conveyance and storage, erosion and pollution control, wildlife habitat, and recreation functions
into the project design (Branch 1987).  The project has been completed, however the extent to which
success was achieved has not been documented.

     Results in this region are mixed, but generally indicate that  progress is being made towards
development of the technology and management potential required to successfully create, restore or
enhance wetlands.

REGION IV

     This region encompasses the southeastern portion of the United States and includes the states of
North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi. A large
number  of freshwater  wetland creation,  restoration,  and  enhancement  projects have  been
implemented in this region. Clewell (1989) and Erwin (1989) provide summaries of forested wetland
and emergent marsh creation, restoration and enhancement. Examples of representative freshwater
wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement projects  documented for EPA Region IV are provided
in Table 3.

     Many of the projects in the region are conditions of Section 404 permit and Surface Mining Act
reclamation requirements.  The State of Florida requires compensatory reclamation as  a permit
condition for all surface mining activity. Many efforts have thus been accomplished by the phosphate
mining industry, which has been engaged in advancement of the technique of reclamation  since the
early 1970's.

Forested Wetlands

     There have been two major efforts to replace bottomland forest wetlands in the southeastern
United States. Reforestation of bottomlands originally cleared for agriculture is particularly apparent
in the  Mississippi Delta, where the emphasis has been on restoration by revegetation with  oaks and
other  heavy-seeded trees.  These projects generally emphasize restoration of forest canopy.  The
largest project of this type is a 1,821 hectare site near Monroe, Louisiana (Harris 1985). Other sizable
projects include the 445  hectare Panther Swamp National  Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Mississippi, the
405 hectare Malmaison  Wildlife Management Area, and 218 hectares at the Tensas River NWR.  In
addition, numerous restoration projects have been implemented at 12 NWRs region-wide (Haynes
and Moore 1987).

     The other major effort is associated with surface mining of phosphate in Florida and North
Carolina. Individual efforts have been small scale, but  geared towards creation of totally functional
forested wetlands. The  first project considering forest creation was Sink Branch in 1980 (Robertson
 1984).  This project  is considered successful based  on the establishment and growth of trees.
 Restoration at Dogleg Branch in 1983 was designed to  restore undergrowth as well.

-------
c
u
E^

31
o .ฃ•
73 !ซ
•-
O
E-S
U y


re rti
  re
 c 'ฐk
 s C


.1ฐ
 s4
 O 'u
 to C
 c re
.2 E

  I
   ,
 C  0)
_re  u


 ll
 L_  C
 U rU


 Ire'
j=  c

 re *-
 3
   2
   00
  s







OBJECTIVE
N


_•
W ฃ
H U
•^^ g, 	
Q ซ


U
UJ
u
u.

^
MM






U
5
as

u
c
E

73
u
re
Vt-i
C
Wetland construction for treatm
drainage
i>
re .ti
m "
06 C-
r~
oc
i
in
oc
ON

OC
ON

•5J
*-ป

i)
73
O
03
1
O
.ฃ
3
>-,
U
5s
u S
8-8
ฃ<
1*






73
Revegetation of coal mined Ian
re
_c
ป— '
00
ON

1
U

Cu
OO
ON
*— •
-3
^-
^>
>^
"C
2ฃ>
CQ
73"
r"

CU
1
CU
oT c
c c
73
C
re
to
ju
73
^
73
(D
Restoration of marshes disturb
ditches

i
i
i


00
ON
r-

CM
oo
ON
*~~" '
C
o
_t/3
re

3
o
c
C/^
Q.
E
i
^
bS
!/J rr
M *
a^
1
.5
i/5

1>
"ซ
C
1 =
u o
Experimental procedures to del
ity of forested wetland restorati

i
i
i
i


ON
r-
ON
r— t

C*^
oo
ON
'—^
M^
"53
^
i>
U


„
^
4HJ
re
j=
Q.
5fl
O
c.
Brewster
Florida
G.
E

V5
73
O
0
73
re
Creation of freshwater marsh, h
and open water habitat

00
•— '
(S
oo
1
oo
ON

m
oo
ON
to
i)
CQ

QQ
_
•r?
ฃ
to




J
u.
d.
E
re
0
u
00
1
1
L*
<2
"-^^
73
O
.C
ซ
Evaluation of the most efficient
land construction

^
cs


00
ON



cn
oo
ON

73
Q
U.

1
LL
^
U
C
i
oc
u.
V
C
u*
O
u
1
I






C/3
73
Coal surface mine sediment po

i
i
i


i
i
i
i
in
00
ON

"3
^*

u*
•5
o
ฃ


Z
LM
^
r"
3
O
U
"u
JO
Q.
E
re
U



c
E
u
re
D.
Wetland reclamation on a phos

i
i
i
00
ON

T
U
L.
S-
oo
ON
^^
<3
^>
, .
t.
_Q
.~
O




u.
>
CU
re
0


t .
u.
^
.T^
0




j
u.
Barstow,
i
00
_c
o

re "ง
o g

Conversion of drowned wet pra
cally diverse, aestetically pleasii

i
i
i
00
ON

1
LM
CL.


^
oo
ON
" '
_o
"tm
o




si
U
g
15
Q-

5
4~*
c
w
1j
Vri
U
Creation of wetlands for storm1

i
i
i
i
00
ON
1—1
1
u*
Cu
Tf
OC
ON
"^ซ
•ฃ

^1
-H
73
c
O




i
E
1 Hudson,
~
c
u
E
^^
re
(U
Lซ
4>^
1_
U
re
Constructed wetlands for waste

_c
fN


00
r-
ON
— *
oo
ON

"3
%j

"
00
'c
^




1
il
w
c
U
u
J

-------
-a
 u
 C
 r*

 {3
i
Cu
C
4>
>
•3
!s
ซ^
ฃ
 _c

__
c

u
c
E
:claimed
 2


;•

^i"
oo
i

iป
d.





oo

^^
"3
—
•Si
QL


_
t;
4Ml
c
3
CJ
2
;/:
U
Q
C/3
C
S3
T3
U
C
E
P3
C,
O
Q.
'c
C
O
eral reclamati
c
li
O


2
sO

OC
—
U
L.
•*•
2
^
— <
— .
"^^
ra
rkr
s^
<%
^ฃ
'C
C
?3


^^
X,
C
k.
1
00
03
ซ
13
U
!••
0
s
ompare
U
o
VI
•a
c
structed wetla
on methods.
c —
c ซ
U ฃ


i
i
i
i

t^
r~-
ON
1 — '
GC
ON
"~~*
^^
OJ
^:
CO
^,
c
0
1
00

J
U.
4)
u.
U
c
f3
E
U.
1)
T3
^
E
U
S/3
^
w
s
"5
•o
ง
U-
a
o

c
o
rt
4)
S3 =
||
."2 JS
. ซM ^^
k* ^*
< ฃ


ฃ
in
oi

CO
00

'—



t—
00
2

"3

ซ
o



U.
c'
O
c/2
U
2




U
13
o

ซ4-  -C
OO 3
O
1 if
-1 ฃ

•4-*
td
_g
^
DO
C
So
Ui
V-
O
t?
•a
o
o
lacement of w
Q.

oi






r-
oo
ON
'"*
oo
oo
ON

.*— •
LM
O
y

S
a^
C
1



W
C3
•o
C
1
"?5
^

-------
     Clewell's evaluation of forested wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement concludes that
"forested wetland creation/restoration projects that are carefully planned  and executed will be
successful in  terms of plant species establishment and physiognomic traits.  Success in terms of
functional equivalency to natural forested wetlands has not, however, been documented." (Clewell
1989).  There is some  debate as to  whether attainment of forest structure indicates that other
functional attributes have been achieved  during the creation process.

Palustrine Wetlands

     The majority of non-forested freshwater wetland projects in Region IV are  in Florida, and
include mitigation  for  residential  development, surface mining;  highway, marina and dock
construction; wastewater treatment, and storm water runoff. Ruesch (1983) provides an overview of 35
wetland reclamation projects on phosphate mined lands in Florida.

     One of the best examples of marsh  creation in this region is the Agrico Fort Green Phosphate
Mine Reclamation Project, Agrico Swamp West in central Florida.  This area, created in 1981, is
comprised of 60 hectares of marsh and 88 hectares of upland. The goal of this project was to provide a
high quality wetland ecosystem with the creation of a mosaic of freshwater marsh, hardwood swamp,
open water, and upland habitat. Various reclamation techniques were used in creating the marsh, and
an experiment was built into the  design to compare the effectiveness of marsh establishment using
mulch from a nearby existing marsh versus creation with overburden materials. Monitoring has been
in progress since Fall of 1982, and  preliminary results indicate that mulching provides the most
efficient means of establishing rapid cover of preferred species.  Monitoring data collected at the Fort
Green wetland  indicate that "the marsh and macroinvertebrate community is well developed and
positively reacting to natural environmental stresses." (Erwin 1989). Water quality and wildlife values
are also satisfactory. The "Agrico 8.4 acre wetland", which was created in the Agrico Swamp vicinity in
1986 also appears to be fully functioning.  A 20 hectare marsh near the Charlotte County Correctional
Facility was created in  1988 using similar techniques. This site also looks promising.

     Two large enhancement projects presently underway in Florida are the Kissammee River project
and the Everglades project, both of which  are intended to restore previous wetland functions by
structural reconstructions and flow enhancement.

     Successful creation, restoration, and enhancement of non-forested wetlands in  the southeastern
United States has high potential for success because  in general the region  offers abundant plan
materials, adequate rainfall, and a long growing season. These characteristics may provide for the
attainment of a functioning marsh in  three to five years. However, there are questions as to whether
created marshes can remain functional over the long term, and whether they can attain functionality
within the context of  the overall landscape.   An evaluation of mitigation  effectiveness by the
Department of Environmental Regulation in Florida, concluded that of eight freshwater projects, one
was successful. 3 provided  some benefit, and 4 were  failures (Walker 1986).  The results of this

-------
evaluation suggest that conclusions drawn by the creators of the project should be interpreted with
caution.
REGION V
     This region includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Created wetlands in this region include both emergent and  forested palustrine wetlands.  Fringe
wetlands; palustrine and lacustrine wetlands characterized by flows perpendicular to the zonation
patterns of vegetation; are also recognized as a distinct wetland type.
     A diversity of freshwater wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement projects have been
implemented in this region, including a number of experimental efforts and  mitigation permit
requirements (Table 4).  Goals and objectives of these projects include storm water retention, water
quality improvement, wastewater treatment, habitat creation, and recreational use. Many projects are
a function of Section 404 requirements.  Attainment of long-term success through these projects has
not been judged.
     Wetland establishment on  coal mine slurry impoundments  in  the  midwest  has  been
demonstrated by the Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory's Mined Land Reclamation Program
(Nawrot  and Yaich. 1982; Nawrot el al. 1987).  Reclamation activities by this program  include
reclamation of more than 570 hectares of inactive slurry ponds since the late 1970's. The work of the
Mined Lands Reclamation Program indicate that wetland establishment on inactive coal mine slurry
impoundments "represents an economically desirable and environmentally acceptable alternative to
current reclamation requirements" (Warburtonerfl/. 1985; Nawrot etal.  1987).  These wetlands are also
a valuable source of wildlife habitat and to a limited extent, have offset  the losses of natural wetlands.
However, Lawrence et al. (1985) suggest that reclamation laws need to  become more flexible  to allow
for flexible planning to provide better opportunities for wetland habitat creation.
     Many "kettle" wetlands have been created inadvertently as a result of creation of farm, gravel pit,
quarry, and irrigation ponds, as well as through road construction, and other types of excavation.  In
western Minnesota, a pilot wetland restoration effort has been designed and implemented by  US Fish
and Wildlife Service and  Ducks Unlimited to provide farmers with financial incentives to restore
drained wetlands (Madsen  1987).  This project,  which is part of the Mid-Continent Waterfowl
Management Project, is critical to increasing the quantity of wetlands in this region.
     The Des Plaines Restoration Project in Illinois is a long-term effort that was extensively  planned
prior to  implementation.  The goal of the project is to  restore the drainage characteristics of the
original creeks and floodplains in northeastern Illinois. This plan for the project includes construction
of irrigated river terraces,  floodway marshes, and aquatic shelves and associated revegetation. Much
of this project is still in the planning phases, however, high rates of success are anticipated given the
considerable amount of planning and goal-setting involved.  Long terms planning efforts with high
probabilities for success, such as the Des Plains Project may set an example for future  regional
 planning efforts.

-------
s
3
U
O
-3
Q.
-*j
c

E
c
CO
.c
c
a>

•3
C
o.i

II
O U
II

II
 JO -fc-ป
 > c
 L- C
Is
8.2
 .
 E>
  .2
  00






W
I
u
S3
O


N
3o



H'
U ^
-ฐ
"3
U
^
•a

1
cu
c
u
t^ "cO
Restoration oi
poor water qu



i
i
i





i
i


-3
=
^
-3
C
a

c _
.S ON
> 00
U ON
1— < f-^





r-
^^
Lake Puckawa
Wisconsin
u
-ฃ
JD
U
1

s/i
3
(U
ll
Wetland creat
staging canvas



i

i





i
i


•3
JO
^
-3
CO

r"
* p* ON
i ฐฐ

-J .-H
I
C
•,ฃ2
.00 c
^ C^
Z o
CJ
• c/:
._ 5
CL ,
.9-ฐฐ
So "5
33 O
t/3 Q,
is -3


C
o
o
u
u.
o
T3
OJ
CU
00
Experimental



f^
•ซ
•-'

OO
ON

1
U
L.
O.

C
k.
ซ

T3
C
CO
c

1** Q^
^ ^^





^r
c
3
Waukesha Coi
Wisconsin
c
o
V3
•3
U
u
E
u^
13
u
O
cซ
LN
o
I
M
USFWS progr,
private land
u


'o
C
ซ
*
0
'c?
L.
0>
3
1

-------
3
C

C
o
1) t/3
00 C
if
•o o
ง1
5/3 E
D re
I- c/3
0 •ฃ
•^-t ^
^ ?v
•— O
t/5 ;
— fl
c 'io
ซ 'C
c o
O> O
& 8
U '&
S-S
Long ter
charactei

Q
•^
O

(N

1
1
1
ON
00
^
72

i


c

re
O
to .2
ฃ c

o
_o
a
,
c
p
i
J=


i_ .^
2 T3
t E
o ^

O to
"•ฃ ^*
C3 "^
b -3
2 ซ
ซ 2
-S ^
M "3
-fc^
C "5
.2 2
*"* ^ ii
^1 E
•3^2-
c E 2
— o R
_ <_, j
^ C i:

o
•^
o

—"
ON
00
ON
~^
ON
1
•3
•3
t9
i
c"

' "
i_
o
t?
!ฑ
U
Galum Cre
Illinois

c
o
eclamat

u
c

E

o
L.
O
>4^

C
o
ซ3
U
U
Wetland

u
*ฃ,
o

(N
NO
00
ON
•~*
ON
OO
ON
"3
•3
^
i



L.
'o
c .E
.!-> ""^
i s
Kaskaskia '
Reclamatic
i
ซ

,, ,
o

c
o
oa ^
*" S
p^
T3 5
C OO
re re
c re
2 E
Restorat
through

u
^
Q
f^

Z
Shiawassee
Michigan





<-<
re
^^

^
re
<ฃ
^

1
*0
c
0
Restorat
u
*C
o
o
*™^.
(N
in
OO
ON
^^
ON
00
ON
T— ป
"3
*-ป
T3
^
%
c"

'^
L
^
t>
u.
"i
"i)-^
C .CJ

-------
REGION VI
     This region includes the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oldahoma, and Texas.
There have been few documented attempts to create, restore or enhance wetlands in this region (Table
5). Actual efforts may be more widespread than the literature indicates.

     Projects known from  this region include the  Lake  Texoma  experimental field studies of
revegetation along fluctuating shorelines (Klimas, 1981, Lester 1986), a 1982 reclamation plan for
Gifford-Hill's Sibley Mine Site in Webster Parish near Sibley, Louisiana (Ettinger 1982), and planned
compensatory mitigation to replace a bottomland hardwood destroyed by highway construction near
Pine Bluff, Arkansas (Richardson  1988).

     In Louisiana, mitigation for  loss of forested wetlands has been accomplished by creation of
artificially flooded hardwood wetlands called "greentree reservoirs". This type of mitigation has been
successfully accomplished on  11 hectares in the East Carroll watershed, 32 hectares in the Walnut
Roundaway watershed, and was projected in 1986 for 12 hectares  in the Lake Verret watershed
(Simmering 1986). These areas, which are flooded after trees become dormant and are drained before
the growing season begins, provide habitat for wintering ducks.

REGION VII

     This region encompasses the states of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Wetland creation
projects  that have been implemented in this region are  typically accomplished through various
construction efforts such as impoundments, detention dikes, water control structures, excavation and
dredging. Many of these projects involve revegetation, and the overall goal is typically to provide
wildlife habitat, particularly for waterfowl. Table 6 provides a list of representative wetland creation
projects for this region. The majority of projects in this region are reportedly successful in providing
new habitat.

     The proposed reclamation of 650 hectares of palustrine emergent wetland  in the Grand Pass
Wildlife Area will be a major restoration effort for improvement of waterfowl habitat in Missouri.
Major development and high intensity management is envisioned in order to control the hydrology on
this site. Construction will include nine miles of levee, four miles of water distribution canal, 45 water
control structures, three inlet  pumps, and two outlet  pumps (Baskett 1987).

REGION VIII

     This region comprises the states of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming. Wetlands creation, restoration, and enhancement in this region has been conducted by
local, state and the Federal government: and by private organizations. Many of the projects and plans
for new projects are discussed in two recent symposia  proceedings:  "Proceedings of the  Society of
Wetland Scientists' Eighth Annual Meeting:   Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems of the American
West" (Mutz and Lee 1987) and "Restoration, Creation, and Management of Wetland and Riparian

-------
•3
u
c
1)
ฃ
;j

-3
i2
tJ
a.
•h^
c
 1)
— t/3
JO ซ
I- X
 U O
 h •=
 si
 I?
•— S3
 0 --
 ฃ >

 I c
   'ob
 II








ECTIVE
2
O





a
N
S3



ug
f- a
Q "5


ซ
U
ju
a
OS

a
a
OS


b
a
o
OS
0.


