Science requisites for cumulative effects assessment for wetlands

REFERENCES

• Abbruzzese B, Leibowitz SG. 1997. Environmental auditing: a synoptic approach for assessing cumulative impacts to wetlands. Environ Manage. 21(3):457–475.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ali GA, Roy AG. 2009. Revisiting hydrologic sampling strategies for an accurate assessment of hydrologic connectivity in humid temperate systems. Geogr Compass. 3(1):350–374.
   Google Scholar
• Bacchus S, Masour J, Madden M, Jordan T, Meng Q. 2011. Geospatial analysis of depressional wetlands near Peace River Watershed phosphate mines, Florida, USA. Environ Eng Geosci. 17(4):391–415.
   Google Scholar
• Bartzen BA, Dufour KW, Clark RG, Caswell FD. 2010. Trends in agricultural impact and recovery of wetlands in prairie Canada. Ecol Appl. 20(2):525–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedford BL. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecol Appl. 6(1):57–68.
   Google Scholar
• Bedford BL, Preston EM. 1988. Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: status, perspectives, and prospects. Environ Manage. 12(5):751–771.
   Google Scholar
• BenDor T. 2009. A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy. Lscape Urban Plann. 89(1–2):17–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkowitz J, Casper AF, Noble C. 2011. A multiple watershed field test of hydrogeomorphic functional assessment of headwater streams—variability in field measurements between independent teams. Ecol Indicators. 11(5):1472–1475.
   Google Scholar
• Birol E, Cox V. 2007. Using choice experiments to design wetland management programmes: the case of Severn estuary wetland, UK. J Environ Plann Manage. 50(3):363–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bizzi S, Surridge BWJ, Lerner DN. 2012. Structural equation modelling: a novel statistical framework for exploring the spatial distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates in riverine ecosystems. River Res Appl., https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/rra.2563.79(6):743–759.
   Google Scholar
• Brinson MM. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Vicksburg (MS): U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experimental Station.
   Google Scholar
• Brinson MM, Eckles SD. 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services: a synthesis. Ecol Appl. 21(sp1):S116–S127.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Cole CA, Campbell DA. 2005. Are we purveyors of wetland homogeneity?: a model of degradation of restoration to improve wetland mitigation performance. Ecol Eng. 24(4):331–340.
   Google Scholar
• Canter LW, Atkinson SF. 2011. Multiple uses of indicators and indices in cumulative effects assessment and management. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(5):491–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copeland HE, Tessman SA, Girvetz EH, Roberts L, Enquist C, Orabona A, Patla S, Kiesecker J. 2010. A geospatial assessment on the distribution, condition, and vulnerability of Wyoming's wetlands. Ecol Indicators. 10(4):869–879.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duinker PN, Burbidge EL, Boardley SR, Greig LA. 2013. Scientific dimensions of cumulative effects assessment: toward improvements in guidance for practice. Environ Rev. 21(1):40–52.
   Google Scholar
• Duinker PN, Greig LA. 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ Manage. 37(2):153–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erwin KL. 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetls Ecol Manage. 17(1):71–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faulkner S. 2004. Urbanization impacts on the structure and function of forested wetlands. Urban Ecosys. 7(2):89–106.
   Google Scholar
• Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME. 2007. An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands. 27(3):543–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fournier RA, Grenier M, Lavoie A, Hélie R. 2007. Towards a strategy to implement the Canadian wetland inventory using satellite remote sensing. Can J Remote Sens. 33(S1):S1–S16.
   Google Scholar
• Gebo NA, Brooks RP. 2012. Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) assessments of mitigation sites compared to natural reference wetlands in Pennsylvania. Wetlands. 32:321–331. https://doi.org/doi:10.1007/s13157-011-0267-3.
