Wetland impacts in the Mid-Atlantic USA are frequently mitigated via wetland creation in former uplands. Regulatory approval requires a site-specific water budget that predicts the annual water level regime (hydroperiod). However, many studies of created wetlands indicate that post-construction hydroperiods frequently are not similar to impacted wetland systems. My primary objective was to evaluate a water budget model, Wetbud (Basic model), through comparison of model output to on-site water level data for two created forested wetlands in Northern Virginia. Initial sensitivity analyses indicated that watershed curve number and outlet height had the most leverage on model output. Addition of maximum depth of water level drawdown greatly improved model accuracy. I used Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) to evaluate goodness of fit of model output against site monitoring data. The Basic model reproduced the overall seasonal hydroperiod well once fully parameterized, despite NSE values ranging from -0.67 to 0.41 in calibration and from -4.82 to -0.26 during validation. For RMSE, calibration values ranged from 5.9 cm to 12.7 cm during calibration and from 8.2 cm to 18.5 cm during validation. My second objective was to select a group of "design target hydroperiods" for common Mid-Atlantic USA wetland types. From > 90 sites evaluated, I chose four mineral flats, three riverine wetlands, and one depressional wetland that met all selection criteria. Taken together, improved wetland water budget modeling procedures (like Wetbud) combined with the use of appropriate target hydroperiod information should improve the success of wetland creation efforts. / Master of Science / Wetlands in the USA are defined by the combined occurrence of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetlands serve to retain floodwater, sediments and nutrients within their landscape. They may serve as a source of local groundwater recharge and are home to many endangered species of plants and animals. Wetland ecosystems are frequently impacted by human activities including road-building and development. These impacts can range from the destruction of a wetland to increased nutrient contributions from storm- or wastewater. One commonly utilized option to mitigate wetland impacts is via wetland creation in former upland areas. Regulatory approval requires a site-specific water budget that predicts the average monthly water levels (hydroperiod). A hydroperiod is simply a depiction of how the elevation of water changes over time. However, many studies of created wetlands indicate that post-construction hydroperiods frequently are not representative of the impacted wetland systems. Many software packages, called models, seek to predict the hydroperiod for different wetland systems. Improving and vetting these models help to improve our understanding of how these systems function. My primary objective was to evaluate a water budget model, Wetbud (Basic model), through comparison of model output to onsite water level data for two created forested wetlands in Northern Virginia. Initial analyses indicated that watershed curve number (CN) and outlet height had the most influence on model output. Addition of a maximum depth of water level drawdown below the ground surface greatly improved model accuracy. I used statistical analyses to compare model output to site monitoring data. The Basic model reproduced the overall seasonal hydroperiod well once inputs were set to optimum values (calibration). Statistical results for the calibration varied between excellent and acceptable for our selected measure of accuracy, the root mean squared error. My second objective was to select a grouping of “design target hydroperiods” for common Mid-Atlantic USA wetland types. From > 90 sites evaluated, I chose four mineral flats, three riverine wetlands, and one depressional wetland that met all selection criteria. Taken together, improved wetland water budget modeling procedures (like Wetbud) combined with the use of appropriate target hydroperiod information should improve the success of wetland creation efforts.

The use of constructed wetlands and wet detention basins has proven to be highly effective in removing pollutants from industrial discharges and stormwater runoff throughout the world. This is attributed to design of the key treatment components in a constructed wetland, catchment source characteristics and climatic conditions. A disproportionate amount of research and monitoring effort has gone into constructed wetlands due to their cost effectiveness and ability to optimize multiple benefits. In Western Australia, several wetland monitoring studies on the role of constructed wetlands especially in Swan-Canning estuary have been done, but often do not address their design efficiencies in stormwater treatment. Two wetlands (Liege St and Tom Bateman wetland) constructed for nutrient stripping proximal to the Swan-Canning estuary have been monitored for two years. Liege St wetland was constructed to reduce the nutrients reaching the Canning River directly and improve the amenity value of the area. Similarly, Tom Bateman wetland was constructed to reduce nutrients of the Banister Creek catchment draining into the Canning River as well as for stormwater management and habitat use. Physicochemical and biological indicators were used to assess the nutrient stripping efficiency of the wetlands. In some cases, data from previous studies were used to determine the health and viability of the selected wetland sites. The limnological indicators used included; dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, electrical conductivity and nutrient levels. The biological included; bacteria, nutrients and chlorophyll in periphyton, macroinvertebrates and diatoms. Differences in the community structure of periphyton, macroinvertebrates and water quality were found from the inlet to the outlet in both Liege St and Tom Bateman wetlands. / Despite the poor water quality, Liege St wetland exhibited significant nutrient removal efficiencies for TP while Tom Bateman wetland had very high removal efficiency for TN. The TP removal in Liege St wetland was attributed to the design of key treatment components which included a gross pollutant trap, concrete lined sedimentation pond, vegetated sumplands, weirs and clay lining for the wetland bed. In contrast, Tom Bateman wetland lacked the above key treatment components. Additionally, the wetland experienced short-circuiting especially during high flow periods. The high TN removal in Tom Bateman wetland was attributed to assimilation by plants and micro-organisms especially by the dense growth of Potamogeton crispus observed on the wetland floor and the non- biological transformation processes such as volatilisation, sorption and sedimentation. The poor water quality of the inflow in both wetlands was attributed to catchment characteristics which were not fully investigated in this study. In an attempt to improve the nutrient stripping function of Liege St and Tom Bateman wetland, changes to the wetland design and routine maintenance were suggested for Tom Bateman and Liege St wetland respectively. Also the use of the Swan-Canning Cleanup Programe (SCCP) water quality targets as opposed to the ANZECC trigger values in water quality assessments in constructed wetlands in the Swan-Canning estuary is suggested among others.

Wetlands are recognized for the diverse range of ecosystem services they provide. However, most economic valuations focus on the biophysical ecosystem services and disregard the cultural ecosystem services. A better understanding of the cultural ecosystem services that suburban wetlands provide supplements wetland valuations and contributes to wetland preservation and sustainable suburban development. This study, which was conducted in Sherwood Park, Alberta, explores how suburban residents use, perceive, and value suburban wetlands and draws conclusions about the cultural ecosystem services provided by suburban wetlands. Suburban wetlands have implicit existence value; they are aesthetically pleasing; and they provide recreational, spiritual, and intellectual opportunities. Suburban wetlands are venues for relaxation, stress relief, and connecting with nature. Residents have strong positive feelings toward suburban wetlands, and a strong preference for incorporating natural wetland elements into suburban developments. Incorporating natural wetlands contributes to sustainable suburban development and produces economic, social, and ecological benefits.

No description available.