S3
3
O
,2
•*•*
'o
c
o
2
00
OJ
u
u
ixamin<
o g
>,.ฃ
12
1/5 c
"3 "5
"u oo
ฃ.ฃ


i
i
i
i


i
i

i
^o
oc
^

^^
^3
^J

U
to
1)
J
X
L
S3'
C
X
r-
u
t3
ฃ
•y;
?3
i/3 ^~ป
"i i
O <""
^ DO
"S'-=
"fl **•
i: c
-o c
c _c
1 1
o ^™
11
C fe
II
•J
-— c
S"'"
a: M


1
1
I
1


1
1
1
1

oc
2*
, 	 ,

5
j-
-a
5
_"y
Q^
l^
^;
Lซ
- . _r
"5
a
_c
•3
O
^O

JS
00
c
L-
-~
o
a.
0)
IS
•- <*.
00 T3
rt ^
ii
ง1
ฐZ3 <^H
S3 . ,
00^
S M
2.5

jj
**•
r~

^


i
i
i

^c
oc
3^
' '
00
^"
'u.
1
E
c/5
irvoirs,
u
a)
0)
i: =
sl
15

-------
C
U
P
3
1)
E
c
re
re
re

 5  <=
 2:  re
   .
 E >
    'ob
=23










u
i
a
s
0






u
N
en



U en
r- U
Q *S

U
U
"Z.
as
u.
u
a



PROJECT
i
ฃ)
re
•c
"5

u.
re
ฃ
u
t/3
re
u
0
C (A
•— u
c •=
•fe* • ••
O o
C fl



"— '
r-
ON
1
U
oZ
ON
00
ON

"^
V
~3
_re
i
re
?
en
i_
re
u
U
*•ป
0


4_ป
•W
,5
re
^

s*—
ซ
re
re
o
c
_re
"5.
"re
o
I
00
-ฅ<
-J

O

O
o
(N
(N
(U
00
0
a.
~
ON
OO
ON

"3
w
•a
J
ฃ
vH

Fountain Grove Wildli
Area, Missouri











c
o
excavatior
c
_o
•t-l
re
.2?
• — i
S



^
^^
t-H
•*
00
ON
1
k*
OH
OO
ON
r"H
"S
*•*
T3
^
^


Shore Creek Project,
Missouri










re
re
waterfowl
c
re
op
• —
2



^
^
m
1—1
ob
0
kซ
CL
C
ON
00
ON

"ซ
'S
•a
_re
i


Riverport Associates,
Missouri
i i
T3 "O
^ r^
o >
Q.^

S c
3 •ฃ
T3 2
C 0)
re oo
~ 0)
1 1
•5 A
E|
f^
C 0
(11 • *••
1 85
Q. O • —
le-g
ซ re -=
0) OO QJ
Q .ฃ•=
u u

o o
c m
^^ *^D
X-N S~~^
•—i r^
00
O
U.
Q.
C
ON
00
ON

•^
^3
•a
_re
1


10-mile Pond Wildlife
Management Area,
Missouri

-------
Ecosystems in the American West: A Symposium of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Society of
Wetland  Scientists" (Mutz et  al. 1988).   Other freshwater wetland creation, restoration, and
enhancement projects known from this region are reported in Table 7. Many of these projects are 404
permit requirements or other types of mitigation efforts. Most projects in this region have not been
fully evaluated for success, however, most show evidence of some local wildlife habitat enhancement.

     A very early wetlands creation effort over half a century ago resulted in substantial quantities of
new wetlands through the diking of the Bear and Weber Rivers on the eastern shore of the Great Salt
Lake in Utah. The rise of the Lake as a result of heavy precipitation during the winter of 1983-1984
resulted in the loss of most of these highly valued wetlands. Indications as to whether there are plans to
restore the area were not found in the literature.

     Countless wetlands creation projects are known from the prairie pothole lands of this region.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (1986) has evaluated the effectiveness of mitigation wetlands along
US Highway 83 in North Dakota. Based on examination of 216 temporary, seasonal, and permanent
ponds for wildlife, this evaluation concludes that there  are no apparent  differences between ponds
created by excavation or impoundment and ponds connected to or separated from natural basin
wetlands. The Great Plains Regional Office of Ducks Unlimited has been responsible for the
restoration of numerous  wetlands for waterfowl habitat. Waterfowl production success has been
noted for southwestern North Dakota, and a 135 hectare marsh created at Benton Lake NWR near
Great Falls, Montana has provided  outstanding habitat for ducks (Hoffman 1987).  Rossiter and
Crawford (1981) surveyed 18 artificial wetland constructed  as part of  highway projects in  North
Dakota.  They noted that wetland bird use was comparable to natural basins, but that plant and animal
species diversity and abundance was frequently lower than natural basins,  possibly because of the age.
Over the short term, however, these types of created wetlands have been considered successful in
terms of regional habitat restoration (Crawford and Rossiter 1982).

REGION IX

     Region IX encompasses the states of Arizona, California. Nevada. Hawaii, and the territory of
Guam. Information on  freshwater wetlands creation, restoration, and enhancement in Guam and
Hawaii was not available.  The states  of Arizona  and California have hosted an  abundance of
freshwater wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement projects (Table 8).

     In Arizona, many  projects have provided compensatory mitigation for impacts on riparian
habitat along the lower Colorado River and its tributaries, primarily for US Bureau of Reclamation
damming and channelization projects. A number of experimental planting and seeding efforts on
Cibola NWR resulted in initial rapid growth of riparian habitat composed of native species.  Over
time, however, many of planted stands of trees have become decadent.

-------
V

c
u
p

5
CJ
c
c.

c
1)


I?

2  E
 y:  co
 D  ~

 >-  O
 -  -^
 C  ซJ

.2  Q
 ฃ 3
 •-> c
-3 00


 ง s

 |i
 > ซ

 5Q


 II
•— c
 .13 O
 OJ
 ^
   -

  •ง
'tr "5
 E >

 S c

a .2
   00
•   LU






OBJECTIVE
bJ
N
00


r.H*
U 00
H U
•< <_
Qe
w






U
U
REFEREN




H
U
U
O
J^
DC
a.




l
1—
%
u
fj
o
c/:
Wetland mitigation to offset the effect
voir construction


$
rs





r-
X
ON


u.
D
3J
OJ
-C
ฃ
73
C
03
u.
V
C
-X ac
a *
3 ON
cc X.

O
CJ
u.'
I
u
v^
<3J
o:
t -
u
73
3
O
02
"5 w
V, S
S tซ
U C
•"^ ^
ซ O
CJ
•^^
404 permit requirement or filling 1"
wetlands at Massey Draw for highway
tion, Jefferson Countyf


i
i
i
i




sC
X
ON

r-
X
c\
jz

'E
CO
"3
C
O3
L*
D
Q.
O
CJ
O
CJ
r™
5
iJ
/*••
J5
u.
<
2
ซ
<ฃj
.•o
_c
U
-S C
C/3 U.
*" .2
i •-ซ
C
t-2P
U CO
Examination of coal mining wastewat
and wildlife habitat enhancement, 1
County


i
i
i
i

_<
X
i
r~-
t—
ON




Tj-
X
ON
"5
*^i
^J
ฃ
00
u
U>
O

fS
c
ฃ3
^1
i
Lซ
U
5
u
3
oo
c
c2
•a
rtl
SV
O
"O
c
fS
_Q
Creation of wildlife habitat from al
gravel pits, Jefferson County
CJ
<
m
^•H
^TfT




Tt
r-~
ON






(N
X
ON
C
ca
E
CL
O
O
^
t/f
73
C
o
cu
c
•
-a
c
.T3
— .
ic
lo
oo U






Riparian habitat enhancment


i
i
i




i
i
i
i



E
fl3
r^
o.
D
^
"2
a
-C ^o
r^ ^^
.^ X
ฃ2



O
CJ
_*f
ij
•i/
i>
CJ
t/3
fB
X
aj
ฃ
t
C
U
•M
^
*^
^
ซ
f404 permit requirement for riparian h
1 hancement


'ง
in
o




r~
X
ON

X
X
ON
r-H
"u
•a
c
ฃ
-o
c
CO
^>
C
15

O
CJ

u
>
fV
MM
D
QO

S
C
co
00
"c i
u 2
•M yj
E ^5
ซ t
u. ui
404 permit requirement to restore ove
devastated river channel in exchange 1
bance of 10 Ac of wetlands


• •*
E
^
ON
X
ON
1—1
1
TJ-
X
ON






X
X
ON
i_
U
iO
00
OJ
ฃ

C
^1
^^
ซ
E
—
CJ
2
O3
N
ts
Os

o

Stream relocation to offset impacts
Lodge construction


i
i
i




m
X
ON





X
X
ON
"3
%>
c3
D.
^


o
u
^
u
OJ
u.
U
i_i
%
03

-------
"3
 U

 c
 u

 E
 a.
 ซ^
 c

 E

 o
 c
 2
"E
 u

"3
 C
f  ^
 (U  CO
.ฃ•=
   CJ

     "
    =
    2
    30








JECTIVE
CQ
O

u
N
^^


^J ^^
r- U
•< ซ-
Q ฎ


U

z
OS
U
OS







u
id
o
OS
0,
<- D
2 -C
t M •*"•
-0 C
2 o
.c
1 1

sto riparian \
tloodplain cl
and AZ
itigation for impact
>m streamflow and
>lorado River, CA
2-J= U

o

c
>n


oo
ON
1-1
i—
1
jC
0
•a
c
p
o3

c ^
< 2


c
o
_N
'C
Cibola NWR,
— u
2 jc
• -• *— •
•S c
O
"^ :/*
1 1
•5 5
sto riparian \
tloodplain cl
and AZ
itigation for impact
)m streamflow and
>lorado River, CA
s ซfc C

u
^
j-5
^


r-
^\
— •
1

O
^
c
u

c ^ฎ
< —


00
j~
Q -
i '2
U 5*
i
c
3
O


a
w
to
"ah
3
O
_C
ibitat enhancemen
ir effort
I i


i
i
i
i
c
1 e of wetlands for
bitat enhancement
D j=

0

m
r-H


1
1
1


O
ON
C
00

D
Q
c
_o
2
^
CO CO
<^'c
$ te
Mountain Vie
District, Calif(
i
u
in
to
ฃ
u*

•3
C
1
*o
00
eation and monito
iter treatment
kM tVJ
u ?


1
1
1


1
1
1
1
OO
ON
1-H
"^
ซ.
00
OJ


u
o




.2
'c
Santee, Califo
0) yj
•*• C
•5 '-o
~ *j
5 5
o
LH ^
**" 3
C jO
O „
at conservati
oastal systerr
)
rban wetland habit
d education — (C
acreas freshwater
^ c m

o
^
0
m


wo
LM
CU




r~
00
ON
N

1>
S

t-"
"^
^
^
D.
•3
C
Ballona Wetla
California
i ฃj
Z c
CO V3

f}Q
•ii C
|l
> c
c '™ vl
||3
5 ซu
itigation for impac
: from streamflow
2 Colorado River,
22-5

u
^
in
cs


00
ON

OO
OO
ON

U
^
V3

•^
2

c

* ~
^<
in
u h
Bankline studi
Colorado Rive
i jjj
jo 5
^3 t/5

^Q
(.2^ c
2 -c
5 _c
^ '5 ,. -,
•2 D.^
'= 5= CO
itigation for impac
: from streamflow
^ Colorado River,
Jg CO JC


^J

-------
        J.  c
           to
           U
        •JS  co

        2-5
"" C  co
ฐ T3 <•

5 SU
U -^   -
CO 5  i-
Q. O  ^

eซ=^
c -55  2
.2 =  0
ซ |  c
oo iz (j
'5 t!  u
oo

56
         CO
         JS
         2-5
                 C CO
                 o
                 .ฃ• o
                    52  CO
                  CO
                    EB!
                       S
                       C
                       c
                    co
         js c

         JS 
                   r" *-*

                   0 M

                  'ซ ง

                           J3  O

                           JS    c
                                     2 T3
                              ^3 CO
                              a <
                              c , *,
                                                CO
                                             •   ^  w
    o

    o
J3
 CO
JS

 V
                                                      ~ CO
                                     32
                                     •|

                                     c
                                     CO
                                                            fl
                                                 0
                                                 ซ=
                                                 g
                                     •   go:
                                     g
                                              •~ *_ co
                                              "5 co JS
                                              *Z* *-ป -4-ซ
                                            i M-
                                                      CO
V3
CO
                      CO

                      (J
                                                                C  co
                                                                     SO
                                               0.
                                               E
                                                    U
                                                    J=
                                    0
                                            i r-
                                             oc
                                                      OO
                                              oo
                                              ON
        00
        30
 D.

 3

5
         oc
         oc
 a.


I
         so
         00
                   &
                   3
                   s
                            cc
                            cc
oo
oc
                                               "
 ao
i oo
                                                       D.

                                                       3
                                              r-
                                              oo
                                              ON
          OO
          OO
          OS
                   JS
                    Cu

                    3

                   2
J3
 co
j=
                                                                         22  ซU
                                                                         CO
                                                                 -etc
                                                                         co
                                                           ง ฐ

                                                                         ON
                                                                 oc
                                                                 ON
      oo
      OC
      ON
                                                                         a.
3
C
00
                           T3
                           co
 O -2
u =
j=.2
 ao r=
 3 CO
 o (j
         U •-
        CO Q^
         5!
McDowe
         r
         U


        j j= 'S


        !|r2
        I ^"*^ WOMI
          c^ w
          Jซ
          3  ป-"

         ill
                            •a
                            CO

                            _2 co
                            O '5
                            U t
                              • 
 Z 02
                                                         U
                                              ^  2

                                              'o J2
                                              "CO  O
                                              tx U
           o

           CO
           u.
          _O

           O
          U
                                                                .•s  co

                    u

                   5
                   _CO

                   a

                   js"
                    u.
                    CO


                    CO

-------
-3
 CD
 3
_C

 C
 o
U


06
.i c
Mitigation for impacts to riparian wildlife hab
tat from streamflow and floodplain changes o
the Colorado River, CA and AZ




i

i
i



<5
00
Os
"*
•
OO
oo
Os.
w>
*'T~~*
>,
JC
o.
u
3
s
^
•^
"3
r3
b.
*-N
•^
U.co
Tbpock Marsh,
River, Californ

Creation of wastewater marsh for habitat




i
i
i
i



i
i
i
1

r~
oc
Os
1}
u

ฃ
_2
'c
L
:-^
CO
w
[ Arcata Marsh,
i
Restoration and maintenance of sensitive hab
tat




i
i

i



i
i
i
i
t^-
x>
f~*.
1

ซ-i
u
r*
CJ

o!



"co
c
LM
2.2
Santa Barbara
pools, Californ
c
Mitigation for habitat losses due to constructio
in Alameda County
JC
0
JS
ฃ <"
ซ*- _^
o c
O CO
m .0



0
oo
Os
"""
OS
OO
Os

•^^
f^\
_u
c
2
(55



CJ
-a:'
u
u
iซ
U
o
u
W
c
u
o
/•ป•
Urban creek riparian restoration for creation (
city park in Berkeley




o
<
^^
Tf



m
00
Os
^^
Os
OO
Os
r—t
*-^
*^
J2
c
co
•W
oo

v^f
•Jb
CO
a.
_*
u
Strawberry Cre
California
^^?
Mitigation for loss of valley Elderberry Lonj
horm Beetle habitat due to installation of roc
slope protection, Princeton, CA




o
<
^-1
CN



00
00
Os
1— 1
Os
OO
OS
,-^
•^
^"ป
JO
c
CO
•^
oo



U
^
ซ
Sacramento Ri

Riparian restoration, Del Norte County, CA



Q
<
^-ซ
m
ซ-*



r~-
00
Os
r— t
OS
OO
OS
r-H
^.
^%
^J
"c
CO
+J
00
c
o
'^
CO
u.
O
t3
u
tf
^
JS
•farf
ง|
l-l
t/3 1-
c^ • ^
Rehabilitation of erosion and habitat loi
caused by pipeline rupture, Wishon Reservo
near Fresno



u
<
^^
O
Os
•
m
oo
i
en
oo
Os
^~
Os
OO
Os

"•^
^\
_u
"5
CO
00
1
2
^^
ซ ••
^
CO
-C
cu
tf
1
co <<
^u
t? c
3-2
ฃ• C
Mitigation for mall construction — riparial
saltwater marsh and freshwater marsh creatioi
Humboldt County, CA



CJ
<•
^1
in
T— H



sO
OO
Os
1—4
Os
oo
Os
r^^
K^
*^\
_W
C
co
ซ_i
00



<
U
"ซ
2
o
H
co
03
>>
^s
Restoration of riparian streambanks caused t
grazing, Humboldt County, CA




CJ
<•
^%
Os
VO
00
1
en
oo
Os

Os
oo
Os


>^
_CU
c
co
•4-J
OO
CO
o

0?
"ป
_SJ
c
co
4-^
oo
c
_o
•^^
^
L^
o
ซ•ป
V3
u
tf
_*
ง<
u^
0) o
'C 
-------
•3
 u
3O
T3
<^|J
— ™
15
_o
r^
CO C
'SS
.D.U
*- c
c
.2 o'
*j o
N
CO
00 C
•^ c
OX)
al

u
^
"-"


1 —
1 — •
ON
*~*
ON
00
ON
5*
c
JO
c/5



30
00
CQ
c
o

+*
.2
2
c
Q.
CO
.fr
k.
U
13
n revegetation
i County
co -^
.fr m

u
o
(N

t —
J~~ '-J
oc -3
ON u
•— D.
ON
OO
ON
1)
C
co
c/5

i

Bass Lake Shoreline 1
vegetation, California
i ฃ
^ uซ
(Ti ^3
troi channel impn
revegetation, M
o ^g
UN
0 'C
If
*^ !>^.
ซ M -^
00 *2 C
'Z3 C 3
S13


^
r^

1 C
tซL u
oo <8
ON L*
t- Q,

00

U
c
2
c/5
c
0
U co
Novato Creek Flood i
trol Project, Californi
o
c
o
d enhancement, M
c
fO
1
•o
.2
*c
a
D.
"? C
3ง
CQ U


'i
?— . ซ
r-
00
•^.
00
ON

ON
OO
ON

—
"c

c/5
c ^
•2 rS
Js sj
Clark Canyon Ripซ
Demonstration Area,
cfl
(U
(^
reduce erosion loe
o
4^*
n revegetation
ey County
.2 <3
5 =
.fr o
*
o
o.
r-

i g

00 <2
ON h.
•— Q.
ON
OO
ON
sT
c
ca
c/o
0)
OS
^*
Carmel River Ripariai
vegetation, California
c
o

Ifcourse construct
&
If
•*^ k<
CO 0)
'5 o


•3
m

00
^
OO
ON

ON
OO
ON
ป-^
IV
C
CO
c/o



Spanish Bay Resort,
California
— c
^ o
*kZ * "™
numerous indust
ts — riparian creal
k. C
o u
; mitigation f
rcial developm
County
0 SO

u
o


i c
J~ป u
OC u
ON ฃ
—. Q.
ON
00
ON
sT
"c
fj
c/5
. j.
-ti
2 ••"
* "^
.ฃ.*
'I
ซ CQ
ฃ5
w
C '.=
CO CO
C/5 00
—
L*
^J
c
o
u
0
3
.O
o
o-^
toration techni
, Plumas Coun
t/3 C
2.2
•M V3
V3 Q
U U*


i
•— *

OO
1

00
ON
<— '

30
Os
JT
c
2
C/5
|
, ra
a i ซ
Red Clover Creek En
sion Control Demons
tion Project, Californi
E

J^
on on abandoned f
**3
CO
n habitat restor
.2
oฃ —

u
<— 1
r-

i 1
00 g
oo 
aj
Cosumnes River Presi
California

-------
U
3
C

C
o
U


00
Sง
o 15
S o
H '•=
2
1 I?
> ^
o js
**• oo
15 •ฃ >
fl 5
O D "c
03 5
rt O *^
^>* >^ y
III

1
j
1

OO
3
0
• ^
co

ON
OO
ON
r— i
U
c

00




oo
00
c
"D.
^v
Elderberr
c
u

^
u.
co
D.