   Google Scholar
• Greig LA, Duinker PN. 2011. A proposal for further strengthening science in environmental impact assessment in Canada. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 29(2):159–165.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn JH, Noble BF. 2009. Integrating cumulative effects in regional strategic environmental assessment frameworks: lessons from practice. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 11(3):1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson A, Swanson L, Ewing D, Grabas G, Meyer S, Ross L, Watmough M, Kirkby J. 2008. Wetlands ecological functions assessment: an overview of approaches, Her Majesty the Queen in Right in Canada. Environment Canada Technical Report Series Number 497, 59 p.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson D, Lalonde K, McEachern M, Kenney J, Mendoza G, Buffin A, Rich K. 2011. Improving cumulative effects assessment in Alberta: regional strategic assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(5):481–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettlewell CI, Bouchard V, Porej D, Micacchion M, Mack JJ, White D, Fay L. 2008. An assessment of wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation in the Cuyahoga River Watershed, Ohio, USA. Wetlands. 28(1):57–67.
   Google Scholar
• King DM, Price EW. 2004. Developing defensible wetland mitigation ratios: a companion to ‘The five-step wetland mitigation ratio calculator’. Solomons (MD): University of Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Kusler J. 2006. Recommendations for reconciling wetland assessment techniques. Final report to Associate of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY., 120 pp. Available from http://50.22.144.62/∼aswm/pdf_lib/reconciling.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Laurance WF. 2010. Habitat destruction: death by a thousand cuts. In: Sodhi NS, Erhlich PR, editors. Conservation biology for all. NY: Oxford University Press. p. 73–87.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch AJJ. 2011. The usefulness of a threat and disturbance categorization developed for Queensland wetlands to environmental management, monitoring, and evaluation. Environ Manage. 47(1):40–55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecol Econ. 35(1):25–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NWWG National Wetlands Working Group. 1988. Wetlands of Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series, no. 24. Ottawa (ON): Environment Canada, Polyscience Publications, Inc., Montreal.
   Google Scholar
• Natural Resources Canada. 2004. The Atlas of Canada: wetlands, Available from: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J, Noble BF, Hill M. 2012. Wetland assessment and impact mitigation decision support framework for linear development projects: the Louis Riel trail, highway 11 north project, Saskatchewan, Canada. Can Geographer. 56(1):117–139.
   Google Scholar
• Noble BF, Hill M, Nielsen J. 2011. Environmental assessment framework for identifying and mitigating the effects of linear development to wetlands. Landscape Urban Plann. 99(2):133–140.
   Google Scholar
• Noble BF. 2008. Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: a case study of the Great Sand Hills, Canada. Impact Assess and Proj Apprais. 26(2):78–90.
   Google Scholar
• Preston EM, Bedford BL. 1988. Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland functions: a conceptual overview and generic framework. Environ Manage. 12(5):565–583.
   Google Scholar
• Quétier F, Lavorel S. 2011. Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: key issues and solutions. Biol Conserv. 144(12):2991–2999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rebelo L-M, Finlayson CM, Nagabhatla N. 2009. Remote sensing and GIS for wetland inventory, mapping and change analysis. J Environ Manage. 90(7):2144–2153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson CJ. 1994. Ecological functions and human values in wetlands: a framework for assessing forestry impacts. Wetlands. 14(1):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Rubec CDA, Hanson AR. 2009. Wetland mitigation and compensation: Canadian experience. Wetls Ecol Manage. 17(1):3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Sass GZ, Creed IF. 2008. Characterizing hydrodynamics on boreal landscapes using archived synthetic aperture radar imagery. Hydrol Process. 22(11):1687–1699.
   Google Scholar
• Seitz NE, Westbrook CJ, Noble BF. 2011. Bringing science into river systems cumulative effects assessment practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(3):172–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slotterback CS. 2011. Addressing climate change in state and local environmental impact analysis. J Environ Plann Manage. 54(6):749–767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squires AJ, Westbrook CJ, Dubé MG. 2010. An approach for assessing cumulative effects in a model river, the Athabasca River basin. Integr Environ Assess Manage. 6:119–134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, Ter Braak CJF. 2001. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat. 183:24–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright T, Tomlinson J, Schueler T, Cappiella K, Kitchell A, Hirschman D. 2006. Direct and indirect impacts of urbanization on wetland policy. Wetlands and Watersheds Article # 1. Washington (DC): Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, US Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Xie Z, Xu X, Yan L. 2010. Analyzing qualitative and quantitative changes in coastal wetland associated to the effects of natural and anthropogenic factors in a part of Tianjin, China. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 86(3):379–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar