Assessment of wetlands in the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA using the hydrogeomorphic approach

This paper reports on the ecological status of wetlands in the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA, as determined by employing the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach. HGM assessment provides a measure of the potential functional performance of a single wetland for up to 11 functions, depending on the subclass. Functional Capacity Index (FCI) scores calculated for each function range between a score of 1 (indicates the site is performing at optimum levels) and a score of 0 (indicates the site is not performing the function). Mean scores for all functions for the wetland resource in the Upper Juniata ranged from 0.48–0.63, except for Long-term Surface-Water Storage (0.39) and Characteristic Hydrology (0.85). Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) plots were fairly linear over most of the distribution for all functions, indicating that the FCI scores were evenly distributed over the population. Several of the plots flattened at the upper and/or lower ends of the curves, indicating that a very small proportion of the wetland area had the highest and lowest scores. Clustering of the 69 riverine and slope sites using the FCI scores from the three functions with the most well-developed models resulted in the formation of four Functional Status Groups (FSGs). Groups 1 and 2 represented relatively high functioning groups of sites. They were differentiated by an exceptionally high Plant Community Function in Group 1 that differed significantly from the low value in Group 2. FSG’s 3 and 4 represented relatively low functioning groups of sites and were differentiated by a significantly high Vertebrate Community Function in Group 3. We defined three reference domains (Natural, Agricultural, and Developed) based on predominant land cover. Sites of any given FSG were distributed across the reference domains, but there were some differences in distribution. Sites in the Natural Domain were much more likely to be in the higher functioning FSGs, while the Agricultural Domain was dominated by sites with an overall low level of functioning. Sites in the Developed Domain are equally distributed across the four FSGs. In summary, we demonstrated how HGM assessment might be employed to describe the functional status of the wetland resource in a watershed. We also demonstrated how the results of the assessment could be (1) used to evaluate the efficacy of the models comprising the HGM assessment and (2) combined with other data to identify relationships that could be used to develop management approaches.

[1]  Don L. Stevens,et al.  Sample design, execution, and analysis for wetland assessment , 2009, Wetlands.

[2]  Mary E. Kentula,et al.  Assessment of wetland condition: An example from the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA , 2007, Wetlands.

[3]  Mary E. Kentula,et al.  Combining HGM and EMAP procedures to assess wetlands at the watershed scale — status of flats and non-tidal riverine wetlands in the Nanticoke River watershed, Delaware and Maryland (USA) , 2007, Wetlands.

[4]  R. Brooks,et al.  Enhancing a landscape assessment with intensive data: A case study in the Upper Juniata watershed , 2007, Wetlands.

[5]  R. Brooks,et al.  Wetland hydrology as a function of hydrogeomorphic (HGM) subclass , 1997, Wetlands.

[6]  Charles Andrew Cole HGM and wetland functional assessment: Six degrees of separation from the data? , 2006 .

[7]  Robert P. Brooks,et al.  Inventorying and Monitoring Wetland Condition and Restoration Potential on a Watershed Basis with Examples from Spring Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania, USA , 2006, Environmental management.

[8]  A. Olsen,et al.  Spatially Balanced Sampling of Natural Resources , 2004 .

[9]  S. A. Peterson,et al.  Indicators of Ecological Stress and Their Extent in the Population of Northeastern Lakes: A Regional-Scale Assessment , 2002 .

[10]  E. Clairain Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions: Guidelines for Developing Regional Guidebooks. Chapter 1 - Introduction and Overview of the Hydrogeomorphic Approach , 2002 .

[11]  R. Smith,et al.  Hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions : guidelines for developing regional guidebooks. Chapter 7, Verifying, field testing, and validating assessment models , 2001 .

[12]  James S. Wakeley,et al.  Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions: Guidelines for Developing Regional Guidebooks. Chapter 4. Developing Assessment Models , 2001 .

[13]  R. Smith,et al.  Hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions: guidelines for developing regional guidebooks - chapter 3: developing a reference wetland system , 2001 .

[14]  Don L. Stevens,et al.  Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources , 1999 .

[15]  Thomas Hruby,et al.  Assessments of Wetland Functions: What They Are and What They Are Not , 1999, Environmental management.

[16]  R. Brooks,et al.  The Occurrence and Impact of Sedimentation in Central Pennsylvania Wetlands , 1998 .

[17]  Carl-Erik Särndal,et al.  Model Assisted Survey Sampling , 1997 .

[18]  Mark M. Brinson,et al.  The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional Assessment and Mitigation , 1996 .

[19]  Lyndon C. Lee,et al.  A Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands , 1995 .

[20]  R. Smith,et al.  An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices; [computer file] /; by R. Daniel Smith ... [et al.] ; prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. , 1995 .

[21]  M. Brinson A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands , 1993 .

[22]  V. R. Schneider,et al.  GUIDE FOR SELECTING MANNING'S ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENTS FOR NATURAL CHANNELS AND FLOOD PLAINS , 1989 .

[23]  D. L. Brakensiek,et al.  Estimation of Soil Water Properties , 1982 .