CO
E
u.
^O
"co
U
n efforts by
:sources
1*
ll
OJ (_
Oi 3

2
,_
—



_-
oc
ON

ON
OC
ON
U
C
2
c/5
i
1^ yซซ
*Jjj* " <-
w ^-
II

O^-
"

Sacramen
nance Arc
i 5
JJ >
*** DC
E c
O oo
4s u
S'Q
8 c
55
•fa-l ,
II
CO Cj
1~ป BM
or riparian 1
inge constri
i i
HE
•S >,
ii

o
*ฃ
o



(N
OO
ON

ON
OO
ON
oT
c
rt
00





_0
op

i

Q
00
Q
c
00
J
u.
C
O
fl
op
i
5

jj
<^-
vo
oo
oo
i

oo
ON
^™
ON
OO
ON
U
C
2
00





1J
u
^J
Morena S
California
3
D
0
i_
1
"S
m
4— ป
oo
'o
1ง
ฃ"
c o"
o ao
ooQ
5 c

C.J
*ฃ
(S



[ —
00
o^
1-1
ON
OO
ON
JT
c
CO
60




U
00
;a
'C
ca
A \
Sweetwatt
ง J2
ts u
E 2
o c
tfc ^
^ oo
00
oo oo
ฃ o
ซ- .2,
co c
ti ฃ-
X) 0.
CO 0)
-C C
for riparian
water pipeli
fl
ซ O -^
^iQ L^ C
!ง<ง
i^ U W
u
 u.
f 1
1— — '

o 'o"
.— ""
CO g
o
o
c
E
0
— 3
ซ o
*rf ^^
•i s
CT3 CO
u
^^
O ฐ
ง1
CO O
00 >-
•• -^^
t; c
•5 0
^ u

JJ
*v
'-'



^H
00
ON

ON
OO
ON
JT
C
cO
00





uT
U
2
rti
Guadalup
California
o
53
E
0
— i 3
*- c
5 s
CO 5Q
"^ rr
CO CO
||
S ง
c ฃ
O Q.
co O
15 c
•5 O
&. u


u
U
O
>^
5
Ui
•a
0

5
0 3
— o
1 2
CO CO
Is
co co
D.OO
U^ **
1_ *J
"*" b.
C C
o .E
co O
00 u.
E C
•5 0
ซฃ u
0
<,
o


•fa-
1 c

00 OJ
ON L.
T^ Q.
ON
OO
ON
&
C
2
60




T3
O ^
O <•
E ^
1^ 4—t
ซs ฐ
8.2,
C_} u-
CO
007;
o 2
ti *-
2 c
ซ o
oo U
o
CO
u
E &
11
c^
2 3
JoJ2
0 00
n 'E
o 2
and Electri
incement, S
CO c
o 5
.a ซ
Z^ •*— '
'5 15
CO CO
D, JZ


-------































•3
1)
3
•s
ง
CJ

c
3C
u
_O
c2 c
•a
CO
2
>.
ฃ
00
c
b*
co
u
u
4W
u
tfl
5C
o
o
•*>•ป
งt
3 ง
*2 O

a. u
5 S3

i
oo
f>
00
ON
ป— ซ
ON
ac
ON
f— ซ
>-.
jU
c
B
W5
|
CO
u
OB
0>
1.2
* ง '
S^ c
[_., "
d3
Q. -- -
W3 X -
U O -
/3 'S t


>^
&"
C
3
O
r \
vj
_O
"Q
>ซ
_O
•^
CO
0
^— >
,
_U
C
2
:/5

^
W
^3

13
ง t
5b
u
* .2

ciitnorn
Californ

h^^
ฃ•
c
3
O
U
o
p
P^
„
^^
c
inceme
ro
_C
C
V
^
o
."2
ฐu
L.
O
0
c
.2
kซ
B
D.
ฃ

i
i
30
OO
ON
ON
OO
ON
>^
JU
c
CO
cH
CO
c
E
w
'B
J
if
u .
D C
i_ "•
J
C '
2
3
L. <
u^
U
4—1
B
U
to
B
5
L.
ฃ
MM
00
U
:/:
1—
B
E
^^
c
<1)
00
uซ
U
E
u
u-ซ
O
4^
O 2
~ E
ซj ซฃ
^
JJ
ฃ;
2
J?

iT
Z.
tf^
%
B
0)
u.
2?
/5

/\pacne-
Arizona

-------
      Effectiveness of these projects is based on enhancement of wildlife values, and several of the
 larger scale projects are considered successful. Many of the surviving revegetation projects have not
 exhibited reproductive success, however, and the longevity of these planted forests may be a function
 of the life span of the individual plantings.  It is generally agreed that further work is needed to
 determine the conditions driving successful revegetation (Carothers et ai 1989).

      In California, several hundred riparian restoration projects have been implemented in the past
 ten years (Stanley 1989). These projects are typically a result of mitigation, and include wildlife habitat
 creation and enhancement efforts through revegetation and stream restoration construction projects.
 In general, the short-term results of these projects have indicated success, given clearly defined goals
 and  with  considerable  pre-planning efforts.   Many  projects involve riparian restoration  and
 enhancement efforts, which are typically more successful than creation on sites where riparian habitat
 was not originally found. Effectiveness of these sites has been measured by the extent of persistence of
 vegetated areas over time. Many projects have shown immediate planting failure, and have  been
 re-planted.
      A highly visible restoration project presently in progress is the Ballona Wetland Project habitat
 restoration, a National Audubon  Society  effort  aimed at integrating  habitat preservation  with
 opportunities for environmental education. The plan includes the creation of 10 hectares of freshwater
 wetlands within a 87 hectare coastal system in the southern California  urban metropolis.   The
 long-term goal of the project is to "create a representative southern California wetland system,...
 which includes a range of native communities typically associated with coastal wetlands.  . . The
. Ballona Wetland will be restored in phases leading to a cohesive, dynamic, diverse, and productive
 coastal  habitat  area" (Metz 1987).  Careful planning  and an understanding of the cumulative
 experience gained through western creation and restoration efforts may benefit this and other future
 large-scale projects.

 REGION  X
      Region X encompasses the northwestern portion of the United States and includes the states of
 Alaska, Idaho,  Oregon, and  Washington.  Many  freshwater wetland  creation, restoration, and
 enhancement efforts in this region have been geared towards stream restoration to enhance fisheries
 and aquatic habitat. Efforts to establish riparian vegetation have also been common and widespread
 both east and west of the Cascades.  The extent and level of success of wetland creation and restoration
 in the Pacific Northwest has been documented by Kentula (1986), Kunz etal.  (1988), Jenson and Platts
 (1989), and Platts et al. (1987). Table 9 provides a representative cross section of projects implemented
 in this region.

      Fifteen Mile Creek. Wasco County, Oregon provides an example of a typical restoration project
 for this region (Newton 1981).  The area  had deteriorated as a result of grazing, agriculture,  timer
 harvest and stream flow diversions. A restoration and stabilization project encompassing structural
 improvements and revegetation completed in 1974 has shown encouraging results over the long term.

-------
-3


 C



 1

 o


 •si




"5

 Q.


 C


 E

 o
 c

 2


 u

 -3
 C
 "
     =
     ,2
 r
 '*•  o
 u  oo

 • -  2

 I o

 go"
 •si JZ
 OJ  M

 C.2
 5"   ,
 >-  eg
 •J_1  ^
     c

    .2
     00


OBJECTIVE
W
N
35

g
H Ui
•<^ ^^
Q ฎ





u
U
*~7
UJ
U
U.
OS



k.
U
U
•-!
O
oฃ
e.

^
<**i
Mitigation to stabilize wetland area created
mining operations - plan only


i
i
i



i
i
i

IT)
ON


••**•
"
>s
Abernath



c
i

II
i^
-3

Evaluation of feasbility of developing a wetia
with geothermal effluent

42
10
cs
o



00
ON



-^
5!
*M
^

oo
Breckenri
1983



^
"3

ฃ
f-w
^
00
C
Stream improvements and exclusion of grazi
to improve riparian habitat


i
CO



NO
r-
ON

r~
00
ON
*-^
S3
•4ซ^
^
on
u
oa
Elmore &


c
o
ao
(U
6
.*

u
00
"•5
O


M
0
00
2
O
c/f
1
2
"u
Q
j=
00
Provide habitat and recreational values throu
enhancement of an urban wetlands


i
i
i
0

i
r-
00
ON


00
QO
ON
*-"•

"3
*^ป
Gebhardt

o
f
2
o
•o
ซ5
0)
Z
00
D.
C/3
, ,
^ f -^
Riparian and fisheries habitat creation to mi
gate for stream diversion for a hydroelectric 1
cility


i
i
i



OO
ON




(^
oc
ON

"3
Jenson et



0
.c
03
s
^t
i—
U
CJ
CO
,
(11
Revegetation of a flood control dam - expt
imental plantings


i
i
i



00
ON



^^
OO
ON
T— •

~*
Johnson e


**?
•^
^
ซ
b
U
ซ-
2
Mitigation to restore fish and wildlife habi
disturbed by road construction


i
i
i



i
1
i






^
OO
ON
Johnson I



SI
r
Qฃ
I
1
i
C
Habitat restoration to mitigate for highway cc
struction

-T3
i
00
fi



00
ON







NO
OO
ON
Johnson 1
os'

i}
SI
oo
r
^
c
U
|j
00 f3
ฃ2


Restoration of a severely eroded creek


i
o




rj-
r-
ON








OO
ON
Newton ]
c
c
00
0
"of
Lซ
U
i
p^
nf^
Restoration of riparian vegetation disturbed
emergency channel filling

o
o
o
NO



OO
ON
r— *






CO

USFWS 1




>
'ฃ <=
!|
3 -^
^3
o .5

-------
     Many portions of this region contain geothermal developments.  The disposal of geothermal
effluent has been a problem in the past, and recent efforts have been made to examine the potential for
using this water to create wetlands. The Raft River valley in south central Idaho provided a site for a
0.25  hectare wetland creation  project which indicated that the potential exists to effectively use
geothermal waste water for this purpose (Breckinridge et al. 1983).

CONCLUSIONS
     Evaluation of the extent of success of freshwater wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement
projects in the United States is constrained by a limited data base with respect to project goals, site
descriptions, construction plans,  and author bias.  Conclusions about the success of projects is
frequently indicated by hopeful project managers after only one or two growing seasons, or based on
the establishment of vegetation without regard to attainment of other wetland functions.  In general,
when the satisfactory accomplishment of engineering needs, such as storm water retention, wastewater
treatment or erosion control is determined to be a measure of success, than many wetland projects
have been successful.

     It has been suggested that many early creation efforts may  have missed the mark on restoring
functional wetlands over the long term.  Larson (1987) notes that "the main criterion of wetland
replication success today appears to be growth of wetland plants on man-made sites. But with respect
to artificially creating detritus and grazing food chains to replicate the full suite of food chain, wildlife
and  fisheries habitat functions of natural wetlands, science cannot offer guidelines with low risk and
high certainty".

     Kunz et al. (1988) summarized  attempts to evaluate wetlands mitigation in the state  of
Washington.  "There  has been  no  consistent, standardized, process for negotiating, planning,
implementing, or evaluating wetland mitigation projects. No single agency,  federal or state, has
maintained comprehensive records of mitigation projects. The information contained in the federal
agency  404  project   files  is dispersed  and  incomplete.   Monitoring  results   are  sparse,
construction/restoration completion dates are inconsistent, and the degree of functional success has
rarely  been documented".  Based on the extensive information reviewed for this report, it appears that
this  unfortunate set of circumstances may be representative of the situation nation wide.

     Another recent  assessment of wetlands mitigation success  (Quammen 1986)  supports  the
conclusion that achievement of fully functional wetland ecosystems through creation efforts appears
to have been few, and that compliance with permit conditions is low. Quammen further notes that the
assessment of success is presently difficult and will continue to be difficult until project objectives and
design criteria are clearly stated as part of permit conditions, and monitoring becomes a standard part
of the  assessment protocol.

     Ischinger and Schneller-McDonald (1988), in their appraisal of western restoration and creation,
 noted  that "We do have the technology to restore a wetland site that will  potentially perform some

-------
limited ecosystem functions (wildlife habitat)".  However, the authors as well as other reviewers
acknowledge that creation or restoration of wetland ecosystems over the long term is undocumented in
many parts of the United States. Furthermore, monitoring of wetland functional restoration has been
largely non-existent or of such short duration that long term claims to restoration or creation success
are largely speculative.

     Because Section 404 projects rarely state specific goals for mitigation through wetland creation,
criteria for determining success cannot be developed. A concise statement of project goals and design
considerations prior to permitting would provide for future evaluation of the likelihood for success.
Levine and Willard (1989) recommend the following information on project goals  and design
considerations be provided prior to permitting:

       •   Justification for site location;
       •   Description of pre-project site conditions, including substrate characteristics,
           elevations, water levels, and fluctuations;
       •   Detailed construction plans;
       •   Species lists, planting methods, and other details of the revegetation plan;
       •   Long-term management plan detailing management, identification of the
           responsible party and financing sources; and
       •   Comprehensive monitoring plan.
      The inclusion of this information with the permit application will provide the permitting agencies
with a solid basis for determining the probabilities of success and failure of the proposed project.

      The extensive efforts  of the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in compiling regional
summaries of creation and restoration efforts elucidates the fact that "The creation and restoration of
wetlands is a complex and often difficult task.  This points to the need for setting clear, ecologically
sound goals for projects and developing quantitative methods for determining if they have been met.
To validate the goal setting process,  wetland science must progress and the role of wetlands in the
landscape must be understood" (EPA 1989).

-------
                                      APPENDIX A

     The  following bibliography presents references  to the  scientific literature,  government
documentation, and other reports pertaining to freshwater wetlands creation, effectiveness, and
restoration for the period 1979-1989.  The intent of the bibliography is to provide a comprehensive
listing on state-of-the-art information. Therefore, a few references, although dated prior to 1979, were
considered relevant enough to include in the list. The majority of references deal specifically with
non-tidal, freshwater wetlands. A few citations may pertain to coastal wetlands but may also contain
information applicable to freshwater wetlands.

     The bibliography is accompanied by a list of keywords to illuminate the subject matter presented
in each of the citations. The key word list is broken down into six categories to present the full range of
topics. The categories are:

EMPHASIS:

     This category includes key words such as Creation, Restoration. Enhancement.  Revegetation,
Reclamation, Overview.. Effectiveness, Mitigation,  Technique,  Management,  Policy, Plan only,
Monitoring, Design, and Feasibility.  These descriptive terms describe the overall emphasis of the
reference. In particular, an emphasis of "Effectiveness" indicates that the article describes the level of
success associated with  a  specific project, while "Plan only" indicates that the article describes a
project that has not yet been implemented.

REGION/STATE:

     This category includes information on region, state, county, or other location information.

WETLAND TYPE:

     Wetland  type  is usually  delimited  as Palustrine,  however,  Palustrine  emergent, Riparian,
Lacustrine, and other distinct types of wetlands are noted if this information is known.

IMPACT:

     The  Impacts  category includes descriptive terms such as Mining (including type).  Highway
construction. Development. Dredging, Damming, and Channelization.

WETLAND USE:

     Wetland Use refers to the primary function desired after creation, restoration or enhancement of
the wetland. This category includes key words such as Habitat, Wastewater treatment, Stormwater
drainage,  Recreation, and Aesthetics.

SCIENTIFIC  THEME:

     Scientific Theme describes the scientific emphasis of the article. Categories include Vegetation.
Wildlife,  Soils, Hydrology, and Engineering.   Many of the  citations  have  no scientific theme,
particularly those dealing with policy and technique.

     A double dash indicates that the citation is general in nature, or that the information presented in
the article is not directly applicable to the subject category.

-------
     This bibliography is presented as an appendix to the report, "The Status of Non-Tidal, Freshwater
Wetlands Creation, Restoration, and Enhancement in  the United States — Mitigation Effectiveness:
Recap of the Easting Literature".  This report provides an assessment of information available on
mitigation effectiveness, as well as an assessment of overall efforts to create, restore, and enhance
wetlands in  the United States in the past ten years.

-------
Abernathy, MC, DJ Morris, and R Van Wormer.  1985. Wetland reclamation planning at the
   John Henry Mine in Western Washington. Pages 153-159 IN: R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and
   J.B. Hill, Eds., Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands, Proceedings of a
   Workshop. Pennsylvania State University School for Resources, University Park.

   EMPHASIS:                 Restoration, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:            Washington (John Henry Mine)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:            -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Adamus, PR. 1988.  Criteria for created or restored wetlands. Pages 369-372 IN: D.D. Hook,
   ED.  The Ecology and Management of Wetlands, Vol. 2. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Restoration, Effectiveness, Evaluation, technique
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:  Wetland evaluation technique
Adamus, PR and LT Stockwell.  1983.  A method for wetland functional assessment, Vol 1.
   Report No.  FHWA-IP-82-23.  U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
   Administration, Washington. DC.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation. Restoration, Evaluation
   REGION/STATE:            —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Function
Ambrose, RE. CR Hinkle. and CR Wenzel.  1983.  Practices for protecting and enhancing fish
   and wildlife on coal surface-mined land in the southcentral U.S. US Fish and Wildlife Service
   FWS/OBS-83-11.  229pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Technique, Management, Reclamation
   REGION/STATE:           Southcentral
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -

-------
American Fisheries Society—Western Division.  1982. The best management practices for the
   management and protection of western riparian stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society,
   Western Division, Orem, UT.  45 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Management, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Western
   WETLAND TYPE:         Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Grazing, Mining, Water development, Road construction,
                              Agriculture, Urbanization, Timber harvest
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Anderson, BW, J Disano, DL Brooks, and RD Ohmart.  1984. Mortality and growth of
   cottonwood on dredge spoil. Pages 438-444 IN: R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix, EDS.,
   California Riparian Systems:  Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management.
   University of California Press, Berkeley, California Water Resources Report No. 55.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Southwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Damming, Channelization
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Anderson, BW and RD Ohmart  1979.  Riparian revegetation:  an approach to mitigating for a
   disappearing habitat in the Southwest. Pages 481-487 IN: G.A. Swanson, Technical
   Coordinator, The Mitigation Symposium: A National Workshop on Mitigating Losses of Fish
   and Wildlife Habitat.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
   Station, Fort Collins. CO. General Technical Report RM-65.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Revegetation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Southwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Damming, Channelization
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Anderson. BW. and RD Ohmart. 1985.  Riparian revegetation as a mitigating process in stream
   and river restoration. Pages 41-79 IN: J.A. Gore, ED., The Restoration of Rivers and
   Streams. Butterworth Publishers. Boston. MA.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Revegetation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Southwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Damming, Channelization
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation

-------
Anderson, BW. and RD Ohmart.  1984. Avian use of revegetated riparian zones. Pages 626-631
   IN: IN:  R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix EDS., California Riparian Systems: Ecology,
   Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press, Berkeley,
   California Water Resources Report No. 55.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Southwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Damming, Channelization
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Avian use
Anderson, BW and RD Ohmart. 1982. Revegetation for wildlife enhancement along the lower
   Colorado River. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NY,
   Contract No. 7-07-30-V0009. 215 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Southwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Damming, Channelization
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Wildlife
Anderson, BW, RD Ohmart. and J. Disano. 1979.  Revegetating the riparian floodplain for
    wildlife, pages 318-331 IN:  R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick, Technical Coordinators,
    Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian
    Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, General Technical Report WO-12.

    EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Southwest
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   Damming, Channelization
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Wildlife
 Andrews, NJ, M. Penko , MD Mattson, and DC Pratt. 1981.  The establishment of cattails on a
    northern Minnesota peatland.  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota
    Energy Agency, Minnesota Peat Program, St. Paul, MN 79 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique
    REGION/STATE:            Minnesota (Zim)
    WETLAND TYPE:           Palustrine (Peatland)
    IMPACT:                   Agriculture
    WETLAND USE:            —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Soils

-------
Anonymous.  1983.  Build your own bog to neutralize acid mine drainage.  Coal Age, (June) 77.

