Restoration Outcomes and Reporting: An Assessment of Wetland Area Gains in Wisconsin, USA

References

1. 1. Ballantine K.,
   2. Schneider R.

   2009 Fifty-five years of soil development in restored freshwater depressional wetlands. Ecological Applications 19:1467–1480.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
2. 1. Bedford B.L.

   1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetlands mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:57–68.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. 1. Bedford B.

   1999. Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: Links to wetland restoration in the United States and southern Canada. Wetlands 19:775–788.

   OpenUrlGeoRef
4. 1. Bernthal T,
   2. Hatch B.

   2007. Tracking wetland gains, losses and conservation activities in Wisconsin. A unified tracking and reporting system for wetland projects: Permitting, compensatory mitigation, and voluntary restoration. Final Report to U.S. EPA, Region V, Grant No. CD97593901, Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
5. 1. Brown S.C.,
   2. Veneman P.L.M.

   2001. Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21:508–518.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
6. 1. Burke V.J.,
   2. Gibbons J.W.

   2002. Terrestrial buffer zones and wetland conservation: A case study of freshwater turtles in a Carolina Bay. Conservation Biology 9:1365–1369.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Castelle A.J.,
   2. Johnson A.W.,
   3. Conolly C.

   1994. Wetland and stream buffer site requirements—A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878–882.

   OpenUrlGeoRefWeb of Science
8. 1. Cole C.A.,
   2. Brooks R.P.

   2000. A comparison of the hydrologic characteristics of natural and created mainstem floodplain wetlands in Pennsylvania. Ecological Engineering 14:221–231.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. 1. Council on Environmental Quality

   . 2005. Conserving America’s wetlands—Implementing the President’s goal. Washington, DC: The White House Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President.
10. 1. Council on Environmental Quality

    . 2008. Conserving America’s Wetlands. Washington, D.C.: The White House Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President.
11. 1. Cowardin L.M,
    2. Carter V.,
    3. Golet F.C.,
    4. LaRoe E.T.

    1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
12. 1. Dahl T.E.

    1990. Wetland losses in United States 1780s to 1980s. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
13. 1. Dahl T.E.

    2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
14. 1. Dahl T.E.

    2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
15. 1. Dahl T.E.

    2011. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service.
16. 1. Dahl T.E.,
    2. Allord G.J.

    1996. History of wetlands in the conterminous United States. Pages 19–25 in Fretwell J.D., Williams J.S., Redman P.J. (compilers). National Water Summary on Wetland Resources Water-Supply Paper 2425. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.
17. 1. Dahl T.E.,
    2. Bergeson M.T.

    2009. Technical procedures for conducting status and trends of the Nation’s wetlands. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation.
18. 1. Dahl T.E.,
    2. Johnson C.E.

    1991 Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid-1970s to mid-1980s. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
19. 1. Dahl T.E.,
    2. Stedman S.M.

    2013. Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
20. 1. Dahl T.E.,
    2. Watmough M.D.

    2007. Current approaches to wetland status and trends monitoring in prairie Canada and the continental United States of America. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 33 S1:S17–S27.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. 1. Dechka J.A.,
    2. Franklin S.E.,
    3. Watmough M.D.,
    4. Bennett R.P.,
    5. Ingstrup D.W.

    2002. Classification of wetland habitat and vegetation communities using multi-temporal Ikonos imagery in southern Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 28:679–685.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. 1. Frohn R.C.,
    2. Reif M.,
    3. Lane C.,
    4. Autrey B.

    2009. Satellite remote sensing of isolated wetlands using object-oriented classification of Landsat-7 data. Wetlands 29:931–941.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Gorham E.,
    2. Rochefort L.

    2003. Peatland restoration: A brief assessment with special reference to Sphagnum bogs. Wetlands Ecology and Management 11:109–119.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
24. 1. Hagen C

    . 2008. Reversing the loss: A strategy to protect, restore and explore Wisconsin wetlands. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
25. 1. Jenson J.R.

    2007. Remote Sensing of the Environment: An Earth Resource Perspective, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall Inc.
26. 1. Kentula M.E.

    1996. Wetland restoration and creation. Pages 97–92 in Fretwell J.D., Williams J.S., Redman P.J. (compilers). National Water Summary on Wetland Resources Water-Supply Paper 2425. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.
27. 1. Kentula M.E.,
    2. Sifneos J.C.,
    3. Good J.W.,
    4. Rylko M.,
    5. Kunz K.

    1992. Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environmental Management 16:109–119.

    OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRefWeb of Science
28. 1. Kline J.,
    2. Grasshoff R.,
    3. Simonsen J.

    2008. WisDOT wetland compensatory mitigation review, WDNR summary and recommendations. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
29. 1. McCoy R.M.

    2005. Field Methods in Remote Sensing. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30. 1. Moreno-Mateos D.,
    2. Power M.E.,
    3. Comín F.A.,
    4. Yockteng R.

    2012. Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems. PLoS Biol 10(1): e1001247doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
31. 1. Morgan K.L.,
    2. Roberts T.H.

    2003. Characterization of wetland mitigation projects in Tennessee, USA. Wetlands 23:65–69.

    OpenUrl
32. 1. National Academy of Sciences

    . 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. The National Academy Press (accessed February, 2013). ap.edu/catalog/10134.html.
33. 1. National Research Council

    . 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Committee on Characterization of Wetlands, Water Science and Technology Board. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. 1. Robb J.T.

    2002. Assessing wetland compensatory mitigation sites to aid in establishing mitigation ratios. Wetlands 22:435–440.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. 1. Rogan J.,
    2. Franklin J.,
    3. Roberts D.A.

    2002. A comparison of methods for monitoring multitemporal vegetation change using Thematic Mapper imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 80:143–156.

    OpenUrl
36. 1. Roghair L.D.

    2009. Pilot Study Sample data Transfer to Contributed Restored Wetlands Geodatabase. Blacksburg, VA: Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
37. 1. Thompson A.L.,
    2. Luthin C.S.

    2010. Wetland Restoration Hand-book for Wisconsin Landowners, 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Wetland Association and Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
38. 1. Watmough M.D.,
    2. Ingstrup D.W.,
    3. Duncan D.C.,
    4. Schinke H.J.

    2002. Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Habitat Monitoring Program Phase 1: Recent habitat trends in NAWMP targeted landscapes. Technical Report Series No. 391, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.
39. 1. Whigham D.F.

    1999. Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation and assessment. The Science of the Total Environment 240:31–40.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
40. 1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—St. Paul District, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region V and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

    . 2002. Guidelines for wetland compensatory mitigation in Wisconsin. PUB-SS-961. Madison, WI: Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
41. 1. Zedler J.B.

    2000. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15:402–407.

    OpenUrlPubMed
42. 1. Zedler J.B.,
    2. Kercher S.

    2005. Wetland Resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:39–74.

    OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRefWeb of Science
43. 1. Zohrer J.J.

    2001. Prairie/wetland complex restoration in the Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa. Pages 136–137 in Bernstein N.P., Ostrander L.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth North American Prairie Conference, Mason City, Iowa: North Iowa Area Community College.