   EMPHASIS:               Research: Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Eastern
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine (Bog)
   IMPACT:                  Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Neutralization of acid drainage
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality


Apple, LL, BH Smith, JD Dunder, and BW Baker. 1984. The use of beavers for riparian/aquatic
   habitat restoration of cold desert, gully-cut stream systems in southwestern Wyoming. Page
   109-116 IN: D.L Archer, Ed., Proceedings of the Bonneville Chapter of the American
   Fisheries Society. Bonneville Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Salt Lake City, UT.

   EMPHASIS:               Technique, Management
   REGION/STATE:           Wyoming (southwest)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:          -       Grazing
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Athanas, C. 1988. Wetlands creation for stormwater treatment. Pages 61-66 IN: J. Zelazny and
   J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.
   National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:               Creation
   REGION/STATE:           Maryland (May's Chapel)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           Stormwater Treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation, Water quality


Atkins, K.  1981. Biotic response to drawdown and reflooding in a clay settling pond. Pages
   169-187 IN: R.H. Stovall, Ed.. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference on Wetland
   Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:               Reclamation, Effectiveness, Technique,
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Polk County)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —

-------
Atkins, K.  1987. A qualitative assessment of wetlands reclaimed as natural system habitat.
   Pages 17-36 IN: EJ. Webb, Jr., Ed. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference on
   Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Plant City, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Polk and Eastern Hillborough Counties)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Auble, GT, DB Hamilton, JE Roelle, J Clayton, and LH Fredrickson. 1988.  A prototype expert
   system for moist soil management.  Page 137-143 IN: K.M. Mutz, J J. Cooper, M.L. Scott and
   L.K. Miller, Technical Coordinators, Restoration, Creation, and Management of Wetland and
   Riparian Ecosystems in the American West.  Society of Wetland Scientists, Rocky Mountain
   Chapter. Denver, CO.

   EMPHASIS:                Management, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:            —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Computer Modelling, Hydrology
Banner, A.  1979. Mitigation under the Corps Regulatory Program. Pages 396-399.  IN:  G.A.
    Swanson, Technical Coordinator, The Mitigation Symposium: A National Workshop  on
    Mitigating Losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitat.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
    Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO, General Technical Report RM-65.

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Policy, Regulations
    REGION/STATE:           United States (Florida examples)
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Banner A. 1982.  Florida Keys Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund. Pages 155-165 IN:  EJ.
    Webb, Jr., Ed. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and
    Creation.  Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Restoration, Guidelines
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (Key Largo)
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   Dredge and fill
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -

-------
Barko, JW, RM Smart, CR Lee, MC Landin, TC Sturgis and RN Gordon. 1977. Establishment
   and growth of selected freshwater and coastal marsh plants in relation to characteristics of
   dredged sediments.  US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental
   Effects Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report D-77-2. 41 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Research (Laboratory)
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Dredging
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Soil chemistry
Baskett, RK. 1988.  Grand Pass Wildlife Area, Missouri:  Modern wetland restoration strategy at
   work. Pages 220-224 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland
   Resources, Proceedings of a Conference. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Management, Technique, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:           Missouri (Grand Pass Wildlife Area)
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Bates, AL, E Pickard and WM Dennis.  1979. Tree plantings—a diversified management tool for
   reservoir shorelines.  Pages 190-194  IN:  R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick, Eds., Strategies
   for Protection and Management of Flocdplain Wetlands  and Other Riparian Ecosystems.
   USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, General Technical Report WO-12.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Alabama, Tennessee. North Carolina
   WETLAND TYPE:          Lacustrine (reservoir)
   IMPACT:                   Damming
   WETLAND USE:           Mosquito control
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Bauer, AM.  1982. Manipulating mining operations to create wildlife habitats: a pre-mining
    planning process. Pages 41-43  IN:  W.D. Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford, Eds., Wildlife Values
    of Gravel Pits. University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Misc.
    Publication 17-1982.

    EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Technique, Planning
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                  Gravel Mining
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —

-------
Best, CR and KL Envin.  1984. Effects of hydroperiod on survival and growth of tree seedlings in
   a phosphate surface-mined reclaimed wetland.  Pages 221-225 IN: D.H. Graves, Ed.,
   Proceedings of the 1984 Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology, and
   Reclamation. University of Kentucky, OES Publication, Lexington, KY.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation
   REGION/STATE:            Florida (Southwest Polk County)
   WETLAND TYPE:           Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate Mining
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Beule, JD. 1979. Control and management of cattails in southeastern Wisconsin wetlands.
   Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison Technical Bulletin No. 112.  39 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Management, Enhancement, Technique
   REGION/STATE:            Wisconsin (Eldorado Marsh Wildlife Area. Horicon Marsh)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Bouldin. DR. DJ Lathwell, EA Goyette. and DA Lauer. 1973.  Changes in water chemistry in
   marshes over a 12-year period following establishment.  New York Fish and Game Journal.
   20(2): 129-149.

   EMPHASIS:                Research, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           New York (20 marshes)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water Quality
Boule. ME. 1987.  Wetland creation and enhancement in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 130-136
    IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend. Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a
    Conference.  National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Enhancement, Design, Management,
                               Monitoring, Planning
    REGION/STATE:           Pacific Northwest
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —

-------
Bowers JK.  1988. John Hopkins University non-tidal wetland mitigation area. Pages 314-317
   IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a
   Conference. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:               Mitigation, Creation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:          Maryland (John Hopkins University)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Emergent
   IMPACT:                  Urbanization
   WETLAND USE:          —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Bowers, KL  1988. Non-tidal, emergent wetland transplant. Restoration and Management Notes
   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Maryland (John Hopkins University)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Urbanization
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Branch, WL. 1985.  Design and construction of replacement wetlands on lands mined for sand
    and gravel.  Pages 173-179 IN: R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill, Eds., Wetlands and
    Water Management on Mined Lands, Proceedings of a Workshop. Pennsylvania State
    University School for Resources, University Park.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Design, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Maryland (Patuxent River)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Sand and Gravel Mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Breckinrdge, RP, LR Wheeler, and JR Ginsberg Jr. 1983.  Biomass production and chemical
    cycling in a man-made geothermal wetland. Wetlands 3:26-43.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Idaho (Southcentral)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  Geothermal development
    WETLAND USE:           Geothermal effluent cycling
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Nutrient cycling
                                       10

-------
Breedlove, BW.  1983. Wetlands reclamation: A drainage approach.  Pages 90-99 IN:  DJ.
   Robertson, Ed., Reclamation and the Phosphate Industry: Proceedings of the symposium.
   Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, FL.

   EMPHASIS:               Restoration, Guidelines
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Central and Northern)
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  Phosphate Mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      -
Breckenridge, RP, LR Wheeler, and JF Ginsburg. 1983. Biomass production and chemical
   cycling in a man made geothermal wetlands. Wetlands, Vol. 3, 1983, pp. 26-43.

   EMPHASIS:               Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:          Idaho (Raft River)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Emergent
   IMPACT:                  Geothermal development
   WETLAND USE:          Vegetation establishment, Chemical cycling
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Brenner, FJ.  1988. Surface mine reclamation:  an opportunity for wetland development. Pages
   338-343 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources,
   Proceedings of a Conference. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:               Creation, Reclamation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           East. Midwest, Pennsylvania (Northwest)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC  THEME:      —
Brodie, GA, DA Hammer, and DA Tomljanovich.  1986. Man-made wetlands for acid mine
   drainage control.  Paper presented at Eight Annual National Abandoned Mine Lands
   Conference, Billings, Montana. August 10-15.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           Alabama (Jackson County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Coal Mining
   WETLAND USE:           Acid Drainage Treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                      11

-------
Brodie, GA, DA Hammer, and DA Tomljanovich. 1987. Constructed wetlands for acid drainage
   control in the Tennessee Valley. Pages 173-180 IN:  J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Editors.
   Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.  National Wildlife
   Federation, Washington, D.C.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Design, Operation, Monitoring, Overview
   REGION/STATE:            Alabama (Jackson Co.); Tennessee (Roane Co.); 11 wetlands
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Coal Mining
   WETLAND USE:            Acid Drainage Treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Brodie, GA, DA Hammer, and DA Tbmljanovich. 1987. Treatment of acid drainage from coal
   facilities with man-made wetlands.  Pages 903-912 IN: K.R. Reddy and WH. Smith, Eds.,
   Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. Magnolia Publications, Orlando,
   FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Alabama (Northeast)
   WETLAND:                Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Coal Mining
   WETLAND USE:           Acid Drainage Treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Brooks RP.  1984. Optimal designs for restored wetlands. Pages 16-29.  IN: J.E. Burris, Ed.,
   Treatment of Mine Drainage by Wetlands. Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
   Contribution No. 264.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Restoration, Design, Assessment
   REGION/STATE:            Pennsylvania (western)
   WETLAND TYPE:          -
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:            Acid drainage treatment, Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Brooks. RP. 1986.  Mitigating the impacts of coal mining on wetlands.  Pages 179-181 IN: J.A.
    Kusler, M.L.Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland
    Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers,
    Berne, NY.

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Restoration, Feasibility, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           -
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Coal mining
    WETLAND USE:           Sediment removal, Floodwater retention, Pollution control,
                               Habitat, Aesthetics
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
                                       12

-------
Brooks, RP, JP Hepp and JB Hill.  1988. Wetland creation opportunities on coal mined lands.
   Pages 181-184 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources,
   Proceedings of a Conference.  National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Guidelines
   REGION/STATE:            Pennsylvania (western)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:            Acid mine drainage, Habitat, Erosion and sedimentation
                              control
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Water quality
Brooks, RP and RM Hughs. 1986. Guidelines for assessing the biotic communities of freshwater
   wetlands, pages 276-282 IN: J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings
   of the National Wetland Symposium:  Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.  Association of State
   Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Monitoring, Assessment
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Brown, MT F Gross, and J Higman. 1984. Studies of a method of wetland reconstruction
    following phosphate mining. Pages 24-25 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the
    Eleventh Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.  Hillsborough Community
    College, Tampa, FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           Florida
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Soils
 Buck, JK and RJ Houston. 1986.  Direct revegetation of four coal waste sites in
    Pennsylvania—four approaches.  Pages 385^29 IN:  C.L. Carlson and J.H. Swisher, Eds.,
    Innovative Approaches to Mined Land Reclamation. Southern Illinois University Press,
    Carbondale.

    EMPHASIS:               Restoration, Technique
    REGION'STATE:           Pennsylvania (Lucerne)
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                  Coal mining
    WETLAND USE:           Fly ash amendments
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Soils
                                       n

-------
Buckner, DL and RL Wheeler. 1988.  Construction of cattail wetlands along the east slope of the
   front range of Colorado. Pages 126-131 IN:  IN: K.M. Mutz, J.J. Cooper, M.L. Scott and L.K.
   Miller, Technical Coordinators, Restoration, Creation, and Management of Wetland and
   Riparian Ecosystems in the American West.  Society of Wetland Scientists, Rocky Mountain
   Chapter, Denver, CO.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Colorado
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine emergent
   IMPACT:                  Reservoir construction
   WETLAND USE:           Fly ash amendments
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Soils
Bureau of Land Management.  1983. Environmental assessment on state of reclamation
   techniques on phosphate-mined lands in Florida and their application to phosphate mining in
   the Osceola National Forest.  USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office,
   Alexandria, VA. 82 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Osceola National Forest)
   WETLAND TYPE:          "Hardwood wetlands"
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Butts, MP. 1986.  Status of wetlands creation/mitigation projects on state highway projects in
   Connecticut.  Pages 185-187 IN:  J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds.,
   Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium:  Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.
   Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Connecticut (state highway projects)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Highway construction
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Byerly, DW, JB Maddox. CS Fletcher and DT Eagle. 1978.  Reclamation of mined land in the
    Piney Creek Watershed—an interim report.  Pages 267-275 IN: D.E. Samuel, J.R. Stauffer
    and C.H. Hocutt, Eds., Proceedings of a Symposium: Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife
    Needs in the Eastern United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service.  FWS/OBS-78/81.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration,  Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Tennessee (Van Buren County)
    WETLAND TYPE:
    IMPACT:                  Coal mining
    WETLAND USE:           Soil and water quality improvement
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation, Soil and water quality
                                       14

-------
Byron, GJ. 1985.  Man-made wetlands as a post-mining land use: regulatory issues and conflicts.
   Pages 181-183 IN: R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill, Eds., Wetlands and Water
   Management on Mined Lands, Proceedings of a Workshop.  Pennsylvania State University
   School of Forestry Resources, University Park.

   EMPHASIS:                Regulations
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Surface mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Cairns, J. Jr. 1985.  Facing some awkward questions concerning rehabilitation management
   practices on mined lands. Pages 9-17  IN: R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill, Eds.,
   Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands, Proceedings of a Workshop.  Pennsylvania
   State University School of Forestry Resources, University Park.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Restoration, Management, Feasibility
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Surface mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Cardamone, MA. 1985.  Wetlands and the surface mining of coal:  protection and values
    assessment.  M.S. Thesis, University of Kentucky, Louisville. 148 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Management, Restoration. Protection, Assessment
    REGION/STATE:           Eastern interior (Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Coal mining
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Carlson, JE. 1982. Preliminary report on the restoration of farmed freshwater marshes at
    Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.  Pages 212-227 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the
    Ninth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community
    College, Tampa, FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Monitoring, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (Corkscrew Swamp)
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   Agriculture
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation

-------
Carlson, JR.  1979.  Streamside vegetation.  USDA Soil Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon
   Technical Notes. Plant Materials-55. 9 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Revegetation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Pacific Northwest
   WETLAND TYPE:         Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Human  activities
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat, Human use, Aesthetics
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Carothers, SW, GS Mills, and RR Johnson. 1989. The creation and restoration of riparian
   habitat in southwestern arid and semi-arid regions. Pages 359-376 IN:  Wetland Creation and
   Restoration:  The Status of the Science. Vol. 1.  EPA 600/3-89/038a.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Creation, Restoration, Enhancement, Technique,
                              Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Southwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Carson JD. 1982. Progress report of a reclaimed wetland on phosphate mined land in central
    Florida. Pages 243-250 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference
    on Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,  FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Revegetation, Monitoring, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (Polk County)
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
 CE Maguire, Inc. 1985. Wetland replacement evaluation.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.,
    Norfolk, VA.  Unpublished Report. 186 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Evaluation, Creation, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Virginia (32 wetlands)
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   Various (404 compliance)
    WETLAND USE:           -
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —

-------
CH2M Hill. 1981. Feasibility of using geothermal effluents for waterfowl wetlands.  U.S. Fish
   and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-81/44 236 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Evaluation, Effectiveness, Feasibility
   REGION/STATE:           Seven states, including Montana, Idaho, and Nevada
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  Geothermal development
   WETLAND USE:           Geothermal effluent
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Chamison, JF. 1984. Riparian vegetation planting for flood control,  pages 120-123 IN: R.E.
   Warner and K.M. Hendrix, Eds., California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and
   Productive Management. University of California Press, Berkeley, California Water Resources
   Report No. 55.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           California (Sacramento River)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Channelization
   WETLAND USE:           Erosion control, Sediment stabilization
   SCIENTIFIC THEME: —
Chapman, RJ, TM Hinckley, LC Lee, and RO Teskey. 1982.  Impact of water level changes on
   woody riparian and wetland communities. Volume X: Index and Appendum to Volumes
   I-Vlri. US Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/23. Ill pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Research
   REGION/STATE:            —
   WETLAND TYPE:           Riparian, palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Water level changes
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water level change impact on vegetation
Chironis NP. 1982. Reedgrass greens slurry ponds. Coal Age (April): 86-91.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Illinois (Monterey Coal Slurry Impoundment)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:            Stabilization
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation

-------
Clark. JR.  1986. Assessment for wetlands restoration. Pages 250-253 IN: J.A. Kusler and P.
   Riexinger, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment Symposium. Association of
   State Wetland Managers, Chester, VT

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Overview, Policy, Assessment
   REGION/STATE:            —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Clay, DH.  1984. High mountain meadow restoration.  Pages 477-479 IN: R.E. Warner and K.M.
   Hendrix, Eds., California Riparian Systems:  Ecology, Conservation, and Productive
   Management.  University of California Press, Berkeley, California Water Resources Report
   No. 55.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Revegetation
   REGION/STATE:           California (Modoc County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Meadow
   IMPACT:                   Stream erosion
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Clewell, AF.  1981. Vegetational restoration techniques on reclaimed phosphate strip mines in
   Florida. Wetlands 1:158-170.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Clewell, AF.  1983. Riverine forest restoration efforts on reclaimed mines at Brewster Phosphates,
    central Florida.  Pages 122-133 IN: D.J. Robertson, Ed., Reclamation and the Phosphate
    Industry: Proceedings of the Symposium.  Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow,
    FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (Polk and Hillsborough Counties)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Forested
    IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       18

-------
Clewell, AF and R Lea. 1989. Creation and restoration of forested wetland vegetation in the
   southeastern United States.  Pages 199-237 IN:  Wetland Creation and Restoration:  The
   Status of the Science. Vol. 1. EPA 600/3-89/038a.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Creation, Restoration,  Enhancement, Technique,
                              Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Southeast
   WETLAND TYPE:          Forested wetland
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Conservation Consultants Inc.  1979. Wetland reclamation pilot study for W.R. Grace and
   Company. Annual Report for 1978.  Conservation Consultants, Inc., Palmetto, FL. 56 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Monitoring, Pilot study
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Hillsborough County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Soils
Cooper, DJ.  1988. Mountain wetland vegetation dynamics.  Pages 23-25 IN: K.M. Mutz, J.J.
   Cooper, M.L. Scott and L.K. Miller, Technical Coordinators, Restoration, Creation, and
   Management of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems in the American West. Society of Wetland
   Scientists, Rocky Mountain Chapter, Denver, CO.

   EMPHASIS:               Research, Restoration assessment
   REGION/STATE:           Rocky Mountains
   WETLAND TYPE:          Mountain wetlands
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation dynamics


Cooper, DJ and B Smith. 1987. First annual report Chatfield Arboretum Wetland Creation
   Project.  Colorado School of Mines, Department of Environmental Science and Engineering
   Ecology, Golden, CO. Unpublished Report. 79pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Creation, Monitoring, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Colorado (Chatfield Arboretum, Jefferson County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Highway construction (404)
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —

-------
Disano, J, BW Anderson, and RD Ohmart.  1984. Irrigation systems for riparian zone
   revegetation. Pages 471^476 IN: R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix, Eds., California Riparian
   Systems:  Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management.  University of California Press,
   Berkeley, California Water Resources Report No. 55.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Southwest (Colorado River)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Channelization
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Irrigation
Dobie, B.  1986. Private financing for wetland restoration.  Pages 14-28 IN: J.L. Piehl, Ed.,
   Proceedings, Wetland Restoration:  A Techniques Workshop. Minnesota Chapter of the
   Wildlife Society, Fergus Falls.

   EMPHASIS:       -         Economics, Restoration
   REGION/STATE:           Minnesota
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Dougherty, ST, CA Berry, and MA Deimel. 1987.  Hydrology and vegetation in montane and
    subalpine wetlands of Colorado.  Pages 81-84 IN:  K.M. Mutz and L.C. Lee, Technical
    Coordinators, Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems of the American West: Eighth Annual
    Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Wilmington, NC.

    EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview
    REGION/STATE:           Colorado (Williams Fork River, Holy Cross Wilderness)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Montane, Subalpine
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology, Vegetation
 Dunn, WJ, and GR Best. 1983. Enhancing ecological succession—survey of seed bank
    composition in marsh ecosystems and potential of seed bank establishment as an alternative
    for restoration of native marshes. Pages 100-114 IN:  D.J. Robertson Ed., Reclamation and
    the Phosphate Industry: Proceedings of the Symposium.  Florida Institute of Phosphate
    Research, Barlow. FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Research: Restoration
    REGION/STATE:            Florida (central)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:            —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation

-------
Dunn, WJ and GR Best.  1983. Enhancing ecological succession:  5. Seed bank survey of some
   Florida marshes and role of seed banks in marsh reclamation. Pages 365-370 IN:
   Proceedings of the 1983 Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology and
   Reclamation.  University of Kentucky, Lexington.

   EMPHASIS:                Research:  Restoration
   REGION/STATE:            Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Ontario
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Mining
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Eckert JW, ML Giles, and GM Smith. 1978. Design concepts for in-water containment structures
   for marsh habitat development.  US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
   Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report D-78-31.  69 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Creation, Design, Technique
   REGION/STATE:          —
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  -
   WETLAND USE:          —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      -
Elmore, W and RL Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: Perceptions in management. Rangelands:
   9(6):260-265.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Oregon (Bear Creek. Crook County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Grazing,  Sedimentation
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Environmental Laboratory. 1986.  Field guide for low maintenance vegetation establishment and
   management.  US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Laboratory, Vicksberg, MS.
   Instruction Report R-86-2. Ill pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview:  Revegetation, Management
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          -
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Soils, Water quality

-------
Erwin, KL. 1983. Fort Green Reclamation Project: First annual report. Agrico Chemical
   Company, Mulberry, FL. 120 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Reclamation, Monitoring, Techniques
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Southwest Polk County)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine, Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Invertebrates, Water quality,  Vegetation
Erwin. KL.  1984.  Fort Green Reclamation Project:  second annual report.  Agrico Chemical
   Company, Mulberry, FL. 253 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Reclamation, Monitoring, Techniques
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Southwest Polk County)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine, Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Invertebrates, Water quality, Vegetation
Erwin, KL.  1985. Fort Green Reclamation Project:  third annual report. Agrico Chemical
   Company, Mulberry, FL. 362 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Reclamation, Monitoring, Techniques
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Southwest Polk County)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine, Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Invertebrates, Water quality, Vegetation
Erwin. KL.  1986. Fort Green Reclamation Project: fourth annual report.  Agrico Chemical
   Company, Mulberry, FL. 296 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Reclamation, Monitoring, Techniques
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Southwest Polk County)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine, Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Invertebrates, Water quality, Vegetation
                                      24

-------
Erwin, KL.  1986.  A quantitative approach for assessing the character of freshwater marshes and
   swamps impacted by development in Florida.  Pages 295-297 IN: J.A. Kusler, M.LQuammen,
   and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium:  Mitigation of Impacts
   and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian, palustrine
   EMPHASIS:                Assessment, Monitoring, Techniques
   REGION/STATE:           Florida
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology, Water quality, Vegetation
Erwin, KL.  1989. Freshwater marsh creation and restoration in the southeast. Pages 239-271 IN:
   Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Vol. 1.  EPA 600/3-89/038a.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Creation, Restoration, Enhancement, Technique,
                               Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Southeast
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine emergent
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Erwin, KL and FD Bartleson.  1985. Water quality within a central Florida phosphate surface
    mined reclaimed wetland.  Pages 84-95 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Twelfth
    Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College,
    Tampa, FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation. Monitoring
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (Polk County, Agrico Swamp)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality, Hydrology, Vegetation
 Erwin. KL and GR Best.  1985. Marsh community development in a central Florida phosphate
    surface-mined reclaimed wetland. Wetlands 5:155-166.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Revegetation, Techniques
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (Polk County)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation

-------
Erwin KL, GR Best, WJ Dunn, and PM Wallace. 1985.  Marsh and forested wetlands reclamation
   of a central Florida phosphate mine. Wetlands 4:87-104.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Creation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:            Florida (Polk County, Agrico Swamp)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation


Ettinger W and C Yuill. 1982. Sand and gravel pit reclamation in Louisiana:  creation of
   wetlands habitats and its integration into adjacent undisturbed bayou.  Pages 109-114 IN:
   W.D. Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford, Eds., Wildlife Values of Gravel Pits.  University of
   Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Miscellaneous Publication 17-1982.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Revegetation, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:            Louisiana (Sibley)
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Sand and gravel mining
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Exum JH and BW Breedlove. 1986.  Habitat evaluation and postdevelopment site design on a
   central Florida site proposed for development.  Pages 298-304 IN: J.A. Kusler, M.L.
   Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium:  Mitigation
   of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation. Assessment
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Orange County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Development
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Wildlife, HEP
Fischel M.  1988.  Wetland restoration/creation and the controversy over its use in mitigation: an
    introduction.  Pages 127-129 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland
    Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.  National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Restoration, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       26

-------
Ford KV  1983. Wetland restoration at Four Corners Mine. Pages 134-137 IN:  DJ. Robertson
   Ed., Reclamation and the Phosphate Industry:  Proceedings of the Symposium.  Florida
   Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Revegetation, Monitoring, Technique,
                              Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Florida (Hillsborough, Polk, Hardee and Manatee Counties)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Fowler DK, DM Hill, and LJ Fowler.  1985. Colonization of coal surface mine sediment ponds in
   southern Appalachia by aquatic organisms and breeding amphibians. Pages 261-285 IN:  R.P.
   Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill, Eds., Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands,
   Proceedings of a Workshop. Pennsylvania State University School of Forest Resources, University
   Park.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           Tennessee (Campbell County; 9 sites)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCrENTTFIC THEME:      Water quality, Aquatic organisms
Gallagher TJ. 1982.  Eugene's urban wildlife area: Delta Ponds. Pages 122-126 IN: W.D.
    Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford. Eds., Wildlife Values of Gravel Pits. University of Minnesota,
    Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Miscellaneous Publication 17-1982.

    EMPHASIS:                Design, Effectiveness. Management plan
    REGION/STATE:           Oregon (Eugene)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  Gravel mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Garbisch EW.  1977. Recent and planned marsh establishment work throughout the contiguous
    United States—a survey and basic guidelines.  US Army Engineers Waterway Experiment
    Station Environmental Effects Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. Contract Report D-77-3.  48 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Effectiveness, Techniques
    REGION/STATE:           United States (105 Projects)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
                                       27

-------
Garbisch EW.  1986. Highways and wetlands: compensating wetland losses.  Federal Highway
   Administration, Office of Implementation, McLean, VA. FHWA-1P-86-22. 60 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Scientific overview: Restoration, Creation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Gebhardt KA, J Gebhardt, G Koonce, B O'Brien and RB Tiedmann.  1988.  Created wildlife and
   wetland amenities in an urban environment. Pages 157-161  IN:  K.M. Mutz, JJ. Cooper,
   M.L. Scott and L.K, Miller, Technical Coordinators, Restoration, Creation, and Management
   of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems in the American West. Society of Wetland Scientists,
   Rocky Mountain Chapter, Denver, CO.

   EMPHASIS:               Creation, Effectiveness, Technique
   REGION/STATE:          Idaho (Boise)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:          Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Hydrology,  Engineering
Gersberg RM, R Brenner, SR Lyon, and BV Elkins.  1987.  Survival of bacteria and viruses in
   municipal wastewaters applied to artificial wetlands. Pages 237-245 IN:  K-R. Reddy and
   W.H. Smith, Eds., Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. Magnolia
   Publications, Orlando, FL.

   EMPHASIS:               Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:          California (Santee)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:          Wastewater treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Bacteria
Gersberg RM, BV Elkins, and CR Goldman.  1985. Wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands.
    Water Science Technology.  17(4/5):443-450.

    EMPHASIS:               Creation, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:          California (Santee)
    WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:          Wastewater treatment
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Water Quality
                                      28

-------
Gersberg RM, BV Elkins, and CR Goldman. 1983. Nitrogen removal in artificial wetlands.
   Water Resources 17(9): 1009-1014.

   EMPHASIS:                Monitoring, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            California (Santee)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:            Wastewater treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
Gersberg RM, BV Elkins, SR Lyons, and CR Goldman. 1986.  Role of aquatic plants in
   wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands. Water Research. 20(3):363:368.

   EMPHASIS:                Monitoring, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           California (Santee)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:  -        Wastewater treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Water quality


Gilbert T T King, and B Barnett.  1981. An assessment of wetland habitat establishment at a
   central Florida phosphate mine site. US Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-81/38. % pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Monitoring, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Peace River)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Soils, Water quality, Vegetation, Wildlife
Gilbert T, T King, B Barnett, JN Allen, and RS Hearson.  1979.  Wetlands reclamation technology
    development and demonstration for Florida phosphate mining.  Pages 87-101 IN: D.P. Cole,
    Ed., Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.
    Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (Polk and Hillsborough Counties)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology, Vegetation, Water quality
                                       29

-------
Gilbert T, T King, and L Hord.  1980. An assessment of wetlands establishment techniques at a
   Florida phosphate mine site. Pages 245-263 IN: D.P. Cole, Ed., Proceedings of the Seventh
   Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.  Hillsborough Community College,
   Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Effectiveness, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Bartow)
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality, Soils, Vegetation, Wildlife
Gilio JL. 1984. Conversion of an impacted freshwater wet prairie into a function aesthetic
    marshland.  Pages 94-111 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Tenth Annual
    Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
    FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (Palm City, Martin County)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  Drowned prairie
    WETLAND USE:           Aesthetics, Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
 Gilio JL. 1984.  Design and attainment of water quality and chemical free maintenance through
    ecological balance in a man-made condominium lake in south Florida.  Pages 93-107 IN:  F.J.
    Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and
    Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

    EMPHASIS:               Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (South)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Lacustrine
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
 Girts MA and RLP KJeinmann.  1986. Constructing wetlands for treatment of mine water.
    Society of Mining Engineering, Fall Meeting, St. Louis, MO, Unpublished Paper.  23 pp.

    EMPHASIS:               Creation, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Eastern (25 sites)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Sphagnum
    IMPACT:                  Mining
    WETLAND USE:           Mine water treatment
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Water quality
                                       30

-------
Glass S. 1987.  Rebirth of a river. Restoration and Management Notes.  5(1):6-14.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Effectiveness, Technique, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Kissimmee River)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Channelization
   WETLAND USE:           Flood control, habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Goldley JS and RG Callahan.  1984. Creation of wetlands in a xeric community. Pages 112-129
   IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration
   and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Pasco County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           Stormwater retention
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Hydrology


Goldner BH.  1984. Riparian restoration efforts associated with structurally modified flood
   control channels. Pages 445-451 IN: R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix, Eds., California
   Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of
   California Press, Berkeley, California Water Resources Report No. 55.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           California (Santa Clara County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           Flood control
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation


Goldstein AL. 1982. Utilization of a recreated freshwater marsh for detention and reduction of
   nutrients in rural nonpoint source runoff.  Pages 194-211 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings
   of the Ninth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.  Hillsborough
   Community College, Tampa. FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Kissimmee River)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Drainage and channelization
   WETLAND USE:           Demonstration
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
                                       31

-------
Golet FC. 1986.  Critical issues in wetland mitigation: a scientific perspective. National
   Wetlands Newsletter 8(5):3-6.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Regulatory, Policy
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Gottfried PK.  1985. Environmental design guidelines for manmade lakes in Florida. Pages
   135-143 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference on Wetland
   Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Revegetation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:            Florida
   WETLAND TYPE:          Lacustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            Stormwater retention, Habitat, Water quality Improvement,
                              Aesthetics, Recreation
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Grabowicz GJ.  1985. Regulatory requirements for construction and use of wetlands on mined
   lands in Pennsylvania. Pages 185-190 IN: R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill, Eds.,
   Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands, Proceedings of a Workshop. Pennsylvania
   State University School of Forest Resources, University Park.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Policy, Regulatory
   REGION/STATE:           Pennsylvania
   WETLAND TYPE:          -
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Gregory RW, AA Eisner and T Lenhart. 1984. Utilization of coal mine wastewater for
    construction of a northern pike spawning/rearing marsh. US Fish and Wildlife Service
    FWS/OBS-84/03. 44pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Montana (Big Horn County)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Coal mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat, Wastewater treatment
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                      32

-------
Hammer DE and RH Kadlec. 1983. Design principles for wetland treatment systems:  project
   summary. US Environmental Protection Agency EPS-600-S2-83-026.  7 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Design, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          -
   IMPACT:                  Wastewater
   WETLAND USE:           Wastewater treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology, Water quality, Engineering
Harrington RA. 1986.  Environmental controls on clonal willow growth (Wisconsin). Restoration
   and Management Notes. 4{1):30.

   EMPHASIS:               Research
   REGION/STATE:           Wisconsin
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation, Hydrology


Harvey HT, MN Josselyn and MS Race. 1986. Forum:  Wetlands restoration and mitigation
   policies: comment  and reply.  Environmental Management. 10(5):567-572.

   EMPHASIS:               Mitigation, Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Haynes RJ. 1984. Summary of wetlands reestablishment on surface-mined lands in Florida.
    Pages 357-362 IN: D.H. Graves, Ed., Proceedings of the 1984 Symposium on Surface Mining,
    Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Effectiveness, Technique
    REGION/STATE:            Florida
    WETLAND TYPE:           -
    IMPACT:                   Surface mining
    WETLAND USE:            Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Ecology
                                      33

-------
Haynes RJ and F Crabill.  1984. Reestablishment of a forested wetland on phosphate-mined land
   in central Florida. Pages 51-63 IN: P.E. Pope, Compiler, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
   Better Reclamation with Trees Conference. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

   EMPHASIS:               Revegetation, Technique. Plan only
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Hillsborough County)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Haynes RJ and L Moore.  1987. Reestablishment of bottomland hardwoods within National
   Wildlife Refuges in the Southeast.  Pages 95-103 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds.,
   Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.  National Wildlife
   Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Revegetation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Southeast
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Hefner JM. 1982. The National Wetlands Inventory: Tools for wetland creation and restoration.
    Pages 265-275 IN:  F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on
    Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview
    REGION/STATE:           United States
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Mapping, Soils, Vegetation
 Henderson S, AB Allen. B Abbruzzese. ME Kentula and RM Hughs. 1987. A method for the
    selection of reference wetlands. Pages 289-291 IN: K.M. Mutz and L.C. Lee, Technical
    Coordinators, Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems of the American West: Eighth Annual
    Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Wilmington, NC.

    EMPHASIS:                Research: Effectiveness, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       34

-------
Herkowitz J, S Black, and W Lewandowski. 1987.  Listowel artificial marsh treatment project.
   Pages 247-254 IN:  IN:  K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, Eds., Aquatic Plants for Water
   Treatment and Resource Recovery. Magnolia Publications, Orlando, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation. Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Canada (Listowel)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Paustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           Wastewater treatement
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Water quality
Hey DL.  1987. The Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project: developing and
   implementing goals. Pages 89-91 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our
   Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.  National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
   DC.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation. Restoration, Technique, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois (Lake County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Agriculture, Mining
   WETLAND USE:           Various
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Hey, DL and NS Philippi.  1985. The Des Plains River Wetlands Demonstration Project: Volume
    III:  Design, construction specifications and site management. Wetlands Research Inc.,
    Chicago, IL.

    EMPHASIS:               Creation, Restoration, Technique, Plan only
    REGION/STATE:           Illinois (Lake county)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Agriculture. Mining
    WETLAND USE:           Various
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —


Hey, DL and NS Philippi.  1985. The Des Plains River Wetlands Demonstration Project: Volume
    II:  Baseline survey.  Wetlands Research Inc., Chicago, IL.

    EMPHASIS:               Creation, Restoration, Technique, Plan only
    REGION/STATE:           Illinois (Lake county)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Agriculture, Mining
    WETLAND USE           Various
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      -
                                       35

-------
Hey, DL, JM Stockdale, D Kropp and G Wilhelm. 1982. Creation of wetlands in northeastern
   Illinois.  Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Springfield, Document No.
   82109. 117pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Creation, Restoration, Technique, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois (Lake county)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Agriculture, Mining
   WETLAND USE:           Various
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      -
Hinkle. RL. 1988. Wetland mitigation plan development for the Manasquan Reservoir System
   Project. Pages 355-361 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland
   Resources, Proceedings of a Conference. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Enhancement, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:            New Jersey (Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Reservoir development
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Hoffman, GR, SG Shetron, CV Klimas and HH Allen. 1986. Lakeshore revegetation studies at
   Lake Oahe, South Dakota. US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vlcksberg,
   MS. Technical Report E-86-3. 18pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Effectiveness, Demonstration
   REGION/STATE:            South Dakota (Lake Oahe)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Hoffman, RD.  1988. Ducks Unlimited's United States Construction Program for enhancing
    waterfowl production. Pages 109-113 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our
    Wetland Resources. Proceedings of a Conference.  National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
    DC.

    EMPHASIS:                Enhancement, Effectiveness, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           Great Plains
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   -
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME  :     —
                                      36

-------
Hollands, GG.  1988. Assessing the relationship of groundwater and wetlands. Pages 240-242 IN:
   J.A. Kusler and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Wetland
   Hydrology.  September 16-18 1987, Chicago, Illinois Association of State Wetland Managers,
   Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology
Hollands, GG.  1989. Regional analysis of the creation and restoration of kettle and pothole
   wetlands. Pages 287-304  IN:  Wetland Creation and Restoration:  The Status of the Science.
   Vol.1.  EPA 600/3-89/038a.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Creation, Restoration, Enhancement, Technique,
                              Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Midwest, Northeast
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine emergent
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Hollands, GG, GE Hollis, and JS Larson. 1986.  Science base for freshwater wetland mitigation
    in the glaciated northeastern United States:  Hydrology. Pages 131-143  IN:  J.S. Larson, and
    C. Neill. Eds., Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern
    United States:  An Assessment of the Science Base.  University of Massachusetts,
    Environmental Institute, Amherst, Publication No. 87-1.

    EMPHASIS:                 Scientific overview, Mitigation
    REGION/STATE:            Northeast
    WETLAND TYPE:           —
    IMPACT:                    —
    WETLAND USE:            —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology
Holmberg, ND and R Misso.  1986.  Mitigation: Determining the need.  National Wetlands
    Newsletter, Sept-Oct. 1986. Pages 10-11.

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Effectiveness, Policy
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          -
    IMPACT:                  -
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
                                       37

-------
Holtz, S.  1986.  Bringing back a beautiful landscape.  Restoration and Management Notes
   4(2):56-61.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:            Illinois (Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            Flood control, Water quality improvement
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Homblette, DJ. 1983.  Wetland restoration: a model characterization approach using aerial
   photography and field analysis.  Pages 149-163 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the
   Tenth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.  Hillsborough Community
   College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:           Wisconsin (Madison)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Aerial photography
Hook, DD. 1987. Criteria for creating and restoring forested wetlands in the southern United
    States. Pages 51-60 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland
    Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.  National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation,  Restoration, Criteria, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           Southeast
    WETLAND TYPE:          Forested
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           -
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
 Howard K. Bell Consulting Engineers Inc. 1986. Preliminary engineering study for artificial
    wetlands wastewater treatment facility. City of Pembroke, Kentucky. Howard K. Bell
    Consulting Engineers. Inc.. Lexington, KY.  18 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Evaluation, Plan only
    REGION/STATE:           Kentucky (Pembroke)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           Wastewater treatment
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
                                       38

-------
Hubbard, DE, JL Richardson, and DD Malo.  1988. Glaciated prairie wetlands: soils, hydrology,
   and land-use implications. Pages 137-143 IN: J.A. Kusler and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings
   of the National Wetland Symposium: Wetland Hydrology. September 16-18 1987, Chicago,
   Illinois Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview
   REGION/STATE:           Prairie states
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine (Prairie potholes)
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology
Hunt, LJ.  1979.  Principles of marsh establishment. Pages 127-142 IN:  EJ. Webb, Jr., Ed.,
   Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.
   Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Six U.S. Sites
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Dredging
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Engineering
Hunt, LJ, AW Ford. MC Landin, and BR Wells. 1978.  Habitat development with dredged
    material: Engineering and plant propagation. US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment
    Station, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksberg, MS  Technical Report DS-78-17.  160 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Feasibility, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Three U.S. Sites
    WETLAND TYPE:          Upland
    IMPACT:                   Dredging
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Soils, Vegetation
Ischinger, LS, and K Schneller-McDonald.  1988. Wetland restoration and creation in the west:
    What do we really know? Pages 29-36 IN:  K.M. Mutz, J.J. Cooper, M.L. Scott and L.K.
    Miller, Technical Coordinators, Restoration, Creation, and Management of Wetland and
    Riparian Ecosystems in the American West Society of Wetland Scientists, Rocky Mountain
    Chapter, Denver. CO.

    EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Creation, Restoration
    REGION/STATE:           Western
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       39

-------
Jenson, SE, J Griffith, and M Vinson.  1987,  Creation of riparian and fish habitat. Birch Creek
   hydroelectric facility, Clark County, Idaho.  Pages 144-149 IN: KM. Mutz and LC. Lee,
   Technical Coordinators, Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems of the American West:  Eighth
   Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Wilmington, NC.

   EMPHASIS:               Mitigation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Idaho (Birch Creek)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Riparian
   IMPACT:                  Stream Diversions
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Jenson, SE and WS Platts.  1989. Restoration of degraded riverine/riparian habitat in the Great
   Basin and Snake River regions.  Pages 377-415 IN:  Wetland Creation and Restoration:  The
   Status of the Science, Vol. 1. EPA 600/3-89/038a.

   EMPHASIS:               Creation, Restoration, Enhancement, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:          Great Basin, Snake River regions
   WETLAND TYPE:         Riparian
   IMPACT:                 -
   WETLAND USE:          Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
 Johnson, LA, SD Rindge and DA Gaskin.  1981. Chena Lakes Project revegetation study:
    Three-year summary.  US Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Creel
    Report 81-18. 59pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique, Feasbility
    REGION/STATE:           Alaska (Fairbanks)
    WETLAND TYPE:          -
    IMPACT:                   Damming
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
 Johnson, CK.  1987. Final mitigation plan for the Felt Hydroelectric Project. FERC No. 5089.
    Ecosystems Research Institute, Logan, Utah.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Idaho (Felt, Teton River)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   Road construction
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
                                      40

-------
Johnson, CK.  1986. Final off-site mitigation plan for LQ/LS Drain (Pigeon Cove) Hydroelectric
   Project.  Ecosystems Research Institute, Logan, Utah.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Idaho (Snake River Canyon)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Road construction
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Jordan, WJ, RL Peters, and EB Allen.  1988. Ecological restoration as a strategy for conserving
   biological diversity. Environmental Management 12(l):55-72.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview, Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Kadlec, RH. 1983. The Bellaire Wetland:  wastewater alteration and recovery. Wetlands 3:44-63.

    EMPHASIS:                Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Minnesota (Bellaire)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Wastewater discharge
    WETLAND USE:           Wastewater treatment
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality, vegetation
 Kadlec, RH. 1987.  Monitoring wetland responses. Pages 114-120 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S.
    Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.  National
    Wildlife Federation. Washington, DC.

    EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview: Monitoring
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology, Soils, Vegetation
                                       41

-------
Kantor, RA and DJ Charette. 1986.  Computerized monitoring system for wetlands mitigation
   projects in New Jersey.  Pages 266-269 IN: J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds.,
   Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.
   Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Monitoring, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           New Jersey
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Kentula, ME.  1986. Wetland creation and rehabilitation in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 119-149
   IN: R. Strickland, Ed.  Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific
   Northwest:  The State of our Understanding. Washington State University, Department of
   Ecology, Olympia, Publication No. 86-14.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Pacific Northwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
King, T, L Hord, T Gilbert, F Montalbano, and F Allen.  1980. An evaluation of wetland habitat
   establishment and wildlife utilization in phosphate clay settling areas.  Pages 35-49 IN: D.P.
   Cole,  Ed. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and
   Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Natural Restoration
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Polk County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Wildlife, Water quality
Kleinmann, R and W Fink.  1987. Artificial wetland for mitigating acid mine drainage impacts.
    Restoration and Management Notes. 5(1):33.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation (prototype)
    REGION/STATE:           Pennsylvania (Friendship Hill National Historic Site)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  Mining (acid drainage)
    WETLAND USE:           Water quality improvement
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
                                       42

-------
Klimas, CV and HH Allen. 1981.  Approaches to revegetate reservoir shorelines of Lake Texoma.
   Pages 2-3 IN:  Environmental and Water Quality Operational Studies.  US Army Engineering
   Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Information Exchange Bulletin, Volume
   E-81-2.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Texas/Oaklahoma (Lake Texoma)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Lacustrine
   IMPACT:                   Flooding
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Klimstra, WD and DR Nawrot. 1986. Wetlands/wildlife habitat development. Pages 187-222 IN:
   C.L. Carlson and J.H. Swisher, Eds., Innovative approaches to mined land reclamation.
   Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Reclamation, Restoration, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                  Mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Klimstra, WD and JR Nawrot.  1982.  Water as a reclamation alternative: an assessment of
   values. Pages 39-44 IN: D.H  Graves, Ed., Proceedings of the 1982 Symposium on Surface
   Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentoiogy, and Reclamation.  University of Kentucky, OES
   Publications, Lexington.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Koopman, RW.  1982.  Pits, ponds and people:  reclamation and public use. Pages 127-131 IN:
    WD. Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford, Eds., Wildlife Values of Gravel Pits. University of
    Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Miscellaneous Publication 17-1982.

    EMPHASIS:               Reclamation, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Colorado (Boulder)
    WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  Gravel mining
    WETLAND USE:           Wildlife, Aestetics
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
                                       43

-------
Knight, RL, and BH Winchester, CH2MHH1. 1985. Ecology, hydrology, and advanced wastewater
   treatment potential of an artificial wetland in north-central Florida. Wetlands 5:167-180.

   EMPHASIS:               Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Lake Coral, Ocala)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Lacustrine
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           Wastewater treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      -
Kosowatz, JL.  1987. Wetlands establish their worth.  Engineering News Record. (October):30-41.

   EMPHASIS:               Policy, Mitigation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           U.S.
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      -
Krause. J, B Mahan, and M Harding. 1985. Waterfowl management and wetland development on
   Peabody Coal Company surface mines in Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. Page 327 IN:  R.P.
   Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill, Eds., Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands,
   Proceedings of a Workshop.  Pennsylvania State University School of Forest Resources,
   University Park.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Management, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Kruczynski. WL. 1989.  Mitigation and the Section 404 Program: A perspective. Pages 137-142
   IN: Kusler, JA and ME Kentula, Editors, Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of
   the Science, Volume II.  EPA/600/3-89/038.

   EMPHASIS:                Policy, Mitigation
   REGION/STATE:            -
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
                                      M.

-------
Kunz, D, M Rylko and E Somers. 1988. An assessment of wetland mitigation practices in
   Washington state. National Wetlands Newsletter, May-June, 1988, Pp. 2-4.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Mitigation,  Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Washington
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                  -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Kusler, JA.  1986.  Wetland restoration/creation: a summary of science views and perspectives.
   Pages 440-446 IN: J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the
   National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.  Association of State
   Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview. Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            U.S.
   WETLAND TYPE:          -
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Kusler, JA, ML Quammen, and G Brooks.  1986. Proceedings of the National Wetland
    Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers,
    Berne, NY. 460 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Symposium:  Mitigation. Creation, Restoration, Enhancement,
                              Effectiveness, Policy
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          -
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
 Landin MC.  1982. Habitat development at eight Corps of Engineers sites: Feasibility and
    assessment. US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory,
    Vicksberg, MS, Misc/Paper D-82-1. 244 pages.

    EMPHASIS:                Overview: Effectiveness, Feasibility
    REGION/STATE:           Eight sites in U.S. (inc. several freshwater sites)
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC  THEME:       —
                                      45

-------
Landin, MC.  1978. Annotated tables of vegetation growing on dredged material throughout the
   United States. US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental
   Laboratory, Vicksberg, MS, DMRP Work Unit No. 4F05.  155pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview
   REGION/STATE:          U.S.
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  Dredging
   WETLAND USE:          —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation
Landin, MC. 1984. Habitat development using dredged material. Pages 907-917 IN:  R.L
   Montgomery and J.W. Leach, Eds., Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal:  Proceedings of
   the Conference Dredging '84.  American Civil Engineering, New York.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Effectiveness, Technique
   REGION/STATE:            U.S.
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Dredging
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Landin, MC, and HK Smith. 1982.  Reclamation of wetlands.  Pages 195-206 IN: W.T Mason, Jr..
   and S. Iker, Eds., Research on Fi sh and Wildlife Habitat. US Environmental Protection
   Agency, Washington. DC, EPA-600/8-82-022.

   EMPHASIS:               Overview: Reclamation, Policy
   REGION/STATE:           U.S.
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Larosa, R. 1984.  Environmental resource conservation: Riparian system enhancement through
    water reclamation. Pages 459-464 IN: R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix, Eds., California
    Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of
    California Press, Berkeley, California Water Resources Report No. 55.

    EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique, Plan only
    REGION/STATE:           California (Escondido Creek)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC  THEME:       —
                                      46

-------
Larson, JL, and F. Stearns. 1986.  Restoration of a woolgrass-dominated sedge meadow
   (Wisconsin).  Restoration and Management Notes 4(2):77.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Wisconsin (Waukesha County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Sedge meadow
   IMPACT:                   Mining
   WETLAND USE:           -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Larson, JS. 1987. Wetland creation and restoration: An outline of the scientific perspective.
   Pages 73-79 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources,
   Proceedings of a Conference.  National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:                 Scientific overview, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            —
   WETLAND TYPE:           —
   IMPACT:                    -
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:        Hydrology, Soils, Vegetation
Larson, JS. 1986.  Wetland mitigation in the glaciated northeast: risks and uncertainties. Pages
   4-16 IN: J.S. Larson, and C. Neill, Eds., Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the
   Glaciated Northeastern United States: An Assessment of the Science Base. University of
   Massachusetts, Environmental Institute, Amherst, Publication No. 87-1.

   EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            —
   WETLAND TYPE:           —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:        Hydrology, Soils, Vegetation
Larson, JS, and C Neiil. 1986.  Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated
    Northeastern United States: An Assessment of the Science Base. University of
    Massachusetts, Environmental Institute, Amherst, Publication No. 87-1.

    EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:         —
    IMPACT:                  -
    WETLAND USE:           -
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Hydrology, Soils. Vegetation
                                       47

-------
Lawrence, JS, WD Klimstra, WG O'Leary, and GA Perkins. 1985.  Contribution of
   surface-mined wetlands to selected avifuana in Illinois. Pages 317-325 IN: R.P. Brooks, D.E.
   Samuel, and J.B. Hill, Eds., Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands, Proceedings
   of a Workshop. Pennsylvania State University School of Forest  Resources, University Park.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Leitch, JA.  1980.  Economic aspects of wetland restoration in the prairie pothole region. Pages
   279-293 IN: D.P. Cole, Ed., Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Wetland
   Restoration and Creation.  Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Policy, Economics
   REGION/STATE:           North Dakota
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine (Prairie pothole)
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Economics
Lejcher, T 1986.  Hydrology and watershed considerations.  Pages 4-9 IN: J.L. Piehl, Ed.,
   Proceedings, Wetland Restoration:  A Techniques Workshop. Minnesota Chapter of the
   Wildlife Society, Fergus Falls.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Planning, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC  THEME  :     Hydrology, Engineering


Lester, JE, CV Climas, HH Allen, and SG Shetron. 1986. Shoreline revegetation at Lake Texoma
   on the Red River, Texas-Oklahoma. US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
   Environmental Laboratory, Vicksberg, MS. Technical Report E-86-1. 49 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Feasibility
   REGION/STATE:           Texas/Oaklahoma (Lake Texaoma)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Lacustrine
   IMPACT:                   Reservoir fluctuation
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC  THEME:       Vegetation
                                       48

-------
Levine. DA and DE Willard.  1989. Regional analysis of fringe wetlands in the midwest:  Creation
   and restoration. Pages 305-332 IN:  Wetland Creation and Restoration:  The Status of the
   Science. Vol. 1. EPA 600/3-89/038a.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Creation. Restoration, Enhancement, Technique,
                              Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Midwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine and lacustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Lowry, DJ.  1989. Restoration and creation of palustrine wetland • associated with riverine
   systems of the glaciated northeast. Pages 273-286 IN: Wetland Creation and Restoration:
   The Status of the Science.  Vol. 1. EPA 600/3-89/038a.

   EMPHASIS:                 Overview:  Creation. Restoration, Enhancement. Technique,
                               Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Northeast
   WETLAND TYPE:           Palustrine emergent
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Madsen, C. 1986.  Wetland restoration: A pilot project. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
    41(3): 159-160.

    EMPHASIS:                 Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:            Minnesota (western)
    WETLAND TYPE:           Palustrine
    IMPACT:                    Agriculture
    WETLAND USE:            Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
 Madsen. CR. 1988.  Wetland restoration in western Minnesota. Pages 92-94 IN: J. Zelazny and
    J.S. Feierabend. Eds.. Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.
    National Wildlife Federation. Washington. DC.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration. Policy, Management
    REGION/STATE:            Minnesota
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine (prairie potholes)
    IMPACT:                   Agriculture
    WETLAND USE:            Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       49

-------
Maguire, JD, and GA Heuterman. 1978.  Influence of pre-germination conditions of the viability
   of selected marsh plants. US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental
   Laboratory, Vicksberg, MS.  Technical Report D-78-51.  106 pp.
   EMPHASIS:                Laboratory investigation
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Pre-germination conditions
Maltby, E. 1986.  Soils science base for freshwater wetland mitigation in the northeastern United
    States. Pages 17-52 IN:  J.S. Larson, and C. Neill, Eds., Mitigating Freshwater Wetland
    Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United States: An Assessment of the Science Base.
    University of Massachusetts, Environmental Institute, Amherst, Publication No. 87-1.

    EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview, Mitigation
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Soils
Matter, WJ and RW Mannan.  1988. Sand and gravel pits as fish and wildlife habitat in the
    southwest.  US Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 171.  11 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           Southwest
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Wildlife
 McCaffrey, PM. JB Cruce. J Hall. M Palmer, and L Perrin.  1985. Comments on the Kissimmee
    River restoration project and responses.  Pages 3-26 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of
    the Twelfth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough
    Community College, Tampa. FL.

    EMPHASIS:                 Restoration, Plan only
    REGION/STATE:            Florida (Kissimmee River)
    WETLAND TYPE:           —
    IMPACT:                   Channelization
    WETLAND USE:            —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:        —

-------
McCIuskey, DC, J Brown, D Bornholdt, DA Duff, and AH Winward.  1983. Willow plantings for
   riparian habitat improvement. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 20 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Revegetation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           -
   WETLAND TYPE:         Riparian
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation
McCreary, S. 1982.  Legal and institutional constraints and opportunities in wetland
   enhancement, pages 39-52 IN: M. Josselyn, Ed, Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in
   California. University of California, California Sea Grant College Program, La Jolla, Report
   T-CSGCP-007.

   EMPHASIS:               Restoration, Management, Policy
   REGION/STATE:           California
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
McKendrick, JD.  1987. Arctophila fulva for revegetating arctic wetlands.  Restoration and
    Management Notes 5(2):93.

    EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           Alaska
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           -
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
 McMullen, JM. 1988.  Selection of plant species for use in wetlands creation and restoration.
    Pages 333-337 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources,
    Proceedings of a Conference. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

    EMPHASIS:                Planning, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           -
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           -
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                      51

-------
Meyer, JL. 1985. A detention basin/artificial wetland treatment system to renovate stormwater
   runoff from urban, highway, and industrial areas. Wetlands 5:135-146.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Feasibility
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           Wastewater treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Water quality
Metz, ED. 1987. The Ballona Wetland Project:  Habitat restoration and environmental
   education. National Wetlands Newsletter, Jan-Feb 1987, pp. 16-18.

   EMPHASIS:               Restoration, Plan
   REGION/STATE:           California (Los Angeles County)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Emergent
   IMPACT:                  Urban development
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat, Education
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Michalski, MFP, DR Gregory, and AJ Usher.  1987. Rehabilitation of pits and quarries for fish
   and wildlife.  Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aggregate Resources Section, Land
   Management Branch. Ontario, Canada. 59 pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Restoration, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Canada (Ontario)
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  Sand and gravel mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Miller, HA, JG Sampson, CS Lotspeich.  1985. Wetlands reclamation using sand-clay mix from
   phosphate mines, pages 193-200 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed.. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual
   Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
   FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:            Florida (Hardee County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Forested
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:            -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                      52

-------
Miller, RJ and EE Macintosh.  1987. Sand and gravel rehabilitation in northern Ontario.  Ontario
   Ministry of Natural Resources, Aggregate Resources Section, Land Management Branch,
   Ontario, Canada. 24 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Policy
   REGION/STATE:            Canada (Ontario)
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Sand and gravel mining
   WETLAND USE:            -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Miller, TS. 1987.  Techniques used to enhance, restore, or create freshwater wetlands in the
   Pacific Northwest.  Pages 116-121 IN: K.M. Mutz and L.C. Lee, Technical Coordinators,
   Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems of the American West: Eighth Annual Meeting of the
   Society of Wetland Scientists, Wilmington, NC.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation. Restoration, Enhancment, Techniques
   REGION/STATE:            Pacific Northwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine, Riparian
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC  THEME:       —
Miller, W.  1988. Plants for man-made wetlands:  A growth industry.  Florida Environment.
   (April):!, 17.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview (vegetation), Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Florida
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Monsen. SB. 1983.  Plants for revegetation of riparian sites within the intermountain region.
    Pages 83-89 IN: S.B. Monson and N. Shaw, Compilers, Managing Intermountain
    Rangelands—Improvement of Range and Wildlife Habitats. USDA Forest Service
    Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report
    Int-152.

    EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           Intermountain
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   Grazing
    WETLAND USE:           Erosion control
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
                                       53

-------
Montalbano, F, KJ Foote, MW Olinde, and LS Perrin.  1979. The Kissimmee River
   channelization: A Preliminary evaluation of fish and wildlife mitigation measures. Pages
   508-515 IN: G.A. Swanson, Technical Coordinator, The Mitigation Symposium: A National
   Workshop on Mitigating Losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitat.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky
   Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO, General Technical Report
   RU-65.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Kissimmee River)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Channelization
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Murphy, S. 1988. Documentation of revegetation efforts in the Lower Colorado River Region.
    Draft Report, US Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Restoration, Enhancement, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           California and Arizona (lower Colorado River)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                  Damming, Channelization
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
 Mutz, KM and LB Dalton.  1986 Mitigating impacts of coal mining in Utah. Pages 182-184 IN:
    J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen. and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland
    Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers,
    Berne, NY.

    EMPHASIS:                 Mitigation, Creation, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:            Utah
    WETLAND TYPE:           Riparian
    IMPACT:                   Coal mining
    WETLAND USE:            Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
 Mutz, KM and LC Lee.  1987. Wetland and riparian ecosystems of the American West: Eighth
    anuual meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists. May 26-29, 1987, Seattle, Washington.

    EMPHASIS:                Symposium: Creation, Restoration. Enhancement,
                               Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:            Western US
    WETLAND TYPE:           —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:            —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       54

-------
Mutz, KM, DJ Cooper, ML Scott, and LK Miller. 1988. Restoration, creation, and management
   of wetland and riparian ecosystems in the American West:  A symposium of the Rocky
   Mountain Chapter of the Society of Wetland Scientists. 14-16 November,  1988, Denver,
   Colorado.

   EMPHASIS:                Symposium:  Creation, Restoration, Enhancement,
                               Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Western US
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC  THEME:       —
Nawrat, JR.  1985.  Wetland development on coal mine slurry impoundments: Principles,
   planning, and practices. Pages 161-172 IN: R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill, Editors,
   Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands, Proceedings of a Workshop, Pennsylvania
   State University, School of Forest Resources, University Park.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                  Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Soils, Water quality
Nawrat, JR.  1981. Stabilization of slurry impoundments without soil cover:  Factors affecting
    vegetation establishment.  Pages 469^75 IN: D.H. Graves, Ed. Proceedings of the 1981
    Symposium on Surface Mining Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation, University of
    Kentucky, OES Publications, Lexington.

    EMPHASIS:                Feasibility investigation
    REGION/STATE:           Illinois
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  Coal mining
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Soils
Nawrot. JR, DM Downing, and ML Fuson. 1981. Reedgrass and slurry pond reclamation.
    Mining Congress Journal.  67(9):23-28.

    EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Illinois (Carlinville; Mine No. 1 Monterey Coal Company)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  Coal mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation. Soils
                                       55

-------
Nawrot, JR, and WD Klimstra.  1985. Mined land wetlands:  Research activities of the
   cooperative wildlife research laboratory. Mineral Matters 7(2): 1-2.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Effectiveness. Overview
   REGION/STATE:           Indiana, Illinois
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat, Recreation
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Nawrot, JR, and WD Klimstra. 1986. Wetland habitat reclamation: It's a wonder we have any.
   Mineral Matters
   EMPHASIS:               Reclamation, Policy
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  Coal Mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Nawrat, JR and DB Warburton.  1986. Wetland habitat development techniques for coal mine
   slurry impoundments. Pages 587-612 IN: Proceedings of the National Mined Land
   Reclamation Conference, October 28-29, St. Louis, MO.

   EMPHASIS:               Revegetation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:         -
   IMPACT:                  Coal Mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Nawrot, JR, A Woolf, and WD Klimstra. 1982. A guide for enhancement of fish and wildlife on
   abandoned mine lands in the eastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
   FWS/OBS-80-67. 101pp.

   EMPHASIS:               Overview:  Reclamation, Feasibility
   REGION/STATE:           Eastern
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                      56

-------
Nawrot, JR and SC Yaich.  1982. Slurry discharge management for wetland soils development.
   Pages 11-18 IN:  D.H. Graves, Ed.  Proceedings of the 1981 Symposium on Surface Mining
   Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation, University of Kentucky, OES Publications,
   Lexington.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois, Indiana
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Mine slurry ponds
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Soils, vegetation, water quality
Nawrot, JR and SC Yaich.  1982. Slurry pond forestation:  Potential and problems. Pages
   180-194 IN: P.E. Pope, Ed., Proceedings of the Third Annual Better Reclamation with Trees
   Conference. Perdue University, Department of Forest and Natural Resources, West Lafayette,
   In.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois, Indiana
   WETLAND TYPE:          Forested
   IMPACT:                   Mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Nawrot, JR. and SC Yaich. 1982.  Wetland development potential of coal mine tailings.  Wetlands
   2:179-190.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique, Plan
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Newton, J.  1984.  Fifteenmile Creek Riparian Recovery, Wasco County, Oregon.  Pages 80-83 IN:
    Proceedings, Pacific Northwest Range Management Short Course:  Range watersheds, riparian
    zones, and economics.  Interrelationships in management and use.  Oregon State University,
    Corvallis.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Oregon (Wasco County)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   Channelization
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      -
                                       57

-------
Niering, WA and ML Kraus,  1986. Science base for freshwater wetland mitigation in the
   northeastern United States:  Vegetation. Pages 122-130 IN: J.S. Larson, and C. Neill, Eds.,
   Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United States: An
   Assessment of the Science Base. University of Massachusetts, Environmental Institute,
   Amherst, Publication No. 87-1.

   EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview
   REGION/STATE:           Northeast
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC  THEME:       Vegetation
Norrgard, R. 1986.  Additional comments on wetland restoration.  Pages 38-48 IN: J.L. Piehl,
   Ed., Proceedings, Wetland Restoration: A Techniques Workshop.  Minnesota Chapter of the
   Wildlife Society, Fergus Falls.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Restoration, Planning
   REGION/STATE:           Minnesota
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
O'Brien, AL.  1986. Hydrology and the construction of a mitigating wetland. Pages 82-100  IN:
   J.S. Larson, and C. Neill, Eds., Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated
   Northeastern United States:  An Assessment of the Science Base.  University of
   Massachusetts, Environmental Institute, Amherst, Publication No. 87-1.

   EMPHASIS:                 Scientific overview: Mitigation
   REGION/STATE:            Northeast
   WETLAND TYPE:           —
   IMPACT:                    -
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology
O'DonneJl, A.  1987.  The policy implications of wetland creation.  Pages 141-144 IN: J. Zelazny
    and J.S. Feierabend. Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.
    National Wildlife Federation. Washington. DC.

    EMPHASIS:                 Overview: Policy, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:            -
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:            —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
                                       58

-------
O'Leary, WG. 1980.  Waterfowl habitats provided by surface mine wetlands in southwestern
   Illinois.  M.A. Thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 141 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois (Perry County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
O'Leary, WG, WD Klimstra, and JR Nawrot. 1984.  Waterfowl habitats on reclaimed surface
   mined lands in southwestern Illinois.  Pages 377-382 IN: D.H. Graves, Ed.  Proceedings of the
   1981 Symposium on Surface Mining Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation, University
   of Kentucky, OES Publications, Lexington.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Surface mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Soils,  Water quality, Vegetation


Odum, WE.  1987. Predicting ecosystem development following creation and restoration of
   wetlands.  Pages 67-70 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland
   Resources, Proceedings of a Conference. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Restoration, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           -
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Ogawa, H, AM Asce. and JA Male.  1985. Simulating the flood mitigation role of wetlands.
    Journal of Water Resources, Planning and Management.  112(1): 114-128.

    EMPHASIS:                Overview: Mitigation, Evaluation
    REGION/STATE:           Massachusetts
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           Flood mitigation
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology
                                       59

-------
Oldenberg, RC, RA Montgomery, TM Harder, and GV Burger.  1982. Gravel pits as fish and
   wildlife habitat at the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation.  Pages 215-220 IN: W.D. Svedarsky
   and R.D. Crawford, Eds., Wildlife Values of Gravel Pits. University of Minnesota,
   Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Miscellaneous Publication 17-1982.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois (Kane County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Gravel mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Pandit, AK and DN Fotedar. 1982. Restoring damaged wetlands for wildlife. Journal of
    Environmental Management 14:359-368.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Management, Plan only
    REGION/STATE:           India (Srinagar)
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Wildlife, Vegetation
Patchett, JM.  1982. Conservation, recreation, mining, and rehabilitation in Story County, Iowa.
    Pages 89-94 IN: W.D. Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford, Eds., Wildlife Values of Gravel Pits.
    University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Miscellaneous Publication
    17-1982.

    EMPHASIS:               Reclamation, Planning
    REGION/STATE:           Iowa (Storey County)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   Gravel mining
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
 Perkins, GA and LA Lawrence.  1985.  Bird use of wetlands created by surface mining.
    Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science. 78(1-2):87-95.

    EMPHASIS:               Natural Restoration. Effectiveness, Monitoring
    REGION/STATE:           Illinois (west-central)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  Surface mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Wildlife
                                       60

-------
Pesavento, BG. 1984.  Factors to be considered when constructing wetlands for utilization as
   biomass filters to remove minerals from solution. Pages 45-49 IN:  J.E. Burris, Ed.,
   Treatment of Mine Drainage by Wetlands. Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
   Contribution No. 264.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Creation, Design criteria
   REGION/STATE:            —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Mine drainage
   WETLAND USE:            Water treatment ("Biomass filters")
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
Peters, CR.  1986. The significance of hydrogeology to the mitigation of functions in freshwater
   wetlands of the glaciated northeast.  Pages 337-339 IN: J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G.
   Brooks,  Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and
   Losses.  Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Creation, Mitigation, Assessment, Design criteria,
                              Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           Northeast
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Hydrology, Hydrogeology
Piehl, J. 1986.  Restoration of drained wetlands.  Pages 33-37 IN: J.L. Piehl, Ed., Proceedings,
    Wetland Restoration:  A Techniques Workshop. Minnesota Chapter of the Wildlife Society,
    Fergus Falls.

    EMPHASIS:                 Restoration. Technique. Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:            Minnesota (west-central)
    WETLAND TYPE:           Palustrine
    IMPACT:                    —
    WETLAND USE:            Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:        —
Pierce, GJ.  1986. In kind vs. out-of-kind wetland replacement. Pages 287-288 IN:  J.A. Kusler,
    M.L. Quammen. and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium:
    Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

    EMPHASIS:                 Mitigation, Success evaluation criteria
    REGION/STATE:            -
    WETLAND TYPE:           —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:            —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       61

-------
Pierce, GJ. 1986. Succession and stability in freshwater marshes in the northeastern United
   States.  Pages 323-324 IN:  J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of
   the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State
   Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview
   REGION/STATE:            Northeast
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Wetland dynamics


Pierce, GJ and AB Amerson.  1981. A pilot project for wetlands construction on the floodplain of
   the Allegeny River in Cattaraugus County, New York. Pages 140-153 IN:  R.H. Stovall, Ed.,
   Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.
   Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Technique, Planning
   REGION/STATE:            New York (Cattaraugus County, Allegheny River)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Highway construction
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Platts, WS, C Armour, CD Booth. M Bryant, JL Bufford, P Cuplin, et al. 1987. Methods for
   evaluating riparian habitats with application to management.  USDA Forest Service
   Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report. INT-221.  177 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Evaluation, Monitoring, Technique, Management
   REGION/STATE:           -
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Platts, WS, SE Jenson, and C Johnson. 1987. Mitigation through restoration of degraded
    riverine/riparian ecosystems in the Great Basin hydrographic region and Snake River
    hydrographic subregion. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, Unpublished
    Report.  104 pp.

    EMPHASIS:               Mitigation, Restoration, Planning, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Great Basin, Snake River
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
                                       62

-------
Posey, DM, DC Goforth and P. Painter. 1984.  Ravenwood Shellrock Mine: Wetland and upland
   restoration and creation. Pages 127-134 IN: EJ. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Eleventh
   Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College,
   Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:               Creation, Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Shellrock Mine, Ravenwood
   WETLAND TYPE:         PaJustrine
   IMPACT:                  Residential development
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation
Price, JW.  1987. The marsh that Arcata built. Sierra 72(3):51-53.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           California (Arcata)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           Wastewater treatment, Habitat, Recreation, Aestetics
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
Prichard, DE and LL Upham.  1986. Texas Creek riparian enhancement study. Transactions of
    the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 51:298-303.

    EMPHASIS:                Enhancement, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Colorado (Texas Creek)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   Grazing
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
 Princeton Aqua Science. 1985. Compliance, mitigation, and marsh creation survey and report.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Mitigation, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           COE Baltimore District (17 projects)
    WETLAND TYPE:          -
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       63

-------
Pritchett, DA. 1987. Creation, restoration, and enhancement of vernal pools. Restoration and
   Management Notes 5(2):92.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Restoration, Enhancement, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            California (Santa Barbara)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Vernal pools
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Hydrology


Quammen, ML.  1986.  Measuring the success of wetlands mitigation. National Wetlands
   Newsletter. 8(5):6-8.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Mitigation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Quammen, ML.  1986. Summary of the conference and information needs for mitigation in
   wetlands. Pages 151-158 IN: R. Strickland, Ed. Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and
   Creation in the Pacific Northwest: The State of our Understanding. Washington State
   University, Department of Ecology, Olympia, Publication No. 86-14.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview, Mitigation, Creation, Restoration, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Raisanen, DL, SD Leimer. and GN Textor. 1988.  Hydroperiod prediction for four new palustrine
   wetlands. Pages 144-151 IN: J.A. Kusler and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National
   Wetland Symposium: Wetland Hydrology.  September 16-18 1987, Chicago, Illinois
   Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Research: Creation, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois (Du Page River)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrologic modelling
                                      64

-------
Redmond, AM. 1981.  Considerations for the design of an artificial marsh for use in stormwater
   renovation.  Pages 188-199 IN: R.H. Stovall, Ed., Proceedings of the Eighth Annual
   Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.  Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
   FL.
   EMPHASIS:
   REGION/STATE:
   WETLAND TYPE:
   IMPACT:
   WETLAND USE:
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:
Creation, Technique, Plan only
Florida (Lake Jackson)
Palustrine

Water quality improvement
Reed, SC, EJ Middlebrooks, JC Corey, CW Hall, WE Odum, and JM Davidson.  1987.  Research
   and development needs for utilization of aquatic plants for water treatment and resource
   recovery. Pages 1009-1022 IN: K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith, Eds., Aquatic Plants for Water
   Treatment and Resource Recovery. Magnolia Publications, Orlando, FL.
    EMPHASIS:
    REGION/STATE:
    WETLAND TYPE:
    IMPACT:
    WETLAND USE:
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:
Scientific overview
Wastewater treatment
Vegetation, Soils, Water quality, Engineering
Reimoid, RJ and SA Cobler.  1986. Wetland mitigation effectiveness. U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Boston, MA. 139 pp.
    EMPHASIS:
    REGION/STATE:
    WETLAND TYPE:
    IMPACT:
    WETLAND USE:
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:
Creation, Mitigation, Effectiveness
Northeast, five sites (two freshwater)

Development
 Reimoid, RJ and DA Thompson.  1986. Wetland mitigation effectiveness. 1986. Pages 259-262
    IN: J.A. Kusler. L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland
    Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers,
    Berne, NY.
    EMPHASIS:
    REGION/STATE:
    WETLAND TYPE:
    IMPACT:
    WETLAND USE:
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:
Creation. Mitigation, Effectiveness
Northeast, five sites (two freshwater)

Development
                                       65

-------
Richardson, B.  1988. Highway wetland mitigation—everyone can be a winner.  Pages 149-153 IN:
   J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a
   Conference. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:           Arkansas (Pine Bluff)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Bottomland hardwoods
   IMPACT:                   Highway construction
   WETLAND USE:           Floodwater storage capacity, habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Rink, LP and JR Windell. 1988.  Riparian wetland enhancement in the San Miguel River Valley,
   Telluride, Colorado. Pages 102-108 IN:  K.M. Mutz, J.J. Cooper, M.L. Scott and L.K. Miller,
   Technical Coordinators, Restoration, Creation, and Management of Wetland and Riparian
   Ecosystems in the American West.  Society of Wetland Scientists, Rocky Mountain Chapter,
   Denver, CO.

   EMPHASIS:                Enhancement
   REGION/STATE:            Colorado (Telluride)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            Buffer zone, Water quality improvement, Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME  :     —
Roberts, C. and J. Graves.  1978. Sand and gravel mining and reclamation to benefit wildlife.
   Colorado State University Department of Natural Resources, Fort Collins. 59 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Reclamation. Technique. Planning
   REGION/STATE:           Colorado (Timnath, Cache La Poudre River)
   WETLAND TYPE:          -
   IMPACT:                   Sand and gravel mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Robertson, D, R Garcia and K Piwowar.  1987. Comparison of wetland habitat in undisturbed
    and reclaimed phosphate surface-mined wetlands. Pages 180-193 IN:  F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed.,
    Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.
    Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Effectiveness, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (South Prong Alafia River)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Food Chain
                                       66

-------
Robertson, D.  1988. Project documents recovery of reclaimed stream, forest community
   (Florida). Restoration and Management Notes 2(2):80.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Florida (central, Sink Branch)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Robertson, DJ. 1984. Sink Branch—stream relocation and forested wetland reclamation by the
   Florida phosphate industry.  Pages 135-151 IN: FJ. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the
   Eleventh Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community
   College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Florida (central. Sink Branch)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Food chain, Vegetation


Robertson, SB. 1988. Hydrology of arctic wetlands. Pages 262-269 IN: J.A. Kusler and G.
   Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium:  Wetland Hydrology.
   September 16-18 1987. Chicago, Illinois Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview
   REGION/STATE:            Arctic
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Hydrology
Roelle, J.E. and K.M. Manci.  1989. Postproject analyses of fish and wildlife mitigation.
    Presentation to "The Scientific Challenge of NEPA:  Future Directions Based on 20 Years of
    Experience". October 24-27, 1989.

    EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           -
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       67

-------
Roesser, JC Jr.  1988. Blue River Reclamation Project, Breckinridge, Colorado. Pages 94-101 IN:
   K.M. Mutz, J J. Cooper, M.L. Scott and L.K. Miller, Technical Coordinators, Restoration,
   Creation, and Management of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems in the American West.
   Society of Wetland Scientists, Rocky Mountain Chapter, Denver, CO.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Colorado (Breckinridge)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Mining, Development
   WETLAND USE:           -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Ross, D, C Kocur, and W. Jurgens.  1985. Wetlands creation techniques for heavy construction
   equipment. Pages 21-220 IN: EJ. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual
   Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.  Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
   FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Desota County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Rossiter, JA and RD Crawford. 1981. Evaluation of constructed ponds as a means of replacing
    natural wetland habitat affected by highway projects in North Dakota. University of North
    Dakota, Department of Biology, Grand Forks.  U.S. Department of Transportation.
    FHWA-ND-RD-(2>-79A.  NTIS. 169pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation. Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           North Dakota (Pembena. Pierce, and Barnes Counties,
                              18 sites)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Highway construction
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat'
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
 Rossiter, JA and RD Crawford. 1984.  Evaluation of artificial wetlands in North Dakota:
    Recommendations for future design and construction. Transportation Research Record.
    948-21-25.

    EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Design, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           North Dakota
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
                                       68

-------
Ruesch, KJ. 1983.  A survey of wetland reclamation projects in the Florida phosphate industry.
   Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow. 59 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Reclamation, Effectiveness, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (35 sites)
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME  :     —
Rushton, BT. 1983.  Examples of natural wetland succession as a reclamation alternative. Pages
   148-169 IN: D.J. Robertson Ed., Reclamation and the Phosphate Industry: Proceedings of
   the Symposium. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Natural restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation succession
Sandrik, SR, and RF Crabill. 1983.  Natural systems reclamation at the Amax Chemical
   Corporation Big Four Mine.  Pages 227-231 IN: D.J. Robertson Ed., Reclamation and the
   Phosphate Industry:  Proceedings of the Symposium. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research,
   Bartow, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (west central, Big Four Mine)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine, forested
   IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation


Sapa, AJ.  1979. Restoration of wildlife habitats to offset project losses. Garrison Diversion Unit,
   North Dakota. Pages 318-321 IN:  G.A. Swanson, Technical Coordinator, The Mitigation
   Symposium: A National Workshop on Mitigating Losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
   USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,
   CO, General Technical Report RM-65.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation. Restoration, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:           North Dakota (Garrison Diversion Unit)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Prairie wetland
   IMPACT:                  Water development
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       69

-------
Schneller-McDonald, K, LS Ischinger, and GT Auble. 1989.  Wetland creation and restoration:
   Description and summary of the literature. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report
   89( ).

   EMPHASIS:                Bibliography:  Creation, Restoration, Enhancement
   REGION/STATE:            US
   WETLAND TYPE:          -
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Schwartzmeier, J. 1977. Opening statement on wetland restoration. Pages 129-131 IN: C.B.
   Dewitt and E. Soloway, Eds.. Wetlands Ecology, Values, and Impacts.  Proceedings of the
   Waubesa Conference on Wetlands.  University of Wisconsin, Institute of Environmental
   Studies, Madison.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Wisconsin (Waukesha County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Sempek, JE, and CW Johnson.  1987.  Wetlands enhancement at the Ogden Nature Center in
    Ogden. Utah. Pages 161-165 IN: K.M. Mutz and L.C. Lee, Technical Coordinators, Wetland
    and Riparian Ecosystems of the American West:  Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of
    Wetland Scientists, Wilmington. NC.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Utah (Ogden)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Water Pollution
    WETLAND USE:           Recreation, Education, Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation


Shuey, AG and LJ Swanson. Jr. 1979.  Creation of freshwater marshes in west central Florida.
    Pages 57-76 IN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Wetland
    Restoration and Creation.  Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Techniques
    REGION/STATE:           Florida (Four Corners Mine, Hillsborough, Manatee Counties)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality, vegetation
                                       70

-------
Simmering, RW. 1986.  Mitigating impacts of Louisiana SCS watershed projects. Pages 142-144
   IN: J.A. Kusler, L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland
   Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.  Association of State Wetland Managers,
   Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:               Mitigation: Creation
   REGION/STATE:           Louisiana
   WETLAND TYPE:          Forested wetlands
   IMPACT:                  Agriculture
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Smith, LM and JA Kadlec.  1983.  Seed banks and their role during drawdown of a North
   American Marsh. Journal of Applied Ecology. 20:673-684.

   EMPHASIS:               Scientific overview
   REGION/STATE:           Utah (Ogden Bay Waterfowl Management Unit)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Seedbanks, Vegeation, Soils
Smith, RD and JH Sather.  1985.  The Des Plains River Wetlands Demonstration Project, Vol. IV:
   Research Plan. Wetlands Research, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Plan only
   REGION/STATE:            Illinois (Lake County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC  THEME:       —
 Snyder, BD and JL Snyder. 1984.  Feasibility of using oil shale wastewater for waterfowl wetlands.
   ' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/01.  290 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Feasibility, Technique
    REGION/STATE:           Rocky Mountains
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine ("waterfowl wetlands")
    IMPACT:                   Oil shale wastewater
    WETLAND USE:           Water quality improvement, habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                      71

-------
Snydc~. CD and EC Aharrah.  1984. The influence of the Typha community on mine drainage.
   Pages 149-153 IN: D.H. Graves, Ed., Proceedings of the 1984 Symposium on Surface Mining,
   Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation. University of Kentucky. OES Publication,
   Lexington.

   EMPHASIS:               Research
   REGION/STATE:           Pennsylvania (Clarion County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Water quality improvement
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Water quality, Vegetation


Sorenson, J.  1982. Towards an overall strategy in designing wetland restorations. Pages 85-% IN:
   M. Josselyn, Ed, Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California.  University of
   California, California Sea Grant College Program, La Jolla, Report T-CSGCP-007.

   EMPHASIS:               Overview:  Restoration, Design, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           California
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Southern Tier Consulting.  1987. Wetland demonstration project. New York Department of
   Transportation, AJbany, Contract No. D250336-CPIN5119-01.321.

   EMPHASIS:               Mitigation, Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           New York (Cattaraugus County)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Highway construction
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat'
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation
Spence, DHN. 1982.  The zonation of plants in freshwater lakes. Pages 37-125 IN: A.
   MacFadyen and E.D. Ford, Eds., Advances in Ecological Research. Volume 12.  Academic
   Press. New York.

   EMPHASIS:               Research
   REGION/STATE:          European lakes
   WETLAND TYPE:         Lacustrine
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:          —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Plant zonation
                                      72

-------
Spencer, DF. 1987.  Tuber size and planting depth influence growth of Potomogeton Pectinatus L.
   American Midland Naturalist. 118(l):77-84.

   EMPHASIS:                Research:  Greenhouse
   REGION/STATE:           California (Solano County)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation growth
Stanley, JT. 1989. Riparian wetland creation and restoration in the far west: A compilation of
   information. Pages 417^64 IN:  Wetland Creation and Restoration:  The Status of the
   Science. Vol. 1. EPA 600/3-89/038a.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Creation, Restoration, Enhancement, Technique,
                              Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           West
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine emergent and Riparian
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Steiner, GR, JT Watson. DA Hammer, and DF Harker Jr. 1987.  Municipal wastewater treatment
   with artificial wetlands—A TVA/Kentucky Demonstration. Pages 923-932 IN:  K.R. Reddy
   and W.H. Smith, Eds., Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.  Magnolia
   Publications, Orlando, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                 Creation, Design, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Kentucky (southwest)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                    —
   WETLAND USE:            Wastewater treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Engineering, Water quality, Vegetation


Street, M. 1982.  The Great Linford Project:  Waterfowl research in a gravel pit wildlife reserve.
   Pages 170-180 IN:  W.D. Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford, Eds., Wildlife Values of Gravel Pits.
   University of Minnesota. Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul. Miscellaneous Publication
   17-1982.

   EMPHASIS:                 Enhancement, Technique, Management, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            England
   WETLAND TYPE:          Lacustrine
   IMPACT:                    Gravel mining
   WETLAND USE:            Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Wildlife

-------
Strickland, R.  1986. Wetland functions, rehabilitation, and creation in the Pacific Northwest:
   The state of our understanding.  Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

   EMPHASIS:               Symposium Proceedings: Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Pacific Northwest
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Swanson, LJ, and AG Shuey.  1980.  Freshwater marsh reclamation in west central Florida. Pages
   51-61 LN: F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Wetland
   Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:               Reclamation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:          Florida (Hillsborough County, Alderman Creek)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Palustrine
   IMPACT:                  Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:          Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation
Swenson, EA. 1988. Progress in the understanding of how to reestablish native riparian plants in
    New Mexico. Pages 144-150 IN: K.M. Mutz, J.J. Cooper, M.L. Scott and L.K. Miller,
    Technical Coordinators. Restoration, Creation, and Management of Wetland and Riparian
    Ecosystems in the American West.  Society of Wetland Scientists, Rocky Mountain Chapter,
    Denver, CO.

    EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique
    REGION/STATE:            New Mexico
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   -
    WETLAND USE:            -
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation


Swenson, EA and CL Mullins.  1985. Revegetating riparian trees in southwestern floodplains.
    Pages 135-138 IN:  R.R. Johnson et al., Technical Coordinator, Riparian Ecosystems and their
    Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
    and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO, General Technical Report RM-120.

    EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique
    REGION/STATE:            New Mexico (Albuquerque)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:            —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
                                       74

-------
Szafoni, RE.  1982. Wildlife considerations in the development of riparian communities. Pages
   59-66 IN: W.D. Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford, Eds., Wildlife Values of Gravel Pits.
   University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Miscellaneous Publication
   17-1982.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Creation, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian (gravel pit lakes)
   IMPACT:                   Gravel mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Tetreault, TE. 1988.  Wetland replacement: Design, construction, and monitoring considerations.
    Pages 362-363 IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources,
    Proceedings of a Conference.  National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

    EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Creation. Design, Monitoring, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                  —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Thompson, CS.  1984. Experimental practices in surface coal mining:  Creating wetland habitat.
    National Wetlands Newsletter (March-April): 15-16.

    EMPHASIS:                 Reclamation, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:            —
    WETLAND TYPE:           Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Coal Mining
    WETLAND USE:            Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
 Tuovila, BJ, TH Johengen, PA Larock. JB Outland, DH Esry, and M Franklin.  1987. An
    evaluation of the Lake Jackson (Florida) filter system and artificial marsh on nutrient and
    paniculate removal from stormwater runoff.  Pages 271-278 IN: K.R. Reddy and W.H. Smith,
    Eds., Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. Magnolia Publications,
    Orlando, FL.

    EMPHASIS:                 Creation, Effectiveness. Monitoring
    REGION/STATE:            Florida (Lake Jackson)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Lacustrine
    IMPACT:                   Water pollution
    WETLAND USE:            Water quality improvement
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
                                       75

-------
Tupa. M, E Olgeirson, and M Stevens. 1988.  Beaver Creek stream relocation and restoration.
   Beaver Creek Ski Area, Avon, Colorado.  Pages 112-114 IN:  K.M. Mutz, J J. Cooper, M.L.
   Scott and L.K. Miller, Technical Coordinators, Restoration, Creation, and Management of
   Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems in the American West.  Society of Wetland Scientists,
   Rocky Mountain Chapter, Denver, CO.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Colorado (Avon)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Development
   WETLAND USE:            Aestetics
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  1986. Beneficial uses of dredged material: Engineering and
    design. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief Engineer, Washington, D.C. EM
    1110-2-5026. 272pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Overview: Planning, Design, Management
    REGION/STATE:           —
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   Dredged material
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983.  Carrols Channel Restoration Project, Columbia River,
    Cowlitz County, Washington.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, Unpublished
    Report. 13 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Restoration
    REGION/STATE:           Washington (Cowlitz County, Columbia River)
    WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
    IMPACT:                   Filling
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986.  A status report: Operation of an interagency agreement for
    replacing easement wetlands affected by highway projects in North Dakota. U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Bismark, ND, Unpublished Report.  22 pp.

    EMPHASIS:                Overview:  Policy
    REGION/STATE:           North Dakota
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   Highway Development
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       76

-------
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1985. Evaluation of mitigation wetlands: U.S. Highway 83
   between Bismark and Minot.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismark, ND, Unpublished
   Report.  10 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation, Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           North Dakota (Highway 83)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Highway development
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Wildlife, Hydrology
U.S. General Accounting Office.  1988. Public rangelands:  some riparian areas restored but
   widespread improvements will be slow. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
   GAO/RCED-88-105. 85pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Restoration, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           West (22 areas)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                   Rangeland use
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Uebelhoer, G. 1979.  Problems associated with the successful recreation of wetlands in mined
   areas of Desoto and Manatee Counties, Florida. Pages 102-126 IN:  D.P. Cole, Ed.,
   Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation.
   Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Research: Existing wetlands
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Desoto and Manatee Counties)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, Soils, Hydrology


Ulrich, KE and TM Burton. 1985. The establishment and management of emergent vegetation in
   sewage-fed artificial marshes and the effects of these marshes on water quality. Wetlands
   (4):205-220.

   EMPHASIS:                Research
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Wastewater
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Plant growth. Water quality
                                       77

-------
Vance, HA.  1988. Hydrology and hydraulic requirements of successful wetlands. Pages 283-286
   IN: J.A. Kusler and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium:
   Wetland Hydrology. September 16-18 1987, Chicago, Illinois Association of State Wetland
   Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:               Overview:  Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Hydrology
Vaugnt, R and J Bowmastt... 1983.  Missouri wetlands and their management. Missouri
   Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 23 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Management, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Missouri
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Veneman, PLM. 1986. Science base for freshwater wetland mitigation in the Northeast United
   States: Soils.  Pages 115-121  IN: J.S. Larson, and C. Neill, Eds., Mitigating Freshwater
   Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United States: An Assessment of the
   Science Base.  University of Massachusetts, Environmental Institute, Amherst, Publication
   No. 87-1.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Mitigation
   REGION/STATE:           Northeast
   WETLAND TYPE:          -
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Soils
Walker, R. 1988.  Phosphate mining and wetlands creation: A company perspective.  Pages 37-40
    IN: J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a
    Conference. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

    EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           Florida, North Carolina
    WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
    IMPACT:                   Phosphate mining
    WETLAND USE:           Habitat
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                      78

-------
Walker, S.  1986. A review of past mitigation projects in Florida. Pages 256-258 IN: J.A. Kusler,
   L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds., Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium:
   Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:                Mitigation: Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Florida
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       -
Warburton, DB, WD Klimstra. and JR Nawrot. 1985.  Aquatic macrophyte propagation and
   planting practices for wetland development. Pages 139-152  IN:  R.P. Brooks, D.E. Samuel,
   and J.B. Hill, Eds., Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands, Proceedings of a
   Workshop.  Pennsylvania State University School of Forest Resources, University Park.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Technique, Monitoring
   REGION/STATE:           Illinois
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation
Watson. JT FD Diodato, M Lauch.  1986.  Design and performance of the artificial wetlands
   wastewater treatment plant at Iselin, Pennsylvania. Pages 263-270 IN: JCR. Reddy and W.H.
   Smith, Eds., Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.  Magnolia
   Publications, Orlando, FL.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Pennsylvania (Iselin)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   Water Pollution
   WETLAND USE:           Wastewater treatment
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
Webb, FJ. 1973-1989. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration and
    Creation.  Hillsborough Community College, Environmental Studies Center.

    EMPHASIS:                Symposia Proceedings:  Creation, Restoration,  Effectiveness
    REGION/STATE:           United States
    WETLAND TYPE:          —
    IMPACT:                   —
    WETLAND USE:           —
    SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       79

-------
Wein, GR, S Kroeger, and GJ Pierce. 1987. Lacustrine vegetation establishment within a cooling
   reservoir. Pages 206-218 IN:  F.J. Webb, Jr., Ed., Proceedings of the Eighth Annual
   Conference on Wetland Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa,
   FL.

   EMPHASIS:               Mitigation, Revegetation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           South Carolina (Savannah River, L-Lake)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Lacustrine
   IMPACT:                  Energy development
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation


Wein, GR and WD McCort.  1988. Sources of complexity in wetland mitigation. Pages 41-50 IN:
   J. Zelazny and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a
   Conference. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:               Mitigation, Policy, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           South Carolina (Savannah River, L-Lake, Kathwood Lake)
   WETLAND TYPE:         Lacustrine
   IMPACT:                  Energy Development
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME  :     —
Weller, MW.  1981. Freshwater marshes: Ecology and wildlife management.  University of
   Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 146 pp.

   EMPHASIS:                Scientific overview:  Restoration, Management, Technique
   REGION/STATE:            —
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
White, JM, and LR Sinclair. 1979. Effect of plant spacing on growth and yield of transplanted
   cattails. Proceedings of the Soil and Crop Society.  Florida 38:18-20.

   EMPHASIS:                Research
   REGION/STATE:           Florida (Laudermilk Muck)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Plant growth
                                      80

-------
Wieder, RK, GE Lang, and AE Whitehouse. 1985.  Metal removal in Sphagnum-dominated
   wetlands: Experience with a man-made wetland system.  Pages 353-364 IN: R.P. Brooks,
   D.E. Samuel, and J.B. Hill, Eds., Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands,
   Proceedings of a Workshop.  Pennsylvania State University School of Forest Resources,
   University Park.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Maryland (McHenry)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Sphagnum bog
   IMPACT:                   Coal mining
   WETLAND USE:            Water quality improvement
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Water quality
Wilcox, DA, and RW Buchholz.  1986. Vegetation restoration in a road salt impacted bog
   (Indiana).  Restoration and Management News 4(1):28.

   EMPHASIS:                Revegetation, Technique, Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:            Indiana (LaPorte County, Pinhook Bog)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Bog
   IMPACT:                   Salt contamination
   WETLAND USE:            —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       Vegetation, water quality, soils
Wilhelm, M, SR Lawry, and DD Hardy.  1988. Creation and management of wetlands using
   municipal wastewater in Northern Arizona: A status report. Pages 154-159 IN: J. Zelazny
   and J.S. Feierabend, Eds., Increasing our Wetland Resources, Proceedings of a Conference.
   National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.

   EMPHASIS:                Creation, Effectiveness, Technique
   REGION/STATE:           Arizona (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Palustrine
   IMPACT:                   -
   WETLAND USE:           Wastewater treatment, habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
Willard. DE, VM Finn, DA Levine, and JE Karlquist.  1989. Creation and restoration of riparian
   wetlands in the agricultural midwest.  Pages 333-358 IN: Wetland Creation and Restoration:
   The Status of the Science. Vol. 1.  EPA 600/3-89/038a.

   EMPHASIS:                Overview: Creation, Restoration, Enhancement, Technique,
                              Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Midwest
   WETLAND TYPE:          Riparian
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:       —
                                       81

-------
Willard, DE and RB Reed.  1986.  The use of native species to restore and create wetland habitat
   for mitigation. Pages 340-342 IN: J.A. Kusler, L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, Eds.,
   Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses.
   Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.

   EMPHASIS:               Overview: Native plant species
   REGION/STATE:           —
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Wolverton, BC. 1979. Engineering design data for small vascular aquatic plant wastewater
   treatment systems. Pages 179-192 R.K. Bastian and S.C. Reed, Eds., Aquaculture Systems for
   Wastewater Treatment: Seminar Proceedings and Engineering Assessment. U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

   EMPHASIS:               Research
   REGION/STATE:          -
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:          —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Wastewater treatment
Wolverton, BC. 1987. Artificial marshes for wastewater treatment. Pages 141-151 IN: K.R.
   Reddy and WH. Smith, Eds.. Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.
   Magnolia Publications. Orlando, FL.

   EMPHASIS:               Overview
   REGION/STATE:           -
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Wastewater treatment
Zedler, J. 1986.  Wetland restoration:  Trials and errors of ecotechnology? Pages 11-16 IN: R.
   Strickland, Ed. Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest:
   The State of our Understanding. Washington State University, Department of Ecology,
   Olympia, Publication No. 86-14.

   EMPHASIS:               Overview: Feasibility
   REGION/STATE:           California
   WETLAND TYPE:         —
   IMPACT:                  -
   WETLAND USE:           -
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      -
                                      82

-------
Zelazny, J and JS Feierabend.  1988. Proceedings of a conference: Increasing our wetland
   resources. October 4-7, 1987. Washington B.C. National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
   DC.

   EMPHASIS:               Symposium: Creation, Restoration, Enhancement
   REGION/STATE:           US
   WETLAND TYPE:          —
   IMPACT:                  —
   WETLAND USE:           —
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      —
Zimmerman, JH.  1983.  The revegetation of a small Yahara Valley prairie fen. Wisconsin
   Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 71(2):87-102.

   EMPHASIS:               Restoration, Technique,  Effectiveness
   REGION/STATE:           Wisconsin (Madison, Cherokee Marsh City Park)
   WETLAND TYPE:          Fen
   IMPACT:                  Dredging
   WETLAND USE:           Habitat
   SCIENTIFIC THEME:      Vegetation

-------